The mentality of some of the posts in this thread pretty well justifies the British view of the American “psyche”.
Gazz
So basically the British think they’re better than Americans, and it must be true because of a couple posts you read and didn’t like.
I was under the impression that most British people liked Americans, and vice versa.
I think the 4th of July is celebrated more as the birth of our nation than beating the British. I’ve never heard any mention of anti-British sentiment at a 4th of July event, though it could exist somewhere.[/quote]
I think it’s more that they don’t like us because we defeated them twice and then saved them twice. It’s a pride thing.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Dave_ wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
They probably wondered how we kicked their asses… twice.
It would be rather embarrassing if you didn’t kick our asses, considering that Texas ALONE is 6x bigger than our entire country.
…plus you’re pretty good at shooting our boys when we’re on the SAME SIDE, so I imagine you’re phenomenal when you are actually trying.
The Red Coats made excellent targets!
[/quote]
I think they have whole chapters dedicated to them.
So starched they could hardly walk, God forbid they soiled their uniform by lying in the dirt and if they went for cover they were shot at by their own people…
I think it’s more that they don’t like us because we defeated them twice and then saved them twice. It’s a pride thing.
You did not save them once.
Hitler actually saved them once, by taking advice from Goering, but after that an invasion was probably impossible.
[/quote]
Hitler dominated virtually all of europe and was well on his way to outing britain. The Nazis were winning until the US showed up and bitched them around. Luckily the russians were ready to help as well by splitting hitler’s military to two fronts. This way, we were able to defeat the Nazi’s faster than we could have by ourselves and could concentrate all our military efforts on japan as we had also been fighting a two front war (though successfully). We then saved china and most of south east asia from the imperialist japanese as well.
with out america, the world would be a Nazi/Japanese playground if the tide of the war previous to our entry says anything. which it does.
Unfortunately the Russians adopted communism shortly after and we became enemies. Had that not happened, the world would potentially be a very peaceful place today.
No Vietnam, No N.Korea, no hot spots at random places of influence through out the globe, no financially and militarily backed middle eastern war lords, no terrorism… but no. The russians turned and the US is now dealing with those issues, apparantly at the disaproval of those we have taken up for.
You yellow bellied limp dicks.
Have you ever jumped in to a fight to help a buddy who then ran off leaving you to fend off the repercussions on your own? how ridiculous is that?
Are you trying to say that the Russians turned to communism shortly after WW2? Im pretty sure that they turned to communism a few years before then, about 40 years before that. The revolution was in 1917 and the Communist Party of Russia was founded in 1918.
As for Hitler being well on his way to ousting Britain historians are split as to if it would have happened or not. Some think it would have been a success with others thinking it would have ended in defeat for the Germans and, with such a blow to morale, expediated the end of the Third Reich.
As I said, historians are divided and it can be argued either way.
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
Are you trying to say that the Russians turned to communism shortly after WW2? Im pretty sure that they turned to communism a few years before then, about 40 years before that. The revolution was in 1917 and the Communist Party of Russia was founded in 1918.[/quote]
you are right. i worded my response incorrectly. They began aggressively promoting communism in developing countries shortly after ww2
I was just breaking balls about that “We whooped your asses” thing.
Britain is an oddball country to me. Being American, I admire the way they held themselves during World War II, and the fighting spirit they have when they need to.
Being Irish and Catholic… well, then I feel something else.
I think it’s more that they don’t like us because we defeated them twice and then saved them twice. It’s a pride thing.
You did not save them once.
Hitler actually saved them once, by taking advice from Goering, but after that an invasion was probably impossible.
Hitler dominated virtually all of europe and was well on his way to outing britain. The Nazis were winning until the US showed up and bitched them around. Luckily the russians were ready to help as well by splitting hitler’s military to two fronts. This way, we were able to defeat the Nazi’s faster than we could have by ourselves and could concentrate all our military efforts on japan as we had also been fighting a two front war (though successfully). We then saved china and most of south east asia from the imperialist japanese as well.
with out america, the world would be a Nazi/Japanese playground if the tide of the war previous to our entry says anything. which it does.
Unfortunately the Russians adopted communism shortly after and we became enemies. Had that not happened, the world would potentially be a very peaceful place today.
No Vietnam, No N.Korea, no hot spots at random places of influence through out the globe, no financially and militarily backed middle eastern war lords, no terrorism… but no. The russians turned and the US is now dealing with those issues, apparantly at the disaproval of those we have taken up for.
You yellow bellied limp dicks.
Have you ever jumped in to a fight to help a buddy who then ran off leaving you to fend off the repercussions on your own? how ridiculous is that?[/quote]
wow, you have no sense or knowledge of history whatsoever…
[quote]spiderman739 wrote:
As for Hitler being well on his way to ousting Britain historians are split as to if it would have happened or not. Some think it would have been a success with others thinking it would have ended in defeat for the Germans and, with such a blow to morale, expediated the end of the Third Reich.
As I said, historians are divided and it can be argued either way.[/quote]
Had they crushed the BEF in Duenkirchen as General Guderian and von Rundstedt were willing and able to do and immediatly established a bridgehead in GB , England would have been finished.
They didn´t because Goering swore he could do that by airforce alone and also prevent any evacuation attempt, because he though they would be evacuated with rather large vessels that would have been easy targets.
The British however used everything, including fisherboats leaving all heavy equipment behing.
The veterans of the rescued BEF were the core around which the British army was rebuilt.
[quote]orion wrote:
spiderman739 wrote:
As for Hitler being well on his way to ousting Britain historians are split as to if it would have happened or not. Some think it would have been a success with others thinking it would have ended in defeat for the Germans and, with such a blow to morale, expediated the end of the Third Reich.
As I said, historians are divided and it can be argued either way.
Had they crushed the BEF in Duenkirchen as General Guderian and von Rundstedt were willing and able to do and immediatly established a bridgehead in GB , England would have been finished.
They didn´t because Goering swore he could do that by airforce alone and also prevent any evacuation attempt, because he though they would be evacuated with rather large vessels that would have been easy targets.
The British however used everything, including fisherboats leaving all heavy equipment behing.
The veterans of the rescued BEF were the core around which the British army was rebuilt.
[/quote]
Haha, you know, that reminds me of something that my grandmother once told me. I don’t know that it’s true or not, but she said that Ireland used to turn their lights on at night so the German bombers would know exactly where England was.
July 4th is when many, if not most, Americans celebrate “Independence Day.” They are celebrating the signing of the unilateral Declaration of Independence as well as the victory over the British in the Revolutionary War. Should Christians celebrate “Independence Day”?
Should they celebrate the terrorist, rebellious war against the government? “Oh, they weren’t terrorists, they were freedom fighters.” Really? What’s the difference?
Here’s what God’s Word says:
"Let every soul be subject to higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, but the existing authorities have been ordained by God. So that the one resisting authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and the ones opposing will receive judgment to themselves. For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad.
And do you desire not to fear the authority? Do the good, and you will have praise from it; for it is a servant of God to you for the good. But if you practice evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to the one practicing bad things. Because of this, it is necessary to be subject, not only on account of wrath, but also on account of conscience.
For on this account you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God, always giving attention to this very thing. Then give to all their dues: to the one due tax, the tax; to the one due tribute, the tribute; to the one due fear, the fear; to the one due honor, the honor." (Romans 13:1-7)
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
Hitler dominated virtually all of europe and was well on his way to outing britain.
[/quote]
That’s an oversimplification. The Royal Navy was still a superior force compared to the Kriegsmarine, and the RAF fought valiantly to stave off Luftwaffe assualt and “win” the Battle of Britain.
As far as the Battle of the Atlantic, read up on the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. To use your analogy: Have you ever been in a fight, and have a buddy walk by and say “I’ll toss you my gun, but when we get home I’m taking your Xbox and your golf clubs”?
British capture of the Enigma machine was also very significant in helping to break the German’s code system. We can all thanks the Brits for that.
[quote]The Nazis were winning until the US showed up and bitched them around.
[/quote]
Contrary to popular (jingoistic belief) we got “bitched around” quite a bit by the Nazis ourselves. WW2 featured some pretty intense fighting, to put it lightly, and both sides suffered some pretty serious tactical losses, and we certainly benefited from more than a couple tactical gaffs on the part of the Germans.
They pushed too aggressively into territories that they simply could not occupy and defend; they were overextended. If they had never invaded Russia, who knows what would have happened? Many historians believe that Operation Barbarossa was the turning point of the war and led to the downfall of Nazi Germany. Germany severely underestimated Russian military strength.
End of the day we fought bravely, alongside our many allies, and were victorious. However, I’ve never heard a serious historian describe the European theater as: “Everyone was getting their asses kick and then the Americans showed up a destroyed the Germans.” That’s more a depiction I expect from someone whose only study of the conflict was watching Saving Private Ryan.
Absolutely wrong.
“Luck” had nothing to do with it. The Russians were invaded in June of 1941. At that point they had no choice but to defend themselves. The eastern front some of than most intense warfare of the entire war, and Russia suffered the greatest sacrifices.
After the invasion of Russia, we collaborated with the British to establish a western front. Stalin had been urging the Western Allies to open up a western but that only happened after the Allies got their shit together politically. So I guess you could say: Luckily we got around to helping Russia. We entered battle to their aid, not the other way around, if you choose to look at it from that perspective.
[quote]
This way, we were able to defeat the Nazi’s faster than we could have by ourselves and could concentrate all our military efforts on japan as we had also been fighting a two front war (though successfully).[/quote]
Wrong. It was the combination of Allied and Russian forces the defeated Nazi Germany, period. Russia did not “help us win faster”; they suffered the largest casualties and saw the most intense fighting.
Shit, we totally forgot about the Australians! After kicking our asses in the Philippines and the Solomon islands the Japanese tried to take Papua New Guinea. Their first major defeat came at the hands of the Australians, who bravely defended the island for 2 years and eventually sent the Japanese away in defeat.
They were involved in the war from the beginning, and fought in both theaters. Their tussles with Rommel in Northern Africa were significant. The “Rats of Tobruk” successfully defended the port of Tobruk against some Hitler’s of finest military officers.
Yeah, but you could say the same thing of Russia or Britain. All parties fought valiantly and all were indispensable.
Wrong. The Russians did not adopt Communism after WW2, and the idea that the world would be peaceful if it “weren’t for the Russians” is laughable. You’ve never seriously studied history have you?
That’s absolutely ridiculous. Guess what, if it weren’t for American intervention there wouldn’t be any Vietnam, or N. Korea, financially backed middle eastern warlord either. Remember that we were party to that shit too. We had our interests, they had theirs.
If you actually are interested in learning about the history of the conflict it really is very cool stuff. You sound like you really only know about the Normandy invasion and its peripheral battles, which is understandable since that was our finest hour and whatnot.
But read up on the Battle of Britain, Operation Market Garden, Operation Barbarossa and the Eastern Front. Read about the Desert Fox and the Rats of Tobruk. Read about Bastogne. Interesting trivia: Canada was the only country to successfully complete all of its D-Day objectives.
A lot of Americans feel that if they give up the fantasy of WWII and study the real history that it will somehow diminish what we accomplished, but that’s not true at all. WWII was in many ways our finest hour, and it doesn’t diminish that one bit to learn about what really happened and acknowledge the contributions of our allies. Even the stuff I’ve posted above is a gross oversimplification.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
…
Should they celebrate the terrorist, rebellious war against the government? “Oh, they weren’t terrorists, they were freedom fighters.” Really? What’s the difference?
…[/quote]
They shot at redcoats and did not target marketplaces full of innocent women and children.
“Luck” had nothing to do with it. The Russians were invaded in June of 1941. At that point they had no choice but to defend themselves. The eastern front some of than most intense warfare of the entire war, and Russia suffered the greatest sacrifices.
After the invasion of Russia, we collaborated with the British to establish a western front. Stalin had been urging the Western Allies to open up a western but that only happened after the Allies got their shit together politically. So I guess you could say: Luckily we got around to helping Russia. We entered battle to their aid, not the other way around, if you choose to look at it from that perspective.
…[/quote]
Fuck the Russians. What is it with the leftists support for the Russians and their ignoring the Russians treaty with the Nazis and the Russians splitting Poland with the Nazis?
The Russians were bastards through and through. If FDR wasn’t such a damned socialist we could have let the Russians fight it on their own without American weapons and planes etc.
If FDR was a bit wiser to the evils of Stalin we could have reduced the number of people that got stuck living under communist rule.
Again, fuck the Russians. England was fortunate America helped it the way it did. We could have let it be someone elses war and sat out the whole thing.
We could have let the Japanese massacre more in China and elsewhere in the South Pacific. We could have sold them gasoline for their war machine and prevented Pearl Harbor.
“Luck” had nothing to do with it. The Russians were invaded in June of 1941. At that point they had no choice but to defend themselves. The eastern front some of than most intense warfare of the entire war, and Russia suffered the greatest sacrifices.
After the invasion of Russia, we collaborated with the British to establish a western front. Stalin had been urging the Western Allies to open up a western but that only happened after the Allies got their shit together politically. So I guess you could say: Luckily we got around to helping Russia. We entered battle to their aid, not the other way around, if you choose to look at it from that perspective.
…
Fuck the Russians. What is it with the leftists support for the Russians and their ignoring the Russians treaty with the Nazis and the Russians splitting Poland with the Nazis?
[/quote]
I wasn’t ignoring that fact at all. In fact I had originally wrote that but it got cut when I trimmed my post for length. The original poster said that we got “lucky” that Russia came to “help out”. My only point was that it wasn’t “luck” and that Russia wasn’t altruistically coming to “help out”.
They made a deal with the Nazis and were content to control eastern Europe and let Germany do as they please in the west. They showed up to the fight because Germany broke the treaty and invaded.
That’s not “support of Russia”, it’s an objective statement of the facts on a bodybuilding forum.
I’m still confused about what part of my post you factually disagree with and how exactly it “supports” Russia. In fact I thought we were making the same point…that Russia did not altruistically enter the war to “help out”. Maybe you replied to my post by mistake?
I think everyone agrees that ignoring Russia’s global aims towards the end of the war was a costly mistake for the western allies.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Again, fuck the Russians. England was fortunate America helped it the way it did. We could have let it be someone elses war and sat out the whole thing.
We could have let the Japanese massacre more in China and elsewhere in the South Pacific. We could have sold them gasoline for their war machine and prevented Pearl Harbor.
[/quote]
I know this probably isn’t what you were trying to say Zap, but allow me to digress for a minute here and say that I don’t understand this attitude of “our allies are so fortunate for our help.” Since when is America about hubris and looking down our noses at our friends and allies?
I have so much pride in the fact that we’ve help to liberate and fight for so many of our allies, but it’s always disappointing to me that so many American almost seem to want to make our allies feel inadequate for needing our help.
It’s like if you had a friend you would fight for, but constantly taunted him that if it weren’t for you he’d be a bitch. I would never treat a friend that way it it’s sad to me that that’s the current state of many of our alliances. Why are we even allies with some of these countries if we have so much disdain for them?
I’m not as well read as several of you but that’s not going to stop me:)
From the time of Theodore Roosevelt America has been the world’s most powerful nation and without its intervention WW1 would probably still be going on.
However, when America gained independence it was as a result of the battle of Yorktown, the only battle that America won. In George Washington’s biography (can’t remember the author, I’m at work) it was said that Washington’s army employed guerrilla tactics and at every confrontation with British forces they were beaten.
Being an intelligent man he didn’t let the loss of a battle equate to the loss of a war and he’d retreat, reform, and attack again. The one decisive victory at Yorktown persuaded the British government that continuing the war would be too costly.
And then there’s the war of 1812. Opinions are divided as to who had the better of this squabble but British/Canadian forces did burn down the white house. Despite some losses at sea and a couple of failed sieges I’d say that the Brits won on points!
However, I doubt at that point that the British could have taken control of the states for any extended period.
In closing we British generally believe that the 4th of July, like many other holidays is just an excuse for a piss up and what’s wrong with that:)
Regards Chris