TO THE BRIT.
(I love using this format to post stuff!)
"We fought the most evil regime in history ALONE-without nobody- for two years before you joined in and only because of pearl harbour."
-Ever heard of America/Roosevelt's Lend-Lease program, where we sold you tanks and aircraft for a few dollars each? Oh, and you had the French and the Soviets/Russians as your allies.
**********
"That we spouted on for ten years about keepin the peace
so when War finally caught up to us we were strategically outclassed and outfought by the germans, as you were, the russians who were brave but no better than fodder, the french who stuck to dreadful tactics."
-If you had said no to Hitler's acquistion of weak European countries when he had started, and fought a war then, the Germans wouldn't have had time to build up his army. Although, I do agree with you that the French had horrible tactics and didn't think about their 'Belgian countrymen' to the north. (If they had extended the Maginot Line or bothered to defend adequately up there, Hitler wouldn't have pushed through France as quickly as he did, and the British could have based aircraft in France and used them against the Germans, pushing them back, and ending the war in late 1940.)
**********
"Without the Russians wearing down quality german troops through getting slaughtered and perserverance we (Americans and British would never have beat them!) The germans had the finest army in the world through its modern doctrines."
-That, I must say is true, however, it isn't a valid point against Americans.
**********
"We actually had the largest navy to everybody and although we weren't going anywere, that combined with the best fighter defence set up the germans would have had a hell of a time crossing the channal. We did have a couple of little things called the blitz and the battle of britain u know! Which we won, only just but we did and without anybody else helping."
-The German High Seas Fleet did a lot of damage to the British Royal Navy before the Battle of Britain, not to mention U-boats. And the reason Hitler's attack was called the blitzkrieg was because it was a lightning attack which neither the British or French were prepared for. If you had WON the blitz in 1939/40, France wouldn't have been conquered by the Germans. In the Battle of Britain, their were hundreds of American pilots flying alongside British pilots, so we were essentially fighting the war as your ally and HELPING you before 1941.
**********
"The IRA are a minority and the majority in Northern Ireland want to be Bitish, not Irish. The Army is there for peacekeeping duties. Remember vietnam, the British army is under constant fire in Ireland and it is well known the Irish use the crowds to fire and shoot from. If N.I. wants to be Irish it merely has to vote the right parties and it will get a referendum. Just like Scotland and Wales did."
-Yes, Northeren Ireland wants to be British, but I was referring to the rest of Ireland not wanting to be British. True, the IRA do use terrorist tactics and sacrifice civilians in the name of their cause. HOWEVER, the British use suppresionist (if that's a word; if it's not, you know what I mean anyway) tactics against the Irish people as well as the IRA. No, the IRA isn't noble, but neither are the occuping British forces.
**********
"They are also killing because of a battle that took place 400 years ago. Its also a fact that the IRA are funded by Irish-Americans. I've got Mohawk blood lines. How would you feel if I sent money to a NARA(native american republican army) to you. Have you forgotton what you did only one hundred and thirty years ago to those poor people!"
-Oh, but you have funded Native Americans in the past. It is a well established fact that from 1776 (the start of the Revolutionary War/American Revolution) through around 1814 (the end of the War of 1812/Napoleonic War), British forces commanded and armed Native Americans to fight against American colonists and soldiers.
**********
"America gets stick because of its hypocrosy and self congratulatory manner. I study my history and I know how many Americans were killed fighting bravely in world war 1 and 2. But you were going to leave us to ROT and everybody knows it!"
-No, America sucks! WOOO-HOOOOO!!!! GO AMERICA!!!!!! (for those who don't understand American sarcasm, I just said one thing and then hypocritically contradicted it in a self congratulatory manner). Anyway, why does everyone judge a country's commitment or bravery in a war by how many of that country's soldiers died? A MUCH better way to judge how much a country fought in a war would be to see how many of that country's soldiers FOUGHT in the war. If a high number of a nation's soldiers or civilians die in a war, that doesn't necessarily mean that the country fought valiantly or bravely, it means that either: A. The nation that lost a lot of people had a poorly equipped or trained army, or... B. The country that the country that lost all the troops was fighting had an excellent military. To rephrase:
Losing Lots Of People = Your Country Can't Fight Well
Having Lots Of People Fighting = Bravery/Commitment
-Ya know how much I hate 'Stack Overload Error's?-
Thhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiisssssssssssss muuuuuuuuccchhh!
