[DanSC]

DerbyX DerbyX:

This was a MUCH better game:

Only if adults are playing; we can't expose children to American-style games.

[bootlegga]

DanSC DanSC:

There's only way to settle this.

DerbyX DerbyX:

This was a MUCH better game:

Sorry, but you're both wrong. Both of those are fine games, but the best game for world conquest is Supremacy.

Think RISK with nukes, navies, Star Wars satellites, as well as BILLION dollar bills.

[DerbyX]

Played a lot of Risk and a lot of FA. FA had a far greater strategic need then Risk. I loved playing the US as it generally required the greatest strategic mind.

My friends and I even created our own home grown rules allowing for Canadian involvement, anti-laser sat capabilities of the invading forces and paratroopers.

Wonderful game. Superior to even the upgraded Risk game.

[Praxius]

commanderkai commanderkai:

..... Uh, when you talk about World War II, it wasn't really exaggerated. The Americans contributed a majority of the forces in the Pacific, and consisted of a large part of the Western European theater. Did they win on their own? Of course not, the British/Commonwealth certainly had a major part of World War II, and of course, the USSR, but downplaying the American contribution to the war effort is as faulty as saying they won the conflict on their own.

I'm not attempting to downplay the US's contribution, I'm merely bringing the hype down to reality.

Yes, the US had their own little war with Japan during WWII.... China, Australia and other nations nearby who were attacked by Japan were also involved. The US played a much larger role in the Pacific, but the claims about their contributions in Europe were greatly exaggerated, especially in today's pop culture.

There have been many hollywood movies that potray the US doing many things they weren't even involved in..... take U-571.... it was actually the British who obtained the Enigma coder from U-110 and before the US entered the war, and the actual U-571 sub wasn't involved in any such situation. It was actually sunk in 1944 off of Ireland by the Australian Air Force (No. 461 Squad)

Yet some would try and make it sound like it was a true story and it was the US who did all of these important things during the war..... and the real problem is that there are less informed people out there who believe these things to be fact and further the ignorance.

The Russians were the most instrumental military force during WWII, not just due to their man power, but their superior-designed tanks such as the T-34 which used slope armour - quick to manufacture and cheap to manufacture - as well as their un-yeilding offense that didn't stop until they reached Berlin itself.

"The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history. They were characterized by unprecedented ferocity, wholesale destruction, mass deportations, and immense loss of life variously due to combat, starvation, disease, and massacres. The Eastern Front, as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and the majority of pogroms, was central to the Holocaust. Of the estimated 70 million deaths attributed to World War II, over 30 million, many of them civilians, died on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat. It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Fr ... rld_War_II)

Meanwhile the Pacific was what made the US a superpower....

but in regards to the US trading with everybody, Axis & Ally alike, that's not something I'd give them brownie points for.

Yes, most western nations, including Canada refused to let Jewish people into the Country, but since the US and many other nations did the same thing.... that part cancels out in regards to this topic.

But when we have our nations fighting an enemy as powerful and determined as the Germans were, and we have one of our allies, the US, openly traded with the enemy we were all fighting against, thus most likely prolonging the war, that concerns me and cancels out much of their so-called contributions.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sorry, but you're both wrong. Both of those are fine games, but the best game for world conquest is Supremacy.

Think RISK with nukes, navies, Star Wars satellites, as well as BILLION dollar bills.

I used to love Supremacy.

This was a good game with a sense of humour. At one time, the game description read, "Be the first kid on your block to be the last kid on your block".

[martin14]

The Russians keep a half million man army, could raise another half million in a
couple of weeks. Plus navy and airforce.

The Chinese keep 3 million men under arms.


We have 100,000.
Australia has 45.
The UK has 150.

Trinidad and Tobago has 2000, sitting in one regiment. Yeah, they will very
much come and save our ass.

The US has a current strength around 1.5 million.

$1:

Here, I'll even make it easy for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sh ... rds#Canada

There are 10 major shipyards across Canada, and that's just for starters.

Here ya go wikiwarrior, some truth for you:

expanded to 90 plants on the East and West Coasts, the Great Lakes and even inland. More than 126,000 men and women were employed.

Canadian shipyards built 4,047 naval vessels
Built 300 anti-submarine warships
4 Tribal class destroyers
http://wwii.ca/page17.html

90 does not equal 10, and btw, none of those yards can now produce anything bigger
than a frigate. Thanks for proving my point for me.



The other thread, dealing with delays in purchasing new trucks.. built in the US.
Nothing in Canada. I guess your Nova Scotia boys have something else to do.


You also assume we would have years to get ready. If the Chinese or Russians decide
to come, we would maybe have weeks. Our best source of equipment would be the US.


I find it hilarious that you go on and on about the Russians, considering the
thread topic talks about the possibility of invasion from them.
The rest of your post is just anti US bullshit, not worth comment.

Keep dreaming.

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sorry, but you're both wrong. Both of those are fine games, but the best game for world conquest is Supremacy.

Think RISK with nukes, navies, Star Wars satellites, as well as BILLION dollar bills.

I used to love Supremacy.

This was a good game with a sense of humour. At one time, the game description read, "Be the first kid on your block to be the last kid on your block".

Nuclear War is awesome! In our games, final retaliation by one player almost always meant that everyone died!

I still have it and the expansion set, but I lost my glow-in-the-dark die...

[ShepherdsDog]

In university we played Axis and Allies as well as Diplomacy....drink a shot at the end of your turn.

[commanderkai]

Praxius Praxius:

I'm not attempting to downplay the US's contribution, I'm merely bringing the hype down to reality.

Considering your tone about the US contribution to World War II, you sound like you are trying to downplay the United States' contribution to World War II...

$1:

Yes, the US had their own little war with Japan during WWII.... China, Australia and other nations nearby who were attacked by Japan were also involved. The US played a much larger role in the Pacific, but the claims about their contributions in Europe were greatly exaggerated, especially in today's pop culture.

Like here, for example. America's "own little war"? It was a major theater of World War II. Australia, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth territories and nations did not have the resources or manpower to defend itself, and most of the British fleet was engaged with the Germans when the Japanese attacked. The Chinese might have had manpower, but most of their industrial areas fell to the Japanese before Pearl Harbor even began, and the Chinese forces did not have the equipment to push back the more advanced Japanese out of China.

$1:

There have been many hollywood movies that potray the US doing many things they weren't even involved in..... take U-571.... it was actually the British who obtained the Enigma coder from U-110 and before the US entered the war, and the actual U-571 sub wasn't involved in any such situation. It was actually sunk in 1944 off of Ireland by the Australian Air Force (No. 461 Squad)

So you're downplaying and being condescending of American contributions to the war effort because of Hollywood? Are you serious? They're entertainment, nothing more. There are very, very few movies based on history that can have any resemblance to true fact.

$1:

Yet some would try and make it sound like it was a true story and it was the US who did all of these important things during the war..... and the real problem is that there are less informed people out there who believe these things to be fact and further the ignorance.

Like who? If you want to inform those individuals, then fine, but if you're going to act like the Americans played a small part, or, much more entertainingly, talk of America's contribution to World War II as

"... and suddenly when the Germans' advance was stopped and began to be pushed back, suddenly the US decides to tag along & fight along with us...."

then you have no right to attempt to educate those who are less informed unless you can hold your own biases and contempt in check.

$1:

The Russians were the most instrumental military force during WWII, not just due to their man power, but their superior-designed tanks such as the T-34 which used slope armour - quick to manufacture and cheap to manufacture - as well as their un-yeilding offense that didn't stop until they reached Berlin itself.

In Eastern Europe, sure they were. In the Pacific, not so much. Yes, the Russians developed an effective battle tank to face off against the Germans, what choice did they have? And to say German tank forces didn't have some powerful tanks of their own. Like I said earlier, the Eastern Front was a massive grinder of man and machine. The Soviets had more to throw in.

$1:

Meanwhile the Pacific was what made the US a superpower....

but in regards to the US trading with everybody, Axis & Ally alike, that's not something I'd give them brownie points for.

Once again, so? The Americans were isolationist in regards to European foreign policy. They saw the nightmare of the alliance system in World War I and wanted no part of it. All nations, be it the United States, Canada, the USSR, the United Kingdom, etc etc have stains on their reputation.

$1:

Yes, most western nations, including Canada refused to let Jewish people into the Country, but since the US and many other nations did the same thing.... that part cancels out in regards to this topic.

Absolutely not. If you can rail against the United States over their trading with both sides, I can certainly point out that we let in 4,000 of the 800,000 Jewish refugees escaping Europe. Even if other countries did the same thing, the fact that we let in such a small amount compared to countries like Argentina is a blemish that will tarnish Canada for a long time.

$1:

But when we have our nations fighting an enemy as powerful and determined as the Germans were, and we have one of our allies, the US, openly traded with the enemy we were all fighting against, thus most likely prolonging the war, that concerns me and cancels out much of their so-called contributions.

Because, at the time, the United States wasn't at war with Nazi Germany. They traded with allied forces too. Seemingly, they don't balance each other out, now do they? Of course not, because, in your view, that tarnishes the Americans more than anything else. If you are going to make accusations against the United States, while ignoring the political reality of the time (America was neutral, and a number of the trade deals were formed before the rise of Nazi Germany, as well as before the actual war began) and the fact that the Americans sold military equipment to the Commonwealth during the conflict, then you're being as ignorant as those who take their history lessons from Hollywood.

Think about it, for a second. The Americans weren't going to risk their shipping during the conflict, and the Germans had no chance in hell to send their merchant shipping to the United States during the actual war. Most of the "trading" with Nazi Germany occurred before Nazi Germany was an enemy of the Commonwealth. You can't condemn the Americans for not predicting the future.

[DanSC]

I guess all of those Marines at Iwo Jima and Okinawa were posing for the cameras in a little skirmish.

[BartSimpson]

Praxius Praxius:

I'm not attempting to downplay the US's contribution

I love passive aggressive disclaimers like this.

It's like saying, "I'm not going to unfairly criticize your pathetic and spineless argument".

I've oft pointed out that the US of the late 1930's was a country where many of the people alive held a grudge against Britain and France for their contribution to the death of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson exhausted himself trying to obtain a fair and lasting peace with Germany while Britain and France insisted on Versailles - a treaty that virtually guaranteed another war.

In 1921 Belgium and France invaded Germany and seized the Ruhr after the bankrupting of Weimar caused a default on reparations. After seizing the Ruhr these assclowns insisted the Germans keep up reparations payments even though their industrial region had been stolen from them. This further infuriated Americans (and the USA with the Europeans.

When Germany arose in 1935 and told Britain and France to shove Versailles where it belonged most people in the USA were pretty happy for the Germans.

By 1940 the Americans were disabused of their sympathy towards Nazi Germany but that didn't mean we were all that enthralled with the rest of Europe. When Germany rolled over France and threatened the UK the prevailing attitude in the US was "Serves them right."

FDR then had a tough time selling his 'Lend Lease' program to a population that wanted nothing to do with a war the Europeans could have easily prevented. Yet FDR still managed to drag us into that war by selling arms to the UK.

When Pearl Harbor happened the Congress had no problem declaring war on Japan but it was Hitler who finally got the US into the European war by declaring war on the USA. Absent Hitler's declaration of war on the USA I imagine we'd have still been in the European war at some point in 1942 given that U-boats were attacking ships along the US Atlantic coast.

But did we 'drag our feet' on getting into a European war? Hell yes, we did! We had no alliance with Europe and we had no desire to get into another one of their easily-avoidable wars.

And at the end of that war we made for damn sure that Germany was not made to suffer by France and Britain again.

Interestingly, it was just this last year that Germany made its last reparations payment for WW1. $94 million, as I recall.

[Praxius]

Just to clarify a bit, when I said "own little war" it was in the context of it seeming like a war within a war. While the Pacific involved a number of nations fighting, the US dealt with most of the action & conflict.

The US was one of many nations fighting in Europe where the Russians contributed the most towards the Ally's victory over the Axis, meanwhile the Pacific turned out to be mostly the US's war where the US contributed the most towards the Ally's victory over the Axis in that front.

In both, the US and Russia came out of the war as Super Powers due to their sacrafices & advancements during WWII.

^ I've already acknowledged all of this in the same post you're all nit picking over and claiming I'm trivializing the US's contributions.

My bringing things down to reality was in regards to how many today seem to think the US did everything during WWII, in both fronts, and people saying things to people in the UK & France like "We saved your ass" etc.....

Yes, the US did considerable things & sacrafices in the Pacific Front.... but that does not equate to the European Front. They still contributed & sacraficed a lot in the European Front, but no more then most other Allied nations and certainly not as much as the Soviets did.

That was the only point I was trying to make.

Geez you guys have selective reading.

Anyways, the topic has gone off on a tangent long enough I suppose.... The original point was that when Canada & Canadians are put to a challenge, we step up to the plate & hold our own as well as most other nations. It is true that our military capabilities are clearly not the best right now, but they weren't before WWI or WWII and when shoved into a war, especially one that's at our doorstep, I'm confident enough that we'd step up to the plate once more & hold our own like we always did.

We shouldn't have to rely on other nations to protect us, because if we did/do.... then we don't deserve to be called a nation in the first place.

That is all.