 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / November 2005British "sluts" aided the German war effort in WW II....
http://tinyurl.com/8kepe Disgusting. I can't believe the U.S. saved such a decedent society.. > http://tinyurl.com/8kepe > > Disgusting. I can't believe the U.S. saved such a decedent society.. Sluts rule. > http://tinyurl.com/8kepe > > Disgusting. I can't believe the U.S. saved such a decedent society.. Every country has some socially redeeming value. I look on the Brits in a better light after that story >http://tinyurl.com/8kepe > >Disgusting. I can't believe the U.S. saved such a decedent society.. While spelling flames are outlawed on usenet, this one made me LOL. - Tony The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after it had started and the tide had already turned. > The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after it had started and the tide had already > turned. Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. The thought of Japan/Germany losing without US help is completely ludicrous. You were getting your a.s handed to you. --Tedward >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after >> it had started and the tide had already turned. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >from 1776 onwards its always been the same, sh.t the US could not even beat >a few Vietnamese peasants, Somali bandits or Iranian dissidents. > >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after > >> it had started and the tide had already turned. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >from 1776 onwards its always been the same, sh.t the US could not even beat > >a few Vietnamese peasants, Somali bandits or Iranian dissidents. This from a country that couldn't beat a bald, pacifist. Jon oh you mean Gandhi,we did not want to beat him,we were not fascists,unlike France, Belgium and Portugal the majority of British public opinion did not want to fight pointless colonial wars,so we left. Can you remind me how many millions of British troops it required to rule India ? >>> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after it had started and the tide had already >>> turned. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>on its own, nor will it ever, from 1776 onwards its always been the same, sh.t the US could not even beat a few >>Vietnamese peasants, Somali bandits or Iranian dissidents. Give my regards to Chamberlain's descendents. I'm sure they are proud. --Tedward what about Lindberg and Father Coughlin? Do you think that all the Spitfires and Hurricanes used in the Battle Of Britain were made after September 1939 ?,what about radar,conscription,the shadow factory system? Appeasement was public policy but behind the scenes Britain and France were preparing for war,in France's case World War 1. Too many cliches about this topic,not enough research,what about America First ?,German-American Bund? Have you ever seen the photo of the full Madison Square garden with all these nazi scum? > >>> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after it had started and the tide had already > >>> turned. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Give my regards to Chamberlain's descendents. I'm sure > they are proud. Chamberlain had the guts to declare war. A war that we could have just stayed away from. Germany were no direct threat to the British whatsoever. > >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after > >> it had started and the tide had already turned. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >from 1776 onwards its always been the same, sh.t the US could not even beat > >a few Vietnamese peasants, Somali bandits or Iranian dissidents. Ah yes, the empire helped OH SO MUCH in defeating the Japanese. The heavy lifting was done by the US Marines in the island hopping campaign and the US Navy carrier force, and the coup de grace was applied by American B-29s... you remember the B-29, aka the Washington - you brits copied the design since you couldn't figure out how to build a strategic bomber larger than the Lancaster. I loved the British carrier force...what's that, five boats? Other than a few Sea Hurricanes and spits, most of the aircraft flying off of those boats were US made...Wildcats, Hellcats, Corsairs. I won't even mention your submarine force, since we all know the brits had zero impact on blockading Japan while the US sub fleet sealed off the entire Japanese empire. Of course, you rode the American magic carpet onto the beaches of France too, and your precious Monty spent umpteen days dicking around trying to get all his ducks in a row instead of taking the offensive throughout the European campaign. You folks were such a bunch of scared twats that you couldn't even mount a daylight bomber offensive, but rather snuck around at night like a band of thieves. Other than your general lack of stones, this was also caused by the fact that you had no long range fighters to escort your bombers much beyond the beaches of France...guess you couldn't wind the rubber band on the spitfire tight enough. While you boys were dicking around over the Channel, the real fighter pilots were screaming in at tree-top level over Berlin. >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years >> >> after [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Channel, the real fighter pilots were screaming in at tree-top level > over Berlin. >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years >> >> after [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Channel, the real fighter pilots were screaming in at tree-top level > over Berlin. Oh shut up you tart. What about the Battle of Britain? Fought long before your cannon fodder even knew there was a war on. Spizz > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years > >> >> after [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Oh shut up you tart. What about the Battle of Britain? Fought long before > your cannon fodder even knew there was a war on. Your toast wasn't saved by the RAF, but rather by a shift of the Luftwaffe's attention away from RAF bases in order to bomb the holy hell out of London. The RAF fighter bases were almost wiped off the face of God's Green Earth, saved only by Hitler's looney decision making. > The RAF fighter bases were almost wiped off the > face of God's Green Earth, saved only by Hitler's looney decision > making. Really, I wish you would look up some facts first. The only RAF bases attacked were on the coast, the whole damn country was full of them. Ken Young > > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years > > >> >> after [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > face of God's Green Earth, saved only by Hitler's looney decision > making. Not so. Read John Keegan. > > > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two > years [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Not so. Read John Keegan. And where did all those little planes I saw beating the hell out of the bomber fleets come from? Damaged fighter fields were often back in ops the next day. Learn. Surreyman > > > > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two > > years [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Damaged fighter fields were often back in ops the next day. > Learn. Beating the hell out of the bomber fleets? Is that before they dropped their bombs on London or when they were on their way home, mission completed? > > > > > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two > > > years [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > their bombs on London or when they were on their way home, mission > completed? Both. > > > > > > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until > two [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Both. The victory that is the Battle of Britain is a national British myth. > > > > > > > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until > > two [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > The victory that is the Battle of Britain is a national British myth. Do you mean the Germans won it? The battle of Britain was the first , and only, attempt to subjudicate a country by air power. It failed. Read John Keegan. > The battle of Britain was the first , and > only, attempt to subjudicate a country by air power. What do think the British strategic bombing campaign was, then? Ken Young ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In September 1939 the Germans bombed the London docks to smithereens. The RAF had every right to bomb civilian targets in Berlin. The Reich had to be taught that Berlin was just as vulnerable as London. The Yanks did the same thing to the Japanese Empire when Billy Mitchell took his medium bombers directly to Tokyo ! There is a gap in Dr. Josef Goebbels' diary from May to September of 1942. I think that herr Goebbels came to the realization in this period that Hitler had lost the war by losing North Afrika to Patton and Feldmarshal Montgomery. David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The RAF had every right to bomb civilian targets in Berlin. I am not arguing right or wrong, just what the campaign was. Harris certainly claimed he could subjugate Germany with air power. Ken Young > > > > > > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until > two [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > > Damaged fighter fields were often back in ops the next day. > > > Learn. That was Beaverbrook, wasn't it? > > Beating the hell out of the bomber fleets? Is that before they dropped > > their bombs on London or when they were on their way home, mission > > completed? > > Both. There's a hilarious section in Len Deighton's FIGHTER in which Deighton suggests that the Commander of the midlands (11 Group), Leigh-Mallory, was furious with the Commander to the south, (12 Group) Keith Park, because Park's men were deliberately shooting down all the German aircraft before they could reach his turf and be shot down by _his_ men. Max > > >> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years > > >> >> after [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > face of God's Green Earth, saved only by Hitler's looney decision > making. And our invention of RADAR and the Merlin/Gryphon engine - which we kindly allowed you to produce by way of thanks for all the dried eggs and spam. Get real... >>> >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after >>> >> it had started and the tide had already turned. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Oh shut up you tart. What about the Battle of Britain? Fought long before your cannon fodder even knew there was a war > on. You're lucky Hitler was a petulant little twit, you cheeky bum looker. --Tedward >>> Ah yes, the empire helped OH SO MUCH in defeating the Japanese. The >>> heavy lifting was done by the US Marines in the island hopping campaign [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> blockading Japan while the US sub fleet sealed off the entire Japanese >>> empire. Lets clarify a few points shall we, The US captured a few atolls and Islands of limited valuem, the commonwealth, russians and chinese fought from India right across the asian subcontinant. The Commonwealth faced far more Japanese troops than the yanks did, Re your equipment, How was your B29s enjoying British Radar, Steel Catapults, Arrester gear ? while you guys were making prop job we were on building war winning jets. >>> Of course, you rode the American magic carpet onto the beaches of >>> France too, and your precious Monty spent umpteen days dicking around >>> trying to get all his ducks in a row instead of taking the offensive >>> throughout the European campaign. Really, lets see, who got off the beaches and inland first???? Yanks ??? Naa they were on the beaches for days, but the Brits and canadians were inland on day one taking the fight to the germans. Then you f.cked up the Ardennes, like you did in Kasserine, Just face facts your nation is inept at best. > > >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after > > >> it had started and the tide had already turned. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > copied the design since you couldn't figure out how to build a > strategic bomber larger than the Lancaster. The Soviets copied the B-29. The British at the time were developing Jet bombers, the next generation, the Canberra. It was so advanced at the time, it flew so high and fast, it could fly over the Soviet union unmolested after WW2. The US made it under licence and called a Martin B- something. They used it in Viet Nam. > I loved the British > carrier force...what's that, five boats? 6 carriers with armoured decks and support ships. > Other than a few Sea > Hurricanes and spits, most of the aircraft > flying off of those boats > were US made...Wildcats, Hellcats, Corsairs. The Corsair was regarded as a failure and the US would not use it,. The British perfected the design and a landing technique which the US then adopted. > I won't even mention your submarine force, > since we all know the brits had zero impact on > blockading Japan while the US sub fleet sealed > off the entire Japanese empire. The British concentrated on the Atlantic and Med, the US the Pacific. > Of course, you rode the American magic > carpet onto the beaches of > France too, What carpet might that be? The US performance in Normandy was not particularly shining. The Omaha beach fiasco was because the US would adopt the Hobart funnies. The only one they did they realise too far out and they sunk. The Brits sent in special dedicated armour and secured the beaches quite quickly. > and your precious Monty spent umpteen days dicking around > trying to get all his ducks in a row instead of taking the offensive > throughout the European campaign. You need to read more. > You folks were such a bunch of > scared twats that you couldn't even mount > a daylight bomber offensive, > but rather snuck around at night like a band of thieves. The US daylight losses were phenomenal. The British abandoned them. > Other than your general lack of stones, > this was also caused by the fact that you > had no long range fighters to escort your > bombers much beyond the beaches of France. The British developed dedicated bomber radar. The long range fighter was the Mustang (P-51 in the US). Designed by the Brits for the Brits, and made by a US company for the Brits. It even had a RR engine. The Mustang was a British plane made in the USA as the UK air industry was overstreched. The US government tested it after the first deliveries to the RAF. > ..guess you couldn't wind the rubber band on the > spitfire tight enough. While you boys were dicking around over the > Channel, the real fighter pilots were screaming in at tree-top level > over Berlin. You need to read more. > > >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after > > >> it had started and the tide had already turned. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > blockading Japan while the US sub fleet sealed off the entire Japanese > empire. Ahem, you overlooked the Fairey Swordfish... twenty or so of which did to the Italians what the Japs did to your fleet. And effectively sank the Bismark. > Of course, you rode the American magic carpet onto the beaches of > France too, and your precious Monty spent umpteen days dicking around > trying to get all his ducks in a row instead of taking the offensive > throughout the European campaign. You folks were such a bunch of > scared twats that you couldn't even mount a daylight bomber offensive, > but rather snuck around at night like a band of thieves. And came back with the treasure, rather than thousands of casualties - think about it? I agree about Monty, over-cautious to a fault, but when given the choice between him and Patton... difficult one? Other than > your general lack of stones, this was also caused by the fact that you > had no long range fighters to escort your bombers much beyond the > beaches of France...guess you couldn't wind the rubber band on the > spitfire tight enough. While you boys were dicking around over the > Channel, the real fighter pilots were screaming in at tree-top level > over Berlin. No, but we had to provide the engines for your long range fighters so they could rise above 10000 feet with any effect - thank us for Rolls Royce, your old pig-iron engines were crap, and always have been.. It was a combined effort, and a fine one - attempting to score silly points like this is ridiculous and... pointless. Celebrate it. > "Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in message > It was a combined effort yes, but don't pretend it was 50-50. The US was the 800-pound gorilla to Britain's 200 pound chimp. US might carried the day, along with soviet manpower.  Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > > "Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Britain's 200 pound chimp. US might carried the day, along with soviet > manpower. Oh now he brings the USSR onto the USA side, so they can't do it all by themselves. then. >>>"Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh now he brings the USSR onto the USA side, so they can't do it all by > themselves. then. ROFL! Of course we could have. I was referring to what actually did happen. The USA and USSR did the heavy lifting, the UK got to keep its empire for 5 more years. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 >>>>"Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > happen. The USA and USSR did the heavy lifting, the UK got to keep its > empire for 5 more years. If you put so much emphasis on might, please tell me WTF happened in Vietnam? You guys just don't learn do you? Spizz >>>>>"Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you put so much emphasis on might, please tell me WTF happened in > Vietnam? We lost the war. Of course it was a war we could afford to lose. If we couldn't have afforded to lose it (like say WW2) we would have won it. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>>>>"Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > We lost the war. Of course it was a war we could afford to lose. So you lost in on purpose, after dropping more TNT than all side in WW2. >>>>>>>"Pauli G" <rioroad@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So you lost in on purpose No, we lost because we were losing, and unwilling to take the steps needed to win. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > > > >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years after > > > >> it had started and the tide had already turned. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the Japs did to your fleet. And effectively sank the > Bismark. The Japs based Pearl Harbour on the Swordfish Tarranto attack. > > Of course, you rode the American magic carpet onto the beaches of > > France too, and your precious Monty spent umpteen days dicking around [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And came back with the treasure, rather than > thousands of casualties - think about it? > I agree about Monty, over-cautious to a > fault, but when given the choice between > him and Patton... difficult one? Monty was far superior to Patton. Patton was a lowly rank general - and an idiot. > > Other than > > your general lack of stones, this was also caused by the fact that you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > thank us for Rolls Royce, your old > pig-iron engines were crap, and always have been.. Their long range fighter was efective a British fighter - P51/Mustang > It was a combined effort, and a fine > one - attempting to score silly > points like this is ridiculous and... pointless. Celebrate it. The problem is...the Yanks actually do believe they saved everyone's lives and without them we would all be speaking German. It is that bad. > > > > >> The US saved no one dickwad, it didnt enter the war until two years > after [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > The Japs based Pearl Harbour on the Swordfish Tarranto attack. So they say... sorry about that. I hope it won't affect our 'special relationship'? :¬) > > > Of course, you rode the American magic carpet onto the beaches of > > > France too, and your precious Monty spent umpteen days dicking around [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Monty was far superior to Patton. Patton was a lowly rank general - and an > idiot. I can't say I admire either of them much. Both were publicity seekers, obsessed with their image. I think Patton was probably deranged, which is why he was sidelined - the General portrayed in Kelly's Heroes is rather onviously him. Monty was a plodder, exactly the opposite, would never attack without overwhelming superiority and massive preperation - whether that is a 'good general' I'm uncertain? The finest generals (IMO) are those who move fast and know their limitations. From WWII, Rommel and Guderian shine out, and of course the Russian guy whose name I have forgotten, starts with a 'K'... ahem. Modern Generals are strange creatures, who I find rather intriguing. A strange mixture of arrogance, pride, sentimentality and piety, who write poems, admire past cultures and are often hero-worshippers in peculiar directions. I suppose the stress of sending thousands to their deaths must need some release, but they almost all seem a little odd or eccentric - and vain. > > > Other than > > > your general lack of stones, this was also caused by the fact that you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The problem is...the Yanks actually do believe they saved everyone's lives > and without them we would all be speaking German. It is that bad. Without them we would all be speaking Russian. That would be weird... > > Monty was far superior to Patton. Patton > > was a lowly rank general - and an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sidelined - the General portrayed in Kelly's Heroes > is rather onviously him. Yep. > Monty was a plodder, exactly the opposite, > would never attack without > overwhelming superiority and massive preperation - > whether that is a 'good > general' I'm uncertain? If you have the resources use tem to ensure a certain victory. Sound to me. The US did the same. In every battle they won in WW2 they outnumbered the enemy at least 4 to 1. > The finest generals (IMO) are those who move fast and know their limitations. > From WWII, Rommel and Guderian shine out, and of course the Russian guy > whose name I have forgotten, starts with a 'K'... ahem. The finest generals are those that get results. Monty did that...and Patton. Monty was on a different level to Patton. People tend to forget O'Connor , who scythed through the Italians who had a larger force. > > The problem is...the Yanks actually do believe they saved everyone's lives > > and without them we would all be speaking German. It is that bad. > > Without them we would all be speaking Russian. That would be weird... Not so. The Cold war was a US creation to justify the large military. The Russians were going nowhere, they could hardly stay in Afghanistan. > > > Monty was far superior to Patton. Patton > > > was a lowly rank general - and an [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Not so. The Cold war was a US creation to justify the large military. The > Russians were going nowhere, they could hardly stay in Afghanistan. Hmmm... in 1945 they sure could have stayed in Europe! They needed no American support to beat the Nazis, though naturally welcomed any handed out. Even so, how many Shermans at the battle of Kursk? They were already winning by sheer bloody mindedness and attrition when Pearl Harbour occured... I have a suspicion that the fantastic effort the USA put into re-taking Europe was not entirely motivated by a hatred of fascism, but by a loathing of communism. Think about it? Cheers Martin . Even so, > how many Shermans at the battle of Kursk? There was a Soviet Army Corps with them, not sure when it went operational and it tended to be used for exploitation rather than fighting pitched battles. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > . Even so, > > how many Shermans at the battle of Kursk? > > There was a Soviet Army Corps with them, not sure when it went operational > and it tended to be used for exploitation rather than fighting pitched > battles. The Soviets were not impressed with it. The T34 was way ahead. > > Not so. The Cold war was a US creation to justify the large military. The > > Russians were going nowhere, they could hardly stay in Afghanistan. > > Hmmm... in 1945 they sure could have stayed > in Europe! The final lines were all predetermined. The Soviets wanted buffer states, as they suffered 25 million dead. > They needed no American > support to beat the Nazis, though naturally > welcomed any handed out. Even so, > how many Shermans at the battle of Kursk? None. A British tanks here and there. The Soviets like the Valentine as it was very reliable. > They were already winning by sheer > bloody mindedness and attrition when Pearl [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > by a hatred of fascism, but by a > loathing of communism. Think about it? I did and didn't think much longer. ;-) > Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. > The thought of Japan/Germany losing without US help > is completely ludicrous. You were getting your a.s > handed to you. > --Tedward I am an Anglo-phile - I simply love the Brits - but Ted is so right here. When US entered the war - you guys didn't even have an a.s to get handed to you. Not only did we enter the war in December, 1941 - but we were sending you ships and planes - etc - for years before that. Many US citizens went to Canada to fly Canadian planes to help out too. Many women flyers spent hours ferrying planes over to "the biggest aircraft carrier" ever. Sometimes ones mind gets clouded when they are reduced to depending on prodigal son colonies to rescue a once gigantic world power. Brits tend to live in the past - and in your case re-write it. Although the current US foreign policy is terrible (and you Brits seems to go along with it) - in the past the US has been gracious to GB, France, Japan, Russia, Italy - and many other countries that took up the sword against us - both in hot and cold wars. If the US would not have gone after the Hitler - Werner Von Braun would have been firing heat seeking rockets up the butts of individual Brits that were so full of hot air - they would have had to use air to air missiles. Harry > Sometimes ones mind gets clouded when they are reduced to depending on > prodigal son colonies to rescue a once gigantic world power. Brits tend [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Harry I suggest you go andget some more accurate reference books, The US played a part in WW2 and that is it, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa and hundrerds of other nations did the real work while the US sat and waited to see which side was winning, then when they got whupped by the japs in their own back yard they decided they should join in on our side, Yes the US contributed lots of kit and quite a few men , but they only contributed to the over all effort, Kasserine pass was as fortaste to come, then D Day when the Brits and Candians fought their way inland while the US stayed on the beaches, then to trhe Ardenne where the yanks nearly cost us the war. Gracious In what way?? If it was not for France you would not exist, their navys attack on the small brit force in the US tipped the war in your favour, What about Gracious when the Brits saved your sorry a.ses in Korea ? >>Sometimes ones mind gets clouded when they are reduced to depending on > I suggest you go andget some more accurate reference books, The US played a > part in WW2 and that is it, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa > and hundrerds of other nations did the real work while the US sat and waited ROFL! The US and USSR did all the heavy-lifting in WW2. Brits and Franks were along for the ride, that's about it. > to see which side was winning, then when they got whupped by the japs in > their own back yard they decided they should join in on our side, LOL - we didn't get whipped by the japs nearly as bad as you brits did. and we licked them all by ourselves. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > LOL - we didn't get whipped by the japs nearly as bad as you brits did. > and we licked them all by ourselves. Really, Thats very odd because on your very own TV history channel the war in the pacific make a huge pint of noting the carriers Britain lent the US, Plus the heavy, medium and light cruisers the Australians used in support of nearly every US landing. Or are your own history programs wrong?? BTW Check on the Jungle warfare scene, youll find the Brit troops fought on where your guys ran. Then when we move forward while we won in Malaya, Borneo, and Burma after WW2 you guys lost in Vietnam and Somalia, and if the Brits did not rescue you in korea you would have lost that as well. >>LOL - we didn't get whipped by the japs nearly as bad as you brits did. >>and we licked them all by ourselves. > Really, Thats very odd because on your very own TV history channel the war > in the pacific make a huge pint of noting the carriers Britain lent the US, > Plus the heavy, medium and light cruisers the Australians used in support of > nearly every US landing. Or are your own history programs wrong?? "in support of". In other words, the vast majority of men and materiel was provided by the USA. If it wasn't for the USA, britain would have permanently lost all the colonies japan took from her in 1941-1942. Denying that is moronic. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > If it wasn't for the USA, britain would have permanently lost all the > colonies japan took from her in 1941-1942. Denying that is moronic. Well the Japanese attacked the US in order to divert them from Japanese expansion in SE Asia, thinking that the US would sue for peace rather than fight. A great mistake. The British colonies were attacked at about the same time as the USA. What do you suggest as an alternate strategy for the USA? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> If it wasn't for the USA, britain would have permanently lost all the >> colonies japan took from her in 1941-1942. Denying that is moronic. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What do you suggest as an alternate strategy for the USA? Pubic hair in all centerfolds and pin-ups. It was stupid making the Americn soldier wait until 1971. Signature"I wish people who had trouble communicating would just shut up." -- Tom Lehrer http://www.livejournal.com/users/jayfurr/ >>If it wasn't for the USA, britain would have permanently lost all the >>colonies japan took from her in 1941-1942. Denying that is moronic. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What do you suggest as an alternate strategy for the USA? no alternative. my point was just about who did most of the work over there. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>If it wasn't for the USA, britain would have permanently lost all the > >>colonies japan took from her in 1941-1942. Denying that is moronic. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > no alternative. my point was just about who did most of the work over there. You need to do some reading. The 14th Army was the largest Allied army in WWII. It defeated the Japanese in India, Burma, most of Indo China and SE Asia. It had few tanks and heavy guns, and what it did have tended to be old. The US component was mainly aircraft and their crews. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>If it wasn't for the USA, britain would have permanently lost all the >>>>colonies japan took from her in 1941-1942. Denying that is moronic. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It defeated the Japanese in India, Burma, most of Indo China and SE Asia. dude, anyone who doubts that the USA did the great majority of the fighting in the pacific is off his rocker. a big backwards indian army scrounging around in SE Asia was peripheral to the effort at best, irrelevnt at worst. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > > The 14th Army was the largest Allied army in WWII. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > scrounging around in SE Asia was peripheral to the effort at best, > irrelevnt at worst. You really do need to do some reading don't you. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>The 14th Army was the largest Allied army in WWII. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You really do need to do some reading don't you. not from delusional historical revisionists ... Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>>The 14th Army was the largest Allied army in WWII. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > not from delusional historical revisionists ... Lack of content noted. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>>The 14th Army was the largest Allied army in WWII. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lack of content noted. i was just aping you. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > > > The 14th Army was the largest Allied army in WWII. > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You really do need to do some reading don't you. > -- > William Black Yep, I wonder why the Japs put their largest army into Burma? Jamie > > > > The 14th Army was the largest Allied army in WWII. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yep, I wonder why the Japs put their largest army into Burma? "The victories of these Americans (A.V.G.) over the rice paddies of Burma are comparable in character, if not in scope, with those won by the R.A.F. over the hop fields of Kent in the Battle of Britain." -- Winston Churchhill > dude, anyone who doubts that the USA did the great majority of the > fighting in the pacific is off his rocker. a big backwards indian army [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >importance .................................Sheesh you can tell that only >the Eroll Flyn versions of history made it to the american schools >>dude, anyone who doubts that the USA did the great majority of the >>fighting in the pacific is off his rocker. a big backwards indian army [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>importance .................................Sheesh you can tell that only >>the Eroll Flyn versions of history made it to the american schools ask anyone in japan who they lost the war too and 99/100 will say "the USA", not "britain", not "mao and chaing", not even "the allies". i wonder why ... ? Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > ask anyone in japan who they lost the war too and 99/100 will say "the > USA", not "britain", not "mao and chaing", not even "the allies". i wonder > why ... ? Perobably because you dropped two huge atomic bombs from a great hieght onto millions of civilians, in a typical american manouvre. While the commonwealth fought the japs all the way back you lot balked at the thought of up close and personal combat, just like you did in Vietnam and Somalia, Stick to killing civilians and allies from the air, your an inept menace on the ground. >>ask anyone in japan who they lost the war too and 99/100 will say "the >>USA", not "britain", not "mao and chaing", not even "the allies". i wonder >>why ... ? > > Perobably because you dropped two huge atomic bombs from a great hieght > onto millions of civilians, in a typical american manouvre. as long as you recognize that (a) the USA would have beaten Japan without any help at all from britain or any of her asian crown jewels, and (b) britain and all her asian crown jewels would have permanently lost all those colonies that japan overran in 1941-1942 without the USA, we're good. and since you recognize that, we're good. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > > Perobably because you dropped two huge atomic bombs from a great hieght > > onto millions of civilians, in a typical american manouvre. > as long as you recognize that (a) the USA would have beaten Japan > without any help at all from britain or any of her asian crown jewels, > and (b) britain and all her asian crown jewels would have permanently > lost all those colonies that japan overran in 1941-1942 without the USA, > we're good. > and since you recognize that, we're good. Your education is obviously very bad. In particular your history. Try reading up on the developments Britain gave [I know that's an odd term to a USAian so you may have to look it up in a dictionary] freely to the USA in order to win the war. Without the UK the USA would *not* have beaten Germany and would *not* have beated Japan within a decade. The UK and the USA needed one another in addition to the USSR and the British Empire. If you want to pretend otherwise you're in cloud-cuckoo land. You are *not* that good. You never were. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >>>Perobably because you dropped two huge atomic bombs from a great hieght >>>onto millions of civilians, in a typical american manouvre. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the war. Without the UK the USA would *not* have beaten Germany and would > *not* have beated Japan within a decade. britain certainly needed the USA. the USA, though helped very much by the british and her commonwealth, didn't need them to beat japan. we could do that all by ourselves. sorry if the facts don't make you feel good. what's sad about this to me is that i love the british people/nation, have always admired them, but a handful of brit wackos spouting sheer nonsense has forced me to come across as anti-british. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > britain certainly needed the USA. the USA, though helped very much by > the british and her commonwealth, didn't need them to beat japan. we > could do that all by ourselves. sorry if the facts don't make you feel good. So how would they do it? Remember that, without radar the USA are being pounded on the Eastern seaboard by U boats. The Germans are putting resources into a long distance rocket and the atom bomb. The USA are way behind (nowhere?) in their development. The Japanese can concentrate 100% on attacking the US territory whilst the Gemans can concentrate 100% on the USSR as they have their Western defences sewn up. Now explain. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >>britain certainly needed the USA. the USA, though helped very much by >>the british and her commonwealth, didn't need them to beat japan. we [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Now explain. explain what? you keep trying to bring germany and the ussr into the picture. the issue is the war in asia. the USA would have beaten the Japanese without british help. britain could not have beaten the Japanese without USA help. What's so hard to grasp about that ..? Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>britain certainly needed the USA. the USA, though helped very much by > >>the british and her commonwealth, didn't need them to beat japan. we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Now explain. > explain what? you keep trying to bring germany and the ussr into the > picture. the issue is the war in asia. Oops. So what happens with Germany who have declared war on the USA? How long do you ignore them? > the USA would have beaten the Japanese without british help. britain could > not have beaten the Japanese without USA help. What's so hard to grasp > about that ..? Your failure to distinguish between a reasonable historical 'what if?' and fantasy. I'll accept that, with Superman's help, you would have won whatever you wanted to win. OK? SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >>>>britain certainly needed the USA. the USA, though helped very much by >>>>the british and her commonwealth, didn't need them to beat japan. we [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Oops. So what happens with Germany who have declared war on the USA? How long > do you ignore them? You doubt that the USA and USSR beat Germany and Japan? Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>>>britain certainly needed the USA. the USA, though helped very much by > >>>>the british and her commonwealth, didn't need them to beat japan. we [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Oops. So what happens with Germany who have declared war on the USA? How > > long do you ignore them? > You doubt that the USA and USSR beat Germany and Japan? They didn't on their own. How might they have done? SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >>You doubt that the USA and USSR beat Germany and Japan? > > They didn't on their own. > How might they have done? weird ... Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>britain certainly needed the USA. the USA, though helped very much by > >>the british and her commonwealth, didn't need them to beat japan. we [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > explain what? you keep trying to bring germany and the ussr into the > picture. the issue is the war in Asia. As the USA was at war with a European country and an Asian country, both are connected on how the US would fight the war in Asia, while pursing the war against the European country as well, or at least not allowing the European country to openly attack the USA. > the USA would have beaten the Japanese without british help. britain > could not have beaten the Japanese without USA help. What's so hard to > grasp about that ..? It is totally incorrect and a sweeping assumption based on Hollywood history, with no basis on how the world situation was at that time. >>the USA would have beaten the Japanese without british help. britain >>could not have beaten the Japanese without USA help. What's so hard to >>grasp about that ..? > > It is totally incorrect and a sweeping assumption based on Hollywood > history, with no basis on how the world situation was at that time. You can't keep your story straight. You admit the USA would beat Japan anyway in one post, then deny it in the next. What gives? Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>the USA would have beaten the Japanese without british help. britain > >>could not have beaten the Japanese without USA help. What's so hard to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You can't keep your story straight. You admit the USA would beat Japan > anyway in one post, Eventually, as US industry was vastly larger than Japans > then deny it in the next. What gives? I don't deny it at all. You say the British could not defeat the Japanese, which poppycock when assessing the British strength. The full weight of all British and Commonwealth forces would have swept the Japs aside. The British fought a hand to hand jungle fight with the Japs all though Burma and admirably pushed them out. In WW2 the Japs were regarded as super jungle fighters. The British beat them in jungles. You are very confused. > "stephenj" <sjarok@cox.net> wrote in message > You say the British could not defeat the Japanese, > which poppycock when assessing the British strength. The full weight of all > British and Commonwealth forces would have swept the Japs aside. It took the USA, with far more fighting capability than Britain, 3.5 years to sweep the Japs aside. How could the Brits have ever done it? > The > British fought a hand to hand jungle fight with the Japs all though Burma > and admirably pushed them out. In WW2 the Japs were regarded as super > jungle fighters. The British beat them in jungles. By "british" do you mean the Indians who were on the verge of throwing off the British yoke ..? Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > > The > > British fought a hand to hand jungle fight with the Japs all though Burma [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > By "british" do you mean the Indians who were on the verge of throwing > off the British yoke ..? The 14th Army had representatives of more Allied nations than any other Allied army. Less than half were Indian, and the best Indian regiments were fighting in the Middle East. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> The >>>British fought a hand to hand jungle fight with the Japs all though [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>By "british" do you mean the Indians who were on the verge of throwing >>off the British yoke ..? > The 14th Army had representatives of more Allied nations than any other > Allied army. > > Less than half were Indian, In other words, the plurality were Indian. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>> The > >>>British fought a hand to hand jungle fight with the Japs all though [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > In other words, the plurality were Indian. http://www.burmastar.org.uk/ You would not have wanted to face a Gurkha regiment http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/ or Bill Slim, who was by far the best allied commander of WWII http://www.burmastar.org.uk/slim.htm Jamie >> >>> The >> >>>British fought a hand to hand jungle fight with the Japs all though [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Jamie I second that thought Jamie. I also wonder how they would have done without the Aussie coast watchers. Jan "If you can't take a joke,you shouldn't have joined" > > "stephenj" <sjarok@cox.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > capability than Britain, 3.5 years to > sweep the Japs aside. With British, Australian and Soviet help. NOT by themselves. Get that clear. > How could the Brits have ever done it? Read what was written. British and Commonwealth forces were formidable and would have swept the Japs aside. > > The > > British fought a hand to hand jungle fight with the Japs all though Burma > > and admirably pushed them out. In WW2 the Japs were regarded as super > > jungle fighters. The British beat them in jungles. > > By "british" do you mean the Indians The "British" Indian army was a part of the 14th army. The b > who were on the verge of throwing > off the British yoke ..? The British walked out of India. NOT forced out. Pre WW2, there were plans to give India independence. >>>"stephenj" <sjarok@cox.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Read what was written. British and Commonwealth forces were formidable and > would have swept the Japs aside. Let me see if i can get you to see the problem with your position here. On one hand, you claim that the USA couldn't have beaten Japan without a protracted war. It took 3.5 years for the USA (with the help of allied forces) to beat Japan, so IYO it would have taken *much longer* for the USA to have won by themselves, right? So how long? About 10 years? I dont't think so but you seem to. If so, how on earth could britain, which had *far less productive capacity than the USA*, ever hope to beat Japan in anything less than a war stretching out so far into the future that who knows what would have happened....? If it would take the USA 10 years, what would it take Britain? A lifetime? Never? >>who were on the verge of throwing >>off the British yoke ..? > > The British walked out of India. NOT forced out. Pre WW2, there were plans > to give India independence. Yes, Gandhi and those folks had nothing to do with it. The Queen just decided to give away the biggest diamond in her crown. LOL. Heck, if those Indians who were the key to the 14th army were so tuff, how could Britain have possibly kept possession? LOL. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>>"stephenj" <sjarok@cox.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > forces) to beat Japan, so IYO it would have taken *much longer* for the > USA to have won by themselves, right? Yep. > So how long? About 10 years? I dont't think so but you seem to. I would say about 10 years. Most the Jap army was facing the Brits and Soviets. > If so, how on earth could britain, which > had *far less productive capacity than > the USA*, ever hope to beat Japan in > anything less than a war stretching out > so far into the future that who knows what > would have happened....? The Brits had superior technology to the US in radar, computers, jets, etc If these were denied the US it would take 10 years. But the UK would be using them. > If it would take the USA 10 years, what > would it take Britain? A lifetime? Never? Shorter than the US because the UK was more technically advanced. > >>who were on the verge of throwing > >>off the British yoke ..? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to do with it. The Queen just decided to give > away the biggest diamond in her crown. LOL. That is correct. You can stop laughing now. A sign of madness. > Heck, if those Indians who were the key > to the 14th army were so tuff, > how could Britain have possibly kept > possession? LOL. Not everyone in India wanted independence. >>>>>"stephenj" <sjarok@cox.net> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Yep. I see ... >>So how long? About 10 years? I dont't think so but you seem to. > I would say about 10 years. Most the Jap army was facing the Brits and > Soviets. I see ... >>If so, how on earth could britain, which >>had *far less productive capacity than >>the USA*, ever hope to beat Japan in >>anything less than a war stretching out >>so far into the future that who knows what >>would have happened....? > The Brits had superior technology to the US in radar, computers, jets, etc > If these were denied the US it would take 10 years. But the UK would be > using them. ROFL! Computers? Jets? Sure, i remember all that being deployed in WW2, and with devastating results. We all remember the British troops and machines (driven by that space-age tech) rolling over everyone else's. In other words, you're back to fantasizing about spaceships and robots. Sorry, but the Brits didn't have the productive capacity to do the job. That's the facts. >>If it would take the USA 10 years, what >>would it take Britain? A lifetime? Never? >Shorter than the US because the UK was more technically advanced. Your credibility is officially shot. Signature"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 > >>>>>"stephenj" <sjarok@cox.net> wrote in message > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > ROFL! Computers? Worlds first fully electronic computer was Colossus which decoded the German codes. > Jets? Meteor. Two squadrons. The Brits invented the jet engine. The Canberra was being developed. The Japs had nothing like the Mosquito > Sure, i remember all that being deployed in WW2, Where you there? > and with devastating results. We all remember the British troops and > machines (driven by that space-age tech) rolling over everyone else's. Yep. The best tank of WW2 was a Britsh tank, the Centurion - only deployed in the final weeks. > In other words, you're back to fantasizing > about spaceships and robots. You need to read more, an |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message