PDA

View Full Version : Who contributed most to the defeat of Fascist Germany ??



Pages : 1 2 [3]

stevey
04-22-2002, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Ken Fitlike
>>John Wayne !! bloody draft dodger<<

Steady! ;)

Jimmy Stewart then - it must have been him because he was actually a squadron leader in USAF bombers.

I saw that on tv - it doesn't lie either.

yeah Jimmy was a war hero !! anyway i love Jimmy Stewart !!
what a voice !! imagine him drawling on the radio in 1944 over Germany..........awwwwwwww boysss....the the theressss ttttheres some fighters at six o'clock..........

Sentaku senshi
04-22-2002, 02:33 PM
>Yes, I agree. But would like to see the US stop suppling / selling these 'democratic' leaders arms and training to use against the 'right' people.

Then the US looking suprised a few years later when these people use the arms / training against the 'wrong' people.

Then all of us having to clean up the mess.<
Novican you have forgotin that Durring World War I and II as well as other times, we sold weapons to countries to help them. We did the same thing for Iraq to help them defeat Iran, and Afginaistan to fight the USSR. Thus the reason we sold the weapons was right. Unfortonitly they turned around and used them for the wrong perposes.


Isreal was created by a two thirds vote by the Untied Nations. The vote was an even split between Western and Middle Eastern Countries also. The very next day those countires declared war on Isreal, but Istral atacked first. After the war Isreal should have gone back to it's orginal boarders but it didn't. So thus we have the land hungry middle easterners who are calming the muslam faith as a reason to atack people for land. (much like the crusades) Isreal made the mistake of not withdrawing so both sides are wrong.




>In our war on terrorism.
Why is it so clear who are the terrorists in Afghanistan when in Ireland, Israel, Phillipines and Sri Lanka ect, who the terrorists actually are is a very complicated issue?<

It is easy to see who the terrorist are in Afghanistan as they did so openly and with support of the govenment. It was a sorta main base.

The terriorst in Ireland have the own orginaztion that is know, but there is nothing to atack, as they operate in secret.

Isreal was created by a two thirds vote by the Untied Nations. The vote was an even split between Western and Middle Eastern Countries also. The very next day those countires declared war on Isreal, but Istral atacked first. After the war Isreal should have gone back to it's orginal boarders but it didn't. So thus we have the land hungry middle easterners who are using the muslam faith as a reason to atack people for land. (much like the crusades) Isreal made the mistake of not withdrawing so both sides are wrong.

On one of those political talk shows, the Philpines were brought up as a posible next target after afginstan.

stevey
04-22-2002, 02:52 PM
>>Isreal was created by a two thirds vote by the Untied Nations. The vote was an even split between Western and Middle Eastern Countries also. The very next day those countires declared war on Isreal, but Istral atacked first. After the war Isreal should have gone back to it's orginal boarders but it didn't. So thus we have the land hungry middle easterners who are using the muslam faith as a reason to atack people for land. (much like the crusades) Isreal made the mistake of not withdrawing so both sides are wrong.

heres an interesting fact that very few people know.....after the 1948 war, the defeated Arab countries expelled 900,000 Jews from their territories and conviscated all their money and possessions etc.
These approx 1 milllion jews were settled in Israel, they did not become refugees...they were absorbed into the country....

This is in comparison to the Palestinians, who are treated as refugees and are not wanted by the Arab states. The Palestinians have been treated badly by both sides, and don't help themselves.
If they want support from the West, do us a favour and stop killing people and hijacking planes and having suicide bombers. if you don't want the Wests help then do whatever you can to get the support of the Arab states, ie don't try to take over Jordan, don't cause the Lebanese people to hate you etc.........
i know its far more complicated than that, and they have my sympathy for the suffering, but the Palestinians became a pain to the Arabs, to Israel and to the Western democracies....how many enemies do they want........???

and the 1948 war ?? the Arabs declared it...and we all know what was planned for Israel and the Jews if they'd won it. "to the victor the spoils", "sow the wind and reap the whirlwind" spring to mind.....

but why can't the Palestinians have the West bank ?? why did Israel settle almost 1 million people there?? how are these people going to be moved now ?? couldn't Israel have let them have the whole West bank as a Palestinian state?? that would seem reasonable.....

Unregistered
04-22-2002, 04:34 PM
The Germans had a strong war industry where as France was not equipped for war, it was more equipped for being a normal civilized country. The Germans jumped on the bandwagon and took over the country, they marched through Belgium.

More Russians died in WWII than any other, and various Russian leaders have claimed that if it wasn't for the technology supplied to them by the US, than they would have lost. Indeed they didn't loose and after a massive battle Stalin was able to finally mobilize this army and steamroll over everything in his path. Had it not been for the USA and Britian developing the atomic bomb than Russian could have marched over all of Europe and infact destroyed all the Americans and British on the Western Front.

Also, had it not been that Japan bombed the US, than they might never have supplied the Western Front at all. Much of WWII saw the Russians and Germans doing all the fighting. France was taken over very quickly.

stevey
04-22-2002, 08:13 PM
>>and various Russian leaders have claimed that if it wasn't for the technology supplied to them by the US

yeah like who ??????

DarkStar
04-22-2002, 09:43 PM
British technology defeated NAZI Germany.

The development of RADAR and a recently declassified project called Cyclops ( a super computer that cracked Enigma code, Alan Turing was a member of this project ) won the day for the free world.

How about those British RAF Spitfire pilots, true heroes in every way !!

If the British had not won the important victories that they won, the US would not have had a base of operation to launch the Normandy Invasion.

No, I am not a Brit, I am an American who is willing to give credit where credit is due.

The British are an amazing and strong willed people, GOD BLESS THEM !

stevey
04-23-2002, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by DarkStar
British technology defeated NAZI Germany.

The development of RADAR and a recently declassified project called Cyclops ( a super computer that cracked Enigma code, Alan Turing was a member of this project ) won the day for the free world.

How about those British RAF Spitfire pilots, true heroes in every way !!

If the British had not won the important victories that they won, the US would not have had a base of operation to launch the Normandy Invasion.

No, I am not a Brit, I am an American who is willing to give credit where credit is due.

The British are an amazing and strong willed people, GOD BLESS THEM !

he he ooh i'm blushing........

yeah i think the Brits managed some war-winning technological feats -
major achievments in RADAR, SONAR, anti-submarine technology and tactics, Bombing campaign against German Industry etc, fitting the Merlin engine to the Mustang making it the best long range fighter of the war, helping developing the Atom bomb, capturing (yes WE got it - sod hollywood films !!) the Enigma machine and decoding it....
Coupled with defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, Rommel in Africa, D-Day landings and Normandy etc..Italian campaign and the massive Royal Navy, RAF and Bomber Command we certainly played our part....

just by staying in the war, fighting all alone for a year, ensured a springboard to open the second front in the west........

The war (in Europe) wouldn't have been won without the British, however it wouldn't have been won without the Soviets or the USA either.......
That it took all these powers to defeat Germany is a compliment to them really (fighting spirit anyway)......and after the Russians,Poles and Jews the people who suffered most in the European War were the Germans losing some 5 million dead, nearly 10% of their entire population......horrific. (compare that with 333,000 British and 290,000 Americans)

minesweeper
04-23-2002, 09:12 AM
The British are an amazing and strong willed people, GOD BLESS THEM !


woo hoo, thanks!!

Dual-Catfish
04-23-2002, 03:24 PM
the Germans losing some 5 million dead, nearly 10% of their entire population

I heard that the Nazi's begin to recruit 14 and 15 year olds to fight near the end of the war because they had run out of soldiers, is this true?

stevey
04-23-2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Dual-Catfish


I heard that the Nazi's begin to recruit 14 and 15 year olds to fight near the end of the war because they had run out of soldiers, is this true?

oh yeah this is totally true, its a well known fact.
haven't you seen the film of kids and old men running round fighting Russian tanks in the rubble of Berlin. might have been some even younger than that.

stevey
04-23-2002, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by DarkStar
British technology defeated NAZI Germany.

The development of RADAR and a recently declassified project called Cyclops ( a super computer that cracked Enigma code, Alan Turing was a member of this project ) won the day for the free world.

How about those British RAF Spitfire pilots, true heroes in every way !!

If the British had not won the important victories that they won, the US would not have had a base of operation to launch the Normandy Invasion.

No, I am not a Brit, I am an American who is willing to give credit where credit is due.

The British are an amazing and strong willed people, GOD BLESS THEM !

Pity the war destroyed us as a world power. :mad:

and thanx to the USA for making us pay back every cent we were loaned during lend/lease !! and using it to rebuild Germany !!
ironic in a way..........the 'losers' were the winners, not the British.

theres a good argument for the British not to have bothered at all, just made peace with Hitler and **** the rest of Europe !!
we would certainly have been better off, but thats not how I feel........sometimes you just gotta do the right thing no matter
what it costs.....so some little twerp like me can maintain the moral highground !!

oh well at least somebody appreciates us !!!!!! :)

God save the Queen etc......

dayknight
04-25-2002, 05:49 PM
usa wasnt involved in WW2 that was going on in europe.
they only showed up the last year when germans were weakened by Brit n french.
USA is cheap, it sends its army when the nme is nearly dead or dead.
n that vote is very wrong change it mod.!!!!!!!:mad: :mad:

tim545666
04-25-2002, 05:56 PM
When USA came to Europe in WWII, France was out of the war, leaving England and the Soviets (who were weak at the time) to fight against Italy, Japan, Finland, and Germany. When we landed in Franceon D-day, we were fighting Germans on a French beach. We were the ones who first got across the Rhine. I'm not going to say that we singlehandedly won the war, but we did play a significant part. To say that we came when the war was already won is an ignorant statement.

tim545666
04-25-2002, 06:02 PM
theres a good argument for the British not to have bothered at all, just made peace with Hitler and **** the rest of Europe !!
we would certainly have been better off, but thats not how I feel........sometimes you just gotta do the right thing no matter
what it costs.....so some little twerp like me can maintain the moral highground !!
Actually Prime Minister Chamberlain respected Hitler. At the time Britain entered the war, concentration camps were not yet death camps, they were just internment camps. America shamefully did the same with the Japanese and no one declared war on them. It was not a moral war; England did it because they have always, and will always have the fear of a unified mainland Europe. England would have been worse off with Germany winning the war, because Germany would then be able to conquer England. They did it for their own good. America also did not join the war because of the holocaust. Many people didn't even know that the concentration camps existed at the time, and few knew how cruel they were and how large this genocide actually was. This is due to the nazi propaganda; the government controlled the press so little information got out about the camps to other countries.

dayknight
04-25-2002, 06:28 PM
usa like i said played a very minor role in ww2
n this is not true when french were defeated england was left all alone, alies such as cdn, australian were there to fight, unlike americans. Like i said b4 germany was very weak in the last 2 years of war, they were broke, had nothing.

america = cheap imposter in all wars (bunch of chickens)
bombing targets that are not supposed to n after bombing they say it was a mistake. stpuid americans!

tim545666
04-25-2002, 06:30 PM
No offense intended yo anyone, but Canada and Australia weren't exactly major players in WWII. They didn't have enough soldiers to make a large impact.

dayknight
04-25-2002, 06:34 PM
they had more than stupid americans
n they were fighting till the beginning of the war unlike stupid americans(oh i dropped a bomb, sry my finger slip,(n kills innocent people))

tim545666
04-25-2002, 06:37 PM
You wanna back that up with some factual support? You have no idea what you are talking about and have probably never done any serious research or learning about WWII. Who broke through the Sigfreid Line? Who crossed the Rhine? Who liberated Paris? We did not fight by ourselves, but we palyed a large part. You are just arguing because you dislike/hate America.

stevey
04-25-2002, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by dayknight
usa wasnt involved in WW2 that was going on in europe.
they only showed up the last year when germans were weakened by Brit n french.
USA is cheap, it sends its army when the nme is nearly dead or dead.
n that vote is very wrong change it mod.!!!!!!!:mad: :mad:

please go and read a history book, or get yourself a brain, or wait till you're balls have dropped b4 desecrating my thread with inane jibberish. actually, no don't..keep contributing..i need a laff.

i started this thread to highlight the role of the USSR mainly, but i didn't really need to cos actually most contributers are quite genned up on it. i am pleasantly surprised. that vote is actually quite accurate, altho its obviously very trite to allocate % points in this way.....i know that, but its interesting..least i think so...

dayknight
04-25-2002, 06:42 PM
/*no content, deleted. -nv, mod*/

stevey
04-25-2002, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by tim545666
When USA came to Europe in WWII, France was out of the war, leaving England and the Soviets (who were weak at the time) to fight against Italy, Japan, Finland, and Germany. When we landed in Franceon D-day, we were fighting Germans on a French beach. We were the ones who first got across the Rhine. I'm not going to say that we singlehandedly won the war, but we did play a significant part. To say that we came when the war was already won is an ignorant statement.

>>the Soviets(who were weak at the time)

WEAK....WEAK!!!!!???????......go get a history book !!!!!!
there was nothing weak about them!!

>>Italy, Japan, Finland, and Germany
& rumania & bulgaria

>>finland
the allies didn't fight Finland, the Finns were ONLY fighting the Russuians, and only to regain territory the USSR had stolen in the USSR-Finland war just b4 WW2

>>crossed the Rhine
don't hold that up as any kind of example, that was just circumstance

dayknight
04-25-2002, 06:50 PM
/*no content, deleted. -nv, mod*/

tim545666
04-25-2002, 06:52 PM
>>crossed the Rhine
don't hold that up as any kind of example, that was just circumstance

What do you mean? That was one of the Major objectives towards the end of the war.




>>the Soviets(who were weak at the time)

WEAK....WEAK!!!!!???????......go get a history book !!!!!!
there was nothing weak about them!!

Militarily I thought they were not ready to fight, I guess I missed something when I was tuning out during class on tuesday.

dayknight
04-25-2002, 06:54 PM
/*no content, deleted. -nv, mod*/

stevey
04-25-2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by tim545666

Actually Prime Minister Chamberlain respected Hitler. At the time Britain entered the war, concentration camps were not yet death camps, they were just internment camps. America shamefully did the same with the Japanese and no one declared war on them. It was not a moral war; England did it because they have always, and will always have the fear of a unified mainland Europe. England would have been worse off with Germany winning the war, because Germany would then be able to conquer England. They did it for their own good. America also did not join the war because of the holocaust. Many people didn't even know that the concentration camps existed at the time, and few knew how cruel they were and how large this genocide actually was. This is due to the nazi propaganda; the government controlled the press so little information got out about the camps to other countries.

there was a lot of sympathy for Hitler all over Europe b4 the war, but it's becos his true nature wasn't seen. yes, it was about Germany dominating Europe but also it WAS a moral war. ie we could have made peace when Britain stood all alone for a year. Churchill especially, refused to give in..he said if we stand up to Hitler it will be the best thing the British ever did...

Germany couldn't defeat the RAF and could never invade Britain after losing the Battle of Britain. The Royal Navy was also the 2nd biggest in the world....most historians think it would have been EXTREMELY difficult if not well nigh impossible, and would take 2 years planning, by which time about 2 million British soldiers would have been waiting for any invading Germans. don't forget D-day took 2 years of planning and total air and sea superiority, and 'enigma' telling us what the Germans were thinking and planning.

but the point is not that, it is that Hitler never wanted to invade Britain at all. he wanted to preserve the British Empire, he admired it. he didn't want to fight Britain. so it would have been very easy for Britain/Germany to come to some arrangement, trading partnership etc. it is probable that Britain would have been better off doing that, than exausting ourselves in another long war, which we couldn't really afford. (not that i think we should have made peace). If we had made peace the USA would not have been fighting Hitler, it woould have been impossible without the British isle as a massive aircraft carrier. it would have just been Germany/ Soviet war.

tim545666
04-25-2002, 07:11 PM
Germany couldn't defeat the RAF and could never invade Britain after losing the Battle of Britain.
If British didn't join in, Germany probably would have been able to conquer mainland Europe. They would then have recources to be able to surpass England's navy/air force. Hitler would not be able to be stopped after he conquered the mainland. But as it stood then, you are correct. And you said something about him respecting the British Empire-he lost that respect after the Munich Conference and called the english spineless worms. He also started losing respect for Mussolini. His ego reminds me of Napolean's, but Hitler was too stubborn, he didn't retreat and didn't listed to his generals. He was also too reckless. Was it not for his stubbornness, we might have all ben German today, because he could have gained Britian as an ally. But his ego was too large and he had a crappy foreign minister. Hitler could have taken over the world.

stevey
04-25-2002, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by tim545666

What do you mean? That was one of the Major objectives towards the end of the war.

>>>>course, but the British crossed too !! just a bit later, but it could have been sooner if Eisenhower wanted it that way. we were allies, not in a race !! thats what i meant

Militarily I thought they were not ready to fight, I guess I missed something when I was tuning out during class on tuesday.

no, you ask your teacher how weak the Soviets were !!
they fought the German, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian (whoops forgot them earlier),Finnish, and an Italian army from
June 1941 to june 1944 all on their own !! of course Hitler had to keep some troops in the WEST but the large majority were in the EAST.
but the USA sent the food to keep the RED army fed, and 2/3 of all trucks/jeeps/half tracks etc were US and British(vast majority US), allowing them to concentrate on making tanks and planes - this aid was a massive contribution to them. thousands of British sailors died taking it to them across the Baltic......they would have suffered appallingly without this aid, but i still feel Hitler may not have won even fighting just the Soviets...and to call em weak, well sorry but thats just weak !!

tim545666
04-25-2002, 07:21 PM
I stand corrected :)

stevey
04-25-2002, 07:33 PM
>>>If British didn't join in, Germany probably would have been able to conquer mainland Europe. They would then have recources to be able to surpass England's navy/air force.

yeah, but it takes years to build a navy, and with far better RADAR and air fields at home (big advantage - ie British planes shot down or mechanical failure - British pilot parachutes back home not into a POW camp) we would probably prevail.
it was touch and go briefly during the Battle Of Britain, but after that the Luftwaffe couldnt beat the RAF.....
and its such a small island, also with difficult beaches etc, and at least 2 million British and commonweath troops waiting......naaaa i don't think Hitler would have tried it......

don't forget, we were NOT on our own, the USA was doing EVERTHING to help bar actually fighting...by the time Hitler could have arranged an invasion force, there would have been 30,000 Sherman tanks waiting for him !!

i don't think you appreciate how difficult a sea borne invasion is.....the British/canadians had a practice at Dieppe and it was a balls-up, the allies landed in africa and sicily and italy which was good practice, and even then D day nearly failed don't forget

but its all hypothetical, it is a FACT that Hitler did not wish to destroy the Brit empire until we'd ........ed him off later !!!

tim545666
04-25-2002, 07:37 PM
>>but its all hypothetical, it is a FACT that Hitler did not wish to destroy the Brit empire until we'd ........ed him off later !!!

Nah, he would destroy Britian as soon as he had finished off his other objectives. He loved war and glory. He would not stop until the whole world was his. It doesn't matter if they ........ed him off. Remember what he did to the Czechs?

stevey
04-25-2002, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by dayknight
/*no content, deleted. -nv, mod*/

is this worthy of a reply ????
well.....

all countries need a reason to lose their citizens in a 'foreign' war.
the USA (major credit to Roosevelt) did everything to help the British and Soviets bar actual fighting.

and they didn't join in the last year of the war, there were US troops fighting in Africa in 1942. into sicily and italy in 1943...then france in 1944. an invasion of France earlier than 1944 was not feasable (much to the Soviets dismay)

but why do i even bother replying, can't the MODS get rid of this idiot ???????

stevey
04-25-2002, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by tim545666
>>but its all hypothetical, it is a FACT that Hitler did not wish to destroy the Brit empire until we'd ........ed him off later !!!

Nah, he would destroy Britian as soon as he had finished off his other objectives. He loved war and glory. He would not stop until the whole world was his. It doesn't matter if they ........ed him off. Remember what he did to the Czechs?

well you can't deal with insane people !!! but its hard to get across the English channel, and he was far more interested in attacking eastwards than attacking us......but we were in a bad position until after the Battle of Britain...but after winning that it was always going to be very very difficult to invade Britain, we were rearming at an exponential rate, it had to be an invasion in 1940 or not at all......
i still think it would have taken at least 1 year to even try to invade.....Britain would have been the most densely defended isleland in history by then.....we'd have had 10,000 sherman tanks (i was exagerating a bit previously !!) thanx to you guys, and 5,000 British made tanks etc too

i think you underestimate the British....."we will fight them on the beaches, in the hills and on the landing grounds....we will NEVER surrender !!!!" (winston churchill)

Unregistered
04-26-2002, 08:32 AM
I'm afraid I disagree about the Soviets. The Soviets were with the Germans until the Germans attacked them. The Germans were getting fuel (if I remember right) from the soviets Railroads.

The Soviets weren't well equipped but stalin just sent his soldiers foward to crush the enemy with sheer numbers. The only reason the Soviets attacked was 1. To gain their land back 2. To expand their country.

Soviets didn't help defeat Germany, Germany defeated themselves by attacking on too many fronts.

nvoigt
04-26-2002, 08:54 AM
>that vote is very wrong change it mod

This is a vote ! What shall I do ? Change it ? Very funny, what country do you come from, China ?


>but why do i even bother replying, can't the MODS get rid of this idiot ???????

Yes, we can. But only if you give us a choice. We are here in our sparetime, and don't read all 150 posts in a thread. If you think something is offensive, report it.

stevey
04-26-2002, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Unregistered
I'm afraid I disagree about the Soviets. The Soviets were with the Germans until the Germans attacked them. The Germans were getting fuel (if I remember right) from the soviets Railroads.

The Soviets weren't well equipped but stalin just sent his soldiers foward to crush the enemy with sheer numbers. The only reason the Soviets attacked was 1. To gain their land back 2. To expand their country.

Soviets didn't help defeat Germany, Germany defeated themselves by attacking on too many fronts.

yes Stalin never wanted to fight Hitler, they had a non-agression pact, and Stalin was supplying Hitler whilst Hitler was attacking Britain and the West.
Stalin was absolutely shell-shocked when the German's attacked, he wasn't expecting it at all. the British tried to warn him, but he thought it was a ploy to drag him into the war.
The Soviets were in the war only because they were attacked, and the USA and Britain only helped the Soviets because we needed them against Hitler. Stalin was the lesser of two evils.
(and only just, in my opinion)
Once the Soviets gained the upper hand, they saw the opportunity to take over Eastern Europe, which was very sad. i especially feel very very sorry for the Poles, but the truth is the Western Allies couldn't do anything about it. the Red Army was MASSIVE.
the Soviets were ill prepared for the German onslaught, but managed to survive and soon recovered, and were actually on the offensive by late 1941, early 1942. yes shear weight of numbers was a crucial factor, but also sheer weight of tanks/planes etc. the Soviets built some 100,000 tanks and 100,000 aircraft in the war.and these tanks (mainly t-34) and planes (probably the best ground attack planes were Soviets) were among the best equipment used by any army in the war. their machine guns and rifles also some of the best. the German troops used to swap their machine guns for Russian ones when they could !!)
not well equiped eh ???
the fact that the Germans held out so long against them was a remarkable achievement and shows just how good the German Army was.....

the Soviets didn't help defeat Germany ?? have you never heard of Stalingrad, Kursk etc

stevey
04-26-2002, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by nvoigt
>that vote is very wrong change it mod

This is a vote ! What shall I do ? Change it ? Very funny, what country do you come from, China ?


>but why do i even bother replying, can't the MODS get rid of this idiot ???????

Yes, we can. But only if you give us a choice. We are here in our sparetime, and don't read all 150 posts in a thread. If you think something is offensive, report it.

you're right as always...sorry...anyway like you say it wasn't really offensive, just kiddies having fun ! i was a jerk when i was a kiddie too, i guess we all were !! and when you're a kiddie you don't realise it, so why bother arguing with them, better to just ignore it......

Sentaku senshi
04-26-2002, 03:11 PM
>Germany couldn't defeat the RAF and could never invade Britain after losing the Battle of Britain. The Royal Navy was also the 2nd biggest in the world....most historians think it would have been EXTREMELY difficult if not well nigh impossible, and would take 2 years planning, by which time about 2 million British soldiers would have been waiting for any invading Germans. don't forget D- day took 2 years of planning and total air and sea superiority, and 'enigma' telling us what the Germans were thinking and planning.<

of course Germany was far a head on supplies and everything it needed at the start of the war. The United States army at the beging of the war was quite small, and under equiped.

>but the point is not that, it is that Hitler never wanted to invade Britain at all. he wanted to preserve the British Empire, he admired it. he didn't want to fight Britain. so it would have been very easy for Britain/Germany to come to some arrangement, trading partnership etc. it is probable that Britain would have been better off doing that, than exausting ourselves in another long war, which we couldn't really afford. (not that i think we should have made peace). If we had made peace the USA would not have been fighting Hitler, it woould have been impossible without the British isle as a massive aircraft carrier. it would have just been Germany/ Soviet war.<

Lets see the Battle of Britan was his first major setback and I belived he invaded the Sovit Union after that (don't have info on me.)

dayknight
04-26-2002, 07:38 PM
hahaha it is so funny
they deleted my posts hahaha
TRUTH HURTS eh!

/* Behave yourself. -nv, mod */

stevey
04-27-2002, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
>

Lets see the Battle of Britan was his first major setback and I belived he invaded the Sovit Union after that (don't have info on me.)
yep, after dallying in Greece and Yugoslavia...in fact these delays were CRITICAL, wasting time..meaning there was less time to defeat the Soviets b4 the onset of the Russian winter...

yeah, B. O. B. was touch and go, but with the Spitfire, RADAR, bad tactics ie bombing London not airfields, small German bombers (they had nothing like the Lancaster, B-24 's etc), range of their fighters, it was won....and an invasion then was impossible.
ive been reading a lot about it, revisionist historians are saying, with hindsight it is felt that Hitler wanted to destroy the RAF making the UK vunerable to invasion and then we would make peace with him, on his terms of course, but not invading and taking over the British Empire. The German invasion plans were relatively half hearted, they made plans and built barges to carry troops, but its now regarded by many, as more of a threat than a serious plan. but "and would take 2 years planning" was getting a bit carried away !!
and the Brit army was very very weak at this time(but rebuilding very rapidly with equipment bought from the USA), and who knows?? its great to have hindsight.
but i think Hitler was far more interested in going East and conquering USSR.

but.......
altho the Royal Navy would have taken a lot of sinking, and a little known fact, the Royal Navy had nearly as many submarines as the Germans.......and a cross-channel invasion would have been very tricky and dangerous....its still more than likely that that if the RAF had lost the BOB we'd have made peace with Hitler on his terms, changing the whole outcome of the war....so as Churchill so memorably said (wasn't he a great man !!)

"never.. in the field of human conflict, has so much been owed, by so many, to so few"

a 'FEW' hundred men changed the whole outcome of the war.....
by no means were they all British, there were Canadians, Australians, Poles(the best squadron in the whole BOB were Poles), Dutch, Americans(all volunteers), French, South Africans, New Zealanders, Checkoslovakians..........and others....they came from all over the globe and suffered appalling losses...

i think Churchill was right, never have so few men made such a massive contribution to such an important war......

stevey
04-27-2002, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by dayknight
hahaha it is so funny
they deleted my posts hahaha
TRUTH HURTS eh!

/* Behave yourself. -nv, mod */

yeah right......see what i mean about kids !!!
when youve read more than 50 books on the subject, spent hours on the internet, spoken to loads of veterans(inc own grandparents and friends grandparents), watched countless documentories, studied WW2 for more than 20 years..as i have...
then you will have a sensible opinion and something to say....

until then, just concentrate on you're programming, ********** and squeezing spots...
:)

dayknight
04-27-2002, 12:21 PM
/* Behave yourself. -nv, mod */ [/B][/QUOTE]




lol hahahahah //Beahve urself too -DAYKNIGHT

Unregistered
04-27-2002, 06:27 PM
my grandpappy says he contributed rather a lot....

he left his left nut at Dunkirk, so i guess he did !!
especially since your left one is always the largest

stevey
04-28-2002, 07:06 AM
WW2 joke :

An American soldier, serving in World War II, had just returned from several weeks of intense action on the German front lines. He had finally been granted R&R and was on a train bound for London. The train was very crowded, so the soldier walked the length of the train, looking for an empty seat. The only unoccupied seat was directly adjacent to a well-dressed middle-aged lady and was being used by her little dog. The war weary soldier asked, "Please, ma'am, may I sit in that seat?"
The English woman looked down her nose at the soldier, sniffed and said, "You Americans. You are such a rude class of people. Can't you see my little Fifi is using that seat?"
The soldier walked away, determined to find a place to rest, but after another trip down to the end of the train, found himself again facing the woman with the dog.
Again he asked, "Please, lady. May I sit there? I'm very tired."
The English woman wrinkled her nose and snorted, "You Americans! Not only are you rude, you are also arrogant. Imagine!"
The soldier didn't say anything else; he leaned over, picked up the little dog, tossed it out the window of the train and sat down in the empty seat.
The woman shrieked and railed, and demanded that someone defend her and chastise the soldier.
An English gentleman sitting across the aisle spoke up, "You know, sir, you Americans do seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing. You eat holding the fork in the wrong hand. You drive your cars on the wrong side of the road. And now, sir, you've thrown the wrong b.itch out the window."