In ww2 movies

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:18 pm

If you want to agrue about it, then check out the SPR message boards on IMDB; that's basically all it is now.

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:49 pm

errrr can i just say canadians, australians there all from the british empire so can be included in our war effort, and you may of supplied us but was that to make huge profits and benefit your own economy or was it to win a war which many yankes didnt want to join anyway, so dont think your our saviour because you supplied us for entirely selfish reasons (ever heard of the wall street crash)

XhuntedoverlordX · Post by **XhuntedoverlordX** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:48 am

IT may have been for our own profit but what's done is done. We can't change that. All we can do is make movies and write books about it.

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:51 am

britishbulldog wrote:errrr can i just say canadians, australians there all from the british empire so can be included in our war effort, and you may of supplied us but was that to make huge profits and benefit your own economy or was it to win a war which many yankes didnt want to join anyway, so dont think your our saviour because you supplied us for entirely selfish reasons (ever heard of the wall street crash)

Oh, Jesus Christ.

Every country fought to the very brink of collapse to defeat the monstrosity of fascism, and we should not dishonour the memory of the brave men (and women) who fought for our freedom in WWII by arguing which of our countries "fought best" in the war.

__________________________________________________________________

or was it to win a war which many yankes didnt want to join anyway,

Also the same war that many yanks died in, and many Limmies died in, and many others died in.

errrr can i just say canadians, australians there all from the british empire so can be included in our war effort,

That is stupid: if you want to do that then why don't you include the US? They came from the British empire too didn't they?

XhuntedoverlordX · Post by **XhuntedoverlordX** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:52 am

Right on Barnes. Go everyone except for nazis!

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:20 pm

o my god who is this guy obviously think you know a thing or two, but have you never heard of the american revolution where you broke away from the british empire well my freind australia and canada were a part of our empire back then and i think they still are. and anyway just endlessly quoting what i say and writing jesus christ or your kidding is a pretty poor argument

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:21 pm

and how would you of invaded europe if it wasnt through the british isles ?

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:03 pm

but have you never heard of the american revolution where you broke away from the british empire well my freind australia and canada were a part of our empire back then and i think they still are.

Okay, if you want to put it that way then fine, and yes they still are today.[edit=oops, wrong]

And to that Im putting up a poor argument is also stupid. You're the one who is trying to convince me that Britain didn't need any help, that all America did was give a little extra man power. It's even stupider and more disgraceful to try to glamorize that one country did better than the rest. If you read UF's post, you'll under stand why I said Jesus Christ to what you said.

and how would you of invaded europe if it wasnt through the british isles ?

And how would have D-Day been a sucess minus half of the invading force? Again it's stupid to dumb WW2 down to we did this, we didn't need you. But guess what? WW2 wasn't won by one country but a group of them.

UFProductions · Post by **UFProductions** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:47 pm

britishbulldog wrote:australia and canada were a part of our empire back then and i think they still are.

I'm not entirely sure of Australia, though I can assure you they are quite independantly soverign too, but Canada essentially had it's full soverignty by the outbreak of WWII, following the Balfour Declaration in 1931. We declared war independantly of Britain seven days after the British declaration, and fought the war according to the wills of our own government. Today Canada has complete national soverignty, our constitution was patriated by the Queen in the Canada Act of 1982. We retain the Queen as our figurehead (through the Governor General), but Great Britian excises no more control over Canada than she does the United States.

Mr.Anderson · Post by **Mr.Anderson** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:33 am

Wow. I have never seen an argument like this. Did some of you (I wont mention anynames, enough people already seem to be p***) forget that Great Britain, United States, Canada, Australia were all called the ALLIES!! why are we bickering with eachother. I still think it was great and amazing that America and Britain came from being hated enemies in the american revolution to great allies during and after WW2 all the way to today. Why can't we focus on some of the good. Paitriotism is a great thing, but don't let it make you hate other countries.

OutcastJiob · Post by **OutcastJiob** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:05 am

UFProductions wrote:This can go no-where but down, competing for which country contributed the most in WWII? Okay: Great Britian held out against incredible odds during the battle of Britain, never gave up and fought to the bitter end of the Third Reich and Imperialist Japan. America, though late in entering the war, expended massive support in the years leading up to 1941/42 through the lend-lease program, then orchestrated Operation Overlord, fighting just as hard to the gates of Berlin, not to mention the hard fought battle for every Japanese held island in the Pacific. Russia made the greatest sacrifice in terms of population devoted to the war effort, and with the support of the Western allies pushed the Germans back on the fiercest and largest front in history. Canada fought alongside Britain from the very begining taking part in every major campaign, and was the only landing force to meet and exceed their goals on D-Day. The Australians fought their own war against the Japanese, fighting nearly alone for three years while the Japanese overran the majority of the Pacific ocean. The brave efforts of guerilla forces in occupied Europe are often overlooked, but no-one can deny their incredible bravery in the face of overwhelming adversity. Every country fought to the very brink of collapse to defeat the monstrosity of fascism, and we should not dishonour the memory of the brave men (and women) who fought for our freedom in WWII by arguing which of our countries "fought best" in the war.

That says it, and I'm going to--figuratively, of course--rip the head off the next person to say something to the extent of "my country did more than your country did, you hippie fags!" It's ridiculous. How many soldiers, from how many different countries, fought at died in WWII, and here you lot are, whining like a bunch of children about what country is "better." It's demeaning to those who fought, not to mention an exercise in futility.

I'm done now.

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:14 am

id just like to say i dont see it as a competition its because so many brits died fighting for our freedom that i first posted on this subject because i was offended by a comment made by epsilon who made out that we did absolutely nothing. all i did was point out what exactly that nothing consisted of

2nd_Recon · Post by **2nd_Recon** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:33 pm

I would write a long triade about how foolish this argument is, but I think it would be more interesting to see it play itself out. All I will say about it is that I believe that if ANY of the allies had decided they were going to stay neutral, or (Lord forbid) join with the Nazis or Japaneese, we would not have been able to defeat them. Each nation gave so much to the war effort, that without their sacrifice, the Nazi war machine would have probably been victorious.

ZombieKrieg2005 · Post by **ZombieKrieg2005** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:35 pm

2nd_Recon wrote:I would write a long triade about how foolish this argument is, but I think it would be more interesting to see it play itself out. All I will say about it is that I believe that if ANY of the allies had decided they were going to stay neutral, or (Lord forbid) join with the Nazis or Japaneese, we would not have been able to defeat them. Each nation gave so much to the war effort, that without their sacrifice, the Nazi war machine would have probably been victorious.

Jolly well said.

The previous posts in this has made me despair of the teaching of history in both the US and the UK. (canada seems to do ok). I suppose this is what happens when you replace studies of history with the impact of 20th century womens ideas on a men-dominated society. Firstly as 2nd_recon states, both sides were important, secondly do not learn your history from Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbour or Battle of Britain, LEARN THEM FROM HISTORY BOOKS. It may take more than two hours to do, but how are you going to make an authentic film without background knowledge? would you learn about space travel from Star Wars? I hope not. Rant over.

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:27 pm

just a question would you guys rather see the world under communist control or nazi control ? as you all say the russians were a great ally but look what they did to eastern europe and what they imposed on the rest of the world (the cold war) plus communism has killed way more people than the nazis, this doesnt mean i support the nazis as i would have been one of the first to join up to fight them i tell thee and ive absolutely nothing against jews. SO NO ASSUMPTIONS

SgtPadrino · Post by **SgtPadrino** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:46 pm

That's why we were in a rush to reach Germany before they did. I would say something like "That wouldn't have been accomplished by just one of the Allied countries," but this argument is mind numbingly retarded and I doubt anything I saw will get through to you, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

And, at the very least, if you want to be able to insult somebody else's intelligence, do your best to use, you know, actual linguistics and grammar skills. Right now you're giving me the impression that you're a stubborn seven year old.

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:05 pm

hate to burst your bubble but its not an argument mate and you seem to be the only person with a problem over grammar deal with it because i dont post to impress you with my grammar and literacy skills and my posts are all understandable

ctbullet · Post by **ctbullet** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:24 pm

sorry mate, but sgt is kind of correct, this is a forum and not a chat room,

but other than that it doesn't bother me, preech with more knowledge

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:11 pm

but this argument is mind numbingly retarded and I doubt anything I saw will get through to you,

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:56 pm

[quote="maj_barnes"][quote]

It's even stupider and more disgraceful to try to glamorize that one country did better than the rest.

once again im forced to make a valid point if your so quick to crack on to my less than spectacular spelling, correct me if im wrong but stupider is not even a word and there werent any posts about that, and plus what a childish thing to say some of the people on here have got a realy bad attitude mainly from those across the ocean but im surprised ct_bullet

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:59 pm

how the hell do you use quotes

britishbulldog · Post by **britishbulldog** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:07 pm

oh and sgt padrino when you say nothing you saw will get through to me is that because your lacking
telepathic capabilities or the post office wouldnt send what you saw be it either wood or some other material in the mail.

Truggy · Post by **Truggy** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:23 pm

Alright, bulldog, it's posts like this that make me NOT want to post here...i was a member of these forums, i believe in 2003 ? now is it? somewhere around there...Secondly, dont argue on a thread...make your points, NEVER argue...seriously Any moderator who sees this should delete this, i didnt even read the whole thing and all i see is bickering...Ridiculous..And i agree with 2nd recon...to an extent, but i dont agree that this thread should continue further.

fftopic:

film fanatic · Post by **film fanatic** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:07 pm

GAHHHHHHHHHH. Go boil your heads, the lot of yer.

How many times do we have to go through with this argument? Does it MATTER who contributed most to WWII? Honestly, does it matter?! WE WERE ON THE SAME SIDE. THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO KNOW!

And can I see a picture of a Chinese WWII uniform please?

ctbullet · Post by **ctbullet** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:47 pm

this is the only image i can find

it makes me laugh that bulldog had to post 3 times to get his point across, getting rather b*tchy now isn't it