Ellen-Marie 说:
Which it was.
The BNP
- 主题发起人 Corvus
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Which it was.
But that was the point, he had a tantrum over something that nobody said, no one said Canada wasn't as equally important...
Rabid Potatoe
Master Knight
Redcoat - Mic 说:
I think arch did at one point.
Rabid Potatoe 说:
He'd blown up at my "wouldn't have won without black/Asian colonies" which we wouldn't. We wouldn't have won without ALL the colonies.
I didn't say - "we wouldn't have won without the black and Asian colonies, all other colonies are ****, **** Canada **** Canada **** Canada **** Canada."
Our most important exports are poutine and cranberries.
Sir Timothi
We also have weapons more powerful and deadly than nukes... Yes, I speak of the dreaded banshee; Celine Dion...
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=7149&edition=2&ttl=20091025215443&#paginator
Elenmmare
Selothi 说:
Read, my friend. I wasn't born back then, and hell, I wasn't even born in Canada.
Redcoat - Mic 说:
Archonsod actually did. I was arguing on two fronts, you got mixed up with my quoting and thought everything I said was directed at you. Arch had stated that India contributed more to the war than any other Commonwealth Nation, Britain included. When I refuted that, you jumped in/down my throat and we've been arguing over semantics for the past day.
No it doesn't. Unless you think the Asian theatre was on pause until 1945?
Amazing how Britain wasn't expected to attack the Japanese when their capital was in danger. Yet Russia loses 1/3 of its landmass and they're apathetic, lazy douchebags.
I know, and I didn't 'blow' up at you. I left a fairly short comment expressing my opinion, then started a debate with Arch.
I do agree with some of those comments, Swadius. Jack Straw seems like a royal bastard.
Mage246
Well, it was more like being attacked rather than attacking, though.
Elenmmare
Archonsod 说:Britain was attacking Japan throughout the war. From India, mainlyEllen-Marie 说:
So now they're one in the same?
This is probably why you end up arguing semantics for days on end. Make the reasonable assumption that he's talking about British forces based in India, or the British commanded Indian army.Ellen-Marie 说:
Ellen-Marie 说:Archonsod 说:Britain was attacking Japan throughout the war. From India, mainlyEllen-Marie 说:
So now they're one in the same?
The Burma campaign did have its share of Indian and Indonesian regiments, although there was also a sizable British force as well. As I recall, they did most of the fighting under Mountbatten. Although they weren't greeted with the greatest successes by their lonesome, they did attack the Japanese on multiple occasions doing significant damage to their numbers, chain of command, and supply lines, even though I'm not sure, I think the reason they didn't push was because they foresaw the real possibility of over stretching their supply lines into Burma without additional aid (which would later come from the Americans IIRC).
Elenmmare
Wait, who weren't greeted with great success? The Indian army or the British?
Both, until 1943/44. Remember that they were under the same command : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Army_(United_Kingdom)
India, being a British Dominion, had an official garrison of the British Army. The Indian Army was a volunteer force raised in India, under the nominal command of the Indian colonial government (India having declared war in 1939). It's not hard to comprehend, simply because an army happens to be stationed and fighting from another country does not make it identical to that countries own army. See the US army and D Day for example ...Ellen-Marie 说:
