longbrained
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 3,390
- Reaction score
- 0
longbrained, that was a long but a quality post
Sometimes small does not do it. Great you like it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
longbrained, that was a long but a quality post
I am very curious what u are smoking.WWII was won mainly by Russia and China, US impact was lesser, around 5%.
he said USA contributed only 5% of the victoryharry!
i wish to see you in future ... man!
I'm not an emotional person, and I know you aren't an anti-Iran person, I follow your posts.Oh, please, do not get angry. I am not an Iran hater, as you might know. But we have to be truthful with history. Getting emotional will not make us understand history at all. You see, Japan also was not near Germany at the time, but they still kept on fighting longer than Germans did. It is not about neighbors at all. It is about a country's decision to stand up. The truth is Iran had given up fighting for its integrity long ago and not only in WWII. After Imperial Russia defeated Iran and got a large portion of Iran, since that time, Iran never fought a successful war without losing territory or resources till Iran-Iraq war.
I agree with you that Iran didn't have a self dependent military industry and technology, but that doesn't change the fact that in our region the British and Russian forces had all levers against us and we couldn't even count on German support.These are historical facts. Part of the reason for this was that at the time Iranian government had not invested in any kind of technology and science so their army largely depended on Russia and UK for supplies. Japan and to some extent China on the other hand had imported technology instead of supplies, paying hefty salaries to British, American, French and German engineers to work in those countries and teaching them to develop an industrial military complex. By the time WWII had started Japanese had the most advanced industry in the far east. Still not has good as Americans and British but still they were making their own planes and tanks. Iran did not have anything to fight with. Its army was small and already its officers were heavily influenced by Russia and UK. So it is understandable Iran did not have any choice but this does not mean they did not surrender. They did surrender unconditionally. And Iranian resources, food and oil not only supplied British troops in WWII but also in WWI as well, since Iranian crude was the only source of oil UK had at the time. Maybe if Iran had minimal level of technology and could fight back, the course of war would have been completely different. But that is just hypothetical.
It wasn't for free, It was for a very low price. Actually they paid Iran only 25% of the share, but what you're saying is generally true.You see, when in 1901, British forced Iranians to give up their oil and gas resources for 100 years to Anglo-Iranian oil company for an yearly payment of 16,000 British Sterling Pounds with the agreement extend-able for another 100 years on British demand, Iran had sort of lost part of its sovereignty. In 1914, Churchill Winston at the time an Admiralty convinced British Parliament that Iranian oil was very important to UK since British economy was switching from coal to oil and all modern amenities as well as war machines were running on oil rather than coal. He pushed a law which was later on signed by Queen which nationalized all Iranian hydrocarbon reserves and with this law, all Iranian oil and gas became British public property which Iranians had no share in it what so ever. At time Iranian government was so weak that it could not even lodge a diplomatic protest let alone, take back its resources. British continued to take away Iranian oil for free even after world war I and World war II, right until Mossadeq came and tried to nationalize Iranian oil again for a second time but this time to make it Iranian public asset. His success was only partial as Iran was under sanctions during his tenure as British embargoed Iran for nullifying the earlier agreement with Anglo-Iranian oil company.
True, but that 10% share hasn't been mentioned in any reputable sources as far as I know, but again it's generally true. so? How is that related to our discussion?Then operation Ajax comes in and a new agreement is signed with US, France and UK becoming new share holders in Iranian reserves with Iran getting 10% of the share of the oil revenue which helped Iran to develop some modern infrastructures, non-existent till then, under an Iranian program dubbed white revolution. This helped Iran to come to 20th century in 1960's and started to become modern and advanced. Then Iranian revolution happens and the new Iranian government in an undiplomatic way kicks out all foreign companies including oil interests out of Iran. Then the Iraq attacks begin in addition to sanctions, which cause Iranian oil production to go down and Iran to lose some one trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs of war. After the war oil prices plummet to all time lows, since US had won cold war and they were in a position to dictate new economic order of the world. At its lowest point in mid-1990's a barrel of oil was going for around 7 dollars barely making any profits after taking out the cost of extraction and exploration. It was at this time that SUV's became popular in US.
Iran needing money for reconstruction after the war compensated by printing even more money than during the war starting an inflation which continues till today. In 2000's due to some luck or some stupid decision by US government, geopolitical scene changed. Oil prices started to go up and Iran started to get the benefit of the investments they had in education and healthcare during 1980's and 1990's as Iranian population was more healthy and more educated. This allowed Iran to develop its own science and technology base as well as make new investments in key industries and infrastructure. Infact you can say, it was only recently that Iran became a player in realpolitik and science and technology. Back in WWII, things were very different, but we can not just deny Iran did not surrender unconditionally without any fighting, despite all these facts. History can not be changed. But it can be learnt with a critical eye so that it does not repeat itself.
Cheers!
You should study history more and watch less Hollywood movies What I say is pure history, with filtered BS of "winners write the history". US indeed eventually dropped neutrality, and participated in WWII, including the Pacific War. They had 416k casualties, thats 0.5% of all deaths during WWII. US did quite some bombing and provided much needed supplies and support in some missions, thats why their impact is greater than 0.5% would indicate, and neutral historians agree its about 5%. However US played both sides, and its why common sense to say US positive impact minus help for nazis equals less than 5%.he said USA contributed only 5% of the victory
what a bullshit statement
it shows only his hatred towards Americans
And people with hatred are not trustable
I'm not an emotional person, and I know you aren't an anti-Iran person, I follow your posts.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm insisting on. we should be truthful and honest when it comes to history and that's why I say China can't take the glory of being a winner of the WWII. It can have a share of the glory though, but that's it and I should reiterate that I'm a pro-China person.
You shouldn't forget that Russia and Great Britain weren't Japan. Russia has a hidden weapon that has crippled all world powers from occupying it. They defeated Germany not only because they were brave, but because of the secret weapon they got. "THE COLD WEATHER OF RUSSIA". They crippled the Nazi-Germany with that weapon, let alone Iran. Germany at that time was at least a decade ahead of the world in terms of technology and science. The late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century is obviously the golden age for the Germans. Carl F. Gauss, David Hilbert, Dedekind, Emmy Noether, Eisenstein, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg and many other German scientists did the most fundamental works in mathematics and physics. but yet, Germany was defeated by Russia.
I disagree that it is not about the geographic situation and neighbors. We had no neighbor around us that we want to fight them directly.
I believe if Iran had resisted against the Allied forces invading it, not only Iran would've gotten invaded, but their soldiers would've done miserable things to Iranians after invasion. We couldn't stand up against them, not only us, but even Germany couldn't do the same if It were surrounded by Russia and Britain and their colonies.
I agree with you that Iran didn't have a self dependent military industry and technology, but that doesn't change the fact that in our region the British and Russian forces had all levers against us and we couldn't even count on German support.
It wasn't for free, It was for a very low price. Actually they paid Iran only 25% of the share, but what you're saying is generally true.
True, but that 10% share hasn't been mentioned in any reputable sources as far as I know, but again it's generally true. so? How is that related to our discussion?
Actually in 1970's, Iran had a car industry, a military industry that was really advanced in regional terms, a TV manufacturing industry, a nuclear reactor that was about to get inaugurated in less than 5 years had the revolution not erupted and many other high-tech and advanced industries. If you study today's successful Iranians, you see that many of them have studied in Iranian schools in 1950's and 1960's. so I can't say that Iran wasn't a player in real politics until 1990's. Iran was the sole player in the region in 1970's and even Saddam, our rival, had accepted that.
As I said, any other country in the shoes of Iran would've surrendered to the Allied forces. Your analysis is partly true but what about many European countries that were highly educated and fairly advanced in technology but yet they were defeated and even occupied during the WWII?
Cheers! (If you want to continue this discussion, we can do it on somewhere else, It's interesting for me but we're off topic now).
WWII was won mainly by Russia and China, US impact was lesser, around 5%. However US wants to erase from the history the fact they played for both sides, not all was rosy, neither was dropping atom bomb on the Japanese civilians.
Even if we would forget the history and go with "in any country there is some bad and some good", their current policy is anything but decent. How many millions more they would have to kill for you to see that? Unless US changes its ways (which wont be allowed to happen by power groups), they cant be a friend of any truly independent, resource-rich country.
what about many European countries that were highly educated and fairly advanced in technology but yet they were defeated and even occupied during the WWII?
My good sir, you have twisted history into oblivion. World War II victory was a direct result of US involvement.
The main reason why Hitler attacked Russia is to stop Britain from leading the war against him.Thats not only untrue, but a mockery of what Russia/China did, even with zero US involvement alies would have won, just it would have taken longer.
Germany spent simply enermous resources to stop bombings. In 1943 out of 16 Jagdgeschwaders (fighter divisions) 12 were fighting on West front and protecting Germany. Only 4 were fighting on East front. Imagine what would happen if all 16 Jagdgeschwaders were fighting on East front instead of 4.Bombing <1%. They had to ship planes with carriers, limited sorties, etc. Their greater impact than bombing was providing some planes tech and spare parts.
Most of trucks and cars which Russia possessed were supplied by US. And they were tenfold better quality. It's simply impossible to lead a mobile war without trucks.Supplies, food - ~1% of total, it was a great help.
Germany buit over 1000 submarines to fight the convoys. Each sumbarine costs more than 40 Panther tanks. Imagine what would happen if Germany sent 40,000 additional Panther tanks to east front (they started Barbarossa with 4 thousand tanks!),Helping convoys, cutting supplies for Japan, etc. <1%.
And not one reputable historian and statistician is going to support this argument.Thats not only untrue, but a mockery of what Russia/China did, even with zero US involvement alies would have won, just it would have taken longer.
Lets see:
US casualties ~0,5%
Bombing <1%. They had to ship planes with carriers, limited sorties, etc. Their greater impact than bombing was providing some planes tech and spare parts.
Supplies, food - ~1% of total, it was a great help.
Helping convoys, cutting supplies for Japan, etc. <1%.
Even Russia had greater impact on Japan than US, what to speak of China, which killed millions of Japanese soldiers. How many US did?... They killed more civilians than soldiers.
All in all, as neutral historians say, it was about 5%, nothing like US pictures itself now - as pretty much the reason why alies won Non-bias history tells us different picture, including US helping nazis too, and using nuclear bombs on civilians.
See RQ-170 on the right sides...very classified stealth and secret information !