[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

Yes but, it didn't. The British forces in Africa were getting the better of the Germans which is why U-Boats were being directed to the Med to help secure the German supply lines. A' La Das Boot. It was Britain that first turned the tide in the Africa situation, before America landed a single soldier there. This is what I mean, the whole point, I'm not downplaying America's role, that's impossible to do. But, to say that all we did was "some successes" yes they were capable of retalitating and did but the fact remains the British were beating back the Germans there before America came along into that fight. Not saying America didn't help it was a HUGE help, made a big difference in the continuation of the fighting everywhere, but can we please have some kudos for when we took on Germany one on one and succeeded?

Yes - you did good. I never said the British didn't. Rommel however was not stupid and in war, one days successes could turn into ones defeat tomorrow. The idea that you could have defeated Rommel back to Germany is pure conjecture.

What about the Battle of Britain, was that just "some success" too SUBMAN? Or did we or did we not defeat, single handed, the German Luftwaffe and throw a wrench into Hitler's plan to conquer us? We may have been lucky, and, resorted to treachery to get it done (bombing German cities) but this is my key argument, I want to see the British forces get the credit for the efforts we made against one hell of an evil Gentleman with a funny facial hair arrangement.

You did not defeat the Luftwaffe. You only stopped them here - and it was a commendable job. It also set them back force wise. Don't think they wouldn't have been back if things started to work out better on the Eastern Front.

No, I am not kidding. What is also well known, is that the American Government was the one who wanted to come into the war, most of the American population was not interested in joining the fight. As was posted here previously by waste Gate. It took Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, and a declaration of war from Japan's ally Germany before America said "ok, lets get it on".

Last time I checked, the American people had little say on whether or not troops were deployed at any one time. So I don't buy that.

I am serious. I wouldn't mention it in a serious discussion if I was not serious. Yes it was a terrible film and not good enough to use as toilet paper. But the fact remains its just one recent example in a long line of hollywood extravagance where America once again covers herself in glory and singlehandedly thrashed the Germans. What bothered me at the time, how many people will watch that and think that it was America that got the enigma machine?

The people that would believe this are the very same people that would rather watch something else at any given theatre instead. So don't think this was any sort of factor. This movie would have flopped out of the box office if the UK didn't manke a big stink about it in every news media. No one liked it!

One more thing - Hollywood has little clue on the values of the American people. They get even more clueless as time goes on. Do not think any movie they make will reflect the views of our nation. Quite the contrary.

Right on up till the invasion (1944 onward), fact remains, Germany's chief opponents were us, and the Russians, not the US.

Ah hello? Anyone home? That is pure garbage! I won't even bother to moment on it.

I think you'd have had to resort to Atomic bombs to beat the Germans if you tried to fight them alone.

Only as the result of a waning public desire to support the war. Politicians vote to send the troops in, however sooner or later over the course of many years, politicians can be voted out of office. This is where the Ameican people can strike back at decisions they do not like.

On the fight - not only could the US field more troops, it could outproduce Germany and this is truely the one factor that defeated them - the US could ourproduce the neccesary hardware - and this hardware we also gave to the British - even before we entered into this war prior to 1941. Quite simply put - the UK would have been over-run on every field had the US not supplied the neccesary hardware to fight back. This is why subs were deverted to stop it.

Well to my mind Iraq should not have been invaded at all. But that is another can of worms entirely. Besides, now is the time to pull out, Saddam is dead, and a new government set up so therefore time they stood on their own two feet.

That is your opinion. He was not invaded persey. We had a duty to defeat him. If we had not, this is how you would win a war against the US - your start the war, complete your objectives, surrender to the US, and then kick their inspectors out and forget about any ceasefire agreements that were put in place after the fact. Easy. Simple. Sounds strangely similar to what Hitler pulled.

Why do people keep insisting this was an invasion? The war from 1991 was not over! I guess it sounds better for the opposition.

Yes, it was a team effort in bringing down the Reich. But, all three had their own stand alone accomplishments and if there are books which say well done Britain for your successes, or books that say well done mother russia for your accomplishments, then that is not overlooking America as seems to be suggested here in this thread, because god knows America in various media forms has certainly patted herself on the back for her, credit where it is due, considerable efforts in WW2.

Pluses and minuses in that quote. I've said my peace about it above though so I won't even bother.

-S