Harleyman Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 He's a numpty.Blair gets his tongue out of America's crack and it's immediately replaced by Camerons. It's payback for the "dumb Americans" thread you started What goes around comes around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 It wasn't until after the battle of Normandy, and maybe after operation Market Garden did the American numbers begin to swamp the Commonwealths numbers. More Commonwealth soldiers were involved in the D-Day landings than American ones were. My grandad was one of the first paratroopers on the bridge in operation Market garden. If he was around to hear what cameron has said he'd be fuming, as am I!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 I'm surprised that you have omitted the fact that the United States was also heavily involved in the Pacific War. The ships, aircraft of all kinds, tanks, artillery and the millions of military personnel required to fight such a war took a heavy toll on manpower requirements even on a country that had a population of around 150,000,000 at that time. Britain had some military units fighting in Burma and some navy ships in the area but the great majority of the army, navy and air force were deployed in the European theater. It always surprises me that whenever the subject of American involvment in WW2 is brought up everyone thinks that WW2 only took place in Europe. At least the US was able to draw on enough manpower to be able to supplement a sizeable landing on two beaches on D-Day and suffered terrible losses on one of them. They were also able to replace manpower and equipment losses caused as a result of the rest of the battles across Europe as well as supplying military hardware to the British and other allied armies They were also able to send the 8th Air Force to Britain to help bomb Germany and the aircrews also suffered very heavy losses up until near the end of 1944 I am also surprised that you aim the claim that us Brits were only interested in the European part of WW2 towards me, didn't I state earlier in this thread that China started fighting the Japanese in 1937? Also why you not think that there wasn't a Commonwealth presence in the Far East? That's surprising considering that we lost around 90 thousand soldiers killed, wounded or taken prisoner at Singapore alone. I am sure that there are many ANZACs that would take umbridge with your assumption, as would any other Brit veterans of the Far East Campaign. You also talk of the USA scrapping together enough men for the Normandy campaign, I'd always thought that your President committed the USA to a Germany first approach. Anyway I'd like to repeat part of my post that you didn't seem to acknowledge. The help that the USA gave us is something for which every reasonably minded Brit will always be thankful for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockers666 Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Maybe he meant in terms of the numbers of troops the US deployed in comparison to the UK. really:loopy:lets all suck up to the united states of aggretion with there new president who won "nobel peace prize after 7 days of been in power talking about his kids and dog" lets all slag the scotish for the lybian affair ,while not forgetting the americans are whiter than white even their president:gag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 From 1941 if anyone was the "senior partner" in fighting the Nazis then it wasn't the USA - it would have been the USSR. The Eastern front was by far and away where the most fighting took place, where the most troops were committed, were the most casualties occurred. Absolutely. The Russian contribution to the war is often overlooked. The German invasion of the Soviet Union contributed significantly to the Nazi's ultimate defeat as the front consumed vast amounts of manpower and material. Over 80% of the Wehrmacht's World War II casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front. LINK The scale of the war on the Eastern front was enormous. Kursk: Largest tank battle in history Stalingrad: According to some historians, the bloodiest battle in history Operation Barbarossa: The largest military operation in history, and also, in the early stages, the single largest land battle in history. According to the Granada documentary The World at War, the number of human beings killed during the siege of Stalingrad exceeded the total US and UK war dead (military and civilian). Total Russian casualties of WWII are put at 27 million The colossal total of nearly 27 million Soviet military and civilian dead was more than twice the death toll of all Americans, Britons, Commonwealth, French — and even Germans killed in the war combined. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Absolutely. The Russian contribution to the war is often overlooked. LINK The scale of the war on the Eastern front was enormous. Kursk: Largest tank battle in history Stalingrad: According to some historians, the bloodiest battle in history Operation Barbarossa: The largest military operation in history, and also, in the early stages, the single largest land battle in history. According to the Granada documentary The World at War, the number of human beings killed during the siege of Stalingrad exceeded the total US and UK war dead (military and civilian). Total Russian casualties of WWII are put at 27 million LINK Lets not forget the Soviet industrial might, they managed to make almost 35000 of the best tank of the the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Production_figures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 We all make mistakes, that’s why pencils have erasers and cars have bumpers. What he said makes no difference to anyone anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 I am also surprised that you aim the claim that us Brits were only interested in the European part of WW2 towards me, didn't I state earlier in this thread that China started fighting the Japanese in 1937? Also why you not think that there wasn't a Commonwealth presence in the Far East? That's surprising considering that we lost around 90 thousand soldiers killed, wounded or taken prisoner at Singapore alone. I am sure that there are many ANZACs that would take umbridge with your assumption, as would any other Brit veterans of the Far East Campaign. You also talk of the USA scrapping together enough men for the Normandy campaign, I'd always thought that your President committed the USA to a Germany first approach. Anyway I'd like to repeat part of my post that you didn't seem to acknowledge. The help that the USA gave us is something for which every reasonably minded Brit will always be thankful for. I'm aware that there was a very considerable Commonwealth presence in the Far East but thanks to the bungling of the Far East C in C general Percival most were either killed or taken prisoner after the fall of Singapore, Borneo and Sumatra. Many British and Australian soldiers were debarked from ships in Singapore only to be taken prsioner a week later without getting the chance to fire a shot in anger. A neighbor of ours in Sheffield was one of them. 90 thousand soldiers languishing in POW camps are of no use in fighting a war and from 1941 onwards they were lost to us. Fighting all the way across hundreds of Pacific islands to the Japanese mainland was a task that demanded a huge naval force as well as a few million men and the US was the best equipped to deal with a war of that kind Churchill in talks with Roosevelt stressed that the war in Europe shopuld take priority and Roosevelt agreed to that. There was however a serious difference of opinion on how the war was to be prosecuted. Roosevelt and the American generals wanted a big build of troops in the UK and as soon as possible an invasion as early as 1943, Churchill on the other hand wanted a second front launched somewhere in the Adriatic and a landing in the Baltic region for some unknown reason. He got his way as regards invading Sicily and then mainland Italy but essentially it was always regarded as something of a sideshow by historians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 really:loopy:lets all suck up to the united states of aggretion with there new president who won "nobel peace prize after 7 days of been in power talking about his kids and dog" lets all slag the scotish for the lybian affair ,while not forgetting the americans are whiter than white even their president:gag: He also knows how to spell too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 We all make mistakes only when it suits eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.