|
Blablabla.
Fact is:
Germany killed way soviets than soviets killed germans.
Soviets also killed way more germans than germans killed soviets.
Both are factual, the thing is which part of the war are you considering.
For instance, german kill ratio was a lot in the early phase of the war. All factors considered.
In later phase of the war, when germany was on the retreat, the ratio was in favor of soviets. Close to 1:1
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
Nice sources.
----
Someone Better Than You
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
Nice sources.
He did all the hard hitting data research in his head. He doesn't need sources.
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
I wish i could have just put for my source "you can find them by typing in google" to support my data in my thesis xD
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
Написано от Ruse, 09.09.2021 at 23:53
Nice sources.
He did all the hard hitting data research in his head. He doesn't need sources.
can you negate the military casualities that i'm talking about? if you can't negate anything don't be a salty hater with your edgy comments.
You clearly don't understand how logic and arguments works if you think I have to negate anything you say. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims, especially someone who is making a positive claim.
For example, "Prove that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster in space that created all of humanity" is not a valid point.
You need to come up with proof there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, nobody has to disprove it.
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
Написано от Ruse, 10.09.2021 at 03:42
Написано от Ruse, 09.09.2021 at 23:53
Nice sources.
He did all the hard hitting data research in his head. He doesn't need sources.
can you negate the military casualities that i'm talking about? if you can't negate anything don't be a salty hater with your edgy comments.
You clearly don't understand how logic and arguments works if you think I have to negate anything you say. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims, especially someone who is making a positive claim.
For example, "Prove that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster in space that created all of humanity" is not a valid point.
You need to come up with proof there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, nobody has to disprove it.
We are not talking about something metaphysical, we are talking about two different views on a dialetical thing, the Soviet side argues that the red army lost less, the other side argues that it lost more. If you don't agree with my arguments, mention your own arguments instead of making edgy comments? You know what you did. ''nİcE SoUrCes'' you know what this means.
I would also like to add that in my comment above i wanted to say that the views of western sources on the losses on the eastern front are very well-known, you can find it even on google, this is what I meant.
I have read sources which debunk your arguments entirely. The numbers and figures are heavily biased. You can look it up yourself if you want to provide a counterargument. But those numbers on soviet and germany are false.
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
Написано от Ruse, 10.09.2021 at 06:37
Написано от Ruse, 10.09.2021 at 03:42
Написано от Ruse, 09.09.2021 at 23:53
Nice sources.
He did all the hard hitting data research in his head. He doesn't need sources.
can you negate the military casualities that i'm talking about? if you can't negate anything don't be a salty hater with your edgy comments.
You clearly don't understand how logic and arguments works if you think I have to negate anything you say. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims, especially someone who is making a positive claim.
For example, "Prove that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster in space that created all of humanity" is not a valid point.
You need to come up with proof there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, nobody has to disprove it.
We are not talking about something metaphysical, we are talking about two different views on a dialetical thing, the Soviet side argues that the red army lost less, the other side argues that it lost more. If you don't agree with my arguments, mention your own arguments instead of making edgy comments? You know what you did. ''nİcE SoUrCes'' you know what this means.
I would also like to add that in my comment above i wanted to say that the views of western sources on the losses on the eastern front are very well-known, you can find it even on google, this is what I meant.
I have read sources which debunk your arguments entirely. The numbers and figures are heavily biased. You can look it up yourself if you want to provide a counterargument. But those numbers on soviet and germany are false.
the figures in your sources are biased maybe?
You can use google to look up if they are biased or not
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
Написано от Ruse, 09.09.2021 at 23:52
Написано от sirivann, 09.09.2021 at 18:52
I wish i could have just put for my source "you can find them by typing in google" to support my data in my thesis xD
well sir clown, what are your sources about casualities when you talk pretty sure about high casualities? also i don't put that to support my data, it isn't hard to find anything related to eastern front but you guys are just too ignorant to look at anything.
So your calling ppl clown for laughing at you for providing as a source "check google" and now we are the ignorant ones, real cute stick too atwar and dont do any research please xD
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
Unless you have first hand information, you really can't know. Even if you were there, it is still difficult to remove personal bias and report objectively. Truth is the first casualty of war, and even casualty numbers can be manipulated so history 'remembers' events a certain way. I'm trying real hard to not lock this thread... please keep the discussion on point, and rather than personal attacks (Sir Clown, Salty Boy, ignorant) on how one does research, just report your sources.
Also, @WD, everyone knows it's an immortal invisible monkey in your room, not Flying Spaghetti Monsters, that created humanity. The fact you cannot see the monkey confirms it is invisible, and so it as an agreed upon fact now. (But kudos for trying... is teaching logic to the illogical logical?)
----
 
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
|
Написано от Ruse, 10.09.2021 at 08:05
Написано от Ruse, 10.09.2021 at 06:37
Написано от Ruse, 10.09.2021 at 03:42
Написано от Ruse, 09.09.2021 at 23:53
the figures in your sources are biased maybe?
You can use google to look up if they are biased or not
i did, they are more biased than your dutch origins.
No need to get personal, all i did is put a mirror infront of your logic
Зареждане......
Зареждане......
|
