The Americans dont get enough credit for this
Opening up the Enigma - a bigger coup for them than D-Day? Or was it luck, just like D-Day weather?
www.theactionfans.com "Clearly I have defeated this Earthworm" - Charlie Sheen
This isn't an historically accurate film. It was the British who captured the enigma machine. Not the Americans.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
Chef, this guy knows full well the Americans didn't capture the Enigma first. He's just trying to make people lose their tempers. Arguing with him won't do anything.
Just let it go.
"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."
Oh dayum son, I JUST GOT TROLLED!
Lol I should have known nobody would be that ill-informed, but then I just figured he was an American who gets his history from a Coke sponsored text book. You know, the history that tells them they have never lost a war, they are the sole reason the allies won WW1 and WW2, Vietnam wasn't an actual war because war was never declared. You know, *that* kind of American.
Maybe if this wasn't my first visit to this forum I would have known this guys MO. Oh well, moving on!
*Just to be clear, I am not saying all Americans are like this.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
I'll take that in the spirit it was intended, but you're coming close to mistake number two...
I AM that kind of American. I'm a U.S. Navy sailor and submariner, maritime engineer, and flag-waving, hot-dog eating American. While I do have the benefits of a thorough and accurate education, and highly appreciate the efforts of the Allies as a whole in WWII, don't mistake me for someone who can laugh at one of those people from an attitude of superiority.
I'd sincerely suggest lookign around these forums a bit to see where everythign stands. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but there are those much less understanding in these matters.
Let's just stick with the germane matters of U-571, though.
"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."
If you are as educated as you say, you should have no problem laughing at those kinds of people from an attitude of superiority!
Now I love America, and I love most American people (something you don't hear often these days sadly), what I can't stand however (as a historian) are those who don't know their history. Just as I don't expect a Brit to argue they would have been fine during WWII without the aid of the US, I don't expect an American to argue they are the only reason we 'ain speakin Nazi right now!'.
Don't get me started on the whole 'we saved your arse in WWI' or the 'technically Vietnam wasn't a war!' argument as well. Something you will often hear from 'that kind of American'.
I do not mean to offend, but if you believe any of the above yourself, you should simply read some history books.
By the way, I have the utmost respect for any man that can serve on a submarine.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
[deleted]
Wrong.
Go back to school and stop bothering me.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
[deleted]
Ok. You're being ignored for being not only misinformed and delusional, but being hella creepy.
'Understand me?'
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
[deleted]
Open up a history book that isn't sponsored by 'Coke', then come back to me pal.
I bet Glenn Beck is your hero.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
[deleted]
[deleted]
In what universe is that 'pwned'?
The capture of the first enigma machine was in an action by HMS Bulldog and HMS Aubretia. British ships, British men.
This guy is a troll who watches too much Fox News and doesn't read enough actual history.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
Yea... so I say again. Read an actual history book. If you did you would know everything you just said is complete trash.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
A fellow Browncoat I see.
I agree with you and I, like Michael, am also a former US Navy sailor who believes those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Unlike Michael though, I was a Surface warfare sailor not a bubblehead.
to Michael.
I would just point out that ignorance of history is not strictly an American failing but is quite dominant among Brits as well.
No. the USA did NOT single handidly win WW2 nor could we have done it without the rest of the Allies. But among British posters especially on THIS board, I have seen quite a few Brits claim that they were winning the war even before the US joined and would have won even without our help etc..
The plain simple fact is that Even though we (The USA) did not single handidly win... the British were on the edge of losing and would in all likelyhood have lost even before the US entry into the war if not for US aide to Britain.
Britain was on the edge of starvation of both food and raw war materials by the U-Boats but for our ships giving aide.
Stupid is where you find it and does not respect national boundaries.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
Indeed.
The RAF had managed to hold off the German's initial invasion plans thanks to the 'Battle of Britain', however it would clearly have only been a matter of time before they attempted it again, and had succeeded, were it not for the US entering the war after the attacks on Pearl Harbour, and then of course Hitler deciding to open up a second front against the Russians. It all quickly unravelled for him after that!
I can never tell if it is people trolling, or if they simply do not know their history, when they claim anything other than without the effort of all the allies, the world would likely be a very different place.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
The RAF had managed to hold off the German's initial invasion plans thanks to the 'Battle of Britain', however it would clearly have only been a matter of time before they attempted it again, and had succeededSorry but you're talking rubbish. The Germans had only one cvhance to defeat Britain and that was in 1940. If they had destroyed the RAf and gained air superiority they could have tried to bomb the British to the negotiating table and hope Britain would vcask for an armistice and stay neutral, or they could have attempted an invasion, an invasion that would have had to deal with the Royal Navy. The fact is they did not defeat the RAF, uin fact the RAF was stronger after the battle than before. The British were simply to well prepared, they had radar, a fighter control system, good aircraft, good tactics and good pilots. Any invasion attempted in 1941 would have been met by a RAF even more powerful than it was in 1940.
The British saved themselves in 1940 from any Nazi invasion, simple as that. The full credit goes to the British and British Commonwealth pilots of the RAF, not to the US.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!" share
You seem to be rewriting history. The only reason we actually won the Battle of Britain was because the Luftwaffe changed tactics from bombing our airfields to bombing our cities. If they had kept up attacking our air force we would have quickly lost the ability to put up a fight.
Look up operation Sea Lion, the Germans were ready to follow up their annihilation of the RAF with a full scale invasion, one that we would never have managed to hold back thanks to our depleted army after Dunkirk, we not only lost men there but the bulk of our equipment. If it were not for the RAF holding out and denying the German air superiority we would certainly have been invaded and defeated.
Now if after these events had the US not become pulled into the war, and Hitler not turned on the Russians, the German war machine would have simply grew stronger, replenishing lost men and equipment faster than Britain could have hoped to keep up, and eventually a second invasion attempt would have been on the cards. One that would likely have not failed.
Now I'm not taking anything away from our brave pilots who put up a hell of a fight, but the fact remains we were on the brink of defeat. If you truly think we could have won WW2 without the aid of the US (who were aiding us before they actually got involved anyway, with equipment), then you are quite simply a fool.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
You seem to be rewriting history. The only reason we actually won the Battle of Britain was because the Luftwaffe changed tactics from bombing our airfields to bombing our cities.A commonly believed myth I'm afraid. The Luftwaffe didn't really have a chance in defeating the RAF on the ground. Bombing airfields is actually pretty ineffectual, especially when the fighters take off from grass fields (and actually any flat field of sufficient length would have done), cratars are easily filled in. You don't even need hangers to maintain aircraft it can be done in the open, as indeed it was. Not a single airfield was out of action for more than 48 hours, most much less. The only one abandoned temporarily was Manston and that was because of it's position- it got no warning at all of a raid.
The RAF really held most of the cards- it had been preparing for just this kind of attack for years. Aircraft production too held pace, or rather was ahead all the way, indeed there was no chance of running out at any time. Pilot training was trimmed. The problem wasn't so much a shortage of pilots but getting them trained quickly enough. You may have noticed but Britain did not run out of fighter pilots in WW2 despite the relatively high attrition rate.
I suggest you read "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay which goes into far more depth than I can here.
As for Sealion, it has to be wondered what the hell they were thinking of. Crossing the channel in barges towed by tugboats with the Royal Navy waiting? They had two hopes methinks- no hope and Bob Hope. They would have been splatted. Hitler was more pinning his hopes that the Luftwaffe would achieve air superiority which Georing promised it would and his minions ever anxious to please kept producing exaggerated kill figures throughout the battle suggesting it could be done. That and the hope of bombing Britain to the peace table. Hitler wanted Britain out of the war, not necessarily conquered, so he had free reign in the East. An armistice would have sufficed. After Russia Britain could be dealt with later he hoped. Britain by then would have been even more powerful and he still would have failed.
If you truly think we could have won WW2 without the aid of the US (who were aiding us before they actually got involved anyway, with equipment), then you are quite simply a fool.
Not saying any such thing, we are discussing the Battle of Britain here and the possibility of a German invasion. Britain could have only held the enemy off, an invasion of Europe would have been difficult at best. Not entirely impossible though, the British Empire had millions of men fighting in the Far East- esp Indians- that could have formed an invasion force if there was no Far Eastern conflict- the conflict that brought the USA into the war remember. Britain actually wasn't short of manpower if you included the resources of the Empire. But yes, a successful invasion was unlikely but as the commando and paratroop raids proved we could certainly hit back. BTW, what US equipment were we using in 1940? There was nothing American used in the Battle of Britain except the supply of high octane aviation fuel - bought and paid for by Britain BTW, it wasn't given as sort sort of magniminous gesture. Oh yes, and the Hamilton variable pitch propellers fitted to the Spitfire and Hurricanes. But that's about it. No US built aircraft or vehicles were used, nor ships at that time. Everything was bought and paid for anyway until the introduction of Lend Lease in 1941 and even that was just deferred payment/credit. The US was making as much money as it could from the war while good men died defending democracy, and the US wasn't doing it because it was being kind hearted and supportive.
The German war machine you praise so highly simply wasn't good enough. The German Army was the cream and Germany's main weapon but it's surface navy was largely ineffectual and the U-boats were beaten by the RN and technology. The Luftwaffe also simply wasn't good enough either, although equipped with very good fighters the Germans could never make enough of them and even Britain alone outperformed German industry here throughout the war. It's woeful lack of decent bombers also crippled it throughout the war.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!" share
...the British were on the edge of losing and would in all likelyhood have lost even before the US entry into the war if not for US aide to Britain.
Britain was on the edge of starvation of both food and raw war materials by the U-Boats but for our ships giving aide.
"our ships"??? You do know that the British Merchant Marine was by far the largest merchant fleet in the world at the time don't you? That at no time were the U-boats sinking enough shipping?- they were well short of their targets to cripple British imports. Britain also pre-war had the biggest shipbuilders in the world too (and after the war, only by the 1970s did Japan surpass the tonnage made in the UK. And "giving aide"- nothing was given it was paid for rigfht up until Lend-Lease and that was just credit- ie deferred payment.
You seem to forget that Britain was still importing military equipment and foodstuffs from Canada, South America, Central America, the Caribbean, the Far East, etc, not just the USA, but you don't get say Brazil claiming credit for helping the British win the Battle of Britain because they suipplied corned beef do you?
The only time Britain could really lose was in 1940 after the collapse of France. The Battle of Britain made it a certainty that they couldn't lose. The RAF was far more powerful by the end of the battle than at the start, they had foiled the Luftwaffe's intentions completely- that to destroy the RAF, achieve air superiority over the UK, and give free reign to their bombers to attack London, etc. Even if the Germans could not invade they hoped to bomb Britain to the peace table. Under Churchill that was never going to happen.
The British out-produced the Germans in air production every single year save 1944, and that was because the Germans only produced smaller and easier to build fighters by then, while the British still produced fighters, fighter bombers and medium and heavy bombers. Not only that the Royal Navy greatly outmatched the Kreigsmarine, agai making a succssful invasion unlikely. British developments in radar, sonar and the deciphering of Enigma codes also gave the British the edge in the war against the U-boats.
From 1940 Britain the RAf was a formidable force, better prepared with coastal defences, better armed, and very able to take the fight to the enemy by air, sea and land.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!" share
What a nice view on history you have. The RAF was stronger AFTER the Battle of Britain than before? In what universe? We came within a hair of losing the fight for air superiority and were only saved thanks to the courageous pilots and the change in tactics from bombing our airfields to bombing our civilians.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
The RAF was stronger AFTER the Battle of Britain than before? In what universe?In reality, ya twit! RAF Fighter Command had more aircraft at the end of the battle than before, more were being manufactured every day, more pilots were being successfully trained. It's historical fact.
Yes, some pilots were tired. Not as many as the myth tends to perpetuate as pilots were rotated to Northern England and Scotland.
At no point was RAF Fighter Command really stretched to the point of no return. Most of what people think they know about the Battle of Britain is inaccurate myth.
I still suggest you read "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. It addresses reality not just perpetuating the legend, the legend which you are pushing here. Like most legends there is some truth in it but it's mostly myth. Churchill played a major part in creating this myth/legend. He needed a victory against the odds to engage the public (and then hopefully US govt) support in the USA. Yes, he wanted that support and yes he knew it would help win the war. But Britain and the USA needed each other in their part in that winning. But was a partnership of equals.
Gawd, when a Briton believes in the "US saved our asses" cobblers it makes me want to despair!
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!" share
From The Most Dangerous Enemy by Bungay:
Knowing that their enemy was preparing to 'go down hill' would have been cold comfort to the Luftwaffe. They assumed the enemy had been doing that for some time. In fact they believed he ought to be at his last gasp. General Stapf had reported to Haider on 30 August that the British had lost 800 Hurricanes and Spitfires since 8 August out of a front-line strength of 915. Given Schmid's estimate of their production capacity of 200-300 a month, the British could therefore only have 3-400 left at the outside. After another week of pounding in September, they must indeed be down to their last 200 machines.
In fact, on the evening of 6 September, Fighter Command had over 750 serviceable fighters and 1,381 pilots available to it, about 950 of whom flew Spitfires or Hurricanes. It needed 1,588 pilots to be at full establishment, which is of course what Dowding wanted, so from his point of view he was 200 short. From the Luftwaffe's point of view, he had almost 200 more pilots and 150 more planes than he had had at the beginning of July when they set out to destroy him.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/july17.html
Statistics
Fighter Command Serviceable Aircraft as at 0900 hours, 17 July 1940
Blenheim - 67
Spitfire - 237
Hurricane - 331
Defiant - 20
Total - 659
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/october31.html
Statistics
Fighter Command Serviceable Aircraft as at 0900 hours, 31st October 1940
Blenheim - 40
Spitfire - 227
Hurricane - 399
Defiant - 10
Gladiator - 8
Total - 684
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
I can quote historians who would disagree just as easily as you can quote those who don't. Perhaps the Battle of Britain wasn't such a close run thing as sources at the time would have you believe (although I would still maintain that it isn't about the planes or the new recruits that would have decided the battle, it is how stretched thin our vets were), but that is neither here nor there. The main discussion here is whether Britain would have stood a chance without US or Russian involvement, and any sane person would say they didn't.
The Luftwaffe was not much of a match for the RAF in a fair fight but the real strength of the German war machine was it's ground army. Ours was in bits and theirs was battle hardened and well supplied. How long could we have held off the Nazi invasion before the noose tightened? We wouldn't have been able to keep up war production forever, we had a much more limited pool of fighting personnel to call upon, we would have never been able to launch an invasion of our own to reconquer Europe. Commando raids are all well and good, but two can play at that game and they would hardly be a war winner on their own. We only truly started winning the battle for the Atlantic in 1943, some 2 years after the US entered the war.
Nowhere did I say "US saved our asses", in fact that's the opposite of what I say on these boards. I merely point out that Britain held its own for a while, but without the US being pulled into the war or the Russians being turned against, Germany could have put its full force against us alone and we wouldn't have stood a chance. Look how long the war lasted even while being fought on two fronts by the Germans. Now imagine there was just one front, and that one front was us.
To think we could have done it alone is absurd. Just as absurd as hearing some Americans claim they saved us. It was very much a group effort.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
Could Tube Alloys have produced a bomb? Eventually it did (1952) after transferring the job to the USA in 1942. The resources were there to do it quicker if the USA had stayed out so German numerical superiority was a wasting asset.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
What a nice view on history you have. The RAF was stronger AFTER the Battle of Britain than before? In what universe?
In the real universe.
How could you possibly not know that the RAF was stronger after the Battle of Britain than it was just prior to the start of it....and getting stronger all the time.
That's basic WW2 history.
In 1941 the RAF dropped more tons of bombs on German targets than vice versa. share
Having more planes does not = being stronger. Newly trained pilots do not = dead vets.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
Having more planes does not = being stronger. Newly trained pilots do not = dead vets.
The RAF was more combat experienced after the BOB than before it. There were many many pilots who actually survived the BOB and became veterans and the BOB was far more of a learning curve than the previous Battle of France.
The Luftwaffe went into the BoB vastly more combat experienced than the RAF. It was the BoB that gave the RAF constant every day severe battle experience, the likes of which it had not been seen previously in WW2 by that point.
Just accept that the RAF was STRONGER after the BoB than it was before it. In 1941 the RAF started dropping more bombs on German targets than vice versa.
By November 1940, the RAF had an increase in pilot numbers of over 40% more than it had in July 1940 with most of them having combat experience from the BoB.
The RAF was stronger and more combat experienced at the end of 1940 than it was in June 1940. That's a FACT.
Those 'new' pilots who served in the BoB soon became combat veterans. share
No.
At the start of the battle Britain had 1300 aircrew, by 21 September Britain had lost nearly 1000. How can those kind of losses equate to Britain being stronger after the battle?
Your argument that the replacements became vets by the end works both ways, so the German replacement pilots were all vets by the end as well. As production and remaining military might goes, the Germans were far more powerful than that which Britain had left, making defeat almost a guarantee, until of course Hitler decided to invade Russia.
The entire argument taking place in this thread is whether Britain could have won the war alone, the answer is undoubtedly no, no matter how powerful you think the RAF was after the Battle of Britain. The Battle of Britain merely bought enough time for the rest of the world to get involved and for Hitler to make some massive blunders.
If we had continued to stand alone, there is only so long we would have survived and only so many Battle of Britain's we could have won.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
No.
At the start of the battle Britain had 1300 aircrew, by 21 September Britain had lost nearly 1000. How can those kind of losses equate to Britain being stronger after the battle?
Because many more men were being trained all the time? Because the attrition was far less than the replacements available? Recruiting started prior to the start of WW2 which meant new recruits were being operational all the time. We didn't really have a manpower shortage in the RAF, not with the British Empire too. The training took time though, but they were training thousands of air men- for example Bomber Command had a total of well over 120,000 men serve it it in WW2 with a losses of 55,000 overall. Plus the men who did survive the Battle Britain coulkd use their experience to train the new recruits too. Lessons learnt in the BoB were passed on.
Hell, the RAF lost so many aircraft due to training exercises, mechanical failure and landing accidents that technically the Luftwaffe hadn't got to do anything but sit and wait for the RAF to wipe itself out! But the aircraft attrition rate too was managable and new aircraft came off the production lines far quicker than they were lost. Same as with pilots.
Only the German Army was outstanding - the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine were not- and that army alone could not have invaded Britain successfuly against British air supremacy and with the Royal Navy in the English Channel. Even without British superiority any invading army would have had to contend with the RN and the inforgiving Channel conditions.
The entire argument taking place in this thread is whether Britain could have won the war aloneNo, it was not. You stated that without the USA the British would not have won the BoB and even though they did they couldn't have held off a German Invasion in 1941 or later. That is the argument we're been debating this last few days. The fact is the Germans had only ONE slim opportunity to invade Britain and that was in 1940. After that they couldn't have done it. So you're wrong.
You do your country a great disservice. Churchill decided to fight on no matter what the odds, the British people agreed. And the British Empire made certain that we weren't fighting alone.
Yes, we needed the USA to mount an invasion of Europe but undoubtedly the US neede us too- most of the ships on D-Day were British, half the aircraft flying operations were British and three of the five Beaches were assaulted by British and Canadian troops. The US couldn't do all this by itself either. But even without the USA Britain would have fought on and IMO prevailed.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!" share
No, it was not. You stated that without the USA the British would not have won the BoB and even though they did they couldn't have held off a German Invasion in 1941 or later.
Erm.. no. In what universe did the US help us win the Battle of Britain anyway? Nowhere have I stated anything remotely close to that.
What I've said, and rightly so, is that winning the Battle of Britain, thanks to the efforts of the RAF, held the German invasion plans off long enough for Russia and then the US to be dragged into the war on our side. If Hitler had kept the Russians as allies, and the US had not been dragged into the war by the Japanese, it would have only been a matter of time before the German war machine would overrun the UK.
If you think I've said anything other than this feel free to go back and quote me.
You think the UK would have won a war against Germany without the Russians and Americans? You're insane. It was only because Germany was fighting on two fronts, and losing the majority of it's troops on the Russian front that it was even weak enough to be assaulted on D-Day. Also look at the figures for the actual troops that took part on D-Day, the vast majority were Americans. It's not surprising because by this stage we had been fighting for many more years than them, however don't think for a second the fact we held out as long as we did means we would have eventually won the war on our own.
The Battle of Britain was a close run thing and even if the RAF came out on top, it doesn't mean we could have held off the Germans indefinitely.
The allies won WW2, not one single nation. This is all I've been arguing since the beginning of the thread. It's all there in black and white.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers share
But even without the USA Britain would have fought on and IMO prevailed.
I disagree about this bit Hotrodder. I don't think Britain would have prevailed on it's own. Or did you mean with the Soviets in it?
I can't agree that Britain would have beaten the Axis without the Soviets and the USA. share
No.
At the start of the battle Britain had 1300 aircrew, by 21 September Britain had lost nearly 1000. How can those kind of losses equate to Britain being stronger after the battle?
New pilots coming in. New pilots coming in!!!!
Your argument that the replacements became vets by the end works both ways, so the German replacement pilots were all vets by the end as well.
We aren't talking about the Luftwaffe. We are talking about the RAF. The Luftwaffe was already more experienced than the RAF at the start of the BoB and already had a greater advantage in the number of combat veterans........and the Luftwaffe still couldn't win the BoB.
As production and remaining military might goes, the Germans were far more powerful than that which Britain had left, making defeat almost a guarantee,
The Lufwaffe was not 'far more powerful' than the RAF and the Kreigsmarine was nowhere near even being the equal of the Royal Navy.
You need 2 things in order to 'conquer' Britain. Air and sea mastery. The Gemans never came close to achieving either.
until of course Hitler decided to invade Russia.
Hitler wasn't invading Russia in summer and autumn 1940. In summer and autumn 1940 Hitler's sole focus was Britain......and the Germans still didn't manage even the first phase of their plan (air superiority).
The entire argument taking place in this thread is whether Britain could have won the war alone,
No that isn't the argument. Even Hotrodder has not claimed Britain could have WON the war alone. I certainly haven't.
I'm talking about the Battle of Britain and Britain being defeated, which is another subject entirely to the war being 'won'.
share
.....why is there all this talk that without just the USA and the Soviets the war wouldn't have been won? While that is a correct and extremly valid point it is also true to say that without Britain too the war wouldn't have been won by the allies.
With Britain out of the war by late 1940/41 then the Soviets would likely have been doomed. The Soviets came close to defeat as it was in 1941. With no Britain as a threat then the Axis would have had a much greater chance against the Soviets. The Axis would have controlled the eastern Atlantic, the Arctic Ocean, the Mediterranean, North Africa and made inroads into the Middle East. Other countries on the verge of joining the Axis probably would have done so with Britain out of the picture. Turkey is one example. With Turkey in the Axis there is automatically another entry point (and extra man power) for an invasion of the Soviet Union along the south east Black Sea coast.
With Britain and the Soviets beaten then what on earth could the USA have done? They would have had to start their war against Germany from New York City and no further. Where are they going to land in Europe? What air support are they going to have?
You really are that clueless aren't you?
Sad.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
CGSailor- you really are the clueless one. Sad.
I've pointed out on here that you talk jingostic American sh!te umpteen times on here in the past. You really want to believe the US was the sole saviour in WW2 don't you? You'll just carry on your redneck delusions won't you, and you'll no doubt go on pissing on the graves of British servicemen while you do so by posting pro USA flag waving bollocks suggesting that they didn't play their part. Because most of us who are more intelligent than a sponge know that the Allies all made winning the war possible, not just the USA.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
Thank you for PROVING to one and all just how much of a dumbass you really are hotrodder.
Calling me clueless and then you post this...
You really want to believe the US was the sole saviour in WW2 don't you? You'll just carry on your redneck delusions won't you, and you'll no doubt go on pissing on the graves of British servicemen while you do so by posting pro USA flag waving bollocks suggesting that they didn't play their part. Because most of us who are more intelligent than a sponge know that the Allies all made winning the war possible, not just the USA.
Lets see now... lets go back and copy EXACTLY what I have said, shall we?...
From THIS VERY THREAD:
No. the USA did NOT single handidly win WW2 nor could we have done it without the rest of the Allies. But among British posters especially on THIS board, I have seen quite a few Brits claim that they were winning the war even before the US joined and would have won even without our help etc..
The plain simple fact is that Even though we (The USA) did not single handidly win... the British were on the edge of losing and would in all likelyhood have lost even before the US entry into the war if not for US aide to Britain.
Hell.. even a fellow Brit is agreeing with me and calling you clueless and accusing you of rewritting history.
On OTHER THEADS on THIS Board:
As an American I agree with you about the above poster. But on the same hand you got a great many Brits doing the exact same thing. making rediculous claims like how you were Winning the war even before the US joined etc..
Note: "The Above poster" was in reference to a moron American making the very claims Hotrodder is accusing me of.
The war was won because WE ALL pulled together. casting blame as to who did the most or even more inaccurately, who did it on their own, is stupid.
Check out a few of your fellow Brits below for examples.
NOTE: The Examples spoken of were examples of those being stupid by claiming they did it alone or without help as above.
NOTE2: Hottrodder was one of those posters below being used as an example.
You, Hotrodder, FAIL.
Your very words are PROVEN false.
There is nothing you can say or claim that will change that or make your claims true.
You sir, are a troll.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
Hell.. even a fellow Brit is agreeing with me and calling you clueless and accusing you of rewritting history.
Yes and he is wrong. Hotrodder is correct when he says the RAF was stronger after the Battle of Britain than it was before it.
I thought everybody knew this fact. Clearly not.
share
My area of expertise is more with the Battle of the Atlantic and the US vs Japanese war in the Pacific.
I know what the Battle of Britain is and when it took place and its outcome, but I have not poured over strength levels of aircraft at the various times before and after the battle of Britain so I can't say.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that what you say is correct (I have no reason to argue otherwise)... what of it? So you show that hotrodder is correct in one particular argument. His overall attitude as a whole is still wrong.
You responded to a specific post of mine yet you do not address one single part of that post. How about you do that and then look at Hotrodder again in that light.
He made certain insulting claims against my person and made a strawman attack against my character. I posted in response my ACTUAL statements that proved the exact opposite and proved that hotrodder is a LIAR.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
There isn't much worth to discussing history with these guys. They seem to think that the UK would have won the war alone, even if Russia and the US had not been dragged into it.
It's all quite hilarious.
All you have to do to know otherwise is look at the losses the German military suffered on the Eastern front, then imagine those numbers swelling the ranks of the German military on the Western front.
The RAF may very well have been better off after the Battle of Britain, although I still contest the fact that newly trained pilots are not the equal for all the veterans lost. However proving that the UK came out better off after one stage of the war, does not indicate that we could have continued to hold back the German war machine.
In fact I find it preposterous that anybody is actually arguing this in the first place. Britain vs the Axis without Russia and the US? We would have been lucky to last a year.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers
There isn't much worth to discussing history with these guys. They seem to think that the UK would have won the war alone, even if Russia and the US had not been dragged into it.
It's all quite hilarious.
I haven't said any such thing and neither has Hotrodder.
All I have responded to is the Battle of Britain debate and the fact that the outcome of that crucial and eventual war changing battle wasn't won by either the Americans or the Soviets. Neither country 'saved' Britain from annihilation in 1940. In fact the Soviets were supping vodka with Hitler at the time.
Go back and read this thread again. Not one person here has said Britain would have won WW2 without the Soviets or the Americans.
That isn't the argument. The argument is that when Britain was in greatest peril and and at it's darkest hour in WW2 it was NOT 'saved' by the USA or Soviet Union and you, sir, seem to be doing your damndest to suggest that Britain merely managed to win the BoB through sheer fluke and luck and couldn't possibly have succeded in stopping the Germans from invading if the Germans tried it again. Frankly that's cobblers and an insult to your own country because the RAF was getting stronger and the Royal Navy was vastly more powerful than the Kreigsmarine.
The RAF may very well have been better off after the Battle of Britain, although I still contest the fact that newly trained pilots are not the equal for all the veterans lost.
Veterans? We are taking about summer 1940 here. The RAF in general was vastly more experienced in modern war airfare by October/November 1940 than it was in June 1940. The Battle of Britain was the biggest thing the RAF had ever experienced up to that point. The Battle of Britain made NEW veterans of those pilots. A Battle of Britain veteran was more experienced than a Battle of France veteran. I'm sorry but I just don't understand your logic. Are you seriously suggesting a Battle of France veteran in June 1940 was more experienced than a Battle of Britain veteran in October 1940?
However proving that the UK came out better off after one stage of the war, does not indicate that we could have continued to hold back the German war machine.
Giving you the facts would point towards a subsequent attempt by the Germans not being as easy as you seem to claim it would have been.
It would have taken the Germans a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry long time to overcome Britain after they failed in 1940. They may have eventually strangled and isolated Britain but that would have taken many years and it would have meant they would have had to make cuts elsewhere, such as the army and their tank and gun numbers.
In fact I find it preposterous that anybody is actually arguing this in the first place. Britain vs the Axis without Russia and the US? We would have been lucky to last a year.
Britain did last a year between the fall of France and the invasion of the Soviet Union and didn't look at all like it was going to collapse after September 1940. Summer and early autumn 1940 was the crucial time and the Germans failed. After that it wasn't very likely that the Germans could put on a successful invasion attempt of Britain. Their airforce already got beat trying it once, their navy just wasn't strong enough to control the English Channel and their army had no experience of amphibious overseas landings.
share
Hotrodder
But even without the USA Britain would have fought on and IMO prevailed.
Nobody said any such thing?
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers share
Nobody said any such thing?
I saw 'something' right down the bottom of ONE of his posts and I see you completely ignored my post where I said I disagree with Hotrodder.
Did you miss this post of mine:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0141926/board/thread/181276846?p=2&d=1 84440196#184440196
""But even without the USA Britain would have fought on and IMO prevailed.
I disagree about this bit Hotrodder. I don't think Britain would have prevailed on it's own. Or did you mean with the Soviets in it?
I can't agree that Britain would have beaten the Axis without the Soviets and the USA.
So you see, after I saw that bit where Hotrodder wrote that I disagreed.
Still, Hotrodder was just talking about the USA. He didn't mention without the USSR, which is why I asked him to clarify.
YOU have claimed that Hotrodder said without the USA and USSR, which again, I can't see that he wrote such a thing.
So can you please point me towards a post where Hotrodder says that without both the USA and the USSR the British would have won alone? share
I saw 'something' right down the bottom of ONE of his posts and I see you completely ignored my post where I said I disagree with Hotrodder.
Pot: Hey! That Kettle is black!
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
Pot: Hey! That Kettle is black!
What you talking about? Hotrodder said something and I disagreed with him.
And is that all you have? Nothing else. You must know I'm right because you have obviously given up. I guess you can't argue against the truth.LOL. share
The pot calling the kettle black comment was based upon your accusing me of taking one small part of your post out of context and ignoring the majority of your post.
That is EXACTLY what you did with me when you IGNORED the main point of my post that you responded too but instead fucused on one small point in my post where Hothead may have been right.
So Pot. That kettle IS black.
I still note you have not come back with a response as to your condoning or not Hotheads outrageous claims and accusations against me that went beyond, WAY beyond simple disagreement as to opinions and facts.
If ANYONE ever accused me in person of "pissing on the graves" of ANY military servicemen of ANY country I would lay him right out on the fraking floor.
BY your refusal to answer on that point several times now I must assume you think he was perfectly ok to say such crap.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Forgot all about this board and this 'debate'.
The pot calling the kettle black comment was based upon your accusing me of taking one small part of your post out of context and ignoring the majority of your post.
What has that got to do with me disagreeing with Hotrodder?
That is EXACTLY what you did with me when you IGNORED the main point of my post that you responded too but instead fucused on one small point in my post where Hothead may have been right.
So Pot. That kettle IS black.
The main point of your post was to belittle Hotrodder and you cited ChefC as an example of somebody else who thought Hotrodder was clueless. Seeing as I was previously replying to this ChefC poster about the Battle of Britain etc and ChefC was PROVEN completely wrong about the RAF at the end the Battle of Britain I thought it was strange that you cited somebody who had just been proven incorrect, while Hotrodder was proven correct.
Your citing of ChefC was bizarre....and you also 'conveniently' ignored another 'British poster' (i.e me)who did agree with Hotrodder and helped to prove that ChefC was incorrect about certain things.
I probably wouldn't have even replied to your post had you not cited ChefC in order to try and bolster your point. A poster who THREE OTHERS had already proven wrong.
I still note you have not come back with a response as to your condoning or not Hotheads outrageous claims and accusations against me that went beyond, WAY beyond simple disagreement as to opinions and facts.
If ANYONE ever accused me in person of "pissing on the graves" of ANY military servicemen of ANY country I would lay him right out on the fraking floor.
I agree with him. You were more or less pissing on their graves. You were being condescending and dismissive of the British ability which prevented them from 'losing' even before the USA started giving (ooops selling) aid. Britain was not 'on the verge of losing' after the BOB (it wasn't America who won THAT)and Britain wasn't 'losing' the Battle of the Atlantic. The British even pushed the Axis back in North Africa.
Britain would not have WON the war without America of course but by no means were they on the verge of losing the war before America decided to help in 1941 and at no time was Britain even remotely close to starving.
THE critical time was summer/autumn 1940. Britain saved itself from losing (with the help from a lot of Commonwealth and Polish/Czech etc pilots) in summer/autumn and it wasn't due to the USA. The Battle of the Atlantic was not being 'lost' (spring '41 saw the end of the German's surface fleet being a real threat)and the war in North Africa was a stalemate.
I'm sick and tired of some Americans who truly believe Great Britain was in worse shape in 1941 than it was in 1940. No sunshine it was 1940 when Britain was in it's greatest peril and at it's greatest danger of losing.......and it wasn't the Americans who changed that around.
Then the Germans attacked the Soviet Union in summer '41. Again, that had zero to do with America. Once Hitler decided to do that, there was little likelihood he could have won on both front. America or no America.
America helped to win the war. They were a major and crucial part in the allied victory. But don't you kid yourself they saved Britain from losing/being utterly defeated. That's plain bollocks.
Oh and America didn't 'save Britain's ass' in the First World War either. The Germans didn't even get across France in WW1, nevermind the Channel.
PS) You would actually have to be physically capable of laying somebody out on the floor in order to claim that you would so. Somebody might instead lay YOU out on the fracking floor. It's easy to be a big mouth tough guy over the internet.
share
PS) You would actually have to be physically capable of laying somebody out on the floor in order to claim that you would so. Somebody might instead lay YOU out on the fracking floor. It's easy to be a big mouth tough guy over the internet.
Just as it is so easy for you to insinuate that I am incapable of it. Impasse.
And ignored. troll.
(for stating that I WAS pissing on the graves of military men.)
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that what you say is correct (I have no reason to argue otherwise)... what of it? So you show that hotrodder is correct in one particular argument. His overall attitude as a whole is still wrong.
No it isn't. Hotrodder hasn't said Britain would have won the war alone. In fact he has openly denied that they would have so what more do you want from him? He is simply stating that Britain wasn't as weak or got lucky as ChefC claims.
This is Hotrodder's basic point..IN HIS OWN WORDS.
""Britain and the USA needed each other in their part in that winning. But was a partnership of equals.
Gawd, when a Briton believes in the "US saved our asses" cobblers it makes me want to despair!""
I agree with him completely.
The USA helped win the war and made a vital contribution in that regard. But 'saving' Britain?
I wasn't aware that the Waffen SS and the the panzer divisons were marching up Oxford Street in summer 1941. There was already a reason why that didn't happen in 1940 and 1941 and it wasn't because the 'USA saved Britain'.
You responded to a specific post of mine yet you do not address one single part of that post.
Yes I did and I even quoted this part of what you wrote:
""Hell.. even a fellow Brit is agreeing with me and calling you clueless and accusing you of rewritting history.""
I disagreed with that because Hotrodder was not re-writing history and the 'fellow Brit' you were alluding to wasn't even aware that the RAF was stronger after the BoB than it was before it, so really what does that 'fellow Brit' know about it?
How about you do that and then look at Hotrodder again in that light.
I already agree with Hotrodder. He's correct. The RAF was stronger after the BoB than it was before, and after the BoB it is a fact that Britain wasn't hanging onto dear life by a thread and just waiting for the USA to come along and save it. The RAF and Royal Navy (the first lines of defence) would have been an extremely tough obstacle for the Germans to overcome even in 1941 and 1942. The British were not some defenceless sitting duck just waiting to be picked off by Nazi Germany at will. The RAF proved in summer 1940 that the Luftwaffe wasn't invincible and the power of the Royal Navy needs no explanation. The Germans only excelled on land. They had the best army of WW2.......but that's no good if you have to cross water and achieve air support against an enemy that isn't inferior to you in both regards.
The only way Germany could have beaten Britain was to pump most of the resources they had into a blockade of Britain. That would have taken years. The British merchant fleet was the largest in the world and the Royal Navy was extremely powerful. Germany probably could have done that eventually given time but then again other areas of their plans for continental domination would have suffered. By focusing on blockading Britain they would have had to give up on the idea of building up their land forces and making extra tanks and guns for the coming invasion of the Soviet Union. They couldn't have done both. A stronger Germans naval floatila would have meant a weaker army. Admiral Donitz and Hitler vastly underestimated Britain's ability to make do with less imports. Even Churchill underestimated it vastly. Donitz' shipping tonnage sinking maths was a huge underestimation. Even if it wasn't, the U-boats never even got half way to the monthly totals Donitz wanted even during their most successful periods. Most of the time the U-boats only achieved 1/3 or 1/4 of their monthly tagets.
share
There are his own words.
But even without the USA Britain would have fought on and IMO prevailed.
Hmmmm.... interesting.... nobody said the UK could have won it alone? You appear to be wrong, what a shock.
Gawd, when a Briton believes in the "US saved our asses" cobblers it makes me want to despair!""
I agree with him completely.
What you're arguing here is called a strawman because at no point did I say the US 'saved our asses', wrong once again, another big surprise.
Feel free to prove that I did though.
It's no surprise that you're completely ignoring what has actually been said though, I would too if I was on the side arguing that the UK would have 'prevailed' in WW2 even without the US and Russia.
As for the "we did hold out for more than a year" retort earlier, I clearly meant we would have been lucky to hold out for a year after the Battle of Britain, had no other nations entered the fight as our allies. The entire might of the German war machine focused on us would have been devastating.
At the most we could have held off invasion plans for a while, but at no point would we have been strong enough to launch a successful invasion of our own.
How about you stop arguing what you 'think' has been said in here, and start arguing with what has 'actually' been said.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers share
"Prevailed" means "survived" you dumb bugger. Yes, Britain would have survived the war. That much is certain. The Germans could NOT mount a successful invasion of Britain. They hadn't the means to do so, and Britain was too well defended after 1940.
If we are now going to go "what if" scenarios, the USSR may also have occupied much of Western Europe perhaps but we don't know this. The USSR would have won against the Germans in the East in my estimation. Like Britain the Germans had only one real shot at defeating the USSR and that was in 1941, by taking Moscow and more importantly over-running the aircraft, tank and other armament factories. Failing to do so by the Russian Winter meant that the Russians could re-arm and re-group, prepare defences, move many factories further Eastwards, etc. Once they had done it was basically a war of attrition and that was a war the Germans would have to lose due to limited resources. Not only couldn't their aircraft factories even outperform the British ones, never mind the British and Soviet ones but they were short of so many critical raw materials, including steel to the point that truck cabs were made from a type of compressed cardboard- similar to MDF. The Germans simply weren't geared up to a long war.
Further "what if" include what may have happened on the Western Front. Without the USA and without an attack by the Japanese on British colonies in the Far East, Britain would have been able to use nearly all of it's resources in Britain, including millions of soldiers from the British Empire- Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, Indians. So Britain certainly could have had the manpower to attack Europe and also had the seapower. Only whether we had enough armour is moot. Tanks the British had, even quite good ones- the Cromwell, Churchill, Challenger and later the Comet. But I don't think we could have made enough for a decent enough armoured spearhead. Again we can't be sure but part of Britain's problem after the Japanese attacked was having to fight in too many parts of the globe. Without the need to combat Japanese forces that need is changed.
But all these what if scenarios can't be held as proven or unproven, as it is all just speculation.
One thing is certain though, in 1940 Britain defeated the Luftwaffe's intentions and prevented any possibility of a successful German invasion. You also over estimate the German war machine by a long way, it wasnb't really so formidable. Only it's army was exceptional, it's air force and navy was only adequate at best.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
What on earth are you talking about? Do you actually read peoples posts before you go off on a rant about them?
From the very beginning the 'what if' scenario is what was being discussed, what if the US AND Russia didn't end up in the war on the side of the UK. Not what if the US didn't enter but the Russians were still on side.
As for
"Prevailed" means "survived" you dumb bugger.
How ironic you call me dumb when it seems you haven't even grasped the basics of the discussion. 'Prevailed' in the context of WW2 means won, not merely survived. Nazi Germany being led by fanatics would never have sued for peace, Hitler wanted to conquer the world, the UK couldn't have merely put up enough of a fight long enough to earn a peace treaty.
Once again I'll reiterate my ORIGINAL point. Without the US AND Russia WW2 would have been a very different thing. Germany would have certainly had the manpower and means to invade and conquer Britain if it stood alone. As it stands of course that never happened because of the Battle of Britain and then the fact Germany attacked Russia and Japan attacked the US shortly after. If these two events hadn't have happened however, even though we won the Battle of Britain, we would not have been able to hold out forever ALONE, notice how I say ALONE.
You're the one arguing Britain could have won the war alone. Something that is clearly wrong, although I think you know that which is why you just create arguments to have which have no basis in anything anybody has actually said.
Here's a tip for you, actually read what people have posted before you decide to argue with them. Have a nice day now, I won't be replying to you again.
----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers share
Britain would have survived alright. but "survived" without "winning" means survived as part of the 3rd Reich.
So by trying to cover his own a$$... and clarifying his poorly worded statement he as much as admitted we were right and he was wrong.
though he is probably too ignorant to realize that fine point.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
But Britain wasn't alone, you stupid git. Britain had allies- Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc as well as the Empire to draw on.
Germany would have certainly had the manpower and means to invade and conquer Britain if it stood alone.For the thousandth time, no it bloody well didn't! If it couldn't manage at the peak of it's power in 1940 it wasn't going to manage afterwards. Britain wass getting stronger not weaker aftere the Battle of Britain. Why do you so undersestimate the abilities of your own country's
forces of that era?
...I won't be replying to you again.Thank Christ fror that! I won't have to keep repeating the same points over and over to a dumb cluck who has no appreciation for Britain's fighting abilities in WW2.
Winston Churchill thought we could fight on without the USA, indeed he couldn't be certain that the USA would ever join in the war. Churchill was relieved when the USA did join in because that meant victory was certain instead of uncertain, but he certainly intended to fight on and hopefully win, with or without the USA. Are you a cleverer man than Wnston Churchill now?
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!" share
There are his own words.
""But even without the USA Britain would have fought on and IMO prevailed.""
Hmmmm.... interesting.... nobody said the UK could have won it alone? You appear to be wrong, what a shock.
He DIDN'T say Britain could have won it 'alone'. He just said without the USA. He didn't say without the Soviet Union or without the Commonwealth allies.
What you're arguing here is called a strawman because at no point did I say the US 'saved our asses', wrong once again, another big surprise.
Feel free to prove that I did though.
So let's clarify this. You've never said such things like "without the USA....." etc etc??
It's no surprise that you're completely ignoring what has actually been said though, I would too if I was on the side arguing that the UK would have 'prevailed' in WW2 even without the US and Russia.
Please point out where Hotrodder says "...and Russia".
As for the "we did hold out for more than a year" retort earlier, I clearly meant we would have been lucky to hold out for a year after the Battle of Britain, had no other nations entered the fight as our allies.
Huh? Britain itself actually quite easily held out (and actually managed to fight the Germans elsewhere)after the Battle of Britain and before the invasion of the Soviet Union. In case you were not aware, that was almost a year and in the meantime the RAF was growing stronger and dropping more bombs on German targets than vice versa and at sea was giving as good as it got. The German suface fleet's threat had been seriously damaged after the sinking of the Bismarck in spring 1941.
The entire might of the German war machine focused on us would have been devastating.
Not without a superior air force and superior navy. Britain is surrounded by water, not land. Britain had the measure of the Luftwaffe (proven in 1940)and was considerably superior to the Kreigsmarine.
By late 1940 the Germans had given up any realistic hope of actually invading and conquering Britain via a land invasion.
It would have taken MANY YEARS for the Germans to build up total air and sea mastery over Britain and this would also have meant their land forces would have to suffer.
At the most we could have held off invasion plans for a while, but at no point would we have been strong enough to launch a successful invasion of our own.
I agree with that. But that's ANOTHER argument.
How about you stop arguing what you 'think' has been said in here, and start arguing with what has 'actually' been said.
Agreed. So where exactly did Hotrodder write " without the USA and USSR the British would still have won the war all by themselves"?
Hmmmmmm?
share
You still failed to adress the point of my post.
Hotrodder made several claims of me that were patently untrue. AKA Hotrodder is a liar. He was intentionally and EXTREMELY insulting, especially with his "pissing on the graves" comment. Yet you still support this troll.
So my pointed question to you is this:
Despite the nature of the overall thread and who is right or wrong on any particular point of discussion... do you support his ad hominum attack and extremely unwarranted insults upon my person?
If so.. then you are no better than a troll as well.
We can disagree on specific points and argue all we want, but when people like hotrodder go overboard as he did, it is uncivilized and he needs to be held accountable.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
CGSailor- I insulted you because you've insulted the British countless times on this board, more to the point you've insulted the memories of our war dead and our living veterans.
Yes, apparently you have said in a few posts that the war was a joint effort by the Allies- bully for you! Has it occured to you that I don't read all your posts? I don't hang on your every word, believe it or not.
You've still been scathing inumerable times about the British on here and that is what I take you to task for, you say it was a joint effort in WW2, then again and again insult the British forces involved in that joint effort.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
No Hotrodder. I have NOT.
I have been scathing only of those CURRENT British who Bitch about Americans in general and denegrate the US effort in the war as un-needed or too little too late and other such BS.
I HAVE NEVER EVER said anything against those British who fought in and most especially those who fought and died in WW2.
Your stating that I was "pissing on" the graves of British soldiers was WAY OVER THE TOP AND EXTREMELY INSULTING!
I
HAVE
NEVER
SAID
ANY
SUCH
THING!
You are a (bleeping) BASTARD for even suggesting such a thing!
My anger towards Brits is ONLY directed at those Brits who say such BS crap against Americans and you know what? My Anger is directed at Americans who do the same. Those idiots who claim that America single handidly won the war.
Them, and those who (like you) say bulsh*t crap about other posters that is blatantly untrue and love to use strawman arguments. (like you)
When you use a strawman argument to support your case.. you already FAIL.
I have served. I have worn the uniform of my country's armed forces (Navy).
I have served in theater in combat. (Desert Storm).
I respect ALL those who have served, even my country's allied forces.(that means Britain)
For you to attempt to state as fact that I have pissed on their graves.....
Well I know now for certain at least ONE Brit I would piss on their grave.
And thats the only one.
Q: Where have YOU served?
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
You WERE certainly pissing on British servicemen and merchant seamen with this remark YOU made a few days ago:
....the British were on the edge of losing and would in all likelyhood have lost even before the US entry into the war if not for US aide to Britain.
Britain was on the edge of starvation of both food and raw war materials by the U-Boats but for our ships giving aide.
Do you deny you wrote this?
First of all you state the British were losing before US entry- they weren't. Then you have the audacity to suggest that it was the USA's ships that carried goods across the Atlantic when it was British merchant seamen doing 99% of those voyages prior to US entry into the war. There were 45000 British merchant seamen lost in WW2- some of them from my own family- so that remark was extremely insulting. And I'll say it again- the USA was not the sole source of food, etc- the British merchant fleet carried goods back from around the world. Prior to WW2 Britain was the foremost maritime trading nation with by far the largest merchant fleet.
Sounds like you were pissing both on merchant seamens graves there, bub, and on British servicemens graves by suggesting that by their efforts they were losing the war- which they were not.
BTW, what difference does it make whether I've served or not? I've read plenty of history books in my time, visited the battlefields, visited museums, etc. I've sat in tanks, ridden in tanks, drove tanks. I've also been in dozens of aircraft, and visited historic warships. So I consider myself relatively knowledgeable about WW2.
Oh, the arrogance of those who've been in uniform who think their views are more informed and more sacrosanct than anybody elses. Even if they were just a buck private or in your case, I suspect, the pegboy on your ship.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!" share
And you compound your BS insults with you reaffirmation and re utterance of that insult.
Yes I said what I said but that in NO WAY is pissing on the graves of British servicemen.
Oh and BTW. My AMERICAN Grandfather was one of those Merchant Marines who carried supplies to England Before and During the US entry into the war.
Yes. many countries were sending supplies to England. Much of the ships and sailors were British, but the goods themselves and the ships that did so that were NOT British, were for the most part (not all) American. Without our support, England WAS within only a year or so of starvation.
That in no way is pissing on the graves of British sailors/soldiers.
Only in your fraking twisted mind.
You are now a troll in my mind and ignored because you cannot debate without insults. and NASTY ones at that.
Had you said that to my face I would have laid you out and none would blame me for doing so.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Much of the ships and sailors were British, but the goods themselves and the ships that did so that were NOT British, were for the most part (not all) American. Without our support, England WAS within only a year or so of starvation.And you're doing it yet again. Are you suggesting that the ships were all American made now? You do know that not only did the British have the largest merchant fleet but Britain by far manufactured the largest tonnage of merchant ships prior to and after the war? British ships were built in British shipyards, by British workers, my Grandfather amongst many others. Britain had many famous rivers renowned for shipbuilding- the Tyne, the Tees, the Wear, the Clyde, etc. The shipyard workers more often than not even slept at the yards going back to work as soon as they were able. One of the reasons that the U-boats couldn't succeed is that not only weren't they sinking enough ships they were being replaced as soon as possible. Yes, later in the war they were supplemented by US built liberty ships but certainly not earlier in the war. You do know that the Liberty Ship was based on a British design don't you?
And to remind you the goods brought from the USA (prior to Lend Lease and that was only deferred payment) were bought and paid for- sometimes at inflated prices, they were hardly given. Funny you don't get, say, Brazil claiming credit for fighting the Nazis in 1939-41 because they sold corned bloody beef to Britain do you? But some Americans think they won the Battle of Britain because they SOLD the British some goods.
And BTW Britain was unlikely to starve too- this is yet another myth. Food had to be rationed severely but Britain was an extremely successful agricultural country too, producing a great deal of food etc.
I'm beginning to think you're not even aware of how insulting you've been in the past on here. You've been pretty nasty yourself, but perhaps are too arrogant to even realise it.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!" share
And BTW Britain was unlikely to starve too- this is yet another myth. Food had to be rationed severely but Britain was an extremely successful agricultural country too, producing a great deal of food etc.
Donitz, Hitler and even Winston Churchill SEVERELY underestimated Britain's ability to make do and get on with things, despite the lower imports coming in. Donitz's mathematics regarding how much shipping tonnage was needed to be sunk each quarterly in order to starve Britain (even though the U-boats never got anywhere near to the target) was woefully miscalculated.
There is no way Britain would 'only have lasted a year or so' before starving without the Americans. Britain could have carried on for a quite a long time without starving. share
and foodstuffs from Canada, South America, Central America, the Caribbean, the Far East, etc, not just the USA,
Yeah, I don't understand why some people seem to think the only imports to Britain during WW2 only came from the USA and nowhere else.
Most people also have no idea that the British gave the US almost $6 billion worth of aid. That is between 1/4 to 1/5 of the aid the US gave to Britain ($27 billion) and considering the disparity in size between the two countries that is nothing to sniff at. share
Is it just me or does anyone else think this argument was caused by one side talking in context of a hypothetical situation which the opposition ignored?
If x didn't happen, y would not have won. X (or some part of x) happened! Statistics (gathered in reality after x did happen) show that y was doing well without x...
Anyways, I am a little shocked at the backlash against this movie. Did I miss an opening which said it was based on a true event? The ending had its credit to real incidents of enigmas being captured but at no point did I think this was supposed to be a true event which proved America saved everyone's ass. Mind you the director or some actor may have been a megalomaniacal twat who did believe America is the sole reason WWI and/or WWII ended in favor of the Allies; however, I try to enjoy movies/music/art independent of my feelings about the people who created it.
Jesus... the Texas Chainsaw Massacre actually does claim to be based on a true event with the fake video footage opening, mind you the event it is based on is nothing at all like the movie. In fact, I'm going to have to go see if people flipped out on that movie's forums as well. Cheers.