You get your news from one source and I get mine from another. Both sources have thier own agendas. I choose to trust my news sources more, because unlike mainstream news, they don’t have corporate advertisers, and therefore don’t have ties to the governent. ABC wouldn’t badmouth Micheal Eisner, so ABC also wouldn’t badmouth a politicion that is doing good things for that company, even if that politician is corrupt.
On a side note, I just read that the New York Times scrubbed an article they wrote on 9-9-99 warning about Osama bin Laden. Basically they pretended that the article never existed. If anybody happens to have the 9-9 issue of the Times, check it out. You won’t find that article in their website archives though.
Fortius, (A.) You don’t know 99% of what Delta Force OR the SAS have done. You will NEVER hear about most of their missions. The few that you DO hear about are likely to be the very few that FAIL – and that’s the very reason you’re hearing about them. (B.) Neither you nor I will ever, EVER be in a position to be able to judge the skills and capabilites of either a DF operator or an SAS soldier, nevermind to compare them to one another. I have heard interviews with ex-military men who have said that, for all the so-called “rivalry” about who’s better, they’re essentially interchangable in terms of skills and the level of excellence and overall capabilities of each soldier. The two units have slightly different mission profiles and specialties these days, but if you took one soldier from either unit and put him in the other, he’d probably excel just fine. With that said, though, let’s not speak of what we don’t really know, alright? This ain’t a football game.
You are correct. My point is that the Germans did it in the face of a huge U.S. and Allied troop buildup in the UK. Without the horde of men and materiel pouring in from the US, it’s pretty unlikely that the Germans would have been so spooked. The prospects of the British mounting an invasion of the Continent without US help were pretty damn slim, and the Germans knew it.
Disagreeing is fine. Disagreeing without backing it up is not.
If you are having so much fun debating, then respond to my original post. There’s plenty there to argue with if you are trying to back up comments like “The. USA. Helped. But. They. Did. Not. Ride. IN. Like. The Cavalry. and. Save. the. Day” and “Historically speaking, the US army wasn’t hugely effective in Europe as a total fighting force”.
I appreciate a good argument. Thank you for allowing me to flex my mental muscles.
Don’t try to shift the blame for Versailles (I probably spelled it wrong and I don’t care because it is French). WOODROW WILSON AND HIS 19 POINTS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE HARSH REPAYMENTS THAT LED TO WORLD WAR II. Read his proposal. It was the British and the French who are directly responsible for the acrimony. NOT THE AMERICANS. Do not respond until you read about the 19 points plus the Herculean efforts that Wilson made to get it passed. In particular, I want you to compare the actual treaty with Wilson’s proposal. Which one led to the hatred?
Now for Lend-Lease. This is not open to your interpretation. It was absolutely beneficial. Want proof of how desperate England was for war material? How about proof of how close England was to starving to death secondary to the U-Boat threat? During early 1940, Churchill was frantic because he did not have enough destroyers to escort his merchantmen. He offered us a lease of a naval base in the Bahamas until 1999 for 50 World War I destroyers. Also read Churchill’s own words. To paraphrase; he said that his greatest fear was always the U-boat threat. It was not the air war or the threat of invasion. This gives you an indication of how effective the U-boat campaign was. England does not have enough natural resources on her island to conduct a world war. If her lifeline was as perilous as the Prime Minister stated, then those destroyers plus future naval material saved her war effort. Therefore, Lend-Lease, using just this one aspect of the war, was an unqualified success. Not to mention the other areas (ground material, aircraft, naval transport, etc…).
Finally, what is this crap about Truman and later Presidents reducing globalism down to protecting the United States from outside threats. Ever hear about the Marshall Plan or the Truman plan? We funneled TRILLIONS of dollars and millions of men into Europe to protect the Europeans from economic collapse and being overrun by the Soviets. Ever hear about our continued adherence to the Monroe doctrine? We protect EVERYONE in our hemisphere from foreign domination. Ever hear about Japan and the Far East? We funneled more TRILLIONS of dollars and millions of men to protect democracy against communism. Ever hear of Korea or Vietnam? We have been trully global since at least 1941.
Stop posting things like that. No one is fooled. We know you don’t believe that crap. I am guessing that you are a guy who is just trying to start trouble between England and the United States. It won’t work. Everyone knows that we are as close as two countries could be. Our alliance has withstood the test of time. By the way, the sun has long set on the British Empire.
Guys, am on a course for work for a couple of days and am rebuilding my home PC thus unable to post reply - can you wait a couple of days for a response or do you want to carry this on in private email? Or just drop it?
Iscariot, there is no sense in asserting that you are studying for this or that. Don’t try to pull the old, “I’m fixing my PC.” We know the truth. You are reading Wilson’s points. You are considering the fact that the United States has been trully global since 1941. You are now contemplating the virtues of Lend-Lease. It’s ok to admit it. We know the truth will dawn on you sooner or later.
Author’s Note: Dear Mr Fluffy, actually wasn’t pulling your leg in a bid for time - we had a water leak adn it blew up the multi-board attached to all the electronics - it’s kinda hard to reply if I go up in smoke
OK, on with the show.
Don’t try to shift the blame for Versailles (I probably spelled it wrong and I don’t care because it is French). DROW WILSON AND HIS 19 POINTS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE HARSH REPAYMENTS THAT LED TO WORLD WAR IIad his proposal.
That’s not the point I was making - looking back I could have been a bit clearer. You spelt Versailles correctly BTW. I was talking about perceptions, not what was necessarily reality. Now,whether or not Wilson’s intentions were good -and that’s a whole different kettle of fish - the rhetoric that came from the Nazis and their supporters didn’t say “everyone who was at Versailles, except the USA, screwed us” they blamed everyone who was part of the process, regardless of whether the whole process, some of the process or a little bit of the process was good.
. In particular, I want you to compare the actual treaty with Wilson’s proposal. Which one led to the hatred?
True - the actualy treaty was a complete bitch - it’s no wonder there was resentment. The significant difference in the treaties that were imposed on Germany/ Japan after WW2
is that the post WW2 treatiesposited all future action on redeveloping Japan and Germany, whereas Versailles was a punishment. Now, don’t doubt for a moment that Wilson’s idea was less punative than Britain and France, but that is also understandable in that the US was affected to a far lesser degree by WW1 that those aforementioned countries.
Doing more research on Lend Lease - will get back to that
Finally, what is this crap about Truman and later Presidents reducing globalism down to protecting the United States from outside threats.
OK - to generalise hugely, the Monroe doctrine says: “We’ll stay out of other people’s stoushes and We won’t touch you unless you touch us. And finally, withing our hemishpere if we interpret something as a threat to us we’ll try adn stop it”.
Now, even accepting that it was written back in 1823, the interepretation of what constitutes a threat within the northern hemisphere is so broad as to be able to be applied to everything from military aggression to the importation of Trebants grin and particularly cultural and economic imperialism. Just because you’re ostensibly protecting your hemisphere, who’s to say that can’t be pro rather than reactive?
Actually, I think this is going to come down to a personal interpretation thing as to how you feel about the actions of the US. I agree that you can see the actions of the US as protective, BUT, surely you can see how that would be interepreted as acting in the perceived best interests of the US.
We protect EVERYONE in our hemisphere from foreign domination.
Whether they want it or not? Even tho the UN is a joke, guess which country owes the most in unpaid dues? Look at your farm subsidies, while pushing free trade - there is more than one type of foreign domination.
Ever hear of Korea or Vietnam? We have been trully global since at least 1941.
Not exactly shining moments in US history those particular battles. Korea was a draw and you lost Vietnam. I don’t consider fighting battles against a perceived meta-enemy, being global when the interests you are fighting to protect are not necessarily global.
All that being said, this is fun. Redman, will get to you tomorrow.
Yes, this is fun. Also, I really like how you do that with italics, bold print, and para-phrasing(cool shit). One thing, Vietnam did serve American interest. In the way that we were trying to prevent the spead of global Communism. The reasoning behind Vietnam was that if Vietnam fell so would Loas, Cambodia, and all of South East Asia. We were trying to protect the freedom of S.Vietnam from the oppression of Communism. So, in a way we were serving our interests. From our moral stand point anyway. Maybe I misinterputed you so correct me if I’m wrong.
The western allies never faced more than 10% of the Wermacht’s strength, the other 90% was fighting in the east. If one country deserves credit for “saving” Western Europe it’s the Soviet Union! Regarding American Lend Lease, even Russian historians recognize its tremendous impact on their war effort. While they disparagingly refer to the Western campaign as “the diversion in the West” they praise the American Lend Lease program for the vast amount of trucks it provided. Finally, who cares which country has the best special forces, special forces don’t win wars. A countries political/military power is judged by its ability to project might and the US is second to none in “power projection.” For anyone interested in understanding projection power and world dominance from the standpoint of naval warfare I would highly recommend Lord Alfred Thayer Mahan’s treatise, “On Seapower.” It is THE document that has influenced US naval policy more than any other work.
As a soldier in the U.S. Army I would like to thank all of you who support us. I would also like to show my support to ALL service members of ALL countries who are friends of the United States (that includes England). We appreciate England’s assistance in our current military efforts. The U.S. will be here for you if you are ever attacked.
Everyone (including myself) needs to stop the petty arguements. There are bigger problems in the world.
Excellent post. I agree with most of it. However, I must correct you on one point. You meant to say that never did the allies face more than 30% of the Wermacht’s strength. That 30% figure occured at the Battle of the Bulge. Again, excellent post.