Mehmani Posted July 2, 2010 Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 I blame David Cameron. For everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexev Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 You people don't seem to understand. Without the US' date=' you'd probably be serving under Nazi-controlled Europe with very few people who aren't the Aryan race, though I have faith that without the US, the English would have eventually kept the Nazi's out of their homeland. No aerial bombings or whatever.[/quote'] Majorlogicfail. Let's look at an unbiased and cited source like Cracked maybe? America Won the War Single-Handedly Claimed By: Hollywood, WWII-shooters, Cold War politics and chauvinists. Sixty years of World War II movies, and a decade of WWII video games, have made one thing clear: If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German right now, baby! U-S-A! U-S-A!How America fights a two-front war. Why it's Bullshit: Because it's like thinking that while many X-Men contributed in their own special way, defeating Magneto really came down to Iceman. Cool party! There are two radically different histories of WW II, the one that was actually fought, and the one where the US kicked everyone's assess. Guess which one Cold War-era classrooms were allowed to teach? Here's a hint: It's the same one Hollywood chose to film. World War II wasn't just a clever name. It was a global conflict that included epic acts of heroism by non-Americans like the storming of Madagascar, the Battle of Westerplatte, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Kursk, the epically badass Kokoda Track, the pilots of the Polish Underground State, the details of El Alamein or the HMS Bulldog. Of course, Americans never hear about any of those unless, as in the case of the classic submarine film U 571, the characters are just straight up switched to Americans. To quote George S. Patton: "Americans love a winner," which you know because you saw Patton, the film that portrayed Field Marshal Bernard "Rommel-killer" Montgomery like a buffoon simply because he was British. Cheerio, guv'na! However, there is one Zangief-sized elephant in the room that America loved to leave out of conversation until the end of the Cold War: the Soviet Union. The "Great Patriotic War" as they called it was the single largest military operation in history, and home to perhaps the biggest turning-point of the war: the Battle of Stalingrad. Understand, the Russia versus Germany part of the war wasn't just a little more important than the part the USA was involved in. It was "four times the scale" of the whole Western front, larger than all other phases of the war put together. The Soviet military suffered eight million soldiers dead, more than 20 freaking times the number of U.S. casualties. Suck it up, Damon. Sounds pretty brutal for a John Wayne movie? Try figuring in another 13.7 million dead civilians. It's tragic how many kids in the West never heard these stories growing up. One platoon leader in the Red Army named Yakov Pavlov personally rigged a Stalingrad apartment building with enough landmines, rifles and mortars to hold off half the Nazi army. The building was under fire day and night and even had some civilians in the basement, but the fortress never fell. Pavlov himself picked off one dozen tanks from the beast. Our history books should not have been denied such awesomeness. Besides that, no one acknowledges a key fact. Everyone is retarded, America, Russia, list goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Castro Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 You people don't seem to understand. Without the US' date=' you'd probably be serving under Nazi-controlled Europe with very few people who aren't the Aryan race, though I have faith that without the US, the English would have eventually kept the Nazi's out of their homeland. No aerial bombings or whatever.[/quote'] Russia disagrees. That aside if the U.S never existed then well... Britan, Spain, Canada, and all the other countries that owned a chunk of the U.S. would have had more resources to kick the sheet out of Germany. But this is spectulation since their would have been more wars over the America's with France and Britan most likely owning about half and half after all the soldiers kill them selves. I miss old style wars because back then soldiers dressed up to kill each other. But sadly the U.S was appoaching the 'kill every person of this race' idea with the japanese americans. They too were forced out of their homes and shoved into prison camps. Like Germany it would take a while before the idea of killing them all came up but like Germany, again, it would eventuly become law. Edit - That Pavlov guy sounds like a person who knew how to get things done. Wish we had someone like that for the Iraq and Afgan wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriendlyHost Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 i blame bush because hes the president.. oh wait.. WOAH.. it cant be obama's fault.. or can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenrir Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 I blame the economy. ba-dum-tish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriendlyHost Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 You people don't seem to understand. Without the US' date=' you'd probably be serving under Nazi-controlled Europe with very few people who aren't the Aryan race, though I have faith that without the US, the English would have eventually kept the Nazi's out of their homeland. No aerial bombings or whatever.[/quote'] ..Is that so bad?do you live in nazi-controlled europe..? then what do you know about anything?[moron] I blame the white man. [/moron]hmm.. bigotry, you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Xt4gu4z9M&feature=PlayList&p=3412A1B66F947EDE&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=2 Idiots. The Red Army was the one who defeated teh Nazis. They accounted for a whopping 80% of all the fighting against them. They outnumbered them, 10 to 1. They formed a wall of iron and blood. Russians are brutal, I know. I'm friends with one, and I'm scared shitless when he's pissed. While the other Allied Forces had to pool together to win, the U.S.S.R. pushed from one side. Plus, Stalin killed more people then Hitler, and at least for Hitler, we found out HOW MUCH HE KILLED. We're still finding mass graves of people Stalin killed, plus the countless he "erased". Personally, it's was near 10 million. I'd know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Culpa Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 I was kidding. -.- God, you people are very literal. And umm, we saved France. Twice. You're welcome. Just saying, but I'm just saying if America stayed neutral, there would be millions of more casualties. I have faith in the Russian, British, and all dem other nation's armies, but the Manhattan Project seriously sped up the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 You people don't seem to understand. Without the US' date=' you'd probably be serving under Nazi-controlled Europe with very few people who aren't the Aryan race, though I have faith that without the US, the English would have eventually kept the Nazi's out of their homeland. No aerial bombings or whatever.[/quote'] ..Is that so bad?do you live in nazi-controlled europe..? then what do you know about anything?[moron] I blame the white man. [/moron]hmm.. bigotry' date=' you say?[/quote'] I just <3 Nazi's...that's all I'm saying.It's not like I've hidden that love.I was kidding. -.- God' date=' you people are very literal. And umm, we saved France. Twice. You're welcome. [/quote'] Gee, thanks...-.-" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Castro Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Can i just point out the fact that the us won the pacific war by luck and luck alone? My reasoning for this is it was sure as hell lucky that our aircraft carriers were out at sea the day pearl harbor was attacked. If they were their then it would have been near impossiable to win the pacific war. Sure we still had our submarine fleet but we proved that subs are easy to kill. But anyway as to the carriers. If we had lost them then we would have gotten raped epicly at the Coral Sea battle and the Battle of Midway. My reasoning on this? The coral sea battle was fought using ONLY aircraft launched via CARRIERS. Had we not had a carrier then the jap naval air force would have destroyed more then one destroyer and oil tanker. Truthfully im thinking that they would have eradicated all 9 of our cruisers and destroyed about half of our desroyers before their aircraft would have needed to return to rearm. As for Midway our carriers were the ones that inflicted the most damage (And this damage was the complete destruction of 4 japanese carriers which was a crippling blow since they only had 6 total) Now had we not had our carriers then the jap naval air force would have been playing wack-a-ship and we would have been helpless. But since we had carriers the battle was a epic victory for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Can i just point out the fact that the us won the pacific war by luck and luck alone? My reasoning for this is it was sure as hell lucky that our aircraft carriers were out at sea the day pearl harbor was attacked. If they were their then it would have been near impossiable to win the pacific war. Sure we still had our submarine fleet but we proved that subs are easy to kill. But anyway as to the carriers. If we had lost them then we would have gotten raped epicly at the Coral Sea battle and the Battle of Midway. My reasoning on this? The coral sea battle was fought using ONLY aircraft launched via CARRIERS. Had we not had a carrier then the jap naval air force would have destroyed more then one destroyer and oil tanker. Truthfully im thinking that they would have eradicated all 9 of our cruisers and destroyed about half of our desroyers before the aircraft ran out of fuel. As for Midway our carriers were the ones that inflicted the most damage (And this damage was the complete destruction of 4 japanese carriers which was a crippling blow since they only had 6 total) Now had we not had our carriers then the jap naval air force would have been playing wack-a-ship and we would have been helpless. And that was when the pacific battle turned to our favor and we procceded to assfuck the japanese with high yield bombs. Either way. Hitler still would have won WWII if not for his dumb decision to attack Russia when he did. Heck, his bombing raids on england...he stopped...for no particular reason, other than being annoyed. He seriously was close to finishing them, but he gave up. I WANNA WEAR GREEN DX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Castro Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 I an argue agenst that point as well. First off while he made a dumb decision to attack russia he made a even dumbber decision when he sent his troops in to attack... during the russian winter. Hitlers sub fleet was playing sink-a-ship with the naval supply lines that supplied the allies in europe. We sent ships to form convoys which negated his submarines. Had our carriers been sunk the japanese would have steamrolled through the pacific. And well... Since the japanese would have posed a DIRECT threat to us we would have had to focus our forces, mainly naval, on the Japanese which would have left the naval supply lines into Europe open for the 'love taps' of Hitlers submarine fleets. You could say that that wouldn't have happened but technically it would have since the people would have demanded that we protect our country from the japanese, as they were directly attacking us. The Japanese attacked U.S. soil... and to my knowledge all germany did was sink some of our merchant ships. Now since our supplies are no longer reaching the allies, they start to fall one by one... Ending with England. Now as for him attacking Russia... Since he could focus his full attention on Russia. This would end in one of two ways. Either A) Hitler rages a bloodly battle with Russia and after the massive losses Russia sustained the Russian people lose the will to fight and Russia soon surrenders to Germany. OrB) Hitler rages a bloody war with Russia and just when it looks like all hope is lost the Russian Winter strikes, leaving Hitlers troops severly weakened. After Russia kills the German fools they proceed to cut a bloodly path on their way to Germany. Soon after this Russia is knocking on Germanys front doors with a massive barrage of bullets, rockets, grenades, and anything else that either kills or makes a really big boom. Russia carves another bloodly path through Germany until they reach the capital were then then proceed to destroy everything in sight. Hitlers body is recovered from the smouldering ruins and the Germans surrender to Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 I an argue agenst that point as well. First off while he made a dumb decision to attack russia he made a even dumbber decision when he sent his troops in to attack... during the russian winter. Hitlers sub fleet was playing sink-a-ship with the naval supply lines that supplied the allies in europe. We sent ships to form convoys which negated his submarines. Had our carriers been sunk the japanese would have steamrolled through the pacific. And well... Since the japanese would have posed a DIRECT threat to us we would have had to focus our forces' date=' mainly naval, on the Japanese which would have left the naval supply lines into Europe open for the 'love taps' of Hitlers submarine fleets. You could say that that wouldn't have happened but technically it would have since the people would have demanded that we protect our country from the japanese, as they were directly attacking us. The Japanese attacked U.S. soil... and to my knowledge all germany did was sink some of our merchant ships. Now since our supplies are no longer reaching the allies, they start to fall one by one... Ending with England. Now as for him attacking Russia... Since he could focus his full attention on Russia. This would end in one of two ways. Either A) Hitler rages a bloodly battle with Russia and after the massive losses Russia sustained the Russian people lose the will to fight and Russia soon surrenders to Germany. OrB) Hitler rages a bloody war with Russia and just when it looks like all hope is lost the Russian Winter strikes, leaving Hitlers troops severly weakened. After Russia kills the German fools they proceed to cut a bloodly path on their way to Germany. Soon after this Russia is knocking on Germanys front doors with a massive barrage of bullets, rockets, grenades, and anything else that either kills or makes a really big boom. Russia carves another bloodly path through Germany until they reach the capital were then then proceed to destroy everything in sight. Hitlers body is recovered from the smouldering ruins and the Germans surrender to Russia.[/quote'] No. Before Hitler's striker against Russia, Germany was researching the Atomic Bomb. Truth is, Germany was going to get the bomb before us. Had Hitler not called off the bombing raids on England, and had he not attack Russia, and waited so much as maybe even a few months, he would have the most powerful weapon in the war, and the ability to destroy any country when he chose too. Hitler's greed, and inability to wait brought his downfall.Germany would have had a little resistance if he had waited, but there truly would not have been enough to really cause a true threat. It's actually scary just how close somebody came to controlling the world...o.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Castro Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Wow... in all the history crap i've read i've seen no mention about germany almost getting a nuke. But then again i've never seen a history book that mentioned that it was by chance that our carriers weren't at pearl harbor that day. (I only know this from reading some WWII stuff at the national archives.) But then again i do remember a few obscure refrences to Germany having a weapon that would have changed the course of the war... I always thought it was a prototype jet fighter that they were trying to perfect. Guess it really is true about the victor writing the history books. Also i mentioned the carrier thing to my U.S history teacher. She thought i was full of sheet but looked it up and found out that i was actully right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Wow... in all the history crap i've read i've seen no mention about germany almost getting a nuke. But then again i've never seen a history book that mentioned that it was by chance that our carriers weren't at pearl harbor that day. Guess it really is true about the victor writing the history books. Also i mentioned the carrier thing to my U.S history teacher. She thought i was full of s*** but looked it up and found out that i was actully right. lol, yaTruly, the Germans had all the great scientists, and where researching the bomb. They soon began to become stupid for some reason, and their scientists fled to America. I wonder why we got it first, all of a sudden! >_>*sigh* Think of it, Germany didn't have the factories, steel, ect to do the crap on it's own. Once it turned on Russia, it's ability to manufacture things was severely hindered. *Had done his WWII research* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Castro Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Edited my post after you replied but i do remember a few obscure about germany developing a weapon that could have changed the course of the war. I had always thought that it was a jet fighter that they were trying to create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 The U.S. is the center of the world's economy. Get over it. And what can we do to stop it? I would just like to point out the fact that we are the worlds largest economy only because we barrow money (Quite a lot) from other countries. If we weren't allowed to barrow those large amounts of money we wouldn't be the top any more. It's lolzy because most countries in the world have debts of amounts to large no one can ever hope to retrieve it whatever they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 The U.S. is the center of the world's economy. Get over it. And what can we do to stop it? I would just like to point out the fact that we are the worlds largest economy only because we barrow money (Quite a lot) from other countries. If we weren't allowed to barrow those large amounts of money we wouldn't be the top any more. It's lolzy because most countries in the world have debts of amounts to large no one can ever hope to retrieve it whatever they do. 100 Trillion in debt, and still borrowing =D ...What is America's Credit Score? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Castro Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Germany got materials from russia? I always thought they got their resources from the countries that they defeated. And on a unrelated note... France is a idiot... Germany conqered them in the first world war... And they did it again in the second world war... And did i mention that they did it because France left gaping holes in their defensive line because they thought that the terrain in those un/lightly guarded area's was almost impossiable to transverse? I think that number is closer to 23 Trillion actully. As for the credit score... hmm... hows about zip point sheet minus two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frlf Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 The world DOES seem to rely on America.America has gotten an ego over it' date=' though...[/quote'] Hardly. America seems to like thinking that everyone relies on it. Which is probably why America butts into things that aren't even related to America. The entire reason America is in the Middle East is because um... Soviets... wait... um... Totalitarian leaders... wait... um... terrorists... wait... um... to protect the citizens from terrorists... wait... um... to bring Democracy... wait... um... terrorists again... nvm... oil. I also don't get why everyone is acting like America is some amazing supernatural benevolent force. I guess these people forgot about South America, Southeast Asian countries, African countries, and (more recently) Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Germany got materials from russia? I always thought they got their resources from the countries that they defeated. And on a unrelated note... France is a idiot... Germany conqered them in the first world war... And they did it again in the second world war... And did i mention that they did it because France left gaping holes in their defensive line because they thought that the terrain in those un/lightly guarded area's was almost impossiable to transverse? I think that number is closer to 23 Trillion actully. As for the credit score... hmm... hows about zip point s*** minus two? Eh...TBH, I'm not too sure about the Russian supplies. Either way, brining another enemy in put a strain on their supplies, if not halting them. France is retarded, yes. Yet we still have one of the better credits in the world... CREDIT IS OVERRATED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARKPLANT RISING Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Anyways, one thing we can say is that the debt, whether 23 or 100 trillion, is that they can never hope to get it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 The world DOES seem to rely on America.America has gotten an ego over it' date=' though...[/quote'] Hardly. America seems to like thinking that everyone relies on it. Which is probably why America butts into things that aren't even related to America. The entire reason America is in the Middle East is because um... Soviets... wait... um... Totalitarian leaders... wait... um... terrorists... wait... um... to protect the citizens from terrorists... wait... um... to bring Democracy... wait... um... terrorists again... nvm... oil. I also don't get why everyone is acting like America is some amazing supernatural benevolent force. I guess these people forgot about South America, Southeast Asian countries, African countries, and (more recently) Europe. We're there because of oil. America sucks. The ideals of America rock. This coming from an Irish/British teenager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Benevolant means kind doesnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankee Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Benevolant means kind doesnt it? ...In bed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.