AlphaZNV

I recently provided a limitation of sources which shows the analysis and breakdown of the annihilation of allied troops by the Nazis, and yes, it is entirely an USSR victory, as 80% (by approximation) of Nazi casualties is in the eastern front (largely by the hands of USSR strategic movements). It is very likely that less than 10% is deployed in the western front, as the sources, however, their numbers lessened and were to counter-manoeuver USSR movements as several USSR regiments advanced (up to hundreds) at a very rapid speed. The USSR have beaten the allies to Berlin, not the other way round. Would you find it insulting if I suggest that this is the product of US cultural influence on your part? Ziemke, Earl F. Battle for Berlin: End of the Third Reich NY: Ballantine Books London: Macdonald And Co. [1969] LeTissier, Tony, Race for the Reichstage: The 1945 Battle for Berlin [1999] I never said that the maltreatment of the native Americans is unique only to the US. The statement is to add more information on the grand negative influence of the US. Now, if you'd look at Google Maps (currently with the most accurate calculations for accurate proportions available to the public, which I know of), the displacement between Moscow and Berlin is at approximately 300% of the displacement between Normandy and Berlin. So, please refer from nationalism when discussing history and politics. Operation Barbarossa, the largest invasion force in the entire span of recorded history, was effectively worn out by attrition and, eliminated an extensive percentage (over 80%, high estimates to 95%) of the Nazis. The operation was the invasion of the USSR. Peter Anthill, Peter Dennis. Stalingrad 1942 [2007] I don't want to write essays on military strategies employed by the USSR which, were successfully executed against the Nazis, as I have done this numerous times before in my studies.

The fact that Hitler needed to reinforce the eastern front against the USSR from pulling troops in all other locations (such as from North Africa etc.) is not a discussion, but a recognised fact. G.I. Krivosheev - Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke - spravochnik William J. Duiker 2009 - Contemporary World History Bonfate, Jordan 2008 - Remembering a Red Flag Day Geoffrey A. Hosking 2006 - Rules and victims: the Russians in the Soviet Union. There are much more sources, magnitudes more, however, you and I both do not have access to them, these are the much more mainstream, which all agrees that the eastern front of the Nazis, approximation of 80% lost of the Nazi army in the eastern front. Approximation of 10% > x > 20% / x > 10% of Nazis in the western front, which, the allies suffered approximation 12,000 casualties, and the Nazis suffered approximation 4000 > x > 9000. Forces, 150,000 allied forces, Nazi, 10,000, outnumbered 15 times and yet, recurring sources shows that they were able to annihilate allied forces. Location - D-Day Museum. Thomas Howell, The Writers' War Board: U.S. Domestic Propaganda in World War II. Operation Mockingbird Katherine the Great: Katherine Graham and her Washington Post Empire David Wise and Thomas Ross 1964 - Invisible Government. Allan Winkler, The Politics of Propaganda: Office of War Information, 1942-1945 Organisation - Writer's War Board Robert Heide and John Gilman, Home Front America: Popular Culture of the World War II Era Priority: WikiLeaks (Founder Julian Assange) - Hundreds - Thousands of classified information containing psychological operations, propaganda campaign, social behaviour modification, Black Budget etc. of the US. The scale is beyond any country have ever achieved. One of the sources provided, estimate a total of 200,000 propaganda posters (excluding other mediums) in a span over 2 - 3 years, of the US. Look, I've done the studies. In history studies, on occasions, we are told to do our own research, and to obtain several sources concerning the same topic, but determining their accuracy, their bias, the scale and cost (if project) etc., therefor to determine the true situation. As repeated, no other countries I or others have looked at, can amount to the level of propaganda by the US. Many sources (tens of thousands) are located at various locations in prestige universities, I can only provide you a limitation. You keep indicating assertions, which you should stop. I never claimed that other countries do not have its faults. If you want to discuss on the politics and history of the USSR or France, I'm glad to do so, but in another thread. I did not say that the allied (not just the US) occupation of western Germany is more repressed than the eastern front, as this is not true history. Snowden's "revelations" were no revelations, as Putin puts it, "There's nothing you leaked that we didn't know before." I'm a HK citizen, he have been to HK before to prevent being detained and, subjected to court, and I've seen him giving speeches, surrounded by protestors. Thomas Jefferson - "All men are created equal." "But in the mean time are you right in abandoning this property, and your country with it? I think not. My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for tem, we should endeavour, with those whom fortune has thrown on ours hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from all ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, and be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them, and our duties to them." Bateman, Newton; Paul Selby, Henry L Fowkes 1908. Historical Encyclopaedia of IIIInois. Chicago, IL; Munsell Publishing Company. So, what does that mean? There are many interpretations of course. This is a heavier indicator of Jefferson's own selfishness for his own satisfaction, and the hypocrisy of the foundation of the country.

The allies made no impact on the USSR invasion, their achievements are isolated. For example, the British managed to eliminate a large percentage of Nazi bombers in the Battle of Britain, however, these bombers would be difficult to deploy further east due to logistical managements. The USSR however, made a huge impact on operation D-Day, as Hitler's stubbornness and his need for the defeat of USSR resulted in the extensive deployment of Nazi troops in the eastern front, which severely lightened the defence on the western front, and of course, many of his men were gone (a wide variety of reason). The US however, did played a major part in the defeat of the Japanese, as after the deployment of 3 and successful deployment of 2 atomic bombs, the emperor reconsidered and, surrendered (which, several military generals advise him not to surrender still, so, the Manhattan project, of the US mainly, was the decisive factor in this case). Perhaps you are confused on the roles of the US in WWII, because against the Nazis, due to the vast ocean and igneous Nazi stratagems / technology etc. (basically, methods), it limited their success. Well... as I mentioned at the beginning of the post, you have the average peaceful countries that have a very limited effort on propaganda, because, they do not need them (Holland, those type of quiet countries). Propaganda was made extensive by the US and UK during WWI, and to the transition to the cold war era, they have really spend a lot, even on fields such as human behaviourism. You also have the black budget (please don't try to suggest it's a conspiracy) and so such. In history studies, we need to spend a lot of time distinguishing sources, such as primary and secondary, origin and timeline, author and indicated purposes etc. The US, after years, I have dug through the most propaganda materials out of any other country in contrast to all others in recorded history. Their influence is the greatest, negatively and positively. If you'd like to discuss their positive influence, go ahead, because, obviously a forum with many US citizens, you do not like to discuss their negative influence. Again, I am not targeting anybody, but the country itself, of its history and its action, and its consequences. I can't think of a word to describe, however, the closest I can, is that I am just starting a discussion on the negative influence of US culture, and there is also much positive.

Can you outline my attacks? This is not a foreign perspective, this is an analysis and deconstruction of the history of the actions of the US and the consequences, to result in the conclusion of whether or not the country is of negative influence (perhaps the word "evil" was a bit too strong, but I hope you'd understand, with my extensive studies, it's difficult to obtain unbiased sources, whether for or against, concerning the history of the political actions of the US, which says something in itself). Look, the closest I can think of is the British Empire, yet, during the era, the scale was not as large (lesser industrial output, less significant population, longer communication time etc.). And as the scale becomes larger (especially with the invention of the telegraph), influence becomes much more vast.

WWII was a USSR victory. Operation D-Day was a failure, with the annihilation of allied troops on the Normandy beaches, several days of mass allied radio blackouts, weeks - months of the absence of chain of command etc. The Nazis did not anticipate that the USSR would fight a war of attrition, after several months, entering winter, the Nazis suffered severe attrition and logistical failures, their supply lines was actively targeted by USSR generals, which the allied side were unable to formulate and carry out successful strategies. The key of USSR victories, as many military generals and historians would agree, is logistical failures and attrition on part of the Nazis, the causation, by the USSR. You should research the context and history of Fort Knox, to understand the multiple trickeries in economics and international theft of gold reserve. Everything about the US constitution, such as presidency succession, several amendments and "rights", the "law of justice", military action, political management (states separation) etc. They all seem very righteous and just, which they are, however, as extensively hypocritical, these were not applied to other races or ethnic groups, and to many historians, it would seem very much like a scream of defiance, narcissism and selfishness to their previous government and system. You obviously studied a lot about the treatment of African-Americans in school, so you should understand further the hypocrisy. The analysis: Declaration of Independence - > Recognition of Independence - > Organisation - > Contradiction - > x Therefor many historians question the purpose of the constitution (let it be x), and it would seem that it is only drafted for their own selfish purpose. Certain other forms of bureaucracy are quite narcissistic as well, however, they do not attempt to hide it, in fact, some would flaunt it as political show. If in future, you contrast other examples, usually, the US have one difference, is that they are very keen on deception (you would like examples, the extensive propaganda campaign targeting the USSR during the cold war etc.). To clarify, I don't hate US citizens. I am currently discussing US as the country and the actions in history, therefor the grander political analysis, not your average citizen or even the president himself, as it is too insignificant.

Sorry for the approach. But, I'm not bashing, just stating aspects and, factual examples supporting different aspects to stimulate a discussion. Anyone interested in the story of Pocatello of the Shoshone? He tried so hard to survive and for his people to live, after successfully establishing peace with the United States of America (not Great Britain or the Thirteen Colonies), there are many examples like him. They didn't live, they were just massacred. From America (North and South) to Asia. Anyone who study US history, at some point, you'd have to think that the US culture is insane, and, the country itself is born from violence. America (especially 20th century America) have been one of my previous studies.

There are many countries that don't intervene in foreign affairs. You can start with the many countries in Europe (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, the typical nice countries etc.), you have more major countries that mind their own businesses as much as possible such as Canada, India etc. I don't think any other country have caused as much damage as the US in the entire span of recorded human history [from its very birth to WWII to Coldwar (Vietnam etc.) to the "war on terror"]. This is just physical aggression, their politics, their economical structure, their public relations campaigns etc. are still very damaging to others, benefiting to themselves. I obviously have not made my position clear. My and many people's problem stem from: 1. The US claims that they are the "greatest" in many aspects continuously, especially in "freedom". 2. They advertise themselves as heroes (for example, taking credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany by the hands of the USSR). 3. They are acting as great hypocrites (hushing their own war crimes continuously, but painting others out). This, many other countries do not do. What do you think about the calling of other countries for aggression by the US? Especially communist countries, it's interesting how they contrast capitalism to communism, and people still think the contrast is correct... Capitalism is an economical system. Communism is a social political system. A dictator ruling a communist country, such an oxymoron.

Do you think the country is, evil (limit your bashing)? Not your average citizen of course, but the overall country itself. Many countries (especially in the middle-east) have been severely destabilised by strings of invasions, I recently read where Afghanistan refugees were "abused" in Iran (no specific information), which is targeted by a lot of human rights group, the refugees, is the product of the string of military invasions by the US, the real evil here, embedded in the masses of lies to justify the invasion and massacre of another country. The business of the US, I find interesting how their tricks have backfired on them (now deep in the debt cycle to China etc.), however, originally, their exploitations is immensely ridiculous. The country is founded, do you no think, from selfishness, and their own huge egos? The constitution itself, if only you can analyse, is very narcissistic, continuously subliminally referring to the "way they were treated by their own government (aka British)", yet being extremely hypocritical (much more) towards other races. Their public relations and propaganda campaigns were the greatest, including their "smear" campaigns, I even saw a music video before promoting their own country, for immigrants to join, which feels very much like a bait, because when they get there, the natives (technically, not natives, the natives were forced south) immediately complain. I don't know, it feels very much like the country is founded from selfishness and narcissism. It also begs the question, what group of people will go as far as to rebel over matters as simple as tax rates?

Language and writing is indeed very important, but as the greatest invention? It certainly propelled us very early on, however, I would say that the greatest inventions are the ones we take for granted today, which without, not only will we begin to die off from extreme famine, but you and I might not have survived in the first place. It is, mathematics maximizing the fields of agriculture, economics, politics, biochemistry (hence medicine), machinery etc.

No, mathematical relationships do not exist, however, relationships, when modelled simply, seem to exist. You quoted me, however, out of context, as mathematics being found in nature, is due to the fact that the great minds before us made it so. According to your profile, you achieved a PhD in a field of physics, you amongst all other should know best, that mathematics, when applied on different levels, varies hugely, and many mathematical concepts in physics results in estimations. Gravity for example, applied on our scale is accurate, when however, on a much smaller scale, the same laws no longer apply, gravity itself is no longer the same constant, but accordingly. Hence, in modelling gravity, if to be accurate, relationships realistically do not exist, however, estimations can be derived in many creative ways, this is where the relationship exist. Fire itself, is a discovery. Methods for starting a fire however, is an invention. Mathematics is a very ingenious method for us to model anything (which some people might be hesitant to accept). Certain constants do exist, and we use mathematics as the method, a human invention to make it simpler for us to understand. Whether 1 line is longer than the other or not, doesn't change the fact that with methods of mathematics, not only can you establish relationships, but with relationships, can result in many conclusion and therefor result in many predictions of other similar circumstances. As repeated, nature is not of whole numbers, if with 100% accuracy (down even to the Higgs Boson, and I there say something we yet do not grasp), there will be many estimations, and many forced relationships which provides an estimation that suits the scale in which the application is applied. Galileo - "Measure what is measureable, and make measureable what is not." This, the underlying magnificence of mathematics. Suggesting farming as the most important invention, discussing this with an electronic device which, accessing the WWW through the Internet, enables you to communicate to me. These, the design, creation and distribution is born from mathematics. Look around your room, even simple materials (requiring a level of molar calculations such as percentage of compounds) requires the method, everything electronic must be modelled with mathematics, otherwise there will be too much trial and error to endure, economics, politics (such as industry, national census etc.), even the social sciences (algorithm detailing human behaviourism) and music, when modelled with mathematics, flourish and reach their full potential. Many people do not realise because they do not have interest, not knowing that mathematics is being applied in every field to revolutionise it. Even art, giving birth to architecture when combined, which many people do not seem to know.

Mathematics... I've seen lists concerning this topic, as well as forums discussing the greatest human inventions, even the scientific method is included, mathematics (essentially a method) is however, absent. I've even seen people stating outright that mathematics is a discovery, not an invention, this is the greatest insult to the geniuses who came before us, whom worked so hard to attach mathematics to nature and, to be embedded into nature. Mathematics is found in nature, for anyone who doesn't know, because they made it so, that's why there are many estimations, and many infinite values (such as the famous Pi). Without mathematics, we'd still be living in caves. As you see, basic mathematics, such as with arithmetic calculations, gives way to the calendar, enabling agriculture. I've even seen a professor on YouTube, describing mathematics as a human "artifact" with less and less value, when the entire modern society is born from mathematics.

So you are suggesting that on a different level, the same laws for which applies in the molecular level applies? Of course, you mentioned different factors as well, such as different layers of skins, which in itself would be different variables affecting osmosis, with your knowledge in biology, you are currently supporting the theory that on different levels with difference variables, osmosis itself, will act very differently in contrast to osmosis on a molecular level. Nonetheless, what I originally intend to suggest, is that the affect of osmosis (water diffusion, which we should all remember) is ultimately eliminated, as volume increase, so does the concentration gradient, given the same constant (which I'm sure you know). However, with the same constants that operate on a molecular level, such as the size of pores of the plasma membrane (which dictates many variables), the rate of diffusion in itself is ultimately eliminated. We have to remember that syrup is of a much different molecule than water, and the osmosis in which you are attempting to apply is the osmosis on the molecular level. Osmosis is essentially maintaining equilibrium, whereby both are given the same variables and constants, hence the result of equilibrium.

Shouldn't it be separated and therefor, different concepts apply? As osmosis, the water diffusion, occurring within the body on a much smaller level between cells and therefor organs, will be efficient. On a larger scale however (of the skin), with different factors and variables, different laws must apply. The most basic being, as you scale up the level (volume etc.) of liquids, the size of the pores of the plasma membrane does not scale with and therefor, different laws must apply due to the variation of different variables (volume of liquid etc.) of factors, by constants (size of pores etc.). The concept similar to the difference between an ant-sized insect and us, gravity stays at constant, whereby our variables changes, therefor affected by gravity differently to gravity affecting ant-sized insects with different variables (mass etc.). This is only a speculation, don't take this too seriously without confirmation.

You're are only confused because, likely, you relate life to consciousness by your definition, whereas limited information relating chemical relationships to consciousness is provided. If you exclude advanced consciousness so far as we know in contrast to other organisms discovered, and follow by definition, it will become very clear to you how cells (compose of many molecules / elements, essentially, entities by specific term) can compose living organisms. Atoms just compose element, which, by traditional science, everything is composed of atoms.

Could it be possible that perhaps both lymphocytes have an extensive variety of tertiary structures of antibodies, requiring more complex (as well as a larger value) of amino sequence and structure (excluding variation in values) of peptides / polypeptides, resulting in a larger nuclei, and the variety is, perhaps, due to the variation in antibodies (as repeated), which is needed to target many foreign antigens, by evolution (by natural selection), which you would expect. This is just a guess, I'm a student, first time on forum