| Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Eating in the Britainlands.; What? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 23 2012, 01:36 PM (6,957 Views) | |
| Dantos4 | Mar 24 2012, 03:28 PM Post #91 |
![]()
|
Well considering the whole thing is hypothetical, it has sort of become pointless. We can argue all day about whether or not Germany would have beaten the UK or the Soviets without the USA. But only facts we have are that they had not done so before America's involvement. Germany had failed to take Britain and abandoned all but bombing runs on "sure" locations at night. The Soviets had Stalingrad AND Moscow victories without US troop involvement, not to mention their superior manpower and armoured advantage, although I would have loved to have seen a "better" designed Jagdtiger in action. I do watch the History channel, thanks. I never said that they would lay down and surender, but that they would either surrender or be crushed by European/Soviet forces. Do you see how that is contradictory though? The Japanese would have fought relentlessly, and did. Yet the eventually surrendered anyway. Regardless of the use of Atomic bombs, Japan by itself would have been no match for the Soviets alone, never mind the UK & Commonwealth countries. Combined. They were busy taking over a few colonies, not invading Europe. Again, I am well educated in history and know of Oppenheimer's words. We can never be sure that an Atomic Bomb was the right thing to do, personally I completely disagree with it's use. Attacking another military force results in MILITARY casualties, bombing cities results in CIVILIAN casualties. For all the UK/US/Europe goes on about saving civilians in Iraq/Iran/Libya/Syria, they didn't care so much for the Japanese civilians. We were not losing and had not lost ANY English soil before US involvement, only colonial/allied soil. & The Russians did their jobs without any American military support. I don't see how anybody#s asses were saved. Basically, to sum up my points in a few abstract analogies: (The the US 'saving your asses'): Analogy: It is like when a quarter back throws a bad pass, some guy tries to intercept but gets a slight touch, then the second guy intercepts it. And the first guy saying "If it wasn't for my help, you wouldn't have caught it". Nobody knows if the second guy would have caught it anyway without the first guy's help. Analogy: One guy lights a tree on fire in the forest. Another guy pours oil all over it. The second guy says "The forest would never have caught fire with just your flame, it needed oil"... We would never know if it would have caught fire without the oil. {Japan not surrendering): Analogy: It's like saying the ONLY way to make alcohol is to ferment hops. Yet there are so many more ways to create alcohol. Just because one method works, doesn't mean there aren't (or "weren't" in Japan's situation) others available. Saying: "There is more than one way to skin a cat" - E.g. resorting the nuking civilians (who had done nothing wrong and may actually WANT surrender), to get a surrender, does not mean there couldn't have been other methods to get a surrender. At this point it was pretty much the world vs. Japan. Pretty sure we could have used other methods. Edited by Dantos4, Mar 24 2012, 03:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| RandomMan1 | Mar 24 2012, 03:32 PM Post #92 |
![]()
|
Fine, I'll finish the argument here. We both are beating our heads on a brick wall here. Neither of us are getting anywhere with this argument. So, I'll just stop here. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 24 2012, 03:33 PM Post #93 |
![]()
|
But It was just getting fun.
|
![]() |
|
| RandomMan1 | Mar 24 2012, 03:43 PM Post #94 |
![]()
|
Well then, by all means, knock yourself out.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 24 2012, 03:52 PM Post #95 |
![]()
|
War history from any time guns where involved... not my strong suit. In all honesty the Lime did win that little quarrel. |
![]() |
|
| Cthulhu-Gala | Mar 25 2012, 04:14 PM Post #96 |
|
Praetorian Guard
|
Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II.[N 1] In 1943–1944, about a quarter of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft (in particular transport aircraft) comprised about a quarter of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships[citation needed]. Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to reach full-strength in 1943–1944, Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining allies were largely self-sufficient in front line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including motor vehicles and railroad equipment) were of enormous assistance. Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back severely on production of non-essentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military-industrial complex. The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).[16] Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminium, canned rations, and clothing were also critical. Dantos you seem to not know anything about WW2 at all the russians would have been stomped without US aid and guess what US pilots fought in the Battle of Britan. Japan was ready to fight to the last man you don't understand the nuke was needed to scare the emperor into growing balls and to tell the army to back the fuck down. Japan stomp british forces till US marines entered the fight. Dantos you need to stop acting like the UK had the power to beat germany yet alone them and japan |
![]() |
|
| PvtCryan501 | Mar 25 2012, 04:37 PM Post #97 |
|
Whoa therevI have to say one thing: Patton. He did so much and showed up Montgomery and what about the Canadians they helped too I mean nothing big but helped and I know Patton was not there for Berlin but he tied up the German's last eastern offense blast me for not remembering the name. Plus the Enterprise versus the Japenese we won that war on our own. So do not think It was just Britan and the Russians( even though they totally rejected the Germans on the eastern front) because it was a united effort. |
![]() |
|
| PvtCryan501 | Mar 25 2012, 04:38 PM Post #98 |
|
DONE now this thing was a way how British people eat not a debate about WW2. |
![]() |
|
| Cthulhu-Gala | Mar 25 2012, 04:44 PM Post #99 |
|
Praetorian Guard
|
no this a trolling topic |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 25 2012, 04:45 PM Post #100 |
![]()
|
Yes it is. People need a centralized place to trollololol. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |







3:21 AM Jul 11