Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/27/05 07:43 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: ok you obviously dont want to let that go. i know for fact you're wrong but what the hey

The Census Bureau disagrees with you. How exactly is your crappy little british site more informed on the subject then the US government?

can you prove it. no, like you cant prove any of your outrageous and frankly insulting claim.

We sunk 86 U-boats in 1942. 236 in 1943. And 235 in 1944. By the end the decoding just made the U boats even easier to find.

hey its your source site dimwit

You obviously don't understand how wikipedia works. My source cited is accurate, yours is a completely different one with admits its own possible innacuracy.

Perhaps you could offer an argument as to why that wouldn't be possible.

yeh you havent given any details

Like what? What needs details? What have I not sufficiently explained?

ok Jimsween im seeing a pattern here. i come up with proof and you come up with 'proof'. ive decided to take the high road. i remember you saying that anyone with a slight military knowledge would say that the US couldve taken WWII all on its own. While knowing that the US probably had the best chance, i say the opposite. most of my miliary history collegues would say that it was not possible.

Your proof has been disproven several times, by the US census Bureau at that. This is just a pitiful attempt at weasleing out of a losing debate.

I've given you sources, and explainations. You mentioned the inability to do bombing raids without Britain, I showed that we did the same for Japan without any place to bomb, and your response was 'hmmmm i dont think you've really thought about that one'.

If you don't have a rebuttal, just say you don't, don't pretend you have one but your not going to dignify me with a response. Thats childish.

i would also like to say that a lot of yanks find it mentally impossible to accept the fact that you had help during the war. i find it sad

Find me a 'yank' that wont accept that.

At 7/27/05 09:20 PM, Jimsween wrote: The Census Bureau disagrees with you. How exactly is your crappy little british site more informed on the subject then the US government?

ok last night id been drinking heavily. now im back on to finish off. i hate to say this,

We sunk 86 U-boats in 1942. 236 in 1943. And 235 in 1944. By the end the decoding just made the U boats even easier to find.

sources please dont just throw figures at me. i have a hangover

You obviously don't understand how wikipedia works. My source cited is accurate, yours is a completely different one with admits its own possible innacuracy.

no buts its actually a part of your previous source. unlucky

Your proof has been disproven several times, by the US census Bureau at that. This is just a pitiful attempt at weasleing out of a losing debate.

well no it hasent. youve merely found sites that disagree.

I've given you sources, and explainations. You mentioned the inability to do bombing raids without Britain, I showed that we did the same for Japan without any place to bomb, and your response was 'hmmmm i dont think you've really thought about that one'.

ok so firstly im pretty sure all your carriers were in the pacific during the war. and the only sources youve given me are trying to prove how you had 12 million troops. still outnumbered by the axis btw.

If you don't have a rebuttal, just say you don't, don't pretend you have one but your not going to dignify me with a response. Thats childish.

ooo someones getting techy. you want to know what really grinds me up about this argument. my grandpa died in fighting for this country during that war. and then some little pissant comes along and says "hey there was no point to his death. we didnt need you at all!" thats why i will never chicken out of this argument ya big tool

Find me a 'yank' that wont accept that.

oky doky. Do all yanks think that they couldve taken the whole of WWII on their own?

At 7/28/05 05:13 AM, LedgendaryLukus wrote: ok last night id been drinking heavily. now im back on to finish off. i hate to say this,

Ok so whats your response?

sources please dont just throw figures at me. i have a hangover

http://uboat.net/fates/losses/

no buts its actually a part of your previous source. unlucky

No it's not. Thats not how wikipedia works. It's user contributed so some things could be wrong. But mine is backed up by sources (see bottom) while yours admits it is innaccurate.

well no it hasent. youve merely found sites that disagree.

THE US CENSUS BUREAU!

When the US Census Bureau disagrees with your fact, you are wrong.

ok so firstly im pretty sure all your carriers were in the pacific during the war. and the only sources youve given me are trying to prove how you had 12 million troops. still outnumbered by the axis btw.

No, only 3 out of 7 were in the pacific at the start of the war. And by the end we had built many more.

Second, you have given no proof that there were more than 12 million axis troops at any point in time. You are just making that up.

ooo someones getting techy. you want to know what really grinds me up about this argument. my grandpa died in fighting for this country during that war. and then some little pissant comes along and says "hey there was no point to his death. we didnt need you at all!" thats why i will never chicken out of this argument ya big tool

So you just admitted that no matter how much evidence given your still going to deny that the US could have won the war alone? Yeah thats real mature.

oky doky. Do all yanks think that they couldve taken the whole of WWII on their own?

Thats not at all what you originally said. You said yanks believe nobody else contributed.

At 7/28/05 05:39 AM, Jimsween wrote: Ok so whats your response?

http://uboat.net/fates/losses/

ok im pretty sure thats not just US kills

No it's not. Thats not how wikipedia works. It's user contributed so some things could be wrong. But mine is backed up by sources (see bottom) while yours admits it is innaccurate.

US air force

THE US CENSUS BUREAU!

When the US Census Bureau disagrees with your fact, you are wrong.

ah but no matter how 'prestigous' the site, its still disagreeing.

Second, you have given no proof that there were more than 12 million axis troops at any point in time. You are just making that up.

yeh i did. go check all those numbers of troops i gave you last time. back near the beginning of this crazy argument.

So you just admitted that no matter how much evidence given your still going to deny that the US could have won the war alone? Yeah thats real mature.

i actually do this stuff all day usually. im not sure what sortve knowledge building youve undergone but a claim like 'the US couldve taken the world on on its own' sounds really silly to people like us and just sounds like another egoncentric yank trying to defend his patriotism. and you really havent given good evidence that supports your claim. tell me how theyd actually do it. you obviously have a large grasp of history *cough*

Thats not at all what you originally said. You said yanks believe nobody else contributed.

ok mr silly bear. what the hell is this argument about? im pretty sure that was it.

Germany mobilised 18 million men altogether
Japan mobilised 9 million men
Italy 3 million

so you still think you can do without russias 30 million men? look. in terms of manpower i dont think you can argue. let me put it this way. the US needed the rest of us.

and now your going to say 'manpower doesnt matter we had the production advantage'. well you're right but you dont have enough of an advantage. someone else has already said that itd be a stalemate. accept it

At 7/28/05 05:57 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: ok im pretty sure thats not just US kills

Why would that matter? The question was not who killed the most but rather could they be killed.

US air force

A link from the website that has already been proven wrong.

ah but no matter how 'prestigous' the site, its still disagreeing.

No I'm afraid not. You have been disproven.

yeh i did. go check all those numbers of troops i gave you last time. back near the beginning of this crazy argument.

That was total number served. Not the number at any one point in time. And at that, your website has already been proven innacurate.

i actually do this stuff all day usually. im not sure what sortve knowledge building youve undergone but a claim like 'the US couldve taken the world on on its own' sounds really silly to people like us and just sounds like another egoncentric yank trying to defend his patriotism. and you really havent given good evidence that supports your claim. tell me how theyd actually do it. you obviously have a large grasp of history *cough*

I already explained. We would do it the same way we did with Japan. Long range troops transports and aircraft carriers.

ok mr silly bear. what the hell is this argument about? im pretty sure that was it.

Thats irrelevent, thats not what you said.

At 7/28/05 06:38 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: so you still think you can do without russias 30 million men? look. in terms of manpower i dont think you can argue. let me put it this way. the US needed the rest of us.

The US had a larger population than both Japan and Germany combined so thats not a real good argument. What your not realizing is that most of those troops were militia, not trained soldiers. The entire populace of Berlin was 'mobilized' to fight off the Russians.

and now your going to say 'manpower doesnt matter we had the production advantage'. well you're right but you dont have enough of an advantage. someone else has already said that itd be a stalemate. accept it

It could not end in a stalemate, for the United States would never accept one.

At 7/28/05 05:29 PM, Jimsween wrote: No I'm afraid not. You have been disproven.

have i? well we have your word there.

That was total number served. Not the number at any one point in time. And at that, your website has already been proven innacurate.

well i gave you the numbers in the next post from a different site. you appear to have a problem with that one.

I already explained. We would do it the same way we did with Japan. Long range troops transports and aircraft carriers.

and your base of operations is where?

At 7/28/05 05:33 PM, Jimsween wrote: The US had a larger population than both Japan and Germany combined so thats not a real good argument. What your not realizing is that most of those troops were militia, not trained soldiers. The entire populace of Berlin was 'mobilized' to fight off the Russians.

and since they arent fighting, they can be mobilised to fight off you. and if your going to land on western europe, you gonna sail all the way from the US? I think you'd need somewhere close by personally but obviously you don't need anyone else.

and now your going to say 'manpower doesnt matter we had the production advantage'. well you're right but you dont have enough of an advantage. someone else has already said that itd be a stalemate. accept it

It could not end in a stalemate, for the United States would never accept one.

oh really? heh heh. and why not?

At 7/28/05 05:55 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: have i? well we have your word there.

No we have a statistic from the US census bureau. They were funded with billions of dollars to find this information.

well i gave you the numbers in the next post from a different site. you appear to have a problem with that one.

No... all you gave was the spartacus statistic.

and your base of operations is where?

The United States.

At 7/28/05 05:58 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: and since they arent fighting, they can be mobilised to fight off you. and if your going to land on western europe, you gonna sail all the way from the US? I think you'd need somewhere close by personally but obviously you don't need anyone else.

FYI, the only reason the Berliners were fighting was so they could surrender to the US instead of the Russians. The reason the Russians encountered so much resistance amoung the populace was because they raped and pillaged everything along the way.

And do you have any idea the distance from the US to Hawaii? Much less the distance from the US to Iwo Jima?

oh really? heh heh. and why not?

Its rather hard to when you make out your enemies to be devils. And at that, Americans were much more afraid of the Great Depression than a war.

At 7/28/05 11:07 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 7/28/05 05:58 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: and since they arent fighting, they can be mobilised to fight off you. and if your going to land on western europe, you gonna sail all the way from the US? I think you'd need somewhere close by personally but obviously you don't need anyone else.

FYI, the only reason the Berliners were fighting was so they could surrender to the US instead of the Russians. The reason the Russians encountered so much resistance amoung the populace was because they raped and pillaged everything along the way.

The actual events occurred because Berliners were given the option of the lesser of two evils. One would think that without that choice the army and the Volkssturm would fight just as hard, since it's that or total defeat. Also, and I'm sure you're going to tell me "GO FUCKING READ THE THREAD!!!!!," but American forces never fought the Germans at their full strength. They had difficulty with the Germans even after they were almost a spent force that had been fighting for the last five years and had become undermanned and undersupplied. The importance of air power was also lost on them because of its mediocre impact on the Russian front, and the Luftwaffe accordingly declined.

And do you have any idea the distance from the US to Hawaii? Much less the distance from the US to Iwo Jima?

America invaded Morocco directly from the US, so it's not impossible. It would be a lot harder to invade Europe that way, but if worse came to worse, they could have just gone for the "soft underbelly" exclusively. I'm still not sure that they could have won the war alone, but they definately could have fought it.

At 7/29/05 03:11 AM, Jerconjake wrote: The actual events occurred because Berliners were given the option of the lesser of two evils. One would think that without that choice the army and the Volkssturm would fight just as hard, since it's that or total defeat.

But if they were going to choose either of the 'evils' in the first place, then why wouldn't they submit to an 'evil' willingly if it was the only 'evil'?

Also, and I'm sure you're going to tell me "GO FUCKING READ THE THREAD!!!!!," but American forces never fought the Germans at their full strength. They had difficulty with the Germans even after they were almost a spent force that had been fighting for the last five years and had become undermanned and undersupplied. The importance of air power was also lost on them because of its mediocre impact on the Russian front, and the Luftwaffe accordingly declined.

The Germans never fought the Americans at full strength. The number of soldiers in Europe was just a small fraction of those we had in active duty.

At 7/29/05 04:05 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 7/29/05 03:11 AM, Jerconjake wrote: The actual events occurred because Berliners were given the option of the lesser of two evils. One would think that without that choice the army and the Volkssturm would fight just as hard, since it's that or total defeat.

But if they were going to choose either of the 'evils' in the first place, then why wouldn't they submit to an 'evil' willingly if it was the only 'evil'?

Because in the actual scenario their only options are really, really bad defeat and bad defeat. So of course they opted for the lesser option because it was the best one they had. Hitler still wouldn't have surrendered, and the Volkssturm and all that still would have been created. So considering that surrender was not an option, they would have fought just as hard against the Americans.

Also, and I'm sure you're going to tell me "GO FUCKING READ THE THREAD!!!!!," but American forces never fought the Germans at their full strength. They had difficulty with the Germans even after they were almost a spent force that had been fighting for the last five years and had become undermanned and undersupplied. The importance of air power was also lost on them because of its mediocre impact on the Russian front, and the Luftwaffe accordingly declined.

The Germans never fought the Americans at full strength. The number of soldiers in Europe was just a small fraction of those we had in active duty.

Which was because the Americans were also fighting Imperial Japan, which still would have been a problem for them. A bigger one in fact, because the British would not be available in either theatre of war. The Germans would be able to mobilize more troops faster, and the Americans would not be able to create as much devastation with their air force, assuming they got air superiority at all without Britain and Russia fighting Germany.

At 7/28/05 11:02 PM, Jimsween wrote:

and your base of operations is where?

The United States.

so you're going to invade Europe straight from the US. ok. ok.

Well america just sucks in general really, so there

Ok that invasion thing sounds stupid, but I'm going to answer the question in the front page - do you have the source for that poll? I'd like to see it.
Also - the US requires its military, no matter what the public thinks. If the US we're opened, half its military size cut even smaller than it is now, Iraq would fall, many of our holdouts in other countries (like our military bases in Cuba and Germany) would disappear, and many countries would seize the opprotunity to invade us. Stupid if you ask me.

Its an open-and-closed case of jealousy.

We're richer, we're stronger, we're more powerful.

Call us all the names you want. Fact is, your socialism is failing you, while stiumulating American capitalism has made us a world power for years.

At 7/29/05 10:58 AM, Thorfalcon wrote: Its an open-and-closed case of jealousy.

We're richer, we're stronger, we're more powerful.

Call us all the names you want. Fact is, your socialism is failing you, while stiumulating American capitalism has made us a world power for years.

Haha. You think that's why the world hates the US? First off, just so you know, Americans thinking that everyone is jealous of them is a HUGE reason why they hate America. The Middle East has no interest whatsoever in becoming a US-style capitalist state. They despise the decadence of the west, and they would like nothing more than to destroy it. They hate your obsession with materialism and they believe that you're destorying your souls with it. They see, unlike most Americans, that our precious capitalism is making the west rot from the inside out, and they don't want it to spread. They hate the greed of the west, and capitalism encourages greed before everything else. They hate that America owns businesses in their countries and makes ridiculous amounts of money from them because their money isn't worth as much. They feel exploited and used to further the decadent lifestyle that we westerners enjoy, especially when it comes to oil. Last but not least, everyone hates how ignorant the US is. The very fact that you don't know any of this is evidence enough of the arrogant and ignorant attitude that the US treats the world with. But you're probably right, they're just jealous of your splendor.

At 7/29/05 06:40 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Because in the actual scenario their only options are really, really bad defeat and bad defeat. So of course they opted for the lesser option because it was the best one they had. Hitler still wouldn't have surrendered, and the Volkssturm and all that still would have been created. So considering that surrender was not an option, they would have fought just as hard against the Americans.

I still don't get it. They were willing to surrender when given the options of a bad ending and a really bad ending, they would still have those if it was just the Americans, the bad ending being surrendering and the really bad being fighting to the death. Besides, Htler was dead then anyway.

Which was because the Americans were also fighting Imperial Japan, which still would have been a problem for them. A bigger one in fact, because the British would not be available in either theatre of war. The Germans would be able to mobilize more troops faster, and the Americans would not be able to create as much devastation with their air force, assuming they got air superiority at all without Britain and Russia fighting Germany.

No, we still only had a fraction of our forces on both fronts. The problem was our ranks were swelling faster then we could ship people out.

At 7/29/05 08:15 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: so you're going to invade Europe straight from the US. ok. ok.

The distance between the US and Europe is much closer than the distance between the US and Iwo Jima, or even Hawaii and Iwo Jima for that matter.

B) They are called World Wars for a reason, the world fought them. Also, the USSR, ironically a long standing diplomatic enemy of the US, was also a very major factor on furthering the allied front.

I have one little thing to correct you on, they are called world wars cause the whole world is EFFECTED by them, not because the whole world faught in them.......

C) A decrease of support in Israel would have long-standing beneficial effects in ending strife towards the US, Zionism was a bad idea, Isreal should've never existed in the first place, it just caused too much strife in the middle east.

??????????????

D) There are hundreds of other brutal world leaders. Why isn't the US going after them?

thats funny cause there are only 126 countries in the world or sumtin like that

E) GW. Bush said Iraq was the frontline on Terrorism, yet on the contrary, CNN said the Afghan - Palestinian mountains were. CNN provided sources, Bush didn't. I trust CNN. Bush's opinion is biased because he has desires to further his political career as a politician, and he is corrupt due to the vice-presidential ownership of halliburton.

So you trust a TV station rather then your own President?, plus Bush said that there were WOMD not cause thats the frontline of terrorism

F) Iran isn't a threat to the world, the world is a very big place. Global warming is more of a threat than Iran.

There is no scientific proof of global warming

G) Think. Check your sources and ponder any contradicting arguments and ask yourself why or why not you should consider them as truths. If those two steps are cleared, then you are ready to post.

Funny i could say the exact same thing to you

H) Where are these reports coming from of these "bribings" you can't pass off suspicion as truthful "reports" stop throwing around phrases and show me some links buddy.

As of right now, you fail at the Politics forum. Get off you republican-flag toting, political fad following moron.

P

so you still think you can do without russias 30 million men? look. in terms of manpower i dont think you can argue. let me put it this way. the US needed the rest of us.

Just for a fun fact: Russia gave one rifle per group of men, Each man had about 1 clip with them, it was a "After the Rifle man falls, the next one picks it up then if that man falls the next one picks up the rifle and so on", they also had their men charge at nazi turrets or they would shoot them where they stood

http://en.wikipedia...viet_Fronts_in_WW_II
these are a bunch of links to see whatever type of battle tactics the soviets used

At 7/29/05 07:28 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Last but not least, everyone hates how ignorant the US is. The very fact that you don't know any of this is evidence enough of the arrogant and ignorant attitude that the US treats the world with.

Wow, good job singling out a single person as an example of all Americans.

And in all that stuff, I havent seen the reason Europe and other Western countries dont like us to much. I mean, France and Germany and Russia and all them didnt like us before 9/11, they dislike us even more after Iraq. Whats the excuse for that?

At 7/29/05 08:40 PM, Dinodoode wrote: Just for a fun fact: Russia gave one rifle per group of men, Each man had about 1 clip with them, it was a "After the Rifle man falls, the next one picks it up then if that man falls the next one picks up the rifle and so on", they also had their men charge at nazi turrets or they would shoot them where they stood

it got a lot better for the soviet armies i think. their tank armies would be missed in any case. however i wouldnt like to have been serving under one of those brutal commisaars.

I would say screw Europe, outside of England and Italy we don't have any true friends over there. Them wanted to see us weakened doesn't surprize me in the least.

At 7/29/05 08:07 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 7/29/05 08:15 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: so you're going to invade Europe straight from the US. ok. ok.

The distance between the US and Europe is much closer than the distance between the US and Iwo Jima, or even Hawaii and Iwo Jima for that matter.

yes but the pacific was more of a naval war than europe
ok ill go along with you for a while. so whats the plan of action. straight beach landing into france? inv ade africa and then italy. in reality the british and us couldnt make much of an impact there. both those would fail. you have to remember youd have the entire combined forces of Germany, Italy and the rest of the European axis to deal with.

At 7/24/05 11:20 AM, airraid81 wrote:

At 7/24/05 02:59 AM, everythingiscrap wrote: This is my frist post here.

We saved the world in world wars I and II..

The Europeans won the WWs? That's hillarious! Germany would have conquered Europe both times if we hadn't come in and saved their asses.

No, in WW1 they weren't beating us, it was practically a stale mate, and WW2 they could never of invaded Britain, they wanted to, but couldn't.

At 7/30/05 01:43 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: yes but the pacific was more of a naval war than europe

I wouldn't say that. We had won the sea way before 1945. But you can launch planes from any island.

ok ill go along with you for a while. so whats the plan of action. straight beach landing into france? inv ade africa and then italy. in reality the british and us couldnt make much of an impact there. both those would fail. you have to remember youd have the entire combined forces of Germany, Italy and the rest of the European axis to deal with.

Africa, then Europe. Africa as a base of operations most likely.

Unless were saying Germany took over Britain, which might be easier, Britain first then Europe.

We don't have to deal with the entire combined forces because most of them were already busy with the occupation. We would have to deal with more Germans, approximately 2-3 million more. And beating Italy is not something to worry about because that was accomplished easily anyway.

At 7/30/05 03:06 PM, hkmaster wrote: No, in WW1 they weren't beating us, it was practically a stale mate,

With Russia out of the war it was more of an advantage to Germany. Keep in mind the entire time all they needed to do was get to Paris to knock France out, they would much rather surrender then see thier beautifull city burn.

and WW2 they could never of invaded Britain, they wanted to, but couldn't.

Because of US support. Without our planes you would have never won the Battle of Britain.