Sure it is. We sent them to defend another nation, not our own. It’s astounding alright. An astounding contribution and sacrifice. If you cannot appreciate that, then you are beyone help. When was the last time Britain or France sent 1 million men to defend another nation? Oh wait! NEVER! :lol:
Sure it does. You mistakenly thought that my post was not releveant because you did not read or understand what it was in response to.
Sure it is. We sent them to defend another nation, not our own. It’s astounding alright. An astounding contribution and sacrifice. If you cannot appreciate that, then you are beyone help. When was the last time Britain or France sent 1 million men to defend another nation? Oh wait! NEVER! :lol:
Sure it does. You mistakenly thought that my post was not releveant because you did not read or understand what it was in response to.[/quote]
Im sorry mate, but you lack understanding of ww1. Britian went to war for belgium in 1914, not only did we send more than a million men to defend that, we lost almost a million dead.
I think you need to review your history.
Sure it does. You mistakenly thought that my post was not releveant because you did not read or understand what it was in response to.[/quote]
Please explain to me how the number of men the US sent to fight in WWI is relevant to the presence or not of British troops in France during 1940, or the failure of the US to provide military assistance to Britain or France until they were forced into the war.
[quote=“Crab_to_be”]
Sure it does. You mistakenly thought that my post was not releveant because you did not read or understand what it was in response to.[/quote]
Please explain to me how the number of men the US sent to fight in WWI is relevant to the presence or not of British troops in France during 1940, or the failure of the US to provide military assistance to Britain or France until they were forced into the war.[/quote]
Please explain to me why you are mentioning British troops when my rebuttle was to the false statement which implied that American toops not making much difference in either war.
Also, please explain why you think the US failed to save Europe soon enough when WWII was not even an American war untill early 1941.
Also, explain to me how sending 1 million men to defend another nation (WWI) is not a bold and gracious sacrifice for another nation’s freedom.
Explain why you blame the US for not saving a nation “soon enough” back then, and yet blame the US for saving one today?
Explain also your hypocricy in claiming that the US is to blame for anything involving European nations inability to defend themselves from each other without help from the US.
Because Crab is talking about WW2, not WW1.
Also, please explain why you think the US failed to save Europe soon enough when WWII was not even an American war untill early 1941.
Perhaps you should bear that in mind when you’re telling us how grateful us dumb old Europeans should be to America
Also, explain to me how sending 1 million men to defend another nation (WWI) is not a bold and gracious sacrifice for another nation’s freedom.
No-one said it wasn’t generous. We said it wasn’t that outstanding given the size of the European armies of the time.
Explain why you blame the US for not saving a nation “soon enough” back then, and yet blame the US for saving one today?
Because France wanted to be saved, Iraq didn’t?
Explain also your hypocricy in claiming that the US is to blame for anything involving European nations inability to defend themselves from each other without help from the US.
I haven’t seen Crab say anything is the US’ fault.
Hmmm… so because we were both willing and able to defend ourselves and defeat any German invasion attempt, somehow the fighting and dying we did doesn’t count. Riiight…
Ummm… Correct me if I’m mistaken here, but surely the US didn’t enter the war until Germany declared war on them in December 1941? If so, why exactly should the French rely on hanging on for two years for what was at the time an extremely nonbelligerent country to come to their aid?
I’d have to say most of us are probably highly familiar with them - but that they don’t tell the whole story. Most of the US troops arrived in France without the modern equipment needed to fight in the trenches (their artillery and aircraft were all provided by the French, their steel helmets by the British for example) and not fully trained. The first US troops to be used in a significant action were thrown in out of desperation in the 2nd battle of the Marne, and it wasn’t until the Meuse-Argonne offensive (September 1918) that US troops were committed to significant independent offensive action. By then of course the battles which finally decided the war (Amiens and 2nd Marne) had been fought and Germany was defeated.
(I did have a longer post than this which went into more detail about numbers, but my browser ate it 
)
Lets see: The UK entered the First World War on the 4th of August 1914, in response to the German invasion of Belgium. The UK had guaranteed Belgian neutrality under the 1839 Treaty of London, and as such was obliged to enter the war on the side of Belgium. British and Imperial military losses in WW1 were 908,371 dead or missing, 2,090,300 wounded.
The figures for total troops mobilised are 5,397,000 for Great Britain, 1,500,000 for India, and 1,209,000 for the Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa). Total of 8,106,000 for the British Empire. Incidentally, the US contribution was 4,272,500, roughly half the contribution of the British Empire.
No doubt you’re going to complain about being “beaten up by the British Thug Gang” now. Well frankly you deserve it in this case - you are deliberately and I suspect knowingly denigrating the sacrifices made by a huge number of men in order to make yourself feel superior. Given the depth of the scars the First World War left on the European psyche, I think you’re getting off lightly here.
Incidentally, the comparable numbers for WW2 are 5,896,000 for Great Britain, 2,393,891 for India and 1,790,000 for the Dominions. Total of 10,026,000 for the British Empire. The US contribution in this case was 16,112,566. As it appears to be relevant, the British Empire declared war to protect Poland, while the US declared war on Japan after it was attacked at Pearl Harbour and had war declared on it by Germany.
WWI was mentioned and we were discussing the men the US contributed to it. Stay with us here.
Hardly. But since it has been alluded to that the US “failed” to rescue Erurope sooner in a war the US did not start, you have fauiled to thwart the topic. You have also failed to provide the explaination as to why you think the US is responsible for Europe’s warmongering and why the US is somehow responsible for saving them, sooner or later or at all.
Yes, it was stated that a 1 million man contribution to the European war was not astonishing, when in fact, it is.
Really? The Iraqi people wanted to be ruthelessly ruled by the hideous and murderous Saddam? No, they did not. have you not watched TV in the last 5 years? Have you not seen the countless Iraqis that have stated that they are ever so glad to be liberated from the thug’s rule? I suppose not. So now you are trying to imply that the Iraqi people wanted to be brutalized and murdered and robbed by Saddam? Good Lord. Listen to your dumb self.
Really? You cannot understand the demeanor?
Peanut butter is good. Ham is better. Well well. I just said ham is better than peanut butter. How about that! :roll:
Yes, WW1 was mentioned, however Crab was talking about WW2. Do try and read posts before you press the ‘Reply with some comment about anti’Americanism’ button (where is that by the way? I still haven’t been able to find it. Do you get it when you get your 2Lt?
Hardly. But since it has been alluded to that the US “failed” to rescue Erurope sooner in a war the US did not start, you have fauiled to thwart the topic. You have also failed to provide the explaination as to why you think the US is responsible for Europe’s warmongering and why the US is somehow responsible for saving them, sooner or later or at all.
Given how grateful we are supposed to be for being rescued by the Americans, is it so churlish to point out that we had been fighting for so long before you turned up?
Yes, it was stated that a 1 million man contribution to the European war was not astonishing, when in fact, it is.
Why is it astonishing? You’ve been told that it wasn’t Britain’s war either, we were dragged in because of treaties we had signed with Belgium almost 100 years previously. Despite that, Britain raised over 8,000,000 men to fight, losing almost 1,000,000 - the size of the army sent by America. It was a good contribution, but it was not a remarkable contribution - especially when Britain and France had to supply most of the kit for them
Really? The Iraqi people wanted to be ruthelessly ruled by the hideous and murderous Saddam? No, they did not. have you not watched TV in the last 5 years? Have you not seen the countless Iraqis that have stated that they are ever so glad to be liberated from the thug’s rule? I suppose not. So now you are trying to imply that the Iraqi people wanted to be brutalized and murdered and robbed by Saddam? Good Lord. Listen to your dumb self.
Given how much time I spent lying on the floor of my tent listening to mortar rounds flying over it (which is nice when you have a POL point 30 feet away in one direction and someone has parked an UBRI (POL truck) 10 feet away in the other direction and you’re living in a tent) last summer, I would suggest that the Iraqis were not all that pleased to see us. If you’re personal experiances of Iraq (:lol:) contradict mine, please feel free to tell me.
Really? You cannot understand the demeanor?
Peanut butter is good. Ham is better. Well well. I just said ham is better than peanut butter. How about that! :roll:
No, I don’t. As I’ve said, I can’t find the ‘Reply with standard anti-Americanism rant’ button on my browser.
Good Lord boy. Stop trying to put words into other people’s mouths and twist comments to your agenda. Talk without playing circles games. You can only lose at that.
I did say the British accomplishment in defending against Germany was a real accomplishment. And you say that? Dude, take a Valium. Slow down. You are not thinking before you blather off.
Why do you allude that the US is responsible for France and Germany and Britain’s wars? You are alluding that the US is at fault for not jumping in to save them sooner. Listen close:
We did not start the war.
It was not our war.
We were not responsible for helping a freaking single person.
Got that? Ok. Now, what’s this bullshit whining about “Waaaaa! The US didn’t jump into WWII and save us sooner! Waaaaa! They are bad guys for not getting involved in European wars and finishing the wars that we start every 50 years! Waaaaa!”
Put a pacifier in that hole dude.
What does that have to do with the fact that the US provided 1 million men to fight a European war and help salvage Europe? Not a damned thing. It’s just you opening your catheter bag on the US. How sad.
Yea, that’s the official explaination. Here’s the real one:
“Unofficially, it was already generally accepted in government that Britain could not remain neutral, since without the co-operation of France and Russia its colonies in Africa and India would be under threat, while German occupation of the French Atlantic ports would be an even larger threat to British trade as a whole.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWI
Britain got involved to save it’s colonies and outside income. It was not out of heart for France. 
What does that have to do with the comment that was made about the US’s contribution of 1 million men to WWI not being a great one? Nothing my boy. Nothing at all. All those nations lost a lot of men. So? So did the US. It was not even our war! :lol:
Your slot car is off the track kiddo. It was Firefly who made the comment about the US’s contribution of 1 million men.
Who said anything about you supposed to be greatful? All this started because Firefly said that the US should be greatful because without France there would be no US, and I responded that without the US, France might not have been so fortunate in WWII. You’re not even on the subject. You are hearing things in the dark.
Because 1 million men is a lot of men, especially to be contributed to a war that is not yours.
So now insurgents are to you the Iraqi people? WTF? And they let you into the army? Is that the training you received? Is that what the British military is teaching it’s soldiers? That because there are insurgents in Iraq that they represent the iraqi people? They teach you that the extremists represent the iraqi population? :shock:
Ah ironman, reversion to type.
How could it not be your war (ww1), your country declared war on Germany. It was very much your war.
No one here disputes that 1 million men wasnt a contribution. The dispute is that the USA somehow saved Europe in ww1.
Thats a plain wrong assumption.
From the same wikipeida I can show you the fact that general Pershing threw away American lives needlesly as he attempted the same frontal attacks that the french and British discontinued because it was futille.
I commend the US participation in ww1, but, at the same time cannot agree that the US saved Europe. By the time the US got into it, it was almost over.
You said that France could have held out until US soldiers attacked at Normandy if they had been better led. Pdf merely asked how France were supposed to hold out for 2 years, until the US entered the war.
What does that have to do with the fact that the US provided 1 million men to fight a European war and help salvage Europe? Not a damned thing. It’s just you opening your catheter bag on the US. How sad.
Because one million men is a lot of men for countries already deeply involved in the war to supply, especially when they have 8,000,000 odd troops each that need supplying. No-one is suggesting that the US troops weren’t welcome, merely that their numbers were, for the time, not remarkable.
Yea, that’s the official explaination. Here’s the real one:
“Unofficially, it was already generally accepted in government that Britain could not remain neutral, since without the co-operation of France and Russia its colonies in Africa and India would be under threat, while German occupation of the French Atlantic ports would be an even larger threat to British trade as a whole.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWIBritain got involved to save it’s colonies and outside income. It was not out of heart for France.
We entered the war because we had a treaty with Belgium, it was nothing to do with France. We could have defended our own colonies against Germany on our own if needed - the Royal Navy would have defeated any attempt from the Germans to attack the colonies.
What does that have to do with the comment that was made about the US’s contribution of 1 million men to WWI not being a great one? Nothing my boy. Nothing at all. All those nations lost a lot of men. So? So did the US. It was not even our war! :lol:
So the fact the Great Britain and her Empire lost more troops than the US comitted has nothing to do with how remarkable the number contributed by the US is? It wasn’t our war either!
It was not our war because (drum roll) we did not start it!
Tada!
We did however, get involved when we thought it would be prudent to lend support for European nations who were at war with each other, again.
Who said the US single-handedly saved Europe? Nobody. however, consider how the war might have turned out without the 1 million US soldiers. Do you think it might have been just as easy to win without them? Do you really want to sit there and allude that the US’s contribution to the war of 1 million men was nothing significant or appreciated at the time?
Come on man. Stop trying to make it look like the US did nothing to help by sending 1 million men to Europe. Listen to yourself. Had the US sent only 200,000 men would you be calling them dogs? If the US had sent 5 million men would you be complaining that they were not sent to thre right place?
What drugs are you popping today?
Yes it was, and it was Crab talking about WW2.
Who said anything about you supposed to be greatful? All this started because Firefly said that the US should be greatful because without France there would be no US, and I responded that without the US, France might not have been so fortunate in WWII. You’re not even on the subject. You are hearing things in the dark.
Technically you should, if it wasn’t for France, Spain and Holland, the US War of Independance would have been a much harder fight for the US, and one that you could have lost.
Because 1 million men is a lot of men, especially to be contributed to a war that is not yours.
What about the million casualties that Britain suffered in a war that wasn’t ours then? Will you be told, that by the standard of the day 1 million men was not a big army, and that Britain contributed 8,000,000 men to a war that was not ours.
So now insurgents are to you the Iraqi people? WTF? And they let you into the army? Is that the training you received? Is that what the British military is teaching it’s soldiers? That because there are insurgents in Iraq that they represent the iraqi people? They teach you that the extremists represent the iraqi population? :shock:
Yes, they let me into the Army. More than you ever managed. You think the Iraqi people want the US and the UK there? You think were are popular (particularly the US) there? Answer me two straight questions -
(1) How much time have you spent in Iraq
(2) How many of your opinions are lifted straight from Fox News?
The insurgents represent the Iraqi people far more than Halliburton or Fox News do.
It was not our war because (drum roll) we did not start it!
Tada!
We did however, get involved when we thought it would be prudent to lend support for European nations who were at war with each other, again.
Who said the US single-handedly saved Europe? Nobody. however, consider how the war might have turned out without the 1 million US soldiers. Do you think it might have been just as easy to win without them? Do you really want to sit there and allude that the US’s contribution to the war of 1 million men was nothing significant or appreciated at the time?
Come on man. Stop trying to make it look like the US did nothing to help by sending 1 million men to Europe. Listen to yourself. Had the US sent only 200,000 men would you be calling them dogs? If the US had sent 5 million men would you be complaining that they were not sent to thre right place?
What drugs are you popping today?[/quote]
We didnt start it either! (BIG KETTLE DRUM)
As you have ignored, britain went to war for belgium when and only when it was invaded.
Britain lost (with the Empire and Commonwealth) more men than the US sent. So 1 million is a great number, but not that significant for the time.
No one here is being anti-US, except your perceptions.
Finally since you are speaking of Iraq.
Think on this.
You criticise the French for not getting involved in Iraq. So why did the US not join ww1 or 2 on day 1 and help fight a much greater tyrant than Saddam?
Please answer this
Why did the US not join the coalition of the willing against sadistic despotism in 1939?
This is not an anti US question it is merely pragmatic.
IRONMAN wrote:
“Why do you allude that the US is responsible for France and Germany and Britain’s wars? You are alluding that the US is at fault for not jumping in to save them sooner. Listen close:”
I see no allegations of US responsibility for the EUROPEAN part of WWII; however, the war with Japan is a different matter.
US Political & economic power was being threatened by the rise in Japan’s status, thus bringing the two countries into opposition.
Japan was certainly the agressor in the Far East, with its occupation of Korea & invasion of China BUT it was the actions of the US Government that precipitated military action.
Yea, and without the US, WWI and WWII would have been much nastier for Britain and France. So what’s your point? I see none.
What’s your point? Are you still trying to support the idea that the US contributing 1 million men to WWI is not significant? What are you actually talking about? What point, other than to try to find an angle for complaining about the US,l are you trying to make? None. You are just talking in circles around the US like a vulture, looking for something to criticize. Be a descent person. Stop. Haven’t you expressed your disdain for the US enough times in these threads already? Must you try to turn yet another thread into something critical of the US? Are you so driven by this? How can someone be so bent on something so worthless and pointless?
Let me tell you this: If you think that you are going to alter in any way an American’s love of his country with all of your whining and criticisms, you are sorely mistaken. It only furthers the resolve that Americans have in supporting their nation. You are wasting your time kiddo. What you are attempting to do cannot be accomplished. Truly.
Yes, the Iraqi people are glad to be free from Saddam. You don’t get the news do you.
And your mind is twisted by the media into believing that your country and mine are doing a bad thing. So much so that you, and ex-soldier, even believes it. There should come a time in a man’s life when he is able to break free of the influence of the liberal media and think more for himself and see the bigger picture. Your time has not yet come, it seems.
Goodie goodie.
Negative. Britain went to war to protect it’s interests, not to protect Belgium. Belgium was only the excuse for going into it.
Wrong. sending 1 million men is a tremendous gift to Europeans to fight their war. See if you can find another non-European nation that sent that many, or anywhere near that many. Please, send 1 million brits to the US to fight a war so we can say, “Aaaaa. So what. That don’t mean shit. Who cares.”
What an ungreatful little shitass you are. You are worthy of pity.
Oh yes, you are my boy. See the above.
I do? Where? You said that the US should be greatful to the French for help in the War for Independance. I simply said France should be greatful for the US’s help in 2 world wars. But appearently, that gets under your skin since it’s not purely supportive of your one-sided reality. Sorry chum. That’s life.
Answer me this: Why did Britain not help the US in the Spanish-American War?
You have not read the posts. A few of these Euros are looking for a way to criticize the US for not coming to the aid of Britain and France SOONER, yet they are criticizing the US for coming to the aid of Iraq. They are saying the US owes much to France, but France and Britain owe nothing to the US.
It’s just typical European anti-American spittle. We Americans hear it all the time. It does not phase us anymore. We are callous to it after so long. However, we have begun doing something about it, like awarding contracts to rebuild Iraq to companies in countries who provided forces to the coalition to fight there.
Sure it does. You mistakenly thought that my post was not releveant because you did not read or understand what it was in response to.[/quote]
Please explain to me how the number of men the US sent to fight in WWI is relevant to the presence or not of British troops in France during 1940, or the failure of the US to provide military assistance to Britain or France until they were forced into the war. [/quote]
Please explain to me why you are mentioning British troops when my rebuttle was to the false statement which implied that American toops not making much difference in either war.
Also, please explain why you think the US failed to save Europe soon enough when WWII was not even an American war untill early 1941.
Also, explain to me how sending 1 million men to defend another nation (WWI) is not a bold and gracious sacrifice for another nation’s freedom.
Explain why you blame the US for not saving a nation “soon enough” back then, and yet blame the US for saving one today?
Explain also your hypocricy in claiming that the US is to blame for anything involving European nations inability to defend themselves from each other without help from the US.[/quote]
Again, your reply bears no relevance to my statements. I made no assertions about the impact of American troops in either world war, except to note that they did not participate in the Battle of France and there was no prospect of them doing so. Again, the rest of your reply is utterly irrelevant to the points I raised. I am still interested to hear why you think an extended Battle of France would have hastened America’s entry into the war or allowed the UK to magic up another British Army for deployment to France. Why you think they needed to be landed in Normandy is beyond me.