Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/8/07 10:51 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

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

Fuckin hell your a cunt.

America wasn't the most important factor to the victory of the second world war.
I'm not being ignorant, your being ignorant. I remember last time you were talking bollocks you made a statement that the allied effort was 70% american. lol or something like that.
You talk shit.

At 3/9/07 09:54 AM, zzzzd wrote:

America wasn't the most important factor to the victory of the second world war.
I'm not being ignorant, your being ignorant. I remember last time you were talking bollocks you made a statement that the allied effort was 70% american. lol or something like that.

Way to attack his post with links and sources! Excellent JOB!

At 3/9/07 09:54 AM, zzzzd wrote: Fuckin hell your a cunt.

America wasn't the most important factor to the victory of the second world war.

If Einstein had stayed in Germany, would you be glowing green today?

I'm not being ignorant, your being ignorant.

You're*, it's a contraction of the words "you" and "are", easily confused with the possessive "your", especially by 1st and 2nd graders.

I think you'll recieve American history in 3rd. Good luck next year!

At 3/8/07 06:59 PM, zzzzd wrote: 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).

I can promise you no historians who say there was a single overriding factor in ending the war would be laughed out of their profession. It doesnt happen.

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.

But heres what it is: Britain indeed did have a strategic position that was key to ending the war in Western Europe. Their position ENABLED the Allies to strike back at the Nazis faster and harder than would have been possible otherwise, shortening the war and saving lives.

But that is what Britain did, ENABLE. They did not have the manpower that defeated the Germans, they did not have the capitol that financed the war, they did not have the industrial base that created the war material. And for that reason I cannot in good faith say the people (British) who enabled the Americans to fight as effectively as they did were as crucial to the final outcome of the war. They were tremendously important but still subordinate to America during the war because Churchill rightly observed his was not the place to call the shots concerning the war.

At 3/8/07 07:22 PM, Memorize wrote: Loophole alert!

Not really...seeing as he said that we couldn't mantain a war effort.

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

No. I can only smell the glue that inspired you to post this.

At 3/8/07 10:51 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: "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.

You keep on going too far. There was not an OVERRIDING factor. I acknowledge that America was extremely important for the war effort and the rebuilding of Europe, but not more than the combined war effort of the other allies. That's ignoring the millions of Brits, French, Russians, Poles and others who fought and some died for the defence of their country.

But apart from that sentence, I agree with you.

At 3/9/07 11:38 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

But that is what Britain did, ENABLE. They did not have the manpower that defeated the Germans, they did not have the capitol that financed the war, they did not have the industrial base that created the war material. And for that reason I cannot in good faith say the people (British) who enabled the Americans to fight as effectively as they did were as crucial to the final outcome of the war. They were tremendously important but still subordinate to America during the war because Churchill rightly observed his was not the place to call the shots concerning the war.

What do you mean they didn't have the man power?

In the terms of Casulties substained, Casulties inflicted and Manpower. The Commonwealth and the US were on similar grounds.

At 3/9/07 11:38 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 3/8/07 06:59 PM, zzzzd wrote: 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).

I can promise you no historians who say there was a single overriding factor in ending the war would be laughed out of their profession. It doesnt happen.

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.

But heres what it is: Britain indeed did have a strategic position that was key to ending the war in Western Europe. Their position ENABLED the Allies to strike back at the Nazis faster and harder than would have been possible otherwise, shortening the war and saving lives.

More than shortening the war. It was Crucial to the war. And I would like to remind you that out of the allies striking back, The commonwealth were there as much as the US.

Battle of Normandy was Equal Commonwealth/US
Southern France was more US
Italian Campaign was Equal Commonwealth/US
Sicily was Equal Commonwealth/US
Northern africa was generally more Commonwealth.
The Bombing raids on Nazi territory were equaly Britain and US.

The Med and Atlantic were the majority of Axis Battleships, Destroyers, Submarines and Crusiers as well as a 1/3rd of axis Aircraft carriers were sunk. Was dominated by the Commonwealth.

So ontop of Britain 'enabling' the allies to strike back, The actually were equally important as the US in Western europe.As well as being more involved than the US in Africa, and SE Asia. And dominating the Atlantic and Med which were as important to the outcome of the war as the Pacific naval campaign.

Some WW2 Statistics

Have a read...

At 3/9/07 01:12 PM, zzzzd wrote: Blah.

No links. For anything. If you provide sprecific statements like you did, you need links. You still dont get it, this is the third time I have harped on this yet you have asserted the same thing three times. Head out of sand, please.

Once you get the links (if you can get them) we can debate on this information you are asserting. Until then, this is over I, will not reply anymore.

Have a read...

Are you serious. You just linked me to the wikipedia article on WWII. What the fuck.

You are either an incredibly insulting motherfucker or a really stupid one.

The US was far more important to the Atlantic than the Commonwealth was to the Pacific Without America there wouldn't have been a war in the Pacific. America dominated the Pacific and sent the Japanese to bed without dinner.

At 3/9/07 02:27 PM, DoomBagel wrote: The US was far more important to the Atlantic than the Commonwealth was to the Pacific Without America there wouldn't have been a war in the Pacific. America dominated the Pacific and sent the Japanese to bed without dinner.

I wouldn't say that. The Us Navy wasn't much involved in the atlantic, the US merchant navy is another matter.

But as the US navy dominated the pacific, the Royal navy and royal canadian navy dominated the atlantic.

At 3/9/07 02:26 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 3/9/07 01:12 PM, zzzzd wrote: Blah.

No links. For anything. If you provide sprecific statements like you did, you need links. You still dont get it, this is the third time I have harped on this yet you have asserted the same thing three times. Head out of sand, please.

Once you get the links (if you can get them) we can debate on this information you are asserting. Until then, this is over I, will not reply anymore.

Have a read...

Are you serious. You just linked me to the wikipedia article on WWII. What the fuck.

You are either an incredibly insulting motherfucker or a really stupid one.

Your understating the importance of the commonwealth in WW2 I gave you a page of stats. which back up some of my statements. As for the rest you have to have a look at some of the WW2 Campaigns and theaters your self.

What links do you want??

At 3/4/07 01:50 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: What the hell does that have to do with anything? You're saying the British had gone bankrupt after WWII? I'm not so surprised, a huge worldwide war in which the British did most of the fighting dried up their money reserves?

Yes we were bankrupt, or near enough, and what did our friends in the US do? LOAN us money. Great allies there. We've only just managed to pay it off.

Britain had lost almost all of it's main territories by the 1920s, it didn't have anything to do with WWII. Probably WWI, and I guess you could say that most of Britains military assets had been pulled to Europe to fight, and that is what may have led to the series of revolts that had made the British relinquish most of their territories. If the British weren't such assholes to the people they were "governing", maybe England could be a larger world player.

Not really, Britain had granted the dominions independance before the second world war but they were still part of the commonwealth and assisted Britain in it's foreign affairs. India remained a directly controlled colony near enough until after the second world ward (1947) and India was our main colony. There wasn't any major decolonisation until after 1957, the main two reasons being that Britain was bankrupt and both the US (our main ally) and the USSR (our main enemy) were both anti-imperialists.

The action to signal the final collapse of the Empire (not cause it, just finish it off) was the Suez Crisis which also showed the level of UK dependancy on America.

Still even though it's not nice to admit you have a point. If we had built up the colonies, given them a sense of community within the commonwealth, given as much as we had taken and not ruled with an iron fist in some places I think the UK and a lot of the other countries in the commonwealth would be better off, especially the african countries.

At 3/8/07 10:51 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I just want you to admit that the US was the single largest contributor to allied victory in WWII.

If you mean "America was the largest single factor behind why the war ended up the way it did" then yes you are right. If America didn't join the war when it did things would have gone differently.

You CANNOT say, however, that without the US the allies would never have won the war. It's unlikley but it could have happened.

On the other hand though you can also say that the lack of the US in the League of Nations was the biggest single factor in allowing the 2nd World War to start.