Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/6/07 10:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: who was probably equal to Germany in military power, with a more powerful navy.

Cmon cellar, they werent even close to Germany in ground forces. Their power was in their Navy.

Their tanks were shit and their guns were shit. But what were they known for? Excellent aviation and naval power. Japan was a bitch but dont overplay their signifigance, it doesnt need it, the accomplishments of our Navy and Marines were astounding enough as it is.

The 2 other countries that did the most against Germany were Russia and the UK, both of which had to depend on the US to supply them with almost all of their war material.

I have read stories about the material we supplied to the Russians. Generally I got the impression they despised our military technology (most notably our Lend Lease tanks we sent them that were notoriously dangerous on the Eastern Front) but put to great use our supply trucks we sent them. But anyways, I would like to see a link on us supplying them a majority of their equipment. I just dont believe it, they produced their own cheap as fuck SMG's and produced their own planes and produced their own tanks.

Yes the US entered 2 years later than they did, but the allies were losing until the US entered, and they were ONLY fighting the Nazis and Italians.

The British were fighting the Japanese (read: manhandled). They were enemies of Japan just as long as the USA.

And the Soviet Union was THE reason for the defeat of Germany. The USA may have been able to defeat Germany by themselves but that is immaterial to what actually happened. I wish I could find the statistic but the number of divisions destroyed by the Soviets in comparison to the Americans on the Eastern Front is amazing. The place was a meat grinder that just ate human life. I mean, hell, there are almost more people killed in single engagements on the Eastern Front than are killed in total on the West. And then many of the divisions on the Western Front were old Eastern Front divisions that were understrength and battle scarred.

You are vastly understating the importance of Russia to the defeat of Germany.

At 3/9/07 12:03 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 3/6/07 10:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: who was probably equal to Germany in military power, with a more powerful navy.

Cmon cellar, they werent even close to Germany in ground forces. Their power was in their Navy.

Maybe you should learn how to read. I said that Japan was equal to Germany in military power, with a more powerful navy.

The navy aspect made them equal in power.

Their tanks were shit and their guns were shit. But what were they known for? Excellent aviation and naval power. Japan was a bitch but dont overplay their signifigance, it doesnt need it, the accomplishments of our Navy and Marines were astounding enough as it is.

I'm not overplaying their significance, I just don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about as always. Japans ground forces weren't as advanced as Germany's, but their ground forces weren't shit. And tanks were barely even used in the Pacific because almost all of the land battles between Japanese and American troops was on tropical islands with thick vegetation. The European theater had a lot more open country where armored maneuver warfare was more possible, that is what causes you to downplay the pacific.

The advantages the US had in ground equipment wasn't that significant when the Japanese were defending the whole time, and had months, sometimes years to create defenses, tunnels, and all sorts of camouflaged posts on the hundreds of Islands they occupied.

Heres an example for you to think about: If you have an excellent machine gun that is perfectly reliable, accurate, and powerful, and you have the task of attacking a heavily defended jungle position from an open beach, a man with a .22 rifle still has the immediate advantage. They can see you while they are concealed and with defensive positions. That basically negates any real advantage the attacking ground forces have in ground equipment.

And the Japanese ground forces were nothing to jeer about in the first place. It was only towards the end of the war in the pacific that the Japanese equipment started getting bad because of lack of resupply of logistics and maintenance equipment.

The 2 other countries that did the most against Germany were Russia and the UK, both of which had to depend on the US to supply them with almost all of their war material.

I have read stories about the material we supplied to the Russians. Generally I got the impression they despised our military technology (most notably our Lend Lease tanks we sent them that were notoriously dangerous on the Eastern Front)

Yes the Lend-Lease Shermans were inferior to the German tanks they came up against, but the Sherman was still the most important allied tank in the entire war. They were far more agile and maneuverable than any of the other tanks. They just didn't have a powerful enough gun nor thick enough armor to go against a German tank 1 on 1. But they were still used to great effect against German infantry and were PERFECT for Russia's style of massive swarms of troops using numbers rather than quality or technique to attack the Germans.

But let me remind you that the war didn't revolve around the quality of tanks alone. Most of the war in Europe was about fire superiority from artillery and infantry maneuver. General Patton's Armored divisions raped the Germans due to better tactics in coordination with artillery and air support, even though the German tanks were vastly superior.

but put to great use our supply trucks we sent them.

Well thats for sure. Since the Red Army was so huge, they desperately needed the superior trucks that the US gave them in huge numbers in order to supply their troops.

But anyways, I would like to see a link on us supplying them a majority of their equipment.

Well I have seen graphics that had side-by-side comparisons of domestic production of the allies vs. how much they received from the US so I know for a fact that the US provided more military equipment for the UK than they did for themselves. I don't know about Russia exactly, they did manufacture alot of their own stuff, but they did so with steel that the US provided.

But I'm sick of you demanding links. I think I made my case pretty fucking solid already. Do some of your own research instead of constantly evolving your argument and demanding links.

Just look at the fucking numbers, and find some way of proving otherwise.

I just dont believe it, they produced their own cheap as fuck SMG's and produced their own planes and produced their own tanks.

SMG's and other weapons that they produced were made with US provided steel. But the US still provided them with 131,000 machine guns if you look at the link I provided before.

But actually, they produced almost no planes. Russias aircraft industry was shit... they produced alot of their own tanks, but they still received thousands from the US, along with about half a million other vehicles including 375,000 trucks that they relied on to supply their human waves.

Yes the US entered 2 years later than they did, but the allies were losing until the US entered, and they were ONLY fighting the Nazis and Italians.

The British were fighting the Japanese (read: manhandled). They were enemies of Japan just as long as the USA.

Not really, some subject nations of the British commonwealth were fighting the Japanese in very small meaningless engagements. But this contributed almost nothing to the defeat of Japan.

And the Soviet Union was THE reason for the defeat of Germany.

I don't think so at all. Russia would have been irrelevant if they hadn't received as much aid from the US as they did. Before the US started providing aid, the Russians were getting raped by the Germans.

The USA may have been able to defeat Germany by themselves but that is immaterial to what actually happened. I wish I could find the statistic but the number of divisions destroyed by the Soviets in comparison to the Americans on the Eastern Front is amazing. The place was a meat grinder that just ate human life. I mean, hell, there are almost more people killed in single engagements on the Eastern Front than are killed in total on the West.

Well that is because the Russians considered their millions of troops to be expendable, and they didn't care a bit for the civilians that got in their way. There was more death on the Eastern front only because the Germans and Russians both had "Scorched Earth" tactics and would rape and slaughter civilians as they went along. Most of the casualties that are confusing you into overhyping Russia's achievments were Russian and eastern European civilians that were caught in the mix.

Russia actually had a stated policy to rape the German civilians they encountered on the way to Berlin. Millions of German women were raped, and millions of german civilians were killed. In fact, a lot of Russians were even raped by their own soldiers.

And then many of the divisions on the Western Front were old Eastern Front divisions that were understrength and battle scarred.

You are vastly understating the importance of Russia to the defeat of Germany.

You're vastly overstating it.

Everyone knows the Russians sacrificed the most in terms of lives lost. But that doesn't mean that they had the biggest contribution. The Russians were ruthless and inept at fighting a war, so they had to utilize hordes of uneducated peasant conscripts to conduct massive human wave attacks to overwhelm the Germans. But none of that would have been possible had they not received the billions of dollars (equivalent to hundreds of billions today) in US aid, fuel, vehicles, ammunition, textiles, food, explosives, ships, artillery pieces, machine guns, aircraft etc...

Like I've said before: What would the Russians have done without American aide? Run into Berlin naked, starving, with only a pitchfork and love for the Motherland with which to fight Germans?

At 3/8/07 06:58 PM, Imperator wrote:

Let me lay down somewhat of an ace here. If you like bigging up the US's role in WWII, explain why you didnt jump into the fray in september 1939?

Explain why Britain and France didn't either,

Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.

Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.

Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy.

Sept 5, 1939 - United States proclaims neutrality

Up yours Imperator !(Source)

They huffed and puffed, then went home and waited for Hitler to shove his boot up their asses.

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises
</political sniping>

Luckily the US provided band-aids........and then brought a bigger boot to shove up Hitler's ass.......

Dec 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.

Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.

So no you did not. You WAITED till Hitles tried something before you jumped in.

ZING!

ZING fucking nothing my friend.

At 3/8/07 09:05 PM, DoomBagel wrote: EU - 1,707,642 sq mi shared by 27 countries
US - 3,718,695 sq mi shared by one country

;
wow that's a lot of toilets flushing everyday.
Canada 9,976,140 sq. kms. That's about 6,185,000 sq. miles & we only have a population of about 33 million people.
The only country on the planet bigger than Canada is Russia.

At 3/8/07 10:21 PM, Memorize wrote: And that's where i'm getting at. He just trashed every ignorant European, and all you can come up with is "arrogant"? Pathetic!

Holy fuck you're dumb. I had Cellar display his magnitude of american arrogance in a thread called "Arrogant Americans" (maybe you missed that part??) and you feel I should apologize for calling him an arrogant american?, THAT'S WHAT HE IS YOU CLUELESS TWIT.

At 3/9/07 08:56 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Holy fuck you're dumb.

Haha, it's so funny and ironic how you people will never acknowledge any wrong-doings your nations have done. Haha.

I got on your back because all you're doing is trying to find a reason to bitch about America. I never saw you get up and try to talk down Begoner when he called soldiers murderers, but we all know your position on that now don't we?

At 3/9/07 07:57 AM, Boltrig wrote:

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises
</political sniping>

Under false premise YOU gave us.

At 3/9/07 09:53 AM, Memorize wrote:

I got on your back because all you're doing is trying to find a reason to bitch about America.

Bingo. I suppose he doesn't have the freedom of speech we enjoy, and his only avenue to vent his frustration comes in the form of a keyboard in his room. Must be rough.

Does your woman know you visit Newgrounds, bcdemon?

I never saw you get up and try to talk down Begoner when he called soldiers murderers, but we all know your position on that now don't we?

I think that's the most telling detail of all. Am I being arrogant?

Does bcdemon deserve being looked down upon?

It's hard to admire a snake-in-the-grass.

Anyways I doubt the USA will continue to be a superpower for when the next century comes by. Despite all the military power, the USA is no longer a true warrior country, and ussually underestimates all of its rivals. Thats a dangerous thing to do in war times, because when you are just laughing and making fun of your enemy, the enemy may already be on the move, acquiring more weapons, making more strategies, undermining you, etc.

At 3/9/07 09:56 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/9/07 07:57 AM, Boltrig wrote:

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises
</political sniping>

Under false premise YOU gave us.

Yeah, like after 9/11 you neede any encouragement from us to go rampaging into Afgahnistan

At 3/9/07 12:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I'm not overplaying their significance, I just don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about as always.

I do not know how you could say this about me but whatever. What to lord your superiority complex eveywhere be my guest just dont expect anyone to take you seriously.

Japans ground forces weren't as advanced as Germany's, but their ground forces weren't shit.

They were romped by the Russians. Romped. America pushed them around pretty good too but as a comparison to Germany, they were ineffectual on the ground.

And tanks were barely even used in the Pacific because almost all of the land battles between Japanese and American troops was on tropical islands with thick vegetation.

That is fine but you forget the entire reason for the war in the Pacific: to further Japans objectives in their war agains the Chinese. No room for land battles? Cmon. Philippines, China, Burma, Singapore. All had significant land engagements, they just didnt factor as much to Japans ascendency as their Navy did.

They were far more agile and maneuverable than any of the other tanks. They just didn't have a powerful enough gun nor thick enough armor to go against a German tank 1 on 1. But they were still used to great effect against German infantry and were PERFECT for Russia's style of massive swarms of troops using numbers

I think the Russias would have much rather have just had steel to make T-34's than be sent the trash ass Shermans. And those were the tanks that were perfect for their warfare, not explosion and tip prone Shermans.

rather than quality or technique to attack the Germans.

See, this is another reason I doubt you. The Russians had perfectly good military minds they just worked withing the constraints of their system. I mean, of the few operations I can think of that they planned off hand (Operation Uranus, Kursk, Bagration) were astounding successes. To say they had less quality than the Germans is more than correct, no one was on par with the Germans from the NCO level to the highest Field Marshal, but to totally discount their tactics as without quality and zerg-like rushes is a crime to what they accomplished.

General Patton's Armored divisions raped the Germans due to better tactics in coordination with artillery and air support, even though the German tanks were vastly superior.

Patton never had to deal with the same circumstances the Generals and Marshals on the Eastern Front did so I never have understood the American fascination with him. I think he was a tenacious attacker but I still believe his military acumen has been severly overstated by most accounts.

But I'm sick of you demanding links. I think I made my case pretty fucking solid already. Do some of your own research instead of constantly evolving your argument and demanding links.

If I had link that had this information I wouldnt ask for it. I have already looked for these things, they aint findable (at least I cant). Thats why I am against blanket statements that have no proof. So if you want to make the case we were responsible for Russias industry (despite me knowing the Russians took proactive steps before American involvement in the war to bolster their industrial base), show me the majority of their steel is from the US.

And I do find that peculiar, you want to have a debate on facts yet you despise me "demanding links." Cmon bro. Get real.

But actually, they produced almost no planes. Russias aircraft industry was shit

This one was easy to find.

I don't think so at all. Russia would have been irrelevant if they hadn't received as much aid from the US as they did. Before the US started providing aid, the Russians were getting raped by the Germans.

??? The Russians effectively drew the Germans to a stalemate by the end of Barbarossa before we could have sent them significant material to effect the outcome of the battle.

I mean, this really is a rather peculiar argument. You are claiming the food, trucks, steel, aircraft, tanks, guns, boots, supplied by the USA were responsible for the defeat of the Germans in the East? Cmon. That is even to nationalistic for me.

The Russian people were responsible for the defeat of the Germans, not some politicans and businessmen back in America. These same people helped enable the Russians to better fight the Germans but you are belittling the sacrifice of the Russians and other Eastern Bloc nations to the point of absurdity.

Most of the casualties that are confusing you into overhyping Russia's achievments were Russian and eastern European civilians that were caught in the mix.

No, I am directly talking about Army Groups, Corps, Divisions, Regiments, Brigades, raw military power, that was dismantled on the Eastern Front, not the civilians who got in the way. I mean, shit, Operation Barbarossa involved over THREE MILLION SOLDIERS from the Nazis. The Battle of the Bulge, Americas most iconic fight against the Germans, involved a few hundred thousand. Small pennies. Or if we want to compare the Battle of the Bulge to another battle lets go for Kursk. Almost a million soldiers on both sides of the fight. There was nothing even remotely close to the scope of the fighting on the Eastern Front as there were on the Western. And by the time America entered the war, the initiative had effectively been gained by the Allies, almost solely by the Russians. Americas path was much easier.

Russia actually had a stated policy to rape the German civilians they encountered on the way to Berlin.

I have read about this before and it suspiciously sounds a lot to me like the (I believe) false claims that Ilya Ehrenburg authored the infamous "Kill" leaflets. I would be interested to see a link.

Millions of German women were raped, and millions of german civilians were killed.

Millions of soldiers were raped by the Germans in Russia also. Tit for tat I guess is what it was.

The Russians were ruthless and inept at fighting a war

*sigh* Thats only because their best minds were on the Chinese border watching Japan or dead because of Stalin. They had plenty of able commanders, they just had to be enabled by Stalin to do their job and not be interferred with.

Like I've said before: What would the Russians have done without American aide? Run into Berlin naked, starving, with only a pitchfork and love for the Motherland with which to fight Germans?

And you honestly think this is realistic?

At 3/9/07 07:57 AM, Boltrig wrote: Up yours Imperator !(Source)

America never signed a treaty proclaiming they will defend Poland if they are attacked. Guess who did.

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises
</political sniping>

You would think the blatant invasion of Poland, the occpation of Czechaslovakia and Austria, disregard for sanctions imposed on them, Nazi units stationed on the French border, and nationalistic rhetoric would raise some eyebrows. . .

ZING fucking nothing my friend.

No, you got ZINGed.

At 3/9/07 11:12 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 3/9/07 07:57 AM, Boltrig wrote: Up yours Imperator !(Source)

America never signed a treaty proclaiming they will defend Poland if they are attacked. Guess who did.

We declared war 2 days after the invasion, and began boming runs the day after. Not bad for 6 days from treaty signing. I can see how that was neglected.

And also the point im making is that the Americans LOVE to play up their role in WWII, but the declared neutrality untill pearl was raped. By this point the war was 2 years old. Dont wail at me about the embargoes and sanctions imposed. Little more than a slap on the wrist.

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises
</political sniping>

You would think the blatant invasion of Poland, the occpation of Czechaslovakia and Austria, disregard for sanctions imposed on them, Nazi units stationed on the French border, and nationalistic rhetoric would raise some eyebrows. . .

The invasion provoked war, Austria was in alliance with Germany, and France declared war at the same time as Britain.

ZING fucking nothing my friend.

No, you got ZINGed.

I reiterate. ZING fucking nothing

At 3/9/07 11:40 AM, Boltrig wrote: the declared neutrality untill pearl was raped. By this point the war was 2 years old.

The first World War has generally been agreed the root cause of World War II. Do you know how that one started? And how it was escalated?

And the penalties imposed upon the german people after WWI?

And the penalties (or lack thereof) imposed on the german people after WWII?

cellar and demo have already stated what roles the US played in each theatre, how about you solely describe your own nation's in relation to each? Can you do that without mentioning "America"?

Do we really need two threads on WWII?

OMG TEH ARROGANZ

At 3/9/07 11:40 AM, Boltrig wrote:
We declared war 2 days after the invasion, and began boming runs the day after. Not bad for 6 days from treaty signing. I can see how that was neglected.

You did nothing to save Poland, despite declaring that Poland should only have to defend itself for a matter of weeks before Brit and French aid arrived......

oops.....

And also the point im making is that the Americans LOVE to play up their role in WWII, but the declared neutrality untill pearl was raped. By this point the war was 2 years old. Dont wail at me about the embargoes and sanctions imposed. Little more than a slap on the wrist.

Brits LOVE to play up their roles and DENOUNCE US roles. The great 'We could have done it without you" mentality just cracks me up.....

We waited till Hitler did something other than threaten. We didnt go to war on false premises

Last I checked, there were quite a few Brits in Iraq......

The invasion provoked war, Austria was in alliance with Germany, and France declared war at the same time as Britain.

There's a difference between declaring war, and actually fighting it....
Neither country bothered to defend Poland, and France didn't even save itself.

"Poland and France pledged on May 19, 1939 to provide each other with military assistance in the event either was attacked. The British had already offered support to Poland in March."

"The French mobilized slowly and then mounted only a token offensive in the Saar, which they soon abandoned, while the British could not take any direct action in support of the Poles in the time available (see Western betrayal)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Liar liar pants on fire.

Zing Zing!

More interesting factoids:
From wiki articles:

"Industrial production played a role in the Allied victory. The Allies more effectively mobilized their economies and drew from a larger economic base. The peak year of munitions production was 1944, with the Allies out-producing the Axis by a ratio of 3 to 1. (Germany produced 19% and Japan 7% of the world's munitions; the U.S. produced 47%, Britain and Canada 14%, and the Soviets 11%).[25]"

Tanks and self-propelled guns

Soviet Union = 105,251 (92,595)
United States = 88,410 (71,067)
Germany = 46,857 (37,794)
United Kingdom = 27,896
Canada = 5,678
Japan = 2,515
Italy = 2,473
Hungary = 500

Artillery includes anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons with calibres above 37 mm

Soviet Union = 516,648
United States = 257,390
Germany = 159,147
United Kingdom = 124,877
Japan = 13,350
Canada = 10,552
Italy = 7,200
Other Commonwealth = 5,215
Hungary = 447

Machineguns
Machineguns does not include sub-machineguns, or machine guns used for arming aircraft.

United States = 2,679,840
Soviet Union = 1,477,400
Germany = 674,280
Japan = 380,000
United Kingdom = 297,336
Canada = 251,925
Other Commonwealth = 37,983
Hungary = 4,583

Military trucks

United States = 2,382,311
Canada = 815,729
United Kingdom = 480,943
Germany = 345,914
Soviet Union = 197,100
Japan = 165,945
Italy = 83,000

Military aircraft of all types
United States = 324,750
Germany = 189,307
Soviet Union = 157,261
United Kingdom = 131,549
Japan = 76,320
Canada = 16,431
Italy = 11,122
Other Commonwealth = 3,081
Hungary = 1,046
Romania = 1,000

Aircraft carriers
United States = 22 (141)
Japan = 16
United Kingdom = 14
Germany = 0 None completed by the end of the war.

Battleships
United States = 8
United Kingdom = 5
Italy = 3
Japan = 2
Germany = 2

Cruisers
United States = 48
United Kingdom = 32
Japan = 9
Italy = 6
Soviet Union = 2

So.....yeah.....arrogant Americans.......well, at least we have reasons to be arrogant....unlike the French......

Aug 25, 1939 - Britain and Poland sign a Mutual Assistance Treaty.

Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.

Now theres a war on, its slightly difficult to just wander into occupied territory and lend a helping hand. The defenders have the advantage.
Yes theres a difference between declaring war and fighting it but WE GOT TO FIGHTING THE NEXT FUCKING DAY.

It took you 2 years! The UK doesnt have a "couldve done it without you" mentality, were just sick of YOUR "we did it all" mentality.

And as for your production stats post, the US is only way out in front in machine guns and trucks.
In relation to country size, the UK holds its own quite well in those stats.

At 3/9/07 02:46 PM, Boltrig wrote: And as for your production stats post, the US is only way out in front in machine guns and trucks.
In relation to country size, the UK holds its own quite well in those stats.

Notice in how many columns you lag behind Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

"Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States were not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union."

"Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships."

"Most remaining belligerents were largely self-sufficient in front-line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft and, above all, the Douglas C-47 transport aircraft) were of enormous assistance."

"Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[3] US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical."

"Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US on 11 December 1941."

Wiki alone speaks to the fact that Lend-Lease pretty much enabled you to fight. Rather than saying you didn't have the ability to fight, I'll say that without Lend-Lease, British ability to conduct WWII was almost entirely ineffective.

Is that from this thread or the other retarded one? I can't even keep these moronic arguments straight anymore......

Goddamit again IN RELATION TO SIZE. You really just highlight the parts that suit you dont you.

"The lend lease accounted for one fourth..."

Your quote. One fourth. How is a force at 3/4 full recorded capacity completely ineffective. Fuck sake.

This thread has degenerated from a topic about arrogant Americans into proof of said statement. I came into this topic with an open mind, but Im being dragged round to the topic starters way of thinking.

At 3/9/07 03:03 PM, Imperator wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

"Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States were not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union."

"Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships."

One fourth. From a country that had not had its manufacturing centres decimated by bombers. And from a country with a much more massive manufacturing capability.

"Most remaining belligerents were largely self-sufficient in front-line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft and, above all, the Douglas C-47 transport aircraft) were of enormous assistance."

Keywords. Supplement. Assistance. Not "the British were fucked without lend lease! Without it they would have bee standing around twiddling their thumbs for lack of equipment."

"Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[3] US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical."

Relation to the Soviet effort. Not relevant to the British argument.

"Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US on 11 December 1941."

Hitler targeted the US for offering aid. So? That does not back up your argument that the UK was a useless fighting force without your lend lease equipment.

Wiki alone speaks to the fact that Lend-Lease pretty much enabled you to fight. Rather than saying you didn't have the ability to fight, I'll say that without Lend-Lease, British ability to conduct WWII was almost entirely ineffective.

WARNING: The above statement may contain BS.

Is that from this thread or the other retarded one? I can't even keep these moronic arguments straight anymore......

I know. What with all the crap your contributing, it gets hard to find the truth doesnt it. Stop making the facts appear twisted to suit you. Present them as they are. Your slant on them is not required. People will make up their own minds as to wether the early allied forces did nothing without the lend lease equipment.

Apologies for the double post, but I had to undo some of the damage.

Your quote. One fourth. How is a force at 3/4 full recorded capacity completely ineffective. Fuck sake.

Think about how expansive 1/4 is. Take ANY test, 75% is a LOW grade. If anything in my life dropped by 25%, I'd be hard pressed. If 25% of my money suddenly disappeared, I'd be dead in the water.

Christ, in WWII battles with 10% casualties were considered HIGH. Think about how devastating 25% would be.

One out of every 4 planes in your arsenal were US made. One out of every 4 bullets you fired were US made. One out of every 4 bombs you dropped were US made. One out of every 4 meals you ate were US made.

Yeah, 25% is completely insignificant.......

Stop making the facts appear twisted to suit you.

I don't have to. The facts speak for themselves. 25% of your fighting effectiveness was due ENTIRELY to the US. If you don't think that's a significant portion, you're obviously content with everything else that's only 75% done......

Present them as they are.

I presented them VERBATIM.

At 3/9/07 04:33 PM, Imperator wrote:

Your quote. One fourth. How is a force at 3/4 full recorded capacity completely ineffective. Fuck sake.

Think about how expansive 1/4 is. Take ANY test, 75% is a LOW grade.

No it isnt. Oxford University. One of the most respected Universities in the UK.
Have a look at the maths department marking sceme here

"a First Class performance (on that paper) is indicated by a mark of 70 to 100; "

75% puts you in the highest section of the pass components.

If anything in my life dropped by 25%, I'd be hard pressed. If 25% of my money suddenly disappeared, I'd be dead in the water.

Then you are living beyond your means!

Christ, in WWII battles with 10% casualties were considered HIGH. Think about how devastating 25% would be.

Not disputed. 25% casualties would be devastating both to morale and fighting effectiveness, but it is not the same as the 25% not being there in the first place.

One out of every 4 planes in your arsenal were US made. One out of every 4 bullets you fired were US made. One out of every 4 bombs you dropped were US made. One out of every 4 meals you ate were US made.

Stop twisting the fucking facts. 3 out of 4 planes were UK made. 3 out of 4 bullets fired were UK made. 3 out of 4 bombs dropped were UK made. Last point is contested. Field rations maybe but not meals for the general populace. And 3 out of 4 meals were still UK produced!

Yeah, 25% is completely insignificant.......

I dint say it was but Im going to now out of principal.

Stop making the facts appear twisted to suit you.

I don't have to. The facts speak for themselves. 25% of your fighting effectiveness was due ENTIRELY to the US. If you don't think that's a significant portion, you're obviously content with everything else that's only 75% done......

No, Im fucking content with the fact that despite the fact that we are a small island nation, getting bombed to hell on a regular basis, we managed to provide 75% of our armed forces strength.

Present them as they are.

I presented them VERBATIM.

Then added your slant. I doubt you wiki source said the UK was completely ineffective at 75% capacity.

At 3/9/07 10:57 AM, Boltrig wrote:

Yeah, like after 9/11 you neede any encouragement from us to go rampaging into Afgahnistan

Haha, I love you hypocrites.

Heh, it was your intelligence and YOU went along for the ride! Hahaha

25% is quite a bit.

If your anus only accepts 6 inches before critical rupture, then an additional inch and a half would be enough to convince you that the U.S.'s role in Allied victory, if it must be meted (and I don't see why anyone would honestly give two shits, we won), is greatest. We fought in the same pits you guys did, bled the same blood. We fought on your turf, and destroyed your lands. We helped rebuild it for dirt.

Damn, this shouldn't be an issue.

At 3/9/07 04:03 PM, Boltrig wrote: One fourth. From a country that had not had its manufacturing centres decimated by bombers. And from a country with a much more massive manufacturing capability.

The Whermacht never targeted manufacturing centers like the US and UK did.

At 11/14/06 04:33 AM, Alphabit wrote: Americans have got to be the most arrogant people in the history of mankind.
I'm sick of hearing "We're the most powerful nation in the world," "our president is the most poweful man in the world," "our economy is the best in the world," "We have the best (insert word here)." Americans just can't stop boasting about how good they think they are.

That is because we do have the best economy in the world. We are the most powerful nation in the world. The President is the most powerful man in the world. Etc.
If i say my fence is higher than yours and it is...it ain't boasting.

This is partly why they are one of the most hated and isolated nations in the world.
They only have like 3 Major Allies; UK, Australia and Canada! LOL.

Our allies also include India. Our allies are the most powerful nations in the world.
We are the most hated because the other nations envy us, and/or hate that we stand up for what we believe in (as long as a Republican's in the big chair).

Compare that to Germany; France, Italy, UK, Russia, Spain, etc... (all Europan nations)

France is about to collapse under it's massive welfare state. Germany still uses laws that Hitler enacted. Russia kills journalists than disagree with party line. Spain forces women into prostetution if they're on the welfare roles for more than a year. ...Have nothing for Italy.

The US might be a powerful country, but they don't have many allies... In fact they have more enemies than Allies, even China has taken a dislike to the US.

China's a huge human rights violator. Yet they, and the rest of the world, would perish without us.

The fact is that the US is just one powerful ship sailing through rough seas... And if they continue to abuse their priviledges, they will sink. They might be greater than any one country, but they're nowhere near as great as the rest of the world. They should stop acting as if they were king of the world because there is no such thing.

The US is greater than the rest of the world combined. The only way the US will fall is through internal divison...but that's not a far off possibility.

The idea that some jokes from France and Germany will cripple us...you have a better chance of facing the US alone than does either of those countries.

Yawn.

At 3/9/07 02:43 PM, Boltrig wrote: It took you 2 years! The UK doesnt have a "couldve done it without you" mentality, were just sick of YOUR "we did it all" mentality.

Eddie Ixxard...British Comedian

"And we're like 'Fuck, the Germans are invading! Mobilize the tanks. What do you mean we have no tanks? Break out the ice cream trucks then!' And we're out there serving up smoothies, then throwing them at the Germans. Finally the fucking Americans arrived. 'Here we are to save the day.' And we're like 'Where the fuck were you bastards? We've been waiting for two years over here! We didn't ask for your help for fucking nothing you know!' Then finally you all get off your asses and the war is over."

Another reason I love Eddie Izzard.