Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Hum Showtunes
 

This is a very sad commentary on what our leaders think is good for our national security.

This is a such a waste, literally.

I did find one humorous item in all of this, though.

I think they have found a clever new way of finding gays in the military. Just get rid of all the guys who know at least two showtunes by heart or who know exactly how many Tonys Andre Lloyd Webber has won.:cool:

i don't know this guy and don't really care that much about this particular situation, but... in all my time in the military i met and worked with many gay servicemembers. from E-1 to O-5. they weren't running around singing Judy Garland but they weren't living in fear either. Nobody really cared too much and nobody was out to "out" them. i did see a few cases of soldiers being outed because they were screwing up in other areas and their behavior just happened to open up this can of worms.

My friend from college who got sectioned out (military for 'politely asked to go home) spent his entire life in the closet, and for some reason (other than he wanted out of the military), came out as a flaming queen and manwhore during his second year in.

This was the early 80s.

Bleu Copas? I don't think he had to sing "Show Tunes," to be suspect. :headshake

Seems to me the CO should have said, I got emails saying you're queer, so I'm warning you, no sex with men on duty/base, or you're outta here.
Case closed.

Lol!


funny but sad....

no wonder the rest of the world fears your military might.....

Not enough showtunes? :eyebrow:

mmmm..... more like we fear what your military might do if we turn our backs.....

you mean something like... it's job? the US military excels at the tasks they are supposed to complete - blow shit up and kill people. it's just when the politicians and those types get involved in things that the military starts looking bad.

Don't be silly, they'll blow your face off just as fast. :p

I think one reason there so little grassroots UK support for Israel's response to Hezbullah is there's so few Brits alive today who remeber the Blitz.

They were kinda happy to see "your military" at the time, too.

When I was at Greenwich, I was looking at the statue of General Wolfe near the Observatory...and noted that the pedastal and steps leading up to it seemed to have been damaged, as if someone had taken a sledge to it randomly...but only on one side. Then it hit me: that statue was erected in 1930...and that what I was seeing was blast damage from the Blitz.

http://www.greenwich-guide.org.uk/assets/wolfe.jpg

This was a couple days after the one year anniversary of the last London bombing by fascists.

At a rough estimate, looking at the 2001 census I'd say about 9 million people in Britain today remember the Blitz, or at least the immediate after effects. Not making a point, just for the record because it interested me.

However this forum is the first time I've ever encountered real US opinions and it is the first time I've also ever encountered the belief that the US saved the world in two World Wars. I'm not going to question the facts - I'm sure it can be proved one way or another - but it seems to be a uniquely American point of view.

My Grandparents saw the US forces in London simply as a useful source of food and luxuries. They met working in a club frequented by Americans and used to hide leftover food in their clothes for their families. As far as they and my older Uncles (on the other side of the family) are concerned, everyone who could, fought. And unless they were lucky, died. Including children, women, OAPs. Everyone was in the same boat regardless of nationality except that the Americans (both at home and in the UK) seemed to be better fed.

The idea of being grateful to the Americans for the fighting part of it doesn't seem to have occurred to them - they just appreciated smuggling a fresh egg home in their pants, or being offered a pair of nylons as a tip. And that's what has been passed down through the generations all over the country as far as I am aware.

Would we have more support for Israel if we believed the Americans were saviours over 60 years ago? Personally I don't think so. I think our views of civilian deaths are coloured by the more recent Troubles. Also we have a smaller and less vocal Jewish community in this country, so we're more likely to see blame on both sides and simply abhor the killing.

I think our own history overstates our role in WW1. Not sure. But you've vastly understated the role of the US in WW2 and that's very sad to me.

The US took more losses in it than the UK, although the UK lost more relative to its population.

We were more than half the forces invading Normandy for example.

And you might remember this big-ass weapon we developed.

In WW I, when we finally got into it, I think our main contribution was to discard the "war of attrition - dig more trenches" mentality, that held sway for the previous four years. That had the effect of bringing the war to a conclusion, instead of going on for who knows how long.

WW II, however, was quite different. Churchill did a great job of convincing the British people that grit/ pluck/ stiff upper lip, would prevail. So much so, the Brits that lived through it, carried that belief with them to this day.

I believe England would have fallen to the Nazis before we could ramp up our military machine, without the support and material we were providing them.

Bare handed pluck = martyr.......... Pluck, with US supplied material = survivor.

It's pretty hard to deny the US was the big dog, the decisive factor, in determining the outcome of WW II. But, that said, if Britain owes us for our WW II efforts, we owe them for holding the line while we were ramping up, because the Nazis were after World domination, not just Europe.

Thank you. :thumb2:

I read in a newspaper last week that James Dean avoided the draft because he admitted to being "an active member of the homosexual community".
The source quoted was JD's roommate, who is still alive at the time.
Ain't that a shocker?

I wasn't saying that all the Americans did was provide illicit food, promise. I was simply relating the mood at the time, which has been passed on.

I think Bruce is right, the population was beaten down, bombed, tired, hungry and losing loved ones regularly - the only thing they had to hold onto was their pride. So the people who were actually there didn't feel saved. Therefore those of us who haven't actually studied WWII only have our relatives' opinions to go on.

My Granddad didn't fight and I'm still not sure why. Will have to ask if he "did a James Dean" next time I'm home...

In WW2 the US was an important factor, not a decisive. Without Russia, Germany would not have been defeated.

In 1917 it was pretty sure France wouldn't be defeated by the Germans and the Brits were doing better than expeced against the Turks. The US troops were more a moral boost than a strategic factor. Besides US never declared itself "allied" to Brittain and France, instead it called itself "associated". Canada, with less than 10% America’s population, lost more men and materials than the USA did. While US President Wilson did question the Treaty of Versailles, he never even tried to halt America from carpet-bagging Europe.

Get the fuck out of here...you're dreaming. Russia was barely holding out, with supplies from the US, and a brutal winter. Had Normandy not been invaded, and the shit bombed out of Germany, Russia would have had to withdraw to Asia.

You can't be so naive as to think GB/Canada/Australia could have mounted D-Day or flattened the German industrial machine without the US.
Russia like the Brits, did a remarkable job of holding out until the calvary arrived, but defeat Germany without the US.....not a chance. :headshake


Of course, because it had been dragging on for years, but when the US got there they wrapped up the war in what, 6 months?
We lost more to the Spanish Flu than we did to the Huns.
There's no bragging rights in losing men and materials, that's the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do.
You're not supposed to die for your country, you're supposed to kill for your country.

bruce you're interfering with their right to view America as a lazy,arrogant, power grabbing nation that hasn't contributed much of anything important to the world.

If we only understood our role in the world! We're supposed to sit quietly in the corner and not come out until they need us (for disaster clean-up or if they need help with a bully) and THEN we can come out-with our guns, wallets and our hearts-open.

I recently started getting AFN (Armed Forces Network), and the commercials are... awful, to say the least. To sum up some of them in one sentance...

"Drugs are bad."
"Fire can burn you."
"Cripples are people too."
"Don't be gay."

No kidding, I seriously have seen commercials telling you how bad it is to be gay.

Brucey and Brianna, instead of reading Superman comics, you really need to read more history books. Your patriotic ignorance is blatently obvious.

Now go back to the library, read some good WW1 and WW2 books and come back again. The war in Europe had already reached turning points before the American armies got involved. The Russians at Stalingrad and British at El Alamein for instance. Again the US was a major factor, but not a decisive one.

Like Iraq? Vietnam?

The Russians took the bulk of the casualties. Americans notoriously underestimate what the Soviets accomplished. That said a lot of Russia's losses were due to their own government wrecking their officer corp.

Very well put, Bruce. IMO that's a Hall of Famer!

Hippikos---go fuck yourself. And don't call him Brucey.

My post doesn't have any claim to history--it's simply the way you wanking bed-wetting boys and girls see the USA.

Stalingrad is usually hailed as the turningpoint of the Eastern theatre, but if the US hadnt stepped in.. best case, all of continental Europe, all of north africa, and part of west asia/east europe would be speaking German and have Hitler portraits on the wall. Worst case, most of if not all of the WORLD (maybe not Russia or the US (since we just said they stayed out)) would be under German or Japanese control.

F'serious.

Maybe your library, but in the real world, with real history, that's bullshit.

El Alamein was pivotal in opening the Suez supply route, right? What supplies? From Whom. Rubber? Oil? TEA? I suppose the Aussies would have stopped the Japs from putting a stop to that, huh? And those U-boats wouldn't have dared interrupt the tea supply?

Stalingrad stopped the Nazi march to the east, what, a thousand miles from Germany? With a little help from some minor player sending materials, by the way. I suppose you think the Russians could have pushed the Nazis all the way back to Berlin, had not the German High Command decided they better push the western front, because some minor player had entered the war, following Pearl Harbor? Yeah, right after England bombed the German industrial machine to ashes, without those B-17s, B-25s and B-29s.:rolleyes:

The Russians and British Commonwealth, along with some smaller countries and even a handful of french, put up tremendous resistance. Often winning battles while at a great disadvantage. But even with our supplies, it would have dragged on like WW I, without either side capable of landing the knockout blow. At some time there might of even been a peace established by treaty, but the Nazis would not have been defeated...only stalemated.

That's discounting the Japs getting involved with Russia, India and the middle east, after swallowing Asia and Australia.

Here's a gift for you.

That's what I said...We got into it late, so certainly not decisive. That's why we had no say in the horrendous Treaty of Versailles. :eyebrow:

Well then Brianna, guess you've completely outargumented me here... :rolleyes:
War historian agreed on several turning points, such as Stalingrad and Midway in the battle in the Pacific. If Hitler could have concentrated on the Western Front only, most likely resulting in long lasting war and/or even peace talks resulting status quo. The German Army was only inches away from capturing Antwerp during the Ardennes battle, which could have resulted in another Dunquerque.
As usual you, conveniently, forget the Lancasters. And the P51 would be a complete failure without the British Merlin motor.

Yes, without Land Lease, the US supplies, their troops, WW2 could not have been successful for the Allies in Europe and I have much respect for Generals like Eisenhower, Patton. But, without Russia, WW2 could also never have been successful for the Allies either. I believe that it was possible that with or without America, the wars still could’ve gone either way. I also believe that by bringing Japan into war against the Allies in WW2, that the US indeed just possibly might have done more harm than good to the British and their Allies.

To my recollection Russia declared war on Japan only on Aug.8th, 1945? After Hiroshima?

That didn't stop Teddy Roosevelt from carpet bagging Europe and finishing off Great Brittain as World Power.

Teddy Roosevelt was responsible for conquered nations rebelling and seeking independence from the British?

ok, now i have to ask. what history books do you garner your knowledge from? i want titles. my guess is that one of them starts with "What if"

Please explain precisely how the US brought Japan into WWII. That is like blaming the murder victim for making the murderer a criminal.

i don't know if you are genuinely ignorant or a troll, but let's get this straight - no one said that the US won either of the wars single handedly. BUT the US had more to do with the victories than you were apparently taught.

WWI - yep, we were late comers. Of course it ended shortly after we got there. I'm not sure if it would have ended so quickly if the US commanders had done as the Brits and French desired, though. They wanted US troops to climb into the trenches with them and serve as replacements in the war of attrition. US commanders correctly decided, that different tactics were more appropriate. stalemate broken.

WWII - The allies were holding the lines in most places. Well, at least after they decided that appeasement wasn't really that effective and maybe they should actually fight. US equipment did play a major part in holding those lines though. Japan attacks, US finally says isolationism hasn't really worked. We pull most of our young men out of the factories and farms, train them, and send them over. A big difference is that this was the birth of an american military that was trained with the mindset that their job was to kill people, blow shit up, and go home.

The brits and french were concerned with fighting without damaging buildings and disrupting cities. the americans figured that if blowing up one old building killed a bunch of guys named jerry and saved a bunch of guys named joe, then it was ok. and more importantly if blowing something up brought them one step closer to going home - it was a no brainer. they did it.

the americans believed overwhelming force and lots and lots and lots of metal would win the war. and they were right.

if the russians had made peace on the eastern front the war would have gone on much longer, but it still would have ended the same way. The german war machine was running at maximum capacity already. and their capacity diminished daily while their cities were pounded into rubble from air raids. The US still had plenty of room to grow.

If you consult historians, then you would know they agree, one of Hitlers biggest mistakes was pushing the Eastern Front before finishing off England. That would have forced us to stage, much further from france, and made the defense of Europe much easier for the Nazis.No, you conveniently forget the Lancasters couldn't be built fast enough, even with Canadian help, and couldn't be defended on long sorties. That's why they flew at night. The Merlin was a wonderful engine but only one of the great engines we used in that war. There were a bunch of crucial projects the Brits had started, and in some cases got pretty far along, before handing them off to the US, because they didn't have the resources....or the time....to develop them.
That's lend-lease, not land-lease...probably a typo, but changes the meaning, considerably. We'll loan or rent it to you....pay us back....I'm waiting.

If you knew your history, you'd know that Germany, Italy, and Japan, were allies, even though we call them the axis, before Pearl Harbor dragged the US into the war. That is why the US declared war on the Nazis...because they were already allied with the Japs. Duh
You're recollection is correct. But why didn't the Japs fuck with Russia that was beating up their allies, Germany and Italy? Do you think the US might have something to do with that?
Since the Armistice was signed in November of 1918, and Teddy died in January of 1919, he must have been really, really fast. :rolleyes:

bruce, don't confuse this genius with facts.

Well, nice to see you finally agree with me. Operation Barbarossa was a big mistake indeed, together with declaring war on the US, to the greate releave of FDR as the people of the US really didn't want to on war with Germany at all. Ask Joe Kennedy (father of JFK), US ambassador in the UK in the 1940’s.

430 of the 7377 Lancasters were built in Canada, less than 10%. And because of only 156.000 sorties (of which 40.000 day missions), you conveniently forgot to mention them because they don't fit in your narrow patriotic world.
Re the P51; originally, the British ordered this design, whose fuselage was actually designed by one of the German designers responsible for the famous Me109 by the way, from the Americans. However, the American engines in the P51a series sold to the British greatly disappointed the Commonwealth Airforces. The P51 was relegated to ground attack roles where it continued to suffer. Despite protests by American Arms Contractors, the British experimented with placing the Rolls Royce engines in these bodies...the same family of engines already having proved themselves in the Spitfire series. The result was the salvation of the P51 series and literally of the Allied Daylight Strategic Bombing Offensive, without which the allies probably would not have won the war. BTW Chuck Yaeger preferred the Spitfire over the P51 saying that the more experienced and talented a pilot, the more he preferred the Spitfire over the Mustang.
Yep land-lease, a typo. Pay back…on May 3rd, 2006, the British Treasury Minister, Ivan Lewis in a commons reply said "Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," The final payment will be £45 million (as reported by the BBC).
I do know my history, but do you know your history? Germany and Japan were never allies . Actually, there never was any "Axis Treaty/Pact". It never existed. It was simply a term coined supposedly by Mussolini referring to the unwritten bond of friendship between Berlin and Rome which happened to be on the same longitudinal axis geographically speaking.
In fact Hitler Hitler betrayed the Japanese with the ‘Nazi-Soviet Pact’, Japan offered to pull out of the Tripartite Pact if the Americans would stop interfering in asia. FDR, actually needing Japanese membership in such a pact, not only refused but actually stepped up provoking the Japanese instead. FDR knew that even the Tripartite Pact didn’t make Japan and Germany military allies, but he hoped that he could fool the American public with propaganda that it was. And he did. To this very day, most Americans accept the propagandic lie that Japan and Germany were military allies. But to the Japanese, who knew they weren’t allied to Germany, this was a surprise. They had hoped the pact would be a bargaining chip the Americans would accept.
Hitler declared war on the US (not the other way around) in the hope that Japan would declare war on Russia, which they didn’t because in fact they hated Hitler for what he did with Stalin.
Yes, and China. Japan surrendered after Russia’s declaration of war, they couldn’t stand another front after being nuked.
My bad, of course it was Wilson.

PS: A lot of historians also agree that Hitler actually never intended to really invade England. If you have read "Mein Kampf" then you'll see that Russia always has been the ultimate goal. Hitler preferred peace with England, but Churchill never would have accepted that. He was obsessed with Hitler, which attitude has lead to the dominant position of Stalin in Europe.
Never the less the invasion of England might have lead to the invasion of Russia by Japan.

No, I don't agree, neither do historians. The mistake was pushing the Eastern Front before defeating England. 40k day missions, of short runs or after the US made it safe to come out and play. 7377 lancasters and 156,000 sorties sounds pretty impressive? Try 1,893,565 sorties with 32,263 aircraft....now that's impressive......and effective. :p The Brits needed a fighter, why didn't they build one if they already had a fuselage design and an engine? Because they couldn't. They contracted to North American Aviation to build a long range fighter, which they did in 178 days. Not only quickly, but a superior fighter in every way, mostly because of it's wing design. The only shortcoming of the Mustang (that doesn't sound like a Brit name) was high altitude performance which was not specified in the contract and not anticipated by NA. Who was objecting to the engine swap? Why would we give a shit? Merlins were built by the Packard Motors Company of Detroit, Michigan.60 years later. Yes, I know my history. Try reading up on the German-Japanese Agreement and the Anti-Comintern Pact, both of 1936. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939. The Tripartite Pact, was an agreement signed in Berlin, Germany on September 27, 1940 by Saburo Kurusu of Imperial Japan, Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, and Galeazzo Ciano of Fascist Italy entering as an alliance. The Tripartite Pact was subsequently joined by Hungary on Nov 20, 1940, Romania on Nov 23, 1940, and Bulgaria Mar 1, 1941. I've already shown they were allies. As far as the American people being reluctant to go to war, absolutely. But once pissed off enough to do it, we did it like no one else could.Hitler declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan & it's allies.Bwahahahahaha...The japs couldn't stand any front after they were nuked. I'd love to know how Wilson, who stayed out of WW I as long as possible and suffered a debilitating stroke in 1919, brought down the British Empire? :rolleyes:

Again, Hitler never intended to invade/defeat England. Russia has always been his main target.

Yanks always like to wave their willy, the correct number is 762,462 sorties over Europe combined by B17,24, 26, 25, A20, A26.

Ever heard of the Spitfire?

Superior? Read Chuck Yeager comment in my message above…
Actually the high altitude was the P51 strong point. The British invented something called the “Universal Wing”. This permitted the same version of the Spitfire to change wings impressively quickly complete with differing armament to optimize performance at low, medium and high altitudes for operations against ground, naval, bomber or fighter opponents. The P51’s best performance was at high altitudes, at medium and especially low altitudes it was inferior to the Spitfires even without the “Universal Wings”.
The P51s were ideally suited to high level long range strategic bomber escorts. The Luftwaffe’s Fw190s had the firepower to deal with the heaviest Allied bombers, but their performance waned at higher altitudes. The Me109s excelled at high altitudes and could dogfight better with the P51s, but lacked the Fw190s firepower to bring down the heavy bombers. As long as the P51s were operating at high altitudes, they were at their best.
The American Arms Contractors who originally designed the flawed Allison engine.
In license of Rolls Royce Motors.
Better late then never and it produced UK’s poodle attitude with the US.
It was NOT a military alliance in any sense of the word. All it did was promise member states to share information on Soviet-backed communist parties to try to contain the spread of communism. The only mention of military matters was that if one member state was attacked by the USSR, then the others promised to remain neutral. Which is like saying if someone hits you, I promise to watch and not help him.
Yeah Google can do a lot for you, Brucey, but understanding the real world behind all these pacts and treaties is an entirely different matter. Again, it is not a military alliance but a mutual defense pact instead. Germany hopes that this is the first step in finally getting Japan to sign a true military alliance with it, but Japan would never trust Hitler again after the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Japan did hope that this new pact would prevent Stalin from asian expansion. It also hoped that it would intimidate the Americans. The terms included promise of mutual aid if any one of the signatories were attacked by a power not already involved in the ‘European War’ or ‘China Incident’. This satisfied Japan’s desire not to risk war with Britain and was obviously directed at the USSR and the USA instead. Japan was permitted to occupy French Indo-china with a ‘policing force’ by the Vichy and thus cut some of the American aid to Chiang.
No, you did not, you merely copied what Google found for you. Again, if you’ve actually would have read my message instead of only looking at it, you would have noticed that Japan offered to pull out of the Tripartite Act if the Americans stopped interfering with Asia and they never declared war on Russia. Nice ally…

Contrary to you, FDR knew that Japan was not an official ally to Germany and therefore declared war to Germany/Italy seperately on Dec.11th, 1941, 3 days after declaring war on Japan. Know your history, Brucey.
They could stand the fire bombings before Hiroshima got nuked and which infact killed much more people than these 2 nukes. For the Japanese life didn’t have any meaning, but the fact being invaded by the Russian (and eventually the Yanks) was enough to surrender, after the Emperor decided, because the Generals wanted to fight until the last man.
The US stayed out of the war long enough to bring the UK on the brink of exhaustion therefore being totally dependent of the US. The Leage of the Nations was merely a police to limit the power of the British Empire. A stroke, yeah… that shows you that even a US President is a mortal, Brucey.

Then since he'd pushed them out of Europe, it wouldn't be a mistake to go against Russia.
But all the experts say it was a mistake to do that before defeating England.
So your information is bogus.Oh, I see, when you quote numbers for the Brits it's ok, but when I quote numbers it's willy waving.
Like I said, 23,363 aircraft flew 1,893,565 sorties against the Germans in Europe.If the Spitfire was so great, why didn't they just build more? Oh, that's right, they couldn't.
Hmmm, so why didn't they hire North American to build Spitfires? Because they needed something better.
If their wings were so good, why didn't they specify them for the Mustang? Because North American had a better design.
If they wanted the Mustang for high altitude, why didn't they specify that in the contract? Because it was an afterthought when their bombers got creamed. You keep saying "American Arms Contractors" when it was Allison Engines Company that built those engines. They really ought to sue your lying ass for slander because there was nothing flawed about those engines.
I can see it now....Rolls Royce vs Fred...in slander lawsuit.You do know Rolls owns Allison, right?
They did what they were supposed to do given the parameters of the contract. They weren't supposed to be high altitude escort fighters, it was only when the Brits realized they needed one, they stuck in the Merlin that had been designed to do high altitudes. Notice the Spitfire with their fancy wings wouldn't cut it.
Every fighter pilot has his/her favorite plane according to his/her style of flying. Yeager is no exception.[quote]
In license of Rolls Royce Motors.[/QUOTEYes under licence to Rolls, because they couldn't do it over there. They needed us. My,my, you are confused...poodles are french, silly. I'm so impressed you know more than Hitler, Saburo Kurusu or the historians about the real intent of the "Axis" alliences.:rolleyes: I know my history, Fredick, and unlike you I don't have to make it up as I go along.No shit, Dick Tracy. That's what I said, they had no fronts except home. The Russians were the least of their worries....it didn't matter to them who invaded. Truman didn't want the Russians to invade japan, that's one reason he nuked 'em.
Oh I see, England lost their Empire because we didn't bail their ass out soon enough, but we weren't important in WW I. Glad you 'splained that Lucy.
Oh, and the US did not belong to the League of Nations, Congress refused to ratify it.

Yes, US Presidents are mortal...your point is? You know, Fredick, you're a perfect example of why drugs shouldn't be legalized over here.

The bottom line is, the Russians were brave and clever fighters. The British were also brave and extremely innovative. But in the end they needed the United States because they didn't have the ways and means. No amount of condescending posturing by you or anyone else is going to rewrite that part of history.
I've proved it, the numbers prove it, history proves it. I'm done.:dedhorse:

Damn. Now that was a helluva discussion.

The US shortened the war in Europe; of that there is no doubt.

However, oxocubes, your stance implies that the UK would have eventually succumbed to Nazi Germany without US intervention. My view is that the UK might well not have launched a credible invasion force, but would still have been able to defend the islands agaisnt a German invsasion.

Who knows, on the 'what if' scale, we'd probally still be fighting a geurilla war against Nazi Europe.

Jay, you may have been able to defend the Islands if the Russians kept the pressure on. But don't forget the Nazis were working on jets, guided missiles and nukes. It would have been messy, in any case the coulda, woulda, shoulda, game can be debated forever.:D

Lookout has rebutted one point, so I'll take the other:

This overstates the Wehrmacht's case: over eighty kilometers' distance and a major river is hardly "inches away from capturing." The Ardennes wasn't Anzio, after all. To get at Antwerp, they first would have to have forced the Meuse river -- and I don't recall mention in Bulge histories of German bridging equipment or tank fording gear. Then, they have to deal with the problem they never really did solve: that of having fuel enough to get that far, let alone enough to operate in Antwerp should they have gotten there. There's a large difference between reaching an objective and managing to hold it. Also, the bad weather of mid December '44 only held out so long, and by late '44, flyable weather meant the Germans had the choice of immobility or destruction.

No, what the Ardennes push actually did for the Germans was to help exhaust their sinews of war just that much more quickly that they ducked having Berlin blasted into trinitite by a paltry three months. Antwerp was never realistically in danger, and I don't think any but the most alarmist of the Allied military thought it was -- and I'm none too sure of them.

I think the P-51 actually had a better turning circle and roll rate than the Bf-109, which was famous for flying along "like it was on rails." The 109 somehow had a very considerable capacity to take on more and more powerful engines -- not bad for a basically 1930s design, and it really needed the extra power if loaded up with the heavy, draggy cannon packages they started using to attack bombers with. Every single-engined German fighter design struggled when loaded with extra cannons; they took quite a performance penalty, and cannon-laden fighters consequently avoided mixing it up with US escorts as much as possible. Cannon squadrons went after the bombers, while regularly-armed squadrons fought with the escort fighters.

Inches was meant metaphorically of course and hindsight is always 20/20. The situation was not easy rosy as you suggest. Standing the Meuse the German armor losses was little. Yes, it was fuel shortage that killed the offensive. On most of the narrow roads low gears had to be used resulting in high fuel usage. It also caused enormous road blockades. And if the Jagdtigers with 128 mm guns were deployed instead of being set idle near Aachen than the situation would be quite different.

Stimson called Marshall on Dec.27, 1944 fearing that the German Ardennes offensive could lead to more deployment of US divisions which decision may have been stopped by the US Congress if the German would have been victorious.

One of the alarmists perhaps was Churchill who called Stalin on Jan.6 to start the eastern frontoffensive earlier in order to keep the entire Sixth SS Panzer Army which Guderian wanted to deploy on the Western Front? Again proof that without Russia war would have been completely different.

Anwyays, no doubt Hitlers Ardennes offensive was highly risky depending on bad weather, fuel from the opponents and underestimating by the Allies. Fortunately Eisenhower dismissed the advise of his staff and immediately sent reinforces.

The Me109 would’ve been replaced by the more modern Heinkel high altitude fighters and Fock Wulf fighters by 1941 and although I doubt their similar short range would’ve won them the Battle of Britain(at least with the incompetent Goering and entourage in charge, it probably would’ve delayed Allied control over the skies of Europe and would’ve made a difference in Africa and definately the Russian front where liquid-cooled engines suffered more than air-cooled.

Wrong again, confirmed by this website

It's not the question of better, just different. But than again, that's the kind of discussion you like to have, based on silly willy waving emotion instead of facts. Not my kind of discussion, so I won't waste my time with you anymore, Brucey...

It's a common known fact that Stimson wanted war with Japan since the mid 30's and since 1940, FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”

Pearl Harbor was a surprise to many, not to FDR and Stimson.

Knowing 80-90% of the American public being against participation of US soldiers Europe, I very much doubt that the US Congress would allow hundreds of thousands more casualties.

I don't intend to re-open the argument, but I feel I need to redress the complete untruth I posted.

I admit I talked more to my Grandmother (now deceased) than my Grandfather, but I didn't realise how far their opinions differed As I'm at my parents' house I've had the opportunity to speak to him directly about the war.

According to Grandad (who couldn't fight due to kidney failure – even tried to sign up using his brother's papers) the war turned on the intervention of the US. According to him, they (the US) had more men, more money, more equipment and more food. He believes they are the only reason we managed to break the stalemate of trench warfare, and saved thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. He also believes the US lost more men on D Day than the British. Coming from a man who lived in East London – the part of London hardest hit by the Blitz because of the Docks – and who wanted to fight himself, it turns everything I thought of my Grandparents' generation on its head.

I stand by my assertion that it isn't a widespread belief in the UK that only the US saved us from speaking German, but I was wrong to suggest this was an inherited view.

Grandad salutes you.

SG, thank you for remembering the thread and talking to him. I salute him, and you, right back.

It's more important than ever, because although Iraq has been a mess and there is such anti-US sentiment, there may come a time when we need to work together again to do the heavy lifting.

Because you know France won't do it...!