the American view of world history vs everyone else's

[Carbon]

Do you ever wonder how different other countries's take on world history is relative to the American "version" of world history?

Quick example, how different do you suppose the curriculum of WW2 history in German public schools differ from ours? Japan? or any other country.

Is there a possibility, that some of this so called "cultural imperialism", Americans have portrayed of having imposed among other countries may stem from the discrepancy in information?

How mallable is that information?

I know this is a really broad question.

your thoughts and opinions, please disscuss. Peope who have traveled and learned abroad please comment.


thnx

[Major Ho]

My French exchange student friend was taught in school that their people fought valiently when the Germans invaded them.
We Americans joke all the time that they surrendered and got sacked up the butt twice.

[Flamebo]

It's late and I've got class in the morning, but I'm happy to see that other people take an interest in things like this. Americans have been conditioned for generations to believe that their perspective on history is unquestionable fact, and that's not the case at all. This goes as well with plenty of other countries, but if you look into it you begin to realize just how strongly a government can affect public opinion on whatever they like.

[Carbon]

yeah man. information or dis-information.

[nastymag]

the french army was full of horrible generals and in general couldnt coordinate, the Free French fought valiently after their nation had fallen.

but yeah pretty much any country is going to squew their history to show themselves in a more favorable light

[maglover728]

I have a few French WWII rifles for sale. Never fired, only dropped once. pm me if intrested!



LOL

[FreakBaller12]

I have a few French WWII rifles for sale. Never fired, only dropped once. pm me if intrested!



LOL

roflee! :rofl:

[bornl33t]

It's late and I've got class in the morning, but I'm happy to see that other people take an interest in things like this. Americans have been conditioned for generations to believe that their perspective on history is unquestionable fact, and that's not the case at all. This goes as well with plenty of other countries, but if you look into it you begin to realize just how strongly a government can affect public opinion on whatever they like.

erm, not goverment, MEDIA.

I grew up in Austria, went to school, the whole nine yards. Their view on history isn't THAT different from Americans. The perpective is obviously different... but in general what you hear in school is how they believe the war (for instance) happened. Austria believes they were invaded from the beginning and some Germans think that Austria joined the Reich voluntarily. But both conceed that it was Americans and British that ended it and that what was going on in Europe was indeed wrong.
You'll find that the younger generations are increasingly less thankful for the defeat of nazi germany and increasingly more jealous of america, with MUCH resentment and hate I might add.

[PyRo]

That's the way the world works. The generations that America helped is quickly dieing and the new one doesn't care what happened before they were born. When is the last time anyone around here thanked the French for helping their great great great grandfathers in our revolutionary war?

[Eagle]

For their help during our revolution is the only reason I don't totally despise the french. But it's like bornl33t said, it's the media. If it bleeds it leads, never mind the reason or outcome. But yes, other countries have different perspectives. In Britain, they call it the American rebbelion or something, and they dedicate very little time to it, for to them, it wasn't a good time and it wasn't a pivitol point in their history. I' mean, how many people here have ever even heard of Guy Fawke, and yet one of Britains most celebrated holidays is named for him. How many people over there know anything about Jamestown, and yet I know I learned about it every year I as in school.

[Konigballer]

Contrary to apparent popular belief, the French only actively joined our fight in the American Revolution AFTER the turning point in that war had already been fought, the Battle of Saratoga.

They, the French, were'nt going to throw their chips in until they were sure we were going to win.


Of course, during World War 1 America did'nt actually get in the fight till the last year of the war in 1918 after the Germans had lost all possibility of victory when their last great offensive, the "kaiserschlacht", had already failed. Our actual battlefield contribution to the alliies in that conflict was minimal compared to the British, French, Russians, etc.

[Bolter]

We are taught that Americans like to think they are helping more often than not. It was our planning and bombing raids that burnt Germany to the ground, and ended the war, raiding by night and very successfully. The Americans tried to bomb the Germans in the day and lost hundreds and hundreds of planes and men and made little or no impression. Anyone taught anything else? I would like to know.
America messes up alot. There are alot of ally and civillian casualties when you guys are around, and that has nothing to do with the media, or your brave soldiers.

The French were split. Some were actively helping during the war, others did not. You only really remember those that didn't.

Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament, we celebrate his unsuccessfulness (if thats a word :p ) Its an excuse to have a big fire, and set off large fireworks :D which is nice :)

[quik]

I know in Japan, they dont think that Hitler is bad.

BOY DOES HITLER LOVE PACHINKO!!!!

[MarkM]

In WWI the Americans joined in 1917...as already pointed out...ask a man in the street as to why they think America joined in they will mostly tell you this was due to the Mauritania being sunkl...That ship was sunk in 1915. The actual reason was that the British decoded a German High Command message (we had the codes for the pretty much the entire war but didn't act on them totally so as not to alert the germans we could translate their orders, much the same as the Enigma code in the WWII was cracked well in advance of any film you might see by the British ;) and also not acted upon in case we tipped our hand) that was intercepted urging the Mexican's to invade the US (pretty silly considering they were having a civil war at the time but..)
When America arrived in France to fight many of their soldiers were lost due to the American Generals attempting attack stratagies that had several years before been proved to be too costly but the American Generals refused to listen and huge losses were the result. Whilst arrogance could be used as a defence America had not a fought a war of any concequence for many years so tactics etc were totally out of date and unfortunately the result was a lot of needless deaths.
To be totally fair our own Generals were so far up their own behinds they couldn't see the needless deaths that had occured in some of thier own pushes. WWI was not won by one battle, it was just costing too much in both money and lives on both sides.
One of the reasons for the start of WWII given by the Germans was that they hadn't actually lost...that and the French had demanded huge payments for the losses inflicted upon them...so much so that the French actually invaded part of Germany after the end of WWI to try and force Germany to get some of this money back which was reasonably successful money wise. But the collapse of the German economy following this was one of the elements that helped the rise of the Nazi's.

As far as the daylight bomber campaign is concerned, the Americans had a better bombing site but had only trained in daylight so it would have been madness to send them over at night despite the losses they would get although they figured since they could fly so high they would be safe..which was quickly proved to be wrong but it still continued. America's involvement in WWII until Pearl Harbour was a financial one. Many times they were asked by Churchill to enter the war but he was refused. After Pearl Harbour this changed as America could hardly fight the Japanese (which the British were already doing) and not come in on the same side. The Failure of the League of Nations (which was the idea of the American President but lost support in congress) was partly to cause this length of time before America formally entered the war. Had American joined the war when it began it's industrial might would have been a deciding factor in time to have saved a lot more lives. Of course history is easy to say what if after the facts but as the first post in this thread is asking how are these facts presented elsewhere. I would say that if you are to ignore political slant (American imperialism as touted in the media today) then it is misinformation a bit like chinese whispers (I don't know if that translates in America) that is the real problem.
All countrys will have a slightly different perspective on things but in general I have found that the english teachings are accurate warts and all.
I met an American a few years ago at the WC who avidly collects WWII books on Battles and Campaigns and deliberately buys english books as he has found that American accounts were too fanciful and his own words were that some units were travelling several hundreds of miles and then coming back to do something else (on foot btw) and often glossing over that some units were merely support units and often saw very little action in the battle they were supposed to have won for the allies...this is an American saying this not me so you can draw your own conclusions from that.
It cannot be said that America's eventual full involvement in WWII didn't help to bring it to an end but when you consider that England had been alone against Germany and Japan for 3 years we weren't about to be totally overrun...although hindsight shows that in 1940 the Germans could have invaded without a great deal of resistance but they thought we were stronger than we actually were.

[Buff]

the french army was full of horrible generals and in general couldnt coordinate, the Free French fought valiently after their nation had fallen.

thats what is tought in schools these days........
in reality there were the Vichy French......most actually believed the Germans were going to win.....so why fight 'em when you can join 'em?

Also, I lived in Japan.....the whole '35-'45ish period is kinda ignored in their history......like it didn't happen.

perspectives are all great, but what happenned in WWII is fact.......same as in Korea. Or Vietnam.

[RedBeard]

Just a quick comment.
I have a friend from Germany. Last time he came to visit, we had a conversation along these lines. He said that in the schools he went to, they hardly even mention Hitler. He said it's like they don't want to really admit he was a German.

[Waffleman]

YEah, germany is really really ashamed of anything related to Hitler. We have more Nazis in the US than germany.
But I just got this box set called victory at sea that talks all about the war at sea. We officially didnt join the "war" untill 1941 but we had been giving the British and French weapons, supplies and had been helping cover supply ships against the german U-boats.

90% of countries will teach whatever story will make them look more the hero. Germany I feel is the most honest about the war since they are the ones who started it and have no reason to bend the truth since...well, they lost

[manike]

Just a quick comment.
I have a friend from Germany. Last time he came to visit, we had a conversation along these lines. He said that in the schools he went to, they hardly even mention Hitler. He said it's like they don't want to really admit he was a German.

He wasn't. He was Austrian. ;)

[xXHavokXx]

Just a quick comment.
I have a friend from Germany. Last time he came to visit, we had a conversation along these lines. He said that in the schools he went to, they hardly even mention Hitler. He said it's like they don't want to really admit he was a German.

Wasn't he actually austrian.

[mcveighr]

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/Canada2

[TylerDurden]

America's involvement in WWII until Pearl Harbour was a financial one. Many times they were asked by Churchill to enter the war but he was refused. After Pearl Harbour this changed as America could hardly fight the Japanese (which the British were already doing) and not come in on the same side.

America did not enter the war militarily because Roosevelt knew their was not enough public support for it. However, America had been sending England not only money but also ammunition and armaments for a great while (which America was never fully compensated for). Roosevelt sent these supplies putting America directly in the line of fire. He sent those supplies against trade policy as well I might add. Roosevelt wanted to join the fight, and the pearl harbour attack allowed him to. Also, I will add that without American involvement Britain may very well have been invaded. The Luftwaffa were already making bold, devastating daylight bombruns on London, and the RAF was heavily crippled. Their only advantage was having radar, but with damaged or destroyed planes and no pilots whats good does radar do. Not to mention the Germans were developing more powerful longrange rockets and rail guns. The Nazis' other strength was on the seas. Their submarines devastated both Britains' and Americas' navy. The Americans, however, were able to capture and decode the enigma machine. Also, America ended the batte of the Pacific killing many, but saving more. I'm not saying Americans aren't arrogant, I'm just saying they have good reason to be. :D


When America arrived in France to fight many of their soldiers were lost due to the American Generals attempting attack stratagies that had several years before been proved to be too costly but the American Generals refused to listen and huge losses were the result. Whilst arrogance could be used as a defence America had not a fought a war of any concequence for many years so tactics etc were totally out of date and unfortunately the result was a lot of needless deaths.

Even Great leaders make errors. Winston Churchill and the charge of the light brigade comes to mind. What tactics are you referring to? Who had used them years before? Tactics that do not work in one place and time can work beautifully in another (although their are several exceptions). Because of the rapid change in the tools, tactics, and terrain of warfare, it is hard to say that they were fools for trying those tactics. In the past century alone the battles have gone from the trenchs of Germany, to the skys over Europe, to the Oceans, to the Jungles of Vietnam, to the Deserts of Iraq, etc. etc. The tactics have gone from suicidal charges into machine gun nests, to parachuting behind enemy lines to surround the enemy, to Blitzkreirg, to guerilla warfare with small units of special forces, etc.. To say that a tactic that failed in Vietnam would not work in Iraq would be a bit of a presumptuous statement. I do not know which tactics you are referring in this statement.

[Thordic]

The British captured the Enigma. Don't get all your history from bad movies.

[MarkM]

I won't quote your post since it is quicker and easier to just answer the inaccuracies this way.

Payment for goods has been fully repaid in fact the UK made the final payment about 3-4 years ago.

Rail guns or the England gun as it was known within German circles was still in the development stage when the D Day landings took place...so you are out by a few years there.

The Nazi's rocket V2 installations were still in effect more or less until the end of the war..we are talking months here not years...again night raids were cause of the installations demise not daylight raids.

The US were the people making daylight raids on a regular basis the nazi's were not

The invasion of England would have succeeded in 1940 after the Battle of Britain as the RAF was on it's knees and the country but the Nazi's didn't realise this and lost the advantage they had...the US was not fighting at this point.

America never decoded the Enigma machine..they captured one in but that was their limit...don't believe U571 (whatever the film was called..if you have it on dvd watch the end credits) The code was cracked at Bletchley in England by english code breakers before the US ever got their hands on a machine.

U Boats had an effect (not the effect the propoganda machine said though) but they were crippled very quickly (bases) by english bomber night raids.

Churchill made errors sure but the Charge of the light brigade was in the Crimea war before Churchill was born...and it was aledged to be a misunderstanding by the soldiers who made the charge and yes it was a defeat even though they overran the enemies position.

US tactics in WWI had already been tried by the French and English, before 1917 when the Americans joined the war.

Tactics within Vietnam applied to Iraq are totally different war theatres so you can't apply anything learnt in Vietnam to Iraq and nor did I.

Your post actually illustrates the point of the thread....you have believed what you have read/been told via hearsay and movies.

[Muzikman]

He wasn't. He was Austrian. ;)

Damn, beat me to it.

[manike]

The British captured the Enigma. Don't get all your history from bad movies.

I HATE the way American movies take such liberty with the facts of history.

It causes issues like this one being discussed.


Your post actually illustrates the point of the thread....you have believed what you have read/been told via hearsay and movies.

Absolutely.

[Muzikman]

What is interesting is how history changed over time. I mean, it's amazing how when you read books written in 1919 by American authors and published by American plublishing companies about WWI differ a lot from what I learned in 4 semesters of US History in college. I have a 10 volume set of books from 1919 called "The World War". At the time I was taking my US History classes in college I read these books and realized that facts were actually different between the books published just after the war and books published 80 years after the war. It really threw me for a loop and I never could figure out which I should believe.

[manike]

What is interesting is how history changed over time. I mean, it's amazing how when you read books written in 1919 by American authors and published by American plublishing companies about WWI differ a lot from what I learned in 4 semesters of US History in college. I have a 10 volume set of books from 1919 called "The World War". At the time I was taking my US History classes in college I read these books and realized that facts were actually different between the books published just after the war and books published 80 years after the war. It really threw me for a loop and I never could figure out which I should believe.

Very true, and then imagine who was writing the books further back in history?

Makes you really wonder if 'any' of our history can really be trusted. All old books were written by people that won the battles or events. They could have written what they liked. And often did to appease the people who did win etc.

Already in our recent history we see people changing history and it getting accepted by many. Your books are an example, and the Movie about the Enigma machine is another.

Get enough people to believe something... and it's true. :(

[cris8762]

MarkM, pretty much everything you said in your first post with regards to WWI and WWII, minus the parts about the Enigma (didnt go over that) and the dumb American Generals in WWI, was what we learned in high school in my various World History and AP US History classes.

[xXHavokXx]

We all know why America entered the war.


Morale of foreign women. Wherever our troops go they are rockstars to women who need that powerful American lovin. While the limey's were off fighting and getting buzz bombed the poor women of England needed something new, then came fresh faced Americans with their "mastadonic " "equipment" (Emperor Hiriohito, Ep310 south Park). The British women called their girlfriends in France who started the French Resitance (manly giving STD's to German troops) so they could get a piece of the action, bla blah blah war ended and all the womens of europe were enjoying that new world flavor.

Plus if you really think about it, the US had thousands upon thousands of troops in Europe and More in the Pacific fighting at the same time. The Brits had to do alot of work as we were stretching ourselves pretty thin. As far as daylight bombing was concerned It had to be done, we were more accurate during the day and the brits called dibs on nighttime. Now Germany had no rest, day and night destruction and fighting off attacks all day long.....then the P51 came along and US day time raids became more and more effective as the Mustang was escorting and serving up the Luftwaffe . Which wouldnt have been a huge factor had we had continental bases but france had to surrender in like 45 minutes and then COLLABORATE but hey you work with what you got.

[HoppysMag]

My French exchange student friend was taught in school that their people fought valiently when the Germans invaded them.
We Americans joke all the time that they surrendered and got sacked up the butt twice.
the french people posed THE GREATEST RESISTANCE known to man kind... the french government rolled over in what, 2 weeks?

as for ww1 and 2... my basic view is we bought the war, the soviets died, the brits held on. the matter of daylight vs night bombings was a matter of we had more planes and men to loose, and germany needed to be bombed. so if we have the resources why not bomb during the day, and let the brits fly nightm as they had less to spare, or so iv been told.

and actualy i believ the pollish captured the enigma, and was then sent to england... im unsure on that.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Very true, and then imagine who was writing the books further back in history?

Makes you really wonder if 'any' of our history can really be trusted. All old books were written by people that won the battles or events. They could have written what they liked. And often did to appease the people who did win etc.

Already in our recent history we see people changing history and it getting accepted by many. Your books are an example, and the Movie about the Enigma machine is another.


"Until the lions have their own historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter" - African proverb

In theory, more recent historical works should be more accurate, as previously secret documents are declassified, and more personal memoirs come to light




Get enough people to believe something... and it's true. :(

The Big Lie theory. Well-illustrated in Orwell's 1984.

----

For two examples of Canadian mistreatment of history, it is commonly beleived here that "we" (Britain and the Canadian colonies) won the War of 1812. Which is factually akin to the USA saying they won the war in Vietnam. In both cases, the side that won most of the battles gave their opponents nearly all they wanted in exchange for 'peace with honour'.

Canadians also believe that US influence ended our last attempt to build a domestic fighter-jet, The Avro Arrow, 45 years ago. And that the Arrow was such a masterpeice that it could still be a competitive combat aircraft today. Both false. It was a really expensive R&D project and the per-unit price of the aircraft made it impossible to sell, even to the RCAF. Technologically, it was probably most comparable to the F4-Phantom.

I think another idea commonly beleived in Canada, the UK and America is that We beat the Germans in WW2, greatly helped by a successful bombing campaign. In truth, most bombs fell an average of three miles from their intended targets, and German armaments production continued to rise each month until late 1944. Meanwhile, almost 90% of the German Army was fighting the Russians, not us. They deserve most of the credit (though our materiel support to them was important).

[Jeffy-CanCon]

the french people posed THE GREATEST RESISTANCE known to man kind... the french government rolled over in what, 2 weeks?

(A) France surrendered in six weeks.
(B) The French people put up essentially no resistance for the first couple of years of occupation. The Germans had much bigger problems with partisans in both Yugoslavia and Russia.

[Eagle]

Unless someone accually surrenders, how do you say who won? In Vietnam, we won more battles, and took fewer casualties, but we went about it in the wrong fashion, fell back to often without a fight 'for political reasons'. It was fought by the politicians in Washington instead of in the jungle.

As for frog, er, I mean French participation in our Revolution, it took a while for the military help to arrive, but the financial help was there much earlier.

[PyRo]

Contrary to apparent popular belief, the French only actively joined our fight in the American Revolution AFTER the turning point in that war had already been fought, the Battle of Saratoga.

They, the French, were'nt going to throw their chips in until they were sure we were going to win.


I left that out and was hoping no one would catch it. They did help us providing arms, training and other things covertly. It was only after victory was ensured that they openly helped us.

[SlartyBartFast]

Get enough people to believe something... and it's true. :(

Hmm. Like Evil Soviet Empires and Iraqi WMDs?

The Power of Nightmares (http://peterkaminski.com/archives/000405.html)

:cool:

The whole transcription in one pdf: http://silt3.com/tpon.pdf

[SlartyBartFast]

America's involvement in WWII until Pearl Harbour was a financial one.

Uhm, the British paid for everything they were sent. First with payment in gold, then when that ran out the lend/lease program was started.

America owes its economic might to the money made during the second world war.

From a brit in another discussion sometime:

In terms of US contribution in WWII yes of course their contribution was critical at many stages in the European theatre.

Even in before 1941 they were contributing in many ways. The Browning machine guns that armed the Spitfires and Hurricanes were American, the 100 Octane fuel that squeezed an extra few mph out of them came from refineries in the Americas (Albeit Shell owned). There was also their production of ammunition and other items.

All this was in the form of business transactions though rather than American altruism. We paid in cold hard cash, and their companies made a cold hard profit. The 1940's economic boom that established them as the worlds economic powerhouse had its foundation in our gold. It was only when the gold was in danger of running out that they implemented lend/lease. We paid on credit, and paid in full. Don't let any American tell you different. In fairness to the Americans this commercially hardnosed attitude was a result of our (and everyone elses save the Finns) failure to repay debts from WWI, although we did equip the American armies in WWI.

Once America entered the war the floodgates really opened, but by 1944 only 25% of our material came from America. Their production of transports, aircraft carriers and items such as Sherman tanks was crucial however and should not be overlooked.

It was far from one way traffic however. We gave them Radar, and the jet engine. The first American jet fighter used a British engine, as did the famous Sabre of the Korean war (the Russian MiG15 also used a British engine in a strange twist of history). We also gave them the Merlin engine that powered the famous P51 that allowed them to carry out their daylight bombing campaign. Half the American troops landed on D-Day landed from Royal Navy vessels. All of them were based in the UK prior to D-Day. A million Commonwealth troops fought the Japanese.

Its entirely true to say we could not have won without them, but we may not have lost.

Its also true that without us they would not have landed in Europe, and may not have defeated the Japanese.

[PyRo]

Rail guns or the England gun as it was known within German circles was still in the development stage when the D Day landings took place...so you are out by a few years there.

The Nazi's rocket V2 installations were still in effect more or less until the end of the war..we are talking months here not years...again night raids were cause of the installations demise not daylight raids.

U Boats had an effect (not the effect the propoganda machine said though) but they were crippled very quickly (bases) by english bomber night raids.


One thing though, had America not been there, their would have been no D-day. If their was it would have been smaller and probably deleayed by months or years. This would give the Germans more time to bomb and develop their rail gun.

[PyRo]

Makes you really wonder if 'any' of our history can really be trusted. All old books were written by people that won the battles or events. They could have written what they liked. And often did to appease the people who did win etc.
I have German books and diarys written during and after both world wars, so they're not all written by the victors.

[Eric Cartman]

Ever see that Family Guy episode called "The Road To Europe"? Brian and Stewie are riding along on the top of a double decker tour bus in Munich and their tour gide is showing all of the sites when Brian asks about the rather large gap in the historical pamphlets between 1939 and 1945. The guide insists "Everyvone vas on vacation" Brian says "Wait a minute, Germany invaded Poland in 1939" The guide cuts him off "Ve vere invited! Punch vas served! Check vis Poland!" Brian keeps on at him 'till he finally freaks out, snaps a sig heil salute and goes off on a tirade in German (which I'd love to have transalted!).
That's gotta be my favourite episode.

I realize that to call this 'relevant' is really stretching it, but I figured I'd share anyway :D

[Lohman446]

We are taught that Americans like to think they are helping more often than not. It was our planning and bombing raids that burnt Germany to the ground, and ended the war, raiding by night and very successfully. The Americans tried to bomb the Germans in the day and lost hundreds and hundreds of planes and men and made little or no impression. Anyone taught anything else?

I would argue that those daytime bombing runs (and bombing during day and night were both... umm poor) were an act of courage and kept pressure on the Germans constantly between the two of them. I would argue that the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan allowed all the allies to focus on one front, and saved the Russians to allow them to take Germany - I don't necesarrily think that the western allies neded to do anything but keep the Germans occupied.

As for the idea of helping... I highly doubt that there is ever any person leading who does not think they are helping. I mean, Hitler thought he was helping... regardless of what happens in Iraq we think we are helping, I think history at least in Iraq will judge this as an imperialistic attack. I think this is true of everything, I doubt anyone gets up in the morning and say "Let's do something purely evil today". I mean, even our dropping of nuclear weapons was justified in our minds.

[Head knight of Ni]

the french people posed THE GREATEST RESISTANCE known to man kind... the french government rolled over in what, 2 weeks?


and actualy i believ the pollish captured the enigma, and was then sent to england... im unsure on that.

France did put up a good resistance effort. The only reason they were defeated so quickly was due to the fact they relied upon the maginot line(a formidible fortification on the shared border with Germany). Unfortunately the line didn't stretch along belgiums border. The Germans rolled through belgium then around the maginot line into interum france. The first people we fought in North Africa were infact french nazi's.

And I believe poland made a machine that could decipher codes gave the codes to the british, By this time they knew they were to be invaded, then moved units into the mountains and fought hard.

IMO the worst part of current teachings in america is the downplay of Canada's role in WWII.

[Miscue]

Mel Brooks' accounting of world history is the only one that I believe to be accurate.

[B.A.M.]

The victors write the history books enough said.

[Miscue]

The victors write the history books enough said.

The losers get an allotment of land where they can run a casino.

[B.A.M.]

The losers get an allotment of land where they can run a casino.
:cry: I guess thats true

[Mango]

http://www.sprayingmango.com/america_world.gif

[MarkM]

We all know why America entered the war.


Morale of foreign women. Wherever our troops go they are rockstars to women who need that powerful American lovin. While the limey's were off fighting and getting buzz bombed the poor women of England needed something new, then came fresh faced Americans with their "mastadonic " "equipment" (Emperor Hiriohito, Ep310 south Park). The British women called their girlfriends in France who started the French Resitance (manly giving STD's to German troops) so they could get a piece of the action, bla blah blah war ended and all the womens of europe were enjoying that new world flavor.

Plus if you really think about it, the US had thousands upon thousands of troops in Europe and More in the Pacific fighting at the same time. The Brits had to do alot of work as we were stretching ourselves pretty thin. As far as daylight bombing was concerned It had to be done, we were more accurate during the day and the brits called dibs on nighttime. Now Germany had no rest, day and night destruction and fighting off attacks all day long.....then the P51 came along and US day time raids became more and more effective as the Mustang was escorting and serving up the Luftwaffe . Which wouldnt have been a huge factor had we had continental bases but france had to surrender in like 45 minutes and then COLLABORATE but hey you work with what you got.

Ignoring the 1st paragraph as it obviously in fun ;)

The spreading of troops thin was a simple case of who was closer to which war theatre so of course the Pacific was American troops.

Night raids...it wasn't a case of first dibs...we had tried both and found that night was better...the American airman had only trained in daylight and had a superior bomb aiming site but only better in daylight so it was a no brainer as to who was going to fly the daylight raids...the higher flying ceiling plus the guns they had on the planes was pretty damned good...bomb load was pretty decent as well...just came unstuck as the planes were so big.

The P51 was a later addition to the fighting in Europe and was successful but then when you consider that the allies were in Europe the Nazi air bases were overrun and the remaining air cover was asigned to defend Berlin...it was never going to anything but a successful machine.

The english Spitfire was credited with winning the Battle of Britain....but in reality they were very few and far between the majority of the fighter wind was in fact Hurricanes.



One thing though, had America not been there, their would have been no D-day. If their was it would have been smaller and probably deleayed by months or years. This would give the Germans more time to bomb and develop their rail gun.

D-Day was asked to be launched by the Russians to take away pressure fron the Nazi's eastern front....admittedly it needed to be done but then to fight on two fronts is always harder so it makes for sound war strategy...and for all of the American help in D-Day...who got to Berlin first...not the Americans not the French not the British or other western country allies....the Russians!


Something else that isn't from either quote above....the German Vengence weapon projects...major scientists all spirited back to the US to form NASA.... Stealth bomber flying wing lifted from a Luftwaffe project of the same design constructed mainly from wood so difficult to see via fledging RADAR...all plans and the plane itself now resident in the US.

Nuclear research results have been mentioned with regard the Japanese bombings...Nazi heavy water installations (and transportation of heavy water by a cargo ship) destroyed by british and local resistance fighters. Allowing the Manhatten project to reach the goal first.

[MarkM]

http://www.sprayingmango.com/america_world.gif

Scary thing is that you will probably find that a lot of people actually would say that if you gave them a map with no countrys listed :eek:

[Eagle]

Stealth bomber flying wing lifted from a Luftwaffe project of the same design constructed mainly from wood so difficult to see via fledging RADAR...all plans and the plane itself now resident in the US.


Actually, stealth came about through research done by Jack Northrop and his company with flying wings during WW2. While the Nazi's had flying wings too, it was with ours we discovered the idea of a smaller radar cross section.

[Head knight of Ni]

Actually, stealth came about through research done by Jack Northrop and his company with flying wings during WW2. While the Nazi's had flying wings too, it was with ours we discovered the idea of a smaller radar cross section.

Too bad it was uncontrollable. Funny thing is that plane and the B2 have the same wingspan. :ninja:

[MarkM]

Too bad it was uncontrollable. Funny thing is that plane and the B2 have the same wingspan. :ninja:
What an amazing coincidence, total secrecy and a war going on and it turns up the same ;)

Of course you can extend this to delta wing technology...oh wait the US didn't design that so then decided to ban the effective use of it.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

France did put up a good resistance effort. The only reason they were defeated so quickly was due to the fact they relied upon the maginot line(a formidible fortification on the shared border with Germany). Unfortunately the line didn't stretch along belgiums border. The Germans rolled through belgium then around the maginot line into interum france. The first people we fought in North Africa were infact french nazi's.

And I believe poland made a machine that could decipher codes gave the codes to the british, By this time they knew they were to be invaded, then moved units into the mountains and fought hard.

IMO the worst part of current teachings in america is the downplay of Canada's role in WWII.


French dependance on the Maginot line was probably the main rason for their defeat, but it was slightly more complex. Their outdated strategic thinking which produced the line also prevented them from making better use of their superiority in numbers of tanks and troops. They simply were not well-organized enough to counter the German's rapid advances.

The first people US troops fought in North Africa were french, but they were not Nazis. Vichy France was a collaborationist regime, but not a Nazi one (to the best of my knowledge).

The Poles did not make a machine to break German codes, they captured one. ...Which they swiftly got out of the country and shared with the British. They fought bravely against the Germans, but not only in the mountains, of which Poland has very few. Polands generally flat terrain was one of the reasons the German blitzkreig moved through it so easily in 1939.

It is kind of you to say that about Canada in WW2. Not even many of our own people know the true extent of our contribution (8% of the population in uniform, the world's fourth largest navy built from scratch, etc.).

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Unless someone accually surrenders, how do you say who won? In Vietnam, we won more battles, and took fewer casualties, but we went about it in the wrong fashion, fell back to often without a fight 'for political reasons'. It was fought by the politicians in Washington instead of in the jungle.

As for frog, er, I mean French participation in our Revolution, it took a while for the military help to arrive, but the financial help was there much earlier.

I'm going by the simple rule of thumb that if you fight a war and get what you want, you win. The North Vietnamese communists wanted foreigners out, and all of Vietnam under Hanoi's rule. They got that three years after the US pulled out its troops. In 1814, the USA got most of what it wanted - withdrawal of British garrisons from the Northwest (Michigan, etc), and freedom from Royal Navy interference with US shipping.

[PyRo]

France did put up a good resistance effort. The only reason they were defeated so quickly was due to the fact they relied upon the maginot line(a formidible fortification on the shared border with Germany). Unfortunately the line didn't stretch along belgiums border. The Germans rolled through belgium then around the maginot line into interum france.
The French will never live that one down. They build a wall so the Germans walked around it...

[PyRo]

the world's fourth largest navy built from scratch, etc.).
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~mcrous2/canadian%20navy.jpg

:confused:

[Boski51]

Scary thing is that you will probably find that a lot of people actually would say that if you gave them a map with no countrys listed :eek:

Do you really think Americans are really that stupid? I find this entire thread depressing as hell. The world has really gone anti-american and even some Americans are jumping on the band wagon....That's sad.

I don't think that any of the allied soldiers or Marines that paid the ultimate price on the killing grounds of Europe, The Pacific Islands or anywhere else would agree with you all that any one nation won WW2. The Brits didn't and nor did the Yanks.

Geo politics is much like paintball....it's a team thing.

Hate America or dislike Americans all you want. We'll be there to help out next time you need us. We are stupid like that.

:( :( :( :( :( :(

One of the 54,000,000 stupid Americans.

[bleachit]

We are taught that Americans like to think they are helping more often than not. It was our planning and bombing raids that burnt Germany to the ground, and ended the war, raiding by night and very successfully. The Americans tried to bomb the Germans in the day and lost hundreds and hundreds of planes and men and made little or no impression. Anyone taught anything else? I would like to know.
)


British night time bombing was not very effective at all... hell, they could barely find the military targets so they chose to carpet bomb. The Americans took a "preicision" approach and actually attempted to bomb military targets. To say the American bombing campaign made little or no impression is just crazy.. without the American bombers, the war would have lasted much longer. The US and the British together kept the luftwaffe and the German people on edge 24 hours a day. The US bombing during the day, and british at night turned out to work well because of this.



the US did bomb the germans during the day, and did a darn good job of it.

[B.A.M.]

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~mcrous2/canadian%20navy.jpg

:confused:
:rofl: :rofl:

[Jeffy-CanCon]

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~mcrous2/canadian%20navy.jpg

:confused:

It's funny 'cause it's true! :D


Do you really think Americans are really that stupid? I find this entire thread depressing as hell. The world has really gone anti-american and even some Americans are jumping on the band wagon....That's sad.

I don't think that any of the allied soldiers or Marines that paid the ultimate price on the killing grounds of Europe, The Pacific Islands or anywhere else would agree with you all that any one nation won WW2. The Brits didn't and nor did the Yanks.

Geo politics is much like paintball....it's a team thing.

Hate America or dislike Americans all you want. We'll be there to help out next time you need us. We are stupid like that.

:( :( :( :( :( :(

One of the 54,000,000 stupid Americans.

Lighten-up, guy. This is not a thread about hating Americans, or disrespecting anyone else's contributions to various wars (except maybe the French). It's about the history we are taught in school, or see in TV & movies, that may be a little slanted. Stuff has been said about the USA, but also about Japan, Germany, the UK and Canada. Most people here seem to have the opinion that the UK does a decent job of teaching their history, but I wonder what they are taught about Sir Jeffery Amherst, or about English teatment of Indian textile workers at the start of the industrial revolution.

[steveg]

"Maritime interdiction operations: Since the beginning of Op APOLLO, Canadian ships have hailed more than 21,800 vessels. To date, Canadian ships have performed more than 50 percent of the 1,100 boardings conducted by the multinational coalition fleet."


http://www.centcom.mil/Operations/Coalition/Coalition_pages/canada.htm

considering how effective that boat and crewman are why would we need more? :confused:

shame on you jeffy :cuss: you Should know that the Halifax class frigates are considered
amongst the best of the class.

[manike]

Do you really think Americans are really that stupid?

Not all of them by any means. But they do on average tend to have a limit knowledge of issues extending beyond America.

[Boski51]

Not all of them by any means. But they do on average tend to have a limit knowledge of issues extending beyond America.

As do the average of any country outside America about Americans.

[manike]

As do the average of any country outside America about Americans.

Absolutely untrue.

American movies, TV shows, books, magazines, News shows, cultures, music etc, extend to every civilised country in the world that I have travelled to. And I've travelled pretty far and wide.

The outside world knows, and has the ability to know, a lot more about America than America does about the outside world.

You know, I've been asked 'what language we speak in England', 'was it hard to learn the language when I came here', 'where is England', 'do you have computers in England'.

I don't think any European Country, or civilised country would have asked a travelling American that? Maybe. But I doubt it, and not as commonly as it occurs here.

Which countries have you visited to make your judgement? How long have you had a passport?

[magsRus]

I know that in Vietnam they called it the "American War"

[Jeffy-CanCon]

...

shame on you jeffy :cuss: you Should know that the Halifax class frigates are considered
amongst the best of the class.

So my Navy buddies tell me, but you have to admit the little boat with the machine gun is a pretty good approximation of the WW2 corvettes that made up most of our Navy. ;)

[xXHavokXx]

Absolutely untrue.

American movies, TV shows, books, magazines, News shows, cultures, music etc, extend to every civilised country in the world that I have travelled to. And I've travelled pretty far and wide.

The outside world knows, and has the ability to know, a lot more about America than America does about the outside world.

You know, I've been asked 'what language we speak in England', 'was it hard to learn the language when I came here', 'where is England', 'do you have computers in England'.

I don't think any European Country, or civilised country would have asked a travelling American that? Maybe. But I doubt it, and not as commonly as it occurs here.

Which countries have you visited to make your judgement? How long have you had a passport?


Hahaha. And Simon is right, you can go to other coutnries and watch our TV channels basically everywhere you go.

One problem other countries are having is that they are losing some of their cultural idenities and having them replaced by ours. At LAX last year I met a group of Germans who used as much slang as I do and they live in Germany.

[magsRus]

YEah, germany is really really ashamed of anything related to Hitler. We have more Nazis in the US than germany.
But I just got this box set called victory at sea that talks all about the war at sea. We officially didnt join the "war" untill 1941 but we had been giving the British and French weapons, supplies and had been helping cover supply ships against the german U-boats.

90% of countries will teach whatever story will make them look more the hero. Germany I feel is the most honest about the war since they are the ones who started it and have no reason to bend the truth since...well, they lost



A lot of Germans that lived through the aftermath of WWI (depression) viewed Hitler as a hero from bringing them out of their depression. By putting the country in a major arms race he gave jobs to the unemployed which evenutally pulled them out, and also I know you didnt stat this but many Germans still deny the fact that there was never a Holocaust. So I wouldnt be surpised if you found some 80 year old germans saying Hitler was more of a Hero.

[SlartyBartFast]

considering how effective that boat and crewman are why would we need more? :confused:

:clap:

And considering the damage to the USS Cole, it would seem that small boats are the best weapong against the best armed ships.... :eek:

[bleachit]

:clap:

And considering the damage to the USS Cole, it would seem that small boats are the best weapong against the best armed ships.... :eek:

if small boats where the best weapons, then the USS Cole would be at the bottom of the ocean, which its not....

[Jeffy-CanCon]

:clap:

And considering the damage to the USS Cole, it would seem that small boats are the best weapong against the best armed ships.... :eek:

Honestly, why say something like that? :tard:

Anyway... historically there have been a couple of attempts to replace capital warships with small & fast boats with new weapons. The first was the "jeune ecole" of the 1880's (approx), which proposed attacking armoured battleships with swarms of motor-torpedo boats. The battleship-fleet owning navies just added "torpedo boat destroyers" to their formations, and effectively countered the threat. In the late 20thC the missile boat was supposed to fulfill the prophecy. The Egyptians had some success againt the Israelis in 1973 with it, though in fairness the Israeli destroyers were pretty outdated. Countermeasures, anti-missiles and CIWS are now thought to have largely dealt with the missile-boat threat.

[MarkM]

Do you really think Americans are really that stupid? I find this entire thread depressing as hell. The world has really gone anti-american and even some Americans are jumping on the band wagon....That's sad.

I don't think that any of the allied soldiers or Marines that paid the ultimate price on the killing grounds of Europe, The Pacific Islands or anywhere else would agree with you all that any one nation won WW2. The Brits didn't and nor did the Yanks.

Geo politics is much like paintball....it's a team thing.

Hate America or dislike Americans all you want. We'll be there to help out next time you need us. We are stupid like that.

:( :( :( :( :( :(

One of the 54,000,000 stupid Americans.

I am not hating on America, however much you would like me to say that..which I haven't. An American posted the picture.... In America you must have those tv programmes where a reporter or whoever asks people questions in the street and the answers are far from accurate..we have the same programmes here and the answers run out about the same...you through your career choice get to see other things from around the world in both peacetime and not, many don't and believe what the media and their friends tell them...this is the point of the thread.
Why is it that any time someone who is not a American makes any comment about America in any form we are automatically hating on America. The UK is not perfect nor is America.
You might have got depressed reading this thread but then with the exception of myself, Manike and Bolter all the other replies are by Americans...ok Jeff is Canadian but his comments haven't been postive either but accurate they have been. Add to the dicussion about American percieved truths...not ones that are to be proved in the future. I am pretty happy that America is there as an ally to the UK. The likelyhood of America helping in the same way as they did in WWII is not going to happen with todays push button wars.
The Iraq situation I am not going to comment on other than to say it needed to be done ...I won't make any more of this but will say that I am not nor ever was against Saddam being removed.

[splatattack33]

this is a funny thread to cathc my eye b/c liek for a while ive got alot of ppl pissed off at me b/c my views for example,1.ppl dont realize that it says to wage war on the infidels in the quran so they dont get it that if they were brought up by the quran they would think the same way 2. ppl have been telling me that Vladimir Lenin was a bad person because he was a communist and he screwed russia over soo bad well their wrong b/c russia has been in the dumps forever and prolly always will be 3. Adolf Hitler,(a) was not as stupid and a bad amn as many ppl believe he was(b)he was just getting back what we took away from them at the end of WWI(c) ppl think he is the worst person ever hello can you be any dumber look at ho chi mien(sp) the dictator of vietnam he killed just as many or more ppl as hitler did but noone knows that as did stalin but some ppl just dont get it 4. i believe that we are taught the worng things in our schools we are alwasy looking at the "enemys" as the bad ppl but if we were from other countries we would be viewing the US as the enemy and the bad guy so its pretty stupid

[SlartyBartFast]

Honestly, why say something like that? :tard:

The clap was for the quote above not the attack on the Cole.

The comment on the Cole was to point out that you don't need to flaunt your muscle to successfully attack or defend yourself, that perhaps that little boat could still be effective...

Perhaps in retrospect it was in poor taste. But, whatever...

Why does no American step up to bat and ask why other Americans are such sphincters posting pictures and making other comments mocking other country's armed forces and even the valour of their people?

Why is it that as Canadians we have to put up and smile politely when Americans belittle our efforts and contributions and then hold our tongue while they extoll their own virtues to the exclusion of all others (or even worse, put up with them complaining that we aren't grateful enough or aren't singing their praises enough)?

Why is it when some American belittles our country a Canadian is bound to be an arse and agree? Why do we compare ourselves to the Americans when we have as much (or in some peoples opinion, more) to be proud of as they do? Why is it we get all filled with angst when historically Canada has always pulled more than our weight when it counted.

When the chips are down and our help is required for the right reasons, we're there. WW1, WW2, Korea all HUGE implications. We stepped up during Gulf War 1 and continued to patrol the gulf during the Iraq invasion freeing up critical resources (Americans DARE mock us or complain we weren't there when we did more than the vast majority of back-end kissers who signed on to the coalition of the deceived), our troops and police are there in Haiti, they saw the worst of Rowanda and Bosnia and kept the peace for years on Crete. In Afghanistan, our elite troops were instrumental and we held the fort when the Americans decided to forget about Bin Laden and go off on a tangent in Iraq. Hell, we didn't even put the Americans to the shame they should have been for the bombing and killing of our troops.

We pull our weight and allow the Americans some control over our sovereignty participating in NORAD. In NATO, our day to day participation is/was low (but then again the Soviet menace was pretty much smoke and mirrors anyway, read the link to the Power of Nightmares) but when it counted we were there for the attack on Serbia and we've played important roles elsewhere.

Are out troops underfunded? For what they're asked to do, definitely. As compared to other nations? Debatable. Once we cover our commitments, we just have higher priorities as a nation than bullying the world. The first American to mock the funding or size of another nations armed forces should be responsible for unleashing the litany of stupidity and misdeeds that can be easily dug up on the US military.

It pisses me off. :mad: First the historically and self-indulgent self consciousness of my fellow Canadians then the hypocrisy of having Americans lay down the hate/mockery and get all pissed when even simple truths or mere differences of opinion or perspective point out that they're not the only ones on centre stage.

It's crazy really. Look at the hate and mocking that spews from many of the right-wing, flag waving, and chest thumping Americans on AO and is it really a wonder that people from other nations get a little fed up with it all? Every one of these threads ends up being the same. Americans mocking Europe, belittling France, laughing at Canada, then *****ing and complaining that America doesn't get no respect. :tard:

What's amazing is the Americans that actually seem to be genuinely puzzled as to why other nations have such jaded view of them.

While I admire Boski51's view that it's a "team effort", I am puzzled that he focuses more on the perceived "America Hating" when there has been little to none of that and simple discussion of the fact it all WAS a team effort and the complete disregard of fellow Americans who proclaim the superiority of the US and their unique claim to lime light and acclaim.

On topic, I think this underlines a big difference between historical perspective in Canada and the US.

Americans teach their history from virtually only their perspective. IMO so do the French. And although both of them think of themselves as superior and less arrogant than the other, amusingly, they both think EXACTLY the same of each other. French, American, and to a degree German mentality seems to preclude admitting that they are merely human and attempt to show no mistakes were ever made or that those that suffered from those mistakes just had it coming or try and justify that the mistake was "for the better good" and sweep the problem under the carpet. (The Germans have national vacations. :rotfl: I loved that family guy episode.)

Canadians on the other hand, except perhaps in Quebec with respect to Canadian history, try to be so inclusive in their view of history that they lose the reflex of demonstrating their well deserved pride in our efforts and contributions. Or, we simply fail to teach history from out own perspective at all. Then, we seem incapable as a nation of simply admitting something bad happened and moving on. We also seem incapable of celebrating something good lest someone's feelings are hurt.

The British probably are more balanced than most. While they won't teach the totality of what happened during their conquests, I think that they know more about the horrors and questionable behaviour their own people committed and will admit to the bad, while not dwelling on it, as well as proclaim the good. But, having British family, I know they certainly have their own quirks and obsessions.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

this is a funny thread to cathc my eye b/c liek for a while ive got alot of ppl pissed off at me b/c my views for example,1.ppl dont realize that it says to wage war on the infidels in the quran so they dont get it that if they were brought up by the quran they would think the same way 2. ppl have been telling me that Vladimir Lenin was a bad person because he was a communist and he screwed russia over soo bad well their wrong b/c russia has been in the dumps forever and prolly always will be 3. Adolf Hitler,(a) was not as stupid and a bad amn as many ppl believe he was(b)he was just getting back what we took away from them at the end of WWI(c) ppl think he is the worst person ever hello can you be any dumber look at ho chi mien(sp) the dictator of vietnam he killed just as many or more ppl as hitler did but noone knows that as did stalin but some ppl just dont get it 4. i believe that we are taught the worng things in our schools we are alwasy looking at the "enemys" as the bad ppl but if we were from other countries we would be viewing the US as the enemy and the bad guy so its pretty stupid

Wow. That's a mouthful. :wow:

You are right about the fact that all people see themselves and their country as basically good and right. It's pretty hard to sell a history book (or newspaper) that says otherwise. I beleive it was Lenny Bruce who said "If you are going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you."

On your other ideas:

Lenin - not one of the 20thC's worst political leaders, but not a nice guy, either. Leninism' "dictatorship of the proletariat" became what we know as communism, rather than the earlier Marxism. In Lenin's theory, the dictatorship period was supposed to be a relatively brief transition phase to pure communism. the most charitable thing you can say about Lenin and his ideas is that he was naive or ignorant of human nature. His deputies were much more bloodthirsty and power-hungry.

Russia - has always been "backward" relative to Europe, but not always actually poor. Before the Revolution they were a net exporter of food. Under the communists, they could not even feed themselves. For that you should probably blame Stalin.

Ho Chi Minh - was not responsible for near as many deaths as Hitler or Stalin. If he was, there would be no one alive today in Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. You may be confusing him with his next-door neighbour Pol Pot, who spent a couple of years trying to return Cambodia to the stone age. Even then, the death toll is a fraction of Hitler's or Stalin's.

Hitler - probably wasn't stupid, though he did have an irrational tendency to overrule his professional advisors based on his personal visions. He was a very bad man, and he did a lot more than merely try to retake lands Germany lost in WW1. And in case you'd missed that day in school, let's remember that the Germans started WW1. In WW2 Hitler invaded seven additional countries that were never part of the German or Austro-Hungarian Empires. Plus four others where he sent troops to "help" his Italian allies. And lets not forget that his racist policies resulted in 10 million civilian deaths. Only Stalin and possibly Mao did worse.

[xXHavokXx]

Slarty,

I found you post to be well written and in truth an excellent view into a rather itelligent person's mind about things like this trans-border bickering.

Personally I think some Americans like myself take this high and mighty attitude due to the images we see on TV. Everday someone across the globe is shown rioting burning our flag and spouting off their ideas, burning effigies of our leaders and basically pronouncing all of us to be arrogant, stupid imperialists. When we hear someone in tehran say "death to all Americans we take it personally as it means all 300 million of us.Obviously if that many people hate us they must be jealous of something or something This attitude carries over to more than just thinking, it comes out in how we percieve ourselves.. Coupled with our amazing militaries ( Largest Navy, !st and Second Largest Airforces, Boys on the ground like Army and others), our larger than average genatalia and the fact that American culture, images music, movies, clothing, cars, ideas and media is widespread we get a sense of enormity abovce that of the world.

I think the reason people make jokes about the Canadian military is that it is barely represented. The American military is portrayed in movies and on the news. We break traditional ideas and create new standards, such as our super carriers, our subs, the F117a , B2, B1 , F22,. The f16 is a hugely distributed fighter jet, seeing it on the news relates back to America. Building these things isn't the top priority for Canada so they don't do it, no problem it just doesn't get the notoriety. The Brits came up with the Harrier, so they get a little fame from that. Plus if you look at it, when our allies needs new weapons, we supply them alot of the time( Apache, F15,F16, P3, F4, F105), when their Spec ops people need training, we train with them. People know this and it gets attention.We just have better PR people.

Every country on Earth proclaims itself to be the greatest place on earth, everyone in the world will see themselves that way. Just like you're proud to be a Canadian, I'm proud to be an American.


Sorry if this makes no sense I'm in a thermo-fluids lecture trying to think about shockwaves in nozzles and this at the same time.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

...

Why does no American step up to bat and ask why other Americans are such sphincters posting pictures and making other comments mocking other country's armed forces and even the valour of their people?

Why is it that as Canadians we have to put up and smile politely when Americans belittle our efforts and contributions and then hold our tongue while they extoll their own virtues to the exclusion of all others (or even worse, put up with them complaining that we aren't grateful enough or aren't singing their praises enough)?


There are a couple of reasons for that. One is the very topic of this thread, and the other is that Americans have a different sense of humour than we do. We can roll with their jokes,or we can make jokes back at them. As you've noticed, some of our Southern neighbours are a bit thin-skinned, so I find the former is the better choice. :cool:




Why is it when some American belittles our country a Canadian is bound to be an arse and agree? Why do we compare ourselves to the Americans when we have as much (or in some peoples opinion, more) to be proud of as they do? Why is it we get all filled with angst when historically Canada has always pulled more than our weight when it counted.



All good questions. I blame Trudeau, and multi-culturalism, myself.



When the chips are down and our help is required for the right reasons, we're there. WW1, WW2, Korea all HUGE implications. We stepped up during Gulf War 1 and continued to patrol the gulf during the Iraq invasion freeing up critical resources (Americans DARE mock us or complain we weren't there when we did more than the vast majority of back-end kissers who signed on to the coalition...

We pull our weight ... ... we were there for the attack on Serbia and we've played important roles elsewhere.

Are out troops underfunded? For what they're asked to do, definitely. As compared to other nations? Debatable. ...



When the chips are down, Canada has been there, historically.

But, historically, we've never been ready. It is our "tradition" to spend not a blessed dime in between wars. Did you know that when we sent ships to the Persian Gulf war in 1990, we had to pull parts out of a museum to get them ready to go? Did you know that when we prepared to send 25,000 men to Korea in 1950 we had to rent a base form the USA to train them, since we had closed all ours down? In 1939, none of our militia units had modern weapons. When we bomber Serbia, we used every single bomb we had in stock, and had to go begging our Allies for some of theirs. You can laugh about this stuff, or you cry. :cry:

Compared to other 1st world nations (i.e., NATO) our troops are undermanned and underfunded. And have been for decades. And our Allies have complained that we don't pull our weight. Even in our national obsession - peacekeeping - we are no longer world leaders.
Several countries routinely submit more troops than we do, these days.

Another sad truth I learned from a CF WO last fall: many suppliers will no longer bid on Canadian defence contracts. It's not worth the hassle. We don't know what we want, but we know we don't want many of them.



...

On topic, I think this underlines a big difference between historical perspective in Canada and the US.
...
Canadians on the other hand, except perhaps in Quebec with respect to Canadian history, try to be so inclusive in their view of history that they lose the reflex of demonstrating their well deserved pride in our efforts and contributions. Or, we simply fail to teach history from out own perspective at all. Then, we seem incapable as a nation of simply admitting something bad happened and moving on. We also seem incapable of celebrating something good lest someone's feelings are hurt.
...

There I think you are right. There are interesting stories in Canadian history, but we don't tell them. Our schools tend to focus on soft & fuzzy big-picture social issues.

[SlartyBartFast]

In 1939, none of our militia units had modern weapons.

No shame there. In 1939 NOBODY had modern weaponry except the Germans ...

Until after WW2 the Americans were always woefully equipped as well.

Nothing wrong with multiculturalism. Look at Britain. But, I think that generally the British Indians and Patistanis identify far more with Britain than do those that came here.

But, then again, as a first generation Canadian when the chips are down I'm Canadian first, Quebecois second and Scottish third.

xXHavokXx, but think of all the images from America. The war films where Americans are the only ones on the beaches or capturing the Enigma machine.

The right-wing and religious blather that almost equals that of those crying death to America. Which drives those crying death to America to greater fervour and disgusts Americas supporters because Americans, not living in the squalor without access to education, at least have the opportunity to have learnt better.

The overbearing pop-culture that stomps over local culture.

The obsession with riches and consumerism portrayed to a world that is living on pennies a day in many places.

The worrying thoughts of what an American president controlled by religious hardliners will impose on the world as "freedom".

The disgust/pessimism towards those promisses of freedom considering the past track record. (Europe and WW2 were fine. But since then many a dictator was supported because he was Evil but not Communist Evil.)

[brianlojeck]

let's remember that the Germans started WW1.

I'm not a world history guy, but didn't WWII start because a bosnian assasinated an Austro-hungarian archduke? I always thought the rest was due to the mesh of alliances and mutual protection pacts that europe had formed (in fear that germany would do something stupid of course...)

[xXHavokXx]

I'm not a world history guy, but didn't WWII start because a bosnian assasinated an Austro-hungarian archduke? I always thought the rest was due to the mesh of alliances and mutual protection pacts that europe had formed (in fear that germany would do something stupid of course...)


That was WWI.

[Boski51]

Absolutely untrue.

American movies, TV shows, books, magazines, News shows, cultures, music etc, extend to every civilised country in the world that I have travelled to. And I've travelled pretty far and wide.

The outside world knows, and has the ability to know, a lot more about America than America does about the outside world.

You know, I've been asked 'what language we speak in England', 'was it hard to learn the language when I came here', 'where is England', 'do you have computers in England'.

I don't think any European Country, or civilised country would have asked a travelling American that? Maybe. But I doubt it, and not as commonly as it occurs here.

Which countries have you visited to make your judgement? How long have you had a passport?

Are you saying that Hollywood and the leftist news media and Snoop Doggie Dog is your scope on America as a country? I know that you are far too smart to mean that. You are 100% correct that the rest of the world is saturated with the worst America has to offer-its media (print, video and music.) You are 100% wrong about that simplistic view equaling the American public as a whole.

You must have traveled and seen this to be true. Americans are influenced by the commerical culture-especially younger Americans, but to state that an entire country is limited and boiled down to what the world sees on TV is an error.

How old were those people asking those question you mentioned? What part of the country? Where they Canadian's just visiting the US? (JUST KIDDING!) Equating America with her uneducated young or stupid old is a mistake of the highest order. I have no doubt that you were asked questions that stupid, but to say that you think that Americans are the only ones that stupid in the entire civilized world is kind of silly.

I have visited four different countries. Have had a passport for 15 years. I hold a degree in Political Science and a degree in Economics and working on an MBA, and I really actually like Canadians and think very highly of the society they have (not that you asked or they even really care).

[MaChu]

No shame there. In 1939 NOBODY had modern weaponry except the Germans ...

Until after WW2 the Americans were always woefully equipped as well.

Not to be anal but, whats modern? We just didn't go over there with old cannons, riding on horses. We had mechanized infantry, machine guns, etc. Granted that it wasn't up to the quality or complexity of the German war machine, but who cares when we could out build, out supply and out right buy our way in and out of the war.

Also, we were woefully equipped after the Civil War. Where our ironclads and steel steam powered destroyers were the first to really patrol the world's oceans due to Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policies and wanting a very huge Navy as that was thought to be the country's determining power. Again we had modern weapons, they just weren't as complex or updated as the German's.



xXHavokXx, but think of all the images from America. The war films where Americans are the only ones on the beaches or capturing the Enigma machine.

U571 was made that way to accomadate to the American public, also how it was marketed as "Based on a True Story", not "This is a True Story". Sorry, but it makes for a more profitable and interesting story if they twist the facts into a dramatic movie for the American public and not everything on fact. I guess you haven't seen "The Longest Day" have you? Lots of countries in that one where British, Canadian, and French fighters do each of their part in D-day, but all American movies are the same, American glory hogging movies.



The right-wing and religious blather that almost equals that of those crying death to America. Which drives those crying death to America to greater fervour and disgusts Americas supporters because Americans, not living in the squalor without access to education, at least have the opportunity to have learnt better.

The overbearing pop-culture that stomps over local culture.

The obsession with riches and consumerism portrayed to a world that is living on pennies a day in many places.

The worrying thoughts of what an American president controlled by religious hardliners will impose on the world as "freedom".

The disgust/pessimism towards those promisses of freedom considering the past track record. (Europe and WW2 were fine. But since then many a dictator was supported because he was Evil but not Communist Evil.)

First, your country's people are a bunch of posers trying to emulate all that American pop culture, CHOOSING to lose themselves in the obsession with riches and consumerism. Its like American TV is forcing you to watch it, telling you to forget your traditions, and become those evil people who look up to those who have success in the free market capital gain system and not have to do jack to get health care or education other than pay insane amount of taxes. Its as if all Americans are heartless, rich, non religious devils. Truth is not all of us like pop culture, adore obsession with riches and consumerism, but alot of my fellow citizens are idiots and poor. I don't have the power to help those in third world countries because Im always looking for a way to get that Beemer, but many of my church going friends go on mission trips to help improve living conditions by building houses, wells, while preaching their beliefs, but hey they are right wing religious nuts who think of war all the time.

Ok now you have hit a few chords. You think that the right wing and religious blather equates to those crying death to America. That makes me sick. We don't cry "Death to all Muslims! or Iraq! or Iran! or Afghanistan!" Sorry that we have decided to trust our morals of what is wrong and right, of actions against us or others and reactions against those who have done against us. We try to stop injustices, terrorism, or whatever and get hell for it.

Fine what do you suggest we do? Give third world countries money in which they will buy arms for warlords in Africa, fuel drug cartels in South and Central America, or give terrorists more bombs so they can create havok in a American city. We act in the best way we can, we fight instead of tip toe around in politics where nothing gets done, or better yet gets corrupted like Food for Oil in the almighty, perfect, peaceful UN.

America will always look bad no matter what we do. We give aid, the world says not enough, we don't act in times of turmoil, we are called cowardly, we act in times of trouble, we get chastised for being right wing relgious idiots, we do nothing, we are called greedy self centered bastards. No matter what we do, the world looks at us in a negative connotation. Personally I grow tired of it. Only when a Hitler or a Stalin has the world by its balls and we pull the world through it with some necessary evils(ie non communist dictators), we look heroic and justifiable in other nation's eyes, but when it doesn't affect them anymore in their own country, they don't care and complain about us. If terrorists flew a plane into every county's capital building(or other major government facility) the world would be singing a whole different tune.

I personally think America should go back to isolationism. We should recall every soldier from every base around the world, kick back, start a campfire, roast some hotdogs, and watch the world go to hell. :cheers:

[Boski51]

Amen!

[PyRo]

Honestly, why say something like that? :tard:

Anyway... historically there have been a couple of attempts to replace capital warships with small & fast boats with new weapons. The first was the "jeune ecole" of the 1880's (approx), which proposed attacking armoured battleships with swarms of motor-torpedo boats. The battleship-fleet owning navies just added "torpedo boat destroyers" to their formations, and effectively countered the threat. In the late 20thC the missile boat was supposed to fulfill the prophecy. The Egyptians had some success againt the Israelis in 1973 with it, though in fairness the Israeli destroyers were pretty outdated. Countermeasures, anti-missiles and CIWS are now thought to have largely dealt with the missile-boat threat.

The PT boats did pretty well during WWII. I think most of them carried four torpedos giving them the capability to destroy a couple much larger ships. They also had I believe 2 .50 anti aircraft guns although ariel attack was their biggest volnerability. They worked out well because they were small and fast making it hard to train the big guns on them.

[PyRo]

I am not hating on America, however much you would like me to say that..which I haven't. An American posted the picture.... .
And I thought everyone on AO knew what a joke was although apparently i'm wrong. Just because America and Canada make fun of each other doesn't mean we don't really love each other :)

[PyRo]

Hitler - probably wasn't stupid, though he did have an irrational tendency to overrule his professional advisors based on his personal visions. He was a very bad man, and he did a lot more than merely try to retake lands Germany lost in WW1. And in case you'd missed that day in school, let's remember that the Germans started WW1. In WW2 Hitler invaded seven additional countries that were never part of the German or Austro-Hungarian Empires. Plus four others where he sent troops to "help" his Italian allies. And lets not forget that his racist policies resulted in 10 million civilian deaths. Only Stalin and possibly Mao did worse.

Hitler definatly wasn't stupid, he was stubborn however which was his undoing. I would like to see anyone here try to get an entire country to follow them, it isn't such an easy thing to do. Had Hitler listend to his advisors he wouldn't have invaded Russia. Without having to fight on the Western front Germany would have been free to concentrate most of their resources on attacking the UK which under such pressure may have eventually fallen. With that out of the way Germany would have been free to rebuild and enlarge their military in preperation for attacking Russia.

[Bolter]

would have been free to concentrate most of their resources on attacking the UK which under such pressure may have eventually fallen.

NEVER!!!! We had tea breaks and marmalade.....we would never have fallen :)

[Eric Cartman]

And I thought everyone on AO knew what a joke was although apparently i'm wrong. Just because America and Canada make fun of each other doesn't mean we don't really love each other :)

I think that statemant is pretty much true. However, how many times have we all seen playfights go too far and turn into real (if brief) fights? Sometimes someone decides a joke has gone too far. I look at it like the relationship between most siblings. Most siblings love each other and will always help each other out when the chips are down, but they'll also frequently squabble and there's generally some underlying tension that doesn't take too much to enflame. That's why these threads always end up like this.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

No shame there. In 1939 NOBODY had modern weaponry except the Germans ...

Until after WW2 the Americans were always woefully equipped as well.



The British had relatively modern weapons, as did the Japanese, the Italians and the french. Canadian troops were still equipped exactly the same as for WW1.

American troops were not well-equipped in 1939, though they had modern weapons in the supply pipeline. Then again, they did not go to war until the end of 1941.



The PT boats did pretty well during WWII. I think most of them carried four torpedos giving them the capability to destroy a couple much larger ships. They also had I believe 2 .50 anti aircraft guns although ariel attack was their biggest volnerability. They worked out well because they were small and fast making it hard to train the big guns on them.

The PT boats were mostly successful against cargo vessels, as I understand it, and against lone small warships in restricted waters. The British MTBs and German E-boats also did respectably in the English Channel. I don't think anyone's torpedo boats ever sank a warship larger than a destroyer. My point is that they have a role, but are no match or replacement for capital ships.

[Albinonewt]

Everyone knows that WWII was won by the mighty Mexican Military dropping the first atomic bomb on Berlin in June of 1943.


Sorry, I've been playing Hearts of Iron II, and its the best game ever for WWII history buffs.

[octane2079]

The English fought well during World War II, and really did whoop some butt during the battle of britain, but IMO if the United States had not entered the war when they did the loss of britain would have been inevitable if Hitler hadn't made the crucial mistake of opening a two front war. The German losses in the Battle of Britain would have merely delayed Operation Sealion and the British did not have the resources to launch a counter offensive on the mainland they tried at dieppe and that didn't end too well. IF Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union the Germans could have consolidated there hold on Europe prepare a proper landing force and invade the channel coast.

I hate to come off as a "typical" American, but the british were sol in the Pacific theater. They had quickly lost both the Prince of Wales and the Repulse and the majority of their pacific territories had fallen. There were few things that the british could have done to stop the spread of Japanese aggression. Also the U-boat threat wasn't as quickly taken care of as you would think. I didn't think that the british deployed the 12,000lb tallboy early enough in the war to make a difference in the Battle of the Atlantic and I was under the impression that no other British weapon possessed the penetrative ability to destroy the U-Boat pens.

The British fought hard despite their limitted resources and were the first to stop the so far unstopped German War Machine. MarkM and the people of the UK my hat is off to you for such an important "first".

Interesting WWII tidbit. Stalin did not pull his troops off the eastern front until December 6, 1941 form you own opinions about THAT fact.

[Albinonewt]

You know what's funny about AO? You say the words "Europe", "America", or "History", in a thread and a half a page later it's the same old debate about whether or not America was needed in WWII.

Well, let's just say this. WWII went the way it did because of American involvement. You think Britain could have won the way by itself? Maybe, but it didn't. Britain had been fighting for quite some time without us and didn't win. Maybe it would have taken more time, maybe they would have lost, or more likely it may have been a push. But saying that everything boils down to a nightraid or that America only contributed materials as aid for years as proof that the American involvement wasn't the deciding factor is pretty silly.

Point is, WWII went down the way it did.


As for history being different from country to country, I wouldn't put too much into who's "right". It's a matter of perspective. History is vast. That an American text book doesn't mention a British innovation or tactic isn't just to try to make America look better (since most of American Educators want the opposite) but more likely just because History is BIG. Not every piece of every story gets told by everyone all the time.

No need to obsess.

[sharpshooter1286]

The American media is like the countrie's loud-mouthed idiot brother. Honestly, I watch it every morning. They do everything for shock value or glorification of America. The way they talk about Iraq, they make it sound like we are the good guys and everything is the Iraqi's fault. Blasphemy.

[Albinonewt]

The American media is like the countrie's loud-mouthed idiot brother. Honestly, I watch it every morning. They do everything for shock value or glorification of America. The way they talk about Iraq, they make it sound like we are the good guys and everything is the Iraqi's fault. Blasphemy.


What are you babbling about?

The American media say the EXACT opposite...

[Jeffy-CanCon]

What are you babbling about?

The American media say the EXACT opposite...


Maybe it's the difference between satelite and cable? :D


Funny coincidence: had a date with a Chinese chick today, and our discussion meandered through men-women, religion and politics. At one point she says to me "I don't think they teach you the right history here". :p

[la690]

The American media is like the countrie's loud-mouthed idiot brother. Honestly, I watch it every morning. They do everything for shock value or glorification of America. The way they talk about Iraq, they make it sound like we are the good guys and everything is the Iraqi's fault. Blasphemy.

I really agree with you. the American media tries to turn every world event into a movie that they can sell to people who will take it all as fact.

[Boski51]

Remember that the only function of American news programs is to sell advertising time. Nothing more and nothing less. For the folks that think the news is truth, you have never been on the "other" side of the news. News in America is about getting you to sit around for a few minute in between commercials.

[Miscue]

Is there such a thing as an English accent?

I always found it odd when an American talked about "English accents," when it's Americans that have the accents.

[manike]

Is there such a thing as an English accent?

I always found it odd when an American talked about "English accents," when it's Americans that have the accents.

There's lots of VERY different accents in England.

[Miscue]

There's lots of VERY different accents in England.

Yup. I'd like to sample them all... a different chick with each accent whispering something dirty in my ear. There's just something about the way they talk... :p

[peewee]

People talk the way they talk, having been dragged all across the USA it was always cool to hear how different people spoke. UK is the same My Mom is from Wellington & she sounds very different from her cousin Jack that's from London. I think every friend of mine that ever talked to my ma on the phone got rattled. A few of them asked her out. It was funny. I do have to say Americas view on history is "pro " US. I also believe that other countries have a different spin on any historical event that they were involved in. Kind of like a car wreck everyone's view is a little different their perspective will be skewed by their own involvement. If you read a history book in another country it will be from their perspective, as they say the victors write history. I'd like to read the German soldiers first person accounts on who they felt won the war against them. Being a Jarhead I know the Corps whooped up on Japan in WWII but we also "know " what the cost was that had to be paid for those victories.
Japs were tough dedicated proffesional fighters. We may have defeated Japan in the end but it took a nuke or two.

[bornl33t]

who cares? I mean history is history, we live in the now-a-days, where everyone watches america and want to have a voice in what we do, BUT DON'T, PERIOD.

[Eagle]

Everyone has an accent, be it southern, northern, Canadian, or Brit.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

U Boats had an effect (not the effect the propoganda machine said though) but they were crippled very quickly (bases) by english bomber night raids.


My understanding was that bombing raids on u-boat installations were nearly useless because the Germans built massive concrete storage installations to keep the u-boats, and no bombs could penetrate them?

Maybe that was the only installation of it's kind, I have no idea.

[MarkM]

Specialised submarine pens were a pretty formidable structure quite a few of the bases weren't built like that...the comment you quoted was replying to the comment saying that the U Boats were running riot destroying english and american shipping. This is often brought about by movies showing U Boat raids or Convoy based movies being attacked by U Boats.
My Grandfather was in the Merchant Navy as a Chief Engineer but had a new job with an engineering firm land based so it was a reserved occupation...every ship he had served on by the end of the war had been sunk during the war...his last ship was alerted to a possible threat as it was shadowed home to base by a German ship..not a U Boat as that came later..this was in 1939 just prior to the official declaration of war.

[Head knight of Ni]

By night bombing raids he means B-24 liberators scaning the atlantic for U boats. They used a magnetic disruptor to find the subs or one big- :cuss: search light.

[octane2079]

By night bombing raids he means B-24 liberators scaning the atlantic for U boats. They used a magnetic disruptor to find the subs or one big- :cuss: search light.

While a few aircraft carried MAD gear the range on it was soo limitted that it was only useful in the final stages of the termination of the contact. ASW had not advanced to the point that aircraft could actively hunt submerged submarines. The only way for the YPB-1 and 2', sunderlands, beaufighters, and catalinas to hunt submarines was to use radar to detect them on the surface and attack before the subs crash dived. And by night bombing raids I do think he ment raids by lancasters attacking the unhardened uboat bases.

[SlartyBartFast]

The British had relatively modern weapons, as did the Japanese, the Italians and the french. Canadian troops were still equipped exactly the same as for WW1.

The British were still flying Sopwith Camels at the outbreak of WWII.

[SlartyBartFast]

Fine what do you suggest we do? Give third world countries money in which they will buy arms for warlords in Africa, fuel drug cartels in South and Central America, or give terrorists more bombs so they can create havok in a American city. We act in the best way we can, we fight instead of tip toe around in politics where nothing gets done, or better yet gets corrupted like Food for Oil in the almighty, perfect, peaceful UN.

Rubbish. The US is as guilty as any other nation or organisation when it comes to playing policitcs.

I think much of the world would be happy if the US stopped directly funding the warlords, dicatators, and drug cartels. And stop feigning ignorance and shock once the monsters they created and supported turn against them.

[brianlojeck]

That was WWI.


holy freakin' cow droppings I feel like a jackass...

[MarkM]

The British were still flying Sopwith Camels at the outbreak of WWII.

Don't forget the Swordfish torpedo bombers that were used throughout the war from aircraft carriers and in the Defence of Malta along with some other woefully outdated machines.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

The British were still flying Sopwith Camels at the outbreak of WWII.

I know the RAF still had some biplane fighters in service at out-of-the-way posts, but my understanding was that they were Gloster Gladiators (c.1932). If you've got some info that points to WW1-era craft, I'd like to see it. The Gladiators were obsolete, but had been mostly supplanted by Hurricanes before the outbreak of war.

The RCAF, by contrast, had a grand total of 19 modern fighters (Hurricanes) in September 1939, and 10 semi-modern bombers of a type the RAF would soon be retiring.


Don't forget the Swordfish torpedo bombers that were used throughout the war from aircraft carriers and in the Defence of Malta along with some other woefully outdated machines.

The Fairey Swordfish is a good example of an obsolescent aircraft in fronmt-line service. Though by age the design only predates the Hurricane and Spitfire by two years.

[Wavesport001]

Wow there's some ignorance going on here! First of all, if Hitler hadn't gone to war with the Russians England would have been invaded and overrun. The plans were in the works for operation sea lion during the battle of britain. It was also Hitler/Goering's decision to bomb London rather than military targets that kept the RAF from being totally wiped out and kept england from being invaded.

Second, the british got their asses kicked out of the pacific by the japanese. They lost hong kong, singapore, their ships were sunk and pacific bases captured. It wasn't until later in the war that the british helped the US retake the pacific. No doubt they helped, but the US could have done it without them (and basically did). The british had a handful of aircraft carriers, the US had almost thirty full size carriers in the pacific.

As far as movies are concerned, some are good, some are bad. The greatest WWII movie ever, The Longest Day, accurately portrays the British and Canadian landings, the french involvement, the British gliders landings, the 82nd and 101st airborne as well as the german point of view. If the British could have won the war on thier own, why was Eisenhower in charge?

Oh yeah, some time after the invasion I remember a little British-led operation called Market Garden, how did that work out guys?

[MarkM]

Wow there's some ignorance going on here! First of all, if Hitler hadn't gone to war with the Russians England would have been invaded and overrun. The plans were in the works for operation sea lion during the battle of britain. It was also Hitler/Goering's decision to bomb London rather than military targets that kept the RAF from being totally wiped out and kept england from being invaded.

Second, the british got their asses kicked out of the pacific by the japanese. They lost hong kong, singapore, their ships were sunk and pacific bases captured. It wasn't until later in the war that the british helped the US retake the pacific. No doubt they helped, but the US could have done it without them (and basically did). The british had a handful of aircraft carriers, the US had almost thirty full size carriers in the pacific.

As far as movies are concerned, some are good, some are bad. The greatest WWII movie ever, The Longest Day, accurately portrays the British and Canadian landings, the french involvement, the British gliders landings, the 82nd and 101st airborne as well as the german point of view. If the British could have won the war on thier own, why was Eisenhower in charge?

Oh yeah, some time after the invasion I remember a little British-led operation called Market Garden, how did that work out guys?


Russian Front etc was and has been covered ...read the entire thread...no arguements that England was on it's knees in 1940...btw Germany didn't invade Russia until 1941 so your thesis doesn't work...Germany simply should have invaded but were not ready or willing to implement Operation Sealion.

Pacific...well unless my geography is very lacking... Singapore, Hong Kong, Manilla, Burma etc are not in the Pacific the last time I looked. Singapore incidently fell because the Thailand goverment were sympathetic to the Japanese and allowed them free access across their land The Burma railway that was constructed by the prisoners of the Japanese was built through Burma and supplied from Japanese bases in Thailand.

Englands involvement in the Pacific was extremely limited due to geography nothing else.

Eisenhower was in charge and your point is?...some one had to be...Patten was used as a decoy for the Germans due to internal politics mainly between him and the upper command and Montgomery. The comment about England winning on their own has not been made at all in this thread. Comments about the lack of military forces has and the simply fact that until the US joined Britain had been on it's own militarily for 3 years in which time the Germans had not overrun them.

Market Garden was a limited success but limited is all it can be called....supply lines were not in place correctly and this applied to both american and english troops.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Wow there's some ignorance going on here! First of all, if Hitler hadn't gone to war with the Russians England would have been invaded and overrun. The plans were in the works for operation sea lion during the battle of britain. It was also Hitler/Goering's decision to bomb London rather than military targets that kept the RAF from being totally wiped out and kept england from being invaded.

What an interesting collection of fact and speculation.




Second, the british got their asses kicked out of the pacific by the japanese. They lost hong kong, singapore, their ships were sunk and pacific bases captured. It wasn't until later in the war that the british helped the US retake the pacific. No doubt they helped, but the US could have done it without them (and basically did). The british had a handful of aircraft carriers, the US had almost thirty full size carriers in the pacific.

Totally true, but did anyone in this thread ever suggest otherwise?



As far as movies are concerned, some are good, some are bad. The greatest WWII movie ever, The Longest Day, accurately portrays the British and Canadian landings, the french involvement, the British gliders landings, the 82nd and 101st airborne as well as the german point of view. If the British could have won the war on thier own, why was Eisenhower in charge?

Yes, "The Longest Day" was a great movie.

Re: Eisenhhower, I had always believed the reasoning was that it was politically unacceptable in the USA for American troops to serve under a foreign commander. However a quick perusal of a biographical site devoted to "Ike" reveals excellent logical reasons for his appointment. (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/ike/ike.htm)



Oh yeah, some time after the invasion I remember a little British-led operation called Market Garden, how did that work out guys?

There was no call for that. :rolleyes: