Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

Dillon wrote:And on this day in 1939 The U.S. proclaimed its neutrality in World War II.

They went from "neutral' to "overdive" directly.

Ambassador wrote:

Dillon wrote:And on this day in 1939 The U.S. proclaimed its neutrality in World War II.

They went from "neutral' to "overdive" directly.

If your reference 'from "neutral' to "overdive" directly' was to the production of munitions to profit from the war in Europe then yes, I would agree with you on that point.
Whereas the US did not enter the war until the Japanese bombed Perl Harbour in Dec 1941, they went on to declare a state of war between the Axis powers a few days after.

Dillon wrote:

Ambassador wrote:

Dillon wrote:And on this day in 1939 The U.S. proclaimed its neutrality in World War II.

They went from "neutral' to "overdive" directly.

If your reference 'from "neutral' to "overdive" directly' was to the production of munitions to profit from the war in Europe then yes, I would agree with you on that point.
Whereas the US did not enter the war until the Japanese bombed Perl Harbour in Dec 1941, they went on to declare a state of war between the Axis powers a few days after.

And...?

And the rest is well documented historical fact, that's all!

Dillon wrote:And the rest is well documented historical fact, that's all!

and you increased your post count (same, same here)

But what's the point of dragging up the past anyway? That's the point it's in the past.

I don’t think anyone is ‘dragging up the past’ Chocoholic? The OP was the start of a humorous thread and the post by MCL introduced an interesting historical slant to the conversation that’s all?

-- Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:15 am --

Ambassador wrote:

Dillon wrote:And the rest is well documented historical fact, that's all!

and you increased your post count (same, same here)

Pardon?

Dillon wrote:

Ambassador wrote:

Dillon wrote:And on this day in 1939 The U.S. proclaimed its neutrality in World War II.

They went from "neutral' to "overdive" directly.

If your reference 'from "neutral' to "overdive" directly' was to the production of munitions to profit from the war in Europe then yes, I would agree with you on that point.
Whereas the US did not enter the war until the Japanese bombed Perl Harbour in Dec 1941, they went on to declare a state of war between the Axis powers a few days after.

This munition helped England survive and their perfect truks (even Erich von Manstein admited it), spam, aviation fuel helped Russians overpowered fascists. It was well documented. Then they participated in the Western Front although Germans had not fought with them. What did Brits do at that time? They was saving as many own arses as possible as Knight said absolutely fair. 360 000 killed it's less than in the WWI which was much less bloody and total.

Red Chief wrote:

Dillon wrote:

Ambassador wrote:
They went from "neutral' to "overdive" directly.

If your reference 'from "neutral' to "overdive" directly' was to the production of munitions to profit from the war in Europe then yes, I would agree with you on that point.
Whereas the US did not enter the war until the Japanese bombed Perl Harbour in Dec 1941, they went on to declare a state of war between the Axis powers a few days after.

This munition helped England survive and their perfect truks (even Erich von Manstein admited it), spam, aviation fuel helped Russians overpowered fascists. It was well documented. Then they participated in the Western Front although Germans had not fought with them. What did Brits do at that time? They was saving as many own arses as possible as Knight said absolutely fair. 360 000 killed it's less than in the WWI which was much less bloody and total.

I can see from your statements that you know absolutely nothing about British History after the evacuation from Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and the subsequent re-arming and massing of the Allied forces in preparation for the D Day landings in June ’44 which established the western front that you speak of, it would appear that your Russian education system is somewhat remiss and selective in what it teaches it’s students

Dillon wrote:I can see from your statements that you know absolutely nothing about British History after the evacuation from Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and the subsequent re-arming and massing of the Allied forces in preparation for the D Day landings in June ’44 which established the western front that you speak of, it would appear that your Russian education system is somewhat remiss and selective in what it teaches it’s students

I did not reject that Brits participated in D-day landing like you forgot Americans. They both tried to stop Russians from conquer the whole Europe in time when Hitler was almost distroyed by Red Army, which were 5-7 times more than Wermacht.

As for re-arming by American weapon and finacies I remember. It looked like you forgot.

Brits and Russians defend their arses from Hitler, Americans send munition for next to nothing and soldiers only as allie because the fascists hadn't fought with them at all. Their support especially to England was huge, enormous. Unfortunately somebody has very short memory.

P.S. Don't forget that US aviation used England as a huge airfield for barbaric bombing of peacefull German cities like Dresden. I doubt in military effect of those action though.

Red Chief wrote:

Dillon wrote:I can see from your statements that you know absolutely nothing about British History after the evacuation from Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and the subsequent re-arming and massing of the Allied forces in preparation for the D Day landings in June ’44 which established the western front that you speak of, it would appear that your Russian education system is somewhat remiss and selective in what it teaches it’s students

I did not reject that Brits participated in D-day landing like you forgot Americans. They both tried to stop Russians from conquer the whole Europe in time when Hitler was almost distroyed by Red Army, which were 5-7 times more than Wermacht.

As for re-arming by American weapon and finacies I remember. It looked like you forgot.



Brits and Russians defend their arses from Hitler, Americans send munition for next to nothing and soldiers only as allie because the fascists hadn't fought with them at all. Their support especially to England was huge, enormous. Unfortunately somebody has very short memory.

P.S. Don't forget that US aviation used England as a huge airfield for barbaric bombing of peacefull German cities like Dresden. I doubt in military effect of those action though.

Peacefull cities????????????????????????

You seem to think the US participation in the war was a freebie, far from it my friend;

Have a read of this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

Red Chief wrote:

Dillon wrote:I can see from your statements that you know absolutely nothing about British History after the evacuation from Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and the subsequent re-arming and massing of the Allied forces in preparation for the D Day landings in June ’44 which established the western front that you speak of, it would appear that your Russian education system is somewhat remiss and selective in what it teaches it’s students

I did not reject that Brits participated in D-day landing like you forgot Americans. They both tried to stop Russians from conquer the whole Europe in time when Hitler was almost distroyed by Red Army, which were 5-7 times more than Wermacht.

As for re-arming by American weapon and finacies I remember. It looked like you forgot.

Brits and Russians defend their arses from Hitler, Americans send munition for next to nothing and soldiers only as allie because the fascists hadn't fought with them at all. Their support especially to England was huge, enormous. Unfortunately somebody has very short memory.

P.S. Don't forget that US aviation used England as a huge airfield for barbaric bombing of peacefull German cities like Dresden. I doubt in military effect of those action though.

You’re mistaken again my friend I clarified Ambassadors statement that in 1939 The US went from "neutral' to "overdrive" directly, they didn’t.
In the two intervening Years between September 1939 and December 1941, the war in Europe continued without American intervention, Britain bought much needed munitions and supplies from the US, only when the US decided to enter the war against the Axis forces did the US sign up to a Lend-Lease agreement between the US and it’s new allied forces to include the UK and It’s commonwealth countries, France the Soviet Union and China, in 1945 that agreement ended and Britain took on further loans from the US for war reparations, the last repayment instalment was made to the US and the loans finally discharged, on 31st Dec 2006.

You say, ‘They both tried to stop Russians from conquer the whole Europe in time when Hitler was almost distroyed by Red Army, which were 5-7 times more than Wermacht’ In your dreams,

It was RAF Bomber Command who sanctioned the destruction of Dresden following direct orders from General Eisenhower, a legitimate target as there were munitions factories there, but still one of the more controversial actions of WW2, an RAF internal memo revealed some background as to why that decision was taken, “Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.” RAF January 1945.

There was also a feeling of retribution amongst the British, as similar actions were previously carried out by the Luftwaffe on Coventry and Southampton and for the indiscriminate V1 and V2 Blitz on London, as they say, sadly “All’s fair in love and war”

First off all, hon, I'm not your friend and hardly will be, although who knows. You can call me Chief or Boss and bow. Then read conditions of lend-lease and you can see that there were absolutly no profit but

the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[8] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006

Secondary about strengh of Red Army it isn't my dream, but your ignorance only. I don't know your nationality but well-known blend of ignorance and arrogance reminds me British roots. Take one of the best and most cost-effective medium tank T-34:

As many as 84,070 T-34s are estimated to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on the T-34's chassis from 1940 to 1945.

(wiki)

If we take similar tank the Panther its production estimated in 6000 from 1942 to 1945 (wiki but in reality quantity were much less). More or less similar situation we can see for aircrafts. I don't speak about troops. Germans could not patched holes after Stalingrad in 1942-1943.

By summer 1944, Red Army totally cleared own pre-war territory and fight on territory of enemy. Why do you think that backstabbing "plan unthinkable" has never been realized because it was impossible.

Dresden is only one example. All Western Germany were totaly distroyed including Cologn, Hannover and Humburg. Those cities I visited personaly and saw only a few authentic mediaeval buildings. These bombing together with Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows us real agressive barbaric nature of Anglo-Saxon race.

Red Chief wrote:First off all, hon, I'm not your friend and hardly will be, although who knows. You can call tell me Chief or Boss and bow. Then read conditions of lend-lease and you can see that there were absolutly no profit but

the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[8] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006

Secondary about strengh of Red Army it isn't my dream, but your ignorance only. I don't know your nationality but well-known blend of ignorance and arrogance reminds me British roots. Take one of the best and most cost-effective medium tank T-34:

As many as 84,070 T-34s are estimated to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on the T-34's chassis from 1940 to 1945.

(wiki)

If we take similar tank the Panther its production estimated in 6000 from 1942 to 1945 (wiki but in reality quantity were much less). More or less similar situation we can see for aircrafts. I don't speak about troops. Germans could not patched holes after Stalingrad in 1942-1943.

By summer 1944, Red Army totally cleared own pre-war territory and fight on territory of enemy. Why do you think that backstabbing "plan unthinkable" has never been realized because it was impossible.

Dresden is only one example. All Western Germany were totaly distroyed including Cologn, Hannover and Humburg. Those cities I visited personaly and saw only a few authentic mediaeval buildings. These bombing together with Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows us real agressive barbaric nature of Anglo-Saxon race.

Yes Dear
You’re really not understanding what I’m writing are you? I’ve already mentioned the Loan/Lease agreement which, as it happens, the Soviet Union was party to and why on earth would anyone want pay more than 10% Nominal Value for Used Second Hand military hardware? They’re lucky to have got that if you ask me?
Britain bought from 39-41, was agreement to the Lend-Lease between 41 and 45 and borrowed further in 1950, we have agreed to this so why the discussion?

Secondly, my laughter wasn’t about the size of the Russian forces it was regarding your comment about “Stopping the Russians from conquer the whole Europe in time when Hitler was almost distroyed by Red Army, I say again, In your dreams,

The rest of your post is simply dross, many towns and cities were destroyed in the conflict on both sides, and as for aggressive and barbaric, what do you think the Japanese attack on Perl Harbour was? And Russia’s annexation of Eastern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, and later the border regions of Romania? Friendly takeovers? I think not, you need to take a good look in the mirror my friend before you start casting aspersions at others.

Dillon wrote:
Yes Dear
You’re really not understanding what I’m writing are you? I’ve already mentioned the Loan/Lease agreement which, as it happens, the Soviet Union was party to and why on earth would anyone want pay more than 10% Nominal Value for Used Second Hand military hardware? They’re lucky to have got that if you ask me?
Britain bought from 39-41, was agreement to the Lend-Lease between 41 and 45 and borrowed further in 1950, we have agreed to this so why the discussion?

Secondly, my laughter wasn’t about the size of the Russian forces it was regarding your comment about “Stopping the Russians from conquer the whole Europe in time when Hitler was almost distroyed by Red Army, I say again, In your dreams,

The rest of your post is simply dross, many towns and cities were destroyed in the conflict on both sides, and as for aggressive and barbaric, what do you think the Japanese attack on Perl Harbour was? And Russia’s annexation of Eastern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, and later the border regions of Romania? Friendly takeovers? I think not, you need to take a good look in the mirror my friend before you start casting aspersions at others.

I have never underestimated value of lend-lease for Russia. England received 3 times more and did almost nothing but continue spitting to the well - very English behaviour.

Had you received second hand munison in war time to pay only 10% in 50 years post-war period? Our Studebaker were totally brand-new. Moreover US didn't agree on 10% for Russia like they did for Britain.

As for my dreams it is doubtfull question but it looked exactly like this when the Fat Cat promised to open the second front in 1942 when it was really necessary but eventually it happend in summer of 1944. Once again we started with American contribution - it was sufficient munition and blood, which you forgot to mention. Sorry I cannot see any profit there. Show me please.

About your last rant don't compare total destruction of whole cities with civil population with military operation against naval base. I looked at the post-war foto of Cologn - there were only a few undestroyed building. In your view all destroyed ones were factories, were they? It had rather detterent than millitary effect.

About Russia and British Empire after WWI and WWII I am tired to speak.

Red Chief wrote:
I have never underestimated value of lend-lease for Russia. England received 3 times more and did almost nothing but continue spitting to the well - very English behaviour.

Had you received second hand munison in war time to pay only 10% in 50 years post-war period? Our Studebaker were totally brand-new. Moreover US didn't agree on 10% for Russia like they did for Britain.

As for my dreams it is doubtfull question but it looked exactly like this when the Fat Cat promised to open the second front in 1942 when it was really necessary but eventually it happend in summer of 1944. Once again we started with American contribution - it was sufficient munition and blood, which you forgot to mention. Sorry I cannot see any profit there. Show me please.

About your last rant don't compare total destruction of whole cities with peacefull inhabitance with military operation against naval base. I looked at the post-war foto of Cologn - there were only a few undestroyed building. In your view all destroyed ones were factories, were they? It had rather detterent than millitary effect.

About Russia and British Empire after WWI and WWII I am tired to speak.

Well If Stalin hadn’t have murdered the majority of his commanding officers and sent the rest to the Gulag Labour Camps in his Great Purge from 1930 to 1939 which left the Soviet Army a poorly trained, poorly equipped and dysfunctional group of alcoholics, he wouldn’t have had the need for the Fat Cat to bail him out.

There is absolutely nothing peaceful about annexing other Countries!

As I’ve said before, many towns and cities were destroyed in the war on both sides, Post war was a different story, Firstly from June 48 to May 49 the RAF and USAF flew in over 200,000 flights that provided 13,000 tons a day of essential supplies for Berliners because Russia blockaded west Berlin, this was known as the Berlin Airlift, secondly, in the British and American Sectors reparations started and the towns and cities were rebuilt and in some cases before the same was completed in Britain and other European Countries! And what did the Russians do in East Germany? Nothing! No Reparations, no infrastructure investment or development, they just let it rot for 44 Years, the reunification of East Germany from 1990 was calculated in 2008 to have cost the German Government 1.3 Trillion Euros! So again, as I said before, take a long look in the mirror before you talk about other people destroying German Cities.

Dillon wrote:Well If Stalin hadn’t have murdered the majority of his commanding officers and sent the rest to the Gulag Labour Camps in his Great Purge from 1930 to 1939 which left the Soviet Army a poorly trained, poorly equipped and dysfunctional group of alcoholics, he wouldn’t have had the need for the Fat Cat to bail him out.

First of all, hon, recent stat published on DF showed that Brits ranked much higher than Russians for consuming alcohol per capita and their behaviour in Irish, Meridian village and many other notorious bars in Dubai confirmed it. Of cause they far lower than Irish guys but things are changing rapidly especially in the Nothern part of the Kingdom. So forget that myth too.

About training of the Red Army unglories fights of Polls, French and BEF shows the real strengh of the enemy. What could Brits teach Russians? How cross the Channel swimming? Anyway Red Army would have won the war with or without the allies, some of them I'd like to avoid.

About equipment and munition of Red Army it was totally equipped and had much more artillery than Hitler even at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Under management of Mr. Stalin the country was totally prepared to the war in terms of munition and ammo. We took only trucks from Americans but Germans used horses. At the same time Brits used everything.

I will not speak about post-war period. Believe me British Empire had enough dark spots too.

Well, your post was about negligible US contribution and something about profit if you forget...

Nice going RC. I have asked that this thread be moved to FC, because apparently that's where you want it to go.

Dillon, if you want to continue this with RC request permission to FC if you haven't done so.

I am fighting for American contribution to the WWII, darling. Read the whole post first.


By the way, as far as I read recently the access to FC is granted automatically after 100 posts.

Red Chief wrote:I am fighting for American contribution to the WWII, darling. Read the whole post first.

Your wording got a bit too colorful for the public RC. You can always go back and edit if you want to keep it public.

Bora Bora wrote:

Red Chief wrote:I am fighting for American contribution to the WWII, darling. Read the whole post first.

Your wording got a bit too colorful for the public RC. You can always go back and edit if you want to keep it public.

To be frank, dear, you are the last person I waited for any complaint about "wording". As I remember you have never been fastidious in your choice of words.

Red Chief wrote:

Dillon wrote:Well If Stalin hadn’t have murdered the majority of his commanding officers and sent the rest to the Gulag Labour Camps in his Great Purge from 1930 to 1939 which left the Soviet Army a poorly trained, poorly equipped and dysfunctional group of alcoholics, he wouldn’t have had the need for the Fat Cat to bail him out.

First of all, hon, recent stat published on DF showed that Brits ranked much higher than Russians for consuming alcohol per capita and their behaviour in Irish, Meridian village and many other notorious bars in Dubai confirmed it. Of cause they far lower than Irish guys but things are changing rapidly especially in the Nothern part of the Kingdom. So forget that myth too.

About training of the Red Army unglories fights of Polls, French and BEF shows the real strengh of the enemy. What could Brits teach Russians? How cross the Channel swimming? Anyway Red Army would have won the war with or without the allies, some of them I'd like to avoid.

About equipment and munition of Red Army it was totally equipped and had much more artillery than Hitler even at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Under management of Mr. Stalin the country was totally prepared to the war in terms of munition and ammo. We took only trucks from Americans but Germans used horses. At the same time Brits used everything.

I will not speak about post-war period. Believe me British Empire had enough dark spots too.

Well, your post was about negligible US contribution and something about profit if you forget...

You have a habit of not wanting to talk about the fairytales you’re attempting to spin about the glorious Russian Army, the foul language and insults don’t really help your argument either.

This discussion isn’t about the ‘statistics’ of who consumes the most alcohol today, or who can fight better, the British Empire or in fact who you particularly like or dislike, the fact is, there have been more racial slurs made by you during our conversation tonight than I have witnessed on any forum before!

“Well, your post was about negligible US contribution and something about profit if you forget”
No, I don’t forget and absolutely none of the above was stated or inferred by me, this must have been another one of your dreams !

“What could Brits teach Russians?” Well where shall we start

Red Chief wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

Red Chief wrote:I am fighting for American contribution to the WWII, darling. Read the whole post first.

Your wording got a bit too colorful for the public RC. You can always go back and edit if you want to keep it public.

To be frank, dear, you are the last person I waited for any complaint about "wording". As I remember you have never been fastidious in your choice of words.

Well, dear, there are other ways of telling people how to shut up.

We can either keep it civil or finish the conversation now, I have no intentions of entering into a slanging match in Fight Club

Hmmm...anyone remember what was the price of a pair of Levis on the black market in Moscow in 1949, 1959, 1969, 1979?

I think Levis are made there now, because its cheap labour.



Knight

1) Well. I corrected the language. About alcoholics as commanders of Red Army, which were assigned instead of killed ones in 1937, source please...

2) Forth time. Where were the US profit when they sold munition at 10% of the real price and had been receiving the money during 50 years after the war?

Stop barking after Bora. Play the game or clear the place for others.

Dubai Knight wrote:Hmmm...anyone remember what was the price of a pair of Levis on the black market in Moscow in 1949, 1959, 1969, 1979?

I think Levis are made there now, because its cheap labour.



Knight

Levi jeans!! Highly unlikely. More likely Wrangler jeans.

Red Chief wrote:1) Well. I corrected the language. About alcoholics as commanders of Red Army, which were assigned instead of killed ones in 1937, source please...

2) Forth time. Where were the US profit when they sold munition at 10% of the real price and had been receiving the money during 50 years after the war?

Stop barking after Bora.

1, Do your own research
2, Ask the people who agreed the deal
3, Don't presume to tell me what to do!

bye bye.

You really can't take the Russians too seriously, they all wear budgie smugglers.