quote:

ORIGINAL: vield

There were MANY contributing people who helped bring about an Allied victory in World War I. This includes native forces from many parts of the French and British Empires, the Japanese Empire and some south American countries. Russia, France Germany and Great Britain suffered the most millions of casualties from battle and disease.

The American insistence upon the development of the convoy system in 1917 enabled the Allies to finally get a bit of control over the German U-boat offensive, which came close to winning the war before that.

The addition of a number of dreadnought and superdreadnought American battleships to the Grand Fleet put any hopes of a German surface naval victory out of reach. The Grand Fleet already significantly outnumbered the German High Seas Fleet by 1917, even though Germany had the second largest battle fleet in the world at the time. Adding American battleships to the Grand Fleet made another Jutland type battle very unlikely, even in conjunction with a mine and U-boat ambush,. This may have contributed to the mutiny of the German Hugh Seas Fleet in 1918.

The addition of units of the American Army and Marines to the Western Front helped stop the German Ludendorf offensives of 1918, where they tried to use their veteran troops from the Eastern Front to over run France, after Russia collapsed and made peace.

Supplies of food, money and many raw material from the US to the Allies gave them a great deal of benefits even when the US was still neutral.

Excellent British information and advertising also helped the Allies and hurt Germany.

America did not suffer the loss of an entire generation of their young men, as did Great Britain, France, Russia and Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

It was my tagline, chosen because I was getting tired of the 'Holier than thou" attitude a few British posters were demonstrating in some threads. I have one now that is more appropriate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

There is an entire thread dedicated to trashing the US proclaming us to be the worlds greatest terrorists and you are whineing about a tag line?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm not sure if there's any basis in fact for WWI, aside from the Lusitania, as Kirata pointed out. I'm not even sure that counts though. I think it was something like 2 years between Lusitania and our entrance into the war. Kirata may have some other information that I don't on that, though. I think the most compelling reason that we entered the war was that while the British were "making their stand against evil", they couldn't afford it. Between the beginning of WWI and Americas entrance into the war, the U.S. had invested over 2 1/2 billion dollars in the Allies. America entered the war because the Allies were getting their asses kicked. If the Allies had lost, they wouldn't have been able to pay the money back.

WWII begins for the British in September 1939. By fall 1940 the Luftwafa had decimated British cities. The Battle of Britain was an all out offensive that could have easily broken the back of the Brits. Things were pretty grim for the Brits until Project Ultra managed to crack the code of the Enigma machines. Had they not broken Germanies codes, WWII might have turned out very different. Breaking the codes enabled the British to turn the war around during the Battle of Britain. Winston Churchill reportedly told King George VI that the war would not have been won without Ultra. Unfortunately, Britain took one hell of a beating before they reached that crucial turning point.

How bad off was Britain? America's first real involvement was an arms deal in which America traded 50 outdated Destroyers for 8 bases. Between that deal and our entry into the war over a year later, the U.S. "loaned" the British all kinds of military equipment and because their factories were incapable of supplying their war effort. Even with the success of Ultra, it is folly to think that the British could have survived WWII intact without Americas intervention.

Right now the Brits are fighting alongside Americans again. I believe the unofficial designation of a British soldier in Afghanistan is "non-electric pop-up target". Thank you for your service.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I always assumed that the anger over the Iraq invasion was because that the story that was floated was that it was predominently British Intel that told us that Iraq had WMDs. Wasn't that what Bush et al. were selling?



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

There is an entire thread dedicated to trashing the US proclaming us to be the worlds greatest terrorists and you are whineing about a tag line?

Indeed I am, or are you not in favour of my right to free speech ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm not sure if there's any basis in fact for WWI, aside from the Lusitania, as Kirata pointed out. I'm not even sure that counts though. I think it was something like 2 years between Lusitania and our entrance into the war. Kirata may have some other information that I don't on that, though. I think the most compelling reason that we entered the war was that while the British were "making their stand against evil", they couldn't afford it. Between the beginning of WWI and Americas entrance into the war, the U.S. had invested over 2 1/2 billion dollars in the Allies. America entered the war because the Allies were getting their asses kicked. If the Allies had lost, they wouldn't have been able to pay the money back.

WWII begins for the British in September 1939. By fall 1940 the Luftwafa had decimated British cities. The Battle of Britain was an all out offensive that could have easily broken the back of the Brits. Things were pretty grim for the Brits until Project Ultra managed to crack the code of the Enigma machines. Had they not broken Germanies codes, WWII might have turned out very different. Breaking the codes enabled the British to turn the war around during the Battle of Britain. Winston Churchill reportedly told King George VI that the war would not have been won without Ultra. Unfortunately, Britain took one hell of a beating before they reached that crucial turning point.

How bad off was Britain? America's first real involvement was an arms deal in which America traded 50 outdated Destroyers for 8 bases. Between that deal and our entry into the war over a year later, the U.S. "loaned" the British all kinds of military equipment and because their factories were incapable of supplying their war effort. Even with the success of Ultra, it is folly to think that the British could have survived WWII intact without Americas intervention.

Right now the Brits are fighting alongside Americans again. I believe the unofficial designation of a British soldier in Afghanistan is "non-electric pop-up target". Thank you for your service.

-SD-

Edited to fix quote.

No one is suggesting we couldnt have done it without Americas help. Its the notion you "saved us" that is laughable, in either war.

Just an aside on the appeasement issue. It needs to be remembered we lost over 4 million men in WW1, so trying to make a peace treaty was sensible. It also needs to be remembered that while Chamberlain cops the flack for the "peace for our time" comment. no one else in the west was doing anything more constructive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

Silly OP - Britian doesn't fight to the last American - it fights to the last colonial!

Get it right!

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

Silly OP - Britian doesn't fight to the last American - it fights to the last colonial!

Get it right!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

I'm not sure if there's any basis in fact for WWI, aside from the Lusitania, as Kirata pointed out. I'm not even sure that counts though. I think it was something like 2 years between Lusitania and our entrance into the war. Kirata may have some other information that I don't on that, though. I think the most compelling reason that we entered the war was that while the British were "making their stand against evil", they couldn't afford it. Between the beginning of WWI and Americas entrance into the war, the U.S. had invested over 2 1/2 billion dollars in the Allies. America entered the war because the Allies were getting their asses kicked. If the Allies had lost, they wouldn't have been able to pay the money back.

WWII begins for the British in September 1939. By fall 1940 the Luftwafa had decimated British cities. The Battle of Britain was an all out offensive that could have easily broken the back of the Brits. Things were pretty grim for the Brits until Project Ultra managed to crack the code of the Enigma machines. Had they not broken Germanies codes, WWII might have turned out very different. Breaking the codes enabled the British to turn the war around during the Battle of Britain. Winston Churchill reportedly told King George VI that the war would not have been won without Ultra. Unfortunately, Britain took one hell of a beating before they reached that crucial turning point.

How bad off was Britain? America's first real involvement was an arms deal in which America traded 50 outdated Destroyers for 8 bases. Between that deal and our entry into the war over a year later, the U.S. "loaned" the British all kinds of military equipment and because their factories were incapable of supplying their war effort. Even with the success of Ultra, it is folly to think that the British could have survived WWII intact without Americas intervention.

Right now the Brits are fighting alongside Americans again. I believe the unofficial designation of a British soldier in Afghanistan is "non-electric pop-up target". Thank you for your service.

-SD-

Edited to fix quote.

No one is suggesting we couldnt have done it without Americas help. Its the notion you "saved us" that is laughable, in either war.

Just an aside on the appeasement issue. It needs to be remembered we lost over 4 million men in WW1, so trying to make a peace treaty was sensible. It also needs to be remembered that while Chamberlain cops the flack for the "peace for our time" comment. no one else in the west was doing anything more constructive.

Unfortunatly for Chamberlain his peace in our time comment charactorizes the attitude of the western democracies perfectly, I have always considered him a symble of the wests weakness in the face of Hitler, not a solo act.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Just an aside on the appeasement issue. It needs to be remembered we lost over 4 million men in WW1, so trying to make a peace treaty was sensible. It also needs to be remembered that while Chamberlain cops the flack for the "peace for our time" comment. no one else in the west was doing anything more constructive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic



It is offensive bollocks Polite and so is the new one.
However it doesnt surprise me in the least