BF2S Forums Battle of Britain: in men and machines

SEREMAKER wrote:

Uzique wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

Britain was able to hold her own in defense.. But there is no way she could have conquered Fortress Europa alone.  Especially after the losses at Dunkirk.

right. but you have to ask why the odds got that bad in the first place. america were not the ALL CONQUERING OMG YAY FREEDOM LIBERTY WOOHOO saviours of the day. they stayed out for as long as possible and watched their own interests-- pursuing a policy of economic and militaristic isolationism. only when britain agreed to sign a desperate far-too-late loan agreement - a massively profitable scheme for the american economy - and only after japan's own imperial interests took a swipe at pearl harbour, did you fully commit to helping a worldwide atrocity. up until that time, you ignored everyone's plight because there was nothing in it for you. i fucking cannot stand the american 'we saved europe in ww2' attitude. you let europe get into that bad a state in the first place; states were weak, people were demoralized, and generally nobody was fit to cope with a new german machine after the great war.

i dunno how they teach ww2 history to you yanks in school but it comes across as pretty much fucking wrong.

how eager did you think we were to bail your asses out ..... you do remember england picked a fight with us .... on more then one occasion

1812 (burned down white house), civil war (slightly helped CSA afaik), and some border skirmishes with Canada lulz.














http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445 … mplate.gif

.Sup wrote:

I bet the English were the most hated nation on the planet in that period of time.

.Sup wrote:

I bet the English were the most hated nation on the planet in that period of time.

jord wrote:

.Sup wrote:

I bet the English were the most hated nation on the planet in that period of time.

How'd you work that one out...

jord wrote:

.Sup wrote:

I bet the English were the most hated nation on the planet in that period of time.

How'd you work that one out...

Uzique wrote:

.Sup wrote:

jord wrote:

How'd you work that one out...

England was like Germany in 1940s in her own period. Conquering one country after the other all over the world. They much needed that ass whoppin by the Yanks.

yeah, the yanks didn't shut down the empire... sorry

they only wanted their own independence

SonderKommando wrote:

Uzique wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Well you were getting the munitions from somewhere. Also isn't Britain a very tiny part of Europe?

So even if we weren't there yet, we still had our hand in helping you's.

yeah, we were getting the munitions from the home-effort. my grandmother was a part of that.

im sure she appreciates you americans taking all credit for her working at a munitions loading factory for 3 years.

fucking idiots

Britain was able to hold her own in defense.. But there is no way she could have conquered Fortress Europa alone.  Especially after the losses at Dunkirk.

.Sup wrote:

Uzique wrote:

we had a good run

a much better run than your country ever has or ever will have

You seriously gotta loose that Sponge bob pyjamas and start taking it like a man. Don't be comparing a tiny country like mine that only got independence in 1991 to a huge superpower like yourselves once were, that's a desperate attempt. Listen to yourself- "a much better run in pillaging and killing and conquering than your country"? Seriously? Are you guys still proud of all that?

Uzique wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Uzique wrote:

we had a good run

a much better run than your country ever has or ever will have

You seriously gotta loose that Sponge bob pyjamas and start taking it like a man. Don't be comparing a tiny country like mine that only got independence in 1991 to a huge superpower like yourselves once were, that's a desperate attempt. Listen to yourself- "a much better run in pillaging and killing and conquering than your country"? Seriously? Are you guys still proud of all that?

our country was small too - a little island nation. what does size have to do with it? does it not say something that a tiny island-state like britain could own the world, whereas a tiny state like yours was under the thumb of a bunch of other people (e.g. socialist yugoslavia) up until very recently? pillaging, killing and conquering is PART of empire and i can ASSURE you that britain was FAR from the worst culprit. the dutch, french and spanish empires were all more brutal than the british at different points of history. are we proud of the forced coercion of empire? no. are we proud of the fact that a small nation of a relatively small-population got off its ass and became an economic, political and military superpower? yes.

.Sup wrote:

Uzique wrote:

.Sup wrote:

You seriously gotta loose that Sponge bob pyjamas and start taking it like a man. Don't be comparing a tiny country like mine that only got independence in 1991 to a huge superpower like yourselves once were, that's a desperate attempt. Listen to yourself- "a much better run in pillaging and killing and conquering than your country"? Seriously? Are you guys still proud of all that?

our country was small too - a little island nation. what does size have to do with it? does it not say something that a tiny island-state like britain could own the world, whereas a tiny state like yours was under the thumb of a bunch of other people (e.g. socialist yugoslavia) up until very recently? pillaging, killing and conquering is PART of empire and i can ASSURE you that britain was FAR from the worst culprit. the dutch, french and spanish empires were all more brutal than the british at different points of history. are we proud of the forced coercion of empire? no. are we proud of the fact that a small nation of a relatively small-population got off its ass and became an economic, political and military superpower? yes.

See here was the difference between your and my country- we would rather suffer and be a small non-important country than to make other nations suffer and become a superpower on their expense.