Clarkson explains some differences between the USA and Europe

[Matra et Alpine]

I have no idea myself. just sorta wrote that then when thinking about what could have happened. they could have done it the same way as the germans i guess, go through each country using their resources against the next country. And with all the other country's beaten down so much it wouldnt be too hard. and when they got to germany or any axis favoring countries they could revive their war machine.

It was an interesting idea, S, as it made me consider it and hence the comment about supply routes.
There are a few mountains arid deserts and no food production for a VERY large part of the route.
Some of the route is through areas where the best armies in the world had for centuries before tried and have since WW2 given up trying to control.
Was an intersting diversion considering it though.

[henk4]

if Attila the Hun and Dzhengis Khan could manage already a very large stretch of the required terroritory, why not the Japanese. They improve on everything tried before by others

[Matra et Alpine]

if Attila the Hun and Dzhengis Khan could manage already a very large stretch of the required terroritory, why not the Japanese. They improve on everything tried before by others

They weren't trying to move tanks and 10 times the number of men it would THEN take to conquer
A small group left behind in Genkhis' day could do very little to disrupt. Back then if you were conquered you pretty much accepted it. The Boer's showed what could be done to disrupt an army better trained, better equipped and better supplied Take a WW2 example .. the second vehicle led raid by the newly formed SAS with a squad of only about 25 DESTROYED 100 German figher and close support bombers AND went out on three other raids the same week
Different times, different tacts, different challenges.
Look at ho the Ardennes offensive collapsed as supply lines were eked out ( admittedly a last ditch attempt BUT the allies new by continuing the engagement even with the losses they would prevail )


EDIT: only jsut spotted the humour sorry nice one !!!!!!

[early93viper]

Now at the moment you're thinking that's stupid because of all the other factors involved. NOW you are getting why it was made in reply to your comment about JC speaking German !!!!
Do we have it now ????

No, your talking about events that happend Hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. I am talking about events that happened with in life times. There is a huge difference. USA has been nothing but great allies to Europeons. If it wasn't Germeny or Japan it would have been the USSR and/or world war III. The fact that we had the bomb kept USSR in check. Not to mention the countless other countries.

There are millions of factors obviously. But UKs chances wouldn't be great without the USA involvement in numerous political matters.

[Blitz_]

Funny article, American cars do suck, well thier ok when you consider the mustang, viper, corvette etc. But thier sedans and what not are just plain shit. In regards to WWII, i've never really liked the British, why? Montogomery, his ego and attitude just pisses me off, and even though they may say he was great, he never even reached the heights of Patton. Other things annoy me, the desert rats, history shows and Brits say it was solely them, when in fact it was the Aussies who contributed the most and the attitude of Montogomery (again). And if there is something i do agree with, with early93viper, is that USA's contribution did help the Brit's to a great degree.

Hahaha damn i hate Montomery, snobby little uptight bastard.

[Matra et Alpine]

No, your talking about events that happend Hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. I am talking about events that happened with in life times. There is a huge difference. USA has been nothing but great allies to Europeons.

WHEN IT SUITED THEM.
Read some history from the other side of the relationship.
Check back on trade wars, business tactics and political control.
Look into the UN Security Council minutes and see over the years how many times the US has vetoed ?
I think - as it is easy to do - that the history is from one perspective. Schools tend not to teach the other persepective as it loosens government control

If it wasn't Germeny or Japan it would have been the USSR and/or world war III. The fact that we had the bomb kept USSR in check. Not to mention the countless other countries.

You might want to research that one a little too.
The MAD path was US/USSR and was egotistical war-mongering.
Thankfully later Presidents saw sense and undertook SALT etc.
Again, the idea that Japan could attack and conquer Europe is silly.
And USSR expansion was partly driven by the post WW2 politics. Too many what-ifs to make up stories with that are plausible

There are millions of factors obviously. But UKs chances wouldn't be great without the USA involvement in numerous political matters.

Yep, it's pretty much a one way street at them moment.
It' sad that american politicians dont' recognise that and put in an equal share
Btw, it's not a good thing !!!

[Matra et Alpine]

Funny article, American cars do suck, well thier ok when you consider the mustang, viper, corvette etc. But thier sedans and what not are just plain shit. In regards to WWII, i've never really liked the British, why? Montogomery, his ego and attitude just pisses me off, and even though they may say he was great, he never even reached the heights of Patton.

Partly because sof American military egos.
Have you read any bios of the WW2 leaders ?
Patton was a megalomaniac !!!!
Also what defines a great leader ? Would Patten have one in North Africa where shear presence of numbers WASN'T the key factor to winning ? What woudl have happened on day 2 of D-Day if Mont and the other British/Canadian leaders hadn't agreed to defend Caen knowing it to be near suicide ? Even American generals were taken by surprise at the British/Canadian willingness to commit to protect the American forces.
Sometimes the 'best' arent' the ones who grab the headlines or have movies made about them or glorified in biased media !
( for example Montgomery was a terrible publicist. Great man with the soldiers, always in the thick BUT always made sure there was a camera )

[quote]Other things annoy me, the desert rats, history shows and Brits say it was solely them, when in fact it was the Aussies who contributed the most and the attitude of Montogomery (again).[quote]
See that's where we differ. Brits arent' taught it was only the 8th, so I'm not sure why you've the attitude. We don't

And if there is something i do agree with, with early93viper, is that USA's contribution did help the Brit's to a great degree.

THAT was never refuted. BUT have you looked at the cost required to be paid ? It wasn't getting down from comradeship or partnership or "special relation".

Hahaha damn i hate Montomery, snobby little uptight bastard.

Clearly you've never read anything from his men or from anyone who met him.
It would be enlightening if you did.
He wasn't perfect but "snobby" ? Not in the sense we would use the word. Or do you just mean he had a plummy accent ? or had a moustace ? Not sure which cliche would fit

[early93viper]

WHEN IT SUITED THEM.

Maybe............but it got the job done.

You might want to research that one a little too.
The MAD path was US/USSR and was egotistical war-mongering.
Thankfully later Presidents saw sense and undertook SALT etc.
Again, the idea that Japan could attack and conquer Europe is silly.
And USSR expansion was partly driven by the post WW2 politics. Too many what-ifs to make up stories with that are plausible

The Cold war would have never happened if a Free Country (USA) didn't have the bomb. World War III would have. The USSR (and others) wanted to make the world communists and the United States (and others) wanted the world to be free (see vietnam, the korean war, etc.). Since there was threat of Nuclear annihilation neither country acted with any great military might against the other.

The great irony is that nuclear weapons have probably saved more life then they have taken. At least so far.

[Matra et Alpine]

Maybe............but it got the job done.

for Americans Want to try listing how it "got the job done" for others ?

The Cold war would have never happened if a Free Country (USA) didn't have the bomb. World War III would have.

That is conjecture as the escalation in the late 50s was precisley BECAUSE of the bomb !!! Wihtout the bobm you cannot say how "peace" may have spread.

The USSR (and others) wanted to make the world communists and the United States (and others) wanted the world to be free (see vietnam, the korean war, etc.). Since there was threat of Nuclear annihilation neither country acted with any great military might against the other.

and who's to say that a communism built by peaceful measn without the "threat" of destruction by the US woudl ahve been a bad thing ?
The problem in playing these what-ofs is trygin to seperate cause and efect. Reading Marx and the less extreme military/control freask grown by post WW2 in left-wing politics would be interesting. ( Esp. CND in the UK, MANY left wing politicians who desierd ALL nations to give up nuclear weapons )

The great irony is that nuclear weapons have probably saved more life then they have taken. At least so far.

Again a conhjecture that assuems that something would have driven the escalation that nuclear weapons led without there being any nuclear weapons to stop it
I'm not sure if all those killed on the peripheray of the cold war feel the same as you

[early93viper]

for Americans Want to try listing how it "got the job done" for others ?

That is conjecture as the escalation in the late 50s was precisley BECAUSE of the bomb !!! Wihtout the bobm you cannot say how "peace" may have spread.

and who's to say that a communism built by peaceful measn without the "threat" of destruction by the US woudl ahve been a bad thing ?
The problem in playing these what-ofs is trygin to seperate cause and efect. Reading Marx and the less extreme military/control freask grown by post WW2 in left-wing politics would be interesting. ( Esp. CND in the UK, MANY left wing politicians who desierd ALL nations to give up nuclear weapons )

Again a conhjecture that assuems that something would have driven the escalation that nuclear weapons led without there being any nuclear weapons to stop it
I'm not sure if all those killed on the peripheray of the cold war feel the same as you

Right, the USSR was known for using peaceul means to get what they want. They probably would have sent over a fruit cake asking you nicely to join and be commuinists.

And Commuinism is a bad thing. There is a reason POOR countries are communist contries and rich countries are capitalist countries. If you don't mind your children starving then communism is right for you.

[Matra et Alpine]

Right, the USSR was known for using peaceul means to get what they want. They probably would have sent over a fruit cake asking you nicely to join and be commuinists.

And Commuinism is a bad thing. There is a reason POOR countries are communist contries and rich countries are capitalist countries. If you don't mind your children starving then communism is right for you.

you are makign the mistake again of comparing communism as it was forced into by the war and the post war forces from the "free" west. Your comment is valid but has many many what-ifs that are assumed to work in the favour of the premise

Read about proper communism and not stalinism

Just as democracy and capitlism is movign to extremes wehre the common man has been lost so did communism. Maybe ( more what-ifs ) without the threat of fighting nuclear war there woudl ahve been scope for communism to turn away from the extremes. Many struggle over how we get rampant capitalism away from it's extremes in todays world too

[VtecMini]

Wow, how very wayward.

Why is it that whenever somebody dislikes any of america's cars, we have to sit through a threadful of "GAWD BLESS AMERICA!"? Is the fact that people outside america dislike american cars really that much of a problem for you? If they're what you like, then fine. Enjoy them. Smells of insecurity of you ask me.

[early93viper]

Wow, how very wayward.

Why is it that whenever somebody dislikes any of america's cars, we have to sit through a threadful of "GAWD BLESS AMERICA!"? Is the fact that people outside america dislike american cars really that much of a problem for you? If they're what you like, then fine. Enjoy them. Smells of insecurity of you ask me.

LOL wow your way off
It is the other way around. JK atacked American cars and then America not only in the article posted but several other articles:

http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/paperforgreg.jpg

You do have a GREAT POINT though it does smell of insecurity just not of me.

[early93viper]

you are makign the mistake again of comparing communism as it was forced into by the war and the post war forces from the "free" west. Your comment is valid but has many many what-ifs that are assumed to work in the favour of the premise

Read about proper communism and not stalinism

Just as democracy and capitlism is movign to extremes wehre the common man has been lost so did communism. Maybe ( more what-ifs ) without the threat of fighting nuclear war there woudl ahve been scope for communism to turn away from the extremes. Many struggle over how we get rampant capitalism away from it's extremes in todays world too

Name a rich Communist country..........anyone? It just doesn't work. Period.

And your wrong Capitalism doesn't lose the common man. I started my Landscape business with nothing but a Corsica and a push behind lawn mower. I was below the common man. Now I feel I am doing rather well for myself. That's because Capitalism gives you a chance to be great. While communism condemns you to mediocrity.

[Matra et Alpine]

Name a rich Communist country..........anyone? It just doesn't work. Period.

aha the pitfall of a capitalist -- measure "richness" by monetary value
You also make the mistake of atributing the label "communist" to groups wich arent'. THAT is a consequence of the American political education system Learn more about the variety adn the aspoirations of communism before we proceed any further please. AND let's take it to another thread. You're free to create it

And your wrong Capitalism doesn't lose the common man. I started my Landscape business with nothing but a Corsica and a push behind lawn mower. I was below the common man. Now I feel I am doing rather well for myself. That's because Capitalism gives you a chance to be great. While communism condemns you to mediocrity.

see the error is in taking INDIVIDUAL cases as they can always be used to justify anything including murder
Tell all the pensioners who can no longer afford insurance because of the ENRON corruption decimating their plans ?

AND I see you've taken the "line" on communism. Two great leaders were travelling to Paris after WW1. They both went by train. ONe in first class, the other in third. The one in thrid complained to the other for takign first and that it was betrayign communism. "no, comrade, you misunderstand communism. We ALL get to travel first class!"

It's NOT about dragging down, it's about buidling up.
But ends up corrupted.
Just look at the stock markets around the world. These were MEANT to provide a source of capital for people with ideas to manage to produce them. NOW it is a means of making paper money for the few able to play it effectively. The rich and well supported can make millions -- millions made from those who are less knowledgable and supported by brokers etc.

Each is corrupted in a different way from the ideals each of them set out to provide

Have you studied the history of world economics ? It is very interesting and especially how the various systems have swayed from their objectives and in their own way succeeded and failed/