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.
You don't say!!
The FACT is as soon as the Nazis lost the Battle of Britain it was impossible for them to invade, the battle of Britain was in 1940. Meanwhile British troops were engaged agains Nazis. Why did you even mention ground troops if you're only talking about the Battle of Britain? You actually claimed 'Britain didn't defeat any Nazis'!! Then mumbled on about Britain being nothing more than a 'collection of neutral islands' (at least you didn't just call it England this time I suppose')! You seem to conveniently forget about the rest of the British Empire! I'm guessing you completely dismiss the Australians or Canadians or any other of the Allies just as you do Britain?
Your posts are just full of the 'we saved your arse' narrative just because you've seen too many John Wayne movies. If you can't even differintiate between England, Britain or the UK then how are we supposed to believe your 'expertise' on what Britain would have done if the US hadn't come into the war TWO YEARS after the British had started to fight Hitler?
Historians tell us Hitlers goal was to always have britain across the water and not in europe. His initial mission statement was to the sea and control the med. By 1940 he did just that.
I pointed out that the stalemate with britain (and in retrospect, it was exactly just that) was not contrary to his position, but it was a risk he took with supporters and opponents in his high command (just google it)
If the US was not supplying raw materials to britain at the onset of hostilities, WOULD it have still been a draw? again, it was a risk he had to take. note, we supplied raw materials to britain to maintain neutrality, they were not about to poke that sleeping bear like they did 1915-1917 (recall our own entry reasons into WW1)
so in the spirit of the thread, if the US never particpated at all, ever, for any reason, not even materiel, we all agree britain would have been an isolated set of islands, with no ability to interfere with mainland europe that would be fortified on a daily basis. In fact, chamberlain was not the only person in favor of appeasment. if the region stabilized as nazi europe and the US still declined to participate in any way, would GBs eventual capitulation have come? (this was actually the subject of a research paper back in 9th grade)
so yes, lets talk about british engagement outside of britain, circa 1940 when chamberlain declared war: the british lost in the north about as quickly as the poles. ergo - gone
The british lost in africa, rommel controlled, well, most of the northern continent in months. The best case you can make is there was a static stalemate because his rapid advance stretched his lines and resupply was needed (of course the americans landing in november put a kink in those plans but playing once again that the us never entered...) for the brits to resupply africa, put any transport in easy range of the uboat fleet and they were sinking multiple ships PER DAY. The nazis also controlled the med.
Canadians? correct me if I am wrong but in 1940ish time frame, all of canada had a population less than that of the state of new york, and no meaningful way to get there, outside of US transport. Canada at the time did not have any meaningful defense production or any production at that matter - google it. they got all they needed from US. Tanks however, from us, pressed into service would have made us non-neutral, ergo, didnt happen. I bet you $10 if you read up on it, you find that canadian war materiel production has GM and Ford stamped all over the undersides. possibly Willys Overland as well.
IIRC , like 90% of britains ground war capability was left on the beach at dunkirk, the US was not in it, so britain asked canada to fill the gaps. canadian ships WERE valid targets of the german military. Canada had to build a war industry from scratch and they got MOST of the materiel and help from the US right across the river - literally. But if we go with the spirit of the thread and the US said nope, cant help, the tigers are playing right now....what would have happened? by the time canada ramped up unaided, it would have been 1950's - if ever.
Australians? correct me if I am wrong but in 1940ish time frame australia had about HALF the population of 1940 new york state, and even more so than canada were halfway around the planet. they had zero defense production. Fun fact: they lost about as many men in the war due to tropical disease than bullets. Because of proximity, Assies fought primarily in the pacific as ground troops. (yes, there were Aussies in north africa and airmen in GB and even groundtoops for the invasion that never came; see : my previous post), but that was once again, LATER. Australia had limited air support and very limited naval power. When singapore fell (google it) the Oz govt was convinced that japan would invade them, like they did china (recall, japan invaded coastal china with EASE and killed over 20M chinamen - almost double what the nazis did to the jews and roma?) again, if the US had not entered the war, who would have resupplied the troops on those indonesian islands? the war in the pacific, quickly became a ship based air superiority war. in order to gain remote long range bomber bases. i.e. American.
the rest of the 'british empire'? a couple years back, sporting goods chain Dunhams was selling surplus military equipment from asia, eurasia, africa,india etc. (I myself got a romanian trainer) among it was the VERY SAME! british rifles used to create and control and maintain the 'colonies'. you could get one for about $70 packed in deep cosmoline (see other thread on removal) My grandad brought a real ETO one home from the war. it still shoots. if we play the argument that the british guarding the troops would have joined in - and they might have, national pride and that - well lets do this: I will give you 100 men with enfields, and I get 1 MG42 gun crew. tell me what happens. in other words as I said before - it would have been wholesale slaughter.
so no I am not dismissing anyone, but the fact was the british isles, england, gb, _WHATEVER_, stood alone, except for us. The brits have no trouble recognizing that, even to this day. If we play by the nature of this topic and the US lends no hand in any way, guns, tanks, bullets, planes, boats, transport, raw meteriel, the isles would have fallen REGARDLESS of the outcome of BOB. AS I said and no one had argued counter to: france was already gone. Britain was cut off and in no position to influence the war (until we arrived) ergo, in the posited scenario, britain, england gb _whatever_, would have been gone too.
so, if my posts are just 'save your arse narrative' - your words - prove any point wrong. I have asked, but sadly have not received.
ps - most if not all of the john wayne movies I saw (whom I bet died before you were born) involved cattle, johnny rebs or injuns. In harms way (naval pacific war) and green berets (nam) where the only 2 war based movies I saw, so once again, wrong.
Last edited by RetireinPA; 08-23-2021 at 10:59 AM..
Historians tell us Hitlers goal was to always have britain across the water and not in europe. His initial mission statement was to the sea and control the med. By 1940 he did just that.
I pointed out that the stalemate with britain (and in retrospect, it was exactly just that) was not contrary to his position, but it was a risk he took with supporters and opponents in his high command (just google it)
If the US was not supplying raw materials to britain at the onset of hostilities, WOULD it have still been a draw? again, it was a risk he had to take. note, we supplied raw materials to britain to maintain neutrality, they were not about to poke that sleeping bear like they did 1915-1917 (recall our own entry reasons into WW1)
so in the spirit of the thread, if the US never particpated at all, ever, for any reason, not even materiel, we all agree britain would have been an isolated set of islands, with no ability to interfere with mainland europe that would be fortified on a daily basis. In fact, chamberlain was not the only person in favor of appeasment. if the region stabilized as nazi europe and the US still declined to participate in any way, would GBs eventual capitulation have come? (this was actually the subject of a research paper back in 9th grade)
so yes, lets talk about british engagement outside of britain, circa 1940 when chamberlain declared war: the british lost in the north about as quickly as the poles. ergo - gone
The british lost in africa, rommel controlled, well, most of the northern continent in months. The best case you can make is there was a static stalemate because his rapid advance stretched his lines and resupply was needed (of course the americans landing in november put a kink in those plans but playing once again that the us never entered...) for the brits to resupply africa, put any transport in easy range of the uboat fleet and they were sinking multiple ships PER DAY. The nazis also controlled the med.
Canadians? correct me if I am wrong but in 1940ish time frame, all of canada had a population less than that of the state of new york, and no meaningful way to get there, outside of US transport. Canada at the time did not have any meaningful defense production or any production at that matter - google it. they got all they needed from US. Tanks however, from us, pressed into service would have made us non-neutral, ergo, didnt happen. I bet you $10 if you read up on it, you find that canadian war materiel production has GM and Ford stamped all over the undersides. possibly Willys Overland as well.
IIRC , like 90% of britains ground war capability was left on the beach at dunkirk, the US was not in it, so britain asked canada to fill the gaps. canadian ships WERE valid targets of the german military. Canada had to build a war industry from scratch and they got MOST of the materiel and help from the US right across the river - literally. But if we go with the spirit of the thread and the US said nope, cant help, the tigers are playing right now....what would have happened? by the time canada ramped up unaided, it would have been 1950's - if ever.
Australians? correct me if I am wrong but in 1940ish time frame australia had about HALF the population of 1940 new york state, and even more so than canada were halfway around the planet. they had zero defense production. Fun fact: they lost about as many men in the war due to tropical disease than bullets. Because of proximity, Assies fought primarily in the pacific as ground troops. (yes, there were Aussies in north africa and airmen in GB and even groundtoops for the invasion that never came; see : my previous post), but that was once again, LATER. Australia had limited air support and very limited naval power. When singapore fell (google it) the Oz govt was convinced that japan would invade them, like they did china (recall, japan invaded coastal china with EASE and killed over 20M chinamen - almost double what the nazis did to the jews and roma?) again, if the US had not entered the war, who would have resupplied the troops on those indonesian islands? the war in the pacific, quickly became a ship based air superiority war. in order to gain remote long range bomber bases. i.e. American.
the rest of the 'british empire'? a couple years back, sporting goods chain Dunhams was selling surplus military equipment from asia, eurasia, africa,india etc. (I myself got a romanian trainer) among it was the VERY SAME! british rifles used to create and control and maintain the 'colonies'. you could get one for about $70 packed in deep cosmoline (see other thread on removal) My grandad brought a real ETO one home from the war. it still shoots. if we play the argument that the british guarding the troops would have joined in - and they might have, national pride and that - well lets do this: I will give you 100 men with enfields, and I get 1 MG42 gun crew. tell me what happens. in other words as I said before - it would have been wholesale slaughter.
so no I am not dismissing anyone, but the fact was the british isles, england, gb, _WHATEVER_, stood alone, except for us. The brits have no trouble recognizing that, even to this day. If we play by the nature of this topic and the US lends no hand in any way, guns, tanks, bullets, planes, boats, transport, raw meteriel, the isles would have fallen REGARDLESS of the outcome of BOB. AS I said and no one had argued counter to: france was already gone. Britain was cut off and in no position to influence the war (until we arrived) ergo, in the posited scenario, britain, england gb _whatever_, would have been gone too.
so, if my posts are just 'save your arse narrative' - your words - prove any point wrong. I have asked, but sadly have not received.
ps - most if not all of the john wayne movies I saw (whom I bet died before you were born) involved cattle, johnny rebs or injuns. In harms way (naval pacific war) and green berets (nam) where the only 2 war based movies I saw, so once again, wrong.
Absolute rubbish from start to finish, so the British were going to battle Hitler with Enfield rifles right? and the Nazis were busy 'fortifying their defences' the British would have been sitting on their hands right? Absolute bollox! The British were already starting to out produce the Nazis in war planes even before the Battle of Britain was over! You're just one of those Yanks full of 'we've saved your arse' cr*p because you base all of your history on Rambo films. As for North Africa I bet you've never even heard of El Alamein have you! Thats probably because Hollywood hasn't made the film because it wasn't the Americans, or they could do what they usually do and what you do and 're-write' history?
Absolute rubbish from start to finish, so the British were going to battle Hitler with Enfield rifles right? and the Nazis were busy 'fortifying their defences' the British would have been sitting on their hands right? Absolute bollox! The British were already starting to out produce the Nazis in war planes even before the Battle of Britain was over! You're just one of those Yanks full of 'we've saved your arse' cr*p because you base all of your history on Rambo films. As for North Africa I bet you've never even heard of El Alamein have you! Thats probably because Hollywood hasn't made the film because it wasn't the Americans, or they could do what they usually do and what you do and 're-write' history?
Or as Churchill eloquently put it - "NEVER before in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few"
Speaking of El Alamein how do you think the British would have fared without American aid including the tanks we provided to Montgomery's forces?
Please don't get me wrong. I give full credit to Britain for what it accomplished in the war especially when it stood up to Hitler alone from July 1940 until June 1941. I also think Britain and the Soviet Union would not have beaten the nazis without American Lendlease Aid.
*Note "beating the nazis" is different than avoiding defeat.
Speaking of El Alamein how do you think the British would have fared without American aid including the tanks we provided to Montgomery's forces?
Please don't get me wrong. I give full credit to Britain for what it accomplished in the war especially when it stood up to Hitler alone from July 1940 until June 1941. I also think Britain and the Soviet Union would not have beaten the nazis without American Lendlease Aid.
*Note "beating the nazis" is different than avoiding defeat.
Of course they helped also how would they have 'fared' without the British tanks? Or how would the Americans have fared without the Spitfires they used? How would the Americans have 'fared' if Britain had decided not to fight at all in 1940? Oh I forgot, it was just the Americans that won the war, they came and saved 'all our arses' didn't they!?
I suppose ultimately the Nazis weren't completely 'beaten' until 1945 (all America's doing no doubt)? They definately 'lost' the Battle of Britain though:-
Absolute rubbish from start to finish, so the British were going to battle Hitler with Enfield rifles right? and the Nazis were busy 'fortifying their defences' the British would have been sitting on their hands right? Absolute bollox! The British were already starting to out produce the Nazis in war planes even before the Battle of Britain was over! You're just one of those Yanks full of 'we've saved your arse' cr*p because you base all of your history on Rambo films. As for North Africa I bet you've never even heard of El Alamein have you! Thats probably because Hollywood hasn't made the film because it wasn't the Americans, or they could do what they usually do and what you do and 're-write' history?
Or as Churchill eloquently put it - "NEVER before in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few"
once again, you reply with zero evidence, but plenty of commentary. Did I EVER say the british battled hitler with enfields? no, I actually didnt. I said that they were in use by british troops in the colonies, but I could have. Googling, we find:
Quote:
US M1917 "Enfield"
To minimise retooling, the US Army contracted with Winchester and Remington to continue producing a simplified Pattern 14 rifle chambered for US .30-06 ammunition. This weapon was known as the US .30 cal. Model of 1917 (M1917 Enfield rifle). More of these were produced and used by the US Army during the First World War than the official US battle rifle, the Springfield M1903. The M1917 continued in use during World War II as second line and training rifles as the semi-automatic M1 Garands and carbines were phased-in. Many M1917s were sent to Britain under Lend-Lease, where they equipped Home Guard units; these .30-06 rifles had a prominent red stripe painted on the stock to distinguish them from .303 P-14s. Model 1917 rifles were also acquired by Canada and issued in Canada for training, guard duty and home defence.
and
Quote:
Ross rifle
Ross rifle circa WW I
The Ross rifle was a straight-pull bolt-action .303 calibre rifle produced in Canada from 1903 until the middle of the First World War, when it was withdrawn from service in Europe due to its unreliability under wartime conditions, and its widespread unpopularity among the soldiers. Since the Ross .303 was a superior marksman's rifle, its components were machined to extremely fine tolerances which resulted in the weapon clogging too easily in the adverse environment imposed by trench warfare in the First World War. Additionally, British ammunition was too variable in its manufacturing tolerances to be used without careful selection, which was not possible in trench conditions. It was also possible for a careless user to disassemble the bolt for cleaning and then reassemble it with the bolt-head on back to front, resulting in a highly dangerous and sometimes fatal failure of the bolt to lock in the forward position on firing. Snipers, who were able to maintain their weapons carefully, and hand select and measure every round with which they were equipped, were able to use them to maximum effect and retained a considerable fondness for the weapon. Ross rifles were also used by Training units, 2nd and 3rd line units and Home Guard units in the Second World War and many weapons were shipped to Britain after Dunkirk in the face of serious shortages of small arms.
and
Quote:
Rifle, Number 4 aka the Lee Enfield rifle
Lee–Enfield No. 4 Mk I*
Beginning shortly after the First World War, the SMLE went through a series of experimental changes that resulted in the Rifle, No. 4 Mk I, which was adopted in 1939 just after the beginning of the Second World War. The changes included receiver-mounted aperture rear sights, similar to that of the Pattern 1914 rifle and changed screw threads, making nearly all threaded components incompatible with those of the SMLE (No. 1) rifle. The No. 4 rifle had a heavier barrel, stronger steel in the action body and bolt body and a short "grip-less" (or "spike") bayonet that mounted directly to the barrel, rather than to a separate nose cap. The latter was the most prominent visual change. Later several models of bladed bayonets were created. During the Second World War, the British government also contracted with Canadian and US manufacturers (notably Long Branch and Savage) to produce the No. 4 Mk I* rifle. US-manufactured rifles supplied under the Lend Lease program were marked US PROPERTY on the left side of the receiver. Canada's Small Arms Limited at Long Branch made over 900,000. Many of these equipped the Canadian Army and many were supplied to the UK and New Zealand. Over a million No. 4 rifles were built by Stevens-Savage in the United States for the UK between 1941 and 1944 and all were originally marked "U.S. PROPERTY". Canada and the United States manufactured both the No. 4 MK. I and the simplified No. 4 MK. I*. The UK and Canada converted about 26,000 No. 4 rifles to sniper equipment.
do I need to go on?
British aircraft production? lets look at all combatants:
This table lists aircraftproduction during World War II by country and year.
Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Total Ref U.S. 2,141 6,086 26,277[1] 47,836 85,898 96,318 49,761[1] 324,750[1][2][3]Germany 8,295 10,826 11,776 15,596[4] 25,527 39,807 7,540 119,371 [3][5]USSR 10,382 10,565 15,735[1] 25,436 34,245[1] 40,246[1] 20,052[1] 157,261[1] UK 7,940 15,049 20,094 23,672 26,263 26,461 12,070 131,549 [2][3]Japan 4,467 4,768 5,088 8,861 16,693 28,180 8,263 76,320 [3]Italy 1,692 2,142 3,503 2,818 967
yes, it would appear that british aircraft production increased in 1940...when the US was shipping the raw materiels. If we obeyed the premise of the thread and shipped nothing?
El Alamein? Im beginning to realize that you think you read something...El Alamein was actually the site of numerous armoured battles, but generally listed as 'first' (july 42) and 'second' october 1942, and was supported by the US. Let me give a little taste of what you could have read had you desired:
Quote:
El Alamein was an Allied victory, although Rommel did not lose hope until the end of the Tunisia Campaign. Churchill said,
It may almost be said, "Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat".
— Winston Churchill.[128]
The Allies frequently had numerical superiority in the Western Desert but never had it been so complete in quantity and quality. With the arrival of Sherman tanks, 6-pounder anti-tank guns and Spitfires in the Western Desert, the Allies gained a comprehensive superiority.[129] Montgomery envisioned the battle as an attrition operation, similar to those fought in the First World War and accurately predicted the length of the battle and the number of Allied casualties. Allied artillery was superbly handled and Allied air support was excellent, in contrast to the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica, which offered little or no support to ground forces, preferring to engage in air-to-air combat. Air supremacy had a huge effect on the battle. Montgomery wrote,
The moral effect of air action [on the enemy] is very great and out of all proportion to the material damage inflicted. In the reverse direction, the sight and sound of our own air forces operating against the enemy have an equally satisfactory effect on our own troops. A combination of the two has a profound influence on the most important single factor in war—morale.
— Montgomery[86]
Historians debate the reasons Rommel decided to advance into Egypt. In 1997, Martin van Creveld wrote that Rommel had been advised by the German and Italian staffs that his army could not properly be supplied so far from the ports of Tripoli and Benghazi. Rommel pressed ahead with his advance to Alamein and as predicted, supply difficulties limited the attacking potential of the axis forces.[28] According to Maurice Remy (2002), Hitler and Mussolini put pressure on Rommel to advance. Rommel had been very pessimistic, especially after the First Battle of El Alamein, and knew that as US supplies were en route to Africa and Axis ships were being sunk in the Mediterranean, the Axis was losing a race against time. On 27 August, Kesselring promised Rommel that supplies would arrive in time but Westphal pointed out that such an expectation would be unrealistic and the offensive should not begin until they had arrived. After a conversation with Kesselring on 30 August, Rommel decided to attack, "the hardest [decision] in my life".[130]
And I didnt even have to look for that. You're welcome.
aside from your insulting hysterics, you and you alone said that every word I posted in the last post was false.
it is now on you to prove it. I have made a lot of statements. Start small, pick one, and show the evidence it is false. If you cannot, then just admit your error, thats all. oh yeah, stop the personal attacks. I have not done it therefore you should not as well.
please note, the battle, and the british survival coincided EXACTLY with the signing of lend lease. Before that, under international law, it was cash/carry. the numbers are out there, since you made the claims, I am going to let you find them.
I also see you googled up on canadas contribution..care to share what you found? or should I post it?
PS - you claim to be British, but in dancing around the topics of the colonies, we wonder how can you be and go thru whatever passes for school there, and not encounter ANYTHING on the British Raj? You do know that the US fortified the subcontinent and flew long range bomber mission from there, right?
PPS: no rambo film was ever based on WW2. In fact the first one was not even out of the US. This is the 3rd time you have insisted that things come from films. why? do you choose to watch those instead of read and assume that everyone else does? it is a curious quirk.
once again, you reply with zero evidence, but plenty of commentary. Did I EVER say the british battled hitler with enfields? no, I actually didnt. I said that they were in use by british troops in the colonies, but I could have. Googling, we find:
and
and
do I need to go on?
British aircraft production? lets look at all combatants:
This table lists aircraftproduction during World War II by country and year.
Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Total Ref U.S. 2,141 6,086 26,277[1] 47,836 85,898 96,318 49,761[1] 324,750[1][2][3]Germany 8,295 10,826 11,776 15,596[4] 25,527 39,807 7,540 119,371 [3][5]USSR 10,382 10,565 15,735[1] 25,436 34,245[1] 40,246[1] 20,052[1] 157,261[1] UK 7,940 15,049 20,094 23,672 26,263 26,461 12,070 131,549 [2][3]Japan 4,467 4,768 5,088 8,861 16,693 28,180 8,263 76,320 [3]Italy 1,692 2,142 3,503 2,818 967
yes, it would appear that british aircraft production increased in 1940...when the US was shipping the raw materiels. If we obeyed the premise of the thread and shipped nothing?
El Alamein? Im beginning to realize that you think you read something...El Alamein was actually the site of numerous armoured battles, but generally listed as 'first' (july 42) and 'second' october 1942, and was supported by the US. Let me give a little taste of what you could have read had you desired:
And I didnt even have to look for that. You're welcome.
aside from your insulting hysterics, you and you alone said that every word I posted in the last post was false.
it is now on you to prove it. I have made a lot of statements. Start small, pick one, and show the evidence it is false. If you cannot, then just admit your error, thats all. oh yeah, stop the personal attacks. I have not done it therefore you should not as well.
please note, the battle, and the british survival coincided EXACTLY with the signing of lend lease. Before that, under international law, it was cash/carry. the numbers are out there, since you made the claims, I am going to let you find them.
I also see you googled up on canadas contribution..care to share what you found? or should I post it?
PS - you claim to be British, but in dancing around the topics of the colonies, we wonder how can you be and go thru whatever passes for school there, and not encounter ANYTHING on the British Raj? You do know that the US fortified the subcontinent and flew long range bomber mission from there, right?
PPS: no rambo film was ever based on WW2. In fact the first one was not even out of the US. This is the 3rd time you have insisted that things come from films. why? do you choose to watch those instead of read and assume that everyone else does? it is a curious quirk.
Once again you've spent god knows how long putting together something that tells us NOTHING! LOL
I repeat, the British defeated the Nazis in the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thats before the US was even in the bloody war! Once the Luftwaffe were defeated it was IMPOSSIBLE for Hitler to invade, so he cancelled operation Sealion and turned his attentions East. Simple fact is the US didn't come and 'save our arse', we'd done that alone thanks. Once Hitler attacked the Soviets the outcome of the war was inevitable, the Soviets are probably the only country that could and probably would have beaten Hitler on their own. Of course a Western front made up of Allied forces (yes it wasn't just 'the Americans' that invaded on Dday) helped Russia immensely and certainly shortened the war, no victory in the Battle of Britain then no Western front. Its funny but you don't get Russians claiming that they came and 'saved our arse' from the Nazis
The Battle of Britain changed the course of history:-
Of course they helped also how would they have 'fared' without the British tanks? Or how would the Americans have fared without the Spitfires they used? How would the Americans have 'fared' if Britain had decided not to fight at all in 1940? Oh I forgot, it was just the Americans that won the war, they came and saved 'all our arses' didn't they!?
I suppose ultimately the Nazis weren't completely 'beaten' until 1945 (all America's doing no doubt)? They definately 'lost' the Battle of Britain though:-
americans would have been just fine had you not fought, we already came over and ended the 'war to end all wars' and how did you thank us? you enabled nazi germany to form. In fact it can be argued you CAUSED IT, your own economist said versailles was too harsh and argued (correctly it turns out) would lead to future hostilities.
In the US, our national sentiment at the time did not shed a tear when europe was lost and most in power in the US felt the brits would not survive, you have FDR to thank for keeping the ships rolling. google it.
Only you, 'easthome' has made the claim that the americans did everything. that would be false. Yes, the americans fielded twice as many solders as the UK, band tanks? aircraft? ships? hell the US LOST more aircraft carriers than EVERYONE ELSE COMBINED *HAD*. WW2 was over, lost, until the japanese bombed pearl (it was a movie that claimed otherwise btw) and we joined in. This is not denigration as you claim towards other fighting people, but in the end, reality is reality. Japan would have been dealt with summarily that same way it was, the PTO and ETO shared nothing but american blood
There is a reason, the US is the top superpower even tho the other two have more land, people, and 'stuff'
we dont even ask for thanks and never will. just be glad we volunteer. Keep it up and mebbe next time 'rambo' wont be so quick to get out of the chair and grab the keys....
Once again you've spent god knows how long putting together something that tells us NOTHING! LOL
I repeat, the British defeated the Nazis in the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thats before the US was even in the bloody war! Once the Luftwaffe were defeated it was IMPOSSIBLE for Hitler to invade, so he cancelled operation Sealion and turned his attentions East. Simple fact is the US didn't come and 'save our arse', we'd done that alone thanks. Once Hitler attacked the Soviets the outcome of the war was inevitable, the Soviets are probably the only country that could and probably would have beaten Hitler on their own. Of course a Western front made up of Allied forces (yes it wasn't just 'the Americans' that invaded on Dday) helped Russia immensely and certainly shortened the war, no victory in the Battle of Britain then no Western front. Its funny but you don't get Russians claiming that they came and 'saved our arse' from the Nazis
The Battle of Britain changed the course of history:-
so let me get this straight, when I post something that proves what you said is wrong, you put fingers in ears, stomp feet and shout 'it proves nothing'.
got it.
and now you claim the us sent no aid before and during the battle of britain, which is ALSO a false statement.
Just curious what you are going to make up next.
ps - it took me <10 minutes to put that together. Like I said , you do not like reading
so let me get this straight, when I post something that proves what you said is wrong, you put fingers in ears, stomp feet and shout 'it proves nothing'.
got it.
and now you claim the us sent no aid before and during the battle of britain, which is ALSO a false statement.
Just curious what you are going to make up next.
ps - it took me <10 minutes to put that together. Like I said , you do not like reading
Not exactly - I said you didn't 'save our arse' we defeated the Nazis ourself a year before you were even in the bloody war, I mean there were Poles and Canadians (among others) flying those Spitfires against the Luftwaffe too you know but the Canadians never start spouting off how they 'saved everybodies arse' all the time do they!? Youre just ignorant, you watch too much 'A team' and worse of all you are completely disrespectful to people that fought that war and are still alive today. Again I'm left wondering why it is the Russians aren't constantly claiming they 'saved everyones arse' and demanding gratitude from all and sundry when arguably they did more than anybody to defeat Hitler? do you have an inferiority complex?
And you haven't 'proved' anything, well nothing more than your ignorance anyway.
The topic of this thread is How would the world be different if we had heeded George Washington's farewell address?
Now,we have heard more than we need to hear about Britain, Germany, the Battle Of Britain, etc. Let's get back to George Washington's farewell address and please, stop trying to circumvent the language filter.
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.
