|
Humor: Canadian PM Jean Chrétien (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
The Battle of Britain was a HUGE tide turning battle! Come on man....wake up!! England was on its own with its back up against the wall....France (with a bigger army than both England AND Germany...ing French.:rolleyes: ) had already fallen. The combination of the superiority of British (and commonwealth, Check, free french, polish, a few yanks, etc) pilots and British aircraft at odds of over 4-1 AND after Hitler's stupid decision to attack the cities rather than airfields granted the Allies the first major victory of the war. If England had not defeated the Luftwaffe, there would have been no war for the Americans to join. British support, and later American, would never have reached Russia. Germany would have been able to defeat Russia in 1941-42 had she not been tied up in Africa and in the Atlantic combatting British and Commonwealth trooops. Plus, the Battle of Britain was a massive victory for morale. It showed the British still had a fight in them to give.....no wonder Hitler abandoned Operation Sea Lion, because he knew without control of the air, he could not face the Royal Navy (still the largest and most powerful in the world at the time). Also....over 2000 German aircraft were shot down in the BoB. compared to about 900 British aircraft. The Germans also lost over 3,000 experienced air crewman. Had those numbers not been lost, the Germans would have had clear air superiority over Russia and in Western Europe during the D-Day invasion.
I think you fail to see the effects of Britain defeating Germany in the air in 1940. Without that victory, WW2 would have been over by 1942 at the latest.
OH, and quddha....you're my new hero.:p |
What are you saying is very true. The British presence in the air, and eventually in the water against the German U-Boat fleets greatly encouraged the Allied victory. I think that if the Russians had not lost so many on the battlefield before their victories against Germany, the European theater would have ended much sooner. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
The Battle of Britain was a HUGE tide turning battle! Come on man....wake up!! England was on its own with its back up against the wall....France (with a bigger army than both England AND Germany...ing French.:rolleyes: ) had already fallen. The combination of the superiority of British (and commonwealth, Check, free french, polish, a few yanks, etc) pilots and British aircraft at odds of over 4-1 AND after Hitler's stupid decision to attack the cities rather than airfields granted the Allies the first major victory of the war. If England had not defeated the Luftwaffe, there would have been no war for the Americans to join. British support, and later American, would never have reached Russia. Germany would have been able to defeat Russia in 1941-42 had she not been tied up in Africa and in the Atlantic combatting British and Commonwealth trooops. Plus, the Battle of Britain was a massive victory for morale. It showed the British still had a fight in them to give.....no wonder Hitler abandoned Operation Sea Lion, because he knew without control of the air, he could not face the Royal Navy (still the largest and most powerful in the world at the time). Also....over 2000 German aircraft were shot down in the BoB. compared to about 900 British aircraft. The Germans also lost over 3,000 experienced air crewman. Had those numbers not been lost, the Germans would have had clear air superiority over Russia and in Western Europe during the D-Day invasion.
I think you fail to see the effects of Britain defeating Germany in the air in 1940. Without that victory, WW2 would have been over by 1942 at the latest.
OH, and quddha....you're my new hero.:p |
You misunderstand me :). I understand the importance of the battle of britain in repelling operation sea lion ... don't get me wrong. But with respects to a turning point of the war I disagree. I say this because the battle of britain was a defensive effort that resulted in the continuity and survival of Britain's existence. However, it did not result in a disruption of Germany's stranglehold over Europe nor a diminishment of its industrial capacity. I place credit where credit is deserved and if you ask me, EVERY major turning point in the war took place in Russia. Yes the allied bombing of German industry had a huge impact and yes the opening of the second front was decisive in ensuring victory but get this. I think the numbers add up such that 80% of ALL german casualties occurred at the eastern front. The fact that american AND european history textbooks gloss over this fact is grossly criminal. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
Just over 70% of German forces were fighting in Russia. I know that and I also know that the war would have been won even if the Americans had not joined. The Japanese were a big problem, but if the Russians had swept across Europe (like they did) and taken care of Germany (the British and Canadians could have done a D Day on their own but it would have taken more time), eventually the British and Russians could have combined to defeat them. Without the Americans, WW2 would have lasted until at least 1946-47, if not into 1950. I've read some interesting theories by Stephen Ambrose specualting on US involvement and if it never happened. He predicted British/Soviet victory in all cases, IF the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad and El Alemain had been won. A little ironic that America's most revered (and now dead) historian sees the three tide turning battles of WW2 as ones not involving Americans forces? But of course....Montgomery's Eighth Army used American tanks in North Africa so...
Another good thing about the Americans coming into the war was that they made DDay in 1944 possible and that western Europe didn't become Soviet. I know the Russians were our ally, but Stalin was just as much a bastard as Hitler. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Just over 70% of German forces were fighting in Russia. I know that and I also know that the war would have been won even if the Americans had not joined. The Japanese were a big problem, but if the Russians had swept across Europe (like they did) and taken care of Germany (the British and Canadians could have done a D Day on their own but it would have taken more time), eventually the British and Russians could have combined to defeat them. Without the Americans, WW2 would have lasted until at least 1946-47, if not into 1950. I've read some interesting theories by Stephen Ambrose specualting on US involvement and if it never happened. He predicted British/Soviet victory in all cases, IF the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad and El Alemain had been won. A little ironic that America's most revered (and now dead) historian sees the three tide turning battles of WW2 as ones not involving Americans forces? But of course....Montgomery's Eighth Army used American tanks in North Africa so...
Another good thing about the Americans coming into the war was that they made DDay in 1944 possible and that western Europe didn't become Soviet. I know the Russians were our ally, but Stalin was just as much a bastard as Hitler. |
I'm a big fan of Ambrose, except for a few minor cases of plagiarism his works are top notch. Britain came pretty close to capitulating to the wolfpacks if it weren't for canadian and american resupply efforts and improved anti-submarine warfare technology. At any rate, I think the Russians could have probably beaten the Nazis without any help except for material support. The allies could have probably won without the Americans ... the allies could have probably won without the Brits, etc. There's no point in belittling a country's constributions in this conflict.
However, one could probably say that it was critical that the Nazis were defeated in 1945. They were fairly close to developing their own atomic weapon as well as numerous secret technologies. Their jet engine technology was at least a year or two ahead of the Americans and British. If they actually utilized the me-262 in a fighter superiority role who knows how the air war would have turned out. Also they were in development of v-3 rockets which could have devastated London. There was a good history channel show that documented all the secret weapons projects the Germans were conducting ... pretty scary. |
|
|
| marcus82 |
AND NOW BACK TO THE TOPIC :D (been away for awhile...busy busy busy)
yes...our PM sux ass and he really needs to pick sides, all this fence sitting is really irritating our allies.
btw, i saw the history channel documentary, pretty scurry stuff. i was pretty sure that i saw a documentary on the luftwaffe that also said that the me 262 did reach completion but there wasn't adequate numbers of them to be used in any significant role. it (documentary) also showed some luftwaffe craft that were rocket powered, they were designed solely to intercept incoming bombers (but again, they couldn't be deployed in sufficient numbers to make a dent on the lancaster onslaught). |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
Well....let's end this WW2 debate now.
As for Chretien...I think a lot of Canadians forget what he's done for Canada and place blame on him for stuff that Harris and the Ontario Tories did. Education and healthcare are a complete mess right now in Ontario.....oh well, Dalton Mcquinty for the Liberals will be in soon anyway. Thing will get better. |
|
|
| marcus82 |
NEWSFLASH!!!
federal liberal government healthcare transfer payments to the premiers for healthcare, and it's the liberals fault health care is degrading (not entirely their fault...but alot of blame).
oh! having lived through the education system overhaul, i must say...it didn't have an entirely negative effect (coming from a student), quite frankly i didn't see any degradation in quality (nor improvement). |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by marcus82
NEWSFLASH!!!
federal liberal government healthcare transfer payments to the premiers for healthcare, and it's the liberals fault health care is degrading (not entirely their fault...but alot of blame).
oh! having lived through the education system overhaul, i must say...it didn't have an entirely negative effect (coming from a student), quite frankly i didn't see any degradation in quality (nor improvement). |
The Federal Government INCREASED healthcare funding by 20 billion dollars since their second term in 1997!!:mad: Do you not know how the political spectrum works? The Tories took the increase in healthcare spending and used it to pay for those 200-500 dollar tax rebates people got at the end of the year! Right wing parties (Alliance, Tories) believe in SMALLER government.....which means less involvement and less spending....which is why healthcare has suffered in Ontario and in Alberta where it is now half privatised.
The Tories also legislated a 60 hour work week and totally ed the Secondary school system with the elimination of OAC! Do you agree with that?
Oh, and I'm not arguing about the quality of the university system in Canada or Ontario. It's the PRICE of one school year that makes it very very hard to fund a student for four years. The Tories DECREASED university subsidies but also DECREASED taxes.....see the connection? Do you think it's fair that when Bob Rae was in power, tuition for Ontario universities was less than 2500 but now it's approaching 6,000, plus books?
Do you not have a social conscience? Would you rather save a few hundred dollars on your tax return and sacrifice our social programs? If so, I think you should move to the US! |
|
|
| Wurm |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Look . |
I can always tell when an argument is winning for me. My opponent turns to swearing. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wurm
I can always tell when an argument is winning for me. My opponent turns to swearing. |
If by winning you mean piss off than yes you are the big winner. However, you still haven't addressed my points. |
|
|
| Wurm |
| I don't have to. You have removed yourself from the realm of reasonable argument by falling back on obscenities. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wurm
I don't have to. You have removed yourself from the realm of reasonable argument by falling back on obscenities. |
Nice way out from arguing the points at hand. Look back on my statements you'll see supporting arguments. But if I hurt your feelings and you don't want to argue the argument anymore that's fine with me. |
|
|
|
|
