US hospitality

Tripps

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
I believe thats called 'speculation'.
I might be speaking Russian or something, but I see no facts here.
 

Tripps

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
Cortez said:
Speculation? That's a disgrace.

So you're saying the thousands who died, died in vain? And if the United States hadn't entered.. everybody would've been fine?

Ridiculous.
Wheres the disgrace? Your saying as a fact that without US intervention everyone would be speaking German, since that didn't happen, its called "speculation".

To help you out, heres some definitions:

Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
Speculation: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

Nowhere have I reasoned that thousands died in vain, nor everybody would be fine.

The only thing ridiculous is your assumptions.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Cortez said:
One fact remains clear: Without "us"... "You" wouldn't be here.

LOl. And without us you wouldn't be here.


By the way the US peak strength during WWII was 12.3 million.

The peak strength of the British (& Commonwealth) was 9.1 million.

Peak Russian 20 million.

Peak Chinese (fighting Japan) 5 million.

Did you also know that 9/10 Germans killed in the war were killed by Russia ? If you had not entered the war, Russia would have destroyed Germany. And you my friend would be talking a mix of British and Russian.
 

Tripps

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
Marko said:
Did you also know that 9/10 Germans killed in the war were killed by Russia ? If you had not entered the war, Russia would have destroyed Germany. And you my friend would be talking a mix of British and Russian.
To be picky, I was under the impression that it was 80% of German casualties were caused by the Russians, so its more like 8/10 :D

Though, the whole concept seems to elude our friend... :cheeky:
 

Wolf

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Country
ll
Tripps said:
To be picky, I was under the impression that it was 80% of German casualties were caused by the Russians, so its more like 8/10 :D

Though, the whole concept seems to elude our friend... :cheeky:
Alternatively, without "us" he might be speaking Japanese by now - I don't have the figures but there were an awful lot of BACF troops in the Pacific.
 

Cortez

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Location
The home of Sam Adams, the beer... and the man.
Country
llUnited States
Speaking.. "British" .. it's English.. is it not.

It's not speculation when as a result of something happening creating a "fact" that would not be there unless the United States entered.

I'd like to see New Zealand or Australia survive without the U.S. They were begging for troops back in 1942. Britain's basically the same thing. Without U.S. fighting men, aircraft, tanks, and huge amounts of aid. There would be no RAF.
 

Tripps

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
Cortez said:
Speaking.. "British" .. it's English.. is it not.
? :confused: ? Is this in reference to what Marko said?
If so, British includes the commonwealth of nations, England does not, since he said & Commonwealth, I thought that was as obvious as one could make it without having to list everything.

Cortez said:
It's not speculation when as a result of something happening creating a "fact" that would not be there unless the United States entered.
Yes, but we are talking about the US not being there, therefore, its speculation. Its not that hard a concept is it?

Cortez said:
I'd like to see New Zealand or Australia survive without the U.S. They were begging for troops back in 1942. Britain's basically the same thing. Without U.S. fighting men, aircraft, tanks, and huge amounts of aid. There would be no RAF.
I dont think they would have lasted long against Germany, but we all know this, and its off-topic, if again you are trying to attack my country of residence, let me tell you something, I know NZ or Oz wouldnt have held a candle to Imperial Germany in the late 30's/early 40's, in "fact", I would have liked to have seen USA try to attack them alone, I doubt they would they achieved much as well.
 
Last edited:

Cortez

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Location
The home of Sam Adams, the beer... and the man.
Country
llUnited States
Tripps said:
? :confused: ? Is this in reference to what Marko said?
If so, British includes the commonwealth of nations, England does not, since he said & Commonwealth, I thought that was as obvious as one could make it without having to list everything.
It is obvious, but it's an incorrect term. Shouldn't you be the one to jump on him for that. Afterall Tripps, you seem to love to lay out lengthy definitions of terminology. "English" is the name of the language. Not British.

Tripps said:
I dont think they would have lasted long against Germany, but we all know this, and its off-topic, if again you are trying to attack my country of residence, let me tell you something, I know NZ or Oz wouldnt have held a candle to Imperial Germany in the late 30's/early 40's, in "fact", I would have liked to see USA try to attack them, I doubt they would they achieved much as well.
And do you actually think that NZ or Australia could've held a candle to the Imperial Japanese in World War Two? No. The problem is you're getting mixed up in all this terminology talk, yet you're missing the point that the United States was the prime factor in why Australia and New Zealand aren't part of a Co-Prosperity sphere under Japan.

How dare you question the role the United States played. If you say that it's speculation that without the U.S. that your nation, or any other free and allied could have sustained their sovereignty, then it's speculation if you say they could've survived is it not? It's entirely speculative, the whole thing.

But how can you speculate on the impact that the U.S. forces did to the World War II axis? You can't. That's the problem with your argument.
 

Tripps

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Messages
622
Reaction score
0
Location
New Zealand
Country
llNew Zealand
Cortez said:
It is obvious, but it's an incorrect term. Shouldn't you be the one to jump on him for that. Afterall Tripps, you seem to love to lay out lengthy definitions of terminology. "English" is the name of the language. Not British.
Ok, number one, no one apart from you has made mention to the word "English", hence why I asked was your comments in regards to what Marko said.
You have declined to point out what you were referring to, so its a little difficult to understand just where you are coming from.

Number two, the word English:

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of England or its people or culture.
2. Of or relating to the English language.

So you are wrong there.

Cortez said:
And do you actually think that NZ or Australia could've held a candle to the Imperial Japanese in World War Two? No. The problem is you're getting mixed up in all this terminology talk, yet you're missing the point that the United States was the prime factor in why Australia and New Zealand aren't part of a Co-Prosperity sphere under Japan.
No I dont think so, I have no idea why you would think I think this, just where do I even mention anything to do about this???
This is completely off topic regarding USA and Germany, If you would please stay on topic, maybe we can get somewhere.

Cortez said:
How dare you question the role the United States played. If you say that it's speculation that without the U.S. that your nation, or any other free and allied could have sustained their sovereignty, then it's speculation if you say they could've survived is it not? It's entirely speculative, the whole thing.
I dont question the role the US played, I question your over-emphasis of it.
You say the US beat Germany thus saving France from the Germans, I say Russia had them beat before D-Day, all that did was shorten the whole affair, and maybe save France/Western Europe from communism.


Cortez said:
But how can you speculate on the impact that the U.S. forces did to the World War II axis? You can't. That's the problem with your argument.
Problem is, you dont understand your argument, let alone mine...
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
302
Reaction score
1
Location
Not Here
Cortez said:
France owes its independence to America... Twice.
France helped out the fledgling American colonists in the war of independence, so I guess the USA owes its independence to France.
 

Cortez

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Location
The home of Sam Adams, the beer... and the man.
Country
llUnited States
Tripps said:
Ok, number one, no one apart from you has made mention to the word "English", hence why I asked was your comments in regards to what Marko said.
You have declined to point out what you were referring to, so its a little difficult to understand just where you are coming from.

Number two, the word English:

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of England or its people or culture.
2. Of or relating to the English language.

So you are wrong there.
Marko had said.. that someone (I forget who) spoke.. "British" the name of the LANGUAGE is not British it's English.

So you're wrong.

Tripps said:
No I dont think so, I have no idea why you would think I think this, just where do I even mention anything to do about this???
This is completely off topic regarding USA and Germany, If you would please stay on topic, maybe we can get somewhere.
We're talking the results of World War II without U.S. intervention. Get your priorities straight and stop acting like you don't know what I'm talking about just to make your argument "better".

Tripps said:
I dont question the role the US played, I question your over-emphasis of it.
You say the US beat Germany thus saving France from the Germans, I say Russia had them beat before D-Day, all that did was shorten the whole affair, and maybe save France/Western Europe from communism.
Over-emphasis? The United States of America was fighting on two fronts. Russia was fighting on one. Russia did not have them beat on D-Day. Without an expected second front where do you think numerous important Panzer Korps would've been? In the East. And you say that it "maybe" saved Western Europe from Communism? What? You think that Russia would've just said.. "Ok, have a democracy" after they had conquered the rest of Europe. You're just dreaming their my Oceanic friend.

Tripps said:
Problem is, you dont understand your argument, let alone mine...
Too bad I think the same thing... about your argument. :dead:
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
302
Reaction score
1
Location
Not Here
Cortez said:
Over-emphasis? The United States of America was fighting on two fronts. Russia was fighting on one. Russia did not have them beat on D-Day. Without an expected second front where do you think numerous important Panzer Korps would've been? In the East.
The three most decisive battles on the eastern front had been fought by July 1943 (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk). The Russians had gained the strategic initiative before the western allies set foot on mainland Europe.
 

Cortez

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Location
The home of Sam Adams, the beer... and the man.
Country
llUnited States
Martin Schenkel said:
The three most decisive battles on the eastern front had been fought by July 1943 (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk). The Russians had gained the strategic initiative before the western allies set foot on mainland Europe.
And where do you think a huge chunk of divisions that could've fought in those battles had it not been for preparation of an invasion of mainland Europe? At MOSCOW. At STALINGRAD.. and At KURSK.

Russians without American help = :dead:
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
302
Reaction score
1
Location
Not Here
Cortez said:
And where do you think a huge chunk of divisions that could've fought in those battles had it not been for preparation of an invasion of mainland Europe? At MOSCOW. At STALINGRAD.. and At KURSK.
The majority of German divisions in the west prior to 1943 were understrength and second rate. It wasn't until late 43 and early 44 that Hitler really began making preparations for an Allied landing in NW Europe. The Atlantic wall had been largely neglected until this point. The best divisions in the west were the ones being rotated out of Russia, after suffering heavy losses or being destroyed.

Russians without American help = :dead:
While Allied lend-lease in the end was quite effective, US lend-lease didn't really start to kick in until the summer of 1943, after the Russians had gained the strategic initiative. Most lend-lease recieved by Russia up to this point, was in fact from Britain.
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
0
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
Wolf said:
Alternatively, without "us" he might be speaking Japanese by now - I don't have the figures but there were an awful lot of BACF troops in the Pacific.
well if you consider the troops sacrificed at singapore by the british there would not have been a need for assistance.

but really the brits did nothing in the pacific but move back to secure their old interests after the japs haed been turned back by the US and ANZACS
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
302
Reaction score
1
Location
Not Here
Cortez said:
And where do you think Britain got the money and the lend-lease equipment from?
The equipment sent to Russia by Britain was British designed, and British built (also a lot of Canadian built equipment too). US lend-lease to Britain similarly didn't really kick in until the summmer of 1943.
 
Top