yeah the only reason the us got involved in the war because they were in the depresion and the war would bring money to the country "that why the president sent the elite of your navey right out in to the middle of the pacfic the day b4 the the attacks on pearl harbour "id say he sold the ppl of pearl harbour out dont you think!!" but i guese you wont !!!!!
Alex Jones! Illuminati Order of Death Freemason quagmire vietnam, oh wait, vietnam was later, uh.... Skull & Bones Scottish Rite pentagram pyramid money.Iron wrote:
yeah the only reason the us got involved in the war because they were in the depresion and the war would bring money to the country "that why the president sent the elite of your navey right out in to the middle of the pacfic the day b4 the the attacks on pearl harbour "id say he sold the ppl of pearl harbour out dont you think!!" but i guese you wont !!!!!
Bush must have traveleed back in time and shredded the doc saying there was an attack being planned.
Going to war to bring money to a country, right... I don't think theres anyway to spend money faster than to go to war. Except maybe actually burning money in a big bonfire. The US spends a billions each month maintaining its forces in Iraq, imagine what they spent in WWII...Iron wrote:
yeah the only reason the us got involved in the war because they were in the depresion and the war would bring money to the country "that why the president sent the elite of your navey right out in to the middle of the pacfic the day b4 the the attacks on pearl harbour "id say he sold the ppl of pearl harbour out dont you think!!" but i guese you wont !!!!!
By that logic, I guess you are right about Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt must have seen the killing he was making with war in Europe and decide to prolong the war to make even more money...
[/sarcasm]
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Well actually america made huge amounts of money out of WWII.EVieira wrote:
Going to war to bring money to a country, right... I don't think theres anyway to spend money faster than to go to war. Except maybe actually burning money in a big bonfire. The US spends a billions each month maintaining its forces in Iraq, imagine what they spent in WWII...Iron wrote:
yeah the only reason the us got involved in the war because they were in the depresion and the war would bring money to the country "that why the president sent the elite of your navey right out in to the middle of the pacfic the day b4 the the attacks on pearl harbour "id say he sold the ppl of pearl harbour out dont you think!!" but i guese you wont !!!!!
By that logic, I guess you are right about Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt must have seen the killing he was making with war in Europe and decide to prolong the war to make even more money...
[/sarcasm]
And btw by the time America joined the war England already had air supremecy over most of Northern Europe. Seriously so many people on this forum quite clearly have never read a book about WWII, or have read one and think that means they know it all. Ive read about 30 and i still am learning new things about WWII all the time.
I think the arguement(or the most current one) was that America contributed greatly to winning the war. If you have read 30 or so books on WWII, you will agree with this statement, as I have read over 110 books on WWII I even have a room full of historical artifacts from WWII. Britain would have lost WWII if not for US involvement. They were on the Verge of Bankruptcy, if not for the Lend-Lease act, all would have been lost, If the US had stuck to their isolationist policies.Vilham wrote:
Well actually america made huge amounts of money out of WWII.EVieira wrote:
Going to war to bring money to a country, right... I don't think theres anyway to spend money faster than to go to war. Except maybe actually burning money in a big bonfire. The US spends a billions each month maintaining its forces in Iraq, imagine what they spent in WWII...Iron wrote:
yeah the only reason the us got involved in the war because they were in the depresion and the war would bring money to the country "that why the president sent the elite of your navey right out in to the middle of the pacfic the day b4 the the attacks on pearl harbour "id say he sold the ppl of pearl harbour out dont you think!!" but i guese you wont !!!!!
By that logic, I guess you are right about Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt must have seen the killing he was making with war in Europe and decide to prolong the war to make even more money...
[/sarcasm]
And btw by the time America joined the war England already had air supremecy over most of Northern Europe. Seriously so many people on this forum quite clearly have never read a book about WWII, or have read one and think that means they know it all. Ive read about 30 and i still am learning new things about WWII all the time.
word up yo
I hate you, i had several hundred pounds of ww2 material that is now lost.........sadness
It was probably that Tesla fellow. He did a buch of important stuff.redhawk454 wrote:
Dont think, it might hurt!!!TimBob wrote:
I dont think Americans invented the Internet - i think a Russian Physisicist did
[/joke]
Well actually what is more likely to happen is, in the next election Churchill would have been booted out, Chamberlain would have got voted back in, then an Alliance/pact of some sort would have been made with Germany as Chamberlain orignially wanted. There would have then been no second front in Europe, meaning the defeat of Russia most likely or Russia being forced into a cease fire with Germany and reestablising its old borders or rearranged ones. The British conolnies would then try to removed themselves from British control most likely, but in the end most likely being defeated. This would leave America as one of the only free countries in the world, and most likely a very poor one.|AIA| DAS wrote:
I think the arguement(or the most current one) was that America contributed greatly to winning the war. If you have read 30 or so books on WWII, you will agree with this statement, as I have read over 110 books on WWII I even have a room full of historical artifacts from WWII. Britain would have lost WWII if not for US involvement. They were on the Verge of Bankruptcy, if not for the Lend-Lease act, all would have been lost, If the US had stuck to their isolationist policies.Vilham wrote:
Well actually america made huge amounts of money out of WWII.EVieira wrote:
Going to war to bring money to a country, right... I don't think theres anyway to spend money faster than to go to war. Except maybe actually burning money in a big bonfire. The US spends a billions each month maintaining its forces in Iraq, imagine what they spent in WWII...
By that logic, I guess you are right about Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt must have seen the killing he was making with war in Europe and decide to prolong the war to make even more money...
[/sarcasm]
And btw by the time America joined the war England already had air supremecy over most of Northern Europe. Seriously so many people on this forum quite clearly have never read a book about WWII, or have read one and think that means they know it all. Ive read about 30 and i still am learning new things about WWII all the time.
Just so you know, these arent my counterfactual theory's they are some of the worlds best military historians, like Professor Steven E Ambrose, David Clay, John Keegan, Williamson Murray, David Fromkin, Theodore F. Cook and many other military historians.
Doubtful, If not for the Lend Lease act Britain would have had no air power and no negotiating power. Why would Germany Negotiate? Britain would no longer be a threat. In theory it's all rosy of course. But if ' If's and But's were Candy and Nuts, it would be Christmas all year!' -jkVilham wrote:
Well actually what is more likely to happen is, in the next election Churchill would have been booted out, Chamberlain would have got voted back in, then an Alliance/pact of some sort would have been made with Germany as Chamberlain orignially wanted. There would have then been no second front in Europe, meaning the defeat of Russia most likely or Russia being forced into a cease fire with Germany and reestablising its old borders or rearranged ones. The British conolnies would then try to removed themselves from British control most likely, but in the end most likely being defeated. This would leave America as one of the only free countries in the world, and most likely a very poor one.|AIA| DAS wrote:
I think the arguement(or the most current one) was that America contributed greatly to winning the war. If you have read 30 or so books on WWII, you will agree with this statement, as I have read over 110 books on WWII I even have a room full of historical artifacts from WWII. Britain would have lost WWII if not for US involvement. They were on the Verge of Bankruptcy, if not for the Lend-Lease act, all would have been lost, If the US had stuck to their isolationist policies.Vilham wrote:
Well actually america made huge amounts of money out of WWII.
And btw by the time America joined the war England already had air supremecy over most of Northern Europe. Seriously so many people on this forum quite clearly have never read a book about WWII, or have read one and think that means they know it all. Ive read about 30 and i still am learning new things about WWII all the time.
Just so you know, these arent my counterfactual theory's they are some of the worlds best military historians, like Professor Steven E Ambrose, David Clay, John Keegan, Williamson Murray, David Fromkin, Theodore F. Cook and many other military historians.
Although, I have read most of those authors and agree that they are very well informed.
Last edited by |AIA| DAS (2006-08-09 08:04:54)
What happened? We left and left them too it and all Hell broke loose!redhawk454 wrote:
the 13 colonies were founded by england(contrary to popular belief some viking found america). america was fed up with the BS so we kicked the oppressors out. you can say the same about anywhere, but most of the middle east used to be a brittish colony also, what happened?mavrick 3399 wrote:
thats very nice its also very one sided. i mean you say all those cool things america did. i could say us Brits used to rule the world and i mean all of it. (mostly) and also i could say we found america!!!(that will start some arguments) this is a thread that will cause more american bashing in fact just more bashing about other countries in general so its pointless.
lots of flame wars coming!!!!!!!
too bad america defeated the brits...thus ending your short reign.mavrick 3399 wrote:
thats very nice its also very one sided. i mean you say all those cool things america did. i could say us Brits used to rule the world and i mean all of it. (mostly) and also i could say we found america!!!(that will start some arguments) this is a thread that will cause more american bashing in fact just more bashing about other countries in general so its pointless.
lots of flame wars coming!!!!!!!
Completely incorrect. The reign of the British Empire lasted for well over 400 years, 150 of which happened after the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown.T0rr3nt wrote:
too bad america defeated the brits...thus ending your short reign.
I recommend to quit antagonizing British people until you spend 5 minutes looking at this page and at this page.
I'm not sure about "found" America... the American aboriginies certainly didn't need to be told where it was. But if you mean they "founded" the British colonies in America, then of course you're right.mavrick 3399 wrote:
i could say us Brits used to rule the world and i mean all of it. (mostly) and also i could say we found america!!!
Also: although the United States won the American Revolution, it's important to remember that all of these "states" were British colonies, and all of them benefitted greatly from the British forces that drove the French administrative presence out of North America in the French and Indian War (aka the Seven Years War).
It's pretty easy to understand why Britain would have been a little pissed off when ten years later their colonies were refusing to pay taxes and dumping tea into Boston Harbor.