US embassies attacked

Oh yea the Tet offensive was a disaster for the Resistance it started of good but did not end well.

Also the massacre of 6,000 nationals wasn't a crowd pleaser either.

But again this was one battle.

America&Co
Total dead: 676,585 – 1,035,585
Total wounded: ~1,490,000+

Communist forces:
Total dead: 584,462-1,672,462
Total wounded: ~604,200+

America lost the war.

However one could begin to imagine if America had carried on what would of happened. The VC forces were very heavily smashed up but there plan was never to win by numbers,so I imagine they would of kept doing what they were doing. My knowledge here is limited to be honest, I don't know how well the supplies would of kept going, if Russia would of eventually started to get involved more.

I mean Russia did a lot of training and supplied a lot of gear but boots on the ground was quite limited
 
Quite possibly. French aid allowed the war to come to a close much quicker than it would have otherwise.
 
So here is the thing that I see,

there is not a single country in the world that can hold it's hand up and say that they have had a blameless foriegn policy or history.

None.

It just so happens that my US cousins currently are the dominant superpower, and as a consequence are copping the flak. Reverse historically by as little as 300 years and you have the UK doing basically the same thing, and another 300 or so and you have the French and Spanish leaving their fingerprints all over everything. Pretending that this sort of behaviour is in any way endemic of a particular nation is daft. PARTICULARLY when in the modern age society is so non-homogenous.

All nation states make mistakes. It is practically inevitable. Just as massive over-reactions seem to be part and parcel of religous fundamentalism, and fundamentalism seems to thrive on poverty and ignorance - be it god based, nationalist, or otherwise.

All this geo political stuff is just a reflection of our incapacity to sort ourselves out as people. Seriously, how can anyone expect whole nations to behave sanely when loads of us can't even manage that on a household basis.

paul
 
Can I dovetail on that bit?

Ya know how some guy will come onto a forum and start talking about how he is studying MA so that if he is ever attacked in a bar---at 3 in the morning---in a crappy part of town---he'll b e able to take-out the attacker(s)? I think most of you have run into this, right? And then someone asks the obvious question: "what in hell are you doin' in a bar in a bad part of town at 3am!?!

Thats how I have started feel about this series of one conflict after another for the last 6 decades. When does it stop? Its like we have to go LOOKING for trouble or we don't know what to do with ourselves. And what is it about us that "trouble" tends to seek us out? I don't hear anyone threatening to topple the Canadian System, or the Swedish System or Netherlands. And I just don't buy that whole thing about "well, people hate us because we're just so G-D Good!" Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce
 
I don't think they hate you (Im assuming you mean the USA, but this fits the "West",to) as a majority,I would guestimate 20% across the ME. I mean this is very ballpark and just me, so no doubt im wrong here ! But, your not going to hear news stories of people not hating you. Or not protesting about you.

I also think you answered your own question a bit, when was the last time Sweden got involved in the ME on a military scale?

Maybe its victim of your own success? type thing?
You raise a good question me thinks`
Raz
 
I guess my view, Bruce, is that if it wasn't the US (right now) then it would be someone else. In fact it isn't just the US. The Chinese are very busily involved in my region, as are the Indians - it would simply seem to be a part of the nature of large powers.

Even tiny little Australia is prone to pushing their weight around - such that it is - on a local level. I agree with your idea that it seems to be a succession of bad guys, but that is a pattern that has been occuring since the beginnings of urban civilization " man, we need to watch those guys over in Ur, they really are up to no good... that new bow is a weapon of mass destruction...".

For me this is an as below so above and vice versa situation. Individuals do exactly the same thing as nations do, endlessly trying to assess where the next threat is coming from, even in situations where it may or may not exist.

The sooner we all come to terms with the fact that we are animals too, and just as prone to acting on a sub-rational instinctive basis, either alone, or collectively, the better. But I get that this is perhaps a bit of a bleak and controversial perspective.

paul
 
So you're saying that if we didnt come "riding in heroically at the 11th hour " that you'd have been fine? So we didnt help at all? Those heroic men who enlisted to fight WWII need not have gone and wasted their lives for nothing?

Aikie, thats the single most offensive thing you could have said to me.

I have never taken anything away from the VALIANT efforts of the UK during WWII. You stood toe to toe with the Nazi war machine nearly single handedly for quite a bit too long. But you just pissed on my country and my military and every single US soldier who died to help stem the advance of the Reich right along side your boys. In sweeping, grand gesture you just reduced all those tragic losses to nothing.

I don't know how to process that.
 
On the historical possible outcomes

Something I often wonder is,where are all the Germans going to come from to continue battling Britian and more importantly the Soviet Union? People ask where would the Russians get this and where would the British get that but given the nature of the war in Russia where were the Germans themselves gonna come from?

We (Britain) were more likely to produce the atomic bomb than Germany was, as it was the Germans were heading towards a dead end with their notions on it. And without an atomic bomb to put on the end of it a V2 rocket is about the most complicated and expensive way imaginable to send a ton of TNT to a target.

I think we would've gotten a handle on the U-boat war; we had a huge fleet, very capable technical people and Ultra. Then they could have gone back to the proper British strategy of blockade and sea control whilst allied to a strong land power; a strategy that worked well for them in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

German policies in Russia guaranteed that the Russians were gonna fight to the bitter end---the extinction of fascist Germany, to the Russians it was win or die. Every mile deeper in Russia cost the Germans dead and made their logistics harder. The Russians would have eventually started to grow stronger and more consolidated as the Germans grew weaker and more spread out. Without American transport the Russian task would've been more difficult, no doubt. But not impossible. Faced with win or die the Russians would choose to win.

In 1810 Napolean sat astride the World, in 1814 he sat in Elba.

As for the Japanese, well they couldn't do what they wanted to do without fighting The United States, the Germans could have. Once Japan goes after Indonesia and Malaya they have to fight The United States or tolerate the American held Phillipines as a threat on their communications. Which they wouldn't do, obviously.

One must remember that Hitler was not that interested in subjugating and occupying the UK. He really wanted us to simply step aside and stay out of the way, as was made clear in 1940.

On another historical note, its worth mentioning the American ambassador to the UK at the time, was a big time Reich sympathizer.

I seek to no way diminish the sacrifice of any nations soldiers, sailors and airmen, just looking at it from a what if point of view.

If anyone is interested in British-American relations, I can recommend this discussion.

07 us uk relationship after tony blair christopher hitchens - YouTube

Skip to 22:30 IMHO Hitchens gives a good chronological suofftopicry of relations. Though he doesn't go into pre-war events. He does however offer a good insight of not so well known details.

Raz
 
As far as I'm concerned, government and the troop in the trenches are as far apart as Earth and Pluto. You can dispise the one, but do give credit to the other. The dogface in the trenches, mud soaked, missing his girl back home is just a guy who enlisted trying to do the right thing, something he believed in, trying to make a difference. You can't take anything away from that guy because he simply doesn't deserve it.
 
Whether or not we "came riding in heroically at the 11th hour " is pretty much not the point. The POINT from a soldiers perspective is that we showed up, rolled up our sleeves and stood right beside you. The rest is meaningless this far into the future.
 
Hmm well I only have one slight disagreement here, is that it was conscription, not voluntary and they would not of gone across the pond to help out if their government had not told them to.

Compared to perhaps the Spanish civil war, when people traveled to fight because they felt solidarity with their counterparts, not because their government told them to.

Thoughts?

Raz
 
Maybe you guys define consciption differently than we do here? I KNOW our boys enlisted my good man. I know it because I have family that served and no way dragged them off kicking and screaming like they did in vietnam.
 
Unless you mean why didnt we just go on our own? It seems like you guys are arguing tiny minute details. No one dragged our boys to their dooms, they enlisted the minute we announced we were in the fight. There's proof aplenty to support that. So I dont see what the point you're arguing is. All I see is a few guys in britain taking the piss out of us for not doing things the way you would have liked.
 
Hmm, this might be a big mess up on my side then. I was under the impression that it was a draft of Americans to join the armed services and if you didn't you had to be in college or injured etc?

Is this not the case?

I could google, but wer all round the camp fire you know.. and I dont wanna go to bed so , conversation is good.

EDIT: The common grievance is not that , that you didn't do things how we would of liked its more, than "you"- a loose term- assume that Britain would of been finished without you. And without America ,Britain was ruined. Also that it was because American's felt a sense of solidarity with Britain in its time of need, when it was more the case the government will'd it so.

This is not my view per say but I think I capture common opinion in this statement
 
There WAS a draft in the form of a lottery. But it was supplemental to bring enough forces to bear quickly enough to make a difference. Most of those drafted would have enlisted anyway as explained to me by myfathers WWII friend. They drafted his brother, he went along with him. Niether was upset about it as opposed to Vietnam, which everyone opposed.

Vietnam was a straight up drag you away kind of deal, WWII was simply a "well, I was going anyway" kind of thing.

When you say conscripted I see beaten over the head and dragged off in chains, only to wake up with a rifle in your hands. Thats NOT what happened.
 
LOL, well, isnt the governemnt saying "GO HELP THEM" a sign of solidarity? I mean if the entire country said "LETS GO" what more do you want?

Also, to say that our numbers didnt matter is what chaps me. We fielded MILLIONS of men. Do you really mean to tell me that without those you'd have faired as well as you did or would it have gone worse? Imagine NOT having the US troops there, no patton, no bradley... no D-day... I hate to say it mate but we DID make the difference.
 
There was both. My Grandfather got drafted but ended up staying in service for 20 years. So it's really looking bad with some of the accusations in this thread because there were plenty of Americans willing to go, and then the government on top of that drafted people to go as well. Therefore you had the American People AND the American Government on your side, not to mention that we turned into a war machine society to some degree for that war as well.

The amount of misinformation, ignorance, gross generalizations, and the personal opinions coming from this thread are to some degree disheartening to me and disgust me slightly from the OP to the current discussion. Regardless of how it makes me feel though I have to agree with discussion as being a good thing. If one person walks away from this whole thread learning something it's been worth it as it's been no cost to anyone really but engaging in discussion.
 
Well it gets murky here, as it becomes a game of what ifs, then buts.

Crucial points here is Germany never wanted to war with the UK, and there is no evidence to suggest they would of gone full pelt for an invasion of the UK.

If America had turned round and said your on your own. Britain may of sued for peace and would most likely of got it.

And No I don't think we would of got the same Victory, but for reasons I stated in the previous post think we would of held our own based purely on a defensive manner.

"LOL, well, isnt the governemnt saying "GO HELP THEM" a sign of solidarity? I mean if the entire country said "LETS GO" what more do you want?"

Again it gets murky here because, if the government had said this on day one. Then fine.

If on day 1 the people were saying to the government we need to help Britain then fine.

But they were not the government only started getting the nation on side when it become in the best American interets. Which is fine, However with the above just in mind, is why people get annoyed when we hear.

"Our presence guarantee;s your freedom"
and "We were there for you in WW2"

You were there yes, and so were many many other countries, it was a combined effort.

Edit: I don't think the intentions or commitment of the servicemen is ever in question. Nor should it be really. IMHO
Raz
 
So we werent there for you in WW2?

That guarantee bit is rubbish and you should be rightfully ticked off by it. But please, tell me plainly that we weren't there for you in WW2. Regardless of the hows and whys we were there, period.



See, thats my point. You're saying that if we would have done things the way you'd have liked, fine. IF we'd have responded when YOU'd have prefered we'd be alright but because we responded when we chose to, well, thats just not cool.

C'mon man. I can't believe we're having this conversation 70 years later. Hitler was doing a fair bit of damage with his V2 rockets, he was doing a fine job leveling entire towns with his nighttime air raids, Hitler didnt NEED to invade. In another year its likely you would have surrendered or been reduced to rubble. You have to see that. Theres no what if in that.

Our entrance into the European theatre cost Hitler supply lines, resources, and time. He suffered loss after loss that otherwise may never have occured. I would like to have seen a British only D-day landing.

Tell me that you guys could have pulled off Normandy all on your own with the canadians?

I can't believe we're getting dismissed so casually.

Did we ride in like the cavalry and save the day? No. Thats silly. But you cant diminish our contribution with a wave of the hand.
 
I and 99.9999999999999% of British people do, I dont know anyone who doesnt.





No im not , bah finding it hard to come across how i mean to.
We still thank you - That sounds quite presumptive ,but ill go on grace here- for the contribution of the USA, everyone in the UK knows the USA came to the aid of Britain.

This isnt in dispute.

Its when Americans of today, speak like they had our backs all along when they clearly did not.
This does not diminish the efforts of those who took part.



Well as Iv already mentioned the V2 programme was not doing well.
Rhodes' book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" tells of the wrongheaded German approach to the bomb.

Britain still had her navy, and the African front. Germany was near spent on attacking the Russians.

This point about Normady is a fair one but not 100% relevant because Britain probably would not of pushed on with an offensive, we would of continued holding our own.
As we had done, with the help of the Canadians, New Zealanders,Austrailians, Polish remnants, Indians and the rest.

I am not seeking to dismiss American help, it is more than fair to say American involvement was the tipping point of WW2,and was one of the key factors to allied victory, but to say Britain would of perished without it is not a fact.




(The Russians were massively supplied by the Americans and the British, look into the winter/artic convoys if interested)



Raz
 
Back
Top