billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 21, 2022 20:21:41 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2022/03/21/business/ukraine-nestle-zelensky-russia/index.htmlclearly articulated here :"Paying taxes to the budget of a terrorist country means killing defenseless children & mothers." labeling russia a terrorist regime. strong words, but I can't think of a single negation to it.This is really going to backfire on russia and putin. I only hope Ukraine can hold out long enough to remain a sovereign state. I don't hink putin will back down, no matter how much the evidence of "this was a mistake" builds up. I don't know what will make him back down. re the bolded: I have one - Labeling everything terrorism makes the word meaningless. Russia is acting as an outlaw state.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 21, 2022 20:48:19 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2022/03/21/business/ukraine-nestle-zelensky-russia/index.htmlclearly articulated here :"Paying taxes to the budget of a terrorist country means killing defenseless children & mothers." labeling russia a terrorist regime. strong words, but I can't think of a single negation to it.This is really going to backfire on russia and putin. I only hope Ukraine can hold out long enough to remain a sovereign state. I don't hink putin will back down, no matter how much the evidence of "this was a mistake" builds up. I don't know what will make him back down. re the bolded: I have one - Labeling everything terrorism makes the word meaningless. Russia is acting as an outlaw state. ...much as the US has done on numerous occasions.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 9,985
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 21, 2022 21:51:50 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 22, 2022 13:38:59 GMT -5
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,779
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 23, 2022 16:50:53 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,124
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 23, 2022 17:58:22 GMT -5
Quite a few grieving mothers in Russia. As many as 40K Russian troops killed, wounded, held prisoner or missing: NATONATO estimates that up to 15,000 Russian troops have been killed since the Kremlin’s attack on Ukraine began last month, with as many as 40,000 dead, wounded, taken prisoner or missing. The alliance arrived at those figures based on information from Ukrainian officials, Western intelligence and information gleaned from Russia through official channels or unintentionally, a senior military official from NATO told The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press. NATO estimates that roughly 7,000 to 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed since the attack started on Feb. 24, a major blow to Moscow, which sought to decapitate the Ukrainian government in a matter of days. Full article here: As many as 40K Russian troops killed, wounded, held prisoner or missing: NATO
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 9,985
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 23, 2022 18:30:21 GMT -5
Quite a few grieving mothers in Russia. As many as 40K Russian troops killed, wounded, held prisoner or missing: NATONATO estimates that up to 15,000 Russian troops have been killed since the Kremlin’s attack on Ukraine began last month, with as many as 40,000 dead, wounded, taken prisoner or missing. The alliance arrived at those figures based on information from Ukrainian officials, Western intelligence and information gleaned from Russia through official channels or unintentionally, a senior military official from NATO told The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press. NATO estimates that roughly 7,000 to 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed since the attack started on Feb. 24, a major blow to Moscow, which sought to decapitate the Ukrainian government in a matter of days. Full article here: As many as 40K Russian troops killed, wounded, held prisoner or missing: NATOVery sad and pointless. I read somewhere that a lot of the troops going nito Ukraine didn't even know they were going to be involved in a real armed combat.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,124
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 23, 2022 19:54:58 GMT -5
U.S. Makes Contingency Plans in Case Russia Uses Its Most Powerful WeaponsBRUSSELS — The White House has quietly assembled a team of national security officials to sketch out scenarios of how the United States and its allies should respond if President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — frustrated by his lack of progress in Ukraine or determined to warn Western nations against intervening in the war — unleashes his stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The Tiger Team, as the group is known, is also examining responses if Mr. Putin reaches into NATO territory to attack convoys bringing weapons and aid to Ukraine, according to several officials involved in the process. Meeting three times a week, in classified sessions, the team is also looking at responses if Russia seeks to extend the war to neighboring nations, including Moldova and Georgia, and how to prepare European countries for the refugees flowing in on a scale not seen in decades. Those contingencies are expected to be central to an extraordinary session here in Brussels on Thursday, when President Biden meets leaders of the 29 other NATO nations, who will be meeting for the first time — behind closed doors, their cellphones and aides banished — since Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine. Just a month ago, such scenarios seemed more theoretical. But today, from the White House to NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, a recognition has set in that Russia may turn to the most powerful weapons in its arsenal to bail itself out of a military stalemate. NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, underscored the urgency of the preparation effort on Wednesday, telling reporters for the first time that even if the Russians employ weapons of mass destruction only inside Ukraine, they may have “dire consequences” for people in NATO nations. He appeared to be discussing the fear that chemical or radioactive clouds could drift over the border. One issue under examination is whether such collateral damage would be considered an “attack” on NATO under its charter, which might require a joint military response. The current team was established in a memo signed by Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, on Feb. 28, four days after the invasion began, according to the officials involved in the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive planning. A previous iteration had worked for months, behind the scenes, to prepare the U.S. government for the likelihood of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. That team played a central role in devising the playbooks of deep sanctions, troop buildups in NATO nations and arming the Ukrainian military, which have exploited Russian weaknesses and put its government and economy under tremendous pressure. Mr. Stoltenberg, sounding far more hawkish than in the past, said he expected “allies will agree to provide additional support, including cybersecurity assistance and equipment to help Ukraine protect against chemical, biological, radiologic and nuclear threats.” As Mr. Biden flew to Europe on Wednesday, both he and Mr. Stoltenberg warned of growing evidence that Russia was in fact preparing to use chemical weapons in Ukraine. Rest of article here: U.S. Makes Contingency Plans in Case Russia Uses Its Most Powerful Weapons
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,779
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 25, 2022 9:16:13 GMT -5
Anonymous claims they hacked into Russia’s central bank and will release 35,000 files in 48 hours - including some ‘secret agreements.’
They also hacked into the military radio system and are broadcasting troll faces.
Probably not what Putin thought might happen.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2022 13:25:49 GMT -5
Anonymous claims they hacked into Russia’s central bank and will release 35,000 files in 48 hours - including some ‘secret agreements.’ They also hacked into the military radio system and are broadcasting troll faces. Probably not what Putin thought might happen. Hacked into radio - broadcasting faces?
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 25, 2022 14:11:24 GMT -5
So some food for thought. Biden is treading very carefully to avoid a full on WWIII. Will he turn out to be a wise/prudent statesman or will he be the Chamberlain of our times? I know we don't want any of our forces on the ground fighting Putin or even directly arm the Ukraine but are we right? Is Putin any less crazy then Hitler was? Time will tell but what do the posters here think at this point in time?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2022 14:51:08 GMT -5
So some food for thought. Biden is treading very carefully to avoid a full on WWIII. Will he turn out to be a wise/prudent statesman or will he be the Chamberlain of our times? I know we don't want any of our forces on the ground fighting Putin or even directly arm the Ukraine but are we right? Is Putin any less crazy then Hitler was? Time will tell but what do the posters here think at this point in time? I think that we are doing all we can by treaty in regards to Ukraine and there are a number of red lines that haven't been crossed. If any are crossed and there is not major reaction, Chamberlain is a fair comparison. Until then, it is premature.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,119
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Mar 25, 2022 16:00:31 GMT -5
So some food for thought. Biden is treading very carefully to avoid a full on WWIII. Will he turn out to be a wise/prudent statesman or will he be the Chamberlain of our times? I know we don't want any of our forces on the ground fighting Putin or even directly arm the Ukraine but are we right? Is Putin any less crazy then Hitler was? Time will tell but what do the posters here think at this point in time? Putin doesn't have Mussolini or Hirhito to back him up. Hitler was bat shit crazy but there were a lot of other things that had to go "right" for him to get as far as he did. I don't see that going the way for Putin. If anything it's backfired big time because NATO is stronger than ever and anyone who was considering backing him up is probably reconsidering. Sure Belarus is grumbling but that is likely more to keep themselves from being a target. China is going to play both sides against the middle they know that if they want to be the next superpower that pissing off the rest of the world isn't the way to go. They won't be trotting out the army to join Russia in Ukraine. I think this is going to be a mess and yet another thing students have to learn about the early 2020's but it's not likely to devolve into WWIII or at least not as we would understand it. I think far more is going to be done online and economically than boots on ground in this instance.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 25, 2022 18:26:11 GMT -5
Close, but not quite: WWII started in September 1939. Japan did not join the Axis until a full year later. Also, while Italy had a pact with the Reich, Italian troops did not start fighting on the German side until Germany invaded Russia. Ironically the pact that allowed/enabled Hitler to invade Poland was the one he had with Stalin. Stalin subsequently invaded Poland from the east a few weeks after the German invasion from the west. Quite ironic in many ways as ultimately I truly believe Russia would not have won WWII if not for the help (weapons, food, etc.) from two sides: the western allies and Mother Nature.
I don't know what the Russian narrative regarding WWII is in their view of history but it could well be a heroic fight in which they routed the Nazis, thereby overestimating their actual capabilities. If so they may well overestimate their power now and take the world down with them
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2022 18:42:07 GMT -5
Close, but not quite: WWII started in September 1939. Japan did not join the Axis until a full year later. Also, while Italy had a pact with the Reich, Italian troops did not start fighting on the German side until Germany invaded Russia. Ironically the pact that allowed/enabled Hitler to invade Poland was the one he had with Stalin. Stalin subsequently invaded Poland from the east a few weeks after the German invasion from the west. Quite ironic in many ways as ultimately I truly believe Russia would not have won WWII if not for the help (weapons, food, etc.) from two sides: the western allies and Mother Nature. I don't know what the Russian narrative regarding WWII is in their view of history but it could well be a heroic fight in which they routed the Nazis, thereby overestimating their actual capabilities. If so they may well overestimate their power now and take the world down with them I have always wondered: Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, and Britain and France's declaration of war on Germany two days later marks the beginning of World War II.
...
The Republic of China and the Empire of Japan are involved in the early stages of the third year of armed conflict between them during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The war is in what will be known as the "Second Period", which starts after the fall of Wuhan in October 1938 and ends in December 1941 with Pearl Harbor. This conflict will eventually be swept up into World War II when Japan joins the Axis and China joins the Allies. link Why did a "World" War start when 4 European countries started to fight and not when a couple of Asian countries started earlier?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 13:50:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2022 18:59:48 GMT -5
Close, but not quite: WWII started in September 1939. Japan did not join the Axis until a full year later. Also, while Italy had a pact with the Reich, Italian troops did not start fighting on the German side until Germany invaded Russia. Ironically the pact that allowed/enabled Hitler to invade Poland was the one he had with Stalin. Stalin subsequently invaded Poland from the east a few weeks after the German invasion from the west. Quite ironic in many ways as ultimately I truly believe Russia would not have won WWII if not for the help (weapons, food, etc.) from two sides: the western allies and Mother Nature. I don't know what the Russian narrative regarding WWII is in their view of history but it could well be a heroic fight in which they routed the Nazis, thereby overestimating their actual capabilities. If so they may well overestimate their power now and take the world down with them I have always wondered: Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, and Britain and France's declaration of war on Germany two days later marks the beginning of World War II.
...
The Republic of China and the Empire of Japan are involved in the early stages of the third year of armed conflict between them during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The war is in what will be known as the "Second Period", which starts after the fall of Wuhan in October 1938 and ends in December 1941 with Pearl Harbor. This conflict will eventually be swept up into World War II when Japan joins the Axis and China joins the Allies. link Why did a "World" War start when 4 European countries started to fight and not when a couple of Asian countries started earlier? I have an answer that is really just my opinion, and it’s best left to myself.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 25, 2022 19:21:28 GMT -5
Close, but not quite: WWII started in September 1939. Japan did not join the Axis until a full year later. Also, while Italy had a pact with the Reich, Italian troops did not start fighting on the German side until Germany invaded Russia. Ironically the pact that allowed/enabled Hitler to invade Poland was the one he had with Stalin. Stalin subsequently invaded Poland from the east a few weeks after the German invasion from the west. Quite ironic in many ways as ultimately I truly believe Russia would not have won WWII if not for the help (weapons, food, etc.) from two sides: the western allies and Mother Nature. I don't know what the Russian narrative regarding WWII is in their view of history but it could well be a heroic fight in which they routed the Nazis, thereby overestimating their actual capabilities. If so they may well overestimate their power now and take the world down with them I have always wondered: Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, and Britain and France's declaration of war on Germany two days later marks the beginning of World War II.
...
The Republic of China and the Empire of Japan are involved in the early stages of the third year of armed conflict between them during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The war is in what will be known as the "Second Period", which starts after the fall of Wuhan in October 1938 and ends in December 1941 with Pearl Harbor. This conflict will eventually be swept up into World War II when Japan joins the Axis and China joins the Allies. link Why did a "World" War start when 4 European countries started to fight and not when a couple of Asian countries started earlier? Now put it in the context of WWI.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 25, 2022 19:40:02 GMT -5
I too have an opinion but I am sure it is different from Pink's even though hers may be more correct, or perhaps it was a combination of the two.
I believe the Japan/China war was not of interest to the rest of the world because there were no military alliances (yet), no great deposits of natural resources, and no "evil communism" involved. There were military alliances in place and important trade relations in Europe. Also there were many large American companies that had invested in Europe and that could not be ignored either though to begin with that only allowed for the lend/lease pact with Great Brittain.
I am also sure that the fact that the Japan/China was not fought by Caucasians added to the apathy from the rest of the world. Until Japan started to attack first western colonies/resources and subsequently attacked the US which is when they were taken seriously as part of this world wide war.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 9,985
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 25, 2022 20:38:39 GMT -5
At the moment, I'm more concerned about the technical start date of WWIII
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,592
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 25, 2022 20:49:19 GMT -5
I'd like to skip WWIII if it is OK with some of you. Did you read that one Russian contingent actually ran over their leader because things were going so bad? I hope Russia withdraws in the near future and Ukraine gets money from many countries to rebuild.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,106
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2022 20:55:22 GMT -5
Close, but not quite: WWII started in September 1939. Japan did not join the Axis until a full year later. Also, while Italy had a pact with the Reich, Italian troops did not start fighting on the German side until Germany invaded Russia. Ironically the pact that allowed/enabled Hitler to invade Poland was the one he had with Stalin. Stalin subsequently invaded Poland from the east a few weeks after the German invasion from the west. Quite ironic in many ways as ultimately I truly believe Russia would not have won WWII if not for the help (weapons, food, etc.) from two sides: the western allies and Mother Nature. I don't know what the Russian narrative regarding WWII is in their view of history but it could well be a heroic fight in which they routed the Nazis, thereby overestimating their actual capabilities. If so they may well overestimate their power now and take the world down with them I have always wondered: Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, and Britain and France's declaration of war on Germany two days later marks the beginning of World War II.
...
The Republic of China and the Empire of Japan are involved in the early stages of the third year of armed conflict between them during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The war is in what will be known as the "Second Period", which starts after the fall of Wuhan in October 1938 and ends in December 1941 with Pearl Harbor. This conflict will eventually be swept up into World War II when Japan joins the Axis and China joins the Allies. link Why did a "World" War start when 4 European countries started to fight and not when a couple of Asian countries started earlier? First, the war between China and Japan was a regional war between two basically neighboring states. Why on earth would anyone think that it should be called a world war of any number or description? That's silly. The German invasion of Poland precipitated what would be called World War II because it drew in multiple other countries and eventually, multiple other continents. More importantly, however, it was not called WWII at the beginning. That name did not come about until much later. My recollection is that neither WWI nor WWII were officially designated as those names until after they were over. It was because they involved so many countries in so many parts of the world that they were eventually called world wars. I very much hope nobody is seriously suggesting that WWII was only given a name of respect because white people were fighting.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 25, 2022 22:39:45 GMT -5
I have always wondered: Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, and Britain and France's declaration of war on Germany two days later marks the beginning of World War II.
...
The Republic of China and the Empire of Japan are involved in the early stages of the third year of armed conflict between them during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The war is in what will be known as the "Second Period", which starts after the fall of Wuhan in October 1938 and ends in December 1941 with Pearl Harbor. This conflict will eventually be swept up into World War II when Japan joins the Axis and China joins the Allies. link Why did a "World" War start when 4 European countries started to fight and not when a couple of Asian countries started earlier? First, the war between China and Japan was a regional war between two basically neighboring states. Why on earth would anyone think that it should be called a world war of any number or description? That's silly. The German invasion of Poland precipitated what would be called World War II because it drew in multiple other countries and eventually, multiple other continents. More importantly, however, it was not called WWII at the beginning. That name did not come about until much later. My recollection is that neither WWI nor WWII were officially designated as those names until after they were over. It was because they involved so many countries in so many parts of the world that they were eventually called world wars. I very much hope nobody is seriously suggesting that WWII was only given a name of respect because white people were fighting. Thank you. I'm afraid my comment flew over everyone's head.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,106
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2022 23:56:17 GMT -5
First, the war between China and Japan was a regional war between two basically neighboring states. Why on earth would anyone think that it should be called a world war of any number or description? That's silly. The German invasion of Poland precipitated what would be called World War II because it drew in multiple other countries and eventually, multiple other continents. More importantly, however, it was not called WWII at the beginning. That name did not come about until much later. My recollection is that neither WWI nor WWII were officially designated as those names until after they were over. It was because they involved so many countries in so many parts of the world that they were eventually called world wars. I very much hope nobody is seriously suggesting that WWII was only given a name of respect because white people were fighting. Thank you. I'm afraid my comment flew over everyone's head. I wasn't exactly sure where you were going with it either, to be honest. My guess was that you were saying there could not have been a WWI until after we had a WWII. Until then, it had been called simply "The Great War" or by some, the hopelessly misnamed, "The War to End All Wars." It was not until after the war was over that the term "world war" was even settled on. Another possibility was how it started, nominally with an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian separatist angry with Austrian rule. The killing was not even considered that big a deal at the time, but tensions in Europe led to war being declared a month later. That eventually brought in allies on both sides and resulted in what we now refer to as World War I. Either way, nobody fighting at the start of WWI or WWII knew that they were fighting a world war. They were just fighting a war.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 9,985
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 26, 2022 0:08:16 GMT -5
I have always wondered: Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, and Britain and France's declaration of war on Germany two days later marks the beginning of World War II.
...
The Republic of China and the Empire of Japan are involved in the early stages of the third year of armed conflict between them during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The war is in what will be known as the "Second Period", which starts after the fall of Wuhan in October 1938 and ends in December 1941 with Pearl Harbor. This conflict will eventually be swept up into World War II when Japan joins the Axis and China joins the Allies. link Why did a "World" War start when 4 European countries started to fight and not when a couple of Asian countries started earlier? First, the war between China and Japan was a regional war between two basically neighboring states. Why on earth would anyone think that it should be called a world war of any number or description? That's silly. The German invasion of Poland precipitated what would be called World War II because it drew in multiple other countries and eventually, multiple other continents. More importantly, however, it was not called WWII at the beginning. That name did not come about until much later. My recollection is that neither WWI nor WWII were officially designated as those names until after they were over. It was because they involved so many countries in so many parts of the world that they were eventually called world wars. I very much hope nobody is seriously suggesting that WWII was only givens a name of respect because white people were fighting. While I thought it likely was not something overtly racist, it’s a bit comical and somewhat ominous that you seem so shocked and outraged that anyone might consider that there could have been some racial component as to when the significance of a world war was thought to begin. You could have inquired into people’s thoughts, yet instead you worded your reply as a deliberate, strong, conversation killer. How dared any one question the sanctity that is the start of the world war. Why the hell not? Why not explore it?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,106
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2022 0:42:01 GMT -5
First, the war between China and Japan was a regional war between two basically neighboring states. Why on earth would anyone think that it should be called a world war of any number or description? That's silly. The German invasion of Poland precipitated what would be called World War II because it drew in multiple other countries and eventually, multiple other continents. More importantly, however, it was not called WWII at the beginning. That name did not come about until much later. My recollection is that neither WWI nor WWII were officially designated as those names until after they were over. It was because they involved so many countries in so many parts of the world that they were eventually called world wars. I very much hope nobody is seriously suggesting that WWII was only givens a name of respect because white people were fighting. While I thought it likely was not something overtly racist, it’s a bit comical and somewhat ominous that you seem so shocked and outraged that anyone might consider that there could have been some racial component as to when the significance of a world war was thought to begin. You could have inquired into people’s thoughts, yet instead you worded your reply as a deliberate, strong, conversation killer. How dared any one question the sanctity that is the start of the world war. Why the hell not? Why not explore it? Because the idea is ridiculously at odds with the facts? Nah, that couldn't be it, right?
|
|
Cheesy FL-Vol
Junior Associate
"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:13:50 GMT -5
Posts: 6,663
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
|
Post by Cheesy FL-Vol on Mar 26, 2022 0:47:11 GMT -5
I'd like to skip WWIII if it is OK with some of you. Did you read that one Russian contingent actually ran over their leader because things were going so bad? I hope Russia withdraws in the near future and Ukraine gets money from many countries to rebuild. Bullshit. Russia should pay every penny to rebuild Ukraine.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,592
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 26, 2022 6:31:58 GMT -5
I'd like to skip WWIII if it is OK with some of you. Did you read that one Russian contingent actually ran over their leader because things were going so bad? I hope Russia withdraws in the near future and Ukraine gets money from many countries to rebuild. Bullshit. Russia should pay every penny to rebuild Ukraine. They won't though any more than Mexico will build the border wall. It would be nice if Putin rebuilt it from his vast fortune, but he will never admit he was wrong, so that's not going to happen either.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,592
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 26, 2022 7:20:50 GMT -5
www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-troops-attack-own-commanding-officer-after-suffering-heavy-losses/ar-AAVuUv2?ocid=undefined&cvid=237d19f43973449c83ecd97e8194b129Russian troops reportedly attacked their own commanding officer by running him over with a tank after many in their brigade were killed amid the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
Ukrainian journalist Roman Tsymbaliuk said in a post on Facebook that Russian Col. Yuri Medvedev was attacked after fighting in Ukraine left nearly half of the men in the 37th Motor Rifle Brigade dead, The Washington Post reported.
Tsymbaliuk said the brigade injured both of Medvedev's legs by hitting him with a tank, causing him to be hospitalized, according to the newspaper.
The incident occurred roughly 30 miles from Kyiv, in Makariv, Ukraine, the Post reported. The country reportedly retook the town this week after Russia gained control of it earlier in the war.
A senior Western official told the newspaper that he thinks Medvedev has died, saying the incident shows the low morale among the Russian troops in Ukraine.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 26, 2022 7:34:19 GMT -5
Thank you. I'm afraid my comment flew over everyone's head. I wasn't exactly sure where you were going with it either, to be honest. My guess was that you were saying there could not have been a WWI until after we had a WWII. Until then, it had been called simply "The Great War" or by some, the hopelessly misnamed, "The War to End All Wars." It was not until after the war was over that the term "world war" was even settled on. Another possibility was how it started, nominally with an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian separatist angry with Austrian rule. The killing was not even considered that big a deal at the time, but tensions in Europe led to war being declared a month later. That eventually brought in allies on both sides and resulted in what we now refer to as World War I. Either way, nobody fighting at the start of WWI or WWII knew that they were fighting a world war. They were just fighting a war. For the same reason everyone is wringing their hands over the war in Ukraine becoming WWIII. ETA: A WWII implies a relation to WWI. What connection does a war between china and Japan have to WWI? A WWIII implies a relationship with the other WW's. Ask yourselves why you're immediately worried about WWIII here, and not with other wars that have happened/are happening. There is your answer.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 26, 2022 8:28:58 GMT -5
While I thought it likely was not something overtly racist, it’s a bit comical and somewhat ominous that you seem so shocked and outraged that anyone might consider that there could have been some racial component as to when the significance of a world war was thought to begin. You could have inquired into people’s thoughts, yet instead you worded your reply as a deliberate, strong, conversation killer. How dared any one question the sanctity that is the start of the world war. Why the hell not? Why not explore it? Because the idea is ridiculously at odds with the facts? Nah, that couldn't be it, right? My recollection is that neither WWI nor WWII were officially designated ... (post 500) How, or maybe by whom, was this naming designated officially? Is it the same person or entity that is empowered to designate officially the start dates? I am not knowledgeable of what person or organization has that official power and by what means that power is granted. I thank you in advance for providing me with that information.
|
|