From The Queen's Royal Lancers Website: sent to me by a friend.

[shane39 10]

Don't see the link myself.

 

The verse is a nationalist rant and what's more, the more you read it, the more it's revealed as total bullcrap. Some sort of UKIP drinking song, perhaps?

 

TRAITOR!

[natjack 10]

So it was all fair does, aye? Your country 'gave' us some old ships in exchange for our bases, and then took money from us for the next 50 odd years for what? Am I wrong? I appreciate I'm too young to remember any of this and might have got some of the facts wrong.

 

But I do remember reading a couple of years ago that we'd finally paid back our 'debt' to the USA incurred during the war. So if you charged us, with interest, for any help - it wasn't actually help was it? You were more in the role of mercenaries, we were paying you.

 

As for the bases here, didn't we pay anything towards them at all?

[shane39 10]

Every country was built from the labour and sweat of the "common man", not just England. It's a class war that has created this divided mindset among the people of the earth. Divide and conquer is the mantra here. It has always been the mantra of the ruling classes who play this fictitious game of chess.

 

The point was YOU were born into post-imperialism England. The booty of centuries of plunder and destruction is yours by default. It's all been leading to this point - so that you can forget where your country really "came from".

 

The common man in Mexico may be wondering where the fruits of his labour have been shipped off to, while the common man/subject in England is content that he is at least seeing a prosperous return on his sweat, granted to him by his capitalist masters.

 

Our men and women have never fought for "freedom". They have fought for elite business ventures. When there's blood running in the streets, that's when business gets done. That's why people like Hitler were funded and supported by supra-nationalists who have no such allegience to a plot of land.

Sorry but that is utter crap!

You would not be here writing your drivel,if it wasn't for our soldiers,sailors and airmen/women of the past.

If you don't like it here why don't you go and live somewhere else.:rant:

[shane39 10]

So if you believe that the "USA did not really help" do you honestly believe that Britain (and not to detract from Britains role in the war) could have launched an invasion the size of D-Day to liberate Europe. Could Britain have had the industrial might to manufacture the thousands of guns, tanks, ships, aircraft and other military hardware, aside from the manpower to overpower the Germans? I think not! So why do you come up with the argument that there was no help from the US?

 

What most likely would have happened if the US had not entered the war is that Britain by 1942 and totally bankrupt and exhausted would have made a peace agreement with Germany and become an unoccupied Vichy like state with a pro-German Prime Minister replacing Churchill

Yes and guess what..USA would have been on her knees,once massive sub bases had been established in the UK N Ireland.And the Japanese on the other side.

[shane39 10]

Churchill knew in the summer of 1940 that there was no way he could fight the war alone. Britain despite it's gallant victory over the Luftwaffe that year was bankrupt and Churchill in a desperate situation. He met Roosevelt about seeking some kind of help. Roosevelt's hands were completely tied as Congress and the American people were dead against getting involved. He couldn't sell war supplies to Britain because Britain was bankrupt and unable to pay. Roosevelt then came up with the idea of Lend Lease which was the only way that the needed weaponry could be made available to Britain and by doing this Roosevelt risked at least a rebuke from Congress or at the most an impeachment

 

Dont blame the Americans for staying out of the war initially. Nobody wanted a repeat of the wholesale slaughter like that of WW1, least of all Neville Chamberlain who did everything he could to appease Hitler in order to avoid that but in that case his over appeasment of Hitler led Hitler to believe he could also invade Poland and get away with it

 

Many people on both side of the Atlantic believed up to the start of WW2 that it would also be fought in trenches with all the horrors. slaughter and mustard gas

of the first world war. The new German strategy of Blitzkrieg, lightning thrusts by fast moving tanks and infantry accompanied by attacks by air took the French and British by surprise and that's why Europe fell so quickly to the Germans. So much for the colonel Blimps of Whitehall and their ideas of WW1 warfare

 

You say most of the battles were fought in the Pacific. Maybe true but what about the battle of Normandy which was necessary for the breakout, the battle of the Hurtgen Forest (33,000 American casualties) and the German Ardennes offensive in December 1944. Those were battles that were a major contribution to destroying what was left of the German army and are therefore highly significant in history.

 

Who knows what would have happened if Britain had made peace with Germany through sheer necessity. The Yanks would never have been there and no D-Day obviously.

 

My guess woud be in that case that the US would have gone to war with Japan alone obviously. In time, (as in history) developed the A-Bomb and a few years later dropped a few of them on Japan. In the meantime Roosevelt would have had to come to some sort of peace with Hitler, which Hitler would have welcomed as he was never very enthusiastic about declaring war on the US in the first place and only did so to please tha Japs

 

Neither the US nor Germany had the means to wage any serious long distance war against each other at that time anyway. The US had carriers in their navy but there weren't enough of them to fight a war both in the Atlantic and the Pacific

 

This is history plain and simple.

Britain fought bravely and gallantly. My dad served in the British Army and in no way would I ever knock the country of my birth where I was born during WW2

 

However, at the same time I will never disparage or downplay the American aid and sacrifice that was given in order to win that war against Germany

You honestly think Hitler would have stopped short of attacking the USA?

I dont think so,he wanted world domination,(don't you worry about that)

[Harleyman 12]

Yes and guess what..USA would have been on her knees,once massive sub bases had been established in the UK N Ireland.And the Japanese on the other side.

 

So what? The US had fully developed the A-bomb by 1945. No other country was near that stage.

 

He who had the A-bomb ruled the roost back then you might say. A few of these on Japan and a couple on Germany would have cooled them down a bit.

 

Hitler and the Nazis were so stupid however that maybe more than a couple might have been necessary

 

Method of delivery? The B-29 long range heavy bomber. Easily able to reach Europe from the US eastern seaboard

[shane39 10]

Your history regarding the old world war 1 rust buckets is a bit wonky. These ships were not "sold" to Britain. They were given in exchange for British military bases in Greenland

 

If the British navy didn't find any use for the ships then they should just have towed them out to sea and used them for target practice and sunk em

 

Hitler had no realistic desire to invade Britain and would never have if Britain had been forced to sign a peace treaty and get rid of Churchill. His ambition lay in grabbing a few hundred thousand square miles of Russian territory and the Rumanian oil fields and those in the middle east Hitler admired and respected the British.

 

Taking into consideration the American casualties in the European theatre of war, the loss of hundreds of bombers, planes, tanks and guns and god knows what other military materiel from the first operation in North Africa in 1942 until May 1945 I'd say that the US interests in that theatre of operations was

just more than trying to make a few bucks out of Britain.

 

As far as the US being "self centered" wrong again. The US kept a huge military force in Europe for 50 years at great expense to the taxpayer to protect Europe from communist expansion and aggression.

 

I hope that Obama will now concentrate his policy on taking care of issues here in the US and dump Iraq at the earliest opportunity, likewise Afghanistan.

 

I too hate to see my tax dollars being squandered on useless wars to bring "democracy" to parts of the world who dont even know what the word means

 

Seems like I've gone way off track on this thread

 

It's amazing how you seem to know all Hitlers intentions,(good friend was he?)

Hitler did not want a few acres here and there,(the man was deranged!)

The reason why USA had huge European based armed forces in the cold war era,is because they don't like any **** going down in their own backyard.

 

And the Yanks knew any war with the Russians would be fought in Europe conventionally.Then medium range nukes.Europe would be destroyed and the Yanks and Russians would make peace,(all ICBMS intact)

[Harleyman 12]

You honestly think Hitler would have stopped short of attacking the USA?

I dont think so,he wanted world domination,(don't you worry about that)

 

Hitler was a mid European with a mind the mind and mentality to match. He declared war on the US as an obligation to Japan but he never regarded the US a a serious threat. His knowledge of the US was abysmal and he had no interest either in America.

 

He summed up America as being run by Wall Street Jews and Al Capone type gangsters, weak, degenerate and basically cowardly. I'm quite sure that after the attack on Pearl Harbor he was inclined to believe that the US would be completely unable to retaliate and knocked out of the war. Along with his many other faults Hitler had a penchant for grossly underestimating his opponents

 

The Japanese admiral Yamamoto was far more intelligent. After the attack on Pearl Harbor when all the Japs were whooping it up he was quoted as saying

 

"What we have done is awoken a sleeping giant and his anger will be terrible"

[shane39 10]

So what? The US had fully developed the A-bomb by 1945. No other country was near that stage.

 

He who had the A-bomb ruled the roost back then you might say. A few of these on Japan and a couple on Germany would have cooled them down a bit.

 

Hitler and the Nazis were so stupid however that maybe more than a couple might have been necessary

 

Method of delivery? The B-29 long range heavy bomber. Easily able to reach Europe from the US eastern seaboard

 

The worlds a big place.So what,a few nukes dropped on Europe aint gunna shake Mr Lunatic.Plus nuclear secrets don't stay secret for long.

[Harleyman 12]

It's amazing how you seem to know all Hitlers intentions,(good friend was he?)

Hitler did not want a few acres here and there,(the man was deranged!)

The reason why USA had huge European based armed forces in the cold war era,is because they don't like any **** going down in their own backyard.

 

And the Yanks knew any war with the Russians would be fought in Europe conventionally.Then medium range nukes.Europe would be destroyed and the Yanks and Russians would make peace,(all ICBMS intact)

 

Medium range nukes? Rubbish! Both the USSR and the US would have used their long range nukes on each other eventually and both Russia, the continental US and Europe obliterated

 

Anyway, whatever you want to say to downplay the US defence of Europe the fact is that today you are free to air your views on the internet and not looking over your shoulder for the guys with the leather jackets and dark glasses. You know? Like the East German Stasi! Ask any old German who lived in that part about those guys.

[Harleyman 12]

The worlds a big place.So what,a few nukes dropped on Europe aint gunna shake Mr Lunatic.Plus nuclear secrets don't stay secret for long.

 

They would have done so much damage to Germany that they would have spent the next 70 years back in the stone age.

 

Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

 

The plan financed after the end of WW2 by the US taxpayers to rebuild German and European industry?

 

Why do you think that Germany became an industrial powerhouse by the late 1950s? Had to import thousand of workers from Turkey to help run it's industrial production. Yes, it was due a lot to the German characteristic for hard work but all that was paid for by the US to start with

 

Churchill himself described it as "the most unselfish act in human history"

[shane39 10]

Medium range nukes? Rubbish! Both the USSR and the US would have used their long range nukes on each other eventually and both Russia, the continental US and Europe obliterated

 

Anyway, whatever you want to say to downplay the US defence of Europe the fact is that today you are free to air your views on the internet and not looking over your shoulder for the guys with the leather jackets and dark glasses. You know? Like the East German Stasi! Ask any old German who lived in that part about those guys.

 

Now you are talking nonesense! Of course they would not have nuked each other.If so that would have happened in the Cuba crisis.

You havin a laff? din't the Americans snap up the best German Scientists?

Military experts in the 80s predicted if a conflict did erupt in Europe Nato forces would be overwhelmed by a numerically superior Warsaw Pact force within 2weeks.

To stop this,the Nato forces would have to use short range nuclear missiles.

This would create a tit-for-tat scenario,(we destroy Minsk,they destroy Sheffield).

This is when both sides would come to their senses and peace would be brokered.

USA Intacted.

 

Finally i do actually love the USA! It's a tremendous Nation,it's a pity more of them don't know a great deal about what goes on in Europe.