Joes wonderful wwii thread - If it wasnt for america blah blah blah

Please use this forum for general Non-Football related chat

Postby JoeTerp » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:16 am

LFC2007 wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:I specifically recall seeing that Republican fella Ron Paul in a debate, he looked ridiculous, I thought "How the feck is this guy any where near a position of power?" How, how, how?

Yes, Ron Paul is not a very good debater, but WHY SHOULD THAT MATTER?!?!

He is not trying out for the debate team, he is currently a Congressman and trying to be the president.  His view for America is what is important, and his is VERY unique and one that I have taken a liking to.

positions

His is a champion of our constitution and wants us to become a humble nation once again, and NOT the "police of the world"  He is also a BIIIIG supporter of civil liberties, which is very important to me.

Well, like I said;  "I'm aware that being sharp and on the ball shouldn't be the telling distinction between picking a Candidate for the Presidency or not, but I feel, given the power the position commands - you might think the candidates would be the best of the best in a debate and as smart as a whip".


I don't want to get into specifics, as you've clearly got your own views, and your ear closer to the ground on this one. I'm going by my own judgement, and I just don't see qualities in him that fit the bill, given the size of the job.

that is exactly why he is a good candidate, the president of the United States has become WAAAAY too powerful of a position, and he would bring down the power, and give it to the states.
Image
User avatar
JoeTerp
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:38 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby LFC2007 » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:20 am

It's highly unlikely that he will win the candidacy.
User avatar
LFC2007
 
Posts: 7706
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:21 pm
Location: London

Postby JoeTerp » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:17 am

agree
Image
User avatar
JoeTerp
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:38 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby 66-1112520797 » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:09 am

'We'd all be talking German if it wasnt for the Yanks'  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

Oh FFS Do me a favour. In general the Yanks are so far up their own @rses, it isnt any wonder why they think they're the only nation with significance on this earth.

BTW, I tend to agree with Woof about the Russians, or the "Soviet Red army' big shout has to go out though to the ANZAC's and the GURKERS (SP). My Nan had the utmost respect for them and told me how great they were in WW2.  :bowdown
66-1112520797
 

Postby Sabre » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:00 pm

woof woof ! wrote:Without wanting to detract from the heroism and sacrifice made by members of the United States armed forces in Europe during WW2 ,for some to suggest that the "Allies could not have won without them" is nonsense. Certainly the US made a significant contribution, their biggest contribution to the allies however was in the form of "lend lease" materiel ( food and equipment and weapons) , this materiel was not freely given, in the case of the uk it took us 60 years to pay off the debt.

From a purely military perspective more than two thirds of the German armed forces were deployed on the Eastern front and in excess of 80% of all German casualties suffered in WW 2 were inflicted by the Russians . The American involvement certainly allowed a second front to be opened in Italy and Normandy and in all probability shortend the war , I say "in all probability " as at the time the western allies were landing in Normandy and marching into an undefended Rome the bulk of the German armed forces were disintergrating under massive assaults from the Soviet Red Army who were at that time driving into Romania, Hungary and Poland. Six months later the Russians paused for breath on the River Oder as they gathered themselves for the final assault on Berlin.

In truth if there was anyone "we couldn't have done it without" it was the Soviet Red Army.

Estimated Military Casualties WW 2 in Europe(main protagonists)

Russia.......... 10,700,000
Germany.........5.533,000
UK...................382,6000
USA (in Europe)..120.000

Finally the USA  never declared war on Germany and came riding to Europes aid. Four days after Pearl Harbour Germany declared war on the USA !.

ps for Sabre, 4500 Spaniards died in combat during WW2. All members of the "Blue Division" , they fought on the Eastern front,  supporting the Germans.

They fought is very kind, because most of them were made prisoners very early.

Yes, the Blue Division is a shame for Spain, we had a dictator that was "non beligerant" but proNazis, as he was obsessed with the communists. In fact, Franco had the help of Hitler and Mussolini in the Spanish civil war. A lot of Italian brigades, and a lot of german planes, which the Spanish ones could not match were lent by the Germans. Spain sent that brigade, and that's official and a shame.

However, let's not forget that many Spanish joined the allies aswell and fought the germans, for me everyone that is killed in a battlefield must be remembered. That was not official, because they were soldiers that lost the civil war, veterans that could not be in Spain any more as they'd be killed. Thousands aswell.

As for the Americans, I think you're right. I think the war would have been won again by the russians, the key factor was that terrible winter in the outskirts of Moscow, one of Hitler's many mistakes.

I just ask, should the Americans wouldn't have opened another front, what would have stopped the Russians from conquering? They wouldn't stop until they reached south Spain! Probably we would have had a more communist Europe, a bit like Hungary and this countries have been.
Last edited by Sabre on Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
SOS member #1499

Drummerphil, never forgotten.
User avatar
Sabre
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 13178
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:10 am
Location: San Sebastian (Spain)

Postby JoeTerp » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:10 pm

Very good point at the end Sabre. Certainly America expedited the western part of the European theater's progress, that is pretty much undeniable.  Possibly France would have been the country split in half, and the soviets might have won the cold war.  Maybe you all would be speaking Russian right now if weren't for the yanks!
Image
User avatar
JoeTerp
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:38 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby JBG » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:28 pm

It is very true that the Soviet Union carried the lion's share of the fight against Germany. They suffered the highest casualties, took the greatest material destruction and also inflicted the bulk of casualties on the Germans.

However, people should not forget the effort made by Britain and America's significant contribution.

Britain played a relatively minor role in the fighting when you look at the bigger picture and the far greater numbers involved on the Eastern front. However, Britain's refusal to yield and come to terms with Germany in 1940 was crucial to the outcome of the war. Hitler had always hoped that he could enlist the British as allies in his planned war against communism and had Britain sought a peace in 1940 it would almost certainly have been one of Hitler's terms that she contribute towards his planned war in Russia. By refusing to yield Britain ensured that Hitler did not have an entirely free hand in his attack on Russia and Britain's limited engagements in the Mediterannean in 1940 and 1941 were an unwanted distraction for Hitler in his war against Russia.

Later in the war British and American buildup in Britain and the Italian campaign necessitated Hitler withdrawing armoured divisions from the Eastern front at a time when that front was starting to crumble after the cancellation of Zitadelle. Towards the end of the war British (but primarily American) forces decisively defeated German forces on the Western front.

America's role was crucial to all of the allies and should not be forgotten. While Russian forces took the bulk of casualties America effectively bank rolled the war against Hitler before her own forces could be brought to bear against him, much the same as Britain bankrolled the war against Napoleon while Russian and Prussians paid with their blood. In much the same way as Tsar Alexander and the Prussians could not continue the fight without British aid and finance in the Napeolonic wars, Britain and arguably Russia could not have defeated Hitler without American material and financial assistance. Had America turned its back on Europe in WWII Britain would undoubtedly become bankrupt and starved by late 1941/early 1942 and would have had to sue for peace. America supplied tanks, anti aircraft guns, artillery pieces, airplanes and most importantly, trucks and jeeps, to the Soviet Union in enormous quantities as well as raw materials and food supplies. It is arguable that without this aid the Soviet Union could have buckled at any one of the pivotal times during the Eastern war.

The following FACTS should be bourne in mind by those who have posted a lot of misconceptions and falsehoods in this thread.

1. It is not true to say that America would have stayed out of the war until Pearl Harbour. Prior to Pearl Harbour a state of war existed between Germany and America. It was an undeclared and unofficial war but it existed in the Atlantic. Roosevelt occupied Greenland and Iceland in 1941 to assist Britain and extended America's defensive zone in the North Atlantic under which he (eventually) ordered American naval vessels to "shoot on sight" at u-boats. American mariners died prior to Pearl Harbour in the Atlantic. Hitler declared war on America as he recognised that a state of war already existed and his declaration of war was taken as a measure to pre-empt the inevitable and allow his u-boat commanders to have unfettered access to American waters.

2. America gave Britain (and the USSR) aid on a lend lease basis whereby the materials were given to Britain "on loan" or on credit with no payments necessary until after the war. This was merely a deviation on what Britain herself had done in countless wars in the past, most famously in the Napeolonic wars.
Jolly Bob Grumbine.
User avatar
JBG
LFC Elite Member
 
Posts: 10621
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:32 pm

Postby Judge » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:08 pm

woof woof ! wrote:Without wanting to detract from the heroism and sacrifice made by members of the United States armed forces in Europe during WW2 ,for some to suggest that the "Allies could not have won without them" is nonsense. Certainly the US made a significant contribution, their biggest contribution to the allies however was in the form of "lend lease" materiel ( food and equipment and weapons) , this materiel was not freely given, in the case of the uk it took us 60 years to pay off the debt.

From a purely military perspective more than two thirds of the German armed forces were deployed on the Eastern front and in excess of 80% of all German casualties suffered in WW 2 were inflicted by the Russians . The American involvement certainly allowed a second front to be opened in Italy and Normandy and in all probability shortend the war , I say "in all probability " as at the time the western allies were landing in Normandy and marching into an undefended Rome the bulk of the German armed forces were disintergrating under massive assaults from the Soviet Red Army who were at that time driving into Romania, Hungary and Poland. Six months later the Russians paused for breath on the River Oder as they gathered themselves for the final assault on Berlin.

In truth if there was anyone "we couldn't have done it without" it was the Soviet Red Army.

Estimated Military Casualties WW 2 in Europe(main protagonists)

Russia.......... 10,700,000
Germany.........5.533,000
UK...................382,6000
USA (in Europe)..120.000

Finally the USA  never declared war on Germany and came riding to Europes aid. Four days after Pearl Harbour Germany declared war on the USA !.

ps for Sabre, 4500 Spaniards died in combat during WW2. All members of the "Blue Division" , they fought on the Eastern front,  supporting the Germans.

perhaps we shoulda said, screw the debt and invaded the US  :D
Image
User avatar
Judge
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 20477
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:21 am

Postby woof woof ! » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:07 am

Sabre wrote:...... the Blue Division is a shame for Spain, we had a dictator that was "non beligerant" but proNazis, as he was obsessed with the communists. In fact, Franco had the help of Hitler and Mussolini in the Spanish civil war. A lot of Italian brigades, and a lot of german planes, which the Spanish ones could not match were lent by the Germans. Spain sent that brigade, and that's official and a shame.

However, let's not forget that many Spanish joined the allies aswell and fought the germans

Considering Spains civil war it's hardly suprising that some Spaniards took up arms against Russia. In fact virtually every country in Europe had men fighting alongside the Germans in what they saw as a War against Communism. In the later stages of WW2 many of Germanys infamous SS Divisions were composed of foreign volunteers , most notably those from Holland, Belgium, Denmark and France.

However, let's not forget that many Spanish joined the allies aswell and fought the germans


The Spanish who fought on the German side for some reason tend to receive more historical comment than those that fought alongside the allies.However, many Spaniards joined the French Foreign Legion and fought in North Africa, A Spanish mechanised unit was the first to enter Paris during it's liberation and "The Guernica battalion", composed of Basques, fought some of the last battles in France , mopping up Germans in the Bordeaux region.

Basques also served in the fight against the Japanese in the Pacific theatre (the Phillipines) as code talkers in a similar role to that of the Navajo Indians (Windtalkers).

Image
Last edited by woof woof ! on Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Image
User avatar
woof woof !
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 21175
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:22 am
Location: Here There and Everywhere

Postby Big Niall » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:42 pm

You have to admit that the Germans fought well though, I mean they took on everyone at once. They must have been by far the most efficient in both world wars.
Big Niall
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:30 pm

Postby Judge » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:16 pm

Big Niall wrote:You have to admit that the Germans fought well though, I mean they took on everyone at once. They must have been by far the most efficient in both world wars.

blitzkrieg mate. lightening war.

europe is large, and once troops are dug in, it takes time to oust them, no matter your strength
Image
User avatar
Judge
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 20477
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:21 am

Previous

Return to General Chat Forum

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests