Ehm, I think I didnt miss that, but ehm, I think you missed that in reality competition by other companies does only exist if there is some form of external control as jurdical/governmental or public.

Would you please elaborate on that?

Anyways, French being seen as failures in wars... anyone? I feel like just about every thread on these forums derail into OT-discussions.

The French have had their spankings since Napoleon onward. The vast majority of post-Roman western history, France was THE power in Western Europe, the model for national pride and sentiment such as is the common way today.

Also, WTF does it matter? How many losses can you recollect the Mongolians suffered? Would you say that Mongolia's military successes have led to them to eclipse France's fame as a center of art, learning, culture, philosophy, and innovation? Perhaps the Huns? The France of today is a direct descendent (political turmoil notwithstanding) of a national identity that begain in the 7th century, which is far more than the Germans can say seeing as they didn't even coalesce into a true national identity until the early 1800's. The last time Germany was semi-united (in a way not even close to being as cohesive as its French contempary) under one rule, it was under the moniker of "The Holy Roman Empire" which was previously known as the "East Frankish Kingdom." In other words, Germany's national identity had its roots in a FRENCH political unity under Charlemagne that was split into twain upon his death. The seeds of Charlemagne's empire (And the Carolingian dynasty) were sown when his father Charles Martel joined forces with the Catholic Papacy to completely spank the Visigoths in France. You know, the Visigoths that previously sacked Rome? Yeah.. Those.

Just to seriously entertain the question of whether France is full of wimpy cowards or not is to betray a narrow, bigoted, and essentially uneducated world-view. But by all means, Durpa-herp away! It's entertainment of a sort.

Wooooohooooo!

Fuck you.

Such a kind and mature soul you are myhand... a true gentleman.

RvW do you just spend you days on here trying to come up with long tedious responses and not actually playing the game or is this a multi account because people refused to talk to you in real games just assuming you answers would be way too long

Made a simple statement that the U.S. is wold dominant because of military tech advancements.
Sasha Grey thought to be witty by replying "What about Nazi Germany? They had tech advances, where are they now?"

Uh.... Nowhere......the U.S. killed them

Not the US. You forget that you were helped by countless other countries. It's more like you helped them, then otherwise.

While the view that the US singlehandedly beat Nazi Germany is completely false, I dunno how many other nations contributed.

France helped, a bit, but the post-Normandy French Army was almost completely equipped with US weapons and vehicles.

Obviously the British stayed the course alone for quite some time, but their involvement after the US got into the war was mostly limited to minor theaters (North Africa and Italy), while their forces in NW Europe were very small in number. Not an insult to them, but they were simply spread too thin after years of war and their involvement in numerous theaters.

The Polish had "free armies" on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but were essentially subordinate to the British and the Soviets, respectively.

I believe there were a few Czech units, but again, the numbers were quite low.

Any others?

I am pretty sure that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Americans, and to a much greater extent, by the Soviet Union. Others may have contributed, but were not exactly vital cogs in the Allied war machine...

Any thoughts on this?

TexasJohn,

You may have a point when talking about materials and equipment. However, the soldiers using that hardware came from many more countries than just the US. Since those soldiers are counted in lives (hardware, however vital, merely in dollars), I think you should include that as well.

And you might have forgotten an entire army. Note that I can't vouch for the details (having only been taught by friends, not history books (not that those are flawless of course)) but it appears Yugoslavia, the local resistance, Tito's partisans, "liberated itself". Granted, they only managed to do so after the occupying forcing had been severely weakened by fighting on other fronts, but still, that's rather impressive.
By the way, I have absolutely no idea where they got their weapons. However, "common sense" suggests it probably wasn't airdrops from the allies (such as attempted in occupied Netherlands, during the Englandspiel / Unternehmen Nordpol (yes, those codenames are in German; Google it to understand why)). Instead I suspect it to be almost exclusively captured from occupying forces (guerilla tactics).

has eneyone else noticed in the last few weeks the value of the US dollar plumit compared to the Euro and British Pound?

The Allies communicated with Tito's resistance - they had agents on the ground in occupied Europe, and helped provide him with weapons - one such method was the airdrop, but the U.K navies control of the seas. also made smuggling (gun running) another way to provide arms. Though as you point out there were likely other methods also.

I didn't include partisans in my statement, because they were relatively ineffective in the grand scheme of the war. Tito may have wrested control, but it was the approaching Red hordes who really done the Nazis in the Balkans.

And, RvW, what soldiers are you talking about? That I didn't include? The incredibly weak and ineffective Dutch resistance? I hopes not. If you were talking about the "non-Americans" in the US Army, get over it. You join the Army and fight, you are about as American as it gets.

I think RvW means soldiers with the word soldiers :)
It doesn`t matter from wich country they come, they all fought that war. If it is an American in the Army of the Allies or an "escaped from the nazi`s" Frenchmen in the army of the Allies. They both do the same.

I think RvW wanted to say that you can tell the story correct without that Frenchmen, who escaped from the nazi`s (or any other sordier). They all did their best to make an end to the war (also the Germans, in the beginning but even more at the end)

*can`t tell the story

Innefective resistence? I'm sorry sources needed.

Oh my.
I wanna apologize for my last post in this thread.
Alcohol moved my hands last night. I don't even know at whom that was directed.
Sorry.

the post did look strange and disfunctional

"Dutch resistance to the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands during World War II can be mainly characterized by its prominent non-violence, summitting in over 300,000 people in hiding in the autumn of 1944, tended to by some 60,000 to 200,000 illegal landlords and caretakers and tolerated knowingly by some 1 million people, including German occupiers and military."[1]

The quote is from Wikipedia, but don't get angry, it was cited from Dr Loe de Jong, director of the official State Institute for War Documentation.

When I say "ineffective", I don't mean they didn't do anything. Was merely talking about the actual fighting of the war, which the Dutch did very little of.