Lets Stop George Bush before he Destroys the Whole Planet Earth.

BTW Kraj is a very astute and articulate guy, I'm glad somebody can see the difference between criticism of an action and personal abuse.

Brian
 
Brianwarnock said:
Germany was never going to invade GB, he actually wanted to do a deal we keep our Empire he gets Europe, but unlike those sitting on the sidelines getting rich we decided to fight evil.

Going to disagree with you here Bri, hope you don't mind :p

1) Neville Chamberlain did a deal with Hitler once. What came of that?
2) The UK was of vital strategic importance to the invasion of Europe. The UK had to be added to the reich to cut off the crucial supply routes from the United States.
3) The battle of Britain was a total commitment to achieve point 2. Why it didn't happen?
a) Radar
b) The UK being an island
c) The geniuses who designed the spitfire (and those who flew them of course)
d) Hitler switching his air superiority campaign from the airfields to the cities
e) Supplies from the US (had to slip that one in :p )
4) The agreement to keep your empire was worthless because of point 1) and because the Japanese (who were solely interested in conquest) were a superior force in the Pacific. The fall of Singapore for example.
5) I would like to remind you that US military casualties in world war 2 was going on towards 300,000. Yes this probably includes the war in the Pacific but the UK's empire extended there too. I really don't think 'sitting on the sidelines' is an apt way to describe the US's involvement.
 
Hi Dan slight delay as the missus stole the computer to order books:)

1 I was not talking about Neville Chamberlain, but Hitler's offers to Churchill from 1940 - 42
2 If Britain and Germany made a pact who was America supplying?
3 The battle of Britain was Hitlers alternative to risking an invasion afte being rebutted by Churchill
d Churchill was a ruthless bastard , he knew that if we bombed German cities they would retaliate by bombing ours and thus our airfields would be spared.
e US supplies were vital , its just that they cost us all our overseas investments, they were not free.
4 Ah yes the Japs. The war was over for Germany immediately after Pearl Harbour, with the Japs moving south thr Russians could move millions of troups from their Eastern borders to their Western front. But if we hadn't been fighting in Europe then who knows how things would have gone in the East.
5 The sitting on the sidelines refers to the period upto Japan and Germany declaring war on the USA, and I in no way want to minimise the human loss to america, but it was the one nation that came out of WW2 richer than when it started.

My sole objection is to the we won the war without us you would be speaking German brigade, oh and that we didn't get charged for our goods.


Brian
 
Brianwarnock said:
Hi Dan slight delay as the missus stole the computer to order books:)

How rude :mad: :p


Brianwarnock said:
1 I was not talking about Neville Chamberlain, but Hitler's offers to Churchill from 1940 - 42

I understand but do you really think Churchill even considered these offers as sincere, especially with Hitler's past record for keeping to agreements? The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact being another good example.

Brianwarnock said:
2 If Britain and Germany made a pact who was America supplying?

Well this is precisely the reason why the UK had to fall because of it's strategic location. Hitler had made plans to conquer the US (the development of long-range bombers) - removing the UK from the allied map was crucial for the implementation of these plans.
Brianwarnock said:
3 The battle of Britain was hitlers alternative to risking an invasion afte being rebutted by Churchill

Churchill's rebuttal was well grounded. It was an attempt to delay the involvement of the UK until the completion of Operation Barbarossa. Once Russia had fallen, you would have been next, IMHO.

Brianwarnock said:
d Chuchill was a ruthless bastard , he knew that if we bombed German cities they would retaliate by bombing ours and thus our airfields would be spared.

US military involvement was not forthcoming at the time, I guess desperate times calls for desperate measures. With total air superiority to the Luftwaffe, the UK would have fallen.

Brianwarnock said:
e Us supplies were vital , its just that they cost us all our overseas investments, they were not free.

I agree, to be honest Roosevelt's delay is still something I don't get. Probably something along the lines of Chamberlain's initial approach of appeasment but carried to a much further extent.

Brianwarnock said:
4 Ah yes the Japs. The war was over for Germany immediately after Pearl Harbour, with the Japs moving south thr Russians could move millions of troups from their Eastern borders to their Western front. But if we hadn't been fighting in Europe then who knows how things would have gone in the East.

Indeed.

Brianwarnock said:
5 The sitting on the sidelines refers to the period upto Japan and Germany declaring war on the USA, and I in no way want to minimise the human loss to america, but it was the one nation that came out of WW2 richer than when it started.

You have to remember that Chamberlain made his own excuses for inattendance at the beginning of hostilities. Roosevelt was achieving his own plans of recovery from the Great Depression with the New Deal.The involvement in war that was occuring thousands of miles away would have been seen as impacting on this. I understand how some may see this in a bitter light, but Chamberlain did much worse to the Czechs with the Munich agreement.

Brianwarnock said:
My sole objection is to the we won the war without us you would be speaking German brigade, oh and that we didn't get charged for our goods.

I understand, but I hope you appreciate why I wanted to point out the US casualties in the conflict. The delay was there, there is no arguing against it and there is a good argument that the Marshall plan was a money-making exercise. However I have known US citizens who were involved in the D-Day landings and visited the American cemetry in Cambridge, UK. I didn't want to allow that to get brushed under the carpet as it were.
 
dan-cat said:
I understand, but I hope you appreciate why I wanted to point out the US casualties in the conflict. The delay was there, there is no arguing against it and there is a good argument that the Marshall plan was a money-making exercise. However I have known US citizens who were involved in the D-Day landings and visited the American cemetry in Cambridge, UK. I didn't want to allow that to get brushed under the carpet as it were.

You could also point to the many volunteers who fought with us before war was declared on the US.

Agreed Churchill would not trust Hitler, but accepting the offer may have bought us time, especially as Churchill's on the beaches speach hinted that he knew the US would eventually join the war, I can't quickly find it on the web but the last line is "until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might,steps foreward to the rescue and liberation of the old."

Brian
 
Last edited:
Brianwarnock said:
Agreed Churchill would not trust Hitler, but accepting the offer may have bought us time, especially as Churchill's on the beaches speach hinted that he knew the US would eventually join the war, I can't quickly find it on the web but the last line is "until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might,steps foreward to the rescue and liberation of the old."

I imagine that Churchill thought the possibility of going to war with Germany with an Eastern front was seen to be less dangerous than without it.
 
Brianwarnock said:
Quote from Rich about me


Just for the record I have no lineage back to America

Fathers side is from lowland Scots via Northern Ireland, Mothers almost pure Welsh, but there was a Hamilton in there a few generations ago.

I suppose Rich thinks anybody not attacking America must be American:(


Brian
Just a joke Brian and your closeness to a US airbase?
 
dan-cat said:
Going to disagree with you here Bri, hope you don't mind :p

1) Neville Chamberlain did a deal with Hitler once. What came of that?
2) The UK was of vital strategic importance to the invasion of Europe. The UK had to be added to the reich to cut off the crucial supply routes from the United States.
3) The battle of Britain was a total commitment to achieve point 2. Why it didn't happen?
a) Radar
b) The UK being an island
c) The geniuses who designed the spitfire (and those who flew them of course)
d) Hitler switching his air superiority campaign from the airfields to the cities
e) Supplies from the US (had to slip that one in :p )
4) The agreement to keep your empire was worthless because of point 1) and because the Japanese (who were solely interested in conquest) were a superior force in the Pacific. The fall of Singapore for example.
5) I would like to remind you that US military casualties in world war 2 was going on towards 300,000. Yes this probably includes the war in the Pacific but the UK's empire extended there too. I really don't think 'sitting on the sidelines' is an apt way to describe the US's involvement.


1/ Chamberlins deal with Hitler bought the UK time to re-arm since it had spent the twenties and most of the thirties disarming

2/ Hitler tried to achieve that and failed (as in WW1) through submarine warfare

3/a they didn't know we had it
b/ correct
c/The Hurricane actually formed the mainstay of Britains defence

5/ Russia lost appr. 20,000,000 the Commonwealth lost app. 1,000,000, the French lost appr. 1,500,000, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, perhaps you'd better explain
 
Rich said:
1/ Chamberlins deal with Hitler bought the UK time to re-arm since it had spent the twenties and most of the thirties disarming

So if I understand, When things go wrong, being disarmed is a bad thing. :rolleyes:
 
Rich said:
5/ Russia lost appr. 20,000,000 the Commonwealth lost app. 1,000,000, the French lost appr. 1,500,000, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, perhaps you'd better explain

The point was most certainly not to turn loss of life into a point scoring exercise.

For your benefit I'll re-post:

dan-cat said:
I really don't think 'sitting on the sidelines' is an apt way to describe the US's involvement.
 
dan-cat said:
Once Russia had fallen, you would have been next, IMHO.
.

Hitler had already tried during that little squabble called the Battle of Britain, what makes you think he could have succeeded a second time around?


US military involvement was not forthcoming at the time, I guess desperate times calls for desperate measures. With total air superiority to the Luftwaffe, the UK would have fallen.

The Krauts couldn't get air superiority over Britain, see previous response


I agree, to be honest Roosevelt's delay is still something I don't get. Probably something along the lines of Chamberlain's initial approach of appeasment but carried to a much further extent.

Roosevelt was coming up for re-election and there was a fierce anti-British sentiment in the US at the time.
Roosevelt had to promise the Americans that America would not get involved in the war in order to get re-elected. Don't you guys get any history lessons?

I understand how some may see this in a bitter light, but Chamberlain did much worse to the Czechs with the Munich agreement.


Chamberlin ultimately bought time, had he not you'd all be speaking German by now.
 
Rich said:
b/ correct

You know what? I think that's the very first time you've acknowledged me saying something as true. ;)
 
The United States wants the role of the worlds policeman yet refuses to accept the rules of those it pretends to be protecting.

When the ones it is protecting are too cowardly to define their own rules and face the wrath of terrorists who have infiltrated their countries, why SHOULD we listen to them?

As to the WW2 thread vs. comparison to current-day Israel, I don't claim the parallels were exact. My eyes ARE open a lot more than yours, Rich. I know you guys paid a terrible price in blood, sweat, and tears. It was called a World War and not an American War precisely because your guys and our guys were in the same bloody trenches (in this case, "bloody" is NOT meant as any form of slang or epithet). We bled together; our young men and women died in the same cause; WE (not the USA, but WE - including the UK forces and others) were victorious. So don't ascribe an incorrect viewpoint. We provided materials AND manpower to tip the balance - but you guys were in the crosshairs first.

What irks me here is that you can't or don't want to see the parallel, however, imperfect, between the UK during WW2 and Israel now. Yes, we help our friends. When our friends turn on us (and yes, some of the insurrectionists in the Middle East fall into that category), we often have to change our mind. Which is better? A. Letting things continue as they are in a bad situation, or B. helping others to make changes in their own government, or C. going in with lots of bombs and enough troops to turn a country into a big parking lot to impose our ideas? Well, in the case of Iraq, options A and B turned out to be no-go, leaving us with C. Were we right to be in Iraq? Look at the treatment done to the Kurds.

Oh, heck, we could diatribe this all day. Screw it. Rich, your ideas are not shared by all to whom you speak.
 
Rich said:
Hitler had already tried during that little squabble called the Battle of Britain, what makes you think he could have succeeded a second time around?

No eastern front and all the extra resources of Russia to back him up perhaps?
Anyway my point wasn't that Britain would fall but that it would have been next on Hitler's list. ie Hitler had every intention of invading Britain regardless of any pact.



Rich said:
The Krauts couldn't get air superiority over Britain, see previous response

I know, I gave a full list of why so, remember?

Rich said:
Don't you guys get any history lessons?

Well the good natured feel was nice while it lasted *sigh*


Rich said:
Chamberlin ultimately bought time, had he not you'd all be speaking German by now.

see previous response
 
The_Doc_Man said:
What irks me here is that you can't or don't want to see the parallel, however, imperfect, between the UK during WW2 and Israel now. Yes, we help our friends. When our friends turn on us (and yes, some of the insurrectionists in the Middle East fall into that category), we often have to change our mind. Which is better? A. Letting things continue as they are in a bad situation, or B. helping others to make changes in their own government, or C. going in with lots of bombs and enough troops to turn a country into a big parking lot to impose our ideas? Well, in the case of Iraq, options A and B turned out to be no-go, leaving us with C. Were we right to be in Iraq? Look at the treatment done to the Kurds.

Oh, heck, we could diatribe this all day. Screw it. Rich, your ideas are not shared by all to whom you speak.

There is absolutely no paralell between what the UK faced in 1940 and Israel now! We are not talking about the bloody 6day war, we're talking about a small group of nutters armed with frigging missiles. That bears no comparison to countries going to war en-masse.
Screw it Doc, you carry on supplying the bombs that blast innocent women and children to bits and hide behind the "defence of freedom" speech.
As for Iraq there's now a civil war there, how many thousands have lost their lives thanks to the almighty fu#* up by Bush and Bliar?
 
dan-cat said:
No eastern front and all the extra resources of Russia to back him up perhaps?
Anyway my point wasn't that Britain would fall but that it would have been next on Hitler's list. ie Hitler had every intention of invading Britain regardless of any pact.
The Eastern front hadn't been opened when the Battle of Britain was in operation, are you suggesting that he'd have come back for a second try?


Well the good natured feel was nice while it lasted *sigh*

I was just curious *heaves larger sigh*


see previous response
I was just paraphrasing the standard American pitch on the subject, did I do something wrong?:confused:
 
Rich said:
The Eastern front hadn't been opened when the Battle of Britain was in operation, are you suggesting that he'd have come back for a second try?

Yes, Hitler had clear plans to invade Russia. If he had succeeded, then, IMO, Hitler's attention would once again have turned to Britain. Simply because of it's strategic importance.



Rich said:
I was just curious *heaves larger sigh*
I was just paraphrasing the standard American pitch on the subject, did I do something wrong?:confused:

What I think you did was take an aggressive stand against me for no real reason. There isn't actually very much that I have said over the past few posts that you disagree with is there?
 
dan-cat said:
Yes, Hitler had clear plans to invade Russia. If he had succeeded, then, IMO, Hitler's attention would once again have turned to Britain. Simply because of it's strategic importance.


But he'd already tried it once, in order to invade the UK he had to wipe the RAF from the skies, had he come back for a second try the RAF would have grown even stronger to match it.
Plus there were diversions in the Middle East and the Balkans that drew his resources away from Russia
Maybe it was a close run thing but Germany could not match the losses it was suffering during the battle and Britain was not brought to its knees during the blitz. Neither was Germany brought to its knees by bombing which is why it's so strange that America still thinks it can win wars by bombing the crap out of a country.


What I think you did was take an aggressive stand against me for no real reason.
You mean the phrase is like a red rag to a bull?


There isn't actually very much that I have said over the past few posts that you disagree with is there
Well one or two minor points that I've let pass:p
 
Rich said:
But he'd already tried it once, in order to invade the UK he had to wipe the RAF from the skies, had he come back for a second try the RAF would have grown even stronger to match it.

I don't doubt that Churchill would have been ready for him.
I just think war between the UK and Germany would have been inevitable if Russia had been occupied. With Russia occupied, US involvement would have been guaranteed and the UK's strategic importance paramount.

Rich said:
Maybe it was a close run thing but Germany could not match the losses it was suffering during the battle and Britain was not brought to its knees during the blitz. Neither was Germany brought to its knees by bombing which is why it's so strange that America still thinks it can win wars by bombing the crap out of a country.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but from my understanding of the battle of Britain, if Germany had attained air superiority then the invasion of Britain was inevitable.


Rich said:
You mean the phrase is like a red rag to a bull?

Depends who's using it ;)


Rich said:
Well one or two minor points that I've let pass:p

Don't give me that - you marked down one of my answers as correct. I know you won't ever admit to agreeing with me but I'm banking that one :p
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom