or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › What are the best friends of your country?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are the best friends of your country? - Page 11  

post #151 of 266
You go.... Bravo....
post #152 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Ernest, America isn't as perfect as we like to think it is. But, come on, France's actions in Algeria during the Algerian rebelllion were hardly a better example to the rest of the world.
Bombing with napalm and A bomb on foreign countries to avoid ture fights is not the same as a civil war in a colonie where French were living and from where they have been deported from by locals.
post #153 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,16:23) The Russians bore much of the burden of the ground warfare during WWII, but would have lost w/o US resupply and a second front.
I think they certainly would have lost without US supply. But would they have lost without a second front? That's harder to say. It's at least conceivable that they would have gotten to Berlin. Maybe not in 1945, but eventually.
If the US wasn't involved in the war at all, the British were bottled up, and the Germans didn't keep several million troops in France preparing for an invasion, I think they could have won in the eastern front, especially if they had those troops available for the initial invasion, not to mention the Afrika Korps. Imagine Operation Barbarossa being led by Erwin Rommel with two million more troops and five thousand more tanks?
post #154 of 266
Quote:
Imagine Operation Barbarossa being led by Erwin Rommel with two million more troops and five thousand more tanks?
Yeah, ok, you're probably right.
post #155 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(esquire. @ Feb. 25 2005,22:25) Ernest, America isn't as perfect as we like to think it is. But, come on, France's actions in Algeria during the Algerian rebelllion were hardly a better example to the rest of the world.
Bombing with napalm and A bomb on foreign countries to avoid ture fights is not the same as a civil war in a colonie where French were living and from where they have been deported from by locals.
12500 Americans lost their lives on Okinawa and 110,000 Japanese. The US estimated that 1 million US soldiers would have been killed in an invasion of Japan, and 5-10 million Japanese. We could have fought that war and won (we had in excess of 3 million troops ready to invade, and with unrestricted air superiority, would have been able to pound them into submission with unrelenting urban warfare). In the case of an invasion, the civilian body count would have likely been in the 3-5 million range. Was it better to kill 250k civilians and avoid that type of chaos and destruction? Most people agree that it was.
post #156 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Ernest, it was not our war, we had no reasoning to join in, we did help with aid in military needs etc, but your question goes deeoer,...the French knew what was being done , yet did nothing, why is that, why does America have to come to the resue of the world always, if it had not been for the US joining the war, the rest of the world would be speaking German with the exception maybe, just maybe of the Americas (North and South), and maybe the UK....France would definitely be eating German roast and potatos....guaranteed, hell what help did you all give but a nice place to sleep in a barn when we came to Normandy.
One more time, US were only a small help compare to what did Russians and other Europeans. Just because US is far from Germany. If Canada was Germany, you wouldn't exist anymore. US have just the luck to have weak contries around it. That's the only reason why you can say that you wouldn't speak german...
post #157 of 266
Ernest, look this picture closely, and remeber without the US, this would be life today in France. Normandy, 9,387 American military Dead, most of whom gave their lives during the landing.
post #158 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(ernest @ Feb. 25 2005,13:35)
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire.,Feb. 25 2005,22:25
Ernest, America isn't as perfect as we like to think it is. But, come on, France's actions in Algeria during the Algerian rebelllion were hardly a better example to the rest of the world.
Bombing with napalm and A bomb on foreign countries to avoid ture fights is not the same as a civil war in a colonie where French were living and from where they have been deported from by locals.
12500 Americans lost their lives on Okinawa and 110,000 Japanese.   The US estimated that 1 million US soldiers would have been killed in an invasion of Japan, and 5-10 million Japanese.  We could have fought that war and won (we had in excess of 3 million troops ready to invade, and with unrestricted air superiority, would have been able to pound them into submission with unrelenting urban warfare).  In the case of an invasion, the civilian body count would have likely been in the 3-5 million range.  Was it better to kill 250k civilians and avoid that type of chaos and destruction?  Most people agree that it was.
Why to invade Japan? You go home and keep your onwn business. Japan was not in US. The US can estimate what help to justify his act. Soldiers job = to fight, so killing less civilians to protect more soldiers = stupid
post #159 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Ernest, look this picture closely, and remeber without the US, this would be life today in France. Normandy, 9,387 American military Dead, most of whom gave their lives during the landing.
What is 9 000 bodies in the WW2? Do you know how many Russians died?
post #160 of 266
The US had more than twice the population of Germany and a larger industrial base at the time of WWII, and modern technology, the situation is totally hypothetical, but if they were neighbors and fought a war the US would have likely won. However, had they been neighbors, they would never have been allowed to militarize to that large a degree. There are reasons that all of the countries in the western hemisphere are fairly weak.
post #161 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
and further more ernest, as you are finger pointing at the US for killing inocent citizens, what exactly would you call what the Germans did, were the jews not citizens, our bombs did not kill 6 million jews, 2 million catholics and gypsies, what is your argument?
My argument about what? The fact that Germans killed people can not justify what you killed others in Vietnam or Japan (I didn't talk about Germans civilians you noticed.)
post #162 of 266
Last time I checked, the war in the Pacific started when the Japanese bombed Hawaii, Wake Island, and the Philippines, all of which killed civilians. The Japanese killed millions in their campaigns in China, they are hardly blameless.
post #163 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The US had more than twice the population of Germany and a larger industrial base at the time of WWII, and modern technology, the situation is totally hypothetical, but if they fought a war the US would have likely won.
Not in 1914 and not in 1939. France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Danemark, Belgium, Russia, all together...had also twice the population of Germany. So US could have fought better than France just because they had 4 time more people and better war techology? And then? What is the proud in it? Why do you need to always repeat that without US France would be German (as if France has been existing for 200 yeards like US) as you can beat Germans only because you are 2 times more than them? Don't forget that without French, US wouldn't have existed in 1939. And that G Bush is French.
post #164 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Last time I checked, the war in the Pacific started when the Japanese bombed Hawaii, Wake Island, and the Philippines, all of which killed civilians.  The Japanese killed millions in their campaigns in China, they are hardly blameless.
But Japanese never claimed to come to save people and don't try to give lessons to anybody about war.
post #165 of 266
The US mobilized over 10 MILLION troops for WWI, although only about 3 million were sent over to Europe before the war was over. That was about 1/3 of the POPULATION of Germany. They were even stronger for WWII, and while in 1939, Germany was stronger than the US, it didn't take long for the US to mobilize its forces in a way that would have overwhelmed the Germans. It's true that the US didn't need a strong military between the wars, because we have no enemies within range (or so we thought) but if Germany was our neighbor, we would have kept pace in terms of arms, because they would have been a threat. Even if they were on our border and invaded, conquering the US is almost imposslble in even the most optimistic scenario... the US is much larger than even European Russia, and our industrial base is widespread. This whole discussion is just ridiculous, this is like a war fantasy league.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › What are the best friends of your country?