It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Power_Semi
All for another thread methinks, but......
No one is going to be stupid enough to fire nukes -
It'd be a hell of a bluff to call.
it was more the "loaning" of ship to air missiles, and air to air missiles that sorted the Falklands for us.
There's no question of whether 'we' would have won or not, just more of a question of when and how many more people, from both sides would have had to die over such an unnecessary issue.
Fault's lie with both sides and its sad to see that some people seem to continually drag the whole matter up again and again just as an opportunity to further their own agenda's.
As I said, a topic for another time and place.
Thatcher told the French if they didn't give us the disarm codes for the exocet then we'd nuke BA,
I truly despised Thatcher with a passion, but that's one hell of a story and shows she had balls bigger than most men!
- even if they did deserve it.
Sure, the Argentinian Junta and the Argie elite deserved it, but the ordinary Argentinian was just being used and manipulated the same as most of us.....
originally posted by: Jonjonj
But reducing American importance is a game we can all play, as Brits and Americans are friends, right? It is a drinking game where both get the desired result, leathered and laughing.
originally posted by: Baddogma
I'm a USA guy, but have a foot on both sides, that's really one side, as my dad joined the Royal Air Force (in fact, my name is derived from it's initials) at 17 via Canada and flew 25 missions over Fortress Europe in a B-17, then switched over to the U.S. Army Air Force after Pearl Harbor, and flew 25 more ... and obviously lived... and that leaves me with a whole mess of stories and a feeling that picking sides at all (on the Allied side, anyway) is the real fault in the question.
I can say he was very impressed with English resolve and resourcefulness, though.
I can also say it would've been utter hell (likely some mass starvation, though SPAM is only slightly better than starving... along with more cardboard tanks/planes in actual battle, etc) without the U.S. as active players, but England had a smaller, very cohesive population with extreme motivation against the Nazis and some stubborn, smart s.o.b.s ... and might've pulled it off... especially with the USSR mistake...
so 'might've survived without the U.S.'s help,' how's that?
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: cavtrooper7
At the time of the German invasion of the USSR, Stalin wanted nothing to do with a war with Germany. He'd purged too many Generals, and didn't really trust the ones that were left. So his military hierarchy was in a shambles essentially.
Many of his commanders weren't any better, or worse, then their opposition. Though there were exceptions. Mannheim. Kesselring. Geuderian (sp?). ...and a few others. You'll notice I don't have Rommel on that list? I've always considered him a bit over-rated...not a bad commander by any stretch, but not the greatest thing since sliced bread that he's been all too often treated as.
Actually, as far as his interference with weapons manufacturing goes? Shouldn't have touched that.
Insane? Yeah. I'd go along with that...
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: crazyewok
If the United States did not implement the Lend-Lease Program, Britain would have suffered more severely. Eventually, Churchill would have lost a vote of confidence and Britain would have joined the Reich on its own terms, as it joined the EU. Heil Hitler and King George!
Lend lease though was not "aid" or charity.
It was a business transaction.
It was not done out of the goodness of the USA heart.