Well heres a case where you are putting words in mouths, read this entire thread and you will not find a single suggestion from anybody that Britain would have fought the war alone and won it, the point we make is we just fought it, and we were fighting it without being provoked because it was the right thing to do, and we would have fought it to the last with or without help.

Well, with "you" I was more aiming at kongootto and maybe bongodriver as well, but you are right of course Dutch.

Those guys from the northern part of Germany even fought under Wellington in the Peninsular Campaign and at Waterloo.
And, I will have to confirm this, if I am not mistaken, the House of Windsor are still originally Hanovarians.

Don't think anyone will disagree much with this, save maybe the last part, Change aussies for USA.

Dont mind, it has dissapeared.
Actually i had to look in a dictionary what it means. :rolleyes:
Love it. :grin:

Oh really...and where exactly did your supplies come from? it's not like you were alone now, you already mentioned the Italians after all, yep thats right, we may have had our supplies from an ally, but it was our boots on the ground....alone, against the Germans and Italians....2 against 1 just in case you don't get it.

and yes by our boots I mean the comonwealth

Of course it was flawed, this was meant to counter the statement that Germany was the main culprit in WW1 and calling the Schlieffen plan as evidence for Germany's agressive plans.

Even before WW1 the german high command knew, due to germany's geographical location, a two fromt war was likely, had to be avoided and would be the worst case scenario.

Britain was brought into WW1 not because of this plan, but because of the treaties that existed at the time.

yeah I bet you do too......:rolleyes:

You have a strange conception of air superiority Stern. Air superiority doesn't mean total exclusion of all nuisance hit and run jabo raids, or total prevention of night time city bombing.

The level of German incursion into British airspace lessened dramatically in 1941 and onward, as they spent more of their time shooting down our fighters and bombers on the ridiculous rhubarbs and circuses introduced once Dowding and Park were shoved out to the sidelines.

As more and more of the Luftwaffe were pulled east, for obvious reasons, air superiority over France gradually moved in the Allies favour until by June 1944there was almost total air superiority over the Normandy beaches.

It's not a simple case of the Brits being hopeless until the Yanks arrived, but of course you know that.;)

It's OK I know what Anglo Saxon is all about too, but it's a little lost on me because I am 1/4 russian, 1/4 english and the rest is German, Irish and Dutch.

Well in case of the Italians i would dare to say, it was more 1 1/5 against 1, just in case you don't get it.

Yes it was the Main reason for the war entrie of the UK.
At the Treaty of London 1839 or 1893 (can't remember, sorry) the UK garanteed the neutrality of Belgium.
Part of the Schlieffen Plan was the way thru Belgium and therefore, the Schlieffen Plan forced the UK into the WW1.

Wow...so now youre insulting the Italians and they were your friends.....

My point is there once was a bond and then came the slaughter of WW1 and WW2.

As a british veteran of D-Day in an interview said (again a little freely quoted): War is nothing but death and distruction and desease. There is no glory in war, in war everybody looses.
This veteran was part of airborne troops that took and held a vital bridge the night before the invasion.

No that's not an insult, that's a historical fact.
The Italians started two Major Operations (Africa and Greece) in both they have their butts whooped heavily by the Greeks and the UK and in both a german intervention was necessary to save them!

Yay for the Germans....

@Avro m8, salute! You've still got it! Just one little thread and wham!
Just like the good old days over at the 'zoo.

You know, there's hope for the Banana forum yet!

IIRC 5 French Divisons blocked ~20 Italian Divisons.

I have no info on British taxes to repay for Dresden, do you have any links or reference to this?

It was brought up because the Allied command reckoned it shouldn't be done, unfortunately Montgomery was so insistent (even against the advice of his own men) because he reckoned his race with Patton was more important than the sake of his men. That's something to be ashamed of, leaving an obviously incompetent man, who won the war in North Africa only thanks to the American help, to decide on such a vast operation, with inadequate intelligence and without proper interforce coordination.

You'd be surprised to hear what I have heard in certain circles, mate.

I was referring to the victories in North Africa, sorry for the misunderstanding.

well the Commonwealth part of the PTO was fought pretty much on their own.

lol with all respect for my own country, Italy was more of a burden to Germany than anything else. Our soldiers were brave and humane (and it's often recognised by British and Russians), but it wasn't enough.

Air superiority is defined in the NATO Glossary as "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces."
When the Battle of Britain was over you didn't have air superiority, until the Americans showed up.

the British were good at defending their mainland, but they could have suffered attacks of far superior entity without being able to put adequate opposition, had the battle carried on and Hitler concentrated all his forces towards Great Britain.

Who gained most out of the two world wars, i blame the Banks who fund all the wars and still do

I'm all for a bit of bank bashing.

if i could live my life without a bank account i would, lol.

TODAY i consider it in on the great britain European countries because 'he always had a certain independence thanks to the wealth of its colonies.
Italy had to lie with the American colonies' cause a and Christopher Columbus Amerigo Vespucci 2 italians discovered the Americas. Italy to conquer the colonies to England was to always ask permission.
Italy to pass the straits of Suez and the Strait of Gibraltar should always ask permission to England.
England held us captive in the Mediterranean Sea, and we did not have free will to decide our trade lanes.

ITALY not have TODAY 1 american colonies but in southe america speach latino and spanish in CANADA speack also italian.

Sternjaeger, you can make all the 'matter of fact' responses you like with all this mysterious alternate evidence stuff you quote, but the Battle of Britain was a victory for the British therefore a defeat for the Germans, plain and simple fact, this has nothing to do with our overall ability to endure the war or a few incompetent leaders, Germany came to us to fight on our doorstep and they were denied their objective, Kongo Otto would have us believe it was all just a bit-of-a-laugh on the Germans part and they didn't take it seriously enough so they went home when all the sausage ran out.

But the Battle didn't carry on, Hitler was losing far too many aircraft and getting nowhere with his attempt to beat Britain into negotiation, the onslaught petered out and Britain won the Battle of Britain.

'Could have, if, maybe, schmaybee'.:-P

lol man, we're going around in circles here. A battle is won when there's a defeat, the Luftwaffe wasn't defeated, nor was the RAF, it was a draw.

Again from Wikipedia:
On 17 September 1940, Hitler held a meeting with Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring and Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt. Hitler became convinced the operation was not viable. Control of the skies was lacking, and coordination among three branches of the armed forces was out of the question. Later that day, Hitler ordered the postponement of the operation. He ordered the dispersal of the invasion fleet in order to avert further damage by British air and naval attacks.[36]
The postponement coincided with rumours that there had been an attempt to land on British shores on or about 7 September, which had been repulsed with large German casualties. The story was later expanded to include false reports that the British had set the sea on fire using flaming oil. Both versions were widely reported in the American press, and in William L. Shirer's Berlin Diary but officially denied by Britain and Germany. Author James Hayward has suggested that the whispering campaign around the 'failed invasion' was a successful example of British black propaganda to bolster morale at home and in occupied Europe, and convince America that Britain was not a lost cause.[37]
After the London Blitz, Hitler turned his attention to the Soviet Union, and Seelöwe lapsed, never to be resumed. However, not until 13 February 1942, after the invasion of Russia, were forces earmarked for the operation released to other duties.[38]

The invasion was postponed to an undefined date, it was never classed as cancelled.

exactly, the RAF held its position until the LW raids ended, they didn't end because the RAF shot down all the bombers though, they ended because the Germans wanted it to end. The Battle of Britain ended because the Germans turned their attention otherwise. Having said this, the RAF did a supreme job with what they had.

The Battle of Britain ended because Germany gave up trying.

They were prevented from achieving their objectives.

The 'heavy arm of diplomacy' failed.

It didn't work.

They stopped.

Britain won the battle because Germany stopped trying to win.

Whether they stopped trying because of other commitments, shortage of sausage, unsustainable losses or disagreements regarding the price of fish is irrelevant.

They stopped.

Britain therefore won.

So we werent defeated in France then.....Dunkirk was a draw because we chose to retreat? the Germans didn't wipe us out because of the 'famous' German humanity and benevolence.....

Sorry SJ it was a defeat, German objectives were denied...which is why they gave up...that is a defeat....you wiki post even points to the significance of the result of the BOB because without britain D-day would never have happened and Germany almost certainly would have won the war in western europe, why exactly did the germans not just surrender when the allies invaded? it would have been classed a draw by your logic.

on a previous topic, the Germans were under no obligation to build V1/V2 rockets and continue bombing us so why shouldnt we have bombed Dresden where components were being made (we even dropped leaflets saying we would do it) still an awfull event but it's debateable on how 'illegal' it may have been.

Dunkirk wasn't a defeat, there wasn't even a proper battle. This is the stupid western revisionism of history that needs to give a tag of "victory" or "defeat" to every conflict, but it's ridiculous, anachronistic and inapplicable for the modern warfare introduced by WW2.

The whole definition of "Battle of Britain" is somehow wrong: the air operations to gain air superiority were only the first phase of Operation Sea Lion, they weren't a battle per se. It was turned into "The Battle of Britain" by propaganda. The British propaganda was in dear need of some kind of victory after the embarrassment of Dunkirk and the horrible attacks sustained by the civilians, but the reality is that they kept on receiving thousands of V1s and hundres of V2s up until 1944.
In hindsight maybe you can talk about a victory (considering the broader scheme of things), but you can't always apply hindsight when talking about history.
yeah, but the Americans refused to bomb civilian targets in Europe (most of the times), whereas you had this "right back at you Jerry!" attitude in propaganda that eventually wasn't working anymore either, since people knew what it meant and they were concerned about their troops more than giving back to the Germans what they deserved (in theory).

"Bomber" Harris was the mastermind of setting European civilian targets on fire with his "an eye for an eye" attitude.

Bongodriver , what was in real life your most used weapon against your enemy ?
This kind of weapon ?
http://www.newgape.de/media/images/i...12178492_1.jpg

I can't make any sense of this, by definition hindsight is everything to do with history.

The Germans lost it, the Brits had the rights to call it whatever they wanted, and it was coined from the Chuchill speech anyway, we called our part the Battle of Britain, the losers called it 'Operation sea lion' whatever, while were at it why was the war called the world war? not everybody fought it.

Ah yeah all this winning and losing...it's so irrelevant......WTF are you talking about?

Mainly just my inteligence and ability to maintain a discussion without makin 'personal' snide remarks.

I'm sorry Bongo,you know I like you man,but I dont think we'll ever agree on this one. I'm approaching this with an unbiased historian perspective,you're taking this more on a national pride thing.

I suppose that when my (British) history professor told me "there's no way to point out to a Briton that the Battle of Britain was in fact no victory" he knew what he was talking about ;-)

Hooray! Best sign of a healthy WW2 Combat flight simulation:

Threads in which the war is being re-fought versus other topics.

On to the .50 cals vs Tigers......

Congratulations!

S!

Gunny

Same here, we have more things outside of this that we do agree on.

I just find it very confusing how some people interpret a Brit saying 'we won the battle of britain' as 'we won the war single handed', even more confusing is this desparate need by the same people to find the most insignificant semantics to try and discredit the British with any ability to fight in any way shape or form, the fact is we fought extremely well for the most part and have a hell of alot to be proud of, like just fighting because it was the right thing to do, so we had friends to help....mainly because they knew it was the right thing to do as well, if it floats your boat to believe the Germans were merely distracted by anything the Brits did then fine.....it's a free world (but no thanks to the Allies eh?)

just because your history teacher was British doesn't prove anything

it's uncanny, a lone stubborn Brit, holding out against some (rude) Germans and a small contingent of Italians.

I bet if an American showed up the whole thing would be over in a heartbeat...

http://bs.beckament.net/files_pub/Fl...evelt-1941.jpg
Here in the USofA we are sympathetic to the British plight but hampered by the Neutrality Acts, perhaps we could institute some kind of lend-lease program to provide support to Britain and the Commonwealth. :D

:lol:

Blimey, does this mean I'm on your ignore list?:rolleyes:

Smashing! if you wouldn't mind sending us some fuel, ammo, ships, planes and tea, you see we haven't spent the last 20 years massing a massive machine of agression and it's all for a good cause....god I hope we don't end up paying for this for the rest of our lives.

Yours anxiously

The British

No Dutch, it's just I'm making most of the noise here, feel free to muck in my friend, I never use the ignore list or report button.

How is that supposed to be funny? Apart for the different conclusions that we reached,where did I show any bias or mention incorrect references? It might be a light argument for you,but I take the thing very seriously,considering that I achieved a BA Hons in History in the UK and argued over this topic endlessly ever since.

For the record,I too believed that Great Britain won the Battle of Britain,but I was proven wrong (as many of my course mates,and not without polemics) by a British Professor.

The Yanks will be in...be patient....usually a couple of years after the show starts........:grin:

Only kiddding......get my hat and coat......moi silently departs.....

Yeah well for the record there are some aspects of the British education system that suck balls, there is a weird liberalism phenomenon in this country that is teaching it's bad to have National pride....'might upset the foreigners you know! whatwhat', may as well knock down the cenotaph.

Because Mr Sternjaeger me ole mate, I've rarely seen a post from you that could be considered 'unbiased'.

I completely agree on this,I never said that the British didnt fight with courage and determination,but as you said it's easy to get lost in the semantics.

People who are passionate and proud about their country and history talk about "victory" "d-day" "freedom" "spitfire" etc... it's the shallow propaganda fascination that is appealing to the masses. Historians go beyond this,the risk of a biased judgement is far too great,it's necessary to research,analyse events within their historical context,leaving hindsight for conclusions,but it's dangerous to use hindsight to judge upon history.

Was the invasion of Russia a mistake? It wasn't in 1941,but in hindsight we can say it was. If Hitler pushed his way to Moscow,it could have meant a serious blow for Russian integrity,he decided instead to lose time to capture the Dnepr area to reach onto strategic reserves,again the right thing to do with the perspective of the time,but in hindsight it was a mistake.
That is true,but he surprised me,as much as it surprised me that he wasn't alone in his judgement.

Uhmmm is that so? Would you mind to refresh my memory and give me some examples of biased posts of mine? And I hope that with " biased" you don't mean "in disagreement with you" ;-)

Well it's sad to say there are quite a few of these hairy shirted lefty treacherous worms that go around spreading that kind of crap in this country.

I don't know but more and more you sound like one of those White Pride Guys.

Like I really value your oppinion.

No...this really only seems to upset people when someone British mentions it, for the rest of the world National pride is just fine and patriotic.

Well you don't value any oppinion from other people, your just an ignorant.
Good Night White Pride.

Serious historians aren't politically biased in their judgements,the point you're making has become the scapegoat of petty polemics. I think that in the end facts are there,we can give these facts all the interpretations that we want,but they won't change. We're arguing over petty definitions here..

If you say so....bellend

Yes i love you too. :grin:

I don't think that this generalisation does you any good man.

Just because people have an opinion different than yours (and a well motivated one, I must add), this doesn't make them treacherous worms.

The danger of writing history is that you need to be careful not to follow at all costs the doctrine of "we won, we're the good ones".

Don't ever forget that if they won the war, they would be the good ones and the Allies would be the baddies..

Although I'm sure that this conversation actually happened somewhere at some point ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY

Well youre the one trying to convince us that the terms 'victory' etc don't apply, newsflash.....you are the one making petty definitions, the war was lost by the germans = 'victory' for the allies, simple fact, youv'e spent too much time with those hairy shirted types irt seems.....here's a nice simple example for you, would you turn round to an American and tell him the independence day celebrations are invalid? because there is no such thing as victory? you really think an American isn't just going to cut you a new 'A'hole on the spot?.....

1. Hitler Conquers Europe - success!

2. Invasion of Britain - Fail (with serious Consequences)

3. Hitler invades Russia - mistake!

4. Hitler forms alliance/treaty with Japan - huge mistake.

5. Japan Attacks Pearl Harbour - (its all down hill from here on!)

6. Britain is an Aircraft carrier plonked right next door to Europe......Its end game due to 2 above.

7. A few High Ranking Officers see the outcome and attempt to assassinate Hitler......(another fail, but good idea)

The beginning of the end plays out.....


Whats to argue about?

Whoa there fella!......we were the 'good ones' at the start of it, the German claim to regaining lost territory ended at the French border, I don't recall France ever belonging to Germany (though I might add parts of it did belong to the Brittons....Brittany), I don't recal the world asking the Germans to rid the world of Jews either, whatever way you look at it Hitler was a massive mistake and the Germans jumped in with both feet.

oh and the clichet about me not being able to cope with a different oppinion is wearing a little thin, it's a typically weak argument used when theres little left in the inventory

Now that is a summary! ;)

That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. The Nazis (and Germans who helped them) would have been the bad ones no matter who won the war.

Yup that's it, but end game is due to 2 and 3, because when Hitler haven't invaded the Soviet Union and all Troops he lost there, would have been in the Normandy 1944, maybe there would have been an second Dieppe Fiasco in a much larger Scale.
Horryfing thaught.

it is pure and simple, but some seem to have a problem with it's simplicity, they need a few ifs and buts thrown in with a liberal sprinkle of excuses and masses of denial.

Oh really and when the Nazis would have won, who would be there to say that they are the bad ones? Know what i mean?

Some horrible posts here.

Then:

Personally I never understood the "being proud to be XY" or "being proud of my country's past" etc.

What I'd like to say: I am proud of

- having done well at university

- having success x and y in my job

- being the best in this and that.

But the reason of being proud (or the opposite being ashamed) of something that I did have no part in and could not have had because I am too young for it eludes me completely. How can one be proud or ashamed of the deeds of somebody else? One may be grateful though ...

I do understand that one loves his country and wants the best for it but this has nothing to do with proudness or shamefulness for something long in the past.

This as a side note.

I wished some people just could take a few steps back and look at things from a distance.

Then we could have a civilized discussion here without bitching around ...

thats really just a selfish pride, but being proud of the deeds of your forebears who fought for a noble cause seems just fine to me.

Who cares? Being the only one left to write the propaganda doesn't make you right.

Yeah we actually already understood the bizarre logic, may as well have let the Germans have their way eh? nobody would be the wiser because nobody would be alive who had anything different to say.

strange.

selfishness = thinking of yourself above others, akin to nacissism etc

appreciating the actions of another is not selfish.......what's so strange

Of course you don't know, but first of all it was not about regaining the whole French Nation, it was about Alsace Lorraine. I don't know how many wars have been fought between France and Germany about it.

Boy you really dont get it!

we obviously have a very different notion of the word "proud" then. Otherwise I really cannot follow your logic.

Most people I talk to that claim to be proud of the deeds of others just do that: try to put themselves on a higher podest than others ("WE did this and that" saying just "YOU are not equal in this") while using the deeds of others for just that. Now how this should be something applaudable I cannot understand.

EDIT: Please take a dictionary and check the words "to appreciate" and "to be proud of". According to mine they have a completely different meaning. For me "to be proud of" is the opposite of "to be ashamed of". The first expresses a feeling of superiority, the other the opposite. This has nothing to do with "to appreciate"

What part don't I get? Winning wars doesn't make you right. It just means that you're less likely to face justice for your crimes.

Well I guess at some point you lost it....bo hoo!, get over it....oh sorry you can't have lost apparently, you must have made some carefully deliberated plan where you allowed a set number of combatants to die before just giving up in a fashion that really meant a draw.

The Point was when the Nazis would have won the war, there would be no one left who would dare to say that they are the bad ones.

Example:
If the UK would have been invaded, every Labour or Conservative and every one with an other oppinion would have been killed or dissapered in some Death Camp!
And Mosley and his BNP would have taken care of the rest, like Petain did in Vichy.

What the f...k are you talking about? More and more i become the feeling, that you are a heavily mentally disabled person.

Sorry, that is absurd. Despots never ever kill all their enemies.

I won't be taking your advise but thanks anyway, I know what they mean.

what is so applaudable about bragging you are the best in x/y, I would feel pretty ashamed if I claimed to be a better person than someone else, thats just like claiming to be of a master race.....

so you went to uni....big deal, I don't feel proud of the things I have achieved because they were just stuff that needed to be done, now if someone else were to feel proud of my achievements then I would just feel gratefull for the sentiment, pride can be a form of appreciation if it is projected at anothers deeds.

some people need to look outside of the dictionary and realise there is some creative licence allowed.

more and more you prove that you are just a rude little person without the mental capacity to maintain a conversation without resorting to insults.

Concerning BoB, from the British side it was a victory because it stopped a perceived invasion, from the German side it was a draw, as the status quo remained.

It wasn't war winning, but what it did do, is go a long way to deciding where the iron curtain fell at the end of the war (which was of course completely unforeseeable at the time), simply because there was a handy jumping off point for the allies to open up a western front in '44.

As to the war, Germany lost it as soon as they stepped foot in Russia.

my 2 cents.

History has proven that you don't have to kill all of your opponents.
It's about establishing a climate of fear and distrust against anybody even your own familymembers.
There are pretty much examples in history like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.

Right. That's why no one ever found out about the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler.

Erm, Ok.

:)

Regarded by whom, exactly?

Oh, thanks very much.

Ah, another demonstration of sound historical fact.

Yes, and so did Admiral Raeder.

See my earlier post. - No we don't; I for one wasn't even born, and Harris was acting with the authority of the War Cabinet, headed by Churchill.

Not much cop us Brits, are we?

Surely you mean 'debatable'?

Ah, those helpful mates of ours again.

Absolutely agree.

Back to the evil British War criminal Harris again.

So do you consider yourself a serious historian? Or is your bias more nationalist than political? Or more simply, anti-british?

Interesting topic, I often question myself what Europe would look like if Hitler did succeed in his plans.
No European Union, instead; direct decisions, no democracy but just one party which decides how the economy is best used and less endless debates about the issues the nation runs into, and we would still retain a security force which would be albe to protect Europe against possible threads.
Would it work better then what we now have in Europe? I tend to think yes, but at the same time I would refuse to let my country get over-thrown by a foreign force.

Ok and when did they find out? Surely not as long as they have been in power, so sad as it is, their system of opression worked pretty well.
Stalin died in 1953 IIRC and years later he was abolished by Chrutschev at the 20th Party Congress 25th February 1956. The whole scale of Stalins mass murder is not even unveiled today.
Hitler died in 1945 and afterwards the whole gigantic scale of mass murder came to the light and also here the whole picture is still to unveil. To many had washed their shirts white in germany after the war, specially the Banks and the Industry.
Same with Pol Pot and Mao.
These guys didn't cared what happens after them, they are just thinking about to secure their own power at any cost.

Just leave the britons their "Victory of the BoB", they've not much else to be proud of. :D :D :D

What one sees as a victory doesn't mean that the rest of the world is looking at it in the same way.

About being proud, one can be proud for his/her own achievements, to be proud for someones elses deeds is to adorn oneself with borrowed plumes, imo.

I hate to break it to you, but we knew Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Bush and many others were bad long before they died. The fact that we didn't know all the details does not change that we knew they were bad.

No sorry, to claim the achievements of others as your ow doing is adorning with borrowed plumes, one can be proud of their own achievements if it's something that benefited someone else, but being proud of achieving for your own gains is just egotistical.

And the more anti-British crap I hear the more proud I am to be British because at some point a Brit must have spoiled your day.

The German political leadership lost the "Campaign for England" simply because it was completely unable to set Strategic Objectives and then have the discipline/patience to see them though.

Much like the rest of the war, the little corporal interferred too much - at too many points to completely undermine anything strategic.

If Hitler had an English campaign in mind, in the months prior to the Battle of France - the BEF would never have escaped at Dunkirk. It was Hitler's own orders against the advice of his military experts that allowed the majority of the UK "cream", to escape right across the channel.

Imagine the difference in the air campaign's requirements without front line infantry and more important tactical leadership with experience?

The shifting of objectives after the Air Campaign was ongoing - without objective analysis and effective Battle Damage Assessment - is another in a blinding series of not only Strategic ineptitude, but also Operational level incompetence.

Not that any of the allies save Russia ever managed to master the Operational Level (review Bradley and Montgomery's failures during St Lo/Normandy Breakout - fairly late in the war). No nation emerged with mastery of all levels of the art of war - British, Americans, Germans and Japanese were quite good at the tactical level - while the Russians clearly mastered the Operational level with probably the best handle on the Strategic level.

Thankfully, we didn't have a ground war in Europe after WW2.

S!

Gunny

Apparently not, the Germans certainly seem to be like that, not biased of course.

And the more anti-German crap I hear the more proud I am to beGerman because at some point a German must have spoiled your day.
:grin::grin::grin:

This thread would be much more enjoyable without two certain individuals.

Comes as no surprise you were not able to make your own comment, I have no problem with Germans, just the ones who can't admit defeat..

Yeah, Kongo and sternjaeger have spouted way too much biased crap.....

Yeah I know you meant me, but you will find I am much more pleasant when me and my country aren't being attacked.

Yeah sure or as we say in germany: Bladdablubb.

Yes m8 but with not nearly as many face-palm moments!

Too right! They made our overpaid, overated England team look like a bunch of pansy's in the World Cup. Mind you, we have an Italian Manager so........Its his bloody fault!


Germany played well, football ('Soccer' to the Yanks....a round ball you kick without padding and a crash helmet) is much more interesting.....:grin:

Just don't do it again.....pleeeze......

I like Germans.....they made my campervan ... a VW.......love it to bits!

Mussolinis last revenge i assume. :grin::grin::grin:

Hmm....depends on how much oil they have and what we have left?

No he Germans weren't the land grabbing crazies, they were just the ones who put a land grabbing genocidal maniac in charge and wholeheartedly backed him up by fighting a war for him.

I don't need a history lesson, you can try to justify Germany's reasons all you like but what they started in WWII was wrong on every level, if Germany was just trying to improve it's situation economically then why the he'll did it spend all that money on a genocidal war machine, surely tanks and planes don't grow on trees, I know some costs were cut by using slave labour to build it.......admirable.

You do need a history lesson, you didn't even now that Hitler wasn't elected, he was put in Charge by Hindenburg.
Once again you have proven what an sorry pathetic loudmouth you are.