Afrika Korps (1 Viewer)

LOL :D

The British Empire saved North Africa - with a little help from the Americans ;)

With very little HELP?? What about the American made Ships, Tanks, Ammo, Guns, Food & Clothes. Lets not forget putting boots on the ground behind the Germans . Yes the US troops were green, they were undertrained & the leadership was not very good at the time. That all changed after N. Africa.
I'll have to give Monty most of the credit for winning in N. Africa. Had he been left on his own he still would have won but not without the supplies the US shipped to the UK. If the Germans had been supplied the way they should have been they would have won.

You need to read up on your WWII History
 
Lets face it chaps.The winning of WW2 was one gigantic effort by many nations coming together to destroy the Nazi's,all our countries won!

Rob
 
With very little HELP?? What about the American made Ships, Tanks, Ammo, Guns, Food & Clothes. Lets not forget putting boots on the ground behind the Germans . Yes the US troops were green, they were undertrained & the leadership was not very good at the time. That all changed after N. Africa.
I'll have to give Monty most of the credit for winning in N. Africa. Had he been left on his own he still would have won but not without the supplies the US shipped to the UK. If the Germans had been supplied the way they should have been they would have won.

You need to read up on your WWII History

Chuck

My comments were "Tonge in Cheek" about a single British Victory alone.

I believe my views on American Troops in North Africa are well documented and know on this forum. And for your information - I am very well read on World War II - my friend.

Ron
 
There is a reason why politics are not allowed on most forums......Who would have thought a toy soldier forum might have to stay clear of historical discussions also...These events were a long time ago and most of us were not there...Our opinions are formed from reading someone elses opinions, who was not there and so forth and so on. Written history is usually the retelling of old events that becomes a mere shadow of actual events, as it gets repeated, exagerated, and convoluted. For us to constantly get our backs up, defending our national pride, refighting wars that we truly know nothing about ( generational thing ) seems silly on a forum about toys. Michael
 
I am no History Major of WWII, but from my understanding, Britan needed us ,we needed Britan, and Hitler's stupidity, Thank God, won that War. If his Generals were able to run the War, who knows what would have happened. Lets not forget all the allies involved. From watching the History channel, the US, was not ready to go to War. But Germany and Japan woke up the sleeping giant.Mike:)
 
There is a reason why politics are not allowed on most forums......Who would have thought a toy soldier forum might have to stay clear of historical discussions also...These events were a long time ago and most of us were not there...Our opinions are formed from reading someone elses opinions, who was not there and so forth and so on. Written history is usually the retelling of old events that becomes a mere shadow of actual events, as it gets repeated, exagerated, and convoluted. For us to constantly get our backs up, defending our national pride, refighting wars that we truly know nothing about ( generational thing ) seems silly on a forum about toys. Michael


I totally agree.
 
Can we please get back to talking about AK range of King and Country. :)

What do you think will be the next releases? (PLEASE - No "I want" lists) Give us a thoughtful post on where Andy is going.....
 
Agreed - there is no 'National Pride' here and I have merely been trying to acknowledge the war winning contribution of the US whilst encouraging thought of other inter-dependencies - many of which still exist in some form or other.

Meanwhile, back in the desert......
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6258red.JPG
    IMG_6258red.JPG
    49 KB · Views: 87
Can we please get back to talking about AK range of King and Country. :)

What do you think will be the next releases? (PLEASE - No "I want" lists) Give us a thoughtful post on where Andy is going.....

I won't talk about what I think the next release will be, but I can tell you having obtained all of the last release (except one Vichy Camel trooper which will be coming soon) I am really impressed. The Opel Blitz truck is a real improvement over all past trucks, with the interior detail and clear windshield/windows, the Motorcycle combo is beyond cool, and the Camel Corps are really well done. I love that the camels are resin rather than metal, as in the past, metal camels had a nasty tendency to get bent and twisted legs at the narrow points due to the weight of the rest of the camel. I can only tell you that while I know what the next releases will be, I haven't seen them, so I am as full of anticipation as the rest of you to see them. I suspect at some point in July we will at least get a peek.
 
After reading the previous couple of pages on the issue of "Just exactly which country won WWII," I have concluded that you fellows are playing the "what if game" combined with selective examples of history that support your own arguments.

The issue of world politics is very much more complicated than you present in your arguments. Any one nation alone could not win nor wage WWII. Even “W” had to get a “coalition of the willing” for his now failed public relations campaign. Germany had many more countries on its side than just Japan or Italy. Most of the Middle East supported them and most of the people in the British, French, Dutch and American empires who wanted independence hoped for a German victory. Most of the countries in South America could have been the fourth in the Axis alliance if not for direct US pressure and threats.

Britain had war plans in place after WWI. Those plans were for a war with the US. The treaty of Washington was Britains attempt to reduce the battleship threat from the US incase the war plans became reality. Britain had more but older and less effective battleships. The US was on a shipbuilding binge and the Treaty of Washington leveled the playing field for Britain. It also was one of the many factors that lead Japan to war. Japan walked out on the treaty discussions when they were not treated on equal standing with the US and Britain. This treaty is one of the most significant events in modern world history. At that time in history, a nation was not defined by the size or quality of her army, but her national pride and world presence was established by the number of battleships she had.

World trade at that time was very much different than it is today. Smaller amounts of raw materials made much more significant impacts. The loss of oil by the US embargo on Japan; the loss of US iron ore and scrap metal to Japan’s economy were also important. Russia was close to winning by itself, only if there was a second front. It can only be assumed that if the German army were able to confront the Russians with all of its resources, they would have been merciless in their efforts and Russia may not have survived. What if Hitler had not declared war on the US?

The US had its own self-interest to be concerned with. The British today are thought of as kissing cousins, not so earlier in our history. Their increasingly growing British Empire at the turn of the century was a threat to US trade. Britain and the US are still trade advisories and will probably be far into the future. Capitalism seems to work that way.

Countries like individuals act in their own self-interest. It took a considerable number of the world’s nations to wage WWII and it took truly unique partnership to end it. But did it really end or was it an extension of the First World War and do we still fight a continuation of both wars? I believe we do and we will for a considerable amount of time.

IMO, who won WWII nobody yet everybody.
 
After reading the previous couple of pages on the issue of "Just exactly which country won WWII," I have concluded that you fellows are playing the "what if game" combined with selective examples of history that support your own arguments.

The issue of world politics is very much more complicated than you present in your arguments. Any one nation alone could not win nor wage WWII. Even “W” had to get a “coalition of the willing” for his now failed public relations campaign. Germany had many more countries on its side than just Japan or Italy. Most of the Middle East supported them and most of the people in the British, French, Dutch and American empires who wanted independence hoped for a German victory. Most of the countries in South America could have been the fourth in the Axis alliance if not for direct US pressure and threats.

Britain had war plans in place after WWI. Those plans were for a war with the US. The treaty of Washington was Britains attempt to reduce the battleship threat from the US incase the war plans became reality. Britain had more but older and less effective battleships. The US was on a shipbuilding binge and the Treaty of Washington leveled the playing field for Britain. It also was one of the many factors that lead Japan to war. Japan walked out on the treaty discussions when they were not treated on equal standing with the US and Britain. This treaty is one of the most significant events in modern world history. At that time in history, a nation was not defined by the size or quality of her army, but her national pride and world presence was established by the number of battleships she had.

World trade at that time was very much different than it is today. Smaller amounts of raw materials made much more significant impacts. The loss of oil by the US embargo on Japan; the loss of US iron ore and scrap metal to Japan’s economy were also important. Russia was close to winning by itself, only if there was a second front. It can only be assumed that if the German army were able to confront the Russians with all of its resources, they would have been merciless in their efforts and Russia may not have survived. What if Hitler had not declared war on the US?

The US had its own self-interest to be concerned with. The British today are thought of as kissing cousins, not so earlier in our history. Their increasingly growing British Empire at the turn of the century was a threat to US trade. Britain and the US are still trade advisories and will probably be far into the future. Capitalism seems to work that way.

Countries like individuals act in their own self-interest. It took a considerable number of the world’s nations to wage WWII and it took truly unique partnership to end it. But did it really end or was it an extension of the First World War and do we still fight a continuation of both wars? I believe we do and we will for a considerable amount of time.

IMO, who won WWII nobody yet everybody.

Michael,

I think your comments are very insightful. Thank you for sharing them!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat
 
........ and the Camel Corps are really well done. I love that the camels are resin rather than metal, as in the past, metal camels had a nasty tendency to get bent and twisted legs at the narrow points due to the weight of the rest of the camel.

If I only could have gotten him to given us SF08- An SF trooper flying across the afghanistan desert on camelback in support of Op Anaconda......

Wonder which phase of SF school covers camelback riding :D
 
I repeat for the third and final time, the US coming into the war meant that Britain could look forward to more than survival - without the US we would have been conquered eventually. OK? On this side of the pond we always appreciated this.

I shall also say that the point of my posts is to try to suggest that without Britain and the Commonwealth/Empire still in the war it would have been much more difficult for the US.

Alliances are always testy things - throughout the ages - but some of the earlier posts felt a little insensitive and unappreciative of the input of others.

This is not Anti-American, far from it.

Louis - love the camels - the detail work is fantastic - if it would stop bl***y raining here long enough I intend to set up a desert diorama soon. Took another couple of hundred pics today, mainly HB stuff, but can't wait to get back in the desert.:D
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6611bred.jpg
    IMG_6611bred.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 104
P1G

Gives some more pictures of your desert Diorama - it looks great from I can tell :D

Ron
 
This is a forum for Toy Soldiers as Michael (maddadicus) has correctly observed. However, it also natural for the members to want to discuss toy soldiers within their historical context, which is why we have a section on this forum for historical discussions, where most of this "discussion" would be better placed.

Far be it for me to tell the members what to discuss but I find it extremely useless to see the same themes constantly popup: Monty v. Patton or did Americans save the world during WW II or did the Commonwealth forces single handedly beat the Germans and Italians in North Africa. These discussions always seem to involve some notions of national honor, machismo and who can get in the last word. Perhaps we should leave these oft repeated discussions to the former combatants (who as the Smith and Bierman book demonstrates are now brothers in arms and move on to other topics).

There is just no profit or goal to be achieved for the members of this Forum by these constant, unwinnable arguments.
 
OK

Now since the cheap seats have pitched in their two cents .... :rolleyes:

Can we have a discussion on the AK range ??

Since Andy has just released the Blitz - I think we can cross off any more trucks right now - He also released the Panzer II with Black Shirt Italians - so will he do another Tank or just leave it at that for a while??

What about the AK German ground troops - do they stay longer (like the German WS Troops) or are they replaced with new action figures??
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top