Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its funny because the Spanish, French and Germans have all thought this as well, in reality none of them were capable, I think you will find that the Russians would have been just as successful in 'invading' the UK as the rest of Europe has been! You personally can thank the UK for saving your country from the Nazis because if it wasn't for the UK standing ALONE against them while the Spanish cowered you would be part of the Third Reich right now.
Spain and Portugal were NEUTRAL, more nazis than allies but neutral. Not the UK, as UK would have been invaded TOO, but to the US.
The Allies has a great thing to thank Spain, Gibraltar.
The USSR could have invaded the UK easely, they had tons of planes and ships and English had almost no ships and planes.
Oh, yes, without the US, Russian tanks would have ended in Portugal.
Spain and Portugal were NEUTRAL, more nazis than allies but neutral. Not the UK, as UK would have been invaded TOO, but to the US.
The Allies has a great thing to thank Spain, Gibraltar.
The USSR could have invaded the UK easely, they had tons of planes and ships and English had almost no ships and planes.
Oh, yes, without the US, Russian tanks would have ended in Portugal.
US wasn't even in the war until 1942! By then the British had already beaten the Germans in the Battle of Britain - as Winston Churchill pointed out - 'Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few' (try looking it up in the history books), in other words the Germans were incapable of invading the UK! The Russians were also incapable of invading the UK, just like the Spanish, French or anybody else have been and ARE incapable of invading the UK. I'm dealing with the FACTS here not your ridiculous heresay.
According to Wikipedia, France won 77,76% of battles vs England!
Here is one of the list :
France always won vs the UK!
Austerlitz
Iena
the Hundred Years War
Solent
Flamborough Head
Grand Turk
cap Beveziers
cap Lizard
Roche-aux-Moines
Arnemuiden
Bouvines
Château Gaillard
Killala
Ballina
Castlebar
Collooney
Bouvines
Orléans
Jargeau
Meung-sur-Loire
Beaugency
Patay
Arnemuiden
Verneuil
Formigny
Castillon
Hastings
Don't forget that Americans and British are known around the world to have a very bad level in History/Geography!
In England at school, they only study the few battles they won.
The English have been defeated easily by the French so many times that they now want to forget it...hahaha
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
Lol there is nothing there that anybody has ever heard of! When the British beat the French (which they nearly always do) they don't just beat them they obliterate them! Crecy, Agincourt, Trafalgar etc etc not just victories but obliterations! By the way there was no such thing as Britain in 1066!
"Captain Sir Edward Pellew: The old adversary may wear a new face, but whatever mask he chooses to hide behind, a Frenchman is still a Frenchman and we will beat him as we always have beaten him!"
Hi amaroW and east home, you two must be cousins. So which is the greatest country in the world. Reading your posts cracks me up.
Spain and Portugal were NEUTRAL, more nazis than allies but neutral. Not the UK, as UK would have been invaded TOO, but to the US.
The Allies has a great thing to thank Spain, Gibraltar.
The USSR could have invaded the UK easely, they had tons of planes and ships and English had almost no ships and planes.
Oh, yes, without the US, Russian tanks would have ended in Portugal.
With no decent pilots to fly them by most accounts. The Luftwaffe pilots had a great time amassing easy kills against a larger, but woefully inexperienced airforce. Plus at the end of WW2 Britain still had a huge navy, second only to that of the US.
But your scenario makes no sense whatsoever given the US and Britain supplied Russia with large quantities of tanks, armoured vehicles and planes.
And again you've dodged a question - if Germany couldn't invade the UK, how the hell could Russia have done?
US wasn't even in the war until 1942! By then the British had already beaten the Germans in the Battle of Britain - as Winston Churchill pointed out - 'Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few' (try looking it up in the history books), in other words the Germans were incapable of invading the UK! The Russians were also incapable of invading the UK, just like the Spanish, French or anybody else have been and ARE incapable of invading the UK. I'm dealing with the FACTS here not your ridiculous heresay.
In the air, they were beaten in the air as British were beaten in the cntinent. Russians would have been capable of invading UK easely, as by that time - 1945- England had almost no fleet and probably no Gibraltar, no planes either.
With no decent pilots to fly them by most accounts. The Luftwaffe pilots had a great time amassing easy kills against a larger, but woefully inexperienced airforce. Plus at the end of WW2 Britain still had a huge navy, second only to that of the US.
But your scenario makes no sense whatsoever given the US and Britain supplied Russia with large quantities of tanks, armoured vehicles and planes.
And again you've dodged a question - if Germany couldn't invade the UK, how the hell could Russia have done?
Doing the same that Goering, but rightly. Goering was at days of winning the war when he decided to divert bombing to English cities (a haighly idiotic idea from Hitler). Has Goering kept bombing airfields and radar stations for a week more, he would have won.
Goering was not that stupid, by he received Hitler's order to bomb cities, the typical reason why German lost all their battles. Russians only had to follow Goering's plans withouth worrying about citys.
In the air, they were beaten in the air as British were beaten in the cntinent. Russians would have been capable of invading UK easely, as by that time - 1945- England had almost no fleet and probably no Gibraltar, no planes either.
Oh for heaven's sake, go and read some history and stop making stuff up, you're clearly way out of your depth here.
Doing the same that Goering, but rightly. Goering was at days of winning the war when he decided to divert bombing to English cities (a haighly idiotic idea from Hitler). Has Goering kept bombing airfields and radar stations for a week more, he would have won.
Goering was not that stupid, by he received Hitler's order to bomb cities, the typical reason why German lost all their battles. Russians only had to follow Goering's plans withouth worrying about citys.
With what planes and pilots exactly? You whole "what if?" scenario is deeply flawed. If the US are not in the war, they're certainly not donating the much-needed food, materials, aircraft, tanks, trains and other vehicles to Russia. And without the US (or Britain) they would have faced much stronger opposition on the Eastern Front. Your idea just simply doesn't hold up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
