Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/4/07 01:50 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote:

Fair enough. I'm not actually saying that americans had no right to rebel. Because they had every right. But I'm just saying that if you look at it the colonists weren't treated that badly compared to the rest of the empire including Britain itself.

---

At 3/4/07 10:36 AM, zzzzd wrote:

stuff

Funny how you don't make a big deal out of these things when Europe does it.

Damn hypocrites.

---

At 3/4/07 07:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/4/07 10:36 AM, zzzzd wrote:

stuff

Funny how you don't make a big deal out of these things when Europe does it.

Damn hypocrites.

what things?

---

Didn't America always said War is bad We must never go to war for Money War is a last resort solution and then invaded another country for oil? >.> you can say what you want about the excuses that were used about this subject but you know in your heart the truth.

---

At 3/4/07 10:07 AM, zzzzd wrote:

At 3/4/07 01:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You're on crack. Today, your military wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for American technology, tactics, and innovation in general.

Britains military would exist you prick.

No it wouldn't. Your country would be speaking German or Russian right now if the US didn't A) Save your ass B) Rebuild your country or C) continue to give you almost all of your military technology that makes your country more powerful than other European countries even today.

And Britains brought huge amounts of technology and tactics which americans use. fucking loads.

... like what? I am only majoring in Military Science right now so I'd love to hear about the supposed British tactics the US military uses.

And I don't give a shit how powerful your military is. It was based on the British.

How, explain how it was! All you're doing is tossing out wild claims that you have no clue about.

What in the American military is based on the British military? The only thing is the name for ranks, private, corporal, sergeant, etc... but that is only really because we speak English, not because ANYTHING is based on the British military.

Provide some proof to support your wacky theories.

For fucks sake even your National anthem

WRONG.

Same tune. so whatever mate.

And another point of yours is destroyed...

and your flag is British designed.

Um NO IT'S NOT.

Alright you added a couple of stars where the British flag was.

We completely replaced the part where the British flag was with stars that represented free states of the new Republican that was formed after DEFEATING the British.

The American flag was not British designed at all. And yet another one of your points gets destroyed.

I know we do, But its been well over 1000 years. Americas only been 300. America has it's origins with the british empire not modern day britain.

Origins don't mean anything. Alot of American Revolutionaries were British of descent, but that means NOTHING because they were fighting AGAINST Britain. They were new people, who joined with colonists from other European powers in order to dissolve European imperialism and create a new free country.

Therefore the fact that only 13 of the first colonies were British means NOTHING. Because Europeans and people from all over the world flocked to the US to form a new country. A new country that is now the most powerful in the world, whose constitution still exists to this day.

You may say "America is only 300 years old" but our NATION as a Republic is actually older than yours. Your COUNTRY is older because people have lived there for longer, but America has a longer surviving Democratic Constitution... All while your country as it exists today has changed numerous times in the past 60 years alone. And free elections are only a recent addition to your political system.

Haha it's funny how you ALWAYS contradict something you have previously stated in order to prove a separate point. Now you FINALLY admit that Britain only stopped it's imperial ways due to pressure from the US and other allies after WWII...

I never contradicted it, I just said it was more france than america.

You're saying France had more influence over Britain after WWII than America did? You're saying that even though France was saved by the Anglo-American alliance, you're saying FRANCE had more power to pressure Britain to relinquish control over the Empire thatn America did?

You're saying that even though France and Britain were both in enormous debt to America, and still relied on America to give them aide (and protect them from the RUssians), that it was FRANCE'S pressure towards Britain that caused them to cease imperial control? You're saying that America had less influence on Britain than France did?

I don't even think you actually believe that. I just think you're distorting your argument to try and negate anything that could be a testament in favor of America.

It's not a miraculous story. Pratically everything went right for the US. And they won a rebellion.

You're saying that colonies consisting of peasant farmers defeating the worlds most powerful Empire isn't miraculous? You're saying it's not miraculous that this colony later became the worlds first constitution democracy, and later the worlds most powerful nation who later SAVED the country that it gained independence from?

You are just so full of shit it's hilarious.

America didn't save Britains 'ass' from destruction for fucks sake. How many times have I told you and eventually have just stopped posting.

Um last time I checked, I owned you in basically every single argument we had about WWII. YOU were the one who stopped posting because the moment sources were provided, you got scared because your argument only consisted of your own speculation and desire to salvage your national pride.

In WW1 america didn't do much.

Actually, America provided the vast majority of equipment to the the allies. Your country couldn't even maintain it's military operations, the US had to pay your pill and provide your war material. Even though the US helped you, the allies were still losing WWI. Then America came and the war started turning around.

How do you think your country did more when it couldn't even maintain a war effort without Us aide?

By the time america entered WW2 Hitler had given up an invasion attempt on the british isles and attacked russia. After WW2 the soviet Union wouldn't of been able to even cross the english channel. So no America did not save our asses.

Once again, you're showing your vast ignorance. You think that Europe was the only theatre in WWII, because your country only emphasizes that to give an overly optimistic view of how Britain performed.

First of all, before the US entered WWII, the US was still providing all of the allies almost ALL of their equipment. Basically EVERYTHING.

Fuel, weapons, vehicles, boats, planes, trains, clothes, food, ammunition, everything... If you look at the list of things the US gave to the Soviet Union, it is mind boggling. The only reason the Soviet Union could even fight was because the US gave them ALMOST ALL of their equipment. When Germany invaded Russia, the Russians were getting absolutely raped, and they lacked the ability to even clothe and feed their troops. So the US made it a priority to make sure the Russians could fend of the Germans.

Just take a look at this list (under "US deliveries to USSR":

15000 aircraft, 7000 tanks, 131000 machine guns, 375000 trucks, 5 MILLION tons of food, over 15 million parts of army boots (enough for the entire soviet army), just to name a few things. The list goes one...

And america did not come to the rescue. lol Britain was safe when america joined the war.

That is a LAUGH. Britain wasn't even safe before the US gave you aide starting in 1938. Your fucking PM was begging the US to save your country. The US actually gave Britain more equipment than it gave the Soviet Union...

You also ignore the fact that your country only really fought the Germans, and only did so with US AIDE!!!. The US fought the Italians, Germans, and the Japanese in every theatre of war during WWII.

The US won WWII, that is a fact. If the US didn't enter WWII, the allies would have lost, it's as simple as that.

you complete dick. And I know thats what they teach you in schools that america saved the day in WW1 and WW2. Its pathetic.

You're so eager to deny all the facts to salvage your false perception of history. America DID save your ass, and if America DIDN'T help you, your country would not exist today. That is a simple fact. Also, if the US didn't REBUILD your country along with the rest of Europe, your beloved European Union would bea a 3rd world region right now.

---

The current military of America probably has more in common with the Mongolian hordes than with British redcoats. Same goes to modern UK, FYI.

Roman Legions. "Horde" is not a term I would use to describe the complexities of the US military......

America: FUCK YEAH!

---

At 3/4/07 09:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

The current military of America probably has more in common with the Mongolian hordes than with British redcoats. Same goes to modern UK, FYI.

Roman Legions. "Horde" is not a term I would use to describe the complexities of the US military......

America: FUCK YEAH!

"Coming again to save the motherfuckin day, YEAH!
America: FUCK YEAH!, Freedom is the only way YEAH!
Terrorists your game is through, cause now it's time to answer to...
America: FUCK YEAH! So lick my butt and suck on my balls
America: FUCK YEAH!, What you gonna do when we come for you, YEAH?
It's the dream that we all share, its the hope for tomorrow...FUCK YEAH!"

Best movie of all time.

---

At 3/4/07 09:57 PM, Imperator wrote: Roman Legions. "Horde" is not a term I would use to describe the complexities of the US military......

We have similar organization of our military to the old school Mongol military and rely on the same basic principle of speed and envelopment as the Mongols. In that sense, I think modern American armor tactics have more in common with tactics the Khans used than with the tactics of the classical Romans.

And I actually think horde actually describes our military pretty good. We move fast and fuck people up, just like all the old school hordes.

---

At 3/4/07 10:03 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: "Coming again to save the motherfuckin day, YEAH!
America: FUCK YEAH!, Freedom is the only way YEAH!
Terrorists your game is through, cause now it's time to answer to...
America: FUCK YEAH! So lick my butt and suck on my balls
America: FUCK YEAH!, What you gonna do when we come for you, YEAH?
It's the dream that we all share, its the hope for tomorrow...FUCK YEAH!"

Best movie of all time.

And this is another issue that's effecting the 'americans'. There are these immature right-wing extremists who fuck up the reputations of "americans" worldwide. I am sure most americans would like to be thought of as peaceful, international loving folk. And then there's Cellar (and his type). Ultra extreme conservatives who think the rest of the worlds livelihood depends solely on the USA. And who thinks that people that don't think the same way they do are of lesser intelligence and lower on the food chain. Maybe that's just the mentality of a kid born with a gun in his hand, I don't know. But I am sure most Americans are ashamed of the (right-wing) extremists that infect their country.

---

At 3/4/07 09:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: B) Rebuild your country or

Bollocks. We had to borrow a lot of money from America, which had hardly been affected by the War and could have cancelled the debt. Americans did nothing to rebuild our country, just lent us money which we have had to pay every bit back, finishing this year.

In WW1 america didn't do much.

Actually, America provided the vast majority of equipment to the the allies. Your country couldn't even maintain it's military operations, the US had to pay your pill and provide your war material. Even though the US helped you, the allies were still losing WWI. Then America came and the war started turning around.

The Germans were very well dug in along the Western Front. If they had stayed there then American support would have meant nothing. It was the end of the war in the east, combined with America FINALLY mobilising its troops after three years.

How do you think your country did more when it couldn't even maintain a war effort without Us aide?

How about a link to prove this point?

Just take a look at this list (under "US deliveries to USSR":

How about one for the UK?

That is a LAUGH. Britain wasn't even safe before the US gave you aide starting in 1938. Your fucking PM was begging the US to save your country. The US actually gave Britain more equipment than it gave the Soviet Union...

Begging? What a load of wank. Britain WAS safe by 1944 as the Soviets had already pushed the Nazis way back towards Warsaw. As a result, more and more Germans were sent to the east. This left no chance of an invasion of Britain. In 1940, Britain saved Britain. You know why? No, because you only learn the American side. Germany needed aerial supremacy to invade. But the RAF destroyed many of the Luftwaffe, crippling them for the rest of the war and leaving an invasion impossible.

You also ignore the fact that your country only really fought the Germans, and only did so with US AIDE!!!. The US fought the Italians, Germans, and the Japanese in every theatre of war during WWII.

Again, rubbish. British troops fought at El Alamein, Palermo, Burma. They fought everywhere apart from maybe the Pacific islands. You are also ignoring the vast amount of work that British intelligence did in getting hold of the German's codes and helping the French Resistance.

Te US won WWII, that is a fact. If the US didn't enter WWII, the allies would have lost, it's as simple as that.

No, that is not true. The Soviets would have invaded Berlin regardless.

America DID save your ass, and if America DIDN'T help you, your country would not exist today.
That is a simple fact. Also, if the US didn't REBUILD your country along with the rest of Europe, your beloved European Union would bea a 3rd world region right now.

I love the way you make America sound like some generous rich uncle. Like I said, the USA lent us money which we had to pay more back over a period of time. It was no act of charity, the US were simply acting for their interests. As a result of America making us pay this money, we virtually were a thirld world country for a while. Rations after the war were worse than during it. Even bread was rationed. It isn't as if America couldn't afford to cancel the debt.

---

At 3/4/07 09:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The US won WWII, that is a fact. If the US didn't enter WWII, the allies would have lost, it's as simple as that.

Lol, The biggest factor of americas part in the war was money. Before america actually entered the war. Russia was already pushing germany back. without american aide russia wouldn't of been able to, but then your beloved war of independence was funded nearly completly by the french and the spanish. And reading up on the american war of independence. I hear very little about how france won the war.
Also the battle of britain was pratically won before lend-lease. And american aide before 1941 hardly affected the course of battle.

I also fail to see how you can belive that americans were the most vital in every theater.

America was only the primary allied force in the pacific.
Every other theater it was the British Commonwealth, Apart from Western europe which was a joint Anglo-American effort, East asia which was generally chinese, and eastern europe which was primary the Soviet Union.

So to be totally honest matey, your talking shite.

As for all the bollocks about how the founding of united states was such a miracle
It's wasn't a miracle I'm afraid. It's just fucking lucky.
If Canada or Australia two other of Britains children were as habitable and as rich on resources as the US then they would of had a rebellion and they would both be as powerfull as the US. Simple as that.

---

At 3/5/07 12:24 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:

I love the way you make America sound like some generous rich uncle. Like I said, the USA lent us money which we had to pay more back over a period of time. It was no act of charity, the US were simply acting for their interests. As a result of America making us pay this money, we virtually were a thirld world country for a while. Rations after the war were worse than during it. Even bread was rationed. It isn't as if America couldn't afford to cancel the debt.

Your thinking of WW1 mate. In WW2 America did actually give alot of three aide to us.
The debt the UK has to the US is from after WW2 in the rebuilding stage.

America were very important in WW2, But were no more important than the British Commonwealth or Russia.

---

You also have to take in the account of the war in the Pacific. Almost all Americans consider that a large part of the war and America did that pretty much alone. So naturally Americans would think that they did more because they fraught seemingly more. I am not saying that is true, I am just saying that's an understandable American perspective.

---

At 3/5/07 02:20 PM, zzzzd wrote:

Your thinking of WW1 mate. In WW2 America did actually give alot of three aide to us.
The debt the UK has to the US is from after WW2 in the rebuilding stage.

free not three, just noticed that.

---

America plays a bigger role then most countries in the world. Britain plays an equally big role in the world. But Ill be damned if you guys think your superior then us. And ignore zzzd, all his sources are biased to a point where its laughable.

---

At 3/5/07 02:20 PM, zzzzd wrote: America were very important in WW2, But were no more important than the British Commonwealth or Russia.

You are decrying us for our dick measuring contest yet you are doing it just as hard when asserting, despite most historical accounts, that the UK was as important to the war as the US. The UK was incredibly important, incredibly, but it would be a farce to claim they accomplished as much as the Soviets or Americans just like it would be a farce to claim the Americans accomplished as much as the Soviets. The British had one theatre to themselves for a time (North Africa) and were chasing one Field Marshal around who was undersupplied and undermanned. Then it took combined Allied forces to push them from Tunisia, not just British forces. And America was heavily invested in South East Asia, just as the British were. But as for the Pacific campaign, it was almost wholly American led. And Europe was spearheaded by American material and units, not British units.

I am not saying this to bolster my own ego, I just think it is the most correct historical thing to assert, it is just common sense that is supported by mountains of evidence. In order of importance to the Allied cause during WWII, in my belief, goes 1) USSR 2) America 3) UK 4) Poland [yes, Poland] 5) France. After that who cares.

At 3/5/07 02:11 PM, zzzzd wrote: I hear very little about how france won the war.

France didnt win the war. They didnt even enter it until the war started tilting more towards the rebellion and they simply entered it to get at the British.

You are pathetic, you have to diminish the accomplishments of truly great men just to fit your historical bias. George Washington was really one of the greatest generals of all time. Not for his abilities, not even close, but for fostering a rebellion of fractious and un-united groups of part time soldiers and keeping them together despite huge money problems, huge material problems, problems with the politicans, and absolutely no navy what to speak of. The fact he managed to keep the rebellion alive that long is a testament to his abilities and willpower because their simply would have been no rebellion without George Washington. France helped end the war but George Washington won it.

If Canada or Australia two other of Britains children were as habitable and as rich on resources as the US then they would of had a rebellion and they would both be as powerfull as the US. Simple as that.

Ignorance. Complete ignorance. History is composed by people and events, not where you live or what is given to you. Things are not pre-destined or pre-ordained, things are gained and lost by the people who strive for them.

---

At 3/5/07 12:24 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:

At 3/4/07 09:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: B) Rebuild your country or

Bollocks. We had to borrow a lot of money from America, which had hardly been affected by the War and could have cancelled the debt.

The US did forgive British debt, almost all of it.

The only thing Britain payed back the US for was just the equipment under Lend-Lease that was heading toward Britain after the cut-off date in 1945. Therefore ALL of the equipment that the US gave Britain before that time was written off. Then, to add to the mercy America gave Britain, the US gave your country a 75% discount on the things that your country actually DID pay for...

The money Britain paid back doesn't include all the equipment that the US gave Britain nor economic aide, basically ALL of your war equipment which was manufactured in the US before 1945. Airplanes, food, uniforms, fuel, all kinds of logistics and all the things necessary to conduct war, Britain lost its ability to do this itself, so the US came to the rescue.

Americans did nothing to rebuild our country

WRONG, you're so out of touch with reality. Do you know NOTHING about the Marshal Plan ???

Look at this graphic. Your country got more most-war aide from the US than France and Germany combined, or almost more than all the other European countries combined. That's not even including the economic aide given DURING the war that was outside of lend-lease.

The US did "nothing" to rebuild your country? Try billions of dollars, countless tons of food, clothes, fuel etc.... It's a simple fact that if the US didn't give you so much aide, your country would never have fully recovered from WWII, and it would be basically irrelevant today.

How do you think your country did more when it couldn't even maintain a war effort without Us aide?

How about a link to prove this point?

First of all, that doesn't need a link. It's a simple fact but i'll oblige:

Why did Churchill beg the US to enter the war? Why did Britain need the US to provide aide if Britain could have done it itself? Why was Britain going bankrupt to the point the US created specific legislation to prop up the British economy?

If you read this, you will learn a little something about the whole context of the situation. It basically documents the relationship between the US, and Britain during that time. So read it, and learn some facts instead of parading your lack thereof.

Just take a look at this list (under "US deliveries to USSR":

How about one for the UK?

I couldn't find exact numbers for each thing like for Russia. But If you look here (go to page 502) or here (page 249), it specifically states that about 60% of all Lend-Lease production from the US was given to Britain.

If you don't have a JSTOR clearance or don't want to make one... see the Wikipedia article here:

It states that out of $50 billion total in aide the US gave in lend-lease between 1941-1945 (equivalent to $700 billion today); The US gave Britain $31.4 billion, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, and $1.6 billion to China. (therefore this also means about 60% was given to Britain)

So, if the US gave ALL of that aide that it did to Russian shown here then Britain received 3 times that amount....

Russia received $11.3 billion which is equivalent to about $150 billion today, Britain received $31.4 billion, which is equivalent to about $450 billion today.

$450B given over 4 years... thats $112.5B a year, or about $7.5b in those days. That was 90% of Britains ENTIRE ECONOMY back then! And about 50% of Britain's yearly economy was devoted to the war. The US provided more military aide to Britain than Britain provided for itself!

It then says that there was NO repayment of the aide that arrived BEFORE the cutoff date (in 1945) and that 75% of the price for the remaining aide that was on its way to Britain at the end of the war was written off. That means Britain only payed off a TINY fraction of the debt it truly owed the US, that we forgave and wrote off.

Begging? What a load of wank.

Yes, BEGGING (read towards the end). Winston Churchill made many speeches like that asking for US assistance.

No, that is not true. The Soviets would have invaded Berlin regardless.

No they wouldn't have, how would they have invaded Berlin without all the vehicles, weapons, fuel, food, and other equipment that they got from the US that is necessary to conduct war?

What would the Russians have done without American aide, run into berlin naked, starving, with only a pitchfork and love for the Motherland to fight the Germans with? Give me a break, yes, Russian took Berlin, but Russian only did so with the massive amounts of equipment that they received from the US!!!

Do I have to show you the numbers again? The US gave the Soviets over 4 million tonnes of food, 14,000 aircraft, almost 1 million vehicles, 3 million tones of fuel, hundreds of ships, 2000 trains, 7000 tanks, 131000 machine guns! which is just part!

Yeah... Russia certainly would have taken Berlin without vehicles, fuel, weapons, artillery, let alone FOOD, CLOTHES, SHOES... (sarcasm)

I love the way you make America sound like some generous rich uncle. Like I said, the USA lent us money which we had to pay more back over a period of time.

Britain only paid a small portion you imbecile, the rest was written off by "generous" America.

As a result of America making us pay this money, we virtually were a thirld world country for a while.

I wonder how fucked bad your country would have been if the US actually made you pay all of it! I wonder how your country would be if the US didn't give you any aide to begin with, let alone save your ass militarily.

Rations after the war were worse than during it. Even bread was rationed. It isn't as if America couldn't afford to cancel the debt.

You're refusing to acknowledge the whole issue, Britain was in debt not only for military aide, but for economic aide. The US forgave almost all of the military aide through Lend-Lease, but forgave ALL of the economic aide through the Marshal plan. Meaning Britain only paid back a small fraction of what the US gave them.

The fact that you boast about Britain paying the US back is ridiculous, because if the US was as self-interested as you say, your country would still be in ENORMOUS debt to the US. In fact, your country probably wouldn't even exist and your British compatriots would be speaking either German or Russian (possibly Japanese) .

America was the single most important factor to allied victory in WWII, and is the single largest reason for the current prosperity of nations that were involved in WWII; Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan... all were given massive aide by the US free of charge... and they are the worlds mots successful economies today for this reason.

America won the war, and rebuilt the allies and aggressors both. So thank your lucky fucking stars for Americans.

---

America was the single most important factor to allied victory in WWII, and is the single largest reason for the current prosperity of nations that were involved in WWII; Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan... all were given massive aide by the US free of charge... and they are the worlds mots successful economies today for this reason.

America is the single largest reason teh current prosperity of japan??
At what point was dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Completely destroying them and killing over 50,000 people helpfull to japan's success today excatly?
Correct me if I'm wrong but dropping Atom bombs on places doesn't make them much better then what they are or aids them as you said in any way.

---

At 3/5/07 11:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: pwnage

Boy, you just got taken out behind the woodshed.

Take your whooping like a man, admit you're wrong and go to your room without supper.

---

Haha, I've just got to appreciate the irony here. I think the whole point of K-RadPie's thread was to encourage people NOT to get involved in "my country is better than your country", errm, "debates", because the only people who constantly smear other countries are those who have self-esteem issues themselves and there's no need to waste time and energy arguing with them. Now we're at page 8 and we're in the middle of a flame war. This is like a public orgy during an abstinence rally.

---

At 3/6/07 12:44 AM, loggers wrote:

America is the single largest reason teh current prosperity of japan??
At what point was dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Completely destroying them and killing over 50,000 people helpfull to japan's success today excatly?

First of all, to be clarify things, it was 200,000 by the nuclear blasts. But the thing is, if the US didn't use the nukes, then Japan wouldn't have surrendered and the US would have had to invade Japan. If the US did that, ALOT more than 200,000 Japanese would have been killed, probably millions.

Correct me if I'm wrong but dropping Atom bombs on places doesn't make them much better then what they are or aids them as you said in any way.

You're focusing too much on the fact that the US nuked Japan, and not understanding that it was the largest most desperate war in the history of the world. If any other country had the nuke first, especially Japan, it would have been far worse. You actually think that nobody would have used nukes if they had the chance to before the US did? Give me a break.

And when I said that Japan owed its prosperity to the US I was referring to a multitude of reasons. a) the US allowed Japan to have a democracy, and the US didn't take over Japan as Japan would have done to the US b) the US demanded ZERO reparations from Japan even though they were the ones who started the war with the US c) The US gave Japan billions of dollars worth of aid to help them rebuild their country and create a functioning economy along with their new democracy.

This was a mercy that Japan wouldn't have given to any country that they defeated had they been victorious.

Therefore Japan was actually lucky that the US defeated them, because they are better off today than they would have been under the rule of their emperor.

And now even today, Japan relies on the US. Since the end of WWII Japan has been threatened numerous times by China and North Korea. But the US has a promise to protect Japan, and a policy that any attack on Japan is considered an attack on the United States, this has been a deterrent that has probably helped Japan a whole lot.

Therefore it is pretty safe to say that Japan (along with many other countries and all of western Europe) owe the US for their current prosperity, because had THEY won and by chance defeated the US, they never would have allowed Americans to be free, they wouldn't have rebuilt the US free of charge like the US did.

Think about it.

---

At 2/24/07 12:10 PM, Drah wrote: Are you saying you're running out of things to say in your own defense?

Yeah, thats what hes saying.

---

At 3/5/07 07:34 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 3/5/07 02:20 PM, zzzzd wrote: America were very important in WW2, But were no more important than the British Commonwealth or Russia.

You are decrying us for our dick measuring contest yet you are doing it just as hard when asserting, despite most historical accounts, that the UK was as important to the war as the US. The UK was incredibly important, incredibly, but it would be a farce to claim they accomplished as much as the Soviets or Americans just like it would be a farce to claim the Americans accomplished as much as the Soviets. The British had one theatre to themselves for a time (North Africa) and were chasing one Field Marshal around who was undersupplied and undermanned. Then it took combined Allied forces to push them from Tunisia, not just British forces. And America was heavily invested in South East Asia, just as the British were. But as for the Pacific campaign, it was almost wholly American led. And Europe was spearheaded by American material and units, not British units.

It wouldn't be a farce to say the British Commonwealth accomplished as much as the US.
The Commonwealth were the Primary forces in The Atlantic Campaign, Africa, South East Asia, Middle east. As well as being Vital in the Western Front . Also Australian forces were heavily involved in the pacific area. So Yes I could easily state that Britain was as important as the US.

I am not saying this to bolster my own ego, I just think it is the most correct historical thing to assert, it is just common sense that is supported by mountains of evidence. In order of importance to the Allied cause during WWII, in my belief, goes 1) USSR 2) America 3) UK 4) Poland [yes, Poland] 5) France. After that who cares.

It's a Historical Opinion, It's hard to say who was the most important out of the big Three.
It isn't common sense and there isn't masses of evidence to point in anywhich way.

---

It's a Historical Opinion, It's hard to say who was the most important out of the big Three.

It isn't common sense and there isn't masses of evidence to point in anywhich way.

Excellent point.

I would have put Hitler at #3 for order of importance in the allied victory though.....

---

At 3/6/07 07:53 AM, zzzzd wrote: The Commonwealth were the Primary forces in The Atlantic Campaign, Africa, South East Asia, Middle east.

That is untrue on all accounts except for the Middle East and South East Asia. Problem is, the only reason the British were in the Middle East was to protect their colonial holdings and hold down the Suez, not because Axis forces were involved in the area. And South East Asia was for much the same reason, to protect colonial holdints.

Just to prove my point, the Liberty was the workhorse of the Atlantic, Operation Torch was a joint American/British invasion that ultimately led to the expulsion of Nazis from North Africa, and there were significant American units in South East Asia as it was.

And just for the record, SE Asia was left largely irrelevant with the island hopping campaign of the Pacific. MacArthur was also hurt by this strategy because it left the Army almost worthless in the face of a Navy and Marine led invasion of Japan. Japan could not protect or supply their soldiers in SE Asia without their Navy (which was being decimated by American units) and their island bases leading to SE Asia (that were being swallowed one by one by the island hopping). The outcomes and fights of SE Asia, while seemingly important for a portion of the campaign against Japan (early 1940's), was ultimately proven to be a periphery fight that decided little.

Also Australian forces were heavily involved in the pacific area.

Which the British could not protect at all and was under the threat of invasion for a time. Until American led forces drew the Japanese forces to a draw at the Battle of Coral Sea and ended the threat of invasion of Australia. Not to mention the American Navy is the force that supplied and protected Australia.

It's a Historical Opinion, It's hard to say who was the most important out of the big Three.
It isn't common sense and there isn't masses of evidence to point in anywhich way.

I am being as real as real can be, if I was an Ethopian or South African or whatever and I had the same knowledge I am positive I would come to the same conclusion. American forces were simply more significant and important to the outcome of WWII than British forces were. American factories produced damn near everything the Western Allies used, the American military had more casualties despite being in the war for a shorter period, the American military had more troops in the war, American creditors bankrolled the war. And most telling of all is the fact Churchill let an American General be SCAEF. If Churchill did not realize the subordinate position of his country among the Western Allies, why would he consent to such a deal?

Im not sure how any objective observer could make the case, with evidence (that doesnt just mean empty statements and no links or history to verify your statements), that the UK was as significant to the outcome of WWII as the USA. If you can make your case with any history or evidence, by all means. But dont castigate my assertion of historical fact as an opinion with empty statements, that is just bull.

But to their credit, the British forces probably shortend the war by years for their efforts. If not that, they at least enabled the American forces to accomplish as much as they did in protecting Western Europe from Soviet control. If Britain was under Nazi control, the war really could have turned ugly. Or if the British did not break the codes of the Germans like they did, a lot more people could be dead and the U Boats really could have terrorized Atlantic convoys.

---

I love it how the RoyalEnglishman completely ceased participating in this thread after my reply to him. He can't do anything once the facts come out other than hide, let the thread die, then come back the next time WWII is brought up and start saying the same BS that he said before that I totally disproved this time.

And zzzzd, why don't you read the first post of this page of the thread. Read the sources, THEN see if you're still stupid enough to suggest the Commonwealth had an equal role in WWII as the US did.

---

I'm sorry, I have not been able to be on the BBS for a sustained amount of time. Sorry to burst your bubble.

At 3/5/07 11:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Look at this graphic. Your country got more most-war aide from the US than France and Germany combined, or almost more than all the other European countries combined. That's not even including the economic aide given DURING the war that was outside of lend-lease.

Take into account though the percentage of some of the smaller countries like Belgium and the Netherlands that are covered.

How do you think your country did more when it couldn't even maintain a war effort without Us aide?

Well that's too far. Your other points are valid but not this. I'm sure that by 1940 we could still look after ourselves, and from then on Germay's interests in an invasion faded.

Why did Churchill beg the US to enter the war? Why did Britain need the US to provide aide if Britain could have done it itself? Why was Britain going bankrupt to the point the US created specific legislation to prop up the British economy?
If you read this, you will learn a little something about the whole context of the situation. It basically documents the relationship between the US, and Britain during that time. So read it, and learn some facts instead of parading your lack thereof.

That's about after the war. I told you to provide a link saying that we couldn't mantain a war effort.

I couldn't find exact numbers for each thing like for Russia. But If you look here (go to page 502) or here (page 249), it specifically states that about 60% of all Lend-Lease production from the US was given to Britain.

The first one was faulty, the second one just outlined what I was saying. All about defending our countries necessary to the defence of the US.

$450B given over 4 years... thats $112.5B a year, or about $7.5b in those days. That was 90% of Britains ENTIRE ECONOMY back then! And about 50% of Britain's yearly economy was devoted to the war. The US provided more military aide to Britain than Britain provided for itself!

But if we take a look at how little the war was costing the US economy, then I'm sure the donation will seem a little less generous.

It then says that there was NO repayment of the aide that arrived BEFORE the cutoff date (in 1945) and that 75% of the price for the remaining aide that was on its way to Britain at the end of the war was written off. That means Britain only payed off a TINY fraction of the debt it truly owed the US, that we forgave and wrote off.

Well what were you going to do? By that time there was a much bigger threat in Soviet Russia.

Yes, BEGGING (read towards the end). Winston Churchill made many speeches like that asking for US assistance.

Asking, not begging. It also comments on the way that Britain defended itself up to that point.

No they wouldn't have, how would they have invaded Berlin without all the vehicles, weapons, fuel, food, and other equipment that they got from the US that is necessary to conduct war?

I'm not denying America helped the Russians. But by the time the bulk of the help came, Stalingrad had already been won. Perhaps without US help there would have been a stalemate in the east. The Soviets had already delayed them sufficiently.

Yeah... Russia certainly would have taken Berlin without vehicles, fuel, weapons, artillery, let alone FOOD, CLOTHES, SHOES... (sarcasm)

While by this point the Nazis were using fourteen year-old boys as commanders of units younger than themselves.

Britain only paid a small portion you imbecile, the rest was written off by "generous" America.

Well, we only finished paying it this year.

I wonder how fucked bad your country would have been if the US actually made you pay all of it! I wonder how your country would be if the US didn't give you any aide to begin with, let alone save your ass militarily.

And I wonder how America would be if they hadn't done this.

Rations after the war were worse than during it. Even bread was rationed. It isn't as if America couldn't afford to cancel the debt.

The fact that you boast about Britain paying the US back is ridiculous, because if the US was as self-interested as you say, your country would still be in ENORMOUS debt to the US. In fact, your country probably wouldn't even exist and your British compatriots would be speaking either German or Russian (possibly Japanese) .

Not German. Possibly Russian but again that is all to do with interests.

America won the war, and rebuilt the allies and aggressors both. So thank your lucky fucking stars for Americans.

So what? You want me to hang up the flag and sing Star Spangled Banner?

---

At 3/7/07 07:04 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

I'm sticking to my point that the British Commonwealth was as important to the Allied effort as the US. I mean even If not by means of Casualties inflicted, land gained, Casualties sustained .ect (although the commonwealth were as important in all those ways) Then you have to take in account things like the strategic importance of the Commonwealth, Britain was a stronghold standing alone against nazi Europe. Without the commonwealth the Med and Atlantic would of been dominated by the axis. And the Anglo-American invasions of Italy, France and Northern Africa couldn't of taken place. Not only Britain but the rest of the empire, Australia was also an invaluable position on the other side of the world in the pacific. Were after much of the pacific had fallen the allies could launch the counter attacks.

The Commonwealth were the primary forces in Africa, Med, Atlantic, Middle east and SE Asia like I said. In the Atlantic the US navy didn't do a huge amount and I would hardly put the liberty ships as the victors of the Atlantic although they were incredibly useful. In the Med, The Royal Navy dominated the waters, allowing for the invasions of Italy, Sicily, Africa and Southern France. In Africa the Commonwealth Forces were most certainly the primary allied forces in the western desert campaign which was the primary African theater and also heavily involved with the rest of the Africa. British forces in the Middle East and SE Asia were as you say there to protect Britain’s colonial ties. But of course they were. They had to be protected, they brought in much needed money and were all potential bases against the Axis forces.

And Commonwealth forces were involved in the pacific. Most notably Australia who did a large amount, especially in the west Pacific campaign.
The reason the Royal Navy weren't very involved in the pacific was because it was tied up in the Atlantic. Just as the US Navy wasn't much involved in the Atlantic because it was dealing with the pacific.

Going against what I said earlier, But the Commonwealth did do as much as the US by means of Casualties inflicted, land gained, Casualties sustained....
The Commonwealth was stretched across as many theaters as the US. So the Commonwealth was as important as the US in every way apart from cost of war.

Saying all that you can't actually tell who was as important as who because it's so complicated and small things could of changed the course of war completely. It is Historical opinion.
There are historians who will swear blindly that America won the war, others that say Russia and others who say the commonwealth (or even just Britain). But after a lot of research I personally think that they were as important as each other. America’s economy, Russia's brute force and Britain’s strategic hold on the globe.

And then there’s also China, France, Poland and the rest of the world. But I can't be arsed.

Northern africa
East Africa
Mediterranean
Atlantic

---

At 3/8/07 12:10 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:

That's about after the war. I told you to provide a link saying that we couldn't mantain a war effort.

Loophole alert!

Well, we only finished paying it this year.

Then you should be one happy, pippy person. Just think about how many more years you'd have to be paying.

*sniff* Smell that? It smells like you just got your ass handed to you.

So what? You want me to hang up the flag and sing Star Spangled Banner?

DO IT!

---

At 3/8/07 12:10 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:

America won the war, and rebuilt the allies and aggressors both. So thank your lucky fucking stars for Americans.

So what? You want me to hang up the flag and sing Star Spangled Banner?

That would be nice... but no.

I just want you to admit that the US was the single largest contributor to allied victory in WWII. I've already proved that it was, even though i didn't need to considering every educated scholar on the issue in the world would agree with me. But I'm sick and tired of completely uninformed British people (like zzzzd) filling pages with nonsense and their own wacky logic to suggest otherwise, this ignoring the actual facts in order to deceive themselves into an overly optimistic view of what his country did.

So just admit it and get it over with instead of dodging all the facts. Just say it. Say this as follows:

"I acknowledge that the United States of America was the single largest contributor to allied victory in WWII, more so than Russia, the UK and it's Commonwealth, and the combined effort of all other allies. I also acknowledge that American-provided post-war economic and humanitarian aid was extraordinarily merciful and was necessary to the recovery and rebuilding of the UK and the other countries and peoples who were affected by the war, allie and enemy alike. I acknowledge that the current prosperity of both the former allies and former axis nations can be directly attributed to the enormous amount of assistance and support provided by the United States after the war."

Just say it, it will feel good to tell the truth.