Yanks - unbelievable!

[bhaexpress]

Not all Americans are Yanks as someone pointed out to me the other day, just the residents in the north eastern part. Should not forget that our commonwealth cousins (Canada, Australia etc), also played a kind of role (albeit small). but agree with the war posts above.

Americans from the Southern States take great offence to being called a Yank. To them its akin to a Scotsman being called English.

As far as they're concerned Yanks are the ones who fought on the Union side in their Civil war. I don't know where is leaves some people though as Oklahoma for example was a 'territory' at the time and didn't gain statehood until 1907.

But there again, who cares ?

 

[looney]

I like the majority of Americans. I just dont like the ones in the biblebasher belt like George Bush etc.

George Bush isn't from the Midwest, he's from the East but now a pretend southerner, idiot.

 

[enigma]

George Bush isn't from the Midwest, he's from the East but now a pretend southerner, idiot.

Clearly you're the idiot. I never stated that George Bush is from the South, I know that isnt the case. I stated I disliked the people LIKE him in the South, ie the ones that embrace his politics etc.

Geek.

 

[perth seagull]

To be fair, if the Americans hadn't of intervened Hitler would have been able to concentrate his forces against the Russians (who had the ability to rebuild due to American backing) which would have
probably resulted in a different out come.
There is no way we as a nation would have been able to mount D-Day without USA resources.

As much as I loathe to say it, they did save our arses.

And the Yanks wouldn't have been able to mount D-Day without us, or the USSR for that matter.

No UK = no base, less troops, naval and air cover to launch attack on Europe.

No USSR = all German forces piled up in France making an attack by the USA impossible.

I'm sick of people elevating the role of the USA in WWII. They were no better than the UK or USSR. Take out any one of the Big Three and unconditional victory would not have been possible.

 

[bhaexpress]

I have to say that I thought Catholics were the ultimate hypocrits untill I met some of the Bible Belt nutters. Frankly they let their god jusify just about anything rather like the average Muslim extremist.

Tragically far too many Americas put too much stock in the Bible. As it is I am conviced that George Bush won two elections as he is Pro Life. A whole lot of Americans vote that way as they are frankly too ignorant of foriegn policy and just where they stand in the grand scheme of things.

 

[bhaexpress]

And the Yanks wouldn't have been able to mount D-Day without us, or the USSR for that matter.

No UK = no base, less troops, naval and air cover to launch attack on Europe.

No USSR = all German forces piled up in France making an attack by the USA impossible.

I'm sick of people elevating the role of the USA in WWII. They were no better than the UK or USSR. Take out any one of the Big Three and unconditional victory would not have been possible.

Hmm, ever heard of lend lease ? Without those clapped out American warships Hilter's submarines would have starved us out long before 1943.

 

[perth seagull]

Hmm, ever heard of lend lease ? Without those clapped out American warships Hilter's submarines would have starved us out long before 1943.

You're missing the point. If we weren't in the war (let's say we surrendered or as unlikely as it was, were neutral), there is no way the USA could've opened up a Western front without us.

To achieve unconditional victory, they needed us as much as we needed them.

 

[bhaexpress]

You're missing the point. If we weren't in the war (let's say we surrendered or as unlikely as it was, were neutral), there is no way the USA could've opened up a Western front without us.

To achieve unconditional victory, they needed us as much as we needed them.

Conversely we would have capitualted and not honoured treaties with Poland and so on. We couldn't have even considered starting a cold front without the Americans, whether you like it or not without there involvement Hilter probably would have overcome Russia and we would have become a sattelite German State like Norway.

 

[Trufflehound]

Cheney obviously mistook the guy for Dan Quayle, who would have been in season and fair game.

 

[perth seagull]

Conversely we would have capitualted and not honoured treaties with Poland and so on. We couldn't have even considered starting a cold front without the Americans, whether you like it or not without there involvement Hilter probably would have overcome Russia and we would have become a sattelite German State like Norway.

Instead of repeating the same argument over again, I'll just say that if you take out any one of the Big Three from the alliance, an unconditional victory over Germany would have been impossible.

This means that we wouldn't have been able achieve total victory without the support of your beloved USA (I concede that, and the USSR too). And the USA would not have been able to get Berlin to surrender unconditionally without the UK or USSR.

The Western Alliance was like a tripod, take out any of its legs and it wouldn't be able to stand. It may have been able to achieve some sort of victory like a negogiated peace, but unconditional victory without all of the Big Three involved would have been impossible.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Also Hitler said that the nearest to his Nazi master race 'vision' was British citizens. At the time we had a very low immigrant population.

And there was also the "phoney war" a period of Sept 1939 to April 1940 when not alot happened to begin with. Some say its because Hitler wanted to give us the chance of reconciliation.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/phoney_war.htm

 

[1959]

And the Yanks wouldn't have been able to mount D-Day without us, or the USSR for that matter.

No UK = no base, less troops, naval and air cover to launch attack on Europe.

No USSR = all German forces piled up in France making an attack by the USA impossible.

I'm sick of people elevating the role of the USA in WWII. They were no better than the UK or USSR. Take out any one of the Big Three and unconditional victory would not have been possible.

I agree. In the whole of WW2, in all sectors (Europe, the Far East etc) the US suffered around 250,000 deaths, which is less than the Soviet Army lost in the Battle for Berlin alone (around 275,000, I believe).

The US did play a very important part, but the USSR's crucial involvement tends to be downplayed because of what happened in Eastern Europe after the war.

 

[bhaexpress]

Instead of repeating the same argument over again, I'll just say that if you take out any one of the Big Three from the alliance, an unconditional victory over Germany would have been impossible.

This means that we wouldn't have been able achieve total victory without the support of your beloved USA (I concede that, and the USSR too). And the USA would not have been able to get Berlin to surrender unconditionally without the UK or USSR.

The Western Alliance was like a tripod, take out any of its legs and it wouldn't be able to stand. It may have been able to achieve some sort of victory like a negogiated peace, but unconditional victory without all of the Big Three involved would have been impossible.

It's pretty clear that you don't have much knowledge about WWII. As it was had Hilter not made some serious blunders when his armies were withinn 11 miles of Moscow then the Germans would have won. Some of the aforementioned Lend Lease ships were used to protect convoys to Russia that supplier urgently needed materials. As it was thanks to Stalin's muderous purge on the Soviet Armies Officer Cadre the Russiand were ill prepared to fight Germany. The American intervention did help but buying time and supplying much needed assitance to both Britain and Russia. Nobody is saying that they did it alone (some of them do though) but their contribution was more than a little significant.

As a matter of fact many Americans wanted to saty out of it. In fact John F. Kennedy's father Joesph was the American Ambasador to the UK at the outbreak of war. He was eventually sent home as he was very pro German.

Oh, and for the record, I don't have much time for America and I have more reason then most to feel that way.

 

[Eggmundo]

And the Yanks wouldn't have been able to mount D-Day without us, or the USSR for that matter.

No UK = no base, less troops, naval and air cover to launch attack on Europe.

No USSR = all German forces piled up in France making an attack by the USA impossible.

I'm sick of people elevating the role of the USA in WWII. They were no better than the UK or USSR. Take out any one of the Big Three and unconditional victory would not have been possible.

Totally agree.
I wasn't saying USA won the war on their own though?

 

[Eggmundo]

And from what I have read the USA army was incredibly inept at the beginning of the war. It was only the lessons they learned in North Africa that honed their skills as an effective fighting force.
Lessons learnt with the aid of the Good Old Commonwealth Soldiers!

 

[perth seagull]

It's pretty clear that you don't have much knowledge about WWII. As it was had Hilter not made some serious blunders when his armies were withinn 11 miles of Moscow then the Germans would have won. Some of the aforementioned Lend Lease ships were used to protect convoys to Russia that supplier urgently needed materials. As it was thanks to Stalin's muderous purge on the Soviet Armies Officer Cadre the Russiand were ill prepared to fight Germany. The American intervention did help but buying time and supplying much needed assitance to both Britain and Russia. Nobody is saying that they did it alone (some of them do though) but their contribution was more than a little significant.

As a matter of fact many Americans wanted to saty out of it. In fact John F. Kennedy's father Joesph was the American Ambasador to the UK at the outbreak of war. He was eventually sent home as he was very pro German.

Oh, and for the record, I don't have much time for America and I have more reason then most to feel that way.

I'm not trying to downplay the role of the USA. Yes, they were vital, and we wouldn't have won without them.

You seem to have your head so far up Uncle Sam's arse you fail to see the importance the UK played in the victory and even more so the massive role the USSR had in defeating Germany.

All I'm saying is that they wouldn't have won the war without us or the USSR, just as we couldn't have won it without them.

This is my last reply to you, seeing as you have a blinkered view of things (prob been watching too many Hollywood flicks, eh).

 

[bhaexpress]

You seem to have your head so far up Uncle Sam's arse you fail to see the importance the UK played in the victory and even more so the massive role the USSR had in defeating Germany.

All I'm saying is that they wouldn't have won the war without us or the USSR, just as we couldn't have won it without them.

This is my last reply to you, seeing as you have a blinkered view of things (prob been watching too many Hollywood flicks, eh).

You're a bit of an idiot aren't you ? For a start I have no idea why you have in your head that I love America, I don't and for several very good reasons. I've also spent a lot of tiime there which I doubt that you have. Nobody has said that WW II was won by the Americans, well except you that is. Still, the fact that you have resorted to personal abuse makes you look a bit of a fool.

I might add that in the main I don't mind Australians but working in IT I have been forced to work with some really ignorant loud mouthed one. I don't consider their behaviour to sbe the norm though.

You are clearly biased againt the US for some unknown reason, at least I know why I am.

 

[bhaexpress]

And from what I have read the USA army was incredibly inept at the beginning of the war. It was only the lessons they learned in North Africa that honed their skills as an effective fighting force.
Lessons learnt with the aid of the Good Old Commonwealth Soldiers!

That's true as they were pitched against battle hardened Panzer troops when they invaded Italy in 1943. They got very badly chewed up. Mind you we surrendered SIngapore to a smalller invading Japanese force who were about to pull back as their supply lines were too stretched. The Russinas got hammered thanks to Stalins decimation of his officer cadre in the late thirties.

 

[Juan Albion]

These "only in America" threads only ever highlight the stupidity of those who say such nonsense. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two English kings who were hurt in hunting accidents.

And for all those who moan that the Yanks act like the won WWII by themselves, most of you always overlook the fact that other countries were involved as well, and make out as if it was only really the US and the UK, so are you any better?

 

[bhaexpress]

These "only in America" threads only ever the stupidity of those who say such nonsense. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two English kings who were hurt in hunting accidents.

And for all those who moan that the Yanks act like the won WWII by themselves, most of you always overlook the fact that other countries were involved as well, and make out as if it was only really the US and the UK, so are you any better?

Well said Juan, we should never forget the efforts and bloodshed of all of the Commonwealth countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa no to mention the Indian sub continent (some of whom, dare I say it ? Were muslems). There's also the Gurkas plus others. The all were involved from 1939.

You're right about the 'Only in America' threads though, the US has its foibles but show me a country that doesn't. By virtue of the fact that America is bigger and has a much larger population there are bound to be more reports of strange goings on there.