Author Topic: Iranian protesters removed from plane (Read 1854 times)

Skydancer · « **Reply #60 on:** March 12, 2005, 07:43:04 PM »

Indeed they would. Research was still being carried out on the Nazi atom bomb and the delivery system, either a two stage ICBM or the Hortens Flying wing. when the war ended.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #61 on:** March 12, 2005, 08:14:18 PM »

We are splitting hairs are we not? The US could have restricted it's involvement to keeping England as a buffer and finishing off the Japs in half the time but it didn't. Thats the point I was making.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #62 on:** March 12, 2005, 08:24:01 PM »

As you said, the US dedicated the greater majority of it's resources towards the third Reich. If not being used there the buildup for the Pacific would have gone much faster. 1/2 the time 2/3rds of the time.. any which way it would have been significantly faster.

Toad · « **Reply #63 on:** March 12, 2005, 08:47:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
If it is not intended to be a “slam” then it is not a “slam”. What you (and other Americans) consider “slams” is irrelevant.

[/b]

I suppose you're the judge, right? It's not hard to tell intent, especially with the history some posters have created for themselves.

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
However I do look forward to you highlighting them (not like you’re really going to do it though).

[/b]

I'll be sure and do so... just for you.

As for your version of "why America...." I believe you're just baiting the hook.

The history of WW2 is clearly documented and the various intents and intrigues have been researched as well.

What you present doesn't jibe with the history and you know it.

You want to start in? Good, start with Roosevelt and the various Neutrality Acts and explain your theory from there.

NUKE · « **Reply #64 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:15:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I believe the US Navy’s resources in the Pacific FAR outstrips the resources spent in Europe during the war.

The US put most of it's total resources into the war in Europe. It was decided that the defeat of Germany was the number one goal.

Also, was not much of a need for navy resources in Europe.

NUKE · « **Reply #65 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:22:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz

Yes it is a clearly documented fact that the Americans cared so much for what happened in Europe that they waited to the third year of the war, after being attacked themselves to get involved. We feel so privileged over here! Thank you America!

Seriously, why should you have acted earlier? I see no good reason beyond preventive defence.

We did not have to go to war in Europe. We could have just whiped out Japan.

NUKE · « **Reply #66 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:23:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
How much did the US Navy spend in the Pacific theatre compared to the USAAF and Army in Europe. I think you will find that both in Dollars and American lives the Pacific war was by far the most costly.

The US put more resources into Europe.

NUKE · « **Reply #67 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:28:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz

If the Germans and Japanese had won, America would literally face the threat of the rest of the world.

We would have whiped out the Japanese. Maybe Germany could have won Europe. Nothing was going to whipe out the US.

NUKE · « **Reply #68 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:32:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Except for Germany after she had countered the whole of Eurasia, Africa and the Middle East.

Germany had almost no Navy and no way to get to the US. The US could get to Germany. Germany had no long range bombers like the US had.

The US was by far the most powerful nation on earth near the end of WWII.

NUKE · « **Reply #69 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:40:38 PM »

Did Germany have an operational bomber better than the B-29???

And yes, a Navy does take a long time and many resources to build.

NUKE · « **Reply #70 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:48:48 PM »

Germnay was in what way superior to the US?

The US had B-29's, the A-bomb, the best navy in the world and plenty of resources.

JB88 · « **Reply #71 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:49:40 PM »

well, in a sense, we too were responsible for the failed experiment that was the treaty of versailles...so we already had an interest from the first time we had decided to chip in.

but no, we really didnt have too.

i think that it had something to do with honor and family...

love of our defeated mother england and
the french opposing that mother at the right time too perhaps.

long blood fueds cannot be so easilly compartmentalised, though it is the sentiments of some americans that we came here to escape that very thing.

NUKE · « **Reply #72 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:53:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Remember, the Nazis only ruled Germany for SIX years before the war. In those SIX years they build the mightiest war machine the world had seen.

The US built the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen in about 4 years TOTAL.

NUKE · « **Reply #73 on:** March 12, 2005, 09:58:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes ... it does NOT take long to build a navy. Thanks for making my point.

So why have no nations other than the UK, Japan and the US have had a world class navy???

NUKE · « **Reply #74 on:** March 12, 2005, 10:04:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Because they can’t afford one, or don’t see a need for one.

Btw. you forgot Italy and Germany.

Can't see the need for one???? lol.

Can't afford one and can't build one.

Germany had no navy compaired to the UK, US or Japan.

Italy basically was a joke.