|
Post by aponderer on Jul 24, 2014 9:52:45 GMT -5
It's true, Hitler screwed up by attacking Russia, but if not for help from the US (and also some from Britain--I believe Britain supplied about 1/3 the materiel that the US did to help Russia), Hitler might have taken Russia. Then Hitler would've turned his attention back to England. "If ifs and and buts were candy and nuts..." The only true fact about the beating of Germany is that neither Britain, nor the US, nor Russia could have achieved it on their own, it took the combined might of all three. That's true. But I believe "the combined might of all three" was possible, chiefly, by the total amount of materiel, supplied by the US, in defeating Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by winston on Jul 24, 2014 12:44:01 GMT -5
Obama makes us look like fools. Only in your mind! Speak for yourself
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 12:59:01 GMT -5
"If ifs and and buts were candy and nuts..." The only true fact about the beating of Germany is that neither Britain, nor the US, nor Russia could have achieved it on their own, it took the combined might of all three. That's true. But I believe "the combined might of all three" was possible, chiefly, by the total amount of materiel, supplied by the US, in defeating Hitler. Have your hubrism. The US saved the world singlehandedly.
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 24, 2014 14:27:49 GMT -5
The only reason that the US keeps its junkyard dog in the ME and brings 'democracy' to ME countries that do not want it is to protect its own oil interests. The EU is doing nothing different from the US, they are also looking after their own interests. The only real difference is that they are not bullsh!tting the world that they are being altruistic or benevolent about it. Israel is doing nothing different from the EU, they are also looking after their own interests. The only real difference is that they are not bullsh!tting the world that they are being altruistic or benevolent about it. Neville might have tolerated rocket attacks 24/7 but obviously Churchill didn't. Good thing he got some good genes from his mother, he didn't lay down like a coward and say Please Mr Hitler, take anything you like.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 24, 2014 14:29:00 GMT -5
BE's failure to do his homework before he shot his mouth off has once again made it crystal how ignorant he is. Not only of U.S. history but of his own country’s history. Here are 2 examples to prove my point. Your HO would be incorrect, Britain saved itself from "speaking German today" by winning the Battle of Britain in the late Summer- Fall of 1939, after which Hitler turned his attentions east toward Russia. It was, as Churchill said, "their finest hour". “The Battle of Britain is the name given to the Second World War air campaign waged by the German Air Force against the United Kingdom during the summer and autumn of 1940.” [/i] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain The US got involved in the war a full year later. “The year 1940 marked a change in attitude in the United States. The German victories in France, Poland and elsewhere, combined with the Battle of Britain, led many Americans to believe that the United States would be forced to fight soon. In March 1941, the Lend-Lease program began shipping money, munitions, and food to Britain, China, and (by that fall) the Soviet Union. By 1941 the United States was taking an active part in the war, despite its nominal neutrality.[/i] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_IIYour sloppiness here has resulted in you being shot down more times that the JU88s in the Battle of Britain.
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 24, 2014 14:31:36 GMT -5
As I recall, the UK, "stepped up to the plate" 2 1/2 years before the US stepped on it. I am familiar with most of Churchill's keynote speeches, not just the '...This was their finest hour' one, which incidently was given 18 months before the US entered the war. So? If the US hadn't "stepped up to the plate," the English would be speaking German today IMHO. To help out, even the US gunmaker, Savage Arms, made Mark IV Lee-Enfields for Brit troops. Yup, see them every now and again at shops... Property US Govt on the receiver. I was never a fan of either the cartridge or overly complicated action BUT the 10 round capacity had its merits. Everything else is second tier compared to the 06 IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Jul 24, 2014 15:06:53 GMT -5
1941
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 18:19:56 GMT -5
Indeed, it was on 11th of December 1941 when Italy and Germany declared war on the US.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jul 25, 2014 7:24:54 GMT -5
That's true. But I believe "the combined might of all three" was possible, chiefly, by the total amount of materiel, supplied by the US, in defeating Hitler. Have your hubrism. The US saved the world singlehandedly. Your words, not mine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 11:52:36 GMT -5
"If ifs and and buts were candy and nuts..." The only true fact about the beating of Germany is that neither Britain, nor the US, nor Russia could have achieved it on their own, it took the combined might of all three. That's true. But I believe "the combined might of all three" was possible, chiefly, by the total amount of materiel, supplied by the US, in defeating Hitler. When a country has 2 1/2 years NOT fighting a war but supplying those countries that are fighting it, of course they are going to produce the arms to order, who wouldn't, it was a nice little earner? I don't see the logic of or reason for your post, unless you are going to claim that the US gave all those supplies to Britain and Co.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jul 25, 2014 12:18:06 GMT -5
That's true. But I believe "the combined might of all three" was possible, chiefly, by the total amount of materiel, supplied by the US, in defeating Hitler. When a country has 2 1/2 years NOT fighting a war but supplying those countries that are fighting it, of course they are going to produce the arms to order, who wouldn't, it was a nice little earner? I don't see the logic of or reason for your post, unless you are going to claim that the US gave all those supplies to Britain and Co. I'm not claiming that. Those supplies of materiel were provided under the Lend-Lease program, which ultimately amounted to a "sale" of materiel for pennies on the dollar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 12:39:01 GMT -5
When a country has 2 1/2 years NOT fighting a war but supplying those countries that are fighting it, of course they are going to produce the arms to order, who wouldn't, it was a nice little earner? I don't see the logic of or reason for your post, unless you are going to claim that the US gave all those supplies to Britain and Co. I'm not claiming that. Those supplies of materiel were provided under the Lend-Lease program, which ultimately amounted to a "sale" of materiel for pennies on the dollar. And in Britain's case every last penny was paid back in the final instalment in 2006 when they also paid back the Canadian Mutual aid program. One could reasonably argue that the first 2 1/2 years of blood were also an instalment.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Jul 25, 2014 12:44:25 GMT -5
Your HO would be incorrect, Britain saved itself from "speaking German today" by winning the Battle of Britain in the late Summer- Fall of 1939, after which Hitler turned his attentions east toward Russia. It was, as Churchill said, "their finest hour". The US got involved in the war a full year later. It's true, Hitler screwed up by attacking Russia, but if not for help from the US (and also some from Britain--I believe Britain supplied about 1/3 the materiel that the US did to help Russia), Hitler might have taken Russia. Then Hitler would've turned his attention back to England. One word. Trucks.
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Jul 25, 2014 12:47:39 GMT -5
Maybe the folks in Europe are afraid to start something because obama can't be trusted as an ally? After all didn't he say after his re-election he would be more free to help Russia?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 12:55:31 GMT -5
Your HO would be incorrect, Britain saved itself from "speaking German today" by winning the Battle of Britain in the late Summer- Fall of 1939, after which Hitler turned his attentions east toward Russia. It was, as Churchill said, "their finest hour". The US got involved in the war a full year later. It's true, Hitler screwed up by attacking Russia, but if not for help from the US (and also some from Britain-- I believe Britain supplied about 1/3 the materiel that the US did to help Russia), Hitler might have taken Russia. Then Hitler would've turned his attention back to England. Not bad considering that Britain's population was less than a third of the US' s population at that time, and also actually fighting the war.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 13:07:14 GMT -5
When a country has 2 1/2 years NOT fighting a war but supplying those countries that are fighting it, of course they are going to produce the arms to order, who wouldn't, it was a nice little earner? I don't see the logic of or reason for your post, unless you are going to claim that the US gave all those supplies to Britain and Co. I'm not claiming that. Those supplies of materiel were provided under the Lend-Lease program, which ultimately amounted to a "sale" of materiel for pennies on the dollar. Pennies on the dollar.
"The US loaned $4.33bn (£2.2bn) to Britain in 1945, while Canada loaned US$1.19 bn (£607m) in 1946, at a rate of 2% annual interest.
Upon the final payments, the UK will have paid back a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada."
Not too shabby a return, under the circumstances. Will the US ever see a single penny back of the 3 billion dollars a year they give to Israel?
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 25, 2014 13:27:18 GMT -5
A couple of things are being over looked here.
In 1930-1940 the U.S. did not have the military capability to fight a two front war. One need only look at events in the early stages of our participation in the war (Bataan, Kasserine Pass) to understand what would have happened if had we become involved in the war starting in 1939.
However, even if we had the capability to join Britain, France, et. al in 1939 the American people would have never supported our entry into the conflict. Proof of this lies in the difficulty FDR had in getting support for what we did do in the 1939-1941 period.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 25, 2014 13:46:03 GMT -5
It's true, Hitler screwed up by attacking Russia, but if not for help from the US (and also some from Britain--I believe Britain supplied about 1/3 the materiel that the US did to help Russia), Hitler might have taken Russia. Then Hitler would've turned his attention back to England. "If ifs and and buts were candy and nuts..." The only true fact about the beating of Germany is that neither Britain, nor the US, nor Russia could have achieved it on their own, it took the combined might of all three. Yes and no. Britain had little manufacturing capability after the Battle of Britain. At least, not nearly enough to continue a war against an enemy like Germany. Likewise, Russia didn't have the capability, after Germany invaded, to produce enough to beat Germany on their own. It took the US, who hadn't been bombed or invaded, to supply the arms and material for both to continue the war. And it wasn't losing the Battle of Britain that stopped Hitler, it was the lack of boats that could cross the channel with troops, and the lack of a sufficient navy to protect them. Britain was woefully short of fighters by the time the BofB ended, and her navy was stretched very thin, but they still outnumbered the German navy by a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jul 25, 2014 13:46:52 GMT -5
I'm not claiming that. Those supplies of materiel were provided under the Lend-Lease program, which ultimately amounted to a "sale" of materiel for pennies on the dollar. Pennies on the dollar.
"The US loaned $4.33bn (£2.2bn) to Britain in 1945, while Canada loaned US$1.19 bn (£607m) in 1946, at a rate of 2% annual interest.
Upon the final payments, the UK will have paid back a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada."
Not too shabby a return, under the circumstances. Will the US ever see a single penny back of the 3 billion dollars a year they give to Israel?
The article you linked to claimed the UK paid back an amount that was double the amount loaned (over a nearly 70-year period). I'll wager you would jump at a chance to buy a house with a 70-year mortgage that collected only an amount twice that loaned (i.e., the interest was an amount equal to the original loan). Especially since inflation was not figured in... Factoring in inflation, the UK got a deal on pennies on the dollar.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 25, 2014 13:46:52 GMT -5
Obama makes us look like fools. Only in your mind! Speak for yourself True. Democrats do that for themselves. They don't need The Puppet to do it for them.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 25, 2014 13:50:07 GMT -5
I'm not claiming that. Those supplies of materiel were provided under the Lend-Lease program, which ultimately amounted to a "sale" of materiel for pennies on the dollar. Pennies on the dollar.
"The US loaned $4.33bn (£2.2bn) to Britain in 1945, while Canada loaned US$1.19 bn (£607m) in 1946, at a rate of 2% annual interest.
Upon the final payments, the UK will have paid back a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada."
Not too shabby a return, under the circumstances. Will the US ever see a single penny back of the 3 billion dollars a year they give to Israel?
What about the $1-3 billion we give to Hamas? When has Israel used that money to buy rockets to shoot indicriminately into another country?
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jul 25, 2014 14:11:40 GMT -5
Pennies on the dollar.
"The US loaned $4.33bn (£2.2bn) to Britain in 1945, while Canada loaned US$1.19 bn (£607m) in 1946, at a rate of 2% annual interest.
Upon the final payments, the UK will have paid back a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada."
Not too shabby a return, under the circumstances. Will the US ever see a single penny back of the 3 billion dollars a year they give to Israel?
What about the $1-3 billion we give to Hamas? When has Israel used that money to buy rockets to shoot indicriminately into another country? It wouldn't surprise me that a good bit of that money was spent by Hamas to buy construction material used for tunnels...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 14:28:56 GMT -5
Pennies on the dollar.
"The US loaned $4.33bn (£2.2bn) to Britain in 1945, while Canada loaned US$1.19 bn (£607m) in 1946, at a rate of 2% annual interest.
Upon the final payments, the UK will have paid back a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada."
Not too shabby a return, under the circumstances. Will the US ever see a single penny back of the 3 billion dollars a year they give to Israel?
What about the $1-3 billion we give to Hamas?... The US does not give one cent to Hamas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 14:29:56 GMT -5
What about the $1-3 billion we give to Hamas? When has Israel used that money to buy rockets to shoot indicriminately into another country? It wouldn't surprise me that a good bit of that money was spent by Hamas to buy construction material used for tunnels... See post above.
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 25, 2014 14:33:26 GMT -5
Pennies on the dollar.
"The US loaned $4.33bn (£2.2bn) to Britain in 1945, while Canada loaned US$1.19 bn (£607m) in 1946, at a rate of 2% annual interest.
Upon the final payments, the UK will have paid back a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada."
Not too shabby a return, under the circumstances. Will the US ever see a single penny back of the 3 billion dollars a year they give to Israel?
The article you linked to claimed the UK paid back an amount that was double the amount loaned (over a nearly 70-year period). I'll wager you would jump at a chance to buy a house with a 70-year mortgage that collected only an amount twice that loaned (i.e., the interest was an amount equal to the original loan). Especially since inflation was not figured in... Factoring in inflation, the UK got a deal on pennies on the dollar. One hell of a deal and that's if they actually paid it in full.
|
|