Europe and America ...

[Linflas]

<< Well AmusedOne
2. They needed the help of the royal navy to get its suplies and men to europe. (nasty u-boats) >>


Better do some deeper research. The facts are that German U Boats ran rampant until the US began to mass produce jeep carriers to build sub hunting task forces around specifically to address the terrible toll German U Boats were taking on Allied merchant ships. Sheer numbers combined with the inovation of night carrier operations ended the reign of the German wolfpacks since they could no longer count on being able to surface run under cover of darkness to recharge batteries. By the time of the D Day invasion the German U boat threat had largely been dealt with.




<< 4. casualties were.
U.S.A 29000 Dead
Britain 11000 Dead
Canada 5000 Dead
Acording to those numbers we could say that the usa forces werent up to par
with the rest of the force >>



You are a disgusting human being to so casually dismiss the sacrifice of all the dead stated above with a statement like that.

 

[shiner]

Well AmusedOne
I did some reaserch on the war D-day specificly.
1. The U.S.A was only 2/5 of the force initial strike on mainland europe.
That number is flat out wrong. Where did you get it? I'm looking for the real numbers right now.

2. They needed the help of the royal navy to get its suplies and men to europe. (nasty u-boats)
Ummm..were it not for the U.S. Navy there would have been no convoys making it to England at all. Get your facts straight. In March 1941 the U.S. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act and appropriated an initial $7 billion to lend or lease weapons and other aid to any countries the president might designate. By this means the U.S. hoped to ensure victory over the Axis without involving its own troops. By late summer of 1941, however, the U.S. was in a state of undeclared war with Germany. In July, U.S. Marines were stationed in Iceland, which had been occupied by the British in May 1940, and thereafter the U.S. Navy took over the task of escorting convoys in the waters west of Iceland. In September President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized ships on convoy duty to attack Axis war vessels. Before the U.S. started using it's navy to protect the convoys England was damn near cut off from the rest of the world.

3. Thanks to the brits again we could decode the german comunications.
Yes, the British caprtured the first Enigma device but the U.S. captured several as well.

4. casualties were.
U.S.A 29000 Dead
Britain 11000 Dead
Canada 5000 Dead

Acording to those numbers we could say that the usa forces werent up to par
with the rest of the force

No, those numbers just show that the U.S. had more men fighting in the invasion and thus a higher percentage of casualties. Also the U.S. forces landed at the touhgest points of resistance in Normandy since Eisenhower was reluctant to use British and Canadian forces in such places since he didn't consider them to be as fierce of fighters as the U.S. soldiers.

 

[Czar]

shinerburke

Here is a good map on how Dday went
http://archive.nandotimes.com/sproject/dday/dday2.gif
US got two beaches, UK got two becahes, Canada got one beach.

 

[Capn]

&quot;The invasion of northern France from England was launched not in May, as its planners had initially prescribed, but on June 6, the famous ?D-Day? of World War II. A huge armada had been assembled, including 1,200 fighting ships, 10,000 planes, 4,126 landing craft, 804 transport ships, and hundreds of amphibious and other special purpose tanks. During the operation 156,000 troops (73,000 U.S. and 83,000 British or Canadian) were landed in Normandy, 132,500 of them seaborne across the English Channel, 23,500 airborne. The beaches chosen for the landings stretched from the estuary of the Orne to the southeastern edge of the Cotentin peninsula, with the British and Canadians taking the eastern beaches and the Americans the western. The ground forces for the initial assault, under British Gen. Sir Bernard Montgomery's direction, comprised: (1) the Canadian 1st Army under Lieut. Gen. H.D.G. Crerar, the British 2nd Army under Lieut. Gen. Sir Miles Dempsey, and the British 6th Airborne division; and (2) the U.S. 1st Army and the U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions under Lieut. Gen. Omar N. Bradley.

Delayed 24 hours by bad Channel weather, the invasion began before dawn on June 6 with units of the U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions making night landings near the town of Sainte-M&egrave;re-&Eacute;glise, while British commando units captured key bridges and knocked out Nazi communications. In the morning, the assault troops of the combined Allied armies landed at five beaches along the Normandy coast code-named Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. While four beaches were taken easily and quickly, the forces landing at ?Bloody Omaha? encountered stiff German resistance. By nightfall, sizable beachheads had been secured on all five landing areas, and the final campaign to defeat Germany was under way. &quot;

From britanica.com of all places.

 

[Amused]

<< Well AmusedOne
I did some reaserch on the war D-day specificly.
1. The U.S.A was only 2/5 of the force initial strike on mainland europe.
2. They needed the help of the royal navy to get its suplies and men to europe. (nasty u-boats)
3. Thanks to the brits again we could decode the german comunications.
4. casualties were.
U.S.A 29000 Dead
Britain 11000 Dead
Canada 5000 Dead

Acording to those numbers we could say that the usa forces werent up to par
with the rest of the force >>



:::sigh::: The ignorance of history is ASTOUNDING!

American casualties were so high, because one of the beach heads we attacked (Omaha) was so much more heavily defended, and had high cliffs with vantage points.

In fact, the American 1st Division at Omaha Beach confronted the best of the German coast divisions, the 352nd.

The British and Canadians on the other hand, had a virtual cake walk compared to the Americans. On Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches the opposition was very light. The opposition on Utah beach was light as well, and those American troops had light casualties just as the Brits and Canadians did.

 

[Amused]

And BTW, does anyone here think the US could not have easily amassed the 160 odd thousand troops to do the invasion themselves?

 

[GTaudiophile]

You all might get a kick out of this BBC Talking Point...

Fuel for the fire?

Europe is fuzzily defined and national pride will ultimately doom it to failure. The USA is beset with social problems and likely to destroy itself from within. I can't see that either can solve the other's problems. We can only, as we have been doing for so long, trade together for mutual benefit. We must accept, I think, that the future belongs to China. Gary, UK

 

[67gt500]

Elledan,

Recent tests with Patriot (?) missiles showed that the number of intercepted missiles was extremely low, less than a 1% successrate. Since they used the same missiles during those tests as they're planning to use for the missile-shield, the performance of this 'shield' makes it even less safe than a missile-strainer

Research has yet to be funded. We aren't even in a developmental stage right now in the United States.


I wouldn't call this defending a country. The used technology is already obsolete and with the development of new missiles (missiles that travel in the water and will leave the water just before it reaches the coast-line. No current detection technology is capable of detecting such missiles and destroying it before it's too late) or even missiles that are capable of destroying/dodging anti-missiles missiles, the efficiency of this 'shield' will drop till just above 0%.

I love it how, you have managed to determine the technologies efficiency when it hasn't even been DEVELOPED.


I think that the best way to defend a country in these times is to become allies with other countries.

Historically do you know where your alliances have gotten you? Are you prepared to form an alliance with Russia and China? If China is incapable of following the most basic trade agreements what reason do you have to believe that they will support you in time of crisis? Sources already report that they are furthering development of long range technology.


Russia still has many nuclear missiles. If they want, they can destroy the USA. Only this single treaty keeps them from doing so. And Bush wants to get rid of this treaty which ended the Cold War.

Only a single treaty keeps them from doing so? ahahahaha
Try, the fact that the United States would completely destroy them in return.



Any country will continue to develop new technologies, but with such a missile-'shield', the USA could just as well tell all other countries that they're so scared for missile attacks that they seek refuge in the most unlikely solutions. The USA has a history of seeking the solution in violence and sophisticated technologies. Counseling is never a choice.
IMHO this is a serious mistake. There'll come a day when violence and technology will fail and only counseling will offer a way out. Again, it's good to have allies in this world.

This is without a doubt the biggest crock I've ever heard on these forums. I don't even know where to begin responding to it because it is such a load of fluff.

You have not offered me a single reason as to why the USA's development of its own technology is a bad thing. You've pretty much shown that all of europe and opposing countries are simply jealous of hte fact that the United States is considering DEVELOPING and EXPLORING a technology that would perhaps protect it from rogue TERRORIST attacks.




Sorry to say this, but you sound pretty paranoid. China has no intention to attack the US at the moment and Russia has no longer a communistic Government, although you sound like you still believe this.

I never said russia has a communistic government.

I'd like to offer you a quote from Cheng Ming the Chinese Defense Minister

&quot;Seen from the changes in the world situation and the United States' hegemonic strategy for creating monopolarity, war is inevitable,&quot;

&quot;War with the United States is inevitable.&quot;


You're paranoid. There's no Cold War and no arms race.
You sound like the only time when you would be happy is during the Cold War.

I'm paranoid? For every serious war in this world there were a group of 'paranoid' folk such as myself who were ridiculed from the more apt and gentle people like yourself.

Please open your eyes and recognize the fact that the United States and The PRC will never be strategic allies. That will never happen.

What happens with Russia has yet to be seen. We continue to offer them billions in aid each year, and debt relief, and we continue to offer China this wonderful trade deficit.

The fact that either country feels the need to ridicule our domestic behaviors while remaining reliant on us as a nation is simply beyond me... and the fact that european nations will take Putin and China at their word when we all know the truth behind these countries is just unreal.. Putin knows that NATO is fervent in its opposition against the homoicidal lunacy he continued south of his region.

There's no way in the world that the US is forming a strategic alliance with Russia.. and if any of the friss european nations attempt to do so they shouldn't intend on maintaining their alliance with the US or Britain.

 

[shiner]

Russia still has many nuclear missiles. If they want, they can destroy the USA. Only this single treaty keeps them from doing so. And Bush wants to get rid of this treaty which ended the Cold War.

You're an idiot. The ABM Treaty was signed on May 26, 1972. Seems to me the Cold War lasted quite a bit longer that that. Reagan restoring the might of the U.S. military is what ended the Cold War.

 

[RayGr]

IMHO two things are to blame for American-targeted hatred:
a)bad media covarage
b)bad politics
I'll explain..(BTW I live in Greece)

a)With the recent war nearby in Yugoslavia I must tell you that American PPL(through the major channels like BBC,CNN,etc.) got a completely deceptive image of what was going on.The press painted the picture of the poor albanians in the region, which were being slaughtered by the yugoslavians.Even though some minor incidents had occured,the whole thing was completely distorted by the media.Now that the Yugoslavians have benn hammered enough,the real offenders have come to surface.The albanians now want Scopia(known also as macedonia..) and thay might even attemp an attack at northern Greek regions.

b)the problem is that because of and through bad media the government can act as it will,having convinced the public of the rightfullness of their actions.I'm quite sure the American public,had it been told the truth, would have objected to the bombings and the whole attack.The whole thing is about bad representation of what the public wants,a problem inherent in any kind of non-immediate democracy.
(e.g. I may vote for sb who SAYS he is supporting proposed law A,but after he is elected i have no way of MAKING him actutally vote for law A. So am I responsible for his being untruthful to me?? No.)

BTW,I walk around and half the ppl I talk to are complete morons,even here in a country with &quot;great&quot; cultural heritage,long history and a long list of scientific contributions.Stating that US residents are more &quot;dumb&quot; that other ppl is dumb in itself.It seems &quot;dumbness&quot; is univerally present equally.

Sorry about the long post and please excuse any mistakes,English is a second
language to me.

 

[RayGr]

Oh, I forgot..
Does it really matter whether US saved the europeans' ass or not in WW2 ?
Lets say US hadn't intervened..Lets say Germany had taken over all of europe because of this.
Do you really think that Germany would use only its own resources if it was going to attack US??It would have used ALL of Europe's fabs to manufacture weapons and THEN it would have attacked US.Also it would probably have at its disposal nuclear weapons(as you might know germany was not far from developing its own atom bomb before it was defeated).
And having all that at it's disposal would have changed the balance of power.Now dont take me wrong,I'm not saying the US would have lost or won..I'm just saying the death toll would have been greater for Europeans and Americans alike).
The allied forces worked TOGETHER when they got the chance and we all avoided a much worse outcome.Time was NOT on our side.

The whole thing about &quot;we saved your ass.no,we could have done it ourselves(either the US or the europeans)&quot; is just so immature.Its just a boyish macho argument.I really think that had the opportunity not been seized and the forces not attacked together,the US would not have survived without really heavy casualties.(not to mention european casualties)

Just an opinion..

 

[AndrewR]

<< The whole thing about &quot;we saved your ass.no,we could have done it ourselves(either the US or the europeans)&quot; is just so immature.Its just a boyish macho argument. >>


Oh yeah!!! How about I just come over there and KICK YOUR ASS???

 

[Doboji]

Raygr,

Well said... well posted.... and welcome to ATOT!...

-Max