This ones for you johnecash, love you buddy....
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 7,536
RATE
43
Posted: 2010-03-29 05:25:12
Psst.
Responses (164) / Sorted by points
hmm i believe my old history teacher called it british guts american bucks and russian blood or something like that
never heard that before, interesting though
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
so i don't see any reason to massage your ego by being polite when you don't think twice before being rude
do to how you see me treating other people you won't be polite. you are changing due to me. you are following my lead. its a shame most people won't find an excuse to be polite.
do to how you see me treating other people you won't be polite. you are changing due to me. you are following my lead. its a shame most people won't find an excuse to be polite.
Posted: 2010-03-30 07:18:55 Report
We all have our excuses as to why we should not be polite to other people.
"i don't see any reason to massage your ego by being polite when you don't think twice before being rude"
so you are following my lead then. i am sorry you feel that way but if you are following my lead i must ask you;
"Who is more foolish; the fool, or the one following the fool?"-Obi Wan Kenobi
"i don't see any reason to massage your ego by being polite when you don't think twice before being rude"
so you are following my lead then. i am sorry you feel that way but if you are following my lead i must ask you;
"Who is more foolish; the fool, or the one following the fool?"-Obi Wan Kenobi
Posted: 2010-03-30 07:08:29 Report
i also disagree because if russia was given enough time they would have defeated the germens eventually if japan didnt attack there east coast again and even the americans when we got involved took about 2 years befor we did anything worthwhile
AND england had already won the 'battle of britain' in the skies, so an invasion wasn't coming anytime soon. Plus England hasnt been successfully invaded since 1066 man, thats a long arse time ago
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
So, so wrong man. England had won the Battle of Britain already, and germany was moving into russia with no known plans of advancing on the UK, whilst England on the other hand was already making plans for the counter attack
Wrong to you Sir. Germany was planing on invading Briton. the counter attack you speak of was planed by the allied supreme commander, US Gen Ike. The turing point for the battle of briton was when US goods and service men started showing up. untile then yall were about to run out of fighters, gas, ammo, and air crews.
May I have the source or these statements you're making?
*Britain btw
*Britain btw
History my dear friend history the RAF was having a difficult time dealing with the Luftwaffe but the RAF was defiantly a scrappy bunch they refused to admit defeat...now if Hitler listened to his commanders and had not gone to war with Russia and was able to focus his Luftwaffe on the bombing of Britain even tho the British had a lot of fight in them they would have had to eventually admit defeat because a lot of the RAF had been shot to pieces.
Germany had already made plans to invade Britain, and they were scrapped after the Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority over Britain.
Anyway, the British handled this pretty much by themselves, Britain was fine for fighters, fuel and pilots. ammunition wasn't really an issue. These things weren't even sent by America until they properly joined the war, in 1942, about 2 years after the British had already beaten the Germans. By then, the German attitude to invading Britain was effectively, 'fuck it. we'll concentrate on Russia'
Anyway, the British handled this pretty much by themselves, Britain was fine for fighters, fuel and pilots. ammunition wasn't really an issue. These things weren't even sent by America until they properly joined the war, in 1942, about 2 years after the British had already beaten the Germans. By then, the German attitude to invading Britain was effectively, 'fuck it. we'll concentrate on Russia'
other than your word what proof do you have to support your argument? if the proof is out there i would truly enjoy reading it.
here is a post from wiki;
Winston Churchill's phrase "never was so much owed by so many to so few" that does not sound like yall were not in short supply.
On 7 September 1940 a massive series of raids involving nearly four hundred bombers and more than six hundred fighters targeted docks in the East End of London, day and night. Though suffering from shortages, the RAF anticipated attacks on airfields and 11 Group rose to meet them, in greater numbers than the Luftwaffe expected.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
yall were not doing good. supplies were low by 1940
yall were doing so good that in your country this period of time is knows as "The Darkest Hour".
The Darkest Hour is a phrase coined by British prime minister Winston Churchill to describe the period of World War II between the fall of France in 1940 and the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941, when the British Commonwealth stood alone against Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers in Europe. It is particularly used for the time when the United Kingdom was under direct threat of invasion; following the evacuation of the British Army from Dunkirk and prior to victory in the Battle of Britain. The darkest moment is usually considered to have been 10 May 1941, when over 1,500 civilians died in Luftwaffe bombing raids on London alone.
it gets even better... i love wiki;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Relations_with_the_U
nited_States
Relations with the United States
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Churchill at the Cairo Conference in 1943
Churchill's good relationship with Franklin D. Roosevelt secured vital food, oil and munitions via the North Atlantic shipping routes. It was for this reason that Churchill was relieved when Roosevelt was re-elected in 1940. Upon re-election, Roosevelt immediately set about implementing a new method of providing military hardware and shipping to Britain without the need for monetary payment. Put simply, Roosevelt persuaded Congress that repayment for this immensely costly service would take the form of defending the US; and so Lend-lease was born. Churchill had 12 strategic conferences with Roosevelt which covered the Atlantic Charter, Europe first strategy, the Declaration by the United Nations and other war policies. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, Churchill's first thought in anticipation of US help was, "We have won the war!"[150]
here is a post from wiki;
Winston Churchill's phrase "never was so much owed by so many to so few" that does not sound like yall were not in short supply.
On 7 September 1940 a massive series of raids involving nearly four hundred bombers and more than six hundred fighters targeted docks in the East End of London, day and night. Though suffering from shortages, the RAF anticipated attacks on airfields and 11 Group rose to meet them, in greater numbers than the Luftwaffe expected.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
yall were not doing good. supplies were low by 1940
yall were doing so good that in your country this period of time is knows as "The Darkest Hour".
The Darkest Hour is a phrase coined by British prime minister Winston Churchill to describe the period of World War II between the fall of France in 1940 and the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941, when the British Commonwealth stood alone against Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers in Europe. It is particularly used for the time when the United Kingdom was under direct threat of invasion; following the evacuation of the British Army from Dunkirk and prior to victory in the Battle of Britain. The darkest moment is usually considered to have been 10 May 1941, when over 1,500 civilians died in Luftwaffe bombing raids on London alone.
it gets even better... i love wiki;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Relations_with_the_U
nited_States
Relations with the United States
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Churchill at the Cairo Conference in 1943
Churchill's good relationship with Franklin D. Roosevelt secured vital food, oil and munitions via the North Atlantic shipping routes. It was for this reason that Churchill was relieved when Roosevelt was re-elected in 1940. Upon re-election, Roosevelt immediately set about implementing a new method of providing military hardware and shipping to Britain without the need for monetary payment. Put simply, Roosevelt persuaded Congress that repayment for this immensely costly service would take the form of defending the US; and so Lend-lease was born. Churchill had 12 strategic conferences with Roosevelt which covered the Atlantic Charter, Europe first strategy, the Declaration by the United Nations and other war policies. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, Churchill's first thought in anticipation of US help was, "We have won the war!"[150]
there is a difference between helping, yes you helped, and taking all the bloody credit, which you are also doing. And while we are on the subject, Churchill couldn't command the military to save his own arse. Gallipoli in WW1 was a failure, he also tried to take of the 8th army in Africa and was a complete failure. He was really quite a stuck up git. The reason he may have thought 'we won the war' after US help was probably because he had been proved to have been doing a shit job with our armed forces, and somebody else was coming in.
You aren't angry because you are quite content with taking the credit. You aren't the only ones involved in the war. You seem to be convinced that you were.
Without the UK, the US wouldn't exist anyway. Go and fuck yourself and stop taking the piss.
You aren't angry because you are quite content with taking the credit. You aren't the only ones involved in the war. You seem to be convinced that you were.
Without the UK, the US wouldn't exist anyway. Go and fuck yourself and stop taking the piss.
I believe the air supperiority was due to the Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane, both British made, R.A.F planes
yes they are. as far as i know you have to build a plane. where did the supplies come from. as far as i know you must put gas in a plane unless the RAF planes ran of good thoughts and rainbows. where did all of these supplies, the food, the ammo, the gas, the raw materials, ect...(if you want more i have a lot more to share) come from? well the US. its hard to fight without ammo. its hard to drive without gas, its hard to build without raw materials. all of which came from the US.
"Some production of the Hurricane was carried out in Canada by the Canada Car and Foundry Co Ltd."
Actually, some were made in Canada, the rest were made in the UK, not a single one in the US. Read Bekenel's post above ^, he was pretty spot on about how US only supplied Britain after the battle of Britain was already over
Actually, some were made in Canada, the rest were made in the UK, not a single one in the US. Read Bekenel's post above ^, he was pretty spot on about how US only supplied Britain after the battle of Britain was already over
even with the US involvement if Germany would have been able to drag out the war for another six months they would have been able to beat all of us back with some of the technology they had discovered *ICBM, Atom bomb, Jets* just to name a few
Ok, first, ICMBs didn't exist for about another 15 years. Second, if germany had dragged the war on for another 6 months, the US would almost certainly have dropped a nuclear bomb on a german city. Just look at what happened at Dresden.
Third, This argument pretty much finished well over half a year ago. You're very late coming in, so just leave it now.
Third, This argument pretty much finished well over half a year ago. You're very late coming in, so just leave it now.
Yes the ICBM didn't make an "official" appearance till later but the Germans had all the plans drawn up and were preparing to build them i mean hell they already had jets out but there were so few of them to change the tide...but according to your logic this particular argument was over a year and a half ago...and the war ended in 1945 so why is everyone still bitching about it?
Posted: 2010-11-01 07:45:46 Report
that is a speculation. do you know the difference between a fact and a speculation?
here is a tip
Definitions of speculation:
* guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
* a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"
if the US help was not needed why did Churchill dance around in cheer saying "We Won The War" the night he was told about Pearl Harbor?
here is a tip
Definitions of speculation:
* guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
* a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"
if the US help was not needed why did Churchill dance around in cheer saying "We Won The War" the night he was told about Pearl Harbor?
"the facts remain that the goods given to yall came from the US. Go ask your Grandparents they will tell you. " haha, I love how despite all of these FACTS thrown at you, you still just hide away with some random pointless comment like this....
Well, I guess sometimes ignorance just can't be enlightened, I'll just have to accept that. I see no reason in continueing this conversation if your just going dismiss solid facts as fiction...
Well, I guess sometimes ignorance just can't be enlightened, I'll just have to accept that. I see no reason in continueing this conversation if your just going dismiss solid facts as fiction...
Haha man, nevermind... Just nevermind. It's like you're not even reading my comments and repeating the same thing over and over again. So I can't be bothered anymore, because you're just being plain out ignorant now. Next time you want to be schooled again hit me up, it's always a pleasure :P
Cya around
Cya around
how can you "school" me when you are ignoring the fact that Briton ran on gas from the US. Hell yall even used Sherman tanks. for the sake of argument when has Briton ever helped my people? the US army has never used British tanks, but the Brits have used US tanks. why is that i wonder?
Posted: 2010-03-30 08:13:23 Report
However on a more serious note - the Allies would not have lost the war without America joining in but we would not have been able to fight the war at all without their original nuetral support (we bought all our weapons, etc from them (some might call this war profiteering, but i'm not saying that)). Germany and Japan were equipped for war, the Allied nations were not.
However even while saying this we wouldn't have lost the war either. For starters Hitler never wanted to fight the British, he admired us and wanted to live alongside us. We could have held our own but we'd have been less affective and thus likely less aggressive. Also you need to consider that Russia would still have been fighting and they were the key factor in the Allies' eventual victory.
As this post shows the Allies may have won without the US, but would more likely have come to a stalemate. We would never have won without the aid of Russia.
So despite what johnecash keeps saying we would never be speaking German. Although after Russia had won they'd have already swept over most of Europe. So many Europeans might be speaking Russian.
As this post shows the Allies may have won without the US, but would more likely have come to a stalemate. We would never have won without the aid of Russia.
So despite what johnecash keeps saying we would never be speaking German. Although after Russia had won they'd have already swept over most of Europe. So many Europeans might be speaking Russian.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This post is some cruel bear-baiting shit against johnecash :D
Just on a historical note though, this: "2 world wars. both of them ended after the US came over and took charge. that why the supreme comander was from the US for both wars. thats wright in both wars your boys answered to a US CO."
Fair enough in WW2, but WW1?! Did you make that up and hope nobody would know anything about WW1? None of that was true about the First World War. Think it was as you say a speculation more than a fact.
Just on a historical note though, this: "2 world wars. both of them ended after the US came over and took charge. that why the supreme comander was from the US for both wars. thats wright in both wars your boys answered to a US CO."
Fair enough in WW2, but WW1?! Did you make that up and hope nobody would know anything about WW1? None of that was true about the First World War. Think it was as you say a speculation more than a fact.
Not sure there was really one supreme commander. Probably why it was such a fuck up. British commander was Haig and US commander was Pershing. Think the French commmander Joffre was nominally in charge (it being French home turf after all, and having the most men). US was a junior partner until quite late in the war though.
Ferdinand Foch was the supreme commander during the Spring Offensive, the most aggressive period of the war for both sides.
my question to you poopiteepoop is this
without the goods the US shipped over do you feel that without food, guns, tools, tanks, or any other military equipment Europe would of had a chance?
An old CO i had in the marine corp always said,
"amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." what that means is no matter how great your tactics are, if i can bring down more men and supplies than you, in a war of attrition, i win. Let that sink in the reappraise your comments.
without the goods the US shipped over do you feel that without food, guns, tools, tanks, or any other military equipment Europe would of had a chance?
An old CO i had in the marine corp always said,
"amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." what that means is no matter how great your tactics are, if i can bring down more men and supplies than you, in a war of attrition, i win. Let that sink in the reappraise your comments.
Yes that is true, but when you come out saying (This is directly quoted from you) "if it were not for the US you would be speaking German now. i grandfather says your welcome." first thing, then you are giving a very different and fucked up impression on your argument, and that is why I posted this picture.
The US did not single handedly defeat the Germans. Also the UK is one of your biggest allies, if not the biggest ally you have right now on your 'war on terror', so i do not think we should be praising you guys everyday and sucking your dicks to show our thankfullness.
The US did not single handedly defeat the Germans. Also the UK is one of your biggest allies, if not the biggest ally you have right now on your 'war on terror', so i do not think we should be praising you guys everyday and sucking your dicks to show our thankfullness.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
haha i just noticed that for the first time when you pointed it out
k that was sweet but nxt time show teaM AMERICA
Obviously, without the US we'd be speaking German, but same goes for UK, Canada, or Russia too. ALL allied countries needed to work together to defeat Germany. Without all these countries, the war would have lasted a lot longer, and the Germans may have even won.
Hitler is also part of the reason we're not speaking German right now too, with how bad of a commander he was. I'm sure you can google hitler's mistakes and you'll get a list of all the military mistakes he made, like splitting his forces up in russia etc.
Hitler is also part of the reason we're not speaking German right now too, with how bad of a commander he was. I'm sure you can google hitler's mistakes and you'll get a list of all the military mistakes he made, like splitting his forces up in russia etc.
I'm not gonna bother replying individually to comments here as there's a fuckload and most are screwed up.
The first thing I'm going to respond to is the quote Johnecash has been relying on this entire post;
Churchill's first thought in anticipation of US help was, "We have won the war!"
You can put that into whatever context you want to be honest. It is a matter of fact statement, if the US joined the war, it would be won. That does not mean it wouldn't of been won anyway, but it was going to be put an end to with the US pulling their fingers out their arses.
Now onto the idea that the US kindly gave up their own resources and factories for the good of those friendly British chappies across the pond. We were paying for those resources then and we paid for them under the Lend-Lease agreement until 29th December 2006, that's real fucking charitable isn't it? By the time you started really helping it was because you'd been attacked, by which time we'd forced the Germans off our doorstep ourselves.
Now then, American pilots helping us in the Battle of Britain? During the battle of Britain 574 foreign pilots fought during the the Battle of Britain, and we owe a great deal to those men, 7 of them were American, all there by lying about their nationality, otherwise they would be breaking the US Neutrality Acts. A year after the Battle of Britain was won, there were 3 'eagle squadrons' of American pilots, but by this time air superiority had been gained. So yeah, you showed up late to the Battle of Britain just like you did the rest of the war.
Now onto the war as a whole. To WIN the war, you needed us more than we needed you. If Britain had of sat back like you did watching the rest of the world be taken over by Germany, we would of then been taken as well. How do you propose with no Allies left in Europe you would of invaded Germany without using us as a springboard? Would you of sailed across the Atlantic and just turned up on the French coast? No, you would of been blown to pieces by the U-boats (the threat of which we neutralised by cracking their codes), their navy (which we pinned into their docks), and chiefly their battleships - the Tirpitz, the Scharnhorst and the Bismark, all of which were neutralised then destroy by our navy and special forces. It would of taken you years, and a lot of lives, to get anywhere near them. We stood more of a chance holding our own whilst Russia did the same, before they pushed back (having vastly larger forces and resources than us), and we could do the same, than you did without us. BUT, working together was the best solution to save time, resources and lives.
To finish, it was in no way a kindness for America to join the war. You sat and you watched whilst Europe burned and we fought for our freedom (something you hold so dear) and our lives. Only once you were attacked did you join the war and 'help us'. You didn't help us, you stood along side us in a war you were forced into. Without you, we wouldn't be speaking German, and without us, you wouldn't be the world's strongest super power today. At some point, Johnecash said something along the lines of 'we helped you, but when have you helped us when we needed it'. We followed you into Afghanistan and Iraq on your personal vendetta's and profits. Why? For the good of the world, there were people there who had done and could and would do terrible things, and we didn't want that to happen, so we fought with you to stop that. And we have been attacked by people allying with their cause because of it. They posed no huge threat to your country, they could never destroy you, they destroyed two builings. In NO way am I saying that wasn't important and an absolutely terrible event, but our entire country and people were at risk from a force much stronger than our own, and did you come to our aid? No. You waited until it was YOUR problem and then you came. We sent our boys to Iraq and Afghanistan before they had touched us for the good of mankind. You have done no such thing.
I fully expect you, Johnecash, to reply to this comment with a remark about my mother, or something about it being too long. But just don't. I challenge you to, for once, read my post, think about the points I have made, and respond in kind, and I will do the same.
The first thing I'm going to respond to is the quote Johnecash has been relying on this entire post;
Churchill's first thought in anticipation of US help was, "We have won the war!"
You can put that into whatever context you want to be honest. It is a matter of fact statement, if the US joined the war, it would be won. That does not mean it wouldn't of been won anyway, but it was going to be put an end to with the US pulling their fingers out their arses.
Now onto the idea that the US kindly gave up their own resources and factories for the good of those friendly British chappies across the pond. We were paying for those resources then and we paid for them under the Lend-Lease agreement until 29th December 2006, that's real fucking charitable isn't it? By the time you started really helping it was because you'd been attacked, by which time we'd forced the Germans off our doorstep ourselves.
Now then, American pilots helping us in the Battle of Britain? During the battle of Britain 574 foreign pilots fought during the the Battle of Britain, and we owe a great deal to those men, 7 of them were American, all there by lying about their nationality, otherwise they would be breaking the US Neutrality Acts. A year after the Battle of Britain was won, there were 3 'eagle squadrons' of American pilots, but by this time air superiority had been gained. So yeah, you showed up late to the Battle of Britain just like you did the rest of the war.
Now onto the war as a whole. To WIN the war, you needed us more than we needed you. If Britain had of sat back like you did watching the rest of the world be taken over by Germany, we would of then been taken as well. How do you propose with no Allies left in Europe you would of invaded Germany without using us as a springboard? Would you of sailed across the Atlantic and just turned up on the French coast? No, you would of been blown to pieces by the U-boats (the threat of which we neutralised by cracking their codes), their navy (which we pinned into their docks), and chiefly their battleships - the Tirpitz, the Scharnhorst and the Bismark, all of which were neutralised then destroy by our navy and special forces. It would of taken you years, and a lot of lives, to get anywhere near them. We stood more of a chance holding our own whilst Russia did the same, before they pushed back (having vastly larger forces and resources than us), and we could do the same, than you did without us. BUT, working together was the best solution to save time, resources and lives.
To finish, it was in no way a kindness for America to join the war. You sat and you watched whilst Europe burned and we fought for our freedom (something you hold so dear) and our lives. Only once you were attacked did you join the war and 'help us'. You didn't help us, you stood along side us in a war you were forced into. Without you, we wouldn't be speaking German, and without us, you wouldn't be the world's strongest super power today. At some point, Johnecash said something along the lines of 'we helped you, but when have you helped us when we needed it'. We followed you into Afghanistan and Iraq on your personal vendetta's and profits. Why? For the good of the world, there were people there who had done and could and would do terrible things, and we didn't want that to happen, so we fought with you to stop that. And we have been attacked by people allying with their cause because of it. They posed no huge threat to your country, they could never destroy you, they destroyed two builings. In NO way am I saying that wasn't important and an absolutely terrible event, but our entire country and people were at risk from a force much stronger than our own, and did you come to our aid? No. You waited until it was YOUR problem and then you came. We sent our boys to Iraq and Afghanistan before they had touched us for the good of mankind. You have done no such thing.
I fully expect you, Johnecash, to reply to this comment with a remark about my mother, or something about it being too long. But just don't. I challenge you to, for once, read my post, think about the points I have made, and respond in kind, and I will do the same.
how many European graves are there in the US. How many European lives have been lost on US soil defending our freedom? We know how many US lives were lost for your freedom. Most EVERY country in the EU has American Military Grave yards for all the brave service men who gave their lives for your freedom. My only question is this, how many Europeans have died on US soil defending our freedoms?
Well done for, as expected, ignoring my entire post bar one part...
I'm not going to bother answering your question since it is contradicted by part of my post, which you didn't bother to read. And I don't feel like repeating myself for you as per usual.
i am sorry that you are here just to disagree. when you are ready to sit at the big boy table and debate like adults lets me know.
its ok that NOT ONE of your courntry men have ever died on US soil defending the US. How many US service MEN & WOMEN have died in your country defending your rights? how many will never leave france, north africa, italy, ect? yet there is not one dead european serviceman that died on US soil. so once again, for the freedom you enjoy to be a dick for no reason(i would really love to know more about your anger issues one day, just let it go) all the dead US service men and women who are in your country no say your welcome. i would say thanks to your crountrymen, but what have they done for the US?
its ok that NOT ONE of your courntry men have ever died on US soil defending the US. How many US service MEN & WOMEN have died in your country defending your rights? how many will never leave france, north africa, italy, ect? yet there is not one dead european serviceman that died on US soil. so once again, for the freedom you enjoy to be a dick for no reason(i would really love to know more about your anger issues one day, just let it go) all the dead US service men and women who are in your country no say your welcome. i would say thanks to your crountrymen, but what have they done for the US?
Nah I'm not gonna bite this time mate. I gave you one last chance to have a decent debate, and asked politely you to read the points I made in my post and respond to them. But once again you have just ignored what I have said and carried on saying the same old stuff.
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. It's time you started acting your age my friend.
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. It's time you started acting your age my friend.
9. The German offensive in the West began in April 1940 with the ocupation of Denmark and Norway to be followed by the attack on and defeat of Belgium, Holland and France within the following two months.
10. United Kingdom: Declared war on Germany following the latter's invasion of Poland in September 1939. After withdrawing her expeditionary force from France in June 1940, she continued the war on other fronts, chiefly by the long-drawn-out Battle of the Atlantic against the German submarine menace and the see-saw battles against the German Afrika Corps in the Western Desert of North Africa before the joint Anglo-American invasion of Italy and the final D-Day invasion of Nazi-held Europe.
11. France: Like Britain, declared war on Germany on September 1, 1939. After invasion by Germany in May 1940, the so-called Vichy government signed an armistice in the following month that consigned the northern half of the country to German occupation but this became a full occupation in late 1942 as pressure from the Allies mounted. Meanwhile, a French underground resistance movement developed in France which, coupled with volunteers from the colonies, culminated in the proclamation (from London) of the Committee of National Liberation. The resulting Free French force participated in the Allied D-Day invasion and subsequent liberation of France.
12. U.S.S.R.: Invaded by Germany in June 1941, the Soviet Union fought a lone, heroic struggle on the European mainland against Nazi Germany and her allies from that date until the opening of the Second Front in the D-Day invasion in June 1944. She suffered by far the greatest casualties of any country on either side. By 1943, in the wake of the climactic victory at Stalingrad, the Red Army drove the Germans out of Russia in a series of giant offensives that ended with the capture of Berlin in May 1945. It may fairly be said that in "bleeding the German army white" the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
13. U.S.A.: Declared war on Japan in December 1941 after the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor. Allied with Britain in the struggle against Nazi Germany while also conducting naval warfare against Japan. Participated with Britain in ousting German forces from North Africa, invading Germany's ally, Italy, and opening the Second Front in the West in June 1944
web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html
In all honesty the US only gave support to Britain and beat the shit outa the Japs. Britain... well idk exactly what they did but they were just sorta there. It was russia that took care of the nazis and you know what they did it almost all on they're own.
nuff said
10. United Kingdom: Declared war on Germany following the latter's invasion of Poland in September 1939. After withdrawing her expeditionary force from France in June 1940, she continued the war on other fronts, chiefly by the long-drawn-out Battle of the Atlantic against the German submarine menace and the see-saw battles against the German Afrika Corps in the Western Desert of North Africa before the joint Anglo-American invasion of Italy and the final D-Day invasion of Nazi-held Europe.
11. France: Like Britain, declared war on Germany on September 1, 1939. After invasion by Germany in May 1940, the so-called Vichy government signed an armistice in the following month that consigned the northern half of the country to German occupation but this became a full occupation in late 1942 as pressure from the Allies mounted. Meanwhile, a French underground resistance movement developed in France which, coupled with volunteers from the colonies, culminated in the proclamation (from London) of the Committee of National Liberation. The resulting Free French force participated in the Allied D-Day invasion and subsequent liberation of France.
12. U.S.S.R.: Invaded by Germany in June 1941, the Soviet Union fought a lone, heroic struggle on the European mainland against Nazi Germany and her allies from that date until the opening of the Second Front in the D-Day invasion in June 1944. She suffered by far the greatest casualties of any country on either side. By 1943, in the wake of the climactic victory at Stalingrad, the Red Army drove the Germans out of Russia in a series of giant offensives that ended with the capture of Berlin in May 1945. It may fairly be said that in "bleeding the German army white" the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
13. U.S.A.: Declared war on Japan in December 1941 after the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor. Allied with Britain in the struggle against Nazi Germany while also conducting naval warfare against Japan. Participated with Britain in ousting German forces from North Africa, invading Germany's ally, Italy, and opening the Second Front in the West in June 1944
web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html
In all honesty the US only gave support to Britain and beat the shit outa the Japs. Britain... well idk exactly what they did but they were just sorta there. It was russia that took care of the nazis and you know what they did it almost all on they're own.
nuff said
all we know is what we are told by our government - History is the great medium for the 'what if' debate but all in all we do not know another reality of what 'might have happened' - only what DID happen - and even that is debatable depending on personal bias and who's version of history you believe - in this instance , FROM MY OWN POINT OF VIEW , it was a joint operation between every country involved and many single individuals who fought against the Nazi's to defeat them. There were MANY different things to factor like the Germans were being beaten on different fronts when the Americans entered the war , but who is to say with certainty that without the US joining the effort , that the USSR and all the Allies would have prevailed >?
I dont think anyone can say it for sure. We brought supplies , weapons , ammo , petrol , spare parts , bodies , and MOST IMPORTANTLY - we brought a determination to defeat 'evil' as the US was led to believe for many years prior to us entering the conflict. We jumped in and took back France- do you really think that the English and Canadian , along with the rest of the Allies could have made that landing at Normandy successfully without the Americans ? Remember that the British were also wrapped up in the Pacific and trying to help defend Australia. If Germany defeats the Allies on the Western Front , they then can turn ALL of their attention towards the Russians and the Germans were VERY close to having the A-Bomb by the end of the war - What good is every able body Russian fighting against the Nazi's if all the Nazi's have to do is to drop 1 bomb on them like we did to Japan ?. Not to mention the JET Technology that revolutionized Air combat and dog fighting.... the Germans would then control the skies. So tell me ... who can say for sure what 'would have' happened ? I am not posting this saying " America saved the war " I think it was a joint effort , but I also dont think the war could have been won without us....
I dont think anyone can say it for sure. We brought supplies , weapons , ammo , petrol , spare parts , bodies , and MOST IMPORTANTLY - we brought a determination to defeat 'evil' as the US was led to believe for many years prior to us entering the conflict. We jumped in and took back France- do you really think that the English and Canadian , along with the rest of the Allies could have made that landing at Normandy successfully without the Americans ? Remember that the British were also wrapped up in the Pacific and trying to help defend Australia. If Germany defeats the Allies on the Western Front , they then can turn ALL of their attention towards the Russians and the Germans were VERY close to having the A-Bomb by the end of the war - What good is every able body Russian fighting against the Nazi's if all the Nazi's have to do is to drop 1 bomb on them like we did to Japan ?. Not to mention the JET Technology that revolutionized Air combat and dog fighting.... the Germans would then control the skies. So tell me ... who can say for sure what 'would have' happened ? I am not posting this saying " America saved the war " I think it was a joint effort , but I also dont think the war could have been won without us....
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
Im not saying that we won the war - but I do not see how it would have been won without us - anytime a country is forced into war without YEARS of military preparation and devotion , ANY country would be devastated and completely drained of all resources and manpower - this was the case in WW2 and that's why England welcomed us with open arms instead of saying - 'No thanks. We've got this mate. Why don't you yanks stay home'
Holy shit johnecash knows his facts. Debated the shit out of you guys, embarrassed you, and injected humor. Very Nice!!!
illiterate: not able to read or write
i read what you have to say and now and writing my reply; child do you even know what you are typing? try to do better than just hurling random insults and hoping it sticks. that is just you being lazy on your part. so far you are showing a history of being lazy when trying to insult other people;
Madmat155 said;
Funny... if 'America' is so great why does,
- Every country hate them
- It has the worst crime rates
- Got beaten by a bunch of vietnamese farmers ;)
Do you ever speak the truth, do you have any control over the garbage that is spewing from your pie hole?
i read what you have to say and now and writing my reply; child do you even know what you are typing? try to do better than just hurling random insults and hoping it sticks. that is just you being lazy on your part. so far you are showing a history of being lazy when trying to insult other people;
Madmat155 said;
Funny... if 'America' is so great why does,
- Every country hate them
- It has the worst crime rates
- Got beaten by a bunch of vietnamese farmers ;)
Do you ever speak the truth, do you have any control over the garbage that is spewing from your pie hole?
i don't think we are on the same page on this one. please explain what you are asking? if you are refering to;
Funny... if 'America' is so great why does,
- Every country hate them
- It has the worst crime rates
- Got beaten by a bunch of vietnamese farmers ;)
all credit for that statement should go to Madmat155 for saying it.
Funny... if 'America' is so great why does,
- Every country hate them
- It has the worst crime rates
- Got beaten by a bunch of vietnamese farmers ;)
all credit for that statement should go to Madmat155 for saying it.
Funny thing is, Johnnecash clearly shows that he is completely illiterate... do you know what that means johnnecash?? Ill-lit-er-ate long word for such a small american sized brain.
i wonder do you know what illiterate means? so far your actions say no. so far you have demonstrated that you are ignorant of what illiterate means. you are a sad sad child. why so sad? sharenator is the tree of trust. let it out lil guy. just let it out. and if you act like a big boy, well we might just teach you something but the master will only appear when the student is ready.
i wonder do you know what illiterate means? so far your actions say no. so far you have demonstrated that you are ignorant of what illiterate means. you are a sad sad child. why so sad? sharenator is the tree of trust. let it out lil guy. just let it out. and if you act like a big boy, well we might just teach you something but the master will only appear when the student is ready.
ssshhhh. children should be seen and not heard. though i still wonder if you know what illiterate means. either you do know what it means and you are just trolling me, or like i am guessing, you are just not that bright. passionate yes, smart no.
Posted: 2010-07-14 12:10:30 Report
On topic: The US was an invaluable asset to the allied cause, but the British would have still won the war, albeit the war would have lasted much longer.
@cash: TROOOOOOOLLLL
@cash: TROOOOOOOLLLL
you think the brits may have wone. without us logistic support, well lets just say you brits do not have enough natural resources to hold out under blockade. you live on an island. this island can not support itself. this is a fact.
thanks again for another pic that lets me know you think about me. i wonder how many of you have a man crush on me. sorry guys, i already have a wonderful woman in my life.
thanks again for another pic that lets me know you think about me. i wonder how many of you have a man crush on me. sorry guys, i already have a wonderful woman in my life.
I'm American
EDIT: you really need to learn how to spell. wone is not a word.
EDIT: you really need to learn how to spell. wone is not a word.
I hate this guy too :D Hey,now i know im not alone!Hes the only guy ive ever seen to have like 20+ posts and only get +12 points for all of them. One of em has -54 points! The only reason hes #148 is becuase he posts so much becuase he thinks hes that smart
Funny... if 'America' is so great why does,
- Every country hate them
- It has the worst crime rates
- Got beaten by a bunch of vietnamese farmers ;)
tell me that prick.
A pointless post that guaranteed to cause a bullsh*t argument.
Silly little yank.
- Every country hate them
- It has the worst crime rates
- Got beaten by a bunch of vietnamese farmers ;)
tell me that prick.
A pointless post that guaranteed to cause a bullsh*t argument.
Silly little yank.
wow - You never cease to amaze me Dannyl- +2
Every country? Now that's just dumb.
The worst crime rate? I would live a like to verify that.
The best you can do is the nam? Hah!
Try again.
At the end of the day who was the supreme comander in ww2? Do you even know? In ww2 where did you food, ammo and gas come from? What was the most used brittish tank in ww2? The us made Sherman.
The worst crime rate? I would live a like to verify that.
The best you can do is the nam? Hah!
Try again.
At the end of the day who was the supreme comander in ww2? Do you even know? In ww2 where did you food, ammo and gas come from? What was the most used brittish tank in ww2? The us made Sherman.
Everyone should just chill out really, I mean in my opinion there is only one difference between the mentality of us Europeans and Americans, this difference being our history.
In Europe we have had a hell of a long history, as an English guy I realize that we have fought many wars, and have won and lost many battles throughout history. Britain has only really been invaded twice in history, by the Romans and the Normans, the last time was in 1066. Thats almost a thousand years ago. We created an empire that stretched across the whole world and lost it all.
So what I'm getting at really is that Americans have a much much shorter history, and world war two was really the beginning of them becomming a major super power. It just seems obvious to me that they are going to be very proud of their involvement (even with the amount of involvement in question).
As a country they are relatively new, and even though WW2 was a massive part of European history, I think it was a much more massive part of American history. Europe have gone through wars that have lasted hundreds of years and have caused hundreds of deaths, we are mentally used to shit. Americans on the other hand are not, so they see this war as something very, very unique and are very proud of the outcome (rightfully so).
So yeah, that's all I have to say really. I don't really think it matters about who did more, because at the end of the day I'd say it means more to the Americans.
(P.S, alot of my grandparents family fought and died in WW2, so whoever replies to this don't give me the whole "my family fought in it so it means more to me than it does to everyone else" crap, because it really doesn't. I don't feel 'truly sad on the verge of crying' that some of my great grandparents died in the war, how could you if you've never met them?)
In Europe we have had a hell of a long history, as an English guy I realize that we have fought many wars, and have won and lost many battles throughout history. Britain has only really been invaded twice in history, by the Romans and the Normans, the last time was in 1066. Thats almost a thousand years ago. We created an empire that stretched across the whole world and lost it all.
So what I'm getting at really is that Americans have a much much shorter history, and world war two was really the beginning of them becomming a major super power. It just seems obvious to me that they are going to be very proud of their involvement (even with the amount of involvement in question).
As a country they are relatively new, and even though WW2 was a massive part of European history, I think it was a much more massive part of American history. Europe have gone through wars that have lasted hundreds of years and have caused hundreds of deaths, we are mentally used to shit. Americans on the other hand are not, so they see this war as something very, very unique and are very proud of the outcome (rightfully so).
So yeah, that's all I have to say really. I don't really think it matters about who did more, because at the end of the day I'd say it means more to the Americans.
(P.S, alot of my grandparents family fought and died in WW2, so whoever replies to this don't give me the whole "my family fought in it so it means more to me than it does to everyone else" crap, because it really doesn't. I don't feel 'truly sad on the verge of crying' that some of my great grandparents died in the war, how could you if you've never met them?)
Actually. We would have lost the Battle of Britain had the Germans not been so stupid, we had far fewer planes and men than the Germans but I can't remember why, but they seemed to think that we had more and decided, not long before we would have lost it, that they had to pull back. So we won :) all it took was a little bit of smarts and some German stupidity :P
I think it had something to do with deception!
At the end of my road is a disused WWII airfield (round here is littered with them) this airfield had a decoy airfield complete with mock planes and buildings in the next village.
Mmmm cunning!
At the end of my road is a disused WWII airfield (round here is littered with them) this airfield had a decoy airfield complete with mock planes and buildings in the next village.
Mmmm cunning!
View: 640x476
Had more to do with Hitler ordering the Luftwaffe, half-way through the Battle of Britain, to concentrate on bombing cities instead of destroying the RAF and their airfields as perviously. If they'd carried on like that they'd have won through attrition eventually.
Well the one reason the Germans had to pull out is because Hitler decided to go to war with Russia which was a huge mistake if he was able to gather all his forces on the western front the war could have gone a little bit differently
I think it was more to do with they thought they'd lost the Battle of Britain despite the fact they had more planes than us, because as Math said we used decoys. And also they failed to achieve their main objectives so pulled back.
And the Battle of Britain was 1940, Germany attacked Russia in 1941, over a year later.
And the Battle of Britain was 1940, Germany attacked Russia in 1941, over a year later.
lmao, I was wondering the same thing?
I find it funny how everyone picks on johnecash & all he does is respond back, defend himself & everyone downrates him because he is annoying or is rude, but isnt making a hate post even ruder, so they have no room to talk(bunch of hypocrites)
its not like if someone makes a hate post about u, ur going to respond with a positive attitude?
I find it funny how everyone picks on johnecash & all he does is respond back, defend himself & everyone downrates him because he is annoying or is rude, but isnt making a hate post even ruder, so they have no room to talk(bunch of hypocrites)
its not like if someone makes a hate post about u, ur going to respond with a positive attitude?
i think it would be the award for biggest idiot which i think i won because i was crazy enough to read them all...my eyes hurt
As far as im concerned Russia deserves the title of winner of World Wars as it sacrificed many lives and accomplished a hell of allot.
Im British and I say if we didnt have the Americans shooting our troops in our back the casualties would have been significantly less. Everyone who is not American knows that US marines cannot shoot in a straight line or accuratly. Fact.
Im British and I say if we didnt have the Americans shooting our troops in our back the casualties would have been significantly less. Everyone who is not American knows that US marines cannot shoot in a straight line or accuratly. Fact.
I would like some proof of that fact. A generalization is never a fact. You cannot stick everybody in the marines into one group.
That is bullshit cause the backbone of the US in europe was the army when majorty of the marines where in the pacifc
that is true - there were a number of her majesty's troops in the Pacific , but buy the time the US put forces there, the majority of the troops were either in Japanese POW camps ( wiki the Bataan death march ) or they were recalled and then issued new orders away from the Marines - WHO DEFINITELY WON THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC - but that is a whole different post....
and also to the point russia is a dump ass in a way using men to waste german ammo
johnecash read MikeyNinjas post above ^, its adressed to you
It'll probably take a while, he can't read lots of words at once without his little brain hurting. Either that or he has read it and for once he doesn't have a stupid mum-related comeback ready.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
