Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

castille · Jan 31, 2004, 11:52 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Aw you know how to piss people off don't you Castille?

First of all, Great Britain and France were racked by Depression during the 30's, we were not prepared to fight.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So? Germany was racked by huge inflation, bankruptcy, and mass starvation. Oh no, the Poms have a bit of depression! I guess the British Royalty don't mind when the Kruts starve eh?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The Germans meanwhile had spent six years re-arming, while we were disarming.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Of course, Britain had 6 years of unlimited resources from their Imperial colonies in Africa, Canada, and Asia....and lots of "servants" to mine the resources and send it to mother Britain.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Hitler had intended to invade Britain, under Operation Sealion, by battering GB from the air. But we endured 9 months of air attack, took out more Germans planes than they did ours (despite the Mescherschmitt being MUCH better techologically than our Spitfire)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There are several flaws with this. Firstly, the Germans were on the OFFENSIVE. This means that German aircraft shot down lost their pilots, while British aircraft shot down could recover their pilots.

Secondly, the Mescherschmitt wasn't technologically better than the Spitfire. Both were similiar, the differences were mainly in speeds (altitude-wise), turning rate, handling rate, reliability, etc. Both aircraft were very similiar.

Oh, and don't forget the fact that the Luftwaffe had higher levels of fatigue and fuel usage due to the fact that have to fly to the UK to fight, while the British fought on their own turf.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In North Africa we lost at Tobruk but rallied at El Alamain and defeated Rommel.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Britain (and US, Australia, New Zealand) defeated Rommel because of a huge superiority in numbers, equipment, and supplies. The British troops were extremely conservative and cautious (which cost them more lives), while Rommel was able to take risks. Don't forget the fact that the Germans were tied down by non-motorised Italian units; Rommel had to use German motorised divisions to cover the Italian retreat.

Also remember that Rommel did not have a great fleet to cart him supplies....and the desert is quite tough on any kind of offensive operations without adaquet supplies (where you gonna find water?). In effect the Germans were able to use minimal forces to achieve decisive victories, while the Allies
used sheer weight, numbers, and equipment to achieve their victory.

Also keep in mind the Russians did most of the fighting. At no time was there less than 75% of the German force on the Eastern Front, leaving less than 25% to fight the US/Britain/Australia/New Zealand/Brazil/India/later Italy.

Of course, when you consider that the Germans did not mass-produce equipment as much as the Allies did, you have to marvel at the individual German soldier's ability to fight with minimal supplies. Oh, and German equipment was rarely standardised (until Speer came in); most of the time you ended up with a dozen different prototypes (just examine the standard medium tank for the numerous prototypes), and you couldnt scream at Berlin loud enough to find replacement parts.

Seems like you've also experienced British propaganda.

By the way, how come you're pissed when people insult Britain, but you insult Americans in a racist manner? See below:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
What kind of vote can he cast? Americans are mostly uneducated because they are lazy and can survive with minimum education or ambition.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Fortunately, I'm not even from Europe, so most of my history books are objective when examining European history.

P.S. G Adams, didn't you say patriotism and nationalism are stupid? So why are you being so patriotic? Hyprocritical eh?

french_jew · Feb 14, 2004, 11:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Even the French werent happy with the British.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You forgot to mention that London was the key place of the "résistance" between 1940 and 1945. Almost all politicians opposing Nazis went to England as refugee.

Thus the french and the polish government organised the 'résistance' from London, with BBC's call to local "résistance" 's newspaper.

So, I don't think it's right to say that the British played a minor role against Hitler.

Nathan

marc1 · Apr 5, 2005, 08:44 pm

Orgaelin and the cb: I'm British and French so I can understand why you are so hateful concerning the France. Can you speak french? You say you've been there and you found them rude. If you can't speak it what the f do you expect. If i turned up in whatever hole you're from and spoke french how would you react?

mol_ten · Apr 6, 2005, 12:16 am

Don't declare me a "hippy" by the following statements, I am merely sensible: How a decent human being can despise an entire race of people is beyond me. Is the injustice not apparent? And for the angry brits - can't you put aside your spoiled pride for a moment and try to just let it go?

Jan 31, 2004, 11:52 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Aw you know how to piss people off don't you Castille? First of all, Great Britain and France were racked by Depression during the 30's, we were not prepared to fight.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So? Germany was racked by huge inflation, bankruptcy, and mass starvation. Oh no, the Poms have a bit of depression! I guess the British Royalty don't mind when the Kruts starve eh? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The Germans meanwhile had spent six years re-arming, while we were disarming.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Of course, Britain had 6 years of unlimited resources from their Imperial colonies in Africa, Canada, and Asia....and lots of "servants" to mine the resources and send it to mother Britain. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Hitler had intended to invade Britain, under Operation Sealion, by battering GB from the air. But we endured 9 months of air attack, took out more Germans planes than they did ours (despite the Mescherschmitt being MUCH better techologically than our Spitfire)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There are several flaws with this. Firstly, the Germans were on the OFFENSIVE. This means that German aircraft shot down lost their pilots, while British aircraft shot down could recover their pilots. Secondly, the Mescherschmitt wasn't technologically better than the Spitfire. Both were similiar, the differences were mainly in speeds (altitude-wise), turning rate, handling rate, reliability, etc. Both aircraft were very similiar. Oh, and don't forget the fact that the Luftwaffe had higher levels of fatigue and fuel usage due to the fact that have to fly to the UK to fight, while the British fought on their own turf. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by In North Africa we lost at Tobruk but rallied at El Alamain and defeated Rommel.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Britain (and US, Australia, New Zealand) defeated Rommel because of a huge superiority in numbers, equipment, and supplies. The British troops were extremely conservative and cautious (which cost them more lives), while Rommel was able to take risks. Don't forget the fact that the Germans were tied down by non-motorised Italian units; Rommel had to use German motorised divisions to cover the Italian retreat. Also remember that Rommel did not have a great fleet to cart him supplies....and the desert is quite tough on any kind of offensive operations without adaquet supplies (where you gonna find water?). In effect the Germans were able to use minimal forces to achieve decisive victories, while the Allies used sheer weight, numbers, and equipment to achieve their victory. Also keep in mind the Russians did most of the fighting. At no time was there less than 75% of the German force on the Eastern Front, leaving less than 25% to fight the US/Britain/Australia/New Zealand/Brazil/India/later Italy. Of course, when you consider that the Germans did not mass-produce equipment as much as the Allies did, you have to marvel at the individual German soldier's ability to fight with minimal supplies. Oh, and German equipment was rarely standardised (until Speer came in); most of the time you ended up with a dozen different prototypes (just examine the standard medium tank for the numerous prototypes), and you couldnt scream at Berlin loud enough to find replacement parts. Seems like you've also experienced British propaganda. By the way, how come you're pissed when people insult Britain, but you insult Americans in a racist manner? See below: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) What kind of vote can he cast? Americans are mostly uneducated because they are lazy and can survive with minimum education or ambition.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Fortunately, I'm not even from Europe, so most of my history books are objective when examining European history. P.S. G Adams, didn't you say patriotism and nationalism are stupid? So why are you being so patriotic? Hyprocritical eh? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 14, 2004, 11:54 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
french_jew Molten Ash Posts: 43	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Even the French werent happy with the British.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You forgot to mention that London was the key place of the "résistance" between 1940 and 1945. Almost all politicians opposing Nazis went to England as refugee. Thus the french and the polish government organised the 'résistance' from London, with BBC's call to local "résistance" 's newspaper. So, I don't think it's right to say that the British played a minor role against Hitler. Nathan

Apr 5, 2005, 08:44 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
marc1 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	Orgaelin and the cb: I'm British and French so I can understand why you are so hateful concerning the France. Can you speak french? You say you've been there and you found them rude. If you can't speak it what the f do you expect. If i turned up in whatever hole you're from and spoke french how would you react?

Apr 6, 2005, 12:16 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
mol_ten Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	Don't declare me a "hippy" by the following statements, I am merely sensible: How a decent human being can despise an entire race of people is beyond me. Is the injustice not apparent? And for the angry brits - can't you put aside your spoiled pride for a moment and try to just let it go?