The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

History Historical Discussions - For discussion about the great (and not-so-great) happenings of history


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 7th, 2011, 10:11 PM   #21
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
You did not give the British a hand until your own home was threatened. The ONLY reason the isolationists lost to the warmongers in the USA would be the fact the US military warned them if Britain ever lost to the Nazis, the USA would be in grave danger because there would have been no way to defeat the Nazis without a base from which to launch attacks against Germany (that would be Great Britain, my children). I would ask that you recall the words 'Britain stood alone'. Interesting that the British and Canadians bore the brunt of the fighting. Hmmm? The Americans were such cowards they did not appear until the Nazi menace was pretty much in retreat thanks to the heavy losses suffered at the hands of the Soviets, and a Luftwaffe that was all but eradicated in the Battle of Britain.

I would ask that you stop reading American propaganda and learn what REALLY happened. Many Europeans are pissed that the Americans claimed to have saved the world alone. I would challenge any American to claim to the French and the Dutch that they saved those peoples. You would get a swift kick in the heads for insulting us.[/color][/size]
You're ignoring the fact that we had outlawed offensive war. It wasn't legal for us to go to war until Japan hit us (Germany and Italy made the mistake of declaring war on us as per their MD/AP with Japan allowing us into Europe).
David is offline  
Old December 8th, 2011, 12:37 PM   #22
Representative
 
RoccoR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Reynoldsburg, OH
Posts: 211

Fascist Canuck, David, [FONT="Palatino Linotype"]et al,

David has suggested that the "Neutrality Act of 1937" was a cause in the delayed entry. This was in fact an impediment.

I will admit that the US tends to boast a little too much about our participation in the War. But, one has to ask, could Europe and the UK have defeated Germany without US participation? The The Polish-British Common Defense Pact, was all but a total failure. Poland was not defended.

It is equally boastful for anyone to suggest that the US entered the war when "the Germans were BEATEN" already. The war was far from decided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
You're ignoring the fact that we had outlawed offensive war. It wasn't legal for us to go to war until Japan hit us (Germany and Italy made the mistake of declaring war on us as per their MD/AP with Japan allowing us into Europe).
(COMMENT)

In the pre-1941 partipation, the US Lend Lease Act (http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm) suffered over 60 Merchant Marine Ships lost to German attack. But it gave the Russians the boast it needed in re-arming and modernization.

Yes, there is an argument to be made that the Russians (after re-arming and modernization) could have defeated the Germany Army. But we will never know for sure because the Allies opened a second front and Germany had to distributed it forces.

There is also the contribution made by the US daylight strategic "precision bombing" campaign (which was not so "precision") against the German War Industry. The US 8th, 9th and 12th Air Force dropped 1.4M tons of ordnance to the RAFs 1.2M tons (equal contributions).

Pre-War Note:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.historynet.com/lance-wade-world-war-ii-raf-ace-fighter-pilot.htm
Britain's recruitment program resulted in 240 American pilots who flew and fought for England. Most of those men served with Nos. 71, 121 and 133 Eagle squadrons, which were made up of American volunteers. In the course of their service, members of the Eagles destroyed 7312 Axis aircraft and earned 12 Distinguished Flying Crosses (DFCs) and one Distinguished Service Order (DSO). The battle-tested Eagles also provided the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) with valuable combat experience after the United States joined the war. Wade, however, did not serve with the Eagle squadrons but with the regular RAF squadrons, and as a result his awards and victories are not included in the Eagle tally.
Yes, there are arguments to be made about pre-War participation. But the US made its contribution, and more; while fighting on two fronts. At the end of the day, the US contribution over the 4 years was equal to the combined allied effort.

Today, the US honors the men and women of WWII as the Greatest Generation. I am very proud to say that my father and 11 uncles were part of that distinguished group.

Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR is offline  
Old December 8th, 2011, 01:07 PM   #23
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
You're ignoring the fact that we had outlawed offensive war. It wasn't legal for us to go to war until Japan hit us (Germany and Italy made the mistake of declaring war on us as per their MD/AP with Japan allowing us into Europe).
Of course. You ALLOWED Pearl Harbour to happen, in order to have an excuse to enter the war. Shit, my grandparents kept telling me about the British intelligence services constantly telling the Americans 'Japan will hit Pearl Harbour', whereupon they were largely ignored. So, the attack was no surprise. The British even told the Americans HOW the Japanese were going to do it. Interesting that the carriers were not there, no? The Americans knew the attack was coming. They were simply caught off guard as to the actual date, on a Sunday. That they did not expect. They also underestimated Japanese naval capabilities, something they sorely paid for. The Royal Navy did not underestimate them, which is why they kept warning the Americans. Why were the British so adamant? The Americans kept saying 'the Japanese cannot attack since our waters are too shallow'. Hello, Taranto, anyone? The British KNEW the Japanese were copying their own successful attack which destroyed a large chunk of the Italian Navy.
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old December 8th, 2011, 01:10 PM   #24
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
Fascist Canuck, David, [FONT="Palatino Linotype"]et al,

David has suggested that the "Neutrality Act of 1937" was a cause in the delayed entry. This was in fact an impediment.

I will admit that the US tends to boast a little too much about our participation in the War. But, one has to ask, could Europe and the UK have defeated Germany without US participation? The The Polish-British Common Defense Pact, was all but a total failure. Poland was not defended.

It is equally boastful for anyone to suggest that the US entered the war when "the Germans were BEATEN" already. The war was far from decided.
(COMMENT)

In the pre-1941 partipation, the US Lend Lease Act (http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm) suffered over 60 Merchant Marine Ships lost to German attack. But it gave the Russians the boast it needed in re-arming and modernization.

Yes, there is an argument to be made that the Russians (after re-arming and modernization) could have defeated the Germany Army. But we will never know for sure because the Allies opened a second front and Germany had to distributed it forces.

There is also the contribution made by the US daylight strategic "precision bombing" campaign (which was not so "precision") against the German War Industry. The US 8th, 9th and 12th Air Force dropped 1.4M tons of ordnance to the RAFs 1.2M tons (equal contributions).

Pre-War Note:
Yes, there are arguments to be made about pre-War participation. But the US made its contribution, and more; while fighting on two fronts. At the end of the day, the US contribution over the 4 years was equal to the combined allied effort.

Today, the US honors the men and women of WWII as the Greatest Generation. I am very proud to say that my father and 11 uncles were part of that distinguished group.

Most Respectfully,
R
The Germans were beaten. Accept it. My own grandfather was there when the Luftwaffe was virtually destroyed by the RAF. There was no way Germany was going to take Britain. The British Navy was far too strong, the Channel was so heavily mined one could WALK across it. There was no way, no how that the Germans were going to take Britain. I should like to remind you that it is thanks to the Battle of Britain that the Germans decided to switch tactics due to their failure to destroy the RAF, and take on Russia. Basically, the British/Canadians FORCED the Germans to change their strategy.

You are welcome.
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old December 8th, 2011, 07:10 PM   #25
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
The Germans were beaten. Accept it. My own grandfather was there when the Luftwaffe was virtually destroyed by the RAF. There was no way Germany was going to take Britain. The British Navy was far too strong, the Channel was so heavily mined one could WALK across it. There was no way, no how that the Germans were going to take Britain. I should like to remind you that it is thanks to the Battle of Britain that the Germans decided to switch tactics due to their failure to destroy the RAF, and take on Russia. Basically, the British/Canadians FORCED the Germans to change their strategy.

You are welcome.
Britain only survived because Hitler was pro-British. He let the British escape after France fell and stopped short of destroying the ARF on the ground while trying to put Britain's pre-war, fascist king back on the throne. It was all about keeping the British intact (as much as that was possible while at war with them) so that they could become allies post-war. Hitler's grand strategy was to divide the world between Germany, Britain and (fascist) America with Italy and Japan keeping Africa and SE Asia in line. If the Japanese hadn't provoked the US into joining the war and the fascist coup not failed, the war would of gone the other way I think.
David is offline  
Old December 8th, 2011, 07:12 PM   #26
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
David has suggested that the "Neutrality Act of 1937" was a cause in the delayed entry. This was in fact an impediment.R
Actually I was thinking about the Kellogg-Brand Pact (which oddly only the US has ever honored, technically at least).
David is offline  
Old December 9th, 2011, 12:35 PM   #27
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Britain only survived because Hitler was pro-British. He let the British escape after France fell and stopped short of destroying the ARF on the ground while trying to put Britain's pre-war, fascist king back on the throne. It was all about keeping the British intact (as much as that was possible while at war with them) so that they could become allies post-war. Hitler's grand strategy was to divide the world between Germany, Britain and (fascist) America with Italy and Japan keeping Africa and SE Asia in line. If the Japanese hadn't provoked the US into joining the war and the fascist coup not failed, the war would of gone the other way I think.
I would answer this bullshit post, but I cannot since the Admins are ****ing with my posts.
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old December 9th, 2011, 05:30 PM   #28
Representative
 
RoccoR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Reynoldsburg, OH
Posts: 211

David, et al,

Ah yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Actually I was thinking about the Kellogg-Brand Pact (which oddly only the US has ever honored, technically at least).
(COMMENT)

Yes, The Kellogg–Briand Pact was in effect, technically it still is. But I don't think that it is strong enough to override tacit approval by Congress (granted through funding authorizations). I don't think that any nation (today) even considers it an active agreement, having been superseded by the UN Charter.

But, it is something to consider. Back in the days of WWII, I don't think it was the real impediment. It is actually a renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. It doesn't prohibit armed conflict, but requires a due diligent effort to seek an alternative to conflict. The US has not declared war on any nation since WWII.

Most Respectfully,
R

Last edited by RoccoR; December 9th, 2011 at 05:31 PM. Reason: Spelling
RoccoR is offline  
Old December 9th, 2011, 09:11 PM   #29
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
David, et al,

Ah yes.
(COMMENT)

Yes, The Kellogg–Briand Pact was in effect, technically it still is. But I don't think that it is strong enough to override tacit approval by Congress (granted through funding authorizations). I don't think that any nation (today) even considers it an active agreement, having been superseded by the UN Charter.

But, it is something to consider. Back in the days of WWII, I don't think it was the real impediment. It is actually a renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. It doesn't prohibit armed conflict, but requires a due diligent effort to seek an alternative to conflict. The US has not declared war on any nation since WWII.

Most Respectfully,
R
According to the State Department it's still law in the US.
David is offline  
Old December 10th, 2011, 09:31 AM   #30
Representative
 
RoccoR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Reynoldsburg, OH
Posts: 211

David, et al,

Yes, this is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
According to the State Department it's still law in the US.
(COMMENT)

But there is a very crafty slight of hand.

The US has declared a war in 5 cases; beginning with the War of 1812 and ending in WWII.

(QUESTION)

How many times has the US engaged forces since WWII? It is not really an impediment to armed conflict. More recently, Secretary Clinton strongly advocated intervention in Libya.

In the first 145 days of NATO Ops in Libya, nearly 20,000 sorties we flown; 7800+ were engagements. The US flew somewhere between 25%-30% of all missions, and spent about $820M through in those first days. This cost includes amounts for daily military operations, munitions used in the operation, and humanitarian assistance," it said. In contrast, the NATO allies and spent about $222M worth of ammunition, repair parts, fuel, and technical assistance (only about quarter of the US contribution). To be fair, did allocate about $25M for "non-lethal" aid to the Libyan Rebels.

As I've said, The Kellogg–Briand Pact is still (technically) on the books; but it is not considered by either the Department of State or the Defense Department as being a show stopper. No one even considers it.

Oddly enough, it is not even considered a show stopper on "First Strike" matters and policy.

Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR is offline  
Old December 10th, 2011, 08:04 PM   #31
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
David, et al,

Yes, this is true.
(COMMENT)

But there is a very crafty slight of hand.

The US has declared a war in 5 cases; beginning with the War of 1812 and ending in WWII.

(QUESTION)

How many times has the US engaged forces since WWII? It is not really an impediment to armed conflict. More recently, Secretary Clinton strongly advocated intervention in Libya.

In the first 145 days of NATO Ops in Libya, nearly 20,000 sorties we flown; 7800+ were engagements. The US flew somewhere between 25%-30% of all missions, and spent about $820M through in those first days. This cost includes amounts for daily military operations, munitions used in the operation, and humanitarian assistance," it said. In contrast, the NATO allies and spent about $222M worth of ammunition, repair parts, fuel, and technical assistance (only about quarter of the US contribution). To be fair, did allocate about $25M for "non-lethal" aid to the Libyan Rebels.

As I've said, The Kellogg–Briand Pact is still (technically) on the books; but it is not considered by either the Department of State or the Defense Department as being a show stopper. No one even considers it.

Oddly enough, it is not even considered a show stopper on "First Strike" matters and policy.

Most Respectfully,
R
Which is why I qualified my statement in the 1st place.
David is offline  
Old December 12th, 2011, 02:37 PM   #32
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
David, et al,

Yes, this is true.
(COMMENT)

But there is a very crafty slight of hand.

The US has declared a war in 5 cases; beginning with the War of 1812 and ending in WWII.

(QUESTION)

How many times has the US engaged forces since WWII? It is not really an impediment to armed conflict. More recently, Secretary Clinton strongly advocated intervention in Libya.

In the first 145 days of NATO Ops in Libya, nearly 20,000 sorties we flown; 7800+ were engagements. The US flew somewhere between 25%-30% of all missions, and spent about $820M through in those first days. This cost includes amounts for daily military operations, munitions used in the operation, and humanitarian assistance," it said. In contrast, the NATO allies and spent about $222M worth of ammunition, repair parts, fuel, and technical assistance (only about quarter of the US contribution). To be fair, did allocate about $25M for "non-lethal" aid to the Libyan Rebels.

As I've said, The Kellogg–Briand Pact is still (technically) on the books; but it is not considered by either the Department of State or the Defense Department as being a show stopper. No one even considers it.

Oddly enough, it is not even considered a show stopper on "First Strike" matters and policy.

Most Respectfully,
R
Ah, yes, the USA did it all by they lonesome! They done won WWI, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan, all by theyselves!

Shit, is there ANYTHING you Americans don't take credit for? Oh yes, must keep Vietnam, where you had your asses handed to you by a bunch of pyjama-wearing midget kiddies, quiet, yes?
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 01:00 PM   #33
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
Ah, yes, the USA did it all by they lonesome! They done won WWI, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan, all by theyselves!

Shit, is there ANYTHING you Americans don't take credit for? Oh yes, must keep Vietnam, where you had your asses handed to you by a bunch of pyjama-wearing midget kiddies, quiet, yes?
Wee crushed the Viet Cong and routed the NVA. This was followed by NV suing for peace least we change our mandate from defense of SV to unification of Vietnam (which would of been a walk in the park as we'd crushed all organized resistance). After we left (and only after) did NV conquer the south. The Vietnam War was actually 2 wars though that detail as been lot o hisor for the most part. Not that it matters, 'Red' Vietnam ended up in our orbit anyway, the even went to war with Cambodia (where they overthrew the Communists) and China.
David is offline  
Old December 13th, 2011, 05:26 PM   #34
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Wee crushed the Viet Cong and routed the NVA. This was followed by NV suing for peace least we change our mandate from defense of SV to unification of Vietnam (which would of been a walk in the park as we'd crushed all organized resistance). After we left (and only after) did NV conquer the south. The Vietnam War was actually 2 wars though that detail as been lot o hisor for the most part. Not that it matters, 'Red' Vietnam ended up in our orbit anyway, the even went to war with Cambodia (where they overthrew the Communists) and China.
Idiot. they ran you out of the country. The Americans were severely routed. Even the French weren't beaten so badly as you were. Their going to war with Cambodia and China had nothing to do with communism, or even you. I would suggest further reading, and NOT the propaganda bullshit which stinks up your country.
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old December 16th, 2011, 10:41 AM   #35
Representative
 
RoccoR's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Reynoldsburg, OH
Posts: 211

Fascist Canuck, et al,

Vietnam was a "political" loss; not a "military" loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
Idiot. they ran you out of the country. The Americans were severely routed. Even the French weren't beaten so badly as you were. Their going to war with Cambodia and China had nothing to do with communism, or even you. I would suggest further reading, and NOT the propaganda bullshit which stinks up your country.
(COMMENT)

As is usual, I don't expect you to take my word for it; so I offer this quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Vo Nguyen Giap, Commander-in-Chief of the People's Army of Vietnam
"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it.

But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"
You have to look below the surface. I would caution you on how you define a "route." I served in Vietnam, all those many years ago. Yes, we got a bloody nose once in a while, but militarily we won 98+% of the engagements.

Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR is offline  
Old December 17th, 2011, 05:44 AM   #36
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
Fascist Canuck, et al,

Vietnam was a "political" loss; not a "military" loss.
(COMMENT)

As is usual, I don't expect you to take my word for it; so I offer this quote:
You have to look below the surface. I would caution you on how you define a "route." I served in Vietnam, all those many years ago. Yes, we got a bloody nose once in a while, but militarily we won 98+% of the engagements.

Most Respectfully,
R
100% actually, though some were Pyrrhic victories.
David is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 06:51 PM   #37
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoccoR View Post
Fascist Canuck, et al,

Vietnam was a "political" loss; not a "military" loss.
(COMMENT)

As is usual, I don't expect you to take my word for it; so I offer this quote:
You have to look below the surface. I would caution you on how you define a "route." I served in Vietnam, all those many years ago. Yes, we got a bloody nose once in a while, but militarily we won 98+% of the engagements.

Most Respectfully,
R
Gotta love American propaganda. The above never happened.
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 08:43 PM   #38
Congressional Leader
 
DodgeFB's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Undisclosed
Posts: 2,751

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
Gotta love American propaganda. The above never happened.
And you would know how? Were you there? I think not.

Remember that old thing about you are entitled to you opinion. But you are one that seems to want to rewrite history to make yourself feel better. But we don't believe half your BS anyway.
DodgeFB is offline  
Old January 29th, 2012, 07:25 PM   #39
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Canada
Posts: 299

Quote:
Originally Posted by DodgeFB View Post
And you would know how? Were you there? I think not.

Remember that old thing about you are entitled to you opinion. But you are one that seems to want to rewrite history to make yourself feel better. But we don't believe half your BS anyway.
But you DO believe all propaganda as spouted by your liberals in the USA? Riiiggghhhttt. You had the Vietnamese 'on the ropes', after suffering massive casualties, with your goal that of stopping the spread of communism, yet you decided to just leave? Uh huh. You were beaten, driven out, had your balls kicked. the world knows it, and the only country that seems to deny it would be the USA. Why is that?
Fascist Canuck is offline  
Old January 29th, 2012, 07:29 PM   #40
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascist Canuck View Post
But you DO believe all propaganda as spouted by your liberals in the USA? Riiiggghhhttt. You had the Vietnamese 'on the ropes', after suffering massive casualties, with your goal that of stopping the spread of communism, yet you decided to just leave? Uh huh. You were beaten, driven out, had your balls kicked. the world knows it, and the only country that seems to deny it would be the USA. Why is that?
North Vietnam sued for peace after we kicked their asses in the failed Tet Offensive. We left because the war was over.
David is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > History

Tags
destiny , manifest



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.