nope, well, yes, well no, the british did actually way - #96622519 added by pellebauss at King Europe

Refresh

Options

asd

Reply-63

(07/05/2013)[-]

I think the reason why Europe is all slave like to America is because they can pull the, we saved your ass in WW2 card. Otherwise... I don't get why we support their wars...

#108 to #17 - chainchomp

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

you about forgot WWI too

#84 to #17 - fonzo

Reply-3

(07/05/2013)[-]

I like how people argues wether or not the US "SAVED" Europe.. As if Germany was this big ****** Destruction 300 Country of DooM who we all needed to be rescued from.

#24 to #17 - pellebauss

Reply-19

(07/05/2013)[-]

Well.... yes, the americans helped out during WW2, but its actually thanks to the british that we won the war, not the americans...

#127 to #24 - wtfareu

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

Great Britain would have been destroyed without the us and the soviet Union

#33 to #24 - komradkthulu

Reply+21

(07/05/2013)[-]

The ignorance in your post is unbelievable. If you truly believe the UK contributed more to the Allied victory than the Soviet Union's (who really won the war) 30 MILLION dead citizens (half of all deaths in the war) or trillions of dollars worth of Lend Lease Aid by North America, bask in your oblivious bliss.

#178 to #33 - pellebauss

Reply-3

(07/06/2013)[-]

im not saying that the UK contributed more than the Soviet Union, because that is not true, but they did way more than the US in the war. The US has taken credit for most of the work that british soldiers did. and while we are at the US helping, lets not forget wich country that dropped a nuclear bomb over Japan instead of just showing them what kind of damage it could do without risking anybodys life!

#179 to #178 - komradkthulu

Reply+1

(07/06/2013)[-]

You're showing your stupidity again. If you genuinely think the UK did more than the US, read a history book and educate yourself. Please. The US did most of the heavy lifting on the western front once it came into the war, thanks to its huge numerical advantage. It, more or less, single-handedly defeated the Japanese, other than the British roughing it alone in Burma.

The atomic bombing should not be condemned. Especially if the US had "showed what kind of damage it could do" it and the rest of the Allies that were set to invade in November would have killed millions of Japanese civilians and took hundreds of thousands of more casualties. Forcing a surrender with the A-Bomb was the humane decision.

Now, go read a history book or watch a documentary before you open your mouth to me again.

Take care
~Bradford

#152 to #33 - niggastolemyname#197 on commentsRank#197

Reply+2

(07/06/2013)[-]

this took me a minute, 30 minutes, great now I won't be able to wake up early...

#34 to #33 - Hreidmar

Reply-3

(07/05/2013)[-]

To be fair, more than half of the Soviet Casualites were caused by the Soviet side. At least the civilian casualties. Victims of the 'not one step back' policy, starvation (read about the Siege of Leningrad) and Stalinist purges.

#35 to #34 - komradkthulu

Reply+7

(07/05/2013)[-]

To be fair, the only reason the UK stayed afloat was because of American aid. Try to imagine a D-Day without the Americans that comprised 75% of the original force and say that the UK "won" the war for the allies.

I'm not saying the US won it, but to belittle its role is absurdity. Youfeelinme?

#36 to #35 - Hreidmar

Reply-7

(07/05/2013)[-]

I don't get involved in arguments about the US contribution. It very quickly turns into a monkey brawl and a game of 'who can use the most expletives.' The only thing I'll say is that I think the war could still have been won without the US, though it would have taken much, much longer and cost easily twice as many lives total. One of the deciding factors of the war was the cryptography and cryptanalysis effort, which was almost a purely British project. I'm not saying that the US contributed less than other countries, but I am saying that perhaps their involvement in the European front was less crucial. The Pacific and North African fronts are a different matter.

#37 to #36 - komradkthulu

Reply+3

(07/05/2013)[-]

Quite, the war could have been won in Europe thanks to the Soviets, Germany lost the moment Hitler lead them into the cold death that was Russia. However, it would've taken years longer.

#38 to #37 - Hreidmar

Reply-4

(07/05/2013)[-]

The Soviets AND the British. Don't underestimate the difficulty of conquering an island, even with an industrial machine like Germany's. I honestly doubt Hitler could have taken Britain, though he could have devastated it. Britain was too well prepared, though, again because of the cryptalanysis effort and Bletchley Park. Starting from late 1940 or so they could predict most of Germany's moves and even their submarine fleets were vulnerable.

#80 to #38 - anon id: 989d3dbd

Reply0

(07/05/2013)[-]

had Hitler cared less about Russia and used its force on Britain....he probably could have taken down Britain. Hitler ****** up when he led his troops into Russia which pretty much made Hitler wide open for an attack.

#86 to #80 - Hreidmar

Reply-1

(07/05/2013)[-]

That's true, the entire German army and industry could have probably taken down Britain. But yes, they were split between two fronts. All I'm saying is that even if America wasn't involved in the European front at all, I think that the split between the USSR and Britain would have rendered Hitler incapable of taking over either of them. Just a hypothetical situation, that's all.

#126 to #86 - anon id: f2d46dcd

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

This is absolutely ridiculous. WWII would not have been won without the might of the American industrial machine. We went from a 175,000 man military to an 8.2 million man military that was capable of fighting all over the world in a year. Britain could not have fought Germany in main land Europe without the support of the Americans. their military was absolutely devastated at Dunkirk and they never really fully recovered after that. If Hitler had just launched an amphibious assault Britain would have got its ass kicked.

The American war effort was vital in both the Eastern and Western front. I'll start with the West because it is chronologically sooner. The Russians lost most of their military industrial factories in the early German assault. These were located to the west because of the abundance of railroads in that part of the country. The Russians were unable to produce their own ammunition and many of the products required for the military because of this loss.

#130 to #126 - anon id: f2d46dcd

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Continued:

America provided Russia with almost all of its supplies to fight the war. We sent Half-tracks, scout cars, almost all of their ammunition used, fuel and steel, as well as many other resources. The famous T-34s were constructed using premium American steel as well as the Russian KS-1s and ISU-152 heavy tanks. Even the Russian heavy machine guns were American made as well as almost all the bullets fired by the Russian troops. It wasn't until near the end of the war when Russia recaptured much of its lost territory was it able to begin to produce its own weapons again. Without America Russia would have been fighting the Germans with sticks and never would have held out at Stalingrad or Leningrad and prevented the capture of Moscow.

Now lets look at the actions in northern Africa which were also key into denying Germany victory in both the Western and Eastern front. Britain had been completely defeated by Rommel in Africa and was in a full retreat.

#136 to #130 - anon id: f2d46dcd

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Continued:

The complete resupply of the British forces and the replacement of the lost armored troops as well as providing our own troops to halt and eventually defeat the German advance across Northern Africa. Rommel would have captured the oil fields in the Middle East which would have been the final nail on the coffin of the Russians in the Eastern front. The Germans had stretched themselves too far in the Eastern front and they began too run dangerously low on oil and gas for their Panzers. I do not think anyone can argue that it was the Americans that denied Germany these vital resources in Africa.

Britain's greatest achievement was during the Battle of Britain when for all intensive purposes the British forces smashed the Luftwaffe. This not only caused the planned German assault on Britain to stall because of the lack of needed air support required of the Amphibious landing, but it also gave the Allies a huge boost during D-Day and on the Eastern Front.

#139 to #136 - anon id: f2d46dcd

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Continued:

Britain also provided a staging area for the assault on Normandy. Without the island it would have been almost impossible to launch an assault from across the Atlantic and crossing the Alps in northern Italy would also have proven extremely difficult.

The Western front was also key to supporting the Russians in the East. Many of the Wehrmacht's most elite troops and Panzer Divisions were stationed on the Western front for R&R before heading back to the Eastern front. The fighting in the West was actually bloodier than in the East. The Americans and Germans both lost more men in the West per regiment fighting than they did in the East. Meaning that if you were in an American or Russian regiment you actually had a greater chance of living through the war in the Russian Regiments.

#143 to #139 - anon id: f2d46dcd

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

Continued:

In the end you need to ask your self could the war have been won with out the British? Of course it could have, but could the war have been won without America? No chance in hell. Between the complete supply of the Russian Army and the greatest amphibious assault in history the Americans were vital. Everyone always says how it was really the Russians that won WWII, but they definitely could not have done it without bullets or tanks or basically every other resource needed to fight a war. Not to mention we did all of this while fighting Japan in the Pacific and Southeast Asia which without a doubt was much harder than anything we did in Europe.

#48 to #38 - scousaj

Reply+2

(07/05/2013)[-]

Are you ******* kidding me, we were devastated during that war, Hitler could have easily taken Britain after a few more years of whittling down our navy and then launching a land invasion. Luckily the Soviets pushed Germany back otherwise we'd be ******. America putting massive pressure on Germany coupled with the unstoppable Soviets is what led to Hitler's downfall - the Soviets won the war.

#26 to #24 - buzzzz

Reply+6

(07/05/2013)[-]

It was actually the Russians...

#40 to #26 - anon id: 85c088b4

Reply0

(07/05/2013)[-]

America did support rebuilding Europe after WWII (Marshal plan) and America did lead the fight against the USSR during the Cold War

#27 to #26 - pellebauss

Reply-3

(07/05/2013)[-]

nope, well, yes, well no, the british did actually way more in WW2 than what they are credited for, but then agian if Henry Tandey shot Hitler in 1918 like he could(without any problems what soever) we hopefully wouldnt have had WW2

#28 to #27 - buzzzz

Reply+1

(07/05/2013)[-]

I guess that could have avoided war, but the great depression would have lasted way longer.

#76 to #28 - anon id: fbd15666

Reply0

(07/05/2013)[-]

War is good because it gave America more money, essentially.
I somehow question the morality of that assertion.

#29 to #28 - pellebauss

Reply-3

(07/05/2013)[-]

true, and also any other mad man with the ability to speak for himself could have started another war

#30 to #29 - buzzzz

Reply+2

(07/05/2013)[-]

Indeed. Also, war with the Russians would have been inevitable.

#31 to #30 - ekseevi**User deleted account**

Reply+3

(07/05/2013)[-]

Let's just all agree on that everyone did something... Except Sweden who just watched. literally.

//Swede.

#32 to #31 - buzzzz

Reply0

(07/05/2013)[-]

Switzerland*

#25 to #24 - mattymc

Reply+5

(07/05/2013)[-]

yeah because the british were totally going to hold their own in that war, the billions of tons of supplies from america were totaly unneccesary, not to mention that the russians did most of the work in europe

#23 to #17 - anon id: e833452c

Reply0

(07/05/2013)[-]

Well, America saved Europes ass in both world wars actually, as well as the world in WWII when Japan took over half of Asia. As well as most of Europe is fighting in the middle east as well as a america, because Terrorist are suicide bombing all across Europe too.

#121 to #23 - pottie

Reply0

(07/06/2013)[-]

No. Soviet Union had more of a role in WWII. And to clarify, in both wars, it was an effort from all participating countries, especially the ones which had the war on their door step and woke up to destruction every day!

#51 to #23 - anon id: 44cdca95

Reply0

(07/05/2013)[-]

Lol it's not like America was like, "Lets help those guys, because we want to". They were more like, "Let's help them, because we got attacked by the Germans (WW1 when Germans sunk the Lusitania), and when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Americans were actually being selfish by not helping out in the first place...

#77 to #51 - hor

Reply+3

(07/05/2013)[-]

"God, the Americans have to get involved in everything, don't they have their own problems?"
"God, the Americans are fighting back? Selfish bastards."

#88 to #77 - anon id: 44cdca95

Reply0

(07/05/2013)[-]

Lol I think this is different, because mass genocide is being committed...

Back to the content 'King Europe'