NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLK_bAlrjSw

Please, stop saying that. Listen to this piece and take head...

Is this you?

The voice is very similar to a posting of a rebuttal to Obama is a Communist.

Whatever, whenever Americans say they saved our butt in the 2nd World War, I always reply 'took your time about it, pick a winner why don't you?'.

Which is roughly what you're saying as well, still I doubt it's going to resolve this.

That Brit is a twit. Heck, the main reason why the U.K. was able to hold the line against the Germans is because they had been building quite a large defensive system and did do hold just because they are stubborn.

Aka, this guy makes me want to laugh because he was just making assumptions and those do not work well in an exceptional case like World War II, saying that each one was needed for the other two to win, which is hardly the case. As well, he seems to imply that the British were thes ones who established air superiority, the truth is that the United States needed air bases in the U.K.

Is this you?

The voice is very similar to a posting of a rebuttal to Obama is a Communist.

Whatever, whenever Americans say they saved our butt in the 2nd World War, I always reply 'took your time about it, pick a winner why don't you?'.

Which is roughly what you're saying as well, still I doubt it's going to resolve this.

I'm saying that while the Americans were indeed decisive, they were no more decisive than the British or the Russians because they would not have been able to deal with the Nazis without either one of them not being their. The UK and USSR needed the USA, the USA and UK needed the USSR and the USSR and the USA needed the UK. All three were required, no one could be argued to be more decivie than the other.

And yes, it is me. If you check the channel you will see that I posted the "RE: Obama is a communist" video also

That Brit is a twit.

Do you have an argument?

That Brit is a twit. Heck, the main reason why the U.K. was able to hold the line against the Germans is because they had been building quite a large defensive system and did do hold just because they are stubborn.

Erm, that is what was ment by determination. IE the determination to build said defence system. There is also a question of the stubboness, IE the willingness of the population to endure bombings etc and not push the government for a surrender/peace deal. And if you recall I also said we had the industiral capacity to hold our own. Indirectly refering to said defence system. We did not however have the capacity for a large scale invasion without American help

And yes, it is me. If you check the channel you will see that I posted the "RE: Obama is a communist" video also
And here I thought it was some British comedian...

And yes, it is me. If you check the channel you will see that I posted the "RE: Obama is a communist" video also

You have an excellent voice/accent. Also agreed.

You have an excellent voice/accent. Also agreed.

Yeah actually you could do some voiceovers or comedy or something. Radio?

What's up with the 80s terrorist group background I meant to ask...

Erm, that is what was ment by determination. IE the determination to build said defence system. There is also a question of the stubboness, IE the willingness of the population to endure bombings etc and not push the government for a surrender/peace deal. And if you recall I also said we had the industiral capacity to hold our own. Indirectly refering to said defence system. We did not however have the capacity for a large scale invasion without American helpMethinks, that the best term for what you describe is either patriotism, or nationalism. Yet, overall forgive my rather brash statement as what I aim to do is to have a little fun and to ‘gently’ coerce people into defending their arguments. Depending on the overall strength of their argument, I will either leave them be or try to push them into a corner. Yet, I must say you are able to at least justify your argument(s).

Aka, I do concur that citizens of the United States, yes I am one too, do often exaggerate our contributions in World War II.

Yeah actually you could do some voiceovers or comedy or something. Radio?

What's up with the 80s terrorist group background I meant to ask...

I've been told that before, and I may do so at some stage

And its not a terrorist group, its from the RA2 game, and is the symbol of the allies.

Russian losses are arguable? Not a chance. Russians took the brunt of the losses. But then, that is the Russian strategy: Here's a gun. Save some ammo for the guy behind you, as we didn't give him a gun. He'll just pick up yours.

As for Americans, that statement usually ends a conversation with a snooty French person or so on, who, on the other end of the spectrum, act as if ALL Americans are stupid, and think that Europe is somehow superior to America because of the older culture and so on. IE: "You Amereekahns, you are ze stupid onez, and no ozer country likes yoo. Go ehweh, yoo ahrr not welcome 'ere!"

The other reason why Americans say this is because America actually had a choice in the matter. It isn't to say that "America saved your ass" because we were better, but "America saved your ass" because, as you said, it took all three, and America was under no obligation to help anyone.

Consider this: 50-some-odd years after America gets done with a brutal civil war, the snooty Europeans get all worked up about something that the Americans really couldn't care less about, but they get involved anyways, kick some ass, take some names, and when it's all said and done, the Americans try to calm everyone down and rebuild Germany. Sure, Britain is ok with that, but the French want payback. No, says America, that will fuck Germany up. But France does it anyways, and the rest of Europe doesn't stop them.

They get back and suddenly there is a national recession, which could be arguably attributed in part to the war-time boom and to the massive inflation of German Marks because of reparation payments (though there are of course myriad other causes). A couple years later, America has just started to recover, and the Europeans are at it again, and yes, it's Germany again, and yes, this could all have been prevented without the Treaty of Versailles, which America objected to. Shortly thereafter, the Japanese hit America unprovoked, plunging America into a war that they never really wanted to be a part of in the first place.

After providing the necessary final element of the war in Europe (and providing the brunt of the force in the Pacific), Americans are treated with scorn and contempt by some people in Europe, as if the Europeans could have handled the entire thing by themselves, and any American support was simply convenient.

Or they are just a stupid tourist. But every nation has their stupid tourists.

Incidentally, I find it rather odd that Pearl Harbor is apparently a huge tourist spot for Japanese. Nothing wrong with it, just odd.

And its not a terrorist group, its from the RA2 game, and is the symbol of the allies.

Tanya would have been a better choice. Her boobs are more entertaining to look at than the allied symbol.

The other reason why Americans say this is because America actually had a choice in the matter. It isn't to say that "America saved your ass" because we were better, but "America saved your ass" because, as you said, it took all three, and America was under no obligation to help anyone.

Consider this: 50-some-odd years after America gets done with a brutal civil war, the snooty Europeans get all worked up about something that the Americans really couldn't care less about, but they get involved anyways, kick some ass, take some names, and when it's all said and done, the Americans try to calm everyone down and rebuild Germany. Sure, Britain is ok with that, but the French want payback. No, says America, that will fuck Germany up. But France does it anyways, and the rest of Europe doesn't stop them.

They get back and suddenly there is a national recession, which could be arguably attributed in part to the war-time boom and to the massive inflation of German Marks because of reparation payments (though there are of course myriad other causes). A couple years later, America has just started to recover, and the Europeans are at it again, and yes, it's Germany again, and yes, this could all have been prevented without the Treaty of Versailles, which America objected to. Shortly thereafter, the Japanese hit America unprovoked, plunging America into a war that they never really wanted to be a part of in the first place.

After providing the necessary final element of the war in Europe (and providing the brunt of the force in the Pacific), Americans are treated with scorn and contempt by some people in Europe, as if the Europeans could have handled the entire thing by themselves, and any American support was simply convenient.

Or they are just a stupid tourist. But every nation has their stupid tourists.

Great post!

Graffiti exchange in a youth hostel bathroom (Athens, 1976):

I WANT TO REMIND ALL YOU FUCKING EUROPEANS THAT IF IT WASN'T FOR US AMERICANS, YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN!

I WANT TO REMIND ALL YOU FUCKING AMERICANS THAT IF IT WASN'T FOR US EUROPEANS, YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING NAVAJO!

AW, YOU STAY OUT OF THIS, HEINZ!

And if you recall I also said we had the industiral capacity to hold our own...
‘We’?

You were involved in British industry during WW2? Methinks not.

Russian losses are arguable? Not a chance. Russians took the brunt of the losses. But then, that is the Russian strategy: Here's a gun. Save some ammo for the guy behind you, as we didn't give him a gun. He'll just pick up yours.

As for Americans, that statement usually ends a conversation with a snooty French person or so on, who, on the other end of the spectrum, act as if ALL Americans are stupid, and think that Europe is somehow superior to America because of the older culture and so on. IE: "You Amereekahns, you are ze stupid onez, and no ozer country likes yoo. Go ehweh, yoo ahrr not welcome 'ere!"

The other reason why Americans say this is because America actually had a choice in the matter. It isn't to say that "America saved your ass" because we were better, but "America saved your ass" because, as you said, it took all three, and America was under no obligation to help anyone.

Consider this: 50-some-odd years after America gets done with a brutal civil war, the snooty Europeans get all worked up about something that the Americans really couldn't care less about, but they get involved anyways, kick some ass, take some names, and when it's all said and done, the Americans try to calm everyone down and rebuild Germany. Sure, Britain is ok with that, but the French want payback. No, says America, that will fuck Germany up. But France does it anyways, and the rest of Europe doesn't stop them.

They get back and suddenly there is a national recession, which could be arguably attributed in part to the war-time boom and to the massive inflation of German Marks because of reparation payments (though there are of course myriad other causes). A couple years later, America has just started to recover, and the Europeans are at it again, and yes, it's Germany again, and yes, this could all have been prevented without the Treaty of Versailles, which America objected to. Shortly thereafter, the Japanese hit America unprovoked, plunging America into a war that they never really wanted to be a part of in the first place.

After providing the necessary final element of the war in Europe (and providing the brunt of the force in the Pacific), Americans are treated with scorn and contempt by some people in Europe, as if the Europeans could have handled the entire thing by themselves, and any American support was simply convenient.

Or they are just a stupid tourist. But every nation has their stupid tourists.

Incidentally, I find it rather odd that Pearl Harbor is apparently a huge tourist spot for Japanese. Nothing wrong with it, just odd.

Incidentally I get to do a report on the Treaty of Versailles and the Marshall Plan, comparing them and explaining why one worked and the other didn't.

Listen to this piece and take head...

I make it a policy to take head wherever I can get it. Ba-dum-dum.

Whatever, whenever Americans say they saved our butt in the 2nd World War, I always reply 'took your time about it, pick a winner why don't you?'.

"Bloody hell, where've you guys been?"
"Ahh... having breakfast. So, what's going on?"

Russian losses are arguable? Not a chance. Russians took the brunt of the losses. But then, that is the Russian strategy: Here's a gun. Save some ammo for the guy behind you, as we didn't give him a gun. He'll just pick up yours.

QFT. "If you find anything edible, burn it so the enemy can't get it. Don't worry about eating it, you won't live long enough to need it."

As for Americans, that statement usually ends a conversation with a snooty French person or so on, who, on the other end of the spectrum, act as if ALL Americans are stupid, and think that Europe is somehow superior to America because of the older culture and so on. IE: "You Amereekahns, you are ze stupid onez, and no ozer country likes yoo. Go ehweh, yoo ahrr not welcome 'ere!"

Exactly. Those countries that didn't just roll over and show the Axis powers their bellies can talk trash. Not the French.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLK_bAlrjSw

Please, stop saying that. Listen to this piece and take head...

LMAO not about what is said during the speech I think that is true. the British would not be speaking German as Hitler never had any intention of invading the British Isles.

I am laughing over the last 20 seconds "Shut Up and do something useful" Classic and it's so true it reminds me of the skit in Monty Pythons The Meaning of Life

Grim Reaper: "Shut up! Shut up, you American. You always talk, you Americans. You talk and you talk and say 'let me tell you something' and 'I just wanna say this'. Well, you're dead now, so shut up"
See it here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBTsMJ4jNk

Exactly. Those countries that didn't just roll over and show the Axis powers their bellies can talk trash. Not the French.

I think lots of people, including you, need some serious documentation about the all background behind Battle of France and the Resistance.
I know I will post out of the thread but...I can't resist.

I'm not saying this because I'm a snooby ( snooty ? ) French, but just because I'm pissed off reading such false statements.

First, I think the Allies own much to the USA, especially for your economic support to USSR and Britain ( in 1944, half of the Soviet trucks and tanks are American made...without the pre-bail law, Britain wouldn't have lasted for long and without the millions of US ill-prepared troops who were nevertheless sended to Europe, no one know where the USSR would have stopped their " liberation " )

But things have to be said.

Things like the willigness of the Conservative elites in France to have an authoritarian government friendly to Germany before the War ( they were the guys who impeached the French army to help the Republican Spain, even if Italy and Germany were directly supporting the Fascists... ), the Communist Party who was ordered by the Komintern to do anything for a quick peace with Germany ( remember, in 1940, they were ally... ), the fact that we were outnumbered: 40 millions French against 66 millions Germans, without East Front.
The fact that Great Britain needed more time because they had no extended ground army.
And the fact that we used an outdated strategy ( thinking the German are going to use assault from Belgium again, so sending all our most skilled troops in Belgium and Low Countries, realizing too late they were passing through the Ardennes and then cutting off the supplies of our most valuable troops. )
So most of the fightings were done by simple infantry, against German mechanized divisions.
They still make a two month fighting, loosing twice more men than the Allies lost for the all Normandy operation.

After the fall of France, their was this shame, the Vichy government, yes.
But their was also la France Libre, Free French forces.
Could I recall you that it's a French corp who break the German lines in Italy, especially at Monte Cassino ?

Their was also the problem that Churchill didn't get all the power he needed and that a lots of British doesn't wanted the war also...meanwhile, thousands of French soldiers died making a desperate stands at Dunkirk when the German retake the offensive, even if it was to support the English withdrawal, even if the ships were taking British soldiers in priority...

Do you also remember that after the traty of peace with Germany, the English attacked by surprise the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir ?
It's our own Pearl Harbour...
But despite this, their was still French willing to fight with them, against Germany...

After that, if their wasn't the Resistance who do thousands of sabotages, recon mission and disrupting operations, how long would have lasted the second Battle of France ? How many more allied lives would have been lost ?

So I really don't think we could be considered as cowards and unskilled fighters.
Let's be realistic, when the UN was created and when France gained a security council seat, it wasn't by charity...

For the economic crisis, the Treaty of Versailles has virtually nothing to do with it, Weimar Republic get reduction after reduction, having to pay only a tenth of the initial sum, and haven't pay anything after the 1929 crisis occured.
But, yes it was a silly Treaty, France was just asking something similar to the price we had to pay in 1871 after the German victory...when the German Empire do this, it's okay, when it's the French, it's not...
What France was asking in 1918 was the complete dissolution of the German Empire, much like the Austro-Hungarian one.
This was not autorised by the allies, Britain fearing France would gain the upper ground in Europe, in the old XIX century political point of view.

But again, yes, the First World War lead to a Carthaginian peace, I totally agree.

Oh, and, finally, if French people have not the right to speak like they want of USA because of World War II, I think that US citizens haven't also the right of speaking ill of the French because of the Independance War... :D Odd, no ?

PS: back to the thread, very good :]
And, yup, the German never wanted to make Britain ( neither France ) part of the Nazi Empire...

I think lots of people, including you, need some serious documentation about the all background behind Battle of France and the Resistance.

Okay. But at least 1/2 of my teasing of France is entertainment and another 1/4 hurt feelings for having to pretend I'm Canadian while abroad (sorry Canada).

Things like the willigness of the Conservative elites in France to have an authoritarian government friendly to Germany before the War

Okay, but that is sort of France's fault, isn't it?

And the fact that we used an outdated strategy ( thinking the German are going to use assault from Belgium again, so sending all our most skilled troops in Belgium and Low Countries, realizing too late they were passing through the Ardennes and then cutting off the supplies of our most valuable troops. )

Again... sort of France's fault. Poor military decisions aren't a free pass (as we see every day).

After the fall of France, their was this shame, the Vichy government, yes.
But their was also la France Libre, Free French forces.

I totally acknowledge that and give them credit. But you have to admit there were other countries with meager resources whose governments stood up to Germany.

Oh, and, finally, if French people have not the right to speak like they want of USA because of World War II, I think that US citizens haven't also the right of speaking ill of the French because of the Independance War... :D Odd, no ?

You want Americans to remember something that happened over 300 years ago? You're lucky some of us still know about WWII! :P

And here I thought it was some British comedian...

Me too. I spent more than 2 minutes waiting for a punchline. :(

Do you also remember that after the treaty of peace with Germany, the English attacked by surprise the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir ?
It's our own Pearl Harbour...
But despite this, their was still French willing to fight with them, against Germany...

Come on, the Vichy had signed a treaty with Germany and the French Fleet was handily placed to support Vichy troops, who fought against the British and Free French forces, in Africa as it was.

How this is comparable to Pearl Harbour I'm not quite sure.

Well it was more 200 than 300 years ago, no ? :p

I know that most of French bashing is not serious...my apologizes, sometimes I take it to much at heart.

Poor military decisions are absolutly our fault, of course, but there is a great difference between being a bad tactician and being a coward, that was what I want to say.
I have tremendous respect for all those conscript soldiers who fought even when they understanded how bad the situation was, and choose nevertheless to fight.
How much courage does it take to fight at Dunkirk, covering British retreat, when you know that thoses British always pick their soldiers in priority ( it's normal, on a military point of view, I don't disagree, but let's see the situation on a moral point of view )and that most of you and you're comrades are going to die in order to buy them some time ?

How do you feel when you are a veteran survivor of this battle, when you heard a few months after, that the same British have sunk one of your fleet in a surprise attack, and didn't even do anything to rescue your sailors after this ?

There was little countries who fought with much heart than us in this war, even if they finally get crushed, I think especially to Greece.

And, I also admit that we have stuborn stupid guys here in France, don't make me say something else, having a great cultural past and present is of course a pride, but it shouldn't be used as a tool for despise others...

Come on, the Vichy had signed a treaty with Germany and the French Fleet was handily placed to support Vichy troops, who fought against the British and Free French forces, in Africa as it was.

How this is comparable to Pearl Harbour I'm not quite sure.

Mers-el-kebir occured on 3 July 1940, before all the fighting in Africa, no ?

If I remember correctly, it was the main reason why the Dakar operation was a failure, French forces seeing the Free French as traitors with French blood on their hands.

Mers-el-kebir occured on 3 July 1940, before all the fighting in Africa, no ?

If I remember correctly, it was the main reason why the Dakar operation was a failure, French forces seeing the Free French as traitors with French blood on their hands.

Yes, thank God it was before all the fighting in Africa, which would have been that much harder with the French Fleet tootling around the Mediterranean at the beck and call of the Germans.

I'm not debating the French contribution to the war, I'm just a little bemused by the idea that we should have simply allowed the fleet to remain in the hands of the Vichy French.

You have a point, Barringtonia :]

Before the Fall of France, it was our fleet who faced the Italian navy, leaving you to use all your fleet in Atlantic, with the support of the Vichy fleet, it would have been harder.

If this fleet was intact when fights broke out in Lebanon, Syria and African colonies...but on the other hand, the destruction of this fleet was dramatic in the sense of lots of French forces in Africa shifting from " anti-German " to " anti-England ".

I'm not saying that Britain have much choices, it's the circonstances of this attack that I despise, not the battle itself, I understand why it occured, war is war...

The Soviet Union would have trampled the Germans with or without American help and I would argue also without British help, either. The 'Allied' troop incursions in ALL of the European Theatre were only successful since all of the main german forces were too busy being destroyed by the Russians in the east. The Allies typically went against underequipped or undermanned german divisions. This is the case for North Africa where performance against Rommel was piss-poor (despite him having a horrible supply chain), Italy (only being able to hold a beach head thanks to severe airpower that could stop nine divisions under Kesselring), and France to Germany ( a very slow and methodical affair the entire way through).

The only argument that one could make is that the allied airpower bombing german industry was a good reason for Russian success, but the fact of the matter is that german production peaked in 1944, well into Allied bombing campaigns. Producing war materiel is of no use when there are no able-bodied men to either use it, or not enough people trained to do so. The germans could replace their tanks, their planes, and their small arms. They could not, however, replace qualified people to use such weaponry. The Americans had the production power to obliterate everything, but the Russians killed everbody. As already noted, bombing the germans did nothing to stop their production capabilities.

You argue that Britain did not have the manpower or the industrial capacity to invade western europe, this is true. However, the only reason the actual Normandy landings were successful in the first place was due to all of the german defensive units being a) subpar, or b) stripped and sent eastwards. Eight out of ten german soldiers KIA or wounded during the war fell at the hands of the Russians and Russians ALONE. Yet here you are arguing that they could not handle the additional 2/10.

Manpower did not win the war for the Brits and Yankees, it was sheer overwhelming war production. Advance, see the enemy, call in artillery. Do the same, roll in the bombers. The approach through Europe was ssllooww-hardly any risks were taken to seize the moment. I would argue that with an alliance in Europe sans Britain, the results still would have been the same (the destruction of the Reich) but an entire continent under communist rule. Germany under no situation can win the war after mid-1942, a period even when there was minimal 'Allied' involvement in regards to men on the ground. The Germans throwing in the units held down to man france or north afrika towards the east would only have resulted in more deaths and delaying the ineveitable.

It is absolutly true that the Russian have done the most of the military job, no one say something different.

But it is true that without the US industry, who made more than half of the material used by the Red Army, I doubt the USSR would have won alone.
Plus, without US support, there is a great chance Britain and Germany finally get an agreement.

Plus, a Soviet advance without any other " liberation force " could have clearly increased the European support to Germany in the crusade against USSR, there is a great chance that millions of Belgians, Dutch, French and Spaniard soldiers would have finally been involved against the Red Army, with German equipment and hierarchy.

Just remind of the performances of the Blue and Charlemagne division ( Spain and Franco-Belgian SS divisions ) against the Russians...

The poor performances of the Western allies could be explained: US soldiers were quickly trained and dispatched, their training was three times faster than the British, French or German ones ( especially French and Germans, being all trained during their two years compulsory service ), and the US Army had no tradition of large warfare before World War.
In addition, in Normandy and Italy, the hard points were hold by veteran Germans, not the ill-equipped slavic recruit who were steam-rolled two month after, in Operation Dragoon.

So, of course, the importance of the US Army is over-exagerrated, due to all those Hollywood war movies, but they were not absolutly inefficient also...and the Pacific theater was US job for most of the part.

I'd just like to mention that if it hadn't been for the Americans, I wouldn't be speaking German right now. That's all.

For advice for Americans on how to approach WWII, read the instuctions for US service men in Britain from 1942.

America only brought the war to an end quicker. That's all.

They were not the winning force. Anyone who thinks that should look up Stalingrad etc.

For advice for Americans on how to approach WWII, read the instuctions for US service men in Britain from 1942.

America only brought the war to an end quicker. That's all.

They were not the winning force. Anyone who thinks that should look up Stalingrad etc.
And who gave the USSR their equipment?

For advice for Americans on how to approach WWII, read the instuctions for US service men in Britain from 1942.

America only brought the war to an end quicker. That's all.

They were not the winning force. Anyone who thinks that should look up Stalingrad etc.
Depends. American supply shipments to the other allies, particularly the Soviets, should not be overlooked. Hard to tell where the USSR would have been without trucks.

And who gave the USSR their equipment?What equipment are we talking about here? Trucks: Mucho beneficial. Tanks: Not so much. The Soviets asked for the US to stop leasing those to them because they sucked too much compared to what the Soviets could produce.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLK_bAlrjSw

Please, stop saying that. Listen to this piece and take head...

Yep...you are right! They would be speaking Russian. :D

What equipment are we talking about here? Trucks: Mucho beneficial. Tanks: Not so much. The Soviets asked for the US to stop leasing those to them because they sucked too much compared to what the Soviets could produce.

Thaks for that little bit of info.

Also, remember that the yanks could make all they liked, it still had to get to the other countries across the ocean.

Thaks for that little bit of info.That was only about the tanks, though. The Soviet truck fleet was almost entirely made up of American lend/lease equipment.
Also, remember that the yanks could make all they liked, it still had to get to the other countries across the ocean.True, without American ships in convoys, both Britain and the USSR could have been screwed by German submarines.

LMAO not about what is said during the speech I think that is true. the British would not be speaking German as Hitler never had any intention of invading the British Isles.

He could have if it wasn't for the fact that he let up on the RAF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion

He could have if it wasn't for the fact that he let up on the RAF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_SealionThat's a plan, not an intention. BE's statement still stands :p

That's a plan, not an intention. BE's statement still stands :p

A plan abandoned pretty much near the end of the Battle of Britain and no, it does not stand as this shows that Hitler had a plan and had troops for such plan. It was not until 1942 that the troops earmarked for this were released to other duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion#Cancellation

A plan abandoned pretty much near the end of the Battle of Britain and no, it does not stand as this shows that Hitler had a plan and had troops for such plan. It was not until 1942 that the troops earmarked for this were released to other duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion#Cancellation

Argh! Smiley! Note Smiley! --> :p

Argh! Smiley! Note Smiley! --> :p

hehe!!

Pre-empting some idiot from trying to tell me I was wrong :D

I've been told that before, and I may do so at some stage

And its not a terrorist group, its from the RA2 game, and is the symbol of the allies.

Umm you sound like an old friend of mine. Did you used to be an actor, do you walk with a limp, do you owe your speech to a certian Aussie soap, and were you once known by the sound a wolf makes?

What equipment are we talking about here? Trucks: Mucho beneficial. Tanks: Not so much. The Soviets asked for the US to stop leasing those to them because they sucked too much compared to what the Soviets could produce.

Quality wasn't the point. Quantity was. At the time, America was the only country that had an industry that could actually keep up with the Germans by themselves. Could the Americans taken the Germans single-handedly? Doubtful. Could they have out-produced the Germans single-handedly? Very possibly, and that certainly cannot be said of any European nation at the time. That was the main contribution of America in BOTH World Wars: America didn't have veteran troops, or that many troops, but damn could they make shit.

Kinda creepy, but I'm actually friends with the chap in the video; he has a rather distinctive voice and used to talk on here a while ago.

Kinda creepy, but I'm actually friends with the chap in the video; he has a rather distinctive voice and used to talk on here a while ago.

Really, you know him? Then I'll also direct my questions to you........

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLK_bAlrjSw

Please, stop saying that. Listen to this piece and take head...

Great video/monologue.

Anyone who doubts the truth of this should try playing Axis & Allies using only 2 of the 3 Allies ;)

None of this matters. In 20 years, you'll all be speaking Mandarin Chinese and eating rice and tofu...

That was only about the tanks, though. The Soviet truck fleet was almost entirely made up of American lend/lease equipment.
True, without American ships in convoys, both Britain and the USSR could have been screwed by German submarines.

Well, Rome wasn't built...

Actually, a lot of the Convoy Ships weren't American. They Couldn't escourt for part of the war as they weren't combatants.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLK_bAlrjSw

Please, stop saying that. Listen to this piece and take head...

Don't people usually give head rather than take head? I suppose though, if someone is giving head, someone else is taking it, or would it be more accurate to say that they're receiving it?

Don't people usually give head rather than take head? I suppose though, if someone is giving head, someone else is taking it, or would it be more accurate to say that they're receiving it?

I think it's take heed.

My mind does work that way too however!!!!!!!!!:D

And, yup, the German never wanted to make Britain ( neither France ) part of the Nazi Empire...

NZ Germany did want Europe as part of it's empire, with other countries being reliant on Germany to some extent (and having puppet governments).

NZ Germany did want Europe as part of it's empire, with other countries being reliant on Germany to some extent (and having puppet governments).

Read Father Land by Robert Harris.

That sums up Hitler's Plans.

It is absolutly true that the Russian have done the most of the military job, no one say something different.

But it is true that without the US industry, who made more than half of the material used by the Red Army, I doubt the USSR would have won alone.
Plus, without US support, there is a great chance Britain and Germany finally get an agreement.

Plus, a Soviet advance without any other " liberation force " could have clearly increased the European support to Germany in the crusade against USSR, there is a great chance that millions of Belgians, Dutch, French and Spaniard soldiers would have finally been involved against the Red Army, with German equipment and hierarchy.

Just remind of the performances of the Blue and Charlemagne division ( Spain and Franco-Belgian SS divisions ) against the Russians...

The poor performances of the Western allies could be explained: US soldiers were quickly trained and dispatched, their training was three times faster than the British, French or German ones ( especially French and Germans, being all trained during their two years compulsory service ), and the US Army had no tradition of large warfare before World War.
In addition, in Normandy and Italy, the hard points were hold by veteran Germans, not the ill-equipped slavic recruit who were steam-rolled two month after, in Operation Dragoon.

So, of course, the importance of the US Army is over-exagerrated, due to all those Hollywood war movies, but they were not absolutly inefficient also...and the Pacific theater was US job for most of the part.


I'll respond to your Russian equipment/western campaign part since I agree with your other points.

What equipment are you speaking of? Supply trucks? The Russians could have easily produced their own, they had the IC to do it. Every other weapon equivalent the Russians had was superior to its American counterpart, except their main rifles. (Mosin-Nagant 91/30 to a Garand). T34 vs a Sherman, PPSH-40/41/43 versus a Thompson, et cetera.

Would western Europe rise up against the soviet union? Possibly. The eastern nations crumbled and gave in with perhaps a few parting shots. Without an 'anglo' foothold in the west, I really don't feel that any country in western europe could stand on its legs, even WITH the germans, in stopping the soviet war machine.

Quality wasn't the point. Quantity was. At the time, America was the only country that had an industry that could actually keep up with the Germans by themselves. Could the Americans taken the Germans single-handedly? Doubtful. Could they have out-produced the Germans single-handedly? Very possibly, and that certainly cannot be said of any European nation at the time. That was the main contribution of America in BOTH World Wars: America didn't have veteran troops, or that many troops, but damn could they make shit.

Uhhh, nyet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

The Soviet Union kept up quite nicely with Germany and the United States. The British didnt do too badly either.
Of course, its Wikipedia, so the numbers probably arent ENTIRLY accurate, but that does provide a nice summation.

I suppose it would be silly to mention that Americans would be speaking German if it wasn't for British Colonialism...

And plus, isn't it a little strange to be arguing about this? I mean, none of us were even alive during the war.

I suppose it would be silly to mention that Americans would be speaking German if it wasn't for British Colonialism...

And plus, isn't it a little strange to be arguing about this? I mean, none of us were even alive during the war.

Don't you mean French/Spanish? They were the only major players in the Americas and Germany didn't form until 1870-something (1871?). Prussia was not a colonial power either.

Thaks for that little bit of info.

Also, remember that the yanks could make all they liked, it still had to get to the other countries across the ocean.

Well, shit, it looks like we didn't need to lose half a million of our men after all. I wish someone in England had let my grandfather know, he could have finished college instead of being dragged halfway around the world to fight in a war that was apparently under control.

Well, shit, it looks like we didn't need to lose half a million of our men after all. I wish someone in England had let my grandfather know, he could have finished college instead of being dragged halfway around the world to fight in a war that was apparently under control.

How do you get from 'Goods needed to be transported from the US to other countries before they could be useful' to 'the US wasn't needed in the war'?

Quality wasn't the point. Quantity was. At the time, America was the only country that had an industry that could actually keep up with the Germans by themselves. Could the Americans taken the Germans single-handedly? Doubtful. Could they have out-produced the Germans single-handedly? Very possibly, and that certainly cannot be said of any European nation at the time. That was the main contribution of America in BOTH World Wars: America didn't have veteran troops, or that many troops, but damn could they make shit.The Russians specifically asked the Americans not to send tanks.
Well, Rome wasn't built...

Actually, a lot of the Convoy Ships weren't American. They Couldn't escourt for part of the war as they weren't combatants.Might want to read up on that, because that's not true.

Don't you mean French/Spanish? They were the only major players in the Americas and Germany didn't form until 1870-something (1871?). Prussia was not a colonial power either.

I'm no expert, but as far as I'm aware, the second most spoken language in America at the signing of the Constitution was German. Wasn't the actual language of the consitution only decided by one vote or something?

I'm no expert, but as far as I'm aware, the second most spoken language in America at the signing of the Constitution was German. Wasn't the actual language of the consitution only decided by one vote or something?

In North America.

See?, no matter what happened in WWII, I would still speak spanish. Shame on anglophones and francophones.

Shortly thereafter, the Japanese hit America unprovoked,

Not exactly unprovoked. We'd been fucking them over militarily (London/Washington Naval Conferences) and economically (oil sanctions, etc.) for the past 20-30 years.

I'm no expert, but as far as I'm aware, the second most spoken language in America at the signing of the Constitution was German. Wasn't the actual language of the consitution only decided by one vote or something?

Myth.

How do you get from 'Goods needed to be transported from the US to other countries before they could be useful' to 'the US wasn't needed in the war'?

It was directed more generally at those saying that the U.S. wasn't needed to win the war. This was just the post where I snapped.

I'm no expert, but as far as I'm aware, the second most spoken language in America at the signing of the Constitution was German. Wasn't the actual language of the consitution only decided by one vote or something?
The kernel of truth at the heart of the myth: in the first Congress, it was proposed that the government publish a German translation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for the convenience of the German-speaking citizens. This failed by one vote, mainly out of concern for the expense (it would have cost, like, fifty dollars or some such outrageous sum that the federal government couldn't afford).

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YLK_bAlrjSw

Please, stop saying that. Listen to this piece and take head...

1) I get the RAII backround, I love it.

2) I've always wondered what a Brit doing an American impression was like. You did it, and it sounded just like I thought it would. :D

3) You're right about everything, but we (Americans) never tell Brits you'd be speaking German, just the French.

Not exactly unprovoked. We'd been fucking them over militarily (London/Washington Naval Conferences) and economically (oil sanctions, etc.) for the past 20-30 years.

The economic sanctions hit when they invaded China the second time. And yes...in reality, it was unprovoked.

Myth.

Proof? And Proof that the second most spoken language at the Constitution was German as well please.

The economic sanctions hit when they invaded China the second time.
Which has nothing to do with the US though.

And yes...in reality, it was unprovoked.

But it should have been forseen. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but some action was going to happen, that much was obvious.

-snip-
The Soviet Union was producing about 3 times as many tanks per month as the Germans were even during Stalingrad. Mainly due to the massive moving of the factories beyond the Urals - e.g Tankograd.

But it should have been forseen. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but some action was going to happen, that much was obvious.

They were expecting an attack but not at Pearl Harbor.

Graffiti exchange in a youth hostel bathroom (Athens, 1976):

I WANT TO REMIND ALL YOU FUCKING EUROPEANS THAT IF IT WASN'T FOR US AMERICANS, YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN!

I WANT TO REMIND ALL YOU FUCKING AMERICANS THAT IF IT WASN'T FOR US EUROPEANS, YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING NAVAJO!

AW, YOU STAY OUT OF THIS, HEINZ!
What's navajo, a native language?

What's navajo, a native language?

Let's find out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_people).

Frankly, I get the impression that those who claim that "America saved Europe's ass in World War 2" simply swallowed US-centric propaganda.

Which has nothing to do with the US though.
The US was protecting their own interests in Asia, as well as preventing the kind of take-over that Hitler was doing, which Europe was trying to pretend wasn't happening.

The Soviet Union was producing about 3 times as many tanks per month as the Germans were even during Stalingrad. Mainly due to the massive moving of the factories beyond the Urals - e.g Tankograd.

And those were worse than what the US pumping out. And it nearly bankrupted them.

Maybe instead of supporting D-Day, the US should've supported Operation Sealion in '41, and we could've resumed oil shipments to Japan to support their invasion of Russia. I'm sure the Brits and the Russians wouldn't have cared, since the US didn't win anything significant...

Time to "liberate" poor oppressed Scotland and Wales from the British Domination!

Did you actually listen to my YT piece or not?

The economic sanctions hit when they invaded China the second time. And yes...in reality, it was unprovoked.

I was trying to counter the view that we did nothing to them and they just attacked us. Maybe I read that wrong.
Proof? And Proof that the second most spoken language at the Constitution was German as well please.

http://www.watzmann.net/scg/german-by-one-vote.html

And those were worse than what the US pumping out. And it nearly bankrupted them.

You're telling me the T-34 was worse than the Sherman?

Pull your head out please.

You're telling me the T-34 was worse than the Sherman?

Pull your head out please.

Duly noted.

It still nearly bankrupted them.

And they didn't share.

A natural comparison can be made between the T-34 and the US M4 Sherman medium tank. Each tank formed the backbone of the armoured units in their respective allied armies. The T-34 was a "world-beater" at the time of its debut, while the Sherman was a strong contender when introduced in 1942. Both models were upgraded and improved extensively throughout their service life, receiving new turrets with more powerful guns. Both were designed for ease of manufacture and maintenance, even sacrificing some performance for this goal. Neither was a match for the German Panther or Tiger tanks in armour or firepower, but these heavy vehicles were both in a class more comparable to the Soviet IS-2 heavy tank or the American M26 Pershing (Zaloga & Grandsen 1983:37).

Did you actually listen to my YT piece or not?

You caught me. I was more responding to others in the thread, than to your video itself. :headbang:

Having listened to your whole video, I must say I'm in total agreement. Although I doubt the British would refuse to help establish the French beachhead...

What's navajo, a native language?

I wish it was our national language because it's 100% American, kind of like buffalo. Mmmmmm buffalo! *Starts drooling*

You're telling me the T-34 was worse than the Sherman?

Pull your head out please.

They weren't called purple heart boxes for nothing or was that another American Tank I'm thinking of?

Oh, and, finally, if French people have not the right to speak like they want of USA because of World War II, I think that US citizens haven't also the right of speaking ill of the French because of the Independance War... :D Odd, no ?

PS: back to the thread, very good :]
And, yup, the German never wanted to make Britain ( neither France ) part of the Nazi Empire...Alright, maybe if the French didn't go into the war for nothing more then to aide the Amercians in their Independance then sure.:p But all you guys really wanted to do was to hurt the British Empire, supply us with fairly out of date weapons, and also even with the possibility of getting your old colonies in Canada back along with off chances of getting the thirteen colonies as your own. Furthermore, what about the Dutch Republic and Spain. They both supported the cause of American Independance hoping to do harm to the 'Empire'.

I'm no expert, but as far as I'm aware, the second most spoken language in America at the signing of the Constitution was German. Wasn't the actual language of the consitution only decided by one vote or something?

I'm not too sure about that (I haven't read too much about North American history), though my point was valid.

You said:I suppose it would be silly to mention that Americans would be speaking German if it wasn't for British Colonialism...

Which means that if the British didn't engage in colonial activities then the French or Spanish would have started colonies there (and would have ended up with Spanish/French as the main language).

And it nearly bankrupted them.

Fighting a war against a deep invasion with a GDP that was 2/3's of the enemy's (or at parity before the war) does tend to remove excess production and resource output...

They weren't called purple heart boxes for nothing or was that another American Tank I'm thinking of?

Purple Heart Boxes, Ronson Lighters and Tommy Cookers were just a few of the nicknames the various incarnations of the Sherman belaboured under.

Which means that if the British didn't engage in colonial activities then the French or Spanish would have started colonies there (and would have ended up with Spanish/French as the main language).

I wouldn't disagree with that at all, and you're right, the Germans/Austrians weren't colonial powers because... well, they didn't exist at the time of colonialism.

But when it comes to alternate history, I think we're all as wrong as each other...