10 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

lol you are f'kin kidding right. Hilarious. A two thousand year old country does not win like that. Proper troll. Britain has always stood alone and this sentiment is the tactic of the yank. Please enlighten us as to when America joined WWII? Don't worry, we already know. Battle of Britain does not feature in your vocabulary. Proper opportunistic yellow bellies. You pricks have no clue of war, and also have no clue of what Ukraine is up against because you have never had the pleasure of being invaded.

Don't forget Dave the Yanks rescued the ist Enigma Machine from a sinking U-Boat bravely putting there lives on the line lol.

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, and was inevitably defeated. The Romans, the Vikings, the French, the Germans, sorry Angles, Jutes, Saxons, England's has bent over more than France has, really.

 

That's right. I said it.

 

 

Yes, Roosevelt also cowardly waited until 1944 to open another front against Hitler of actual fighting, not denying it's so. But let's not pretend that England didn't  avoid fighting in the same way.

You realy are clueless Cameroni arnt you. As your so clever give us the figures of the Luftwaffe against the British RAF during the Battle of Britain and who got there Arse kicked, go on. The only war you won was the Gulf war with the help of us Brits.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That was the case with the RAF as well, with Germany having superior planes and England using wooden Mosquitos, but the issue was, as ever, sheer numbers. Germany did not have enough planes.

 

The RAF was superior to the Russian Air Force both in terms of pilot skill, hardware and technology - the UK had the most advanced radar systems - which goes some way to explaining why the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain but one year later - despite the losses incurred during the Battle of Britain - was able to defeat the Soviet Air force.

 

In addition, if the UK had surrendered/ sued for peace in 1940, no doubt Germany would have made use of our technical expertise (and in all probability, our aircraft as well).

 

Therefore, any advantage in numbers which the Russian Air Force had would have been reduced and overcome by the superior hardware, technology and skill on the Luftwaffe's part.

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

The RAF had some slight effect on the timing of Barbarossa, but they did not really have a great effect.

 

Perhaps Hitler may have listened to reason and not launched Operation Barbarossa quite so quickly if he knew that he did not have to worry about the Western allies? We will never know.

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Even their obscene war crime in using area bombing did not have a major effect, as the Germans could rebuild factories, and a post war survey confirmed area bombing was a failure.

 

Area bombing i.e. targeting cities and killing civilians was a war crime and may have been ineffective, but to bracket that with the bombing of factories and imply that the latter was inconsequential is nonsensical.

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Yes, yes, rail and trucks, but if you look at the numbers of aircraft, Russia outnumbered Germany long before Lend Lease. Lend Lease was a "nice to have" but it was no way "vital" or decisive in the war. Even if some Russians said so later out of politeness, no doubt seeking to ingratiate themselves with the West.

 

Of course, Russian politicians have long been known for their politeness (especially to their counterparts in the West)!

 

As I said above, any advantage in numbers which the Russian Air Force had would have been overcome by superior hardware, technology and skill on the Luftwaffe's part.

 

Add in Lend-Lease supplies such as food, then it is clear that its absence was far more than 'nice to have' and was, in fact, vital to the Russian war effort.

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Russia would have defeated Germany with or without Lend Lease.

 

 

We disagree. I think the exact opposite.

59 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

There is too much inbreeding in your country.

 

😂

 

I don't think that you need to cross the pond to find  <insert collective noun here> of inbreeding.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, and was inevitably defeated. The Romans, the Vikings, the French, the Germans, sorry Angles, Jutes, Saxons, England's has bent over more than France has, really.

 

That's right. I said it.

 

Yes, Roosevelt also cowardly waited until 1944 to open another front against Hitler of actual fighting, not denying it's so. But let's not pretend that England didn't  avoid fighting in the same way.

 

Please stop. You really are starting to make yourself look very foolish indeed.

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

The RAF was superior to the Russian Air Force both in terms of pilot skill, hardware and technology - the UK had the most advanced radar systems - which goes some way to explaining why the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain but one year later - despite the losses incurred during the Battle of Britain - was able to defeat the Soviet Air force.

 

No, the Russians actually had planes that were superior to the wooden Mosquito, which was a terrible plane really. Just the sheer numbers. And the Luftwaffe did not defeat the Russian Air Force of course, only victories at the start, like against Britain.

 

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

Perhaps Hitler may have listened to reason and not launched Operation Barbarossa quite so quickly if he knew that he did not have to worry about the Western allies? We will never know.

 

The Problem was Hitler listened to Fremde Heere Ost, who told him compeltely fantasy figures for Russian materiel which bore no semblance to reality. That's why he said later, if he had known the true extent of Soviet materiel he never would have started the war. Fremde Heere Ost failed.

 

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

but to bracket that with the bombing of factories and imply that the latter was inconsequential is nonsensical.

 

'No, it's not, there was a survey done after the war which concluded area bombing was useless in relation to weakening German ability produce arms. As the Germans kept rebuilding.

 

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

any advantage in numbers which the Russian Air Force had would have been overcome by superior hardware, technology and skill on the Luftwaffe's part.

 

That's not what happend is it? Like in Britain, sheer numbers decided.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not at this time, Ray,  I was of course referring to the sorry spectacle of Britain letting Russia fight the real war in WWII, whilst Britain herself, despite repeated pleas from the USSR, did not dare to actually fight on the ground until 1944 when the war was effectively decided by Russia and really over already.

Rubbish. Russia started WWII with the Nazis. It deserved much worse.  As usual you ignore the Russian backstabbing deceitful invasion and land grab in Poland and its invasion of Finland  in 1939.  Not satisfied with those acts of war, in June 1940,  it invaded and annexed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Russia did this with its ally Nazi Germany.  Why do you expect anyone to  shed tears over Russia's falling out with its partner in war and  evil, Nazi Germany?

The war was not over when  the allies  launched their liberation of Europe. First, there had to be victory in North Africa. This started in 1942 and culminated in 1943. Then it was on to Europe with the liberation of Sicily in 1943. It was only then that the liberation of Europe  could begin. The allies were hard at defeating the nazis long before 1944. All you have done is repeat the Stalin apologist talking points. 

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, the Russians actually had planes that were superior to the wooden Mosquito, which was a terrible plane really. Just the sheer numbers.

 

Oh dear, you are becoming desperate.

 

The Russian planes may have been superior to the Mosquito, but that is totally irrelevant to any discussion of the Battle of Britain as the Mosquito did not take part.

 

The RAF deployed (mainly) Hurricanes and Spitfires.

 

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

And the Luftwaffe did not defeat the Russian Air Force of course, only victories at the start, like against Britain.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Soviet_air_war_22_June_1941

 

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

The Problem was Hitler listened to Fremde Heere Ost, who told him compeltely fantasy figures for Russian materiel which bore no semblance to reality. That's why he said later, if he had known the true extent of Soviet materiel he never would have started the war. Fremde Heere Ost failed.

 

With better intelligence, Hitler almost certainly would have delayed attacking Russia

 

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

'No, it's not, there was a survey done after the war which concluded area bombing was useless in relation to weakening German ability produce arms. As the Germans kept rebuilding.

 

Absolute nonsense. What reputable survey could possibly conclude that destroying an enemy's industrial capability was ineffective?

 

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's not what happend is it? Like in Britain, sheer numbers decided.

 

 

No it is not what happened. We are discussing an alternative world where the UK ceased hostilities in 1940 and the US did not enact Lend-Lease legislation.

19 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, it's not, there was a survey done after the war which concluded area bombing was useless in relation to weakening German ability produce arms. As the Germans kept rebuilding.

You should read How the War Was Won by Phillips Payson O'Brien.   Once, the air bombing campaign targeted oil and transportation in 1944. The Germans were done. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

like the Yanks in both World wars joined in half way, cant fight there way out of a paper bag ha ha, defeated by woman on push bikes in NAM.

Without the Yanks, the Brits would have had no chance.   

22 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

As usual you ignore the Russian backstabbing deceitful invasion and land grab in Poland and its invasion of Finland  in 1939. 

 

You ignore that Poland herself invaded Russia and parts of Germany prior to the German-Russo revenge.

 

 

Quote

 

First, there had to be victory in North Africa. 

 

 

North Africa was a total side show. Very little importance.

 

 

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

The RAF deployed (mainly) Hurricanes and Spitfires.

 

And the Yak-3 was better than any Spitfire.

 

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

What reputable survey could possibly conclude that destroying an enemy's industrial capability was ineffective?

 

The US Strategic Bombing survey. Even today the ineffecive nature of strategic bombing is still taught in the US military academies:

 

The RAF began intensive daylight bombing of Germany in retaliation. But because of inability to find and hit its targets while its unescorted bomber fleet took serious losses, it changed its strategy to the indiscriminate night bombing of Germany’s cities. This too, was generally ineffectual. 

 

The serious effort by the U.S. strategic bomber forces (now protected by fighters) to destroy the German aircraft industry only spurred the Germans to increase vastly their rate of fighter production. This bombing venture was a complete failure, mostly for lack of accuracy. 

 

 

The complete litany of failure is too long to relate. Three fundamental reasons for the consistent failures of the bomber forces were completely evident:

The bombers lacked sufficient accuracy

The bombers could not survive without fighter escort

The targets and their priorities were ill defined

 

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1996/november/strategic-bombing-always-myth

During operation Barbarossa, which lasted less than 6 months. Germany destroyed or captured 20.500 tanks  (80% of the Russian tank force in June 1941), 21,200 aircraft (110% of the air force in June 1941) and suffered over 4.5 million casualties (80% of military personnel as of June 1941). Russia came within  a hairs breadth of collapse.

 

Only the Balkan campaign which delayed the start of Barbarossa and Germanys neglect to provide winter uniforms and equipment saved Russia.

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

And the Yak-3 was better than any Spitfire.

 

 

But not superior enough to prevent the Russian Air Force suffering a heavy defeat at the hands of the Luftwaffe 

 

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

The US Strategic Bombing survey. Even today the ineffecive nature of strategic bombing is still taught in the US military academies:

 

The RAF began intensive daylight bombing of Germany in retaliation. But because of inability to find and hit its targets while its unescorted bomber fleet took serious losses, it changed its strategy to the indiscriminate night bombing of Germany’s cities. This too, was generally ineffectual. 

 

The serious effort by the U.S. strategic bomber forces (now protected by fighters) to destroy the German aircraft industry only spurred the Germans to increase vastly their rate of fighter production. This bombing venture was a complete failure, mostly for lack of accuracy. 

 

 

The complete litany of failure is too long to relate. Three fundamental reasons for the consistent failures of the bomber forces were completely evident:

The bombers lacked sufficient accuracy

The bombers could not survive without fighter escort

The targets and their priorities were ill defined

 

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1996/november/strategic-bombing-always-myth

 

Exactly. It was a failure of strategy not objective

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not at this time, Ray,  I was of course referring to the sorry spectacle of Britain letting Russia fight the real war in WWII, whilst Britain herself, despite repeated pleas from the USSR, did not dare to actually fight on the ground until 1944 when the war was effectively decided by Russia and really over already.

The Russians were fighting with pitch forks and shovels. What was their death count in WW II? 20 million?

11 minutes ago, rickudon said:

During operation Barbarossa, which lasted less than 6 months. Germany destroyed or captured 20.500 tanks  (80% of the Russian tank force in June 1941), 21,200 aircraft (110% of the air force in June 1941) and suffered over 4.5 million casualties (80% of military personnel as of June 1941). Russia came within  a hairs breadth of collapse.

 

Only the Balkan campaign which delayed the start of Barbarossa and Germanys neglect to provide winter uniforms and equipment saved Russia.

 

Even with these successes, the Russians still had enough materiel to defeat Germany, which tells you the enormous superiority in rmateriel which Russia enjoyed.

 

Yes, the Balkan campaign delayed Barbarossa a little. But the whole venture was doomed to failure, since Russia vastly outnumbered Germany in materiel. Contrary to what Fremde Heere Ost was telling Hitler.

57 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You ignore that Poland herself invaded Russia and parts of Germany prior to the German-Russo revenge.

 

North Africa was a total side show. Very little importance.

 

 

 

When did Poland invade Russia or Germany? Surely you can not refer to the period in 1919-1920 when Lenin tried to expand Russia and attacked its neighboring nations?It was Russia which annulled the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and then attacked the Germans.. It was Lenin who wanted to control Poland. Historically, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland had controlled the region Russia had attacked and attempted to annex. During the period when Poland ruled, there was prosperity and there were no pogroms. Is that why you are so hostile to the freedom of Lithuania and Poland? it is only after the hateful, belligerent primitive Russians moved into this region that they brought their pogroms and discrimination against Catholics and other Christians. The Poles were invited by the Ukrainians to assist in the resistance to the expansionist Russians who sought to annex Ukraine. The Poles helped liberate Kyiv from the occupying Russians who looted and pillaged as they went. (Sound familiar?)

 

The fact is that the war stopped in 1920 and was settled by the treaty of Riga. It was Russia that then broke this treaty in 1939.

 

26 minutes ago, gargamon said:

The Russians were fighting with pitch forks and shovels. What was their death count in WW II? 20 million?

 

Don't tell that to the creature who offers his best imitation of Goebbels. He will have to check his revisionist tracts to offer more modified versions of history.

5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Don't tell that to the creature who offers his best imitation of Goebbels. He will have to check his revisionist tracts to offer more modified versions of history.

Goebbels hmm? 

 

I rather think of him as the barking mad Captain Klenzendorf, as portrayed by Sam Rockwell in the Film "Jo Jo Rabbit"!

 

Bizarre, fantastical, and utterly detached from reality!

On 10/7/2025 at 7:51 AM, SAFETY FIRST said:

On 10/6/2025 at 9:27 AM, Bacon1 said:

British man named Aiden Minnis, 37, has ignited controversy after releasing a video in which he sets his UK passport aflame

The guy is unhinged, he belongs in Pattaya

Another freak who belongs in Pattaya. 

 

 

13 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

And the Yak-3 was better than any Spitfire.

 

 

The US Strategic Bombing survey. Even today the ineffecive nature of strategic bombing is still taught in the US military academies:

 

The RAF began intensive daylight bombing of Germany in retaliation. But because of inability to find and hit its targets while its unescorted bomber fleet took serious losses, it changed its strategy to the indiscriminate night bombing of Germany’s cities. This too, was generally ineffectual. 

 

The serious effort by the U.S. strategic bomber forces (now protected by fighters) to destroy the German aircraft industry only spurred the Germans to increase vastly their rate of fighter production. This bombing venture was a complete failure, mostly for lack of accuracy. 

 

 

The complete litany of failure is too long to relate. Three fundamental reasons for the consistent failures of the bomber forces were completely evident:

The bombers lacked sufficient accuracy

The bombers could not survive without fighter escort

The targets and their priorities were ill defined

 

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1996/november/strategic-bombing-always-myth

Wrong again Cameroni Coventry was blitzed by the Luftwaffe and as a result it was decided to Bomb a German City in retaliation.

On 10/6/2025 at 5:52 PM, newbee2022 said:

I think there are better ways to die.🤩

Than a bullet to the head or heart?

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

Wrong again Cameroni Coventry was blitzed by the Luftwaffe and as a result it was decided to Bomb a German City in retaliation.

 

Total hogwash.