NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, if it's any consolation, I also believe that the Russians had a lot to do with the defeat of Germany.

Had Hitler not been fighting the Russians (for years by the time of Normandy), you would be speaking German now, and I think that the Allies would have lost the war.

Over 1 million Germans fell in the East. That's not something that they could recover from, and still fight against the invasion.

Now, count how many Russians died doing that. It's a ghastly number.

The Russians lost more men at Kharkov in a single day than the US and UK lost on the beaches of Normandy in the whole invasion.

Agreed the russians could have one it by them selves if d-day had failed.

No, I'm quite well aware of military history. I was just trying to make a few sarcastic points with someone who believes that Britain never was beaten in battle.

War of 1812 Battle of New Orleans...

Enough said.

Regards,
Gaar

Canada Austrilia and new zealand are britian. if you check the fine points of their consitution the queen/king is still head of state.
Here it's symbolic head of state.

1932 - Act of Westminster Abby: gave Canada more legislative powers. We no longer had to answer to Britain.

1982 - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the Constutitional Act, which liberated the BNA of 1867. It was signed by PM Pierre Trudeau, thus giving Canada full freedom from Britain.

The Governor General has no power in Canada (ability to dissolve the government if it is defunct, but it has yet to happen and likley won't happen now; thus, making her powerless). She is the Queen's Representative, but is the symbolic head of state, thus meaning that our head of state is the Prime Minister, who in this case is Paul Martin of the Liberal Party,

Agreed the russians could have one it by them selves if d-day had failed.

Without the U.S. and England devastating Germany's Air Forces, the Russians would have been mincemeat!

Air Superiority definitely won the day during WWII.

Regards,
Gaar

Agreed the russians could have one it by them selves if d-day had failed.
They could have. The Nazis had forced, but the Russians had numbers...

Without the U.S. and England devastating Germany's Air Forces, the Russians would have been mincemeat!

Air Superiority definitely won the day during WWII.

Regards,
Gaar

Britain or the UK, not England, you ignorant Yank

And the canadians.

Without the U.S. and England devastating Germany's Air Forces, the Russians would have been mincemeat!

Air Superiority definitely won the day during WWII.

Regards,
Gaar

naah by the time the first paratrooper was in france the russians where nearing poland, The battle of kursk has broken the eastern front and germans where in near full retreat.

The canadians , austrailians and new zealanders must admit that they are british colonists, i mean its like liverpool or essex claiming their not british otherwise.

naah by the time the first paratrooper was in france the russians where nearing poland, The battle of kursk has broken the eastern front and germans where in near full retreat.

Yes, because Germany was stupid enough to think they could fight on 2 Fronts...

But I believe they are trying to say that Russia could have beat Germany alone, which is FAR from the truth.

If Germany had waited to go West, they could have beaten Russia in about a year maybe a bit more, in my mind.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, because Germany was stupid enough to think they could fight on 2 Fronts...

But I believe they are trying to say that Russia could have beat Germany alone, which is FAR from the truth.

If Germany had waited to go West, they could have beaten Russia in about a year maybe a bit more, in my mind.

Regards,
Gaar

Well britian fought on war on 2 fronts plus for most of the war and manged it nicely.

But any way, what really stoped the germans was not a second front, it was the russian winter and the inbility to take moscow, leningrad and stalingrad, the germans 3 main armys all got boged down their and gave the russians time to really hit back.

Well britian fought on war on 2 fronts plus for most of the war and manged it nicely.

The Russians fought alone for years as well. With progressively good results by the time Normandy occurred.

Im sorry its really a raw nerve. Every american war movie and america won the war on its own statement i see is spiting on the memory of both my grandfathers who fought their hearts out.

I feel completely the same way. Dont you get sick of the way Americans take credit for everything? And the worst thing is that British people who go to see these films believe them!

The worst film of all for that is The Patriot in which the British get evey war crime in the book thrown at them, none of which were actually committed. Thats why I never watch any historical films with the words "Directed by Mel Gibson" on the front.

Private Ryan is quite bad for that too. No British soldiers, no mention of British troops apart from one derogatory comment on Montgomery (the greatest land commander since Wellington).

Did you also know that American children are taught in schools that World War Two lasted from 1942 to 1945? Unbelievable. They really are on a road to edit everyone from themselves from World War 2.

I feel completely the same way. Dont you get sick of the way Americans take credit for everything? And the worst thing is that British people who go to see these films believe them!

The worst film of all for that is The Patriot in which the British get evey war crime in the book thrown at them, none of which were actually committed. Thats why I never watch any historical films with the words "Directed by Mel Gibson" on the front.

Private Ryan is quite bad for that too. No British soldiers, no mention of British troops apart from one derogatory comment on Montgomery (the greatest land commander since Wellington).

Did you also know that American children are taught in schools that World War Two lasted from 1942 to 1945? Unbelievable. They really are on a road to edit everyone from themselves from World War 2.

U-571 anyone?

I would have loved to have fought in the defence if sealion had gone ahead, it would have been one hell of a fight.

I only hope that every Briton would have given their life before surrendering. I certainly would have.

I feel completely the same way. Dont you get sick of the way Americans take credit for everything? And the worst thing is that British people who go to see these films believe them!

The worst film of all for that is The Patriot in which the British get evey war crime in the book thrown at them, none of which were actually committed. Thats why I never watch any historical films with the words "Directed by Mel Gibson" on the front.

Private Ryan is quite bad for that too. No British soldiers, no mention of British troops apart from one derogatory comment on Montgomery (the greatest land commander since Wellington).

Did you also know that American children are taught in schools that World War Two lasted from 1942 to 1945? Unbelievable. They really are on a road to edit everyone from themselves from World War 2.


hahah yeah i love the did in the patriot where they set the slaves free and then shoot them or something, yeah British the first country in the world to ban slavery would have done that sure...

As for 1942 to 1945 that’s a ridiculas pile of crap that shits on the memory of the millions who died before then, yeah that comment on Montgomery, shit that man practically propped up d day by him self, if caen haunt be taken well... And if market garden haunt gone tits up because some asshole gave the 1st airborne the wrong radios, well he would have won the war in 1944

WWII will be even easier to remember, since much was caught on film and not just photographs.

Regards,
Gaar

Don't forget that if you walk round a lot of the European countires you can still see the evidence of the two world wars first hand. I'm talking about more than a few maintained relics along the lines of the US forts etc. You can walk around half the European towns and still see the bullet holes in regular buildings, the evidence is all around you. There are still areas where mines go off and kill people working in the fields each year. Not trying to put down the American Civil war at all, I'm just stating that the evidence in Europe of the two world wars isn't confined at all, it's all over the place and quite in your face.

U-571 anyone?

Sorry yes that is another travesty.

Apparently they are making a new film about the Battle of Britain (titled The Few) in which Brad Pitt plays the lead. So it looks like an American is going to win the Battle of Britain for us while the British just sit around drinking tea and saying "Good tea old chap!". It is really surprising that the Americans dont give th Germans a token British bad guy accent as well.

U-571 anyone?

that’s another one, all the brave spies and sailors, not the mention the x hundred members of polish resistance who died getting that enigma, hell no its was Harvey Keitel in his submarine

hahah yeah i love the did in the patriot where they set the slaves free and then shoot them or something, yeah British the first country in the world to ban slavery would have done that sure...

As for 1942 to 1945 that’s a ridiculas pile of crap that shits on the memory of the millions who died before then, yeah that comment on Montgomery, shit that man practically propped up d day by him self, if caen haunt be taken well... And if market garden haunt gone tits up because some asshole gave the 1st airborne the wrong radios, well he would have won the war in 1944

The British actually allied themselves with the slaves during that war as well as the Indian tribes.

Sorry yes that is another travesty.

Apparently they are making a new film about the Battle of Britain (titled The Few) in which Brad Pitt plays the lead. So it looks like an American is going to win the Battle of Britain for us while the British just sit around drinking tea and saying "Good tea old chap!". It is really surprising that the Americans dont give th Germans a token British bad guy accent as well.

Now thats a fucking insult, there were 40 americans in the whole raf, and they were volunteers who were basically shuned by the us goverment untill they enterd the war.
I think i might even organise a boycott of that, thats a fucking travesy

I feel completely the same way. Dont you get sick of the way Americans take credit for everything? And the worst thing is that British people who go to see these films believe them!


Did you also know that American children are taught in schools that World War Two lasted from 1942 to 1945? Unbelievable. They really are on a road to edit everyone from themselves from World War 2.

So wouldn't that also be a mark against the British education system?

No they're not. I'm a history teacher in a US school.

Did you know that Brits never go to the dentist? No? Because it's a stupid stereotype.

So wouldn't that also be a mark against the British education system?

No they're not. I'm a history teacher in a US school.

Did you know that Brits never go to the dentist? No? Because it's a stupid stereotype.

Actually ww2 is a huge part of the GCSE corse, anyone whos not a idiot and allmost certainly anyone who went to university will have pretty much the same view point as me.

So wouldn't that also be a mark against the British education system?

No they're not. I'm a history teacher in a US school.

Did you know that Brits never go to the dentist? No? Because it's a stupid stereotype.

Its always rather odd on this forum. Whenever you insult an army, people are all suddenly members of the armed forces (why would Privates go on a political simulation website?). When you insult eudcation systems, legions of teachers suddenly appear out of the blue to confront you.

And I don't pretend to defend the British way of teaching history (being a history student myself) - unfortunately it includes too muhc foreign stuff at a lower level. Thats why I hope the Conservaitves get in: they are going to mkae history compulsory upt to Year 11 (the last year of coumpulsory education).

Its always rather odd on this forum. Whenever you insult an army, people are all suddenly members of the armed forces (why would Privates go on a political simulation website?). When you insult eudcation systems, legions of teachers suddenly appear out of the blue to confront you.

And I don't pretend to defend the British way of teaching history (being a history student myself) - unfortunately it includes too muhc foreign stuff at a lower level. Thats why I hope the Conservaitves get in: they are going to mkae history compulsory upt to Year 11 (the last year of coumpulsory education).

http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=8888

everyone has different reasons, but im pretty certain for the vast majority of people who arent too fond of the US at the minute, the reason is not jealousy or envy

its also incredibely self centred to say America...you really should have said the USA. the rest of America is pretty much fine


ok since you are chosen to speak for all the people who dislike the US and its policies

i would like to ask you to not beat around the bush and tell us exacly what is unliked, you spent your time saying what you dont think it is and avoided saying what it (in your opinion) is

i dont dislike all Americans, but heres a few reasons

you spent 40 years propping up dictatorships and helping terrorists.

the vast majority of the IRAs funding comes from the US, and the IRA has done its best to destroy the place where i live

America prances round the world like it knows best, like someone has given them the position of the world police, being entirely hypocritical in its foreign affairs, and telling other countries what to do

that enough?

You're from britain? Dont try to say \like you never tried to be the world police back in the 1800s/early 1900s when you were the biggest superpower and had the bset navy

You're from britain? Dont try to say \like you never tried to be the world police back in the 1800s/early 1900s when you were the biggest superpower and had the bset navy

Not really, we had our own econmic intrests and kept to that, we occsionaly had to invade various parts of europe when they threated this, but we never did so under the false pretensions of freedom, or trying to make their country a parlemenarty repulic like ours.

Apologies for only reading the first 10 pages or so. I'm on a bit of a time-crunch and dont have the time required to read all 69 pages, but I'm just requesting my two cents anyhow.

The problem I have with my country (That's right, I'm from the states) is multi-fold.

The states seem to have an overly self-righteous view on themselves. I talk to many people that support our president, and their best argument is usually "Well I just support him because he's our president and he deserves it". I see that as plain rediculous, almost saying "Terrorists work hard, so we should support them too".

That brings me to another point, The newly titled "Operation Iraqi freedom" and the "War on terrorism". When the War in Iraq began, it was named simply that, The "War on Iraq". I suppose they weren't very keen and couldn't think of such an ass-covering name like Operation Iraqi freedom (And watching my president's speeches explains it in a way).

People often like to coin 9/11 as the reason the states went to war with Iraq. Here it becomes fairly obvious what a hold the media has on my country. People like to think that "The terrorists are evil and are comin' to get us, grab a gun, cause the terror alert is orange!" (does anyone even beleive that makes us safer anyways?). The funny thing is, my country doesn't seem to enjoy irony (If you don't see where I'm going with this, google "CIA activities with Osama Bin Laden").

Anyways, thats about all of the rant I can come up with right now, as I just arrived home from school. Hope some of you find it somewhat enlightening.

Oh and by the way, how about instead of praying for our soldiers(who although, are more innocent than the general who popped the order to open up the torture rooms for those poor souls), pray for some innocent women who was bombed by our country for a change. Thanks.

Well, I only have a few things to say to all you Brits.

1. We don't support the IRA officially. Private citizens support it, and the US gov't can't stop that because we aren't a totalitarian regime.

2. Brits have no reason to be in ireland in the first place. Although I suppose you have just as much right to it as you did to Scotland. You call us an empire? At least we give up what we take. You just get pissy whenever it's mentioned. Don't shit in our backyard when the only thing protecting your own is a whole lot of guns. Maybe if you hadn't violently taken Northern ireland in the first place because you are empirical, obnoxious, self-absorbed cultural elitists it wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention that Mel Gibson did a good job as William Wallace. But I'm guessing you hate him for that too. Funny though, my old minister was Scottish, and so was his son. And they didn't like you Brits one bit.

3. No history teacher that I know of teaches that WWII itself lasted from 1942-45. They teach that American INTERVENTION lasted that long. My mother is a teacher, formerly of history, now of English. For instance, I was taught that Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, two days after the invasion of Poland. But hey, you prolly aren't interested in the truth, are you?

4. The turn of the war DID come after American intervention. Deny that if you want, but it only shows your bigotry. Russia would not have stood against an undivided Germanic army. Britain was trapped on its island until we entered. And when you "won" the Battle of Britain, it left a great deal of London SHATTERED. It was an air batlle, in case you forget. And you did not have the power to bypass the subs that Germans had blockading your forces. Your Navy is good, but it had no chance against subs.

5. I can't remember who said it, but Britain never fought a war on "two fronts" in WWII. Any forces it placed in Africa and the Pacific were hardly consequential, due to a lack of numbers. And I do believe it was YOUR military that condescended so on American forces, along with Americans having to endure the contempt of the poilus, simply because they were American. Nevermind our vast accomplishments, and the fact that after the war the US single-handedly rebuilt Europe with the Marshall plan. Although we got no thanks from you all. Except for when all of you defaulted on your debts.

6. If Germany had concentrated solely on Britain, you would have been annihilated long before we stepped in. The division of forces to fight on two fronts opened up some new options. The fact that the Russians lost 21 million people would indicate that their military forces were pretty pathetic, and that they were very lucky the harsh winter arrived and as usual the invaders were not properly prepared.

7. A man that works for my father had a father that fought in D-Day. I spoke to him about it, and he said the general consensus among the troops, according to his father, was that the foreign commanders you are so proud of used them unnecessarily, unintelligently, and wasted Americans lives with head-on attacks that threw men against fortified positions, sacrificing their lives needlessly. In other words, your "brilliant" commanders possessed no sense of strategy, and threw our men deadlong against whatever they could find. Brilliant strategy...

Apologies for only reading the first 10 pages or so. I'm on a bit of a time-crunch and dont have the time required to read all 69 pages, but I'm just requesting my two cents anyhow.

The problem I have with my country (That's right, I'm from the states) is multi-fold.

The states seem to have an overly self-righteous view on themselves. I talk to many people that support our president, and their best argument is usually "Well I just support him because he's our president and he deserves it". I see that as plain rediculous, almost saying "Terrorists work hard, so we should support them too".

That brings me to another point, The newly titled "Operation Iraqi freedom" and the "War on terrorism". When the War in Iraq began, it was named simply that, The "War on Iraq". I suppose they weren't very keen and couldn't think of such an ass-covering name like Operation Iraqi freedom (And watching my president's speeches explains it in a way).

People often like to coin 9/11 as the reason the states went to war with Iraq. Here it becomes fairly obvious what a hold the media has on my country. People like to think that "The terrorists are evil and are comin' to get us, grab a gun, cause the terror alert is orange!" (does anyone even beleive that makes us safer anyways?). The funny thing is, my country doesn't seem to enjoy irony (If you don't see where I'm going with this, google "CIA activities with Osama Bin Laden").

Anyways, thats about all of the rant I can come up with right now, as I just arrived home from school. Hope some of you find it somewhat enlightening.

Oh and by the way, how about instead of praying for our soldiers(who although, are more innocent than the general who popped the order to open up the torture rooms for those poor souls), pray for some innocent women who was bombed by our country for a change. Thanks.

Oh shut up! First off, summarizing an opponents "best argument" is ridiculous because you have no say over what our arguments are. And your "pick" is most likely not what I would choose. Therefore, don't speak for us if you don't mind.

Second, I couldn't care less if the terrorists are coming NOW. They CAME, and when they did they killed friends of my family, and relatives of some of my friends, as well as the sister of one of my favorite teachers. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether they are planning another attack. They have yet to pay for the first one, IMHO. AMERICANS have never taken tyrrany with a wink and a shrug. We have always fought, as far back as the beginning of our nation's history. Get used to it.

And if I ever meet you in person, by the way, I'm going to break your jaw for that last comment about our soldiers. If you are too much of a coward to get out there and defend your country, then never criticize those who do. I can only wish my National Guard unit had been taken. Instead, I have to live with the fact that the Georgetown National Guard unit went, and some good friends of mine got hurt. I wasn't there to help them, and that's the worst feeling there is. I can completely sympathize with American soldiers taking out that sort of frustration on captured terrorists. I wish I could get my hands on a couple, and pay them back for those friends of mine who came home alive, thank God, but with a bullet in them. You, of course, wouldn't know about that kind of bond. Your loss.

I hear that the Future Combat System will not have heavy items like the Abrams in any case - so there might not even be a US heavy battle tank in the future.
Most likely, the Belgians for example won't replace there Leo's and ordered more mobile and lighter systems, forgot what they ordered but it was very recent in the news.

Oh shut up! First off, summarizing an opponents "best argument" is ridiculous because you have no say over what our arguments are. And your "pick" is most likely not what I would choose. Therefore, don't speak for us if you don't mind.

Second, I couldn't care less if the terrorists are coming NOW. They CAME, and when they did they killed friends of my family, and relatives of some of my friends, as well as the sister of one of my favorite teachers. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether they are planning another attack. They have yet to pay for the first one, IMHO. AMERICANS have never taken tyrrany with a wink and a shrug. We have always fought, as far back as the beginning of our nation's history. Get used to it.

never supported tyranny? Never friendly with dictators?
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html


And if I ever meet you in person, by the way, I'm going to break your jaw for that last comment about our soldiers. If you are too much of a coward to get out there and defend your country, then never criticize those who do. I can only wish my National Guard unit had been taken. Instead, I have to live with the fact that the Georgetown National Guard unit went, and some good friends of mine got hurt. I wasn't there to help them, and that's the worst feeling there is. I can completely sympathize with American soldiers taking out that sort of frustration on captured terrorists. I wish I could get my hands on a couple, and pay them back for those friends of mine who came home alive, thank God, but with a bullet in them. You, of course, wouldn't know about that kind of bond. Your loss.

Ever stopped to think that the 'terrorists' in Iraq might view themselves as patriots defending their country?

Well, I only have a few things to say to all you Brits.

1. We don't support the IRA officially. Private citizens support it, and the US gov't can't stop that because we aren't a totalitarian regime.

But if i was to start a fund that suppored al quida id be arrested funny that, thanks assholes, the IRA allmost killed my dad at canary warf


2. Brits have no reason to be in Ireland in the first place. Although I suppose you have just as much right to it as you did to Scotland. You call us an empire? At least we give up what we take. You just get pissy whenever it's mentioned. Don't shit in our backyard when the only thing protecting your own is a whole lot of guns. Maybe if you hadn't violently taken Northern ireland in the first place because you are empirical, obnoxious, self-absorbed cultural elitists it wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention that Mel Gibson did a good job as William Wallace. But I'm guessing you hate him for that too. Funny though, my old minister was Scottish, and so was his son. And they didn't like you Brits one bit.

Im scotish numb nuts, and not a single person in Scotland wouldn’t consider them selves british, we just hate being called England, as for Ireland why not the only thing that makes ireland different from wales or scotland is about mile of water, the english have been their since about 1300 and why the hell isn’t it british.


3. No history teacher that I know of teaches that WWII itself lasted from 1942-45. They teach that American INTERVENTION lasted that long. My mother is a teacher, formerly of history, now of English. For instance, I was taught that Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, two days after the invasion of Poland. But hey, you prolly aren't interested in the truth, are you?

Was not my point and did doubt it abit, but you guys teach creationism in some states so i doubt teaching thats a push.


4. The turn of the war DID come after American intervention. Deny that if you want, but it only shows your bigotry. Russia would not have stood against an undivided Germanic army. Britain was trapped on its island until we entered. And when you "won" the Battle of Britain, it left a great deal of London SHATTERED. It was an air batlle, in case you forget. And you did not have the power to bypass the sub
s that Germans had blockading your forces. Your Navy is good, but it had no chance against subs.

no the turn of the war came in Stalingrad , and Egypt, both of these denied the germans the oil they needed, and so their blitzkreig ability was out the window, and then the russkis really put the hurt on, as for the uboat campaign bah it wasn’t that great and was beat by the end of 1942


5. I can't remember who said it, but Britain never fought a war on "two fronts" in WWII. Any forces it placed in Africa and the Pacific were hardly consequential, due to a lack of numbers. And I do believe it was YOUR military that condescended so on American forces, along with Americans having to endure the contempt of the poilus, simply because they were American. Nevermind our vast accomplishments, and the fact that after the war the US single-handedly rebuilt Europe with the Marshall plan. Although we got no thanks from you all. Except for when all of you defaulted on your debts.

Again your ignorance is shining through, the British army defeated both the Italians and Germans in north africa = poof a whole army gone, the American operation torch was an attack on vichy france morrco, and won because there where about 6 germans left. Id count that a second front to the defence of britian itself, and what about the indian army and the anzacs in south east asia, ok your right that never happend of corse. And no you dint default the debts you called them back quite recenlty.

6. If Germany had concentrated solely on Britain, you would have been annihilated long before we stepped in. The division of forces to fight on two fronts opened up some new options. The fact that the Russians lost 21 million people would indicate that their military forces were pretty pathetic, and that they were very lucky the harsh winter arrived and as usual the invaders were not properly prepared.

It did it was called operation sealion, it failed because of the battle of Britain, you seem to forget although we lost our armoured corps in France thanks to their awesome ability to fight, we still had an effective infantry, a navy superior to that of Germany and an air force that well beat the Luftwaffe. Any naval assault would have seen huge German losses. As for the Russians loosing 21 million well its undoubted that they had shit weapons to begin with, but at least they fought when the germans where knocking on their doors, id like to have seen americans do the same.

7. A man that works for my father had a father that fought in D-Day. I spoke to him about it, and he said the general consensus among the troops, according to his father, was that the foreign commanders you are so proud of used them unnecessarily, unintelligently, and wasted Americans lives with head-on attacks that threw men against fortified positions, sacrificing their lives needlessly. In other words, your "brilliant" commanders possessed no sense of strategy, and threw our men deadlong against whatever they could find. Brilliant strategy...
That opinion of one man, most probably a foot solider guess that makes it gospel then, it was hardly Montgomery’s fault that the u.s decided not to bomb the beach bunkers before landing it was your sector after all and you like a challenge don’t you. you seem to also forget that in the opening stages of d-day that British empire troops far outnumbered that of American troops, hell im not even going to argue this point because you basically deny that Montgomery campaign in Africa ever happened and so their no point discussing tactics with you really.

Want to argue some more ill be back in the morning

you seem to also forget that in the opening stages of d-day that British empire troops far outnumbered that of American troops,

True, even 2 weeks after D-day, there were 2 a 3 times more British troops on land then US troops. Only in the beginning of 1945, the numbers equivaled that of the Brits and in may 1945, there were more US troops then Brits in the WET (West EU Theatre).

no the turn of the war came in Stalingrad , and Egypt, both of these denied the germans the oil they needed, and so their blitzkreig ability was out the window, and then the russkis really put the hurt on, as for the uboat campaign bah it wasn’t that great and was beat by the end of 1942



For me the Blitzkrieg stopped in december 1941 with the Russian counteroffensife, that was a tactical defeat for Germany, Stalingrad was the psychological one and the los of half a million troops during operation Bagration in summer 1944 (biggest defeat for Germany in the war with the destruction of army groop center) was the strategical one that stopped all hope for a stabilisation of the frontline (war would be lost anyway).

It did it was called operation sealion, it failed because of the battle of Britain, you seem to forget although we lost our armoured corps in France thanks to their awesome ability to fight, we still had an effective infantry, a navy superior to that of Germany and an air force that well beat the Luftwaffe. Any naval assault would have seen huge German losses.

Absolutely true, people tend to forget that a invasion takes time to plan, the Kriegsmarine had not the material to undertake such mission in 1940. It had lost half of it's torpedoboats and destroyers during april 1940 in Norway, together with a cruiser. The Royal Navy simply was to strong. Only option was a total control of the airspace above the channel, but they made the strategic error of not killing the RAF and starting to bomb the cities. At one moment there was only 1 or 2 of the 12 airfields in use in the sector of South East England that could defend the channel, we all know how it ended. a invasion in 1940 was not possible, and in 1941, Germany focused on other things like we know.

As for the Russians loosing 21 million well its undoubted that they had shit weapons to begin with, but at least they fought when the germans where knocking on their doors, id like to have seen americans do the same.


Not that lousy, a heavy KWVI or II outclased the panzers, don't forget that in 1941, Germany only had some few PzkwIV and the backbone of the armoured forces still was PzkwII and III, from wich most had the 50mm cannon and the majority of those had to wait until 1942 for the (still short) 75mm cannon. No Tigers, Ferdinands or Panthers to during that era. Russia really had some fine tanks but they were used in a wrong way against a Germany that used superior tactics and had genius men like Manstein and Guderian. There also was a perfect collaboration with the Luftwaffe that dominated the battlefield. Until december, it also was the OKH and OKW that lead the war and had not to deal with Hitlers lack of millitary inseight. When he made himself chief of the OKH and fired Brauchnitz and had his will about everything, even on batalion level, things really turned bad and lead to stupidities like the split and multiple change of the goals of Armygroup South that led to Stalingrad.

For more information (dates in use aso) and the profiles and types:

www.achtungpanzer.com

But if i was to start a fund that suppored al quida id be arrested funny that, thanks assholes, the IRA allmost killed my dad at canary warf

I actually wonder if Americans actually realise that the IRA is a terrorist group just as much as Al-Qaieda is. Alot of their private citizens donate to the IRA to fund their terror campaigns against loyalist Northern Irish (the majority I might add) and British citizens. In the past even the American government has funded the IRA and the Fenians.

I wonder if the American government would similarily allow their citizens to donate money to Osama bin Laden and his motley crew? I doubt it -they would be in Gunatamono Bay before they could count to 10. There's probably loads of Americans on here who call the IRA a "freedom force" while denouncing Bin Laden as a terrorist.

I live in Birmingham and my dad was in that pub the night before the bomb went off. When so many died. So many families left grieiving for their fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, mothers and wives. And there are Americans who have the affrontery to praise the IRA in front of British people on this forum. The IRA are nothing but a bunch of half rate murderers whose only goal is to cause terror and sadness. Never mind that the majority of Northern Ireland want to maintain the Union. No, they would maintain their campaign of hate no matter what.

The Americans have been fighting Islamic terrorism since 2001. We have been fighting Irish terrorism since the 1850s.

I actually wonder if Americans actually realise that the IRA is a terrorist group just as much as Al-Qaieda is. Alot of their private citizens donate to the IRA to fund their terror campaigns against loyalist Northern Irish (the majority I might add) and British citizens. In the past even the American government has funded the IRA and the Fenians.

I wonder if the American government would similarily allow their citizens to donate money to Osama bin Laden and his motley crew? I doubt it -they would be in Gunatamono Bay before they could count to 10. There's probably loads of Americans on here who call the IRA a "freedom force" while denouncing Bin Laden as a terrorist.

I live in Birmingham and my dad was in that pub the night before the bomb went off. When so many died. So many families left grieiving for their fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, mothers and wives. And there are Americans who have the affrontery to praise the IRA in front of British people on this forum. The IRA are nothing but a bunch of half rate murderers whose only goal is to cause terror and sadness. Never mind that the majority of Northern Ireland want to maintain the Union. No, they would maintain their campaign of hate no matter what.

The Americans have been fighting Islamic terrorism since 2001. We have been fighting Irish terrorism since the 1850s.

Cry me a damned river. I lost three family members in an IRA bombing, and I don't blame the Americans for it. I blame the specific individuals who carried out the bombing, and I blame those who donated money, but I don't blame the entire nation of America any more than I blame the entire Republic of Ireland. *Shrugs* Besides which, it's probably direct descendants of Catholic immigrants who are doing the funding.

And calling people Fenians is akin to calling black people niggers.

Edit: Also, it seems that nowadays most of the overseas funding comes from Australian Irish, not American.

Did you also know that American children are taught in schools that World War Two lasted from 1942 to 1945? Unbelievable. They really are on a road to edit everyone from themselves from World War 2.

That is completely untrue. Although it's commonly taught that the US was involved from 1941 after Pearl Harbor, the common teaching is that WWII began in 1939 with the invasion of Poland.

By the way, if Britain and France had done what they should have when Germany occupied the Rhineland, WWII would probably have never happened.

Did you also know that American children are taught in schools that World War Two lasted from 1942 to 1945?


Did you know that ignorant Brits assume they know what is taught to American children in school?

FYI: My 13 yr old son's answer to the when WWII(European theater) started was 1939! I guess you don't know as much as you think you do!

Did you know that ignorant Brits assume they know what is taught to American children in school?

FYI: My 13 yr old son's answer to the when WWII(European theater) started was 1939! I guess you don't know as much as you think you do!
Are all Brits "ignorant" or were you just making a generalized comment?

A rather poorly put across argument. In the cultural stakes, America is a very low player. Culture generally is not judged from the view of single person but from the view of those outside. And when you consider what American culture (the culture of mass produced corporations), they dont stand a chance. Russia destroyed individualism through the brutality of the police state - America has destroyed individualism by affecting social pressures through the giant beast of mass produced business. American culture is generally uniform which is veyr bland when cosnidering the many cultures that co-exist in Britain, France and Germany.

I really don't see any differernce between the levels of individualism here in England, and over in America. There are two basic groups - people you know, and people you don't. When you know people, you see their differences. When you don't, you judge them based on stereotypes and prejudices. It doesn't matter if you're American, British, or from Pitcairn Island, that's how things work. So to say that American culture destroyed individuality in the same way as the Soviets did is a shocking comparison, and one which suggests you are trying to shock far more than you are trying to make a valid point.

Firstly just because the columinst works for the Daily Mail does not make his comment invalid just as if one of us worked for the Daily Mail. Th Mail might not be the best paper in the world (far from it) but it is by far the best British tabloid. I prefer the Telegraph myself.

The Daily Mail is a paper which uses terror and controversy to sell. It's like The Sun, but with a marginally higher standard of language and no Page 3. When the Daily Mail stops scaring the British public with stories of how evil immigrants are, I will give them some more respect.

Britain spent the entire of the latter half of the 1800s learning that the iron fist does not work when dealing with insurgency and popular terrorist movements. The British governments (both Conservative and Liberal) introduced Coercion Act after Coercion Act, at one point suspending habeus corpus and inflating police power. What did this do? It jsut increased the insurgency. It made martyrs of the nationalist leaders like Parnell and just caused even more defiance against the 'English tyrants'. You say you live in Northern ireland - well you must know that we have placed hundreds of troops in Northern ireland to try and settle the troubles by force. What has it done? Caused nothing but 30 years of never ending violence, murder and suspicion.

In the 1800s we did not have the technology we do today. More to the point, we are in a situation where people in a democratic, advanced, industrialised, free country can make an offer of murder and face no repercussions. If you honestly think the police presence has caused the violence, you apparently don't know much about Northern Ireland. Certainly it has contributed, that cannot be argued, but the alternative was to let the IRA bomb and murder as they pleased.

America will learn that being gung ho is all well and good against a visible threat like Nazi Germany but is practically suicidal when performed against virtually invisible terrorist cells who can strike from the shadows and disappear back into them. In Iraq, a thousand deaths have been caused by insurgency and terrorism. Heavy handness will not win the war against terror. It can only be won on the battlefield for the hearts and minds of Islamic citizens and because of heavy handed action, many of those citizens (from those in Britain to those in Bali) now flee more compassion for the terrorists and their cause than they foir the West.

If those people truly feel like that - and I don't believe for a moment anyone other than the radicals do - then I'll just point them to an incident called Beslan. America doesn't deliberately target schoolchildren, civilians, and so forth, unless it's with damned good reason. And if they STILL feel like that, they're pretty much as bad as the terrorists themselves, frankly.

Success is not the only measure of quality. The PlayStation 2 might be the most successful games console but Nintendo produce better quality games. Friends and MacDonalds are successful not because of quality but because of mediocrity. They are not very good but neither are very bad so they neither offend nor overly please people and therefore manage to appease a wide range of people.

That's subjective. I happen to feel the best games by far are on the PS2 and the GC is a pretty lame console - but Nintendo are still holding on, so a lot of people must like it nonetheless. At any rate, your idea that mediocrity = sales is true if everything is mediocre and MacDonald's is cheapest, but that would mean you would have to concede that all other foods one can pick up from a chippy or whatever are equally as mediocre. I doubt you're going to concede that, so would you care to explain how an apparently mediocre, nothing special brand has become planet-wide, whilst all those small shops on the high street remain small shops on the high street, when they're obviously better?

Why does it need fixing? The system has worked perfectly well for the past 200 years and still does produce the desired result - the party with the most votes usually does win. I do say usually but the situation where a party wins because it has more MPs but less actual votes has only occured twice in the last hundred years. And because of the multiple party system, if there is a close majority (i.e. a hung parliament) then all of the parties are represented because the government can't just push through acts - it has to make the others agree with them.

Agreed, our system isn't bad for the most part, there are plenty of lesser alternatives. Nonetheless, the House of Commons generally resembles a school playground, and it makes the election campaigns in America look like high-brow, restrained, impersonal affairs.

How very foolish of you to stumble into my favourite area of history - defending the British Empire and imperialism in general. Very well, let the mashing commence.

So, basically, what you are saying is that it is perfectly reasonable for Britain to be an imperialistic power - regardless of the consequences and the suffering endured through it - but not America? Well we have fairly similar values; what's the difference? I don't think you're old enough to have been around and seen the general public opinion worldwide at the time, so it is perfectly possible that Britain was regarded then in a similar way the US is now.

Firstly we might note that imperial powers rarely treated their imperial subjects in a genocidal way (or at least not on purpose). Generally such incidents are isolated that are not reflective of the general conduct of the imperial powers. For example the Boer War concentration camps of the British. Now the word concentration camp does not mean the same as the Nazi version - the Nazis murdered their victims through malice while the British killed theirs through ignorance of medical hygenie and misplaced goodwill. Such an incident was completely and utterly isolated - it was not a repeat and it was not repeated.

And America is not doing this either. The casualties are being inflicted by delusional madmen who think killing people will drive out the Americans. In fact, I note a distinct absence of concentration camps, I see prisons with at the worst occasional acts of isolated abuse of the prisoners - and the British are as guilty as the Americans here, I will remind you.

The example of India is poorly made. India has gained far more from Britain than it ever lost. It gained industry, centres of education, transport networks, civil government, burecracies, modernised taxation, modernised agricultural methods and national unity. It is because of the foundations that Britain laid down that India is now a super power and the world's largest democracy. That demcoracy was recently tested by the elections and the winner actually stood down when it was suggested that there were some irregularities. Could you imagine Bush or Blair doing that? The British gave them everything they needed for such a success - without the British it is doubtful that India would be as well off today. The Indian indepence movement owes its creation to Britain too - remember that Gandhi was an Oxbridge educated lawyer.

Again, this simply shows that you're fine with British imperialism, but American imperialism is not ok. Why is that? Well I must admit, from where I am sitting it really does look like envy, because we can't force our values onto others anymore but the US can. The fact that the leader stepped down when irregularities were suggested proves nothing. Indeed it may indicate he knew damn well he was guilty, and had no way of avoiding being caught, so he got out before that happened. I really don't see how forcing OUR values is fine, but the US forcing HER values is not, because there isn't as large an ideological difference in them as some people seem to think.

And can you really say that Ireland (or Northern ireland) is really that bad off?Admittedly they have had some civil unrest but nothing reaching the levels of civil war. If I remember correctly, didn't the EU claim that Ireland was its most prosperous nation? They didn't do too badly out of Britain either.

No, Ireland is in damn good shape mostly, but ask anyone who lived there through The Troubles and you won't get a great response. Similarly, I doubt you'll get a great response from Iraqis in thirty years time, but then again, they'll (Fingers crossed) have the freedom to criticise, which is something they've been denied for the last 30 years plus.

As for the African states (and Iraq), the simple reason is that the British were in control of them for a quite a short period of tiem. We were unable to grant them the full benefits of imperial colonism which long term colonies like India received. Which is why it is my fervent belief that the best way to sort out the African problems is to have the Western powers take over.

And yet America is wrong to be staying for a long time. Look, I've got this weird suspicion that you and I are in complete agreement over a lot of things, but that you just see there being something terrible about the US' involvement in any of it.

And I am sure in 50 years time when some people say that America was good, people will say "Oh but what about Vietnam, Iraq etc?"

We will see. Vietnam, undoubtedly. Iraq just held elections with at the least a 60% voter turnout. I'm fairly confident that they wanted to have those elections, and it seems to me (From the fact we've had to keep him under guard and not hand him over to the Iraqis.) that they're also glad Saddam is gone. (Remember them beating his statue with the soles of their shoes?)

And actually the British did colonise with idealism. Thats why many historians call it the Empire of Good Intentions. The plan was quite simple and advocated by most Liberals. Go into barbaric, didivded countries, grant unto them the light of Britannic civilisation and then release them once the job was done and they were able to support themselves. Then they wouldn't be bound to Britain as a colony is bound to its master but it would be part of a Commonwealth of equal nations, all brought together by love of the mother state, Britain. That plan was being exexcuted and would be still being executed today had America not ruined the chances of it.

If they were to be 'released' once they were finished being 'enlightened', why did the British Empire become the second largest the world has ever seen? (Only exceeded by the Mongols, if I remember correctly.) Surely at least some of those countries should have been released long before the movement for independence of the last century? Indeed, why was there such a movement if our colonialism was so wonderful and enlightening? I submit that we were rather less enlightening than you claim, and that people wanted independence because they felt they were suffering unfairly. Now, there's a strong case to be made for staying in a country for a long time after one conquers it - just look to Japan, where US troops remained for 6 years before the Japanese got sovereignity back; and observe Japan's healthy, strong economy atoday. In no way is that to be ascribed entirely to the US, but the fact that they stayed so long was what allowed the Japanese to come to terms with their defeat and to establish a free and democratic ideal.

The American Dream is often put into these simple words: any man can be President. This seems to be the core of your argument here. Well firstly have you looked at American presidents? All of them come from rich, business families or from the few established political houses (like the Kennedys or the Bushs). Almost all of their representatives are rich business men because only rich business men can afford the campaign. And when in power they look after the interests of other rich business men which is why America has very little social welfare - rich business men believe it would damage the economy and so their friends in the elected bodies ensure that it is never passed.

Admittedly, this is true, and I cannot contest this. However, Clinton is a president who started out with very little and rose to become the most powerful man alive. Nixon wasn't from the rich elite, at least not as far as I can tell. I dunno what to make of Reagan, but he didn't start out with a silver spoon in his mouth unless I've been misinformed.

Compare this to the British system. Margret Thatcher was the daughter of a green grocer. John Major was the son of a circus acrobat. Disraeli was the son of a Jewish writer. David Llyod George came from a tiny mining village in Wales. MPs tend not to be rich people with business connections - they tend to be lawyers who have good knowledge of human rights, hte legislative process and the judicial process. And anyone can become a laywer. It costs virtually next to nothing to run as an MP in Britain. Thats why some Labour MPs are former miners. In the Commons there are also doctors and teachers. It would seem to me that you have far greater a chance of becoming Prime Minister of Britain than you do of becoming President of America.

Again, agreed (Although I submit I would not be elected here because my policies would be overly America :p), but many of the people in power in the US are educated men.

In Britain we do have a huge history with the word and ideal of liberty - it was mentioned in the time of the Magna Carta in the 1300s and has been present throughout the many trials and tribulations of this country. We do see anything special in it AT THE MOMENT because this is a time of political apathy and too many people take that ideal fro granted. My comment on it beign a frail idol is not meant as an attack on liberty but rather as a general comment. It is frail because it is far too easily shattered.

And things do get done in Europe. If you paid attention, watched the news, listened to Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4 you could hear these things being done. but as I said this is a terrible time of political apathy in Europe and so the media does not spend time highlighting politics because politics does not at the moment sell or gain ratings.

Alright, that's fair enough, I can see where you are coming from with the apathy angle. I was a very avid follower of BBC news 24 but sadly this new house doesn't have cable TV, and I'm not a huge fan of the radio though I do listen occasionally. But still, whilst the EU is taking care of things within her own borders, most of what she does outside involves criticising the Americans. We all know that protesting the US won't stop them anytime soon - if Europe had been more solidly behind Iraq, then not only would operations be easier to run, Europe could have had a far larger say in what happens in Iraq, ergo containing American influence, which seems to be the happymaker of a great many people.

I dunno what to make of Reagan, but he didn't start out with a silver spoon in his mouth unless I've been misinformed.

Just an aside...Reagan was born in Illinois, got a degree in economics and sociology, and was a radio sportscaster on WHO radio in Des Moines, Iowa before a chance screen test earned him a trip to Hollywood. Not exactly a silver spoon.


The American Dream is often put into these simple words: any man can be President. This seems to be the core of your argument here. Well firstly have you looked at American presidents? All of them come from rich, business families or from the few established political houses (like the Kennedys or the Bushs). Almost all of their representatives are rich business men because only rich business men can afford the campaign. And when in power they look after the interests of other rich business men which is why America has very little social welfare - rich business men believe it would damage the economy and so their friends in the elected bodies ensure that it is never passed.

In fact, most US presidents came from humble beginnings. Abraham Lincoln was born in the sticks and worked his way through law school. Chester Arthur was the son of an Irish immigrant minister. William McKinley was a countryr school teacher. Calvin Coolidge was the son of a shopkeeper. Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleavland were the sons of Presbyterian ministers. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. Warren Harding was a newspaper publisher.

The things that set these men apart were their committment to civic duty. Almost all were community leaders either through the church or civil groups. Thier drive and determination led them to rise through goverment, often starting at the local and state levels. To say that American Presidents are the elite of society is not only patently untrue, but reflects the ignorance of history that is so often evident in the opponents of America and her policies. We are the way we are because history has taught us lessons in responsibilty and duty, not only to ourselves, but to the rest of the world.

Now, instead of supporting the kinds of actions that have been requested of America in the past, those same countries refuse to see the wisdom of acting before cruel dictators can inflict the kind of sorrow they have evidenced in the past. I have said before that if Britain and France had done what they should have done when Hitler occupied the Rhineland and invaded Poland, WWII would probably have been very short lived. As it was, they waited until it was too late to put a quick end to his aggression and, well, you know the rest. America was acting in her, and the rest of the world's interest when we took care of Saddam once and for all. The UN's words were beginning to ring hollow, they needed to be backed up with action after 12 years of talking. How quickly the world forgets what happens when you don't follow up words with meaningful actions.

There are plenty of things that could have been done better, but overall, that mission is a success.

Sorry for the rant, but that had to be said.

As far as social welfare goes, America has little because we believe in taking care of yourself and your family, if it's possible. The welfare we do have is for those who can't, as it should be. I'm not against welfare, I'm against people who depend on it as a way of life. That's not what it's meant for, it's meant to help you up when you're down so you can continue to do for yourself and your family. What began as a noble cause has been denegrated to the worst kind of welfare there is: society propping up those who should stand on their own.

Are all Brits "ignorant" or were you just making a generalized comment?

I was making a point, since his statement was generalized and vague and incorrect and......... :D

Actually, I know a few Brits and they aren't ignorant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorlania
What? You could be the dumbest arrogant person on Earth. America doesn't make the world fat and lazy. You, eating the junk food and watching TV on your fat arse, make yourself fat, lazy (and obviously dumb as well). All you can do is moan about movies? Oh shut up you idiot.



Evidence in point. Insult and arrogance, the American way. What is not to hate about it?

"Evidence in point"? Not hardly. Make a point besides being another whiner in the crowd. When someone claims his country is fat and lazy, or anyone in the world is fat and lazy, because of America, they're an idiot. It's truth, not arrogance. Besides, if I were arrogant, I would say, "I'm so much smarter." But you seem to be the type to point fingers and run. You probably couldn't type more than one sentence anyway. But I invite you to do so. Make a point, please. Go beyond an elementary school version of finger pointing and make an intelligent, articulate point. I invite you to be more than passively arrogant, and make a point.

I just picked something out of the pages randomly hope no-one has said this yet:

Oh shut up you annoying nationalist american arse. Make a damned point without trying to insult someone, idiot.

Just going to your level.

Sorry, I asked this in a wrong thread. Suits better here.

If I was an American, how could I convince Europeans;
1. not to envy me

2. that the American influence and power and capability is good

3. not to be afraid that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world

please Eutrusca???

Sorry, I asked this in a wrong thread. Suits better here.

If I was an American, how could I convince Europeans;
1. not to envy me

I AM an American and ask you...

What's to envy? Most of the rest of the World hates us, by most accounts.

2. that the American influence and power and capability is good

That would be a better question for those we have attempted to help in the past and those we continue to help...

Something about the Charity that comes from our Country that you don't understand?

3. not to be afraid that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world

please Eutrusca???

By looking at our actions and seeing that this Country, which most people hate by most accounts, has a System that generates enough Wealth so that it's people can be the most Generous people the World has ever known...

Something you don't like about that?

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, I asked this in a wrong thread. Suits better here.

If I was an American, how could I convince Europeans;
1. not to envy me

2. that the American influence and power and capability is good

3. not to be afraid that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world

please Eutrusca???
This is like trying to get people you know to like you: the ones who already like you aren't an issue, the ones who hate you aren't going to change their minds, and the ones on the border between the two will make up their minds based on whether they approve of what you do between now and then.

The facts and statistics about all the good America has done and is doing are out there for anyone who cares to know the truth without making snap judgments based on limited or inaccurate information.

I AM an American and ask you...

What's to envy? Most of the rest of the World hates us, by most accounts.

That would be a better question for those we have attempted to help in the past and those we continue to help...

Something about the Charity that comes from our Country that you don't understand?

By looking at our actions and seeing that this Country, which most people hate by most accounts, has a System that generates enough Wealth so that it's people can be the most Generous people the World has ever known...

Something you don't like about that?
Easy there chief, I don't have anything against your country. I also have no difficulties understanding charity or generosity.

I just read the 1st post and I saw that those three things I mentioned are among the reasons America is hated HERE, on this board - according to Eutrusca. Did you see something in my post that says I disagree with him somehow?

This is like trying to get people you know to like you: the ones who already like you aren't an issue, the ones who hate you aren't going to change their minds, and the ones on the border between the two will make up their minds based on whether they approve of what you do between now and then. Quite right. That's why I had to ask. In your first post you ask people to present arguments, when you know all along it's not going to change anything. I just thought it would be more productive if you provided those people hating USA with reasons not to hate it instead of telling them why they hate it (of course, that would be pointless too, because nobody changes their minds and all...).

The facts and statistics about all the good America has done and is doing are out there for anyone who cares to know the truth without making snap judgments based on limited or inaccurate information. Snap judgement based on limited or inaccurate information!?! Here?!? On NS??? Come on!