NationStates Jolt Archive

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

Brilliant. I couldn't have done better myself.

Edit: But you know, to get interest in this type of thing, you should have titled it, Cowardly Europeans owe US. That would get more interest.

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed.

BS. And really poor trolling to boot. Tsk, tsk.

Russia had oil contracts in Iraq which was why they were against the war. French firms were making bundles illegally selling weapons to Iraq. As for Germany they were defeated twice because of America, they might not be all that grateful.

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

By that logic, America owes Europe as Europe created it in its modern form.

i agree that the presence of our large military by its own right is a humungous force in international politics.

By that logic, America owes Europe as Europe created it in its modern form.

I think we've payed that back many times over again. Think Marshall Plan.

By that logic, America owes Europe as Europe created it in its modern form.

No, the US owes us nothing. We have too much dignity than to crave servitude of the people we help, nowadays.

By that logic, America owes Europe as Europe created it in its modern form.
By what stretch of "logic" do you draw that strange conclusion, pray tell! :)

We don't owe the US nothing but a kick in the nutts.

We owe you nothing but our contempt.

If your beloved General Eisenhower hadn't been such a coward and had listened to the wisdom of Churchill, then most of Europe wouldn't have fallen into the hands of the communists and had to suffer 50 years of communist abuse.

And as for socialist welfare policies - its called caring. We don't make pregnant women pay £30,000 to give birth like in your hospitals. And we don't let the poor starve to death on our door steps. If you think having some milk of human kindness is socialism then God help you.

As for your war in Iraq, it was an ill managed folly. You were right to do it and Britain was right to help but in Britain we supported the war for Iraqi liberty. You went there out of a greedy urrge to grab some cheap oil. Its interesting the first targets the American troops secrued were the oil rigs.

Also could you take MacDonalds back? Im sick of seeing it on every bloody high street.

By what stretch of "logic" do you draw that strange conclusion, pray tell! :)

Well, Europe discovered America and developed it to the level it is now (IE they colonised it). If we hadnt done that, America would be very diffrent today (IE the native culture but more developed with technology)

I think the US was wrong to defend western europe from the USSR after WWII. We should have let stalin have them, and concentrated on keeping China free instead.

After all, what did we get for guarding the Fulda gap and the marshall plan? I'll tell you a bunch of whiney, snobish idiots who look down there nose at us and constantly undermine our interests.

At least Japan is grateful, and we nuked them. Twice.

How about they aren't war mongering pigs that waste trillions of dollars on millitary shit.
They can afford social programs becuase they know the ARMY IS NOT NEEDED.

You don't need one now, because WE WON THE COLD WAR. No thanks to our feckless European allies, BTW.

And we don't let the poor starve to death on our door steps.
The poor are just to lazy to work. Didn't you know that? :p

How about they aren't war mongering pigs that waste trillions of dollars on millitary shit.
They can afford social programs becuase they know the ARMY IS NOT NEEDED.
Let me preface this by saying I do NOT think Europe owes America. Still, I must disagree with your statement that the army is not needed. For instance, If the US had a European style army, what would we have done after 9/11? We certainly couldn't have attacked the Taliban.

We certainly couldn't have attacked the Taliban.
Or Iraq.

Or Iraq.
I do not now, nor have I ever supported the decision to go into Iraq. We should have spent the money and manpower on Afghanistan's reconstruction and the hunt for Al Quaeda.

You don't need one now, because WE WON THE COLD WAR. No thanks to our feckless European allies, BTW.

Contary to popular American belief you are not the world, you are not the most important people in the world, you were not the only people fighting the Cold War. Just because Europe did not have anything like the Cuban missile crisis or anything like that, does not mean that we didnt do anything of significence. The thing with the cold war is that so much was done by spies that no one knows who did the most, but America was not the only one involved.

I think the US was wrong to defend western europe from the USSR after WWII. We should have let stalin have them, and concentrated on keeping China free instead.

After all, what did we get for guarding the Fulda gap and the marshall plan? I'll tell you a bunch of whiney, snobish idiots who look down there nose at us and constantly undermine our interests.

At least Japan is grateful, and we nuked them. Twice.

The US would not be anywhere near to where it is today had it not had Europe to buy her products. It lay in your interests to keep Europe capitalist - you didn't do it out of the goodness of your hearts, just like you didn't enter the two world wars out of the goodness of your hearts. And there's no shame in doing things because they serve your purposes - there is shame in denying it, like you continue to do.

I think the US was wrong to defend western europe from the USSR after WWII. We should have let stalin have them, and concentrated on keeping China free instead.

After all, what did we get for guarding the Fulda gap and the marshall plan? I'll tell you a bunch of whiney, snobish idiots who look down there nose at us and constantly undermine our interests.

At least Japan is grateful, and we nuked them. Twice.

You smashed Japan into a bloody pulp even though it tried to surrender! Then you completely annihalted their own culture.

If I were Japanese, the last thing I would be is grateful.

And if Stalin had taken Europe, I think you would have had another World War on your hands.

You don't need one now, because WE WON THE COLD WAR. No thanks to our feckless European allies, BTW.

Yeah, sure, not like European scientists came up with the atom bomb...

The US would not be anywhere near to where it is today had it not had Europe to buy her products. It lay in your interests to keep Europe capitalist - you didn't do it out of the goodness of your hearts, just like you didn't enter the two world wars out of the goodness of your hearts. And there's no shame in doing things because they serve your purposes - there is shame in denying it, like you continue to do.


That's why I said we should have concentrated on keeping China free. Just imagine if we had put as much effort and money into post war china as we wasted on stupid europe. We'd have a much better market for a goods, AND we wouldn't have to listen to the Eurocrap all the time.

The US would not be anywhere near to where it is today had it not had Europe to buy her products. It lay in your interests to keep Europe capitalist - you didn't do it out of the goodness of your hearts, just like you didn't enter the two world wars out of the goodness of your hearts. And there's no shame in doing things because they serve your purposes - there is shame in denying it, like you continue to do.

And Europe bought all that stuff because????? They wanted us in power?

It could very well be argued(at least with your kind of logic) that the US should only congratulate itself for making goods that Europeans kept on buying.

Ahh wellllll.......

Yeah, sure, not like European scientists came up with the atom bomb...

Actually all research regarding the nuclear bomb was conducted in Britain by British scientists until the Americans decided it would be 'safer' to keep it in America. So the British gave the Americans all their research and then were denied any chance to continue their work.

The US would not be anywhere near to where it is today had it not had Europe to buy her products. It lay in your interests to keep Europe capitalist - you didn't do it out of the goodness of your hearts, just like you didn't enter the two world wars out of the goodness of your hearts.
Not to mention the Europeans would be the first who would have encountered the Red Army if war would have broken out. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their gas guzzeling engines. They needed a bufferzone.

You smashed Japan into a bloody pulp even though it tried to surrender! Then you completely annihalted their own culture.

If I were Japanese, the last thing I would be is grateful.

And if Stalin had taken Europe, I think you would have had another World War on your hands.

Yet they are; because then we helped them rebuild. They are now a much closer ally than anyone in Europe, with the exception of the UK, (which is barely european).

If stalin had taken Europe, and we hadn't lifted a finger to stop it, where would this other world war have come from? The indominatble French? Don't make me laugh?

That's why I said we should have concentrated on keeping China free. Just imagine if we had put as much effort and money into post war china as we wasted on stupid europe. We'd have a much better market for a goods, AND we wouldn't have to listen to the Eurocrap all the time.

China is Asian. You couldn't well help non-whites, segregationist as you were.

If stalin had taken Europe, and we hadn't lifted a finger to stop it, where would this other world war have come from?
Eeeh...Russia? Just a guess. :rolleyes:

America "won" the Cold War?
I suppose they "won" in Vietnam, too...

You smashed Japan into a bloody pulp even though it tried to surrender! Then you completely annihalted their own culture.

If I were Japanese, the last thing I would be is grateful.

And if Stalin had taken Europe, I think you would have had another World War on your hands.

Get serious.

Much could be said the same of England in the Falklands. Many reports of Argentine soldiers raising arms to surrender and get mowed down.

Of course there was more to the story.

Get the point?

Actually all research regarding the nuclear bomb was conducted in Britain by British scientists until the Americans decided it would be 'safer' to keep it in America. So the British gave the Americans all their research and then were denied any chance to continue their work.

Hmm, yes the "Tube Alloys" group. Unfortunately the UK did not have the reasources to get anywhere with it. There were many american scientists who also contributed as well you know. (They were parralel efforts until they were combined).

Hmm, yes the "Tube Alloys" group. Unfortunately the UK did not have the reasources to get anywhere with it. There were many american scientists who also contributed as well you know. (They were parralel efforts until they were combined).

How kind of you to acknowledge that. May be you can convince your history books and media and country men of the same facts? Or would that dent your pride in dear old Uncle Sam?

Get serious.

Much could be said the same of England in the Falklands. Many reports of Argentine soldiers raising arms to surrender and get mowed down.

Of course there was more to the story.

Get the point?

How many argentine soldiers?

I bet it wasn't as many as two cities worth of Japanese innocents

China is Asian. You couldn't well help non-whites, segregationist as you were.

Actually, there were considerable polemics in the corridors of US power in 45 about whether we should look east or west to the future. Unfortunately the "old" worlders won out. It was a pretty close thing though.

In any event, I am just saying what we should have done, not why we did what we did.

You smashed Japan into a bloody pulp even though it tried to surrender! Then you completely annihalted their own culture.

Point me in the direction of information about this alleged attempt to surrender by Japan, would you?

How many argentine soldiers?

I bet it wasn't as many as two cities worth of Japanese innocents

Sorry declared war doesn't mean you have to be nice.

Why don't you complain about the fire bomb raids? They killed more people.

When Hiroshima went, the Japanese first thought it was a fire bomb raid. Only in time did they realize something was different.....

How kind of you to acknowledge that. May be you can convince your history books and media and country men of the same facts? Or would that dent your pride in dear old Uncle Sam?

Why would that dent my pride? Europe still owes the US big time though. Look we didn't invent the Jet Engine either, but if we left air defense up to the Europeans during the cold war they'd be speaking russian in paris now.

It's one thing to have smart ideas, it's another to actually get things done.

Dude, what the hell does Europe owe us?

Point me in the direction of information about this alleged attempt to surrender by Japan, would you?

There is a large amount of information available. The Japanese Emperor attempted to surrender twice but was refused because the Americans wanted to test their pretty new toy. How kind of them to give 60,000 Japanese innocents (women and children) the privilege of being their guniea pigs.

America "won" the Cold War?
I suppose they "won" in Vietnam, too...

Yes, as in we wore the Soviet system down. It is now a shattered wreck, no longer capable of invading and destroying western europe.

We however are just fine thank you.

Point me in the direction of information about this alleged attempt to surrender by Japan, would you?

If he is referent to the recently relasesed Russian(KGB?) records, there was an attempt.

The Japanese wanted to throw in the towel but they didn't have a way to make a formal request to the allies. Only embassy they still had contact was the USSR.

They made the request and the Soviets conviently forgot about it and declared war at the end and grabbed up some property.

Not exact details. Just the gist of an article I read......

Well you're really going to make Europeans feel grateful and friendly towards the US with your way of thinking aren't you?!?

How did America save us all in the Second World War? The way I remember reading about it, the Americans got tied up with the Japanese, while the Russians suffered absolutely horrendous losses right through to the point where they finally reached Berlin and flew the Russian flag from the Reichstag in around April (?) in 1945, while the Americans dropped an atom bomb or two on Japan in June/July, maybe later, after they'd attempted a surrender. Sounds like I owe my life more to the Russians than any Americans.

Plus, what's your obsession with telling us all that if you hadn't intervened, we'd all be speaking German and goosestepping around the place? That seems a little odd. I mean, when you invaded Iraq, did you start some kind of massive program teaching them English or something? And did the germans suddenly force other countries civilians conquered during WWII adopt the their military march to get around? Madness. Why does so much idiocy spill out when Americans open their mouths?

Yes, as in we wore the Soviet system down. It is now a shattered wreck, no longer capable of invading and destroying western europe.

We however are just fine thank you.

The Soviet system still exists? Argh what planet am I on?!?!

There is a large amount of information available. The Japanese Emperor attempted to surrender twice but was refused because the Americans wanted to test their pretty new toy. How kind of them to give 60,000 Japanese innocents (women and children) the privilege of being their guniea pigs.

Sorry again declared war doesn't mean you have to play nice.

The alternative would have meant a greater amount of dead if the invasion of Japan went down.

Oh and, why do we owe America over WW2? The Russians did far more to defeat the Nazis than America did.

Remind me which nation it was that captured Berlin?

edit: Damn you, Psycha! Hehe.

How did America save us all in the Second World War? The way I remember reading about it, the Americans got tied up with the Japanese, while the Russians suffered absolutely horrendous losses right through to the point where they finally reached Berlin and flew the Russian flag from the Reichstag in around April (?) in 1945, while the Americans dropped an atom bomb or two on Japan in June/July, maybe later, after they'd attempted a surrender. Sounds like I owe my life more to the Russians than any Americans.

Plus, what's your obsession with telling us all that if you hadn't intervened, we'd all be speaking German and goosestepping around the place? That seems a little odd. I mean, when you invaded Iraq, did you start some kind of massive program teaching them English or something? And did the germans suddenly force other countries civilians conquered during WWII adopt the their military march to get around? Madness. Why does so much idiocy spill out when Americans open their mouths?
Without the US navy and merchant marine supplying England, and US airmen along with the RAF bombing the hell out of Nazi occupied Europe Germany would have been able to send a lot more troops, fuel, tanks, planes, and guns into the eastern front. Russia suffered appaling losses against a WEAKENED German force. The outcome without US bombers and the supplies the US brought to England may have been a Russian defeat.

we saved them in 2 World Wars

You might want to reread your history texts. The allied victory in WWII had far more to do with the common blunder of attempting to attack Moscow than the US's actions.

Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed.

The US record in directing policy of foreign governments over the past 50 years is nothing short of atrocious, and they have not shown that their actions are worth supporting. There are very few oppressive governments since WWII that the US has not put in place, propped up, or saved, all in their own interests. Why should the world expect Iraq to be any different?

The US has done more to wreck the stability of the middle east than it has done to improve it.

So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

Is there any reasonable argument that the US has more concern for the welfare of the world than for oil prices? Their actions over the past half century have suggested otherwise.

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

So if a guy saves your life, then asks you to help him murder someone, you will help him, right?

As far as the Japanese trying to surrender, that is a bunch of crap. The reason that the US made the decision to drop the bomb in the first place is that the Japanese code of Bushido kept them from surrendering, they had vowed to fight the Americans to the last had the home Islands been invaded. That would have led to much greater casualties for both the US and Japan. After the first nuke was dropped the jappanese were given a chance to surrender, but the emperor was talked out of it. Once the second nuke was dropped that did the trick and they capitulated.

On the whole Iraq issue. I think that the US going in was a mistake, but now that we are there we have to stay the course or else those who have died (including 2 of my friends who I have had to bury) will all have died in vain. I understand that France and Russia had major economic reasons for not wanting Iraq invaded, that is completely understandable, they were looking out for their national well being, but now that it has happened it would be better for the enitre world, not just the US, if the region was stabilized.

This crap about "The US us better no Europe is better" pisses me off to no end, it would be in EVERYONES best interest if the world worked together. There is plenty of blame to go all around....Uhh I don't even know why I bother

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer Support Battalion
Headquarters & Serivce Company

Well, in all fairness, the war in Iraq has sent the price of oil sky high. And if it was only the oil that the US was after it could easily have aquired it by forgiving Saddam and trading with his regime.

How did America save us all in the Second World War? The way I remember reading about it, the Americans got tied up with the Japanese, while the Russians suffered absolutely horrendous losses right through to the point where they finally reached Berlin and flew the Russian flag from the Reichstag in around April (?) in 1945, while the Americans dropped an atom bomb or two on Japan in June/July, maybe later, after they'd attempted a surrender. Sounds like I owe my life more to the Russians than any Americans.

Plus, what's your obsession with telling us all that if you hadn't intervened, we'd all be speaking German and goosestepping around the place? That seems a little odd. I mean, when you invaded Iraq, did you start some kind of massive program teaching them English or something? And did the germans suddenly force other countries civilians conquered during WWII adopt the their military march to get around? Madness. Why does so much idiocy spill out when Americans open their mouths?

Hmm, well apart from having more troops in the western theater (3/4s of all troops) during the actually fighting part of the War in Europe (44-45). And apart suffering more casualties than any other ally than the USSR. And apart from basically funding and supplying the equipment for everyone on the allied side during the war, I guess your right, we didn't do that much. :rolleyes:

And if you think that the USSR was your savior, think again. Churchill was pretty clear on this point, and he was considered a fairly smart fellow.

I would also like you to reflect upon the billions of dollars we pissed away rebuilding your ungrateful little nations after the war. Of course in your world view the USSR is probably to thank for that as well.

Your second paragraph is just silly.

This crap about "The US us better no Europe is better" pisses me off to no end, it would be in EVERYONES best interest if the world worked together. There is plenty of blame to go all around....Uhh I don't even know why I bother



Don't worry matey - whilst there are lots of unreasonable people around on the internet...there are also lots of reasonable Europeans and Americans to make up for them

Read a history book.

If it weren't for Europe, America wouldn't be here. Lets face it, you owe Britain far more than it owes you:

a) You have our language which you continue to subvert. The English created english so therefore we should set how it is spoken.

b) Your system of government is near enough a direct copy of the British one

c) Your justice system is near enough a direct copy of the British one

d) You still use the Anglican church


In the end America is nothing but a runtling upstart of a nation, a twisted and ruined clone of Britain. You don't have the power to create anything of your own: you have only the power to copy and then destroy. America as a nation makes me sick to the very pit of my stomach: a hell hole full of xenophobic, obese red necks who think that they are the world and that no one else matters. You claim to have saved Europe: oh yes you did contribute but only after the Europeans had fought for 3 years. Only after Britain had spilled all her blood did you slink in like a mangy cur. Well let me tell you this: America couldn't have beaten Germany alone. Not without 1 million British soliders and the countless Commonwealth troops.

Wow, how'd this get to four pages without the obligitory "US owes Europe" parody thread starting?

If he is referent to the recently relasesed Russian(KGB?) records, there was an attempt.

The Japanese wanted to throw in the towel but they didn't have a way to make a formal request to the allies. Only embassy they still had contact was the USSR.

They made the request and the Soviets conviently forgot about it and declared war at the end and grabbed up some property.

Not exact details. Just the gist of an article I read......

If this is the case (I am not familiar with this story), then it seems ludicrous to attempt to place blame on the US for refusing the surrender, which is what NBG is attempting to do.

Did any of you actually 'save' Europe? I know I wasn't around for Normandy. And I can't say I took any part in the Cold War either. So unless you did, they don't owe you squat.

How did America save us all in the Second World War? The way I remember reading about it, the Americans got tied up with the Japanese, while the Russians suffered absolutely horrendous losses right through to the point where they finally reached Berlin and flew the Russian flag from the Reichstag in around April (?) in 1945, while the Americans dropped an atom bomb or two on Japan in June/July, maybe later, after they'd attempted a surrender. Sounds like I owe my life more to the Russians than any Americans.

Plus, what's your obsession with telling us all that if you hadn't intervened, we'd all be speaking German and goosestepping around the place? That seems a little odd. I mean, when you invaded Iraq, did you start some kind of massive program teaching them English or something? And did the germans suddenly force other countries civilians conquered during WWII adopt the their military march to get around? Madness. Why does so much idiocy spill out when Americans open their mouths?

Actually if you looked into our situation, we didn't have a decent army trained till 1944. Japan was a problem but the true threat was the Third Reich.

I know you would love to simply discount the Americans and play the what if game but the Russians didn't turn away the stuff that went through Murmansk (got an uncle who went on those runs). They had the man power but lacked the equipment. Such aid did allow them to delay the Germans till they could get the Urals rolling. After that it was only a matter of time.

To simply suggest the Russians would have won completely on their own is debatable. Too many factors.

Especially if the Americans, Canucks, and Brits didn't land on D-day......

The Soviet system still exists? Argh what planet am I on?!?!

I mean't Russia is a shattered wreck. You see, you have to resort to nit picking at this point, because you cannot refute my main points.

I could go on a bit about france in the 60s, trying to derail the whole cold war effort.

I would also like you to reflect upon the billions of dollars we pissed away rebuilding your ungrateful little nations after the war. Of course in your world view the USSR is probably to thank for that as well.


The vast majority of Europeans are grateful for the US role in liberating them from fascism and soviet communism. But does that mean we should put up with ignorant American arrogance??

Read a history book.

If it weren't for Europe, America wouldn't be here. Lets face it, you owe Britain far more than it owes you:

a) You have our language which you continue to subvert. The English created english so therefore we should set how it is spoken.

b) Your system of government is near enough a direct copy of the British one

c) Your justice system is near enough a direct copy of the British one

d) You still use the Anglican church


In the end America is nothing but a runtling upstart of a nation, a twisted and ruined clone of Britain. You don't have the power to create anything of your own: you have only the power to copy and then destroy. America as a nation makes me sick to the very pit of my stomach: a hell hole full of xenophobic, obese red necks who think that they are the world and that no one else matters. You claim to have saved Europe: oh yes you did contribute but only after the Europeans had fought for 3 years. Only after Britain had spilled all her blood did you slink in like a mangy cur. Well let me tell you this: America couldn't have beaten Germany alone. Not without 1 million British soliders and the countless Commonwealth troops.


Yah, we could have beaten germany alone. As long as we could use your little island as a starting base.

Frankly, the brits were more of a hinderance than a help after 43. But hell, you guys didn't even win a battle until we joined the effort and started helping you. I admit you are a plucky bunch though.

Read a history book.

If it weren't for Europe, America wouldn't be here. Lets face it, you owe Britain far more than it owes you:

a) You have our language which you continue to subvert. The English created english so therefore we should set how it is spoken.

b) Your system of government is near enough a direct copy of the British one

c) Your justice system is near enough a direct copy of the British one

d) You still use the Anglican church


In the end America is nothing but a runtling upstart of a nation, a twisted and ruined clone of Britain. You don't have the power to create anything of your own: you have only the power to copy and then destroy. America as a nation makes me sick to the very pit of my stomach: a hell hole full of xenophobic, obese red necks who think that they are the world and that no one else matters. You claim to have saved Europe: oh yes you did contribute but only after the Europeans had fought for 3 years. Only after Britain had spilled all her blood did you slink in like a mangy cur. Well let me tell you this: America couldn't have beaten Germany alone. Not without 1 million British soliders and the countless Commonwealth troops.


Sounds like envey to me.

Again. The Americans didn't have a reasonable trained army. We couldn't do much except for stuff in North Africa and make supply runs.

If you attempt to toss what I say. My Granddad was part of the 1st Polish so I have a perspective to the British situation! ;)

Without the US navy and merchant marine supplying England, and US airmen along with the RAF bombing the hell out of Nazi occupied Europe Germany would have been able to send a lot more troops, fuel, tanks, planes, and guns into the eastern front. Russia suffered appaling losses against a WEAKENED German force. The outcome without US bombers and the supplies the US brought to England may have been a Russian defeat.


That's a possibility, but not a very likely one. The war had already turned bad for the Germans before US intervention. The US wouldn't intervene because it was isolationist and xenophobic, with a general "what have they ever done for us?" attitude. That attitude appears to still be prevalent in the US.

It's also interesting looking at the effectiveness and battle-readiness of the current armies around the world. If America and britain both threw their entire armies onto a huge desert for a fight, the British would easily come out on top. Your supplies were a great help, and your men, once placed under the command of more experienced officers, were also a boon to our forces. But your army and navy has always paled in comparison to other European countries. Your best resource is your supplies and weapons, which you have alot of, which is why you sell so much of them to dictatorships, like Iraq.

For gods sake, you sent the WELSH in first in Afghanistan!!! How could you possibly hope to live that down in the next billion years?!

Sounds like envey to me.

Again. The Americans didn't have a reasonable trained army. We couldn't do much except for stuff in North Africa and make supply runs.

If you attempt to toss what I say. My Granddad was part of the 1st Polish so I have a perspective to the British situation! ;)

Did you read that right? I am British! I'm defending the British point of view!

The vast majority of Europeans are grateful for the US role in liberating them from fascism and soviet communism. But does that mean we should put up with ignorant American arrogance??

Finally somebody who gets it!

My granddad and my great-uncles were always treated with kindness once it was found out they were vets.

Many Europeans(ie the younger generations) forget that a huge debt of graditute is owed our grandparents.

Many Americans forget that it is our grandparents that is owned. Not us.....

Yah, we could have beaten germany alone. As long as we could use your little island as a starting base.

Frankly, the brits were more of a hinderance than a help after 43. But hell, you guys didn't even win a battle until we joined the effort and started helping you. I admit you are a plucky bunch though.

Go to the British war graves on the Normandy beaches and say that you cold bastard. Two of the beaches were British (Sword and Juno).

The vast majority of Europeans are grateful for the US role in liberating them from fascism and soviet communism. But does that mean we should put up with ignorant American arrogance??

I thinkt the vast majority of Europeans are embarrased and ungrateful. Which is why they do nothing but try and actively undermine the US, even when what we are doing is none of their business.

Look at it this way:

Number of world wars started by the US = 0

Number of World Wars finished in victory by the US = 2.

We don't hold the occasional lapse of judgment against you. Yet we make one tiny mistake with Iraq - which let's face it is insignificant compared to anything the Europeans have done war starting wise - and what happens?

Europe is screaming, actively opposing, and generally doing everything it can to make life worse for us. It can't even just take no position, never mind actually help (I don't count britian here).

Really, I just think that takes the cake.

Meh I don't care. I wasn't alive and the chances are you weren't either.

If you were a WWII vet though....

Yah, we could have beaten germany alone. As long as we could use your little island as a starting base.

Frankly, the brits were more of a hinderance than a help after 43. But hell, you guys didn't even win a battle until we joined the effort and started helping you. I admit you are a plucky bunch though.

OK TAKE THAT BACK NOW!

You are insulting the ONLY country to fight all the way through BOTH World Wars. Kindly remember this

1) We won the battle of Britian by ourselves thank you very much. That we won without you even being involved.

2) It is by not listening to us that caused the bloodbath you suffered at Omaha beach. We invented the tank floating system that you used and then misused. We told you that you would have to deploy it less than three miles of shore, but you deployed your tanks five miles off. Hence your tanks all sank, hence Omaha was a massive blood bath.

Did you read that right? I am British! I'm defending the British point of view!

Yes I did read it.

Just pointing out I am not some american with a one sided viewpoint.

Most of time when you hear an American barking about Europe owing us, I think people are thinking of the main contentent.

Don't know of too many Americans that would suggest the Brits didn't do anything.

Bad form to publically trash a cousin! ;)

Number of World Wars finished in victory by the US = 2.

Get over yourself. The US army wasn't needed in WWI, the war was won by then.

I thinkt the vast majority of Europeans are embarrased and ungrateful. Which is why they do nothing but try and actively undermine the US, even when what we are doing is none of their business.

Look at it this way:

Number of world wars started by the US = 0

Number of World Wars finished in victory by the US = 2.

We don't hold the occasional lapse of judgment against you. Yet we make one tiny mistake with Iraq - which let's face it is insignificant compared to anything the Europeans have done war starting wise - and what happens?

Europe is screaming, actively opposing, and generally doing everything it can to make life worse for us. It can't even just take no position, never mind actually help (I don't count britian here).

Really, I just think that takes the cake.

Pardon me? You finished the First World War? When you joined in 1917 and the first troops arrived in 1918? Laughable

Yah, we could have beaten germany alone. As long as we could use your little island as a starting base.

Frankly, the brits were more of a hinderance than a help after 43. But hell, you guys didn't even win a battle until we joined the effort and started helping you. I admit you are a plucky bunch though.

That smells a bit like bovine poo. We didn't really have an army after 1916. We left the defense of Europe up to the French, and applied restrictions on Germany ever creating another army like that of the first world war. Unfortunately, the Germans subverted France and installed their own officers. Effectively, France became both an ally of Germany AND Britain, with most of their then officer-less soldiers fleeing to Britain and elsewhere. Britain had to pretty much start building an army in 1939. How long do you suppose that takes? I'd say Britain did pretty damn well, all things considered.

And no, the US definitely wouldn't have prevailed if they were pitted against the germans all alone in 1939. You would have been crushed. But that wouldn't have happened anyway, because Russia would have saved you.

I thinkt the vast majority of Europeans are embarrased and ungrateful. Which is why they do nothing but try and actively undermine the US, even when what we are doing is none of their business.

Look at it this way:

Number of world wars started by the US = 0

Number of World Wars finished in victory by the US = 2.

We don't hold the occasional lapse of judgment against you. Yet we make one tiny mistake with Iraq - which let's face it is insignificant compared to anything the Europeans have done war starting wise - and what happens?

Europe is screaming, actively opposing, and generally doing everything it can to make life worse for us. It can't even just take no position, never mind actually help (I don't count britian here).

Really, I just think that takes the cake.

*Ahem*

For its short existance, the US has started a great deal of wars, Vietnam and Iraq are just two. Please dont just claim you have started no wars and are a perfect nation. The wars we start at least have some viabable cause. If you had said from the start the purpose was regieme change then that would have been Ok. As it is you lied and hundruds have died now on the basis of a lie. Now I'm not saying the regieme change was a bad thing, but in comparision to the causes behind European wars it doesnt hold a candle.

OK TAKE THAT BACK NOW!

You are insulting the ONLY country to fight all the way through BOTH World Wars. Kindly remember this

1) We won the battle of Britian by ourselves thank you very much. That we won without you even being involved.

2) It is by not listening to us that caused the bloodbath you suffered at Omaha beach. We invented the tank floating system that you used and then misused. We told you that you would have to deploy it less than three miles of shore, but you deployed your tanks five miles off. Hence your tanks all sank, hence Omaha was a massive blood bath.

Dont forget North Africa where Montgomery trashed the Nazis at Allamein! If it weren't for that victory then none of Operation Torch would have been possible.

Frankly, the brits were more of a hinderance than a help after 43. But hell, you guys didn't even win a battle until we joined the effort and started helping you. I admit you are a plucky bunch though.

Battle of Britain?
Beda Fomm?
El Aghelia?
Ethiopia?

OK TAKE THAT BACK NOW!

You are insulting the ONLY country to fight all the way through BOTH World Wars. Kindly remember this

1) We won the battle of Britian by ourselves thank you very much. That we won without you even being involved.


Now now. Don't forget the American Eagle Squadron. Suffered high casulities.


2) It is by not listening to us that caused the bloodbath you suffered at Omaha beach. We invented the tank floating system that you used and then misused. We told you that you would have to deploy it less than three miles of shore, but you deployed your tanks five miles off. Hence your tanks all sank, hence Omaha was a massive blood bath.

Just a hint.

Laca is a button pusher! ;)

Dont forget North Africa where Montgomery trashed the Nazis at Allamein! If it weren't for that victory then none of Operation Torch would have been possible.

Which happened in the summer of '42 - after the US had officially entered into the war...

Wow, you people make it out to be that the Americans and British are polar opposites and enemies.

I don't there there are any cultures more alike and intertwined then the two.

Which happened in the summer of '42 - after the US had officially entered into the war...

Actually about two days after USA entered. Did they have some sort of magical teleportation device that allowed all their troops (not yet gathered or trained) to get to Allamein from North America in the space of seconds?

And no, the US definitely wouldn't have prevailed if they were pitted against the germans all alone in 1939. You would have been crushed. But that wouldn't have happened anyway, because Russia would have saved you.

A great what if but the fact Hitler had the pond in his way kind of suggests we were not high on the list.

It's also interesting looking at the effectiveness and battle-readiness of the current armies around the world. If America and britain both threw their entire armies onto a huge desert for a fight, the British would easily come out on top. Your supplies were a great help, and your men, once placed under the command of more experienced officers, were also a boon to our forces. But your army and navy has always paled in comparison to other European countries.


OK, I have to call Bullshit on that one. I have actully gotten to play around with some of these so called "crack" European forces that are supposed to be so much better than the American troops. I seriously doubt that they go out and train on their OWN time like I and quite a few members of my unit do. I purchased my own AR-15 so I can spend more time training with a rifle. The Marines got the nick name "Teufel Hunden" or Devil Dogs from the germans during WWI because as the amazing European armies retreated the Marines went in, and stopped the German advance. At Bloc Mont the Marines lost an entire division but succesfully pushed through the German lines. Do not tell me about about how much better your forces are. Have you ever served? If not then how about you shut up. I would very much like to see any evidence of what you say.

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer SUpport Battalion
Heaquarters & Service Company

Wow, you people make it out to be that the Americans and British are polar opposites and enemies.

I don't there there are any cultures more alike and intertwined then the two.

One day, that might be true. I think the British people are more liberal than America, though. We've already had our George bush phase where we vote in a leader to mess everything up (Margeret Thatcher), and we're still in the process of cleaning up after it. There are many things that divide us. Notably, America's incredibly weak beer. I mean, what the hell is with that?

Now now. Don't forget the American Eagle Squadron. Suffered high casulities.

Not to diminish the contribution made by American volunteer pilots, but the American Eagle Squadron wasn't actually formed until after the Battle of Britain was over, and the participation of individuals scattered through different squadrons prior to that hardly counts as the nation of the US helping the British.

Wow, you people make it out to be that the Americans and British are polar opposites and enemies.

I don't there there are any cultures more alike and intertwined then the two.

Nahhh!

It's like family members having a squable! ;)

A great what if but the fact Hitler had the pond in his way kind of suggests we were not high on the list.
And that he was happy to ignore the US, had not the Japanesse attack Pearl Habour.

Russia had oil contracts in Iraq which was why they were against the war. French firms were making bundles illegally selling weapons to Iraq. As for Germany they were defeated twice because of America, they might not be all that grateful.


That's so horribly ridiculous to suggest that the current German government would be UPSET at the US for defeating Hitler sixty years ago. In fact, I would say that it's xenophobic because it implies that the majority of Germans are Nazi sympathizers. The huge majority of Germans today loathe what Hitler did even more than your average American, because it happened to their own people. It may just be possible that Germany is the only major country that based their stance on Iraq on their moral convictions - namely that it is wrong to attack a country that has not attacked another innocent country.

Also, I think it's ironic that people all over the US are slandering Russia and France for their opposition to the war as being purely based on what's best for their businesses in terms of oil, when the US' instigation of the war arguably was based on the exact same thing. US companies (with Haliburton proving to be no exception) stand to gain massively because of the invasion and the extra oil that will most likely be US-friendly in three to four years once the country has become more stable.

Nahhh!

It's like family members having a squable! ;)
Weell,

It is Christmas :)

One day, that might be true. I think the British people are more liberal than America, though. We've already had our George bush phase where we vote in a leader to mess everything up (Margeret Thatcher), and we're still in the process of cleaning up after it. There are many things that divide us. Notably, America's incredibly weak beer. I mean, what the hell is with that?

Whoah, watch the beer. It's better then the warm crap they serve over there.

Do not tell me about about how much better your forces are.


Am I allowed to mention the SAS here?

We don't owe the US nothing but a kick in the nutts.


What the hell is it with all the US hating??? Its like evEry other thread says something derogatory about the US. And whoever started this thread is the one who needs the kick in the nuts for being a little instigator. JESUS :headbang:

OK, I have to call Bullshit on that one. I have actully gotten to play around with some of these so called "crack" European forces that are supposed to be so much better than the American troops. I seriously doubt that they go out and train on their OWN time like I and quite a few members of my unit do. I purchased my own AR-15 so I can spend more time training with a rifle. The Marines got the nick name "Teufel Hunden" or Devil Dogs from the germans during WWI because as the amazing European armies retreated the Marines went in, and stopped the German advance. At Bloc Mont the Marines lost an entire division but succesfully pushed through the German lines. Do not tell me about about how much better your forces are. Have you ever served? If not then how about you shut up. I would very much like to see any evidence of what you say.

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer SUpport Battalion
Heaquarters & Service Company

I'm talking about combat effectiveness, etc. (No, we don't allow our citizens the "luxury" of purchasing their own rifle so they can practice killing people. That's a little odd, no offense)

European troops are usually a little more levelheaded and thoughtful. They don't join up from all the poor areas to shoot darkies.

Actually about two days after USA entered.

Entered what? Not the war, surely? They entered the war officially on December 11th 1941, and had been operating the lend-lease program prior to that point and also operating escort activities in the North Atlantic which made a mockery of their claimed neuitrality.

Did they have some sort of magical teleportation device that allowed all their troops (not yet gathered or trained) to get to Allamein from North America in the space of seconds?

Correct me if I'm wrong here but tanks such as Shermans and Grants/Lees were used at El Alamein, no?

Battle of Britain?
Beda Fomm?
El Aghelia?
Ethiopia?


Yah, okay they won a few minor tactical victories. I admit I was exagerating. But really, they had no strategic victories until we showed up and started to hold their hand.

Even then, by 44 we still had to do the bulk of their fighting for them.

Am I allowed to mention the SAS here?

How are they any better then the SEALs or Delta Force?

And their naval counterpart, the SBS performed poorly underfire in Iraq in OIF.

Whoah, watch the beer. It's better then the warm crap they serve over there.

Heh, the Europeans take the piss out of English beer, but American beer is ridiculous. It's as alcoholic as a snotty tissue. Maybe that's how they can tackle our English binge drinking, ban all english/dutch/czech beer and serve strictly American beer.

*Ahem*

For its short existance, the US has started a great deal of wars, Vietnam and Iraq are just two. Please dont just claim you have started no wars and are a perfect nation. The wars we start at least have some viabable cause. If you had said from the start the purpose was regieme change then that would have been Ok. As it is you lied and hundruds have died now on the basis of a lie. Now I'm not saying the regieme change was a bad thing, but in comparision to the causes behind European wars it doesnt hold a candle.


Okay, please tell me, what were the pressing reasons for WWI and WWII again. European asshattery if you ask me. And see, we are even so polite that we "play" along with your justifications so as not to hurt your feelings.

I'm talking about combat effectiveness, etc. (No, we don't allow our citizens the "luxury" of purchasing their own rifle so they can practice killing people. That's a little odd, no offense)

European troops are usually a little more levelheaded and thoughtful. They don't join up from all the poor areas to shoot darkies.

...most of the people from poor areas ARE darkies.

Yah, okay they won a few minor tactical victories. I admit I was exagerating. But really, they had no strategic victories until we showed up and started to hold their hand.

Battle of Britain was hardly minor, although there was no real threat of an amphibious invasion of the UK, the effect on morale if it had of been lost would probably have been crushing.

The victories over the Italians are also hardly minor, when you look at the amount of prisoners which were taken. It is certainly true that the Italian infantry in North Africa had little stomach for the war they were involved in, but taking them out of the picture was not without its lasting effects and the mass captures also seriously further eroded Italian morale.

North Africa, prior to the direct personal intervention of the American forces with Operation Torch can probably best be understood as a holding action: not massive victories going to either side, but at least large amounts of Axis forces were tied up there and the pressure on the German and Italian fuel reserves was kept up by depriving them of the resources there.

Heh, the Europeans take the piss out of English beer, but American beer is ridiculous. It's as alcoholic as a snotty tissue. Maybe that's how they can tackle our English binge drinking, ban all english/dutch/czech beer and serve strictly American beer.

Most of us drink liquor, limey. And not that 80 proof crap you serve over there in thimbulfuls.

How are they any better then the SEALs or Delta Force?

And their naval counterpart, the SBS performed poorly underfire in Iraq in OIF.

Well it could probably be argued the Aussie SAS is the best in the business.

Also, Delta and the SEALS do train with the SAS.....

Most of us drink liquor, limey. And not that 80 proof crap you serve over there in thimbulfuls.


It's called a shot glass, yank.

The first world war was started by the prussian(german) empire when one of their Archdukes was assassinated. It was started unilaterally by an expansionist state, not by Europe in general. It was a drawn out and terribly wasteful war. The Americans doubtlessly shortened the war when they entered late and gave the European and Commonwealth troops a boost.

The second world war was started when Nazi germany began annexing its neighbours. The draconian Treaty of Versailles, the architech of which was US president Woodrow Wilson, that destroyed the German economy and way of life led to the anger and nationalist fervour that allowed Hitler to whip up the German people. The Americans remained "neutral" but supplied their allies with equipment for very low prices. It would have violated their neutrality to sell directly to the Europeans, so they dropped off shipments at the Canadian border and the Canadian merchant marine(some of which was borrowed from the Americans) transported it to Europe. American and Canadian supplies sustained Europe throughout the war effort, the American forces, who had been training with the Canadians and Brits at bases in Canada, entered the war and again gave European and Commonwealth troops a boost.

In neither war did the Americans save Europe, we have no way to know what would have happened if the Americans had not entered the war. That is hardly an important point though, what is important is that in two world wars, the European powers and their former colonies stood up against an overwhelming foe and turned back the tide. No one saved anyone, the americans and the europeans were not two different teams. They were allies, and in a war every ally has a part to play, if it plays that part well their side wins.

The Europeans should be thankful of the help they received from all their former colonies, and the colonies should be thankful of their European parents, for holding back the Germans and absorbing all the damage on their own soil. Because had Hitler taken over Britain, he was aiming for Canada and the United States next, and had he taken over Russia he would not have run out of oil(which is what really crippled the third reich), and he was going to come across the Beiring strait into North America.

Pah, you Americans can't swear or drink as hard as us. Spend one night sampling the local Salford nightlife, and you'd probably die (murdered/blood poisoning/drink-spiking, take your pick!). Hahaha.

Don't forget that the US did not even willingly join the European theatre of war. Germany declared war on the US. The majority of the US did not want war with Germany and President Roosevelt was re-elected partly due to his insistance that, "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

The Battle of Britain had already been won before the Germans forced the US to join the war, and the US got a very good deal out of helping the Europeans. They were hardly the courageous heroes that some people see them as.

2) It is by not listening to us that caused the bloodbath you suffered at Omaha beach. We invented the tank floating system that you used and then misused. We told you that you would have to deploy it less than three miles of shore, but you deployed your tanks five miles off. Hence your tanks all sank, hence Omaha was a massive blood bath.

Three of the DDs actually made it to Omaha beach. IIRC the rocky conditions there made them somewhat less useful than on Juno, Gold and Sword.

They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs.
Okay, let's dismantle this, delusion by delusion:
The USA didn't join WWI until 1917, when it was pretty much over. The only reason you had tanks was the French gave you some. Even Italy had a larger army than you did, and the vast majority of your troops never saw action. You didn't actually affect the war.
WWII - again, the USA sat out the important battles. Fortunately, the Soviets broke the Nazis. Have a look at the battle of Kursk sometime. Kudos to Britain for keeping going, and providing the base from which Europe was liberated. The USA did act as armoury to the West, but your attempts at actual military action in Europe ranged from pitiful to stomach churning (Omaha beach ring any bells?). You'd have been better focusing on arming people who knew how to fight.
The Cold War - was a joke. The USSR couldn't continue further in Europe, their losses in WWII were simply to great. The Soviet Union was not brought down by the USA, but by internal strife, supported by the churches.
Finally - our 'socialist programs' are funded by decent tax schemes. Have a close look at how your corporations have managed to reduce the taxes they pay over the last few decades, and then you will have something to complain about!

Battle of Britain was hardly minor, although there was no real threat of an amphibious invasion of the UK, the effect on morale if it had of been lost would probably have been crushing.

The victories over the Italians are also hardly minor, when you look at the amount of prisoners which were taken. It is certainly true that the Italian infantry in North Africa had little stomach for the war they were involved in, but taking them out of the picture was not without its lasting effects and the mass captures also seriously further eroded Italian morale.

North Africa, prior to the direct personal intervention of the American forces with Operation Torch can probably best be understood as a holding action: not massive victories going to either side, but at least large amounts of Axis forces were tied up there and the pressure on the German and Italian fuel reserves was kept up by depriving them of the resources there.


Victories over the Italians. Heh.

Actually they Beda Fomm was over the germans. Really now, North Africa was a minor sideshow compared to the rest of the war. I think at the most, the Afrika Korp was 13 divisions. It hardly took any pressure of the USSR.

Hitler didn't have to start diverting significant amounts of man power to the west until we showed up.

Most of us drink liquor, limey. And not that 80 proof crap you serve over there in thimbulfuls.

Well it maybe shots but they never end.

I once met the commander of the Scottish Comandos and the bastard kept them comming late into the night!

The beauty of their stuff? No hangovers! ;)

The first world war was started by the prussian(german) empire when one of their Archdukes was assassinated. It was started unilaterally by an expansionist state, not by Europe in general. It was a drawn out and terribly wasteful war. The Americans doubtlessly shortened the war when they entered late and gave the European and Commonwealth troops a boost.

The second world war was started when Nazi germany began annexing its neighbours. The draconian Treaty of Versailles, the architech of which was US president Woodrow Wilson, that destroyed the German economy and way of life led to the anger and nationalist fervour that allowed Hitler to whip up the German people. The Americans remained "neutral" but supplied their allies with equipment for very low prices. It would have violated their neutrality to sell directly to the Europeans, so they dropped off shipments at the Canadian border and the Canadian merchant marine(some of which was borrowed from the Americans) transported it to Europe. American and Canadian supplies sustained Europe throughout the war effort, the American forces, who had been training with the Canadians and Brits at bases in Canada, entered the war and again gave European and Commonwealth troops a boost.

In neither war did the Americans save Europe, we have no way to know what would have happened if the Americans had not entered the war. That is hardly an important point though, what is important is that in two world wars, the European powers and their former colonies stood up against an overwhelming foe and turned back the tide. No one saved anyone, the americans and the europeans were not two different teams. They were allies, and in a war every ally has a part to play, if it plays that part well their side wins.

The Europeans should be thankful of the help they received from all their former colonies, and the colonies should be thankful of their European parents, for holding back the Germans and absorbing all the damage on their own soil. Because had Hitler taken over Britain, he was aiming for Canada and the United States next, and had he taken over Russia he would not have run out of oil(which is what really crippled the third reich), and he was going to come across the Beiring strait into North America.

Those aren't "good" reasons for a war you know. It seems that only the US has to have "good" reasons. Well that's fair enough I suppose, we are more intelligent than the Europeans.

As to the Bearing Strait theory, that is so silly for such a number of reasons I can't even begin to explain.

It's called a shot glass, yank.

Well its too damn small, whatever it is.

The first world war was started by the prussian(german) empire when one of their Archdukes was assassinated. It was started unilaterally by an expansionist state, not by Europe in general. It was a drawn out and terribly wasteful war. The Americans doubtlessly shortened the war when they entered late and gave the European and Commonwealth troops a boost.


Again a display of American ignorence. It was an Austrian Archduke who was assinated in Serbia by Serbian terrorists (possibly government aided, we dont know). Germany used it as a case for getting into a war.

It's called a shot glass, yank.

We call it that as well.........

*Ahem*

For its short existance, the US has started a great deal of wars, Vietnam and Iraq are just two.

Explain to me how America started the Vietnam war again, would you? The flare up in the sixties was basically just the continuation of the first Indochina war.

I'm talking about combat effectiveness, etc. (No, we don't allow our citizens the "luxury" of purchasing their own rifle so they can practice killing people. That's a little odd, no offense)

European troops are usually a little more levelheaded and thoughtful. They don't join up from all the poor areas to shoot darkies.

OK, for one thing I am not poor and did not join up to shoot "darkies" I am an upper middle class jewish kid whos family immigrated to the US from Russia back in '89 just before the soviet union collapsed. I personally hate violence, but unfortunatly we live in a violent world were it sometimes becomes neccisary. I finished boot camps 3 days after Sept 11. I have lost friends in Iraq. And as far as having the luxury of purchasing my own rifle to practice killing people thats a bunch of crap. I purchased my rifle to practice, because my life as a marine may very well depend on my skill with a rifle and I am currently working on my criminal justice and phycology
degrees in order to become a police officer and that is why I own a pistol that I regularly train with as well. I do not want to kill people, but I am now a Corporal and I have marines that I am responsoble for and I have to keep them alive.

On another point as far as the british SAS, that is not a standard regular army unit and the US has the Green Berets, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps Force Recon and Delta Force

finally on the point of the weal American beer: I do not drink beer. I do not believe in diluting my alchohol in piss. That is why I drink vodka but I think thats probably because I'm russian.

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer Support Battalion
Headquarters & Service Company

Three of the DDs actually made it to Omaha beach. IIRC the rocky conditions there made them somewhat less useful than on Juno, Gold and Sword.


Plus we took the harder beaches. IIRC our rangers had to talk out the big guns too.

The beauty of their stuff? No hangovers! ;)
Maybe not. But some can have less then desirable effects

(eg. Sambuka is a laxative)

Again a display of American ignorence. It was an Austrian Archduke who was assinated in Serbia by Serbian terrorists (possibly government aided, we dont know). Germany used it as a case for getting into a war.

Now now.

Many of us know the history as well.

Can you name the Duke without looking it up? :p

Those aren't "good" reasons for a war you know. It seems that only the US has to have "good" reasons. Well that's fair enough I suppose, we are more intelligent than the Europeans.


Oh yes, a madman annexing terriorys to his country left right and centre is not a good reason to go to war with him. And kindly retract that hideous genralisation that Americans are more intellegent than Europeans.

Explain to me how America started the Vietnam war again, would you? The flare up in the sixties was basically just the continuation of the first Indochina war.

You do mean troop deployment right? ;)

Now now.

Many of us know the history as well.

Can you name the Duke without looking it up? :p

Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne going into Serbia with his wife Sophie. Curiously enough he went in on the Serbian national day in an open top car. You would think thats evidence enough that the Austro-hungarians wanted him dead (No I didnt look any of that up)

Oh yes, a madman annexing terriorys to his country left right and centre is not a good reason to go to war with him. And kindly retract that hideous genralisation that Americans are more intellegent than Europeans.

That "madman" was European if you hadn't noticed. An elected leader too, now that I think of it.

Plus, the rest of you wrung your hands and just let him go on and on until he became a threat, despite clear warnings from people in his own country. (And himself I may add).

But to you, I suppose the whole thing seems completely unavoidable and necessary.

Well it could probably be argued the Aussie SAS is the best in the business.

Also, Delta and the SEALS do train with the SAS.....

Which shows that neither are really that much better or worse then each other.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne going into Serbia with his wife Sophie. Curiously enough he went in on the Serbian national day in an open top car. You would think thats evidence enough that the Austro-hungarians wanted him dead (No I didnt look any of that up)

I was being sarcastic.

Not all Americans are historically challenged. I still cringe at the one story about an American Teenager when asked who were the Axis powers? Germany, Itally, and England!

Hmmmm then again! :p

Victories over the Italians. Heh.

I wish I could find that quote from Rommel in praise of the Italian infantry... wasn't it the Italians that held the line at El ALamein after the Germans had routed? The Italians proved that they were a solid, if not spectacular fighting force after they changed sides: certainly they had hideous morale problems during the North Africa campaigns, but the fact that they were opposed remains important.

Actually they Beda Fomm was over the germans.

The one in February 1941 when 20,000 Italians surrendered?

Really now, North Africa was a minor sideshow compared to the rest of the war. I think at the most, the Afrika Korp was 13 divisions. It hardly took any pressure of the USSR.

Hitler didn't have to start diverting significant amounts of man power to the west until we showed up.


I am not denying that the main focus of operations was on the Eastern Front, by any means, but I think tying down Rommel must count for something.

Note: I'm not actually arguing that the US played no central role in the Allied victory, their production facilities matched with the Soviet willingless to sustain massive casualties were the key to victory in Europe in my opinion. In the Pacific Theatre, that was certainly won by the USA almosty alone - their tactics even served to keep ANZAC and British Empire forces tucked out of the way where they could do little to actually contribute to the eventual victory over Japan.

Those aren't "good" reasons for a war you know. It seems that only the US has to have "good" reasons. Well that's fair enough I suppose, we are more intelligent than the Europeans.

As to the Bearing Strait theory, that is so silly for such a number of reasons I can't even begin to explain.

I don't claim they are good reasons, but they are the reasons. There is no good reason for wasting billions of dollars to kill millions of people and reduce whole regions to rubble. All modern wars are economic, and no one can deny that. A war is a grab for land and resources.

I'm not even sure what you're rebutting here, I'm not attacking the US point of view or the British one. I think its ridiculous that two nations would argue over who saved who, you were and still are allies, you won those wars together as allies, you fight in wars together because you both have large militaries, end of story.

The Beiring Strait theory is hardly ridiculous and I invite you to put forward reasons why it would be.

You do mean troop deployment right? ;)

I'm saying that the Veitnam War would have happened anyway - in fact had pretty much been rolling on as a low intensity conflict from about 1946 or thereabouts. Certainly the US's involvement changed the nature of the affair dramatically, but without their intervention there would still have been an increase in the intensity of the conflict and an actual war.

Why would Europe get involved in a needless war that the US can more than easily take care of themselves? Especially since you seem to be so hung up on the fact that you kept european countries free and democratic, forgetting that democracy puts power to the people. There are huge amounts of people in your own country who don't support the war, so obviously there'll be people like that elsewhere. And some countries actually care about what their people think.

so...what about the french...you know that little revolutionary war we couldn't have won without them.

And then there's the fact that WWII wouldn't have gone on as long as it did if the US would have chosen a side earlier instead of playing both. Don't remember that? Until pearl harbor we were selling supplies to the Nazis and the Brits. Oh yeah.

I don't claim they are good reasons, but they are the reasons. There is no good reason for wasting billions of dollars to kill millions of people and reduce whole regions to rubble. All modern wars are economic, and no one can deny that. A war is a grab for land and resources.

I'm not even sure what you're rebutting here, I'm not attacking the US point of view or the British one. I think its ridiculous that two nations would argue over who saved who, you were and still are allies, you won those wars together as allies, you fight in wars together because you both have large militaries, end of story.

The Beiring Strait theory is hardly ridiculous and I invite you to put forward reasons why it would be.

The Bearing Strait theory is ridiculous because it is almost impossible to get to overland from western Europe. The supply problems of launching an attack on alaska from there would be unbelievable. Even when the cold war was at its hottest it was never considered a weak point. Hence the lack of forces in Alaska.

Again a display of American ignorence. It was an Austrian Archduke who was assinated in Serbia by Serbian terrorists (possibly government aided, we dont know). Germany used it as a case for getting into a war.

I'm Canadian, not American, and I'm hardly ignorant. I was simplifying to save keystrokes.

Wow, its when i see things like this that I think the world would be well benefited by a nice full scale thermo-nuclear war.

I can't believe this is actually being argued. I don't know how you people are in real life, but on this forum you are acting like idiots. I have seen 10 year olds have more civilized discussions with less name calling and crap.

Yes, a thermo-nuclear armaggedon would do the world a lot of good.

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer Support Battalion
Heaquarters & Service Company

It's funny how no-one has anything to say about the Marshall plan. As I said, ungrateful.

Plus we took the harder beaches. IIRC our rangers had to talk out the big guns too.

As far as I understand it it wasn't too clear that Omaha beach was going to be such a nightmare (the guns at Pointe de Hoc excepted), I seem to recall reading somewhere that the rockier conditions at Omaha beach were expected to actually provide more cover for the infantry, whereas they actually turned out to just shatter intop shrapnel and slow progress to a crawl.

Note again, that I haven't said anything against the Americans here.

I'm saying that the Veitnam War would have happened anyway - in fact had pretty much been rolling on as a low intensity conflict from about 1946 or thereabouts. Certainly the US's involvement changed the nature of the affair dramatically, but without their intervention there would still have been an increase in the intensity of the conflict and an actual war.

Ahhh I did smell some knowledge! :p

Would things have been different if we delivered on the promise of B-29 strikes at Dien Bien Phu?

It's funny how no-one has anything to say about the Marshall plan. As I said, ungrateful.

I think concentrating on the lend-lease programme might have more resonance: without it there probably would have been no need for the Marshall Plan.

Wow, its when i see things like this that I think the world would be well benefited by a nice full scale thermo-nuclear war.

I can't believe this is actually being argued. I don't know how you people are in real life, but on this forum you are acting like idiots. I have seen 10 year olds have more civilized discussions with less name calling and crap.

Yes, a thermo-nuclear armaggedon would do the world a lot of good.

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer Support Battalion
Heaquarters & Service Company

Oh yea! Ice Age!

Think of the sking!

I wish I could find that quote from Rommel in praise of the Italian infantry... wasn't it the Italians that held the line at El ALamein after the Germans had routed? The Italians proved that they were a solid, if not spectacular fighting force after they changed sides: certainly they had hideous morale problems during the North Africa campaigns, but the fact that they were opposed remains important.



The one in February 1941 when 20,000 Italians surrendered?




I am not denying that the main focus of operations was on the Eastern Front, by any means, but I think tying down Rommel must count for something.

Note: I'm not actually arguing that the US played no central role in the Allied victory, their production facilities matched with the Soviet willingless to sustain massive casualties were the key to victory in Europe in my opinion. In the Pacific Theatre, that was certainly won by the USA almosty alone - their tactics even served to keep ANZAC and British Empire forces tucked out of the way where they could do little to actually contribute to the eventual victory over Japan.

Yes, you are right, it was the Italians. My mistake.

I don't think you can really rate italy as a major player in the war though.

Even Mussolini admit as much at the end.

I also think that allied victory would have come more quickly if we had concentrated less on operations in Italy, which were frankly wasteful given the terrain. Yet, we defered to the Brits in that.

Ahhh I did smell some knowledge! :p

Would things have been different if we delivered on the promise of B-29 strikes at Dien Bien Phu?

B-29 strikes may be effective against an army, but against a social movement they are somewhat less useful... as the US found out later. They may have turnmed the tide of the battle in favour of the French, but the underlying causes of resentment would probably just have been stoked.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne going into Serbia with his wife Sophie. Curiously enough he went in on the Serbian national day in an open top car. You would think thats evidence enough that the Austro-hungarians wanted him dead (No I didnt look any of that up)

I can tell. Cause if you had you would know Sarajevo was part of the Autrian-Hungarian empire at that time.

And then there's the fact that WWII wouldn't have gone on as long as it did if the US would have chosen a side earlier instead of playing both. Don't remember that? Until pearl harbor we were selling supplies to the Nazis and the Brits. Oh yeah.

Although the US wasn't officially part of the Allies until Pearl Harbour it was already clear where their allegiances lay prior to that point: witness the lend-lease programme and the use of American vessels to escort Allied shipping in the Western Atlantic. What surprises me is that the sinking of the Ruben James, and the other ship (whose name temporarily eludes me) didn't precipitate an earlier official entry.

Wow, I started a minor fire storm. Let me claify a few things.

1. I wish to god we had some social welfare in the states, we can't because we had to create a military that could counter the USSRs. Now we still need it because the world is still filled with people who hate us, and Europe too, enough to attack us violently.

2. Iraq was a huge damn mistake, there is no question about that. They had no WMDs and there were no terrorists.

3. Even though it was a mistake Iraq, and the world, will be better off if the US succeeds. I guarantee that the average Iraqi would prefer living in a democracy than in a 3-way civil war that would shortly draw in Turkey and Iran as Kurds in those countries went to the aid of their Iraqi brethren.

4. Yes, the US saved western Europe in WWII. There is no way on earth that the Russians could have completly defeated Germany without the Allies attack on the western front. Russia could have probably kept Russia, even part of what became the Iron Curtain. However, the Germans would have kept France, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, and probably parts of Poland. The British could never have invaded Normandy without the US. Maybe we should have invaded sooner, but we had to stop and build an army first. Sorry, we thought some guns would help.

5. The US did win the Cold War, by being "war mongering bastards" if we hadn't been in the arms race, if we hadn't had the most powerful miltary in the world, if we had decided we'd defend ourselves and the rest of the world can hang, the USSR would have conquered Europe. You couldn't have stopped it, your countries were blown to pieces.

6. You owe us for the Marshall Plan, we spent billions rebuilding your countries, which was never paid back. Neither were your WWI loans for that matter. We created industrialized Europe and a democratic and industrialized Japan.

7. We had to nuke Japan. More people, both Allies and Japanese, would have died in an invasion than died as a result of the bombings. For that matter the Japanese can hardly plead innocent after their warcrimes in China and South East Asia. Anyone remember Nanking?

8. You say we're imperialists and declared war for cheap oil. My gas prices say that's a load. Russia, Germany, and France didn't oppose the war on moral grounds, they opposed the war because of their lucrative, corrupt, and illegal under UN sanctions, business relationship with Saddam Hussain. If you all got off your high horse and pitched in, maybe with about 300,000 extra troops from all of Europe, we'd be able to create a stable, democratic, and prosperous Iraq. And that would inspire democracy in reform in the rest of the Arab world, making it safer for everyone.

So in conclusion, you do owe us, your help would make things better, and the reflexive anti-americanism of European pseudo-intellectuals is one of the reasons most Americans don't give a fig what you think of us.

Oh and, why do we owe America over WW2? The Russians did far more to defeat the Nazis than America did.

Remind me which nation it was that captured Berlin?

edit: Damn you, Psycha! Hehe.

The Russians took Berlin as per several various treaty agreements, we stopped at the Oder river as we had signed a paper to do so. I'm utterly sick of this argument that the Russians did more to win WWII. The US outproduced the rest of the world, accounting for something like 2/3 of the worlds munitions production during the war years. It is certain that the Russians made a far greater contribution in lives lost than the US, and there are several reasons for this.

1. The Russian tactic was "throw the troops at 'em and damn the losses." You know, the send in unarmed troops and tell them to pick up the rifles of the previous dead guys. Russia used its forces as a sledgehammer instead of a sword. And Russia could afford to do this as Russia was a totalitarian society.

2. The US used actual tactics when engaging the Germans, we had effective air support and our various types of tanks were highly effective in each of their roles (Shermans supporting infantry, Tank Destroyers busting up Panzers, etc.)

3. The US could not accept such massive casualties as the citizens lived in an open free society. Plus they had the resources to adequately equip each and every soldier.

4. The US covered

Several thoughts about why we waited until 1944 to invade France.

The US originally wanted to invade France in 1942, but Churchill dissuaded the US from doing so. He wanted to take the Germans out of Africa, and thus ensure the survival of the Suez canal and the British link to Australia.

The US then wanted to invade France in 1943, but was once again dissuaded in favor of an invasion of Italy, a major axis nation we took without the help of the Soviets at all.

The US and Britain finally did invade France in 1944, and after a period of slowness in the hedgerows they broke out and drove all the way to the border of Germany where Montgomery's mediocre resulting Market Garden took the resources away from Patton's big drive through the Siegfried line, which would have gotten to Berlin.

The War in the Pacific, while much derided by Europeans as detracting from the speed of victory in Europe was vital. If Japan had been allowed to consolidate it's island shield it would have been practically invincible, and we handled Japan without virtually any help from the USSR, just an invasion of Manchuria to pick up a few scraps of Japan's former empire.

So in summary, the US contribution to the allied victory in WWII was at least as much to defeat Nazi Germany as the Russians did, the difference being that the US fought smarter while the Russians fought harder. And we all know (and hate) the saying "work smarter, not harder.)

I don't think you can really rate italy as a major player in the war though.

Not compared to the heavy hitters, but if there had been no resistance to Axis movements in North Africa then the oil fields would have fallen into their hands (which were obviously not realised to have been as rich or as plentiful as we know now)- a distinct advantage to the Axis, and Operation Torch would have been a much bloodier and more prolonged affair if there had not been the Desert Campaign in operation prior to that point. Thus the landings at Anzio, or their equivalent, could well have been delayed by a year or so, thus knocking back the Normandy landings till '45 ... without wanting to wander too far into alternate history.

In response to your edit:
I also think that allied victory would have come more quickly if we had concentrated less on operations in Italy, which were frankly wasteful given the terrain. Yet, we defered to the Brits in that.

Yeah, but I think that if nothing had been done about Italy until late in the war then the western approach to Berlin could have been much more difficult than it was and could have face much stiffer resistance 9assuming that the Italians remained on the Axis side).

Although the US wasn't officially part of the Allies until Pearl Harbour it was already clear where their allegiances lay prior to that point: witness the lend-lease programme and the use of American vessels to escort Allied shipping in the Western Atlantic. What surprises me is that the sinking of the Ruben James, and the other ship (whose name temporarily eludes me) didn't precipitate an earlier official entry.


Are you talking about the Greer incident? Greer wasn't sunk though.

Oh yeah, and the nuking of Japan was necessary. If that hadn't occured, we'd have wound up invading and that would have cost a million allied lives, and many many more Japanese lives.

Are you talking about the Greer incident? Greer wasn't sunk though.
Greer was heavily damaged, and American ships were to shoot U-Boats if they saw them prior to Pearl Harbor.

If it wasnt for the US.....Europe would not be the same as it is today. THE ONLY REASON France is a country is because the US bailed them out, not once, but twice. If it wasnt for the US...Hitler could've took over all of Europe...I dont believe any country could have stopped him. If the Germans wouldn't have tooken over Europe....Japan sure would have. Any time there was a problem, not only in Europe, but all over the world...the US has been there to help. How many times have other countries helped out the US? I only need one hand to count that.


GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!

Not compared to the heavy hitters, but if there had been no resistance to Axis movements in North Africa then the oil fields would have fallen into their hands (which were obviously not realised to have been as rich or as plentiful as we know now)- a distinct advantage to the Axis, and Operation Torch would have been a much bloodier and more prolonged affair if there had not been the Desert Campaign in operation prior to that point. Thus the landings at Anzio, or their equivalent, could well have been delayed by a year or so, thus knocking back the Normandy landings till '45 ... without wanting to wander too far into alternate history.


Okay. I have always taken the view that anzio was silly though, it was really a british thing if you ask me.

Yeah, but I think that if nothing had been done about Italy until late in the war then the western approach to Berlin could have been much more difficult than it was and could have face much stiffer resistance 9assuming that the Italians remained on the Axis side).

Yeah, but what I mean is that Italy was already out before Anzio, and had turned what was left of her fleet over to the Brits. (Who kept the bulk of it). There was an obsession with capturing Rome on the part of the brits that really cost a lot of allied manpower and did not really draw any more german divisions away from western france because the germans were on the defensive at that point.

Look at the topography of italy. You fight your way over one ridge against heavy resistance, just to be confronted by another and another.

Plus you have Gen. Lucas total failure to do anything with the intial landing at Anzio. In short, i believe the whole operation was a waste of reasources that could have been better used in france.

(And don't even get me started on how that messed up market garden).

If it wasnt for the US.....Europe would not be the same as it is today. THE ONLY REASON France is a country is because the US bailed them out, not once, but twice. If it wasnt for the US...Hitler could've took over all of Europe...I dont believe any country could have stopped him. If the Germans wouldn't have tooken over Europe....Japan sure would have. Any time there was a problem, not only in Europe, but all over the world...the US has been there to help. How many times have other countries helped out the US? I only need one hand to count that.


GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!
God bless the prosperous 60 years America has been of any use! Hurrah, hurrah!
What's that? America was founded and colonized generations before and got plenty of help in just about everything? Nonsense! That would completely defy the logic of America being the ultimate country in the world, capable of even traveling to the Sun at night, because it's dark at night!

Hell, the Aztecs would be whipping you and sacrificing you to their Gods had europeans not taken care of them for you!

Idiot.

I have problems with this thread. The original statement could be countered to the point that everybody living owes Africa everything they have, it being the place man evolved an' all.

Some states do nice things for other states, like help them with dictators bent on world domination. And while these states are grateful, I wonder at the intelligence of those who would have europe falling over themselves to support actions of the US that they found misguided. Doing good in the world is not a free pass to unquestioned rule over it.

Are you talking about the Greer incident? Greer wasn't sunk though.

I think that must be what I was thinking of - either that of the Kearny - as you say neither it nor the Greer were sunk, however the Reuben James certainly was sunk by U-boats prior to Pearl harbour.

I think that all Europeans owe us their first-born sons.

Hell, the Aztecs would be whipping you and sacrificing you to their Gods had europeans not taken care of them for you!

Idiot.

Psssst.

Hey buddy. Who do you think landed on the eastern sea board?

The first world war was started by the prussian(german) empire when one of their Archdukes was assassinated. It was started unilaterally by an expansionist state, not by Europe in general. It was a drawn out and terribly wasteful war. The Americans doubtlessly shortened the war when they entered late and gave the European and Commonwealth troops a boost.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand was Austrian. The war between Serbia and Austria started on July 28. Russia had mobilized it's forces on July 27th. First only against Austria. The intent was to provoke Germany to get them to mobilise as well. Three days later it ordered a full mobilisation which was as good as a written declaration of war. Germany demanded on July 31st that Russia would demobilize. Russia declined. And on August 1st Germany mobilized and went to war against Russia and two days later against France who mobilized the same day Germany did.

I think that all Europeans owe us their first-born sons.

Nononono!

The Daughters!

:fluffle:

Europeans?

Yeah, but what I mean is that Italy was already out before Anzio, and had turned what was left of her fleet over to the Brits. (Who kept the bulk of it). There was an obsession with capturing Rome on the part of the brits that really cost a lot of allied manpower and did not really draw any more german divisions away from western france because the germans were on the defensive at that point.

Yes, I find the snailpace crawl up the spine of Italy somewhat hard to understand the logic behind as well, but if anything your claim that Italy was already pretty much knocked out of the war prior to that point shows that the engagements in North Africa (both pre- and post- Operation Torch) were important.

Look at the topography of italy. You fight your way over one ridge against heavy resistance, just to be confronted by another and another.

Or if you want the whole situation summed up in one nice little location - Monte Cassino.

I have problems with this thread. The original statement could be countered to the point that everybody living owes Africa everything they have, it being the place man evolved an' all.

Some states do nice things for other states, like help them with dictators bent on world domination. And while these states are grateful, I wonder at the intelligence of those who would have europe falling over themselves to support actions of the US that they found misguided. Doing good in the world is not a free pass to unquestioned rule over it.

yea but a bit of ill scratch your back if you scratch mine would be nice in the world of realpolitik and there are no free lunches

God bless the prosperous 60 years America has been of any use! Hurrah, hurrah!
What's that? America was founded and colonized generations before and got plenty of help in just about everything? Nonsense! That would completely defy the logic of America being the ultimate country in the world, capable of even traveling to the Sun at night, because it's dark at night!

Hell, the Aztecs would be whipping you and sacrificing you to their Gods had europeans not taken care of them for you!

Idiot.
Actually, Americans have been making contributions for much more than the last 60 years, things like the Ford style assembly line, or the Wright Brothers heavier than air flight were most certainly more than 60 years ago. Our intervention in WWI was most certainly more than 60 years ago. The US has contributed the most in the last 60 years most certainly, but it has been contributing for much longer than that.

Or possibly the much earlier development of the steamboat could be considered a contribution to the world.

I think that must be what I was thinking of - either that of the Kearny - as you say neither it nor the Greer were sunk, however the Reuben James certainly was sunk by U-boats prior to Pearl harbour.

Yah, the ambivalence about the James has always puzzled me. Apparently it puzzled Churchill too.

Greer caused Roosevelt to give a fireside chat about piracy on the high seas though, and was sort of an unoffical entry into the atlantic battle. I suppose in light of that, something like the James was inevitable, so the US wasn't all that fussed about it.

Psssst.

Hey buddy. Who do you think landed on the eastern sea board?

Leif Erikson?
St Brendan?

Leif Erikson?
St Brendan?
Some say it was the Chinese...

Nononono!

The Daughters!

:fluffle:
srry, I meant to say that.

Some say it was the Chinese...

I say it was my hat.

Yah, the ambivalence about the James has always puzzled me. Apparently it puzzled Churchill too.

I can certainly see some rationale behind it: if Roosevelt believed the Axis could have been beaten without actually sending in American forces to directly fight them, then such insousciance is understandable. When it came to Pearl Harbour it was just too much of a slap in the face, and like it or not the US had to be seen to enter the war officially.

Some say it was the Chinese...

vikings like that asterix comic?

Nononono!

The Daughters!

:fluffle:

I agree! Just so long as the ones who don't shave learn to do so.

Some say it was the Chinese...

Coming the long way round to the Eastern Sea Board? I know they are meant to be inscrutable, but that is really taking things too far...

Actually, Americans have been making contributions for much more than the last 60 years, things like the Ford style assembly line, or the Wright Brothers heavier than air flight were most certainly more than 60 years ago. Our intervention in WWI was most certainly more than 60 years ago. The US has contributed the most in the last 60 years most certainly, but it has been contributing for much longer than that.

Or possibly the much earlier development of the steamboat could be considered a contribution to the world.
I know. I thought the sarcasm was pretty obvious in the way I wrote.
I was making a point that the guy is practically holding Europe indebted for WW2. Europe ows the US nothing in terms of war. NATO countries are (I assume, my country is not) obligated to help if absolutely needed, but that has nothing to do with the progress of WW2.

The UK never got Marshall Plan help as payback for us electing a socialist government after WWII. The CIA also interfered in the internal politics of Greece and Italy to undermine Communist parties that were taking part in the democratic process. Its that kind of thing that makes Europe wary of US help as it is sometimes a double edged blade. Not saying we behave any better, just suggesting a reason why we don't feel we owe anything.

In a a hundred years or so when it's someone elses go to be top dog you can join us in sitting about, being difficult, and saying how everything the youngsters do is wrong and critising them. ;)

yea but a bit of ill scratch your back if you scratch mine would be nice in the world of realpolitik and there are no free lunches

So Europe should blindly follow orders? We should be grateful that you still allow us to exist? We happen to be human too, and basic human rights enable europe to disagree with the US.

Quick note. In the real world, obviously you think europe isn't helping enough, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. They seem to be getting away with it. Free food, anyone?

Coming the long way round to the Eastern Sea Board? I know they are meant to be inscrutable, but that is really taking things too far...
well they could've used their Gundam robots!

Oh wait, did the Chinese include Japan like...500 years ago?

So Europe should blindly follow orders? We should be grateful that you still allow us to exist? We happen to be human too, and basic human rights enable europe to disagree with the US.

Quick note. In the real world, obviously you think europe isn't helping enough, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. They seem to be getting away with it. Free food, anyone?

no but like the godfather movie, dont refuse a reasonable request, owing favors and whatnot.

Leif Erikson?
St Brendan?

I know! ;)

He was saying the Europeans saved us from the Aztecs! ;)

Yes, I find the snailpace crawl up the spine of Italy somewhat hard to understand the logic behind as well, but if anything your claim that Italy was already pretty much knocked out of the war prior to that point shows that the engagements in North Africa (both pre- and post- Operation Torch) were important.



Or if you want the whole situation summed up in one nice little location - Monte Cassino.


Well, I think the key point about North Africa is that given the relative strengths of both sides and the Geography of Europe, it really was about the only place that both of them could fight each other. Britain did not have the logistics capacity to re-invade france, Germany did not have the Navy to invade britian.

So you are really only left with the Med as a feasible theater. And in many respects Britian got the short end there, e.g. the loss of Greece, Crete and the rest.

At the end of the day however, because of British Naval superiority (not dominance) the axis could never make a good crack at north africa. To do so would have required much better man-lif and supply capacity, plus the ability to traverse the med. unhindered. (Of course it didn't help that the Brits were reading all their mail either).

So what you are left with is a far away theater that expends a lot of effort, and doesn't really get that much done in terms of draw down against the Germans. Though I will concede it was bad news for the Italians. (Bear in mind though, that the Germans were using the italians up on the eastern front a much faster rate, so it's hard to say that it was "necessary". Possibly, if neither side had engaged in NA, torch would have gone ahead against vichy held NA and the same results against sicily and southern italy could have been obtianed.)

The UK never got Marshall Plan help as payback for us electing a socialist government after WWII. The CIA also interfered in the internal politics of Greece and Italy to undermine Communist parties that were taking part in the democratic process. Its that kind of thing that makes Europe wary of US help as it is sometimes a double edged blade. Not saying we behave any better, just suggesting a reason why we don't feel we owe anything.

In a a hundred years or so when it's someone elses go to be top dog you can join us in sitting about, being difficult, and saying how everything the youngsters do is wrong and critising them. ;)

I think it was actually the British Army in 1944 that put an end to greek communism.

Later on LBJ supported a military coup, but that's a different story.

no but like the godfather movie, dont refuse a reasonable request, owing favors and whatnot.

What if the request is what we would deem unreasonable?

Should we get an army of accountants together to add up every favour that every state owes against one another? And then, when everything's in equillibrium we just politely ignore each other for the rest of eternity?

It took a real effort not to reply, "Oh, shut up you idiot" to this.

Well, I think the key point about North Africa is that given the relative strengths of both sides and the Geography of Europe, it really was about the only place that both of them could fight each other. Britain did not have the logistics capacity to re-invade france, Germany did not have the Navy to invade britian.

If you take North Africa out of the equation, then where are the Axis powers dependent on for oil supplies - Romania and where else? (not a trick question)

What if the request is what we would deem unreasonable?

Should we get an army of accountants together to add up every favour that every state owes against one another? And then, when everything's in equillibrium we just politely ignore each other for the rest of eternity?

It took a real effort not to reply, "Oh, shut up you idiot" to this.

what so inorder to curry favor with you 'friend' you would make sure what they wanted would not leve you exposed in any way whatsoever and so you were at no risk, what type of friend would you be besides iraq would not have been completely without reward, contracts and a chance to wet ones beak.

what so inorder to curry favor with you 'friend' you would make sure what they wanted would not leve you exposed in any way whatsoever and so you were at no risk, what type of friend would you be besides iraq would not have been completely without reward, contracts and a chance to wet ones beak.

I'm british. My country helped you plenty in Iraq. And I'm wondering how you got that from what I was saying. Another duty of a friend is to tell each other when you think what they're doing is a bad idea, for them as well as yourself.

If you take North Africa out of the equation, then where are the Axis powers dependent on for oil supplies - Romania and where else? (not a trick question)


Which time period?

Before mid 41, the USSR and Vichy.

After 41 Vichy.

(I think)

I'm british. My country helped you plenty in Iraq. And I'm wondering how you got that from what I was saying. Another duty of a friend is to tell each other when you think what they're doing is a bad idea, for them as well as yourself.

well sure but thats not the offical postion of your govt, so the fact that your british dont change much. besides the french and germans were tied of in iraq before the war in business they perhaps should not have been involved in. and what makes iraq such a bad idea, true it was harder than first thought but it makes sence in the long run.

Yah, we could have beaten germany alone. As long as we could use your little island as a starting base.
Frankly, the brits were more of a hinderance than a help after 43. But hell, you guys didn't even win a battle until we joined the effort and started helping you.

Oh dear, i don't even know where to begin.
We won the battle of El-Alamein quite well IMO
More of a hinderance than a help? That's quite amusing, I would have liked to see the US develop the A-Bomb without European Scientists, or to stop Hitler's attempts to develop it- something which I think the SAS did rather well! How would you chaps have liked a Nuke on New York (a reality).
Let's all remind ourselves that Nazi Germany and Japan were allied, so they were likely to share information. Now, if our 'little island' hadn't stopped the preperation of an A-Bomb in Norway, then East, and West coast would be radioactive by now.
And as for "as long as we could use your 'little' island"- it's not a little island really, it's one of the biggest nation states in Europe. It's also a very nice, green island without rednecks in.
Now, to address other concerns.
Some people (mistakenly) state that the US could have won WW2 single handedly. *yawns* ok, fair enough- I concede that the US supplied Britain (the last free nation in Europe) with food. That was rather nice of them. I wondered why Roosevelt felt it was neccessary to keep a 'little island' free of Nazism? Perhaps it was because you needed us?
D-Day, there were more British and Canadian troops than American.
Russia lost the most casualties than all other Allied countries combined. Amercian casualties were mostly caused by green troops being pants. British casualties (on the most part) were caused by hard fighting. British troops are still the best in the world, our Paras are trained equally as well as American Special Agents (F.B.I etc), so you can imagine what our Special Agents are like ;)
However, I concede that the Cold War involved America a hella lot. Why did America bother to try and save Europe from the Commies? Because then the rest of the world would have followed, then a Commie invasion of the U.S.

But hell, you guys didn't even win a battle until we joined the effort and started helping you.

We won the battle of El-Alamein quite well IMO

In July 1942 ... in other words, after the US joined the allies, and some of the tanks used by the British there were American made and supplied through lend-lease. Heck, even by the time of the Normandy landings the 'only tank worth having' was built on a Sherman chassis...

America is the one that owes Europe. During the revelutionary war Baron von Buren trained the pathetic American troops. Then what happens in WW1, America along with Servia who started the war, france, england and russia attack the newly formed germany and austria. Kaiser Wilhelm did the right thing with unrestricted Uboat war fare since America broke the law of neutrality (Stating that a neutral country may trade with any side but CAN NOT SELL WEAPONS TO EITHER SIDE) by selling weapons to britain. As for WWII it can also be stated that it was America's fault for making Germany a lot smaller and having them pay an equivalent of $1,000,000,000,000 in today's time. It was also Englands fault for not stopping them from invading the Czechs.

well sure but thats not the offical postion of your govt, so the fact that your british dont change much. besides the french and germans were tied of in iraq before the war in business they perhaps should not have been involved in. and what makes iraq such a bad idea, true it was harder than first thought but it makes sence in the long run.

Tony Blair can be parodied as the lover of George Bush, and yet you still think the British government's official position is disapproving of Iraq. A lot of the people disapproved of the war, but the government voted in favour of it.

Let me explain my position on Iraq. Before the war broke out I was against it. I strongly believed that the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to do their job, and that the UN should have been involved if there was going to be a war. Now that the US has blundered in and created a haven for terrorists, I want military forces to stay there and clear up the mess they have made of the country.

Sorry, but from what I can see WWII and history in general has pretty much nothing to do with current anti-American sentiment in Europe (that would be current US foreign policy). Does Europe owe the US anything? I don't know, but whether we do or not, is it being suggested that a country should go to war for another country even if they dont believe it is just simply out of loyalty? Since everyone seems obsessed with history, can anyone give me an example where one country went to war for another because they felt they "owed" them something?

Oh dear, i don't even know where to begin.
We won the battle of El-Alamein quite well IMO
More of a hinderance than a help? That's quite amusing, I would have liked to see the US develop the A-Bomb without European Scientists, or to stop Hitler's attempts to develop it- something which I think the SAS did rather well! How would you chaps have liked a Nuke on New York (a reality).
Let's all remind ourselves that Nazi Germany and Japan were allied, so they were likely to share information. Now, if our 'little island' hadn't stopped the preperation of an A-Bomb in Norway, then East, and West coast would be radioactive by now.
And as for "as long as we could use your 'little' island"- it's not a little island really, it's one of the biggest nation states in Europe. It's also a very nice, green island without rednecks in.
Now, to address other concerns.
Some people (mistakenly) state that the US could have won WW2 single handedly. *yawns* ok, fair enough- I concede that the US supplied Britain (the last free nation in Europe) with food. That was rather nice of them. I wondered why Roosevelt felt it was neccessary to keep a 'little island' free of Nazism? Perhaps it was because you needed us?
D-Day, there were more British and Canadian troops than American.
Russia lost the most casualties than all other Allied countries combined. Amercian casualties were mostly caused by green troops being pants. British casualties (on the most part) were caused by hard fighting. British troops are still the best in the world, our Paras are trained equally as well as American Special Agents (F.B.I etc), so you can imagine what our Special Agents are like ;)
However, I concede that the Cold War involved America a hella lot. Why did America bother to try and save Europe from the Commies? Because then the rest of the world would have followed, then a Commie invasion of the U.S.


SAS, hmm. Do you mean the long range desert group, or the 1st SAS. The depot at hereford is called Stirling lines for a reason you know.

And I would think that after your little "embarrasment" at Tobruk in early 42, you would be a little more grateful for our logistics help.

The war in Iraq was, without a doubt, a massive blunder and should never have happened. However, Europe OWES the US big time and should commit all available troops to supporing our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan. They owe us not only because we saved them in 2 World Wars, but because we defended them throughout the Cold War. Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs. Furthermore, their assistance could improve the situation in the Middle East, certainly the world will be worse off if the US fails than if we succeed. So is there any reasonable arguement that European nations that refuse to pull their weight are anything beyond ungrateful cowards that have more concern for oil prices than the welfare of the world?

Ok....deep breaths. How exactly did the US save Europe, which is a very vague announcement, in both world wars? The US took part in the first world war as it was drawing to a close. While undoubtedly American intervention quickened the pace of German defeat, this was inevitable.

The sacrifices made by the peoples of the Soviet Union in the Second World War, blackened now due to it's governments brazen bid to actually compete against the US for domination of our planet often go without mention. In fact, as of late, there has been a popular trend among historians to ignore the efforts made by anyone except the British and Americans.

Why the fuck should we in Europe help the US dominate the Middle East to it's own benefit? You've started this, and you can goddamn finish it. We owe you nothing. Iraqis arent fighting for Saddam Hussein or anyone else, they are fighting for themselves. They are fighting to rid themselves of American oppression.

The only reason European states have armies which are small compared to the US army is because we couldnt possibly raise such forces. Why would we need them? We arent trying to control the world. Atleast not by the forceful aspect. We couldnt support such forces. And neither could America, if it had a decent welfare and health system. Which it doesnt. We dont need big armies, because Uncle Sam will always be the World Policemen.

America is the one that owes Europe. During the revelutionary war Baron von Buren trained the pathetic American troops. Then what happens in WW1, America along with Servia who started the war, france, england and russia attack the newly formed germany and austria. Kaiser Wilhelm did the right thing with unrestricted Uboat war fare since America broke the law of neutrality (Stating that a neutral country may trade with any side but CAN NOT SELL WEAPONS TO EITHER SIDE) by selling weapons to britain. As for WWII it can also be stated that it was America's fault for making Germany a lot smaller and having them pay an equivalent of $1,000,000,000,000 in today's time. It was also Englands fault for not stopping them from invading the Czechs.

Yup, that Von Buren was a big help. As was the Comte de Labeite from france
:rolleyes:

Great Britian is the only country in western Europe with a grasp of Real Politik. Iraq was a mistake yes, however, that mistake has been made. So there are two courses of action available to Europe. Hang out and bitch about the Americans while innocent people die or try to help us salvage the situation so that it doesn't get worse and some lives are saved. Any country unwilling to follow the latter course should give up all claim to any morality of any kind. Great Britian gets it, Great Britian understands the good the US has done in the world, and I, and the rest of the US are grateful to Great Britian for all that it has done.

...our Paras are trained equally as well as American Special Agents (F.B.I etc), so you can imagine what our Special Agents are like ;)...

Eh??? Is it just me or is saying that some soldiers are trained as well as some law enforcement agents a somewhat unilluminating claim?

Great Britian is the only country in western Europe with a grasp of Real Politik.

Not even the Germans (who invented the word) have a grasp of it, then?




Pedantry time:
1. 'Realpolitik' not 'Real Politik'.
2. Great Britain isn't a country.

I know. I thought the sarcasm was pretty obvious in the way I wrote.
I was making a point that the guy is practically holding Europe indebted for WW2. Europe ows the US nothing in terms of war. NATO countries are (I assume, my country is not) obligated to help if absolutely needed, but that has nothing to do with the progress of WW2.


I didnt intend for my previous post to sound like I was indebting Europe for WW2. I just wanted to make the point that anytime another Nation needed help, the US was there. My comment about Europe and WW2 was just an example that I am sure everyone is familiar with.

In July 1942 ... in other words, after the US joined the allies, and some of the tanks used by the British there were American made and supplied through lend-lease. Heck, even by the time of the Normandy landings the 'only tank worth having' was built on a Sherman chassis...
I agree the Sherman was far superior to the Matilda- which was developed for use around the world in the British Empire. But it was still nicknamed the 'Tommy Cooker' so a lot was still desired ;)
I also achknowledge the use of American army supplied by the British, for America had a larger production base than Britain, and safer at that.
The embarressment at Tobruk was due to incompetent commanders, the fact that we were able to push the Italians almost back to the sea before the Germans came in shows that we could easily beat them. But with the arrival of the Germans (and that crafty Fox Rommel) and their excellent tactics and tanks meant that the British needed time to regroup. It didn't hurt that the British had enigma ;)

Ok....deep breaths. How exactly did the US save Europe, which is a very vague announcement, in both world wars? The US took part in the first world war as it was drawing to a close. While undoubtedly American intervention quickened the pace of German defeat, this was inevitable.

The sacrifices made by the peoples of the Soviet Union in the Second World War, blackened now due to it's governments brazen bid to actually compete against the US for domination of our planet often go without mention. In fact, as of late, there has been a popular trend among historians to ignore the efforts made by anyone except the British and Americans.

Why the fuck should we in Europe help the US dominate the Middle East to it's own benefit? You've started this, and you can goddamn finish it. We owe you nothing. Iraqis arent fighting for Saddam Hussein or anyone else, they are fighting for themselves. They are fighting to rid themselves of American oppression.

The only reason European states have armies which are small compared to the US army is because we couldnt possibly raise such forces. Why would we need them? We arent trying to control the world. Atleast not by the forceful aspect. We couldnt support such forces. And neither could America, if it had a decent welfare and health system. Which it doesnt. We dont need big armies, because Uncle Sam will always be the World Policemen.


There is so much wrong with this. Frankly the Soviets brought a lot of their troubles on their own heads in their dealings with Hitler. And if it hadn't been for the US, they would have been up shit creek without a paddle. They had to spend men like water because that was all they had. We supplied them a great deal of logistical support which stopped them from being knocked out of the war.

As I have said before, even Churchill acknowledged the US's role as savior. In fact, if you look at the last year of the war, the US was an unstoppable behemoth that chewed up the germans, the like of which they had never seen before. Also without our material support the RAF would never have been able to make the bombing contribution that it did. (Not to mention all the other shit we had to build).

People seem to be under the impression that because the USSR did most of the dying, it must have been the most effective against Germany. That is not true. The western front chewed up millions of Germans, just without the cost in allied lives due to our air supremecy and strategic bombing.

Also, it was so nice of Europe to colonize the world, then leave it in such a mess. On top of which, isn't it a little self serving after that to expect us to be the worlds policeman now that you feel you can no longer afford it; all the while criticizing how we do it?

Tony Blair can be parodied as the lover of George Bush, and yet you still think the British government's official position is disapproving of Iraq. A lot of the people disapproved of the war, but the government voted in favour of it.

Let me explain my position on Iraq. Before the war broke out I was against it. I strongly believed that the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to do their job, and that the UN should have been involved if there was going to be a war. Now that the US has blundered in and created a haven for terrorists, I want military forces to stay there and clear up the mess they have made of the country.

i know your govt approves of the war, what i ment was that you were one person in the UK and your opinion from what i gather was not that of the govt.

Eh??? Is it just me or is saying that some soldiers are trained as well as some law enforcement agents a somewhat unilluminating claim?
Seriously, our Paras are taught for the same amount of time and most of the same techniques they are, clearing rooms etc

Not even the Germans (who invented the word) have a grasp of it, then?




Pedantry time:
1. 'Realpolitik' not 'Real Politik'.
2. Great Britain isn't a country.


Who coined "Realpolitik"?

I didnt intend for my previous post to sound like I was indebting Europe for WW2. I just wanted to make the point that anytime another Nation needed help, the US was there. My comment about Europe and WW2 was just an example that I am sure everyone is familiar with.
They're not there simply out of charity. WW2 was no exception. America needs Europe, just as Europe needs America. America was and has been there because it keeps it where it is.
I'm not saying I'm not grateful for WW2, I am. But that doesn't mean that I'd be willing to get killed by Iraqi soldiers just so America can get some oil and apprehend a single man who isn't really a threat to anyone but his own people. If America wants that, then they can go ahead and send their oh so impressive armies there and zerg rush (kekeke^____^) the place or nuke the buggers, like the people here have been reminding us of Japan.
Wage your own damn wars.

I agree the Sherman was far superior to the Matilda- which was developed for use around the world in the British Empire. But it was still nicknamed the 'Tommy Cooker' so a lot was still desired ;)

AKA 'Ronsons'

I was actually refering to the Firefly above.

...but you admit that El Alamein occured after the US had entered the war?

Who coined "Realpolitik"?

Bismarck seems to ring a bell with me, but I could be very wrong here.

Its interesting the first targets the American troops secrued were the oil rigs.

Economically speaking, oil is the basis of Iraq. They've got no other infrastructure.

Also could you take MacDonalds back? Im sick of seeing it on every bloody high street.

Actually, I'd like to get McDonald's out of America. *shudders* If I wanted frozen burgers, I'd go get the thick and tasty ones from the grocery store instead of purchasing McDonald's thin burgers.

Bismarck seems to ring a bell with me, but I could be very wrong here.

Close. Von Moltke the Elder. Most people seem to think it was Kissinger for some reason.

There is so much wrong with this. Frankly the Soviets brought a lot of their troubles on their own heads in their dealings with Hitler. And if it hadn't been for the US, they would have been up shit creek without a paddle. They had to spend men like water because that was all they had. We supplied them a great deal of logistical support which stopped them from being knocked out of the war.
As I have said before, even Churchill acknowledged the US's role as savior. In fact, if you look at the last year of the war, the US was an unstoppable behemoth that chewed up the germans, the like of which they had never seen before. Also without our material support the RAF would never have been able to make the bombing contribution that it did. (Not to mention all the other shit we had to build).
Also, it was so nice of Europe to colonize the world, then leave it in such a mess. On top of which, isn't it a little self serving after that to expect us to be the worlds policeman now that you feel you can no longer afford it; all the while criticizing how we do it?
The Soviets brought a lot of troubles on themselves, it's true. But not through their dealings with Hitler. Stalin firing every competent general in his army during the 1930s seriously didn't help him, and he needed time to train loyal, competent generals, hence the 1939 treaty with Germany! They had to spend men like water because they had the men, but not the leadership. If you throw toothpicks at a domino it'll eventually fall.
Churchill was a wise, wise man. He also coined the term 'Iron Curtain' - you're quoting him as saying that America was a 'saviour' but he also critisised America for letting the U.S.S.R have a 'European Empire'
I have already conceded that America had the best production base during this period, there's no point arguing it! I'm glad you agree that you owe us for colonising your nice continent, so that you could then pollute it and the world, choose an idiotic president who'd make it worse (refuting the Kyoto Treaty, invade countries because he couldn't spell them etc) and now you want claim for WWI AND WWII? *sighs* WWI would have been more drawn out and costly for both sides had America not intervened, I'm not ungrateful for their intervention- just stating a fact.
No-one will know if WWII could have been won by anyone without the Americans. Russia would most definitely have been able to get to Berlin, but a whole different scenario would have erupted. Let's not go into that- too complicated and not relevent to this discussion.
Anyhoo- coming to recent events, let's look at the reason why America went into Iraq.
Bush couldn't spell it, oil, Bush was bored, he didn't like Saddam's moustache, Cheney told him to. Let's not go on about what countries should now instantly support your redneck president. Let's just hope and pray he doesn't invade Canada when he sees the South Park Movie.

This crap about "The US us better no Europe is better" pisses me off to no end, it would be in EVERYONES best interest if the world worked together. There is plenty of blame to go all around....Uhh I don't even know why I bother


You are being officially warned because:
your post contains too much sense

Please do not repeat your actions, or there will be consequences.

The Soviets brought a lot of troubles on themselves, it's true. But not through their dealings with Hitler. Stalin firing every competent general in his army during the 1930s seriously didn't help him, and he needed time to train loyal, competent generals, hence the 1939 treaty with Germany! They had to spend men like water because they had the men, but not the leadership. If you throw toothpicks at a domino it'll eventually fall.
Churchill was a wise, wise man. He also coined the term 'Iron Curtain' - you're quoting him as saying that America was a 'saviour' but he also critisised America for letting the U.S.S.R have a 'European Empire'
I have already conceded that America had the best production base during this period, there's no point arguing it! I'm glad you agree that you owe us for colonising your nice continent, so that you could then pollute it and the world, choose an idiotic president who'd make it worse (refuting the Kyoto Treaty, invade countries because he couldn't spell them etc) and now you want claim for WWI AND WWII? *sighs* WWI would have been more drawn out and costly for both sides had America not intervened, I'm not ungrateful for their intervention- just stating a fact.
No-one will know if WWII could have been won by anyone without the Americans. Russia would most definitely have been able to get to Berlin, but a whole different scenario would have erupted. Let's not go into that- too complicated and not relevent to this discussion.
Anyhoo- coming to recent events, let's look at the reason why America went into Iraq.
Bush couldn't spell it, oil, Bush was bored, he didn't like Saddam's moustache, Cheney told him to. Let's not go on about what countries should now instantly support your redneck president. Let's just hope and pray he doesn't invade Canada when he sees the South Park Movie.

You know that when you think about it American ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy etc cant be that bad and if the price you pay for it once the troops go home is a McD's and a starbucks on the corner then thats not to bad compared to Saddam

AKA 'Ronsons'

I was actually refering to the Firefly above.

...but you admit that El Alamein occured after the US had entered the war?
Of course I admit that, for there is no point in saying that it didn't because it did :p
I respect your knowledge sir, for you seem to know a lot about the period. But arguing that Europe owes the U.S? I feel sad that I have to argue against you.

frankly, whoever posted the op and whoever supports him/her are rather dum, for then we'd owe britain big time (as well as spain, and italy for spawning that sob columbus), who'd owe the normans for invading them, who'd owe the visigoths for releasing them from the romans, who'd owe the romans for getting them the tech to fight the romans in the first place, who'd owe the hittites for they invented iron working who'd owe the various peoples of the mesopotamia for developing agriculture and writing and allowing metal working who'd owe god for putting their damn asses there for the first goddamn place.
in conclusion, we really owe god and therefore should stop bitching about all this shit cuz jesus never did

Europe owes the US?

The US owes Europe and the rest of the world big time. They're responsible for supporting alternatively dictators or terrorists (depending on whether they liked or didn't like the current government) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea, Saudi-Arabia, Cuba... as well as bringing the global economy crashing down. Do you know what "deficit" means? It means you owe money to other nations. Guess how high the US deficit is?

---

That sentence would make a lot more sense if you substituted n for e.

Europe PWNZ the US! Ha, losers!

Of course I admit that, for there is no point in saying that it didn't because it did :p

So, why did you give it as an example of a British victory in WWII prior to the entry of the US in the war? Maybe I'm missing something here...

I respect your knowledge sir, for you seem to know a lot about the period. But arguing that Europe owes the U.S? I feel sad that I have to argue against you.

No, I've never made the claim anywhere in this thread that anybody owes anybody else anything, I've just been skirting around the central issue.

You know that when you think about it American ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy etc cant be that bad and if the price you pay for it once the troops go home is a McD's and a starbucks on the corner then thats not to bad compared to Saddam
Well, American ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy tend to be better than a dictatorship- but wait, George Bush seems to think that "A dictatorship would be easier" Saddam needed removing, but I personally think we rushed into it. I think Bush wanted a legacy to have, and Iraq was it. *shrugs* IMO I think that if more planning had taken place to make Iraq secure after invasion then I think the scenario would be better than now.

The Soviets brought a lot of troubles on themselves, it's true. But not through their dealings with Hitler. Stalin firing every competent general in his army during the 1930s seriously didn't help him, and he needed time to train loyal, competent generals, hence the 1939 treaty with Germany! They had to spend men like water because they had the men, but not the leadership. If you throw toothpicks at a domino it'll eventually fall.
Churchill was a wise, wise man. He also coined the term 'Iron Curtain' - you're quoting him as saying that America was a 'saviour' but he also critisised America for letting the U.S.S.R have a 'European Empire'
I have already conceded that America had the best production base during this period, there's no point arguing it! I'm glad you agree that you owe us for colonising your nice continent, so that you could then pollute it and the world, choose an idiotic president who'd make it worse (refuting the Kyoto Treaty, invade countries because he couldn't spell them etc) and now you want claim for WWI AND WWII? *sighs* WWI would have been more drawn out and costly for both sides had America not intervened, I'm not ungrateful for their intervention- just stating a fact.
No-one will know if WWII could have been won by anyone without the Americans. Russia would most definitely have been able to get to Berlin, but a whole different scenario would have erupted. Let's not go into that- too complicated and not relevent to this discussion.
Anyhoo- coming to recent events, let's look at the reason why America went into Iraq.
Bush couldn't spell it, oil, Bush was bored, he didn't like Saddam's moustache, Cheney told him to. Let's not go on about what countries should now instantly support your redneck president. Let's just hope and pray he doesn't invade Canada when he sees the South Park Movie.


Prior to the German invasion, the USSR was a major trading party with Nazi Germany. Indeed they were even selling the Germans war material at a cut price. Stalin's claim that he knew hitler would turn on him was bullshit. He was actively helping the Nazi's against the west for historical reasons.

As to letting the USSR "have" a European Empire, I thought your problem with the US is that we are reckless warmonger jerks with no regard for the international community. Now we are also bad for not stabbing an ally in the back right after WWII. After all what was eastern Europe to us. We had saved our allies and defeated our enemy. But I guess we weren't warlike enough for you then. :rolleyes:

If it hadn't been for the US, Germany could have finished up in the Med for the 41 year much earlier, and launched barbarossa sooner and with more men. Additionally, if it hadn't been for things like the 7,000 aircraft and 50,000 trucks, and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of supplies we gave the USSR, I am fairly sure that the USSR would have been defeated. (Especially as we were the reason the the UK stayed in the war which tied up a minimum of 80 german divisions at any given time). So no, it is not inevtiable that the USSR would have reached berlin.

Europe owes the US?

The US owes Europe and the rest of the world big time. They're responsible for supporting alternatively dictators or terrorists (depending on whether they liked or didn't like the current government) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea, Saudi-Arabia, Cuba... as well as bringing the global economy crashing down. Do you know what "deficit" means? It means you owe money to other nations. Guess how high the US deficit is?

---

That sentence would make a lot more sense if you substituted n for e.

Europe PWNZ the US! Ha, losers!

thats true 2 bilion a day goes into the USA to keep them afloat.

So, why did you give it as an example of a British victory in WWII prior to the entry of the US in the war? Maybe I'm missing something here...



No, I've never made the claim anywhere in this thread that anybody owes anybody else anything, I've just been skirting around the central issue.
I didn't intend it as an example of a victory prior to U.S entry to war, it was done with British soldiers and British leadership.
As for not arguing the central issue, fair enough :p since the person who wrote it is clearing lacking in brain cells, is he running for president next election? ;)

Well, American ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy tend to be better than a dictatorship- but wait, George Bush seems to think that "A dictatorship would be easier" Saddam needed removing, but I personally think we rushed into it. I think Bush wanted a legacy to have, and Iraq was it. *shrugs* IMO I think that if more planning had taken place to make Iraq secure after invasion then I think the scenario would be better than now.

hindsight truely has 20/20 vision.

Europe owes the US?

The US owes Europe and the rest of the world big time. They're responsible for supporting alternatively dictators or terrorists (depending on whether they liked or didn't like the current government) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea, Saudi-Arabia, Cuba... as well as bringing the global economy crashing down. Do you know what "deficit" means? It means you owe money to other nations. Guess how high the US deficit is?

---

That sentence would make a lot more sense if you substituted n for e.

Europe PWNZ the US! Ha, losers!


That's not what deficit means. And our debt is smaller than Europe's.

With regard to the issue of Iraq, and considering that we've had current/former US troops posting in this thread, what if any training do US troops receive in terms of peacekeeping?

I'm not trying to step on any toes here, I'm genuinely curious to get information first hand.

Additionally, I don't think Europe owes the US anything today, or vice versa. The US isn't and never has been a stupid country, and it was paid back and in some cases still IS being paid back for past deeds done in the last two world wars.

And regardless of whether the US saved Europe in world war 2 or not, I think we can all agree that the collective loss of life was probably lessened by its involvement. Every single day I thank our forefathers, both British, French, Russian and American and all the Allied Nations for saving the world from facism so long ago, and that I think is something we can ALL agree on.

That's not what deficit means. And our debt is smaller than Europe's.

i believe he means trade deficit
nevertheless, it doesn't mean you actively owe another country money, simply that you pay more to them then they pay to you during trade

With regard to the issue of Iraq, and considering that we've had current/former US troops posting in this thread, what if any training do US troops receive in terms of peacekeeping?

I'm not trying to step on any toes here, I'm genuinely curious to get information first hand.

Additionally, I don't think Europe owes the US anything today, or vice versa. The US isn't and never has been a stupid country, and it was paid back and in some cases still IS being paid back for past deeds done in the last two world wars.

And regardless of whether the US saved Europe in world war 2 or not, I think we can all agree that the collective loss of life was probably lessened by its involvement. Every single day I thank our forefathers, both British, French, Russian and American and all the Allied Nations for saving the world from facism so long ago, and that I think is something we can ALL agree on.

i dont think its that much they closed the peacekeeping school that the army used to have a few years ago but then troops from kosovo are already used to that thing like the NCOs etc.

i believe he means trade deficit
nevertheless, it doesn't mean you actively owe another country money, simply that you pay more to them then they pay to you during trade

thats the current account deficit, budget deficit is what i think he means, govt speending but then that can be raised inside the USA like govt bonds? why dont we just ask him what he means what do you mean????

Prior to the German invasion, the USSR was a major trading party with Nazi Germany. Indeed they were even selling the Germans war material at a cut price. Stalin's claim that he knew hitler would turn on him was bullshit. He was actively helping the Nazi's against the west for historical reasons.

As to letting the USSR "have" a European Empire, I thought your problem with the US is that we are reckless warmonger jerks with no regard for the international community. Now we are also bad for not stabbing an ally in the back right after WWII. After all what was eastern Europe to us. We had saved our allies and defeated our enemy. But I guess we weren't warlike enough for you then. :rolleyes:

If it hadn't been for the US, Germany could have finished up in the Med for the 41 year much earlier, and launched barbarossa sooner and with more men. Additionally, if it hadn't been for things like the 7,000 aircraft and 50,000 trucks, and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of supplies we gave the USSR, I am fairly sure that the USSR would have been defeated. (Especially as we were the reason the the UK stayed in the war which tied up a minimum of 80 german divisions at any given time). So no, it is not inevtiable that the USSR would have reached berlin.

Stalin traded with Germany, because it was advantageous, he also flirted with having a treaty with Britain and France, but went for the non-aggression pact as he didn't particulary want to be invaded any time soon.
Now, don't get me wrong, but surely a democratic Eastern Europe would have been far better than puppet communist governments that Stalin could attack Western Europe from? Modern thinking also regards dictatorship as bad America also did supply Russia with materials, it supplied everybody with them. America was the 'industrial powerhouse' of WWII.
Now onto the Med, Britain held Malta, Cyprus and Gibraltar quite well through the war, and had a noose on German supply lines. As for 'finishing up' the Med, I can assure you that it most definitely wouldn't have been finished by the start date for Barbarossa (June 22 1941) although I agree that if the men used for Barbarossa were used in the Med then Britain would have lost. America was the reason the UK stayed in the war? I thought that it's intense hatred of Facism and that it wanted to remain free was? America helped supply Britain, because they were friends. That's what friends do, they help each other. Britain was the 'indomitable fortress of fortitude' with the means to do damage to Hitler and his Germanic Empire, while America was the 'industrial powerhouse' who supplied her Allies. However, if America had actively helped Germany instead of Britain, then the cause would have been lost and The USSR would easily have been defeated. But the logic of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' was used, and America decided that it would be nice to help Russia against Germany.

Our massive millitary is the reason they can have small ones, which is why they can afford their socialist public welfare programs.

Dear einstein, welfare programs are keynesian tools the government use on the economies to fight low conjectures. That you belive welfare reduce the ammount of resources the government has available to spend on it's military, only reveal your lack of knowledge.

Here's a tip, if you don't know what you're talking about, then just shut your hole and noone will know that you're stupid. ;)

Stalin traded with Germany, because it was advantageous, he also flirted with having a treaty with Britain and France, but went for the non-aggression pact as he didn't particulary want to be invaded any time soon.
Now, don't get me wrong, but surely a democratic Eastern Europe would have been far better than puppet communist governments that Stalin could attack Western Europe from? Modern thinking also regards dictatorship as bad America also did supply Russia with materials, it supplied everybody with them. America was the 'industrial powerhouse' of WWII.
Now onto the Med, Britain held Malta, Cyprus and Gibraltar quite well through the war, and had a noose on German supply lines. As for 'finishing up' the Med, I can assure you that it most definitely wouldn't have been finished by the start date for Barbarossa (June 22 1941) although I agree that if the men used for Barbarossa were used in the Med then Britain would have lost. America was the reason the UK stayed in the war? I thought that it's intense hatred of Facism and that it wanted to remain free was? America helped supply Britain, because they were friends. That's what friends do, they help each other. Britain was the 'indomitable fortress of fortitude' with the means to do damage to Hitler and his Germanic Empire, while America was the 'industrial powerhouse' who supplied her Allies. However, if America had actively helped Germany instead of Britain, then the cause would have been lost and The USSR would easily have been defeated. But the logic of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' was used, and America decided that it would be nice to help Russia against Germany.

Stalin traded a lot with Germany. He helped them big time. Therefore his casuality problems are his own.

Also the US lost more men than the UK. We actually did more fighting.

First of all, Europe never invited the USA to help in the World Wars. Also, you can't say you saved them because you only saved Allied portions of Europe. USA, and other Allies, decided to, to punish Germany, be an ass and take half of Germany's remaining territory and gave to the clutches of the "Evil Empire". Many Germans were either killed or expelled. This thread is blind, bigoted and wrong. Without Europe, USA would not exist. Without Europe, USA would not be as rich as it is today. Without Europe, the English language would have never developed into such a world language. Without Europe, there would be no fine wine to drink. Without Europe, many of today's basic technologies would not be here, much less any advanced technologies. Without Europe, there would be no pasteurisation of milk. Without Europe, there would be no Einstein and his great strides in science. Without Europe, there would be no Bill of Rights, based after the Magna Carta. Without Europe, there would be no democracy. Without Europe, we would lack the great literary works of today, such as Homer and Shakespeare. Without Europe, USA would lose a vital trading partner. Without Europe, American marijuana junkies would have no dreamland to smoke weed all they want. Without Europe, there would be no beer or lager. Without Europe, there would be no concept of representation. Without Europe, there would be no principle of separation of powers. Without Europe, the world would have not progressed technologically and left Earth in a dark age. Without Europe, there would be no Sputnik. Without Europe, there would be no quality clothing to wear and show off. Without Europe, there would be no French people to call frogs and poke fun at. Without Europe, the Internet would be half than what it is today. Without Europe, the USA economy would be alot worse off than it is now. There are so many other things to consider. But the damn forum won't let me post SOOO much information. USA best be careful when taking things for granted and then demanding payment. If USA has truly done Europe so many favours, then Europe and USA are..almost even. USA still owes things here and there to Europe. :p

Dear einstein, welfare programs are keynesian tools the government use on the economies to fight low conjectures. That you belive welfare reduce the ammount of resources the government has available to spend on it's military, only reveal your lack of knowledge.

Here's a tip, if you don't know what you're talking about, then just shut your hole and noone will know that you're stupid. ;)

Well you're not much of a brain are you? Millitary programs are also "keynesian tools".

And yes, European economies cannot afford large millitaries because of their social programs.

First of all, Europe never invited the USA to help in the World Wars. Also, you can't say you saved them because you only saved Allied portions of Europe. USA, and other Allies, decided to, to punish Germany, be an ass and take half of Germany's remaining territory and gave to the clutches of the "Evil Empire". Many Germans were either killed or expelled. This thread is blind, bigoted and wrong. Without Europe, USA would not exist. Without Europe, USA would not be as rich as it is today. Without Europe, the English language would have never developed into such a world language. Without Europe, there would be no fine wine to drink. Without Europe, many of today's basic technologies would not be here, much less any advanced technologies. Without Europe, there would be no pasteurisation of milk. Without Europe, there would be no Einstein and his great strides in science. Without Europe, there would be no Bill of Rights, based after the Magna Carta. Without Europe, there would be no democracy. Without Europe, we would lack the great literary works of today, such as Homer and Shakespeare. Without Europe, USA would lose a vital trading partner. Without Europe, American marijuana junkies would have no dreamland to smoke weed all they want. Without Europe, there would be no beer or lager. Without Europe, there would be no concept of representation. Without Europe, there would be no principle of separation of powers. Without Europe, the world would have not progressed technologically and left Earth in a dark age. Without Europe, there would be no Sputnik. Without Europe, there would be no quality clothing to wear and show off. Without Europe, there would be no French people to call frogs and poke fun at. Without Europe, the Internet would be half than what it is today. Without Europe, the USA economy would be alot worse off than it is now. There are so many other things to consider. But the damn forum won't let me post SOOO much information. USA best be careful when taking things for granted and then demanding payment. If USA has truly done Europe so many favours, then Europe and USA are..almost even. USA still owes things here and there to Europe. :p

what about the atlantic charter? and the cash and carry

Its silly to say Europe owes the US for US involvement in the two world wars.

First World War- American shipping was being attacked by the Germans the sinking of the Lusitania was one of the things which helped create American involvement.

Second World War- It would be insane for the US not to go to war after being attacked at Pearl Harbour, while Germany wasn't the one to attack Germany did declare war on the USA, and what do you do when someone declares war on you? well i think you can anwer that.

And in both cases it would have been to the detriment of the US to have a German occupied Europe because in both cases Germany would have been largely self-sufficient and Europe was the biggest market for American goods. So had Europe gone down, the American economy would have gone down the toilet.

I can sum up this topic in one sentence:

haaaaaahahahahahhahahahha!

Please, all this bickering about who won what war and who didnt help out in another way? Youre so childish. I wouldnt be too surprised if you start telling each other that your dad could beat up thier dad.

Stalin traded a lot with Germany. He helped them big time. Therefore his casuality problems are his own.

Also the US lost more men than the UK. We actually did more fighting.
Trading with someone means that you want something they have, and they want something you have. Stalin had Oil, Hitler had money.
They also collaberated together on tank designs etc until Hitler came to power, he soon stopped that.
Losing men doesn't prove that you did more fighting.
The official death count for Great Britain and America puts America losing 407,000 to Britain's 403,000, while including civilians- Britain lost 495,000 souls to America's 413,000.

I can sum up this topic in one sentence:

haaaaaahahahahahhahahahha!

Please, all this bickering about who won what war and who didnt help out in another way? Youre so childish. I wouldnt be too surprised if you start telling each other that your dad could beat up thier dad.

hey buddy my brother could beat up your dad, :D

I can sum up this topic in one sentence:

haaaaaahahahahahhahahahha!

Please, all this bickering about who won what war and who didnt help out in another way? Youre so childish. I wouldnt be too surprised if you start telling each other that your dad could beat up thier dad.

Whats wrong with a little debate, this place is meant for it political debate, if your going to make dumb suggestions like those shown above do it somewhere else, like the local playground where children are arguing over this toy/that toy

Well you're not much of a brain are you? Millitary programs are also "keynesian tools".

I never made an argument about military programs being keynesian tools or not, yet you seem to draw the conclution that I'm not much of a brain, because I supposedly am of the opinion that military programs are not keynesian tools? If you want me to make arguments and state my opinions and my point of view, and discuss that with me, then don't put words in my mouth and counterattack those words you put in my mouth before I can even say what I think of the issue you attack me for. :rolleyes:

well i think we don't owe anyone since i am british
but i think we owe everything to the women of the war without them we would have no bombs for the wars or weapons for that matter

and for info on this go here
http://www.coursework.info/i/12207.html

o yeah and heres some funny pick i found :p
http://www.bilderberg.org/lookat.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/iran-next.jpg

Whats wrong with a little debate, this place is meant for it political debate, if your going to make dumb suggestions like those shown above do it somewhere else, like the local playground where children are arguing over this toy/that toy

what a big man you are, epsom is the best place in auckland!!!

Losing men doesn't prove that you did more fighting.


That's what I say about the USSR, but it always falls on deaf ears. We did do more fighting though. Our deployments were much bigger.

As to the USSR trade thing. It's one thing to sell oil for a profit. It is another to hand over military material on credit, which stalin did,

well i think we don't owe anyone since i am british
but i think we owe everything to the women of the war without them we would have no bombs for the wars or weapons for that matter

and for info on this go here
http://www.coursework.info/i/12207.html

o yeah and heres some funny pick i found :p
http://www.bilderberg.org/lookat.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/iran-next.jpg


Yes, they say that aspect of WWII was awesome. All those women who were in good shape from hard physical labor - and with loose morals too.

Not like the flabbos today. :(

what a big man you are, epsom is the best place in auckland!!!

lol, St Heliers is quiet but the best place is in town, or K road

That's what I say about the USSR, but it always falls on deaf ears. We did do more fighting though. Our deployments were much bigger.

As to the USSR trade thing. It's one thing to sell oil for a profit. It is another to hand over military material on credit, which stalin did,

but regardless of it being the winter or the red army the USSR did rig the heart out of the german army, other contributions were important like d-day and bombing but the russians can take the credit for destroying a good part of teh german army, although alot of their equipment was american so it was a combined victory USA gave money the british time and the russians blood

lol, St Heliers is quiet but the best place is in town, or K road

what like night spots i like parnell,

Just like to point out that although the Japanese Emperor did attempt to surrender, that was futile as the shoguns of the samurai class were the ones in real control. And they would fight to last man. Nukes were dropped to save millions by destroying thousands. Lesser of 2 evils.

but regardless of it being the winter or the red army the USSR did rig the heart out of the german army, other contributions were important like d-day and bombing but the russians can take the credit for destroying a good part of teh german army, although alot of their equipment was american so it was a combined victory USA gave money the british time and the russians blood


Yes, a lot of Russians did die. No one is really sure how many, but I have heard it was over 20,000,000.

Still, the western allies also killed a lot of the bosch. Several millions.

Just like to point out that although the Japanese Emperor did attempt to surrender, that was futile as the shoguns of the samurai class were the ones in real control. And they would fight to last man. Nukes were dropped to save millions by destroying thousands. Lesser of 2 evils.

1 million allied lives was the toll expected of an invasion of japan.

We don't owe the US nothing but a kick in the nutts.

Hey! :mad:

*Covers privates*

1 million allied lives was the toll expected of an invasion of japan.

Yes and by allied, that really meant 90% US.

Yes, a lot of Russians did die. No one is really sure how many, but I have heard it was over 20,000,000.

Still, the western allies also killed a lot of the bosch. Several millions.

whats bosch is that boschoviecks crap i cant spell

Millitary programs are also "keynesian tools".


Military expences doesn't increase during low conjectures, because of the low conjectures.