What about at the end of WWII? Could britain have stopped the USSR if they had attacked them at the end of WWII?
Why? Why childish when you have been posting arguments that the US could have attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why is it any different to wonder the same thing about Britain? It’s not. You just don’t like it.[/quote]
TROLL POST
You know firstly that I have answered your Britian Vs Soviet union question. And agree with you.
Secondly, you are going over territory that has been gone over countless times already even after the majority here agreed on the facts of Potsdam.
REASON
Well, its obvious, you continue to try for the same reaction to somehow increase your ego (Idont know why though).
Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.[/quote]
I would agre wth this as well. I would go further, if Germany hadnt declared war on the US, I dont think public support would have been there for the US to declare war on Germany.[/quote]
The UK didn’t have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don’t know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?
Nope. I agree with you. The thing is that in 1939 neither we (the free world) nor the general public, at that time, had any inkling of the final solution (nor I suspect did most Nazis). We thought it was another German Land Grab.[/quote]
Again, Germany attacked Britain. Do they not teach that in school in britain?
FluffyBunnyGB wrote:
I’m not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that’s open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it’s the right thing, not because you HAVE to.
None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.
Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn’t have joined in to stop it?
The UK didn’t have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don’t know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?
TROLLING again IRONCHILD
Reason - When was Britain attacked by Germany prior to a declaration of war in support of our treaty with Poland? It wasn’t, so yet again you are posting rubbish.
No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why did they not do it?
The UK didn’t have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don’t know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?[/quote]
Wrong. Tough this time not Troling, but uninformed.
The UK and France declared war on Germany when they attacked Poland.
We stated to germany that if they attacked Poland we would be at WAR.
Ergo, we went to war. We (the UK and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around).
No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII, and why did they not try?
Americans would resent that. We had no need for our country to go to war until Pearl Harbor.[/quote]
I would agre wth this as well. I would go further, if Germany hadnt declared war on the US, I dont think public support would have been there for the US to declare war on Germany.[/quote]
That’s where you are wrong.[/quote]
please explain why you think the US would have declared war on Germany in Dec 41?
FluffyBunnyGB wrote:
Quote:
FluffyBunnyGB wrote:
I’m not sure the UK NEEDED to get involved in WW2 either (but that’s open to discussion) but sometimes you do things because it’s the right thing, not because you HAVE to.
None of us NEEDED to get involved in Korea or GW 1 & 2, but we did.
Knowing what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, Gypsies, catholics, Poles etc etc, do you still think that all of the free World shouldn’t have joined in to stop it?
The UK didn’t have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don’t know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?
TROLLING again IRONCHILD
Reason - When was Britain attacked by Germany prior to a declaration of war in support of our treaty with Poland? It wasn’t, so yet again you are posting rubbish.
EDIT - spelling
No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII, and why did they not try?
Reason - I have emboldened your question, which has nothing to do with Britain attacking the USSR at the end of the war.
Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:
They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany’s behavior.
Lie 1. The British did see it coming many years before the start of the war.
Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.
Lie 2. British troops were in France in large numbers before any German invasion.
More? Doubtful, but more is not the same as adequately. Historians say otherwise. No relevance to the questions. Still haven’t ansered them.
Lie 3. Questions were answered comprehensively by BDL and in short by others.
Yes and no. Radar yes. Only with fully mechanized, no. No relevance to the questions. Still haven’t ansered them.
Lies 4 and 5. Questions remain fully answered. Radar and mechanization show forward planning going back years. Entirely relevant to the questions since radar in particular made an enormous contribution to the first victory against the Germans (Battle of Britain) and ultimately to the winning of the war by achieving victory in said battle. Furthermore, for relevance the, British Army did not have the enormous reliance on horses and horse-drawn vehicles that Germany did, for instance.
No relevance. Still haven’t answered the question.
Lies 6 and 7. The fact that Britain was beaten by superior tactics and not by lack of preparation is entirely relevant. If that isn’t, what is? Question was answered.
No relevance. Still haven’t answered the questions.
Lie 8 and 9. ENTIRELY relevant that British prime minister new that war was on the horizon, and entirely relevant that Britain PREPARED for war by arming squadrons with Spitfires and Hurricanes. Question was answered.
No relevance. You have not explained why, once the Germans were pushed to Berlin, the british did not attack the Soviet Union and prevent them from being naughty in Eastern Europe.
Lie 10 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 1. Entirely relevant, and original questions made no reference to attacking the Soviet Union, merely to being better prepared for war and getting to Eastern Europe first.
So, you are saying that the british felt no need to attack the Soviet Union? It was not necessary? You are not being very clear.
Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 2. The original questions made no mention of attacking the USSR.
You have not answered the questions:
Why did britian not attack the Soviet Union at the end of WWII to prevent them from doing what they did?
Lie 11 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 3. Questions were comprehensively answered to within reasonable standards and attacking the USSR was NEVER mentioned in the original questions.
Could the Allies have won WWII if the british had put an army in France before the Germans invaded?
Lie 12. Undisputed and easily verifiable historical fact that the British Army was heavily committed to France before the Germans invaded.
Did the british not have enough foresight to defend France or did the age old France vrs England crap stand in their mental way?
Lie 13. Britain fully committed to the defence of France before Germany invaded.
That’s a good point.
Lie 14. It’s a complete none point based on entirely wrong information.
It could be that britain failed to come to the aid of France because of stupid pride.
Lie 15. Britain did not fail to come to the aid of France.
Maybe they would have rather watched France get clobbered than help.
Lie 16.
Britain would not rather watch France get clobbered than help - we very nearly compromised our own liberty in defence of France because of the defeat suffered there.
Britain would not rather watch France get clobbered than help - we very nearly compromised our own liberty in defence of France because of the defeat suffered there.
Lie 17. We helped France continually from 1939 to 1945 - not just after on and after D-Day.
So why the failure to properly prepare or support France instead of watching France get over-run?
Lie 18. Britain did prepare and did support France from the outset. Easily verifiable fact.
Lie 19. Easily verifiable, documented fact that the British were very heavily committed in France in 1939/1940.
What about at the end of WWII? Could britain have stopped the USSR if they had attacked them at the end of WWII?
Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 4. Original questions contained NO reference to attacking USSR, nor to the end of WWII.
Why? Why childish when you have been posting arguments that the US could have attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why is it any different to wonder the same thing about Britain? It’s not. You just don’t like it.
Lie 20. Original thread about US attacking Russia was posted by an AMERICAN poster, and some BRITISH posters, among others in that thread, generally had the consensus that to do so would have been difficult at best, impossible at worst, and folly either way. Other British posters believed that it would ultimately have been an Western-Allies victory, and provided REASONS for this. Either way, an interesting discussion was had by all without resort to lies and petty childishness… Something you could learn from.
So, you are saying that Britain should just leave it up to the US right? Kinda like Korea and Vietnam?
Lie 21, Lie 22 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 5. Not what the poster said at all, and more to the point, trying to shift to Korea and Vietnam. Second of the two lies is that Britain didn’t leave Korea up to the US as you suggest, as others have explained.
No relevance. Not relevant to why britain did not attack the USSR at the end of WWII
Lies 23 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 6. It is entirely relevant that the BEF and Dunkirk existed as it shows Britain was both prepared and in France, despite your dishonest or entirely stupid, ignorant claims to the contrary. Shifting goal posts because the original questions did not include attacking the USSR, or about the end of the war.
No relevance. You have yet to provide an answer.
Lies 24 and 25. Entirely relevant. Britain was in no position to put 100,000 troops outside Berlin after the Battle of Britain until 1945. The question was also answered on the first page.
[quote]1000ydstare wrote:
Try and drag yourself away from inane comics, and computer games. How would they have got there? In what planes? The Luftwaffe was still quite strong after the Battle of Britian.
Why didn’t the yanks get their arses in to the war quicker? They seem to make sure they there at the kick off at everyone since!!!
Maybe airdroping all of the Doughboys in on Berlin would have worked.
Or maybe not.
Try and keep your computer game tactics to yourself, you can’t hit restart when you start losing a war.
No relevance. You have not provided an answer.[/quote]
Lies 25 and 26. Entirely relevant as illustrates the sheer stupidity of the original questions and also questions the sanity of original question 3.
The question was why did not Britain attack the USSR at the end of the war to prevent them from doing what they later did.
Do you remember the question?
Lie 27. Original questions are:
[i]Could Britain have stopped the USSR from getting to Berlin before the Allies if:
They had been better prepared for WWII. They were poorly prepared, and should have seen it coming because of the signs given by Germany’s behavior.
Having been better prepared, they could have convinced France to allow them to place 100,000 British troops in France to counter any German invasion force.
Paratrooped every available man outside of Berlin after the end of the battle of Britain.[/i]
No mention of attacking the USSR nor of the end of the war.
The UK didn’t have a choice. They were attacked by Germany. Surely you don’t know so little about WWII that you think Britain could have just stayed out of it, do you?
Lie 28. Britain declared war on Germany - not the other way around, and not after being attacked. Easily verifiable, well known, well documented, undisputed historical fact! (again)
Again, Germany attacked Britain. Do they not teach that in school in britain?
Lie 29. Not what happened. Easily verifiable, well known, well documented, undisputed historical fact!
No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII? Why did they not do it?
Lie 30, Lie 31 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 7. It is relevant, the question has been answered ad nauseum by this point, and the original questions contained NO mention of attacking the USSR at the end of the war.
No relevance. You have not answered the question. Could britain have saved Eastern Europe if they had attacked the USSR at the end of WWII, and why did they not try?
Lie 32, Lie 33 and Dishonest Shifting of Goal Posts 8. Repeating himself to nudge up his lie quota.
So I count 33 bare faced or completely ignorant lies, easily avoided had he
A) any ability to comprehend what is written
B) any grasp of the actual course of history in the Real World as opposed to his own.
Along with 8 attempts to dishonestly shift the goal posts by claiming people should answer a question that was never originally asked.
Hence: TROLL THREAD.
The man is either a liar completely devoid of honour and integrity, immensely stupid - or most likely - both.
Its what he wants bluffcove but everyone is ignoring that fact and taking the arguement further, so just ignore his posts and any rooms created by him and the Mods will sort it out.
By the way… it doesnt help the site by argueing back at IRONMAN even if he is a lieing troll that insults you.
Just a quick one to anyone but him, Why does he think the Brits had some kind of requirement to stop the USSR? In 1945 the Yanks were on side so surely they had the same requirement?
I don’t approve of threads being deleted unless they contain real slander, racial abuse, offensive material etc.
If you must do anything, then lock the thread, but don’t delete the fatuous posts for two reasons:
a. Interesting information is coming to light in these threads that I believe is worth preserving, even if only to answer questions like “why didn’t Britain have a nuclear weapons programme in WW2?”.
Answer - It did, at the start of the War, called TUBE ALLOYS, eventually to become part of the Manhattan project and the cryptonym for plutonium.
Just because a question starts from a false premise doesn’t mean the answers are of little use.
b. When IRONCHILD finds another forum, and its members are looking for evidence he’s a TROLL, there will be plenty on this site.
