|
Fojar38 posted:The Red Army wasn't fed and equipped by Russia. Yes it was. The Soviets certainly had help, perhaps most importantly in the form of trucks for logistics stuff, but that was only a small part of Soviet production. For some rough but easily source-able numbers, Lend lease from the US shipped some 12,000 armored vehicles to the Soviet Union over the course of the war, including 7000 tanks1. The Soviets built more T-34s than that every year after 19412. Similarly, Lend Lease supplied ~11,000 aircraft to the Soviet Union1, which was exceeded every year between '41 and '453. That disregards the British contribution, but that was much smaller than Lend-Lease was. And for some reason I can't find any numbers around agricultural output in the Soviet Union, but I'd be amazed if Allied supply efforts made up a significant portion of it. The Allied aid to the Soviet Union was important, especially in those critical days in the autumn of '41. But it is grossly incorrect to say that the Soviets weren't supplying themselves. 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR 2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II 3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:29
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:And for some reason I can't find any numbers around agricultural output in the Soviet Union, but I'd be amazed if Allied supply efforts made up a significant portion of it. IIRC the Ukraine was actually a major part of this, when the Russians crossed through and took over it, they got all of their wheat/wheat production facilities and not only did the Russian agricultural output increase tremendously, but the Germans losing it meant they then ran into production issues themselves. That's all I know about it off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yes it was. The Soviets certainly had help, perhaps most importantly in the form of trucks for logistics stuff, but that was only a small part of Soviet production. For some rough but easily source-able numbers, Lend lease from the US shipped some 12,000 armored vehicles to the Soviet Union over the course of the war, including 7000 tanks1. The Soviets built more T-34s than that every year after 19412. Similarly, Lend Lease supplied ~11,000 aircraft to the Soviet Union1, which was exceeded every year between '41 and '453. That disregards the British contribution, but that was much smaller than Lend-Lease was. And for some reason I can't find any numbers around agricultural output in the Soviet Union, but I'd be amazed if Allied supply efforts made up a significant portion of it. Fair enough, but I think it's also grossly incorrect to say that the Soviets won WWII as if they soloed the Axis powers. Not only is that ignoring allied aid to the Soviet Union but it's also ignoring that it was only half the war; the other major Axis combatant (Japan) was subdued almost entirely by the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Fair enough, but I think it's also grossly incorrect to say that the Soviets won WWII as if they soloed the Axis powers. Not only is that ignoring allied aid to the Soviet Union but it's also ignoring that it was only half the war; the other major Axis combatant (Japan) was subdued almost entirely by the US. No, the Soviets also didn't win the war single-handedly, but they did most of the heavy lifting. Which was the intent of the post you replied to. Nobody is denying that the US beat the hell out of Japan, though it's also true that Japan was also a relative sideshow given the level of destruction playing out in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Fair enough, but I think it's also grossly incorrect to say that the Soviets won WWII as if they soloed the Axis powers. Not only is that ignoring allied aid to the Soviet Union but it's also ignoring that it was only half the war; the other major Axis combatant (Japan) was subdued almost entirely by the US. Japan only surrendered because they knew the Soviets were coming for them. The nukes had pretty much nothing to do with it (and in comparison to the death rates from firebombings of civilians in Japanese cities before them, were a snowflake in a blizzard). If it had not been for the Soviets routing them out of China and beating Germany, allowing them to turn their attention back to their East, the Japanese would have kept fighting. I guess what I'm saying is yes, Japan got stomped by America, but they could easily have been stomped by the USSR and also that under the Soviets, their war criminals and socio-political elites would have been executed for their crimes and removed, instead of being allowed to continue relatively unpunished and in most cases still in positions of power as per the desires of the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
Brown Blitzkrieg posted:Japan only surrendered because they knew the Soviets were coming for them. The nukes had pretty much nothing to do with it (and in comparison to the death rates from firebombings of civilians in Japanese cities before them, were a snowflake in a blizzard). If it had not been for the Soviets routing them out of China and beating Germany, allowing them to turn their attention back to their East, the Japanese would have kept fighting. That's not entirely correct. The Japanese had already been defeated by the Americans long before the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and in fact the Japanese had been begging the Soviets to act as a mediator for a conditional Japanese surrender. While they may have kept on fighting had the Soviet Union not declared war, there was absolutely no chance of the Japanese reversing any gains that the Americans had made. The Soviets didn't really rout them out of China either; the Japanese had largely withdrawn from most of their holdings in China and Southeast Asia by the end of the war in anticipation of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands. Manchuria was the only place that held any significant Japanese presence outside of Japan from what I have heard. As for what prompted the Japanese surrender, that is still subject to controversy. The Soviets declared war only three days after Hiroshima was bombed and only seven hours before Nagasaki was bombed; they happened roughly concurrently and the Japanese response to the Atomic bombings was still confused at the time. The truth is that even after both bombs had been dropped AND the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese leadership was still seeking a conditional surrender. (Specifically, they wanted to handle their own war criminals and disarmament, and wanted the Emperor to retain power) It was a combination of both events that caused the Japanese to surrender; the Soviet declaration of war made it clear they couldn't get a conditional surrender and the atomic bombs showed that if they didn't accept the Potsdam terms then their country would be quite literally obliterated. The atomic bombs also did something that the Soviet declaration of war didn't, and that was break the psychological will to fight of the Japanese so hard that they turned from a nation with a thousand year history of belligerence and aggression into a nation of pacifists. Brown Blitzkrieg posted:I guess what I'm saying is yes, Japan got stomped by America, but they could easily have been stomped by the USSR and also that under the Soviets, their war criminals and socio-political elites would have been executed for their crimes and removed, instead of being allowed to continue relatively unpunished and in most cases still in positions of power as per the desires of the US. If the Japanese were at their full strength having not been fighting the Americans for four years and if the Soviets still also had to contend with Germany? The Soviets would have lost the war if they fought full-strength Germany and full-strength Japan at the same time. Yes, the Soviets were very strong but not that strong. Also, tell me more about how great it was to be in territory that was captured by the Soviets in the Second World War. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
Most of the Japanese army was intact at the time of the soviet invasion of Manchuria. The American military had mostly been fighting the Japanese navy, outside of some smaller campaigns in the Philippines etc. The fact is that in 11 days the soviets caused half of the losses the Japanese military sustained in the pacific theater. This is what really scared the Japanese leadership, because now it wasn't just the navy faction making GBS threads itself. Acid rain in Europe, mostly due to low grade polish coal that's making a comeback due to Germany's decision to shut down its nuclear reactors. Bensa fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
^^^ What this guy said.Fojar38 posted:That's not entirely correct. The Japanese had already been defeated by the Americans long before the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and in fact the Japanese had been begging the Soviets to act as a mediator for a conditional Japanese surrender. While they may have kept on fighting had the Soviet Union not declared war, there was absolutely no chance of the Japanese reversing any gains that the Americans had made. The Soviets didn't really rout them out of China either; the Japanese had largely withdrawn from most of their holdings in China and Southeast Asia by the end of the war in anticipation of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands. Manchuria was the only place that held any significant Japanese presence outside of Japan from what I have heard. ^^^ What this guy said. Fojar38 posted:As for what prompted the Japanese surrender, that is still subject to controversy. The Soviets declared war only three days after Hiroshima was bombed and only seven hours before Nagasaki was bombed; they happened roughly concurrently and the Japanese response to the Atomic bombings was still confused at the time. The truth is that even after both bombs had been dropped AND the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese leadership was still seeking a conditional surrender. (Specifically, they wanted to handle their own war criminals and disarmament, and wanted the Emperor to retain power) It was a combination of both events that caused the Japanese to surrender; the Soviet declaration of war made it clear they couldn't get a conditional surrender and the atomic bombs showed that if they didn't accept the Potsdam terms then their country would be quite literally obliterated. The firebombing of the cities was of a far greater extent and caused much more loss of life and destruction to industry than the atomic bombings ever did, or ever could have (given the difficulty and time it took to construct the devices and enrich the uranium at the time). I don't think those tiny firecrackers, ineffective as they were, were what broke the will of the Japanese people. The fire bombing, on the other hand, is a good contender. The prospect of facing the USSR, who had just dusted off the Germans and whose ranks were full of battle hardened, freshly available , well... Fojar38 posted:If the Japanese were at their full strength having not been fighting the Americans for four years and if the Soviets still also had to contend with Germany? The Soviets would have lost the war if they fought full-strength Germany and full-strength Japan at the same time. Yes, the Soviets were very strong but not that strong. Japan is a whole hell of a long way away from the part of the USSR that mattered. The logistics of such a campaign would be a nightmare, open to all manner of vulnerabilities. The USSR probably could have just disrupted the Japanese lines while stopping any major advances, crushed Germany, and then turned their attention to the East. And how do you think the Japanese would have fared in the Russian Winter, exactly? In summation, it would have made reconstruction even more long and painful, but WWII and Axis and Allies are two separate things, mon frere. Fojar38 posted:Also, tell me more about how great it was to be in territory that was captured by the Soviets in the Second World War. Depends on who you ask. If you were someone who hated nazis, you wanted to be inside Soviet-captured territory. If you liked nazis or were yourself a nazi, the prospects looked better under the non-Soviet sphere. Me? I loving detest nazis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
Bensa posted:Most of the Japanese army was intact at the time of the soviet invasion of Manchuria. The American military had mostly been fighting the Japanese navy, outside of some smaller campaigns in the Philippines etc. The fact is that in 11 days the soviets caused half of the losses the Japanese military sustained in the pacific theater. This is what really scared the Japanese leadership, because now it wasn't just the navy faction making GBS threads itself. The Japanese Army was still mostly intact, but most of it had been moved to the Japanese home islands in preparation for an Allied invasion. Nearly a million Japanese soldiers had been transferred to the home islands from China, Korea, and Southeast Asia. To compare, the Imperial Japanese Army had 1.7 million soldiers in 1941. The Soviets were rolling over whatever scraps the Japanese could raise to protect what they still held in Manchuria, most of whom were poorly trained conscripts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
Edit: later
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
Brown Blitzkrieg posted:The firebombing of the cities was of a far greater extent and caused much more loss of life and destruction to industry than the atomic bombings ever did, or ever could have (given the difficulty and time it took to construct the devices and enrich the uranium at the time). I don't think those tiny firecrackers, ineffective as they were, were what broke the will of the Japanese people. The fire bombing, on the other hand, is a good contender. The prospect of facing the USSR, who had just dusted off the Germans and whose ranks were full of battle hardened, freshly available , well... They're firecrackers by today's standards. By 1945 standards, they were unbelievably powerful. Yes, the firebombing of Tokyo did more damage in the end and killed more people, but that was over a long period of time during sustained air raids that lasted half a year. Furthermore, air raids are things that involve some sort of direct combat. You can shoot down bombers and kill the pilots dropping the bombs to minimize damage. Atomic bombs on the other hand flattened entire cities with a single bomb and poisoned the remains to give the survivors cancer and die slow, agonizing deaths. There is no way to adequately defend against them and they were, to the Japanese, being rained down on their homeland with impunity (they didn't know that the Americans only had a handful of bombs, also bear in mind the extreme importance that Japanese land itself has in Japanese culture) and showed absolutely no signs of stopping. I agree that the Soviet declaration of war likely had an impact on the Japanese decision to surrender prior to an Allied invasion of Japan in conjunction with the Atomic bombs. But it was the Atomic Bombs that utterly obliterated the Japanese will to fight and broke their warrior-culture. Brown Blitzkrieg posted:Japan is a whole hell of a long way away from the part of the USSR that mattered. The logistics of such a campaign would be a nightmare, open to all manner of vulnerabilities. The USSR probably could have just disrupted the Japanese lines while stopping any major advances, crushed Germany, and then turned their attention to the East. And how do you think the Japanese would have fared in the Russian Winter, exactly? In summation, it would have made reconstruction even more long and painful, but WWII and Axis and Allies are two separate things, mon frere. Oh give me a break. Look, the Soviet Union was very powerful. It played an instrumental role in the Second World War and, with the aid of allied supplies, crushed 80% of the Wehrmacht. But the Red Army was not invincible, the Soviet Union did not solo the Axis powers and if it had found itself in a two-front war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it would have lost. The Soviets only barely managed to survive Operation Barbarossa (in large part thanks to Hitler being a cocky idiot and Stalin being a paranoid moron) and one of the major reasons they even were able to focus all their efforts Westward was because a spy in Japan had informed Stalin that the Japanese would not invade the Soviet Union, something that the Soviets very rightly feared. A significant amount of Russian resources were in Eastern Russia including food, fuel, and raw materials necessary for a war machine. If they fell into Japanese hands the Soviets would not have been able to fuel the Russian Steamroller and would have been forced to capitulate. Fortunately the Japanese were tied up with the Chinese and Americans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:They're firecrackers by today's standards. By 1945 standards, they were unbelievably powerful. Yes, the firebombing of Tokyo did more damage in the end and killed more people, but that was over a long period of time during sustained air raids that lasted half a year. Furthermore, air raids are things that involve some sort of direct combat. You can shoot down bombers and kill the pilots dropping the bombs to minimize damage. The first big B-29 on Tokyo raid on March 9th of 1945, consisting of 330 bombers carrying 20,000 pounds of incendiary bombs each, killed 100,000 in a single night. The cost was 14 bombers. The worst raid in USAAF history in terms of US losses up to that point was Operation Tidal Wave where 53 B-24's were shotdown with light damage on targets and 16 killed and 50 injured. If we're factoring in after the war the US lost 16 B-52s over North Vietnam during Operation Linebacker 2, an 11 day operation with 8 B-52's shout down on the second night. For the cost comparison the firebombing was a loving bargin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Oh give me a break. Look, the Soviet Union was very powerful. It played an instrumental role in the Second World War and, with the aid of allied supplies, crushed 80% of the Wehrmacht. But the Red Army was not invincible, the Soviet Union did not solo the Axis powers and if it had found itself in a two-front war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it would have lost. The Soviets only barely managed to survive Operation Barbarossa (in large part thanks to Hitler being a cocky idiot and Stalin being a paranoid moron) and one of the major reasons they even were able to focus all their efforts Westward was because a spy in Japan had informed Stalin that the Japanese would not invade the Soviet Union, something that the Soviets very rightly feared. A significant amount of Russian resources were in Eastern Russia including food, fuel, and raw materials necessary for a war machine. If they fell into Japanese hands the Soviets would not have been able to fuel the Russian Steamroller and would have been forced to capitulate. Those materials and infrastructure that supported the war effort were just behind the Urals, not in freaking Vladivostok. Siberia was pretty much underdeveloped in those days. I also think the tanks of the Japanese army, which were used for supporting troop divisions and not particularly concerned with speed or crossing great distances like that. Their air craft range also wasn't particularly great and they had no such thing as refuelling in flight. The idea of the Japanese and Germans together defeating the USSR was no doubt a good one (in the minds of some fervent fascists and imperialists of the time); in reality I just can't see it happening. BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
Brown Blitzkrieg posted:Japan is a whole hell of a long way away from the part of the USSR that mattered. The logistics of such a campaign would be a nightmare, open to all manner of vulnerabilities. The USSR probably could have just disrupted the Japanese lines while stopping any major advances, crushed Germany, and then turned their attention to the East. And how do you think the Japanese would have fared in the Russian Winter, exactly? In summation, it would have made reconstruction even more long and painful, but WWII and Axis and Allies are two separate things, mon frere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 11:13
|
|
|
Also even today the infrastructure out there is practically non-existent except for the trans-Siberian. Japan could have made an attempt to sever it but it is obvious the Russian through out the war were better equipped and even if the Japan over ran some half strength garrisons, they would be able to survive a counter-attack. It might have slowed things for a while for Russia as they were more stretchered but I don't think Japan would have done enough damage to change the outcome of the war. Remember Japan was fighting on multiple fronts of its own, and an invasion of siberia would require them cannibalizing other fronts, the units already in Manchuria weren't going to cut it. As far as Hungary, I don't know what is going to stop it at this point, Orban has neutered the judiciary and changed the electoral laws to give himself a massive advantage and the opposition is fragmentary. Fidesz today is still polling in the high 40s, which almost certainly will allow the to retain a majority of seats. At best, some time in 2018, the opposition may get their poo poo together but yeah things are quite bleak at the moment. I believe Hungary has one of the highest, if not the highest VAT in the world, 27%, even the reduced rate for basic food is 18%. I don't see consumer spending doing gangbusters, Fidesz isn't just authoritarian but very economically conservative as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Also holy poo poo that second map. Did the EU make sure those elections were valid? That map is basically what happens when the first place party wins 53% of the vote and the second largest party wins 19%. As far as I know, there was no fraud, the Socialist Party was just really unpopular at the time and lost half of their electorate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
This argument is like a five guys. Three are in world war II. The Russian guy shoots the Japanese guy with a machine gun. At the same time, the American shoots him with a bazooka. Then 70 years later two nerds argue about why the Japanese guy died. Then they decide to open a burger restaurant. The Japanese guy came back to life I guess.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
Tony Jowns posted:yep Clearly the Swiss wanting to preserve their culture and limit immigration makes them fascist. Plebiscites prepared 6-12 months in advance with plenty of information from all times are such a drag, better get rid of them and give all power to parliament, that's the ticket. Emanuel Collective posted:Don't forget that the government rewrote the constitution in such a way where the courts basically have no power anymore. Fidesz may not have originated as a far right party but there's not much doubt they are one now. The big change is that the constitutional court is not allowed to criticise the content of new amendments anymore. They can still strike amendments down based on procedural grounds. Nothing unusual, it's the same in several countries, among them France and Austria. quote:Orban has [...] changed the electoral laws to give himself a massive advantage You could also argue the old electoral system was needlessly complex and is now simplified. Minorities are better off guaranteeing them a seat even. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Hungary quote:Also holy poo poo that second map. Did the EU make sure those elections were valid? What legitimacy would the EU have? It doesn't even care about elections relating to itself. Rejection of the EU constitution by the people directly? No problem, we just rename it the Treaty of Lisbon and enact it anyway. Ireland votes wrong in a plebiscite? No problem, tell them to vote again until they get it right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Maybe you guys can sperg about world war II in the proper thread/forum instead of this one about politically loaded maps?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Riso posted:You could also argue the old electoral system was needlessly complex and is now simplified. Minorities are better off guaranteeing them a seat even. The big change is that the proportion of FPTP districts has increased (from 45 to 53%) which is obviously going to greatly favor Fidesz. In addition, Fidesz gets to redraw the borders of districts and since they dominate all branches of government, it is obvious they will gerrymander the poo poo of them. As it is they are going to win the next election, with the new law it is going to even be harder to boot them out, especially since no one is going to work with Jobbik. Basically, the only hope is Fidesz commits suicide and breaks up on their own. The minority "member" only has permission to speak, not to vote, they need to win a seat outright or win 5% nation wide, which isn't going to happen. It is really quite grim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Fair enough, but I think it's also grossly incorrect to say that the Soviets won WWII as if they soloed the Axis powers. Not only is that ignoring allied aid to the Soviet Union but it's also ignoring that it was only half the war; the other major Axis combatant (Japan) was subdued almost entirely by the US. It's cool seeing someone discovering that western history is mostly lies and bullshit that differs very little from propaganda. Soon the denial phase will pass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:It's cool seeing someone discovering that western history is mostly lies and bullshit that differs very little from propaganda. Soon the denial phase will pass. Yeah dude, this certainly couldn't have anything to do with this forum's general fetishization of the Soviet Union and its paradoxical belief that Western civilization is poo poo yet for some reason dominates the planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yeah dude, this certainly couldn't have anything to do with this forum's general fetishization of the Soviet Union and its paradoxical belief that Western civilization is poo poo yet for some reason dominates the planet. Why does Western civilization dominate the planet, Fojar? Peruser fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Peruser posted:Why does Western civilization dominate the planet, Fojar? A combination of luck, shrewd diplomacy, and militarism. The main historical reasons I've always pegged down is that Western and Central Europe had an uninterrupted Renaissance which spawned the Enlightenment. Everyone else, when they got to a period of large economic, cultural, and scientific growth ended up having something outside interrupt it. Islamic Golden Age and the Mongols for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
maps Maps MAPS MAPS  MAAAAAAPS 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:A combination of luck, shrewd diplomacy, and militarism. Europe had to deal with outsiders all the time. It's not like the Muslim powers did not try to take over Europe and controlled the Mediterranean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:It's cool seeing someone discovering that western history is mostly lies and bullshit that differs very little from propaganda. Soon the denial phase will pass. Just western history of course, no other civilizations have ever lied in their views of history  Peanut President posted:maps Maps MAPS MAPS West Virginia: The Iraq of the US
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Just western history of course, no other civilizations have ever lied in their views of history Honestly Lebanon gets the short of the stick by being compared to Montana.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Why does Thailand get four states? Are there not four countries with approximately a quarter of Thailand's GDP each or am I missing something. edit: are each of those equivalent to Thailand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
I'd be a little annoyed if I was a Sudanese person; being compared to Idaho... e: ^^^ Its just the map legend overlapping onto the four states; I think its comparing Indiana and Thailand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yeah dude, this certainly couldn't have anything to do with this forum's general fetishization of the Soviet Union and its paradoxical belief that Western civilization is poo poo yet for some reason dominates the planet. Uhm western mainstream academic history has agreed for quite a while that Russia was the major burden bearer in the fight against the Nazi's. This is not some new thing on these forums. Nor is Western civilization/the western narrative often being poo poo considering how popular books like Orientalism were and still are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Why does Thailand get four states? Are there not four countries with approximately a quarter of Thailand's GDP each or am I missing something. Each state is equivalent to Thailand. You can see on the bar graph below that Indiana, Minnesota, Colorado, and Arizona have nearly identical GDP's. Wish the map makers went a little more creative looking for another country with a similar GDP to Thailands, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Uhm western mainstream academic history has agreed for quite a while that Russia was the major burden bearer in the fight against the Nazi's. This is not some new thing on these forums. Nor is Western civilization/the western narrative often being poo poo considering how popular books like Orientalism were and still are. I never disputed that the Soviet Union bore most of the burden against the Nazi's. What I'm saying is acting like the Soviets soloed the Axis and were never in any real danger and didn't need any aid is revisionist BS. That's the last I'll say on the matter, this is a thread about maps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Brown Blitzkrieg posted:Depends on who you ask. If you were someone who hated nazis, you wanted to be inside Soviet-captured territory. If you liked nazis or were yourself a nazi, the prospects looked better under the non-Soviet sphere. Most of the people in those occupied territories couldn't care less about nazis or communists and didn't even know what that stupid war was about. My grandpa lived in a village in north-eastern Romania and was a teenager at the time and, after experiencing the Red Army passing through on their way back after the war, he would always say that Russians are lower than animals and if he could he would kill them all. He was actually lucky to escape (he was one of the kids the russians took to herd the animals they were taking from all the villages they were passing through) and he spent almost 6 months making his way back through Ukraine to Romania. I was a kid when he was alive and was telling these stories so he never told me what the russians did to the young girls the russians also took with them, he just said none of them ever returned. Oh, maps: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Why does Thailand get four states? Are there not four countries with approximately a quarter of Thailand's GDP each or am I missing something. Yes. The United States is absurdly wealthy. And if this chart doesn't capture the wealth produced by stock exchanges (which I don't think it does-otherwise New York would dwarf California) then the wealth should be even higher. Use this map whenever anyone says the U.S. doesn't have the resources to provide the basic services other countries do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:e: ^^^ Its just the map legend overlapping onto the four states; I think its comparing Indiana and Thailand. That's what I thought Koramei meant too, but Thailand is actually on the map 4 different times. Arizona, Indiana, Colorado and Wisconsin, assuming my knowledge of US states is up to snuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What happened man? Scandinavia used to be cool Don't know about Scandinavia but the fall of the Soviet Union happened to Finland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That's what I thought Koramei meant too, but Thailand is actually on the map 4 different times. Arizona, Indiana, Colorado and Wisconsin, assuming my knowledge of US states is up to snuff. That last one is Minnesota but otherwise yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
God drat it. One of these days I will learn to keep those two straight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Yes. The United States is absurdly wealthy. And if this chart doesn't capture the wealth produced by stock exchanges (which I don't think it does-otherwise New York would dwarf California) then the wealth should be even higher. Use this map whenever anyone says the U.S. doesn't have the resources to provide the basic services other countries do. It's a map of GDP, not wealth, and it does in fact capture the economic activity generated by the financial industry in NY.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 00:40
|
|
