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 14  

post #196 of 266
Personally I don't think Bush is thinking much further ahead than what he's having for dinner tonight, but there are some very intelligent people in the Army who hopefully will be working to rebuild it, we'll get past this, but it might not be too easy. Cancelling the Crusader, Seawolf, and Comanche platforms may have been some of the biggest mistakes we've made in past years, damn Rumsfield. The Virginia class subs are nice though.
post #197 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernest,Feb. 25 2005,14:31
Quote:
Originally Posted by drizzt3117,Feb. 25 2005,23:26
There are about 80,000 American soldiers buried in France from WWII... just for reference.  The US lost 2 1/2 as many soldiers killed as France, and the war was FOUGHT in france.
French didn't fight so much. And then? They had the right to choose not to fight if they didn't want to do. What would you say about Italy, Norway, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Swisserland, Croatia, Bulgaria if you blame France?
Right, they surrendered and the US did their fighting for them.  Of course, they still have a proud military tradition and the US only fights against Mexicans and Vietnamese... listen to yourself... Bringing up Vietnam is VERY laughable, you don't remember Dien Bien Phu do you? http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/index.htm
For the last time, French history doesn't sum up to 200 years like did the US one... will see where will be US in 1000 years (probably x small states of blacks, mexicans and chinese and whites.) US are used to fight weaker enemies (like german after 5 years of war) in 1944, Vietcongs (how can you win by sending only poor blacks teenager on the first line ?) or Iraquies in a desert. Not fighting may be an intelligent choice sometimes and bombing with a A bomb is nothing to be proud of.
post #198 of 266
Quote:
Roy, I think the US could have defeated Germany w/o Russian success on the Eastern front, but it would have taken much longer to accomplish.  If Germany hadn't declared war against the US on December 11, 1941, and the US had been concentrating only on the Pacific front, and defeated Japan more quickly, they could still have won the war in Europe, but the war of attrition would have been more severe (this is of course considering that the UK didn't fall, which is likely even w/o the Russians)  In a long term war (10-15 years) Europe just didn't have the natural resource base to support a war against the US.   If that war had been fought, it likely would have been ghastly, probably featuring blasting a beachhead into the Baltic with nuclear strikes against Hamburg and Williamshaven, and perhaps against German-held French targets as well.  Again, we're well into a very hypothetical situation here, but a simple study of industrial capacity and natural resources favors the Americans.
At any rate, I am very happy that both the US and the Russians were involved. I live in a city which was hit extremely hard during WW2, most people don't realize that more German Jews survived the war than Dutch Jews. Unfortunately also because our police officers were more than willing to co-operate with the Germans. But the effects of WW2 can still be felt in the Amsterdam of 2005. Especially when a lot of people in your social circle are older Jews. I enjoy history, especially the second world war. But I have to admit I miss the ability to look at 'the big picture'. In school we have always been taught that the Americans and Canadians (they were the first into my own country) were the good guys. Later on in college most of my friends were Russians who can't stand the fact that Europe credits the US before Russia in light of the sacrifices they have made. I enjoy learning about it, but I'm not an expert. So from what I have picked up from different sides I understood that it was mainly the fact that Germany had to fight the war on two fronts was what beat them in the end. I agree thay Europe does not have the resources to fight a long term war. But Germany might very well have won the war before then. They were getting there with their nuclear technology and rocket technology. Also, at the end of the war Germany had technologically superior arms. They jusn't couldn't mass produce it anymore. If they coudl produce their fighter jets fast enough as well as their new generation of tanks the Normandy Invasion may have took a different turn...
post #199 of 266
Dz, When comparing America's natural resources and industrial capacity vs. Germany, you're not including all the countries, and their concomitant natural resouces, that Germany would have conquered at that point. And, that's not even including the natural resources from Russia, assuming that Russians and Germans were still allied together. The Germans would never had to divide their armies like they did if Hitler hadn't made the crucial mistake of attacking Russia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when the Japense attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, they went after military base and therefore weren't targeting civilians.
post #200 of 266
Quote:
(sending poor blacks on the first line.)
You leap to believe every anti-American lie anyone can put into circulation, don't you? This claim is false, and has been proved false, with numbers. Mouthing tired campus-left slogans won't change that.
post #201 of 266
Quote:
Dz, When comparing America's natural resources and industrial capacity vs. Germany, you're not including all the countries, and their concomitant natural resouces, that Germany would have conquered at that point. And, that's not even including the natural resources from Russia, assuming that Russians and Germans were still allied together. The Germans would never had to divide their armies like they did if Hitler hadn't made the crucial mistake of attacking Russia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when the Japense attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, they went after military base and therefore weren't targeting civilians.
Germany would have needed the oil fields of Russia. Otherwise it wouldnt have made a difference what other resources could be found in the rest of Europe.
post #202 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Also, at the end of the war Germany had technologically superior arms. They jusn't couldn't mass produce it anymore. If they coudl produce their fighter jets fast enough as well as their new generation of tanks the Normandy Invasion may have took a different turn...
US developped the A bomb thanks to German scientists. If Hitler hasn't been betrayed by some of his officers and made some small mistakes with Russians, the US on French beachs would have been as ridiculious as in Cuba's beach.
post #203 of 266
Quote:
So from what I have picked up from different sides I understood that it was mainly the fact that Germany had to fight the war on two fronts was what beat them in the end.
Germany didn't exactly have to fight anyone. The Nazi regime chose to fight an agressive war of conquest.
post #204 of 266
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(ernest @ Feb. 25 2005,17:42) (sending poor blacks on the first line.)
You leap to believe every anti-American lie anyone can put into circulation, don't you?  This claim is false, and has been proved false, with numbers.  Mouthing tired campus-left slogans won't change that.
How many US dead in Vietnam?
post #205 of 266
Quote:
Dz, When comparing America's natural resources and industrial capacity vs. Germany, you're not including all the countries, and their concomitant natural resouces, that Germany would have conquered at that point. And, that's not even including the natural resources from Russia, assuming that Russians and Germans were still allied together. The Germans would never had to divide their armies like they did if Hitler hadn't made the crucial mistake of attacking Russia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when the Japense attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, they went after military base and therefore weren't targeting civilians.
I don't think anyone believes that Germany and Russia would have been allied at that point, I was using the hypothetical analysis that if Germany had defeated Russia, what the situation would have been. There is no OIL in Europe (as our saudi friend Rafjaijandi, or whatever his name is, was only too willing to point out) and that would have been a major concern. The North Sea hadn't fully been explored yet at that point in time. I think the Me-262 was an underappreciated jet, but remember that the British launched their own jet at about the same time, and only one year after WWII (1946) the US launched the F-86 Sabre, which would have dominated the skies over Europe. The most impressive plane from that entire era IMO was the Mig-15... although the North Koreans and Chinese couldn't fly it worth a sh*t. I actually think that would have been an interesting intellectual exercise to wargame a second world war w/ a defeated Russia... BTW, Germany was using the natural resources of most of Europe at the time of the American invasion...
post #206 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy,Feb. 25 2005,17:44
So from what I have picked up from different sides I understood that it was mainly the fact that Germany had to fight the war on two fronts was what beat them in the end.
Germany didn't exactly have to fight anyone.  The Nazi regime chose to fight an agressive war of conquest.
My apologies, but this is a question of semantics and given the fact that English is my second language I hope you will forgive me
post #207 of 266
Quote:
My apologies, but this is a question of semantics and given the fact that English is my second language I hope you will forgive me  
No problem.
post #208 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(Roy @ Feb. 25 2005,23:44) Also, at the end of the war Germany had technologically superior arms. They jusn't couldn't mass produce it anymore. If they coudl produce their fighter jets fast enough as well as their new generation of tanks the Normandy Invasion may have took a different turn...
US developped the A bomb thanks to German scientists. If Hitler hasn't been betrayed by some of his officers and made some small mistakes with Russians, the US on French beachs would have been as ridiculious as in Cuba's beach.
The US developed the A-bomb in PART because of German Scientists, J. Robert Oppenheimer was certainly not German, although many of the people who worked on the Manhattan project certainly were.
post #209 of 266
Quote:
How many US dead in Vietnam?
58,000. The percentage of black soldiers killed in action was actually lower than the percentage of black soldiers in the Army and Marines as a whole at that time.
post #210 of 266
Quote:
Quote:
(Roy @ Feb. 25 2005,23:44) Also, at the end of the war Germany had technologically superior arms. They jusn't couldn't mass produce it anymore. If they coudl produce their fighter jets fast enough as well as their new generation of tanks the Normandy Invasion may have took a different turn...
US developped the A bomb thanks to German scientists. If Hitler hasn't been betrayed by some of his officers and made some small mistakes with Russians, the US on French beachs would have been as ridiculious as in Cuba's beach.
Some small mistakes... like the INVASION OF RUSSIA? Yes, Hitler was certainly detrimental to the German cause, as his armchair generaling probably lost them the war on the Eastern Front... but as I've stated earlier, the US would likely won the war regardless, they have a much larger resource base, industrial base, and population than the Germans did.
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?