tcnelson 1 #26 July 12, 2005 QuoteYou are doing little else but demonstraiting a complete lack of knowledge about WWII in general. so you say...of course, i think the same about you. kill totals, russian winters, RAF, naval superiority...all terrific stats. bottom line: great britain was was getting the hell beat out of it by the german air force until help arrived. could germany have sustained a UK invasion? you seem to be the authority on hypothetical truths so, explain away."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #27 July 12, 2005 The UK could not have invaded Germany alone no. Russia could have though... and pretty much did... we got there late hence Berlin being an island on the Soviet post war map. The air war over Britain was won again before the US got involved. The Battle of Britain was won in Aug/Sept/Oct of 40... you guys didn't pull your fingers out till Dec of the next year. By that time dailight raids over the UK were suicide and had been canned in just the same way as their plans to invade had over a year earlier. Night raids were still going on but we were giving better than we were getting already by that point. By the time the US had been in the war 3 months we were already putting out 1000 bomber raids over Germany... something the Germans never managed against us. You're not going to win an argument by claiming that the UK was getting its arsed kicked by the Luftwaffe... that couldn't be further from the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #28 July 12, 2005 Actually mr2mk1g is correct, without the Russian weather and people draining nazi resources (and Hitler's stubbornness) the conflict might have lasted a lot longer or gone a totally different course. We tend to forget the horrific losses the Russians suffered, and it's impact on the course of the war. This was one of the main reasons why the Cold War was much worse than most imagined in the West. The Russian psyche would have accepted mutual destruction a lot more readily than those in the west. Britain had been requesting US help for a long time, but most Americans did not care enough to allow the politicians of the time to lend aid. To brag 60 years later that you bailed out the Brits leads to the question: WHAT TOOK YOU SO BLOODY LONG? Now, I can't answer that, because while my family was on the front lines (my grandfather was rescued at dunkirk, the other flew in the battle of britain and didnt make it back) I dont have full knowledge of the circumstances that led to the US rescue. Tcnelson, perhaps you could let me know exactly what led the US to mobilize and 'save europe' at the point in time that they did, as you're obviously better read on WW2 history than I am based on your refutation of mr2mk1g's previous post. Actually, the US reaction to WW2 and it's slow entrance into the conflict is an interesting review of politics, propaganda and molding public opinion. Plus, Americans have all those Westerns where the cavalry comes in during the last reel. You expected anything else from those guys ? ;) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #29 July 12, 2005 my argument is that western europe was saved by american involvement in the war. i'm not saying america did everything but, without america's involvement, the post WWII european map would have looked quite different. at the very least, your neighbor to the south wouldn't be french people."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #30 July 12, 2005 And I only took issue with the claim that we'd be speaking German. I think that is highly unlikely whatever else might have been going on in the rest of Europe. In any event this is all something of an asside from the orriginal thread about how the US airforce sent out signals that it was apparently willing to give in to terrorism this last week. I hope we haven't killed the thread with our history discussion. Tea anyone? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #31 July 12, 2005 Quoteperhaps you could let me know exactly what led the US to mobilize and 'save europe' at the point in time that they did in short, pearl harbor. QuoteActually, the US reaction to WW2 and it's slow entrance into the conflict is an interesting review of politics, propaganda and molding public opinion. or, it's a demonstration that america simply didn't want to go to war at that time. up until pearl harbor and the fact that supply ships headed for england were being sunk by german subs, we weren't being attacked. europe was though and boy did it have it's hands full huh... QuotePlus, Americans have all those Westerns where the cavalry comes in during the last reel. You expected anything else from those guys ? ;) i didn't expect anything as i wasn't born for another 30 yrs or so. i just read about what they did and it was impressive."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #32 July 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat about our firemen who went to New York after 9/11 to help the American people? Did they say 'screw that its to dangerous?' No they went. yeah, and you could be speaking german right now. how soon we forget. And you could be speaking French. or we all could be speaking latin. Those brits better be careful, or we'll invade and make them learn to speak english.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #33 July 12, 2005 QuoteIn any event this is all something of an asside from the orriginal thread about how the US airforce sent out signals that it was apparently willing to give in to terrorism this last week. ron and chuck brown already covered that one so i had to find a different caveat. "Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #34 July 12, 2005 QuoteThose brits better be careful, or we'll invade and make them learn to speak english. i'm not going...i hear the weather is terrible."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #35 July 12, 2005 QuoteGermany was beaten by the Russians, not by anyone this side of the Rhine. The Russians accounted for 80% of German losses... the Western Allies accounted for a mere 700,000 or so kills compaired to the Soviet total of going on 3 million. Then why was Stalin adamant about the US/UK starting a second front in Europe instead of the Pacific in 1942 ? Allied forces kept a significant amount of German soldiers busy in North Africa, Italy and Northwest Europe for 2.5 years. When you add them up, the US/UK kept over 1 million soldiers away from the Eastern Front. The Russians accounted for so many losses because that's where most of the German army was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #36 July 12, 2005 A point of clarification, and a question. 1. The order was rescinded, according to the BBC's article (if I read it correctly). 2. The question I had is wouldn't it be rather dangerous, for both the service men as well as the Londoners, for them to be out in uniform? Wouldn't that give rise to another (more appropriate) argument, as in "the Brits can't handle their own security," or "we're being invaded," or "WTF is Blair doing??" And if they weren't in uniform, they'd not be noticed except as an American. Would they have been in uniform? Or not? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #37 July 12, 2005 Quotei hear the weather is terrible I wish! We're in the middle of a heat wave - my thermometer hasn't seen the low side of 30 deg C in nearly a week. It's too much I tell's ya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #38 July 12, 2005 1. The order only came under review today because the papers kicked up a stink. The fact that it was still standing today was either because it was forgotten about or because the "powers that be" wanted it to still be standing and it only got rescinded because of the media interest. As to which is the truth of the matter I'm sure we'll never know. 2. The order related to them on leave etc. so I presume the'd be in civies... but I'm sure some military type (present as opposed to historical) would know for sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #39 July 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteDamn! You beat me to it!! yea, so much for standing shoulder to shoulder with America. America is right behind us alright, about fifty miles behind us on the other side of the M25 cowering in their bases whilst little old ladies walk the streets that they fear to tread. All London is laughing at these 'brave warriors'. Shame on them. It is pretty common to "close up" right after an attack nearby. This is normal and smart. The soldiers were told not to go to London. They still did their jobs. The soldiers didn't "fear to tread". They were told not to go. They followed orders. The orders were normal protocal. From what I have been told they have already been lifted. Most people if smart would not walk into the lions mouth unless they had to. Shame on you for slamming people who did their jobs and followed orders. Shame on you for jumping all over people without all the info. Most people if smart would not walk into the lions mouth unless they had to. But a brave government would do so, especially after going to another continent and tugging on the lion's tail; a cowardly government, or one that has its own agenda would watch from afar tho. Shame on you for slamming people who did their jobs and followed orders. Quit making this aboutthe troops; it's about the gov and you know that's what people are sayinghere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #40 July 12, 2005 QuoteUS President George W Bush says the London bombings demonstrate the importance of fighting terrorists in Iraq. Had they(the Coalition) not invaded Irag, under false pretense or any other pretense, the bombing most likely would not had happened and US military personnel would still be visiting London. I suppose that the same can be said here in the US of future attacks that are sure to come. Martial Law is, most likely, somewhere in our future as sleeper cells are activated around the globe. To believe that these people cannot shut us down is foolish. They constantly demonstrate their ability to blend in and adapt to the enviroment in which they operate. Much like openning Pandora's Box there is now a much heavier price to pay and we will be paying long after Bush and Blair are gone. Totally agree, and to expound, gas prices seem to double when we are over there in their business..... All these wars in teh Middle East do is to 1. make US corps filthy rich 2. Kill innocent kids 3. Kill innocent foreigners 4. did I say make US corps filthy rich? 5. remind the world of what will happen to them if they disagree with the US 6. Create world hate for teh US ...... all missions accomplished...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #41 July 12, 2005 Quoteif you don't realize that all of europe, including england, was bailed out by america during world war 2 then i can be of no help to you...history knowledge or otherwise. sea lion never went off and still, britain looked like swiss cheese but you're right, the english were doin' just fine!! Let's use a time in history when the US was a noble country to justify our lack of nobility now...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #42 July 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteUS President George W Bush says the London bombings demonstrate the importance of fighting terrorists in Iraq. Had they(the Coalition) not invaded Irag, under false pretense or any other pretense, the bombing most likely would not had happened and US military personnel would still be visiting London. I suppose that the same can be said here in the US of future attacks that are sure to come. Martial Law is, most likely, somewhere in our future as sleeper cells are activated around the globe. To believe that these people cannot shut us down is foolish. They constantly demonstrate their ability to blend in and adapt to the enviroment in which they operate. Much like openning Pandora's Box there is now a much heavier price to pay and we will be paying long after Bush and Blair are gone. to think that western societies would not be attacked unless the invasion of iraq happened is not only foolish, it's shows a failure to pay attention to what has happened over the last half century regarding terrorist activity. america and many other democracy-based nations have been attacked repeatedly by terrorists over the past 30 years for any number of societal and political reasons. Can we lose this concept that Democracy guarantees freedom and all things good? Nazi Germany was a Democracy. The US is a representative Democracy in which the election process is often questionable and votes can be overturned anyway, by means of corruption or conventionally by the US Sup Ct - medical marijuana - and many others..... Democracy is what our semi-litterate commander in chimp uses as a device to justify his murders adn extortion of the taxpayers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #43 July 12, 2005 Quote All London is laughing at these 'brave warriors'. Shame on them. Shame on them? WTF? Realize that an airmen and/or a soldiers duty is to follow orders. Knocking our/any troops is in poor taste... I guess all the years you spent in the military come with little knowledge of mil ops...... cheers..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #44 July 12, 2005 QuoteActually mr2mk1g is correct, without the Russian weather and people draining nazi resources (and Hitler's stubbornness) the conflict might have lasted a lot longer or gone a totally different course. We tend to forget the horrific losses the Russians suffered, and it's impact on the course of the war. This was one of the main reasons why the Cold War was much worse than most imagined in the West. The Russian psyche would have accepted mutual destruction a lot more readily than those in the west. Britain had been requesting US help for a long time, but most Americans did not care enough to allow the politicians of the time to lend aid. To brag 60 years later that you bailed out the Brits leads to the question: WHAT TOOK YOU SO BLOODY LONG? Now, I can't answer that, because while my family was on the front lines (my grandfather was rescued at dunkirk, the other flew in the battle of britain and didnt make it back) I dont have full knowledge of the circumstances that led to the US rescue. Tcnelson, perhaps you could let me know exactly what led the US to mobilize and 'save europe' at the point in time that they did, as you're obviously better read on WW2 history than I am based on your refutation of mr2mk1g's previous post. Actually, the US reaction to WW2 and it's slow entrance into the conflict is an interesting review of politics, propaganda and molding public opinion. Plus, Americans have all those Westerns where the cavalry comes in during the last reel. You expected anything else from those guys ? ;) Actually, the US reaction to WW2 and it's slow entrance into the conflict is an interesting review of politics, propaganda and molding public opinion. Exactly! Hell, Germany invaded Poloand in Sep 39, Japan was raising hell in the Pacific aboutthe same time. Actually Japan was raising hell since WWI. I guess FDR used careful deliberation, as opposed this ass we have now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #45 July 12, 2005 c'mon man, you're turning this thread from a justified critique of a mid level military commanders decision which has quite nasty political results into an open bashing on the US and their "Commander in Chimp". This has nothing to do with Bush or the US overall political system... why bring them up? All you do is cause the thread to degenerate into bitching about the US/"US Haters". In the end the original complaint is lost entirely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #46 July 12, 2005 QuoteMost people if smart would not walk into the lions mouth unless they had to. But a brave government would do so, especially after going to another continent and tugging on the lion's tail; a cowardly government, or one that has its own agenda would watch from afar tho. Only a stupid Government would expose its people to more risk than is needed. Even larger, only a stupid careless Commander would expose his troops to more danger than needed. Yes, you send troops to bad places where they could get hurt WHEN IT FITS A MISSION. Going to London to hit the Pub is not mission, and American soldiers are targets. Your inability to understand the difference in Military matters is showing again. QuoteShame on you for slamming people who did their jobs and followed orders. Quit making this aboutthe troops; it's about the gov and you know that's what people are sayinghere. I didn't make it about the troops he did by saying: QuoteAll London is laughing at these 'brave warriors'. Shame on them. You may wish we send people into harms way for no reason....I don't. There was no good to be gained by having American troops walking around London. It only risked them, and people near them. It was a MILITARY call, and standard SOP in such a situation. YOU quit using any opportunity to slam the US...Why have you not moved yet? I think one person already offered you a deal to go...But you never responded to him. I'll show it again here so you can ignore it again. Quotehttp://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1706559#1706559 and back to another topic. i posted a few days ago that is your disdain for this country is so great and your criticism so consistent.....why don't you leave? by reading your posts there is evidently nothing good happening in america....only a glutton would stay in an environment that is apparently as abusive as this country seems to be in your view. again. i will buy you a first class ticket anywhere in the world AND give you $10,000 cash. the caveat is you can never return. i will accompany you to washington d.c. where i will watch you sign your citizenship away. this will give you what you want. a freebie----$10,000 bucks. you will also be rid of evil, capitalist pigs like me and free to pursue your utopian society where creativity, motivation and self-reliance are discouraged and frowned upon. i will be the first to break this to you....you aren't going to find a better deal than this. free maket economies work and if you can't handle that then maybe you should take me up on the offer. remember though, when you cross the border that's it. i'm sure i will have a lot of people on this forum standing right there with me waving goodbye with a big smile. maybe we could get you an ever bigger money pot and start a going away fund for you. Hell there were even PM's about it. I'd like to see you buck up and take it since you claim to hate the US so much but seem to be afraid to leave it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #47 July 12, 2005 QuoteHell there were even PM's about it. And one can safely assume that they weren't polite pm's, either. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #48 July 12, 2005 Quotec'mon man, you're turning this thread from a justified critique of a mid level military commanders decision which has quite nasty political results into an open bashing on the US and their "Commander in Chimp". This has nothing to do with Bush or the US overall political system... why bring them up? All you do is cause the thread to degenerate into bitching about the US/"US Haters". In the end the original complaint is lost entirely. don't worry, we're all used to it. he's got an axe to grind and the blade is always aimed at conservatives. "Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #49 July 12, 2005 Quoteif you don't realize that all of europe, including england, was bailed out by america during world war 2 then i can be of no help to you...history knowledge or otherwise. Quote I heard (from the BBC) that the brits and americans killed 200,000 germans during world war 2 and the russians killed 3 million germans. That kind of puts things into perspective a little. As far as the issue this thread was originally about (americans being ordered to not go into London) I believe it was an order given immediately after the bombing. Londoners were also told not to travel into central london unless it was necessary at that time also. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #50 July 12, 2005 Quote You are doing little else but demonstraiting a complete lack of knowledge about WWII in general. Germany was beaten by the Russians, not by anyone this side of the Rhine. The Russians accounted for 80% of German losses... the Western Allies accounted for a mere 700,000 or so kills compaired to the Soviet total of going on 3 million. In addition to this, Germany could never have mounted or sustained an invasion of the UK - go read up on the results of the exercises conducted by Sandhurst in relation to Operation Sea Lion and note the outcomes... and note the fact their exercises by nescesity ignored the massive naval superiority enjoyed by the RN and assumed a zero RAF presence. Sort of. You are correct to state that the Soviet Union did account for a large number of losses, however, that came about due to the geography of the war. The US wasn't able to land masses troops on the main land until bringing Nazi Germany into near economic ruin, so the only full scale land based war was being fought on the eastern front. The US and UK were destroying Germany's infrustructure from the air. Without the US and UK on the western front Germany would have been able to withstand the Soviet Union's defense then attacks. Then again, if Hitler would have kept the terms of the agreement of 1939, it wouldn't have mattered. The fact that Germany had to keep a large number of troops and material on the western front divided the resources of Germany greatly. Divide and counquer, right? Well, without Soviet Russia or without the western allies, the war would have taken much longer for either of the 3 powers fighting Hitler. Not only that, but the war would have taken a serious turn for the worst and would have most likely turned nuclear. Whats that you say, no one had those weapons yet? You're right, Nazi Germany was getting very close when they fell and the US was working hard on it as well. If the war would have gone on another 2-3 years, it may have been. Moral of the story. Sometimes the world needs to work together for the betterment of society as a whole. That was the last time the major powers did as such. Currently there is a global problem with militant Islamics, no country is safe. Sweeping them under the rug as was done in the beginnings...the 1970s, 80s and not fighting them fully in the 1990s has brought us to the current situation. Taking this problem to bare may help. Then again, softening tyranny that breads these ideals is the end game, that however will take the rest of my generation. Sort of like the west's fight against Lenninism (which had a policy to overthrow democracies and install that perverted form of Marxist Socialism...I'm not going to go into detail, go look it up), it took more then one generation, more then two, but that battle is nearly over.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
AggieDave 6 #50 July 12, 2005 Quote You are doing little else but demonstraiting a complete lack of knowledge about WWII in general. Germany was beaten by the Russians, not by anyone this side of the Rhine. The Russians accounted for 80% of German losses... the Western Allies accounted for a mere 700,000 or so kills compaired to the Soviet total of going on 3 million. In addition to this, Germany could never have mounted or sustained an invasion of the UK - go read up on the results of the exercises conducted by Sandhurst in relation to Operation Sea Lion and note the outcomes... and note the fact their exercises by nescesity ignored the massive naval superiority enjoyed by the RN and assumed a zero RAF presence. Sort of. You are correct to state that the Soviet Union did account for a large number of losses, however, that came about due to the geography of the war. The US wasn't able to land masses troops on the main land until bringing Nazi Germany into near economic ruin, so the only full scale land based war was being fought on the eastern front. The US and UK were destroying Germany's infrustructure from the air. Without the US and UK on the western front Germany would have been able to withstand the Soviet Union's defense then attacks. Then again, if Hitler would have kept the terms of the agreement of 1939, it wouldn't have mattered. The fact that Germany had to keep a large number of troops and material on the western front divided the resources of Germany greatly. Divide and counquer, right? Well, without Soviet Russia or without the western allies, the war would have taken much longer for either of the 3 powers fighting Hitler. Not only that, but the war would have taken a serious turn for the worst and would have most likely turned nuclear. Whats that you say, no one had those weapons yet? You're right, Nazi Germany was getting very close when they fell and the US was working hard on it as well. If the war would have gone on another 2-3 years, it may have been. Moral of the story. Sometimes the world needs to work together for the betterment of society as a whole. That was the last time the major powers did as such. Currently there is a global problem with militant Islamics, no country is safe. Sweeping them under the rug as was done in the beginnings...the 1970s, 80s and not fighting them fully in the 1990s has brought us to the current situation. Taking this problem to bare may help. Then again, softening tyranny that breads these ideals is the end game, that however will take the rest of my generation. Sort of like the west's fight against Lenninism (which had a policy to overthrow democracies and install that perverted form of Marxist Socialism...I'm not going to go into detail, go look it up), it took more then one generation, more then two, but that battle is nearly over.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
