The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it

Merge the Syria Threads

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Total voters
    6

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
The British? The British were tailing behind the Canadians as they lead the way straight up to Ortona where they could have gone the distance but had to wait it out until the British caught up and took the PR of winning the battle. How do you like that little bit o kit? The truth of N Africa and Italy is a Canadian victory.

 

hunboldt

Time Out
May 5, 2013
2,427
0
36
at my keyboard
US landings in North Africa secured the victory as well as the Germans not being able to get troops and supplies to Afrika Corps because they had bigger problems with the Soviets.

The Germans turned their attention to the invasion of the USSR... thus ending the Battle of Britain.

Oh... BTW...

Eagle Squadrons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You fail again!

The Soviets did all the hard work until the US got involved.

As far as you red font propaganda... funny.


It wasn't our fight. You're the ones that foolishly declared war on Germany for Poland... a nation which you abandoned completely during and AFTER the war.



Which you would be wrong. The Luftwaffe and U-Boats would have rendered the RN useless if they brought them to full bear.


If full German power was concentrated on the Brits you would have been smothered. You just weren't strong enough.


No matter... we saved you in the end and as usual.



Re:
Which you would be wrong. The Luftwaffe and U-Boats would have rendered the RN useless if they brought them to full bear.

the Reich bought everything they had to the Bear-
Not a good idea, ol' chap...


 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
Why don't you just surrender sir, and admit that the Peoples Republic of Vermont won the War of 1812 hands down.

No. Britain did.

We also would have won the US War of Independence if it hadn't been for more important events elsewhere and the Americans having to rely on French help.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,337
9,517
113
Washington DC
No. Britain did.

We also would have won the US War of Independence if it hadn't been for more important events elsewhere and the Americans having to rely on French help.
Let's see. If I recollect right, you claimed earlier that the Napoleonic Wars were going on in 1776.

That'd be them English historians again, right?
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Just a couple of facts instead of political rhetoric.

Nobody won WW2. Hitler lost it due to spreading his forces far too thin fighting on 3 fronts at once. If he had gone at it one front at a time he most likely would have won.

FDR wanted into the war so bad he provoked the Japanese into an attack. He knew the attack was coming and that Pearl Harbour was the target days before it happened and did nothing to prevent it.

The US hasn't actually won a war since the civil war and that was only because they were fighting themselves.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Queen Latifah is the better Queen.

To whom?

Just a couple of facts instead of political rhetoric.

Nobody won WW2. Hitler lost it due to spreading his forces far too thin fighting on 3 fronts at once. If he had gone at it one front at a time he most likely would have won.

FDR wanted into the war so bad he provoked the Japanese into an attack. He knew the attack was coming and that Pearl Harbour was the target days before it happened and did nothing to prevent it.

The US hasn't actually won a war since the civil war and that was only because they were fighting themselves.

How did F.D.R. provoke the Japs into an attack?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
US landings in North Africa secured the victory as well as the Germans not being able to get troops and supplies to Afrika Corps because they had bigger problems with the Soviets.

What rubbish.The North African Landings was a British-dominated exercise.

The Second Battle of El Alamein, in which the British crushed the Germans, saw no American involvement.

The Germans turned their attention to the invasion of the USSR... thus ending the Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Britain ended after the British won it (without American help).

In fact, the failure of Germany to achieve its objectives of destroying Britain's air defences, or forcing Britain to negotiate an armistice or an outright surrender, is considered its first major defeat and a crucial turning point in the Second World War

So Britain inflicted Nazi Germany's first major defeat, and did so when fighting Nazi Germany on her own.


The Soviets did all the hard work until the US got involved.

The Soviets and the British.

No British victory in the Battle of Britain = No D-Day Landing in 1944.



It wasn't our fight. You're the ones that foolishly declared war on Germany for Poland... a nation which you abandoned completely during and AFTER the war.



There was nothing foolish in it.

Not only did Britain have to declare war on Germany after it invaded Poland to honour the treaty that stated that either Britain or Poland would go to the other's aid should either get invaded by Germany, but not declaring war on germany would have meant doing what America did for a few years - appeasing the tyranny of Naziism.

No Britain declaring war on Germany in 1939 = Europeans now all speaking German and all having blond hair and blue eyes in the Thousand Year German Reich.

If full German power was concentrated on the Brits you would have been smothered. You just weren't strong enough.


Bull****. We were producing those planes and ships faster than the Germans were producing theirs. We were grinding out those war weapons faster than anyone else.

Britain was also, don't forget, the world's strongest naval power.

No matter... we saved you in the end and as usual.


That's not what a lot of historians says.








 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
To whom?



How did F.D.R. provoke the Japs into an attack?
Surprised you need education on this since you were around when it happened but...

In 1940, Japan invaded French Indochina in an effort to control supplies reaching China. The United States halted shipments of airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline to Japan; this was perceived by Japan as an unfriendly act.[nb 6] The U.S. did not stop oil exports to Japan at that time in part because prevailing sentiment in Washington was that such an action would be an extreme step, given Japanese dependence on U.S. oil,[21][22] and likely to be considered a provocation by Japan.

The U.S. ceased oil exports to Japan in July 1941...
FDR knew this would lead to hostilities, especially since he was supplying China, Japan's enemy, with arms and fuel.

Further to that FDR refused to negotiate with Japan and basically required a total surrender of sovereignty.

Japan and the U.S. engaged in negotiations during the course of 1941 in an effort to improve relations. During these negotiations Japan offered to withdraw from most of China and Indochina when peace was made with the Nationalist government, adopt an independent interpretation of the Tripartite Pact, and to not discriminate in trade provided all other countries reciprocated. These proposals were rejected by Washington. Japan's final proposal, on 20 November, offered to withdraw their forces from southern Indochina and not to launch any attacks in southeast Asia provided that the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands ceased aiding China and lifted their sanctions against Japan.[29] The American counterproposal of 26 November (the Hull note) required Japan to evacuate all of China without conditions and conclude non-aggression pacts with Pacific powers.

Attack on Pearl Harbor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Too bad they can't muster the testicular fortitude to help enforce the international convention against poison gas. Particularly ironic considering how badly their own forces suffered from poison gas in WWI.

Steady, reliable allies are a blessing. I wish we had some.

Yeah, well wiht that attitude, you might be waiting a while. :lol:
 

hunboldt

Time Out
May 5, 2013
2,427
0
36
at my keyboard
No. Britain did.

We also would have won the US War of Independence if it hadn't been for more important events elsewhere and the Americans having to rely on French help.

Oh come now BL. when Jefferson closed the seaports in 1807 the Green Mountain Republic made out like Bandits along the Lake Champlain route. The war came and they got to play 'Switzerland'

By 1814 Britain is exhausted, America is broke, and Governor Crittendens' little realm saw almost no fighting and garnered all the gold.
WHAT DO you mean Vermont didn't win?
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
That's a favourite refrain of Americans, who believe in their glorified and romaniticised history. "WE SAVED YOUR BUTTS DURING WWII, MAN, YEEEEAAAHHHHHH!!!"

The truth is that many historians are of the belief that Britain would have won the war without the belated "help" of the United States.

The Americans were key. Even before they joined the combat effort in 1941, their industrial base was keeping England going. There were no shortage of elements in the US that backed Hitler, but by and large, the Brits were seen as the good guys.

But let's make this clear--the Americans who helped saved Britain (and the Canadians and the British who saved Britain) are all very old or dead now. We don't get to sit here and be all sanctimonious as we sit in front of our computers, never having gone through what they went through, and lay claim to their efforts and their victories, just by virtue of the fact that we were born in the same general area of the planet as they were.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,933
1,910
113
You aren't very good at comprehending history are you?

Firstly this is what you said:

The British were tailing behind the Canadians as they lead the way straight up to Ortona where they could have gone the distance.

What you didn't mention during your American-like attempt to cast the British military - the best in the world - as inept bufoons and cast yourselves as all-conquering heroes who bravely went in with all guns blazing and easily beating the enemy with your eyes shut and your hands tied behind your back was that the British COULDN'T go the difference.

The Canadian 1st Infantry Division had relieved the EXHAUSTED British 78th Infantry Division on the Allied right flank on the Adriatic coast.

It was not, as you try to make it out, a bunch of heroic Canadians still taking the fight to the Germans whilst the British were merely "tailing behind".

There was a good reason why the British 78th Infantry Division were "tailing behind" - they were exhausted.

After all, before Ortona the British 78th Infantry Division had taken part in the Tunisia Campaign - where they gained a formidable reputation - and took part in the Invasion of Sicily.

Units also saw action in Greece, Palestine, and Egypt. Notable engagements include in Tunisia Longstop Hill, in Sicily the Battle of Centuripe and in Italy the assaults on the Viktor Line (Battle of Termoli), the Barbara Line and the River Sangro (Gustav Line) all before Ortona.

And secondly, I think it's quite bizarre to say North Africa was a Canadian victory just because of what happened at Ortona.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
No. Britain did.

Keep that L in the wins and loss column BL! You must be in such a "spot" now.

We also would have won the US War of Independence if it hadn't been for more important events elsewhere and the Americans having to rely on French help.

Now that was a complete azz kicking by farmers and merchants! You needed the Hessians to boost your forces and they got whipped too!

Just a couple of facts instead of political rhetoric.

Nobody won WW2. Hitler lost it due to spreading his forces far too thin fighting on 3 fronts at once. If he had gone at it one front at a time he most likely would have won.

Nah... the Soviets would have whipped him eventually... as would the Anglo-Allies.

FDR wanted into the war so bad he provoked the Japanese into an attack. He knew the attack was coming and that Pearl Harbour was the target days before it happened and did nothing to prevent it.

Myth

The US hasn't actually won a war since the civil war and that was only because they were fighting themselves.

Wow... you're full of all sort of silliness!

FDR knew this would lead to hostilities, especially since he was supplying China, Japan's enemy, with arms and fuel.

The US didn't feel like fueling Japanese expansionist policies.

Further to that FDR refused to negotiate with Japan and basically required a total surrender of sovereignty.

Now what are you babbling about?
 

hunboldt

Time Out
May 5, 2013
2,427
0
36
at my keyboard
Firstly this is what you said:

The British were tailing behind the Canadians as they lead the way straight up to Ortona where they could have gone the distance.

What you didn't mention during your American-like attempt to cast the British military - the best in the world - as inept bufoons and cast yourselves as all-conquering heroes who bravely went in with all guns blazing and easily beating the enemy with your eyes shut and your hands tied behind your back was that the British COULDN'T go the difference.

The Canadian 1st Infantry Division had relieved the EXHAUSTED British 78th Infantry Division on the Allied right flank on the Adriatic coast.

It was not, as you try to make it out, a bunch of heroic Canadians still taking the fight to the Germans whilst the British were merely "tailing behind".

There was a good reason why the British 78th Infantry Division were "tailing behind" - they were exhausted.

After all, before Ortona the British 78th Infantry Division had taken part in the Tunisia Campaign - where they gained a formidable reputation - and took part in the Invasion of Sicily.

Units also saw action in Greece, Palestine, and Egypt. Notable engagements include in Tunisia Longstop Hill, in Sicily the Battle of Centuripe and in Italy the assaults on the Viktor Line (Battle of Termoli), the Barbara Line and the River Sangro (Gustav Line) all before Ortona.

And secondly, I think it's quite bizarre to say North Africa was a Canadian victory just because of what happened at Ortona.[/QUOTE

Wots all that got to do with Vermont winning the War of 1812, I say?]

BTW, mein Kat got the iron cross while for Ratting at Tobruk. So there...
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC

Well share what you know Diane Feinstein.. or you're just another lying politician.. claiming damning 'intelligence' too 'sensitive' to release.. like the notorious propaganda campaign of GH Bush, Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice prior to the Iraq War.

And let us know the source.. which i guess might have been diced, spliced and blended by the Pro Israel Lobby.. which seems to be the elephant in the room nobody mentions in determing what conceivable national interest Syria poses to the US.
 
Last edited: