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.
Most of the tanks at El Alimein were Shermans, that's how they won.
25% were Shermans as pointed out by ovcatto here and myseld in the other thread.
Quote:
This is just ridiculous, how could the Indian forces be better then the Australian, besides experience to that degree I suppose.
How could they be better? They were veteran troops and better equipped. You really have no concept of these things do you?
Quote:
A Dominion, at least in this scenario, is pretty much half-colony half-ally, & do you know what the Commonwealth of Nations is? "Association of sovereign states consisting of the United Kingdom and a number of its former dependencies; formerly constituted, with several other British-controlled territories, the British Empire" Commonwealth of nations - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary An alliance of multiple nations that used to be under British control. Of course it was obvious that members of an alliance that close would join together to everyone.
Did you read what I wrote? Australia and New Zealand were NOT independent nations when WW2 broke out since they had not ratified the Statute of Westminster. At least you now agree that it wasn't some "sneaky thing" that the Australians were in the war and that it was "unfair" to Italy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Commando
What about the other American tanks?
Of all the tanks at El Alamein, the Shermans were the best, the other two American tanks the M3 Stuart and M3 Grant were inferior to what the British had. Though they were a pretty good match for the Italians...
Quote:
In no way were the Indian troops better then the German or Italian ones.
I'll defer to Escort Riders excellent post in response to what you said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Commando
Your treating of me like I'm something less or that I'm acting like it is not going to get anything anywhere. I am putting valid points to contradict what the opposing historian is saying & your acting like I have a one-track mind, religiously believe in racial superiority, that I don't take anything into consideration & that I'm acting childish. Just because my side of the argument is different from most people's norms doesn't mean it's wrong & I'm being a pathetic little moron.
Quote:
Meanwhile, most people on this site know less then a Mod Civ class, & have a blatant disregard for even the most obvious historical facts, most of which have nothing to do with my revisionism.
The only person with less knowledge than a Mod Civ class and possessing a blatant disregard for obvious facts is you.
Quote:
I'm not stupid, I know Italy didn't do very well in WWII, but people(mostly the British) treat the situation like they were the worst army ever, of all time. It's the twenty -first century, times have changed, new things are being discovered & lame stereotypes are being stomped on. It's time people stop believing the BS they're comfortable with, their own little comfort zone, the web of lies, & start seeing history how it really is.
No one believes in the stereotypes of the Italians being cowards or incompetent. However, that doesn't change the record of the war. As many people have said (while taking shots at you, because well, it's easy and kind of funny) no one is disparaging the Italian soldier, just being realistic about the war record and the challenges the Italians faced. The greatest of those challenges being the fact the Italians had no reason to even be in the war.
Quote:
Mussolini was the reason why they lost, everything went into a chain-reaction & he's where it all started.
Aboslutely. No Mussolini and the Germans would have simply invaded Italy for the hell of it and then the Italians would just be in the same boat as the Poles, French, Greeks, etc. as victims of the Nazis.
Quote:
The US was an economic superpower that had no way of losing, regardless of it's barely capable soldiers.
I think this guy would quibble with that last part...
Quote:
What made them capable was Abe Lincoln letting in thousands of Italian immigrants, the reason being is that he practically became Nostradamus & knew they'd get into war with Italy. Beat them with the power of their own people, I'm pretty sure that was o morale booster for the American soldier, whose main quarrel was the people who bombed Pearl Harbor.
Abject stupidity returned in kind.
Quote:
The British paid them back with their own coin by getting through Tunisia & meeting up with them. A minor turn around with the bail-out situation, along with the fact that the US never could have done it alone.
Wait, I thought we had Italian super-soldiers...
Quote:
The Soviet Union won on shear overwhelming numbers, but I'm pretty sure that's become the norm nowadays. Germany's military was beaten by Britain barely, & Italy. The Japanese made crippling blows against the Chinese, got over cocky & attacked multiple enemies at once, & so did Hitler. The British were being bailed out every chance they got against the Italians & occasionally got lucky. The Axis possessed a lot of skill & lost to a force of multiple countries, economic supremacy & an army ten times the size of the opposer.
Wait, what did the Italians in China do again?
Quote:
This is just how it is, people need to continue spreading this knowledge & other things like it. It's time to give history it's freedom back.
It's time for you to crawl back inside that gallon of **** Red...
PS...Being from NJ and having many fine Italian American friends, relatives and neighbors, the above were posted purely in jest and are generally considered "funny" in NJ. YMMV
I hang out in a chat room with about 10 of my Canadian buddies and a few of us Americans, and about once a month they will tell us all about how Canada won WW2 and how we Americans were lucky to have them!
When asking the question "who won WW2", you must separate the European Theatre from the Pacific Theatre. The Soviets clearly did the most in terms of defeating the Nazi's, or at least did 90% of the work. The U.S. did 90% of the work in defeating the Japanese. The British did 90% of the work in defeating the Italians in the Middle East and Africa. All 3 major Allied countries contributed equally, although in different ways. The Soviets had the most to lose since the war was on their turf. The U.S. was an ocean away and never had to worry much about being invaded or bombed which was a major advantage.
In my opinion, the biggest reason the Germans lost is due to the poor performance of the Italians. Had the Italians been a more formidable force on par with the British, the Allies may never have set foot on the continent again. Imagine if the Germans could have diverted 95% of their forces towards the Soviets instead of only 75%? The Italians could have helped defend coastal Europe while the Germans diverted more troops and material towards Russia. The Germans/Italians could have forgotten about the Battle of the Atlantic and just focused on European domination.
Germany suffered the same problem as WW1. They had poor allies. Austria in WW1 was sort of like Italy in WW2, although Austria in WW2 was better IMO.
The Germans won...and Japan won...both prospered after the war..Christian guilt was responsible for the rebuilding of these nations...Japan became a manufacturing power house...and now Hitlers belated dream of ruling Europe has come true. It would have been better to have left Berlin and the rest of the place a bombed out mess...Germany was not punished but rewarded for crimes against humanity.
The Germans won...and Japan won...both prospered after the war..Christian guilt was responsible for the rebuilding of these nations...Japan became a manufacturing power house...and now Hitlers belated dream of ruling Europe has come true. It would have been better to have left Berlin and the rest of the place a bombed out mess...Germany was not punished but rewarded for crimes against humanity.
Lots of hyperbole here. Germany does not presently rule Europe. Germany, at least what we used to call West Germany, paid substantial reparations to victims of the Holocaust, both individually and to the State of Israel. (I am not claiming those reparations cleared the guilt, but only that they were a recognition of guilt). It was not "Christian guilt" which rebuilt the defeated nations, but englightened self-interest. In Europe we didn't want to see the Soviet Union over-run the western part as they had over-run the eastern part. In Asia, we also needed a strong bulwark against communism.
Germany and Japan were both punished severely for their transgressions precisely by being bombed to rubble. The people in both places were beginning to starve by war's end, especially in Japan. Should those who were children at the time have been made to continue to suffer atrociously? Future generations too?
In the same post in which you express your wish to be taken seriously, you state that the U.S. soldiers in World War II could fight only because Abe Lincoln let thousands of Italian immigrants into the country. Your reasoning is that Italians (and their descendants) make good soldiers but nobody else does.
You really have no clue how that sounds, how preposterous and ridiculous it is?
If the resistance movement in Italy fought zealously, you think Italian-American soldiers in Italy won't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
119 medium "General Lee" M-3 tanks.
Who won?
Did the 4th Infantry Division help to destroy the Maletti Group?
How about the Battle at Keren were the vastly outnumbered British and Indian force?
That's like saying the Soviets had better soldiers then the Axis because 'who won?'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yac
Italian Commnado, if you continue this sad path of ignoring facts in favor of blind nationalism, I will be forced to assume you're here to troll us. I will not let you drag this forum down to your level where you ignore uncomfortable facts and blow things out of proportions to prove your nationalistic or other way biased point. I warned you in a direct message, you ignored it and continue to post what I can only describe as ravings of a mad man.
Please stop. Calm down, read a book. Don't base your knowledge on popculture "science" of discovery channel and history channel, it will only get you mocked among those that have some real knowledge on the topic.
Yac.
I think that people need to seperate Tactical and Stratgic victories, for example the invasion of Crete was undoubtably a German Tactical victory, they occupied Crete. Stratgically, it was a miserable failure, and scared the Germans out of using the Paratrooper again. Though an Allied defeat, it had a large impact on how the Germans waged the war from then on out.
When looking at the Italian victories in a larger picture, they were short term tactical victories, but played into the overall British Stratgy in North Africa.
These Tactical successes but stratgic failures lead to the war eventually turning against the Axis.
On the Pacific side The Battle of the Coral sea lead to huge Allied losses but stopped the more lightly damaged Japanese fleet from invading Australia. So the Japanese won the immediate battle, but in the Grand scheme of things was a key point in the Amerucan victory in the war.
I know these things, I was stating that they were multiple victories that put the war between the countries at Italy 4, Britain 0. Also, most if not all Axis victories were tactical, what's you point?
Just a FYI...Australia, South Africa, Canada India, New Zealand, etc. were NOT independent nations when WW2 started. Some of them had been granted local administrative autonomy during the 1930's which was not in full effect yet, but they were still inextricably tied to Britain during the war. Australia didn't technically gain full independence until 1986. Also, none of the Commonwealth nations declared war on Germany, Italy or Japan. They didn't have to because Britain did.
.
That isn't actually correct, NJGOAT. When the British Parliment passed the Statute of Westminster in 1931, it basically said the BP could no longer legislate in Canada, which in effect, made us an independent Nation.
This is made clear by the fact that we did declare war on Germany. GB declared war Sept 3/39, while Canada mulled it over for a few days, and declared war on Germany Sept 10/39. We also declared war on Italy June 11/40, and Japan Dec 7/41.
It wasn't like WW1 where Canada had no choice but to support the crown. We could have very well stayed out of it if we felt like it. We went, because it was the right thing to do.
I can't believe I corrected you on something lol
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.
This is just ridiculous, how could the Indian forces be better then the Australian, besides experience to that degree I suppose.
