America please F***k off

[boingo]

The references to “Western European leftist ingrates” and “smegma face” remind me of the argument between Lindsay Nelson and his adversary in the film Naked Gun—the one where they devolved to calling each other “poopy-pants,” etc. Now you’ve gotta admit that was a funny movie…and here we have it all on FF.

It's Lesley Nielsen NOT Lindsay Nelson

Come on Cambridge. The guy has been acting in movies since 1956.

I thought it was Brigitte Nielsen.

Everybody be cool..! Everything is going to be alright...!

Just Chill - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c5IIXeR5OUI

Nicely interjected.

I don't post much in the political section because I prefer only to post here if I actually have something to say.

I do read most of the posts though and have noticed and unsettling "Us" and "them" attitude developing between some members.
I think we all need to remember (presumably) none of us had anything to do with the world wars and most other major wars of the past. We don't have control over what happened. We only have some control over what may happen in the future.
Saying "We" did this, and "You" didn't do that doesn't help anything. It's making an impersonal debate personal by implying people belonging to certain countries are responsible for things that already happened and they had no control over and probably weren't even alive at the time.
I understand the frustrations caused by differences in opinions, but none of us are responsible for the past.

The UK, USA, Australia...etc. They're all great countries.

I hope my two cents worth has some meaning. I know this is only my opinion and I'll probably get slagged off for some of it, but I know this is just a forum where we debate things and everyone's opinions are valid in some way.

If you’re talking about myron and colonel debating over the relative strengths of the UK and the US, that’s been going on forever…and over hundreds of threads. Dunkirk and Normandy is just the latest iteration of the contest. Sometimes it can be pretty juvenile, but it’s always entertaining.

If you’re talking about al Qaeda and Spain and March 11, 2004, that’s a bit less remote, and much more topical. It’s a legitimate topic for this section.

The references to “Western European leftist ingrates” and “smegma face” remind me of the argument between Lindsay Nelson and his adversary in the film Naked Gun—the one where they devolved to calling each other “poopy-pants,” etc. Now you’ve gotta admit that was a funny movie…and here we have it all on FF.

Nahhh
I didn't mean anyone specific or any specific thread. Just how sometimes people end up making a complaint about another person's country seem like they're blaming the individual for something they had nothing to do with, or similarly taking credit for something their country did when they had nothing to do with the past either. That's all.

[Cambridge]

The references to “Western European leftist ingrates” and “smegma face” remind me of the argument between Lindsay Nelson and his adversary in the film Naked Gun—the one where they devolved to calling each other “poopy-pants,” etc. Now you’ve gotta admit that was a funny movie…and here we have it all on FF.

It's Lesley Nielsen NOT Lindsay Nelson

Come on Cambridge. The guy has been acting in movies since 1956.

I thought it was Brigitte Nielsen.

Everybody be cool..! Everything is going to be alright...!

Just Chill - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c5IIXeR5OUI

Nicely interjected.

I don't post much in the political section because I prefer only to post here if I actually have something to say.

I do read most of the posts though and have noticed and unsettling "Us" and "them" attitude developing between some members.
I think we all need to remember (presumably) none of us had anything to do with the world wars and most other major wars of the past. We don't have control over what happened. We only have some control over what may happen in the future.
Saying "We" did this, and "You" didn't do that doesn't help anything. It's making an impersonal debate personal by implying people belonging to certain countries are responsible for things that already happened and they had no control over and probably weren't even alive at the time.
I understand the frustrations caused by differences in opinions, but none of us are responsible for the past.

The UK, USA, Australia...etc. They're all great countries.

I hope my two cents worth has some meaning. I know this is only my opinion and I'll probably get slagged off for some of it, but I know this is just a forum where we debate things and everyone's opinions are valid in some way.

If you’re talking about myron and colonel debating over the relative strengths of the UK and the US, that’s been going on forever…and over hundreds of threads. Dunkirk and Normandy is just the latest iteration of the contest. Sometimes it can be pretty juvenile, but it’s always entertaining.

If you’re talking about al Qaeda and Spain and March 11, 2004, that’s a bit less remote, and much more topical. It’s a legitimate topic for this section.

The references to “Western European leftist ingrates” and “smegma face” remind me of the argument between Lindsay Nelson and his adversary in the film Naked Gun—the one where they devolved to calling each other “poopy-pants,” etc. Now you’ve gotta admit that was a funny movie…and here we have it all on FF.

Nahhh
I didn't mean anyone specific or any specific thread. Just how sometimes people end up making a complaint about another person's country seem like they're blaming the individual for something they had nothing to do with, or similarly taking credit for something their country did when they had nothing to do with the past either. That's all.

Fair point, boingo. And zia, thanx for the correction. I knew I was wrong, but I just didn’t have the energy to go Googling at that late hour.

[NoLies]

As for Spain, they had already deserted most Western countries, and were standing pretty well alone, well before 9/11...

They have no extradition agreements with any of our countries - a lot of international criminals maintain summer houses in that country..

Are you sure about that BushWalker, i seem to remember that Britain has extradited 2 or three criminals from Spain quite recently, and i thought it was said at the time that Britain had come to an agreement with Spain, that would end the days of the Costa dell Crime as they were calling it at the time.

If my memory serves me correctly Ronnie Night was one of the people extradited some years ago. Either way, a quick google, revealed three case's of extradition from Spain, which makes me think your wrong on that point.


http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2601836/GBP2-million-tax-cheat-extradited.html

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslEx_61/2796_61.asp

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/20/local/me-6253

[stonecastle]

People forget that the USA donates billions of dollars of aid to foreign countries every year. Without that money many people in Third World countries would face starvation or death through lack of medical supplies.

Europe was also rebuilt after World War II with American money under the Marshall Plan. Which was a massive interest free loan.

[The Colonel]

People forget that the USA donates billions of dollars of aid to foreign countries every year. Without that money many people in Third World countries would face starvation or death through lack of medical supplies.

Europe was also rebuilt after World War II with American money under the Marshall Plan. Which was a massive interest free loan.

Strange the UK war loans weren't - the only purpose of those was to destroy the UK.

You failed.

[myron myron]

People forget that the USA donates billions of dollars of aid to foreign countries every year. Without that money many people in Third World countries would face starvation or death through lack of medical supplies.

Europe was also rebuilt after World War II with American money under the Marshall Plan. Which was a massive interest free loan.

Strange the UK war loans weren't - the only purpose of those was to destroy the UK.

You failed.

The most critical American assistance to Britain in World War II was given without expectation of repayment, namely the hundreds of thousands of American boys that fought in Europe and North Africa.

Leaving that aside, the UK was a greater world power than the United States going into World War II.

Why should the United States give an ostensibly more powerful country a free financial handout?

Given British national pride and dignity, one would expect the UK to refuse a free financial handout from the United States.

The combination of free American assistance and American assistance under mutually agreed terms requiring British repayment did not "destroy the UK" but saved the UK.

[The Colonel]

There was smegma at the door - that can only mean myron is around.

[Cambridge]

The most critical American assistance to Britain in World War II was given without expectation of repayment, namely the hundreds of thousands of American boys that fought in Europe and North Africa.

Myron, I have to disagree with you. The most critical assistance offered to Britain was the Lend Lease Act, allowing the US to lend equipment to a war-starved UK at a time when supplies were critically needed. This included munitions, aircraft and every and all implements of war, which Roosevelt “lent” to the UK, but realistically never expected a return.

The US presence in WWII was one of production. No one—not even God himself—could out-produce the US.

Leaving that aside, the UK was a greater world power than the United States going into World War II.

Why should the United States give an ostensibly more powerful country a free financial handout?

I gather you are just teasing the Colonel. Churchill parked himself on the doorstep of the White House for most of 1941 and part of 1942 in order to involve the US in the war. He even had a dedicated bedroom. Goodwin, Doris Kearns, No Ordinary Time. He did this because he knew that his island nation could never produce the needs of warfare to defeat Germany that the US could.

Given British national pride and dignity, one would expect the UK to refuse a free financial handout from the United States.

The combination of free American assistance and American assistance under mutually agreed terms requiring British repayment did not "destroy the UK" but saved the UK.

With this I have to agree, Colonel. Let me give you both barrels (in a friendly way, of course): Not only did we save you, militarily as well as financially, but you never came to our aid in the Japan War Name one battleship, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, carrier, or even a destroyer escort or PT boat that ever came to the rescue of American or Ozzie troops or sailors. How many lives did we burn for you in North Africa? How many in Italy? How many in Normandy? How many in the Battle of the Bulge?

Okay, now answer this. How many British ships were at the battle of Midway? How many at the Solomon Islands? How many at Guadle Canal? How many at the Marianas islands. How many at the battle of Leyte Gulf?

Churchill was a great salesman. He had Stalin begging him to create a western front. Instead he created an African front. Then he created a southern front by invading Italy. But he hesitated on the invasion on the French coast. Then the US took charge (Eisenhower) and said, f*** it, let’s go. So don’t tell me about British acumen. Once the US dismissed Montgomery it was Katie-bar-the-door. Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, the taking of Berlin. Nuff said.

[The Colonel]

Given British national pride and dignity, one would expect the UK to refuse a free financial handout from the United States.

The combination of free American assistance and American assistance under mutually agreed terms requiring British repayment did not "destroy the UK" but saved the UK.

With this I have to agree, Colonel. Let me give you both barrels (in a friendly way, of course): Not only did we save you, militarily as well as financially, but you never came to our aid in the Japan War Name one battleship, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, carrier, or even a destroyer escort or PT boat that ever came to the rescue of American or Ozzie troops or sailors. How many lives did we burn for you in North Africa? How many in Italy? How many in Normandy? How many in the Battle of the Bulge?

Okay, now answer this. How many British ships were at the battle of Midway? How many at the Solomon Islands? How many at Guadle Canal? How many at the Marianas islands. How many at the battle of Leyte Gulf?

Churchill was a great salesman. He had Stalin begging him to create a western front. Instead he created an African front. Then he created a southern front by invading Italy. But he hesitated on the invasion on the French coast. Then the US took charge (Eisenhower) and said, f*** it, let’s go. So don’t tell me about British acumen. Once the US dismissed Montgomery it was Katie-bar-the-door. Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, the taking of Berlin. Nuff said.

You did not save us.

You did not save France. You cannot make such a claim at all.

Where were you in France? Where were you at Dunkirk? Where were you at the Battle of Britain? Where were you in the hunt and destruction of the Bismarck? Where were you in the raids on Norway? Where were you on the attack on St. Nazaire?

That's right. You weren't there.

Name one ship that came to help Americans? I can name two:

The battleships HMS Prince of Wales, and HMS Repulse, sunk on their way to Pearl Harbor to assist after you were attacked.

We could not produce much for the very reason our cities were being bombed night and day, and our ships sunk.

The US had no intention of entering the war or assisting Britain any more than they assisted France.

You cannot claim to have "saved" Britain when you abandoned France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Norway and even the Soviet Union to begin.

The ONLY reason why the U.S were concerned about Britain was because of US national security. You knew if the . fell into German hands, territories very close to the US would directly threaten the United States. Because France had no such territories anywhere close - you didn't give a stuff.

That is fact.

[Cambridge]

Given British national pride and dignity, one would expect the UK to refuse a free financial handout from the United States.

The combination of free American assistance and American assistance under mutually agreed terms requiring British repayment did not "destroy the UK" but saved the UK.

With this I have to agree, Colonel. Let me give you both barrels (in a friendly way, of course): Not only did we save you, militarily as well as financially, but you never came to our aid in the Japan War Name one battleship, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, carrier, or even a destroyer escort or PT boat that ever came to the rescue of American or Ozzie troops or sailors. How many lives did we burn for you in North Africa? How many in Italy? How many in Normandy? How many in the Battle of the Bulge?

Okay, now answer this. How many British ships were at the battle of Midway? How many at the Solomon Islands? How many at Guadle Canal? How many at the Marianas islands. How many at the battle of Leyte Gulf?

Churchill was a great salesman. He had Stalin begging him to create a western front. Instead he created an African front. Then he created a southern front by invading Italy. But he hesitated on the invasion on the French coast. Then the US took charge (Eisenhower) and said, f*** it, let’s go. So don’t tell me about British acumen. Once the US dismissed Montgomery it was Katie-bar-the-door. Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, the taking of Berlin. Nuff said.

You did not save us.

You did not save France. You cannot make such a claim at all.

Where were you in France? Where were you at Dunkirk? Where were you at the Battle of Britain? Where were you in the hunt and destruction of the Bismarck? Where were you in the raids on Norway? Where were you on the attack on St. Nazaire?

That's right. You weren't there.

Name one ship that came to help Americans? I can name two:

The battleships HMS Prince of Wales, and HMS Repulse, sunk on their way to Pearl Harbor to assist after you were attacked.

We could not produce much for the very reason our cities were being bombed night and day, and our ships sunk.

The US had no intention of entering the war or assisting Britain any more than they assisted France.

You cannot claim to have "saved" Britain when you abandoned France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Norway and even the Soviet Union to begin.

The ONLY reason why the U.S were concerned about Britain was because of US national security. You knew if the . fell into German hands, territories very close to the US would directly threaten the United States. Because France had no such territories anywhere close - you didn't give a stuff.

That is fact.

You did not save us.

You did not save France. You cannot make such a claim at all.

I agree. Whatever beef you may have with myron, I am not him. Are we straight?

Where were you in France?

On the beaches at Normandy. At Caen. Later, at the Battle of the Bulge.

Where were you at Dunkirk? Where were you at the Battle of Britain? Where were you in the hunt and destruction of the Bismarck? Where were you in the raids on Norway? Where were you on the attack on St. Nazaire?

These all occurred before the US was in the war. However, the US was already manufacturing all the necessities that Britain needed to conduct a war. Ask Germany why they gave the order to their U-boats at this time to sink American shipping. That tells you something about America’s participation in the war.

The Brits were brave victims at Dunkirk. They were brilliant during the Battle of Britain. I salute every one of them.

However, hunting and sinking the Bismarck was a token display and a waste of time. It was revenge for the Hood. One American carrier could have taken the Bismarck out in a flea’s breath. But why waste the time on Battleships in 1940? They were already inconsequential.

Name one ship that came to help Americans? I can name two:

The battleships HMS Prince of Wales, and HMS Repulse, sunk on their way to Pearl Harbor to assist after you were attacked.

Two ships…and they were sunk. Don’t get me wrong. I regret their loss for Britain’s sake. But two token ships…and not even carriers, no less. As a colonel, and presumably a graduate of War College, how do you begin to equate a battleship with an aircraft carrier in 1942? That’s ridiculous.

We could not produce much for the very reason our cities were being bombed night and day, and our ships sunk.

Production. The very thing the US could offer, yet you seem to imply it was of no importance whatsoever. Were you aware that by 1940 the US was producing most of Britain’s famed fighters, the Spitfires? Yep, they either flew across Greenland or came on Liberty ships.

The US had no intention of entering the war or assisting Britain any more than they assisted France.

The US is like any other democracy…a variety of opinions. True there was strong isolationist sentiment in the US in 1939, and with good reason. F***ing Europeans still couldn’t get their act together, while we in the Americas were united by the Monroe doctrine and had no business in Europe.

You cannot claim to have "saved" Britain when you abandoned France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Norway and even the Soviet Union to begin.

I don’t claim to have “saved” anyone. Again, you have argued so long with myron that you are confusing the two of us. Myron talks history out of his ass, in small and insignificant puffs, while I have a PhD in it (history of political theory). Please don’t insult me.

Churchill lived at the US White House for most of the year 1941. Roosevelt arranged for him to have a bedroom and a war room on the second floor. Goodwin, Doris Kearns, No Ordinary Time. Roosevelt and Churchill wanted the US in the war so bad they could taste it in their own pee. That is why some people think that Pearl Harbor was a set-up. Regardless, the US was the manufacturing loci long before 1941. How long do you think you would have lasted without that production capability? The US was turning out 2000 aircraft a month, 4000 tanks and armored vehicles a quarter. How long? Three months? Five months?

The ONLY reason why the U.S were concerned about Britain was because of US national security. You knew if the . fell into German hands, territories very close to the US would directly threaten the United States. Because France had no such territories anywhere close - you didn't give a stuff.

Of course, do you think we did it because we wanted to preserve English cooking, God forbid? Common interest is at the core of all alliances. Plus, and give us credit, we had a lasting bond with you guys and we weren’t gonna let Britain slip beneath the waves. Now why can’t you just be nice and appreciate that somewhat uncommon fact?

[ZiaAries]

Preserve English cooking? Oh the gods shall forbid.

Cambridge, the Colonel was replying to YOUR post. Don't push this one off on myron. I want to see YOUR reply. Don't mellow out unless you know that you are posting inaccurate facts.

[The Colonel]

I have no "beef" with you Cambridge.

As you are aware, I have fought for this country, and so did my father in World War II. For those reasons I cannot abide lies when it comes to such things. It becomes a personal insult to me and my family. That is my reason for my defence of historical truth.

I haven't the time to respond to each section, but I shall make a few points.

1. Going after the Bismarck was not just a case of revenge. The Bismarck threatened the Atlantic convoys (not coming just from the US I might add), and there was the very real threat of the Bismarck joining with Sharnhorst and Gneisenau (plus Prinz Eugen once again) to become an absolute menace at sea. Indeed, the destruction of Admiral Graf Spee was for this same reason. It was of vital importance.

2. One US carrier could not have dealt with Bismarck. Two carriers were involved in the operation - HMS Ark Royal and HMS Victorious. They did succeed in bringing the Bismarck to its demise. If I remember correctly, one than one carrier was needed to destroy the Yamamoto (?).

I haven't "insulted" you at all. A PhD is a fantastic achievement - however I have a Bachelors and Masters degree at Firsts myself. You are not communicating with an idiot by any means. Further "War College" is not the same in the UK as for example, West Point. RMA Sandhurst is the finest military academy in the world.

I have always freely admitted the US contribution to the war. However, to say you won the war is a gross exaggeration.

I'd also add, that Lord Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl of Burma, was Supreme Allied Commander East Asia. The role we played in the East was significant. The Australian and New Zelanders, as Dominions of the UK, come under our Armed Forces as they continue to do so.

[Cambridge]

1. Going after the Bismarck was not just a case of revenge. The Bismarck threatened the Atlantic convoys (not coming just from the US I might add), and there was the very real threat of the Bismarck joining with Sharnhorst and Gneisenau (plus Prinz Eugen once again) to become an absolute menace at sea. Indeed, the destruction of Admiral Graf Spee was for this same reason. It was of vital importance.

Well, I’ll stand by my post. Battleships were passé by the 1920s. Shipping and one battleship? Just sail around it. Ten battleships probably = one submarine. Ten submarines could do ten times more damage to shipping than a battleship. The aircraft carrier Ark Royal was torpedoed by the German U-boat U 81 off Gibraltar and sank the following day. No one needed Battleships.

2. One US carrier could not have dealt with Bismarck. Two carriers were involved in the operation - HMS Ark Royal and HMS Victorious. They did succeed in bringing the Bismarck to its demise. If I remember correctly, one than one carrier was needed to destroy the Yamamoto (?).

One US carrier (USS Yorktown) sank two Jap carriers at the Battle of Midway. The other two were sunk by the aircraft from two other US carriers. In the span of four hours at Midway the US sank four of eleven carriers in the entire Japanese fleet. Now, this was August of 1942 and the US had been at war for less than nine months.

2. One US carrier could not have dealt with Bismarck. Two carriers were involved in the operation - HMS Ark Royal and HMS Victorious. They did succeed in bringing the Bismarck to its demise. If I remember correctly, one than one carrier was needed to destroy the Yamamoto (?).

The HMS Ark Royal and HMS Victorious were magnificent ships. But they were not Essex-class carriers. Victorious was launched in 1939. The Ark Royal in 1938. In the Atlantic, they launched mosquitoes, a bi-plane, with torpedoes, one of which hit the Bismarck. The Bismarck could not fire back at the mosquitoes because they moved too slowly to be logged into the gunnery computers. But I would not have wanted to go into the Battle of Midway or the Battle of Leyte Gulf with mosquitoes. They were hardly F6F Hellcats, or God forbid, F4U Corsairs.

I haven't "insulted" you at all. A PhD is a fantastic achievement - however I have a Bachelors and Masters degree at Firsts myself. You are not communicating with an idiot by any means. Further "War College" is not the same in the UK as for example, West Point. RMA Sandhurst is the finest military academy in the world.

For God’s sake, colonel…don’t take me so seriously. I don’t really believe you meant to insult me—it was a figure of speech. I’ll agree that Sandhurst and West Point are the two greatest military academies in the world, and we can agree to disagree about which is the best. OK?

I have always freely admitted the US contribution to the war. However, to say you won the war is a gross exaggeration.

I, too, don’t believe there was a single savior in the recipe. There were many factors that helped save Britain, the absence of any one of which would have doomed the UK. So it is indeed fair to say that US production “saved” Britain, as did many other things, including American B-17s and B-24s, and the North American P-51D Mustangs, which were the first fighter aircraft that could accompany the bombers all the way to Berlin and back, and so outperformed the ME-109 that it spelled the end of the Luftwaffe. The P-51D rode the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, so that was a joint success.

I'd also add, that Lord Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl of Burma, was Supreme Allied Commander East Asia.

Mountbatten was your Commander. Nobody f***ed with Douglas Macarthur in any Asian campaign. A 5-star General, he was dictator of Japan until 1951.

The role we played in the East was significant. The Australian and New Zelanders, as Dominions of the UK, come under our Armed Forces as they continue to do so.

And I will always salute the ozzies and the kiwis for that. They were our brothers in arms. But don’t give me this definitional, jurisdictional bullshit about “dominions.” The island nation of Great Britain did not show up in the PacificOcean.

Incidentally, my father too fought in ww II. He was a full-bird Captain in the United States Navy and rode an aircraft carrier until 1945. He was Vice-Com Flight Surgeon for Admiral Kinkaid's 7th Fleet at Leyte Gulf. He discharged as a Rear Admiral, second grade...which would be a Commodore in your ranks. “For that reason I cannot abide insults” about the US participation in wwII.

[Rebman]

The HMS Ark Royal and HMS Victorious were magnificent ships. But they were not Essex-class carriers. Victorious was launched in 1939. The Ark Royal in 1938. In the Atlantic, they launched mosquitoes, a bi-plane, with torpedoes, one of which hit the Bismarck. The Bismarck could not fire back at the mosquitoes because they moved too slowly to be logged into the gunnery computers.

Cambridge,

Correct in essence, but the bi-planes concerned were Fairey Swordfish:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

Mosquitoes were not navy biplanes, but were fast air force monoplane combat aircraft:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

Mountbatten was your Commander. Nobody f***ed with Douglas Macarthur in any Asian campaign. A 5-star General, he was dictator of Japan until 1951.

Incidentally, Earl Mountbatten of Burma was Supreme Allied Commander for Southeast Asia. As such, he commanded ALL allied forces in Southeast Asia (not ‘East Asia’ as the pretend Colonel stated – a real Lieutenant Colonel would have known that). Mountbatten’s area of command did not conflict with that of Macarthur.

The pretend Colonel’s contention that Australian and New Zealand forces still come under British command is total nonsense, again confirming that he was not a Lieutenant Colonel.

[The Colonel]

The HMS Ark Royal and HMS Victorious were magnificent ships. But they were not Essex-class carriers. Victorious was launched in 1939. The Ark Royal in 1938. In the Atlantic, they launched mosquitoes, a bi-plane, with torpedoes, one of which hit the Bismarck. The Bismarck could not fire back at the mosquitoes because they moved too slowly to be logged into the gunnery computers.

Cambridge,

Correct in essence, but the bi-planes concerned were Fairey Swordfish:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

Mosquitoes were not navy biplanes, but were fast air force monoplane combat aircraft:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

Mountbatten was your Commander. Nobody f***ed with Douglas Macarthur in any Asian campaign. A 5-star General, he was dictator of Japan until 1951.

Incidentally, Earl Mountbatten of Burma was Supreme Allied Commander for Southeast Asia. As such, he commanded ALL allied forces in Southeast Asia (not ‘East Asia’ as the pretend Colonel stated – a real Lieutenant Colonel would have known that). Mountbatten’s area of command did not conflict with that of Macarthur.

The pretend Colonel’s contention that Australian and New Zealand forces still come under British command is total nonsense, again confirming that he was not a Lieutenant Colonel.

Yet another troll post.

I shall report this as well.