Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/10/07 01:05 PM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

At 12/10/07 01:02 PM, rithel wrote:

I could go on all day about India's achievements - but as of now we have not done anything very notable - cos most of the talent migrates to USA and the UK to work( also known as "brain drain").

But yeah , in spite of all our problems - to be a formidable nation in just 60 years of independence = awesome.

Ah I love India. My mum came from the Punjab region and I researched a bit of my heritage. And I do hear that India is making some progress with their space program, and it's impressive how much they have strived in 60 years. My mum has a house in Goa I might live there when I am older.

i'm Punjabi from Pakistan.Yeah i strongly agree india has made some of the greatest contributions to human civilization.they even invented the number system that the entire ciivlized world uses.

At 12/10/07 12:41 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Get it through your heads. Unless you actually took part in the war, you weren't there. You did nothing. The ones who did probably aren't alive any more, so stop disgracing their memory by taking credit for their efforts. And if they are still alive, I'd like to buy them a drink for being really old bastards.

Thank you grammar nazi. I think everyone here understands that none of us did any of that stuff; rather, it was their country that did it. And why do you care if we say "we" over "the British/Americans/what fucking country we're talking about

At 12/10/07 12:27 PM, tawc wrote: Cellardoor you don't quite understand the reason why America had to give all the aide to Russia.

Tawc, every single thing you ever say is complete bullshit, with no facts to back it up whatsoever. You get proved wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME you talk about anything political, let alone WWII.

Now... you try to save face after getting conclusively proved wrong, yet again, by just parading your vast levels of ignorance, yet again.

Yes america did slightly more in the Battle of Normandy than the Commonwealth

Um actually the US did VASTLY MORE in the entire western front.

,: but In the rest of the western front, Britain did more to the North as well as slightly more in the Italian Campaign.

Tawc, every single thing you say has no basis in reality, you just keep spouting out bullshit off the top of your head. You cannot prove anything you say.

As for the Japs. It wasn't just the US you twat

Um, a few SMALL SCALE battles against British colonial forces amounts to precisely jackshit. The US systematically defeated the Japanese with basically zero help, especially from the Brits who did basically nothing.

My grandad fought the Japs in the Burma Campaign as part of what is now known as the 'forgotten army'

Here you go lying again.

That's all you have left... constant and continual lies as the basis of your argument.

A huge amount of Japanese casulties were in South East Asia.

Um actually the vast majority of casualties were in the pacific or in pacific islands.

Of course America did do by far the most to the Conventinal Japanese Navy, But Britain and the Commonwealth did by far the most to the German and Italian Navies In the Atlantic and the Med.

You're so utterly full of shit.

1) The Italian navy was basically non existent, that's hilarious that you'd bring it up.

2) The German navy was not very good except for a few battle ships they had. They were not even slightly comparable to the Japanese Navy which had dozens of battle ships, and several air craft carriers.

I don't Deny that Americas Contribuation to the war was more than the Commonwealth, It was invaluable.

And thus you contradict yourself.

Without American Aide the war would of gone to the germans (allthough Britain still wouldn't of been invaded)

Incorrect. The British only barely held on to their own island, after already proving they could not do much offensively against the Germans in Europe. IF the US didn't come to save the day, the Germans only would have gotten stronger, also if the US didn't provide aide to the Russians, the eastern front would have been less intense and the Germans could have devoted more resources and man power to the wester front.

If the US didn't join, both Russia and Britain would not have survived.

And once again, that's only the part of the war in Europe. Never mind the fact that the Japanese were as strong, if not stronger than the Germans in terms of their posture in Asia, as well as their advanced navy and air force.

Howether, I belive that the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union could of won the war in europe without America stepping foot in there.

AHAHAHAHA.

Lol you're absolutely on crack. Now you're trying to pretend it was only the aide that helped, never mind the fact that both the British ALREADY TRIED to invade Europe, but FAILED in the Dieppe Raid.

Before America started fighting, the Soviet Union was pushing Germany back

With US supplies.

and Britain and Commonwealth were defeating the Germans in Africa, gaining controll of the Med and the Atlantic.

Nope. In fact, the Germans were only driven out of Africa and pushed north through the Mediterranean after the US joined. Then, the US did more in the Italian islands and on mainland Italy than the British did.

The British only did more in the initial battles in Africa, and did more as far as Navy tactics go in the Atlantic. But once again, the naval threat of Germany was NO WHERE NEAR as powerful as the one posed by Japan, who the US fought single handedly, and single handedly destroyed.

As well as gaining air superiority over Europe.

AHAHAHAHAH

That's hilarious. You mean air superiority over just your little Island?

Britain may well of been able to succesfully invade Western Europe, The Italian Campaign which was the British Plan, Which was overshadowed by the American Operation overlord, was still very succesfull.

The campaign in Italy was dependent on the US. You seriously have an issue with honesty, or maybe you're just showing how uneducated you are yet again. The US entered the war with troops before D-day, the US fought in AFrica BEFORE the Germans left, and the US and the Brits did about half and half in Italy, but the US still did the most.

I could provide a whole shit load of new facts to prove this, but I'm almost certain you'll run away again.

It could of been done just by the British and Commonwealth.

LOL.

And yes Britain and Canada failed to invade Northern France, It was a small scale raid which was badly undertaken.

Yeah, because that is all they could muster. The British didn't have the resources, the training, or the equipment to invade mainland Europe, they didn't have the know-how either.

THe allies had done at the start, In WW2 America learnt from Mistakes by the Allied forces Blood, so that when they joined the war they were at the same level as the British without the painfull past years

Same level? You mean a vastly better level? The US entered the war and took the lead because the British proved they were inept.

Not to mention the fact that Britain was a much smaller country than America, and easily did more than the US per Capita anyway,

Lol, and here you go again. Some more of your deceptive bullshit that you can never prove.

You say that Britain getting supplies of the US as if it was pathetic and feeble of Britain, but I would like to remind you that every single Industrial Citie in Britain, East London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Sheffield......etc were bombed to shit, day in and day out, unlike America.

Apparently they didn't have air superiority then after all?

Haha.

Don't get me wrong, America made a great sacrifice, maybe not as much as some countries, But a huge one never the less. Just don't think America won the war. It was a Joint effort. If anything Russia did the most,

And here you go again.

How did Russia do the most if it depended on US aide, only fought on one front of one campaign to any significant degree... all while the US supplied all the allies as was the only country to fight in every single theater of war? Not least of which Asia, where the US single handedly defeated one axis power, right after having played the pivotal role in defeating the previous axis powers.

Funny, you're just going to run away again, like you always do in the past, and months from now when you start talking shit again, you'll pretend like you won the argument.

At 12/9/07 02:53 PM, Stomer wrote: Oh and we've practically invented every major scientific/technological discovery in the history of the earth...ever.

Except for the jet engine, the rocket, the assualt rifle, methadone, the bicylcle, blue jeans, the globe, contact lenses, movable type, the telescope, the thermometer, bakelite, and the bunsen burner. All of which were invented by Germans.

And did you know that the England was populated by Germanic tribes? Guess we kind of own you guys.

Oh, and we can pwn anybody at making beer.

At 12/10/07 10:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/10/07 12:27 PM, tawc wrote: Cellardoor you don't quite understand the reason why America had to give all the aide to Russia.

Tawc, every single thing you ever say is complete bullshit, with no facts to back it up whatsoever. You get proved wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME you talk about anything political, let alone WWII.

I don't back out, you twat, you just stop posting. You think you so incredibly clever, but you have a distorted view of history.

Now... you try to save face after getting conclusively proved wrong, yet again, by just parading your vast levels of ignorance, yet again.

As for the Japs. It wasn't just the US you twat

Um, a few SMALL SCALE battles against British colonial forces amounts to precisely jackshit. The US systematically defeated the Japanese with basically zero help, especially from the Brits who did basically nothing.

It wasn't zero help you fucking twat. Britain did a large amount in SE Asia, which was vital in stopping the spread of Japan into Asia.

Here you go lying again.

Shut the fuck up you dirty fucking scum. One of my Granadads fought in Burma and the other fought in Africa. fucking twat. Don't ever call me a lier about something like that again you nasty little cunt.

That's all you have left... constant and continual lies as the basis of your argument.

Um actually the vast majority of casualties were in the pacific or in pacific islands.

Majorty not the Vast majority, fucking twat.

Of course America did do by far the most to the Conventinal Japanese Navy, But Britain and the Commonwealth did by far the most to the German and Italian Navies In the Atlantic and the Med.

You're so utterly full of shit.

1) The Italian navy was basically non existent, that's hilarious that you'd bring it up.

lol, this just proves how much you really know. The Italian Navy was the Second biggest Conventinal Navy after the Japanese in the Axis. fucking twat,

2) The German navy was not very good except for a few battle ships they had. They were not even slightly comparable to the Japanese Navy which had dozens of battle ships, and several air craft carriers.

lol, this also proves how much you know about the war and your distorted view on history.
The German Navy mostly used unconventinal navy warfare using submarines. The Japs used a conventinal navy. neither was any better. The funny thing is that you as the hippocritical twat you are see's Unconventinal warfare as cheating, unfair and easy to beat compared to conventinal even so it's harder if anything. Yet when it comes to your beloved war of Independence you think George washingtons Tactics were the greatest in the world. lol twat. Britain sunk many many more ships in the Atlantic than the Americans did in the Pacific, not to mention the fact that most of them were UNDER WATER.

I don't Deny that Americas Contribuation to the war was more than the Commonwealth, It was invaluable.

And thus you contradict yourself.

Without American Aide the war would of gone to the germans (allthough Britain still wouldn't of been invaded)

Incorrect. The British only barely held on to their own island, after already proving they could not do much offensively against the Germans in Europe. IF the US didn't come to save the day, the Germans only would have gotten stronger, also if the US didn't provide aide to the Russians, the eastern front would have been less intense and the Germans could have devoted more resources and man power to the wester front.

Britain wouldn't of been invaded, Britain won air superiority in Britain therefore, would of grown stronger as Germany grew stronger. Russia was advancing. Germany would still of been busy on the Eastern front, the largest and most important theater of the war. Britain and the Commonwealth who secured Britain, the Atlantic, Africa and the Med would of eventually Carried out a large Invasion of Europe.

As for America being tactically superior to Britain, you'll find if you talk to any historian that the Italian campaign (planned by the British) was much more tactically superior than Operation Overlord which all though was clever it was alot due to Brute force, It was just Overshadowed by Normandy.
The reason why America was put in overall command of the Western front wasn't because it was better, lol HA, it was because America refused to fight unless they were in charge. Americans even nearly fucked up the italian Campaign by changing it so that America libertated Rome instead of Britain. Pathetic.

If the US didn't join, both Russia and Britain would not have survived.

And once again, that's only the part of the war in Europe. Never mind the fact that the Japanese were as strong, if not stronger than the Germans in terms of their posture in Asia, as well as their advanced navy and air force.

lol the japanese were overrated, they had a big Navy, their Army was shite and once America learnt their weaknesses after being beaten black and blue it was a piece of piss compared to Europe.
Why do you think the Kill ratio in the Pacific between American troops and Japs was so much higher than that of American troops against Germans.

Germans were far far better. And any who yes Japanese were a serious threat to Asia, but it wasn't America who defended Asia it was China in the Sini-Japanese war and the British and Commonwealth who defended burma and India.

Howether, I belive that the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union could of won the war in europe without America stepping foot in there.

AHAHAHAHA.

Lol you're absolutely on crack. Now you're trying to pretend it was only the aide that helped, never mind the fact that both the British ALREADY TRIED to invade Europe, but FAILED in the Dieppe Raid.

Dieppe raid, was a small scale invasion, nothing like the Normandy landings. And once again during the Dieppe Raid, America sat on the sidelines learning by the means of British and Canadian Blood.

Before America started fighting, the Soviet Union was pushing Germany back

With US supplies.

I didn't deny the Allies didn't need your aide you prick. The fact of the matter is. Not only did Russia produce as much war materials as the US it also needed aide from the US, would you like me to tell you why?? because Russia did so much more than the US, loads more.

and Britain and Commonwealth were defeating the Germans in Africa, gaining controll of the Med and the Atlantic.

Nope. In fact, the Germans were only driven out of Africa and pushed north through the Mediterranean after the US joined. Then, the US did more in the Italian islands and on mainland Italy than the British did.

They may of been pushed out when America joined, but it was still the British who pushed them out, America completly fucked up in Africa, having to have the British 8th army sorting it out.

you have to remember that not only did the Commonwealth fight in every theater of the war, And contributed huge amounts, they also were the last Ally standing in Europe making Britain a stronghold against the Nazi empire. Britain also Secured the Atlantic, the Med and Africa allowing for the Invasions into europe My the Anglo-American forces.

You also have to remember that Britain was alot smaller than America, contributing far more per Capita and was being Bombed day in day out. America didn't have that problem.

At 12/10/07 10:33 PM, BigScizot wrote:

And did you know that the England was populated by Germanic tribes? Guess we kind of own you guys.

England was also populated by Celts, Romans and Vikings. And anyway England was a country far before Germany was, so it wasn't as if Germans came and settled in Britain.

Oh, and we can pwn anybody at making beer.

Germanys the best at making Largers, Which are very nice but also are pussies and womens beer.

At 12/11/07 12:53 PM, tawc wrote:

At 12/10/07 10:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/10/07 12:27 PM, tawc wrote: Cellardoor you don't quite understand the reason why America had to give all the aide to Russia.

Tawc, every single thing you ever say is complete bullshit, with no facts to back it up whatsoever. You get proved wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME you talk about anything political, let alone WWII.

I don't back out, you twat, you just stop posting.

Um usually you run away, it doesn't count if I "stop posting" when you had already stopped days earlier.

You think you so incredibly clever, but you have a distorted view of history.

WOW, coming from you?

Basically every single thing you say is wrong. You never back up anything you say with fact, because you can't, you make it up as you go along.

As for the Japs. It wasn't just the US you twat

Um, a few SMALL SCALE battles against British colonial forces amounts to precisely jackshit. The US systematically defeated the Japanese with basically zero help, especially from the Brits who did basically nothing.

It wasn't zero help you fucking twat.

Name one single battle that British forces fought against the Japanese that was pivotal towards Japanese defeat. Oh that's right, you can't. Basically all the Brits did was in the Burma campaign, in which they were supported by Chinese and American forces, and that was purely in defense of their colony, it had no offensive value in the war.

Britain did a large amount in SE Asia

It had a few defensive act which amount to precisely jackshit when you consider that the US meticulously defeated the Japanese all across the pacific.

All the Brits did was try to protect their own colonies, with assistance from several other countries including the US. This is while the US was engaging in large scale naval and amphibious operations, taking the brunt against the bulk of the Japanese military.

Here you go lying again.

Shut the fuck up you dirty fucking scum.

Quit lying as the sole basis of your argument.

One of my Granadads fought in Burma and the other fought in Africa. fucking twat. Don't ever call me a lier about something like that again you nasty little cunt.

You're a liar, you know it, and I know it. Lies are the basis of your argument, so when you try and lend credibility to your tall tales with stories about your grandparents, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you're pulling it right out of your ass.

That's all you have left... constant and continual lies as the basis of your argument.

Um actually the vast majority of casualties were in the pacific or in pacific islands.

Majorty not the Vast majority, fucking twat.

Nope, vast majority.

185,647 in China from 1937-41
1,555,308 from 1941-45 in the Pacific War.
Army -
Against US- 485,717;
Against UK/Netherlands-208,026;
In China-202,958;
Against Australia -199,511;
French Indochina -2,803;
Against USSR -7,483;
Other overseas -23,388;
Japan proper -10,543.
Navy 1941/45 -414,879.

1) The Italian navy was basically non existent, that's hilarious that you'd bring it up.

lol, this just proves how much you really know. The Italian Navy was the Second biggest Conventinal Navy after the Japanese in the Axis. fucking twat,

Funny how you think that adding "fucking twat" is going to lend credibility to your claims that you know you can't prove.

They were larger in terms of amount of ships, but their technology was vastly inferior. They lacked aircraft carriers, and they had no coordination with their airforce. They lacked radar for the most part as well.

They were made short work of, but they surrendered before their navy was destroyed anyway.

Defeating the Italian navy was nothing to gloat about.

2) The German navy was not very good except for a few battle ships they had. They were not even slightly comparable to the Japanese Navy which had dozens of battle ships, and several air craft carriers.

lol, this also proves how much you know about the war and your distorted view on history.

Haha, and this coming from you... once again... the person whose entire argument rests on his own words that get continually and meticulously disproved.

The German Navy mostly used unconventinal navy warfare using submarines. The Japs used a conventinal navy. neither was any better.

HAHAHA. First of all, the Japanese submarine fleet was probably the most advanced during WWII.

The Japanese navy was bigger, larger, and more advanced. Japan had aircraft carriers for fuck sake, loads of them, and loads of battle ships, destroyers, and cruisers that were state-of-the-art. The Germans had no aircraft carriers, and only a few battleships, and made use mostly of their submarines which although effective at destroying shipping vessels, were almost feckless in a large scale naval war.

The funny thing is that you as the hippocritical twat you are see's Unconventinal warfare as cheating, unfair and easy to beat compared to conventinal even so it's harder if anything. Yet when it comes to your beloved war of Independence you think George washingtons Tactics were the greatest in the world. lol twat.

Blah blah blah, someone named tawc is still bitter that his countrymen were defeated by American farmers.

Britain sunk many many more ships in the Atlantic than the Americans did in the Pacific, not to mention the fact that most of them were UNDER WATER.

AHAHAHAHA

Here comes your complete lies once again. If you actually believe the British sunk more ships than the US did, then you are obviously on crack.

Britain wouldn't of been invaded

Yeah it would have, it couldn't even supply simple war material for itse.f

Britain won air superiority in Britain therefore

You really over-emphasize the battle of Britain.

would of grown stronger as Germany grew stronger.

HAHAHA.

You're hilarious. Britain was getting perpetually weaker and was losing. Germany would have got stronger, Britain wouldn't have been able to build itself up without the US, considering how much aide they received compared to how much they produced for themselves.

Of course you ignore the stats I provided and keep making shit up off the top of your head.

Russia was advancing.

Supplied by the US as well.

3 days late.

Wow, my thread exploded! :D

Germany would still of been busy on the Eastern front, the largest and most important theater of the war.

Which was completely dependent on US provided-aide.

Britain and the Commonwealth who secured Britain, the Atlantic, Africa and the Med would of eventually Carried out a large Invasion of Europe.

LOL the British didn't secure anything other than Britain before the US joined you delusional freakshow.

As for America being tactically superior to Britain, you'll find if you talk to any historian that the Italian campaign (planned by the British) was much more tactically superior than Operation Overlord

Who the hell is filling your mind with this bullshit?

Notice how you can NEVER, EVER prove anything you say? Ever?

No historian will ever say the Italian campaign was "much more tacetically superior" than operation overlord.

First of all, the British didn't plan the tactical aspect of it, they only planned on invading mainland Italy, the US wanted to invade France first.

Then, the US played a more active role in Italy considering US forces invaded farther north against the brunt of the Germans at Salerno. The British only invaded at the southernmost end of Italy where there was little resistance.

The US was the main thrust, especially at the Battle of Monte Cassino and Operation Shingle.

The reason why America was put in overall command of the Western front wasn't because it was better, lol HA, it was because America refused to fight unless they were in charge.

Um the US refused to fight if the feckless, incompetent British were in charge. The British were horrible, horrible ground forces commanders.

Americans even nearly fucked up the italian Campaign by changing it so that America libertated Rome instead of Britain. Pathetic.

Lol you're so delusional and dishonest. Your entire argument is just nonsense you randomly pull out of your ass to make a jab at any given moment.

The US was the reason the Italian Campaign was successful. The British proved inept before then during the Dieppe Raid, as well as after then during Operation Market Garden, both ENORMOUS FAILURES by the feckless, incompetent British.

That's why Americans insisted they command the operation, because the British proved that they were incapable of doing it. Americans weren't going to die because some posh, idiotic, pampered British general could take control and end up fucking it all over.

lol the japanese were overrated

WOW, literally every single thing you say about WWII is wrong. Doesn't that make you have low self-esteem? When you have to lie in order to feel better about the fact that the US, a country you hate, did far more, and did it far better than your country did?

Why do you think the Kill ratio in the Pacific between American troops and Japs was so much higher than that of American troops against Germans.

More assets were dedicated to the Pacific war, that's why. Both because the US was single handedly fighting the Japanese, as well as the US wanting revenge for Pearl Harabor. The US used mostly Marines and Navy sea/air, and Army Air Corps, instead of conscripted Army land soldiers. The US tactics in the pacific weren't tethered to the British either. The went it alone, and didn't have to be subjected to the idiotic whims of the British, the US didn't have to carry the Brits' ass like they had to in Europe.

Germans were far far better.

In ground forces only.

Dieppe raid, was a small scale invasion

Yeah, because that's all the British were capable of without the US.

nothing like the Normandy landings.

Yeah, because the US supplied the allies, made up the vast majority of the forces, and commanded the whole thing.

And once again during the Dieppe Raid, America sat on the sidelines learning by the means of British and Canadian Blood.

Um nope, what happened was the British were so incredibly moronic, that they thought they could land a poorly equipped, poorly-trained, poorly-commanded landing force and make up for it with naval and air power as force protection.

They thought their naval superiority could be projected inland through aerial bombing and shelling. This backfired in their face and they used Canadians as cannon fodder due to their own incompetence.

The US observed it, observed how ineffective British tactics were, so the US decided to make sure the British wouldn't be in charge of similar operations in the future.

The US gave the British one more change in Operation Market Garden, but then Field Marshal Montgomery sealed the deal that British shouldn't command any operations, when the entire operation ended up being a text book failure on on levels of leadership and planning.

I didn't deny the Allies didn't need your aide you prick. The fact of the matter is. Not only did Russia produce as much war materials as the US it also needed aide from the US, would you like me to tell you why?? because Russia did so much more than the US, loads more.

Lol your logic is hilarious. Even though the Russians were dependent on US aide, even though they couldn't even equip their own forces, even though they only fought in one theatre to any significant decree... you think they did more than the US?

Nevermind the US fought in every theatre, did more against the Germans than the British did, and basically single handedly defeated the Japanese all while supplying all the allies at the same time.

They may of been pushed out when America joined, but it was still the British who pushed them out,

No it wasn't.

America completly fucked up in Africa, having to have the British 8th army sorting it out.

Um the initial forces in Africa that were under British command fucked up. The US forces were under command of the British First Army during the defeat at the Battle of Kasserine Pass.

That is why it was a failure.

But when the US forces were under US command, they did well... such as Battle of El Guettar, and Operation Vulcan... which is when it was the US who defeated the Germans and kicked them out of Africa.

It's funny how you mention the Africa campaign, considering it was the US who caused the Axis to be defeated.

you have to remember that not only did the Commonwealth fight in every theater of the war

Um now you're saying the commonwealth. Never mind the commonwealth, let alone the British, did basically jackshit against Japan, did less than the US in Africa and Italy, and did less than the US in Western Europe... all while being bankrolled by the US who supplised all the allies, as well as basically single handedly defeating the Japanese.

And contributed huge amounts

A fraction of what the US contributed.

they also were the last Ally standing in Europe

Due to US support.

making Britain a stronghold against the Nazi empire.

A stronghold that wouldn't have existed for long without the US.

Britain also Secured the Atlantic

Which was a hilariously small feat compared to the US destroying Japan's navy in the pacific.

the Med and Africa

In the med, in naval battles yes.

But not in Africa, considering the defeat of Germany was caused by the US.

allowing for the Invasions into europe My the Anglo-American forces.

All due to the US, who planned it, supplied it, and exucuted it to a vastly higher degree than the British... who later proved how ineffective they are when they had one change post D-day to command an operation... Operation Market Garden... which was a total failure.

BTW Americans, without Britain, you wouldn't even have a country, or a language. You fought a defensive war in the Independence wars losing every major battle and every major settlement. The French and the Danish fought all of your pivotal, conventional battles for you.

Oh , and we burned Washington to the ground.

It was barely a war, Britain was being attacked on all sides of the globe, we had a small garrison fighting in America and they had control of every major settlement, including your capital. We couldn't send more troops to assist, because, frankly, it wasn't worth the bother, and they were needed elsewhere. (As well as being intercepted on the way by other nations)

Imagine the current Iraq situation, now let's say Iraq is the size of America, supported and funded by two of the worlds richest, most powerful nations, and you have hardly any troops there, and your also at war with the largest super powers of the Earth at the same time. Your fighting on all fronts, and you have already taken every major settlement and won every conventional battle in America with your small garrison deployed there, and you've burned the capital to the ground.

Defeat? I think not.

Britain. The nation that created the modern world.

Britain > All modern nations.

The British Empire was the largest empire in history and for a time was the foremost global power. It was a product of the European age of discovery, which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European colonial empires.

By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population. It covered about 36.6 million km² (14.2 million square miles),[ about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its legacy is widespread, in legal and governmental systems, economic practice, militarily, educational systems, sports, and in the global spread of the English language. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous colonies or subject nations.

nuhuh, ethiopia kicks the holy shit out of england

cd6 and tawc, the stand up comedy duo of the future.

The American Revolutionary War of Independace stats: (Bear in mind you were infinitely bigger than us to start with, in terms of numbers)

America

250,000 troops

15,000 French troops
8,000 Spanish troops
Total: 273,000

Deaths: 25,000
Wounded: 25,000

Britain

Total: 107,000 Troops

Deaths: 24,000
Wounded: 20,000

So, what's that? We had 150,000 less trops, but we killed more, and lost less. Shock horror.

Also, cellardoor6, I can't help noticing, but in the page you linked to for your argument declaring that the Japanese submarines were more advanced than the the German U-boats, there is a paragraph as follows:

"Compared to German submarines, Japan's huge boats were relatively easy to sight visually and with radar, slow to dive, hard to maneuver underwater, easy to track on sonar, and easy to hit. Japanese hulls were also not as strong as those of German boats, and therefore could not dive as deeply nor survive such rough treatment. Also, they lacked radar until the first sets were installed in June 1944, and never had sets as good as the Allies possessed."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that hardly sounds like they're praising the Japanese submarines.

And it's not just that paragraph. The article, in summary, details the failings of the Japanese submarine fleet, partly due to tactics, and partly due to the experience the US and UK had gained from engaging U-Boats in Europe.

I'd be interested to see what you, someone who places great pride in linking to many sources to support your evidence, have in the way of thoughts on this pretty dud source. Surely you at least skim-read it before hand?

At 12/11/07 08:33 PM, Stomer wrote:

So, what's that? We had 150,000 less trops, but we killed more, and lost less. Shock horror.

Sorry, 175,000 less troops!

At 12/11/07 08:35 PM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that hardly sounds like they're praising the Japanese submarines.

I am.

Japan had what was easily the most diverse submarine fleet of any nation in the Second World War. These included manned torpedoes, midget submarines, medium-range submarines, purpose-built supply submarines (many for use by the Army), long-range fleet submarines (many of which carried an aircraft), submarines with high submerged speed, and submarines that could carry multiple bombers.

Because of the vastness of the Pacific, Japan built many boats of extreme range and size, many of which were capable of cruises exceeding 20,000 miles and lasting more than 100 days. In fact, Japan built what were by far the largest submarines in the world, indeed, the only submarines over 5,000 tons submerged displacement, or submarines over 400 feet in length until the advent of nuclear power. These same boats were credited with a range of 37,500 miles at 14 knots, a figure never matched by any other diesel-electric submarine. These large boats could each carry three floatplane bombers, the only submarines in history so capable. Japan built 41 submarines that could carry one or more aircraft, while the vast submarine fleets of the United States, Britain, and Germany included not one submarine so capable.

During the Second World War, there were 56 submarines larger than 3,000 tons in the entire world, and 52 of these were Japanese. Japan built 65 submarines with ranges exceeding 20,000 miles at ten knots, while the Allies had no submarine capable of this feat. By 1945, Japan had built all 39 of the world's diesel-electric submarines with more than 10,000 horsepower, and all 57 of the world's diesel-electric submarines capable of 23+ knots surface speed.

The Japanese navy also built submarines with the fastest underwater speeds of any nation's combat submarines. They employed 78 midget submarines capable of 18.5 to 19 knots submerged, and built 110 others capable of 16 knots. As the war was ending they completed four medium-sized submarines capable of 19 knots submerged. This exceeds the 17.5-knot performance of the famed German Type XXI coming into service at the same time. As early as 1938, Japan completed the experimental Submarine Number 71, capable of more than 21 knots submerged.

Japanese submarines employed the best torpedoes available during the Second World War. The Type 95 torpedo used pure oxygen to burn kerosene, instead of the compressed air and alcohol used in other nation's torpedoes. This gave them about three times the range of their Allied counterparts, and also reduced their wake, making them harder to notice and avoid. The Type 95 also had by far the largest warhead of any submarine torpedo, initially 893 pounds (405 kg), increased to 1210 pounds (550 kg) late in the war. All Japanese torpedoes made during the war used Japanese Type 97 explosive, a mixture of 60% TNT and 40% hexanitrodiphenylamine. Most importantly, the Type 95 used a simple contact exploder, and was therefore far more reliable than its American counterpart, the Mark 14, until the latter was improved in late-1943. Japan also developed and used an electric torpedo, the Type 92. This weapon had modest performance compared to the Type 95, but emitted no exhaust and, therefore, left no wake to reveal its presence. Similar electric torpedoes were used by several nations.

And it's not just that paragraph. The article, in summary, details the failings of the Japanese submarine fleet, partly due to tactics, and partly due to the experience the US and UK had gained from engaging U-Boats in Europe.

The German U-Boats were used mostly to attack shipping lanes, that is why they were relatively more successful... because they didn't perpetually go up against military ships like they did in the pacific.

At 12/11/07 08:35 PM, Stomer wrote:

At 12/11/07 08:33 PM, Stomer wrote:

So, what's that? We had 150,000 less trops, but we killed more, and lost less. Shock horror.

Sorry, 175,000 less troops!

Your country also LOST, lost control of its colony, and went back across the Atlantic in defeat, a defeat against a military force that was made up mostly of civilians.

Now, the country that your lost Empire was defeated by, is the world's lone superpower, which your country now depends on (not even mentioning WWII where your country was saved by the US, had its debt forgiven by the US, and was then rebuilt by the US).

Go cry.

At 12/11/07 08:54 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/11/07 08:35 PM, Stomer wrote:

At 12/11/07 08:33 PM, Stomer wrote:

So, what's that? We had 150,000 less trops, but we killed more, and lost less. Shock horror.

Sorry, 175,000 less troops!

Your country also LOST, lost control of its colony, and went back across the Atlantic in defeat, a defeat against a military force that was made up mostly of civilians.

Now, the country that your lost Empire was defeated by, is the world's lone superpower, which your country now depends on (not even mentioning WWII where your country was saved by the US, had its debt forgiven by the US, and was then rebuilt by the US).

Go cry.

I'll repeat myself, you obviously didn't hear.

BTW Americans, without Britain, you wouldn't even have a country, or a language. You fought a defensive war in the Independence wars losing every major battle and every major settlement. The French and the Danish fought all of your pivotal, conventional battles for you.

Oh , and we burned Washington to the ground.

It was barely a war, Britain was being attacked on all sides of the globe, we had a small garrison fighting in America and they had control of every major settlement, including your capital. We couldn't send more troops to assist, because, frankly, it wasn't worth the bother, and they were needed elsewhere. (As well as being intercepted on the way by other nations)

Imagine the current Iraq situation, now let's say Iraq is the size of America, supported and funded by two of the worlds richest, most powerful nations, and you have hardly any troops there, and your also at war with the largest super powers of the Earth at the same time. Your fighting on all fronts, and you have already taken every major settlement and won every conventional battle in America with your small garrison deployed there, and you've burned the capital to the ground.

Defeat? I think not.

At 12/10/07 01:28 PM, neon-dude wrote:

At 12/9/07 03:26 PM, CoolGoat wrote: Lol, Lets see what the Americans have invented in less then 300 years.

Revolver
Repeating Rifle
Barbed Wire

Oh yes, they're great inventions, they helped many ppl... OH NO they didn't they killed people. So USA invented murder!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaHA HAHAHAHAhaHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

At 12/11/07 09:13 PM, Stomer wrote:

I'll repeat myself, you obviously didn't hear.

Lol, you repeat yourself because that's all you can do.

BTW Americans, without Britain, you wouldn't even have a country, or a language.

Without Germanic tribes, you wouldn't have a country, or a language.

So you should thank modern day Germany for your existence, according to your logic.

You fought a defensive war in the Independence wars losing every major battle and every major settlement.

Lol what? We fought a war of independence in which you systematically bled the British forces until they were incapable of fighting any further.

The French and the Danish fought all of your pivotal, conventional battles for you.

Lol you're so full of crap.

Oh , and we burned Washington to the ground.

Actually you razed Washington,

It was barely a war, Britain was being attacked on all sides of the globe

Britain lost control of its colony against a revolution that was made up of mostly peasants.

we had a small garrison fighting in America and they had control of every major settlement

Before they were defeated.

We couldn't send more troops to assist, because, frankly, it wasn't worth the bother, and they were needed elsewhere.

It wasn't worth the bother? Your country lost control of one of the most resource rich regions in the world. The country that your country lost to is now the world's superpower, and now dominates your country economically, politically, and military.

Imagine the current Iraq situation, now let's say Iraq is the size of America, supported and funded by two of the worlds richest, most powerful nations

Lol you're so delusional it's hilarious.

The population of the colonies back then was small, only about 2 million during the onset of the Revolutionary war. Iraq has a population of 27.5 million, and is surrounded by several countries who send in weapons and fighters.

Lol, just parading how fucking ignorant you are.

and you have hardly any troops there

Let's compare.

According to the stats you provided, your country had 107,000 troops. That was while operating in a country of 2 million. That's 1 soldier for every 18 civilians.

The US has a 160,000 troops in Iraq, operating in a country of over 27 million. That's 1 soldier for every 168 civilians.

So that shatters your logic doesn't it?

Defeat? I think not.

LOL!!!!

Your country LOST to the US. The went on to become the worlds first democracy, and the worlds superpower. Your country is now a 2nd rate power who relies on the US.

That is defeat on your part, in fact, you got pwned harder than any country in history considering the country you lost against when trying to maintain control over it, went on to be the savior of your country, and now it your country is essentially its lapdog.

Seriously, what the hell are they teaching you idiots in the UK?

You get proved wrong, so you just repeat what got proved wrong over and over again thinking that maybe the fact that what you said is complete lies will somehow have more credibility.

At 12/9/07 02:53 PM, Stomer wrote: Think about it, were tiny, yet we created the earths main language,

You bastardized Latin.

we lead the way to parliamentary democracy

You backstabbed your rulers and created a pseudo-Republic (but legally, the Monarchy still rule).

We owned a quarter of the globe,

That is tyranny.

We were the first people to attack nazi Germany and fight the whole duration of the war and win...Twice.

You fought Nazi Germany twice?
Plus, I am more of an Axis man.

You did help us America, but only because you were attacked first and because it saved you from the great depression.

We only prevented Germany from becoming pure because of a legal contract. We went to war over a bit of paper.

Bow before us.

I like the English, but lick my shit.

The Romans and Greeks created the basics of todays' indoor plumbing and hot/cold faucets.

That's the most major technological advancement in the history of the earth... Ever.

It was all lost in the dark ages...Who brought it all back in the renaissance? Yeah, that's right.

Yea thats right THE FUCKING ITALIANS!

At 12/10/07 01:28 PM, neon-dude wrote: Oh yes, they're great inventions, they helped many ppl... OH NO they didn't they killed people. So USA invented murder!

War is the natural state. Besides, England took a quarter of the world. How can you ever call your country better than others in terms of morality?

At 12/9/07 02:53 PM, Stomer wrote: You did help us America, but only because you were attacked first and because it saved you from the great depression.

ok well considering when most country's switch from war time production to peace time production (know as demobilization) it takes a tool on the economy. so it would make no sense to get into another war.

One thing I must admit is that Englands health care system is much better than Americas.

I'm an american,But I must say I do not give a fuck who got us or earned us this country for what, nor do I give a fuck why. I eat here, shit here, sleep here, live here and thats all I care about.

Excuse me while I go and take a piss.

At 12/11/07 09:56 PM, Mr-Destruction wrote: One thing I must admit is that Englands health care system is much better than Americas.

I'm an american,But I must say I do not give a fuck who got us or earned us this country for what, nor do I give a fuck why. I eat here, shit here, sleep here, live here and thats all I care about.

Excuse me while I go and take a piss.

see now if someone did this in England they would be tared and feathered.