The BNP

[Elenmmare]

Where do you get these ideas from? Britain hated its army?

And no, the Manchurian campaign was a full scale offensive, only the Japanese had no more soldiers to field.

 

[arbites_augmented]

And no, the Manchurian campaign was a full scale offensive, only the Japanese had no more soldiers to field.

So how is it important, then?

 

[Elenmmare]

Gods, I actually have to physically draw arrows don't I?

Because it disproves Archonsod's claim of 'Compare the number of Russian troops fighting against Japan. Oh wait, there wasn't any ....'

 

[arbites_augmented]

Yes, but you raised that point to counter RCM's, when his point stated that it wasn't a 'serious contribution'.

 

[Elenmmare]

No, please, read back. I raised the point of the Soviet-Japanese War because I was stating the Soviets' contribution to the war, a statement that Arch contested.

 

[arbites_augmented]

Hey, you already contested it earlier, before coming back to it out of the blue. Not my fault I didn't catch that, when your post can also dispute RCM.

 

[Elenmmare]

Except that I hadn't addressed RCM at all in that post. Anyway, Sushi is right, this is getting out of hand.

Back to Griffin.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Britain has always hated its army, soldiers were scorned in the streets. Read http://www.amazon.co.uk/Redcoat-British-Soldier-Horse-Musket/dp/0006531520/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256480122&sr=8-2.

Obviously this tradition didn't carry on up until the early modern period being as the Empire wasn't as prestigious anymore but nor did the armies numbers increase until conscription.

It was the Navy that was its pride, its army never numbered as large as the continental armies because there was no need.

Look at Britain's excerises in India, its army was about 3/4's Sepoy.

Even in the First and Second world wars the Indian troops were heavily used.

First world war - 1.1 million Indian troops.
Second world war - 2.5 million Indian troops.

Are you telling me those numbers weren't vital to the war effort?
To be honest I find that the idiocy of dismissing hundreds of thousands of lost lives highly offensive.

 

[leprechaun]

It's "its army", not "it's army"!

RRRRRAAAAAGHHHH

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

There you go.

 

[leprechaun]

There you go.

Also its pride, and its army (again) and (again)

 

[arbites_augmented]

Britain hated it's army.

Where do you get these ideas from? Britain hated its army?

And no, the Manchurian campaign was a full scale offensive, only the Japanese had no more soldiers to field.

lol

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

There you go.

Also its pride, and its army (again) and (again)

There you go.

 

[Elenmmare]

Britain hated it's army.

Where do you get these ideas from? Britain hated its army?

And no, the Manchurian campaign was a full scale offensive, only the Japanese had no more soldiers to field.

lol

That was a question towards his sanity, I wasn't actually asking that out of curiosity. I know full well that Britain has always valued its army.

First world war - 1.1 million Indian troops.
Second world war - 2.5 million Indian troops.

Are you telling me those numbers weren't vital to the war effort?
To be honest I find that the idiocy of dismissing hundreds of thousands of lost lives highly offensive.

No, I'm actually not dispelling the importance of numbers. Which is probably why I see Britain's contribution of 3.5 million soldiers as a clear indicator that they did contribute more to the war than India.

 

[arbites_augmented]

No, RCM is right in that respect. If you joined the army you were automatically classified as a looter, a rapist, a drunk, a thief.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

No, I'm actually not dispelling the importance of numbers. Which is probably why I see Britain's contribution of 3.5 million soldiers as a clear indicator that they did contribute more to the war than India.

Who said that they did? I said India's contribution was vital and we wouldn't have won the war without our colonial support, not that they did more than us.

Then to be fair, it was even their war to be bloody fighting.

 

[Elenmmare]

No, I'm actually not dispelling the importance of numbers. Which is probably why I see Britain's contribution of 3.5 million soldiers as a clear indicator that they did contribute more to the war than India.

Who said that they did?

Arch.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

What are you arguing that with me for?

I am slapping you down for saying that the Colonial contribution wasn't vital.

 

[Elenmmare]

Bull****, you're slapping me down for saying that Black and Asian Colonial contribution wasn't vital.

Hah!

 

[arbites_augmented]

Bull****, you're slapping me down for saying that Black and Asian Colonial contribution wasn't vital.

Hah!

...