PDA

View Full Version : Friendly chat about U.S. contribution to the war and beer.



Nick_Toznost
07-18-2005, 05:59 PM
I'm English.

Nick_Toznost
07-18-2005, 05:59 PM
I'm English.

JaguarMEX
07-18-2005, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it wasn't for WW2 I wouldn't be alive. God bless America. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

huggy87
07-18-2005, 06:19 PM
Well, we certainly have rude and boisterous folks here. Doesn't England have them too?

SkyChimp
07-18-2005, 06:20 PM
Whenever I meet a Brit, I say, "So you're from the land with all the roundy soccer punks?"

Nick_Toznost
07-18-2005, 06:35 PM
I didn't want to start an argument. I agree, we do have some pretty ignorant folks here. Everywhere does I would imagine, in some form or other. My heart sinks whenever we play foreign football matches and things get out of hand. Football hooliganism exists because these people have nothing else to believe in.

Bearcat99
07-18-2005, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I'm English and I've been to visit some relatives I have in the States numerous times. Quite frequently I have say, asked for a drink at a bar, or been introduced to someone who then begins a conversation that goes something like this:

"hey, you English?"

"yes"

"we saved your **** in World War 2" *

"er...thanks"

I never really know what to say to that afterwards.
Are Americans taught that in school?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No we arent taught that..... at least not in school... but like most countries we too have our ethnocentricities and our @ssholes.... from what I understand though there is a pretty liberal sprinkling of them throughout the world.


I doubt everyone in England drinks tea, all the women are ugly and all the men carry umbrellas, are gay and have bad teeth and surely all the food isnt that bad.........

Having said all that... dont let the few jersk you meet male you think that they represent America.... we are as diverse as the humanity that flocks so relentlessly to our doors....

JG7_Rall
07-18-2005, 06:46 PM
No, we aren't taught that America saved Britain in WWII -- however some narrowminded individuals seem to think that's what really happened. Just ignore it -- any educated American knows what really happened.

kweassa
07-18-2005, 06:48 PM
Don't mind them Nick_Toznost.

From our point of view in the Far East, Americans are bunch of English colonists drop-outs anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jarink
07-18-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Are Americans taught that in school? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we get that from TV and movies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Most people here learn nothing in school other than how to ditch class.

Nick_Toznost
07-18-2005, 06:58 PM
I can see from these replies that people are interpreting my post as an attack on American "ignorances" or something. I really wasn't. I was trying to be amusing. As far as I'm concerned you did save "our ars e" I just didn't know how someone of my generation could possibly give a reply to a comment like that. The Brits are much worse with the French though and say very similar things. Everything's cool though. As a closing point:
"Thanks to all allied nations who helped to fight tyranny in Europe, every country has their @ssholes, it's just best not to let them get into power".

Bearcat99
07-18-2005, 07:10 PM
Not at all... I can tell the usual American bashing post.... it's just that peoiple who think like that are @ssholes.... WW2 was a colective effort... that was fought and won by many... and IMO the whole out weighs any individual contribution. If The Battle of Britain had gone differently it would have been a different war all togehter.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif be sure...

arcadeace
07-18-2005, 07:15 PM
I assume you also talked to your relatives about this Nick and they must be a bunch of ignoramuses, enough so to influence your own simple-minded sarcasm.

Edit: I didn't read your above post. I guess I'm wrong about you.

MEGILE
07-18-2005, 07:17 PM
Ha.
I remember one time I was in Universal Studios florida,and I got talking to some Yank.
He was like, you seen "the Patriot" yet? And I replied nope, and he said don't watch it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

For Clarification, I'm not aware of any time during that war that the British locked people up in a church and burned it down...I guess the writers copied a part of WW2 History when the Nazis did do this in a town in the South of France.

Nick_Toznost
07-18-2005, 07:19 PM
Anyway bearcat, regarding your quote:

"I doubt everyone in England drinks tea, all the women are ugly and all the men carry umbrellas, are gay and have bad teeth and surely all the food isnt that bad........."


You could be right though....

I drink tea (regularly), I own an umbrella, my teeth are really bad and my cooking is not particularly good.

However I am not gay and have an extremely pretty fiance (who has perfect teeth). So I guess there is SOME truth in stereotypes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

When I recieved those ww2 related comments I really wasn't "offended" or anything, in fact on one occaision I was accompanied by my uncle who's a history teacher from Michigan. We all had a good laugh about it. What I said about "are you taught that in schools?" was a joke.

Megile, I had to watch "the Patriot" in a cinema in rural Kentucky. Everyone cheered and clapped whenever the Brits got licked. Lots of boos and hisses during that church scene too. Scary stuff. Needless to say I kept my mouth shut.

ArcadeAce, Thankyou for your edit but I can't really see what was so offensive in my first post. "God bless America" was meant sincerely. The whole point of this thread was the "story" about my grandparents meeting and the fact that "saved your ars e" was more true than the persons who said this realised.

Gibbage1
07-18-2005, 07:21 PM
As with any country/culture/civilization, we have our fair share of a-holes. Sorry about that, but I am sure we can find a few Limey's that would tell a Yank "If we did not win BoB, you would be speaking German" or something similar.

zombiewolf92553
07-18-2005, 07:22 PM
just smile at the ding **** and move on.
or just say" yeah but we gave you the Beatles"

Besides I thought SPAM won the War

darkhorizon11
07-18-2005, 08:32 PM
Or you could quote from the Simpsons:

But we saved your @ss in World War Three!

horseback
07-18-2005, 08:32 PM
Interesting topic. As a counterpoint, when I was seven years old (1960-61ish), my father was stationed in the UK by the US Air Force. We lived in Ipswich, and then got US housing at RAF Shepherd's Grove, which is located just outside the village of Stanton, in Norfolk (the real Norfolk, for those of you in Virginia. By the way, you pronounce it incorrectly).

Once I managed to comprehend the local accent, I realized that all English kids believe that Yanks are wienies because:

1) our 'footballers' wear pads and helmets.

2) our military gets paid a living wage (by British standards)and therefore, can afford to date and marry the prettier English girls (i.e., the ones with good teeth, apparently)

3) every time there's a World War, we wait three years and then jump in after all the real work is done and try to take all the credit for the victory.

4) we drive on the wrong side of the road and our cars are too bloody big (we had a Renault Dauphin, which was a VW Bug wannabe).

5) we take a chill easily, because the boys all wear long pants, even in the summertime (no contest, we came from Arizona to England in January)

6) our food (except for pastries) has to have some flavor.

Did I miss anything?

cheers

horseback

Slickun
07-18-2005, 08:37 PM
Whaaa....

We didn't? That's what I was taught. (joke)

I'm in educational administration. I promise that isn't what is taught in the US schools. I promise. I think the old Soviet Union's contribution is underreported, however.

Ditching class is what is taught, mostly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
07-18-2005, 08:39 PM
Yeah, you missed how you keep dropping letters from words.

ie. color

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

It makes sense though. Why have the extra letters..

we shud rite everee thing foneemikly. it mayks it ees e er to reed. no?

DaBallz
07-18-2005, 08:42 PM
HEY, we did force the firing of Montgomery.
That did save your butts!

Da...

Slickun
07-18-2005, 08:47 PM
yeah. What the frick is a LORRY? Is that like a truck?

Can you guys not figure out how to put battereis and a bulb in a tube and use it as a flashlight? Still using torches?

In Arkansas a lift is used to support a hernia.

And last...whay can't you guys say the letter "R"? Whats with that wussie "aaah thing? Like, instead of saying "Arthur" you say Ahthuh"? But, the kicker is...there seems to be a rule where you will actually say the letter properly, but only some of the time. Like if the word starts with it. BTW, that last sentence would be pronounced :

Like if the wuhd stahts with it. See? Wussie!

See, that's a cop out. Say aah everytime, go all out with it. So, Richard would go Aahchud or Wichud instead of Richud.

Sorry guys. Just having fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Some of us Yanks are "R" challenged as well. Some folks in Virginia, Bahstan and New Yoak have trouble with it as well.

Drives us Arkansans, with proper diction, crazy.

bird_brain
07-18-2005, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
"we saved your **** in World War 2" *
.....
I never really know what to say to that afterwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe the appropriate response is something to the effect of ...
"Is that the Royal we, because I don't see an 80 year old pilot sitting next to you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
07-18-2005, 09:19 PM
Its 4:20 am, what the hell are all us Brits still doing awake.. even p1ngu is still flying on Hyperlobby.

Pirschjaeger
07-18-2005, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I'm English and I've been to visit some relatives I have in the States numerous times. Quite frequently I have say, asked for a drink at a bar, or been introduced to someone who then begins a conversation that goes something like this:

"hey, you English?"

"yes"

"we saved your **** in World War 2" *

"er...thanks"

I never really know what to say to that afterwards.
Are Americans taught that in school?
I guess you did "save my ****" as otherwise I wouldn't have been born: My Grandmother was a New Yorker who worked for Time magazine who was over in UK covering the US entry in the war. She met my Grandfather who was a British serviceman. They got it on and conceived my mother. If it wasn't for WW2 I wouldn't be alive. God bless America.

*As quoted by Moe of Moe's Tavern in the Simpsons. I have heard it for real though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Nick, don't worry about it; ignorance is quite global and it's probably got more to do with the popularity of Hollywood movies or propaganda used in the form of education.

I live in China but I'm not Chinese. I'm blond, blue eyes, 6ft, 220lbs, you know, the typical Aryan look. People always ask if I'm German when they first meet me. After I tell them yes, 20% of Chinese will always raise one arm and shout "Heil Hitler!".

When I was in Canada the same thing happened only much less.

I sometimes meet Americans that claim Canada is America's 51rst state. I guess Hollywood never made a movie about 1812. I've also met a Brit that told me England saved Canada's butt in WW2 . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

You will always hear someone say "if Germany had won we'd all be speaking German today.". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That's a totally illogical and uneducated assumption. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And here's a good one you often hear in China; "Chairman Mao saved China from a nuclear holocaust." The Chinese were taught in school that the USA ws about to drop a-bombs on Chinese so Chairman Mao sent all the students from the cities into the villages. When the Americans realized they could kill everyone they decided not to bomb China.

I have met Palistinians and other Arabs that believe that the US is fully responsible for taking their land and giving it to the Jews.

So you see, this is everywhere. Ignorance is neither racial or prejudice, rather it's the people armed with ignorance. Read my quote at the bottom. All to often the teacher is unemployed.

BTW, if Germany had won, you'd all be drinking good beer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Fritz

Kocur_
07-18-2005, 10:23 PM
Slickun Posted Mon July 18 2005 19:37

"I'm in educational administration. I promise that isn't what is taught in the US schools. I promise. I think the old Soviet Union's contribution is underreported, however."

Since you mentioned this: it is underreported! For how many US kids know that USSR contributed that much to war effort of both sides?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif They did spend 1/3 of war as Hitlers's ally, and the rest 2/3 as US/UK ally after all...

Amazing how war time propaganda...ummm...claims are still alive! They are IMHO partially responsible for some silly todays notions.

Nick_Toznost
07-18-2005, 10:23 PM
Its 5 a.m. here and I'm still awake, making the most of my day off I guess. I think I shouldn't have named the topic "the US contribution" as I think everyone thought I was being sarcastic. To go back to my original point, and I'm sorry to bore you with tales of my American ancestry, but my grandmother wrote a book (which has been out of print since the mid 50s) called "The Churchill Convoy". It was about how between 1939-1943 she went back and forth across the Atlantic on convoys, dodging U-boats, reporting for the US press.
The title was due to one occaision, (being on a ship with Winston Churchill,when he was en route to meet FDR) however the point of the book was to outline the fact that the US was sending vital food aid to the UK well before their official involvement in December 1941, a fact that is often overlooked, the rationing situation could have been a lot worse without it.
So, You did save our ars e in WW2 in my opinion. Every war vet I've spoken to acknowledges the same, although probably not in those words, in fact you normally have to get past them saying "they stole our women" first. US G.I.s must have had a fetish for "ugly women with bad teeth" I guess.


"you English?"

"yes"

"We saved your **** in World War One"

A popular phrase in the 20s and 30s

Discuss

p1ngu666
07-18-2005, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Its 4:20 am, what the hell are all us Brits still doing awake.. even p1ngu is still flying on Hyperlobby. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im often on late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

btw bear, i dont drink tea, the woman vary like anywhere else in the world, some of my female friends are OMG beatiful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. all the men arent gay, not everyone has bad teeth.

the food is good if its cooked by someone whos good at it, its actully very varied as britain is very multicultral now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

and yes, america always turns up late for world wars http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
and there modern cars suck. there old 50's-70's ones are cool tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bearcat99
07-18-2005, 10:32 PM
You do know I was being quite sarcastic right... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

p1ngu666
07-18-2005, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
You do know I was being quite sarcastic right... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
thats very unamerican of u bear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Saunders1953
07-18-2005, 10:49 PM
Nick--a couple of my friends at work were good- naturedly teasing each other about their respective nationalities, when it ended on this note:

Yank: ...yeah, but we saved your *** in WWII.

Brit: Yes, when you finally bloody well got around to it!

RNZAFJay
07-18-2005, 10:55 PM
I feel Americas biggest contribution wasn't manpower but steel. America's vast industrial might was a big part of winning WW2, even if it was often lent to other nations such as the Britsh Commonwealth and the USSR under "lend-lease" agreements. By the mid-point of WW2, I think EVERY allied nation was equipt with American gear, tanks, planes at least in part.

While Europes industry was being smashed, the USA's was being built up at an insane rate. This is how the US became a superpower after WW2. And the weapons factories never shut down, arms is still an important industry to the US.

Having said that noone can take away the resolve and determination of the people who had to put up with that war for 6 years. If Britain hadn't have resisted the Nazi's from the beginning, Americas might would have been worth 0.

All the Allies played their part and we can all be proud. To say anyone "saved" anyone else is just asking for trouble.

huggy87
07-18-2005, 11:36 PM
When I first read this post this morning, I thought, aaah.. You had encountered the stereotypical Ugly American looking for some gratitude for something in which they played no part. Then later today, I watched a show about britain immediately after the war. You guys voted Churchill out of office right after the war. Maybe you are ungrateful, to your own at least.

(Edit: I am sure there is a lot more history to the churchill firing than I am aware)

TAGERT.
07-18-2005, 11:46 PM
http://www.csb.yale.edu/people/steitz/berman/hershey-park.gif

arcadeace
07-19-2005, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
You do know I was being quite sarcastic right... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that's funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Zacast
07-19-2005, 01:37 AM
When I was in high school taking world history, I learned about how the Americans did a great job in D-day, the pacific, lend lease, etc. I also learned about the RAF and how they smacked around the Luftwaffe in the BoB, Stalingrad, etc.

So no I would say that we arn't taught that America saved everyone and is responsible alone for winning WW2. =)

Like the others have said, there are lots of Azzholes in every country and they don't represent all of us.

Blackdog5555
07-19-2005, 01:59 AM
No way; What we Yanks (or Colonialist as you Brits like to call us)are actually taught in school is that we kick England and King George III's butt in the Revolutionary war. (Then you limeys burned our Whitehouse as payback). Franklin D. Roosevelt actually saved England in WWII. But we are taught that we save the most ungratefull Frenches floral backside in the "Big One."

ImpStarDuece
07-19-2005, 02:58 AM
I think that 'international history' is something that is neglected in the US education system (as well as the Japanese one which I now work in).

In 1996 (when I was all of 16) I went to school in Issaquah, near Seattle, Washington, for about 8 months. Allbeit, this period represents a very brief slice of a students education but the generally taught history consisted of US history, not international history. The Civil War, Declaration of independence, signing of the Constitution, Manifest Destiny, the Civil rights movement and so on.

On the weekend I got into a discussion about this with a group of post-graduate and post-doctoral educated Americans on the comparison between the American school system and the Australian/British school system, specifically the way history is taught at Junior High and Senior High levels and at university (most of us being either senior high or Junior high teachers).

The conclusion that we came to was that -generally speaking- the history taught to US students is internal history (to our eyes anyway). What foreign history that is taught is also usually Amero-centric. Which is understandable, Americans want to teach and learn about American history. The majority of people I talked to stated that they did very little from a non-US perspective. Some even stated that they were taught almost nothing from outside a US perspective.

I compared this with my educational history and was a little shocked. I did early Australian history in primary school and then really failed to come back to it, I always considered my local history rather boring. Instead, during late primary school and Junior high I ended up being compulsorialy taught early Roman and Greek history, Indo-Chinese history (China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma) over the 1780-1980 period, Indian/British history from 1800 onwards, Chinese history from the Manchu dynasty and the post colonial disintergration of the British, German and French empires. All still very Euro-centric but fairly broad in range.

During Senior High I looked primarily at WW1 history from the English and German perspectives, the evolution of Wiemar German and the rise of National Socialism, WW2 history (primarily Australian and Canadian involvement as I had a Canadian history teacher) and then US/Soviet relationships in the Cold War period.

At universtiy I continued this further, with studies on European and American imperialism and Japanese industrial history, ending up doing my honours thesis on the role of the Royal Navy in establishing international trade.

Most of my American friends were suprised that 1) I had been taught very little Australian history,
2) I had studied both ancient and modern history at school,
3) I had studied history as part of an economics degree,
and
4) I considered international history far more important than local history

The Brits and Kiwis that I was with had simialr (if not quite as broad) historical studies under their belts while only one of the dozen or so of my American friends said that she had seriously studied non-US history.

RNZAFJay
07-19-2005, 03:23 AM
I teach in Japan too and I agree, their history is also very centric. Everything is about Japan and if it isnt, its about America. Nothing else much exists.

In NZ too, we were taught history from the Greek-Persian Wars and the Roman Empire all the way too World War 2 and Vietnam. We spent a lot of time on the reformation, the magna carta and the American civil war, South Afirca and on and on. Also a lot of British and NZ history, of course.

The World War One and Two history we were taught, spent a lot of time explaining the "causes" of the wars more than who was "right" (we of course can just assume it was us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Hitlers rise to power is a very interesting peice of history many seem to know little about. Also the Meiji Revolution that pushed Japan towards nationalism and the Sino-Japanese war BEFORE World War 2.

Frankly the "we saved your asses, in World War 2" statement just smacks of ignorance despite the US's huge contribution, which I will readily admit. I know many Americans however dont have this view.

RNZAFJay
07-19-2005, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You will always hear someone say "if Germany had won we'd all be speaking German today.". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That's a totally illogical and uneducated assumption. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Ive had the same thing with Japan instead of Germany,

"If we hadnt saved you, you would be specking Japanese"

To which I reply
"I do speak Japanese so you didnt do a very good jobhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif"

If Japan had won the war, we would all be driving small cars, working 9am-10pm, 6 days and getting drunk every night in a Karaoke barhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Everything would be cute and cuddly, even the opressive stuff.

ploughman
07-19-2005, 05:20 AM
So for the next one, the USA is in from the begining, the Commonwealth'll show up two years late sporting bodacious threads, bulging wallets, and large calibre weapons. The Germans and the Japanese'll be neutral, everyone'll be scared of the Italians and the Swiss'll go down fighting.

Top souvenirs'll be trophy wives from conquered nations, full length leather coats in either 'sinister black' or 'camp beige,' and ingenious multi-purpose knife/tool sets with an inlaid "Hell-vetia or bust" motif.

skabbe
07-19-2005, 05:37 AM
Hey Fritz. Do you often get the chance of pulling home a woman because your blond?

Pirschjaeger
07-19-2005, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
So for the next one, the USA is in from the begining, the Commonwealth'll show up two years late sporting bodacious threads, bulging wallets, and large calibre weapons. The Germans and the Japanese'll be neutral, everyone'll be scared of the Italians and the Swiss'll go down fighting.

Top souvenirs'll be trophy wives from conquered nations, full length leather coats in either 'sinister black' or 'camp beige,' and ingenious multi-purpose knife/tool sets with an inlaid "Hell-vetia or bust" motif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a little known fact that Luxemburg started the war and Lichtenstein contributed the most but it was really Wales that finished it. Really, it's a little known fact. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-19-2005, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
Hey Fritz. Do you often get the chance of pulling home a woman because your blond? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not about the hair. It's the feet. You know what they say about big feet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Big socks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Nick_Toznost
07-19-2005, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
When I first read this post this morning, I thought, aaah.. You had encountered the stereotypical Ugly American looking for some gratitude for something in which they played no part. Then later today, I watched a show about britain immediately after the war. You guys voted Churchill out of office right after the war. Maybe you are ungrateful, to your own at least.

(Edit: I am sure there is a lot more history to the churchill firing than I am aware) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was voted out because people associated him with war, and rationing. Everyone wanted a change. The people were aware he was a great leader, but the opposing Labour party were offering a whole new life. They set up the National health service and the welfare state, unemployment benefit and so on. " We will look after you from cradle to grave" they said. There's not much left of the welfare state now, just bad healthcare but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Churchill was in fact reelected as PM in the late 50s (I think?) when he was an amphetamine-riddled alcoholic*, as a nod of appreciation.

As far as I know he was an alcoholic in WW2 aswell. I went on a tour of Churchills Kent house a few years ago and we were informed that during the war years he would begin the day with a bottle of Champagne at 8 am, drink a litre of brandy over the course of the afternoon/early evening, and finish up with Port at bedtime. An alcoholic chain-smoker, and he made it into his 90s. That's what "life force" does for you I suppose.

Kocur_
07-19-2005, 09:16 AM
RNZAFJay Posted Tue July 19 2005 02:32
"quote:
You will always hear someone say "if Germany had won we'd all be speaking German today.". That's a totally illogical and uneducated assumption.

Fritz


I agree. Ive had the same thing with Japan instead of Germany,

"If we hadnt saved you, you would be specking Japanese"

To which I reply
"I do speak Japanese so you didnt do a very good job"

If Japan had won the war, we would all be driving small cars, working 9am-10pm, 6 days and getting drunk every night in a Karaoke bar. Everything would be cute and cuddly, even the opressive stuff."

Without any disrespect to quoted above: i envy you that from-far-away perspective. I really do. For i ask myself: who would speak German? Who would drink good beer? Who would drive small car?
Surely not anyone of millions murdered in Europe and Asia. WW2 was conflict born out of unbeliveable hate, will to humiliate and ultimately kill or enslave other people. Started by Germany, Soviet Union and Japan with regimes there in power which very basic idea was their superiority over attacked and right to do with other people freedom and life whatever they wish if only those people happened to be "wrong" nationality or social class or both. One may think conveniently about frontlines only. About politics, about industy effort, about soldiers bravery. But what about vast occupied teritories in Europe and Asia, far behind frontlines where people's lives were cheaper than one pistol bullet? Or much less... One may see Adolf Galland joking with British pilots, one may see Japanese kids waving at MacArthurs car passing, one may see picture of smiling "Uncle Joe". But i see mass graves, children with their heads smashed against the wall, men dying slowly, very slowly, among desert of snow...Ocean of humiliation, suffering, helpless rage, fear and death. And tears...An ocean of tears...Including my mother's, who still, after 60 years, sometimes weeps silently because "they came and took away my daddie"...And my heart breakes. I envy you that perspective.

RNZAFJay
07-19-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
RNZAFJay Posted Tue July 19 2005 02:32
"quote:
You will always hear someone say "if Germany had won we'd all be speaking German today.". That's a totally illogical and uneducated assumption.

Fritz


I agree. Ive had the same thing with Japan instead of Germany,

"If we hadnt saved you, you would be specking Japanese"

To which I reply
"I do speak Japanese so you didnt do a very good job"

If Japan had won the war, we would all be driving small cars, working 9am-10pm, 6 days and getting drunk every night in a Karaoke bar. Everything would be cute and cuddly, even the opressive stuff."

Without any disrespect to quoted above: i envy you that from-far-away perspective. I really do. For i ask myself: who would speak German? Who would drink good beer? Who would drive small car?
Surely not anyone of millions murdered in Europe and Asia. WW2 was conflict born out of unbeliveable hate, will to humiliate and ultimately kill or enslave other people. Started by Germany, Soviet Union and Japan with regimes there in power which very basic idea was their superiority over attacked and right to do with other people freedom and life whatever they wish if only those people happened to be "wrong" nationality or social class or both. One may think conveniently about frontlines only. About politics, about industy effort, about soldiers bravery. But what about vast occupied teritories in Europe and Asia, far behind frontlines where people's lives were cheaper than one pistol bullet? Or much less... One may see Adolf Galland joking with British pilots, one may see Japanese kids waving at MacArthurs car passing, one may see picture of smiling "Uncle Joe". But i see mass graves, children with their heads smashed against the wall, men dying slowly, very slowly, among desert of snow...Ocean of humiliation, suffering, helpless rage, fear and death. And tears...An ocean of tears...Including my mother's, who still, after 60 years, sometimes weeps silently because "they came and took away my daddie"...And my heart breakes. I envy you that perspective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not blind to the hate and injustice of world war 2. I know people on both sides who saw it including my own family and that of my girlfriend (japanese in case you ask). Yes the murder of 6 million innocent people by the Nazi's and two atomic bombs (as well as million dead from firebombing), on top of vicous fighting is no laughing matter.

I was not being serious. Sorry if it caused offense.

Raptor_20thFG
07-19-2005, 09:40 AM
My Favorite moment with the british was in Afghanistan I ran into some British boys and I will be D**ned if they didnt say good morning yank with a wink. And I laughed and replied good morning limey. Things never change...


Disclamier: No Malice was meant whatsoever towards anyone it just brought back memories
Thank you

stathem
07-19-2005, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
When I first read this post this morning, I thought, aaah.. You had encountered the stereotypical Ugly American looking for some gratitude for something in which they played no part. Then later today, I watched a show about britain immediately after the war. You guys voted Churchill out of office right after the war. Maybe you are ungrateful, to your own at least.

(Edit: I am sure there is a lot more history to the churchill firing than I am aware) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was voted out because people associated him with war, and rationing. Everyone wanted a change. The people were aware he was a great leader, but the opposing Labour party were offering a whole new life. They set up the National health service and the welfare state, unemployment benefit and so on. " We will look after you from cradle to grave" they said. There's not much left of the welfare state now, just bad healthcare but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Churchill was in fact reelected as PM in the late 50s (I think?) when he was an amphetamine-riddled alcoholic*, as a nod of appreciation.

As far as I know he was an alcoholic in WW2 aswell. I went on a tour of Churchills Kent house a few years ago and we were informed that during the war years he would begin the day with a bottle of Champagne at 8 am, drink a litre of brandy over the course of the afternoon/early evening, and finish up with Port at bedtime. An alcoholic chain-smoker, and he made it into his 90s. That's what "life force" does for you I suppose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he was voted out because the shock of WW2 smashed a lot of class-riddled society that was extant prior to and during WW2 and people wanted a better way. The people loved him but he wasn't the leader to produce a more egalatarian peace time society.

Kocur_
07-19-2005, 09:55 AM
There was no offence at all! All i mean is not to think that joyfully about those what-if scenarios, which are built around Nazi victory in Europe or militarist Japanese regime in Asia.
Btw that 6 million is too low...

NIK__14
07-19-2005, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zacast:
When I was in high school taking world history, I learned about how the Americans did a great job in D-day, the pacific, lend lease, etc. I also learned about the RAF and how they smacked around the Luftwaffe in the BoB, Stalingrad, etc.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmmmm....... stalingrad? RAF?

Chuck_Older
07-19-2005, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I'm English and I've been to visit some relatives I have in the States numerous times. Quite frequently I have say, asked for a drink at a bar, or been introduced to someone who then begins a conversation that goes something like this:

"hey, you English?"

"yes"

"we saved your **** in World War 2" *

"er...thanks"

I never really know what to say to that afterwards.
Are Americans taught that in school?
I guess you did "save my ****" as otherwise I wouldn't have been born: My Grandmother was a New Yorker who worked for Time magazine who was over in UK covering the US entry in the war. She met my Grandfather who was a British serviceman. They got it on and conceived my mother. If it wasn't for WW2 I wouldn't be alive. God bless America.

*As quoted by Moe of Moe's Tavern in the Simpsons. I have heard it for real though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me get this straight.

You went to a bar, and expected to have stimulating intellectual discourse?

That, my friend, was the first mistake http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Do not assume to think that just because you met some dimwitted idiots at a bar the few times you've visited the US, that Americans beleive that they won WWII by themselves

May I suggest you stop going to these bars that attract dumb@ss drunkards? There's plenty of places to have a pint or four that do not have the clientele of the average Betty Ford rehab center

Chuck_Older
07-19-2005, 10:42 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ploughman:
So for the next one, the USA is in from the begining, the Commonwealth'll show up two years late sporting bodacious threads, bulging wallets, and large calibre weapons. The Germans and the Japanese'll be neutral, everyone'll be scared of the Italians and the Swiss'll go down fighting.

QUOTE]

You must be joking. For your information, the US did not show up "two years late". We were demonstrably engaged in acts of war against the Germans in the Atlantic well before December 7th 1941.

Nick_Toznost
07-19-2005, 10:50 AM
Chuck, thanks for the advice but I really wasn't expecting "intellectual discourse".
When I have visited the States I have found 99 percent of Americans very friendly and welcoming.
I live near a golf course, so we get a lot of US citizens visiting near here, you should see them trying to order a drink, people putting on really fake US accents and saying "gee wizz" and suchlike.

Note my post about pre-1941 US-UK aid convoys on prev page.

I guess you like the Clash then. Topper Headon lives down the road from me. Miserable bloke.

Chuck_Older
07-19-2005, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:


I guess you like the Clash then. Topper Headon lives down the road from me. Miserable bloke. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You know, that doesn't surprise me one bit!

darkhorizon11
07-19-2005, 02:30 PM
I have my own opinions on this issue, I'm not going to blab them as most of you won't agree and I have no real intention of arguing anyways. But the real fight over all this I think would be if someone asked the question:

Could the other Allies have won without US involvement? (IE if Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Rubin James never occured)

horseback
07-19-2005, 03:15 PM
Maybe a more interesting question: could Roosevelt have gotten away with continuing to provoke the Germans if Hitler hadn't declared war on the US first?

Suppose that Congress forced him to concentrate all our military resources on the Japanese, and stop sending all those war materials (and possibly even food) to Britain and the Soviets. Consider the 're-direction' of all those destoyers from western Atlantic convoy escort to the Pacific to nail Japanese submarines, the limiting of any aid to the British Commonwealth to its use against the Japanese in the Pacific and CBI.

I think this was a more likely scenario, if Hitler could have exhibited a little more restraint (it could easily have happened, if he'd waited another week before his declaration of war). I'm no expert on the politics of the time, but I have a very strong impression that Roosevelt would have had a tough time expanding the scope of the American war effort without Hitler's cooperation.

cheers

horseback

Kocur_
07-19-2005, 03:18 PM
darkhorizon11 Posted Tue July 19 2005 13:30

"Could the other Allies have won without US involvement?"

I.e. ~80.000 T-34's "alone", without ~80.000 Shermans? Red Army without most of their trucks? No US aluminium? No Liberty freighters? (and so on and on...) Simply: no.

Aaron_GT
07-19-2005, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think he was voted out because the shock of WW2 smashed a lot of class-riddled society that was extant prior to and during WW2 and people wanted a better way. The people loved him but he wasn't the leader to produce a more egalatarian peace time society. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill was very much associated with the class system, being an aristocrat, a descendant of Marlborough, just as Princess Diana was. Some of his proposals prior to WW1 (when he was Home Secretary) would seem quite shocking now, although they were more mainstream in 1910. Between 1910 and 1945 more people became eligible to vote and the left (Labour - mixed market socialists) moved away from eugenics towards the welfare state which played better with the larger electorate. Also some businesses were in favour of at least health care reform as the changes in health care necessitated by war led to a healthier workforce and improved productivity. Socialising health care took risk away from business whilst delivering improved productivity. (Health care for the poor in Britain in the 1930s was shockingly bad - socialised health care is no panacea, but it was what the doctor ordered in 1945 to break the inertia).

What shocked me is that several years ago in a small bookshop I found a slim volume, a tract by the British Communist party, published in 1941 (prior to Barbarossa of course), and approved for printing by the government calling for Churchill to be removed. What surprised me was that it got printed. Of course in 1941-2 Churchill was very unpopular in Cabinet and nearly ousted, but this was kept out of the press at the time.

Aaron_GT
07-19-2005, 03:42 PM
Kocur: from 1941 onwards the USA was indeed the arsenal of the Allies. Not quite of democracy given that some had to go to the USSR.

Xiolablu3
07-19-2005, 05:08 PM
Hehe this is a funny post.

BTW I didnt know all English women were supposed to be ugly??

What about Kate Winslet, Kelly Brook, Kate Beckinsale etc???

Is there a general beleif that all English women are ugly??

Xiolablu3
07-19-2005, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
darkhorizon11 Posted Tue July 19 2005 13:30

"Could the other Allies have won without US involvement?"

I.e. ~80.000 T-34's "alone", without ~80.000 Shermans? Red Army without most of their trucks? No US aluminium? No Liberty freighters? (and so on and on...) Simply: no. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, I think they could have won, it would have just taken longer. Don't forget about Englands MASSIVE colonies like India which gave millions of troops to the BAttles.

I dont think Germany could ever have mounted a proper succesful landing on the ENglish Beaches, they would have been decimated by the Royal Navy which would all have been called back from around the world to protect it.
Remember, Britain had the largest Navy in the world at that time, you think the Germans in their little canal boats would have stood a chance making their crossing? (with Britain reading their Navy Traffic too!)

Combined RAF and Navy would have stopped the main thrust of any crossing and Hitler new this all along. Think how much planning it took to make the Normandy landings successful, and imagine the Germans trying to do the same with the Royal Navy patrolling htose 20 miles of sea, its not like they could 'sneak past'.

Russia would have been pushed back 'like a spring, maybe a few 100 more miles past Moscow, but they would always have had enuff men to beat Germany in the end.

Yes it would have taken a lot longer but I think Russia, Britian and its Commenwealth, Canada, Aussies, NZ, India etc would have won in the end, there is just TOO MUCH force there to lose.
Remember 80% of German casualties ere on the Eastern Front, and one thing the Germans didnt have was time. After 1943 if they hadnt conquered Russia and Britain, it was only downhill for them. Russia was just TOO big.

LStarosta
07-19-2005, 05:19 PM
Jay, I'm pretty **** sure the Nazis murdered a little more than just 6 million people. Stalin himself's got 20 mill under his belt.

Chuck_Older
07-19-2005, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
darkhorizon11 Posted Tue July 19 2005 13:30

"Could the other Allies have won without US involvement?"

I.e. ~80.000 T-34's "alone", without ~80.000 Shermans? Red Army without most of their trucks? No US aluminium? No Liberty freighters? (and so on and on...) Simply: no. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, I think they could have won, it would have just taken longer. Don't forget about Englands MASSIVE colonies like India which gave millions of troops to the BAttles.

I dont think Germany could ever have mounted a proper succesful landing on the ENglish Beaches, they would have been decimated by the Royal Navy which would all have been called back from around the world to protect it.
Remember, Britain had the largest Navy in the world at that time, you think the Germans in their little canal boats would have stood a chance making their crossing? (with Britain reading their Navy Traffic too!)

Combined RAF and Navy would have stopped the main thrust of any crossing and Hitler new this all along. Think how much planning it took to make the Normandy landings successful, and imagine the Germans trying to do the same with the Royal Navy patrolling htose 20 miles of sea, its not like they could 'sneak past'.

Russia would have been pushed back 'like a spring, maybe a few 100 more miles past Moscow, but they would always have had enuff men to beat Germany in the end.

Yes it would have taken a lot longer but I think Russia, Britian and its Commenwealth, Canada, Aussies, NZ, India etc would have won in the end, there is just TOO MUCH force there to lose.
Remember 80% of German casualties ere on the Eastern Front, and one thing the Germans didnt have was time. After 1943 if they hadnt conquered Russia and Britain, it was only downhill for them. Russia was just TOO big. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You're overlooking a few things

no US involvement means no US aid. No US weapons, no US money, no US ships, no US escort of convoys half way across the Atlantic, no destroyers for Britain from the US...no Carribean patrols from the USN and USCG (part of the Navy at the time if I recall)

that goes for Britain AND the USSR, don't forget. No aid to either with no US involvement

And that's just in the ETO.

Britain on her own did a great job in Africa. Sea warfare must be like desert warfare a lot.

In The CBI...Wavell didn't do so well at all against the Japanese. If the US hadn't supplied pilots to the AVG (well before the US was offically at war by declaration), Japan could have gone right up through China and cut her in two. As it was, Britain hit some major, major setbacks in Burma

In the PTO, British seapower was cut down quite early on. Without the support of the USMC and USN, I can't see how Britain could have mounted an effective attack on Japan- which brings me to the last point I feel you're overlooking: attrition

Simply put, not enough young Englishmen were around in the ETO to be able to split British forces and fight a two front war. If it wasn't a two front war, then the PTO would be a very difficult prospect indeed, because Japan would have consolidated her holdings and made an even stronger Navy without the threat of US involvement- Japan would have had basically a free hand for several years in teh Pacific

Meanwhile in Europe, without US support, money, and production, simple logistical probelms could have defeated the Soviet Union. The most effective weapon Uncle Sam ever gave to the Russians was the Truck, have no doubt that the humble supply truck allowed victory, and before victory, it allowed simple survival

None of the Allies could have won alone. A catch phrase of the time was "UNITED we are STRONG". It wasn't just propaganda, it was essential, and it's a nice reminder that Freedom can oppose Tyranny and win every time if there's cooperation

blakduk
07-19-2005, 08:36 PM
Many people do forget that Churchill was voted out immediately after the war- that's called democracy and was quite shocking to the rest of the world. It must have been hard for non-democratic nations to conceive of a 'leader' quietly abdicating power simply because a majority of people said 'We've had enough of you'. Its absolutely certain neither Hitler nor Stalin gave a toss regarding the will of the people.
Churchill really represented the status quo and most Brits had experienced the disapointments and deprivations during the aftermath of WW1- they were not prepared to sacrifice so much again for the class system to remain rigidly in place. The other often overlooked item was the influence of the presence of vast numbers of Americans who enjoyed a much higher standard of living- they demonstrated that a meritocracy was far more beneficial than an aristocracy for the masses. These changes didnt all manifest straight away but the catalyst for change was developed (This is a VERY simplified version of the post-war political environment).
As for the original post- i was truly shocked the first time i saw the Simpsons. It showed that Americans could understand irony and had the potential to appreciate a sophisticated sense of humour (rather than the endless barrage of lame sitcoms with laboured jokes, booming laugh tracks, and pauses after every punchline to wait for the audience to catch up).
It also shows how confident the USA is with itself- it can afford to laugh at its absurdities and prejudices, something the British seemed to have mastered long ago.

fordfan25
07-19-2005, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I'm English and I've been to visit some relatives I have in the States numerous times. Quite frequently I have say, asked for a drink at a bar, or been introduced to someone who then begins a conversation that goes something like this:

"hey, you English?"

"yes"

"we saved your **** in World War 2" *

"er...thanks"

I never really know what to say to that afterwards.
Are Americans taught that in school?
I guess you did "save my ****" as otherwise I wouldn't have been born: My Grandmother was a New Yorker who worked for Time magazine who was over in UK covering the US entry in the war. She met my Grandfather who was a British serviceman. They got it on and conceived my mother. If it wasn't for WW2 I wouldn't be alive. God bless America.

*As quoted by Moe of Moe's Tavern in the Simpsons. I have heard it for real though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you should feel lucky. when i meet a brit i just punch him in the face. i mean hot tea for cryn out load....sicko's. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nick_Toznost
07-19-2005, 09:03 PM
Charming Fordfan, just charming. I've tried very hard to keep this civil.

I really would love to see you try and punch me in the face. I would imagine you're a very small boy. I'd pour a large mug of scalding hot tea in your eyes before you could even raise your arm. Then I'd force you to drink litres and litres of delicious hot tea until you confess that you love it. Which of course you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

How many Brits have you punched in the face so far?

Pirschjaeger
07-19-2005, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
darkhorizon11 Posted Tue July 19 2005 13:30

"Could the other Allies have won without US involvement?"

I.e. ~80.000 T-34's "alone", without ~80.000 Shermans? Red Army without most of their trucks? No US aluminium? No Liberty freighters? (and so on and on...) Simply: no. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But I must add its' not the P-51's or even America's indutrial strength that won the war. Although these did tip the scales it still wasn't the most importnat factor in the final outcome. The Allies won, the Axis lost. Think blood. Blood both won and lost the war. 416,000,000 litres of blood.


Fritz

LStarosta
07-19-2005, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Charming Fordfan, just charming. I've tried very hard to keep this civil.

I really would love to see you try and punch me in the face. I would imagine you're a very small boy. I'd pour a large mug of scalding hot tea in your eyes before you could even raise your arm. Then I'd force you to drink litres and litres of delicious hot tea until you confess that you love it. Which of course you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

How many Brits have you punched in the face so far? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And then he'd bore you to death by tying you into a chair and either make you watch a professional wrestling match or a NASCAR race.

Pirschjaeger
07-19-2005, 09:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Charming Fordfan, just charming. I've tried very hard to keep this civil.

I really would love to see you try and punch me in the face. I would imagine you're a very small boy. I'd pour a large mug of scalding hot tea in your eyes before you could even raise your arm. Then I'd force you to drink litres and litres of delicious hot tea until you confess that you love it. Which of course you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

How many Brits have you punched in the face so far? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Careful, I think he drives a ford pickup.

He can't take heat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Kocur_
07-19-2005, 10:29 PM
"Chuck_Older Posted Tue July 19 2005 17:13"

"It wasn't just propaganda, it was essential, and it's a nice reminder that Freedom can oppose Tyranny and win every time if there's cooperation."

Hmm...

Aaron_GT Posted Tue July 19 2005 14:42

"Kocur: from 1941 onwards the USA was indeed the arsenal of the Allies. Not quite of democracy given that some had to go to the USSR."

I wonder if being Pole makes me more or less objective...Nazis killed ~3 million ethnic Poles, soviets kiled ~ million ethnic Poles. And Im not forgeting other people who were pre sept 39 Polish citizens: 3 million Polish Jews killed by nazis, ~1,5 (+!) Ukrainians and Belarus killed by soviets. Im affraid its not that simple about freedom defeating tyranny in WW2...

chris455
07-19-2005, 11:54 PM
I'm pretty sure Fordfan was joking. Jeesh.

darkhorizon11
07-20-2005, 12:07 AM
LOL okay I can't hold back.

Mind you this is also all nationalistic BS aside I mean no disrespect to any other nation or people.

Point 1. If from the beginning of the offensive in 1941 against the USSR Hitler kept the priority Stalingrad, Nazi Germany would still exist today, in one form or another. After Stalingrad comes a straight shot to the Caspian Sea and the Chechnyian oilfields. People fail to really grasp the gravity of that epic battle. The main reason the Germans lost (besides the winter) is because Hitler couldn't swallow his pride and wait in taking Moscow. Which was strategically nothing, he just wanted to add another trophy to his collection. He constantly bickered with his Generals that entire Summer and Fall over which was more important and the priorities changed constantly confusing his staff. If he did go straight for Stalingrad and took the area surrounding the Caspian Sea, the USSR would have been dealt a fatal blow. The already cracking Soviets would have been starved of vital oil while the Germans would have surged with supplies. Sure resistance would have gone on afterwards against the occupying Germans, but this oil shortage followed by the already massive food shortage (since the Ukraine is basically the bread basket) would have been the nail in the coffin for the USSR. I believe Kruschev himself said that there was no way the Soviets would have won without the American trucks...

Point 2. By the time the BoB rolled around Britain was hurting on all fronts. With France and Belguim out and Dunkirk over, the British had somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 soldiers and a channel between it and Hitler. The British Navy was still quite strong of course, but the RAF was still relatively weak (although not as weak as the Germans expected obviously, and much braver). The U boats were tightening the noose around the islands and supplies were running short. Now an all out invasion in the Fall of 1940 probably would have resulted in a stalemate with heavy losses on both sides. Operation Sealion, the German invasion, wasn't well thought out and had many holes, however Britain was literally staring down an army up to 15 to 20 times larger than her combined force which included retreated Belgians, Danes, Canadians, French, Indian, Austrailians, New Zealanders, etc... Sheer numbers ussually win wars, including this one. Sure the British had many many ships, but the channel isn't that big you simply can't park all your ships in the way of the invasion in such a small channel and physically block it. In 1944 it worked because the Allies had literally been pounding the French coast and destroying the big guns for two years. But in 1940, the Royal Navy would've found themselves within range of the guns on the French coast and vulnerable to land based heavy bombers, ie the He111 and Do17. Not to say they all would've been blown out of the water in a day but they would have trouble intervening. On top of that much of the RN was half a world away trying the prevent the invasion of India and British interests in Indo China, dealing with the Italians who were trying to cut off the Mediteranean, AND on escort duty for the convoys in the North Atlantic. Calling all their ships back would've have taken precious weeks. German forces would already have easily established a beachead and moved well inland by the point, sailing into the channel during or after the invasion would have been suicide for the RN. The X factor once again was Hitlers pride, he not only chose to wage war on the Soviets before GB fell, but chose to bomb civilian targets instead of military ones. As brave as the RAF fought, they were pretty much on the verge of cracking just before the Blitz, when the pressure was taken off the airfields, radar stations, war industry. This game them the breathing room they needed to resupply, train, and stock up for the long road ahead.
Remember also that most of the destroyers escorting the convoys were older American ships given to the Brits in our lend lease act. All prior to our official involvement of course. Those ships saved countless convoy vessels the British couldn't afford to lose. This all nevermind the thousands of fresh aircraft and airmen who bombed the Germans by day until the last days of the war.

Now would Hitler have marched all over the world and would everyone today speak German if we hadn't intervened? Of course not. But the U.S. involvement without a doubt tipped the scale in the favor of the Allies.

Pirschjaeger
07-20-2005, 12:13 AM
Good post Dark. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fritz

WOLFMondo
07-20-2005, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Maybe a more interesting question: could Roosevelt have gotten away with continuing to provoke the Germans if Hitler hadn't declared war on the US first?

Suppose that Congress forced him to concentrate all our military resources on the Japanese, and stop sending all those war materials (and possibly even food) to Britain and the Soviets. Consider the 're-direction' of all those destoyers from western Atlantic convoy escort to the Pacific to nail Japanese submarines, the limiting of any aid to the British Commonwealth to its use against the Japanese in the Pacific and CBI.

I think this was a more likely scenario, if Hitler could have exhibited a little more restraint (it could easily have happened, if he'd waited another week before his declaration of war). I'm no expert on the politics of the time, but I have a very strong impression that Roosevelt would have had a tough time expanding the scope of the American war effort without Hitler's cooperation.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think it was less of the hitler more of the churchill effect that got the us into the war.

churchill played the political game and got the us into a position, willingly rather than through subterfuge to help the british out [thats british, not english - directed at the constant assumption were all english in the uk by some people].

i don't think hitler could help himself since churchill had made some great rousing speached in the us and really proved his point to one of the us's greatest presidents and was getting large amounts of sympathy and large amounts of help from the us.

the us was almost at war as soon as the uk was but providing resources only. probably pissed hitler right off so he sent the uboats out and knew he would have to attack us shipping so war was probably inevitable in his eyes so he might as well just declare and get it over with so he can get to it and start blowing up us merchant shipping.

Kocur_
07-20-2005, 01:17 AM
Nice post darkhorizon11 but IMHO Point 1. is in contradiction with Point2 im affraid. If Germany invaded England and fighting there lasted longer than untill end of 1940 there would be no German invasion of Soviet Union. On the contrary! There would be Soviet invasion of Europe in late summer of 1941. Dont think Nazi Germany would survive. As I clearly see many Hitlers errors, dont think he was stupid enough not to see what invading Soviet Union meant with GB and US closing-in behind his back. I belive he was forced to invade USSR in desperate and initially succesful attempt do strike first blow just before being stroke. Last warning was Red Army entering Besarabia, violating Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. So close to Ploesti...

About would/wouldnt Allies win without US contribution: Think of one thing only - aluminium. Was there much of aluminium industry in GB? I dont really know but I dont think so. No US aluminium-little or no Spitfires, Halifaxes, Lancasters and no any aluminium parts in Yak's, La's and Il-2's, little or no Pe-2's. What about W-2 engines in T-34's...

arcadeace
07-20-2005, 02:02 AM
Pardon me... has anyone here heard of a new lunch-meat product, I'm pretty sure called baloney-rona?

ploughman
07-20-2005, 02:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You must be joking. For your information, the US did not show up "two years late". We were demonstrably engaged in acts of war against the Germans in the Atlantic well before December 7th 1941. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ChuKOldEr: Yes, I must be joking. Grow a sense of humour, what's the point of taking the piss out of stereo-types if you're going to take me seriously? Anyway, what made you think I was refering to the USA? I was clearly having a dig at Brazil which prevaricated on the issue of declaring war against the Axis powers until mid-1942.

You are of course right to point out that much appreciated material and military aid was being rendered by your fine nation, at some not inconsiderable human cost, not least the occupation of Iceland by US Marines, and the escorting of convoys into the mid-Atlantic, before it's official invitation to participate in the European war was delivered by Germans.

budvar62
07-20-2005, 04:52 AM
Just like to say I've been to the US 6 times (NY, SF, Colorado, Utah , Wyoming etc), been to some fantastic bars and met a whole cross section of folk. With the exection of some guys in Wyoming who thought I was Texan - I'm from Yorkshire, with the accent to match??? - everyone knew i was a Brit and never in all that time did anyone ever say "We saved you in the last war". Maybe i've been lucky (no-one tried to punch me either) but my impression of the US, for what it's worth, is as follows:

Older guys generally know Europe - lot of them been posted here and actually know some British geography - at least in relation to US bases

Younger people - really friendly, but largely unaware of European politic, geography and culture - note unaware, not ignorant - ie they didn't spout off unfounded opinions, generally we get into fun and drunken discussion where I learn a bit more about the US and vice versa.

Been to Canada a few times too - people more generally aware of Europe - plus there's the whole US / Canada thing (bit like the Scot / English thing from what I can work out), and been to Oz too. Generally speaking I would say lack of knowledge is a worldwide symptom that is best tackled over several beers... always works for me ;-)

ploughman
07-20-2005, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">About would/wouldnt Allies win without US contribution: Think of one thing only - aluminium. Was there much of aluminium industry in GB? I dont really know but I dont think so </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


UK production 39,000 tons in 1939 rising to 54,000 tons in 1943. Imports and reclaiming of scrap aluminium made the total ammount of alumninium available up to 300,000 tons in 1943 which is lots.

Of course it became pretty apparrent early on that bringing ore to Britain through submarine infested waters was a bit inefficient, much better to have actual ingots or even finished goods filling the holds of shipping. The war economy amongst the western allied powers at least was pretty internationalised with heavy industry and manufacturing in places relatively remote from areas likely to be touched by combat mushrooming.

Pirschjaeger
07-20-2005, 06:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Budvar62:
Just like to say I've been to the US 6 times (NY, SF, Colorado, Utah , Wyoming etc), been to some fantastic bars and met a whole cross section of folk. With the exection of some guys in Wyoming who thought I was Texan - I'm from Yorkshire, with the accent to match??? - everyone knew i was a Brit and never in all that time did anyone ever say "We saved you in the last war". Maybe i've been lucky (no-one tried to punch me either) but my impression of the US, for what it's worth, is as follows:

Older guys generally know Europe - lot of them been posted here and actually know some British geography - at least in relation to US bases

Younger people - really friendly, but largely unaware of European politic, geography and culture - note unaware, not ignorant - ie they didn't spout off unfounded opinions, generally we get into fun and drunken discussion where I learn a bit more about the US and vice versa.

Been to Canada a few times too - people more generally aware of Europe - plus there's the whole US / Canada thing (bit like the Scot / English thing from what I can work out), and been to Oz too. Generally speaking I would say lack of knowledge is a worldwide symptom that is best tackled over several beers... always works for me ;-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Need help? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

budvar62
07-20-2005, 06:32 AM
Well I always appreciate company when drinking if that's what you mean... otherwise you're on the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif slippery slope!

Pirschjaeger
07-20-2005, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Budvar62:
Well I always appreciate company when drinking if that's what you mean... otherwise you're on the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif slippery slope! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beer dude, beer! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Lord-Rapter
07-20-2005, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
3) every time there's a World War, we wait three years and then jump in after all the real work is done and try to take all the credit for the victory.
horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So **** true

Nick_Toznost
07-20-2005, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chris455:
I'm pretty sure Fordfan was joking. Jeesh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was joking too, I did note his "smiley", that's why I put one at the end.

Chuck_Older
07-20-2005, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
"Chuck_Older Posted Tue July 19 2005 17:13"

"It wasn't just propaganda, it was essential, and it's a nice reminder that Freedom can oppose Tyranny and win every time if there's cooperation."

Hmm...

Aaron_GT Posted Tue July 19 2005 14:42

"Kocur: from 1941 onwards the USA was indeed the arsenal of the Allies. Not quite of democracy given that some had to go to the USSR."

I wonder if being Pole makes me more or less objective...Nazis killed ~3 million ethnic Poles, soviets kiled ~ million ethnic Poles. And Im not forgeting other people who were pre sept 39 Polish citizens: 3 million Polish Jews killed by nazis, ~1,5 (+!) Ukrainians and Belarus killed by soviets. Im affraid its not that simple about freedom defeating tyranny in WW2... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you think that I meant by what I posted, precisely? You seem to think that by "freedom" I am excluding all those people you mention.

By Freedom I mean just that. You have two choices here: were those people pro-tyrannical, or pro-freedom?

I distinctly suspect that you think I mean to say "USA" when I say "Freedom". Please keep your prejudices to yourself in that case. The death tools you mention are staggering but they in no way disprove my statements. The deaths of those people do not lend credence to my statements or cast doubt on them; they are completely irrelevant to my statments

And when Aaron mentions the Allies but not quite democracy, he is 100% correct- the USSR was an Ally with a political and Social structure very different from democracy. They were Allied with the US, so even though the ideology was different, they received US aid.

If there is a language issue here, and you do not understand some statements fully, ask for clarification before you tell people that they are wrong

skabbe
07-20-2005, 08:29 AM
Nothing negative to say about the USA tribute, though its strange how Roosenvelt had a problem to make US participate in the war even though he was the president and all, while today Mr buckhead seem to have no problem getting his ideas through.

Oh one I have, US shot down a bunch of Tempests' by mistake.

Kocur_
07-20-2005, 08:35 AM
@Chuck_Older
No offence intended. I meant to give idea contrary to popular and convenient from western point of view, belief that Allies fought for freedom, and that united forces of freedom defeated tyranny which started WW2. By Allies i mean all allied countries, sadly including Soviet Union. I do not want to say that any one specific has that basically wrong idea on what happened in WW2. What i say is related to lies and myths produced by OWI. I am very affraid that some of them, good, nice Uncle Joe in the 1st place, are still alive.
Tragical fact is that since 22.06.1941 two "evil empires", allied untill then, started to fight against each other and western allies had little choice of which one to support, since with one of them were at war already. I understand that, yet cant find approvable that support for Soviet tyranny was so unconditional and that much regardless of ideas theoretically fought for, like freedom...
Sadly it is not that WW2 ended with victory of freedom. It was like that for part of the world west to iron courtain. Eastwards to it, result of WW2, including US/GB support of Soviet Union, was long, dark night of reign of tyranny not a bit less murderous or far from idea of freedom than nazi Germany. There is dark side of US contribution to WW2,regreted soon after, with beginning of the cold war. Oh! And i dont hold anything against USA as a whole but I do hold much against FDR in that matter.

Zyzbot
07-20-2005, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:


Oh one I have, US shot down a bunch of Tempests' by mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were just following RAF tradition...after all...the first Typhoon losses were to Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

skabbe
07-20-2005, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:


Oh one I have, US shot down a bunch of Tempests' by mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were just following RAF tradition...after all...the first Typhoon losses were to Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


hehe yeah, probably. but you know, dont break things in my house just because i do it all the time.

Chuck_Older
07-20-2005, 09:59 AM
Kocur-
I can't agree with you. You're using the term "two Evil Empires" to describe the US- USSR situation after WWII to color your views of what happened IN WWII

Your present day political viewpoints are tainting your assesments of what happened in the past. I cannot agree with your standpoint

Skabbe-

So you're saying that the only friendly fire incident in WWII resulted in Americans shooting down RAF aircraft? That's patently wrong.

The President's name was Roosevelt. he didn't want a war because the US's foreign policy was Isolationism. We had just barely come through a Depression, and the vast majority of Americans were at least paying lip service to the notion that European Wars should stay in Europe. WWI was a scant 22 years ago in 1939. Americans didn't want to go to Europe to kill people any more than Europeans wanted to kill people in WWI., and they didn't want a repeat performance. You make it sound dishonorable to stay out of a war if possible, at the same time implying something about present day US military activity

Leave the present day politics out of it. You too are allowing your present day personal politics to color your opinion on WWII involvement. President Bush's actions have nothing to do with WWII. You have an agenda concerning the US- you don't like the country and you never fail to say something critical about it. Good for you. Take it elsewhere.

skabbe
07-20-2005, 11:08 AM
first of all the tempest thing was a joke.
second, Roosevelt wanted to help Britain but got a lot of resistance, but in the end he succeeded. And as i said, i find nothing wrong with the American tribute at all. The isolation were something Roosevelt fought against. What i thought were strange was that the presiedent didn't have the power him self to execute what ever he wanted to do, even though many people wanted the same thing. And if you want to give Mr buckhead a groovejob, Take it elsewhere.

Kocur_
07-20-2005, 11:40 AM
Chuck_Older Posted Wed July 20 2005 08:59

"Kocur-
I can't agree with you. You're using the term "two Evil Empires" to describe the US- USSR situation after WWII to color your views of what happened IN WWII

Your present day political viewpoints are tainting your assesments of what happened in the past. I cannot agree with your standpoint"

Chuck! We have a misunderstanding. What I say has nothing to do with todays politics! I would never call USA "an evil empire"http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I called that nazi Germany and Soviet Union! I have lots of respect for US for entering WW2 itself as they did it for purely idealistic reasons (same as in WW1)!
On the other hand I insist that it was at least FDR's MISTAKE to support Soviet Union without any conditions. One of them should have been respecting freedom of countries soviets invaded and occupied on Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Without it result of WW2, which was unleashed by mentioned above Hitler-Stalin agreement, was that Soviet Union kept all territories which they agreed with Third Reich!
What a tragic irony it is, that Soviet Union achieved the same teritorial gain on agreement with Hitler in 1939 and on agreement with western Allies (Yalta 1944, Potsdam 1945)! With tragic consequenses for people who lived there.

skabbe
07-20-2005, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Chuck_Older Posted Wed July 20 2005 08:59

"Kocur-
I can't agree with you. You're using the term "two Evil Empires" to describe the US- USSR situation after WWII to color your views of what happened IN WWII

Your present day political viewpoints are tainting your assesments of what happened in the past. I cannot agree with your standpoint"

Chuck! We have a misunderstanding. What I say has nothing to do with todays politics! I would never call USA "an evil empire"http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I called that nazi Germany and Soviet Union! I have lots of respect for US for entering WW2 itself as they did it for purely idealistic reasons (same as in WW1)!
On the other hand I insist that it was at least FDR's MISTAKE to support Soviet Union without any conditions. One of them should have been respecting freedom of countries soviets invaded and occupied on Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Without it result of WW2, which was unleashed by mentioned above Hitler-Stalin agreement, was that Soviet Union kept all territories which they agreed with Third Reich!
What a tragic irony it is, that Soviet Union achieved the same teritorial gain on agreement with Hitler in 1939 and on agreement with western Allies (Yalta 1944, Potsdam 1945)! With tragic consequenses for people who lived there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

just give up, he never really understand your full meaning....

Chuck_Older
07-20-2005, 12:08 PM
Kocur- sorry for the misunderstanding

Skabbe- sometimes I wonder if you even bore yourself

darkhorizon11
07-20-2005, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Nice post darkhorizon11 but IMHO Point 1. is in contradiction with Point2 im affraid. If Germany invaded England and fighting there lasted longer than untill end of 1940 there would be no German invasion of Soviet Union. On the contrary! There would be Soviet invasion of Europe in late summer of 1941. Dont think Nazi Germany would survive. As I clearly see many Hitlers errors, dont think he was stupid enough not to see what invading Soviet Union meant with GB and US closing-in behind his back. I belive he was forced to invade USSR in desperate and initially succesful attempt do strike first blow just before being stroke. Last warning was Red Army entering Besarabia, violating Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. So close to Ploesti...

About would/wouldnt Allies win without US contribution: Think of one thing only - aluminium. Was there much of aluminium industry in GB? I dont really know but I dont think so. No US aluminium-little or no Spitfires, Halifaxes, Lancasters and no any aluminium parts in Yak's, La's and Il-2's, little or no Pe-2's. What about W-2 engines in T-34's... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I posted that late last night a I was a little tired so I'll clarify my point a little better.

Basically I was just saying what-ifs and why the US involvement was critical in both points. In the first was I wanted to establish how important Stalingrad. Then to explain that the US trucks recieved through the lend-lease act absolutely crucial if not one of the deciding factors in the USSR victory.

On two I wanted to point out that the GB was obviously in a lot of trouble in the Summer/Fall of 1940. I meant to establish that the RN alone would not have saved her and that US ships and British lendlease from the US ships escorting convoys was also vital in her survival.
-And yes GB relied heavily on the US for aluminum production.

Actually Stalin, although paranoid was ignorant and believed they were relatively safe from Hitler. They HAD signed a non-aggression pact with the Germans. There were many indicators of troop build-ups and increases in production etc. on the German/Russian border but Stalin ignored warnings from his officers, in many cases having them shot. The Soviets ill-preparedness is also apparent by how easily the Wehrmacht rolled into Russian. Literally capturing hundreds of square miles a day that fall. No, Hitler always saw the Soviet Union as the REAL enemy. GB and even the US were just other adversaries to be dealth with, compared to the Soviets. Hitler himself even said when questioned about opening up a second front against Stalin that if the SU falls then so will Great Britain.

He was probably right.

skabbe
07-20-2005, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Kocur- sorry for the misunderstanding

Skabbe- sometimes I wonder if you even bore yourself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no, because i smiling when i writing this.
some day you might understand the mystery of fusspoting.

Chuck_Older
07-20-2005, 12:56 PM
Fusspoting? So that's what you do?

Sounds vaguely perverted, like what you might do with the neighbor's cat when nobody is around. You should see a doctor

arcadeace
07-20-2005, 01:31 PM
I€ll stick my simple say into this for one post I think; with a smile of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think the US efforts were absolutely vital in Europe tho GB and the USSR bore the brunt of it. It took all 3 to conquer Germany, the most powerful nation in the world at the beginning of WWII. The US bore the brunt in the Pacific.

This discussion started off with supposed humor stereotyping Americans as arrogant and ignorant. Most would have misunderstood if it weren€t clarified http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I€m an American and I think on the whole our citizens, especially the young are more ignorant than Europeans. I also think some of what Europeans have learned is incorrect, without proper judgment. With regard to perceptions of WWII and our role I don€t think many Americans would presume we primarily defeated Hitler. I don€t think many young know enough details to make an informed judgment other than the Nazis were evil and fortunately the allies won.

And skabbe, I've misunderstood you like the author of this thread.

skabbe
07-20-2005, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Fusspoting? So that's what you do?

Sounds vaguely perverted, like what you might do with the neighbor's cat when nobody is around. You should see a doctor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

touché

LStarosta
07-20-2005, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Fusspoting? So that's what you do?

Sounds vaguely perverted, like what you might do with the neighbor's cat when nobody is around. You should see a doctor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you expect from someone so.... photogenic?

Nick_Toznost
07-20-2005, 02:10 PM
Arcadeace, and anyone else I may have unintentionally offended, can we shake hands across the pond now? When I first wrote this thread I had consumed a swig or 2 of alcohol and have now realised that it could well be misunderstood. I felt that perhaps mentioning that I was half American in that first post might convince people that I was not in the habit of insulting my ancestors. "Supposed humour" as you say was my way of explaning myself. As I said "god bless America" was put in at the end to, I hoped, clarify this.
I would consider myself more talented at sarcasm than most and starting a thread with the intention of xenophobically winding people up is not how I get my kicks.

Anyway I'm glad it's been so popular.

arcadeace
07-20-2005, 02:34 PM
Lol Nick, yes you have my hand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif and drink all you want when you post here mate. Just don€t attend our bars anymore.

han freak solo
07-20-2005, 03:14 PM
If y'all fly me over to England, I'll buy the brew! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.lssdigital.com/Newcastle.jpg

Chuck_Older
07-20-2005, 03:26 PM
Scotland. Newcastle on Tyne is in Scotland http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'll be having me some o' that in a few hours http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kocur_
07-20-2005, 03:27 PM
darkhorizon11 Posted Wed July 20 2005 11:19

"Sorry I posted that late last night a I was a little tired so I'll clarify my point a little better."

I understand now those were separate what-if's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Actually Stalin, although paranoid was ignorant and believed they were relatively safe from Hitler. They HAD signed a non-aggression pact with the Germans. There were many indicators of troop build-ups and increases in production etc. on the German/Russian border but Stalin ignored warnings from his officers, in many cases having them shot. The Soviets ill-preparedness is also apparent by how easily the Wehrmacht rolled into Russian."

Let me offer you another explanation of astonishing Wermacht success in the beginning of Barbarossa. They were attackin troops absolutely not prepared for defence. (Not surprising on the other hand since in Red Army's tactical or operational regulations there were NO sections about defence at all...) Im sure you know how very different is any army's OdeB for defence and for attack. And how much an army close to day of starting major offensive is vulnerable for any kind of attack. There are many small signs that on 22.06.1941 Germans cought Red Army so unprepared for defence because Red Army was so prepared for offensive! Usual explanations of this fact involving Stalins stupidity are not very convincing to me. Most of them can be summed up to:"He ordered not to shoot at LW planes because he was affraid of provoking German attack in which he didnt belive". Too much to write, let me just invite you to read "Icebreaker" and "Day M", books by Victor Suvorov, in which he argues and IMHO proves that Barbarossa was started in few weeks before Soviet Union was to launch offensive.
Massive killing of best officers is a myth. I have read marsh. Tukhachevsky book on future war and his ideas how Soviet Union should prepare for it and I can assure you he was a moron. On the other hand top Red Army generals like Vasilevski, Timoshenko, Malinovsky, Rokossovsky, Zhukov all were in charge on 22.06.1941. And although they had to be blamed directly for the disaster, all of them saw nothing but promotions afterwards.

Chuck_Older
07-20-2005, 03:31 PM
Kocur-

what input do you have on Stalin's non-response to the initial German attack?

It's usually mentioned simply as "unexplainable" in books. I'm not as well read on Barbarossa as you obviously are

Low_Flyer_MkII
07-20-2005, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Scotland. Newcastle on Tyne is in Scotland http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'll be having me some o' that in a few hours http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry chum, Newcastle upon Tyne is English.
Inhabited by Geordies; genetically engineered not to feel cold.

And please serve Newcastle Brown Ale at room temperature http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ploughman
07-20-2005, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What do I know? The neck label lied to me! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not you, him!

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-20-2005, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by han freak solo:
If y'all fly me over to England, I'll buy the brew! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.lssdigital.com/Newcastle.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somthing aint right about that photo 'Neukie' aint supposed to be that colour is it ?

It was always kinda black when we drank it. Has something changed?

Kocur_
07-20-2005, 03:45 PM
There was response. It was: attack!, not a step back! And in fact most of Red Army units tried to realize initial plan, which of course led to even more mess as there was no coordination. There was silence in one divisions part of frontline and Panzergruppe smashing through its neighbouring division. For example Black Sea fleet bomber units did attempt to bomb Ploesti!
And if you mean Stalins public silence i see two things: at first it must have been shock! Such a strike when it was so close to fulfilling lifetime dream and suddenly it all falls down! Secondly right after he regained control over himself it was just work and he had no time for public announcements.
Please, really try to find books i mentioned. They are absolutely brilliant!
What an OT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

skabbe
07-20-2005, 05:16 PM
last and first time a tasted a newcastle it tasted like a mixed down shrubbery with mud and all. ******ss and killkenny it shall be for me.

Pirschjaeger
07-20-2005, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:


Oh one I have, US shot down a bunch of Tempests' by mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were just following RAF tradition...after all...the first Typhoon losses were to Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe Germany would have won the Battle of Britain if they just stayed out of it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Put the Irish in the Typhoons, the Scots in the Hurris, and the English in the Spits and let them go at it. Then the name "The Battle of Britain" would be very suitable and Wales would be victorious. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Fritz

corvette93
07-20-2005, 08:25 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Megile:
Ha.
I remember one time I was in Universal Studios florida,and I got talking to some Yank.
He was like, you seen "the Patriot" yet? And I replied nope, and he said don't watch it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

I saw the movie and was very disturbed by that scene. I have never heard of an atrocity like that committed by England in our War of Independence. Such an act would have resulted in that officer being tried by the British military. Even "No Quarter" Tarleton, who the character was portraying, to my knowledge, ever did anything like that.

corvette93
07-20-2005, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Anyway bearcat, regarding your quote:

"I doubt everyone in England drinks tea, all the women are ugly and all the men carry umbrellas, are gay and have bad teeth and surely all the food isnt that bad........."

I was in London in 1991 participating in the Royal Tournament. I never saw so many beautiful women in my life! I was falling in lover at least 2-3 times a day. Food was fine, except stewed tomatoes, and half cooked bacon at breakfast. Ice cream and choclate, wonderful. Beer, great! London rocks.
You could be right though....

I drink tea (regularly), I own an umbrella, my teeth are really bad and my cooking is not particularly good.

However I am not gay and have an extremely pretty fiance (who has perfect teeth). So I guess there is SOME truth in stereotypes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

When I recieved those ww2 related comments I really wasn't "offended" or anything, in fact on one occaision I was accompanied by my uncle who's a history teacher from Michigan. We all had a good laugh about it. What I said about "are you taught that in schools?" was a joke.

Megile, I had to watch "the Patriot" in a cinema in rural Kentucky. Everyone cheered and clapped whenever the Brits got licked. Lots of boos and hisses during that church scene too. Scary stuff. Needless to say I kept my mouth shut.

ArcadeAce, Thankyou for your edit but I can't really see what was so offensive in my first post. "God bless America" was meant sincerely. The whole point of this thread was the "story" about my grandparents meeting and the fact that "saved your ars e" was more true than the persons who said this realised. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WH_Phist
07-20-2005, 08:35 PM
Patton was right. And while were at it, Chirac's a panzie bought *****.

I feel much better.

horseback
07-20-2005, 08:42 PM
There seems to be some misunderstanding of the American attitudes about entering the two World Wars among our European friends. I made a point to question both of my grandfathers, who served in France in the First War, while they were still with us, and my parents' older brothers, who were either serving when the Second World War began or immediately thereafter, as well as having read some of the contemporary books on the subject that they passed on to me.

Try to remember that at the time of both wars, a substantial portion of our population was first or second generation; that is, that they had parents and/or grandparents who considered themselves as having literally "escaped" the Old Country, whichever it was. Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, the Balkans, Scandanavia, Russia, all sent huge contingents of immigrants to America in the 19th and early 20th centuries. From what they said and wrote, one can safely assume that they didn't leave because life was so good and fair to them there. Remember also that for those whose ancestors had come before that, there was a long tradition of opposition to outside (read European) interference in North American affairs well into our Civil War years. Some of that can be ascribed to romanticism, but the fact of England's competition with the US in the Pacific Northwest, and France's grab for Mexico during our Civil War gives some credence to those suspicions.

In any case, there was little desire to be a world power in the sense of the British Empire, and the awareness that doing so would lead to more European attempts to interfere with our affairs. Obviously, the current world powers would have little desire to embrace a new competitor on the world stage, and would do what they could to impede it.

Finally, there was the huge distance seperating the US from Europe. Telephone communications were practically nonexistant, although there were cross Atlantic telegraph lines. Air travel crossing the Atlantic was very expensive between the wars, and prior to the First war, a subject for science fiction.

A fast ship took about 11 days to cross from England to America, and somewhat longer due to winds and currents going from America to England. Most ships took twice that, on average. Add a day or two to get to France or Germany, a week to get to the Mediterranean countries. Going either direction, the expense was huge for the average person, by the standards of the day.

In short, for most, the trip from Europe to America was a one way trip. Only the very wealthy traveled to and from Europe, and Americans have a tradition of distrust for the elites of the world, even -possibly especially- our own.

For a farmer in Nebraska, a day's train travel from Chicago (the nearest major city), two weeks' travel by other means available to him, a squabble in Central Europe had only one effect on his life: the value of his crops might go up, if he and his sons could get them to market, weather permitting. If he got a decent crop in for a good price, he might be able to get something extra for the missus from that Sears catalog.

The idea of his sons going to war and dieing on behalf of one side or the other of said European squabble would be anathema to him and his wife. And let's be clear here: news about Europe was two or three weeks old when it reached our hypothetical farmer, and was simply words and poorly reproduced pictures printed on paper. Events on the other side of the Atlantic in 1914 or 1939 were abstractions.

My hypothetical farmer represents something like 70% of the US population before WWII, but even his counterpart in the cities of the Eastern seaboard and in the steel producing industrial areas who may have had better access to radio or newsreels would still look on the European disputes and invasions(which started out no differently than the ones in the 19th century, and for no better reasons, from our perspective) as something they brought upon themselves. They usually thought that poor people who worked for a living should come to America, and to hell with the rest of 'em.

According to my grandfathers (both residents of the industrial area of the Ohio valley), there was much more sympathy for the Chinese in their struggle with the Japanese at the time of the war, because there were hundreds if not thousands of American missionaries in China, writing letters to their home churches on a monthly basis. That was a personal connection not always available to migrants from Europe, whose relatives might be illiterate or simply unreachable by post, leading to a break in less than a generation.

I can't speak for every case, but this is the general picture I got from people who lived in America's wartime generations.

Roosevelt had a grasp of the fact that technology was making the world much smaller very quickly, but he lived in a democracy, and had to lead the general public to the same conclusions he had reached. He had to overcome not only the normal suspicions we have of Eastern politicians, but he had also just violated Washington's example of retiring after eight years. In an era when the phrase "eine volk, eine Reich, eine Fuhrer" was echoing across the Atlantic, setting oneself up as national leader for more than the customary period (after a prolonged Depression to boot) made even FDR's own supporters more than a little uncomfortable.

Anything he did was viewed with a great deal of skepticism by the opposition party, and some of their distrust would have seemed well founded if all of Roosevelt's activities had been made public before Pearl Harbor, in some cases, before V-E Day.

I hope this helps clarify things for some of you.

cheers

horseback

han freak solo
07-20-2005, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by han freak solo:
If y'all fly me over to England, I'll buy the brew! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.lssdigital.com/Newcastle.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somthing aint right about that photo 'Neukie' aint supposed to be that colour is it ?

It was always kinda black when we drank it. Has something changed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've only been drinkin' Newcastle for about 10 years. Here in Texas it has always been that color to the best of my knowledge. Maybe, cause it's the imported version???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I just finished off a six pack last night of that fine nectar. If it weren't nearly $8.00 USD per 6, I'd drink it more often. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-20-2005, 09:23 PM
Well I guess I musta been drinking mine in the dark alot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif But thats the first time I have heard of Newcastle Brown being referd to as nectar http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Maybe they have just changed the colour of the bottle scince I was a lad ?

One thing must still be true though

All thay bloody chemicals and stuff in Newkie will sure give yer a bad hangover if yah drink enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is how I remember seeing 'Wild' Newkie when on a beer safari back in the day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Tours/England/Newcastle/NewcastleBrownAle.jpg


Was gona leave it at that but then .....

OMG!! Is nothing sacred

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/2958702.stm

oh and here's a little info on Newcastle just to round it off

http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Tours/England/Newcastle.htm

XyZspineZyX
07-20-2005, 09:32 PM
SMITHWIKS ALL TEH WAY (i think thats how its spelled)

han freak solo
07-20-2005, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
But thats the first time I have heard of Newcastle Brown being referd to as nectar http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, not many beers here do I consider nectar. Most imports to the US give me nasty headaches after 3 brews. For some reason Newcastle doesn't do that to me. Guiness is the other import I can handle without a low beer count headache.

I have to drink American light beers when Disc Golfing, though. When it's 100 degrees F outside, I need a lot of water that has some alcohol in it!! (Bud light, Miller light, Coors light) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

P.S. Beer flavored ice cream?? That's just sick!! Now, some beer batter pancakes is a different story. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Nice link to Newcastle/Gateshead!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-20-2005, 10:00 PM
I swear man some day I am gona have to get off my azz and find out just what the h*l is going on over there

What on gods green earth is a golf disc?

han freak solo
07-20-2005, 10:09 PM
It was invented in California in the 1970's, I think. It's cheaper and more informal than real golf. There are different discs for each throw if necessary, from long range drivers to putters. I've been into it for about ten years and have two Aces* under my belt back in 1998.

Here's the officiating organization in the US.
http://www.pdga.com/

Here's some courses in England.
http://www.pdga.com/course/courses_by_state.php?admin=&...NGLAND&Search=Search (http://www.pdga.com/course/courses_by_state.php?admin=&amp;SearchZip=&amp;SearchCity= &amp;SearchState=&amp;SearchCountry=ENGLAND&amp;Search=Sear ch)

*Ace = Hole in One (without the hole).

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-20-2005, 10:14 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Hey thats what I like about this place you learn something every day. Have another pint mate

darkhorizon11
07-20-2005, 10:47 PM
I like where this topic is going, although very off-topic.

I've read a decent amount on the German Invasion of the Soviet Union, I even took a class on World War Two. I can't say I saw any mention of the Soviets preparing to invade. Not to say that it DIDN'T happen, its an interesting point. The reason why I would need to see some good non-biased, non-Soviet sources is because it still doesn't quite add up...

I'll delve a little further here. The gift and curse of the Soviet Union is its size and terrain. Millions upon millions reside there giving her the potential of a massive army, along with some of the most rugged terrain on earth in certain parts, making the USSR a tough nut to crack. The curse is that mobilization, transportation, and organization is a complete nightmare. It would take the USSR a solid month, even during the Cold War to fully call up its reserves, the Russians experienced this dilemna in both WW2 and 1, in the first world war the czar called a premature mobilization knowing it would take awhile and this helped prompt Germany to declare war, IIRC. Flash forward to world war twoif Stalin had planned to strike first he would've had the majority of his divisions (both reserved and regulars) to the West in preparation, the rest of course guarding the East against the trigger happy Japanese. AFAIK this wasn't the case. Which is why although hundreds of thousands of Russians were captured, the dent it put in the Russian army was still not fatal. I'm sure the thought of invading Germany crossed Stalin's mind, but the evidence doesn't show that beyond paper no serious actions were taken.

Kocur_
07-21-2005, 01:16 AM
darkhorizon11! Most obviously you never saw any mention on it. Neither did anyone who studied history based on official soviet/Russian sources only. First of all there is no chance you will never see any official soviet or Russian information on it. Never. Too long after the WW2 soviets were convincing the world they struggle for peace and are on defensive positions only and so it was ever since Soviet Union was established. Secondly during the war western governments agencies, such as OWI did huge job to convince their nations they are helping viciously attacked, always peaceful USSR. I dont think any other fragment of soviet history is more covered than this. Relying on official soviet military/history sources leads you nowhere near truth.

Oh please do read Suvorov books! He supports his claims not with unverifiable Intelligence sources! Each of them is supported by official soviet informations at first glance not related to the issue, memories of soviet officers, even quotations from soviet newspapers! Those are merely bits and pieces that sliped through censorship. Any of them alone means nothing, but put together they make a logical and clear picture.
Why were generals I mentioned before not accused of anything? Why largest soviet army was 9th Strike Army? Why in the world was it stationed near soviet/romanian border!? What for Red Army had ~25.000 tanks?(and before you call most of them - BT-7, T-26 obsolete i will say they were not any worse than PzKpfw I,II,III,38(t)) What for Red Army had airborne brigades and divisions? Why did they abandon Stalin Line bunkers? That doesnt look like Red Army was on defensive position! And about IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif What was the only army to have trully strategic bombers in late 1920's/early 1930's? Red Army - TB-3. Why in the years before WW2 they abandoned advancing towards strategic bombers (as so few Pe-8 were built) and headed for having tactical aviation only? So similar to LW doctrine, isnt it?

Nick_Toznost
07-21-2005, 06:21 AM
Another European stereotype of the States is that their beer is "weak". Anyone ever tried this?

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/Nick_Toznost/celis_white.jpg

A bar near me imports it, it's brewed in G.W. Bush's hometown in Texas apparantly. 6 pints of this will be sufficiant. I've had memory blackouts on this stuff, and terrible, terrible flatulence. It's not for Nancy boys. Tastes lovely too.

This bar I mention is run by a Belgian guy who imports evil strength beer from all over the world. Grottenbier from Germany, as its name suggests is pretty unpleasant. Though the strongest and most hangover inducing are brewed by Belgian monks I have discovered. Sounds impossible but they sell Monk's draught beer by the pint which is 9.5 percent alcohol, its brewed to the max.

han freak solo
07-21-2005, 06:45 AM
The big brewers here do make some watery stuff. It's necessary in the summer months.

American "micro-breweries" make some good stuff. Here's what's in my hometown. http://www.saintarnold.com/

skabbe
07-21-2005, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Another European stereotype of the States is that their beer is "weak". Anyone ever tried this?

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/Nick_Toznost/celis_white.jpg

A bar near me imports it, it's brewed in G.W. Bush's hometown in Texas apparantly. 6 pints of this will be sufficiant. I've had memory blackouts on this stuff, and terrible, terrible flatulence. It's not for Nancy boys. Tastes lovely too.

This bar I mention is run by a Belgian guy who imports evil strength beer from all over the world. Grottenbier from Germany, as its name suggests is pretty unpleasant. Though the strongest and most hangover inducing are brewed by Belgian monks I have discovered. Sounds impossible but they sell Monk's draught beer by the pint which is 9.5 percent alcohol, its brewed to the max. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I drank an American imported beer ones, it was from California and were not named more then "pale ale" but boy it was tasty, though it costed 9$. dont know how much it sales in the US.

geetarman
07-21-2005, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
first of all the tempest thing was a joke.
second, Roosevelt wanted to help Britain but got a lot of resistance, but in the end he succeeded. And as i said, i find nothing wrong with the American tribute at all. The isolation were something Roosevelt fought against. What i thought were strange was that the presiedent didn't have the power him self to execute what ever he wanted to do, even though many people wanted the same thing. And if you want to give Mr buckhead a groovejob, Take it elsewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without boring you with the gory details, a U.S. President, under our Constitutional framework, does not have the ability to simply dictate and decree actions, particularly overseas. Congessional approval is needed. This is requirement, historically, is not as stringent when a President issues an Executive Order dealing with a domestic issue (i.e. Truman seizing and having the Federal Goverment briefly run the nation's steel industry in 1952).

The President's power in foreign relations was loosened somewhat with the passage of the War Powers Act in the 1970's. Roosevelt was not able to operate under that act in 1939-41.

geetarman
07-21-2005, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
There seems to be some misunderstanding of the American attitudes about entering the two World Wars among our European friends. I made a point to question both of my grandfathers, who served in France in the First War, while they were still with us, and my parents' older brothers, who were either serving when the Second World War began or immediately thereafter, as well as having read some of the contemporary books on the subject that they passed on to me.

Try to remember that at the time of both wars, a substantial portion of our population was first or second generation; that is, that they had parents and/or grandparents who considered themselves as having literally "escaped" the Old Country, whichever it was. Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, the Balkans, Scandanavia, Russia, all sent huge contingents of immigrants to America in the 19th and early 20th centuries. From what they said and wrote, one can safely assume that they didn't leave because life was so good and fair to them there. Remember also that for those whose ancestors had come before that, there was a long tradition of opposition to outside (read European) interference in North American affairs well into our Civil War years. Some of that can be ascribed to romanticism, but the fact of England's competition with the US in the Pacific Northwest, and France's grab for Mexico during our Civil War gives some credence to those suspicions.

In any case, there was little desire to be a world power in the sense of the British Empire, and the awareness that doing so would lead to more European attempts to interfere with our affairs. Obviously, the current world powers would have little desire to embrace a new competitor on the world stage, and would do what they could to impede it.

Finally, there was the huge distance seperating the US from Europe. Telephone communications were practically nonexistant, although there were cross Atlantic telegraph lines. Air travel crossing the Atlantic was very expensive between the wars, and prior to the First war, a subject for science fiction.

A fast ship took about 11 days to cross from England to America, and somewhat longer due to winds and currents going from America to England. Most ships took twice that, on average. Add a day or two to get to France or Germany, a week to get to the Mediterranean countries. Going either direction, the expense was huge for the average person, by the standards of the day.

In short, for most, the trip from Europe to America was a one way trip. Only the very wealthy traveled to and from Europe, and Americans have a tradition of distrust for the elites of the world, even -possibly especially- our own.

For a farmer in Nebraska, a day's train travel from Chicago (the nearest major city), two weeks' travel by other means available to him, a squabble in Central Europe had only one effect on his life: the value of his crops might go up, if he and his sons could get them to market, weather permitting. If he got a decent crop in for a good price, he might be able to get something extra for the missus from that Sears catalog.

The idea of his sons going to war and dieing on behalf of one side or the other of said European squabble would be anathema to him and his wife. And let's be clear here: news about Europe was two or three weeks old when it reached our hypothetical farmer, and was simply words and poorly reproduced pictures printed on paper. Events on the other side of the Atlantic in 1914 or 1939 were abstractions.

My hypothetical farmer represents something like 70% of the US population before WWII, but even his counterpart in the cities of the Eastern seaboard and in the steel producing industrial areas who may have had better access to radio or newsreels would still look on the European disputes and invasions(which started out no differently than the ones in the 19th century, and for no better reasons, from our perspective) as something they brought upon themselves. They usually thought that poor people who worked for a living should come to America, and to hell with the rest of 'em.

According to my grandfathers (both residents of the industrial area of the Ohio valley), there was much more sympathy for the Chinese in their struggle with the Japanese at the time of the war, because there were hundreds if not thousands of American missionaries in China, writing letters to their home churches on a monthly basis. That was a personal connection not always available to migrants from Europe, whose relatives might be illiterate or simply unreachable by post, leading to a break in less than a generation.

I can't speak for every case, but this is the general picture I got from people who lived in America's wartime generations.

Roosevelt had a grasp of the fact that technology was making the world much smaller very quickly, but he lived in a democracy, and had to lead the general public to the same conclusions he had reached. He had to overcome not only the normal suspicions we have of Eastern politicians, but he had also just violated Washington's example of retiring after eight years. In an era when the phrase "eine volk, eine Reich, eine Fuhrer" was echoing across the Atlantic, setting oneself up as national leader for more than the customary period (after a prolonged Depression to boot) made even FDR's own supporters more than a little uncomfortable.

Anything he did was viewed with a great deal of skepticism by the opposition party, and some of their distrust would have seemed well founded if all of Roosevelt's activities had been made public before Pearl Harbor, in some cases, before V-E Day.

I hope this helps clarify things for some of you.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post. My family has been in the US since before the Civil War, living in NY. My dad served in the US Army in the Pacific. We had long conversations before he passed away 15 years ago. During those conversation it became clear that the typical New Yorker (and I am sure many, many others from across the country), though concerned about events in Europe, really didn't give a rat's fanny.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl, it was a whole different story! A ton of the students at Fordham signed up for service.

WWMaxGunz
07-21-2005, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I'm English and I've been to visit some relatives I have in the States numerous times. Quite frequently I have say, asked for a drink at a bar, or been introduced to someone who then begins a conversation that goes something like this:

"hey, you English?"

"yes"

"we saved your **** in World War 2" *

"er...thanks"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't take that crud. England took the brunt and held against the fight in Europe during
very hard times while the GOP in the US fought hard to not only keep US forces out of the
fight but actually tried to keep aid from being sent as well. Thank Wendell Wilkie and the
rest for the foot dragging slow start and maybe Tojo for lighting the fire that changed US
opinion to where not entering was not an option. Up till then, Rooseveldt had an uphill
fight to support Churchill. Since then it's like the two parties have switched views but
really it was and still is about money and who gets it.

England stood with very little help in the crucial times when things were stacked badly in
favor of the Nazis. England did not cringe let alone surrender, and fought back hard with
their backs to the sea.

Had England been lost then that would have been it for Europe. Hitler could have poured
full strength on Russia and down the Mideast. And the US could not have made any effective
counter without first defeating Japan.

So who saved who? What a joke! It took England with all the help it could get to last out
the storm including the U-boats but I know who fought and bled the most in the West until
1943, and it wasn't the US.

Please ease up on us a bit there though. The US was engaged in a huge long distance fight
out in the Pacific that for some reason a lot of Brits didn't seem to learn about in school
even if British forces were well involved in.

LStarosta
07-21-2005, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by han freak solo:
It was invented in California in the 1970's, I think. It's cheaper and more informal than real golf. There are different discs for each throw if necessary, from long range drivers to putters. I've been into it for about ten years and have two Aces* under my belt back in 1998.

Here's the officiating organization in the US.
http://www.pdga.com/

Here's some courses in England.
http://www.pdga.com/course/courses_by_state.php?admin=&...NGLAND&Search=Search (http://www.pdga.com/course/courses_by_state.php?admin=&amp;SearchZip=&amp;SearchCity= &amp;SearchState=&amp;SearchCountry=ENGLAND&amp;Search=Sear ch)

*Ace = Hole in One (without the hole). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my town, it's the sport kids play while smoking a newfound stash of weed. When I run through my local county park, which has a disc golf course on the premises, it is very difficult to not encounter a bunch of stoners throwing a frizbee a good 50 yards wide of any "hole" in sight.

han freak solo
07-21-2005, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
In my town, it's the sport kids play while smoking a newfound stash of weed. When I run through my local county park, which has a disc golf course on the premises, it is very difficult to not encounter a bunch of stoners throwing a frizbee a good 50 yards wide of any "hole" in sight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still true. But, they keep to themselves and smoke in the trees. I've never seen an angry stoner, ever. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

All ages throw the discs here, from children to grandparents. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-21-2005, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by han freak solo:
The big brewers here do make some watery stuff. It's necessary in the summer months.

American "micro-breweries" make some good stuff. Here's what's in my hometown. http://www.saintarnold.com/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A short lived microbrew (hey great beer makers but baaaad businessmen) near where I
used to live made an India Pale Ale by the old recipie, it was 14 proof -- almost a
good Aussie brew by any chance? Nasty tasting but non of that 3.2 p!$$ with the
sulpher aftertaste. The also made a Red that beat the Killians import.

Some things were explained to me about beer strengths then. If the stuff comes in a
bottle there is either a maximum proof or the tax goes way up past some proof, I do
forget which. A lousy law. In a keg avoids that. Back in 78 a buddy and I bought
Dinkel Acker in mini-kegs (gallon and a half each) and wiped out a barracks party
used to scarfing Heineken bottle imports. Nasty hangover, that DA was stronger than
the bottled DA. I also had a good 1/4 keg of Lowenbrau import from before Miller
bought rights to the name and subsequently turned it into weak whizz.

My favorites are Bass Ale, Guiness Extra Stout, Tijuca (from Brazil, better than
Heineken with no earwax aftertaste), and Ringnes Light from Norway but you have to
find a place that doesn't let it get warm in storage -- only the Army-Air Force
Exchange ever got me that stuff right. Oh, and San Miguel from the Philipines!

Kocur_
07-21-2005, 11:07 AM
South African army has, and had at least since the 80's, specialised truck to transport beer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fury_352FG
07-25-2005, 04:58 AM
Found this write up on US Lend-Lease in WWII.

"It was after U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's homey analogy of lending a neighbor a garden hose to put out a fire that Americans came around to the concept of Lend-Lease. Though some agreed with Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana that the Lend-Lease agreement would "plow under every fourth American boy," Congress passed the Lend-Lease bill in March 1941. Thus, the United States became the life-support system for democracy and freedom. In all, more than $50 billion (1941 dollars) was distributed to the Allied countries during World War II. The bulk of this went to the British Empire, which included Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand. The Soviet Union, France and China were also given aid. Smaller countries received more than "$1 billion in Lend Lease goods. Among these forces were Mexico, Central America, Iceland, South America, Africa, the Near East, countries in the Caribbean and some of the smaller European countries. This was what British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill referred to as "the most unsordid act in the history of any nation." In all, thirty-eight countries and nineteen American republics benefitted from the Lend-Lease Act; fourteen cents out of every dollar the U.S. spent to fight the war. An agreement at the end of the conflict called for the British Empire to repay $650 million out of its $31 billion debt."

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/intro.htm
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/index.htm
<A HREF="http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm" TARGET=_blank>
&lt;A HREF="http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm"
[URL=http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm"
HREF="http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm</A>"
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/persian/

Pirschjaeger
07-25-2005, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I'm English and I've been to visit some relatives I have in the States numerous times. Quite frequently I have say, asked for a drink at a bar, or been introduced to someone who then begins a conversation that goes something like this:

"hey, you English?"

"yes"

"we saved your **** in World War 2" *

"er...thanks"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't take that crud. England took the brunt and held against the fight in Europe during
very hard times while the GOP in the US fought hard to not only keep US forces out of the
fight but actually tried to keep aid from being sent as well. Thank Wendell Wilkie and the
rest for the foot dragging slow start and maybe Tojo for lighting the fire that changed US
opinion to where not entering was not an option. Up till then, Rooseveldt had an uphill
fight to support Churchill. Since then it's like the two parties have switched views but
really it was and still is about money and who gets it.

England stood with very little help in the crucial times when things were stacked badly in
favor of the Nazis. England did not cringe let alone surrender, and fought back hard with
their backs to the sea.

Had England been lost then that would have been it for Europe. Hitler could have poured
full strength on Russia and down the Mideast. And the US could not have made any effective
counter without first defeating Japan.

So who saved who? What a joke! It took England with all the help it could get to last out
the storm including the U-boats but I know who fought and bled the most in the West until
1943, and it wasn't the US.

Please ease up on us a bit there though. The US was engaged in a huge long distance fight
out in the Pacific that for some reason a lot of Brits didn't seem to learn about in school
even if British forces were well involved in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about, "The combined Allied forces won the war."?

Just a thought.

Fritz

Friendly_flyer
07-25-2005, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
My favorites are Bass Ale, Guiness Extra Stout, Tijuca (from Brazil, better than
Heineken with no earwax aftertaste), and Ringnes Light from Norway
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to have to tell you, but Ringnes light hardly qualifies as beer. It has some 2,5% alcohol content, a tad over what you'll find in kefir or other sour-milk types. Regular beer comes with 4,5% alcohol in Norway. The regular Rignes Pils is a nice, thoug somewhat uninspiering beer, well suited for drinking in hot weather.

Cajun76
07-25-2005, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I'm English and I've been to visit some relatives I have in the States numerous times. Quite frequently I have say, asked for a drink at a bar, or been introduced to someone who then begins a conversation that goes something like this:

"hey, you English?"

"yes"

"we saved your **** in World War 2" *

"er...thanks"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't take that crud. England took the brunt and held against the fight in Europe during
very hard times while the GOP in the US fought hard to not only keep US forces out of the
fight but actually tried to keep aid from being sent as well. Thank Wendell Wilkie and the
rest for the foot dragging slow start and maybe Tojo for lighting the fire that changed US
opinion to where not entering was not an option. Up till then, Rooseveldt had an uphill
fight to support Churchill. Since then it's like the two parties have switched views but
really it was and still is about money and who gets it.

England stood with very little help in the crucial times when things were stacked badly in
favor of the Nazis. England did not cringe let alone surrender, and fought back hard with
their backs to the sea.

Had England been lost then that would have been it for Europe. Hitler could have poured
full strength on Russia and down the Mideast. And the US could not have made any effective
counter without first defeating Japan.

So who saved who? What a joke! It took England with all the help it could get to last out
the storm including the U-boats but I know who fought and bled the most in the West until
1943, and it wasn't the US.

Please ease up on us a bit there though. The US was engaged in a huge long distance fight
out in the Pacific that for some reason a lot of Brits didn't seem to learn about in school
even if British forces were well involved in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's always good when people read the whole thread before responding.... or not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Btw, perhaps we "Yanks" were waiting to see how many more countries you'd give away for appeasement or let be invaded and conquered and do nothing (read Poland) before we joined. GB didn't win the Battle of Britain, you survived it. I'm not trying to take anything away from GB, but don't get all worked up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But don't spoil the mood of the thread, it's one of the better, gentle ribbing threads I've seen in awhile.

HoldSteady641
07-25-2005, 09:20 AM
It's hard for countries that are both proud and powerfull to be honest in these things. When your proud it's hard enough, but when your not powerfull enough, you cannot escape realism.

I do believe the larger part of Americans will be largely realistic in the way the world worked and so on, but I must admit, being European (Dutch), a lot of TV/movies from America use things like "America is the most democratic country in the world" and so on and so on. I hate to bother all the americans here with this, 'cause I know you all have a sence of history and things, which make you see things in perspective, but is this not largely believed in the US?
I mean, why do people assume America is the most democratic country? Or something other in that order? there is no ground for that. Even France had a revolution earlier, if that is any measure for that, and Holland revolted against Spanish opression even before that, h$ll, 'we' even funded part of your revolt!.. Not that we're any 'better' or anything, but why this we are the best attitude?

And I read somewhere that America didn't need propaganda. Technically speaking, if you believe that, than they allready have you!

Now, I'm taking a bit steam back here.. Got carried away.. There is no grudge of me against America, on the contrary. And I believe this 'we are better nation' - thing might have become worse and worse only the last few decades, as a tool for politicians, wielding nationalist fire for voting porpouses. And h$ll, if we hate it, than why watch American shows/movies anyway?

But does the average American believe it? Does an american get better judgement in America than europe or japan or australia/nz? Is it more democratic? Perhaps in some ways they do, they are. But it is said so resolutely, that it feels as if there's no second thought.

Nick_Toznost
07-25-2005, 09:48 AM
I've simplified my original post, though it's still viewable in other people's quotes. I still somehow seem to be winding people up. I guess they were reading the first post then replying 6,7 or 8 pages later having not read the intermittant pages. The thread seemed to be getting quite friendly at one point, a healthy chat about beers of the world.

What I love about these forums, say compared to other maybe more relevant political ones, is that I can talk to people from all over the world and share a common interest, simulated air combat. Hopefully we can all get along.

Here's a picture of a kitten to calm everyone down.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/Nick_Toznost/Kitten-Duck.jpg

han freak solo
07-25-2005, 10:12 AM
I'll only get along if beer is being offered or sold!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Just my American perspective for the world to see:

Being born in 1965, my childhood was formed mostly in the 1970's. Back then the Soviets and Communism were seen as the enemy of the US. But, being a kid, we were not really shown the TV footage of the Vietnam war or anything that currently threatened the US (perceived or real). That was a job for parents to worry about.

World War Two being the overwhelming victory for the allies that it was, was the only real war topic covered in books, models, movies, etc., that kids found interest in. Our grandparents fought in that war and showed us pictures and told us the appropriate stories of their experiences.

We Americans got our info about that war from patriotic Americans. Of course, we were taught very positively of America's contributions in that war. Since America started late in that great conflict, then helped in finishing it, it appeared to many Americans that we were the deciding factor. Wrong as that is.

Remember, the USSR was a cold enemy of the US at this time and the American people were not about to freely embrace that the USSR made winning the war inevitable. Also, since the USSR had closed borders for information flow, I personally didn't know much about the USSR's involvement until the 1990's.

In the 1970's, the only things I had heard about the USSR vs. Germany were Kursk and Stalingrad. And that info was very limited to a kid that didn't seek it out anyway. Furthermore, my high school world history only covered WWII for about a week. The Korean conflict for about a day. Vietnam wasn't in the books yet.

To finish, growing up and being properly informed has allowed me to learn what was missing from what I knew in the 1970's. And that was quite a lot!

Salute to all nations involved. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Platypus_1.JaVA
07-25-2005, 10:31 AM
Hah, an oppertunity for americ Bashing! Alot of people outside the US think the people in the USA are arrogant and over confident. However, Adolf Hitler was an @ss and I must admit that I have yet to meet a German who isn't friendly. Altough we always have sometimes some less friendly soccer meetings. (Germany vs. Holland) So (apology for comparing Americans with Hitler) I think there are alot of really really nice people in the country with the Stars and stripes flag. The real arrogant Americans shout too much so that no-one outside the US is noticing the more quiet ones.

Conclusion, always try to look behind the obvious. When someone shouts something, try to find the reason behind it. Look further then the lenght of your nose (Dutch saying)

han freak solo
07-25-2005, 11:02 AM
Coffee or beer? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'm not bringin' tea. I'm leaving that up to the brits!

http://www.lssdigital.com/Darkroast.gif

http://www.lssdigital.com/Newcastle.jpg

HoldSteady641
07-25-2005, 11:11 AM
Hmm, I hope my contribution isn't viewed as an assault on Americans. Fact is, talking about Germans being friendly (gosh, why shouldn't they be? just because 70 years ago a large part was being an a$$ or just dumb?), which indeed they are very much in my account with them, the same is true for the average American. I have a lot of contact with folks from different countries (I work in a technical helpdesk for a major wireless telecom/internet company in the Netherlands) and EVERY American I´ve spoken to onward is terifically friendly, and as much counts for the British and the Germans folks. So where are we balking about anyway. Just messing with stereotypes and rusty opinions.. I think I have been anyway.. So, lets indeed stop pointing fingers and bashing each others head in with words, and just keep shooting each other´s a$$ off in virtual flight as civilized people should..

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif peace!

airdale1960
07-25-2005, 11:42 AM
WWIII may be fought online with video games. The defeated looses the voice in world affairs for 4 years, and must relinquish the right to vote on their own president/leader, which falls to the victors of the game. Sound Fair?

NorrisMcWhirter
07-25-2005, 12:17 PM
American beer? I don't drink it but I don't drink cold lagers as a general rule. I've had some quite nice 'warm bitters' in the US, though.

American beer is weak? I don't think that generalisation holds true. Perhaps they mean 'weak in taste' which is fair comment for anything cold.

Soccer punks? Were there not riots in Denver a few years ago? Hardcore hooligans are everywhere...they organise fights for weeks beforehand. Not so long ago, the Turks were smuggling English (Liverpool) fans into their country so they could stage fights. Let them do it, I say...it's natural selection if they can manage to kill each other (but no one else) in the process.

Best beers in the world? Avoid anything mass produced although 'mass production' does vary in scale somewhat. I can't remember the last time I had a bad beer from somewhere other than from a microbrewery (ok, so there was one that tasted of cheese) and you'd do better to support people who actually put loving care into making their beer rather than corporate suits more interested in where their next Lexus is coming from.

Ta,
Norris

WOLFMondo
07-25-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by han freak solo:
http://www.lssdigital.com/Newcastle.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i'd take tea over nukey brown.

huggy87
07-25-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoldSteady641:
It's hard for countries that are both proud and powerfull to be honest in these things. When your proud it's hard enough, but when your not powerfull enough, you cannot escape realism.

I do believe the larger part of Americans will be largely realistic in the way the world worked and so on, but I must admit, being European (Dutch), a lot of TV/movies from America use things like "America is the most democratic country in the world" and so on and so on. I hate to bother all the americans here with this, 'cause I know you all have a sence of history and things, which make you see things in perspective, but is this not largely believed in the US?
I mean, why do people assume America is the most democratic country? Or something other in that order? there is no ground for that. Even France had a revolution earlier, if that is any measure for that, and Holland revolted against Spanish opression even before that, h$ll, 'we' even funded part of your revolt!.. Not that we're any 'better' or anything, but why this we are the best attitude?

And I read somewhere that America didn't need propaganda. Technically speaking, if you believe that, than they allready have you!

Now, I'm taking a bit steam back here.. Got carried away.. There is no grudge of me against America, on the contrary. And I believe this 'we are better nation' - thing might have become worse and worse only the last few decades, as a tool for politicians, wielding nationalist fire for voting porpouses. And h$ll, if we hate it, than why watch American shows/movies anyway?

But does the average American believe it? Does an american get better judgement in America than europe or japan or australia/nz? Is it more democratic? Perhaps in some ways they do, they are. But it is said so resolutely, that it feels as if there's no second thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are partly right and partly wrong. How are you right? Most Americans do believe that they are lucky to live here and it is one of the best places on earth. You have to look at it from the point of view of my parent's and grandparents generations. They grew up seeing the devestation of two world wars that left NOONE in eurpope untouched. They saw the ruination, the starvation. They saw the iron curtain descend and take away peoples most basic freedoms. They saw the same people they had just help to free from the third reich now living under the threat of invasion from another menace. They watched the revolutions against imperialism in africa and asia. They saw the famines and disease that wiped out millions in those same continents. While all this was going on, america was getting wealthier and stronger than ever. So yeah, they saw what was going on in the rest of the world and realized how fortunate they were. All my childhood I was told to "finish my plate, there are starving people in africa", or "just be grateful you don't live in the Soviet Union." I can see how this appreciation for what we have often appears as arrogance to outsiders. I have travelled through a lot of Western Europe and I can see that now in 2005, we are not really any more democratic than most of europe. I would submit that we have surrended many of our freedoms over the years and can no longer claim most democratic. Your native country is certainly more liberal and free than mine.

This leads me to why you are wrong. First off. The French revolution did not occur before the American. We signed our declaration of independence in 1776. The french revolution happended in 1789 if I remember correctly. Ours was the first government "by the people, for the people." Not long after ours, revolutions touched off in france and all through the rest of the americas. We have one of the oldest working constitutions in the world.

I don't think you are bashing america. I just don't think the significance of the american revolution is appreciated by many europeans.

woofiedog
07-25-2005, 12:56 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Did someone say... you were talking about Beer!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/TV_mabel.jpg

http://www.wachusettbrew.com/images/beers/country_beer_pic.jpg

han freak solo
07-25-2005, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woofiedog:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Did someone say... you were talking about Beer! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, you've got serving wenches!! Can I come over there?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Please.

han freak solo
07-25-2005, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
i'd take tea over nukey brown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that's something we ought to fight the brits over! Coffee Vs. Tea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Slickun
07-25-2005, 02:29 PM
Still true. But, they keep to themselves and smoke in the trees. I've never seen an angry stoner, ever.

All ages throw the discs here, from children to grandparents.

Slick says:
Well, I saw one mad. After he hit me in the foot with his frisbee, I yelled "watch it" to him.

He yelled back "F#$@ you!"

I tossed his frisbee over the fence into a cow pasture. Tossed it a long way, too.

He was mad. Too stoned to do anything about it, though.

han freak solo
07-25-2005, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
We signed our declaration of independence in 1776. The french revolution happended in 1789 if I remember correctly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif That's what I remember, too. I WAS THERE DAMMIT!!

han freak solo
07-25-2005, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Still true. But, they keep to themselves and smoke in the trees. I've never seen an angry stoner, ever.

All ages throw the discs here, from children to grandparents.

Slick says:
Well, I saw one mad. After he hit me in the foot with his frisbee, I yelled "watch it" to him.

He yelled back "F#$@ you!"

I tossed his frisbee over the fence into a cow pasture. Tossed it a long way, too.

He was mad. Too stoned to do anything about it, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maybe I should make exceptions to that statement!

Nick_Toznost
07-25-2005, 02:32 PM
I note that the strongest beer in the whole world is brewed in Boston U.S.A. That's one stereotype regarding weak beer thrown out the window.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/Nick_Toznost/81_101740.jpg

It's 24 percent and brewed by Samuel Adams Inc. "A night out" would be rather brief for me on this stuff I'm sure.

I have tried the "weak" beer that Europeans often accuse the US of having. It's probably the only truly "refreshing" beer going. I got through loads and loads of Coors in 330ml cans while watching the Muskegon airshow, MI in 2000, "Truckosaurus" was amazing, and very American if I may say so, as was an FA18 racing a jet powered truck on a runway, the truck beat it truly amazing entertainment. The Coors was refreshing in intense heat and I got lightly drunk too. We don't get beer in 330ml cans in europe. Interesting idea.

han freak solo
07-25-2005, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
I note that the strongest beer in the whole world is brewed in Boston U.S.A. That's one stereotype regarding weak beer thrown out the window.

It's 24 percent and brewed by Samuel Adams Inc. "A night out" would be rather brief for me on this stuff I'm sure.

I have tried the "weak" beer that Europeans often accuse the US of having. It's probably the only truly "refreshing" beer going. I got through loads and loads of Coors in 330ml cans while watching the Muskegon airshow, MI in 2000, refreshing in intense heat and I got lightly drunk too. We don't get beer in 330ml cans in europe. Interesting idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW!! That looks like cognac or something!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Well I've got a 355ml can sittin' next to me that makes about 12 ounces. It's just for hand transport purposes. That's because we like stuff in multiples of 6. 6 shots in a revolver. 6 pack of beer. 12 pack of beer. 18 pack of beer. 24 pack of beer.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif How'd that revolver bit get in there??

woofiedog
07-25-2005, 02:40 PM
han freak solo... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, you've got serving wenches!! Can I come over there?? Please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you paying the Tab! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nick_Toznost
07-25-2005, 02:46 PM
.Quote by HanFreakSolo "WOW!! That looks like cognac or something!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif"


It's in the ******ss book of records as the world's most evil beer. It is beer apparantly, I'm pretty sure it doesn't taste like it though.

Nick_Toznost
07-25-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by huggy87:
We signed our declaration of independence in 1776. The french revolution happended in 1789 if I remember correctly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The English revolution happened in the 1640s. Kings/Queens had no real power after that. First nation in the world to try true democracy after the greeks invented it. We only became imperialist after this. Makes one think.
I live in Tom Paine's home town, Sandwich, Kent, his old house has a blue plaque on it. It's 5 houses down from me. It was for sale recently, 220,000. Tom Paine was the author of "the rights of man" which apparantly inspired both the American and French revolutions, as it says on the plaque. Anyone got any ideas, we don't learn much about him in school, guess us Brits regard him as a bit of a troublemaker. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Aaron_GT
07-25-2005, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ours was the first government "by the people, for the people." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To a certain extent this is because the English Revolution (aka the English Civil War, or more strictly wars) failed. Elements within the broad anti-royalist coalition believed in government by the people and for the people, notably the Levellers. Sadly the authoritarian elements in the anti-royalist coalition, notably Cromwell, crushed the Leveller movement. I've got a book of pamphlets from the period, and it makes some interesting reading, if you can get past the typeface and spelling. Quite a number of the dissidents from the Cromwellian regime ended up in the American colonies, and they (mixed with other elements, notably French and Scottish philosophy and financial pressures) helped sparked the American Revolution.

Aaron_GT
07-25-2005, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">First nation in the world to try true democracy after the greeks invented it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iceland had a democracy from 1000 or something close to it, bar some brief periods of direct rule from Denmark. The Isle of Man also had the Tinwald.

Interestingly the form of democracy the Levellers proposed was not realised in the the UK again until 1918, and was not practiced initially in the USA until enfranchisement was widened. Sadly the Leveller form of democracy was also not tried in England either, other than local assemblies where the Levellers held sway.

HoldSteady641
07-26-2005, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HoldSteady641:
It's hard for countries that are both proud and powerfull to be honest in these things. When your proud it's hard enough, but when your not powerfull enough, you cannot escape realism.

I do believe the larger part of Americans will be largely realistic in the way the world worked and so on, but I must admit, being European (Dutch), a lot of TV/movies from America use things like "America is the most democratic country in the world" and so on and so on. I hate to bother all the americans here with this, 'cause I know you all have a sence of history and things, which make you see things in perspective, but is this not largely believed in the US?
I mean, why do people assume America is the most democratic country? Or something other in that order? there is no ground for that. Even France had a revolution earlier, if that is any measure for that, and Holland revolted against Spanish opression even before that, h$ll, 'we' even funded part of your revolt!.. Not that we're any 'better' or anything, but why this we are the best attitude?

And I read somewhere that America didn't need propaganda. Technically speaking, if you believe that, than they allready have you!

Now, I'm taking a bit steam back here.. Got carried away.. There is no grudge of me against America, on the contrary. And I believe this 'we are better nation' - thing might have become worse and worse only the last few decades, as a tool for politicians, wielding nationalist fire for voting porpouses. And h$ll, if we hate it, than why watch American shows/movies anyway?

But does the average American believe it? Does an american get better judgement in America than europe or japan or australia/nz? Is it more democratic? Perhaps in some ways they do, they are. But it is said so resolutely, that it feels as if there's no second thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are partly right and partly wrong. How are you right? Most Americans do believe that they are lucky to live here and it is one of the best places on earth. You have to look at it from the point of view of my parent's and grandparents generations. They grew up seeing the devestation of two world wars that left NOONE in eurpope untouched. They saw the ruination, the starvation. They saw the iron curtain descend and take away peoples most basic freedoms. They saw the same people they had just help to free from the third reich now living under the threat of invasion from another menace. They watched the revolutions against imperialism in africa and asia. They saw the famines and disease that wiped out millions in those same continents. While all this was going on, america was getting wealthier and stronger than ever. So yeah, they saw what was going on in the rest of the world and realized how fortunate they were. All my childhood I was told to "finish my plate, there are starving people in africa", or "just be grateful you don't live in the Soviet Union." I can see how this appreciation for what we have often appears as arrogance to outsiders. I have travelled through a lot of Western Europe and I can see that now in 2005, we are not really any more democratic than most of europe. I would submit that we have surrended many of our freedoms over the years and can no longer claim most democratic. Your native country is certainly more liberal and free than mine.

This leads me to why you are wrong. First off. The French revolution did not occur before the American. We signed our declaration of independence in 1776. The french revolution happended in 1789 if I remember correctly. Ours was the first government "by the people, for the people." Not long after ours, revolutions touched off in france and all through the rest of the americas. We have one of the oldest working constitutions in the world.

I don't think you are bashing america. I just don't think the significance of the american revolution is appreciated by many europeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry if it sounded like that. I do appreciate the American revolution very much. The American constitution, the idea's it stood and stands for and the human rights formulated by Jefferson are a tremendeous contribution to world, I sincerely think so.
I think it has changed a lot of the world, had a tremedeous impact. But, never forget that the world was and allways is changing. The American revoltion was only part of it. There is no 'before' and 'after' this any more than the Dutch revoltion, the French revoltion, the English revoltion and the for example instituions of the ancient world, which inspired all. All had mayor impact which formed the world they way it is now. What I resent is the way one should put one above the rest and claim some sort of supremacy, or pride which fires arrogance.
Now, I believe personally that the way things are viewed in America about this have to do with national pride, since it is the foundation, the cornerstone of your country, and perhaps the isolationism of the US.

Nothing wrong with that, but in Holland, we have allways been internationally focussed, out of pure necessity. With such a view, it is impossible for me to view such an institution or event as holier than others..

Well, can't help this, my only point was to nag about Americans bragging in their TV-vessels about their country being the most democratic and look were it took me.. I sincerely hope this is not viewed as an assault on America, it's history, it's people and it's contributions to the world, for they are truly as large as the world itself. Personally, I am very glad of it's contribution to the world, without them I wouldn't even been born, my granddad being an American soldier liberating the southern part of the Netherlands in 1944 and celebrating that with my grandma!

Greetings!

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 09:32 AM
Where's the beer? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

HoldSteady641
07-26-2005, 09:48 AM
find a fridge. Good chance it's there to be had

Nick_Toznost
09-25-2005, 12:34 PM
Bump. Plenty of beer stories here!

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-25-2005, 12:51 PM
Everybody should study Tom Paine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine