NASA identifies three potential asteroids for capture

Sep 12, 2013 by Kerry Sheridan
This NASA artist's rendering obtained on May 31, 2013 shows what capturing an asteroid could look like. The US space agency has narrowed its hunt for an asteroid to capture to three, NASA said.

The US space agency has narrowed its hunt for an asteroid to capture to three, NASA said Wednesday.

The asteroids fit the requirements of being between seven to 10 meters (yards) in size, and further study should be able to narrow the choice even more, scientists said at a conference in San Diego, California.

"We have two to three which we will characterize in the next year and if all goes well... those will be valid candidates that could be certified targets," said Paul Chodas, senior scientist at the NASA Near-Earth Object Program Office.

The plan is to send a to capture the and drag it into orbit around the Moon.

Once there, astronauts could visit the asteroid and take samples of it back to Earth for study.

The spacecraft used for travel there and back would be the Orion multi-purpose vehicle, which is being built but has not yet been used, as well as a new deep space .

The program aims to break new ground by increasing NASA capabilities beyond low Earth orbit, where the International Space Station circles the globe.

NASA has touted the planetary defense capabilities the project would build toward protecting the Earth from a potential hazardous , as well as the technology it would boost for future human missions to deep space.

President Barack Obama has proclaimed the project would be a key step on the way to sending humans to Mars by the 2030s.

Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator of NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Directorate, described the asteroid mission as "pretty compelling."

"If you think about grabbing an object in space and then manipulating it for our use and putting it into a destination where we could go back and routinely visit and let commercial companies go visit, I think that is a pretty compelling activity."

Obama's 2014 budget for NASA asked for $100 million for the asteroid project, but the overall costs may be as high as $2 billion.

"It's a little different way than just a date and a destination. We are really good at just picking dates and destinations. But that's really hard in this budget environment where things are constrained and we have flat budgets, et cetera et cetera, to pull that off," said Gerstenmaier.

"It is not just a one-time thing. It actually feeds forward into the broader context of what we want to do with humans in space."

The launch could happen as early as 2017 or as late as 2019.

After launch of the robotic mission, the journey to the asteroid would take a year and a half, and the act of towing it toward the moon could take another three and a half years, NASA said.

The project would use a new fuel technology called solar electric propulsion.

"We are talking about engineering the solar system, in a way. We are talking about taking an asteroid which was once here, and then putting it into a useful orbit for our purposes," said Chodas.

"This is a very large idea here that we are talking about and I think it will reinvigorate interest in the space program," he said.

Explore further: Deep space 'snowball' nears close shave with Mars

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NASA selects top 96 asteroid initiative ideas

Sep 05, 2013

NASA has chosen 96 ideas it regards as most promising from more than 400 submitted in response to its June request for information (RFI) about protecting Earth from asteroids and finding an asteroid humans can explore.

NASA releases new imagery of asteroid mission

Aug 23, 2013

(Phys.org) —NASA released Thursday new photos and video animations depicting the agency's planned mission to find, capture, redirect, and study a near-Earth asteroid. The images depict crew operations including ...

Recommended for you

Comet Siding Spring whizzes past Mars

7 hours ago

A comet the size of a small mountain whizzed past Mars on Sunday, dazzling space enthusiasts with the once-in-a-million-years encounter.

NASA investigating deep-space hibernation technology

Oct 17, 2014

Manned missions to deep space present numerous challenges. In addition to the sheer amount of food, water and air necessary to keep a crew alive for months (or years) at a time, there's also the question ...

User comments : 94

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CreepyD
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
Potentially a very dangerous weapon being able to drop an asteroid on your enemy - attacking a country without them even knowing they were attacked, and everyone just thinking it's a natural disaster.
Funny how there are almost always good and evil uses for all technology.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2013
attacking a country without them even knowing they were attacked, and everyone just thinking it's a natural disaster.

Depends. If you can see it three years in a advance it's not so much of a surprise weapon.
It's not like there is a lot of stuff to hide this behind in space.

Also deorbiting heavy stuff is not an exact science (notice how we can know exactly when the GOCE sattelite will be turned off in a few week - and how we know exactyl its specs...but how it's still impossible to know where it will come don)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2013
attacking a country without them even knowing they were attacked, and everyone just thinking it's a natural disaster.

Depends. If you can see it three years in a advance it's not so much of a surprise weapon.
It's not like there is a lot of stuff to hide this behind in space
But the potential exists, and a clandestine probe that redirects an asteroid as a weapon may not be detectable nor defendable against.

Which is why we are beginning to define the parameters with this mission. Aiming a rock at an earth or lunar target from beyond earth orbit would probably be a lot easier than deorbiting a satellite for the same purpose. We can now hit targets within yards with ICBMs.

NASA is primarily a military agency engaged in reconaissance, surveillance, and the development of advanced strategic technologies. We should expect programs such as this.
JamesG
1.7 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2013
First, they are going to play in the dirt at the Moon for (only) $250,000 for the LADDEE mission. Now we are going to go catch rocks for $2 billion. Politicians have no business making decisions for scientific agencies. All the decisions are being made by people who's only motivation is getting money for their district.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2013
First, they are going to play in the dirt at the Moon for (only) $250,000 for the LADDEE mission. Now we are going to go catch rocks for $2 billion. Politicians have no business making decisions for scientific agencies. All the decisions are being made by people who's only motivation is getting money for their district.
Politicians have the responsibility of making these decisions when national defense is an issue. Asteroids as weapons is every bit as serious as nuclear weapons. It may be easier and cheaper to drop a rock on an enemy than to manufacture nukes.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 12, 2013
Otto the cost and effort of capturing even a very small asteroid is huge. I don't think you need to worry about weaponizion of asteroids for a very long time.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2013
weaponizing asteroids is nonsense. we have nuclear weapons that can be delivered with precision. precision defines modern warfare.

if you were a james bond villain however , and if you were talking about trying to destroy the surface of the planet or at least destroy civilization by directing a massive asteroid to hit anywhere on the planet ( most likely water ) ----that's another story. that's not modern warfare and no nations military could conceivably attempt to destroy the civilian body which produces its food and weapons while hoping to remain intact as a military. so no, no military would have an interest in how to do this, they would, however, have an interest in how to stop an earth bound asteroid ( which would more likely be headed here without the help of some theoretical mad man)

seriously though, if you cannot capture abandoned satelites and repurpose their mass in orbit, what point is there in believing in the fairy tail of mining asteroids from outer-space?
Cacogen
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2013
"Once there, astronauts could visit the asteroid and take samples of it back to Earth for study."

Ugh. One word: "meteorites."

Save the money, and let's put some humans on Deimos.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2013
Otto the cost and effort of capturing even a very small asteroid is huge. I don't think you need to worry about weaponizion of asteroids for a very long time.
-Says the expert in -what-? Faith and uninformed opinion?

Sagan is one who voiced such concerns. And in the coming decades with the accelerated deployment of ever-more sophisticated and autonomous robotics in space, and the widespread commercial development of space-based mining, the threat potential grows.

Here is a discussion on the subject:
http://books.goog...;f=false
we have nuclear weapons that can be delivered with precision
Whos 'we'? Terrorist nations will have access to robotics tech which will enable them to threaten the earth within 50 years. Terrorism doesnt need precision.
Karlsbad
1 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2013
Assuming that the National Assumptions and Speculations Administration would be capable to do very much heavy lifting for only a few bucks. Assuming any manned missions were kept short. Assuming that big assumptions do come true.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2013
NASA is primarily a military agency engaged in reconaissance, surveillance, and the development of advanced strategic technologies.


actually, NASA is the civilian side of it, the US Air Force is the military power tasked with defense/offense of Air and Space, and the recon payloads of the shuttle and NASA are Air Force, NSA or otherwise utilized.
That is why there is a DDMS (Department of Defense Mission Support- AF acronym) agency at the Cape, to liaison between agencies to insure mission success etc. this is where the multi-service support comes in (Navy Ships, AF Firefighters, TAAL site management, etc)
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2013
acronym DDMS has changed to CURRENTLY mean:
Department of Defense Manager for STS
Department of Defense Manned Spaceflight

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2013
No wolfman NASA is a military agency. Do you believe everything you are told? Do I believe you lived with wolves for 7 years?

We can tell what NASA is by observing the kinds of programs it undertakes. The shuttle was a military vehicle designed to lift spysats and outpost components to orbit. It was meant to be launched from a hardened facility at vandenburg.

NASA develops cutting-edge tech with no hope of profit, useful for surveilling and reconnoitering, just like the pentagon. Recon is a vital aspect of military operations. Colombus' voyages were military recon missions to prepare for the invasion.

The first soviet space station was armed with anti-Gemini cannon did you know it?

Obamas initiative to visit asteroids and the Martian moons is a military one. Taking the high ground and establishing bridgeheads are prudent military strategies.

Railroads, autobahns, and commercial airlines are also primarily strategic in nature when first constructed.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2013
I am not saying that the lines get blurred. I am just saying the primary mission is civilian. and it comes from my serving in the Air Force. NASA DOES perform and assist in a great deal of military missions, as well as CIA and NSA missions, but just like the CIA and NSA are not military, they also work with and sometimes for the military. same with NASA.
The shuttle was designed for payload/ personnel delivery and reuse, which is something the military found very useful, and USED a lot. knowing that many STS missions were military does not change my point of view...
it is similar to this:
just because you are a soldier in the US military, does not mean you are a US citizen. you can use the military to help gain citizen ship, and have to give up allegiances to conflicting parties, but non-US citizens can join the military.
just classify it as federal, or government, and it makes more sense... as they ALL work for the gov't
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2013
and I am not saying that obummer is not also considering military missions with this initiative. nor am I disputing anything you stated above...

although I don't know about Columbus... I have not seen anything that states his missions were military, I will not discount that, as the military serves the gov't, and the gov't does not always play a visible hand.
I am just saying that NASA is gov't. the military is gov't. they all work for the gov't, so it is not that NASA is military, NASA is gov't and does what it is told. just like the military. this is how I saw it when I served in the air farce (intended).
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2013
my serving in the Air Force
-because servicemen always know what motivates their leadership?
the CIA and NSA are not military
YES they are. Of course they are. Their primary purpose is national defense. Intelligence-gathering is a military function.

"The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was a United States intelligence agency formed during World War II. It was the wartime intelligence agency, and it was a predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The OSS was formed in order to coordinate espionage activities behind enemy lines for the branches of the United States Armed Forces."

-Your definitions are politically-motivated expediencies and do not reflect the actual functions of these agencies.

"Atlas is a family of United States space launch vehicles. The original Atlas missile was designed in the late 1950s and produced by the Convair Division of General Dynamics, to be used as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)."

Sputnik was a military device.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2013
although I don't know about Columbus... I have not seen anything that states his missions were military
Of course not.

"The Spanish navy was responsible for a number of major historic achievements in navigation, the most famous being the voyages of Christopher Columbus and the first global circumnavigation by Magellan and Elcano... In 1492 two caravels and one carrack, commanded by Christopher Columbus..."

"Upon hearing that the Indians were planning to attack the men, Columbus sent four hundred soldiers to terrorize them in order to show how strong the Christians were (Wilford 173-4)."

-The existence of the american civilizations and their extreme danger to the rest of the world had been known about for centuries. Columbus sailed south along the african coast and then turned westward at the exact latitude to carry him to the caribbean..

These islands were a natural staging area for the planned conquest of the americas.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2013
i believe the way i do because by reading the orders and/ or statements of situational assessments assigned to me by the gov't, i see that there is a distinction in the gov't between military and civilian, as well as intelligence work and that though they can intercede on behalf of the others, they do not require the others for the accomplishments of their specific mission goals and mission support. gov't policy spells out what is going on, and the divisions in which things must be separated to, for responsibility and leadership, and other factors, and i am making my assumptions based upon my knowledge and memory of the distinctions therein.

in that view, then, if you mean politically motivated as: "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy", then you are correct and i cannot refute that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2013
Your distinctions are cosmetic.

"Despite its name implying counterespionage, the Abwehr was an intelligence-gathering agency and dealt exclusively with human intelligence, especially raw intelligence reports from field agents and other sources. The Chief of the Abwehr reported directly to the High Command of the Armed Forces"

"This 12-story building on the outskirts of Shanghai is the headquarters of Unit 61398 of the People's Liberation Army. China's defense ministry has denied that it is responsible for initiating digital attacks."
Anda
5 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2013
This is incredible. You only talk about war and the likes. You're all crazy.
It's really difficult to pick an interesting comment about science around here!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (11) Sep 14, 2013
This is incredible. You only talk about war and the likes. You're all crazy.
It's really difficult to pick an interesting comment about science around here!
The most breathtaking technological advances occur during war. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' and necessity is never more insistent than when you are faced with imminent destruction.

One could even speculate that wars are waged in part to force the development of essential tech. Because some emerging technologies are a critical threat to the world unless they can be developed at the right time and by the right people. Nuclear weaponry is one example. So space access.

WW2 forced both nuclear and rocket tech. The space age could not have happened without the safe development of either in the right hands.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2013
This is incredible. You only talk about war and the likes. You're all crazy.
It's really difficult to pick an interesting comment about science around here!

Americans. They're raised with it. From saturday morning cartoons to news to documentaries to movies: All they ever get is war - to the point where they thinl that's normal (or even cool)
...not realizing it's a giant PR machine that lulls them into thinking handing over a third of their taxdollars to arms manufacturers is 'sensible'.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (16) Sep 14, 2013
@antiAP

Of course it's sensible...to some extent. Do you think that Russia, North Korea and China and perhaps Iran should be armed to the teeth, while the USA lays down its guns and its own WMDs so that hostile governments can come into the U.S. and attempt to take us over?

You Europeans cut your teeth on warfare. You are used to it, and used by it. In your past, every decade or so, a new war began somewhere in Europe, and now you are besmirching our ability and requirements for the purpose of defending our country?

There are very few in America who actually want or like the idea of war. For the most part, we are a peace-loving people trying to get our own "house" in order.
I am German-American, but I consider myself to be All-American, while you Europeans just can't get over yourselves where the people in each country in Europe have superiority complexes.
antialias_physorg
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2013
Do you think that Russia, North Korea and China and perhaps Iran should be armed to the teeth, while the USA lays down its guns

China and Russia have, by their composition, only a military which is capable of defending - not attacking. This has always been the case as it is their doctrine.
North Korea doesn't have a navy at all. It cannot project its military might elsewhere.

It is not a logical argument to say one need a military geared towards attack when there is no enemy that can (or even wants to) attack. The Us was never, in its history since the british, in danger of an invasion. That has always been one big PR thing.

There are very few in America who actually want or like the idea of war.

Given the willingness to go to war and that a wartime president has never had a problem getting reelected (sometimes with staggering majorities) - I somehow doubt that. Americans love war.
antialias_physorg
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2013
while you Europeans just can't get over yourselves where the people in each country in Europe have superiority complexes.

This is an argument for what exactly?

Or is it the (usual) line of argument: "We're evil - but look over there...they are also not stupendously good. So that makes us saints, right?"

The lesser evil is still evil. And compared to Europe America is certainly not the lesser evil in the world at the current time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (12) Sep 14, 2013
Well then you should be very happy

"For more than 30 years, Bat Ye'or, a refugee from Egypt, has been writing about dhimmis — Christians and Jews living under oppression in Muslim lands. Now, she has a new book, Europe, Globalization, and the Coming Universal Caliphate, that looks at Muslims living in lands that once were Christian but today call themselves multicultural. She predicts Europe will not remain multicultural for long. She is convinced that Europe, sooner rather than later, will be dominated by Islamic extremists and transformed into "Eurabia" — a term first used in the mid-1970s by a French publication pressing for common European-Arab policies."

-Euros are used to living under oppression arent you? You think youll like keeping your women in a bag?
http://en.wikiped...ki/Burqa
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (19) Sep 14, 2013
while you Europeans just can't get over yourselves where the people in each country in Europe have superiority complexes.

This is an argument for what exactly?

Or is it the (usual) line of argument: "We're evil - but look over there...they are also not stupendously good. So that makes us saints, right?"

The lesser evil is still evil. And compared to Europe America is certainly not the lesser evil in the world at the current time.
-antiAP

Perhaps you are not aware of, or don't remember all the anti-war demonstrations by the American people in the past? Americans, for the most part, were anti-Vietnam War, and it wasn't only the hippies who demonstrated against it. Mainstream Americans, especially those with loved ones in the military, are against war for any reason when there is no imminent danger of attack on U.S. soil.
It is only government officials that choose to go to war. Congressmen don't always abide by what the citizens want.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (19) Sep 14, 2013
Socks - this has to be the most sensible thing you have posted here.
And reasonably succinct, also.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (18) Sep 14, 2013
You Europeans knuckled under for the Hitler Nazi war machine. And now your leaders in Germany think that another kind of ideology is good for Germany - Socialism. You would have been better off to follow in the path of U.S. Constitutional Law instead of your Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche with a slighty different flavor.

FYI, NASA is being eroded by our dear leader's regime. This is not what we Americans wanted, but Obama's brand of Socialism requires trillions of dollars each year for his programs. THAT is where our money is going...and far less to our military.

China and Russia...even North Korea have nuclear warheads in their stockpile. Would you like the U.S. to get rid of ours? Don't hold your breath.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 14, 2013
@Estevan

Well, it is THE TRUTH!! I belong to the Church of the Painful Truth. Have you attended church services yet?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2013
or don't remember all the anti-war demonstrations by the American people in the past?

Sure do. Weren't all that many - and they didn't seem to have any effect.

Americans, for the most part, were anti-Vietnam War
...
Congressmen don't always abide by what the citizens want.

Weird how they get voted in then, isn't it?

I have lived in the states for a number of years. If you have never lived elsewhere you will not understand that what is considered 'normal' in the states (in terms of attitudes towards violence, guns, war, ...) - down to the portrayal of same in all media...that is considered psychotic anywhere else on the planet.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 14, 2013
or don't remember all the anti-war demonstrations by the American people in the past?

Sure do. Weren't all that many - and they didn't seem to have any effect.


They made their feelings known, tho' it didn't help much.

Americans, for the most part, were anti-Vietnam War
...
Congressmen don't always abide by what the citizens want.

Weird how they get voted in then, isn't it?


We have our share of low-information voters who vote w/their emotions instead of common sense.

I have lived in the states for a number of years. If you have never lived elsewhere you will not understand that what is considered 'normal' in the states (in terms of attitudes towards violence, guns, war, ...) - down to the portrayal of same in all media...that is considered psychotic anywhere else on the planet.


I travel to different parts of the world. We are not all Germans in the U.S. - different cultures, languages, etc. At least we never had a Hitler in the WH.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 14, 2013
As Arnold Schwarzenegger once said: "Germans are no good unless there's an Austrian leading them."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2013
Hey esai
Otto is open, lite, and toot. All four-letter words
-You can count. I did not know that.
I have lived in the states for a number of years
And what states would those be? A state of denial? A state of self-delusion? The state of eurodisney?
If you have never lived elsewhere you will not understand that what is considered 'normal' in the states (in terms of attitudes towards violence, guns, war, ...) - down to the portrayal of same in all media...that is considered psychotic anywhere else on the planet.
Yeah europe is not all of the rest of the planet. Your state-ment shows how eurocentric you are. Most of the people in the world appreciate the need for self-defense, either personal or national.
JohnGee
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 14, 2013
Good posts socks.

At least we never had a Hitler in the WH.
I don't think this is the point that should be taken away from Germany's experiences in WW2. I think rather than claiming exceptionalism because we've never had a leader like that, I believe it more prudent to assume that it could happen to us as well, and we should never assume our system is incapable of instilling such a person with ultimate authority. One could argue Andrew Jackson was cut from a similar cloth.

Whether you agree or not, you would probably be interested in the book _Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil_ by Hannah Arendt. She was forced to flee Germany due to her Jewish heritage. After the war, she attended the trial of Adolf Eichmann as a reporter. She came to the conclusion that, although Eichmann was responsible for administrating the Holocaust, he did not have a deep seated hatred of Jews. This led her to conclude that great evil is "banal" and something anyone is capable of.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (28) Sep 14, 2013
The Us was never, in its history since the British, in danger of an invasion.


That's right. But the USA entered WWII in Europe despite this, to save civilized humanity from the war obsessed germans, while the german citizens themselves stood by while their government outright and systematically murdered six millions non-combatants.

It was the Americans who forced your grandparents to bury the dead.

Given that the german society responsible for the greatest number of deaths in modern times, still flourished but a few decades ago,... not enough time has elapsed for you to be entitled for stating this....

Given the willingness to go to war [...] Americans love war.


American's love humanity, and through noble aspirations, not love of war, will defeat tyrants who murder innocent people, because a threat to humanity unchecked is a threat to everything the USA stands for.

You don't understand the USA, but the USA understands the savagery of Europe, and will never forget.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (27) Sep 14, 2013
The lesson WWII demonstrated is that appeasement as a foreign policy for the sake of being anti-war only leads to tyrants accumulating power.

Being 'anti-war' for the sake of being an anti-war liberal, is an irresponsible detachment from reality and a intellectually disinterested stance. Not acceptable, since WWII.

The real problem is not that "American's love war" but that other supposedly civilized nations don't have the same sense of urgency in defeating tyrants. The germans have a disturbing history of looking the other way.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2013
Uh nou you got a few things wrong (as usual); 90% of Germans killed in ww2 were killed by Russians. Germany was defeated and on the run by the time we got there. We invaded to save western europe from stalin.

And Mao holds the record for number of deaths, followed by Stalin. Hitler is a paltry 3rd.

Carry on.
JohnGee
1 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2013
American exceptionalism is a load of bull Noumenon. You should know better than to fall for that.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 14, 2013
Uh nou you got a few things wrong (as usual); 90% of Germans killed in ww2 were killed by Russians. Germany was defeated and on the run by the time we got there. We invaded to save western europe from stalin


That is false and an 'after the fact' interpretation. "President Franklin D. Roosevelt in August 1941 signed the Atlantic Charter that pledged commitment to achieving 'the final destruction of Nazi tyranny'".

Here is a picture you may find interesting.

And Mao holds the record for number of deaths, followed by Stalin. Hitler is a paltry 3rd.

Carry on.


I did not compare individual leaders anywhere above. I was speaking about WWII, which the germans were responsible for starting.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (26) Sep 14, 2013
American exceptionalism is a load of bull Noumenon. You should know better than to fall for that.


In what sense do you mean "American exceptionalism"? The phrase has a historical context and is specific to an ideology unique to America. So it is a matter of fact.

If you just took the meaning of that phrase as that 'America is morally superior' to other nations, then I would reject that claim as a general statement. However, the fact remains that America leads the world in defeating tyrants.
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2013
Common americans don't love war, that is absurd! the vast majority want the current war we are in to be over and have for quite a number of years, the comment about just voting the congress that doesn't stop the war also shows no understanding of the current broken American political system.

noumenon, to play devils advocate we supported quite a few tyrants too, some of them being the same ones we later defeated.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2013
noumenon, to play devils advocate we supported quite a few tyrants too, some of them being the same ones we later defeated.


Wrong. Used, not supported,.... and then later defeated.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2013
an after the fact interpretation
Correction - an obvious and undeniable interpretation. Of COURSE it is after-the-fact interpretation, based in part on declassified soviet and allied documents, and examined in a post-cold war, rhetoric-free environment. That one fact - most germans killed by russians - confirms it.

Most historians now agree that the soviets alone destroyed the third Reich, and were nearly annihilated in doing so. Less than 1M combat troops left to menace Europe. Roosevelts statement is called PROPAGANDA. I am not surprised that you are susceptible, being that philosophy is all propaganda.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (27) Sep 15, 2013
You're are an expert at inventing arguments that never existed. I'm aware of the relative casualty losses in WWII.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2013
"greatest number of deaths in modern times" is what you said. These did not occur in ww2 and were not caused by Germans. They were done by communists.

If you don't want an argument then don't post crap. Fair enough?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (23) Sep 15, 2013
"greatest number of deaths in modern times" is what you said. These did not occur in ww2 and were not caused by Germans. They were done by communists.

If you don't want an argument then don't post crap. Fair enough?


I really don't care to split hairs over who is responsible for the most deaths. My point did not really hinge on this fact. Maybe you are correct.

But such estimates vary considerably, it may be just as well that you are in fact wrong. The estimates for deaths in WWII overlap those estimates of deaths due to communism, so one can say only that they are within the same magnitude.

EDIT -> 'The number of deaths ultimately caused by German belligerence is of the same order of magnitude as the greatest number of deaths in modern times.'
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2013
German belligerence... Communist cells taking orders directy fro Moscow were breaking out al over Germany, fueled in
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 15, 2013
Germany was defeated and on the run by the time we got there. We invaded to save western europe from stalin


This is factually incorrect. The Russians did not even halt the German advance in Russia until July 1943, while the USA had already declared war in 1941 and had active troops by then. It was not at all clear that Europe needed saving from Stain when the USA made the commitment to enter the war.

"President Franklin D. Roosevelt in August 1941 signed the Atlantic Charter that pledged commitment to achieving 'the final destruction of Nazi tyranny'

We invaded to save western europe from stalin


The USA and Britain signed an agreement to ALLOW Stalin to take Berlin. Why would they have handed Berlin to Stalin, if the initial motivation for the USA entering the war was to stop Stalin. Answer--> because wasn't, it was to stop the Nazis.

The concern over Russia in Europe manifested during and after the fact.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2013
German belligerence... Communist cells taking orders directy fro Moscow were breaking out al over Germany, fueled in part by ruinous reparations imposed by the allies. In addition, ethnic Germans were being abused in former German lands in poland, czechosovakia, and elsewhere.

And the soviets were making preparations to invade Germany. Poland was divided by agreement. Few remember that the soviets entered Poland at about the same tie the Germans did ad proceeded to execute 15k polish military officers.

From this perspective one might conclude that Germany was given no choice. In order to survive it had to attack the USSR, ad it needed to secure lands and recources at it's rear and flanks in order to be successful.

And this was very easy considering that the rest of Europe saw Germany as the only thing between it and communism.

As it was, Germany saved half of itself and all of western Europe from communism. And now europe is one big Germany. Victory. Wir werden doch Seiger sein.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2013
concern in Europe after the fact
Lenin began killing off the midde class shortly after he got into power and Lenin accelerated this to about 1000 people a day before the war started. Ludendorff had capitulated in ww1 because the communists were causing genera strikes in Germany and crippling the war effort.

All of western Europe was watching this with great concern. Comintern was actively plotting and maneuvering to turn all of Europe communist. This was the main cause of the rise of fascism throughout Europe, and the main reason internalional industrialists and the British aristocracy supported the rise of the Nazis.

If you don't know history why comment?
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 15, 2013
Wonder why the allies sought to stop the Germans then.

I will edit that post for you then,... 'The concern over Russia [military presence] in Europe manifested during and after the fact. [The motivation for entering the war was to stop the German advance. The Russian advance on Germany occurred after the USA had already committed itself to war, so while generally there was concern for advancement of communism as a political force, it was not clear that Europe needed saving from Stalin's military. In fact it didn't.]

You are an expert at inventing debates that never existed, and obscuring points made with a bucket of nuts and bolt facts.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 15, 2013
If you don't know history why comment?


I just proved that you were factually incorrect on several of your tangentially irrelevant points, so you are in no position for such insults.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2013
If the Myth Busters could make a lead zeppelin fly, I guess NASA can safely capture an asteroid.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2013
The Russian advance on Germany occurred after the USA had already committed itself to war
?? The communist advance on germany began before ww1.

"The Spartacus League was a Marxist revolutionary movement organized in Germany during World War I."

"Comintern... was an international communist organization initiated in Moscow during March 1919. The International intended to fight "by all available means... the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."

"During the Weimar Republic the KPD was the largest communist party in Europe, and was seen as the "leading party" of the communist movement outside the Soviet Union.

"At the time of the ban, [Die Rote Front] had close to 130,000 members

"...Stalin was bent on attacking Germany during the summer of 1941... this is why so much of the Red Army was massed near the border during the time of the German invasion."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.2 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2013
Germany invaded the USSR before the US joined the war.

"[Operation Barbarossa] 22 June 1941, over four million soldiers of the Axis powers invaded the USSR"

"Dec 11, 1941: Germany declares war on the United States"

Total german pop: 69,850,000; total deaths: 7,000,000 to 9,000,000
Total soviet pop: 168,524,000 ; total deaths 20,000,000 to 27,000,000
Total US pop:?: total deaths Europe-Atlantic: 183,588

"80% of Soviet males born in 1923 didn't survive World War 2"

"By D-Day, 35% of all German soldiers had been wounded at least once, 11% twice, 6% three times, 2% four times and 2% more than 4 times"

Statistical proof
http://au.answers...3AA7LTZm

Battle of Kursk - jul/aug "From this point on the initiative had firmly passed to the Red Army. For the remainder of the war the German army was limited to reacting to Soviet advances, and were never able to regain the initiative"

"D Day june 6 1944"

Germany had been defeated by this time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2013
Kursk july-august 1943. A full year before the allies invaded normandy and shortly before the italian campaign. By D-Day hitler was short of men, material, weapons, and fuel. SS divisions fought in name only, far below their eastern front contingents and manned by conscripts and young teenagers.

And I couldnt find your quote but in light of what we now know about the russian-german war of 1941-1945, it is obviously stale and leftover coldwar propaganda.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2013
The motivation for the USA getting to WWII (the original point before you obscured it), was not because of the political threat of communism, as that, as you admitted, already existed,.... it was to stop the Nazis.

-The Russian [military] turning point and advance on Germany [WWII], didn't occur until AFTER the USA had already committed itself to war.

-It was not even clear at the time the USA declared war on Germany, whether Russia could have been a threat to western Europe, having "nearly annihilated" itself, as you say, in defeating the German onslaught.

-Britain and the USA not only did not fight the Russian advance, they agreed to hand over zones in Germany, and let Russia invade Berlin.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2013
The motivation for the USA getting to WWII (the original point before you obscured it), was not because of the political threat of communism, as that, as you admitted, already existed,.... it was to stop the Nazis
The FACTS say otherwise. The threats from the USSR immediately after the war, and the official statements of the comintern before it, made it clear - europe and the world were the goal of communism.
The Russian [military] turning point and advance on Germany [WWII], didn't occur until AFTER the USA had already committed itself to war
The russian counteroffensive began in winter 1941. We had no direct involvement against the germans until North Africa on 11 May 1942.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2013
Kursk july-august 1943. A full year before the allies invaded normandy and shortly before the italian campaign.

--------------------
"D Day june 6 1944"

Germany had been defeated by this time.


What is your point here? These facts have no baring on the original debated question,... the motivation for the USA entering WWII in Europe. It was to stop Germany's advance, not Russia's.

As I stated above somewhere, "The Russians did not even halt the German advance in Russia until July 1943, while the USA HAD ALREADY declared war [on germany] in back in 1941 [and began retooling to supply aide since 1940]". This means that Russia was not a military threat on western Europe when the USA entered the war, thus was not the motivation for the USA entering that war.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2013
It was not even clear at the time the USA declared war on Germany, whether Russia could have been a threat to western Europe
OF COURSE IT WAS. Lenin, trotsky, marx, engels, stalin, mao, kruschhev all said they wanted to take over the world. During the 1870 war between france and prussia, both sides declared a temporary truce in order to fight the communists in paris. TOGETHER. That was the magnitude of the perceived threat.

The world had been well aware of this threat since the 1800s and fully believed what the comintern had told them in 1919. It intended to take over the world.

"Harry truman 1918
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances."

-The war was configured to enable the russians and the germans to grind each other to dust. The allies invaded europe to stop stalin from taking it.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 15, 2013
The Russian [military] turning point and advance on Germany [WWII], didn't occur until AFTER the USA had already committed itself to war

The russian counteroffensive began in winter 1941. We had no direct involvement against the germans until North Africa on 11 May 1942.


You're not thinking logically here. When the question is of motivation for entering the war, it does not matter the timing of when the USA actually got guys on the ground. The commitment was made in 1941, BEFORE the Russians made any meaningful counter offensive to the Germans advance, which everyone agrees was not until 1943. By then the USA had already turned itself into a war machine to defeat the German's ,NOT the Russians.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2013
What is your point here? These facts have no baring on the original debated question,... the motivation for the USA entering WWII in Europe. It was to stop Germany's advance, not Russia's
Germanys ADVANCE had been stopped in the winter of 1941, just outside moscow. Germanys goal was to push the communists behind the Urals. They had been effectively DEFEATED at kursk in 1943. If we hadnt invaded normandy and italy, russia would have swept their remnants into the channel and the mediterranean. As they SAID they were going to do.

I understand why you think these facts are irrelevant because you hold dogma more important than evidence. The history you learned in the 60s was cold war propaganda.
BEFORE the Russians made any meaning counter to the Germans advance, which everyone agrees was not until 1943
Who is everyone? You and all your dirty stuffed animals in the rear window of your pinto?

The german offensive was stopped in moscow in 1941 which everyone knows.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2013
The turning point for the Russians [in advancing into Germany] wasn't until 1943, which everyone knows. Prior to that the Russian threat was not "actionable" as Germany was still making advancements upon them, when the USA made the commitment to enter full bore into the war.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2013
The turning point for the Russians [in advancing into Germany] wasn't until 1943, which everyone knows. Prior to that the Russian threat was not "actionable" as Germany was still making advancements upon them, when the USA made the commitment to enter full bore into the war.
Well even if that were true which it isnt, the casualty figures I posted above make it very clear that we had very little to do with defeating germany in that war. You didnt even know about kursk until I mentioned it, and still dont understand the significance of it.

The REASON we let the russians take berlin was that it cost them 300,000 lives to do so. 100,000 germans died defending it.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2013
the casualty figures I posted above make it very clear that we had very little to do with defeating germany in that war.


Wow, remarkable statement. Sad really. Casualty figures don't equate to strategically meaningful, just how evenly matched and barbarous the opponents are.

Britain was running on empty when the USA entered the war. The USA provided the bulk of men and equipment in western Europe.

The opening of a western front in the invasion of Normandy, was KEY to Germany's loss in the east,.. otherwise they may have defeated Russia. So, yes, dingus, the USA was key to the Allies victory in Europe in WWII, and solely key to defeating the far east.

You didnt even know about kursk until I mentioned it, and still dont understand the significance of it.


This is an abject and outright lie. I am the first to have even mentioned "july 1943" and the significance of it. The timeline of the posts above show this.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2013
The REASON we let the russians take berlin was that it cost them 300,000 lives to do so. 100,000 germans died defending it.


Correct. At that point in the war, there was NO rational reason for the USA to have expended even more than the 400,000 causalities they already expended for Europe,.... meaning, the 'Russian threat' was not a rational justification.

If as you claim the entire objective was to defend western Europe from the Russians, why would Brittan and the USA go through all that effort only to hand over to Russia zones in Germany at the last moment?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2013
Wow, remarkable statement. Sad really. Casualty figures don't equate to strategically meaningful, just how evenly matched and barbarous the opponents are
The MAGnitude of those figures do. Look at them again. Germany and russia killed 10-15% of their populations. We were bystanders.
The opening of a western front in the invasion of Normandy, was KEY to Germany's loss in the east,.. otherwise they may have defeated Russia
They killed russians 3 to 1 but they were outnumbered 4 to 1. They never had a chance. We had no meaningful part in supplying russia. After kursk germany was out of resources, time, manpower. Their defeat was inevitable.
meaning, the 'Russian threat' was not a rational justification
?? The allies had millions stationed in europe before the wars end. They were not there to defeat an already-defeated germany. Few saw any action.
hand over to Russia
?? Europe was saved from russian communism, although it took more decades to destroy it.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2013
The opening of a western front in the invasion of Normandy, was KEY to Germany's loss in the east,.. otherwise they may have defeated Russia

[...] We had no meaningful part in supplying russia. After kursk germany was out of resources, time, manpower. Their defeat was inevitable.


I'm not saying that the USA supplied Russia with aide. Please read the quote again.

The Normandy invasion was key to Germany's defeat, because that forced Germany into a two front war, which is what left them out of resources, time, and manpower, as they were spread too thin.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (26) Sep 15, 2013
Fun Facts for today:

" the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food."

http://en.wikiped..._to_USSR


I had no idea the lend-lease program extended to Russia to that extent. Was that all to Russia or total? That is hilarious if it went to Russia because that is a lot and I coud have saved a lot of typing arguing with Otto, had I known that,.... OK, Otto why would the USA directly supply Russia with armaments if the reason for the USA entering WWII was to defeat Russia? Doesn't seem like a smart policy then , does it?

Will GhostofOtto admit he was wrong?,... stay tuned,....
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 15, 2013
"Without American production [lend-lease] the united nations [the Allies] could never have won the war" - Joseph Stalin

Will GhostofOtto disagree with Stalin,... stay tuned,....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2013
two front war
You really are gullible aren't you? That is one of the many cold war lies which could not stand up to revelations from the collapse of the soviet state.

There was very little action in the west between Normandy and the Ardennes offensive. Germay had always had troops stationed in conquered western nations. Shifting moretroops west in winter 1944-1945 did not alter the condition of rout on that front.

In the east however they had been losing ground steadily since Kursk and before.
Why would the US directly supply Russia
Because, per the Truman quote I posted, the plan was to get Germany and Russia to eliminate each other.

But Russia defeated Germany with Russian weapons; the T34, not the sherman; the ppsh burp gun, not the Thompson; and Russian ground attack aircraft, not US. their home-built weapons were the best in the war, forged from lessons learned from 5 years on the eastern front.

And they accomplished this defeat over a year before we got there.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 16, 2013
So, the answer is, no, you don't have the maturity to admit you're wrong even when presented with cold hard facts.

Why were your goons trying to hide and obscure posts last night?

[That the Germans had to fight a two front war (!)] That is one of the many cold war lies which could not stand up to revelations from the collapse of the soviet state.


The Americans had nearly 200,000 deaths in the European war!!! Saw little action, really ? Every historian knows there was a two front war. You're not entitled to rewrite history.

Why would the US directly supply Russia

Because, per the Truman quote I posted, the plan was to get Germany and Russia to eliminate each other.

That is a stretch and quite ridiculous, even by your standards. So the USA supplied Russia with an enormous cache of armaments, rather than giving it to Britain or keeping it in case Russia made military advances into western Europe,... so that what?, Germany, wouldn't destroy Russia too easily ?
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 16, 2013
,... even though that's what the USA and Britain really wanted anyway!?

You're just grabbing at anything that falls out of your ass at this point.

Just capitulate already and retain some measure of dignity?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2013
"In a recent study, a Russian scholar asserted that Lend-Lease aid may not have made a decisive contribution to the defeat of the Germans on the Eastern Front, but the small quantities that arrived early came when the Russian situation was most grave. The contribution of Lend-Lease may have been more psychological than material... much of this aid arrived too late to physically help the Soviets stop the German advance, it certainly proved useful in their subsequent counter-offensive."

-Propaganda is not cold hard facts. Only analysis of what actually happened in the war will tell you why these things happened. As history shows, friends can quickly become enemies and vice versa. Patten wanted to head straight for Moscow.

Oh sorry I dont have any goons. I know nothing about programming. Are those termites yours who are attacking poor ottos rating? Boohoo.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2013
rather than give it to Britain
Lend lease included 33 countries. What you call enormous was small in comparison to the total amount that the USSR was expending in the field, and it only began to arrive after Germany had begun it's long fighting retreat. After all it was a Russian-German war. Other players were inconsequential.
200,000 deaths... rewrite history
This in comparison to the 11 million German and 25 million Russian deaths. Propagandists have the ability to rewrite history.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 16, 2013
"In a recent study, a Russian scholar asserted that Lend-Lease aid may not have made a decisive contribution to the defeat of the Germans on the Eastern Front,...


So what, irrelevant to your crazy premise. The USA and Britain could not have known in advance the decisiveness of that contribution. The only point that matters is that lend-lease existed and that the massive armaments listed above were sent to Russia,.... PROVING that the USA and Britain aided Russia, and so were there to militarily defeat Germany, not Russia.

You are bananas and will just say anything, if you think that the USA would send that much armaments and food, to a country for which they supposedly entered the war to defeat,.... but yet in the end didn't do anything to defeat them, even though Russia were at their weakest by then,...but instead handing them control of part of Germany. Have some more coco-puffs.

Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (24) Sep 16, 2013
Propaganda is not cold hard facts. Only analysis of what actually happened in the war will tell you why these things happened. As history shows, friends can quickly become enemies and vice versa. Patten wanted to head straight for Moscow.


No, you claimed that the USA entered the war to defeat Russia. That is factually incorrect. Although Russia was never "friends" with the west and in fact were political adversaries, in WWII they were Allies and were treated as such all the way to the end of the war,... the USA and Britain EVEN upheld their treaty giving part of Germany to Russia.

Oh sorry I dont have any goons. I know nothing about programming. Are those termites yours who are attacking poor ottos rating? Boohoo.


I very rarely give you a rating at all but sometimes 5's. You know what I am referring to. You must know someone with administration rights given events last night.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 16, 2013
rather than give it to Britain
Lend lease included 33 countries. What you call enormous was small in comparison to the total amount that the USSR was expending in the field, and it only began to arrive after Germany had begun it's long fighting retreat. After all it was a Russian-German war. Other players were inconsequential.
200,000 deaths... rewrite history
This in comparison to the 11 million German and 25 million Russian deaths. Propagandists have the ability to rewrite history.


The amount of armaments sent to Russia by, according to you, the very countries who wanted to defeat them, was actually remarkably large.

The number of deaths does not in anyway support you conspiracy theory, as they are circumstantial and dependent upon the nature of the battle and brutality of the leadership on their own men.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 16, 2013
"Without American production [lend-lease] the united nations [the Allies] could never have won the war" - Joseph Stalin
GSwift7
3 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2013
antialias:

to the point where they thinl that's normal (or even cool)
...not realizing it's a giant PR machine that lulls them into thinking handing over a third of their taxdollars to arms manufacturers is 'sensible'


This practice predates the formation of the United States by a few thousand years. I struggle to name a major world empire/culture throughout history that did not do this. Egypt, Mayans, China, Persia, Babylon, Rome, Greek nations, Gauls, Celts, Norsemen, etc. No culture has ever become successful on large scale without being militaristic. I know the USSR had mandatory military service. Does Russia still do that?

Even the Vatican once maintained and funded military operations on a large scale (the Crusades?).
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2013
I would like to add that you can argue till your blue in the face about whether NASA is a military organization or not.

I say that both the US military and NASA are primarily driven by economics. All of the government; the CIA, NSA, FBI, all of it. It's all become a means to expand and defend economic interests.

Then again, hasn't it always been that way? It all comes down to money (or food, or resources, or land, which in historical times equated to our modern day idea of money).
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2013
Anyway, taking a long detour of topic was fun, but let's circle back around to the original article:

So, in light of the realization that EVERYTHING the government does is in some way a means towards economic advantage, we can understand the reason for the asteroid mission.

Yes, it's a mission of defense, in a manner of speaking. Figuring out how to do this means that we will be prepared to take advantage of these things when or if it becomes important to do so. Whether that means dropping them on people's heads, or selling them to third world countries in the form of trinkets and beads from space. The important thing is that WE know how to do it, and WE have a place at mommy nature's breast when it is time for lunch.

Taking advantage of new frontiers has always been a first come first serve thing. The low hanging fruit is always the juiciest.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2013
The amount of armaments sent to Russia by, according to you, the very countries who wanted to defeat them, was actually remarkably large
It was just large enough to enable the russians to defeat the germans without posing an unmanageable threat to allied forces stationed in western europe after the war. Had they not been there, russia would have taken the entire continent, which was their stated intent.

Coincidence? We just happened to be in the proper strategic position to counter this well-known threat because we had to defeat the germans?

The germans staged the ardennes offensive with no credible objective and only 2 weeks worth of supplies. In light of developments after the war, which could easily be foreseen, we can surmise that this offensive was staged to give allied forces some battle experience and credibility against advancing soviet forces.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2013
The russians had been fighting these german divisions for 4 years and getting torn up by them. They were being killed 3 to 1 and were only winning because they had a 4 to 1 superiority.

But the german divisions the allies faced in this offensive were shells of their former selves. Many divisions were at less than half their normal size, and were filled with conscripts and adolescents. They had no gas, and many tanks and trucks were abandoned in the field.

What, sacrifice gute deutsche soldaten to teach the enemy how to fight?? Hitler had been sacrificing soldiers throughout the war. The presence of these allied troops and their credibility after ardennes is what made stalin stop at berlin. And as we know, stalin was the true enemy of both europeans and americans. Why do we know this? Because he SAID so.

This action alone saved fully half of germany from communism. This conclusion is undeniable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2013
Your quote in context:

"Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war"

Interesting. He claims victory in 1943, a year BEFORE the normandy invasion.

And of course he says this at the height of soviet cooperation with the west. What else would he be doing but making nice?

And what did the soviets have to say after the war?

""If you don't like us, don't accept our invitations and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you."
Nikita Khrushchev, November 18, 1956

Tehran by the way is where they decided that they would accept nothing less than total surrender and the dissolution of the third reich, thereby guaranteeing that the war would be fought right up to the steps of the chancellery and ensuring the most thorough slaughter possible..
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2013
The number of deaths does not in anyway support you conspiracy theory, as they are circumstantial and dependent upon the nature of the battle and brutality of the leadership on their own men
?? Russia alone lost 146 TIMES as many as we did fighting germany. 90% of all germans killed in that war, were killed by russians. Say something that makes sense for a change.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 16, 2013
Because it was a more difficult and desparate battle than in the west, and Russia and Germany leadership didn't care how many troops were killed, so they fought a more savage battle, the the long way and Russian winter.

Why didn't the USA and Britain defeat Russia then? Why did they let them have a foot into western Europe?

That Germany fought a two front war, east & west, is not a matter of debate nor opinion nor analysis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2013
Why didn't the USA and Britain defeat Russia then? Why did they let them have a foot into western Europe?
Uh they didnt have a choice? But things worked out for the best.

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word." truman

-We helped germany before the war (prescott bush/banksters, industrialists, british aristocracy) and then russia during it. This is how we really 'won' the war.
That Germany fought a two front war, east & west, is not a matter of debate nor opinion nor analysis
Nothing happened on the western front besides the invasion and the ardennes offensive. Meanwhile on the eastern front 300 soldiers were dying for every one lost in the west.

The war was fought and won in the east.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Sep 16, 2013
Before Hitler even started war with Russia, he had already lost a battle with Britain (invasion of the island),... and so the western front was continuous before and during the eastern front,,.. in fact got worse for Germany as the USA supplied Britain and entered the war. It is generally agreed that Germany lost because it had too many fronts to contend with.

We will just have to disagree on that though.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2013
We will just have to disagree on that though.
So I won again.

The war was obviously Designed and Orchestrated to Produce a Predetermined Result. As are they all. Who could have accomplished such a Feat you ask?

Some footage was found in the ruins of the chancellery, still clutched in a severed hand, which I think offers some clues. Caution: you should only watch it once.
http://www.youtub...Op8eDZmE

OOOOOoooaaaaaaaaEEEEEEEEEah!!