oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
WW2 is not as simple as Germany against the rest of Europe with USA as saviour of the world.
Countries got into WW2 for different reasons at different times, there were various fronts with a different mix of allies fighting each front (and fighting different 'enemies'). Hitler's Germany is only a part of this global war.
This was an effort by everyone... no single country can claim 'victory' over others.
Maybe I missed the part where someone said america won the war. I thought I had been reading people say that w/o america, we'd all be speaking german.
That doesn't necessarily mean that america won the war. It just means that america's role was necessary.
Let's assume that America did not get involved and Germany was beaten some other way. That way would've been through the Russian advance. Well, wooptie friggen do. I'm sure E. Germany and all of the Eastern Bloc countries were jumping for joy over being the countries lucky enough to be liberated by the good old USSR.
Which basically means that if the US hadn't been there, the war would have been lost, ie American 'won' the war for Europe.
That's like saying Bobby Boucher won the Bourbon Bowl. The Louisiana Mud Dogs won the Bourbon Bowl, not Bobby Boucher. But without Bobby Boucher, Red Beaulieu and the Cougars would have won. That's what people mean by "Without america, we'd all be speaking german."
The US was the MVP, that's all. If you want, you can say Russia was MVP, but what Russia did for the game of football really kind of cancels out any positive contributions it may have had.
In all of this, let's not forget the huge role the 'resistance' had in numerous european countries. Their actions contributed greatly to the 'libration'.
That's like saying Bobby Boucher won the Bourbon Bowl. The US was the MVP, that's all. If you want, you can say Russia was MVP, but what Russia did for the game of football really kind of cancels out any positive contributions it may have had.
Not sure if you thought that my post were my thoughts... this is just how I understood what that intial 'you can thank our Grandparents that you don't speak German' post was about.
I believe that the outcome of WW2 is a concerted effort by all allies (military and civilian). No one country can claim more 'glory' out of this.
And yeah.... Russia's contribution to football..... hmmm.... get your point there!!!!
As far as I'm concerned, Tom Hanks won WWII. Until they make a movie as awesome as SPR to honor someone else, that's just the way things are gonna stand.
And yeah.... Russia's contribution to football..... hmmm.... get your point there!!!!
Quick counter-attacking football with focus on the wing players, and being quick to exploit mistakes in the opposing team? and also the practice to let a national team be built to a large degree on one league team, ensuring players know eachother well, and can take that with them to the international level?
Or aren't we talking football at all?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
As far as I'm concerned, Tom Hanks won WWII. Until they make a movie as awesome as SPR to honor someone else, that's just the way things are gonna stand.
Yep... if that's what the film says :D: And as far as I'm concerned Mel Gibson single-handedly gave the independence to the thirteen colonies when he freed them from British tyranny What would we do without the silver screen?:D:D:D
OK well we had a more hands off foreign policy then. You criticize and bitch either way. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
England and France had two years to stop the Germans before they invaded Russia.
The war may have started on your soil yet it spilled onto ours bc you couldnt control it. Anyhow, I am getting away from this stupid computer.
Keep on spewing...
I think France was pretty wasted by that time and England was hurting too.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The war may have started on your soil yet it spilled onto ours bc you couldnt control it. Anyhow, I am getting away from this stupid computer.
If I'm not mistaken, WWII "spilled onto our [soil]" through Japan in the form of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I don't think we could've realistically expected England and the rest of Europe to keep Japan in check. Not to mention, we were the ones who instigated that bombing by enforcing an embargo.
And I'm sure you already know this, so that's why I'm a little confused as to why you would say the above.
Maybe I missed the part where someone said america won the war. I thought I had been reading people say that w/o america, we'd all be speaking german.
That doesn't necessarily mean that america won the war. It just means that america's role was necessary.
Let's assume that America did not get involved and Germany was beaten some other way. That way would've been through the Russian advance. Well, wooptie friggen do. I'm sure E. Germany and all of the Eastern Bloc countries were jumping for joy over being the countries lucky enough to be liberated by the good old USSR.
You make a good point. I haven't once denigrated the role America played in helping to Liberate Western Europe, although I have pointed out that when the war is looked at as a whole then the part that America played can realistically be considered as marginal. My point is that America didn't join the war in Europe until 1942 after the Japanese had dragged them into the arena. Germany's forces at this point in time were mostly concentrated in Russia and for the previous 2 years when Britain was at it's most vulnerable, America was no where to be seen. What happened between 1942 and 1945 was that the Russians single-handedly destroyed 3/4's of the German military machine in the East, laying the way for Western Europe to be liberated. The role America played in liberating Western Europe can not be underestimated, or under-valued, but it was only made possible by what the Russians acheived in the East. Hence my annoyance at hearing Americans say that they saved our asses in World war 2 - it reeks of ignorance to me.
Quick counter-attacking football with focus on the wing players, and being quick to exploit mistakes in the opposing team? and also the practice to let a national team be built to a large degree on one league team, ensuring players know eachother well, and can take that with them to the international level?
Or aren't we talking football at all?
Peace
Dan
...and let's not forget pumping the female players full of steroids so that they start growing beards.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
You make a good point. I haven't once denigrated the role America played in helping to Liberate Western Europe, although I have pointed out that when the war is looked at as a whole then the part that America played can realistically be considered as marginal. My point is that America didn't join the war in Europe until 1942 after the Japanese had dragged them into the arena. Germany's forces at this point in time were mostly concentrated in Russia and for the previous 2 years when Britain was at it's most vulnerable, America was no where to be seen. What happened between 1942 and 1945 was that the Russians single-handedly destroyed 3/4's of the German military machine in the East, laying the way for Western Europe to be liberated. The role America played in liberating Western Europe can not be underestimated, or under-valued, but it was only made possible by what the Russians acheived in the East. Hence my annoyance at hearing Americans say that they saved our asses in World war 2 - it reeks of ignorance to me.
It's true that the Russians killed a whole lot many more Nazis than the Allies did. And I'm sure most Americans haven't ever once taken this into consideration. I certainly did not learn that in High School here in the states. I didn't major in History in college, so I don't know if they teach that at the collegiate level or what.
But, when I think of "winning" WWII, I think of actually liberating those countries or at least saving them from tyanny. In the case of Russia's contribution, it's neither. They brought their own brand of tyranny with them as they "liberated" the formerly nazi-occupied areas of Europe.
And who is to say that the UK would have been spared? Who is to say that Stalin would have stopped at only the nazi-occupied areas of Europe?
So, that's why the US did save your guys' asses, whether you like to admit it or not. If it wasn't the nazis, it most likely would've been the Russkies. In which case, all you limies would be drinking vodka and doing the barynya.
But, you don't have to thank us. The Beatles and Pink Floyd were definitely worth the trouble.
England and France had two years to stop the Germans before they invaded Russia.
yes i'm nit-picking but i dont give a fuck... there is more to the UK than just England... as great and informative as this thread is, this really is quite ignorant, and its a common Americanism to just say England when they mean Britain
I know Ahnimus and Jammin are pretty clever fuckers and probably didnt realise but England didnt fight in WW1 or WW2 it was the British Forces who fought...
sorry..... it just fucks me off
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
its been used on here a few times and i heard a tourist say it in Edinburgh to a barman once
he was thusly lectured before i robbed the daft fucker :cool:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
yes i'm nit-picking but i dont give a fuck... there is more to the UK than just England... as great and informative as this thread is, this really is quite ignorant, and its a common Americanism to just say England when they mean Britain
I know Ahnimus and Jammin are pretty clever fuckers and probably didnt realise but England didnt fight in WW1 or WW2 it was the British Forces who fought...
sorry..... it just fucks me off
That's true. And the best bit of the film 'The Longest day' is at the end when the Scottish fella appears playing the bagpipes as they head off inland from the Beach head.
yes i'm nit-picking but i dont give a fuck... there is more to the UK than just England... as great and informative as this thread is, this really is quite ignorant, and its a common Americanism to just say England when they mean Britain
I know Ahnimus and Jammin are pretty clever fuckers and probably didnt realise but England didnt fight in WW1 or WW2 it was the British Forces who fought...
sorry..... it just fucks me off
That part of the world confuses me. I know it was the Brittish Royal Navy that was hitting the German's hard at sea. I was just saying that by the time the U.S. got involved Germany had done a number on the existing Allies. In other words, they were losing the war. I don't think America 'won' the war although the paratroopers were a great asset.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
As far as I'm concerned, Tom Hanks won WWII. Until they make a movie as awesome as SPR to honor someone else, that's just the way things are gonna stand.
dude do yourself a favor this weekend and rent Band of Brothers, it's like SPR only ten hours and where SPR is kind of shitty this one is kind of awesome
"I'm not suicidal, except when I drink. That's why we don't all drink at the same time, there'd be no-one alive to drive home..."
Chris Cornell
...and let's not forget pumping the female players full of steroids so that they start growing beards.
Yeah. why didn't they just try to pull what the germans tried in the 36 Berlin olympics by running men in the women's classes. they did for at least one discipline, and he didn't achieve more than an 8th place Or do as the chinese and put those kids in training camps at age 2 so they can win when they're 16.
Anyways.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
dude do yourself a favor this weekend and rent Band of Brothers, it's like SPR only ten hours and where SPR is kind of shitty this one is kind of awesome
It is awesome. I have the collection on DVD.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree that BOB > SPR. I was gonna say "Capt. Dick Winters", but he's a real guy...wouldn't have been as funny, IMO. And no one knows the name of the guy who played him. Tom Hanks was the best I could do.
. I certainly did not learn that in High School here in the states. I didn't major in History in college, so I don't know if they teach that at the collegiate level or what.
Just as you guys would learn about the civil war in the US, we learn about WW2 as it had such an impact on us (and is contemporary) in both primary and secondary schools. We are probably just as ignorant of the deeper facts of the american revolution!
I think what rubs us the wrong way is that the US think they did it on their own. It would be like the french saying that Lafayette, Rochambeau and Grasse (and their troops) 'won' the revolution for the americans by defeating the British and therefore if it hadn't been for them, the americans would not have gained their independence and would be speaking 'the Queen's english'.. Preposterous, isn't it? (We all know it was Mel Gibson! )
I think what rubs us the wrong way is that the US think they did it on their own. It would be like the french saying that Lafayette, Rochambeau and Grasse (and their troops) 'won' the revolution for the americans by defeating the British and therefore if it hadn't been for them, the americans would not have gained their independence and would be speaking 'the Queen's english'.. Preposterous, isn't it? (We all know it was Mel Gibson! )
I think that is a disproportionate comparison. What you're saying is that the contribution that the French made in the Revolutionary War = US contribution in WWII. I just have to disagree with that for some reason.
I don't see why it's so hard for the British to admit that the US kicked the most ass out of all the allies in WWII. We're a larger country with more people and more resources. No one is saying that we're braver or stronger per person. It's just that we make more babies and guns. Big deal.
It's the same reason why the North beat the south in the US civil war. The north had the factories and the man power. No one in the US ever says one side fought better than the other. Even though southerners are inbred hicks, they didn't really lose for that reason. It's just that an abundant source of cotton doesn't do a whole lot for an army. I'm only kidding about the inbreeding, btw. Luckily, the bible does not condone inbreeding.
I think that is a disproportionate comparison. What you're saying is that the contribution that the French made in the Revolutionary War = US contribution in WWII. I just have to disagree with that for some reason.
No.. different wars, different times, different proportions... though with Rochambeau's troops and Grasse's fleet, the final push was given! I could stop here and claim 'victory' or I could add that obviously George Washington & his men, the patriots, the american people were all there and all had valuable roles in getting rid of the 'threat' - all relied one upon another (This could be a discussion for another thread... NOT!!!!)
What I'm saying is that the type of comment that started this thread is patronizing. disrespectful and totally disregards the actions and contributions of all the other countries involved. A big ego trip in a way... Lots of men, women and children lost their lives on all fronts. And, just like in the American revolution (yep... that comparison again!), all needed each other to achieve their goal.
Very briefly, in answer to the question 'Did the US defeat Hitler's Germany?' No.. a coalition of countries defeated Hitler's army.
Also, to respond to the comment 'You should be thanking our Grandparents that you aren't speaking German right now'...
I thank my mother who was in the maquis, I thank my grandfather who was killed by the nazis and I thank all the others who helped fight for their freedom in this global conflict (whoever their 'enemi' might have been.. japanese, german, etc.)
I don't see why it's so hard for the British to admit that the US kicked the most ass out of all the allies in WWII.
because you didnt... the Russians did.. sheer overwhelming number of men was their weapon, they killed more germans than the US and other Euro Allies put together... thats why we dont admit it
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Comments
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
mmmm... beef curtains
Countries got into WW2 for different reasons at different times, there were various fronts with a different mix of allies fighting each front (and fighting different 'enemies'). Hitler's Germany is only a part of this global war.
This was an effort by everyone... no single country can claim 'victory' over others.
That doesn't necessarily mean that america won the war. It just means that america's role was necessary.
Let's assume that America did not get involved and Germany was beaten some other way. That way would've been through the Russian advance. Well, wooptie friggen do. I'm sure E. Germany and all of the Eastern Bloc countries were jumping for joy over being the countries lucky enough to be liberated by the good old USSR.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
That's like saying Bobby Boucher won the Bourbon Bowl. The Louisiana Mud Dogs won the Bourbon Bowl, not Bobby Boucher. But without Bobby Boucher, Red Beaulieu and the Cougars would have won. That's what people mean by "Without america, we'd all be speaking german."
The US was the MVP, that's all. If you want, you can say Russia was MVP, but what Russia did for the game of football really kind of cancels out any positive contributions it may have had.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Good point.
Not sure if you thought that my post were my thoughts... this is just how I understood what that intial 'you can thank our Grandparents that you don't speak German' post was about.
I believe that the outcome of WW2 is a concerted effort by all allies (military and civilian). No one country can claim more 'glory' out of this.
And yeah.... Russia's contribution to football..... hmmm.... get your point there!!!!
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Quick counter-attacking football with focus on the wing players, and being quick to exploit mistakes in the opposing team? and also the practice to let a national team be built to a large degree on one league team, ensuring players know eachother well, and can take that with them to the international level?
Or aren't we talking football at all?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Yep... if that's what the film says
I think France was pretty wasted by that time and England was hurting too.
If I'm not mistaken, WWII "spilled onto our [soil]" through Japan in the form of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I don't think we could've realistically expected England and the rest of Europe to keep Japan in check. Not to mention, we were the ones who instigated that bombing by enforcing an embargo.
And I'm sure you already know this, so that's why I'm a little confused as to why you would say the above.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You make a good point. I haven't once denigrated the role America played in helping to Liberate Western Europe, although I have pointed out that when the war is looked at as a whole then the part that America played can realistically be considered as marginal. My point is that America didn't join the war in Europe until 1942 after the Japanese had dragged them into the arena. Germany's forces at this point in time were mostly concentrated in Russia and for the previous 2 years when Britain was at it's most vulnerable, America was no where to be seen. What happened between 1942 and 1945 was that the Russians single-handedly destroyed 3/4's of the German military machine in the East, laying the way for Western Europe to be liberated. The role America played in liberating Western Europe can not be underestimated, or under-valued, but it was only made possible by what the Russians acheived in the East. Hence my annoyance at hearing Americans say that they saved our asses in World war 2 - it reeks of ignorance to me.
...and let's not forget pumping the female players full of steroids so that they start growing beards.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
It's true that the Russians killed a whole lot many more Nazis than the Allies did. And I'm sure most Americans haven't ever once taken this into consideration. I certainly did not learn that in High School here in the states. I didn't major in History in college, so I don't know if they teach that at the collegiate level or what.
But, when I think of "winning" WWII, I think of actually liberating those countries or at least saving them from tyanny. In the case of Russia's contribution, it's neither. They brought their own brand of tyranny with them as they "liberated" the formerly nazi-occupied areas of Europe.
And who is to say that the UK would have been spared? Who is to say that Stalin would have stopped at only the nazi-occupied areas of Europe?
So, that's why the US did save your guys' asses, whether you like to admit it or not. If it wasn't the nazis, it most likely would've been the Russkies. In which case, all you limies would be drinking vodka and doing the barynya.
But, you don't have to thank us. The Beatles and Pink Floyd were definitely worth the trouble.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
yes i'm nit-picking but i dont give a fuck... there is more to the UK than just England... as great and informative as this thread is, this really is quite ignorant, and its a common Americanism to just say England when they mean Britain
I know Ahnimus and Jammin are pretty clever fuckers and probably didnt realise but England didnt fight in WW1 or WW2 it was the British Forces who fought...
sorry..... it just fucks me off
its been used on here a few times and i heard a tourist say it in Edinburgh to a barman once
he was thusly lectured before i robbed the daft fucker :cool:
Sounds good to me! At least we may have been spared endless re-runs of 'Friends' on t.v!
That's true. And the best bit of the film 'The Longest day' is at the end when the Scottish fella appears playing the bagpipes as they head off inland from the Beach head.
That part of the world confuses me. I know it was the Brittish Royal Navy that was hitting the German's hard at sea. I was just saying that by the time the U.S. got involved Germany had done a number on the existing Allies. In other words, they were losing the war. I don't think America 'won' the war although the paratroopers were a great asset.
dude do yourself a favor this weekend and rent Band of Brothers, it's like SPR only ten hours and where SPR is kind of shitty this one is kind of awesome
Chris Cornell
http://www.myspace.com/mrwalkerb
Anyways.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It is awesome. I have the collection on DVD.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Just as you guys would learn about the civil war in the US, we learn about WW2 as it had such an impact on us (and is contemporary) in both primary and secondary schools. We are probably just as ignorant of the deeper facts of the american revolution!
I think what rubs us the wrong way is that the US think they did it on their own. It would be like the french saying that Lafayette, Rochambeau and Grasse (and their troops) 'won' the revolution for the americans by defeating the British and therefore if it hadn't been for them, the americans would not have gained their independence and would be speaking 'the Queen's english'.. Preposterous, isn't it? (We all know it was Mel Gibson!
mmm... Vodka....
I think that is a disproportionate comparison. What you're saying is that the contribution that the French made in the Revolutionary War = US contribution in WWII. I just have to disagree with that for some reason.
I don't see why it's so hard for the British to admit that the US kicked the most ass out of all the allies in WWII. We're a larger country with more people and more resources. No one is saying that we're braver or stronger per person. It's just that we make more babies and guns. Big deal.
It's the same reason why the North beat the south in the US civil war. The north had the factories and the man power. No one in the US ever says one side fought better than the other. Even though southerners are inbred hicks, they didn't really lose for that reason. It's just that an abundant source of cotton doesn't do a whole lot for an army. I'm only kidding about the inbreeding, btw. Luckily, the bible does not condone inbreeding.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
No.. different wars, different times, different proportions... though with Rochambeau's troops and Grasse's fleet, the final push was given! I could stop here and claim 'victory' or I could add that obviously George Washington & his men, the patriots, the american people were all there and all had valuable roles in getting rid of the 'threat' - all relied one upon another (This could be a discussion for another thread... NOT!!!!)
What I'm saying is that the type of comment that started this thread is patronizing. disrespectful and totally disregards the actions and contributions of all the other countries involved. A big ego trip in a way... Lots of men, women and children lost their lives on all fronts. And, just like in the American revolution (yep... that comparison again!), all needed each other to achieve their goal.
Very briefly, in answer to the question 'Did the US defeat Hitler's Germany?' No.. a coalition of countries defeated Hitler's army.
Also, to respond to the comment 'You should be thanking our Grandparents that you aren't speaking German right now'...
I thank my mother who was in the maquis, I thank my grandfather who was killed by the nazis and I thank all the others who helped fight for their freedom in this global conflict (whoever their 'enemi' might have been.. japanese, german, etc.)
because you didnt... the Russians did.. sheer overwhelming number of men was their weapon, they killed more germans than the US and other Euro Allies put together... thats why we dont admit it