It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unprecedented: German General Appointed Chief of Staff of US Army Europe

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: marg6043

And what position is that? Oh right, serving under a US commander in the US chain of command. Remind me again how that puts or troops under foreign orders.


Simple, the chief of staff makes policy. Policy is the doctrine from which all orders are issued.

A non American is now writing policy for American troops.

Simple enough to understand?

You have still not named 1 single reason another nation needs to command our troops.

Germany has a military, why isnt he commanding it? Because he is either incompetent and they dont want him, but he is politically connected so he gets the job, or there is not one single good rational reason on this earth for it, and they did it to make the Germans feel good.

I couldnt care how the Germans feel as long as their next genocide stays in Europe like the last 2 attempts.

Lets be clear here. Germany has overtaken Britain as the EU's biggest player.

What happened the last 2 times they were on top?

A clear history points clearly to what to expect.

Why are they making policy over our troops?

Chief's of staff make and implement policy. That is the sole reason for the job.

This is like appointing a former KGB guy as the head of the CIA.

Why would you give anyone else any type of control over your assets?

Stupidity or intentional mischief, these are the only 2 rational reasons I can actually see playing out in the real world.

In other news, Kim Jung Un was appointed the the department of Justice, not like he is in charge or anything, it is a clearly unimportant job position( then why does it exist if it doesnt matter?).

It does matter. This guy from another country clearly has the power of setting policy my countries soldiers will follow.

Sorry if you dont understand this, but I barely trust the Americans in charge, anyone else.......good luck, I trust every other country as far as I can change mine...........less than not at all....if that is even possible.



The Chief of Staff of a place like USAREUR does not make policy. They have a Plans, Strategy & Policy branch for that although even they do not truly make policy as USAREUR is a subordinate command to EUCOM. The Chief of Staff at a place like USAREUR mostly just pushes paper and hand admistrative issues in the CINCs office. He does not have authority to sign for the CINC or do anything on his own. When I was at CENTCOM most people considered the Chief of Staff as a glorified secretary. It carried some prestige simply because you would be in constant contact with CINC and DCINC.


You suck so bad, I put together a really good argument, and you once again just pwned me like a noob.

Stop being so fricking smart and accurate all the damned time, it isnt fun to try and argue with a dictionary.

I do agree with everything you said, but you missed one of my biggest points, WTF is the point other than giving another politically hooked up douche a fat salary?


Sorry. Welll he would a big help while working in the main place US Army forces are in Europe, Germany. He would great at cutting through red tape and also know better German commanders, units etc. to give the CINC a more clear picture when working with our German allies. I have to wonder why this was not done decades ago to be honest. Also we do not pay him he is payed by his home nation according to rank just like US forces in allied staffs. Take for example NORAD where the chain of command is mixed US Canadian. Both nations pay their own forces. Even the KATUSA's in South Korea are still payed by the RoK military. Although I think uniforms and food and boards are payed by the US. And if you think a German as the chief of staff is something then the KATUSA will really freak you out. These are South Korean soldiers of all ranks that are integrated with US Army units in South Korea. They make up 10% of the 8th Armys man power in Korea. And that is a program started in 1950s by General MacArthur.




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As an American citizen that have family members that died for this nation I don't feel that is right to have a foreign member of another nation to have a position that could be served better by an American general.

Regardless of been allies, foreign modern policies or else.

Plain and simple, that is my opinion and it will stay the same.


edit on 10-8-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad



... have to wonder why this was not done decades ago to be honest.



 


I bet you did not know that the iconic Circled 'STAR' logo was still on Military Vehicles up to the 1960s...
and that Logo was the 'Sign of Occupation'

'C' & 'K' rations were also getting switched....
imagine USA troops in the '60s getting Food rations which always included WW2 cigarettes (small 5 pack only) when on maneuvors

when I was there--- we got our first German Nationals to be consolidated with USA Troops ~ well only during working hours as they had better accomodations with the Deutsch Military ... but they were there to learn & train in a cooperative exchange (probably for PR than anything else)


edit on th31140771633110182014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: pennydrops

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If someone attacks (Russia) our troops need to be close. Just the threat of US troops is enough to demand caution.


Take your concerns elsewhere ... and your fight with the Russians.

Sooner or later, we'll throw your troops out ... I suggest you have them leave, before that happens.

Ooohhh scary. Who saved Europe's ass multiple times already? Who will be there to do it again next time?

I have no concern, nor a fight with Russia, Russia only picks on those it can actually beat, like Eastern European countries.

When Europe engaged Libya and it ran out of ammo in a week who did they ask to support them? That's right. How about you take your drivel elsewhere. Get your government to fund their military and grow a backbone.



The Russians saved us in WW2.

They crippled the Nazis on the eastern front, losing millions of lives in the process. The US joined once we were past the worse. This is common knowledge.

jeez.

How incredibly shortsighted you are. Had Russia beat the Germans and Marched all the way through France what do you think Europe would look like today? America DID save you in WW2, you just fail to understand how.



Your totally deluded.

Had the scenario you describe occurred, Britain would have pulled the 14th Army ( along with other Commonwealth Troops and equipment ) out of The Far East to take on the threat nearer to home.
Leaving the U.S. to take on The Japanese without British involvement.

No once again I am being replied to by someone completely ignorant. You think the Indian troops would leave India to be devastated to defend Britain? Then you think they will transport them all to Britain without the Axis finding out and attacking?

Just such a stupid reply.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: oblvion


America is the only reason Britain didnt collapse in WW2. We kept the western front open and alive. If not for US support, germany could have had a 1 front war, and crushed Russia.

Bull crap Britain stabilised the front way before the USA even declared war.

Battle of Britain was won with British pilots using British planes.


originally posted by: oblvion
In fact, Russia China and Britain were all just about done up until we came.

Again bull crap.

UK had already repelled the German Invasion prio to US involvement and decimated its air forces.


originally posted by: oblvion
Hitler was the true architect of German defeat. He ordered his artillery not to wipe out the entire British and French armies at the port town of Calais.

As painful as that would have been it was the RAF and Royal Navy that saved Britain from invasion.



originally posted by: oblvion
The single most important piece on the board towards German defeat in WW2, was Hitler. The douche beat himself.

Il give you that. Hitler did more to save the UK than the USA did.

I fully agree Britain would have been able to stave off Hitler without US support. What would have happened would be Russia bringing the Iron curtain to British shores, with only 1 front to fight, and Britain would eventually have lost that war if Russia pushed it. BEST case scenario with the US not saving Europe would be Russian control of all of Europe except the UK.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: oblvion

B
Really? So America didnt pass the "lend lease act" to give Britain our stuff against the law BTW in peace time at the time?

It helped but weather is saved us? No idea there were dozens of factors on going at the time. US material support was just one.

originally posted by: oblvion
So we didnt have to send our pilots over there that actually had many kills during the "battle of Britain"?

A squadron, and there were no officially deployed anyway just volunteers. 1 Squadron was hardly decisive.

Think you been watching too much pearl harbour.


originally posted by: oblvion
Werent the Brits all eating US food, that our merchant marines died by the thousands to Nazi U boats to deliver?

food was coming in from other places too. As I said above, there was many many factors the US was JUST ONE. It was far from being sole savour.


originally posted by: oblvion
Oh wait I got it, It was us not sending millions of tons of goods to Britain, at the loss of our money and lives, that saved Britain right?

Read above...one of many factors.


originally posted by: oblvion
The brits were beaten.

Notice when the UK surrendered? O that right it didn't,


originally posted by: oblvion
Their tiny little island cant even feed its population, or their industry, but your right, Britain did it all alone.

Never said it did it all alone. Read above MANY FACTORS of which the USA was JUST one.

My problem is you making it sound like the USA was its sole savour. It wasnt.


originally posted by: oblvion
The US came in and swept the floors after it was all over, because we were not even a factor.

UK/USA/Russia swept the floor. WORKING TOGETHER


originally posted by: oblvion
Have you ever even read a book in your life?


Yes many.

Have you? It seems you get your history of hollywood and mel gibbson films.

If I may ... I believe the problem is this. There were many factors, but the US contribution was the LARGEST factor. The other factors without the US assistance would have been disastrous. The US contribution without other factors would have been much less dire.

Sorry, facts are facts. No French support the US probably never wins our war. No US support Europe is royally screwed after WW2. Why Europe feels the need to take credit for the Rev. War in helping America and then acting like US did nothing in WW2 is beyond me.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: oblvion


2)experience, lesser militaries need experienced leadership to show them how it is done, this is well known, the French did it for us in the revolutionary war. The US military needs no direction from anyone in any country, we are quite great at warfare thank you.





Guess that why you won Vietnam and have had such great success against insergants in Iraq and Afganistan......o wait no.....

Arrogance and thinking you know it all gets you DEAD.

Sometimes its better to humble yourself and accept that experience comes from all different sources and background.

If the USA had listened and took tips off of Australia then Vietnam would likely have been a great US military victory.

I agree with some of what you said .. but Vietnam was a great Military Victory. The "loss" is a result of politicians interfering and not allowing the military to do it's job, and the media causing problems.

War is war, even handcuffed and handicapped America kicked ass in Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men, and killed about 1 million enemy. The US media is why Americans treat Vietnam Veterans as criminals.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

Hell RAF pilots have flown the B-2 since the 90s, including combat missions.

In a perfect world I would want serious allies such as the UK having access to the top of the line black world tech.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: oblvion

But Australia made USA look like amateurs at jungle warfare. There is a quote from one of the top viet cong commanders who even said that if the Americans had adopted the Australian tactics they would have won.

Dont make excuse for failures like "o but it was politics" that's just pathetic.

USA could have won Vietnam. But it didn't.

What do you do from failures? Cry? Make it excuses?

No you learn from those mistakes.


just out of curiosity what are these tactics? I haven't really heard much about that.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: pennydrops

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If someone attacks (Russia) our troops need to be close. Just the threat of US troops is enough to demand caution.


Take your concerns elsewhere ... and your fight with the Russians.

Sooner or later, we'll throw your troops out ... I suggest you have them leave, before that happens.

Ooohhh scary. Who saved Europe's ass multiple times already? Who will be there to do it again next time?

I have no concern, nor a fight with Russia, Russia only picks on those it can actually beat, like Eastern European countries.

When Europe engaged Libya and it ran out of ammo in a week who did they ask to support them? That's right. How about you take your drivel elsewhere. Get your government to fund their military and grow a backbone.



The Russians saved us in WW2.

They crippled the Nazis on the eastern front, losing millions of lives in the process. The US joined once we were past the worse. This is common knowledge.

jeez.

How incredibly shortsighted you are. Had Russia beat the Germans and Marched all the way through France what do you think Europe would look like today? America DID save you in WW2, you just fail to understand how.



Your totally deluded.

Had the scenario you describe occurred, Britain would have pulled the 14th Army ( along with other Commonwealth Troops and equipment ) out of The Far East to take on the threat nearer to home.
Leaving the U.S. to take on The Japanese without British involvement.

No once again I am being replied to by someone completely ignorant. You think the Indian troops would leave India to be devastated to defend Britain? Then you think they will transport them all to Britain without the Axis finding out and attacking?

Just such a stupid reply.



Who mentioned Indian Troops ? The Commonwealth includes many other countries apart from India. There where around half a million troops alone from countries in East, West and South Africa.

As for them being attacked by the axis powers. With what exactly? Germany had zero aircraft carries, had lost most of her large ships. Their U Boats where mainly tied up in The North Atlantic to engage The Arctic Convoys. The Italian navy was no longer a threat after Italy signed an armistice with the allies in 1943. The Japanese navy was kept occupied in The Far East.


As for being a stupid reply, take a look in the mirror.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: pennydrops

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If someone attacks (Russia) our troops need to be close. Just the threat of US troops is enough to demand caution.


Take your concerns elsewhere ... and your fight with the Russians.

Sooner or later, we'll throw your troops out ... I suggest you have them leave, before that happens.

Ooohhh scary. Who saved Europe's ass multiple times already? Who will be there to do it again next time?

I have no concern, nor a fight with Russia, Russia only picks on those it can actually beat, like Eastern European countries.

When Europe engaged Libya and it ran out of ammo in a week who did they ask to support them? That's right. How about you take your drivel elsewhere. Get your government to fund their military and grow a backbone.



The Russians saved us in WW2.

They crippled the Nazis on the eastern front, losing millions of lives in the process. The US joined once we were past the worse. This is common knowledge.

jeez.

How incredibly shortsighted you are. Had Russia beat the Germans and Marched all the way through France what do you think Europe would look like today? America DID save you in WW2, you just fail to understand how.



Your totally deluded.

Had the scenario you describe occurred, Britain would have pulled the 14th Army ( along with other Commonwealth Troops and equipment ) out of The Far East to take on the threat nearer to home.
Leaving the U.S. to take on The Japanese without British involvement.

No once again I am being replied to by someone completely ignorant. You think the Indian troops would leave India to be devastated to defend Britain? Then you think they will transport them all to Britain without the Axis finding out and attacking?

Just such a stupid reply.



Who mentioned Indian Troops ? The Commonwealth includes many other countries apart from India. There where around half a million troops alone from countries in East, West and South Africa.

Source that. from what I have read it was half a million men total and most of them were Indian.


As for them being attacked by the axis powers. With what exactly? Germany had zero aircraft carries, had lost most of her large ships. Their U Boats where mainly tied up in The North Atlantic to engage The Arctic Convoys. The Italian navy was no longer a threat after Italy signed an armistice with the allies in 1943. The Japanese navy was kept occupied in The Far East.

What ships would transport them? What ships would protect the transport? How are they storming the beach since numbers alone would not have won the day, so even getting the same number of troops the US provided would still have resulted in failure. Unless it was VERY protected you think the U Boats would not have diverted to sink a huge troop convoy? Then you can tell me how the British forces would even be able to get on transports as they were retreating getting their asses handed to them by the Japanese.



As for being a stupid reply, take a look in the mirror.

Everything you posted was wrong. I don't need a mirror, you need a book on military tactics and also human psychology.
edit on 11-8-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: pennydrops

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If someone attacks (Russia) our troops need to be close. Just the threat of US troops is enough to demand caution.


Take your concerns elsewhere ... and your fight with the Russians.

Sooner or later, we'll throw your troops out ... I suggest you have them leave, before that happens.

Ooohhh scary. Who saved Europe's ass multiple times already? Who will be there to do it again next time?

I have no concern, nor a fight with Russia, Russia only picks on those it can actually beat, like Eastern European countries.

When Europe engaged Libya and it ran out of ammo in a week who did they ask to support them? That's right. How about you take your drivel elsewhere. Get your government to fund their military and grow a backbone.



The Russians saved us in WW2.

They crippled the Nazis on the eastern front, losing millions of lives in the process. The US joined once we were past the worse. This is common knowledge.

jeez.

How incredibly shortsighted you are. Had Russia beat the Germans and Marched all the way through France what do you think Europe would look like today? America DID save you in WW2, you just fail to understand how.



Your totally deluded.

Had the scenario you describe occurred, Britain would have pulled the 14th Army ( along with other Commonwealth Troops and equipment ) out of The Far East to take on the threat nearer to home.
Leaving the U.S. to take on The Japanese without British involvement.

No once again I am being replied to by someone completely ignorant. You think the Indian troops would leave India to be devastated to defend Britain? Then you think they will transport them all to Britain without the Axis finding out and attacking?

Just such a stupid reply.



Who mentioned Indian Troops ? The Commonwealth includes many other countries apart from India. There where around half a million troops alone from countries in East, West and South Africa.

Source that. from what I have read it was half a million men total and most of them were Indian.


As for them being attacked by the axis powers. With what exactly? Germany had zero aircraft carries, had lost most of her large ships. Their U Boats where mainly tied up in The North Atlantic to engage The Arctic Convoys. The Italian navy was no longer a threat after Italy signed an armistice with the allies in 1943. The Japanese navy was kept occupied in The Far East.

What ships would transport them? What ships would protect the transport? How are they storming the beach since numbers alone would not have won the day, so even getting the same number of troops the US provided would still have resulted in failure. Unless it was VERY protected you think the U Boats would not have diverted to sink a huge troop convoy? Then you can tell me how the British forces would even be able to get on transports as they were retreating getting their asses handed to them by the Japanese.



As for being a stupid reply, take a look in the mirror.

Everything you posted was wrong. I don't need a mirror, you need a book on military tactics and also human psychology.


Here is the source for African troops numbers

martinplaut.wordpress.com...

Total Commonwealth African troops. Over 1 million.

I won't even reply to the rest of your post, because like almost everything else you have stated, it is total bollocks.


edit on 11-8-2014 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: oblvion

But Australia made USA look like amateurs at jungle warfare. There is a quote from one of the top viet cong commanders who even said that if the Americans had adopted the Australian tactics they would have won.

Dont make excuse for failures like "o but it was politics" that's just pathetic.

USA could have won Vietnam. But it didn't.

What do you do from failures? Cry? Make it excuses?

No you learn from those mistakes.


I agree 100% on both points.

Though it is a historic fact, America did not wage "total WAR" in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan.

Our military at the time was designed for "total WAR" not nancy games. They forced it onto them in all three of the above conflicts.

You can call it excuses all you want, it is a historical fact though. We did not wage "total WAR" in a single one of your examples, we played politics in all 3 of them.

America has not waged actual war since WW2, not once, well Korea was a close call it could go either way in that one.


Then thats the weakness of the USA military.

Total war is not always a good thing or what is needed. Sure you may have beat Vietnam/Iraq ect into submission but it would have caused even worse issues internationally.

Nuking or fire-bombing half of Vietnam or Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in the process. do you think thats really morally right in a situation were the USA is not under direct threat?

Sometimes you need a scalpel not a sledge hammer.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

I fully agree Britain would have been able to stave off Hitler without US support. What would have happened would be Russia bringing the Iron curtain to British shores, with only 1 front to fight, and Britain would eventually have lost that war if Russia pushed it. BEST case scenario with the US not saving Europe would be Russian control of all of Europe except the UK.


I sort of agree.

I dont think the USSR could have crossed the channel as they would have ended up encountering the same issues as the Germans..

But they USA was needed after the war as a counterbalance for the red army. Even with UK/USA Russia could likley have won if they tired and pushed us back to the UK it was precarious siltation.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Sorry, facts are facts. No French support the US probably never wins our war. No US support Europe is royally screwed after WW2. Why Europe feels the need to take credit for the Rev. War in helping America and then acting like US did nothing in WW2 is beyond me.


I dont think the USA gave nothing.

I recognise them as a equal ally in world war 2. with out either Russia/UK/USA things would have gone differently.

What annoy as Brits is "some" American like to act like they either won the war single handedly or there part was bigger than the other 2 major players when in fact it was about equal.

As for after the war? If it had just been the USA it likely would have gone the same way as if it was just the UK the USSR steamrollering over Europe. Neither of our armys could have stood alone against that juggernaut.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: oblvion

But Australia made USA look like amateurs at jungle warfare. There is a quote from one of the top viet cong commanders who even said that if the Americans had adopted the Australian tactics they would have won.

Dont make excuse for failures like "o but it was politics" that's just pathetic.

USA could have won Vietnam. But it didn't.

What do you do from failures? Cry? Make it excuses?

No you learn from those mistakes.


just out of curiosity what are these tactics? I haven't really heard much about that.


They were apparently a lot more methodical. They focused a lot more on ambushed and counter ambushes.

Wiki

They had there fair share of weaknesses too.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Unbelievable. I don't even know what to say after reading how this thread developed.

First off, Americans should be gratful and count themselves lucky, to have the former PzBrig 12 Commander in their ranks.

Second, I second everything Zaphod58 said. What is the big deal here anyways?

Seriously. What are Germans supposed to think when we read what (most of) you are posting???

And last ... I can't believe you folks are still quarreling over who beat Germany 70 YEARS AGO.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: oblvion

But Australia made USA look like amateurs at jungle warfare. There is a quote from one of the top viet cong commanders who even said that if the Americans had adopted the Australian tactics they would have won.

Dont make excuse for failures like "o but it was politics" that's just pathetic.

USA could have won Vietnam. But it didn't.

What do you do from failures? Cry? Make it excuses?

No you learn from those mistakes.


just out of curiosity what are these tactics? I haven't really heard much about that.


They were apparently a lot more methodical. They focused a lot more on ambushed and counter ambushes.

Wiki

They had there fair share of weaknesses too.

Thank you for that. More proof that the moronic politicians should have never been in charge telling the military how to fight. It's very sad how much pain and suffering US politicians caused in Vietnam because they refused to take a back seat.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Sorry, facts are facts. No French support the US probably never wins our war. No US support Europe is royally screwed after WW2. Why Europe feels the need to take credit for the Rev. War in helping America and then acting like US did nothing in WW2 is beyond me.


I dont think the USA gave nothing.

I recognise them as a equal ally in world war 2. with out either Russia/UK/USA things would have gone differently.

What annoy as Brits is "some" American like to act like they either won the war single handedly or there part was bigger than the other 2 major players when in fact it was about equal.

As for after the war? If it had just been the USA it likely would have gone the same way as if it was just the UK the USSR steamrollering over Europe. Neither of our armys could have stood alone against that juggernaut.

Well I am not one of those Americans. Most Americans have no idea how much the British forces helped in the Pacific. I do. Quibbling over who did more is just bad taste in my opinion. D-Day doesn't succeed without the British. Not may not have, WOULD NOT have. I do not concede my position that without the US the Iron Curtain envelops all of Europe, quite possibly the UK too. The US did not steamroll Germany alone, and we did not even beat Japan alone.

ETA: My wife hates the British because of her experiences with them in her home country (Philippines). I work non stop to change her opinion and want to bring here there as my one trip to London was simply incredible, and of all the people in the world the British are the ones I feel the closest to. A remarkable nation.
edit on 11-8-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

I fully agree Britain would have been able to stave off Hitler without US support. What would have happened would be Russia bringing the Iron curtain to British shores, with only 1 front to fight, and Britain would eventually have lost that war if Russia pushed it. BEST case scenario with the US not saving Europe would be Russian control of all of Europe except the UK.


I sort of agree.

I dont think the USSR could have crossed the channel as they would have ended up encountering the same issues as the Germans..

But they USA was needed after the war as a counterbalance for the red army. Even with UK/USA Russia could likley have won if they tired and pushed us back to the UK it was precarious siltation.

The UK/USA had the one weapon which assured them of victory. We had the bomb. The Russians may have had the ground power, but we had the automatic checkmate at the time, and we proved we would use it if we had to. Although I honestly think the UK/USA would have won without it, our military leaders at the time were without peer in my opinion.
edit on 11-8-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join