I guess you didnt know that Australia was on the seats of its pants by being invaded by the Japanese Military, having massive defeats across major cities. BTW, Australia was a BRITISH colony, so it was the BRITISH :P USA stepped in and started to island hop there way to victory.

Canada was mushed into USA lines lead by AMERICAN/BRITISH generals. UK was on the seats of its pants after France fell. Only thing it had left was its airforce. and FA by USA via tanks, ammo, etc.

Yes other soldiers faught, and every bit helped. Its like SOL/Ely vs LaF. Ely is not a major force, but they help, yet they get lost that they are involved in the war :P Ely got slaughtered by LaF, but with the help and leadership of SOL, they came back to whip LaFs asses. This example applies to both wars. Those other soldiers would have died in vain otherwise.

LittleItaly is too smart for me.

While I'll agree that the people who needlessly died on 9/11/01 should be remembered, especially for the reason they died, I also agree with the people "trolling" the thread. We weren't the first to be attacked by terrorists, and we won't be the last. We haven't lost nearly the amount of people Europe or some other countries have.

Although, in the US's defense, that was the first/worst terrorist attack on our soil, so we can't be blamed for putting a lot of meaning into it.

All in all, I think the US has played into the radical's hands, going completely off the handle about security after one attack. Consider the fact a lot of people (media) still say "pre-/post- 9/11"

No, going completely off the handle would be banning the wear of the hijab, something that would be political suicide in the United States even if its acceptable in Europe.

Why do I feel like this memorial thread is being picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church...?

Not fair! I start talking about politics, I get my account threatened with deletion, Req asks me to respect the thread so I stop posting, and now everyone is talking about politics??

*sulks*

This thread should be moved to General Talk if its not closed (which it should be) or even deleted (which it should also be at this point).

LI i'm not even going to bother correcting the mistakes in ur view of history

Then why did you post?

just to point out that his history is wrong

his view of history is typical of a biased american

Thank you for not offering an alternative argument. You really furthered this thread. Thank you for your contribution.

EDIT: The thanks is extended to both previous posters.

Just so y'all are aware of how deeply this event moved some of us, I believe the trolling in this thread is nearly on par with the restart country whose name had to be changed by the game administration recently because pissing on the grave of a fallen member was insensitive.

Forgive me for feeling this is comparable, but I knew neither him nor the victims of these attacks which form the subject of this thread.

If this mindset makes me a pig headed, biased stereotypically ugly American, then delete my account now, as I want nothing more to do with you all or this damn waste of time that passes for a game.

Viceroy i have nothing wrong with the whole reason for this thread my issue is with the fact as always, history about both world wars is always wrong with the way americans tell it

WW1 - america barely in it
WW2- america played major part in it but it didn't win the war alone like alot of americans seem to think


EDIT - and to answer the question for this thread

-i was sitting at my computer when it came on the late night news here in australia, i was like WTF then as they were reporting i saw the 2nd plane hit on TV,

I can't believe I agreed with Dragonlance,

I need to go get another drink.

Oh look! A bombing killed 30 people on a bus, and ONE of them was American! Faux News would have it as their lead story.

But then didn't mention the other bombings that killed hundreds of locals...

That's the problem with Americans

Usually I'm not such a big fan of people threadfluffting threads concerning events where many people have lost their lives...

but seriously, 9/11 was fluffing 9 years ago. It wasn't very big in comparison to other things that have happened since then, as others have pointed out. Maybe if you yourself lost family I'd understand but otherwise...

Get over it, the world definitely didn't stop turning.

I found this thread very interesting in a lot of aspects... till I read:

"Americans are forced to focus on the world and intervene sometimes because the last two times we didn't, Europe reared its ugly head."

That is just ridiculous if not offensive/'racist' towards Europeans, we were also shocked about what happened to 'your towers' and many European people have remembered 9/11 in the past nine years, yesterday, and they will continue to do so for the coming decades.

'Rearing an ugly head' is a completely out-of-proportion use of words in here. I'll continue reading news and analysis' about your current 'NO MOSQUE HERE' discussion, which comes oddly close to chants before and during the second world war 'when Europe showed it's ugly head'.

Years ago a Dutch Earther said it best.."America is the big show". I think his name was cytral.

Non Americans help keep it the big show.

Madrid, Mali...and so forth. If you live there then make that the big show.

Blame yourselves, not us. The USA is one big reality show. And you are all tuned in. You despise it yet feel a need to keep tuning in. You made it the big show.

Several people have pointed out to me that some words that I chose to use were charged, unnecessarily combative, and innappropriately insulting. Particularly when I said "Europe reared its ugly head" and when I continued to fan the flames in this thread, I went too far. In mitigation of my poor word choice, I would say that this was supposed to be a solemn thread, that 9/11 (whether you understand it or not) lies close to my heart, that people repeatedly suggested creating a different thread for debate, and that I felt provoked. It does not excuse my actions, but it does mitigate them.

I apologize for some inappropriate word choice and fanning the flames of a thread out of control. I should have considered how my words would be perceived by those that lay in the line of fire.

(I said I wouldn't post about politics, so here's some history)

To be fair, Europe didn't really need America's support to win WW1, but America helped end it quicker.

WW2 is a different story.

America's role on mainland Europe really wasn't *that* significant. What Europeans (and Russians) are really forgetting is Lend Lease. Lend Lease was absolutely *pivotal* to not only the UK, but more importantly, to the USSR (who ended up toppling the Nazis).

Without the lend lease, the USSR wouldn't have even been able to mobilize any of its millions of troops. Without the lend lease, the UK's industry would have collapsed.

Don't forget that while the USA was sitting on the sidelines, the UK was not only getting significant aid, but also American pilots were serving in the RAF.

It was lend lease that won the war, and it was the Marshall Plan that helped Europe recover.

It is possible that without ANY American intervention, Europe may have beat back the Nazis and fascists anyways, but we'll never know.

Just don't be so quick to dismiss American contributions to Europe -- you guys would have been royally fluffed without the help.

Woah wu-TAN.

Lend Lease was important but it started in March 1941 and the Battle of Britain was over in October 1940.

Not downplaying the significance of Lend Lease or the US, but I doubt the British industry would collapse without it.

I dont think Europe dismisses American contribution. I dont. What I noticed, however, is that US downplays the effort of European countries in WW2 particularly the ones that were under occupation, including France.

Du Gaulle did fluff all. He actually made the situation worse. The French underground resistance organized by British and American leadership though was quite important, that is true.

Oh and Canada helped a little. They provided horses and weed and stuff. :P

*runs*

I was referring more to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Greece. Poland in particular, which was pretty much betrayed by the US and UK.

Du Gaulle is irrelevant here. He led the Free French, but had very little to do with the underground apart from being a symbol.

I think the Brits were a bite careless in regards to their Canuck allies by having them sacrifice themselves at Dieppe

All those countries you mentioned are irrelevant. Why?

Well...err...because!

How did the US betray those countries? What obligations, if any, did the US have to them at that time?

its not dismissing americans contributions, its more about americans dismissing everyone elses contributions

they supplied more then enough materials, but when u look at manpower

america supplied roughly 28% of total manpower for the allies ( excluding china) for world war 2

and there were only 3 Eagle squadrons total of 244 Americans airman served in them, u also had polish, canadian, french and other countries pilots serving for RAF

just like with australia, yes america stopped an invasion of australia but america needed australia as a base to launch from early on in the war so in that case Australia needed US and the US needed australia

anyway think we should all get back on topic

Sept 11th , a very sad day and should be remember for what it is - an example of what evil things us humans can do and an example of the selfless acts that the police, firefighters and all the others who risked and gave their lifes to save others

Polish goverment was in exile in London. US entered an alliance with UK etc (Poland too). It betrayed Poland by allowing its borders to shrink.

This is more on UKs head really since UK entered the war because it guaranteed Polish borders (which got changed after the war).

Still US had the obligation to protect its ally and it failed to do so by agreeing with Stalins occupation of eastern Poland.

To add on to Tan's post, it was primarily the US navy (combined with the Japanese running out of oil, due to a US embargo that predated the war) that kept the Japanese navy dominating the Coral Sea and cutting off Australia. Without the US, the Japanese get the run of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and maybe decide that invasions of Australia and New Zealand were not beyond their means. Don't be so quick to dismiss American contributions down under either.

I am not saying that the ANZAC's did not play a role in the defense of Australia, nor am I saying that they did not play a major role in stopping the Axis.

The ANZACs played a huge part in stopping the Germans and Italians in North Africa. If the Germans had reached Egypt's oil fields, or more importantly the middle east, then their tanks don't run out of gas at Stalingrad, and they probably take Russia's oil fields in the Caucasus, crippling Russian industry, and prevent Russia from turning the tide of the war.

ANZAC forces participated in the bloody beach landings of the pacific campaign. Australians, operating behind enemy lines, provided essential intel on the movement of the Japanese navy to the US navy.

thats right AnZac's were never scared of a hard fight :)

Did the United States have a defensive alliance with Poland in the 1940's? What were the terms? I am not being a smartass by any means. I plead ignorance on this one. They certainly did not have any alliance when Germany and Russia invaded.

The US has caught a lot of fluff for protecting allies since ww2. We get fluff for not protecting them either...when there may not have been a def alliance to begin with?

no the US did not have an alliance with poland; the UK & France did before the war;

Hitler declared war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbour in support of his Japanese allies... He expected to have to war the US anyway at some point.

Even if the US had an alliance with Poland (which it didn't AFAIK), the US Government really wasn't in a position to do much to aid Poland in 1939. Our military was not that strong in 1939, and there was significant public resistance to entering the war. An expanding Germany was a clear threat to the UK, so their elected officials had no trouble convincing their public that war was necessary. In the US, it was less clear, and it wasn't until Pearl Harbor that the populace of the US was convinced that the Axis had to be stopped.

To answer the question of the government's desire to enter the war, they had at least two documented sources (one a British asset in Europe), another in Japan warning them that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor, and giving an approximate date for that attack. The US government did nothing to warn Pearl, or prevent the attack, because it was the only way to get the US population to allow them to enter the war.



I have yet to see any indication that the American government agreed with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Indifferent maybe. But no agreeing. Those in power in the US saw the USSR as as big of a threat as the Nazis. The remainder wanted no part in a "European" squabble. To say that they agreed with a non-agression pact between their biggest threats is idiotic.

The US did not start sending aid to the USSR until the day the Operation Barbarossa started, the USSR found itself at war with Germany, and allied itself with the UK.

This I know qz. Hitler also did that hoping the Japanese would declare war on Russia in return. The Japanese strung Hitler along for years. They never had any intention of warring Russia. They got bloodied up before the war messing around with the Russians.

While I certainly feel bad for the crap Poland had to go thru I just don't see why ibu puts it on the US at all.

Ravi, I am talking about the Yalta conference that happened in February 45 and dealed (mostly) with post war boundaries of Europe.

Roosevelt and Churchill made the Soviet invasion of 1939 legal and agreed to let the Soviet Union completely annex the territory gained in 39.

When US entered the war they effectively became part of The Allies. Poland was part of The Allies since 1939. Therefor US and Poland were allied at the time of the Yalta conference.

Since eastern Poland was occupied by Soviet troops, and Stalin would have fought to keep the area, I don't see how Roosevelt and Churchill had much of a choice.

"The US government did nothing to warn Pearl, or prevent the attack, because it was the only way to get the US population to allow them to enter the war."

Not sure I agree with that totally ponderer. Pearl was warned of possible espionage acts. The US did believe Japan was going to hit them someplace. There has been a conspiracy theory that the US knew of the attack and even arranged it in order to get into the war to help Britain.

But before Pearl 2/3 of the population believed the US would end up in the war. That was a sharp change from 1/3 a year or so before.

So Pearl did piss off the American population. But by then I think most knew we would end up in the war anyway.

On a side note I once read that Churchill called Roosevelt after the attack and said "this simplifies things" and had the soundest sleep he had had in years. I also heard that Roosevelt was slamming his fists onto his desk after the attack screaming how our planes were destroyed on the ground.

The US and Poland were allied against Germany. So were the US and the Soviet Union.

Again, I think Poland got a raw deal ibujke. But it is not because of the US. The Americans had no obligation to the Poles in regards to Russia.

So what you are saying is that US didn't have any obligation to any of its European allies (except maybe UK) and that you only entered the Euro war to defeat Nazi Germany because you knew Nazi Germany would try to invade US after Europe fell?

If US had no obligation to its Allies then what you did was only for your own good (preventing a possible invasion or other non military threat as well as expanding your influence to Western Europe). If that is true then why do you (US people) keep saying you saved us?

You left half the Europe in the hands of a dictator of the same caliber as Hitler and I should be grateful for that?

I am not mad at US or anything, I`m just saying the US did what it thought was best for the US at the time. It wasn't running to our rescue, it was furthering its own goals. And that's just fine.

Agreed with Ponderer... the Red Army was the strongest military force in Europe at the time, would have been suicide to try to take away Stalin's conquests.

The Abwehr sent a Serbian count who used his cover as an international business man to run various agents and obtain information to the US to form a spy network there. He was told by the Germans to gather information on the defenses at Pearl Harbor and given a deadline for obtaining the information, as that was the week the attack was planned for.

Unknown to the Abwehr, the count had gone to the British as soon as the Germans tried to recruit him, and was relaying MI6 approved material. Worse yet for the Germans, he had turned his Abwehr handler, a high ranking and well connected member of the primary German intelligence service. The count, whose code name was Tricycle (the code name referred to his frequent enjoyment of menage a trois), informed MI6 of the plot. They in turn arranged to have him meet Hoover. He met with Hoover on August 12, 1941, months before the attack. After the meeting, he was kicked out of the country on the pretense that he had violated the Mann act by transporting a well known actress from Florida to New York (it was illegal to bring a women across state lines and have sex with them).

Tricycle's exploits have been well documented - both in his own memoirs and in several books about the role of MI6 in World War II. Ian Fleming credited Tricycle with being an inspiration for the James Bond character.

I know a lot less about the Japanese source.

From the end of World War I, until the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the US followed a course of isolationism with the exception of the US's imperialist interests in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. Outside of the puppet regimes of various countries like Cuba and the Philippines, the US had no formal Allies.

I see that others insist on turning a thread of remembrance into yet another political debate. As such, I see no purpose in keeping this thread open for 'discussion'.