Who does not know what D day was?

"If you're trying to put on a truly accurate show, use the flag that they actually used, not one that didn't appear until 20 years after the end of the war."


How many stars on the US flag shown? 47, 48, 49 or 50?
Why don't you count them and tell us?
 
Steve Bell on the 75th anniversary of D-day – cartoon

A sadly typical low blow by the grauniad which conveniently ignores commemorating one sacrifice does not downplay another and that the 'peace' the soviet leaders brought was enslavement of half of Europe.
I can't be arssed to look for it on the internet, but that is a copy of a similar cartoon that appeared just after the war. The soldier was dressed as a GI or Tommy though, not a bloody Ivan. And yes, thanks to the non-aggression pact that the Soviet Union signed with Nazi Germany in August 1939, technically WW II kicked off with Germany and the Soviet Union sharing Poland between themselves.
 
I can't be arssed to look for it on the internet, but that is a copy of a similar cartoon that appeared just after the war. The soldier was dressed as a GI or Tommy though, not a bloody Ivan. And yes, thanks to the non-aggression pact that the Soviet Union signed with Nazi Germany in August 1939, technically WW II kicked off with Germany and the Soviet Union sharing Poland between themselves.
It was Zec. Like most of Bells work he fucks up classics to pursue his communist agenda.

687474703a2f2f69312e6d6972726f722e636f2e756b2f696e636f6d696e672f61727469636c65353631383530392e...jpg
 
Thank you. Well you live and learn.

As we are so tight-fisted with gongs, you can sort of see why there might be an appetite, but for the Yanks already showered with ribbons and medals of all sorts? Didn't think there would be a gap in the market for more. But then again as a very wise man once told me "medals don't mean a thing really, until you don't get one"
 
You don't need to make things up. We live in the real world with actual facts.
You certainly dont


I've been in the army a long time. I joined because I was interested in it. I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult that someone in the army is interested in the British army, history, battles or war.
Most other people joined to be with Frank, but not you and your education
If you had someone interested in cars, it's possible they might work in a garage, own cars, do them up, read about them.
Id expect that person to know about cars, unlike your grasp of history.
I make no apologies for being smarter than you.
Good because you arent
From your post
Another 100,000 died of wounds or disease.
Now you want to count disease as war, but errr not the deliberate killing of civilians by an invading force?


Ill also point out this bit from your copy and paste effort

relative to population size is the Civil War, which raged in the mid-17th Century

Which wasnt what you originally said.
You wouldn't know a fact if it marched up to you. I have provided you with why it is correct.
No. Years ago we had things called books. We used to read them. Some of us still do.
They died in a war. As previously explained to you.


https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...ow-what-d-day-was.293046/page-15#post-9316342


And everyone else also seems to not be considering it. Probably as we are talking about a thousand years ago, and there are no reliable figures.
Lets move the goal posts again eh? Lets change the meaning of war and then claim other figures are unreliable when your "education" fails you.

Which invasion? Julius Caesar's raids? Aulus Plautius? Petilius Cerealis? Gnaeus Julius Agricola? You are talking about 41 years before Britain was finally conquered.
I've found nothing about them being considered as our bloodiest war.

Of course you found nothing because it would make you look a little stupid if you found something like
Battle of Watling Street | Summary
just by typing a few words into Google
That was a single battle by the way, you can can add the deaths throughout the years running up to it as well.



Really, then how come you havent commented on the two battles I mentioned, surely your "education" knows of them.
Just to clarify
A named battle X 2
Involving the British Army
In a time where figures are very reliable
With an extremely high death rate.

Im on the edge of my seat waiting to hear why they dont count either.
 
Some of the basic reasons why the Sov cas rate was so severe was that Stalins refusal to accept the inevitable of June 41, his previous purging of the best brains in the Sov High Command & the next year or two of struggling to maintain a strategy with anything close to having the sort of tactical exp needed to conduct a fast paced manoeuvre war as it later became in parts as the 44 offensives started to bear fruit in terms of miles advanced. The sovs themselves killed enough of their own people to almost match the Germans & their murdering of the civpop.
I'm sick of hearing about the Sovs & their sacrifice tbh, those slobbering on about it seem to ignore the facts such as the Molotov/Ribbentrop bromance, the Sov invasion of Poland & the likes of Katyn. The purges & pogroms that had occurred in Ukraine in the late 30's, early 40's to the point that the locals thought of the Wermacht as feckin liberators. The long advance towards Berlin was a litany of atrocities against 'liberated' civpop. DPs from the camps inc the death camps were murdered, raped, imprisoned wholesale. Their own POWs executed, imprisoned, re-educated FFS. Anyone in the Polish Home Army who made it through the uprising & saw the Sovs arrive was given short shrift & sometimes a bullet in the neck. Polish veterans of the western armies treated like shit on their return. The list is endless. Fcuk em. They fought long & they fought hard & bravely, but real THE winners of the war & the western allies just a sideshow? Get tae fcuk.
 

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
Some of the basic reasons why the Sov cas rate was so severe was that Stalins refusal to accept the inevitable of June 41, his previous purging of the best brains in the Sov High Command & the next year or two of struggling to maintain a strategy with anything close to having the sort of tactical exp needed to conduct a fast paced manoeuvre war as it later became in parts as the 44 offensives started to bear fruit in terms of miles advanced. The sovs themselves killed enough of their own people to almost match the Germans & their murdering of the civpop.
I'm sick of hearing about the Sovs & their sacrifice tbh, those slobbering on about it seem to ignore the facts such as the Molotov/Ribbentrop bromance, the Sov invasion of Poland & the likes of Katyn. The purges & pogroms that had occurred in Ukraine in the late 30's, early 40's to the point that the locals thought of the Wermacht as feckin liberators. The long advance towards Berlin was a litany of atrocities against 'liberated' civpop. DPs from the camps inc the death camps were murdered, raped, imprisoned wholesale. Their own POWs executed, imprisoned, re-educated FFS. Anyone in the Polish Home Army who made it through the uprising & saw the Sovs arrive was given short shrift & sometimes a bullet in the neck. Polish veterans of the western armies treated like shit on their return. The list is endless. Fcuk em. They fought long & they fought hard & bravely, but real THE winners of the war & the western allies just a sideshow? Get tae fcuk.
Agree totally...
 
For Christ's sake you two, give it a rest please. We all know that neither of you are willing to back down. But you are both making complete fools of your self's. So please quit your both ruining a perfectly good thread.
I think they're demonstrating why civil wars are sometimes bloodier than inter nation wars. They just won't back down since they don't have a border to cross back over.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Indeed, @ches, a million men were tied down in the air defence of the Reich and Speer himself recorded how that activity drained the available 88mm to the detriment of the war in the East.
 
You certainly dont
I definitely do.
Most other people joined to be with Frank, but not you and your education
Yes, I am sorry I have one and you don't. Should I pick you up for your numerous spelling mistakes next? In your one post you have missed out seven apostrophes.
Id expect that person to know about cars, unlike your grasp of history.
As you have no grasp of it, you aren't one to comment. You can't even remember the posts on here. I find it amusing that when I show how little you actually know you then admit how smart I am.
Good because you arent
From your post
Another 100,000 died of wounds or disease.
Now you want to count disease as war, but errr not the deliberate killing of civilians by an invading force?
I didn't count it. It's a quote. Oh dear. Also note, disease is attributable to war.
Ill also point out this bit from your copy and paste effort

relative to population size is the Civil War, which raged in the mid-17th Century

Which wasnt what you originally said.
It was a clarification as to why the English Civil War was our bloodiest war. This has been explained to you before. How can you comment on history when you can't follow the history of a thread?
Lets move the goal posts again eh? Lets change the meaning of war and then claim other figures are unreliable when your "education" fails you.
How are you going to alter all those I quoted? The BBC, QI, etc? Also note, so far I've given you 100% factual posts backed up by sources. You don't even know when the British Army was created on a British Army website as you think any armed force counts. Why not start with learning the history of the British Army first then come back?
Of course you found nothing because it would make you look a little stupid if you found something like
Battle of Watling Street | Summary
just by typing a few words into Google
That was a single battle by the way, you can can add the deaths throughout the years running up to it as well.
Great, let the BBC and the historians all know they were wrong. You have decided you know better.
Really, then how come you havent commented on the two battles I mentioned, surely your "education" knows of them.
Just to clarify
A named battle X 2
Involving the British Army
In a time where figures are very reliable
With an extremely high death rate.

Im on the edge of my seat waiting to hear why they dont count either.
Do you know when the British Army actually formed yet? Do you need the date again? Or are you still too stupid that you just count any armed force that just happened to be in Britain as you don't understand the difference? Or want to carry on with your ignorance?
 
1560377038317.png
 

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
I definitely do.

Yes, I am sorry I have one and you don't. Should I pick you up for your numerous spelling mistakes next? In your one post you have missed out seven apostrophes.
As you have no grasp of it, you aren't one to comment. You can't even remember the posts on here. I find it amusing that when I show how little you actually know you then admit how smart I am.
I didn't count it. It's a quote. Oh dear. Also note, disease is attributable to war.

It was a clarification as to why the English Civil War was our bloodiest war. This has been explained to you before. How can you comment on history when you can't follow the history of a thread?
How are you going to alter all those I quoted? The BBC, QI, etc? Also note, so far I've given you 100% factual posts backed up by sources. You don't even know when the British Army was created on a British Army website as you think any armed force counts. Why not start with learning the history of the British Army first then come back?
Great, let the BBC and the historians all know they were wrong. You have decided you know better.

Do you know when the British Army actually formed yet? Do you need the date again? Or are you still too stupid that you just count any armed force that just happened to be in Britain as you don't understand the difference? Or want to carry on with your ignorance?

enough already !!
 


No mate, all you do is hoard snippets of information, then introduce them into a thread/conversation so people think you are knowledgeable even when you are wrong

Yes, I am sorry I have one and you don't. Should I pick you up for your numerous spelling mistakes next? In your one post you have missed out seven apostrophes.
You can always tell when someone on ARRSE is floundering, they turn into a spelling/grammar Nazi


As you have no grasp of it, you aren't one to comment. You can't even remember the posts on here. I find it amusing that when I show how little you actually know you then admit how smart I am.

You have contradicted yourself several times on this thread, you also decided that the word “arguably” meant something different than what was in an online dictionary. That’s reeeaallll smart.


I didn't count it. It's a quote. Oh dear. Also note, disease is attributable to war.
Funny how disease is attributable to war but the killing of civilians isn’t. Its like you make it up as you go along.
It was a clarification as to why the English Civil War was our bloodiest war. This has been explained to you before. How can you comment on history when you can't follow the history of a thread?
It was more of a caveat, ie it was our bloodiest war if you only use this measurement. A measurement that is almost never used in other wars.

How are you going to alter all those I quoted? The BBC, QI, etc? Also note, so far I've given you 100% factual posts backed up by sources. You don't even know when the British Army was created on a British Army website as you think any armed force counts. Why not start with learning the history of the British Army first then come back?
Great, let the BBC and the historians all know they were wrong. You have decided you know better.

The BBC you say?

How one of history’s bloodiest wars eventually saved lives

The battle was just part of what would be, in its time, the bloodiest war in modern history

The difference between them (BBC/QI) was that they explained their caveat, you didn’t. You just stated something that was incorrect.

Do you know when the British Army actually formed yet? Do you need the date again? Or are you still too stupid that you just count any armed force that just happened to be in Britain as you don't understand the difference? Or want to carry on with your ignorance?
You seem to be a bit confused, its does happen to the educational chaps every now and again, their head is so firmly rammed up their arse that they misunderstand.

The two battles Im referring to (now) are those in the Zulu wars, I’m sure ̶g̶o̶o̶g̶l̶e̶ your education knows all about them even though you have been remarkably quiet about them.

Just so there are no misunderstandings

Battle of Isandlwana, Battle of Intombe

Named battles X 2

Involving the British Army

In a time where figures are very reliable

With an extremely high death rate



Im still sat on the edge of my seat awaiting for you to excuse these battles.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top