Last Night Once Again Proves My Theory About Euro Fighters!

American women don't seem that perturbed by our dental hygene :hey

But that aside, heavyweight is absolutely dominated by Europeans and has been for years.

 

Lets be honest you didnt save us out of some sense of honour, you joined in because of Pearl Harbour, without that you would have carried on supplying BOTH sides of the war financially.

 

atschatsch

I dont blame you, I blame our education system. What you said is honestly American propaganda and not true at all.

 

You idiot, the lend lease program mostly went to Britain. We could barely get any supplies to the Soviets, and the weapons that turned the tide for the Soviets were Russian made. Things like the T-34, Il-2. In fact if you were to look at weapon production in WW II, not that you would, you would see the Soviet Union produced a comparable number of tanks, planes, and more small arms than we did. Knowing you won't look it up I'll help you out. The main American battle tank, largely regarded as inferior to both German and Russian tanks, was the Sherman, of which we produced 50,000. The main Russian tank, regarded by many as the greatest tank ever built, was the T-34 of which they built 84,070.

We built 16,800 P-51, the Russian's built 16,800 Yak 9's, which is comparable.

We built 6.2 million M1 Carbines, the Russian's built 6 million PPSh-41's.

I guess I could also go into how we used the P-51 as both an air superiority and ground attack fighter, while the Russian's used the Yak-9 as an air superiority fighter and the Il-2, of which they produced 36,000 as a ground attack fighter, a number which dwarfs that of the P-51, so please talk about lend lease all you want, but the numbers don't support your argument.

As for the casualty numbers, the Nazis made the choice to devote most of their forces, including the bulk of their elite units, to the Eastern Front as it was seen as more vital. 20% of the German forces were used on the Western Front, whereas 80% were on the Eastern Front.

 

Now now people, this is a boxing forum, and shouldnt be about people getting personnal with each other in any way or trying to insult nations. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but why all the insulting?
Ive met great people from all different nationalities, like im sure you all have. So come on, lets keep it to boxing

 

No problem. I know that the Russians, and Eastern Europeans in general, have great veneration for the sacrifices they made during the war, the loss of civilian life due to the Nazi's intentional depopulation of villages and attacks on cities was enormous, and the decisions of Stalin put the army at an early disadvantage. The Soviets would have won the war regardless, the only difference would have been that they would have marched to the Atlantic if not for our involvement.

My family was involved in the war in Europe, but despite having actual war heroes in my family, anyone who thinks that the Soviets didn't win the war in Europe is deluded.

 

By the way, while we are at it, since someone decided to drag wars into this. It is important to note that in the ancient Olympics, the Spartans, who were the only state in classical Greece to maintain a true standing army and were undoubtedly the best trained soldiers of the era, never had participants in boxing, wrestling, or pankration. So there is no real correlation between one's ability to kick ass on the battlefield and kicking ass in the ring. If ther was, Israelis would probably dominate boxing.

 

I think you can spin it both ways. No mention of Lewis' decade long domination of US fighters. Or the success Hamed had against Americans. Or Calzaghe schooling the next big thing in Lacy. Or Hatton stopping Maliganggi. Or Khan destroying Salita. Or the Klitschko's dismantling of Johnson, Arreola and Chambers. Or Abraham and Froch stopping Taylor. The balance of power is about equal at the moment, as far as I'm concerned, and who gives a **** anyway? :smoke

 

:huh

 

Well the guy who brought up America's "ass kicking" ability in Word War II, seems to be suggesting that there is a direct correlation between military ability and one's ability as a boxer. Israel is widely regarded as having the best military man-for-man on earth, some military historians even refer to it as a modern day Sparta, sans the pederasty. Ergo, if there was a direct correlation between a group's ability as soldiers and their ability as boxers, Israel would dominate boxing.

 

What money would we have loaned to the Soviets? You do realize the Soviet Union was a command economy? I.e. an economy controlled by the state? They didn't need to spend money in the factories and steel mills they owned. The numbers blew your argument wide open, so while lend lease was a huge help for Britain, as evidenced by the large number of American made weapons present in the war in North Africa, the fact is lend lease did very little for the Soviets.

Furthermore lend-lease was about sending material to our allies, for which they would pay us. It wasn't about giving them money. Fact is the material we lent to Russia, much of which was inferior tanks, were not used to turn the tide.

 

Russia would have won eventually for sure. America just sped the process up and the rest of Europe just made sure Russia didnt replace Germany as the next big threat. After all Stalin was much more of a villian than Hitler imo so if Russia had done it all alone and decided to keep expanding i think ALL of us here would now be speaking russian (americans included).

 

Or maybe atleast talking about another much longer and damaging part of the war.