World War II - Turning the tide. (7/13)
| Who's Comments 1=Reading the posts, I am ashamed that
you are the result from My grandfathers and men like him fight for your
freedom! GROW THE HELL UP, and appreciate the liberity you have...
IDIOTS!!!! 2=No, we don't think that. We just want a little appreciation
thrown our way from time to time. The only person watching this with
stereotype-colored glasses would seem to be you. 3=Look, my grandpa says to
say "sorry" for all the Euro trash whores he ruined with his big American
cock. Now, say you're sorry, or I'll fuck your girlfriend, provided you ever
get one. 4=“From the 18th century onwards, the Scottish regiments were the
military cutting edge of the British empire and were always used in a
spearhead role, and that meant huge casualties,” said Professor Tom Devine,
the historian and director of the Centre for Irish and Scottish Studies at
Aberdeen University. “... because by 1914 the Scottish soldier...used as
shock troops in those horrendous battles on the western front.”
Mark Macaskill, The Times, May 10, 2008 5=
Acvtually I'd like to point to some german (ZDF, ARD) documentaries who tend
to be more objective.
The BBC (like the common Uk public) still like to think (as you blame the
US audience) that THEY alone won the war with mastermind Monty.
Forgetting time and time again how much INVALUABLE help they got from the
Poles/Checs (experienced!!pilots in BoB and later toughest soldiers), the
Norwegians/Dutch (Shipping/convoy), the
French/Canadians/S.Africans/Australian/NZ/Indians by 1941 in full..
7=So I was right. You can't cite shit. Where exactly has the British Army
used Scottish Regiments to fight on the front line and, case in point, where
exactly have English Officers taken credit for it? Do you mean the time when
the Suffolk and Anglian Regiments more or less won the battle of Minden? Or
perhaps the Lancashire's that were tossed into the front line at Salamanca?
Or the Ox and Bucks Light infantry that delivered the final blow at Waterloo
to send Napoleons forces on an epic rout? 8=What the fuck men? Isnt England
that bring tyrannie in Cyprus? India? Scotland? Ireland? and many more? Isnt
England that brought civil war in Greece ? I m Greek but as long as i loved
that we were in the allies i fucking hate Englands history. O the marmbles
of Acropolis you know it ? we want them back motherfuckers. Fucking nazis
aswell. 9=I couldn't have put it better, Paul! Well said! Another famous
remark on the same theme is Churchill's quoting of one of Napolean's
marshalls, who told Napolean (when he was contemplating the invasion of
England with an armada of flat-bottomed vessels ancored at Calais), "Sire,
there are bitter weeds in England". Churchill, following on from this quote
in his inimitable style said: "and there are now certainly a good deal more
of these weeds in England since the return of the BEF from Dunkirk".
10=I had no idea that the Luftwaffe was so close to overwhelming the RAF.
When one dwells over it for a moment, it is astounding to the utmost how ill
prepared the Allies were for German aggression in Europe. Talk about being
naive.... It seems that the UK dodged a death blow therein, but only by way
of the many tactical blunders which the Germans themselves committed, and
which leveled playing field eventually. 11=However, nor is it true to fact
to pretend that Britain performed fine things ONLY though her Irish,
Scottish, Australian, Canadian, or Kiwi soldiers. British soldiery had its
fair share of valour and bravery. They took their place in the frontline and
performed stupendous feats of courage. No one can dispute that. To pretend
that they didn't is frankly disingenuous, and not a little mean. 12=Speak to
any British veteran from those times and you will see what a deep respect he
maintains for the Canadians, the Aussies, and the New Zealanders. Even
Churchill refers to 'the dauntless Canadians' and 'the glorious Australians'
and 'Sturdy New Zealanders', and at other times as 'valiant allies,of
courageous and limitless resolve, who stood shoulder to shoulder with
Britain'. So it's not entirely true to say that their valour has gone
unrecognised. Quite obviously not. 13=That's a saying that has gained
currency from the many disaffected Commonwealth men and women who have
fought and toiled on Britain's behalf but found little gratitude in answer.
Men like Douglas Haig (the moron whose arrogance and lack of imagination
sent men by their thousands to unavailing deaths in WW1) have earned this
reputation for England by their stupid and graceless treatment of Irish and
Commonwealth allies. But ordinary Britons know how valuable these comrades
of theirs have been. 14=Don't think the people of Britain are ignorant to
the major contribution made by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South
Africa, Nepal and all other allies. We are extremely grateful for the
massive effort made by these countries in supporting not only Britain but
the entire free world. 15=Hands down what lost the war against Britain was
radar. The only visible intelligence I have seen from Herman Goering was to
target the airfields and radar. If he kept that up they would have won but
maniac Hitler changed the strategy to bombing cities. That was the second
biggest blunder after Dunkirk. The 3rd blunder was not to give Donitz 300
subs for the wolf pack doctrine. I am so happy Hitler is a retard and Great
military leaders did nothing to stop him. Germany can rule just not a
Nazi!!16=Reading the Canadian, Australian, and don't forget South Africa,
New Zealand, India, Iraq, Egypt, Free France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and
Greece. I could be entirely wrong and have looked briefly online but haven't
found much but I believe the percentage of actual British troops in North
Africa was 30% while the rest were of the other nations. Either way, wrong
or right..The other nations of the commonwealth need to have more glory.
Quick note...there still is a commonwealth of nations :) 17=What you
Australians did on the Kokoda Track was nothing short of amazing! You should
be very proud of those men that fought in that hell hole.I'm an old U.S
Navy Veteran,and I salute them.They saved Northern Australia from invasion
by the Japanese. 18=dont take it too personal. out of an 18 hour doku
series, norwegian resistance was almost summed up in the same sentence as
denmark. denmark fell in 1 day, norway took 3 months. guess 3 times if a
norwegian woulda wanted more of an elaboration concerning our initial armed
resistance :D This war is primarily about the major powers. Canadians,
Norwegians.. Danes... fall a bit in the background of it 19=Canada, New
Zealand, Austrailia, Yugoslavia, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Greece, Norway,
Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France,
Britian and the U.S. WERE ALL AT WAR WITH GERMANY AND JAPAN. Look it up.
20=and for those saying british troops lost 4 to 1 anzacs thats cause there
was 4 times as many british troops and the fact that it only took 300 anzacs
to do what it would have taken 10,000 british troops to do just means you
can't handle the aspects of war. its also a fact that 15% of british troops
were shot in the back RUNNING away 21=YOUR A JOKE! so you think that the
british made up 90% of the allied forces? you should know facts before
stating, them britian made up only just 40 % of of allied forces and they
spent more time at the back lines than the front. so next time someone ask
you if you speak english you can say yes thanks to the rest of the world
other wise you would be speaking german. and it has nothing to do with
nationalism idiot! im sick of F wits like you saying the british won the war
all on there own. 22=You'd be surprised to know that a number of famous
directors started out filming all these..(besides brave military journalists
& regular army personnel).. Look for documentaries like "Shooting War" or
"Mein Krieg" on youtube..these are amazing! 23=A laughable statement. During
the offensive at Vimy Ridge, unfairly considered a Canadian victory, 45,000
British soldiers became casualties along the front. 4x as many as the
Canadians. At Gallipoli, British casualties outnumbered those of the Anzacs
by 4 to 1 as well. What a stupid bog brained perception of military history
people have. How exactly did 350 odd thousand British servicemen lose their
lives in WW2? 24=What? Utter bullshit. 10% of the entire British Armed
Forces in WW2 were from the Commonwealth. They were armed, equipped and
commanded along British lines. Get a sense of proportion before you make
idle comments like that. This was 1942, not 2012, so leave your modern
nationalist identity out of it. 25=
If you watch all of the videos, and some other documentaries, you'll get an
idea on the mindset of the Japanese emperor and military at the time. They
would have fought to the very last man, whatever means necessary. A quick
"shock and awe" campaign was, unfortunately, the better conclusion to come
to, rather than a long drawn out bloody war with Japan.
27=It was a case of "which is the better option between bad and
terrible". Either thousands (or tens of thousands) more Americans lose their
lives during the Pacific conflict, or end it quickly by dropping the nuclear
bombs. 26=In defense of U.S., our nation took an isolationist
position when England and the other allies refused to support the League of
Nations fully following WWI and did not do much to stop fascist aggression
in its early stages. Not saying in hindsight that was right, and I do agree
with you that we go to war too easily today. 27=
You decided on your own terms not to fight until you were attacked during
the wars worth fighting, but instead fought over bullshit and oil during
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and arguably Afghanistan?
Right pal, seems your country has it's priorities in order. If you could
only see my eyes rolling into the back of my head right now.
I'm aware when the US entered each war, but we were not LATE. We had our own
reasons for fighting. WWI started over Bullshit in 1914. The US had no real
reason to enter WW2 until we were attacked.
Please look up the term troll, as it seems you do not know its meaning
US joined WWI in 1917, 3 years after the war had started. US had joined WWII
in 1941, 2 years after WWII had started. Not only that, but they were
secretly supporting Germany with money and materials behind the scenes.
If you're going to troll, do a proper job of it son.
30=That's a lie. Australia didn't have the manpower to do " most of the
front line fighting" for Britain. Australia had a very limited role in the
European theater. The Aussies only had 3 or 4 Divisions during the war.
31=Nonsense, America was not late to either war. Each nation has it's own
reason for fighting. The British had no chance of beating Nazi Germany
without US troops and weapons. If they could have, THEY WOULD HAVE. 32=New
Zealand, India and South Africa too. I agree, it is quite annoying. And it
gets even more annoying when you hear some american idiot saying "We beat
the nazis! Without us you'd be speaking german!", completely ignoring the
commonwealth contribution, as well as the fact that russians kicked nazi ass
by themselves (almost) on the eastern front. 33=
The American bravado is strong my friend... they were only late to WWI by 3
years, and late to WWII by 2 years (the only "proper" wars).
I think we could have finished the European front without the Americans,
however the Japanese definitely did need the atom bombs to force them into
34=Kind of disappointed there has been no mention whatsoever of Canada's
large involvement during WWII, other than we were "Britan's bitch", which
was not the case whatsoever. 35=I'm a Canadian too, and I agree with you.
They did mention Juno beach and Dieppe and I don't remember hearing the word
bitch. And you gotta understand Canada WAS Britain back then.