Originally posted by DelmerHow were you Americans saving us in 1940 from aRussian or German slave labor camp?
If we'd have done that in 1940 you'd most likely be in a Russian or German slave labor camp today, welsharnie.
Some countries were fighting the Nazis from September 1939. It is is an insult to those who fought to falsely claim the credit for a period where the United States remained neutral.
Originally posted by steerpikeMillions of dollars worth of supplies going to Russia and England.
How were you Americans saving us in 1940 from aRussian or German slave labor camp?
Some countries were fighting the Nazis from September 1939. It is is an insult to those who fought to falsely claim the credit for a period where the United States remained neutral.
Originally posted by DelmerBad history again; the Soviet Union was not fighting the Nazis until Germany attacked in June, 1941; not 1940. And no aid the US sent in 1940 stopped Germany from invading England; for that the credit would have to go to the RAF and the Royal Navy. Please, if you're going to pretend you know anything about history, at least get the players right!
Millions of dollars worth of supplies going to Russia and England.
Originally posted by no1marauderExcuse me, No. 1. I stand corrected. And I compliment you on a quite civil post.
Bad history again; the Soviet Union was not fighting the Nazis until Germany attacked in June, 1941; not 1940. And no aid the US sent in 1940 stopped Germany from invading England; for that the credit would have to go to the RAF and the Royal Navy. Please, if you're going to pretend you know anything about history, at least get the players right!
Originally posted by WildfireI'm sure they do, but I'm sure the US has more than enough weapons now that they don't need to start putting them in space.
Actually, weapons do help quite a lot of people. Not in the killing sense, but weapons are an effective deterrent against invasion and other nasty complications like that. As for your comment about America needing to devote more money to domestic issues, I agree with you in the sense that the U.S. needs to cut back on defense expenditures and focus on improving the swiftly crumbling infrastructure.
Originally posted by DelmerI'm sorry, I didn't realise that just because something was the correct action 65 years ago means that it is the right course of action now!
If we'd have done that in 1940 you'd most likely be in a Russian or German slave labor camp today, welsharnie.
Of course US help was vital in WW2, even before they actually started actively fighting, but I fail to see what bearing that has on the descision to place weapons in space at great cost no doubt.
Originally posted by welsharnieAs I've said in previous posts, the U.S. allegedly wants to put weapons in space to safeguard important sattelites vital to the continued success of both the U.S. economy, and to the defense of the nation.
I'm sure they do, but I'm sure the US has more than enough weapons now that they don't need to start putting them in space.
Originally posted by no1marauderIn July, 1940 FDR transferred 50 destroyers to the British Navy. In January, 1941 $7 billion was authorized by Congress and war material began to flow to England. By the end of the war the total U.S. dollars spent in aid exceeded $50 billion. England received $31,392,361,000, Russia received $11,297,883,000. France and various other countries received the rest. -American Heritage History of WWII.
Bad history again; the Soviet Union was not fighting the Nazis until Germany attacked in June, 1941; not 1940. And no aid the US sent in 1940 stopped Germany from invading England; for that the credit would have to go to the RAF and the Royal Navy. Please, if you're going to pretend you know anything about history, at least get the players right!
And of course the $50 billion did not include the American men and ships lost by the Merchant Marine while transporting the war materials from the USA to foreign ports.
Originally posted by DelmerDo you have these numbers memorized or something?
In July, 1940 FDR transferred 50 destroyers to the British Navy. In January, 1941 $7 billion was authorized by Congress and war material began to flow to England. By the end of the war the total U.S. dollars spent in aid exceeded $50 billion. England received $31,392,361,000, Russia received $11,297,883,000. France and various other countries received the res ...[text shortened]... lost by the Merchant Marine while transporting the war materials from the USA to foreign ports.
Originally posted by DelmerAll true but the destroyers didn't start getting into action until September 1940 and were a small part of the total British naval force. I was only disputing your comment that "but for" US help in 1940 Britain would have lost the war which I don't think can be reasonably argued. I also don't think US material aid alone would have changed the outcome of the war; England would have never been able to return to continent without actual US entry and who would have won between the USSR and the Nazis alone is debatable. It certainly was fortitious for Western Europe that Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor; it is doubtful that Roosevelt could have gotten a declaration of war against Germanty at that time.
In July, 1940 FDR transferred 50 destroyers to the British Navy. In January, 1941 $7 billion was authorized by Congress and war material began to flow to England. By the end of the war the total U.S. dollars spent in aid exceeded $50 billion. England received $31,392,361,000, Russia received $11,297,883,000. France and various other countries received the res ...[text shortened]... lost by the Merchant Marine while transporting the war materials from the USA to foreign ports.