Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6

 

2010-06-12 08:53:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6587|SE London

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Even with all three, the outcome could've still been very different.
Only if you want to be ridiculously pedantic.
What does pedantic have to do with it? The fact was, subduing the Axis was not a stroll through the park. Defeat was a looming possibility with any stretch of the imagination. We should all consider ourselves lucky.

Besides which, I'm not disagreeing with you.
Yes, which is why without any of those 3 nations, the world would've been fucked.

Americans can scream all they like about saving Europes ass - but the fact of the matter is, it would've come back on them if they hadn't joined in and without Britain as a staging point to invade continental Europe things would've been very difficult.
The British can go on about Americans not getting involved early enough, but they did get involved and without their support early on Britain would've been screwed.
The Russians can't claim much in the way of moral high ground, since they only switched sides when they were attacked, but without that second front - the Allies would've had much bigger problems.
2010-06-12 08:54:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5363|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Only if you want to be ridiculously pedantic.
What does pedantic have to do with it? The fact was, subduing the Axis was not a stroll through the park. Defeat was a looming possibility with any stretch of the imagination. We should all consider ourselves lucky.

Besides which, I'm not disagreeing with you.
Yes, which is why without any of those 3 nations, the world would've been fucked.

Americans can scream all they like about saving Europes ass - but the fact of the matter is, it would've come back on them if they hadn't joined in and without Britain as a staging point to invade continental Europe things would've been very difficult.
The British can go on about Americans not getting involved early enough, but they did get involved and without their support early on Britain would've been screwed.
The Russians can't claim much in the way of moral high ground, since they only switched sides when they were attacked, but without that second front - the Allies would've had much bigger problems.
This is all true.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-12 08:56:53
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6503

so, who are we pissed at?
2010-06-12 08:57:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6587|SE London

burnzz wrote:

so, who are we pissed at?
Ze Germans.
2010-06-12 08:58:39
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6503

oh - a DAST thread seemingly ending with consensus, i felt lost for a second there . . .
2010-06-12 09:00:20
Fallschirmjager10
Member
+36|6466

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

RIP Axis troops
I would have never expected something like that from a person with that user name.
Something wrong with that?

Anyway simple fact is Allies without USSR would have 0 chance of beating Germany. USSR would at least have a chance alone vs Germany. And how the hell did lend lease save the British islands? Pretty sure it was British pilots, in British planes who fought off the Luftwaffe.
2010-06-12 09:05:38
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6587|SE London

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

RIP Axis troops
I would have never expected something like that from a person with that user name.
And how the hell did lend lease save the British islands? Pretty sure it was British pilots, in British planes who fought off the Luftwaffe.
That's a pretty naive attitude.

Without the constant supplies from the US Britain wouldn't have stood a chance. We were an island under siege with the US as our only real supply line.
2010-06-12 09:10:21
Fallschirmjager10
Member
+36|6466

Bertster7 wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:


I would have never expected something like that from a person with that user name.
And how the hell did lend lease save the British islands? Pretty sure it was British pilots, in British planes who fought off the Luftwaffe.
That's a pretty naive attitude.

Without the constant supplies from the US Britain wouldn't have stood a chance. We were an island under siege with the US as our only real supply line.
The Germans couldn't have invaded either way. British Navy and Air Force would have decimated them and they knew it.
2010-06-12 09:13:21
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6587|SE London

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:


And how the hell did lend lease save the British islands? Pretty sure it was British pilots, in British planes who fought off the Luftwaffe.
That's a pretty naive attitude.

Without the constant supplies from the US Britain wouldn't have stood a chance. We were an island under siege with the US as our only real supply line.
The Germans couldn't have invaded either way. British Navy and Air Force would have decimated them and they knew it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Without food, bullets, building materials we wouldn't have stood a chance. Pilots need to eat. Fighter planes need bullets and fuel to be effective - they also need to be built - where do you think the materials to do that came from?
2010-06-12 09:14:49
Fallschirmjager10
Member
+36|6466

Bertster7 wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


That's a pretty naive attitude.

Without the constant supplies from the US Britain wouldn't have stood a chance. We were an island under siege with the US as our only real supply line.
The Germans couldn't have invaded either way. British Navy and Air Force would have decimated them and they knew it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Without food, bullets, building materials we wouldn't have stood a chance. Pilots need to eat. Fighter planes need bullets and fuel to be effective - they also need to be built - where do you think the materials to do that came from?
Yes because Britain was completely reliant on outside sources for food.
2010-06-12 09:22:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6587|SE London

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:


The Germans couldn't have invaded either way. British Navy and Air Force would have decimated them and they knew it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Without food, bullets, building materials we wouldn't have stood a chance. Pilots need to eat. Fighter planes need bullets and fuel to be effective - they also need to be built - where do you think the materials to do that came from?
Yes because Britain was completely reliant on outside sources for food.
Pretty much, yes.

We had fuck all food, which is why rationing was so tight and continued to be for about a decade after the war finished. Imported food from the US made up a significant proportion of what people ate (55 million tonnes a year).

There is one way Britain could've avoided invasion without US support - that's because Hitler offered to leave Britain alone if they stayed out of the war. We could've done that. I don't think that would've been a desireable option.
2010-06-12 09:34:25
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5363|London, England

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:


The Germans couldn't have invaded either way. British Navy and Air Force would have decimated them and they knew it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Without food, bullets, building materials we wouldn't have stood a chance. Pilots need to eat. Fighter planes need bullets and fuel to be effective - they also need to be built - where do you think the materials to do that came from?
Yes because Britain was completely reliant on outside sources for food.
Out of curiosity, did you vote for the BNP recently?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-12 09:37:13
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|5967|Places 'n such

Bertster7 wrote:

We had fuck all food, which is why rationing was so tight and continued to be for about a decade after the war finished. Imported food from the US made up a significant proportion of what people ate (55 million tonnes a year)./quote]
That was pre WWII, that number fell rapidly very quickly, hence rationing and the dig for victory campaign, etc.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2010-06-12 10:31:22
Fallschirmjager10
Member
+36|6466

JohnG@lt wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Without food, bullets, building materials we wouldn't have stood a chance. Pilots need to eat. Fighter planes need bullets and fuel to be effective - they also need to be built - where do you think the materials to do that came from?
Yes because Britain was completely reliant on outside sources for food.
Out of curiosity, did you vote for the BNP recently?
No because I'm not British or a white supremacist.
2010-06-12 10:32:53
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5243|Cleveland, Ohio

presidentsheep wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:


We're not ungrateful, we finished paying it off, with interest, in 2006.
without that you think your little island wouldnt be german or russian?  and paying it off has nothing to do with what i am saying.
Yes, I do think that.
lulz
2010-06-12 10:34:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5363|London, England

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:


Yes because Britain was completely reliant on outside sources for food.
Out of curiosity, did you vote for the BNP recently?
No because I'm not British or a white supremacist.
Interesting. You make the same arguments they make about British self sufficiency for food.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-12 10:39:05
Fallschirmjager10
Member
+36|6466

JohnG@lt wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Out of curiosity, did you vote for the BNP recently?
No because I'm not British or a white supremacist.
Interesting. You make the same arguments they make about British self sufficiency for food.
Hmm I don't know anything about their beliefs. But I doubt that the British would have starved to death if it weren't for great USA to send them food.
2010-06-12 10:44:39
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5363|London, England

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:


No because I'm not British or a white supremacist.
Interesting. You make the same arguments they make about British self sufficiency for food.
Hmm I don't know anything about their beliefs. But I doubt that the British would have starved to death if it weren't for great USA to send them food.
Then you know nothing of history.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-12 10:46:30
Fallschirmjager10
Member
+36|6466

JohnG@lt wrote:

Fallschirmjager10 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Interesting. You make the same arguments they make about British self sufficiency for food.
Hmm I don't know anything about their beliefs. But I doubt that the British would have starved to death if it weren't for great USA to send them food.
Then you know nothing of history.
lolk
2010-06-12 23:11:59
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6781|Moscow, Russia

Bertster7 wrote:

The Russians can't claim much in the way of moral high ground, since they only switched sides when they were attacked
nobody "switched sides". there is and can only be one side for a nation - the side of its own national interests. everybody, including britain and usa, was trying to profit from nazies. that, eventually, backfired. the point is there isn't and never was any "moral side" in this, it was always purely pragmatic.

Bertster7 wrote:

but without that second front - the Allies would've had much bigger problems.
"second front"? there wasn't any first, second or any such front in the war with nazi germany, there was only one - the eastern one. britain may have diverted some attention by sitting like a cat in the tree, yeah, but that was about it. the war was won by soviet union, period.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-06-12 23:19:51
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6680|Canberra, AUS
ITT Shahter trying to argue that the USSR was the only important nation in the war, fuck everyone else.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-06-12 23:27:16
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6781|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:

ITT Shahter trying to argue that the USSR was the only important nation in the war, fuck everyone else.
i'm nor trying to argue anything. ussr was THE most important nation in the war with nazies. fact. everybody else had either rolled over, supported hitler, was sitting on the side, or tried to profit from that war.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-06-12 23:30:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6411|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

ITT Shahter trying to argue that the USSR was the only important nation in the war, fuck everyone else.
i'm nor trying to argue anything. ussr was THE most important nation in the war with nazies. fact. everybody else had either rolled over, supported hitler, was sitting on the side, or tried to profit from that war.
Russia was certainly important, but it's very doubtful you could've defeated the Nazies without our help or that of the rest of the Allied Forces.
2010-06-12 23:35:29
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6586|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

ITT Shahter trying to argue that the USSR was the only important nation in the war, fuck everyone else.
i'm nor trying to argue anything. ussr was THE most important nation in the war with nazies. fact. everybody else had either rolled over, supported hitler, was sitting on the side, or tried to profit from that war.
Russia was certainly important, but it's very doubtful you could've defeated the Nazies without our help or that of the rest of the Allied Forces.
yep, even the Soviet Union had only so much peasant cannon fodder.
2010-06-12 23:38:50
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6781|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

ITT Shahter trying to argue that the USSR was the only important nation in the war, fuck everyone else.
i'm nor trying to argue anything. ussr was THE most important nation in the war with nazies. fact. everybody else had either rolled over, supported hitler, was sitting on the side, or tried to profit from that war.
Russia was certainly important, but it's very doubtful you could've defeated the Nazies without our help or that of the rest of the Allied Forces.
as i said, thanks usa, your stuff had come in handy, we will pay you back eventually.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard