Canadah Vs USA

[Poison]

Do you think they like it up the ass since they call us a wannabe of US?

lol it looks like canada is gey

[ydocsmada]

Quebec > USA > Canada.
kthx

Quebec is at the bottom of the respect list in Canada.

[porygonzx]

Quebec is at the bottom of the respect list in Canada.

USA > QUEBEC > CANADA

[Sparkle]

USA > CANADA > ONTARIO

[porygonzx]

US OF A, ALL THE WAY

[ortax]

USA. Hawaii, I gotta move there..

[Ricox]

@Revision

Oh god, not again this "america is gud we halp everyun okay plz". I respect the effort Americans contributed to WWII, but you are just being egoistic, let's get some WWII facts out first.

1.) US joined World War II only in late 1941 (more precisely - December), they did not provide a significant contribution in terms of military assistance (only economical, AKA lend-lease, altought technically it could be counted as military assistance as it provided war materials too) until about '43 or '44 (in '44 they got involved in the European threatre as they landed in Normandy alongside other Allied countries).

2.) The Commonwealth (Canada, UK, New Zealand, South Africa), France and Poland actively fought Germany from the beginning of the war, if they had all fallen, then I doubt that we would be "free" right now, we'd be all writing/speaking in German anyways, American intervention wouldn't have helped anyhow if those countries would have been conquered (US Army at it's peak during WWII couldn't be compared to German Army at it's peak, the German army was superior, but all Allied nations combined, including Soviet Union, managed to put Germany on its knees, and if a miracle would have happend and Operation Sealion would have suceeded, then really - it would be over).

3.) Canada also actively participated in World War II and contributed to the Normandy landings actively. Look at the Raid on Dnieppe, it was sort of a "test run" for the Normandy landings. The Canadian, Polish and British forces were basically sent on a suicide mission, in inferior numbers (well, they did outnumber the defenders, but the defenders had superior defenses, they were well dug in and we all know that Germans almost always won when the men ratio was 1:1-1:2 with enemy, even againist Americans).

4.) It is very doubtful that Canada would have suffered from German dominance in Europe. Royal Navy (British) was very powerful, so an invasion on Britain was unlikely in the first place, let alone the Germans somehow crossing the whole Atlantic ocean and invading Canada. Plus, US would be doomed if Germans would get to Canada in adequate numbers, they would be forced to defend them regardless of any "lol we bettar than u okai plz respukt us", because if Germans got all of Canada, then US homeland would be at direct threat.

5.) The amount of losses the Soviets took in the Eastern Front can't be compared to any of the Western Front losses. Soviets were completely devastated from the war, altought the war helped them in spreading their influence throught all of Central and Eastern Europe and turned their army into a monster that none wants to mess with, altought, from what I've heard, USSR had manpower problems at the end of the war and a war with Allies would devastate them, but it would have likely turned into a nuclear war.

6.) Every participant nation in World War II contributed to the victory, but nowadays a lot of people, mostly Americans (not talking about all of them, but a lot of ignorant Americans go all like "meeeh, we saved French arses for the 2nd time, we should be praised 'n shit, respukt our veterans, altought I don't give a fuck about British, French, Polish and Soviet war veterans, those commies can lick my balls"), only credit their own nation's achievements, ignoring the fact that without co-operation and the combined Allied operations, the outcome of World War II would have been entirely different.

[Cyberdyne]

I live in the U.S. so my answer would be biased.

but I'd say the Kingdom of Tonga because they let me launch rockets anywhere I want as long as I have pocket change.



well...It won't really matter when Google's pwning us all.

[Mouzie]

Oh god, not again this "america is gud we halp everyun okay plz". I respect the effort Americans contributed to WWII, but you are just being egoistic, let's get some WWII facts out first.

1.) US joined World War II only in late 1941 (more precisely - December), they did not provide a significant contribution in terms of military assistance (only economical, AKA lend-lease, altought technically it could be counted as military assistance as it provided war materials too) until about '43 or '44 (in '44 they got involved in the European threatre as they landed in Normandy alongside other Allied countries).

2.) The Commonwealth (Canada, UK, New Zealand, South Africa), France and Poland actively fought Germany from the beginning of the war, if they had all fallen, then I doubt that we would be "free" right now, we'd be all writing/speaking in German anyways, American intervention wouldn't have helped anyhow if those countries would have been conquered (US Army at it's peak during WWII couldn't be compared to German Army at it's peak, the German army was superior, but all Allied nations combined, including Soviet Union, managed to put Germany on its knees, and if a miracle would have happend and Operation Sealion would have suceeded, then really - it would be over).

3.) Canada also actively participated in World War II and contributed to the Normandy landings actively. Look at the Raid on Dnieppe, it was sort of a "test run" for the Normandy landings. The Canadian, Polish and British forces were basically sent on a suicide mission, in inferior numbers (well, they did outnumber the defenders, but the defenders had superior defenses, they were well dug in and we all know that Germans almost always won when the men ratio was 1:1-1:2 with enemy, even againist Americans).

4.) It is very doubtful that Canada would have suffered from German dominance in Europe. Royal Navy (British) was very powerful, so an invasion on Britain was unlikely in the first place, let alone the Germans somehow crossing the whole Atlantic ocean and invading Canada. Plus, US would be doomed if Germans would get to Canada in adequate numbers, they would be forced to defend them regardless of any "lol we bettar than u okai plz respukt us", because if Germans got all of Canada, then US homeland would be at direct threat.

5.) The amount of losses the Soviets took in the Eastern Front can't be compared to any of the Western Front losses. Soviets were completely devastated from the war, altought the war helped them in spreading their influence throught all of Central and Eastern Europe and turned their army into a monster that none wants to mess with, altought, from what I've heard, USSR had manpower problems at the end of the war and a war with Allies would devastate them, but it would have likely turned into a nuclear war.

6.) Every participant nation in World War II contributed to the victory, but nowadays a lot of people, mostly Americans (not talking about all of them, but a lot of ignorant Americans go all like "meeeh, we saved French arses for the 2nd time, we should be praised 'n shit, respukt our veterans, altought I don't give a fuck about British, French, Polish and Soviet war veterans, those commies can lick my balls"), only credit their own nation's achievements, ignoring the fact that without co-operation and the combined Allied operations, the outcome of World War II would have been entirely different.

Who supplied the Allies before joining?

Oh right, United States.

[Hannibal]

Who supplied the Allies before joining?

Oh right, United States.

Considering they were in a depression, supplying the allies was the only way to get out. So by that logic if america wasn't in a depression they most likely wouldn't even of supplied. Go look at history books. America and Nazi germany had a very close relationship. Madison Square Garden was filled with americans saluting the nazi banners and flags. If it wasn't for the Japanese america wouldn't of even been in the war.

[Mouzie]

Considering they were in a depression, supplying the allies was the only way to get out. So by that logic if america wasn't in a depression they most likely wouldn't even of supplied. Go look at history books. America and Nazi germany had a very close relationship. Madison Square Garden was filled with americans saluting the nazi banners and flags. If it wasn't for the Japanese america wouldn't of even been in the war.

The United States and Nazi Germany did not have a close relationship, but rather a mutual one like Sweden and Nazi Germany. Also, the Great Depression was ending around 1940, by 1941, the United States got a massive boost. It's a common economic boost you'll see when you're at war. During total war like the United States and many countries did (except for Germany), they focus their entire focus on the war and so that raises the economic boost.

The United States supplying the Allies wasn't the only way, look at the average GDP and the rates of unemployment. In fact, the Allies couldn't even pay the Americans for their weapons, tanks, supplies, etc. They were loaned, so saying that the USA getting money from those loans is just plain silly.

[Ricox]

The United States and Nazi Germany did not have a close relationship, but rather a mutual one like Sweden and Nazi Germany. Also, the Great Depression was ending around 1940, by 1941, the United States got a massive boost. It's a common economic boost you'll see when you're at war. During total war like the United States and many countries did (except for Germany), they focus their entire focus on the war and so that raises the economic boost.

The United States supplying the Allies wasn't the only way, look at the average GDP and the rates of unemployment. In fact, the Allies couldn't even pay the Americans for their weapons, tanks, supplies, etc. They were loaned, so saying that the USA getting money from those loans is just plain silly.

Do you even know anything about World War II at all? Just because Americans provided some war materials to the Allies doesn't mean that won the war, the contribution was done by all of the Allied countries, take your head out of your ass and read a history book. US wouldn't have won the war alone, their army was several times weaker than the German, they had to outnumber them to like 1:4 ratio (1 being Germans, 4 being Americans) to get a victory in a battle. Germans were technologically superior (mid-late war, early war the Allies had tank technology advantage, Germans basically had only light tanks, France and Britain already defended the Maginot Line with heavy tanks) in most of the aspects required to win a land battle, their leadership was superior.

US only started supplying Allies in mid-'41, the war was already going on for a few years and Britain still kept Germany away from their shores. And what has money to do with lend-lease? Americans were GIVING AWAY supplies and war materials to Allied nations, it wasn't intented to be asking for money either. And when did we state that US got money from Lend-Lease?

Another funny fact is that no hostile soldiers ever landed on their shores during WWII and their population was way larger than the German, garuanteeing US a superior workforce and possibility to produce war materials and supplies undisturbed, while countries like USSR and France were severely devastated, UK suffering too, altought less than France, so logically they needed war aid from an unharmed country with capable workforce, but really... claiming that US won the war, that's just so wrong.

And what... US didn't have total war policy at any time during the war, what are you talking about?

[Mouzie]

Do you even know anything about World War II at all? Just because Americans provided some war materials to the Allies doesn't mean that won the war, the contribution was done by all of the Allied countries, take your head out of your ass and read a history book. US wouldn't have won the war alone, their army was several times weaker than the German, they had to outnumber them to like 1:4 ratio (1 being Germans, 4 being Americans) to get a victory in a battle. Germans were technologically superior (mid-late war, early war the Allies had tank technology advantage, Germans basically had only light tanks, France and Britain already defended the Maginot Line with heavy tanks) in most of the aspects required to win a land battle, their leadership was superior.

US only started supplying Allies in mid-'41, the war was already going on for a few years and Britain still kept Germany away from their shores. And what has money to do with lend-lease? Americans were GIVING AWAY supplies and war materials to Allied nations, it wasn't intented to be asking for money either. And when did we state that US got money from Lend-Lease?

Another funny fact is that no hostile soldiers ever landed on their shores during WWII and their population was way larger than the German, garuanteeing US a superior workforce and possibility to produce war materials and supplies undisturbed, while countries like USSR and France were severely devastated, UK suffering too, altought less than France, so logically they needed war aid from an unharmed country with capable workforce, but really... claiming that US won the war, that's just so wrong.

And what... US didn't have total war policy at any time during the war, what are you talking about?

I'm a major on 20th century world history, and I never said that the United States won the world over all. I was just debating the fact people was like, "AMERICA DIDN'T DO MUCH!" but in reality they played a huge part.

So please shove your crap away, here is where your shit is wrong.

First of all the Germans were not 'better equiped' that shit goes out the fucking door. If you even read the military doctrines of Nazi Germany, you can see the flaws of their systems. First, Germany did not have an adopted semi-automatic rifle at the time. Which mean that the Allies supplied Garands, M1 carbines, Soviet SVT-40 series, were much better adapted at close range combat. Which was the issue of the war back then, rather than having miles long trenches with the need of very accurate and long ranged rifles, switched to mobile forces with armor and air supporting your infantry and mobile arties. You had the need to find a weapon, first of all the United States had and supplied Allies. First it was Garand, M1, Thompson, etc. These rifles were favorited and liked by both the Allies and Axis because of their rugged reliability. Second, sir, that the Germans didn't even HAVE a semi-automatic system till late 1942, when the G41 was a massive disaster and the G42(43) ended up being used, but it wasn't as good as the Soviet SVT-40 which the Germans copied and loved the work.

The same concept about the sub-machine gun, the MP-40 was a good weapon, but the Soviet PSH-40 series were more reliable, and the American Thompson were reliable and had more firepower needed to put someone down.

Now on to numbers, Germany's population is SMALLER with only 90 million (esti. 1941) However, the United States had 132,122,446 people, which is more manpower, so saying that the United States were outnumbered is foolish.

Now to the tech, Germany wasn't 'advance' the only break through they did was too late for them, like the STG-44 and more. Their tanks were not that good. All of their heavy tanks were known to be very unreliable, the Tiger tank was known to be VERY slow when turning the turret and while it can hit the Allies tanks well, the more rugged, realible, and faster tanks proved to be a more crital role in the war. So, you lost that debate.

Also, Germany did not really had 'light' tanks, they were more proned to using medium tanks and they still use horses and such for many of their invasion.
Their leadership was not 'better' or 'more tactical'. For example, the Battle of Stalingrad could be a German victory if the general(s) didn't choose to let the poorly trained and ill-equiped Italians and Romanians to guard the 6th Army flank which the Russians took advantage of and flanked the Axis.

Now the Maginot Line, you're very dumb to accuse me of not knowing history. The Germans went AROUND the fucking line, so 'defending the line' was just a stupid way to try and debate aganst me. The French and the British was suprised and couldn't even fight against the Germans. Even the Brits and French fled across the channel.

Wrong, the Lend-Lease act was NOT a 'gift' or anything it was a loan, read it carefully, it was America giving the Allies supplies and in return the American can 'rent' out air bases and such and even gave the UK a discount of the loans which the UK paid off at a later time. Proving my point about the US giving supplies and such, so. Yay for me.

Again, I never said the US won the war, I pointed someone's comment about them talking about the French, British, and Soviet, while they were in the fighting 'longer' it was the United States who handed them aids, fighters, etc.

Even the Chinese fought tooth and nail, and yet you forgetten the Chinese, shame.

Now if you READ a bit more, you might be able to debate against me a little better.

[Ricox]

I was writing a post and accidently went back a page and lost everything that I wrote, great, here it goes again.

I never said that the US didn't do much during the war, I am simply saying that other Allied countries also played a major part during World War II, suffering more than US did (for example Poland, France and USSR, altought this war helped USSR to get shit together and emerge as a superpower).

I don't see where I claimed that the Germans were better equipped, I only claimed that the Germans were technologically superior in various aspects. Their tanks, altought not very reliable (as you already mentioned), were capable of knocking out several enemy tanks before getting knocked out themselves or having to abandon and destroy their tank due to the enemy advancing too close (but considering that the amount of Tigers built was not even close to the amount of Shermans, there was just no way this advantage could have done any significant contribution).

And if you look at the "statistics" of some of the major battles or campaings where the Germans lost (Battle of Stalingrad, Operation Overlord etc.), then you can clearly see the numerical advantage the Allies had, the outcome of the battle would have unlikely been victorious for the Allies if the men ratio would be 1:1, the Germans were usually way more experienced than the enemy and that also brought them some bonuses during battle (altought late in the war, the experienced Germans were already dead or lacked equipement or such to actually fight at full efficiency).

And I never said that the American manpower was smaller than the German, I was simply stating that the German army at it's peak during World War II was stronger than the U.S Army in World War II at it's peak, Germans were more experienced, had more powerful armored force (altought those late-war tanks were expensive and unrealiable as you mentioned) and such bullocks.

I never also stated that the Germans never flanked the Maginot Line. I was stating that French and British had heavy tanks while Germans had only light tanks (during early years of WWII), shouldn't have put "Maginot Line" in that sentence, might be more of a misunderstanding and a writing "fail" from my side. They mostly had light tanks from the "armored department", I am not saying they entirely relied on tanks, just that their tank technology was inferior in firepower and armor.

My mistake about Lend-lease.

And about China - I thought we're discussing the European threatre here, not the Asian, you haven't mentioned Japan anywhere either. I know that the Americans made massive contribution to the Pacific War (altought the Chinese did a lot too by holding the Japs back as much as they could), but that's not the subject in this argument from what I know.

I never stated that US didn't contribute to the war either, I was simply arguing with the guy that basically claimed that US did most of the job (altought might of have been a misunderstanding, that picture was just dumb to be honest, that number is not even close to what the Soviets lost in the first years).

[Brownie]

USA is better