Originally Posted by RnderSafe

The Brits make horrible tea, though it is the best tea in the world compared to an Americans idea of tea. Now the Irish, we know how to make a cup of tea.

The Irish are probably benefiting from the HCBC (High Cooked Breakfast Capability) project of the 1990s, which obviously had a big tea-making element. The British pulled out of that to pursue their own Future Fry-Ups Programme, designed to counter the morning-after effects of the Options for Getting Bladdered study.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The Americans have a different way of doing some things and I'm not gonna go into the merits or lack thereof compared to what the British would do.

However, you would do well to remember that the Americans aided the Soviets hugely with the Lend-Lease program that literally allowed the Red Army to recover after 1941, not to mention the material they supplied to ourselves. It's gotta be pointed out that the US were not duty bound to get involved in the War in Europe in either World War but they did so recognising that the threat of Germany (especially in WW2) had to be stopped.

So while the Americans did not beat the Nazi's singlehandedly they did more to ensure that victory than any other country aside from the Soviet Union.

As far as the UK is concerned though they DID save our asses as by now we would be either speaking German or Russian. :P

Given that, would you rather they had just stayed on the North American continent and did nothing?

This is completely incorrect and unfortunately typical of USA lack of facts and understanding.

The Reds used less than 5% lend lease equipment, 95% their own manufacture. They destroyed over 75% of the total German forces.

Then after Berlin they were to turn East to Japan, fearing they were going toward the US Japan was hurriedly nuked, even though they were negotiating surrender and those in the know didn't want nukes used.

If you compare D-Day with the Russian advance in the East at around that time it makes D-Day look disorganised, petty and insignificant. Go on look it up compare the figures (enemy ratio, ground taken etc etc). The truth is the US only got more involved at this late stage to stop the Reds taking all of Europe.

If the Allies treated the Reds better there would have been nothing to fear. As you know the Allied Yalta agreements were repeatedly broken by the US, costing the Reds millions of lives, MILLIONS! The US president even said "the more of them that die the better", how do you think that'd make your signed 'ally' feel?

And they completely bodged the surrender terms leaving Japan unaccoutable for thousands of murders, rapes, tortures and indescribable acts. The US on behalf of the world accepted a whopping $20 compensation for the slave labourers, rape / comfort women etc etc. I am sure had the surrender been negotiated by an appropriate Allied grouping Japan would still be paying now, just like Germany.

Whenever the US is in charge the war is lost. Sure some battles may be won. This is of course excepting the Iraqis, 90% of which ran. Even gulf war 1 was a bitter victory with an inquiry held into the slaughter of the 5th column who had essentially surrendered and were driving home. Iraq is not won yet, being in the know you will realise this has all been done before in Iraq, dictator disposed etc (1921), within 20ish years it was back to 'tribal' dictatorship.

So far as I'm concerned the US should just keep away from international conflicts.

Lazza.

Have you got any sources for those claims, Lazza?

Originally Posted by TacticalEdge

The US is the BEST the brits are good but they always seem to forget that we won a war with only some farmers and badly trained men..... we won with spirit... i have no problem with you being partiotic but listen when i say that in every major engagment the US has been the deciding factor lets see: WWII, WWI, War of 1812, American revolution, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm..... the list goes on and on...... plus we did beat your butts twice....... the US is simply the best..... and the USMC is the best of the best...... UURAAHHH

You may well be correct in some of the things you say in your post, about the Americans playing a vital role in the Second World War, but America's involvement in the First World War was not strategically vital. Though we Brits (and Commonwealth peoples) are grateful for the sacrifices made by Americans in WW1, it is nieve of you to say that the US was a deciding factor in the outcome. The war would probably have ended in the same manner it did end though the result would have been a lot more bloodier for the allies, don't get me wrong I'm grateful for American support I just don't want the British , Commonwealth and allied countries' soldiers who fought so bravely against Germany and the other central powers to be forgotten.
I think your view of Britain and the Anglo-American relationship is outdated, during the War of independance we were enemies but now we are close allies, the Americans are certainly our closest ally. People's opinions of which force is best differ. Some say the British Challenger Tanks did better then the American Abrams in the desert, others say British forces are less heavy-handed when it comes to peace-keeping, the M16 is also said to have fielded better in the desert then the SA80. You cannot make a general statement of which force is the best, the truth is that both forces have their strengths and weaknesses, one force is perhaps seen as better in one area then the other force. I do however respect your patriotism but I think you're perhaps slightly arrogant in the way you present your arguments.

Lazza, you need to immediately post an introduction in the Welcoming Center and provide sources for your "facts."



England Expects, I wholeheartedly agree with you on your comparison of our respective forces.
However I do believe that the influx of new, fresh troops did in fact play a vital role in bringing an end to WWI. I do not doubt that an allied victory was inevitable, but it would have, in my view, have taken several more years of fighting.

Of course all this doesn't have a whole lot to do with the topic anyway.

Redneck you're certainly correct in saying the war would have lasted several more years without American troops, that's why we're so grateful towards America for helping Europe in its hour of need. I was just making the point that British, Commonwealth and other allied soldiers played a pivotal role in the success of WW1 and that their memories and sacrifices shouldn't be forgotten by people saying that other their country won the day. I do however accept that America also played a great part in the much faster road to victory.

Just to continue the feel-good session, I know that I do not underestimate the contribution or sacrifices of the other allies (that far out-weighed our own in WWI) in either of the WWs. Actually, just for the sake of randomness, I can remember meeting one British WWI veteran and two American veterans when I was very young at one of our local parades for Veterans' Day. Apparently after the War he had moved out to our area and worked as a cowboy.

Well i think they are extremely arrogant to be honest. Vek wrote "methinks you are forgetting the size of our countries. US, pop. 250million, UK, pop. 58million. BIG difference. we done quite well without you in both world wars, and i believe the US army failed in nam? even though they don't like to admit that they were beaten by a bunch of farmers. but, thanks all the same for help in the world wars" Lol now that is funny.... Doing good in the wars without us? You were getting slaughtered like pigs. When the brits fought in ww1 and 2 without us it was pretty sad. I suggest you read up on some history. I believe the only battle the brits won in WW1 was when they first invented the tank. Before we joined you in ww2 you were pretty much defeated your troops were retreating back to your island and your people were starving to death. I think the Brits are great troops and im glad they are our best friends but cmon, dont say stupid shit like that, its just an insult.... Oh and we lost vietnam by journalist not our troops. And to lazza last time i checked the russian winter defeated the germans not the russians. And after you took berlin your troops raped many many woman esitmated at around 60,000 i believe. Sorry i have no sources but i love the history channel which is where this comes from. Sorry for the hate i know that America couldnt had won any of those wars alone and America during ww1 wasent really anything to speak of. But we did do some serious damage to Germany durring ww2. I really just see brits as wierd speaking americans

[quote="England Expects (RAF Cdt)"]

Originally Posted by TacticalEdge

The US is the BEST the brits are good but they always seem to forget that we won a war with only some farmers and badly trained men..... we won with spirit... i have no problem with you being partiotic but listen when i say that in every major engagment the US has been the deciding factor lets see: WWII, WWI, War of 1812, American revolution, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm..... the list goes on and on...... plus we did beat your butts twice....... the US is simply the best..... and the USMC is the best of the best...... UURAAHHH

The usa's role in ww1 was not bloody vital!!!!!!!!!! (my biased opinion
the blockade of geman ports had a bigger effect.
and in ww2 the us joined as soon as they knew who was going to win. gemany didn't have the naval power to effect an invasion of england at any time during ww2.
korea is still an armistice to this day if i'm not mistaken.

and as far as big_z thinking the only battles the brits won in ww1 was when they invented the tank: the defence of the mons-cande canal is one(superior marksmanship won that battle.)
Neuve chapelle, 1st ypres and others.
quote: Before we joined you in ww2 you were pretty much defeated: bollocks!

wars ar lost by troops not journalists.

Ok, everybody needs to take a massive dang chill pill now. Keep it civil or I am going to lock this thread.


Big Z, I need you to head over to the Welcoming Center and post an introduction.