Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

"Before Alamein we never had a victory, after Alamein we never had a defeat."-Winston Churchhill

Alamein the battle which won the african front!

At 9/4/06 10:04 PM, _Holly_ wrote:

Britian had the most advanced and largest navy in the second world war. Americans had the largest after the war.

Is that what they say in the UK? According to unbiased sources, the Japanese had the most powerful Navy in WWII, and American afterwards (and today).

Fucks sake, Stop Saying you sent supplys to make up for coming in the war at the end. the Supplys were helpful but not really amazingly important.

First of all the US didn't ENTER at the END of the war. The war ENDED because the US ENTERED.

And yes the supplies were important. Nay, they were ESSENTIAL to the preservation of Britain. Britain lacked the economic ability to maintain its war effort without American supplies. If America didn't supply the Brits, the Brits would have ran out of supplies and their ability to wage war would have grinded to a halt. And chances are that Britain would have been invaded and conquered by the Germans.

What would Britain have done if they ran out of food, ammo, fuel, and all other supplies?? Would the Brits have throw stones? would they have eaten grass? Would they have invented an alternative fuel in such short notice to run off of the body odor of ttheir population that refused to bathe regularly? As much as I would have liked to see that, NO. The Brits would have been LOST, thats what they would have done without US supplies.

And I already stated why the US didn't enter at the beginning of the war, because we saw Britain as just as much as an imperalist as Germany. Why fight a moster to help a monster? Also, the US had no obligation to help Britain, and was under isolationist policies.

Do you think if the war went the other way around and the US was in dire need, that Great Britain would have risked its neck to fight for the US during those days? No they wouldn't, thats for damn sure. Especally if they were living in safety and prosperity like the US was at that time. Why enter a war when your country is not at risk, and your people are living in safety? That was the rationale of the US during the onset of WWII.

Britian didn't get much aide from the US and anyway britian was giving so much aide to france. Saying Britain were imcompetent just proves that your talkin bollocks, At that moment Britain had an empire stretching across the world.

WRONG, the aide that Britain was giving France originated form the US! Britain only acted as the funnel to divert US supplies to France!

Yes during that time Britain had an empire stretching across the world, but whom did that empire gain victory over? Defenseless native peoples! Besides, Britains empire was attained many years before WWII. But once modern warfare was needed, the Brits hadn't the innovation, the intelligence, or the economy to produce a competent military force. Also, British people always say that WWII caused them to cease their imperalist ways and relinquish control over their colonies...actually...during and after WWII the British were UNABLE to maintain control over their empire because their country was engaged in a desperate war against the Germans, which they would have lost anyway without foreign assistance.

Britian Killed 3 times as many enemys as the americans killed but both americans and british had the same amount of casulties.

I know Britain killed a whole hell of alot of innocent German civilians, but you saying that they inflicted more military casualties on the Germans than the US is proof that you are misinformed, or just full of lies. The US was responsible for the majority of axis casualties and equipment loss in WWII, thats a FACT, including just against the Germans. You ignore the fact that the British didn't even engage the 20 million-strong Japanese military in one open engagement during the war, which the US SINGLEHANDEDLY defeated without help from the rest of the allies AT ALL.

And america unlike Britain didnt have its country being bombed night after night after night.
America should of come into the war sooner, instead of come in at the last minute and make your selves out as (the heroes)

The US didn't get bombed night after night, yes. But even if they were attacked, the superior US Airforce would have protected the US mainland.

You are suggesting that the US only entered the war as it was drawing to an end, but actually the war ENDED so shortly after the US involvment soley because the US JOINED and started to actually win from them on.

The war dragged on for a long time and was unsuccessful for the British and Canadians. Then when the US joined it progressed rapidly. That doesn't mean the US entered at the end, it just means when the US did enter the end came sooner and was assured because the US did everything the British couldn't do which was lead a major campaign.

Everyother country were completly devastated

Yes, and the US used its power to rebuild them free of charge. Including your own country that would be a 3rd world country right now if the US didn't help you after WWII.

Britian were the first to stand up to germany And Britain lost everything to the war.
America sneakily came in last couple of years and came out a super power.

Britain stood up to the Germans and was crumbling under the pressure until the US assisted with supplies, then even with free supplies the british were losing. So the US needed to take control of the allied war effort, only then did victory come!

your pathetic and your a disgrace to the americans who died heroicaly in the war because your making people think what a load of fuckin ignorant cunts americans are!

Of course someone like you will label me as ingorant and a 'cunt' because your fragile and tainted knowledge of history has been disproven. And one the facts come into your mind you get defensive and have to result saying stupid things like that.

What ever you say Britain was more vital in the second world war than america

Always good to know that you're dealing with a debator who flat out tells you:

"no matter what you say, I'm right because I'm me, and you're wrong because you're wrong".

Ahhhh, how I missed the NG BBS.........

You do seem to no alot but it just shows what bollocks the american system throws into your head. All they teach you in History is AMERICA IS THE BEST, AMERICICA WON THE WAR. You dont care what all the other countries say about it.

Most important battles of the second world war were

Stalingrad, (Russian Victory)

Battle of Britain, (won by the british with no help from americans, Supplys from with in England)

D day, Allied Victory (americans used alot for cannon fodder)

El Agheila, The battle which won the african front (British Victory)

Battle of Malta (british victory)

Americans have a nack of stealing othre peoples thunder.

In the film U571 its americans who find the enigma machine then decode it.
It was atually the British.
In saving private ryan the British forces are completly left out of Dday and are no were to be seen through out france, as if the war was only germans v americans.

America lives in a dream world and you teach your kids to belive what ever the fuck you want.

I'm sorry but America didn't win the war,
America were a huge huge help and maybe if they didnt join the war would of gone the other way.

But it could of easily gone the other way if britain wasn't in the war.

Look, you guys want to know why we won the war? Hitler was an idiot.

He was a hypocrite, drug abuser, and arrogant. Which is why he lost the war, maybe if we wasnt those things he would have won.

But he was, so he lost.

At 9/5/06 01:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You ignore the fact that the British didn't even engage the 20 million-strong Japanese military in one open engagement during the war, which the US SINGLEHANDEDLY defeated without help from the rest of the allies AT ALL.

Why would Britain attack Japan? The only reason you went to war with Japan is because of Pearl Harbour. Also Japan would not pull out of Indo-China so it was pressured to leave Indo-China by the Americans. Why would we transport our troops either across the Atlantic, across America, over the Pacific into Japanese land? We couldn't have gone across eastern Europe, through Siberia, into Manchuria and down into Japan could we? All America had to do was go across the Pacific and they were there. Much easier for you. Oh and yeah, the Soviets killed way more Germans than you did, after forcing them back from Stalingrad all the way back to Berlin.

In response to the topic starter, the 2 years I spent in America I had a great time and I am considering moving to the U.S. Much better than here (England)

At 9/5/06 10:27 AM, Avacara wrote: Why would Britain attack Japan? The only reason you went to war with Japan is because of Pearl Harbour. Also Japan would not pull out of Indo-China so it was pressured to leave Indo-China by the Americans. Why would we transport our troops either across the Atlantic, across America, over the Pacific into Japanese land? We couldn't have gone across eastern Europe, through Siberia, into Manchuria and down into Japan could we? All America had to do was go across the Pacific and they were there. Much easier for you. Oh and yeah, the Soviets killed way more Germans than you did, after forcing them back from Stalingrad all the way back to Berlin.

In that reasoning: Why would the US attack Germany? All the English had to do was go across the channel...

You said that the Soviets killed more Germans? Thats right, they killed more INNOCENT GERMAN CIVILIANS. The Soviets raped and murdered the whole way to Berlin, like a horde of mongolians, they even their own Russian people, Polish people, Latvians, Lithuanians...the list goes on. Even after the war was over, all the Germans trapped in East Germany were brutalized by the Soviets., are you counting those people among the Soviet inflicted casualties?

The Russians killed a whole lot of innocent people, they didn't kill more German soldiers, or destroy more German equipment than the US did. Not by a long shot.

I'm sorry, Britain, but the Americans have us this time.
Without any sort of input from America we would have lost. Not immediately, but eventually.
With the supplies, we could have held out (as we did). Hitler would have invaded Russia and then...well, who knows what COULD have happened. Either the Russians defeat Hitler themselves (quite likely after what they managed after Stalingrad) or Hitler conquers Russia.
If(in this alternate universe) Hitler had defeated Russia, I'm not sure who could have stopped him then. The Americans alone may not have succeeded in stopping him. The truth is that no single country was the main factor in the defeat of Hitler (I'm not including Japan because America did that themselves). It was the teamwork and cooperation between all of the Allied nations that pushed the balance in our favour.

At 9/5/06 10:02 AM, _Holly_ wrote: You do seem to no alot but it just shows what bollocks the american system throws into your head. All they teach you in History is AMERICA IS THE BEST, AMERICICA WON THE WAR. You dont care what all the other countries say about it.

First of all when I was an exchange student in my first year of college I studied at Free University in Berlin, Germany. I studied History and the Germans repeated the same things about US participation in WWII that I heard in Highschool in the US. What purpose would the Germans have to distort history? Especially now that anti-Americanism is growing in Germany.

Most important battles of the second world war were

Stalingrad, (Russian Victory)

Stalingrad was a defensive victory for the Russians. But lets remember that they were fighting using US supplies.

Battle of Britain, (won by the british with no help from americans, Supplys from with in England)

That was an airwar that was only an act of Britain trying to save its own hide.

D day, Allied Victory (americans used alot for cannon fodder)

D-day was planned and commanded by the US, so it essence is was a US victory because the British failed to invade mainland Europe before that (cough cough, Port of Calais).

Also the US was the largest naval component, and also had the most troops. A thhe reason more Americans died on Omaha beach is because it was the most heavily defended. The British also had faulty intelligence that the Germans on that particular beach were reservists, when actually it was the Elite German 352nd Infantry division, and 916th Grenadier Regiment. So the US was unprepared for that particular beach due to the imcompetence of British intelligence. If the Brits had been assigned to that beach, I'm sure the casualties would have equally as high, if not higher.

THe Brits and Canadians had low casualtie son D-day because they stormed the least defended beaches!!! Sword, Juno, and Gold beach were defended by conscripted German occupation forces which were Static Infantry divisions, not combat troops like the ones on Omaha beach. But when the US stormed the UTAH Beach, the casualties were the lowest of any beach during D-day, even though it was defended by better forces than all the British and Canadian beaches.

The US was the deciding factor during D-day, composing the backbone of the invasion. So that is actually technically a US victory. The Brits only contributed troops, the US commanded it, supplied it, and did the most, PERIOD.

Saying D-day was a British victory would be like saying the German defeat of the British at Calais was a Victory for the French traitors, because you know a small portion of the people who repelled the Brits at Calais were French defectors.

El Agheila, The battle which won the african front (British Victory)

First off El Agheila is not the name of the battle. It was the Battle of Gazala. And though it was a decisive victory for the British, it is small in scope compared to most other WWII battles. Plus I must emphazise again....it was fought using US equipment and Us supplies. Also it was not a DECIDING factor, because the Germans only were finally kicked out of Africa once American forces arrived and drove the Germans North Eastward out of Egypt.

Battle of Malta (british victory)

Ok now you are just proving you don't know what you are talking about. There was no BATTLE OF MALTA except for one that took place in the 1200's. There was however an engagement between Maltese and the defenders of the German shipping convoys in the mediterranean during WWII. The British didn't even fight the Germans directly in this engagement you fool!!!

Besides, you only listed battles against Germans, as if the Germans were the only axis power. But the Japanese had conquered and plundered ALOT more land and sea territory than Germany did. And the US was the only country that extensively fought the Japanese.

Its funny how the British pretend that the Japanese didn't exist in WWII, to justify their own pride for their contribution to the allies, even though they did VERY LITTLE during all of WWII compared to the US. ESPECIALLY when you factor the Japanese into the whole equation.

Americans have a nack of stealing othre peoples thunder.

No, the US has a nack of articulating its own contribution, and refusing to exagerate the less significant contribution made by the little guy, like Britian, for the mere purpose of allowing them to feel better about their country.

Plus, Europeans have a nack of being ungrateful for what the US did for them. Or doing things like you do, distorting history so that you can feel ungrateful to the US with a clear conscience. Europeans love to bite the hand that feeds them don't they?

In the film U571 its americans who find the enigma machine then decode it.
It was atually the British.

Um there were MANY enigma machines found and decoded. The Germans constantly changed their codes and both Americans and British worked togethre to capture them and decode them. But yes you're right, the film was actually based on the British capture of the U-110. But let me remind you that it was a MOVIE, not a historical documentary. It was made obvious it was not based on a true story. Plus it was just an all together crappy movie in my opinion anyhow.

In saving private ryan the British forces are completly left out of Dday and are no were to be seen through out france, as if the war was only germans v americans.

Come on now lets not be ridiculous. Saving Private Ryan was a movie about one particular group of American soldiers, not a historical documentation of WWII or the allied invasion of Normandy.

America lives in a dream world and you teach your kids to belive what ever the fuck you want.

I disagree, I think people like YOU live in a dreamworld, where your society distorts history to glorify YOUR own country, and undermine the US. This all stems from the history between our countries. The US defeated you, then the US saved you, and now the US owns you (economically that is). But last time I checked your country had a much more strict, government control on the media. All the media outlets in your country are biased against the US, so of course the US is made to look less important in your country, and less of a help in WWII.

I'm sorry but America didn't win the war,

History suggests otherwise.

At 9/5/06 05:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Stalingrad was a defensive victory for the Russians. But lets remember that they were fighting using US supplies.

Just because it's defensive doesn't make it less important.

Battle of Britain, (won by the british with no help from americans, Supplys from with in England)

That was an airwar that was only an act of Britain trying to save its own hide.

Same as above.

D-day was planned and commanded by the US, so it essence is was a US victory because the British failed to invade mainland Europe before that (cough cough, Port of Calais).

While I agree that the US formed the backbone of the invasion, it was still an Allied victory because it wasn't just America invading. If a football (soccer) team in England has mostly French or Spanish players, it doesn't make it a French or Spanish football team. Also, the Port of Calais was the most heavily defended port on the Atlantic Wall because the distance from Dover to Calais is so short that the Germans expected an attack there.

A thhe reason more Americans died on Omaha beach is because it was the most heavily defended. The British also had faulty intelligence that the Germans on that particular beach were reservists, when actually it was the Elite German 352nd Infantry division, and 916th Grenadier Regiment. So the US was unprepared for that particular beach due to the imcompetence of British intelligence. If the Brits had been assigned to that beach, I'm sure the casualties would have equally as high, if not higher.

OK, one mistake in British Intelligence. However, the switch from the reserves to the Elites was only a few days before the invasion. Also, if it hadn't been for British intellignce, we wouldn't have cracked the Enigma Code at Blechley Park, and the Germans would have known that we were invading where we did. Due to British Intelligence, we convinced the Germans that we would attack in good weather at Calais.

THe Brits and Canadians had low casualtie son D-day because they stormed the least defended beaches!!! Sword, Juno, and Gold beach were defended by conscripted German occupation forces which were Static Infantry divisions, not combat troops like the ones on Omaha beach. But when the US stormed the UTAH Beach, the casualties were the lowest of any beach during D-day, even though it was defended by better forces than all the British and Canadian beaches.

So? It's still an Allied victory due to the participation of other countries than the US.

The US was the deciding factor during D-day, composing the backbone of the invasion. So that is actually technically a US victory. The Brits only contributed troops, the US commanded it, supplied it, and did the most, PERIOD.

Yes, America did form the backbone of the invasion in supplies and money. But nothing would have happened at all if we hadn't held out to give everyone a platform for the invasion of Europe. And still, it is not an American victory. You have to factor in the contribution of the French, the Poles, the Canadians, the British, the Australians, the Czechs, the Russians and the Indians. Everyone gave huge sacrifices, not just America.

Saying D-day was a British victory would be like saying the German defeat of the British at Calais was a Victory for the French traitors, because you know a small portion of the people who repelled the Brits at Calais were French defectors.

And saying that D-day was solely an American victory would be just as foolish. Also, the British were never defeated at Calais. We held a "practice-run" of D-day in Dieppe and didn't invade. You may have even been thinking of Dunkirk.

No, the US has a nack of articulating its own contribution, and refusing to exagerate the less significant contribution made by the little guy, like Britian, for the mere purpose of allowing them to feel better about their country.

No contribution to defeat the Nazi occupation of Europe was small. You are insulting the memories of every man who gave his life for the freedom of Europe.

Plus, Europeans have a nack of being ungrateful for what the US did for them. Or doing things like you do, distorting history so that you can feel ungrateful to the US with a clear conscience. Europeans love to bite the hand that feeds them don't they?

Not ungrateful, just annoyed that you think that America did absolutely everything. The British captured Pegasus Bridge the night before D-Day in one of the best executed operations of the war. The small squad then held out against German Armoured Divisions for over a day without rest until reinforcements arrived. That bridge helped keep the Allies in France.

I disagree, I think people like YOU live in a dreamworld, where your society distorts history to glorify YOUR own country, and undermine the US. This all stems from the history between our countries. The US defeated you, then the US saved you, and now the US owns you (economically that is).

No, we just realise that a small contribution is every bit as important as a large contribution.
Again, you appear to be insulting the memories of the brave men who died for the world.
Oh yes, and you only defeated the British with the help of the French, so don't go claiming that as an "all-American" victory either.
And look what happens when you go in on your own. Vietnam anybody? What a mess that was. Well done.

At 9/5/06 01:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You ignore the fact that the British didn't even engage the 20 million-strong Japanese military in one open engagement during the war, which the US SINGLEHANDEDLY defeated without help from the rest of the allies AT ALL.

Yeah, the British didn't fight Japan...sure..whatever.
You appear to be forgetting the war in Burma and other Far Eastern countries. Ever seen "The Bridge Over The River Kwai"? British fighting Japanese (although the British are in POW camps in the film).

My own grandfather was a British Marine Commando fighting the Japanese in Burma. So don't go saying he didn't count.

Fuckin hell cellardoor, your an ignorant cunt, So are you saying america was the most important nation of the second world war? or are you just saying america had far more victories and were far more important than the British? I don't push japan out of the war at all, my grandad was a japanese prisoner of war and if it wasn't for the americans dropping the bombs on japan He would of been executed and therefor I would never be! :)

But i do know America was no more important, if anything less important(even so it's hard to say something like that) than the British.

And yes British were using some american supplys the same sort america supplyed to the germans! Just as apparently the allied forces couldn't win without the americans supplys maybe if america hadn't supplied germany they wouldn't of even got to france.

And D-day was a mainly american victory, because there wasn't many British troops left, only conscripts and D-day howether greatest and largest invasion in history it wasn't the most strategic.

Battle of Britain was important, If Germany had succeded then the axis would have a tremendous foothold on the rest of germany. And the Allies couldn't of reinvaded France.

The 'Defense of Malta suceded in keeping the Medittaranian'

And the battle of El Alamein did prevent the germans regrouping and therfore won the african front.

The British and canadians and the rest of the commonwealth and allied forces already had suffered huge casulties at the start when the AXIS were at at there powerfulest.

I absolutely love how this topic always goes back to World War II. Don't you think the whole 'my country did better than your country' argument is just a tad childish? If you're going to talk about WWII, why not talk about something that hasn't been said yet.

For example, new claims by leading historians seems to support the theory that the RAF's 'victory' in the Battle of Britain was just a propaganda tool, and it was in fact the Royal Navy who really 'kept Hitler at bay' To be honest, I don't think he was ever going to invade, since the most likely outcome was the utter anhialation of German invaders, who would be caught between the Army and the Navy.

Oh and for those of you talking about the Russians winning the Eastern front (if you can call it a victory), one of the main factors for the win, aside from blundring Hitler, was the vehicles that the Russians had acquired. What were they? Dodge Trucks! Compared to the shoddy and numerous types of vehicles the Germans had acquired through the years, they were far superior.

Without America Britian would be no more. End of.

At 9/5/06 07:07 PM, teh_God_Father wrote: Without America Britian would be no more. End of.

With out britain you'd be speakin fuckin french

Whats obvious is that you guys are talking about different wars. In WW2 America fought japan, and britian, france and russia fought germany. France was defeated, and the UK would have held off the germans for the two or so years it took Russia to crush germany, maybe even landed in france to help keep the ruskies out when the germans pulled out to fight in the east. We could have because germany was NOT hugely powerful, what happened in germany was that under Hitler everyone in germany baisically worked on the wa effort bbefore the war broke out. By the time frace was lost, britian had become the same, all that would have happened was shitloads more people would have died on both sides.

America baisically fought japan for two or three years, almost in a seperate war. Japan was never a threat to europe, and a japanese invasion of america was never really on the cards.

At 9/5/06 07:14 PM, tawb2 wrote: With out britain you'd be speakin fuckin french

More likely Spanish, as the Spanish army probably could have defeated the French's.

At 9/5/06 09:00 PM, Draculea wrote:

At 9/5/06 07:14 PM, tawb2 wrote: With out britain you'd be speakin fuckin french

More likely Spanish, as the Spanish army probably could have defeated the French's.

Your havin a laugh arnt you, the spanish army was shit, at the time of the war of independence, france invaded spain.

So yea you would be speaking french

The hell are you talking about? I love England.

I don't know of one person who hates england. we never even talk about it unless something is on the news. sometimes we make jokes, but that what they are just jokes.

At 9/5/06 09:14 PM, tawb2 wrote: So yea you would be speaking french

No, I'm afraid not.
Ever heard of the French revolution?

That would have seriously hampered Frances invasion in the Americas.

do people h8 new zealanders?

At 9/5/06 06:05 PM, Faffington wrote:

At 9/5/06 01:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You ignore the fact that the British didn't even engage the 20 million-strong Japanese military in one open engagement during the war, which the US SINGLEHANDEDLY defeated without help from the rest of the allies AT ALL.

Yeah, the British didn't fight Japan...sure..whatever.
You appear to be forgetting the war in Burma and other Far Eastern countries. Ever seen "The Bridge Over The River Kwai"? British fighting Japanese (although the British are in POW camps in the film).

The British were fighting the Japanese in a very small scale. The reason their scuffles took place is because the Japanese were invading Islands left and right and the British garrisons were trapped in their colonies.

Its not like the Brits intentionally sent troops to the Pacific for the purpose of fighting the Japanese. The Brits were trapped in their colonies when the Japanese became the juggernaut in the pacific, the Brits were only acting in defense...and they didn't do well.

At 9/5/06 07:42 PM, emmytee wrote: Whats obvious is that you guys are talking about different wars. In WW2 America fought japan, and britian, france and russia fought germany. France was defeated, and the UK would have held off the germans for the two or so years it took Russia to crush germany, maybe even landed in france to help keep the ruskies out when the germans pulled out to fight in the east. We could have because germany was NOT hugely powerful, what happened in germany was that under Hitler everyone in germany baisically worked on the wa effort bbefore the war broke out. By the time frace was lost, britian had become the same, all that would have happened was shitloads more people would have died on both sides.

Emmytee, where the hell are you getting your information from? I don't want to hurt your feelings again...but please cease making such ridiculous statements.

You said that in WWII the Americans fought the Japanese, and the Brits and the French and the Russians fought the Germans. But you need to realize that more Americans fought against the Germans than Brits did, even though the Brits were engaged in war with the Germans earlier than the Americans were.

America baisically fought japan for two or three years, almost in a seperate war. Japan was never a threat to europe, and a japanese invasion of america was never really on the cards.

Yes the US fought Japan for a prolonged period after the fighting in Europe ceased and the allies gained victory, but it wasn't a seperate war, only a seperate THEATRE OF OPERATION. The Japanese, Italians, and Germans (among other smaller countries) constituted an Axis. The War was against the Axis, not just Germany.

You say that "Japan was never a threat to Europe". Well, the Japanese weren't a threat to Europe at that particulat point in time, but if the US hadn't defeated them, they probably would have been a threat to Europe in the future.

But are you justifying the lack of participation in the Pacific on behalf of the Brits because "The Japanese weren't a threat to Europe"

In that case the US shouldn't have fought the Germans and helped the British, because technically the Germans weren't a threat to the US.

And interestingly, the Germans actually tried multiple times to make a non-aggression pact with the US because they decided that the US was the biggest threat to Nazi expansion and conquest. If you read Mein Kampf, Hitler stated that he wished to gain alliance with the US because he saw that the US was the only thing in his way to global domination. He also liked the fact that 60% of US citizen sat the time were of German descent and Hitler wanted to create an "aryan" dominated world. But when the US started assisting the British, Hitlers hopes of gaining friendship with the US ended.

Also, if you read about what Nazi leaders and generals said after the War, they said that the sole reason that the Nazis lost is because Hitler declared war on the US. They said that the US was the foundation of the Nazi defeat. Just something to think about...

At 9/6/06 12:29 AM, Draculea wrote:

At 9/5/06 09:14 PM, tawb2 wrote: So yea you would be speaking french

No, I'm afraid not.
Ever heard of the French revolution?

That would have seriously hampered Frances invasion in the Americas.

France invaded spain after the revolution, no British to push them out of spain then spain would be french

At 9/6/06 03:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/5/06 06:05 PM, Faffington wrote:

At 9/5/06 01:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The British were fighting the Japanese in a very small scale. The reason their scuffles took place is because the Japanese were invading Islands left and right and the British garrisons were trapped in their colonies.

And the Japanese were invading our colonies too. Like Singapore and Hong Kong.

Its not like the Brits intentionally sent troops to the Pacific for the purpose of fighting the Japanese. The Brits were trapped in their colonies when the Japanese became the juggernaut in the pacific, the Brits were only acting in defense...and they didn't do well.

No, I think we sent troops by accident. Somehow, the Chindits (British guerilla fighters) and the Royal Marines got there from Britain without meaning to. They got lost. Yes. That happened....They were, in fact, supposed to go to Germany, but they took a right in the English Channel, rounded South America and got to Burma.

And you try standing up to the Japanese equivalent of Blitzkrieg. If the Japanese had expanded on Pearl Harbour, they would have at least taken Hawaii. The British soldiers were overwhelmed too quickly to resist with any organisation, as were places like France and Poland when Hitler invaded there. The British continued fighting a guerilla war because the Japanese were there in number and it's quite difficult to get decent supplies from Britain to Burma in effective amounts. The Americans could keep their supplies close by due to the rather clever technique of "island-hopping".

Basically, I agree that the Americans were the main force for the Allies after late 1941, but it is wrong to say that America did everything. Because they didn't.

At 9/6/06 08:00 AM, _holly_ wrote: France invaded spain after the revolution, no British to push them out of spain then spain would be french

That was under Napoleon's (I assume, I dont know exacty but it was probably when Napoleon was in power) guidance, I doupt he would have wanted to attack the Americas. Considering he would have to dump a lot of troops and money there, with little growth rate and a high chance of rebellion/unrest.

If the Americas only had the French, then during the revolution they most likely would have been pulled back into France. Possibly quelling the rebellion, or even strengthening the Rebellionists army. Either way, they would have continued across Europe, and when the Americas would have been considered then Spain would have had a good foothold. Not to mention the second they would have sent troops then another country would have invaded them.

At 9/6/06 12:07 PM, Faffington wrote:

At 9/6/06 03:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/5/06 06:05 PM, Faffington wrote:

At 9/5/06 01:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The British were fighting the Japanese in a very small scale. The reason their scuffles took place is because the Japanese were invading Islands left and right and the British garrisons were trapped in their colonies.

And the Japanese were invading our colonies too. Like Singapore and Hong Kong.

I know thats what I was trying to say. The Brits were only acting in defense of their colonies.

Its not like the Brits intentionally sent troops to the Pacific for the purpose of fighting the Japanese. The Brits were trapped in their colonies when the Japanese became the juggernaut in the pacific, the Brits were only acting in defense...and they didn't do well.

No, I think we sent troops by accident. Somehow, the Chindits (British guerilla fighters) and the Royal Marines got there from Britain without meaning to. They got lost. Yes. That happened....They were, in fact, supposed to go to Germany, but they took a right in the English Channel, rounded South America and got to Burma.

The Chindits were Indian Army Special Forces unit, they only contributed a Brigade and only fought in Burma and India. This was in defense of British colonies, not an act trying to liberate the whole region from the Japanese.

The same goes for the very small amount of Royal Marines who were deployed on the region. They were only intending to protect British colonies. They didn't mobilize a significant force to DEFEAT the Japanese and push them back to Japan, nor COULD they have if they did intend to.

And you try standing up to the Japanese equivalent of Blitzkrieg. If the Japanese had expanded on Pearl Harbour, they would have at least taken Hawaii. The British soldiers were overwhelmed too quickly to resist with any organisation, as were places like France and Poland when Hitler invaded there. The British continued fighting a guerilla war because the Japanese were there in number and it's quite difficult to get decent supplies from Britain to Burma in effective amounts. The Americans could keep their supplies close by due to the rather clever technique of "island-hopping".

I can't really argue with you there. But the US would have still been able to absorb a full-scale attack on the mainland, had it been in the cards. But it wasn't in the cards because the US navy, across large areas of ocean acted as a buffer. But conversely this acted as a buffer for the Japanese as well, so yes the US adopted the technique of "Island hopping" using Marines with Naval support starting in the middle of the pacfic, working to South East Asia, then up to Japans main islands.

Basically, I agree that the Americans were the main force for the Allies after late 1941, but it is wrong to say that America did everything. Because they didn't.

I didn't say that America did everything, just "most" of it. America contributed exponentially more than the other allies to the eventual goal of defeating the axis.

At 9/6/06 05:32 PM, Draculea wrote:

At 9/6/06 08:00 AM, _holly_ wrote: France invaded spain after the revolution, no British to push them out of spain then spain would be french

That was under Napoleon's (I assume, I dont know exacty but it was probably when Napoleon was in power) guidance, I doupt he would have wanted to attack the Americas. Considering he would have to dump a lot of troops and money there, with little growth rate and a high chance of rebellion/unrest.

If the Americas only had the French, then during the revolution they most likely would have been pulled back into France. Possibly quelling the rebellion, or even strengthening the Rebellionists army. Either way, they would have continued across Europe, and when the Americas would have been considered then Spain would have had a good foothold. Not to mention the second they would have sent troops then another country would have invaded them.

The french would never of rebbelled against napoleon, they absolutly adored him.
France would of destoryed spain long before the americas. And if not, Napoleon would of sent huge amounts of men over.