I actually saw a pub decked out with banners in Middlesbrough saying 'happy 4th of July' and i thought 'uh?!' my missus said 'maybe your glad to be rid of us?' but any excuse for a party eh? I think we can take a defeat by our own better than the French or something.. So no sour grapes here. Enjoy the piss up lads, have a can of natural ice on me! :-)
I will have you know I drink imported Guinness, along with a whole laundry list of Micro-brew beer sir! Not everyone over here sucks down Miller, Bud, or Coors
Enjoy the fireworks, and the piss weak slosh you guys think is beer.
Hmmm... unfortunately, much like the accursed Aussies, these colonials also market their pisswater brews to us whilst keeping good beers for themselves. (and let me remind you, fosters and bud are both consumed in vast quantities in the UK by the X-factor craving moronic chavites that infest this once great nation).
Expensive 4th of July this was. Shot about 300 rounds through the .45 and over 1,000 rounds through the .22 and 4 dozen shotgun shells through the old 12ga.
Hallelujah and Happy 4th to all gun owners out there.
I launched Fireworks with my friends and we shot them at our neighbors. And not only that but we also had C4 fire works which glow bright. Roman Candle wars are fun too.
Asherian Command wrote:I launched Fireworks with my friends and we shot them at our neighbors. And not only that but we also had C4 fire works which glow bright. Roman Candle wars are fun too.
Ah yes. This example is why I love it when God selects the random idiot out of millions of random idiots to die next. Makes for a good read in the paper.
KC. Not sure we are related but at least we both know how to celebrate our freedom.
Fateweaver wrote:No worries Fitzz. We'd crush them again.
Pahahaha! You didn't 'crush' us last time! Is that how it's taught over there?
The war was costing more than it was worth - the West Indies' economic output was many times greater than the 13 colonies and we kept them (in fact I think we may have even ADDED some...). Public opinion turned against the war, and after Cornwallis fethed himself the will to carry on was just gone. The British Empire could have quite comfortably dispatched another 250,000 regulars and burned every single city to the ground, but they would have been Brits they were slaughtering. That was never going to happen. Don't believe me? Look at how the Empire put down mutinies in India!
Oh, and Paul Revere never said 'The British are coming!'. He was British.
Every time I go to the first page I get a malware warning about the source link for one of the pictures posted. Dunno if thats been discussed, I'm not going back to page 1.
Albatross wrote:Did the French turn up to outflank them?
The french probably hid in the pool with a small flotation device with firecrackers on it just in case the british neighbors thought it was safe to jump in there.
Anyways, Happy Belated 4th of July.
Saw in the news today that some guy in NY blew his hand off using a firecracker, that's extra patriotic.
Asherian Command wrote:I launched Fireworks with my friends and we shot them at our neighbors. And not only that but we also had C4 fire works which glow bright. Roman Candle wars are fun too.
Ah yes. This example is why I love it when God selects the random idiot out of millions of random idiots to die next. Makes for a good read in the paper.
KC. Not sure we are related but at least we both know how to celebrate our freedom.
Albatross wrote:The war was costing more than it was worth - the West Indies' economic output was many times greater than the 13 colonies and we kept them (in fact I think we may have even ADDED some...). Public opinion turned against the war, and after Cornwallis fethed himself the will to carry on was just gone. The British Empire could have quite comfortably dispatched another 250,000 regulars and burned every single city to the ground, but they would have been Brits they were slaughtering. That was never going to happen. Don't believe me? Look at how the Empire put down mutinies in India!
Well, yeah, costing the other guy more troops than he's willing to lose, so he gives up and goes home is how you win. Losing more troops than it's worth to you is called losing.
All that sounds a lot like when the US posters here try to claim the US didn't really lose Vietnam.
ShumaGorath wrote:Every time I go to the first page I get a malware warning about the source link for one of the pictures posted. Dunno if thats been discussed, I'm not going back to page 1.
Page 1 also has NSFW images. Thankfully, someone put up the NSFW text in the title of the thread.
Albatross wrote:The war was costing more than it was worth - the West Indies' economic output was many times greater than the 13 colonies and we kept them (in fact I think we may have even ADDED some...). Public opinion turned against the war, and after Cornwallis fethed himself the will to carry on was just gone. The British Empire could have quite comfortably dispatched another 250,000 regulars and burned every single city to the ground, but they would have been Brits they were slaughtering. That was never going to happen. Don't believe me? Look at how the Empire put down mutinies in India!
Well, yeah, costing the other guy more troops than he's willing to lose, so he gives up and goes home is how you win. Losing more troops than it's worth to you is called losing.
All that sounds a lot like when the US posters here try to claim the US didn't really lose Vietnam.
Except of course, we made a large portion of their army actually surrender.
Short answer: We cost the King George more than he was willing to spend in $$$ and men at that time. Plain and simple.
So, he gave up and focused on India, which is where his Bottom Bitch, at that time. As any pimp will tell you, your Bottom Bitch brings in the most bling.
Albatross wrote:The war was costing more than it was worth - the West Indies' economic output was many times greater than the 13 colonies and we kept them (in fact I think we may have even ADDED some...). Public opinion turned against the war, and after Cornwallis fethed himself the will to carry on was just gone. The British Empire could have quite comfortably dispatched another 250,000 regulars and burned every single city to the ground, but they would have been Brits they were slaughtering. That was never going to happen. Don't believe me? Look at how the Empire put down mutinies in India!
Well, yeah, costing the other guy more troops than he's willing to lose, so he gives up and goes home is how you win. Losing more troops than it's worth to you is called losing.
All that sounds a lot like when the US posters here try to claim the US didn't really lose Vietnam.
We lost. I know we lost. WELOSTWELOSTWELOSTWELOSTWELOST!
Better?
The thing I took issue with was Fateweaver saying they 'crushed' us. That's not an accurate assessment of what actually happened. Neither do I think that the US army was 'crushed' in the Vietnam War, for what it's worth. They just lost.
Frazzled wrote:Except of course, we made a large portion of their army actually surrender.
...and the VC/NVA made an even larger portion of your army actually DIE. What's your point?
I'm not really sure why this thread went from pics of girls to an argument over the American Revolution. Can we try to not get into a flame war over it though? It happened awhile ago and I don't think comparing Vietnam to it is responsible either. A lot of men and women died in both conflicts and we should honour their sacrifices more than whatever ideal was fought for at the time.
Oh Albatross, they killed our guys and we killed a lot more of them, but we won. After all, we can import foreign media and don't think our leader is a god even though he can't ride most rollercoasters.
But, that's how america celebrates its freedom. We use the first amendment to argue over any little thing.
halonachos wrote:Oh Albatross, they killed our guys and we killed a lot more of them, but we won. After all, we can import foreign media and don't think our leader is a god even though he can't ride most rollercoasters.
But, that's how america celebrates its freedom. We use the first amendment to argue over any little thing.
Fateweaver wrote:No worries Fitzz. We'd crush them again.
Pahahaha! You didn't 'crush' us last time! Is that how it's taught over there?
The war was costing more than it was worth - the West Indies' economic output was many times greater than the 13 colonies and we kept them (in fact I think we may have even ADDED some...). Public opinion turned against the war, and after Cornwallis fethed himself the will to carry on was just gone. The British Empire could have quite comfortably dispatched another 250,000 regulars and burned every single city to the ground, but they would have been Brits they were slaughtering. That was never going to happen. Don't believe me? Look at how the Empire put down mutinies in India!
Oh, and Paul Revere never said 'The British are coming!'. He was British.
Bah, I still like Roy Obanans version: "Well Jon, The British had the worlds finest army, we had a bunch of farmers with pitchforks and we beat em like a drum."
No. It was a stalemate. Neither side wanted to continue, so they signed the Treaty of Ghent which pretty much set things back as they were, prior to the war. The only real losers were the Indians.
Um.. Well then... Watch: Saving Private Ryan, Band Of Brothers, Battle of the Bulge, Patton, this list can get longer... and I am sure Dakkaites will help me here..
thegrav wrote:Hitler was not defeated by the Russians and British...They had a "little" help... You need to review your history there.
Nah, it was pretty much the Russians. I know you're referring to the US as the help but realistically the Russkies would've steamrolled the Krauts just fine without our 'little' help.
thegrav wrote:Um.. Well then... Watch: Saving Private Ryan, Band Of Brothers, Battle of the Bulge, Patton, this list can get longer... and I am sure Dakkaites will help me here..
Then check out U571 and other such films which entirely make up how the Americans Won Everything.
Hollywood is not the way to go when arguing about historical fact.
Why are you lot defending and arguing the achievements of your betters? None of us were alive when any of this took place and 'we' didnt do anything. I find the whole thing a terrible bore, and the fact that much more recently our troops fought together in WW2, and marched into Iraq and Afghanistan together and will no doubt be the closest two allies in the next inevitable war just makes it all the more irrelevant. Also, considering that the war for independance was essentially a civil war and Washington et al were of English decent i dont see what there is to get worked up about. For example i like to think George might be a distant relative of mine, as we were both able to feth grizzly bears, carry a pocket full of horses and have wooden teeth.
thegrav wrote:Hitler was not defeated by the Russians and British...They had a "little" help... You need to review your history there.
Nah, it was pretty much the Russians. I know you're referring to the US as the help but realistically the Russkies would've steamrolled the Krauts just fine without our 'little' help.
You sure about that? The Siege of Stalingrad showed the Russians surviving due to their numbers, half of which had no guns. Then again, they did halt the German's advance.
Anyway, I'm Australian, so I'll just leave now....
Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.
horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.
Depends on whether they were playing NFL rules or real football rules. Honestly the two games are superficially the same but play so differently that players who are good at one generally do poorly at the other. The great players of course do well at either, but still take adjustments to adapt to the different style of game.
Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.
horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.
Sigh.. No "you" didnt, and neither did the people who actually fought against the red coats at the time. If you think they did "slaighter" some of the the worlds best troops at the time, read some more.
But that aside, here is a fantastic rap about my ancestor George to lighten things up.
Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.
horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.
Depends on whether they were playing NFL rules or real football rules. Honestly the two games are superficially the same but play so differently that players who are good at one generally do poorly at the other. The great players of course do well at either, but still take adjustments to adapt to the different style of game.
Irrelevant as the Canadian players would be dead. You ever see the raiders? They literally weigh twice is much. if that doesn't work, their players will just shoot you. I so respect that.
Shadowbrand wrote:What about 1812? I'm not a historian or anything but Britain did win that one.
horsehit. We slaughtered 'em like Canadian football players would get slaughtered by the Raiders. Then eaten.
Sigh.. No "you" didnt, and neither did the people who actually fought against the red coats at the time. If you think they did "slaighter" some of the the worlds best troops at the time, read some more.
But that aside, here is a fantastic rap about my ancestor George to lighten things up.
The war of 1812 (opr as we like to say, "the 1814 Battle of New Orleans and some minor skirmishes that occurred before that"). Quit drinking your superior selection of beers and ales and keep up matty!
Comparing the AWI to Vietnam on any but the most superficial levels is beyond amateurish.
There's a certain base myth in the US that we "kicked England's ass." On the other extreme, there's the idea that while we lost nearly every battle, we simply outlasted the British. Neither really is accurate. From what I've read, Washington's Continental army won about half of it's battles. Other forces had pretty big upsides (Ticonderoga, Saratoga), as well as giant downsides (New York, Charlestown). The military reality by a few years into the war was that Royalist forces simply couldn't hold enough ground. They were restricted to big cities near the coast. The countryside, which was the vast bulk of the land, was held pretty firmly by colonial governments.
In Vietnam, the military situation was actually very favorable to South Vietnam and the US near the end. Even so, the NVA regulars rarely won battles against the US, while guerrilla forces were a massive problem. Myth and legend aside, the Patriots actually did better as a professional force than as guerrillas, a few notable exceptions aside.
Now, politically, the two conflicts have some similarities, in terms of dwindling support on the home front, but even that falls apart under close analysis. The British Economy actually was hurt by the war: it lost imports, access to trade routes, and had to tangle with American privateers, not to mention sending an army pretty far away. Compared to Vietnam, the american economy could care less about losing trade to Saigon.
1812 is a bit trickier, particularly since every nation ended up getting what it wanted. Canada remained independent, the US got an end to impressment and a reaffirmation of independence, and Britain didn't lose much compared to the nightmare that was the Napoleonic wars. The military situation was almost entirely a stalemate.
On the other hand, the United States did come out stronger. National identity was bolstered, there were minor territorial gains (Mobile Alabama), and groundwork was laid for a professional army and navy. So, will the US might not have scored the most victory points, it did hold a lot of objectives. In particular, the modern Great Lakes states were completely open for settlement. It's hard to imagine now, but there was a genuine threat that enough Indian nations would form and alliance and actually hold that territory. Maybe it was unrealistic, but the British hoped to keep the Northwest territory as a neutral Indian buffer state. By the end of the war the Confederacy had collapsed and settlers began pouring into that land.
My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.
Anyways, my great uncle had some stories about brits. See, he was in the army and they would sometimes host british troops at their camp in the US. One day he, another US guy and a brit go to a bar and get sufficiently drunk.
My great uncle thought that two things would be absolutely hilarious.
1) Send a copy of "The Battle of New Orleans" to the queen herself.
2) Get the British guy to get a tattoo of the american flag.
Here's how it ended.
The FBI knocked on his door and barged in on him when he was in the bathroom, took him away and interrogated him due to "possible terrorism against the UK".
Secondly, the british soldier did get a tattoo of the american flag on his back that was only small if the guy was a midget, see it went from one shoulder to the other and about halfway down his back.
Albatross wrote:My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.
I'd go along with this.
As for everyone else - we're all pals now. Can't we just agree that our two countries are pretty much the most badass there's ever been and leave it at that? We've had our time as top dog, it's America's turn at the moment - we're all on the same side, so we should celebrate each other.
Albatross wrote:My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.
I'd go along with this.
As for everyone else - we're all pals now. Can't we just agree that our two countries are pretty much the most badass there's ever been and leave it at that? We've had our time as top dog, it's America's turn at the moment - we're all on the same side, so we should celebrate each other.
Don't leave aout Australia. Only an Aussie can go toe to toe with a Cajun or a Texan.
Albatross wrote:My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.
I'd go along with this.
As for everyone else - we're all pals now. Can't we just agree that our two countries are pretty much the most badass there's ever been and leave it at that? We've had our time as top dog, it's America's turn at the moment - we're all on the same side, so we should celebrate each other.
Don't leave aout Australia. Only an Aussie can go toe to toe with a Cajun or a Texan.
Pfft. Aussies aren't hard. I eat them like crisps.
Vlad.... Yeah, the Russians may have eventually due to throwing sheer numbers at the Germans.... if the US wouldn't have lend leased anything to them, they would have done FAR wose then what they did.
Albatross wrote:My point in a nutshell: the US is sufficiently awesome that even understatement can convey both our history and current ability as an asskicker, and there is no need to stretch the truth.
I'd go along with this.
As for everyone else - we're all pals now. Can't we just agree that our two countries are pretty much the most badass there's ever been and leave it at that? We've had our time as top dog, it's America's turn at the moment - we're all on the same side, so we should celebrate each other.
Don't leave aout Australia. Only an Aussie can go toe to toe with a Cajun or a Texan.
Pfft. Aussies aren't hard. I eat them like crisps.
thegrav wrote:Um.. Well then... Watch: Saving Private Ryan, Band Of Brothers, Battle of the Bulge, Patton, this list can get longer... and I am sure Dakkaites will help me here..
Umm, watching American war movies will not improve anyone's understanding of WWII.
The US, the UK and the rest of the allied forces all have a lot to be proud of, but ultimately Germany was defeated by the Russians. You just need to look at the overwhelming proportion of German soldiers lost on the Eastern Front and it becomes fairly clear.
Tim the Biovore wrote:You sure about that? The Siege of Stalingrad showed the Russians surviving due to their numbers, half of which had no guns. Then again, they did halt the German's advance.
The thing about the Russians being deployed without guns is a myth - I guess you've watched Enemy at the Gates? Anyhow, the myth comes from real events in WWI, but nothing of the sort occurred in WWII.
And the Germans weren't just stopped at Stalingrad. The Russian counter attack encircled the German troops in the city, and the entire 6th army was lost. This was then followed by the German defeat at Kursk in the largest tank battle in history. In each case the Russians demonstrated a use of combined arms that is a long, long way from the myth of troops coming into battle with one rifle between two men.
jp400 wrote:Vlad.... Yeah, the Russians may have eventually due to throwing sheer numbers at the Germans.... if the US wouldn't have lend leased anything to them, they would have done FAR wose then what they did.
Lend lease was effective program, but didn't fundamentally change the situation. Trucks and bazookas are nice, but they weren't the defining elements of the war. In fact, Lend Lease would almost certainly have ended if the US had ever realised the actual fighting strength of the Soviets, Stalin put a lot of effort into convincing the US the Red Army was constantly on a state of collapse. When Operation Uranus was launched the Americans were stunned, they had no idea the Russians had those kinds of reserves.
The idea of a massive but ineffectual Russian army is also not supported by a closer look at the facts. At the start of Barbarossa the Germans and their allies actually had more numbers than the Russians. You're right that the Russians lost a lot of troops over the war, but that was basically their method, churn through conscripts and keep replacing them, build robust tanks with crude finishing and keep replacing them. The Germans invested a lot more time in their troops and equipment. As a result, despite taking considerably more casualties the Russians were able to replace their losses, the Germans were not.
@sebster: I am not suggesting movies are then end all or be all, I am suggesting that if you get the vast majority of your knowledge from TV/Movies, you may want to watch the big ones that talk about the United States involvement in the European Theater. The statement I was replying to suggested that the US had NO involvement in the European Theater, and was ONLY involved in the Pacific Theater.
As for Russia being able to win WWII given enough time.. I am not sure if I am ready to jump on that bandwagon, that is simply not how history is taught in the states. We learn about Russia's Overwhelming amount of causalities, and how many troops Hitler lost when he marched into Russia in the dead of winter. However, we are also taught that D-Day and some of the other Joint US/British actions were "Turning Points" that brought about a resolution to the European Theater, and put an early end to a war that the Nazis were losing but would cost European dearly in the end.
The impression I was left with, was that Russia may have "won", but their 2 million plus causalities as of 1944, may well have doubled. Thats like saying You won a game of Warhammer cause Your HQ Squad is the last thing on the board, sure it's a "win" by the games rules, but it looks a bit more like survival to the bitter end.
Also when talking about WWII, we must not forget the Pacific Theater, Germany and Japan were Allies after all, if Russia had won in Europe, or Stalemated (What we are taught was happening here in the states) how long would it have taken for Japan to roll over Russia from the other side? The US was the Major Player in the Defeat of Japan, and of actions taking place in the Pacific Theater.
However at the end of the day, I don't see what any of this has to do with the 4th of July. I think in the future when someone says something like :"Congrats on <Insert Country> <Insert event>" we shouldn't turn it into the failings or misgivings of that country as it applies to war.
thegrav wrote:Um.. Well then... Watch: Saving Private Ryan, Band Of Brothers, Battle of the Bulge, Patton, this list can get longer... and I am sure Dakkaites will help me here..
Umm, watching American war movies will not improve anyone's understanding of WWII.
The US, the UK and the rest of the allied forces all have a lot to be proud of, but ultimately Germany was defeated by the Russians. You just need to look at the overwhelming proportion of German soldiers lost on the Eastern Front and it becomes fairly clear.
Tim the Biovore wrote:You sure about that? The Siege of Stalingrad showed the Russians surviving due to their numbers, half of which had no guns. Then again, they did halt the German's advance.
The thing about the Russians being deployed without guns is a myth - I guess you've watched Enemy at the Gates? Anyhow, the myth comes from real events in WWI, but nothing of the sort occurred in WWII.
And the Germans weren't just stopped at Stalingrad. The Russian counter attack encircled the German troops in the city, and the entire 6th army was lost. This was then followed by the German defeat at Kursk in the largest tank battle in history. In each case the Russians demonstrated a use of combined arms that is a long, long way from the myth of troops coming into battle with one rifle between two men.
jp400 wrote:Vlad.... Yeah, the Russians may have eventually due to throwing sheer numbers at the Germans.... if the US wouldn't have lend leased anything to them, they would have done FAR wose then what they did.
Lend lease was effective program, but didn't fundamentally change the situation. Trucks and bazookas are nice, but they weren't the defining elements of the war. In fact, Lend Lease would almost certainly have ended if the US had ever realised the actual fighting strength of the Soviets, Stalin put a lot of effort into convincing the US the Red Army was constantly on a state of collapse. When Operation Uranus was launched the Americans were stunned, they had no idea the Russians had those kinds of reserves.
The idea of a massive but ineffectual Russian army is also not supported by a closer look at the facts. At the start of Barbarossa the Germans and their allies actually had more numbers than the Russians. You're right that the Russians lost a lot of troops over the war, but that was basically their method, churn through conscripts and keep replacing them, build robust tanks with crude finishing and keep replacing them. The Germans invested a lot more time in their troops and equipment. As a result, despite taking considerably more casualties the Russians were able to replace their losses, the Germans were not.
So the what?
Automatically Appended Next Post: WWII isn't Germany. It wasn't Germany that attacked the US.
We obliterated the Japanese.
The UK and Britain ended the Italians.
The Brits fought the germans longer than the USSR and USA.
The USA fought Germany.
To deny the sacrifices the UK and the USA made in the war is asinine and insulting to the millions who served.
No, not really. All joking aside, I find your posting style to be deeply unpleasant and unnecessarily aggressive. Most lawyers I know treat people with a certain amount of dignity, and don't abuse every pathetic scrap of power they have.
thegrav wrote:Hitler was not defeated by the Russians and British...They had a "little" help... You need to review your history there.
Nah, it was pretty much the Russians. I know you're referring to the US as the help but realistically the Russkies would've steamrolled the Krauts just fine without our 'little' help.
You sure about that? The Siege of Stalingrad showed the Russians surviving due to their numbers, half of which had no guns. Then again, they did halt the German's advance.
Anyway, I'm Australian, so I'll just leave now....
Someone watched Enemy at the Gates... and believed it :-/
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
sebster wrote:
thegrav wrote:Um.. Well then... Watch: Saving Private Ryan, Band Of Brothers, Battle of the Bulge, Patton, this list can get longer... and I am sure Dakkaites will help me here..
Umm, watching American war movies will not improve anyone's understanding of WWII.
The US, the UK and the rest of the allied forces all have a lot to be proud of, but ultimately Germany was defeated by the Russians. You just need to look at the overwhelming proportion of German soldiers lost on the Eastern Front and it becomes fairly clear.
Tim the Biovore wrote:You sure about that? The Siege of Stalingrad showed the Russians surviving due to their numbers, half of which had no guns. Then again, they did halt the German's advance.
The thing about the Russians being deployed without guns is a myth - I guess you've watched Enemy at the Gates? Anyhow, the myth comes from real events in WWI, but nothing of the sort occurred in WWII.
And the Germans weren't just stopped at Stalingrad. The Russian counter attack encircled the German troops in the city, and the entire 6th army was lost. This was then followed by the German defeat at Kursk in the largest tank battle in history. In each case the Russians demonstrated a use of combined arms that is a long, long way from the myth of troops coming into battle with one rifle between two men.
jp400 wrote:Vlad.... Yeah, the Russians may have eventually due to throwing sheer numbers at the Germans.... if the US wouldn't have lend leased anything to them, they would have done FAR wose then what they did.
Lend lease was effective program, but didn't fundamentally change the situation. Trucks and bazookas are nice, but they weren't the defining elements of the war. In fact, Lend Lease would almost certainly have ended if the US had ever realised the actual fighting strength of the Soviets, Stalin put a lot of effort into convincing the US the Red Army was constantly on a state of collapse. When Operation Uranus was launched the Americans were stunned, they had no idea the Russians had those kinds of reserves.
The idea of a massive but ineffectual Russian army is also not supported by a closer look at the facts. At the start of Barbarossa the Germans and their allies actually had more numbers than the Russians. You're right that the Russians lost a lot of troops over the war, but that was basically their method, churn through conscripts and keep replacing them, build robust tanks with crude finishing and keep replacing them. The Germans invested a lot more time in their troops and equipment. As a result, despite taking considerably more casualties the Russians were able to replace their losses, the Germans were not.
So the what?
Automatically Appended Next Post: WWII isn't Germany. It wasn't Germany that attacked the US.
We obliterated the Japanese.
The UK and Britain ended the Italians.
The Brits fought the germans longer than the USSR and USA.
The USA fought Germany.
To deny the sacrifices the UK and the USA made in the war is asinine and insulting to the millions who served.
You can't deny them, but you can put them to the appropriate scale.
Though I'd give the US a lot more credit than most Brits seem willing to...
If we play the game of "What if", then I would probably sit on the block that would state the Russians still could have won, but one can't deny the importance of the French and Italian fronts (however late the former did arrive...).
What is silly is how we keep on trying to throwback to this conflict for the sheer purpose of glorification: In the USA's case it's just the last time they fought a just war (arguably excluding Afghanistan, of course)... I think this video review by Yahtzee carries the right message
America's real accomplishment in WW2 wasn't stopping the Nazis, it was stopping the Soviets. Things could have gotten bad if they kept rolling along by themselves...
thegrav wrote:@sebster: I am not suggesting movies are then end all or be all, I am suggesting that if you get the vast majority of your knowledge from TV/Movies, you may want to watch the big ones that talk about the United States involvement in the European Theater. The statement I was replying to suggested that the US had NO involvement in the European Theater, and was ONLY involved in the Pacific Theater.
Fair enough, the suggestion that the US focussed on the Pacific theatre was a bit WTF?!
As for Russia being able to win WWII given enough time..
No, not 'given enough time'. They did it in the time the war took. Had there been no front with the UK and US then the war would have gone a few more months, but no longer than that.
I am not sure if I am ready to jump on that bandwagon, that is simply not how history is taught in the states. We learn about Russia's Overwhelming amount of causalities, and how many troops Hitler lost when he marched into Russia in the dead of winter. However, we are also taught that D-Day and some of the other Joint US/British actions were "Turning Points" that brought about a resolution to the European Theater, and put an early end to a war that the Nazis were losing but would cost European dearly in the end.
Yeah, when there's a chance for politics to get involved you really can't take what they teach you in school at face value. Russia was enemy #1 up until quite recently, and it still shows in the history books. Between the bias to downplay the military achievements of an enemy and the bias towards overstating your own achievements, you end up with a very skewed view of history.
It's really this simle - 75 to 80% of German casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front. Looking purely at infantry, it was probably close to 9 in 10. Everything else was a sideshow.
The impression I was left with, was that Russia may have "won", but their 2 million plus causalities as of 1944, may well have doubled. Thats like saying You won a game of Warhammer cause Your HQ Squad is the last thing on the board, sure it's a "win" by the games rules, but it looks a bit more like survival to the bitter end.
Alright, say you're playing a game of Apocalypse, there's you and three mates vs one guy with as much stuff as all you guys combined. You're late and miss the first turn, meanwhile two of your mates get attacked, one of them is wiped out and the other turtles up in the far corner. Your opponent then turns all his attention on your remaining ally, who takes a beating for a bit but holds, then counterattacks and destroys large numbers of the enemy. You arrive, and along with the survivor of the first attack you being a successful counter attack.
Your ally keeps rolling forward, losing more stuff but killing a pile more as he goes. The game ends, and you're victorious. You look at your ally and say 'we all did very well, especially me, because I didn't lose anywhere near as much as you' and he replies 'I killed 4/5 of the enemy, and I took his capital, what the hell are you talking about?'
Also when talking about WWII, we must not forget the Pacific Theater, Germany and Japan were Allies after all, if Russia had won in Europe, or Stalemated (What we are taught was happening here in the states) how long would it have taken for Japan to roll over Russia from the other side? The US was the Major Player in the Defeat of Japan, and of actions taking place in the Pacific Theater.
It works that way in Axis and Allies, but not in real life. Japan was trapped in an incredibly brutal and resource sapping war in China, and would have been unlikely to have resources to commit to Eastern expansion. Even if they did, their military was simply not capable of matching with one of the great powers in open war. Now, the Japanese did have a very skilled navy, and an army that was effective for defensive operations on small islands, but put into an environment were manouvre was an option they were greatly out of their depth.
When the Russians turned their attention to Japan, they smashed the Japanese in Manchuria incredibly quickly, and then proceeded to advance as quickly as logistics would allow - the large numbers of Japanese troops on the mainland offered little resistance. You know why North Korea and South Korea were originally divided along the 38th parallel? Because that's far as the Russians had advanced - and they did this in a matter of months.
Basically, the Japanese threat to Russia didn't exist.
However at the end of the day, I don't see what any of this has to do with the 4th of July. I think in the future when someone says something like :"Congrats on <Insert Country> <Insert event>" we shouldn't turn it into the failings or misgivings of that country as it applies to war.
It's a tangent, they happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:To deny the sacrifices the UK and the USA made in the war is asinine and insulting to the millions who served.
As I said earlier;
"The US, the UK and the rest of the allied forces all have a lot to be proud of, but ultimately Germany was defeated by the Russians."
Actually, I think that is the western front didn't exist9as well as the campaign in Africa) I believe that Germany would've put more forces in the east and perhaps could've taken the fight to Russia before the tundra began to thaw.
That was a MAJOR issue with german armor, it was heavier than Rosie O' Donnel after an all you can eat buffet. They managed to start the attack, but Russian weather will beat most armies on its own and just lets the Russian people take the credit. The german tanks were vastly superior in terms of armor and weaponry, but if they were stuck in the mud they weren't too useful. This is why the germans would capture T-34's and use them as recovery vehicles.
The T-34's were light and fast little buggers(thanks to the tank's suspension design which came from an american engineer) and could be manufactured quickly, and with mobile factories the russians could build and field T-34's on the front lines if they wanted to.
As to the amount of manpower, yes the russians had it, in terms of production yes the russians had it. However we could note the destruction of key manufacturing locations in the west by US/UK forces as being a reason for loss of production.
As to the costly war with China. You do realize that america cut off its oil supply to Japan(causing a loss of resources) and also let's not forget the "Flying Tigers" who fought the war for the US before the actual war began.
We could play the "if" game all day long, but in the end I would dare say that russia would not have won the war all by itself. Sure they had the manpower, but when 1 tank can knock out 15 of yours that's a bad sign.
No, these guys aren't relaxing, they're the anti-air system.
halonachos wrote:Actually, I think that is the western front didn't exist9as well as the campaign in Africa) I believe that Germany would've put more forces in the east and perhaps could've taken the fight to Russia before the tundra began to thaw.
Africa was a sideshow, at best. The Western Front was a bigger issue, but ultimately, you can’t get away from that casualty ratio, between 75 and 80% of casualty figures were suffered by the Germans on the Eastern Front.
That was a MAJOR issue with german armor, it was heavier than Rosie O' Donnel after an all you can eat buffet. They managed to start the attack, but Russian weather will beat most armies on its own and just lets the Russian people take the credit. The german tanks were vastly superior in terms of armor and weaponry, but if they were stuck in the mud they weren't too useful.
No, German armour was not universally heavier, nor were the German heavy designs a factor in any of their greatest successes against the Russians. At the start of Barbarossa, the Germans relied predominantly on the lacklustre Mk III tank, which was too light and entirely outclassed by the T-34. The Mk IV, which was still lighter than the T-34, less well armoured, slower and without as long a range was more of a match, but still an inferior tank. The only heavy tank deployed by either side at the start of the war was the KV series deployed by the Russians.
Despite all of that the Germans utterly smashed the Soviets, going to show that the individual superiority of a tank is not going to matter if you have a lot else going for you. In time, as the Russians recovered and built organisational capability, the superiority of their tanks began to show. Read about Operation Uranus, for an example of operational level warfare facilitated by highly mobile tanks.
In time the Germans deployed Tigers and Panthers into the field, the first time they deployed in force was at Kursk, where the Germans were smashed in the greatest tank battle of all time. The Russians simply had more tanks, and co-ordinated their use more effectively on the operational level (helped in large part due the superior range and mobility of their tanks compared to their German counterparts).
This is why the germans would capture T-34's and use them as recovery vehicles.
Actually, significant numbers of T-34s were put into service as fighting vehicles, and the Russians did the same with captured German tanks. This is due to open and mobile nature of warfare on the Eastern front, tanks were constantly isolated from their lines and captured.
The T-34's were light and fast little buggers(thanks to the tank's suspension design which came from an american engineer) and could be manufactured quickly, and with mobile factories the russians could build and field T-34's on the front lines if they wanted to.
As I explained above, the T-34 was a full ton heavier than the largest tank deployed by the Germans at the start of the war, and it’s armour was superior to it’s German equivalents. It was also more mobile, although it lacked as effective a main gun.
The Panther was rushed through production, adapting multiple design features from the T-34, and was basically built as a special purpose T-34 killer. Because the Germans recognised the quality and importance of the T-34.
As to the amount of manpower, yes the russians had it, in terms of production yes the russians had it. However we could note the destruction of key manufacturing locations in the west by US/UK forces as being a reason for loss of production.
Yes, the targeted bombing campaign of the Western Allies was effective, up until they moved focus to cities, which was basically a waste of lives on both sides.
As to the costly war with China. You do realize that america cut off its oil supply to Japan(causing a loss of resources) and also let's not forget the "Flying Tigers" who fought the war for the US before the actual war began.
Yes, oil was cut off from early in the war. That impacted the Japanese navy considerably, but was far less of an effect on their troops in China (the issue there was an effective communist resistance). The flying tigers really aren’t significant in terms of the total war.
It is true that that the US submarines did have an utterly brutal effect on the Japanese shipping. But the slightest reading of the Manchuria campaign will show how far short the Japanese were from the other powers of WWII in a conventional land battle. They simply lacked the logistic and combined arms capabilities of the other countries – the only reason they were able to compete with the US was the unique nature of defending small islands.
We could play the "if" game all day long, but in the end I would dare say that russia would not have won the war all by itself. Sure they had the manpower, but when 1 tank can knock out 15 of yours that's a bad sign.
Again, at the start of Barbarossa the Russians had bigger, superior tanks. They got smashed. By the time the the Tigers and Panthers arrived on the field, the Germans went from losing to losing real bad.
There are multiple incidents of Tigers taking out large numbers of Shermans. This was, in fact, a significantly greater problem for the Western allies, as they lacked heavy tank designs of their own, while the Russians had their own heavy tanks, such as the IS-2.
You seem to have formed some kind of idea that military superiority can be established by considering the heavy tanks of one side vs the medium tanks of the other in some kind of duel by sunset. It’s junk. Tanks, like every other part of the war machine, need to fit and perform a role as part of the overall unit. In WWII a tank was not there to fight other tanks, it needed to be capable when that role arose, but the primary strategic value of a tank was in driving through enemy weakpoints, cutting off the lines of supply and encircling the enemy.
The T-34 was extremely good at this. The heavy tanks of the Germans were extremely good as heavy tanks, but that’s a role of minor strategic importance. The medium tanks of Germany were not as capable of penetrating the enemy’s main lines.
No, these guys aren't relaxing, they're the anti-air system.
You realise that every armed force was trained to return fire at German stukkas? And that the Russian 85mm AA was an excellent design.
halonachos wrote:The german tanks were vastly superior in terms of armor and weaponry, but if they were stuck in the mud they weren't too useful. This is why the germans would capture T-34's and use them as recovery vehicles.
Actually, the majority of German tanks were inferior to the T-34 in every way. The Panzer III, the most numerous tank on the Eastern Front, was slower, lacking firepower, possessed of insufficient armor, and had about 2/5 the operational range. The Panzer IV, the second most numerous tank, was a better match for the T-34, but was still far slower, possessed less effective armor, less firepower, and about half the operational range. In fact, the only German tank which can be considered a match for the T-34 is the Panzer V, and even that was more than 33% heavier, and had about 2/3 the operational range. Even then, the Panther was only a match for the standard T-34. The T-34/85 was a better tank.
Also, you should know that winter wasn't the cause of the slow German advance. Hitler's summer pause slowed the German advance on Moscow, and the poor operational range of German armor made it impossible for his generals to make up for the lost time. The winter was primarily a factor in the retreat from Russia; slowing progress and causing many casualties.
Surprised this topic hasn't been locked for irrelevance to the OT (but hey, I'm enjoying it...)
I think anyone suggesting that the US focussed on the Pacific is a bit of a nub, I'm not going to pretend to be some kind of expert so I can't name every event, but I do believe Roosevelt made it clear from the outgoing that the Western Front was to be prioritised: Hence why a lot of American equipment in the Pacific was outdated.
@Halanachos
You do realise Germany had numerical superiority in '41 anyway, right? And they bulldozed the Soviets... but that advantage isn't a helluva lot of use when winter sets in.
They also weren't helped by the fact that Hitler kept moving their tanks...
I demand my "gay" thread is reopened! We didnt throw half as many personal attacks about as you guys did, in fact, i didnt throw any and i was just lining up my coup de grace!
mattyrm wrote:I demand my "gay" thread is reopened! We didnt throw half as many personal attacks about as you guys did, in fact, i didnt throw any and i was just lining up my coup de grace!
See the problem you have matty is that this thread contains pics of patriotic Americans that are..easy on the eyes. That was your mistake. That and that whole haggis thing...
Frazzled wrote:See the problem you have matty is that this thread contains pics of patriotic Americans that are..easy on the eyes. That was your mistake. That and that whole haggis thing...
Frazzled wrote:Wow, another personal attack. On the positive I find your opinion worth less than nothing.
Ditto baby, Ditto.
So you'll come back into the thread to complain about a personal attack slung at you, but won't make retract or even comment on your groundless complaint against me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A note to all involved. I think the discussion on history has been amazing and I enjoy seeing many points of view. I also think that the mud-slinging gets in the way, so when the words personal and attack come out I will continue to post silly pictures.
Henners91 wrote:Surprised this topic hasn't been locked for irrelevance to the OT (but hey, I'm enjoying it...)
I think anyone suggesting that the US focussed on the Pacific is a bit of a nub, I'm not going to pretend to be some kind of expert so I can't name every event, but I do believe Roosevelt made it clear from the outgoing that the Western Front was to be prioritised: Hence why a lot of American equipment in the Pacific was outdated.
You are correct on that. At the beginning of the war we adopted a "Europe First" policy so we focused mainly on the european theater and didn't see too much focus on figthing the japs. As I said before about the Flying Tigers, we had people working against them we just didn't focus on them as much.
Henners91 wrote:
@Halanachos
You do realise Germany had numerical superiority in '41 anyway, right? And they bulldozed the Soviets... but that advantage isn't a helluva lot of use when winter sets in.
They also weren't helped by the fact that Hitler kept moving their tanks...
Like I said, the russian weather will defeat any army, the russian peoplejust steal the glory. The main issue was with weight and also the track system. The design used by the T-34(as well as some british tanks) had two modes that allowed high speeds. I think it was established as 60mph when in wheel mode. The Christie design was also simple enough to easily repair and allowed use in muddy terrain unlike the engineering of the german tanks.
Hitler was a horrible strategist. Had his officers told him to be quiet when the adults are talking, their military may have won the war.
But, that 1-15 ratio actually comes from a Tiger2(German Heavy) vs JS2(Russian Heavy). The Tiger2 that accomplished this didn't take too much damage from JS2 fire, it actually got stuck in the mud and could no longer move. So I am not comparing Heavy vs Light, that was a Heavy vs Heavy match.
hey happy 4th of july! Can we stop making every one of these threads a childish display of "my country is better, no my country is better!" followed by an inevitable display of sword fighting?
I have a good sense of humor, but saying that America is defined by goose-stepping honestly crosses a line. I have family that died in World War 2, and my Step-Mothers parents were survivors of one of the Death Camps. As much fun as you may be poking by comparing American to Hitler and the Nazis, or the North Koreans, it honestly just is not funny.
=][= don't cross the personal attack line because you're upset over something someone else said, report if you don't like something -grey_death =][=
It also stretched the hamstrings. It was cardio and stretching all in one. I also believe the salute was traditional in ancient Rome(correct me if I'm wrong).
Henners91 wrote: Who on Earth would ever consider the Tiger 2 a good tank?
The 503rd remained in the Hungarian theater of operations for 166 days, during which it accounted for at least 121 Soviet tanks, 244 anti-tank guns and artillery pieces, five aircraft and a train. This was at the loss of 25 Tiger IIs; ten were knocked out by Soviet troops and burned out, two were sent back to Vienna for a factory overhaul, while thirteen were blown up by their crews for various reasons, usually to prevent them from falling into enemy hands.
So if we look at actual kills(and not the ones the crews burned intentionally) that was
121 to 10 or about 12 soviet tanks for 1 german one. Not to mention the planes, train, and artillery they also killed.
The King Tiger was a fantastic tank and like many people say, it is rare to find a photo of a Tiger 2 that was knocked out due to a round penetrating the front armor. It would be easy to call the King Tigers a Demolisher Variant with strong front armor and weaker armor on the sides and weakest in the back. It also had a higher ammo capacity (60 to 30), but sat higher and could get stuck in sand.
In fact I think one battle the germans lost 3 King Tigers, 2 to enemy fire and the 3rd fell in a crater and got stuck.
halonachos wrote:
The King Tiger was a fantastic tank and like many people say, it is rare to find a photo of a Tiger 2 that was knocked out due to a round penetrating the front armor.
The Tiger II was a fantastic mobile gun emplacement. In an offensive war, it would have been nearly useless as its maximum operational range was a little over 100 miles. Sure, it was difficult to knock out when position correctly, but it would have been very easy to simply drive around it. Think of it as the Maginot Line with treads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:So if we look at actual kills(and not the ones the crews burned intentionally) that was
121 to 10 or about 12 soviet tanks for 1 german one. Not to mention the planes, train, and artillery they also killed.
If we're going to do that, then the 15:1 ratio is invalid as we are not provided with a detailed loss summary with respect to Soviet forces. In the absence of that we must use the total losses; giving a ratio of 5:1. At that pace the 492 Tiger IIs that were built would have been quickly wiped out by the 84,070 T-34s that were built. Moreover, its disingenuous to pretend that mechanical failure, fuel economy, and other similar factors are not to be included in an assessment of a vehicles combat effectiveness. It doesn't matter how awesomely powerful your tank is when it works if it only works 50% of the time, and can be easily outflanked or avoided.
We also have to remember that the Tigers were not representative of all German tanks, with only a little over 2,000 being built (regarding both types). Compare this to 6,000 Panthers, which was an even match for the T-34, and 8.000 Panzer IVs, which were inferior to the T-34.
Awesome. Somebody posts a perfectly friendly congrats on the 4th, plus bewbs (universal show of goodwill), and within a few pages, everyone is arguing.
Why can't the non-Americans let one picture of the stars and stripes be posted without reminding everyone that American isn't REALLY that great?
As far as Russia "winning" the war, that's ridiculous. The Allies won the war. That's Russia, the US, the UK, Canada, etc. All of these forces combined to defeat the Axis.
The Russians inflicted lots of casualties, sure... But American and British bombing raids, which cost a MASSIVE number of lives on both sides, hindered production of all sorts of war materials. Meanwhile the Lend Lease program was supplying Russia with war materials they lacked the capacity to produce.
It all came down to a combined effort by the Allies. To pick one nation as a "winner" is ridiculous, and it bespeaks a strangely pathological need to diminish the US, and build up everything that's not the US.
Seriously, it's desperate. And it's also not necessary. Just shut up, and wait a little while. You'll be able to watch the decline of the US in person. Give it 20 years, and the US will be a shadow of itself, and reality will much more closely resemble the facricated history you imagine.
I don't think anyone said that Russia won the war. Sebster said that Russia defeated Germany, which I consider a fair assessment insofar as 'defeated' is equivalent to 'contributed the most to defeating', but I can't be certain that's what he meant. That's merely my assessment after having read many of his posts.
Well, I'm pretty sure it was Russia that went into Berlin and caused Hitler to off himself or create Iron Skull. Or get on a U-boat to Antartica. (Whichever you believe
Also, I don't make much sence in real life too. And EF, why in the name of Slannesh's third shalong is it always me? D:
Shadowbrand wrote:Well, their all dead now. So they got fethed the most.
Also Britain did defeat Napolean and Hitler. Give them a break.
Well both times they had Russias help. Whoa, did I just remember something I read? Sweet.
You. Then this.
thegrav wrote:Hitler was not defeated by the Russians and British...They had a "little" help... You need to review your history there.
It was your fault Shadowbrand! Your fault! The tears of 1000 internet kittens are on your hands!!
Actually, this reminds me of the wierdest conversation the other day:
Friend 1: "If Hitler suddenly rocked up, alive and all, and tried to recruit you into the newly formed SS, what would you say?"
Friend 2: "Does he have hot Nazi Womenz with him?"
Friend 1: "Um...yes?"
Friend 2: "Hellz Yeah!"
Its not my fault that Hitler wasn't defeated by Russians and British. D:
I remember reading that he really got into the paranormal and paganism with the SS and his goverment when he started losing the war.
Clearly they did not rape and plunder enough for the allfather's blessing. I know this to be true because when I went to Valhalla there was just Tom Cruise and Rommel.
halonachos wrote:So if we look at actual kills(and not the ones the crews burned intentionally) that was
121 to 10 or about 12 soviet tanks for 1 german one. Not to mention the planes, train, and artillery they also killed.
The King Tiger was a fantastic tank and like many people say, it is rare to find a photo of a Tiger 2 that was knocked out due to a round penetrating the front armor. It would be easy to call the King Tigers a Demolisher Variant with strong front armor and weaker armor on the sides and weakest in the back. It also had a higher ammo capacity (60 to 30), but sat higher and could get stuck in sand.
In fact I think one battle the germans lost 3 King Tigers, 2 to enemy fire and the 3rd fell in a crater and got stuck.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wondering why it wasn't in here yet.
Add in the fact that the King Tiger had to be moved on a truck, broke down tons and (please bear in mind I am no gearhead, I don't know these things for certain) I imagine couldn't be produced anywhere near as fast as the equivocal number of T-34s (let's say, using your figures, 12 T-34s...) makes it an inferior model.
If we're going to talk about effective German tanks, why does nobody wheel out the STUG? Or the slightly more-commonly cited Nashorn? The former for its kill-count and the latter for its awesome K/D ratio (yes I play too much CoD).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Awesome. Somebody posts a perfectly friendly congrats on the 4th, plus bewbs (universal show of goodwill), and within a few pages, everyone is arguing.
Why can't the non-Americans let one picture of the stars and stripes be posted without reminding everyone that American isn't REALLY that great?
'Cos to tell you on any other day would just be insensitive
It's the only time we can whine about it being "in-our-face" :(
Plus, the Brits are bad losers (look at the World Cup, lalalalal).
thegrav wrote:I have a good sense of humor, but saying that America is defined by goose-stepping honestly crosses a line. I have family that died in World War 2, and my Step-Mothers parents were survivors of one of the Death Camps. As much fun as you may be poking by comparing American to Hitler and the Nazis, or the North Koreans, it honestly just is not funny.
TRANSLATION: 'I am entitled to be offended by that, and would like to excercise my right to do so.'
I guess the West isn't allowed to have it's day in the sun.
Well, I love my country and I think it's the greatest country on Earth. Don't agree. That's your right to do so. Unless you live in this country then I say "GTFO and don't let the door hit you in the ass."
I live in this country, and I don't think its the greatest country on Earth. Mostly because I think the creation of such a hierarchy is a total waste of time.
Also, no nation, or region, is allowed its day in the sun. It only leads to empty rhetoric for the control of plebes.
Edit: The sun brings life an warmth, the son brings pedophilia.
Shadowbrand wrote:I remember reading that he really got into the paranormal and paganism with the SS and his goverment when he started losing the war.
It was actually Hitler's fascination with the paranormal from a very young man that started his thought process of world domination. In fact, it was when he was in Vienna and was introduced to the alleged "Spear of Destiny"....
dogma wrote:I live in this country, and I don't think its the greatest country on Earth. Mostly because I think the creation of such a hierarchy is a total waste of time.
Also, no nation, or region, is allowed its day in the son. It only leads to empty rhetoric for the control of plebes.
It's definitely not the greatest now, not with our dimwit Kenyan, terrorist lover in charge but I digress. It'll be a good country again when HE is out of office.
I disagree. If I was celebrating the 4th and someone interrupted my festivities to tell me how their country is better or how this one sucks they'd have exactly 10 seconds to get off my lawn before I showed them the error of their ways.
Fateweaver wrote:
It's definitely not the greatest now, not with our dimwit Kenyan, terrorist lover in charge but I digress. It'll be a good country again when HE is out of office.
That's not very patriotic. The idea of patriotism is supposed to transcend leadership.
In other news: Awww, wook at da widdle wight winger.
Fateweaver wrote:
I disagree. If I was celebrating the 4th and someone interrupted my festivities to tell me how their country is better or how this one sucks they'd have exactly 10 seconds to get off my lawn before I showed them the error of their ways.
What if they told you that celebrating something you didn't contribute to is tacit to opening oneself to manipulation without cause?
dogma wrote:I live in this country, and I don't think its the greatest country on Earth. Mostly because I think the creation of such a hierarchy is a total waste of time.
Also, no nation, or region, is allowed its day in the son. It only leads to empty rhetoric for the control of plebes.
It's definitely not the greatest now, not with our dimwit Kenyan, terrorist lover in charge but I digress. It'll be a good country again when HE is out of office.
Fateweaver wrote:I guess the West isn't allowed to have it's day in the sun.
Well, I love my country and I think it's the greatest country on Earth. Don't agree. That's your right to do so. Unless you live in this country then I say "GTFO and don't let the door hit you in the ass."
Is it 'cos you were born in it?
Fateweaver wrote:
dogma wrote:I live in this country, and I don't think its the greatest country on Earth. Mostly because I think the creation of such a hierarchy is a total waste of time.
Also, no nation, or region, is allowed its day in the son. It only leads to empty rhetoric for the control of plebes.
It's definitely not the greatest now, not with our dimwit Kenyan, terrorist lover in charge but I digress. It'll be a good country again when HE is out of office.
I disagree. If I was celebrating the 4th and someone interrupted my festivities to tell me how their country is better or how this one sucks they'd have exactly 10 seconds to get off my lawn before I showed them the error of their ways.
It scares me to think the majority of male white Americans feel the way you do... Obama would be on the political right in this country
Polonius wrote:Fateweaver is pretty extreme in this country. Not radical right, but he is a pretty good example of a very stereotypical angry white male.
Either that, or he's an elaborate farce, conducted by somebody trying to make the right look ridiculous.
Stereotypical? I don't stereotype. I think everyone that isn't me is inferior.
I love that this has gone from a celebration of July 4th to calling people racists.
I love my country and I celebrate July 4th just like every other country in the world celebrates independence day or the October Revolution or what have you. I am really sick of people on this forum turning what should have been a simple "yay us" thread into a forum to spout their political crap.
And yes, I would do exactly as fateweaver said if someone showed up in my backyard. When did having pride in your country and the good things it stands for become unacceptable?
And since when do you have to contribute to something to celebrate it? I celebrate my parent's birthdays without having done anything to contribute to them just as I celebrate Christmas and Thanksgiving.
Honestly, for those of you from across the pond, what is the draw to bashing The United States? I am genuinely curious. Yes, sometimes the "loud, American" can be annoying (I spent several years in Europe). Do we really piss you off that much?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:And since when do you have to contribute to something to celebrate it? I celebrate my parent's birthdays without having done anything to contribute to them just as I celebrate Christmas and Thanksgiving.
When I celebrate my parents' birthdays I celebrate my parents' lives, and I have certainly contributed to their lives. Similarly, I consider Christmas and Thanksgiving (especially Thanksgiving) to be celebrations of family, not some event in the distant past.
The 4th of July is a celebration of America, but it often gets perverted into a celebration of America's past accomplishments. This is fine for people who contributed to those accomplishment, but its tacky in those instances in which they haven't.
For example, no one would take credit for their father's youth baseball trophies. They might say "Yeah, pops, that must have been awesome.", but they won't say "Yeah pops, we're awesome cause you won that."
Only those jealous of the citizens of the US bash on the US so it doesn't bother me.
Again, if you live in the US and don't like the country then get the feth out. Most people if they don't like being somewhere won't stay so I ask flag burning anti-Americans living in this country to do the same.
To those across the pond? Suck it. We are better than you and you just can't handle the truth.
Fateweaver wrote:Only those jealous of the citizens of the US bash on the US so it doesn't bother me.
Again, if you live in the US and don't like the country then get the feth out. Most people if they don't like being somewhere won't stay so I ask flag burning anti-Americans living in this country to do the same.
To those across the pond? Suck it. We are better than you and you just can't handle the truth.
It's because of people like you that some people bash the USA. Plain and simple. It's laughable that you think people criticise your country because they're jealous.
You seem to rely on America's image as a powerful nation to prop up your self-esteem, and a large part of that is talking down other nations. THAT is the problem a lot of people have with your particular brand of American 'patriotism' - it relies so heavily upon denigrating others and refusing to accept criticism.
And let's face it, exactly how powerful are YOU personally, when it comes down to it? Because that's what you're trying to project: 'My country is powerful, therefore I am powerful!'.
Polonius wrote:Fateweaver is pretty extreme in this country. Not radical right, but he is a pretty good example of a very stereotypical angry white male.
Either that, or he's an elaborate farce, conducted by somebody trying to make the right look ridiculous.
Stereotypical? I don't stereotype. I think everyone that isn't me is inferior.
Fateweaver wrote:Only those jealous of the citizens of the US bash on the US so it doesn't bother me.
Only people with poorly developed egos would indirectly state that their mental state is contingent on the perceived superiority of their nation of origin.
Fateweaver wrote:
Again, if you live in the US and don't like the country then get the feth out. Most people if they don't like being somewhere won't stay so I ask flag burning anti-Americans living in this country to do the same.
The 'love it or leave it' argument is riddled with many holes. The most obvious one being that America is a nation founded on a democratic political process which is designed to allow the populace to change the nation as it sees fit.
After all, you already said that American wasn't a great nation because of Obama's Presidency; following your line of equivocation you should have left some time in the last 2 years.
Yeah, if you don't this newly socialist, terrorist electing country you can leave!
Me, on the other hand? I like to masturbate while watching Obama perform an abortion on an illegal immigrant with federal money, climaxing onto a burning american flag while shouting "allah Akbar!"
I don't think anyone said that Russia won the war.
Sure, I was being sloppy. But you can see the point of my argument. The Russians didn't "defeat the Germans." The US didn't even "defeat the Japanese." In both theaters there were more than just the major powers. The Allies defeated the Axis.
Obama would be on the political right in this country
I don't think he would. Politics is about doing what you CAN do, not what you WISH you could do.
I'm not a mind reader, but I think Obama is WAY off the left end of the American spectrum, and even in England would be left of center. I also think that he knows what he can and can't say in the US, so he sticks to what he can.
Bottom line, America is about slow shifts. Trying to go fast is just delusional. In fact, it's basically about a slow shift left, with only minor slowdowns, and virtually no backtracks. With that sort of history, it's doubly unprofitable to tip a lefty hand early. Patience is your friend when you're a liberal. Eventually you'll get your way.
Ah well, racism ftw eh?!
Racism has nothing at all to do about it. Honestly, the whole emphasis of Obama's blackness is a sham. He's half white, half black, raised by white people. How does that add up to black?
But, even if he was 100% black, without a single white gene in his body I'm still solely interested in his politics. This whole "it's just cuz you racist" crap is tiresome. I'm sure, as usual, non-Americans are super excited to think of a reason to be critical. But in this case, you're just plain wrong. America's racial pendulum has swung.
There are very, VERY few old school racists in America. I'd wager there are far more of them in Europe at this point, actually.
What we have now in America is a new form of racism. It's more "race politics." Republicans don't hate black people. On the contrary, they rushed out to get their own black guy to be the chairman of the RNC. They love a guy like Bobby Jindal, because he's pretty traditionally conservative, PLUS he's not white... It's all a big race to get women and minorities elected to prove to those communities that you're the party that cares about them.
To be honest, when Obama was elected, I my first race-related thought was to be disappointed that Republicans didn't get a female or non-white elected first. I'd have enjoyed the irony of the Democrats having to watch that.
They might say "Yeah, pops, that must have been awesome.", but they won't say "Yeah pops, we're awesome cause you won that."
It's more than that. It's also about taking time to reflect on what those people did, imagine yourself in their shoes, and ask yourself what you can do to prepare yourself to perform as well as they did if you're asked to.
Today I took my kids to see some WWII era warbirds at the local airport. I talked to a few people in line, and the tone I got from everyone was one of admiration for the guys that flew those planes, and amazement that they had the balls to do it. Nobody was saying "this is how I... Er, we... Stompted those Jerries!" It was admiration of the guys that flew the planes, and admiration of a neat classic machine.
Honestly I think the reason that you can so often find somebody willing to spout jingoistic cliche is because there's so often somebody willing to bait them into it. I mean, come on guys... This thread was about the 4th of July, and turned into calling Americans racists. I'm not saying that the jingoistic crap is admirable, but if you walk up to a soccer hooligan and call his team a bunch of pansies, what's gonna happen? Who's the BIGGER idiot?
Doesn't matter how scholarly you can make it sound, if you bait somebody you bait somebody.
I've noticed that in most threads where America-bashing is claimed
Sure, cause the criticisms are "accurate" right? Again, COME ON. People have different perspectives and reach different conclusions. I'm not saying you have to see things the same way somebody else does, but if you don't see things the same, don't get all indignant about it. One man's accurate statement is another man's insult. You don't have the moral highground, and neither does the other guy.
It's because of people like you that some people bash the USA.
WRONG. It's because of BOTH of you. It's because there's people like Fateweaver, who won't back down, and people like you, who feel smart when you bait him.
It doesn't make you smart or educated or clever to be able to bait somebody into getting frustrated. I could do the same to you in an instant. It wouldn't make me smart, it'd make me a dick.
People take pride in different things. Let them. And if you can't let them, and you have to try to tear them down, then at least have the intellectual honesty to know you're doing it.
Phryxis wrote:
It's more than that. It's also about taking time to reflect on what those people did, imagine yourself in their shoes, and ask yourself what you can do to prepare yourself to perform as well as they did if you're asked to.
Sure, and that's perfectly understandable, even healthy. That's the sort of thing I was trying to capture with the bit about "Yeah pops, that must have been awesome."
Phryxis wrote:
Honestly I think the reason that you can so often find somebody willing to spout jingoistic cliche is because there's so often somebody willing to bait them into it. I mean, come on guys... This thread was about the 4th of July, and turned into calling Americans racists. I'm not saying that the jingoistic crap is admirable, but if you walk up to a soccer hooligan and call his team a bunch of pansies, what's gonna happen? Who's the BIGGER idiot?
To be fair, the racism thing was the result of a political non sequitur from Fateweaver.
But, on to your main point, I certainly agree that the chest beating tropes tend to be drawn out through the baiting. However, it also has to be said that certain people will take unjustifiably aggressive positions whenever anything they value is questioned (and sometimes even when it isn't), and that's what, in my mind has brought this thread to where it is. Seriously, you've got people in hear stating that its essentially disrespectful to Americans to acknowledge the Soviet role in WWII; prior to which everything was going along pretty well.
Phryxis wrote:
Doesn't matter how scholarly you can make it sound, if you bait somebody you bait somebody.
I'm generally of the opinion that any patriotic celebration in an international environment is basically an excuse to bait nationalists, of all stripes. Normally this baiting is good natured, but sometimes it ends up going too far and you get what we have here.
Plus, this is a war gaming forum, if you mention WWII there will be an exchange of some sort.
To be fair, the racism thing was the result of a political non sequitur from Fateweaver.
I'm not sure that's "fair." Fateweaver called him a "Kenyan." Henners91 than took that as a reason to accuse him of racism, and to do it in a context that also implied that the "majority of white male Americans" were on the same page.
So did Fateweaver say anything about him being black? There was certainly an implication. But then again, Henners91 implied that all white male Americans are racist.
To me, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Two people coming together to bait and respond.
it also has to be said that certain people will take unjustifiably aggressive positions whenever anything they value is questioned
No question... That's what I was trying to capture with my mention of a soccer hooligan. If you go up to one of these guys and talk crap about his team, he's quite likely to punch you in the face. That's "unjustifiably aggressive" for sure. But at the same time, it would be an issue if you hadn't baited him.
The other reason I mention that, which I think is particularly operative here, is that people tend to choose not to find ways to understand people they have no stake in, and no experience with.
I'm sure these British posters all have a soccer hooligan friend or two. And they have experience with them that put these guys in context, and make them understandable. "Sure, Teddy likes to get drunk and fight with other footie fans, but he's a funny bloke, and loyal, real trustworthy." So they now have a personal connection to the stereotype, and they rationalize the good because of the bad.
On the other hand, they don't know any "American patriots" which are basically the same thing as a soccer hooligan, only with a different scale of "team." Because they don't know anybody like that, they actually believe the stereotype. In fact, because people tend to feel empowered and justified by spotting the failures of others, they actually exaggerate the stereotype, and still assume it's all totally true.
Suddenly Fateweaver, and all white male Americans, are racists. And suddenly that's about 100 million people leapfrogged in the hunt for the moral highground.
halonachos wrote:Like I said, the russian weather will defeat any army, the russian peoplejust steal the glory.
Do you think fraz is going to try and lecture you for diminishing the achievements of all those Russian people who fought and died against the Nazis?
The main issue was with weight and also the track system. The design used by the T-34(as well as some british tanks) had two modes that allowed high speeds. I think it was established as 60mph when in wheel mode. The Christie design was also simple enough to easily repair and allowed use in muddy terrain unlike the engineering of the german tanks.
The track and suspension of the t-34 was excellent, and part of it's success. But the primary advantage wasn't in any particular design element, but in the overall focus of the tank design. The t-34 was built for simple mass production, with mobility (particularly off-road mobility) and reliability as clear design goals.
Hitler was a horrible strategist. Had his officers told him to be quiet when the adults are talking, their military may have won the war.
Hitler made plenty of mistakes. He also argued heavily for rapid, quick strike warfare, and was resisted by many of the German high command. It was the final realisation of this idea that the Nazis stumbled into during the attack on France, and had it been more successfully implemented against the Russians in the early days of the war they might have performed better.
The Germans performed incredibly well at the tactical level, throughout the war. At the strategic level, before and after Hitler took overall control, they didn't operate that effectively.
But, that 1-15 ratio actually comes from a Tiger2(German Heavy) vs JS2(Russian Heavy). The Tiger2 that accomplished this didn't take too much damage from JS2 fire, it actually got stuck in the mud and could no longer move. So I am not comparing Heavy vs Light, that was a Heavy vs Heavy match.
So, your evidence of German military superiority (and therefore their reliance on US aid) comes from a late war match off, when the Russians were advancing on all fronts. And still relies on the idea that the match off of one heavy tank vs another is an important part of winning the war. That's pure fail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:So if we look at actual kills(and not the ones the crews burned intentionally) that was
121 to 10 or about 12 soviet tanks for 1 german one. Not to mention the planes, train, and artillery they also killed.
The King Tiger was a fantastic tank and like many people say, it is rare to find a photo of a Tiger 2 that was knocked out due to a round penetrating the front armor. It would be easy to call the King Tigers a Demolisher Variant with strong front armor and weaker armor on the sides and weakest in the back. It also had a higher ammo capacity (60 to 30), but sat higher and could get stuck in sand.
In fact I think one battle the germans lost 3 King Tigers, 2 to enemy fire and the 3rd fell in a crater and got stuck.
If one was to ignore the machine hours put into producing a tank, the logistics of putting that tank on battlefield, ignore the operational range of that tank on the battefield, ignore all elements of support from infantry and air, and just ask what tank I would most like to dirve in WWII to battle other tanks, then the Tiger II would be right up there.
But the point is you can't ignore all the above.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Why can't the non-Americans let one picture of the stars and stripes be posted without reminding everyone that American isn't REALLY that great?
America is the dominant world power, has almost complete military superiority in the world, and is the dominant cultural force in the world today. This is a good thing because I like a whole lot of American culture.
But the overwhelmingly greatest contributor to defeating the Germans was the Soviet Union. This is an important thing to point out simply because it is important to be right about history.
As far as Russia "winning" the war, that's ridiculous. The Allies won the war. That's Russia, the US, the UK, Canada, etc. All of these forces combined to defeat the Axis.
Umm, first of all, we were there also
Second of all, yes, all countries played an important role, and each sacrificed to defeat the Axis powers. But it makes exactly zero sense to assert all countries contributed equally, and if they didn't, then it is possible to argue who contributed more. Would you be bothered by the suggestion that while both Australia and the US fought against Japan, it was in fact the US that contributed more?
The Russians inflicted lots of casualties, sure... But American and British bombing raids, which cost a MASSIVE number of lives on both sides, hindered production of all sorts of war materials. Meanwhile the Lend Lease program was supplying Russia with war materials they lacked the capacity to produce.
The Allied bombing campaign was a factor, as was the lend lease program. But if you remove these factors you cannot account for the overwhelming difference in German and Soviet production.
To pick one nation as a "winner" is ridiculous, and it bespeaks a strangely pathological need to diminish the US, and build up everything that's not the US.
That's a completely bizarre interpretation of this thread. Just from miles out of left field.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I don't think anyone said that Russia won the war. Sebster said that Russia defeated Germany, which I consider a fair assessment insofar as 'defeated' is equivalent to 'contributed the most to defeating', but I can't be certain that's what he meant. That's merely my assessment after having read many of his posts.
That's pretty much it, yeah. The Soviets contributed more to defeating the Nazis than any other power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:It's definitely not the greatest now, not with our dimwit Kenyan, terrorist lover in charge but I digress. It'll be a good country again when HE is out of office.
So your patriotism will not tolerate people giving an honest account of military achievements, but it is fine to suggest the country has stopped being great because you don't the current President.
I am finally beginning to understand how your worldview has gotten so screwed up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I love that this has gone from a celebration of July 4th to calling people racists.
What exactly do you think is going to happen when someone claims Obama is Kenyan?
I am really sick of people on this forum turning what should have been a simple "yay us" thread into a forum to spout their political crap.
Can someone not love their country and have a genuine understanding of history?
And if the two are not compatible, should the love of one's country really be a higher thing than an understanding of history?
And yes, I would do exactly as fateweaver said if someone showed up in my backyard. When did having pride in your country and the good things it stands for become unacceptable?
It isn't unacceptable, it is in fact not only acceptable but an overtly encouraged thing. And this is fine.
It is a little more problematic when a love of one's country is built around things that aren't true. It is a serious problem when someone objects to actually reading the truth of the matter, because it impacts how he likes to view his country.
You should love your country for what it has achieved, not what you'd like it to have achieved.
Honestly, for those of you from across the pond, what is the draw to bashing The United States? I am genuinely curious. Yes, sometimes the "loud, American" can be annoying (I spent several years in Europe). Do we really piss you off that much?
No-one is bashing the US. There is a difference between pointing out . You are absolutely welcome to love your country, and there are many reasons to do so, but it should be for the things it has actually achieved, not the things people mistakenly think it achieved.
In a thread celebrating Australia Day, if a poster were to claim he's proud because we went and defeated the Japanese, do you not think another poster might point out it was actually the US that contributed the most to defeating the Japanese?
Would you be bothered by the suggestion that while both Australia and the US fought against Japan, it was in fact the US that contributed more?
No, but there's also a change in language here.
We started with: "The US, the UK and the rest of the allied forces all have a lot to be proud of, but ultimately Germany was defeated by the Russians."
Now were talking about contribution... We could probably discuss at great length the relative contributions of the nations involved, but for the purpose of this discussion, what I think is most noteworthy is the language. You chose to say things in a way that comes across as a bit more harsh and dismissive than I think you really even view things.
This is the whole "baiting" piece. You've got a reasonable point to make, but you also sense that there are "American patriots" watching, and you want to show them that you don't respect their jingoism, so you give them a little extra.
That's a completely bizarre interpretation of this thread. Just from miles out of left field.
I don't feel that it is. Honestly, are you going to tell me that you didn't post in this thread without feeling that there were overly prideful Americans who needed to be "brought down a notch?"
Esteemed American Patriot and War Hero John Kerry invented the phrase "speaking truth to power." I think a lot of people outside the US, and many in the US as well, feel compelled to "speak truth to American power." Any time the US is praised, these people feel the need to "clarify" that the US isn't quite as good as is being suggested, and, by gosh, Country X has done it better all along.
It's a bit pathological and unnecessary. There are a LOT more people who agree that the US is overrated than don't. You're not "correcting the record." You're really preaching to the choir.
(please note that I'm kidding about Kerry, he didn't invent it and he's a d-bag)
It isn't unacceptable, it is in fact not only acceptable but an overtly encouraged thing.
While you may not be a proponent of it, and thus not fairly to be blamed for it, there is a movement in the US that views patriotic expression as "wrong." There's a huge debate to be had there, perhaps the scope of this movement is overblown, perhaps it's not truly against patriotism so much as specific expressions of patriotism, but it's certainly a debate that's going on.
There are Americans who feel that they are being pressured, in many cases by other Americans, to "hate their country."
This is what's being responded to. As I said, not necessarily your fault, but something that many Americans are sensitive to.
Phryxis wrote:
To me, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Two people coming together to bait and respond.
Yeah, no question, I was just pointing out that the racism issue didn't appear to flow organically from the discussion of the 4th of July and American patriotism. In other words, no one jumped into the thread and proclaimed that all Americans are racist. Instead, an American made a comment which was at least tangentially related to race, and a Brit took it the rest of the way.
Honestly, most of this thread pretty well conforms to what you're describing. The only real question is to what degree the response was warranted, which I think, on some level, is true of all conversation.
Phryxis wrote:No, but there's also a change in language here.
We started with: "The US, the UK and the rest of the allied forces all have a lot to be proud of, but ultimately Germany was defeated by the Russians."
My bad, I should have used consistent terminology. That said, I think the first statement is more accurate than the second. The USSR did the most to defeat the Nazis, and would have done so without aid. Similarly, the US did the most to defeat the Japanese, and would have done so without aid.
As such, it is reasonable to say “ultimately the USSR defeated the Nazis” and it is reasonable to say “ultimately the US defeated the Japanese”.
If you saw the phrase “ultimately the US defeated the Japanese” would you think it was baiting the Australians, New Zealanders, UK, Soviets, Chinese, Koreans, and whoever else who aided in the war against them?
I don't feel that it is. Honestly, are you going to tell me that you didn't post in this thread without feeling that there were overly prideful Americans who needed to be "brought down a notch?"
I am honestly saying that was not my intention. I spend a lot of time in threads on all manner of things correcting what I feel are mistakes. Fundamentally, if I really believe anything, it’s that the best opinion is one formed of as honest and complete an understanding of the facts as possible. If someone is to love their country they’re welcome to do so, but it should be based on the achievements of their country, not the myths of their achievements.
Esteemed American Patriot and War Hero John Kerry invented the phrase "speaking truth to power."
No he didn’t, the phrase has its origins in the Quaker movement, as part of a pacifist movement opposed to US entry into WWII.
See, there I go again
I think a lot of people outside the US, and many in the US as well, feel compelled to "speak truth to American power." Any time the US is praised, these people feel the need to "clarify" that the US isn't quite as good as is being suggested, and, by gosh, Country X has done it better all along.
It's a bit pathological and unnecessary. There are a LOT more people who agree that the US is overrated than don't. You're not "correcting the record." You're really preaching to the choir.
I think the US has a lot to be proud of. It is because of the US that more of Europe wasn’t overtaken by the Soviets. It is because of the Marshall Plan that Germany and Japan recovered so quickly, and became powerful and positive contributors to the world. It is that second thing that is quite incredible, and possibly unique in history. I mean, nations have rebuilt conquered territories, but only in order to rule over a productive vassal – the idea of rebuilding a former enemy, in good faith that it would become an ally – it’s incredible.
Of course, that was a peacetime achievement, an act of humanism. It doesn’t get mentioned in 4th of July threads, because for some reason moments of power are embraced easier than moments of greatness.
Because there is a massive difference between a great country and a powerful one, and people don’t always love the right one.
(please note that I'm kidding about Kerry, he didn't invent it and he's a d-bag)
Bugger, and I was being so clever
While you may not be a proponent of it, and thus not fairly to be blamed for it, there is a movement in the US that views patriotic expression as "wrong." There's a huge debate to be had there, perhaps the scope of this movement is overblown, perhaps it's not truly against patriotism so much as specific expressions of patriotism, but it's certainly a debate that's going on.
Sure, but from what I’ve seen the people who believe such are a very small minority, and their numbers are overstated because it is easier to dismiss them entirely, instead of responding to the more considered argument that the US might exaggerate its achievements, might gloss over it’s limitations and failings.
This is what's being responded to. As I said, not necessarily your fault, but something that many Americans are sensitive to.
Sure, and I’m telling you that in the context of this thread people are seeing America bashing where it doesn’t exist. Sometimes people claim they’re being bashed unfairly to shut down the discussion, because it’s easier than being wrong.
A while ago we had ANZAC day here in Australia. It is a day of remembrance and that’s all good, they deserve a day of recognition at the very least. In time, though, the day has changed its character, people expand the day out to celebrate Australia in general and I’m not so comfortable with that. I’ve told people here on more than a few occasions that that isn’t what Anzac Day is about, and that relating fallen soldiers and national pride together is both politically troublesome and disrespectful. The response typically comes that I can’t make them stop loving their country, or something similarly nonsensical.
It’s just, you have to be very careful that you’re really seeing the argument that is being made, and not just seeing the argument you want to see, in order to dismiss it easier.
If you saw the phrase “ultimately the US defeated the Japanese” would you think it was baiting the Australians, New Zealanders, UK, Soviets, Chinese, Koreans, and whoever else who aided in the war against them?
It depends on context. Nothing is binary, it's all a matter of degrees...
And it all comes down to "did that need to be said?"
In a thread that's nominally about the 4th of July, do we need to criticize or downplay the US? Probably not. Maybe if people are just WAY out of line jingoistic.
And is it, SO clearcut that the Soviets defeated the Germans that it's really an assault on history to not say as much? I don't think so. I'm not sure I even agree with your premise, much less agree so strongly that it just HAS to be pointed out in a thread about the 4th of July.
So it's not like I have a problem with your line of reasoning. In fact, I don't really even have a problem with you bringing it up on a thread about the 4th of July. If it's your opinion, it's your opinion.
What annoys me is that when this sort of thing is done, people then get all shocked and offended that somebody takes issue. Don't bait somebody and then act bemused/disappointed/shocked when they respond. Baiting people is fine. I do it all the time. But I don't start crying when people respond.
And, to be clear, I'm not saying you started crying, exactly, but there's an undercurrent of that going on. A lot of people lamenting the jingoistic Americans they're forced to deal with, when, really, they asked for exactly that.
I spend a lot of time in threads on all manner of things correcting what I feel are mistakes.
I have a very similar pathology... That said, there are SO MANY incorrect things said all the time, that you really are only going to correct things that you "take personally."
So, I used the phrase "brought down a notch," and I believe you when you say that's not your intent. But I think that somewhere inside you there's an emotional attachment to the idea that America gets more credit than it's due. If you didn't feel that way, you wouldn't have the energy or interest to spend time discussing it.
I see people talking about Anime. I think Anime sucks. But I really just don't have the time to start arguing about it. I don't care that much. Somebody put up a clip of a movie based on Half Life that they thought looked awesome. I thought it looked sorta gimmicky and lame, with lots of running, and no budget, but I just don't care enough to force my opinion on somebody.
Conversely, I REALLY hate Communism, and believe it's the single greatest evil of our time. I am willing to argue loudly about that with people, because I really, REALLY think it's important that people see it for what it is.
So, it's my feeling that if you're posting that the Soviets defeated Germany, it's not simply something you could care less about, but believe. In order to take the time to make that point, and to do it in slightly sensitive context, it implies an emotional investment in "setting the record straight."
It doesn’t get mentioned in 4th of July threads, because for some reason moments of power are embraced easier than moments of greatness.
I dunno, it's a lot more popular these days what with the Iraq war going on. A lot of Americans point back to Germany and Japan as examples that it can be done, and then when it doesn't go well, they point to the aftermath in Germany as an example of how it's hard, but still can be done.
Honestly, my perception from inside the US, is that people are quite aware that the US has chosen to act altruistically to defeated foes in the past, and this is indeed viewed with pride. It's just dumbed down when you're dealing with dumber people. Smarter people will point to these actual historical events. Dumber people just say "the US is nicer than the Commies, too."
Sure, but from what I’ve seen the people who believe such are a very small minority
That's because the external face of the US is our news and popular media. What they're telling you is the same thing they're telling us, and it's a lie.
Don't forget: George W. Bush was elected twice. Conspiracy theories aside, in real life he was elected twice. And he's an idiot. If you can get an idiot elected just cause he's more conservative than the other guy (and not really by much), that should tell you how conservative the body of the US really is.
Michelle Obama said that her husband's election was the first time she felt proud of her country. It's not like there's not ripe material for this stuff.
I think you'd find that MOST Americans feel that there are some forces at work trying to suppress patriotic expression. The removal of the Pledge of Alliegance from schools, etc. etc. etc.
This is the "silent majority." It's a real thing, and the liberal media alternate between pretending it's not real, and pretending it is real, but the people in it are extremist loons.
Sure, and I’m telling you that in the context of this thread people are seeing America bashing where it doesn’t exist.
Meh, I think it pretty clearly does. This is a thread about the 4th of July. People are implying that all white males in America are racist. That's America bashing. In a thread about the 4th of July, virtually anything negative about the US could fairly be considered America bashing.
I try not to be too much of a relativist, and sometimes people's feelings are just plain wrong, but if somebody thinks you're bashing America, you have to respect their feelings at least a little ways beyond where you'd draw the line. Again, it's a matter of degrees, but unless it's just OBVIOUSLY not America bashing, it behooves you to respect somebody else's opinion that it is.
I also have a problem with the idea that there was no America bashing in this thread, when it's my feeling that there not only was, but it was being delivered with the intent of "entrapping" somebody. It's not just bashing, it's bashing being done in a way that's plausibly deniable, so that if somebody responds, people can feel like the responder is to blame. I'm not pointing at you specifically, I'm just saying.
The response typically comes that I can’t make them stop loving their country, or something similarly nonsensical.
I have a hard time believing that people can't communicate. I'm going to point back to my previous point. I think sometimes when people feel strongly about something, and have an expectation of who they're talking to, they look for the argument, and get it.
I really can't believe that if you took a person's viewpoint in mind, wrapped your view in terms that are acceptable to that person, and then delivered your argument in a way their ideology allows them to accept, they'd not hear you.
Well it was "fun" while it lasted, and we have at least, once again, learnt some stuff about WW II tanks; the essential backbone, the smoke from the barbecue so to speak, of any July 4TH celebration..err... yeah.
Roman Candle wars are fun too.
what?
