Stupid Americans, you should of voted Kerry now we are all fucked.

[Papa Smurf]

Firstly where has the politics and shit section gone too? and this is not aimed at the American people though I do think anyone who voted Republican should be shot ;0)

Secondly and the point of this post, what the fuck does American government think its doing? Are they that retarded that they think they can change the regime in Iran? If you attack Iran we will have an Arab up raising what the fuck have they done? Oh i hear your answer already and it is as piss weak as your beer Bush, they are developing Nukes, emmmm well hello, North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel, oh but I forgot they are your friends (or Chinas friend, and you are scared of China) in many cases you'll turn and blind eye there, oh and all those 4 have one thing in common don't they, NO FUCKING OIL, oh but Iran does now isn’t that odd, oh and they are an Islamic government OMG they must be evil, lets bomb the crap out of them, NO!

Seymore Hersh's article (the man that exposed Abu Grabi abuses)
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

This time you will be totally alone in the world the vast majority of Europe last time was not behind you, i will personally go and stand on the docks or airfields should they try and send our boys into the field again with your badly trained crappy army, who are too gun hoe for situations like this you have proved it over and over again, the American army basic training is 1/3 that of the British forces plus we train our troops to handle these types of senarious as we have had northern Ireland and people like DJ to handle for years. What have the people of America done to the world in voting in that evil puppet Bush back in he has more hands up his ass than Warren Beatty has had hamsters.

Have the American forces ever heard of hearts and minds, we fought the Commies in Malaysia around about the same time you were losing in Vietnam, difference was we won, you know how, we set up free hospitals and schools, we help the locals, everywhere we went, we won their hearts and minds and they helped us in return. We never burnt villages, we never raped (well this probably did happen but not on the scale of Vietnam), we never massacred whole villages; I mean you really covered yourselves in glory there and now you seem intent on doing it again. "Hey they have no trees to hid behind this time though", yes but they do have a massive chemical biological and maybe even Nucleus arsenal, the blood shed on both side with be horrifying, oh oh oh your saying "well there we go there is or justification", sorry but no, you have them you still work chemical and biological agents in contravention of many treaties so why not them because they are evil? and who are you to say that, who are you to judge, Judge not least ye be judge, are these words familiar at all. I think you should declare war on yourselves, its the only logical conclusion to your policies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4180087.stm

Sighs why oh why

[Bentusi]

moving to the political forum..

[tom]

I personally would not support an invasion of Iran, at least not until Iraq is stabilized.

[Ummon]

I would support an invasion of Iran, anytime, anyway.

[Bentusi]

why can't we just turn the entire middle east into a parking lot and solve all our problems?

[Ummon]

The Iranians with their Nukes wouldn't agree with that... :oohoo:

[stats]

Invade iran and you have we have a nuclear war on our hands. America will win it, sure, it will be europe that pays the price though (and by europe i mean the uk)... I'm voting conserative this year (i was going for lib dems - but i dont think they'll win) - i hope to god they dont start it till after the uk elections. ah well, hopefully it's all speculative bullshit.

[Ummon]

During my summer vacations (it's work vacations mostly but hey) I collect books on the occult as a funny hobby. It's 100% bullshit for my rational mind, but I have to say that Nostradamus actually predicted that the 3rd World War will be against the muslims, the russians and the chinese, and it will last 30 years with a victim count in the billions.

[Ummon]

More interesting links.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iran-05a.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05h.html

[Karmashock]

I've addresed this so many times that I'm kind of over it...


I'm one american that will disagree and engage on issues... but you have to keep your hate down and ask a few questions or make a few statements at a time.

If you're interested...

[LardGibs]

If you read the article, you might notice that the Israelis will nuke Iran based on our CIA ops there before we even get involved.

gg

[Karmashock]

Dude... if the US were in Israel’s position we would have nuked all these fuckers a long time ago. Or at least brought peace through the certainty of radioactive death.


I don't know where they've found all this patience... kind of amazing really...

[stats]

I think the fact that they were created 50 years ago by uprooting and displacing the entire country of palastine and all of its people and putting them into camps...(btw: the palastinians helped - are the ONLY reasone we managed this - britain to secure the sewers cannal in return for libberation from Turkey, without them we would have lost the war LONG before America came out of its post ww1 isolationism. If britain had lost the war at that point, we would be talking about newyork and california instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) I have nothing against the isaeli people - i understand completely why they took this opportunity for a homeland. But there government is a corrupt barbaric, brutal bunch of thugs and bullies. They are not patient Karmashock - you hardline, right wing prick!It is high time the palastinians were granted a state and ARMED by the US. Sorting this problem out would sort so much more out.

[Papa Smurf]

it will make no diffrence to the arab world if you do it or the Isrealise do it, you want to make the world a more secure place, yet you insist on engaging in unjustifiable acts where all you do is creat 1000 more bin ladens with a real cause behind them, people who families you have blown up, who's wives you and us for that matter have killed, bin laden is a rich boy who is a bit wrong in the head imagine a 1000 of him hiding all over the world, with real hatered and passion, they can now point fingers and say to young muslims all over the world "look at how they treat our people while they back Isreal who steal our brother lands, they now try to force their ways on us", its armaggedon i am telling you the end of the world and it our fault not theirs.

we see ourselves as the good guys, yet we are not, i am sure the Germans people thought that they where the good guys at the start of WW2. WE ARE THE BAD GUYS here 9/11 no longer justifies the killing, it should stop, yet i fear it will never stop.

Karma you show yourself to be a true red neck and the reason the world is such a fucked up place, force can only be used as a last resort and should be clinica against those that have instigated these crimes to punish millions of people for your own gain is wrong i do not care how self important your country is, it is wrong.

I pity the mess we leave to our children.

[The Dark Messenger]

I pity the mess we leave to our children. I'm worried whether most of us'll have the oppertunity to even leave a mess to them

EDIT: And I'm not talking about infertility either, you stupid bastard :P

[stats]

I'm worried whether most of us'll have the oppertunity to even leave a mess to them.

Have you got concerns about your fertility Messenger :D

I second that Papa.

Dude... if the US were in Israel’s position we would have nuked all these fuckers a long time ago. Or at least brought peace through the certainty of radioactive death.

:thumbdown

[Shackled Phoenix]

First off, stats US arming the palestinians would 1. Cause yet more countries to hate the US for various reasons. 2. Be a damn good way to start WW3, when the palestinians and isreali's move from this skirmish/terroristic bullshit into full on war and countries begin taking sides.

Give them a state? yes and no. America, under bush's presidency, made an offer to back palestine, and even provide military defense. The condition was that palestine had to cease and desist all arms imports for an indefinate period of time. the Palestinians agreed, but were soon caught buying more arms. US dropped the plan due to lack of trust. I would back the US in a military action to draw a neutral line between the two though, AFTER the situation in Iraq is sorted, and we can safely withdraw from the country.

As for Iran, I have doubts as to an American military action against it. The threat from Iran is so much greater than Iraq's, that it would be alot more beneficial to both sides to find diplomatic solutions. Nobody wants a nuclear war. Even pakistan and india, with Soo much bickering, and fighting, and threats with nuclear weapons, neither has dared to pull the triggers.

As for smurf's first post, assuming we did make a military action, why shouldn't we choose Iran over the others? North korea we don't have any sort of powerbase, and it would be an even harder fight for us. Sorry mate, but like every other god damn country out there, We protect our own interests first, then when we've deemed the risk not TOO damning to us, we will help others. Not to mention, they are pretty friendly to china, would you prefer we start a war with Nkorea, have china jump in, at which point, every other country takes sides and once again WW3?

India and Pakistan are 1. our allies or neutral 2. Even though they are at odds have continued to resort to diplomacy (even if it has included threats) 3. Shown no threat to the safety of the world that deems military action. 4 would be a much riskier military action and 5. The rest of the world wouldn't be very happy with us for it.

Isreal has yet to point nukes and make threats with them in any serious form.

By your reasoning, hell let's go againt russia! they have nukes too! or maybe china! or i know, let's go after japan because they currently hold the world largest stockpile of plutonium! Were we to go ahead with military action, Iran would realistically be the most intelligent target for the US.

And before you go naming 50,000 other countries with evil dictators, terrorists, etc etc
We can't make the whole fucking world a better place. We choose the ones we can, or can try, and yes, quite often there is some sort of US interest in doing so. Just like if you could only save two people, your sister or some stranger, who would you save?

Finally
Have the American forces ever heard of hearts and minds, we fought the Commies in Malaysia around about the same time you were losing in Vietnam, difference was we won, you know how, we set up free hospitals and schools, we help the locals, everywhere we went, we won their hearts and minds and they helped us in return. We never burnt villages, we never raped (well this probably did happen but not on the scale of Vietnam), we never massacred whole villages; I mean you really covered yourselves in glory there and now you seem intent on doing it again. "Hey they have no trees to hid behind this time though", yes but they do have a massive chemical biological and maybe even Nucleus arsenal, the blood shed on both side with be horrifying, oh oh oh your saying "well there we go there is or justification", sorry but no, you have them you still work chemical and biological agents in contravention of many treaties so why not them because they are evil? and who are you to say that, who are you to judge, Judge not least ye be judge, are these words familiar at all. I think you should declare war on yourselves, its the only logical conclusion to your policies.

I resent these remarks. You are inferring that US soldiers, including blacksand and my brother, and my father are inherantly "evil" simply because they are soldiers of the US. Every country EVERY fucking country, has had it's armies commit acts of attrocities, that said country should be ashamed of, and quite usually, is. US, britain, japan, china, russia, iran, korea (both) have all done act's of "evil". Soldiers are all men, all beset by acts of stupidity, greed, or hatred. Vietnam we lost, Some US soldiers even driven completely mad by the horror of fighting that war. I in no way defend any act of civilian killings, etc etc. but they did not happen because "US soldiers are evil dispicable creatures" but are instead, human.

As for our soldiers being untrained in iraq and such, it is quite a debated topic in the states currently. The US people are not happy about people with 6 months of boot camp being shipped off to fight.

edit: sorry bout the long post, but this thread's got me a bit peeved.

[Karmashock]

I think the fact that they were created 50 years ago by uprooting and displacing the entire country of palastine and all of its people and putting them into camps...(btw: the palastinians helped - are the ONLY reasone we managed this - britain to secure the sewers cannal in return for libberation from Turkey, without them we would have lost the war LONG before America came out of its post ww1 isolationism. If britain had lost the war at that point, we would be talking about newyork and california instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) I have nothing against the isaeli people - i understand completely why they took this opportunity for a homeland. But there government is a corrupt barbaric, brutal bunch of thugs and bullies. They are not patient Karmashock - you hardline, right wing prick!It is high time the palastinians were granted a state and ARMED by the US. Sorting this problem out would sort so much more out.
There was no country of Palestine. There was the Turkish Empire. Furthermore, Jews had been relocating and buying up land there for a long long time. The whole Zionist movement has been in the works for at least a hundred years from their perspective. Lastly, the before Israel that area wasn't nearly as densely populated.




The mistake they made was allowing islam into their domain. If islam were a bit more open, then they could live in peace. But what they should have done as they took territory was deport them...


As to making a "thousand bin ladins", you don't understand human psychology or power politics. If you show strength the enemy is more likely to convert then attack you.

400 years of western power is based on this fact. If you think I'm wrong then look at the nature of the world... who calls the shots? Exactly.

[Shackled Phoenix]

As to making a "thousand bin ladins", you don't understand human psychology or power politics. If you show strength the enemy is more likely to convert then attack you.

400 years of western power is based on this fact. If you think I'm wrong then look at the nature of the world... who calls the shots? Exactly.

Not quite karma. he has a point in that, killing ones friend/family/ally does tend to make enemies. You at the same time have the point of "hey i just kicked your bigger, stronger buddies ass, do you REALLY wanna fuck with me?" that doesn't "convert them" it just makes them alot more cautious, and possibly willing to just leave it alone out of fear. It can also make them alot more cagey and underhanded (IE bin laden)

[Karmashock]

Not quite karma. he has a point in that, killing ones friend/family/ally does tend to make enemies. You at the same time have the point of "hey i just kicked your bigger, stronger buddies ass, do you REALLY wanna fuck with me?" that doesn't "convert them" it just makes them alot more cautious, and possibly willing to just leave it alone out of fear. It can also make them alot more cagey and underhanded (IE bin laden)
Why do people all over the world wear business suits, use the western calender, western numbers system, and at least give some credence to western morality?

What I'm saying is that if you establish yourself as the local power, everyone adapts to that reality. The whole concept of modernity is based upon western hegemony.


What causes an uprising against you is the enemy's hope. If they have no hope of winning and you make that clear over and over again they'll just stop trying.


Look throughout history at when revolutions happen. Before every revolution the authority either weakens or shows mercy. This is true in every instance. The only places you see people rising up against the government are places that are 'somewhat' free. If they are totally not free, then there is no insurrection.


This works with international relations too. If you show weakness to a competing nation and give them the hope of victory, then they'll try something.

The United States was perceived prior to Bush as being unable to maintain a war footing and unable to do what it had to do to win. This was true in Vietnam. The United States obviously had the power to win if it really wanted to... however it lacked the political and moral will to make it happen. What I am describing is also the whole basis for Asian international relations. All that stuff about not losing face relates. You don't show weakness or any imperfection in your nature. You at least pretend to be at all times in control and perfect.


The illusion no matter how true it is saves lives and money by allowing you to do things without violence. You simply suggest it and because you're in charge it happens. This kind of power is called "soft power" and true economic, military, and political power is called "hard power". Soft power is based upon hard power.

If the enemy is messing with you then it means that your soft power has weakened to the point where they are challenging your hard power. The natural response is to extend your soft power back out by using your hard power. The US has some extra benefits here that most other nations lack. We're very glamorous and attractive... our culture that is. This is taken by many cultures as decadence and selfishness... but it serves to infect many cultures with an affinity for an alien culture (ours). This simply gives our soft power a slight boost thereby allowing us to use our hard power less.



The US has used military power to solve roughly 17 percent of its conflicts over the last hundred years. That is extremely low for a nation of our power. China for example has solved over 75 percent of its conflicts over the same period with violence. Most of the nations in the Middle East have far worse records of using violence to solve disputes.


So the US has nothing to apologize for here... we're far better then most.






Just some things to focus on... Power politics... hegemony... peace through strength.
Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Shackled Phoenix]

Well said karma.

[shutupandshave]

What causes an uprising against you is the enemy's hope. If they have no hope of winning and you make that clear over and over again they'll just stop trying.

Before every revolution the authority either weakens or shows mercy. This is true in every instance. The only places you see people rising up against the government are places that are 'somewhat' free. If they are totally not free, then there is no insurrection.


Karma, I swear you DO understand that the US is taken liberties and freedom from people but pretend you dont, because you believe in US world domination.

[Papa Smurf]

Were they robots flying those planes into the side of the twin towers or the pentagon? Exactly! You push people hard enough leave them no option and they will eventually strike back especially when it is seen as a foreign power, yeah revolution is a hard thing to instigate in a country as they are the same people with a common link, how could ones own people wish to hurt on themselves is the dilemma they are left with. However in Americas case in relation to the Arab world you are totally alien to them, and therefore a very very easy target to hate and commit themselves to the destruction of.

You condemned countries like our for our imperial past Woodrow Wilson and his policy of National self determination, laid this out how you saw the world and how the people of a country should decide. However now you are embarked on the largest Imperial campaign the world has ever seen Capitalist Imperialism is no better than any other type.

[shutupandshave]

I think what's really interesting about this, is the way the view of the rest of the world differs with the US view. I remember when I first started posting - this would be the kind of post that I would have made, however I thought that perhaps I was the only person that thought like this.

I am wondering if there is going to be a new flavour of "genocide" created, which kills off people's opinions instead of their life. Much more sensible than killing them, and Karma has already stated that it is the US's goals...

[stats]

Your half right on the Zion thingy - not all right, but half - your views on what the isreali's should have done are a little sick though. They did kick the palistinians out of isreali land and there former homes (after half of them had fled in fear anyway) and told them ' Learn our national language and our customs so that you may respect them, and you can come back' many did and were not aloud back in..

Good post Karma - anyone who argues those points is going to lose... However - you are assuming that the US of today is the same as it was even 2 or 3 years ago. It's not. Views like 'Bring democracy to the world by force' is the real problem - islam is not a democratic people, i really doubt they want to be. so, why do it? When public opionion in europe says that america is in it for the 'oil' you only have to look at your choice of targets and the shares your (of the indivduals) political power base has to see why.

In a WW3 type of situation, the west will loose. Because what exactly are we fighting for? Certainly not our freedom and certainly not against a great threat. We are fighting a weak underdeveloped people, for what? Not ourselves...

Britains odd's for holding out for three years against the production power and armies of nearly all of europe were bleak to. By the time the US got involved we were starting to turn the tide (Thanks in no small part to the food and supplies we did receive from the us).. I'm not sure what im trying to say here. The whole thing stinks really, i think we are stiring up a massive wasp nest and covering ourselves in honey.

[Cernunnos]

The US has used military power to solve roughly 17 percent of its conflicts over the last hundred years. That is extremely low for a nation of our power. China for example has solved over 75 percent of its conflicts over the same period with violence. Most of the nations in the Middle East have far worse records of using violence to solve disputes.

i see you're very good at statistics eh... there is only one point with them, what they say strongly depends on how you look at them or from which point of view you take them. how many times was america involved in war in the last whatever 10, 20, 50 etc years? to be honest i don't remember the last war switzerland was involved in...........

So the US has nothing to apologize for here... we're far better then most.


ah yes exactly, others do worse so everything we do is just fine! lovely attitude. this will certainly save our ass from ourselves.

one thing that would really interest me is why the hell are you so convinced that the things america is doing are good? can you explain good and bad to me please? do you think you know the truth?

[MVB]

I'm sorry, but Seymour is highly mistaken this time around; we are not currently planning to invade Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if we have intel to back up an invasion of Iran if they do something stupid like Nuke us, but we're not planning some horrible preemptive strike. You'll notice the North Koreans claimed we were doing the same thing a month ago to them. The fact that people are buying the BS behind this article is just ridiculous. I don't care what responses there are -- there is a huge difference between gathering intel, and planning a preemptive strike that we actually intend to make.

[Larsson7]

Dont Conress have to approve an invasion?

Surely this could not be sanctioned by the President and Joint Chiefs.

I do realise that Congress approved the Iraqi invasion after it had happened, however, is this not quite a rare event?

[MVB]

Congress has to approve it, plus the President and Joint Chiefs have to want it. Think what you will of Bush, he's not a warmonger, nor is he a puppet. He's not going to bring about a second Iraq "ohnoes where are the wmd?!?!" situation if he doesn't have to, and when he doesn't want to. He'd much rather pull from Iraq after succeeding there, and focus on his domestic agenda, while keeping up the war on terror to the conclusion of killing or capturing Osama so the media guys can go "oh, ok, one more terrorist in the bucket, but b/c his name is Osama omgz we can't complain anymore and have blinders on to the thousands of terrorists he HAS killed."

[Ummon]

One of the spacedaily links I posted infact is about the US gov saying this is only uncontrolled tantrum infact.

Papa, strange, that's the public section of the forums...

[ebev]

Man smurf you need to get a clue. Everyone loves to bash the US but the minute something bad happens everyone asks for our help. Hell Great Briton would be a german state if it wasent for us. Look at the tsnami's as soon as it happend everyone looked to the US to help. And we DID every helecopter you saw within the first week of the tsnami was a US helicopter.
We'll have Iraq secured soon. Then we'll get out of there. And in my opinion we'll just stay to ourselvs and all thoes countries that bash us can take care of the world policeing.

Oh sorry noone has a military big enough to take care of it.

As for calling our Troops Poorly trained? you oviously dont know shit. Did you know your SAS is sent over to the US ranger school for most of there training?

Your Sub Crews are sent to Grotton connecticut for most of there training?

And your pilots are all sent to OUR Top Gun school?

Really do some research before you go talking about things you know nothing about.

I'm soo sick of people trying to bash the US becouse they are jelous of what we have.

[stats]

Man smurf you need to get a clue. Everyone loves to bash the US but the minute something bad happens everyone asks for our help. Hell Great Briton would be a german state if it wasent for us. Look at the tsnami's as soon as it happend everyone looked to the US to help. And we DID every helecopter you saw within the first week of the tsnami was a US helicopter.
We'll have Iraq secured soon. Then we'll get out of there. And in my opinion we'll just stay to ourselvs and all thoes countries that bash us can take care of the world policeing.

Oh sorry noone has a military big enough to take care of it.

As for calling our Troops Poorly trained? you oviously dont know shit. Did you know your SAS is sent over to the US ranger school for most of there training?

Your Sub Crews are sent to Grotton connecticut for most of there training?

And your pilots are all sent to OUR Top Gun school?

Really do some research before you go talking about things you know nothing about.

I'm soo sick of people trying to bash the US becouse they are jelous of what we have.

Bullshit and propaganda - fuck off.

And britain may have won the war without america - but america would have fallen if we had lost.

[shutupandshave]

you oviously dont know shit {such as the ability to spell "obviously"?}. Did you know your SAS is sent over to the US ranger school for most of there training?

This is the first link I hit when I searched for "SAS train with US rangers" (without the quotes)
http://www.baseops.net/militarybooks/armyranger.html
It says
"The SAS made such an impression on Col. Beckwith that he designed Delta's organization, selection and training on the British SAS model. "
I can see no evidence that the SAS train with the US Rangers.


Your Sub Crews are sent to Grotton connecticut for most of there training?

And your pilots are all sent to OUR Top Gun school?
Nope, and nope. That is not true. I am sorry ebev, but you are not right.
I would say some of the US troops are poorly trained, I would say that about any troops in any country - the problem is, that it is much more difficult to keep a force as large as the US as sleek as a much smaller force like the Israeli or UK Special forces.

Apparently the UK army is "pound for pound" the best army in the world, but that means very little in the real world. So what if one of our men (as an example) can take out 1.05 of your men. You have 100 times more men than us.

However... going back to your original point... that statement was pretty much full of shit and YOU need to do some research before posting.

I bash any country or any people that claims untruths, and I bash you for your Bullshit in your post.

MVB: I think and hope you're right, however people like Karma believe that there is some kind of non-democratic cleansing going on at the moment, and fully supports it. THAT'S the attitude that scares the shit out of me...much more so than the Iraq affair.

Hmmm, well I agree that the Koran seems to be more aggressive than the Bible, however I still say that the Christians have done no better than the Muslims. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Is that the way to teach the world?
What happened to Christian beliefs after 9/11? I didn't see very much cheek turning.
Thou shalt not kill... for any reason.

[Larsson7]

Suas can easily agree with me here -

When the UK had to send troops into Northern Ireland (Which would be a 50th of the size of Iraq) they were told that this would be for a matter of weeks and months - this was in 1969/1970 and there are still British Troops here today.

Many troops have been killed, wounded, shot at and traumatised over the course of the last 30-35 years. While things have clamed down now - I am sure there are many British Soldiers who never want to see N Ireland again.

Do you guys really believe that there will be a withdrawl within anything less than 10 years?

[shutupandshave]

I think the difference between N.Ireland and Iraq is that the UK HAD to leave soldiers in N.Ireland to protect the people living there. The US does not have to do that... however... and this is just speculative... would the lack of UK troops in N.Ireland caused the area to fall into civil war?

Although I think the troops in Iraq may leave soon (in the next 2 years), I can see them returning.

By invading Iraq it has been made a point of contension between the West and Islam. As soon as the troops leave, you're going to have every Islamic Fundamentalist trying to take back Iraq.

There are many MANY troops that never want to see Northern Ireland again... it was horrendous apparently... which leads me to believe again, that is not whites, or blacks or christians or muslims that are the problem... it's nasty people.

[Papa Smurf]

not me mister, we are there for the long haul, i hope and pray for the our sakes that we are not, either that or we will pull out far to early and then Iraq will fall into chaos, and a far worse regime take power, more than likely a extremist anti western Islamic government.

Thanks susa for saving me the typing!

Our special forces are the best in the world, with the possible exception of Mosad.

[shutupandshave]

Yeah Mosad are better I believe.

The Aussies are also pretty hot.

One thing I have realised though, is that everyone thinks their countries special forces are the best.

[stats]

SAS arent our best SF though - there is a navy one which is little known that is suppose to be much better...

[Papa Smurf]

SBS might have something to say about that, ther actions in sierra leone were faultless.

[stats]

I think the SBS is the one i'm talking about papa

[shutupandshave]

lol @ you two

[stats]

:P

[Larsson7]

Wow - no one gives a fuck about Special Forces.

This statement is made before we have a whole "Our countries SF could pwnzor yours"

[/<yle]

I think isreals Specialforces could kick the shit out of anyone. Just my opinion. I take the new testiment very literally. What Jesus did for christianity, is he made all of us under the law (old testiment) Free from it, because no-one was prefect under the old laws. We transended the laws, because under the old system, you werent a jew, you were fucked.

-edit-

And for the palestinians, most of them are less than third generation, and their real lands were stolen by the people who attacked isreal in the first place.

[BIack]

As a history teacher in a British Pulbic School I could wade in with a whole wad of arguments about WW2, but Im not going to because Ive just taught it and frankly, want to forget that class :boohoo:

[Burned]

As a history teacher in a British Pulbic School I could wade in with a whole wad of arguments about WW2, but Im not going to because Ive just taught it and frankly, want to forget that class :boohoo:

U dont have to write an essay, just point our where u think we said something incorrect :rofl:

[Morpheus]

WWII history to me is very... how woud you put it... interesting. I've read 3 different versions of what happened, each of them distorting/not mentioning facts according to which nation wrote it. It kinda opens your mind to the fact that you can't trust everything you read or hear, all of us will try to make ourselves look better. It is very interesting to see how without any major contradictions, authors can keep quiet about something, distort some facts, and insert some information that is more of an opinion than a fact, and suddenly the whole picture changes.

As for Christianity - true Christians base their belives according to the New Testament. You can inverse that and say that if someone is doing something contradictory to the New Testament and thinks it is perfectly ok to do so, then he's not a true Christian(had to insert the underlined text, otherwise only angels would qualify).

[tom]

NOTE: I have moved all of the religious discussion to a new thread, as this is a thread regaring the USA and Iran, not Islam vs Christianity.

The new thread is here: http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1605

Please refrain from drifting off topic from here on, thanks. :)

[Karmashock]

I think some of my posts in this thread got moved... there is too much to respond to here...

So, if anyone wants my input on anything... make that known... otherwise, I'll assume I've been heard.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

please say this in every thread

[MVB]

Stats, this is random, from page one, but the UK had no chance to win the war against Germany w/out the US coming in. It was a matter of time before Germany turned its gaze on Britain for real (which it never really did, even until and after D-Day).

[Karmashock]

well... In all fairness to the English, I think the British navy was what was really holding Hitler back... and if the allies hadn't let Germany build up, there never would have been a problem.


Really, WWI and WWII were a lesson in what happens if you don't completely defeat your enemies. We made sure in WWII that all of the Axis powers surrendered COMPLETELY and unconditionally.

The Japanese were willing to agree to a conditional surrender before the atom bombs...
If the atom bomb never worked... if the scientists couldn't get it to work, then we had already got Stalin to agree to send over 2 million Russian troops into Japan.

Good thing the atom bomb worked... 2 million Russian troops would have done way way more damage.


Anyway... The British were very very tough in both wars and were a credit to any nation under fire. Winston Churchill even sent a letter to America telling us that if London were invaded and the queen captured that the British navy would NOT give up the fight... the promised us to fight to the last man.

Tears still come to my eyes when I read that letter (I'm completely serious)... the determination... the will... the faith...

We've always respected that in the English and have done our best to live up to being good allies to you. I’m often bothered by this talk in both of our countries about not caring about the other… we’re more brothers in this world then any other peoples. Churchill saw this… I hope that our nations can come to terms without this talk about Blair being Bush’s monkey or America no caring what happens to Europe. We do care what happens to you… We’d go to thermonuclear war for you… name any other nation that would do that for you… even nations that don’t have nukes… if they had them would they do that for you?

We would… that’s love… that’s loyalty.


Love and Peace, Karmashock.

[BIack]

Just a quick point...

Germany already had turned its gaze on the UK for real, and the 2 factors which prevented the invasion of the Biritsh Isles were nothing to do with the US. The first, was the failure of the Luftwaffe due to Hitler's poor retaliatory decision to bomb British cities after the RAF's raids on Berlin (as opposed to continuing the devastating and systematic destruction of the RAF airfields) and the second was Hitler's inevitable (considering his own personal philosophy) decision to launch operation Barbarossa.

The Nazis had an invasion army in northern France, and had even printed propaganda films of the invasion that were fake but could be distributed in Germany as soon as the invasion was underway.

I think the point Stats was trying to make, was that if the US hadnt have been involved (and it didnt, until after the imminent threat agaisnt Britain had been averted because of the above reasons) the UK may well not have been invaded by Germany. The Russians were still just as likely to win out in their brutal conflict. Whether or not the UK and indeed Europe would have become Communist is another matter. 'What if' history is mostly conjecture anyway.

Damn. I DID write an essay lol

[JADezimar]

Black Germany was pre-occupied, if germany had turned there full attention to england they would have landed troops. It was hitler going to war with russia that partly did him in. Either way whether germany had been tied up with us or russia his full attention was definitely not aimed at the UK. Is that what there teaching you in your history books, or is that just how you want to interpret it?

[Karmashock]

Well... the British were attacked full out and I do think they put up a very fierce and noble resistance to the Nazi forces... the cowardly scuttling of the French fleet will always stand juxtaposed to the letter to Roosevelt saying that the British navy would fight on no matter what to the last man.

However, it must be noted that neither the british nor the Russians would have been able to maintain the fight without the support of the United States. Our tremendous and untouched industrial power that had starved for a market throughout hte great depression poured out fantastic resources for the whole allied front.

I do not say this to brag as I think you know that I very deeply respect and honor the valor of british and russian forces during that war. However, for pure historical accuracy it is important to note that without said resources britian and russia would have been firing blanks long before the Nazis were bled white by the relentless russian advance.

I think the World Wars more then anything cemented our people's together and I only regrete that the ravages of communism took the Russians from us as they certainly deserved better then to live under the miseries of communism for so many years.


Anyway... my grandfather was member of the royal artillary and fought at Dunkirk... my other grandfather was an anti tank bazooka man in the US army...

I would prey that we never see the like of those days again... but the best I fear we can do is pospone the inevidable... war is after all eternal.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[BIack]

Black Germany was pre-occupied, if germany had turned there full attention to england they would have landed troops.

Well, I dont know what you read in YOUR history books, but what do you mean by 'Germany was pre-occupied?' lol

I know that whatever country you are educated in obviously has an impact on the curriculum and the perspective, however....

.....you cant dispute the facts. The facts are that Germany DID turn its full attention to England. Barbarossa did not start until after the Luftwaffe had been set back over England. England for a fair time was the ONLY country that was still fighting. The invasion barges were actually there in Northern France. The propaganda reels had already been spun. All they needed was air superiority because of the still superior British Navy. How can you dispute that? Its what actually happened....or maybe its because your knowledge doesnt extend before America joining? ;) Think on this mate, if England had failed and had indeed been invaded as Hitler had planned, how then would America have won?

And no, I havn't forgotton the supplies America supplied and the US sailors that lost their lives to give them, or the groups of American pilots who flew with us. However, statements that basically state that the US singlehandedly won the war are simply not true and are pretty insulting. I guess you'd use the same argument for WW1 as well, where 115,000 US troops lost their lives as opposed to the 16 million Europeans?

And as for 'how I choose to interpret history'...well, I find that comment rather insulting, considering that your actual knowledge of the chronology of the conflict seems shaky. I wouldnt start a historical argument on those grounds with me, because basically Im a stubborn bastard who happens to teach the stuff for a living :)

Everyone interprets history, thats half the fun of it. What you need is an understanding of events and evidence to back up your arguments. Without them, you are scraping a D at A level ;)

I have to wholeheartedly agree with karma, except that it is prety much impossible to assert that the Nazi's would have beaten the Russians without Ameican involvement in the war. They were losing that particular fight long before Americans fought in Europe. As I said, 'what if' history is a tricky customer. They may, they may not have. As I tell my students, if you have a good argument like that, you need evidence to formulate a convincing argument :) Im sure it exists for both sides, thats the hard part.

Finally, a good historical debate I can get my teeth into! Huzzah!

PS One question to any yanks out there, on an historical but unrelated from thread question....In your history lessons do you ever learn about things like the Norman Conquest? Or the Tudors? Or the Black Death and Peasants revolt? Im curious because its just as much your history as it is mine in England because your ancestors were my ancestors too and they lived through the same experiences. I have just never thought about your curriculum before.

Yes, being a history teacher IS this boring lol

EDIT: Actually, a D at A-Level is not that bad

[Papa Smurf]

lol i told you a history degree was good for something Black!

This funny though that they will blindly argue any point you put in front of them, i dunno but it sort of cheapens their comments in other threads, despite you actually being an expert in the subject they still chose to dispute the facts.

:howdy: :howdy: :howdy: :howdy: :howdy:

[Karmashock]

how then would America have won?
America, despite playing coy prior to our full involvement, had just as many men to lose as the Russians, with untouched industry, and far better equipment.

If the Germans really wanted to go up against America, they would have found us a numerous at the Russians... except every last one of us would have had rifle to shoot back with… to say nothing of full tank divisions and air support. It would have cost us, but we couldn't help but win that.

And no, I havn't forgotton the supplies America supplied and the US sailors that lost their lives to give them, or the groups of American pilots who flew with us. However, statements that basically state that the US singlehandedly won the war are simply not true and are pretty insulting. I guess you'd use the same argument for WW1 as well, where 115,000 US troops lost their lives as opposed to the 16 million Europeans?
I'm talking about supplies... We supplied you with fuel, ammunition, food, medical supplies, etc. Without that you would have gone dry. Germany stockpiled for years before the war... britian didn't. The US made up for that by piping in everything we had.

We're on the same side... to the death.


I have to wholeheartedly agree with karma, except that it is prety much impossible to assert that the Nazi's would have beaten the Russians without Ameican involvement in the war. They were losing that particular fight long before Americans fought in Europe.
We were supplying the russians too... we got them tanks, ammunition, rifles, artillery, etc.

Without that it would have been german machineguns v spears.

PS One question to any yanks out there, on an historical but unrelated from thread question....In your history lessons do you ever learn about things like the Norman Conquest? Or the Tudors? Or the Black Death and Peasants revolt? Im curious because its just as much your history as it is mine in England because your ancestors were my ancestors too and they lived through the same experiences. I have just never thought about your curriculum before.
We get most of that stuff, however we focus more heavily on our own more recent history. So we don't cover the Napoleonic wars very well as the US had its own distinct history at that point.

How well do you cover the French indian war (I think you call it the 7 years war)? How about the Stamp act?... the war of 1812?

For us these were infinitely more important then what happened between france and england at the time. We were mostly trying to play britian off of france so that you both left us alone... and the more you fought the better our trade was generally as we traded with both sides.

Did you know that Napoleon tried to set up a colony the British ones, but lost his force when it stopped to quell a slave revolt in the Caribbean?

Bacon's rebellion?


Lots of neat stuff... all basic stuff we learned in high school. The Protestants (Plymouth), the puritans (Mass bay), the fortune seekers (Virginia), the Quakers (Pennsylvania), and the Catholics (Maryland). People wonder why the US is more religious then Europe today… it’s really kind of obvious.

[BIack]

Yeah we cover the 1812 war, and several other of those topics, but not in any depth...they are more like specialist degree areas. Obviously, ince the US was founded Id expect you to hve much more of a concentration on that, I was wondering about before the US was created...in essence, do your lessons start with the colonies? I just never really thought about it before lol

About the other points, you misunderstand. I said that without England could the US have won? I was NOT saying that the US would lose. You are being naiive if you think that every war is fought to the death...what would have been most likely to have happened is an uneasy truce. After all, Hitler did not orignally WANT to attack either the US or Britain, he admired Britiain for being a 'superior' aryan race that had conquered the world. Plus, he also love westerns and styled his annihilation of the Russians upon the American 'manifest destiny' and the Native Americans.

And....spears Vs machine guns? I think you'll find that the T-34 and the other weapons used by the Soviets were also rather important. You want a quick history lesson...sheesh, here goes...

Despite the territorial gains made at the outset of Barbarossa, the German Army had not been as successful as it appeared. They were increasingly met with fierce resistance as Soviet civilians (such as in the Ukraine) whom had initially supported the Nazis, turned against them due to the harsh treatment they endured. The Soviet forces were evacuated and the Germans had to bring their own equipment vast distances. 25,000 miles of railway track had to be either rebuilt or converted to German guage. Most importantly, the Germans suffered very badly in the winter of 1941, having not prepared for a winter campaign.

The German failure to blitzkrieg the Soviets in 1941 was THE decisive turning point in the war. Once the USSR survived the initial onslaught it was always likely to win against the Germans. Unlike Hitler, Stalin from the very beginning put his country on a total war footing and the Soviets GREATLY outproduced the Nazis, quite APART from Western aid (sorry to dispell that myth). The unified Soviet command structure applied both economically and militarily was much more effective than the German system, altho that was later corrected by Albert Speer by which time it was far too late.

PHEW!

I did actually answer your last point in my post, which you forgot to quote ;) I did say that I hadnt forgotton the supplies (you should read more before writing headlong ;)) but that it was an irrelevance to my central argument that whilst the allies certainly would have struggled against the Germans without US involvement, the US definately could not have won by itself either. That, I think was the centre of your argument as well, which I said I agreed with :)

Watch the film 'Fatherland', its basically one of those 'what if' scenarios that I find so interesting. Britain gets defeated and American doesnt wish to risk a cross Atlantic invasion and so peace ensues between Nazi Europe and America.

[stats]

M, Just to reply quikly. Germany had turned its eye on us. They couldnt invade because they weren'y able to gain either Naval superiority in the channel nor Air supereority over the main land britian. The RAF had better planes and WAY better pilots, Britain was bombed constantly for a long time.
(oh and we had Radar - gotta love Brittish enginuity B) )

And karma - i think the Royal Navy ordered the french fleet to surrender... they didnt. so we blew the shit out of the french fleet to stop it falling into the hands of the germans, they didnt get the chance to scuttle.

[MVB]

Alright. *whips out the just finished history thesis research and major*

Hitler never wished to invade England. His primary purpose in threatening invasion, and in attacking via air was a backhanded desire to force a bloodless English surrender, which he requested many times. All in all, the "battle" of Britain was a bluff, and nothing more.

First, in terms of the air war, the myth of British pilot superiority and plane superiority is just that -- a myth.

A) British planes were, later on, built in America. British production could not keep up with the number of planes lost to German fighter superiority. Once American building kicked in (following FDR's spoken intention of not declaring war, but making war, on the Axis), the British could put up a near limitless number of planes into the sky.

B) German fighters, when shot down, were total losses. When your plane is shot down over enemy territory, you are lost to the war even if you parachute out. The British did not suffer from this setback, and when a British pilot jumped out, he was hustled right back into a British-designed, American-built plane, and thrown back up in the sky again.

C) Hitler did not dedicate much of his air force to the effort, and this hurt what the Luftwaffe could do. The Luftwaffe's written doctrine was to use the fighters as a concentrated group, removing the penalty of smaller numbers, and hunting down the enemy fighter force and destroying it, period. Unfortunately, the Luftwaffe chose to bomb and send fighter groups out at the same time. The British fighters fled from the concentrated German fighter formations, and mobbed their bombers. German fighters then attempted attacking British airfields and other installations to draw the fighters away from their bombers, but the British simply ignored the damage and stayed far away from the German fighters. After a while, the Germans were forced to split their fighters into escort duty, at which point the British would selectively mob individual fighter/bomber groups, losing a higher # of fighters than the Germans, but a lower proportion.


POSTED ACCIDENTALLY, EDIT UNDERWAY


Hitler did not fear Britain. This was true for a number of reasons, not least of which was Britain's total inability to launch a mainland Europe attack of any kind on its own (with any serious chance of success). The main British combat with Germany actually occurred in northern Africa. Even here, Hitler basically IGNORED Rommell. French units were the rearguard for the Germans (yes, the French basically fought for the Germans for several years after they were invaded and surrendered, and there were no magical French partisans helping out the Allies during D-Day, despite loud claims otherwise by the French, especially de Gaulle), and Rommell was constantly denied supplies and reinforcements, yet given insane orders. Despite this, Rommell did well against the British in North Africa, and only began to actually fall back once the Americans joined in (albeit clumsily at first).

Hitler wanted Britain to surrender, but was unwilling to put any real energy into the effort. The reasons were a) a total lack of fear of Britain, which was well-founded, b/c Britain posed no real threat to Germany on its own, and b) a lack of real hatred of the British people, who Hitler saw as a sort of brother ... he preferred a solution where Britain became a German state, instead of being destroyed like some of the other nations he was in the process of annhiilating.


World War II was won by America, plain and simple. Now, there were heroics on all sides -- German, British, American, whatever. There were brilliant strategies on all sides -- German, British, American, whatever. Regardless of national patriotism and loyalty to your flag as having been important, the simple fact of the matter is this;
In 1937, American manufacturing -- all goods, including war goods -- consisted of 47% of the world's manufacturing capability. In 1937, America was producing 47% of all the world's manufactured goods. By 1941, this number became more than 70%. America ALONE was producing more than 2/3rds of all manufactured goods across the globe. As soon as America began supplying these goods to the allies, Germany never had a chance. German design was BETTER than British, American and Soviet design. The Tiger and Tiger II tanks, Fockwolffe airplanes, etc. all vastly outclassed their Allied counterparts for much of the war. They were, unfortunately, outnumbered more than 100:1 in most cases. Tiger II tanks would get rolled into position, and 20-100 American-built Sherman tanks would be faced off against them. The list of examples goes on and on, but the fact of the matter is that America built the weapons of World War II, and everything the Allies did happened because of American economic and industrial might.

What should be mentioned and reckoned with is that if Britain had fallen, America would have lost nothing in the overall war effort. Landing bases still existed in some places, from Africa if nowhere else; Japan still would have drawn America into the war, and therefore Germany into war with America through alliance.

Germany declared war on America, not vice versa. We weren't attacked by Japan, and afterward provoked into going "Germany, we declare war on you!" Polling shows Americans didn't want war with Germany ANYWAY even after Pearl Harbor. Germany had an alliance with Japan, saying they would assist each other in war with America (the alliance actually specified America, among others) if one began a war with her. It wasn't about Britain existing or not existing. It was about Japan attacking us, and Germany then 4 days later declaring war on us. For all intents and purposes, Britain was just another island, with a very proud people, that Hitler never cared enough about to simply wipe out. Even before D-Day, Hitler didn't expect an invasion from the British isles. He, and his chief advisors, expected an invasion from the south of France, and had forces deployed accordingly. When British soldiers assisted in the D-Day invasion, they were driving American-built vehicles, getting out of American-built transports, firing American-built guns, and flying American-built planes. America in no way fully tapped its military numbers, and so D-Day or any other operation was fully doable without the actual physical troops provided by the British. This isn't an attack on Britain, and it's fall fact. I'll leave it there, because I'm sure static and black at the least will have things to say, and I'll save some other arguments, as well as actual physical evidence, for my rebuttals :)

[The Fell Hand]

ROFL smooth, informative, but very smooth ;). Interesting though, WW II is something I'm always interested in.

[shutupandshave]

Yes sending in 1/3 of your army against an opponent 1/10th of your size is just a diversion.... not a real attempt at attacking....
Hmmm
Now lets see

a) What percentage of British planes were built in America and after what date? I cant find any evidence to support your claim.
b) So you're suggesting that British planes didn't fly over occupied Europe and get shot down.... interesting. Perhaps you should tell that to the families of the 55 thousand pilots that died in bombing raids overy Europe?
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/air_war_bombers_01.shtml)
c) As I already said - The Germans sent in about a third of their army, which was about 3 times more than we had at the time. Those figures jiggled around as the war progressed and we started arming ourselves more (and the Americans, as you mention often - started supplying us).

I agree that Hitler did not want to destroy the British at first, however to suggest that sending a third of his army to do battle with the British is I think, incorrect.

Yes, the French are cheese eating surrender monkeys, and like the Italians they will fight for whomever they think is gunna win...fortunately the British learnt a long time ago that being on the side of the French is enough to get yourselves beaten right from the word go.

I agree that World War II was won by America, absolutely...

And about the "myth" of British pilot superiority... we shot down 3 to 4 times more planes than they shot down. If your stipulation that the Germans had better equipment than us (although personally I rate the spitfire pretty high) is indeed correct - then that makes us what, 5 times more effective? I dont understand how that makes us inferior or equal...I look forward to your explanation?

What should be mentioned and reckoned with, is that if Britain hadn't stood for so long there's a fair chance that Europe would be speaking German, or if Russia had taken the whole of Europe, that the US would have lost the cold war.

[MVB]

No time to answer all right now, but for the last two; I read nowhere in my research that the British shot down more planes than the Germans. I'd be curious as to a) the validity of that claim, and b) the stats regarding fighter vs bomber casualties, as the British were not operating bombers over Britain, and the Germans were.

You're missing the point that Germany declared war on the US, not vice versa; the fact that the British islands were Allied was insignificant in the scope of whether the US was going to war with Germany, and whether the US could beat Germany ... Russia + Germany combined were nowhere near even 30% of world manufacturing production ... the US was insanely more capable of producing things than Germany and/or Russia, and it wasn't even close. World War II, for all its casualties, was never in doubt ... EVER.

[shutupandshave]

I read nowhere in my research that the British shot down more planes than the Germans.
So you read something to the contrary?

Or are you claiming it was a myth based on the fact that after not looking for evidence to back the statement up, you didn't find any, therefore it cant be true!???

I dont understand what grounds you have to say it's a myth other than the fact that whilst researching your paper you didn't come across evidence supporting it.

Anyway, as for statistics:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/strength.html
http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1940.htm
http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/european-air-war/european-air-war-index.htm
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm (this one is particularly heavy going).

Incidently whilst looking through these statistics, I have not found a single piece of evidence that suggests that we suffered heavier losses.

I cant wait to see your information :)

I disagree with the outcome being in doubt. As someone has already said, the US would have been far more likely to have adopted a "you leave us, we'll leave you" approach had the whole of Europe fallen... Perhaps Japan would have been murdered, but Hitler was not a stupid man, and he would have tried to make peace with the US. You can say for sure that the US would not have responded?

[MVB]

The US did not trust Hitler, as a rule; American public opinion favors a 0 trust issue with Hitler. Also, Hitler was not a stupid man, but he was a man who was driven by illogical desires. Again, HE declared war on the US. While engaged in war with Russia, Britain, and a number of smaller annoyances, he chose to declare war on America as well. The US DID NOT AND NEVER DID declare war on Germany.

As far as statistics go, I'll check 'em out and respond ... yes, my information regarding German vs. British air casualties is backed up by fact, from a work on the battle over britain; I'll post my own stats when I have time and can scrounge them up.


PS -- at a glance at hte first stats, my point is easily proven I think from earlier; the vast majority of the planes listed are German bombers, not German fighters ... I think it's obvious that when the Germans are flying in bombers AND fighters against nothing but RAF fighters, especially given the mention I made earlier of early German non-covered bomber plans, the Germans will have more plane casualties, but not necessarily worse FIGHTER performance, which is the general point. I believe it was said that RAF fighters were superior to German pilots and planes, and that simply isn't and wasn't the case.

[MVB]

Briefly, however, from Richard Overy's The Battle of Britain, there are a couple of points which are important in assessing whose fighters were "best."

Overy points out that "Both sides made extravagant claims about the losses inflicted on the other, largely because of double counting by pilots who could not tell clearly in the aerial melee who had shot an aircraft down." He mentions, in the same section, that British losses were very similar to German losses over a several month period in August and September of 1940, but that counts all German planes vs. all British planes; the casualties of fighters actually has a somewhat significant German advantage, despite the fact that the Germans were less maneuverable due to being forced to cover German bombers (which also accounted for a large # of the net casualties reported) (Overy 80-81).

Decisive in the battle of britain is the week of September 7-15. In that week, the RAF lost 120 planes, to 290 German planes. All but 80 of those planes, however, were bombers, whereas all of the RAF planes were fighters.

[BIack]

LOL Suas you seem to be hurting the argument more than saving it...

MVB, tho, seriously, what evidence do you have that Hitler never intended to invade England? I have reems of evidence to the contrary, which I have already given in small part. As Ive stressed, one thing Ive learnt in my 13 years of studying history is do not make unvalidated assertions. He was unable to, which was why he didnt, and not through lack of trying. The Battle of Britain was not a 'bluff' for what did it gain him? Im sure your thesis and major are very interesting, as is my 1st, numerous dissertations and masters. I'd love to hear the evidence you have...Im always open to debate and reasoned argument.

Plus, I think you are missing one vital component which kinda flaws your argument a little. Wars are not simply won on production alone, but the ability to get well equipped soldiers to the field. The US simply would have lost far too many men to even begin to think about invading Germany and main land Europe had England and Russia fallen. German army units were, as you say, better trained and equipped as Hastings also argues in 'Overlord'. Without Britain as a base to destroy German manufacturing, the US would have been hard pushed to make real inroads. More likely, there would be a sue for peace or a 'phoney war' as had occured after the declartion in 1939 -40.

And I avoided the BoB arguments because thats a huge topic...but if yuo really want it in a nutshell, here it is.

The reason the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain, was not because they didnt commit enough (it was fully expected that the RAF would capitulate quickly, which would allow the existing and ready invasion force to cross the channel) nor because the British had superior planes. It was because of one man, Hitler.

The RAF were getting hammered early in the battle. German tactics and numbers were being eroded, but the RAF had little chance. Then a miracle happened. The RAF, in a moment of stupidity? Sheer bravado? Launched a small bombing raid on Berlin. Mimimal damage. Result? Hitler went absolutely ape, I mean completely spaz crazy.

RAF airfields? NO! They bomb Berlin! We will DESTORY their cities, starting with London!!

This was a godsend to the RAF. From now relatively unmolested airfields, they rebuilt and trained pilots. The German ME-109s could not escort the bombers far enough to reach the northern cities and the Henkels were easy meat for the spits and hurricanes.

A few final things, because Ihave the distinct feeling people see long posts and go and write theirs, without actually reading too much of them lol

1) I never said Allies could have won without America, altho with the Russians this is possible....Stalin or Hitler....Great choice! lol I DID say that it is unlikely the US could have gone it alone, or had the will to.

2) It is undeniable that Hitler DID intend to invade England. Why position his troops in readiness? Why commmit such vast numbers of the luftwaffe? Unless you give me hard evidence to the contray, you'll have to do better than generalised statements. Im an historian you know, i demand facts! ;)

3) America had production yes, but Russia had an army of over 10 million in total. On the ground, at the front. Russia alone lost 20 million civilians. At the end of the war, the Russian army was approx 4x bigger than the US one. Except the US had nukes.

4) I forget, i have to pick up my misses from her work now....buh bye !

[JADezimar]

I still stand by my point. If Germany had its full attention at UK, it would not have been currently fighting other fronts. Full Attention= undevided, you are undistracted, you are not paying attention elsewhere. And that is all I said you cannot dispute it. Soccer team A says, team today we will play 33% on the football feild today. I feel that is all we need to beat the other team.

Team UK Man we are holding em back this sure is a close game, Team A must be playing godly hard and giving us there "full attention" here let us trade a tired player or 2 with Team USA. Now that we have some fresh players and shoes against a team apparently putting the big hurt on our team, We will still claim that alone by ourselves without Team USA we would have been able to hold germany off.

Team A man I wish we were not playing 3 games at once today. Soon we will be able to kick it up to 100% but where did those other players come from on Team UK? Oh well I do not know, but does not matter Team UK will teach in the history books they got more saves than we did. :P

Wars are not simply won on production alone, but the ability to get well equipped soldiers to the field.

This is true. On a sidetracked note. Is why at the current I find it foolish when people talk about China's strength in sheer numbers of population.

Black
Germany already had turned its gaze on the UK for real, and the 2 factors which prevented the invasion of the Biritsh Isles were nothing to do with the US.

Oh the US never supplied you guys with ammo, Aircraft, or ships?

[Karmashock]

I was wondering about before the US was created...in essence, do your lessons start with the colonies? I just never really thought about it before lol
We cover it in some detail, but after 1492 we increasingly focus on the Americas. Know a great deal about Spanish conquest of the new world... global trade at that time... various political movements that caused england to vent people to the colonies.

About the other points, you misunderstand. I said that without England could the US have won? I was NOT saying that the US would lose. You are being naiive if you think that every war is fought to the death...what would have been most likely to have happened is an uneasy truce. After all, Hitler did not orignally WANT to attack either the US or Britain, he admired Britiain for being a 'superior' aryan race that had conquered the world. Plus, he also love westerns and styled his annihilation of the Russians upon the American 'manifest destiny' and the Native Americans.
Well aware... The Nazis were deeply offensive to us had to be utterly destroyed. They were an embodyment of evil... Seriously... we would not have tolerated them in europe... if we had known about the holocaust it would have sent us into a blood rage.


As to supplies... again... BOTH the russians the British depended on American supplies to sustain their war effort. The nazis had stockpiled for years and neither the british nor the Russians had done so.

our intact industries made up the difference in spades.
=============================
And karma - i think the Royal Navy ordered the french fleet to surrender... they didnt. so we blew the shit out of the french fleet to stop it falling into the hands of the germans, they didnt get the chance to scuttle.
The way it was always told to me is that the Nazis order the Vichi french to scuttle their fleet... and they did.

[stats]

Karma

As Captain Holland was leaving the DUNQUERQUE he saluted the French tricolor smartly with tears in his eyes. As he boarded the boat for his return to the FOXHOUND he heard the call to battle stations sound over the fleet’s speakers. He said later that he couldn’t believe all this was happening. He hadn’t even reached the HOOD ten miles offshore when Force H opened fire. HOOD’s 15-inch shells first struck the DUNQUERQUE, destroying a gun turret, the main generator and the ship’s hydraulic system. Despite being the most heavily armored capital ship ever built by any navy, she was put out of action within four minutes, set afire and beached. The old battleship BRETAGNE was sunk, and the PROVENCE was heavily damaged as were the 3,500 ton contre-torpilleur MOGADOR and several other ships.

Huge columns of thick black smoke rose from the harbor. The French fleet pitiably attempted to return fire but was quickly silenced. Somerville’s main target, the 26,500 ton battle cruiser STRASBOURG managed to escape damage in the hail of fire and using the smoke as a screen got underway carefully picking its way through the burning hulks and minefields. Once safely outside of the harbor, and racing at flank speed, the STRASBOURG and several destroyers out-maneuvered Somerville and made it safely to the French port of Toulon. Against overwhelming odds it was an incredible display of both courage and seamanship. Though frustrated, even the British Admiralty was admiring.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/merselkebir.aspx

and mVB i will get back to when i have the time to give you something decent. But i do disagree with you almost completely.

[MightyDWC]

Lately I've been watching what once was Discovery Wings and has now been turned into the Military Channel. A comparison to the British Spitfire and the German ME109 puts the Spitfire in a better advantage as far as survivablity and fire power. The Spitfire had to get close and stay on target with long burst to do any damage to a ME109. Yet the Spitfire had 6 guns for a total of 1600 rounds a second, compared the the me109, which only had 320 rounds, but was using a larger caliber round. As far as the armored forces, if the germans would have built more jagdpanthers, which were easier and faster to build, compared to the Tiger, which was by far superior to anything on the battle field. The tigers demise was the number of Shermans the US could put against it.
As far as the Iran or North Korea issue goes, if NK decides to start lobbing missles at people, it's going to be Russia, China or the surrounding countries. I doubt very seriously that China, and or Russia is going to stand by and let them do that. And for those who want to blame republicans for the NK situation, you might want to thank Clinton for letting Jimmy Carter go over there and saying "Yah we will give you the stuff you need to build a reactor".

[Karmashock]

stats,
I looked it up and you were right... the British destroyed the French fleet after it refused this offer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_French_Fleet_at_Mers-el-Kebir
"It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German or Italian enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;

(a) sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans and Italians.

(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.

If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.

(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans or Italians unless these break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies - Martinique for instance - where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.

If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.

Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German or Italian hands."
We say the French scuttled their fleet in WWII when we feel like having a go at the French... by this information it appears that we have been going a bit light on them.

We do remember that the first people we fought when we joined the European theater were Vichy French... fucking bastards.

[MightyDWC]

Well just think, if it wouldn't have been for a very thick Table Leg and Top, Hitler would have been killed long before he killed himself.

[Karmashock]

that reference went right by me...

[JADezimar]

If you do a search on google, the search being French Victories. I do not know if it still does, but it use to come up, we have no sources like this. Then it gives a recommendation, the recommendation being did you mean to search French Defeats?

LoL

[MVB]

Members of Hitler's command staff attempted to assassinate him multiple times; the closest to success came when a bomb was placed basically under his meeting table; the thickness of the wood and table leg(s) kept the fragments of the bomb from hitting the Fuhrer ... other officers at the meeting were not all so fortunate as Hitler.

[Karmashock]

... it's little things like that that make me really think there is a god out there... and that he isn't all peaces and cream...

[shutupandshave]

Yeah and earring or doughballs would have been in charge... Both nasty bastards too.


important in assessing whose fighters were "best."
This is where we're disagreeing here then - we're arguing about whose pilots were better, as you originally said - not whose fighters are better.

[MightyDWC]

gawd i just watched this, who was it Hitler had a meeting with, showed him the bombed room and told him "see, i survived this, i am invinsable!!!!"

[Papa Smurf]

Alright. *whips out the just finished history thesis research and major*

Hitler never wished to invade England. His primary purpose in threatening invasion, and in attacking via air was a backhanded desire to force a bloodless English surrender, which he requested many times. All in all, the "battle" of Britain was a bluff, and nothing more.

First, in terms of the air war, the myth of British pilot superiority and plane superiority is just that -- a myth.

A) British planes were, later on, built in America. British production could not keep up with the number of planes lost to German fighter superiority. Once American building kicked in (following FDR's spoken intention of not declaring war, but making war, on the Axis), the British could put up a near limitless number of planes into the sky.

B) German fighters, when shot down, were total losses. When your plane is shot down over enemy territory, you are lost to the war even if you parachute out. The British did not suffer from this setback, and when a British pilot jumped out, he was hustled right back into a British-designed, American-built plane, and thrown back up in the sky again.

C) Hitler did not dedicate much of his air force to the effort, and this hurt what the Luftwaffe could do. The Luftwaffe's written doctrine was to use the fighters as a concentrated group, removing the penalty of smaller numbers, and hunting down the enemy fighter force and destroying it, period. Unfortunately, the Luftwaffe chose to bomb and send fighter groups out at the same time. The British fighters fled from the concentrated German fighter formations, and mobbed their bombers. German fighters then attempted attacking British airfields and other installations to draw the fighters away from their bombers, but the British simply ignored the damage and stayed far away from the German fighters. After a while, the Germans were forced to split their fighters into escort duty, at which point the British would selectively mob individual fighter/bomber groups, losing a higher # of fighters than the Germans, but a lower proportion.




I take it you failed then MVB, one of your points is complete fabrication, the spitfire, many claim won us the Battle of Britian, but i think you will find the fighter that won the battle of Britan for us was the balser wood Mosquitoe, these where not built in unlimited numbers, but like the spitfire and hawker were built here in the UK. Not lala land where you seem to live. It sadens me that no one mentions the Mosquito as it is such a simple piece of design its total genius. The De Havilland design team based the Mosquito on their plane, the DH-88 Comet, which had won the 1934 London to Melbourne air race. De Havilland’s idea was simple – to power the plane with two Rolls Royce Merlin engines so that its sole defence, other than the skill of the pilot, was sheer speed to keep it out of harms way. The structure of the Mosquito was to be entirely made out of wood with a stressed skin of thin laminated plywood over a balsa core. The first Mosquito flew in November 1940, and it went into production soon after. Thus it was quick and easy to produce.

B) yeah fair enough ths is a very well know common sense point that a 5 year old would of realised.

c) Now this one made me think what was Hitler doing with all the other planes he had, was he lining them up and inspecting them? if you look at the agreed facts you'll find you are talking

Battle of Britian dates : July 1940 to May 1941

British: approx 700 fighters at start

Germans: 1260 bombers, 316 dive bombers, 1089 fighters.

Hummmm looks like their full force to me, do not see where your point is!

As for our pilots not being better well at the start they where better, they where certainly more determined. Why do i say they where better? Simple under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles the Germans did not have an air force of any nature, we on the other hand did and were training our pilots in combat skills, while the germans had develop many skills during the time since the inception of the Luftwaffe in 1935 it was still behind that of their British counterparts. (It had secreatly been formed in 1923 based around air clubs)

During the winter of 1939, in a period called "Sitzkrieg", or the "Phooney War", little action took place. But in the spring of 1940, the Third Reich launched blitzkrieg upon the West. Denmark fell to the Nazis in twenty-four (24) hours, followed by Norway in twenty-three (23) days. Then came Holland's turn, which lasted five days, followed by Belgium (eighteen days), then France in five weeks. In May of 1945, the Allies evacuated Dunkirk under cover of the Royal Air Force's Fighter Command. It was here that the Bf 109E "Emil" and 110C "Zerstörer" (destroyer) first encountered the Supermarine Spitfire. The Spits slaughtered the German aircraft with general ease, and allowed most of the Allied escapecraft to reach Britain.

To be honest if thats what you are submitting for collage work i would be worried, i am applying British Uni standards here

The final sentence in C did make me laugh though, wtf is that suppose to mean its jibberish of the finest caliber.

LoL you seem to think Britian was this tiny little island sat all alone off the coast of europe helpless against big bad Germany. We were at that point still the largest imperial nation on the planet, we had alot of our own supplies too, while the American ones were certainly important they did not win the war for us, the most important supply you sent us was tanks and these did not come into service till D-Day.

Quite frankly your statements amazing me America did not win the war no one nation won ww2 thats why it was called WORLD WAR, America certainly can not say it did more than Russia.

You make statements like 70% of manufactured goods were producted in the US, this may be true however it is completely misleading (though i would like to know your source as i doubt it immensly) the rest of the world was on total war footing all they produced were impliments for destruction only, production figures are at least patchy for the period. YTou where build mass produced crap still 1 plane only copunts as a 1 in figures while you may for produced 20,000 teddy bears, figures like that are not in any way represenative, and of little value, to quote them just shows that all you are intent on is say YEAH AMERICA WE ARE NUMBER 1, and that is not to enter into any sort of inteligent debate over the issue its just bragging and boasting. And quite frankly if thats the kind of crap you put in a thesis you should be laughed out of collage.

i noticed you talking about loses in another post the numbers almost all historians accept are probably the most accurate are:

British lost 1547 aircraft

Germans lost 1887 aircraft

The numbers are about the same, no great victory, unless you look at the fact that we held out they never established air supiriority over the skies thus stopping operation Sea Lion.

[JADezimar]

England would have died. Can Talk statistics all you want.

[Papa Smurf]

Cheers for the genius comment, just proves the point, the facts are the facts.

[JADezimar]

Exactly! "Fact" was germany had a severely larger Army, Airforce, and alot higher capacity to create more. While UK was getting bombed half to death lowering its ability to create more.

UK was simply holding out. Whilst Germany was on the offensive. Anyone that will let there pride go just a little, will realise that is not the situation of a winner.

[stats]

okey dokey: heres how the war went....

Britain lose the french, old news...

Battle of britian starts in what 1940. German bombing raids on major industrial cities in the uk. Germany sends over bombers and fighter support - RAF do there damn best to take out the bombers only engaging the fighters when they have too... This is because we were trying to stop our industrial and civilian population being massacred. Why did the germans not send all of the fighters to swarm the skys of britain and gain air superiority? It had something to do with England doing EXACTLY the same thing to the german and other axis cities so the germans needed to defend themselves...

Radar decreased german bombing raid effectiveness pretty early on...

In the MEANTIME!! germany and italy invades greece and yugoslavia... And the brittish try to stop them. they fight hard but eventually fail.. most of the brittish forces consisted of New Zeland and oz forces (rule britania :D) wich were then evacutated to crete and egypt...

December and the Birttish empire goes on the offensive in north africa - yes we were still an empire not a little island holding out against the germans who didnt really care about us... Sucessfully removing the germans and italians from egypt and lybia. (Battle of britain still going on)

1941 Battle of britain was cancelled as germans devoted more resources to moscow invasion and it looked like the brittish were managing to hold them off to effectively (doesnt matter what happened - it was how we made it look)..

This is where the war was going to start to turn in europe, this is where the germans bit off more than they could chew. This was the break the brittish needed and this is where britain chance of winning would have come had america stayed sitting on there asses...

Shortly after this The japanese attacked pearl harbor and America entered the war...

Now MVB - you paint a picture of a pathetic little North sea island fighting against a mighty German super power that isnt even paying attention to it. You give an image of the germans simply keeping the brittish in there place while they faught some real enemy... This isnt really the case. The waining but once mighty brittish empire was fighting for it's life and for the safety of the Free World while america sat back and supplied them (some would even point out that it was your fat cats exploiting our need for wepons, because we were charged alot. but im not going to coz we needed it badly) Germany was doing all it could to invade the UK main land. But britian still had a HUGE and extremely effective navy and i am pretty sure our destroyers had hunted down and sank all the U-Boat wolf packs before america joined in. We had huge guns positioned along our coast line (no bigger gun has ever been made[except the one the germans had]). And our air force was top notch and the spitfire was a bloody awsome plane and our pilots were heroic and skillfull and our bombers rained just as much devestation on germany as the did on us and we had Newzeland and Austrailia and Canada and our territories in africa, and the Germans had invaded russia. So whos knows what would have happened without the US. russian industry could have saved the day maybe it wouldnt have. Maybe we'd be speaking german maybe not. But what if we were speaking german.

What language do you think you would be speaking if Austrailia, New zeland, Britain, Europe, Africa, Russia and all of asai had fallen to the Germans? (ooh btw Iraq was on our side =] ).

you should be thankfull that britain is not as pathetic as you made out. America vs The rest of all of the oldest and most advanced civilizations on planet, under Nazi leadership... Not a fucking snowballs chance in hell.

And Karma you always say america would go thermo nuclear for us etc? We held back the gates of hell and all it's demons for you...

[Karmashock]

i am pretty sure our destroyers had hunted down and sank all the U-Boat wolf packs before america joined in.
Nope... not even close.

But what if we were speaking german.
You say that like being defeated by the Nazis wouldn't be a big deal... your culture would die.
Austrailia, New zeland, Britain, Europe, Africa, Russia and all of asai had fallen to the Germans? (ooh btw Iraq was on our side =] ).
Once the American industry had converted to war production... pumping out tanks instead of cars, battleships instead of freighters, etc our production was overwhelming.

if you'd like I can quote some statistics... but roughly we were producing at our peak about one heavy ship a day (battleship, destroyer, or aircraft carrier), countless lighter craft, enough food to feed the whole allied movement, about 500 planes a month, and the comparatively inexhaustible troops.


To say America couldn't take on germany all by itself is to demonstrate a lack of understanding as to what american industry was capable of at that time.


We are proud to be your allies... be proud to have us as allies.

That is all I'm saying.

you should be thankfull that britain is not as pathetic as you made out. America vs The rest of all of the oldest and most advanced civilizations on planet, under Nazi leadership... Not a fucking snowballs chance in hell.
... WAKE UP! America is a western country. We're a product of several european countries.... primarily england. You are no 'older' then us when it comes to culture. We trace our culture back to your islands and in some sense to the acient republic of the greeks.

Furthermore, the industries of europe were smashed... SMASHED! Your populations were decimated!... And the US was UNTOUCHED!

Quiet frankly, if we went in heavy and hard there would be nothing the germans could do to stop us.


Think of D day... yeah, I know that was a full allied assault with shared credit to all that were involved. However, if the US had to... we could have done that alone. Look at what the Russians did with poor supplies and determination.

The US had that kind of population... only instead of being peasant farmers, we were a fully industrialized economy.

And Karma you always say america would go thermo nuclear for us etc? We held back the gates of hell and all it's demons for you...
I'm sorry... was that a question? Please clarify... i'm not sure what you're saying.


I only say that to tell you that the US is not just another nation in the world to you. We are connected.
-----------------------------


Separate question:
If Japan had attacked the US and Europe was completely at peace during the late 1930s... would Europe aid the US? If we took heavy losses... if we needed you to survive... would England send their people to help defend america? Exclude the obvious fact that the Australian colony would likely be in the Japanese warpath. Assume Japan and the US were completely off by themselves in some remote corner of the world.

Would you come to save us? Because we have come to save you.

[MVB]

Papa, I actually received an A+ ... I'm too tired to respond to all this tonight, but the fact is Britain WAS a relatively pathetic nation at the time of World War II, in terms of military readiness and strength.

Heck, the majority of the British machines were built in America, in American factories. The British army was -- at the beginning of the war -- a joke of an army accustomed to fighting loose open-ground running battles with natives in their outlying colonies. The US also sucked as an army, especially early on, but they produced more than 2/3rds of all things produced on the entire planet during the war, and that was the key to basically everything. There's way too much national-favoritism bias in this thread for me to get anywhere quoting fact, but if you'd like me to have my professor, one of the world's leading and recognized experts on World War II, come to this very thread and provide responses, I could certainly ask him to.

[shutupandshave]

Would you come to save us?

I think so - I would certainly vote too.


MVB, I would be most interested to see if your professor believes the British army was a joke.

Not as strong as it has been, not as big as it has been... but a joke?

Sure, bring him in and we'll see if he can make me laugh at your joke :)

What's your professors name?

[MVB]

Stephen Schuker, http://www.virginia.edu/history/faculty/schuker.html

He does think the British army was a joke at the beginning of the war. He thinks the same of the American and French armies at the beginning of the war. I agree with him. The viewpoints I'm giving you are his, not mine invented out of the fathoms of nothingness and 0 evidence. It would be great to chat with you over IM, I think, Suas. We could trade things back and forth, and inform each other. I think America sucked at the beginning of World War II, and that's because it frankly DID suck. I don't give a damn what myth and popular memory or patriotism say. Facts are facts, and the fact is the British weren't prepared at all for World War II when it began. They had inexperienced pilots flying many dated designs, they had an army trained in open, small-scale colonial bush warfare in Africa and India, and they had a relatively impressive navy that wasn't strong enough to actually blockade much of anything (the Italians successfully kept them out of a large # of areas for a long time, and the Italians feck'n sucked). Ask me how much America sucked militarily at the beginning of WW2 and I'll tell you that also. This isn't b/c I do or don't li ke Britain (and I kinda do), it's just the deep down truth of the matter.

[shutupandshave]

no offense to your professor, but after doing a web search, I wouldn't say there is much evidence to support the "one of the world's leading and recognized experts on World War II" - 3/4 of the references were about other things, such as the cold war, and world war 1 and of the references with wwii and ww2. Anyway, I am sure he is good at what he does - but I cant see anything that leads me to believe he's one of the worlds leading experts in ww2.

Let me just clarify, are you talking about the whole of the armed forces (something I assume because you have bought up the inexperience of the pilots and the ineptitude of the navy) or just the army part - as in the guys with guns?

[Karmashock]

Suas,
no offense, but did you read his resume? Scroll down and read the titles... look at those publications, the roles he's served, and groups he's a member of...

he's clearly an elite professor... and his field does seem to center around WWI and WWII in Europe...

He clearly knows 'enough' to be able to come to some controversial opinions with great credibility.


That said, they’re just titles…


If you think he’s wrong, then you should be basing that on fairly accessible information. You’re not a history major right? So the knowledge you have is fairly common English education. That being the case, it should be easy to pull up some information that disputes his case.

After all, people of his caliber are expected to sift through personal journals, official (though obscure) letters, and detailed statistical manifests of the time.

To say nothing of being subjected to peer review.


But again, some times historians are full of shit… Woodrow Wilson was not only a very respected historian but also president of the US for a time… and he was an out right fucking liar in a few of his books. He tried to make U. S. Grant look like an incompetent drunk… mostly because he pwned the south in the CW… WW was southern boy.

[stats]

Karma, i put The rest of all of the... Specifically to avoid that kind of response from you. So i'm sorry if you took it the wrong way

Yes i would like statistics for what america produced and supplied europe for the first three years of the war.

And while your there, please look up the date that america finally decided to freeze german assets in america.

If britiain had fallen early in 1940 to germany the industry of europe would havnt been hurt so bad...

At the time of the D-Day landing the US could have gone it alone... At the time of the D-Day landing Germany was already defeated.

and yes, there is noway in hell Britain would have allowed one of her allies to fall to a foreign agressor. For god sake, we entered the war because of a pact with poland.

Britain did not have to fight the war, germany wanted us on their side as an ally. We fought for the freedom of europe and the world. etc... thats what i was trying to say.

[Edit] Peer review can kiss my arse! seriously, you should read some of the crap that had been published after being subjected to peer review in nature. Oh but; WOO! YAY! my first paper will be published in a couple of months - ill post u all the link! :oohoo:

[Karmashock]

Karma, i put Specifically to avoid that kind of response from you.
Missed that… still, I doubt that you would have cooperated with the Nazis to the point of full industrial and technological production while being virtually enslaved by them.

I mean… you were basically saying it would have been all of Europe V the US. Which is illogical. The best Hitler could get would be an oppressed and uneasy occupation that would sap nearly all of his strength to maintain. Under such a strain it would be likely easier then if it were just the US v Germany as Germany would also have to keep the occupied territories under control… which would be very prone to sedition.

Yes i would like statistics for what america produced and supplied europe for the first three years of the war.
Crap… this one is hard… every moron with an angel fire account has a page up on this but I’m having a hard time finding one worth its weight in bullshit.

Aircraft (seems alright)
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/aaf/aaf30.htm
Naval (not including ships given to other allied power and often not taking into consideration lost ships… bad site)
http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h364proj/fall_00/trimborn/stats.htm


I’ll keep my eyes open for something decent… this is crap that is valid, but so incomplete that it’s basically worthless.

Fuck stupid people that post redundant and often incorrect info on the internet… just junk.

And while your there, please look up the date that america finally decided to freeze german assets in america.


09/05/1939 - United States proclaims neutrality; German troops cross the Vistula River in Poland.

06/29/1941 - President Franklin D. Roosevelt froze German and Italian assets in the United States.

You will note that Roosevelt ran on an anti war ticket among other things.

That said, we were not entirely neutral as you know… and after 41 we were in it full bore.

If britiain had fallen early in 1940 to germany the industry of europe would havnt been hurt so bad
The industry of Germany perhaps, but the industry of the conquered states would have been damaged badly and would have also lacked the labor to make them operate properly.

I didn’t say the US could easily take on all of Europe… I said the US could easily take on Nazi Germany.

At the time of the D-Day landing the US could have gone it alone... At the time of the D-Day landing Germany was already defeated.
It was defeated the moment it challenged the Anglo world… it was double fucked when it took on the Slavic world.

and yes, there is noway in hell Britain would have allowed one of her allies to fall to a foreign agressor. For god sake, we entered the war because of a pact with poland.
Poland is in the European theater… your backyard. We’re in the Americas and Japan in the pacific… If the US and Japan were totally off by themselves some place and Australia wasn’t in any way regionally threatened, would you come to our defense?

How many times would you come?

Would you come just as fast the second time as the first?

Britain did not have to fight the war, germany wanted us on their side as an ally. We fought for the freedom of europe and the world. etc... thats what i was trying to say.
Perhaps, but the foulness of the deal was such that it was unthinkable. It would be like the US allying with the USSR…

I’d seriously just head to Washington and riot if that happened… it just wouldn’t happen.

[Edit] Peer review can kiss my arse! seriously, you should read some of the crap that had been published after being subjected to peer review in nature. Oh but; WOO! YAY! my first paper will be published in a couple of months - ill post u all the link! :oohoo:
Do tell.

[Karmashock]

This seemed close to right... but the site is suspect... these ranges are about right for total US weapons production for WWII... minus ships of course...

TANKS & VEHICLES NUMBER
Heavy tanks 2,464
Medium tanks 55,560
Light tanks 26,003
Jeeps 631,873
--- ---
AIRCRAFT NUMBER
Combat aircraft 129,255
Support aircraft 80,930
Bombs 37,701,000
--- ---
ARTILLERY NUMBER
240 mm howitzers 315
155 mm field guns 6,389
8 in. guns 1,193
105 mm howitzers 18,269
90 mm guns 4,853
76.2 mm guns 24,277
75 mm guns 58,342
57 mm guns 16,999
37 mm guns 62,397
Antiaircraft guns 49,60
Rocket Launchers 476,628
--- ---
ARTILLERY SHELLS NUMBER
240 mm 3,126,000
155 mm 27,340,000
105 mm 93,081,000
90 mm 16,386,000
75 mm 75,244,000
37 mm 60,500,000
mortar 97,174,000
--- ---
SMALL ARMS NUMBER
Aircraft machine guns 1,575,114
Infantry machine guns 945,989
Antiaircraft machine guns 72,777
Rifles 6,174,363
Carbines 6,117,822
Submachine guns 1,790,847
WW2 Naval Losses, By Country
ALLIED SHIPS
Australia 30
Britain 2,831
Canada 32
Denmark 30
France 239
Iceland 15
India 5
Netherlands 105
New Zealand 4
Norway 79
US 19,034
--- ---
NEUTRAL SHIPS
Sweden 7
--- ---
AXIS SHIPS
Germany 1,069
Italy 376
Japan 686
--- ---
ALLIES TONNAGE
Australia 39,660
Britain 2,294,367
Canada 23,811
Denmark 16,300
France 455,000
Iceland 8,300
India 5,047
Netherlands 171,760
New Zealand 1,287
Norway 45,712
US 5,457,000
--- ---
NEUTRAL TONNAGE
Sweden 2,400
--- ---
AXIS TONNAGE
Germany 1,084,650
Italy 357,853
Japan 1,965,646


if anything looks really suspect in here, remember I got it off a bad site...

[stats]

I'll tell you when it's published not before karma - but i suppose its to do with CD11b expression in leukocytes and other stuff.

And most of those figuers relate to 1942 - ... And looking at them with a bias eye one could easily interpret american production is relatively low until they enter the war themselves...

Britain would have entered the war to protect america had we been at peace in europe and pearl harbor happened, you pacific fleet would have been replaced by ours immediately. Thats just my opinion though.

And the american shipping losses do look suspect to me. And are most likely suppose to be a figuer after the war, not at any given point. Mind you alot of the us merchant navy was sank. And yes karma i'm VERY sure the brittish destroyers ruined the wolf packs pre -1941. Not all the U-boat fleet though.

p.s Also the idea of us cooperating with nazi germany is unthinkable. i was just pointing out - what if, and trying to point out that we did not enter the war to defend ourselves - we entered it to defend the free world and attack a brutal regime.

Germany wouldnt have had to have our cooperation to operate our industry or access our technology had they defeated us. They would have just taken it (Although i'm pretty sure we would have died trying to keep it from them and blown up our own industrial sites and burned all our natrual resources to keep it from them - we are a stubborn ppl after all!). At the end of the day, this is all 'What ifs'

[shutupandshave]

Can someone find me the British production stats for Aircraft/Naval forces please... I've had a really good luck and dont seem able to turn anything up.


I mean… you were basically saying it would have been all of Europe V the US. Which is illogical. The best Hitler could get would be an oppressed and uneasy occupation that would sap nearly all of his strength to maintain.
Actually, the best he could get was a fully united Europe to attack Russia with, an uneasy truce with America, followed by all out war once Russia was assimilated.

Anyway, MVB, the French army that your professor calls a joke, was bigger than the German army!!! Once again, I wouldn't call it a joke. Untrained perhaps - but a joke?

Karma, I accept the guy seems to know what he's talking about - but calling the army of a country with the biggest navy in the world - a joke??? That doesn't sound like the kind of thing that a proper historian would say. A historian is not supposed to pass personal comments like that over the state of an army in any situation.

The industry of Germany perhaps, but the industry of the conquered states would have been damaged badly and would have also lacked the labor to make them operate properly.
I disagaree actually - most of the countries were just overran and surredered. There was very little major damage to factories and transport network, as far as I am aware.

I'd like to point out stats, that we had an alliance with the Czechoslovakia - and we traded the Czechoslovakia to Germany in exchange for a promise that it will stop invading folks. They were our allies and we royally shafted them. Chamberlain did.

[stats]

Yes i know saus - we were alot to blame for the german rise to power. We should have stamped on them the second the rose there ugly heads. We were scared of another war. Chaimberlain was a maggot.

[shutupandshave]

I wouldn't go that far - but he remembered the suffering in the first world war, and was doing anything he could do to prevent it. It didn't work, and he was wrong.

[stats]

He should have seen what was coming. Churchill remembered the suffering too. But he knew full well what was coming before he was pm.

[shutupandshave]

Yup he did, but the war had already started when Churchill had taken over.

[Karmashock]

And most of those figuers relate to 1942 - ... And looking at them with a bias eye one could easily interpret american production is relatively low until they enter the war themselves...
It took a year or so for production to shift.

Same thing happened in the Civil War... the south had an advantage to begin with, but after two years Northern industry had shifted to war production.

Once that happened the south was crushed like an insect.

Britain would have entered the war to protect america had we been at peace in europe and pearl harbor happened, you pacific fleet would have been replaced by ours immediately. Thats just my opinion though.
I'd like to believe it too, but it's something to think about when you cite the joining date of US forces.

Again... would you come to our aid twice?

And the american shipping losses do look suspect to me. And are most likely suppose to be a figuer after the war, not at any given point. Mind you alot of the us merchant navy was sank.
I think that's total losses for the whole war... it likely includes smaller ships… maybe even pt boats… and other small craft.

Better to look at it by the tonnage. The US was fighting on TWO naval fronts while supplying Britain, Russia, China, and about 35 smaller countries. We were doing the most shipping and so took the heaviest losses. 5 million tons of US hull went down. Compare that to other countries and it comes into perspective.

And yes karma i'm VERY sure the brittish destroyers ruined the wolf packs pre -1941. Not all the U-boat fleet though.
The U boats were a serious problem for our shipments to England... I know they had to be escorted throughout the war… which often didn’t save them. Much of the production you see the that first chart went straight to bottom of the atlantic.

p.s Also the idea of us cooperating with nazi germany is unthinkable. i was just pointing out - what if, and trying to point out that we did not enter the war to defend ourselves - we entered it to defend the free world and attack a brutal regime.
not entirely true... a world with nazi germany in control would be a dangerous one for you people. It would be a risk I wouldn’t take. Moral issues aside, I would go to war with Germany just to make sure something that powerful and militaristic didn't exist next to me. Imagine how strong it would be 20 years after sucking off of its European conquests? No… you don’t want to be near that… and Hitler’s statements are all questionable. Perhaps he believed the british to be part of his master race… perhaps that’s just what he said to try and placate you.

Germany wouldnt have had to have our cooperation to operate our industry or access our technology had they defeated us. They would have just taken it (Although i'm pretty sure we would have died trying to keep it from them and blown up our own industrial sites and burned all our natrual resources to keep it from them - we are a stubborn ppl after all!). At the end of the day, this is all 'What ifs'
No, they would need your scientists to benefit from your creativity (I’m not talking about current technology, but your ability to invent that he would be unable to capitalize on) and how would they work your factories without your workers? They certainly didn't have the man/woman/child power for that.


No... unless you sided with them they wouldn't be much strengthened over the short term by taking that territory. It would take decades at least of peace before it could be integrated into the Reich.

If the US invaded it would still be Germany V the US... and that's not a fight Germany could win.


I just looked up our army size during that war and Russia's and the US's armies were very nearly the same size... off by about 30 thousand in Russia's favor which consider the numbers were around 12 million isn't very significant.

Add to that the fact that we were far far far better supplied with far better hardware... well... Germany would have been our meat puppet if we could keep them from destroying us for the first 2 to 3 years. After that our production would be completely amped up... and they'd just get squashed.


but maybe they'd have invented the atom bomb before us with the rest of Europe neutral or developed jet fighters or something...

[shutupandshave]

You talk about the Germans not being able to rely on the rest of Europe to help it produce, and you quote a figure of 2/3 years. The US thinks it can turn Iraq into a completely different form of government in that time frame, and it is not using nearly as extreme measures.

Iraq WOULD have been a democracy by now if the US had just shot everyone in the head that disagreed with it's decision to make it a democracy.

[Karmashock]

No it wouldn't.

You can't do it like that... you would destroy the spirit of the thing.

[stats]

I think he is trying to point out how germany would have controlled an occupied europe - rather than saying that is what the US should do in iraq. and it would have done enough to get the ppl to work. 'here's a concentration camp, WORK!' - would also have worked nicely for them.. And - we will kill your families, look at this concentration camp, would have done enough to get most men in most countries to fight for them...

[MVB]

Germany never controlled the parts of Europe it occupied. The myth of them killing everyone and everything that resisted them is just that, another myth. France, for instance, never operated very effectively due to a strong resistance from French communists ... the Germans tried for a while to just shoot 100 French people randomly for every German killed by the rebels, but it did no good b/c they couldn't identify the rebels from the innocents, and eventually had to stop.

The French army was larger than the German army, but it was nonetheless a joke. Inept, badly equipped soldiers, many of whom were old and/or unwilling conscripts; poorly-supplied armor that broke down and/or ran out of gas basically all the time; commanders who were stuck in a WWI mindset and had no appreciation of German modernity and military capability. Please, if you read the strategic details of what happened to the French when WWII started, you'll see they were a ridiculous joke.

[Karmashock]

That kind of labor doesn't work as well as the real thing... its much slower and your machines tend to be filled with pee...


Von Braun found many of his gyros to be filled with such things when he used concentration camp labor... likely saved a lot of lives in England... they didn't have many things they could do to them... so pee and feces were apparently pretty popular.

The American south's slave labor had the same issue... they'd break stuff... tools and such had to be made two to three times as thick to prevent them from being broken... 'accidentally'...

Slave labor is stupid… it’s just inefficient and silly. The Chinese had a better system… millions of obedient peasants that were worked like slaves… but didn’t regard themselves as such… they still do that today to a certain extent.

[stats]

It is not a myth. Nazi brutality is no myth. And germans didnt care two bits who was a rebel and who was innocent. It had the same effect regardless.

[MVB]

Nazi brutality is a myth b/c people think they were just as "evil" to French, Brits, POWs, etc. as they were to Jews and Slavic peoples. They weren't uniformly evil or twisted in their goals; they were unwilling to be brutal to people who were of average caucasian descent.

[Karmashock]

MVB, they treated our POWs like shit... maybe not concentration camp style... but like shit nonetheless.

we gave theirs fucking beer and baseball...

[stats]

we gave theirs fucking beer and baseball...

Thats barbaric!!! You should have given them Football. Seriously. inhumane - i had no idea, im shocked!

[Karmashock]

we have video of the pow camp... it's a fucking camping trip... they wanted for nothing... they were given fresh pies by local women in town...

I guess the feeling was that our people would be as well treated as their people... so the better we treated theirs, the better htey would treat ours. Those women therefore sort of felt like they were making pies for their kids in that way...

things changed like lightning when we realized they were abusing them.

[shutupandshave]

So just to recap then MVB, the greatest Navy in the world was a joke, and the largest army in Europe was a joke.

They weren't inefficient, or just not as good as their opponents, they were laughable, ridiculous?

Not only that, but the only army in Europe that held the Germans out of their country were also a joke (that being said they had a huge advantage of being on an ireland).

[MVB]

Karma, they didn't really treat our pow's like shit. They didn' treat them like gold, but they followed the codes of war for the most part.

Suas, I never called the British navy a joke; I said it was impressive, but didn't live up to its abilities (such as easily slaughtering the Italian fleet, which it didn't do). I actually used the word impressive. Their army WAS a joke for the situation -- they were used to fighting strung out colonial wars, and had no idea how to handle the Germans early on; the British army did basically nothing to keep the Germans out of Britain ... that was the work of Hitler's unwillingness to actually invade, coupled with British people being uniform in their resolve (which they largely were, and should be commended for), and the eventual erosion of the Luftwaffe due to the logistics of their air campaign OVER Britain.

The French army absolutely was a joke, and had no idea what they were doing. The largest army in Europe at the time was the Italian army, not the French, and was ... well, probably even worse.

[Karmashock]

Karma, they didn't really treat our pow's like shit. They didn' treat them like gold, but they followed the codes of war for the most part.
nope, the codes say you have to put them in soldier's quarters that similar to your own. That you should feed them on rations simliar to your own.

Neither of these things happened.

The rule was do unto the enemy's POWs as you would have the enemy do unto your POWs.
Here is some information...
http://www.b24.net/pow/march.htm


Could have they been worse?... sure... were they up to code? The only camps that were worse were the Japanese camps.

[stats]

They gassed the russian pow's in aughtfitz (polish concentration camp)...not so bad were they?

[shutupandshave]

Okay MVB, it was my impression that you meant the British armed forces as a whole, the army, the navy and the airforce, were combined - a joke.

There are stories of British POW's being starved and many many of them dying.

[Wicksy]

You talk about the Germans not being able to rely on the rest of Europe to help it produce, and you quote a figure of 2/3 years. The US thinks it can turn Iraq into a completely different form of government in that time frame, and it is not using nearly as extreme measures.

Iraq WOULD have been a democracy by now if the US had just shot everyone in the head that disagreed with it's decision to make it a democracy.

You forget one thing, SUAS me old mate.
Hitler was trying to turn democracies into brutal genocidal dictatorships under the command of the Third Reich.

The US/UK/Au etc alliance is trying to turn a brutal dictatorship into a functioning Western democracy.

Slight difference there that you've (deliberately?) overlooked.

PS. I found the TLSC forums :howdy:

[Karmashock]

As I've said, Moral relativism is only relevant if morality is irrelevant.

If notions like 'good' and 'evil' literally mean nothing to you... if the difference between eating people and eating turkey is a matter of calories to you... etc.

Then moral relativism is logical. If you have scruples, then it is not.

It's really that simple.

L&P, KS.