This message has been deleted.
-
CGSailor — 11 years ago(June 11, 2014 05:58 PM)
Agreed. I got a good friend that's British and he feels the same way.
A lot of good men fought in the war on both sides of the Pond.
Yet some few take umbrage at the very Idea that they were not able to handle Hitler on their own and Needed the American's help.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
CGSailor — 11 years ago(June 11, 2014 06:19 PM)
You'll be surprise just how many Brits on these boards think exactly that.
That Britain was doing just fine on their own without America's help.
They look upon Americans as thinking that America won the war all by themselves.
Practically no one here thinks that except a handful of idiots just as delusional as the aforementioned Brits.
But what gets them thinking that about Americans is 2 things which are true.- They take the factual statement of "Without America's help, the war on the western front would likely have been lost". They misinterpret that as a statement of "We did it all on our own"
- The majority of fighting on the western front was done by Americans.
Brits really rile at this as an affront to those British that fought.
Not so. It is just a matter of record and it's no fault of Britains.
The simple fact is we had a fr larger military aged population to draw upon than Britain did. Being a small island barely the size of but one of our medium-smallish States. We simply had more manpower. Most nations in Europe are tiny by US standards and their population was already devastated by war.
The United States had the single largest Allied Army (manpower-wise and equipment-wise) in the war outside of the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
-
Dan_Finn — 11 years ago(July 07, 2014 01:28 PM)
You'll be surprise just how many Brits on these boards think exactly that.
That Britain was doing just fine on their own without America's help.
They look upon Americans as thinking that America won the war all by themselves.
Practically no one here thinks that except a handful of idiots just as delusional as the aforementioned Brits.
But what gets them thinking that about Americans is 2 things which are true.- They take the factual statement of "Without America's help, the war on the western front would likely have been lost". They misinterpret that as a statement of "We did it all on our own"
- The majority of fighting on the western front was done by Americans.
Brits really rile at this as an affront to those British that fought.
Not so. It is just a matter of record and it's no fault of Britains.
The simple fact is we had a fr larger military aged population to draw upon than Britain did. Being a small island barely the size of but one of our medium-smallish States. We simply had more manpower. Most nations in Europe are tiny by US standards and their population was already devastated by war.
The United States had the single largest Allied Army (manpower-wise and equipment-wise) in the war outside of the Soviets on the Eastern Front.
You have to remember that the people who post on forums tend to be very opinionated and many times opinionated about things they dont actually know anything about.
The war would not have been won without the US, we could have defended the British isles indefinitely if we had chosen not to declare war on Germany, Hitler had little interest in going to war with Britain or America for that matter. We would have had to withdraw from Asia and the pacific because we were completely out manned. British people who think the US did nothing are just as stupid as the Americans who think they saved our British arses in the war. We didnt need to be fighting against the Nazi's in the first place; we went to war because there was nobody else in Europe left to fight the nazi's and the nation felt they couldnt stand by whilst our neighbours were invaded.
The Japanese certainly couldnt have been stopped without the US.
-
Razar_C-1 — 11 years ago(December 23, 2014 03:11 AM)
Another Aussie here. I HAD to respond to this one.
While I won't deny that American assistance in WW ii was invaluable, Germany had lost the war long before D-Day. Everyone seems to forget the legions of tanks, planes and soldiers that the Soviets threw at the Germans. Hell, the Germans didn't even know how to fight the T32/ T34 tanks, complaining that shells just bounced off its frontal armour.
Had the allies simply stayed put, the Soviets would have won the war eventually and crushed Germany. However, the Allies were very concerned with what that would mean for a post ww ii world; a world where all of Europe was under the thumb of communist Soviets. So the decision was made to get into the fight and to race against the Soviets for Berlin.
Sure enough, had the allies never landed an invasion force, the Russians would have had to fight a much longer campaign against Germany, and German innovations such as the ME 262 for the Luftwaffe, the STG 44 for the Sturmgewehr, and the Tiger II for the armoured divisions would have cost the Soviets dearly, but honestly, defeat for the Germans on the eastern front started when the Germans failed to capture Moscow in '42 (and Stalin along with it, as Stalin remained in Moscow at the time) and was all but decided in 1943 when the Soviets started pushing back after Stalingrad.
For the next year, the Germans concede more and more ground to the Soviets, unable to stem the tide of constant, unrelenting reinforcements of both men and hardware. The allies didn't storm the beaches at Normandy to beat the Germans. The Germans were already beaten. The allies landed at Normandy to beat the Soviets (to Berlin).
Peace
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most -
annlevtex — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 08:08 PM)
This isn't the only board where you'll find that kind of whinging. Any film or show about America (even one directed by a Brit, or featuring many British actors) seems to elicit outcries of stereotyping and bias. It gets really tiresome.
I'm not saying it doesn't ever exist. But when you are watching a show about, say, the first American spy ring during the Revolutionary War? Expect the Revolutionaries to get a slightly more favorable portrayal than the Loyalists or the British. And that particular show really does make an effort to present nuanced characters and portray the complexities of the situation.
Again, really tiresome. -
sugar_n_spice — 11 years ago(April 06, 2014 03:36 PM)
Well for the record, the only reason Captain Phillips even called U.K. Maritime was because U.S. Maritime didn't even answer the phone. So there's that.
http://greens-end.myminicity.com/sec -
marc-895 — 11 years ago(April 18, 2014 01:13 PM)
I'm missing something here - but I was under the impression that the James Bond franchise is made in England, largely with English or UK actors and with a UK crew. EON productions are even based in London - although the producers are American as is the holding company that owns EON. Ian Fleming was English (and a naval officer) as is James Bond. Bond has been portrayed by, Irish, Scots and English actors I don't recall an American ever playing the titular roll; although the Americans are never portrayed as bumbling fools. Felix is quite suave and likeable in all the films I recall him appearing in.
The Americans have tried to do Bond with varying degrees of success - but I suspect that a lot of the success of Bond lies with the fact that it's unabashedly English with the "stiff upper lip".
The anti-British attitude alluded to here is one of marketing. The majority of Americans don't even have a passport and since they're the ones who will be the primary market (shock-horror, the movie business is a business after all) you really can't blame the investors for insisting that films make them look good. The average American is highly patriotic and won't take kindly to being made to look foolish (or less than heroic).
Anyone with enough money to make a movie tends to be a US interest - so there you have it. Bond is an exception.
As an indy filmmaker myself, I'll be the first to admit that IF I was given the choice to either make my fellow brits look silly (while making my paymasters look like the heroes) and get a paycheque OR not get paid, I'm going to take the money and run.
It sucks, sure. But until there's sufficient money to make British films in Britain again (that is with British MONEY) things are going to stay that way. -
Wiccaman — 11 years ago(April 18, 2014 01:28 PM)
I don't recall an American ever playing the titular roll
Just to be nerdy, in the first screen appearance of James Bond he was played (as an American) by Barry Nelson. That was in the 1954 'Climax!' version of 'Casino Royale'.