Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!

GCRYAR wrote:

The french were already occupied and the UK was not far behind. Where do you
get your history?

Part of France was occupied, and there had been a fight. Nazi Germany tried to
destroy Britain's air force in preparation for an invasion. The invasion may or
may not have succeeded, but Hitler called it off and turned on the Soviets
instead.

On 11 Nov 2004 21:26:38 GMT, (GCRYAR) wrote:

That is exactly my point. If the Us had not got involved, where would the
world be?

We would be speaking Russian. The Commies kicked the Nazi's asses in
Russia (with American industrial aid). Three complete German armies
destroyed, 2,000,000 soldiers captured or lost,.. all the equipment, a
huge fighting machine destroyed. The Russians were marching almost
unopposed towards the heartland of Europe. What they did to Eastern
Europe; taking over Poland, Hungary, Rumania, etc. etc. would have
happened to all of Germany and then probably the Benelux Countries and
France.

I think it is historically incorrect to say the allies (US,, Britain,
Canada) saved Europe from the Nazis. I really think we saved them
from the Russians.






+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 11 Nov 2004 21:26:38 GMT, (GCRYAR) wrote:

That is exactly my point. If the Us had not got involved, where would the
world be?

We would be speaking Russian. The Commies kicked the Nazi's asses in
Russia (with American industrial aid). Three complete German armies
destroyed, 2,000,000 soldiers captured or lost,.. all the equipment, a
huge fighting machine destroyed. The Russians were marching almost
unopposed towards the heartland of Europe. What they did to Eastern
Europe; taking over Poland, Hungary, Rumania, etc. etc. would have
happened to all of Germany and then probably the Benelux Countries and
France.

I think it is historically incorrect to say the allies (US,, Britain,
Canada) saved Europe from the Nazis. I really think we saved them
from the Russians.






+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
alohacyberian wrote:
"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...

Well duh. They are not supposed to. That's why the western Allies fought
back. They
were justified to defend themselves against an illegal invasion.

When was the United States illegally invaded by Germany? We fought them in
2
wars. Our justification for entering the First World War was that Germany
sank the _Lusitania_. The _Lusitania_ wasn't an American ship. And when
did
Germany attack the United States prior to our entering the European
theater
of war in the Second World War? KM

I trust that you are aware of the fact that Nazi Germany declared war on
the US.

I trust that you are aware of the fact that a declaration of war (by a
totalitarian Dictator, no less, so the German people are hardly to be held
accountable for the declaration) is not the same thing as an invasion,
"illegal" or otherwise. You stated, "were justified to defend themselves
against an illegal invasion." Please tell us about the German "illegal
invasion" of the United States - and, no, I'm not going to accept the
contention that a "declaration of war" is an "illegal invasion". Or you could
just admit that your statement is wrong. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"GCRYAR" wrote in message
...
The frenchies fought back? That bunch of cowards never fought anything
that
could fight back. Who will bail them out next time?
Glen

Canada? The terrorists? Libya? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

(TheNewsGuy(Mike)) wrote in message ...
On 11 Nov 2004 21:26:38 GMT, (GCRYAR) wrote:

That is exactly my point. If the Us had not got involved, where would the
world be?

We would be speaking Russian. The Commies kicked the Nazi's asses in
Russia (with American industrial aid). Three complete German armies
destroyed, 2,000,000 soldiers captured or lost,.. all the equipment, a
huge fighting machine destroyed. The Russians were marching almost
unopposed towards the heartland of Europe. What they did to Eastern
Europe; taking over Poland, Hungary, Rumania, etc. etc. would have
happened to all of Germany and then probably the Benelux Countries and
France.

I think it is historically incorrect to say the allies (US,, Britain,
Canada) saved Europe from the Nazis. I really think we saved them
from the Russians.


It depends upon your assumptions about what "getting involved" is.
Without the industrialization advantage that the US brought to the
Allies, I'm not sure the Soviet Union can defeat Germany. If the
US cooperates in terms of supply, maybe they pull it off. But alot
of things are changing fast here. What is the actual status of
England? Is the assumption that we are involved with Japan but
not Germany? These are fun games, but you have to be fairly specific
about what parts of history one changes here. And in reality, it's
difficult to credibily do so since these decisions and choices weren't
made in vacuums. We got involved in Germany because they were members
of the Axis. Regardless of their declaring war on us, their
support of Japan would have been problematic for us.

Dave Smith wrote:
"TheNewsGuy(Mike)" wrote:

Unfortunately the American history is written without credit to the
important role Canadians played in their heroic and decisive WWII
campaigns in Italy and France or their concept of the Special Forces
units - where they recruited the "toughest of the tough".

Yep. They forget that they got trapped on the beaches at Normandy and had to be
helped, that they got stuck on the beach at Anzio and had to be helped. That it
was Canadians who rounded up the escaping Germans in Anzio and who cleared the
Germans out of the Schedlt so that the port of Antwerp could be used. Thanks to
politics, the Americans got to celebrate the liberation of Antwerp and Rome
after someone else had done all the fighting.


Considering that smaller nations all have their images to uphold, and take
national stories like the above and hold them up as emblems, I wonder how many
stories we're Not hearing, since the opposite isn't really needed in the US?
You rarely hear a US national emblematic war story about how others were so
damned bad and the US was so damned good in comparison.

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

And please remember the question and not what you Think the question is. How
true are the general (often self-serving it seems) characterizations? Not a
few examples which have nothing to do with troops and everything to do with
making money producing movies for a particular market. Nex

Alan Pollock wrote:



Considering that smaller nations all have their images to uphold, and take
national stories like the above and hold them up as emblems, I wonder how many
stories we're Not hearing, since the opposite isn't really needed in the US?
You rarely hear a US national emblematic war story about how others were so
damned bad and the US was so damned good in comparison.

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I would suggest that the problem is the Hollywood image that so many Americans have
accepted as true, that they single handed saved Europe on 2 world wars, and out of
the goodness of their hearts. This is hardly the case. The truth is that Americans
were reluctant to get involved in either conflict and would have preferred to stay
out of them entirely. To watch American movies you would get the impression that
they were the only players, or that they were the only army who saw any victories.

I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

And please remember the question and not what you Think the question is. How
true are the general (often self-serving it seems) characterizations? Not a
few examples which have nothing to do with troops and everything to do with
making money producing movies for a particular market. Nex

The general characterizations as presented in Hollywood productions are mostly false
and self engrandizing. Sadly, they are the impressions that many Americans
demonstrate as being held as truths.

TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote:

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

That is not what *I* am saying. I believe the American troops fought
bravely and were led as well as any other of the Allied troops. What
*I* am saying is that the American culture has been taught that they
won the European war on their own and that is absolutely not true.

For example, Juno beach was a tougher slug than Sword or Gold, so the
Canadians and British did meet their D-day's objective. What I am
saying is that American media and history ignores (and sometimes
actually misrepresents) the sacrifices and accomplishments of other
nations - and unfortunately many Americans do not know the real
history.


That's fair enough, which is why I didn't ask that question Nex

TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote:

Among the many, many, many American troops in WW2 and other theaters, all we
seem to hear from non-Americans is that US troops made nothing but mistakes,
that US troops were lazy, couldn't fight, and let others do their fighting for
them. How true is any of this? Honestly now.

I'm asking because I'm no military historian or buff.

That is not what *I* am saying. I believe the American troops fought
bravely and were led as well as any other of the Allied troops. What
*I* am saying is that the American culture has been taught that they
won the European war on their own and that is absolutely not true.

For example, Juno beach was a tougher slug than Sword or Gold, so the
Canadians and British did meet their D-day's objective. What I am
saying is that American media and history ignores (and sometimes
actually misrepresents) the sacrifices and accomplishments of other
nations - and unfortunately many Americans do not know the real
history.


That's fair enough, which is why I didn't ask that question Nex