You touched my tra la la? [Archive] - Tactics Arena Community Forums

Walrus

09-13-2004, 04:09 PM

ive sat through worse. one time i saw a drunk, stoned german dude singing some insanely high pitched song. then he started doing a drunk/stoned rap, then some manic evil laugh, and at the end smashed a 12" record over his head.

edit for snarr : FRANCE didnt win them, britain, america and other countries did. in the 2nd one france surrendered and was conquered, which was straight forward enough.

however, in world war 1 its slightly more complex. i hope you lot are familiar with the schlieffen plan, the idea was a fake invasion force would just attack the franco-german border, while the main force moved round the coast. the fake ones were meant to lose, to lure the french army out chasing them while the main army hit paris. however, the fake army actually beat the french fortress line, meaning the french army was closer than anticipated etc. gtg now

Jeffery

09-13-2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Walrus
no offense to any french, as by going on TAO you prove that you are cool, BUT...

france sucks....or at the very least, sucked. i refer of course, to the 2 world wars.

Yeah, they must have sucked to have needed help from the Americans![/sarcasm]

Well, sucked as bad as the English at least. France lost more people fighting world war 2 than the English did. The only thing that kept England from being anothe poland is the water around it, and American support.
Before you insult another country for their actions, better look at your own.

green97sierra

09-13-2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by max2k106
that is SCARY, oh, theres also this weird european guy called Scooter . . . my european friend told me about him, apparently a lot of europe thinks hes good . . . i think he sucks, one of his songs is 5 minutes of techno music and every 10 seconds, he says HOW MUCH IS THE FISH, reallly . . . wtf is up with that? hehehe

<--- american, who loves scooter.

now, this dude is just a joke. if you take out the lame ass chorus, and replace it with something better, i'd like it.

meat.eater

09-13-2004, 06:40 PM

isnt that the german dude from RahmStien? the metal german band? i duno. funny as hell though.

Baeoin

09-13-2004, 07:22 PM

Im not sure meat, it reminded me of that also.

T3km4n

09-13-2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by max2k106
that is SCARY, oh, theres also this weird european guy called Scooter . . . my european friend told me about him, apparently a lot of europe thinks hes good . . . i think he sucks, one of his songs is 5 minutes of techno music and every 10 seconds, he says HOW MUCH IS THE FISH, reallly . . . wtf is up with that? hehehe Scooter is actually the one who sing Mariah (I like it loud), otherwise known as the dub dub song.

DeadFishGuy

09-14-2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Snarr
Both of which France won...

Correction: The Allied Forces won.

In WWII the Germans took over most of France. The rest of their allies had to drive them back.

I'm not entirely sure of what happened in WWI. I'll need to do some research.

Snarr

09-14-2004, 04:24 AM

France was a part of the allies force. *sigh*.
The French resitance continued long after it was conquered, the whole deal with De Gaul?? The French did very important campaigns to prepare for the final invasion, and their part was DEFINATELY bigger then British role in Europe.

Why would one say Britain won the war but not France who had larger influence?

In fact following that trend you could say America lost it's independence war and France was the one to win it, since you were basically screwed until France sent help.

In WWI it was simply a straight forward victory, nothing to think about, there was a war and France and Britain won it.

Asmodeus

09-14-2004, 08:27 AM

Arr die thread die I don't ever want to hear your funny music ever again!!!
*stomps on thread*
Nobody post :rolleyes:

Walrus

09-14-2004, 09:21 AM

sry asmodeus, but we are debating the world wars here. the thread was hijacked somewhere.

now then...

FRANCE didnt win them, britain, america and other countries did. in the 2nd one france surrendered and was conquered, which was straight forward enough. saying that france had a bigger part is nonsense. britain defeated germany in the air, and this meant that the americans had britain as a landing platform from which to aid britains airforce in bombing germany. the russians managed to hold off the german ground attacks, despite the fact that they had only become any kind of real military force within about 5 years. i did a lot of schoolwork on russia last year, trust me when i say france should have been easily capable of matching anything russia could achieve at the time.

however, in world war 1 its slightly more complex. i hope you lot are familiar with the schlieffen plan, the idea was a fake invasion force would just attack the franco-german border, while the main force moved round the coast. the fake ones were meant to lose, to lure the french army out chasing them while the main army hit paris. however, the fake army actually beat the french fortress line, meaning the french army was closer than anticipated etc.

the only other reasons for the failure of the germans to conquer france in ww1 was simply germany's mistakes. they modified the initial schlieffen plan slightly, and underestimated the combined strength of the allies.
the french troops in ww1 wore bright red uniforms, because "you couldnt see if you were bleeding", of course, it also meant they were visible from a long, long way away. this and other strokes of genius by france, such as the battle of the somme (the actual battle was under the command of field marshall haig, but the overall command of the armies in europe had been passed to a french general, so it was his call ultimately) which cost hundreds of thousands of lives in about 3 days.

Baeoin

09-14-2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Walrus

the french troops in ww1 wore bright red uniforms, because "you couldnt see if you were bleeding"

absolute brilliance... hahaha

max2k106

09-14-2004, 12:51 PM

explains why they didn't do that well in the war :p

Walrus

09-14-2004, 03:53 PM

oh i thought of another fact about advanced french warfare tactics..

for the 1st year or ww1 (it lasted 4 years roughly) the french were using cavalry. yes. people riding horses, with pistols or swords. horses that often fell into the trenches, and those were the lucky ones, since the rest were just mown down. and the horses didnt wear bright red coats...so they were probably very scared and insecure :rolleyes:

Jeffery

09-14-2004, 04:09 PM

Actually, the french uniform PANTS were the only red part of the uniform. The rest of the uniforms were mostly blue and dark blue. The pants were replaced in the latter parts of the war.
And they were red, not because of any want to hide blood, but because that is the pants that had been used for dress uniforms before the war, and no one thought to plan for if war broke out.

Baeoin

09-14-2004, 05:37 PM

Walrus Walrus Walrus...trying to poison our minds with bad information

Snarr

09-14-2004, 05:49 PM

*sigh*

Regardless of a failed offensive in WWI or the colour of the uniform France came out victorious on that there is no doubt, it was a war of atricion and France doubtlessly came out victorious.

That's one war dealt with.

As for WWII:

French resitance led by De Gaul played a majour role, wherther the government at the time surrendered or not is irrelevant, for the people kept on fighting and it is the people that are France not the government that surrendered.

You say the alliance won the war, was France not a part of that alliance? Did they not get a part of berlin and a quarter of Germany like the other 3 members of the Grand Alliance? Yes they did.

Just because the fighting was taken underground to spare civilian lives doesn't mean it stopped. All that side, France ended up a free country while Germany ended up an occupied one.

You simply can't look at the outcome of one battle and decide they had lost in light of it, you have to look at the war at a whole. It's true Germany won one battle and the government at the time was forced to surrender but the fighitng went on and it then end with help from the allies the invaders were pushed out.

Snarr

09-14-2004, 05:50 PM

...By the way if you use the "French Military Victories" google search as your source of information or inspiration you won't get very far.

imagination

09-14-2004, 11:43 PM

*ignoring all posts
haha that was so bad to the point i was laughing ... it had to be a joke... the end scene was good tho with the champagne lol funny as hell

Walrus

09-15-2004, 09:09 AM

firstly, jeffery, my history textbook says that the original reason they were red was to hide bloodstains. and if they dont plan for a war breaking out then thats just another point for my argument. ooh....germany has invaded virtually all surrounding countries except us, hmm....nah war will never break out.

snarr, just because the wars were fought in france does not mean that france was one of the major parts. the french army actually mutinied in the middle or so of the war, becuase of how many lives were being wasted through the trench warfare. just saying "france was part of the alliance" doesnt prove anything. they were a part yes, a very, very small part. france was used as a battlefield, and a landing stage for other troops. other than that, they made no, or very few, major contributions to the outcome of the fighting.
the main reason for the allies victory was because of the (british) invention of the tank. whilst the initial designs were primitive, they still gained far more ground in a single day than had been gained throughout the entire war to that point.

as for ww2,
there is a limit to how much guerilla warfare can achieve. avoiding civilian casualties and using such tactics might be very noble, but is no replacement for a big old platoon of soldiers. surrendering is the acceptance of defeat. defeat means they were pretty much out of the war, hence is of great relevence.
france got part of germany and berlin because it had been agreed in treaties before war broke out, that each of the allies would get part. (and it wasnt a quarter, it was really around a sixth).

Originally posted by Snarr

It's true Germany won one battle and the government at the time was forced to surrender but the fighitng went on and it then end with help from the allies the invaders were pushed out.

no offense, but if you think france had any chance whatsoever without significant allied help. you are a fool.
here are some basic things :
10 years prior to the outbreak in WW2, russia was considered a pahtetic nation unable to put up any decent fight. france on the other hand, was considered one of the main european powers. now, the german blitzkrieg tactics cut through france like a hot knife through butter, yet ill-equipped russia was still able to hold it off, with enough spare troops to begin a counter-attack?
the battle of britain, fought in the skies, all the economic power of germany and her allies failed to overcome the RAF. america didnt join until very late in the 2nd world war, after a lot of american lives were lost when germany sunk some american ships. britain then counter attacked with american fighters, and bombed the shit out of germany. on d-day, it was british and american troops who landed on the beaches, and the russians who pressed towards germany from the east. france did very little to help im afraid.

nothing against the french now, but in years past, they were pretty pathetic.

Jeffery

09-15-2004, 01:27 PM

Funny. If not for major ally help, Brittain would have german accents too. The US wa the ONLY thing keeping England alive during the war, even before the US entered official fighting. The pipeline of US goods going to Britain is what allowed Britan to even fight at all.

Before degrading the French for what you see as deficiencies, you better take a closer look at your own history.
As for your text book, it is obviously written from a very biased view point, and full of false and misleading information.
Try and learn histroy from outside sources, it will teach you much more of reality, and less of the trivial hatred you have learned.

doubledown

09-15-2004, 01:44 PM

The Truth is if Hitler didnt live up to his part of the deal with Japan, then Germany would have won WWII. After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. only declared war with Japan, not Germany. Germany declared war on us because of his alliance with Japan. Funny that Japan never declared war with Russia though.

In an ironic twists, Europe is free because Hitler was honourable.

Jeffery

09-15-2004, 01:50 PM

Um. that is a very simplistic look at a very complex issue. There are many more variables than just that one that would have decided the outcome of the war.
1) What if the assassination of Hitler had succeded? Some of his own officers tried to kill him, and missed by the pacement of the bombs 6 inches to one side of a table leg.
2) What if navy reports of the Japanese fleets position had been properly received? A message giving their location December 6th was received in washington, but misfiled.
3) What if Hitler had been honorable, and kept his alliance with Russia? Russia and Germany has peace pacts early in the war. It was Hitlers dishonest attacks against russia that put them on our side at the end of the war.
4) What would have happened if Germany had developed the bomb first? Many of the technologies of wwII came from german scientists who defected early on.
5) Hitlers generals tried to tell him the US and Britain would invade at the beaches where the d-day invasion took place. Hitler insisted the forces would be much further north, and as such, the German panzer divisions were not in place to help repel the invasion. Had he listened, the invasion very well could have failed.

There are many factors that could have made the war end early, or last much longer.

doubledown

09-15-2004, 02:10 PM

1) What if the assassination of Hitler had succeded? Some of his own officers tried to kill him, and missed by the pacement of the bombs 6 inches to one side of a table leg.

We know what would have happened....havent you ever played C&C?

2) What if navy reports of the Japanese fleets position had been properly received? A message giving their location December 6th was received in washington, but misfiled.

Its been speculated this was a hush job done because Roselevelt felt this way the only way to get the American people to go to war.

3) What if Hitler had been honorable, and kept his alliance with Russia? Russia and Germany has peace pacts early in the war. It was Hitlers dishonest attacks against russia that put them on our side at the end of the war.

Actually the U.S., Britain, and France all warned Russia about the attack but they ignored it all. (and if Hitler didnt stop to mop up the balkans, he would have reached Moscow before the winter came in and would have put them out of business)

4) What would have happened if Germany had developed the bomb first? Many of the technologies of wwII came from german scientists who defected early on.

Our "combat physicists" who went there turned up no concrete evidence that Germany was near completion of a bomb. The evidence suggests they started a project but were never really enthused about the idea and it took the back-seat to other science projects.

5) Hitlers generals tried to tell him the US and Britain would invade at the beaches where the d-day invasion took place. Hitler insisted the forces would be much further north, and as such, the German panzer divisions were not in place to help repel the invasion. Had he listened, the invasion very well could have failed.

The fact the allies pulled this off is more due to strategic camoflage than high-level bumbling. Even after the invansion started, Hitler refused to send in his reserves because he and his general staff was convinced it was a ploy.

Jeffery

09-15-2004, 02:13 PM

Yup. But you see my point. If any one of those things had turned out differently, the war would have been much different.

And the Germans abaonded their efforts to get the bomb because all their good scientists had already defected, and were working in the US and britain. None of the sceintists left were able to solve critical problems with creating a weapon.

Snarr

09-15-2004, 03:51 PM

Your for the First World War was almost shocking. I wish to ask in to what depth have you studied WWI?

French troops fought along with British troops and French troops won along with them. It's very simple and there is really no debate possible about it.

Just to correct your misconcepts; Tanks did not play as significant of a role as you accredit it to for most of the war was fought with infantry and it was a simple war of attrition in trenches. A much greater role was played by the invention of poison gas by the French which tore German defense lines.

As for you mocking French uniform, I'll remind you that every country makes mistakes in a war. Need I mention to you how British troops fought for hours with a group or Irish troops who managed to get across the trench lines and ended up killing them all because they mistaken them for Germans. Or how on 25-Sep-1915 The British released chlorine gas from cylinders against the German trenches at Loos however they miscalculated air currents and the wind blew the gas laterally across the trench lines so that it gassed British troops.

As for WWI:

Following your principle Britain didn't REALLY win the war following your principle for their help wasn't really necessary for the victory. Let me let you in on a little secret, America didn't need British help to defeat Germany, should there have been any doubts they would have used The Bomb on Germany to end the war. Most of British land campaigns were in Africa as you should know and were described as "poking the Germans in the ribs" while Russia was begging them to open a second front in Europe.
Now I don't believe that's true, I do believe Britain too won the war but in order to accept that you must accept that even though they were not the major force they played a significant role, much like France.

If you think France had any chance whatsoever without significant allied help.

How significant is that? Following this criteria for defeat Britain was most certainly not victorious as without allies military support and American Lend-Lease (economic support) your name would have been Das Walross. The victory was a joint effort by all four members of the Grand Alliance.

There is a limit to how much guerilla warfare can achieve.

What the French resistance did was both in terms of valuable strategic information and in term military support. During the D-day landings in June, 1944, the Maquis and other resistance rose up to help in the liberation of their country. This included attacks on several occupied garrisons armed resistance groups were also able to slow down the attempt by the 2nd SS Panzer Division to get to the Normandy beaches. You don't know if without the information and with the arrival of the Panzer division the invasion of Normandy would have been successful, just as you don't know whether without RAF support against German air force the invasion of Normandy would have been successful. Lets just say it's safe to assume that both played a significant part.

To end I wish to remind you where Bush spent the 60th anniversairy to the invasion of Normandy? It was in Paris. And allow me to quote Eisenhower:

"Throughout France the Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves. "

This comes to prove that both back then and today American presidents valued highly French support in the war.

S_K_O_F

09-15-2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Snarr

This comes to prove that both back then and today American presidents valued highly French support in the war.

it is too bad that the same cannot be said about the current world war

Snarr

09-15-2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by S_K_O_F
it is too bad that the same cannot be said about the current world war

Touchè, but I'd hardly say that's a World War. Now if you were to criticise France on it's current external policies I would be on your side because I wholeheartly disagree with them.

Jeffery

09-15-2004, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Snarr
Touchè, but I'd hardly say that's a World War. Now if you were to criticise France on it's current external policies I would be on your side because I wholeheartly disagree with them.

Does that mean we can now bomb France. I mean, your uniforms are still silly looking. ;)

Frank

09-15-2004, 08:13 PM

Man, I missed a lot while my internet was down (hurricane). Anyways, the argument about WWI is pointless because so many of the issues are questionable and many argue that certain information was misdocumented. As for WWII, that is my area of expertise. Even Poland, who fought both Russia and Germany's tanks simultaneously with their horse-mounted cavalry did more than France. If the Germans were stupid, the would have gone straight through the maginot line with a victory, albeit a very costly one. But, instead, they went around through Belgium, which the French never seemed to consider possible. No sooner had German troops stepped foot in France, the French were ready to surrender. And they had one of the largest fleets of tanks in the world. And the French resistance... their actions were foolish, all they did was kill a random German or occasionally take out a Panzer, and the Germans would kill hundreds of innocent French people in return. At least the Czech resistance made a difference by assassinating Reinhard Heydrich, one of Hitler's top men. Long story short, the only great military leader of France was Napoleon, and eventually the British and Russians shut him down, too. And you mentioned the lack of scientists because they left, as if Germany wasn't at fault for that. Any clue why those scientists left? Because they were Jewish. Hitler himself said, "We have no need for Jewish science," or something to that effect.

To finsh on a lighter note, I'll tell you all a joke/riddle. Why do French tanks have rear view mirrors? So they can still see what's happening while they flee from battle. Ooh, another one; why do French tanks have 6 gears? 5 for reverse, and one for forward, in case the enemy attacks from behind. Now that you're all ready to lynch me, that doesn't change the fact that I'm always right. And walrus and DFG are too, as we share similar views.

Snarr

09-15-2004, 08:38 PM

I'd reply but you too biased and self assure to even consider replying too.

Just out of interest what qualifies it to be your expertise?

Walrus

09-16-2004, 09:27 AM

damn, last night i had a big old reply to snarrs latest post ready, but just before i could send it my parents turned off our internet connection coz i had to go to bed (it was only like 23:40).

anyways, in no particular order,

1) tanks did play a large role in WW1. when they were 1st developed, they may not have been very reliable, tis true. however by the end of WW1 the allied tanks were the only reliable weapon capable of breaking trench stalemates. (i say reliable, because gas attacks depended entirely on the wind). they may have only been around in the last few months of the war, but until that point it was simply a stalemate in trenches, with neither side really getting anywhere. the reason tanks werent around for much of the war is coz they were one of the main things that won it.

2) it is true that all sides made mistakes, however, most of the countries learned from these mistakes. after the gas attack-gone wrong from the british, they rarely used gas again. fighting the irish....oh well. these were only minor things that didnt really affect the outcome of a war. doing the equivalent of painting large target signs on all of your troops for the enemy snipers, that is a major thing in my opinion.

As for WW2 (i assume you meant the same in your own post, since the points underneath were refering to ww2)

1) until they joined the war, america had been supplying both the allies and germany, and much of the aid given to britain was handed on to the russians.

2) the campaigns were in africa because an assault on france (under german control) would be a disaster without a lot of planning. D-Day took months to plan, with special equipment like the transportable harbours, russia didnt understand that it wasnt a simple case of simply charging in with guns blazing.

3) ive never claimed that britain single handedly won the war. what i am claiming, is that the french contribution was much, much smaller than that of the russians, british or americans. britain beat germany off in the air (and for the better part, at sea), and britain is a much smaller country than france or germany. and russia beat them on the ground, despite the fact that it was only in the last 5 years that they had learned how to build factories. france was beaten quite soundly.

4) another example of french idiocy is the maginot line. the idea itself was good, but the fact that it covered only the franco-german border was ridiculous. in WW1, germany attacked via belgium. still the french refused to extend the line of fortresses, and germany did exactly the same again. remember what i said about learning from mistakes?

5) regardless of how valiant the french resistance was, i think anyone can see that the french military forces, and the country itself to act as a foothold in europe, would be far more useful in the war effort.

6) a quote from the americans. they only joined the war relatively near the end. i could probably find plenty of anti-france quotes, however, so far i have been going solely on my own knowledge, which i trust.

and, my level of knowledge is simply a GCSE in history, however because i found the topic of the 2 world wars quite interesting, i also did a lot of research on them outside of school.

and though frank might be somewhat...inelegant, a lot of the points he raises are valid, so take the time to respond please

S_K_O_F

09-16-2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Frank
And the French resistance... their actions were foolish, all they did was kill a random German or occasionally take out a Panzer, and the Germans would kill hundreds of innocent French people in return.

i want to speak on this for 1 second

you call these actions foolish...i call them heroic
these people were willing to give up their own lives to do anything they could do to push back the invaders

this kind of resistance is why the United States of America exists today...and this is the kind of resistance that will keep us at the top

you assume that the lives of many are not worth the lives of one...but in this case, killing a German soldier, an officer, destroying a tank, raiding supplies, standing up straight in an opposing soldiers face and not relenting...these are the types of things that turn the tides of a war...if an enemy knows that the people that it is fighting will not surrender then the moral of the army is that much smaller

i commend the french for their resistance

i can only hope that if i were put in a similar situation, i would be able to respond the same way

Walrus

09-16-2004, 10:12 AM

you're so convinced that the USA is the best nation ever that im sure defending it would be no problem for you skof.

one german soldier, one tank, some supplies, means nothing in the ultimate tide of war. thousands of soldiers were killed even in the smallest battles, one extra one will not make any difference whatsoever. as i said before, the french resistance may have been brave and heroic, but it really didnt achieve much.
it is capable of being heroic and foolish, i believe this is the case.

S_K_O_F

09-16-2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Walrus
you're so convinced that the USA is the best nation ever that im sure defending it would be no problem for you skof.

at least you have something right

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 10:16 AM

1) The invasion of poland was much faster, and with less resistance than the invasion of france. The french surrendered only after germany had reached all the way to paris, and did so to avoid more bloodshed of civillian lives.
2) THE US was NOT "supplying allias and germany" There were NO amercian shipments going to germany during the war. The shipments were to Britain, and then some onto Rusia.
3) The US "offically" entered the war near the end. But spent almost the entirety gearing up for war, making it's factories capable of making arms, and shipping goods and supplies to britain.
4) The british did NOT beat the germans in the air. The germans were free to bomb england as much as it wanted, until the Americans became involved and beat the luftwaffe back across the channel.

Frank, your obviously as biased as any little poorly raised american elitest can be. I hope someday you're forced to join the real world, and realise that hundreds of thousands of french soldiers died in WWII.

France- Military deaths 340,000, Civilian deaths 470,000
Great Britain- Military Deaths 326,000, Civillian deaths 62,000

If the french had surrendered as easily as you suggest, the number would have been much much lower.

Walrus

09-16-2004, 10:38 AM

in no particular order :

1) britain is a much smaller country than france. the majority of british battles in the war were in the air or on the seas, because since france had been conquered it would be hard to launch a successful ground assault.
the fact that the main battles after d-day were fought it france accounts for a lot of the casualties, and the civilian deaths were mainly due to the heroic yet foolish resistance.

2) america didnt spend most of the time gearing up for war, but debating whether to help or not. the same as in ww1. i know a lot of the americans here hate to hear anything bad about their country, but they didnt actually help as much as they like to believe. before the germans began firing on some american ships, the US was sending supplies to both sides so they would be financial secure from the repayments for a long time to come.
let me repeat the fact that the US was NOT gearing up for war but debating whether they should help or not. in america, the policy of isolationism was extremely popular, and they saw europe as being like a different planet. it was only after a lot of discussion that they agreed to enter the war, and that was near the end.
and sending goods and supplies to countries does not count as having entered the war in my book, maybe if they were GIVING the supplies, but just selling goods with fairly high interest repayments doesnt.

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Walrus
2) america didnt spend most of the time gearing up for war, but debating whether to help or not. the same as in ww1. i know a lot of the americans here hate to hear anything bad about their country, but they didnt actually help as much as they like to believe. before the germans began firing on some american ships, germany was sending supplies to both sides so they would be financial secure from the repayments for a long time to come.
let me repeat the fact that the US was NOT gearing up for war but debating whether they should help or not. in america, the policy of isolationism was extremely popular, and they saw europe as being like a different planet. it was only after a lot of discussion that they agreed to enter the war, and that was near the end.
and sending goods and supplies to countries does not count as having entered the war in my book, maybe if they were GIVING the supplies, but just selling goods with fairly high interest repayments doesnt.

So, turning factories into tank manufacturing plants and air plane factories, designing new miltary vehicles, and producing hundreds of thousands of them, and building thousands of ships, both war and merchant, as well as rationing certain goods to the oublic is no considered gearing up for war?

ALL this was done starting in 1939. By the time Japan attacked the US, and the US officially entered the war, the manufacturing facilitites were already making all the equipment and supplies needed for war.
To me, that seems to be gearing up for war.
And while the US citizens were still debating whether or not to get involved, the government was already well aware that were WOULD be involved.

And no, US was not shipping to germany. (you said it backwards BTW.) The US had trade will all countries involved, and ceased trade to germany upon the beginning of the invasions into europe.
For that fact, Britain itself was also trading with germany up to that point, as were most countries of the developed nations.

Walrus

09-16-2004, 10:53 AM

i think that what the US government was aware of was that if hitler or stalin did conquer europe, chances are they would turn to the US next. in a twist of irony, we have japan to thank for actually helping make up the americans minds and actually begin to get involved in the world affairs.
america would be in a war, one way or another, they knew that and were preparing for it. whether they ever planned to actually go into europe and fight there instead of on their home turf is something historians have argued about for a long, long time.

and whilst the americans ceased trading when the war actually begun, that was only to honor international treaties, i doubt america was interested in much other than profit at that particular point.

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 10:58 AM

I can agree with the profits part. And actually, there was never any discussion of defending the US on our own turf. That is why we built all thos stupid ships.

As for thanking japan.......
There is serious research that pointed to the fact that the governmen knew of the Japanese fleet, and kind of slyly ignored it, hoping japan would make the attack to jumpstart the popular opinion of entering the war.

Walrus

09-16-2004, 11:04 AM

the fact that they needed that kind of action to get people to actually agree to join the fight only supports the whole isolationist attitude.
anyway this debate was never meant to be about america, partially coz we didnt cover america in great detail in my studies at school, but mainly coz "better late than never" applies. although i would like to say that the war was in such a state that it would probably be over (with german defeat) fairly soon even if america hadnt intervened.

oh, these ingenius planes and crap the americans "designed", most of them were full of new british technology, and the american bombers flew in a formation which left them very exposed on the flank, and they didnt have very good long range fighters either. the bombers got owned far more frequently than british bombing missions.
im not 100% on it, but i also think the US airforce attacked in broad daylight to make sure they were hitting the right target. if this is true then the french intelligence reports probably werent as useful as you would think

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 11:16 AM

Actually, British bombing, while it seems impressive, was very ineffective at stopping the german war machine. The civillians were harmed more by the indiscriminate biritish bombing than german war manuacturing.

To quote a report written on british bombing:

"To the very bitter end, Air Vice Marshall Harris believed his planes would cripple the German war machine, British casualties would be minimal and the German population would beg for surrender.

What really happened was this:

In May, 1942, Harris dispatched 1,000 planes to bomb Cologne; within two weeks, the city was back to normal.

In 1943, he ordered 207,600 tons of bombs dropped on Germany; that year, production of war weapons increased to 72,000. In 1944, bombing quadrupled to 915,000 tons; German war production that year increased to 105,258 weapons.

Not only was German morale undaunted but, according to Dyson, the destruction of their homeland at the end of the war gave the German people "the one thing that they lacked at the beginning, a clean cause to fight for." Goebbels couldn't have done a better job if he had created Bomber Command himself."

It was true that in the beginning, the US bombers were often left unprotected near the end of their runs, as the war continued long range fighters were developed by the US, which gave the bombers the cover they needed to do the job properly. The US strikes during the day were more effective at demolishing factories and supplies the germans needed to keep fighting.

Walrus

09-16-2004, 11:26 AM

the british were simply fighting fire with fire. bombing may not have been as effective as had been hoped, but the point was that britain won aerial superiority over the germans. if youve seen the pictures of what the bombing was like, and what it was like living in a time like that (i might not have, but ive seen a lot of black and white films made at the time) then you would realise that it was extremely demoralising for the civilians at least.
and whilst on the point of bombing, how can you try to argue against british bombing while at the same time praising the american bombers? germany had an advanced aerial defence system that meant that whenever any bombers began their flight from britain, the germans could immediately send fighters out to deal with them. the daylight missions meant that hundreds more pilots were taken captive or killed by the germans than there shouldve been. if they actually managed to reach their target and return safely, then yes, the missions were more effective, but there were very few that actually managed to make it back to britain safely (something like 15% of american missions). the british ones may not have been as accurate, but they werent anything like as costly either.
and i think, after german bombers had been recklessly carpet bombing britain, it is safe to say that britain wasnt doing any major injustice when there were civilian casualties. british missions at least aimed for important military facilities, the german bombing targetting the most populated areas deliberately to kill civilians.

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Walrus
if they actually managed to reach their target and return safely, then yes, the missions were more effective, but there were very few that actually managed to make it back to britain safely (something like 15% of american missions). the british ones may not have been as accurate, but they werent anything like as costly either.

I am not sure where you get your numbers. Please refer to http://www.altus.af.mil/history/combat/combataug44.htm for mission logs, including planes used, and numbers lost. This is just one month, and you can compair it to other months.

And i never claimed the US was any better than the british. I was correcting your assumptions of british superiority. i would also like to ask you for proof that the US planes were "full of british technologies"
Looking into lockhead-martin histroy, as well as the histry of the b-17 and b-29 bombers, the technology used in them were more german than anything.

Walrus

09-16-2004, 11:44 AM

i was mainly referring to naval vessels with technology, such as radar for example. its been a long time since i got it, but i had a big old sheet with a list of british technological advances during the time on it.
in the air, the 1st long range fighters were designed by the british though.

as for the numbers, i got them when i learned them in my GCSE course. it was between 15-25% of missions (in the daytime) that went out, hit the target and got back safely without much real loss. for a squadron of 8 that means not losing more than about 2 of the planes.
the nighttime figure was more around 30-50%.

im not saying the british are superior, but the truth is that, technology wise, the british thought of the most and best advances. if you want i can spend about 20 mins to dig out my old history book with a nice list of em, but id rather not.
and my argument is, and always has been that it was france that was the weakest link, not america.

the main quarrel i have with america is woodrows 14 points, and then america not actually joining the league of nations when it was made, despite it being an american idea in the 1st place

im looking through my textbook now, there is radar, bullet-proof windscreens for planes, hedgehog depth charges and torpex, other anti-sub weaponry, radio, some code-cracking device...'oboe' bomber guiding device, "window" anti radar device,

i also noticed a page on the merchant navy, which illustrates that it was mainly british ships that protected the american
envoys..just a small point.

oh, and also, the main point of british bombing was not to damage germany, but force the luftwaffe to defend germany, instead of helping assault russia, and force germany to manufacture AA guns instead of tanks

Elentari

09-16-2004, 11:50 AM

I find it extremely humorous that such a discussion is taking place in a thread named "You touched my tra la la?"

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 11:52 AM

Well. I still say the number you have are skewed heavily. look at the site i listed. Those are the ACTUAL numbers of planes flown, and planes lost. There is no opinion on succesful or not.

El, the thread was hijackef to prevent biased accusations against the french.

Want to know the weakest link in WWII? canada!

Walrus

09-16-2004, 11:55 AM

i updated my previous post quite substancially...

and, i hope you arent accusing me of anti-french bias, coz if so this would be a prime example of people interpreting a logical argument as a biased anti-france...thing. seriously. i have nothing against france, but in the wars, they sucked.

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 12:10 PM

Not you. Certain other persons. You are having a logical discussion of facts, while avoidng insulting anyone but the Canadians.

Radar- Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (actuallt scottish)
Radio- You're way off. Italian Guglielmo Marconi was inventor there.

Many of the other items are arguable, as many researchers were coming up with similar results. Many of the items described were actually viable before the war, and were rushed into use during the war out of need.

I really don;t feel like showing you the research on a whole list of items. But try and look them up yourseld from indipendant sources, and not just one book.

Most text books are written with a biased slant towards the country they are written for. Learning to look beyond that and to the facts that are there is a big step to take.

Walrus

09-16-2004, 12:19 PM

i am aware of bias, but by law, schoolbooks are meant to provide a neutral view of everything, regardless of origin.

as for radar, correct me if im wrong, but last time i checked, scotland was part of britain.

maybe radio was used before, but im pretty sure the british were the 1st to fully utilise it in warfare.

as i mentioned a while ago, i was interested in the world wars when i studied them at school, so i did do quite a lot of background reading, and most of the inventions listed were british ones, or at least were ideas that already existed, but hadnt been utilised in warfare before. regardless of whether others were thinking it up, the british did it first.

by that argument, you could claim that because there were many explorers who all found mount everest at similar times, the 1st one deserves no more credit than the others.
not the best of examples perhaphs, but i cant think of a better one.

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 12:33 PM

Don;t let the scottish hear you say that!

And radio was actually succesfully used by forces in WWI, german forces, before the british were even involved in the war.

And there is no law saying text books must be neutral, or even accurate. As it is often said, history is written by the victor. There are many examples of text books being written badly, with information that is taken as fact that was obviously skewed. Both british and american text books directly after wwII were hugely inaccurate, and often depicted versions of battles that were not only incorrect, but obviously meant to make the general population feel better off.

Walrus

09-16-2004, 12:36 PM

well ok, but when the textbooks devote large chapters specifically to pointing out all the errors the british made, i think its safe to say tis unbiased.
eg the book had a right go a field marshall haig after the battle of the somme (ww1).

anyway, back onto how the french suck. did i mention im going to paris sometime in the next few months on an economic conference?

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 12:39 PM

Are you going to try the cheese and whine?

Walrus

09-16-2004, 12:55 PM

thats a really, really old joke. seriously.

anyway, wine is crap, i like spirits. here is my predicament : i hate the taste of beer, lager, bitter etc. cider is just about ok, but generally, i dont like the taste of that stuff, at all. however, i like getting drunk. so the logical choice is spirits when i wanna get drunk, and soft drinks when i want something that tastes nice. but when you drink soft drinks people call you a pussy, which sucks.

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 12:58 PM

Mix the spirits WITh the soft drink.

Rum and Coke anyone?

Walrus

09-16-2004, 01:00 PM

i tried vodka and coke several times, but it takes too long to drink.

i just down a couple of triple vodkas (actually it was whisky i think) and then go onto the soft drinks while they kick in.

S_K_O_F

09-16-2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Walrus
thats a really, really old joke. seriously.

anyway, wine is crap, i like spirits. here is my predicament : i hate the taste of beer, lager, bitter etc. cider is just about ok, but generally, i dont like the taste of that stuff, at all. however, i like getting drunk. so the logical choice is spirits when i wanna get drunk, and soft drinks when i want something that tastes nice. but when you drink soft drinks people call you a pussy, which sucks.

wtf is wrong with drinking soft drinks?

nobody has ever made fun of me for drinking a soda ...

Walrus

09-16-2004, 01:56 PM

well, where i come from, if everyone else is drinking beer and you're drinking a coke, you're a pussy. usually they shut up when i challenge them to some serious triple vodka downing. heheeheh.

T3km4n

09-16-2004, 06:09 PM

I'm gonna be in Paris during Thanksgiving.

Elentari

09-16-2004, 06:10 PM

Exactly how old are you walrus? I'm just curious...

Baeoin

09-16-2004, 06:10 PM

Did i actually end up making a decent thread? Look what this has become.

Asmodeus

09-16-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Walrus
sry asmodeus, but we are debating the world wars here.
Are we done yet? :)
Darn I missed my 666th post :(

Jeffery

09-16-2004, 06:31 PM

Wars are never over. People will keep fighting them forever.

Frank

09-16-2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Elentari
Exactly how old are you walrus? I'm just curious...

It's Brittain. As my Irish friend once told me, they don't really enforce minimum drinking age (he said it's similar in England and Scotland) and we often joke that that age is 5. Although I see nothing wrong with a sip or two of vodka for a 5 year old... Vodka is awesome!!! I'd drink it breakfast, lunch, and dinner if I wasn't 16.

Sorry for how I phrased those things before, I got carried away and didn't think about offending anyone. And I won't get into details, but the Brits did help in designing the P51 Mustang (long range fighter. And it was Americans who invented the machine gun, sub-automatics, and all other kinds if awesome guns. And the French designed that little cog-wheel-thing that let pilots shoot through the propellor. The Russians made the T34, which dominated other tanks for quite a while, as well as the AK-47, the best assault weapon EVER, although it came a little too late (1947). That ends todays history lesson.

Btw, is a tra la la really what I think it is?