@xxMrFablexx You forget how scantily defended Berlin was; the Germans had NO supplies, no morale, the Russians vastly outnumbered them, yet the Russians get 300,000 casualties. Seriously. The Russians got more casualties in two weeks than the Americans did in the entire month-long Battle of the Bulge. Some people have the retarded notion that Patton was no good, but he never lost 300,000 men against Germans who were virtually fighting with rocks and sticks.
@martynrobin121 No you are wrong, MacArthur was FULLY capable of beating the Chinese, no matter what fantasies your anti-American-propaganda-filled brain comes up with. You have failed to give me any reliable historical data. Well supplied, high-morale, ready-to-fight Chinese vs. American forces with breaking supply lines and are ready to ship home, yet the Chinese are unable to strike a mortal blow. Like I said, with fresh troops DougMac would have slaughtered the Chinese. Accept it.
@martynrobin121 MacArthur was fully capable of defeating the Communist Chinese. Think about it. It was President Truman who was the coward. Fresh, well-supplied and massive Chinese forces against beaten up UN forces getting ready to go home. MacArthur still managed to hold China to a stalemate, WITHOUT reinforcements, with fresh Chinese coming in all the time. MacArthur would have beat the snot out of China had R
@Gordontrek MacArthur was not capable of anything. The Chinese crushed and humiliated the UN Forces in North Korea, The UN was routed and on the run back to South Korea. That idiot Macarthur wanted to use Nuclear Terroist attacks to defeat its enemies and occupy North Korea. It was a big mistake for the UN to go against the agenda and invade North Korea hoping to occupy and set up a western form of Goverment, However thats the Cold war for ye, And NATO/UN won it.
@rfeliciano86 I agree that Russia did most of the work but you're forgetting the Soviets vastly outnumbered the Germans in every way yet couldn't deal a deathly blow until the Americans entered the war. (besides, Russia received billions of American Lend-Lease money earlier in the war, without it Germany would have cut their throats) If the war was solely between Germany and Russia than the Russians would have got their lungs handed to them.
@Gordontrek That is very Foolish, The US arrived in the war late and only saw action against the Axis 1943. The Soviets 1941, Had crushed the Axis invasion at Moscow in Operation Barberossa alone the Axis had lost over 1-Million men. By 1942 an entire Axis Army was trapped at Stalingrad, The main Axis Armies were been defeated and crushed, Where was the Yanks? The Lendlease was vital i agree, The Soviets needed mostly trucks and the US and British gave their loans.(Bankers)
@martynrobin121 Either way the US still secured half of Europe with least amount of effort, but then again their primary conflict was against the Japanese. But then again, if Japan was left to possibly defeat and subjugate China as well as other pacific nations Japan could've also claimed Siberia whilst the Soviets were occupied in Europe.
@kill3456 FALSE! The US did not secure half of Europe, It was the Allies mostly US & British Empire who "secured" parts of Europe. The Soviets done the most, and took the most. Japan had already crushed China years before US defeat at Phillipines or Pearl harbour. China was already mostly occupied. Also Japan refused to help its Axis Allies fight the Soviets, Japan & Soviets signed a Treaty they were Allies, Untill Stalin declared war 1945.
@martynrobin121 No, the area of Europe that the Soviets took that was not originally part of their territory is smaller than the area(western europe) that the Allies were able to secure, the only reason the Soviets got to Berlin was because the Allies let them due to a request from Stalin.
China was not fully secured, look at any map and/or data of the war the Japanese barely made rapid progress into China due to lack of manpower and later due to the conflict with the US.
@Gordontrek russians did all the work dude, we came in late & tipped over the already tipped jar. they deserve the big blow. one the took a lot of shit from the nazi and two they were in the fight from the begging, three because they were in fron the start the didn't only lose mad men, but money. the russains won the war, we helped.
@Gordontrek well, the Russians did lose 10.5 million men fighting the Germans. The Russian did stand alone against the German Wermacht for 3 long years in Europe before the Western front (d-day landing) was opened. Thet suffered the most from the German army so I think they were entilted to the honour of Marching on Berlin first.
@Gordontrek Pretty sure the Americans would have lost just as many. In Urban fighting it usually takes 3 attackers for every one defender. Also, don't see how the Russians were "crappy" when they caused about 90% of the German's casualties. Yeah, really crappy.
Good thing we let the ruskies have berlin. They had a real personal grudge against the nazi's they deserved it. Also they lost 300,000 men taking the city. Obviously we wouldn't have lost as many, but a hundred thousand more dead on our side would have been a terrible loss.
@Sidewinder5O4 I have read that General Lucian Truscott was just as good - and more trusted by his men - but did not play the Press the way Patton did. When Patton and his entourage bowled into his headquarters shouting at everyone Truscott just stood looking quietly at Patton with his arms folded. Patton shut up like a musical box with the spring winding down.
Gen. Patton one of the greatest Generals of all time; to the aforementioned from another great, " It is good that war is so horrible, or we might grow to like it." -Robert E. LEE- Patton paraphrased "I ain't drinking w/h that Russian son of a bitch"
I'm from Poland and Patton is one of my favourites commanders, but sorry american's: USA fucked up Poland in WWII. FDR sold us to soviet's already ein 1943, because FDR was thinking that soviet's will make free elections in country.
@MrArtmundus The USA didn't 'fuck up' Poland; the world did. Europe had just gotten done fighting World War 2. Can you imagine how upset the rest of the world would've been, if they'd had to have fought *another* war, over the sovereinty of Poland? ...It's just politics, pal.
@OnlyTy91 That's my point pal. FDR was to much idealist in his relations with Stalin and USRR. Churchill knew thath comunism was thew dangare of the future. I dont' have nothing against USA and american people but that's what polish people are thinking. Sorry.
@MrArtmundus I wish Patton had gotten his way, and been able to launch a preemptive attack on the Soviets. But then again, how would Poland have liked *German* soldiers coming through Poland, on their way to serve under Americans, fighting the Russians? lol. We should've attacked them, before they got nuclear weapons of their own.
@OnlyTy91 Russian Espionage is how they got the atomic weapon plans in their hands, Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project before Harry Trueman did. But yea, Patton would have kicked Stalin right up the ass if he had his way. Russia had been supplied by USA from the Lend-Lease act and without it, itd be harder for Russia to build its forces like USA and the freed nations of Europe.
@lolackay Personaly I prefer to be POW in Florida and drinking orange juice, than by POW in Siberia with -50ºC and working in GULAG. In Europe there is to much people who are protesting againts USA (war in Iraq, capitalism). But when Russia is making the wars in Europe poeple are saying: "There is a Russian policy at the state".
@MrArtmundus Id like to see USA cut all its foreign aid and see which way the world turns, i have a feeling people will be angry at USA for not helping lol
You have to remember the US and British had the best air force and navies at the end of WW II!No way would Eisenhower and King let those commie bastards within an inch of Paris!Patton could have been in Berlin if Ike would have let him!
the North Koreans are only communist because they were Occupied by Russia in the years after WW2, to take Japanese POW's. the US occupied SK. as such, different political views came out. NK invaded SK to force the whole nation to unite, before the US or China got involved in the fighting. The only reason China came in was not to "liberate" NK, but because they didn't want an influx of refugees, and US troops came too close to the border when they trounced the NKPA. this is Fact.
Tanks were almost useless in Korea, as they were in Vietnam. The mountainous, jagged terrain of the countryside was not feasible with armor. The UN actually deployed very little armor to Korea, but instead relied on artillery. I should know, my grandpa was a Forward Observer of the 25th Infantry Division.You really have no knowledge of this subject.
@ItNice26 This son of a 1st US Marine in Korea rogers that! This guy should read a book rather than a pamphlet on the war before spouting off. My father always had an affection for the F4U Corsair flowing by USM and USN pilots skimming the mountains dropping napalm, keeping the Chicoms at bay with 20mm and .50 cal fire. Also he'd give a shout-out to Aussie/Kiwi F51 Mustang pilots for their help. They used to cheer them from the hills like watching a football game as the blew the Reds apart.
Kelly's Heroes had the period tanks, well the typical T-34/Tiger convert anyway, that was made at the same time as this, really no reason why they couldn't have found some tanks.
Patton wanted Berlin badly, and of course, unfortunately for the Germans, women in particular, he was never given that opportunity. Instead he held his Army at the Elbe and let the blood thirsty Reds have it. They ravaged Berlin, raped 2 million German women and killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. Some Germans even tried to breakthrough to the American lines to surrender.
@ItNice26 The Allies were never going to take Berlin first, Due to the failed operation market-garden And what about all the women the Allies raped? You do realise when the European Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union they killed over 34 million, 80% innocent civilians, They raped and enslaved countless millions, It was only obvious the Soviets were going to get revenge, The Axis wanted to surrender to the Yanks and British because they were soft, And wanted to recruit nazi against Russia..
@martynrobin121 The Soviets were not Allies. So don't call them that. We hated the Soviets as much as the Nazis. Korea and Vietnam is proof of America's hatred of Communism. America's and Britain's involvement was mainly to act as a buffer. Helping defeat Germany is one thing, but it was also important keeping the Soviets out of Western Europe.
@ItNice26 Obviously the Soviets were Allies, They eased most of the pressure off Britain and played the main role during the war by, Without the Red Army there would be no victory thats fact. And the Communist defeated both America,Britain in N.korea and then defeated the U.S in Vietnam, They lost in Mayasia to Britain during the cold war. And D-Day was about stopping the spread of Communism.
@martynrobin121 The Soviets weren't Allies, we just had a common enemy. Korea was a Communist failure to take over ALL of Korea. And in Vietnam the US QUIT. The US was NEVER defeated on the battlefield.
@ItNice26 The United Nation invasion of North Korea was humiliated by the Communists, The U.S ran away in the biggest U.S withdraw in history leaving there Allies to die and cover there cowardice! Communist failed to take over the South, And the U.N failed to take over the North. Vietnam the U.S was defeated, Where as a small British forces defeated the Communists in Mayala 10x the size of Vietnam. And look at Afghans? You now have to clean up your mess and terroist friends!
@martynrobin121 Korea was not a failure you twit. The mission was to keep the North from turning the South Communists and that mission was fulfilled.
I have seen you on other channels bashing America and undermining its history. You're just a troll with a chip on his shoulder. The US had less than 500,000 men in Korea and that force tangled with China, who committed millions. HOW IS THAT COWARDICE?
@ItNice26 The U.N invasion of N.Korea whitch was illegal and defeated by the Communist the U.N mission to take over N.Korea failed. Yes, The United Nations were able to hold on to S.Korea whitch was there main goal. The U.S ran away from N.Korea in the biggest U.S withdraw in its history, The Chinese used human-waves, Yes America,Britain,U.N were defeated by a weak military force.
@martynrobin121 It was a fighting retreat. Only 580,000 Americans took part in the operation and the British contribution was even smaller. The US was up against millions and millions of Chinese.
@ItNice26 FALSE, The U.N was up against countless thousands not millions, The Communist tactic was human-waves, The U.N had the best Air-Forces in the world, Also Tanks,Armour vehicles,etc and hudge Industry to support there war-effort. Compare the Chinese with the UN, The Chinese were weak accept in man-power. During the the war the United Nations had 1,207,010 troops, The Chinses,Koreans had 1,212,000. U.N invasion of N.Korea ended in Disaster for the United Nations.
@martynrobin121 My grandpa was in Korea you pretentious Vaginal rag. Korea was not a failure. The mission was never to liberate the North from Communist oppression. The mission was to "contain" the spread of Communism, which was achieved. Once China intervened the War spiraled into a situation that could have led to WW3. China had just endured the Great Leap Forward and Communist sentiment was stronger than ever. The Chinese would have sacrificed any number of men to keep N. Korea Communist.
@ItNice26 The ironic thing now is that, according to a Chinese government memo released by Wikileaks, the Chinese would actually cautiously welcome the fall of the N. Korean regime and a Korea united under Seoul. North Korea has become a source of tension in the region and they need a lot of aid to survive. The Chinese know that a democratic South Korea isn't going to invade them and a bonus would be that U.S. troops would leave the peninsula.
@ItNice26 The United Nations forces went against there mission, The U.N invaded N.Korea whitch was illegal and went against there Goals, The U.N wanted to spread Democracy. However when China got involved the U.N was humiliated and crushed in N.Korea. Yes, The main mission was a successful BUT the invasion of N.Korea ended in disaster. And the number of troops were equal, Just that the U.N had the best Military,Airforces,Navy from all over the world and they still lost in N.korea.
@martynrobin121 The UN was never humiliated, you really should read a book concerning Korea. The invasion of the North was more of a chess move to keep the South free of Northern occupation. The UN forces made a fighting withdrawal out of N. Korea, but N. Korea was never the mission and Truman was not willing to allocate the men or the resources for a conquest of N.Korea or China. Once China intervened the conflict snowballed, and the original mission became the objective, which was accomplished
@ItNice26 The U.N hoped to take over N.Korea by force and unite, North & South under Democracy. When the Allies woke the dragon, The Chinese liberated N.Korea and defeated the worlds superpowers. You have to understand boths sides points, N.Korea was Chinese victory and liberation, The Allies see S.Korea as a United Nation victory and liberation. You have to look at both sides proppaganda and views. Yes the main goal to liberate S.Korea was a success.
@martynrobin121 My wish is that someday a brainwashed ingnorant fool like yourself should be so "liberated" as the North Koreans are today. There would be a wonderful justice in that. Something tells me, given the choice, you'd prefer not to be under the jackboot of Pyongyang which makes you what exactly? Starvation is only "propoganda" to someone living in a free society with a full belly and shelves stocked with food. I would love nothing more than for you to live in N. Korea. Fool.
@ItNice26 Well to be fair, the UN was humiliated in the sense that the Eighth Army and X Corps were driven all the way back down the penninsula to just below Seoul before the Chinese strain on logistics and heavy losses ground them to a halt. The Marines fought an epic on a par with the Spartans at Thermopylae and came out a cohesive fighting unit having inflicted massive losses. But the Chinese counterattack did succeed and the retreat was demoralizing...but not fatal. Hence S. Korea today.
I think it's safe to say that had the UN had the will it could have resumed its offensive north. The Chinese were thoroughly exhausted, the NPKA was liquidiated as a fighting unit and Ridgeway's methodical broad advance with heavy firepower and massive arial support could have slowly pushed the infantry-only Chinese off the penninsula for good. Especially if air power was used to interdict supplies coming across the Yalu. The F-86 got the UN air superiority to let the B-29s do their work.IMHO
@martynrobin121 THE UN authorized the unification of North and South Korea. And the UN forces did retreat but the casualties they inflicted were massive. My dad was a US Marine there and he said there was never a more sorry looking lot than the Chinese who would surrender in droves just to get food and warm shoes. The Chinese was an all infantry army. Once the lines solidified UN firepower began to take its toll. There are 38 million S. Koreans living in freedom today thanks to the UN.
@Shafeone To be honest man, I have seen this same guy on other channels tearing apart the US military. He also claims that the US wasn't needed against the Nazis in Europe, LOLOLOLOL. He is obviously not a fan of the US, and I doubt he would give the US military credit for anything. This guy is a waste of time.
@Shafeone The Invasion of N.Korea went against the U.N mission to "liberate" South Korea. The Allies wanted to spread Demorcracy just like the Reds wanted to spread Communism. Your correct the Chinese was infantry army who main weapon was human waves, The U.N had the worlds superpowers and greatest military,navy,air-force in the world. And there is millions in N.Korea who live free due to the Chinese. You have to see things from both sides point of view, not just 1 sides proppaganda.
@martynrobin121 Wow. The very fact that you would use the term "free" and North Korea in the same sentence tells me that you are an utter moron. N. Korea is perhaps the worst slave state on earth. Had the UN been allowed to reunite the penninsula MILLIONS more would be free and generations would have lived in relative freedom and prosperity. There are no moral equivalents between the two sides. To even suggest that shows an incalculable ignorance on your part. I hope you were kidding.
@Shafeone You have to understand both sides points,views.You only seem to support the West proppaganda on the conflict, The Chinese see N.Korea as a Chinese victory against the United Nations. The Chinese would say they liberated N.Korea. Thats now my opinion but what the Chinese point of view. We all know that today that N.Korea if horrific, However so if the regimes that the U.N support and give weapons,money 2. You have to look at both sides story and proppaganda to get the facts.
@martynrobin121 you know, when I'm bored, or need a laugh to cheer me up, then I open YouTube and read hilarious commentaries such as yours. It also convinces me that I'm "normal".
@Blokecameuptome Obviously you are not normal, Every idiot knows that the Red Army played the main role in world war 2 by far! I dont think anybody can argue with that! Also D-Day did start the Cold war, Stalin thought the Allies were just watching the Red Army to do the work, Churchill was planning to attack the Soviets. Without D-Day the Red Army would have took Paris aswell, As churchill said he didnt want them thugs at Britains doorstep, He didnt care who they were!
@martynrobin121 You forget Japan was also a threat you nit wit. And the Americans gave the Germans the opportunity to surrender and be treated fairly.
@ItNice26 Japan only attacked the British eastern Empire because British Forces were too busy fighting the European Axis powers in Europe,Africa,Mid-East. The Japs were sly and took advantage. Britain played a key role in Asia against the Japs, R.N in the Pacific. Also the Soviet invasion of Manchurio proved very effective a Jap army of over million was defeated,captured. And the Allies never gave any opportunity for peace talks, Only humilation like 1918 as Churchill said, Only total surrender!
@ItNice26 Remember it was Britain, Who went to the U.S with plans for the A-Bomb after finding out Germany had already started there project. When Japan attacked the Eastern Empire, Britain main forces were fighting in Europe,Afrca,Mid-East thats why Japan took advantage. However the Japs were defeated in India,Burma,etc by British forces. The R.N supported the U.S in the Paicifc. Britain played a key role, The U.S more in the Pacific, And Britain more in the West.
@ItNice26 The BEF was NOT destroyed after Dunkirk, Most of its equipment,mobile units were lost. The Troops were saved with 150,000 French troops. British Forces kept fighting in Europe till 1941 untill the defeat at Greece, Britain returned back to mainland Europe 1943 and lead D-Day 44. In 1940 the British outnumbered humiliated the Axis in Africa, By 1942 the Axs Africa campaign was over after the major battle of Al Alamein, Britain was winning mainly thanks to Soviet Union.
@martynrobin121 Are you honestly trying to tell me that the Brits could have staged a second front without US intervention? Please don't tell me that is what you're saying.
@ItNice26 The Second Front came 1944, The Allies were only able to land due to the fact that 75% of what was left of the Axis forces was fighting the Soviets in the East. However even without D-Day landings the Red Army would have still took Berlin and won the war. Without the U.S a Operation like D-Day would be impossible i agree, Without the U.S mainland Europe would be under Communist Soviet rule. However without Britain the Empire, there would be no D-Day, Both sides were vital.
@martynrobin121 No way could the USSR have beaten Germany solo. The Allies took 6 million prisoners. Your opinions are not contrived from facts. Britain contributed yes, but they were hardly in a position to stage a front. The USSR did not start making large advances until after US intervention. What does that tell you? Germany lost not by just one enemy, but by dividing their forces and not being able to allocate their men and material in one theater. Any way you cut it, the US was vital.
@ItNice26 I did NOT say the Red Army could win alone, However Britiain & Soviets were winning the war and would have won without the U.S forces that is fact. The Red Army played the main during the war, They fought 75% of the Axis forces, The Allies were only able to land in Normandy because of the Reds. The Soviets were in Prussia when the Allies landed on D-Day. The U.S was vital to create second front to help Britain stop the spread of Communism, El Alamein Stalingrad marked the tide.
@martynrobin121 Britain couldn't have staged a front by herself, hence the US was necessary in winning the War. All the Brits could do was keep Rommel from taking Cairo. Hardly a feat that turned the tide of the entire War. El Alamein shouldn't be in the same sentence as Stalingrad. You are a dope.
@ItNice26 It was the British who defeated the Axis in N.Africa,Mid-East- El Alamein was the final and major battle that ended the Axis Africa campaign. Italy was wide open for invasion. I agree without the U.S an invasion like D-Day would be impossible. However it wasnt D-Day that won the war, It was the Red Army who played the main role by far. D-Day was not needed to defeat the Axis, But to stop the spread of Communism. The U.S arrived late as usual end of 42.
@ItNice26 Obviously the Conflicts did affect America, Roosevelt gave Hitler a list of FREE nations that Germany couldnt invade, Yet Hitler invaded most of there nations and U.S said nothing. Hitler broke the Versailles Treaty the U.S said nothing, Did you not arrrive in the Great war 1918 to join the Allies? The conflicts in E.Europe didnt affect Britain, But they stood up for freedom and refused all peace-talks.U.S forces arrived in WW2 end of 42, When the Allies were winning.
@ItNice26 The war had nothing to do with Britains nation secuirty or there Empire. Yet Britain was the first to stand up for freedom against Germany and the Axis powers. Obviously the U.S was going to support Britain it was in there Americas best interests, Also the trade with Britain and the Allies was good for American economy. By 1941, The U.S security was at risk. The U.S couldnt have joined forces with Germany, Hhitler was making fools out of the U.S, America was against Hitler from START
@ItNice26 Germany was also been bombed 1939-45 by the RAF. Obviously Britain was been bombed the Axis were on there doorstep. The outnumbered RAF defeated the Luftwaffe and any invasion of Britain was impossible after the biggest Air-Battle in history. Also Britain Forces in Africa outnumbered had humiliated the Axis 1940. When Britain got lendlese 1941, It was vital for America to protect THERE interests. The Soviets played a far bigger role than the U.S, Red Army was everything to the war.
@ItNice26 The war had nothing to with British interests, However when Germany invaded Poland the British were the first to stand up to Germany to fight for freeom. The British could have said mainland Europe had nothing to them. Britain declared war on Germany 39 after Hitler refused to withdraw from Poland, RAF bombed Germany first in 1939. Obviously Britain was also been bombed during the war, However RAF bombed Germany,Axis 1939-45. BRITAIN WAS SAFE, Germany fighting to save there nation!
@martynrobin121 Well, I think the US could have taken a similar path. They could have left Europe to be ground to sand by Hitler's Army's. The US mainland wasn't threatened. Believe it or not the US in part decided to fight and oppose Hitler because the American public realized the injustices that were being perpetrated not just by Germany, but by Japan.
@ItNice26 British mainland or Empire wasnt threatended, Yet Britain was the first to stand up for freedom. Britain could have said Mainland Europe was nothing to do with them! Canada & Australia they were not threatended yet they had the balls to stand up. France was not threatend, German interests were in the East NOT West, Yet France fell for freedom when they could have said Poland was Polands problem. The excuses of America for why they didnt stand up is foolish, They just didnt care!
@ItNice26 Just THINK about it,- Britain didnt have to declare war on Germany they could of had the same attitude as the U.S and said the World wasnt there problem. Britains interests were not threatended, Yet were the FIRST to stand up for FREEDOM! Canada,Australia there interests were NOT threatend yet they declared war to fight for freedom. American excuses for not standing up for freedom are just pathetic, Look at today? The U.S invades weak nations, That dont threaten there interests!
@martynrobin121 Britain was being bombed day and night jackass. What German bomb touched an Americans city? Uh none. Sorry if America was not exciting in intervening in a European fuck up for the 2nd time. America is now World Police, they were not World Police back then. That is why America intervenes in so many affairs, they are a buffer, a deterrent. Europe can't go 50 years without killing each other. Thank God for US presence.
@ItNice26 Germany and Axis Europe was also been bombed day/night by the RAF for 6years. And obviously the U.S didnt get bombed they refused to get involved and would only TRADE! The war was NOT European you American idiot, Asia & Africa are not part of Europe!! America was too cowardice to fight for what is right. And today the America is NOT the world police, They are the worlds biggest terroists organisation with the deaths of millions of there hands, COWARDLY COLONIAL IMMIGRANTS!
@martynrobin121 You're as ignorant as the person your criticizing. History is alot more complex then a single reason, or a specific description of any nation.. Every country has it's own black history. England, France, The USA, China, India and every other one.. The only nation that may even begin to actually claim to have somewhat clean hands is Canada..
@SlyDessertFox My point, Was North Korea invades the South and attempts to spread Communism. The United Nations liberates the South and then invades the North to spread Democracy. Both sides were in the wrong.
@Zabatsue I know that. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the Germans lacked the Navy to bring an invasion force to THREATEN the US. Our mainland was more threatened by Japan than it was Germany.
@ItNice26 Germany at the time of late 1941 to early 1942 had a formidable navy but the US could also have been attacked by the Nazi Vengeance weapons, and long range heavy bombers that could hit the eastern coast after the UK was taken out hitler would move all his troops to the Soviet front, after they had been defeated he would move his forces to France and board ships for america
@snowcamper I never said that North Koreans were free, Look at the propaganda its "BAD & EVIL" Becuase North is Communist and invaded South. Yet its "Good" when the United Nations invaded North Korea because they wanted 2 spread capitalism. WAKE UP! Both sides done the same things, Took advantage of weak nations 2 spread like a disease.Are the people in American free? Ex-marines and ex-Police, Old Veterans,etc been beaten & tortured for protesting for better world,etc are they FREE?
@martynrobin121 The Brits defended their assets in Burma and helped keep the Japs out of India, but they did nothing to cause the demise of the Japanese empire. The British troops in Burma were second rate at best and modestly equipped. Britain's best soldiers were in North Africa. Burma on a relative scale was a small campaign and many British units relied on their commonwealth troops from India.
@ItNice26 In 1940, Adolf Hitler asked the British for peace-talks. Germany,Italy would withdraw from W.Europe. Winston Churchill refused any peace-talks with the Axis. During the war Germany made many attempts of peace, Many Nazi key leaders in secret talks even Himmler. In 1941 after Pearl Harbour,Phillipines disaster, U.S became involved. Churchill was asked if there will be peace talks with Germany and the Axis, Churchill said "There shall be no peace for Germany, They would give in too easy"
@martynrobin121 you are the dumbest mother fucker ever 1 it's not illigal for the U.N. to go into a country to help it considering it's the U.N. and 2 this failed invasion of North Korea you keep talking about never even existed they could have taken it if they wanted they decided not to
@babacoop The invasion of N.Korea was illegal. You dont seem to understand just like the Communist the U.N invaded weak nation 2 spread democracy & puppet Goverments. Look at the illegal invasion & occupation of Iraq? Somuch for helping! Your terroist attacks so called helping invasion have cost the lives of millions, People are still been killed today in Asia due to your weapons, Also in Mid-East due your terroist attackd and Africa, The Libyan massacre 35,000 dead. Thanks for all the death!!
@martynrobin121 if your going that route then the invasion of south korea by north korea was also illigal nevermind that there was no invasion of north korea and idky your saying your terrorist im not an american i just battle stupid on the internet, you don't seem to understand the difference between invasion and occupying it invading it would mean us actually taking it over. and when bad people die it's a good thing so your welcome we killed the shit out some nazi bitches
@babacoop Yes, That is my POINT! The North invaded South 2 spread Communism, And the U.N invaded the North 2 spread democracy. No matter what propaganda you are told, All sides were trying 2 do the same. And as for killing the Nazis i seem to remember it was the Soviets,British who kileld them and you tagged along for the last push. And yes, America is the home of terroism. Its your main weapon, That is why most nations want nuclear weapons, Because the U.S threats terroist attacks,etc.
@martynrobin121 Actually, primarily U.S. intervention into North Korea in 1950 following their advance to the partition line was actually an attempt to eliminate the threat of North Korea invading again, not to 'spread democracy', as communications between Truman and MacArthur show. North Korea was an aggressor nation that had attempted to invade a sovereign country, under terms of war U.N. and U.S. forces were completely justified in eliminating that threat.
@LunaticFringe20 The United Nations pushed the North out of the South. The U.N then took advantage 2 spread democracy and invade a sovereign country. When the U.N was pushed out of N.Korea by China that idiot Mcarthur wanted 2 use Nuclear Terroist attacks 2 force China out of N.Korea. The U.N is the aggressor nations that invades & occupy sovereign weaker nations. The latest example is Iraq that idiot Bush & Blair even said they knew it was lies, And they say it was a mistake,They should be shot
@martynrobin121 Look, under terms of war, they were justified in attempting to eliminate the North Korean threat because of the fact that they started the war. Regardless of whether North Korea was sovereign or not, they invaded another country, and thus the U.N. was justified in an invasion, regardless of what you say. You're just revising history to fit your own agenda.
@LunaticFringe20 You want to talk about the terms of war? How about Operation Unthinkable the Allies planned to attack the Soviet Union as easy as 1945. How about the puppet wars(Starting conflicts around the world and giving puppets your weapons to see how effective they are) NATO nearly started world war 2 and because of threats most nations around the world want nuclear weapons to defend themsefls and their civilans against possible terroists attacks by the West all the spying,etc.
@SlyDessertFox Obviously NATO was not around during WW2. I said they done ther best to start World war 3. The reason so many nations around the world want Nuclear Weapons is for defence against illegal invasion & occupation by NATO. China wanted WMD because the West made threats to wipe out the people in terroist attacks, Iran wants WMD because they are main target and dont want to end up like Iraq. Russia they wanted Nukes because the West was planned attacks as early as 1945.
@martynrobin121 If you would know they should have taken Russia because there allies with china which is spreading communism,which is bad.The reason why anyone would want nuclear weapons is to have power, power = land, land = money or/and spreading something like communism or belief even.
@martynrobin121 And I'm not saying that the UN has never done bad things, it has, but you are deliberately reconstructing elements of history and then going on about Western propaganda while using your own bias to construct this image of the U.N. as some kind of military machine. In reality you fail to understand the contextualization of foreign policy decisions and then just construct your own notions to tie it into a conspiracy, you'd even be laughed at by post-structuralists.
@LunaticFringe20 You dont seem to get my point- Both North & South wanted a United Korea however the North attacked first and the U.N got involved due to the crusade on Communism. The Mission for the U.N was to liberate the South, However the U.N took advantage and went against the agenda. China got involved kicked the U.N out of N.korea and things were put how they should have been. Remember the U.N are just as bad as the Communists, But we are smarter, Well we were smarter now we dont care.
@martynrobin121 Though elections were scheduled, the Soviet Union refused to cooperate with United Nations plans to hold general and free elections in the two Korea's -Bam- Russia made the war and guess what; supported by the People's Republic of China, with military and material aid from the Soviet Union this is why china got involved. So Soviet union HAD to have had a influenced N Korea or nothing would have happened
Just like the Communist, The West wanted to spread their form of Goverment.
China got involved and won the Conflict in N.Korea.
The UN agenda was to liberate the South from the North, Not invade North.
You obviously dont get the point, Its "evil" when the Communist invade nations to spread their form of Goverment, YET When the West does the same its "legal", WAKE UP. Both sides have their own interests,goals.
@martynrobin121 The difference between Communist takeover and the takeover by a Democratic Liberal nation is that the Communists kill off millions of dissidents while the Democratic Liberal nations allow freedom.
@Turnback The North invasion of the South was 100% illegal. (The North wanted to sprad its form of Goverment and take the South by Force)
And the UN invasion of North Korea was also 100% illegal. (Just like the North, The UN wanted to spread its form of Goverment and take over by brutal force)
The Cold war, Was NATO & Soviets who used puppets and nations for their war games, It was simple who ever spread its form Goverment fast as disease would win, NATO spread like cancer.
@martynrobin121 Let me ask you this their government is retarded in north Korea it is not helping the people now that is because there government is making nuclear weapons and growing a military then feed the people rather then let them starve now how do you know we are just not knocking down 2 birds with one stone and repelling communist from making this happen again and fix this instead of saying Spread it is more like helping give.
@DiamondCraftable You dont seem to understand, North Korea needs a big army and Nuclear weapons, They are target for NATO and have been invaded in the past. Look at India? Ther corrupt Goverment spends its Money on Military,etc while 69% of its People live in Poverty & poor. Look at China the richest nation on the planet, Yet its people live in Poverty. Look at Brazil? New growing nations, Yet their people live in poverty.
@martynrobin121 really nukes. nukes destroy countries and India biggest middle class that is just because of there high pop same with china but it also helps them and they don't seem to care.
@babacoop Well, it was a SORTof invasion, and thInmun Gun failed because the USmarines held a Pusan- and North Korean morale collapsed after the Inchon landings.
@babacoop Obviously YOU are the "dumbest mother fucker".. You said "The UN could have taken North Korea if they wanted, However.. The UN did invade North Korea and went against the Agenda, However China sent its CEF and crushed the UN invasion, Infact the Allies did not knopw how fast to run. The UN was routed, And that coward Mcarthur wanted to use Nuclear Terroist attacks to end the conflict. He was sacked and thats THAT!
@EddieExile Nor would he have lasted against Rommel if they had started on equal footings. But to be fair Patton was certainly the best American General of the war (bar Eisenhower-but I put Eisenhower at no 1 for diplomatic reasons rather than martial)
i prfer zhukov but ask a solider he would hate both Patton nearly shot a man because he hade a nervous breakdown in an artillery barrage zhukov shot any coward who retreated
@specom I think I know another reason why they used Patton tanks: The film was filmed in Spain, so the Patton tanks could be Spanish Army stocks, like in BoTB.
@xxMrFablexx You forget how scantily defended Berlin was; the Germans had NO supplies, no morale, the Russians vastly outnumbered them, yet the Russians get 300,000 casualties. Seriously. The Russians got more casualties in two weeks than the Americans did in the entire month-long Battle of the Bulge. Some people have the retarded notion that Patton was no good, but he never lost 300,000 men against Germans who were virtually fighting with rocks and sticks.
Gordontrek 3 days ago
@martynrobin121 No you are wrong, MacArthur was FULLY capable of beating the Chinese, no matter what fantasies your anti-American-propaganda-filled brain comes up with. You have failed to give me any reliable historical data. Well supplied, high-morale, ready-to-fight Chinese vs. American forces with breaking supply lines and are ready to ship home, yet the Chinese are unable to strike a mortal blow. Like I said, with fresh troops DougMac would have slaughtered the Chinese. Accept it.
Gordontrek 1 week ago
A cart almost kills him at the end.
Encom7 1 week ago
... Truman allowed him to. (Sorry for the incomplete post, YouTube for iPhone sucks!)
Gordontrek 2 weeks ago
@martynrobin121 MacArthur was fully capable of defeating the Communist Chinese. Think about it. It was President Truman who was the coward. Fresh, well-supplied and massive Chinese forces against beaten up UN forces getting ready to go home. MacArthur still managed to hold China to a stalemate, WITHOUT reinforcements, with fresh Chinese coming in all the time. MacArthur would have beat the snot out of China had R
Gordontrek 2 weeks ago
@Gordontrek MacArthur was not capable of anything. The Chinese crushed and humiliated the UN Forces in North Korea, The UN was routed and on the run back to South Korea. That idiot Macarthur wanted to use Nuclear Terroist attacks to defeat its enemies and occupy North Korea. It was a big mistake for the UN to go against the agenda and invade North Korea hoping to occupy and set up a western form of Goverment, However thats the Cold war for ye, And NATO/UN won it.
martynrobin121 1 week ago
They should have let Patton run the entire war.
The future would have been better off.
George Vreeland Hill
GeorgeVreelandHill 3 weeks ago
@rfeliciano86 I agree that Russia did most of the work but you're forgetting the Soviets vastly outnumbered the Germans in every way yet couldn't deal a deathly blow until the Americans entered the war. (besides, Russia received billions of American Lend-Lease money earlier in the war, without it Germany would have cut their throats) If the war was solely between Germany and Russia than the Russians would have got their lungs handed to them.
Gordontrek 3 weeks ago
@Gordontrek That is very Foolish, The US arrived in the war late and only saw action against the Axis 1943. The Soviets 1941, Had crushed the Axis invasion at Moscow in Operation Barberossa alone the Axis had lost over 1-Million men. By 1942 an entire Axis Army was trapped at Stalingrad, The main Axis Armies were been defeated and crushed, Where was the Yanks? The Lendlease was vital i agree, The Soviets needed mostly trucks and the US and British gave their loans.(Bankers)
martynrobin121 2 weeks ago
@martynrobin121 Either way the US still secured half of Europe with least amount of effort, but then again their primary conflict was against the Japanese. But then again, if Japan was left to possibly defeat and subjugate China as well as other pacific nations Japan could've also claimed Siberia whilst the Soviets were occupied in Europe.
kill3456 2 weeks ago
@kill3456 FALSE! The US did not secure half of Europe, It was the Allies mostly US & British Empire who "secured" parts of Europe. The Soviets done the most, and took the most. Japan had already crushed China years before US defeat at Phillipines or Pearl harbour. China was already mostly occupied. Also Japan refused to help its Axis Allies fight the Soviets, Japan & Soviets signed a Treaty they were Allies, Untill Stalin declared war 1945.
martynrobin121 1 week ago
@martynrobin121 No, the area of Europe that the Soviets took that was not originally part of their territory is smaller than the area(western europe) that the Allies were able to secure, the only reason the Soviets got to Berlin was because the Allies let them due to a request from Stalin.
China was not fully secured, look at any map and/or data of the war the Japanese barely made rapid progress into China due to lack of manpower and later due to the conflict with the US.
kill3456 1 week ago
Biggest tactical blunder of 1945: Not letting Patton take Berlin, instead letting the crappy Russians do it and lose 300,000 men.
Gordontrek 1 month ago 6
@Gordontrek big surprise, Russians get raped even while they are winning.
lolackay 3 weeks ago
@Gordontrek russians did all the work dude, we came in late & tipped over the already tipped jar. they deserve the big blow. one the took a lot of shit from the nazi and two they were in the fight from the begging, three because they were in fron the start the didn't only lose mad men, but money. the russains won the war, we helped.
rfeliciano86 3 weeks ago
@Gordontrek well, the Russians did lose 10.5 million men fighting the Germans. The Russian did stand alone against the German Wermacht for 3 long years in Europe before the Western front (d-day landing) was opened. Thet suffered the most from the German army so I think they were entilted to the honour of Marching on Berlin first.
boscoesarmy 1 week ago
@Gordontrek Patton was a great leader. He also wanted to (after the war w/ Germany was over) team up w/ the Germans and attack Leningrad
ModellMeister 4 days ago
@ModellMeister That would of been tremendously stupid.
xxMrFablexx 4 days ago
@xxMrFablexx Death to the Russian scum! Ha'good'day sir.
ModellMeister 3 days ago
@Gordontrek Pretty sure the Americans would have lost just as many. In Urban fighting it usually takes 3 attackers for every one defender. Also, don't see how the Russians were "crappy" when they caused about 90% of the German's casualties. Yeah, really crappy.
xxMrFablexx 4 days ago
Good thing we let the ruskies have berlin. They had a real personal grudge against the nazi's they deserved it. Also they lost 300,000 men taking the city. Obviously we wouldn't have lost as many, but a hundred thousand more dead on our side would have been a terrible loss.
Defengar 1 month ago
Spanish Armored forces were busy between the Battle of the Bulge and Patton.....
MrSunlander 2 months ago
2:29 Most memorable line in Patton... to me
TheDomtar 2 months ago
I hope we have another Patton type general in the US army... not an armchair general
Sidewinder5O4 2 months ago
@Sidewinder5O4 I have read that General Lucian Truscott was just as good - and more trusted by his men - but did not play the Press the way Patton did. When Patton and his entourage bowled into his headquarters shouting at everyone Truscott just stood looking quietly at Patton with his arms folded. Patton shut up like a musical box with the spring winding down.
freebeerfordworkers 2 months ago
Gen. Patton one of the greatest Generals of all time; to the aforementioned from another great, " It is good that war is so horrible, or we might grow to like it." -Robert E. LEE- Patton paraphrased "I ain't drinking w/h that Russian son of a bitch"
wcvalvestem 2 months ago
Whatever language this is in....it sounds gay as hell
ksb2050 3 months ago
Thats how a propaganda-movie should be made.
You can see simmilar movies in the north-korean TV.
Sokra01 3 months ago
@Sokra01 Patton used to slap bitches like you.
pyactjy2011 2 months ago
I'm from Poland and Patton is one of my favourites commanders, but sorry american's: USA fucked up Poland in WWII. FDR sold us to soviet's already ein 1943, because FDR was thinking that soviet's will make free elections in country.
MrArtmundus 3 months ago
@MrArtmundus The USA didn't 'fuck up' Poland; the world did. Europe had just gotten done fighting World War 2. Can you imagine how upset the rest of the world would've been, if they'd had to have fought *another* war, over the sovereinty of Poland? ...It's just politics, pal.
OnlyTy91 3 months ago
@OnlyTy91 That's my point pal. FDR was to much idealist in his relations with Stalin and USRR. Churchill knew thath comunism was thew dangare of the future. I dont' have nothing against USA and american people but that's what polish people are thinking. Sorry.
MrArtmundus 3 months ago
@MrArtmundus I wish Patton had gotten his way, and been able to launch a preemptive attack on the Soviets. But then again, how would Poland have liked *German* soldiers coming through Poland, on their way to serve under Americans, fighting the Russians? lol. We should've attacked them, before they got nuclear weapons of their own.
OnlyTy91 3 months ago
@OnlyTy91 Russian Espionage is how they got the atomic weapon plans in their hands, Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project before Harry Trueman did. But yea, Patton would have kicked Stalin right up the ass if he had his way. Russia had been supplied by USA from the Lend-Lease act and without it, itd be harder for Russia to build its forces like USA and the freed nations of Europe.
lolackay 3 months ago
@lolackay Personaly I prefer to be POW in Florida and drinking orange juice, than by POW in Siberia with -50ºC and working in GULAG. In Europe there is to much people who are protesting againts USA (war in Iraq, capitalism). But when Russia is making the wars in Europe poeple are saying: "There is a Russian policy at the state".
MrArtmundus 3 months ago
@MrArtmundus Id like to see USA cut all its foreign aid and see which way the world turns, i have a feeling people will be angry at USA for not helping lol
lolackay 3 months ago
@lolackay Yes yes YES!
pyactjy2011 2 months ago
You have to remember the US and British had the best air force and navies at the end of WW II!No way would Eisenhower and King let those commie bastards within an inch of Paris!Patton could have been in Berlin if Ike would have let him!
ole714 4 months ago
Too much "US-we-will-win" propaganda in that movie.
But a well made movie. At least worth one look.
Sokra01 4 months ago
the North Koreans are only communist because they were Occupied by Russia in the years after WW2, to take Japanese POW's. the US occupied SK. as such, different political views came out. NK invaded SK to force the whole nation to unite, before the US or China got involved in the fighting. The only reason China came in was not to "liberate" NK, but because they didn't want an influx of refugees, and US troops came too close to the border when they trounced the NKPA. this is Fact.
Soundwave3591 4 months ago
Tanks were almost useless in Korea, as they were in Vietnam. The mountainous, jagged terrain of the countryside was not feasible with armor. The UN actually deployed very little armor to Korea, but instead relied on artillery. I should know, my grandpa was a Forward Observer of the 25th Infantry Division.You really have no knowledge of this subject.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 This son of a 1st US Marine in Korea rogers that! This guy should read a book rather than a pamphlet on the war before spouting off. My father always had an affection for the F4U Corsair flowing by USM and USN pilots skimming the mountains dropping napalm, keeping the Chicoms at bay with 20mm and .50 cal fire. Also he'd give a shout-out to Aussie/Kiwi F51 Mustang pilots for their help. They used to cheer them from the hills like watching a football game as the blew the Reds apart.
Shafeone 4 months ago
This movie is boring and overrated shit.
TheHasanMurat 4 months ago
@TheHasanMurat well my great great grandfather was not no pussy he was general patton
TheGreenday113 4 months ago
Kelly's Heroes had the period tanks, well the typical T-34/Tiger convert anyway, that was made at the same time as this, really no reason why they couldn't have found some tanks.
Anders2185 5 months ago
Patton wanted Berlin badly, and of course, unfortunately for the Germans, women in particular, he was never given that opportunity. Instead he held his Army at the Elbe and let the blood thirsty Reds have it. They ravaged Berlin, raped 2 million German women and killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. Some Germans even tried to breakthrough to the American lines to surrender.
ItNice26 5 months ago
@ItNice26 The Allies were never going to take Berlin first, Due to the failed operation market-garden And what about all the women the Allies raped? You do realise when the European Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union they killed over 34 million, 80% innocent civilians, They raped and enslaved countless millions, It was only obvious the Soviets were going to get revenge, The Axis wanted to surrender to the Yanks and British because they were soft, And wanted to recruit nazi against Russia..
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 The Soviets were not Allies. So don't call them that. We hated the Soviets as much as the Nazis. Korea and Vietnam is proof of America's hatred of Communism. America's and Britain's involvement was mainly to act as a buffer. Helping defeat Germany is one thing, but it was also important keeping the Soviets out of Western Europe.
ItNice26 4 months ago 3
@ItNice26 Obviously the Soviets were Allies, They eased most of the pressure off Britain and played the main role during the war by, Without the Red Army there would be no victory thats fact. And the Communist defeated both America,Britain in N.korea and then defeated the U.S in Vietnam, They lost in Mayasia to Britain during the cold war. And D-Day was about stopping the spread of Communism.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 The Soviets weren't Allies, we just had a common enemy. Korea was a Communist failure to take over ALL of Korea. And in Vietnam the US QUIT. The US was NEVER defeated on the battlefield.
ItNice26 4 months ago 2
@ItNice26 The United Nation invasion of North Korea was humiliated by the Communists, The U.S ran away in the biggest U.S withdraw in history leaving there Allies to die and cover there cowardice! Communist failed to take over the South, And the U.N failed to take over the North. Vietnam the U.S was defeated, Where as a small British forces defeated the Communists in Mayala 10x the size of Vietnam. And look at Afghans? You now have to clean up your mess and terroist friends!
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 Korea was not a failure you twit. The mission was to keep the North from turning the South Communists and that mission was fulfilled.
I have seen you on other channels bashing America and undermining its history. You're just a troll with a chip on his shoulder. The US had less than 500,000 men in Korea and that force tangled with China, who committed millions. HOW IS THAT COWARDICE?
ItNice26 4 months ago 2
@ItNice26 The U.N invasion of N.Korea whitch was illegal and defeated by the Communist the U.N mission to take over N.Korea failed. Yes, The United Nations were able to hold on to S.Korea whitch was there main goal. The U.S ran away from N.Korea in the biggest U.S withdraw in its history, The Chinese used human-waves, Yes America,Britain,U.N were defeated by a weak military force.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 It was a fighting retreat. Only 580,000 Americans took part in the operation and the British contribution was even smaller. The US was up against millions and millions of Chinese.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 FALSE, The U.N was up against countless thousands not millions, The Communist tactic was human-waves, The U.N had the best Air-Forces in the world, Also Tanks,Armour vehicles,etc and hudge Industry to support there war-effort. Compare the Chinese with the UN, The Chinese were weak accept in man-power. During the the war the United Nations had 1,207,010 troops, The Chinses,Koreans had 1,212,000. U.N invasion of N.Korea ended in Disaster for the United Nations.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 My grandpa was in Korea you pretentious Vaginal rag. Korea was not a failure. The mission was never to liberate the North from Communist oppression. The mission was to "contain" the spread of Communism, which was achieved. Once China intervened the War spiraled into a situation that could have led to WW3. China had just endured the Great Leap Forward and Communist sentiment was stronger than ever. The Chinese would have sacrificed any number of men to keep N. Korea Communist.
ItNice26 4 months ago 10
@ItNice26 The ironic thing now is that, according to a Chinese government memo released by Wikileaks, the Chinese would actually cautiously welcome the fall of the N. Korean regime and a Korea united under Seoul. North Korea has become a source of tension in the region and they need a lot of aid to survive. The Chinese know that a democratic South Korea isn't going to invade them and a bonus would be that U.S. troops would leave the peninsula.
worldslinger81 4 months ago
@ItNice26 The United Nations forces went against there mission, The U.N invaded N.Korea whitch was illegal and went against there Goals, The U.N wanted to spread Democracy. However when China got involved the U.N was humiliated and crushed in N.Korea. Yes, The main mission was a successful BUT the invasion of N.Korea ended in disaster. And the number of troops were equal, Just that the U.N had the best Military,Airforces,Navy from all over the world and they still lost in N.korea.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 The UN was never humiliated, you really should read a book concerning Korea. The invasion of the North was more of a chess move to keep the South free of Northern occupation. The UN forces made a fighting withdrawal out of N. Korea, but N. Korea was never the mission and Truman was not willing to allocate the men or the resources for a conquest of N.Korea or China. Once China intervened the conflict snowballed, and the original mission became the objective, which was accomplished
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 The U.N hoped to take over N.Korea by force and unite, North & South under Democracy. When the Allies woke the dragon, The Chinese liberated N.Korea and defeated the worlds superpowers. You have to understand boths sides points, N.Korea was Chinese victory and liberation, The Allies see S.Korea as a United Nation victory and liberation. You have to look at both sides proppaganda and views. Yes the main goal to liberate S.Korea was a success.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 My wish is that someday a brainwashed ingnorant fool like yourself should be so "liberated" as the North Koreans are today. There would be a wonderful justice in that. Something tells me, given the choice, you'd prefer not to be under the jackboot of Pyongyang which makes you what exactly? Starvation is only "propoganda" to someone living in a free society with a full belly and shelves stocked with food. I would love nothing more than for you to live in N. Korea. Fool.
Shafeone 4 months ago
@ItNice26 Well to be fair, the UN was humiliated in the sense that the Eighth Army and X Corps were driven all the way back down the penninsula to just below Seoul before the Chinese strain on logistics and heavy losses ground them to a halt. The Marines fought an epic on a par with the Spartans at Thermopylae and came out a cohesive fighting unit having inflicted massive losses. But the Chinese counterattack did succeed and the retreat was demoralizing...but not fatal. Hence S. Korea today.
Shafeone 4 months ago
I think it's safe to say that had the UN had the will it could have resumed its offensive north. The Chinese were thoroughly exhausted, the NPKA was liquidiated as a fighting unit and Ridgeway's methodical broad advance with heavy firepower and massive arial support could have slowly pushed the infantry-only Chinese off the penninsula for good. Especially if air power was used to interdict supplies coming across the Yalu. The F-86 got the UN air superiority to let the B-29s do their work.IMHO
Shafeone 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 THE UN authorized the unification of North and South Korea. And the UN forces did retreat but the casualties they inflicted were massive. My dad was a US Marine there and he said there was never a more sorry looking lot than the Chinese who would surrender in droves just to get food and warm shoes. The Chinese was an all infantry army. Once the lines solidified UN firepower began to take its toll. There are 38 million S. Koreans living in freedom today thanks to the UN.
Shafeone 4 months ago
@Shafeone To be honest man, I have seen this same guy on other channels tearing apart the US military. He also claims that the US wasn't needed against the Nazis in Europe, LOLOLOLOL. He is obviously not a fan of the US, and I doubt he would give the US military credit for anything. This guy is a waste of time.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@Shafeone The Invasion of N.Korea went against the U.N mission to "liberate" South Korea. The Allies wanted to spread Demorcracy just like the Reds wanted to spread Communism. Your correct the Chinese was infantry army who main weapon was human waves, The U.N had the worlds superpowers and greatest military,navy,air-force in the world. And there is millions in N.Korea who live free due to the Chinese. You have to see things from both sides point of view, not just 1 sides proppaganda.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 Wow. The very fact that you would use the term "free" and North Korea in the same sentence tells me that you are an utter moron. N. Korea is perhaps the worst slave state on earth. Had the UN been allowed to reunite the penninsula MILLIONS more would be free and generations would have lived in relative freedom and prosperity. There are no moral equivalents between the two sides. To even suggest that shows an incalculable ignorance on your part. I hope you were kidding.
Shafeone 4 months ago 17
@Shafeone You have to understand both sides points,views.You only seem to support the West proppaganda on the conflict, The Chinese see N.Korea as a Chinese victory against the United Nations. The Chinese would say they liberated N.Korea. Thats now my opinion but what the Chinese point of view. We all know that today that N.Korea if horrific, However so if the regimes that the U.N support and give weapons,money 2. You have to look at both sides story and proppaganda to get the facts.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
You really know nothing about the Korean War do you?
Shafeone 4 months ago
@ItNice26 he was probably refused a green card
Blokecameuptome 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 you know, when I'm bored, or need a laugh to cheer me up, then I open YouTube and read hilarious commentaries such as yours. It also convinces me that I'm "normal".
Blokecameuptome 4 months ago
@Blokecameuptome Obviously you are not normal, Every idiot knows that the Red Army played the main role in world war 2 by far! I dont think anybody can argue with that! Also D-Day did start the Cold war, Stalin thought the Allies were just watching the Red Army to do the work, Churchill was planning to attack the Soviets. Without D-Day the Red Army would have took Paris aswell, As churchill said he didnt want them thugs at Britains doorstep, He didnt care who they were!
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 You forget Japan was also a threat you nit wit. And the Americans gave the Germans the opportunity to surrender and be treated fairly.
The USSR did literally nothing against Japan.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 Japan only attacked the British eastern Empire because British Forces were too busy fighting the European Axis powers in Europe,Africa,Mid-East. The Japs were sly and took advantage. Britain played a key role in Asia against the Japs, R.N in the Pacific. Also the Soviet invasion of Manchurio proved very effective a Jap army of over million was defeated,captured. And the Allies never gave any opportunity for peace talks, Only humilation like 1918 as Churchill said, Only total surrender!
martynrobin121 4 months ago
Comment removed
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 Remember it was Britain, Who went to the U.S with plans for the A-Bomb after finding out Germany had already started there project. When Japan attacked the Eastern Empire, Britain main forces were fighting in Europe,Afrca,Mid-East thats why Japan took advantage. However the Japs were defeated in India,Burma,etc by British forces. The R.N supported the U.S in the Paicifc. Britain played a key role, The U.S more in the Pacific, And Britain more in the West.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 The BEF was mainly destroyed after Dunkirk. The Brits played lesser roles in Europe also.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 The BEF was NOT destroyed after Dunkirk, Most of its equipment,mobile units were lost. The Troops were saved with 150,000 French troops. British Forces kept fighting in Europe till 1941 untill the defeat at Greece, Britain returned back to mainland Europe 1943 and lead D-Day 44. In 1940 the British outnumbered humiliated the Axis in Africa, By 1942 the Axs Africa campaign was over after the major battle of Al Alamein, Britain was winning mainly thanks to Soviet Union.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 Are you honestly trying to tell me that the Brits could have staged a second front without US intervention? Please don't tell me that is what you're saying.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 The Second Front came 1944, The Allies were only able to land due to the fact that 75% of what was left of the Axis forces was fighting the Soviets in the East. However even without D-Day landings the Red Army would have still took Berlin and won the war. Without the U.S a Operation like D-Day would be impossible i agree, Without the U.S mainland Europe would be under Communist Soviet rule. However without Britain the Empire, there would be no D-Day, Both sides were vital.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 No way could the USSR have beaten Germany solo. The Allies took 6 million prisoners. Your opinions are not contrived from facts. Britain contributed yes, but they were hardly in a position to stage a front. The USSR did not start making large advances until after US intervention. What does that tell you? Germany lost not by just one enemy, but by dividing their forces and not being able to allocate their men and material in one theater. Any way you cut it, the US was vital.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 I did NOT say the Red Army could win alone, However Britiain & Soviets were winning the war and would have won without the U.S forces that is fact. The Red Army played the main during the war, They fought 75% of the Axis forces, The Allies were only able to land in Normandy because of the Reds. The Soviets were in Prussia when the Allies landed on D-Day. The U.S was vital to create second front to help Britain stop the spread of Communism, El Alamein Stalingrad marked the tide.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 Britain couldn't have staged a front by herself, hence the US was necessary in winning the War. All the Brits could do was keep Rommel from taking Cairo. Hardly a feat that turned the tide of the entire War. El Alamein shouldn't be in the same sentence as Stalingrad. You are a dope.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 It was the British who defeated the Axis in N.Africa,Mid-East- El Alamein was the final and major battle that ended the Axis Africa campaign. Italy was wide open for invasion. I agree without the U.S an invasion like D-Day would be impossible. However it wasnt D-Day that won the war, It was the Red Army who played the main role by far. D-Day was not needed to defeat the Axis, But to stop the spread of Communism. The U.S arrived late as usual end of 42.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 Late as usual? The US intervened in a conflict that did not directly affect them. Hitler was Europe's monster.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 Obviously the Conflicts did affect America, Roosevelt gave Hitler a list of FREE nations that Germany couldnt invade, Yet Hitler invaded most of there nations and U.S said nothing. Hitler broke the Versailles Treaty the U.S said nothing, Did you not arrrive in the Great war 1918 to join the Allies? The conflicts in E.Europe didnt affect Britain, But they stood up for freedom and refused all peace-talks.U.S forces arrived in WW2 end of 42, When the Allies were winning.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 Again, nothing you said has anything to do with America's National security.
America could have joined forces with Germany if it wanted to. The US was not bound by anything to support either side.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 The war had nothing to do with Britains nation secuirty or there Empire. Yet Britain was the first to stand up for freedom against Germany and the Axis powers. Obviously the U.S was going to support Britain it was in there Americas best interests, Also the trade with Britain and the Allies was good for American economy. By 1941, The U.S security was at risk. The U.S couldnt have joined forces with Germany, Hhitler was making fools out of the U.S, America was against Hitler from START
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 Britain was being bombed weekly in 1940. Of course Britain was fighting for self preservation
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 Germany was also been bombed 1939-45 by the RAF. Obviously Britain was been bombed the Axis were on there doorstep. The outnumbered RAF defeated the Luftwaffe and any invasion of Britain was impossible after the biggest Air-Battle in history. Also Britain Forces in Africa outnumbered had humiliated the Axis 1940. When Britain got lendlese 1941, It was vital for America to protect THERE interests. The Soviets played a far bigger role than the U.S, Red Army was everything to the war.
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@ItNice26 The war had nothing to with British interests, However when Germany invaded Poland the British were the first to stand up to Germany to fight for freeom. The British could have said mainland Europe had nothing to them. Britain declared war on Germany 39 after Hitler refused to withdraw from Poland, RAF bombed Germany first in 1939. Obviously Britain was also been bombed during the war, However RAF bombed Germany,Axis 1939-45. BRITAIN WAS SAFE, Germany fighting to save there nation!
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 Well, I think the US could have taken a similar path. They could have left Europe to be ground to sand by Hitler's Army's. The US mainland wasn't threatened. Believe it or not the US in part decided to fight and oppose Hitler because the American public realized the injustices that were being perpetrated not just by Germany, but by Japan.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 British mainland or Empire wasnt threatended, Yet Britain was the first to stand up for freedom. Britain could have said Mainland Europe was nothing to do with them! Canada & Australia they were not threatended yet they had the balls to stand up. France was not threatend, German interests were in the East NOT West, Yet France fell for freedom when they could have said Poland was Polands problem. The excuses of America for why they didnt stand up is foolish, They just didnt care!
martynrobin121 3 months ago
@martynrobin121 It is impossible for me too debate with you. Your logic seems so screwed up/
ItNice26 3 months ago
@ItNice26 Just THINK about it,- Britain didnt have to declare war on Germany they could of had the same attitude as the U.S and said the World wasnt there problem. Britains interests were not threatended, Yet were the FIRST to stand up for FREEDOM! Canada,Australia there interests were NOT threatend yet they declared war to fight for freedom. American excuses for not standing up for freedom are just pathetic, Look at today? The U.S invades weak nations, That dont threaten there interests!
martynrobin121 3 months ago
@martynrobin121 Britain was being bombed day and night jackass. What German bomb touched an Americans city? Uh none. Sorry if America was not exciting in intervening in a European fuck up for the 2nd time. America is now World Police, they were not World Police back then. That is why America intervenes in so many affairs, they are a buffer, a deterrent. Europe can't go 50 years without killing each other. Thank God for US presence.
ItNice26 3 months ago
@ItNice26 Germany and Axis Europe was also been bombed day/night by the RAF for 6years. And obviously the U.S didnt get bombed they refused to get involved and would only TRADE! The war was NOT European you American idiot, Asia & Africa are not part of Europe!! America was too cowardice to fight for what is right. And today the America is NOT the world police, They are the worlds biggest terroists organisation with the deaths of millions of there hands, COWARDLY COLONIAL IMMIGRANTS!
martynrobin121 3 months ago
@martynrobin121 You're as ignorant as the person your criticizing. History is alot more complex then a single reason, or a specific description of any nation.. Every country has it's own black history. England, France, The USA, China, India and every other one.. The only nation that may even begin to actually claim to have somewhat clean hands is Canada..
morel42 3 months ago
@morel42 Canada also has its dark past, Like most Nations. However some are worse than others. Why do you say England? Its Britain!!!!
martynrobin121 3 months ago
@martynrobin121
Actually England was doing the same thing for about 1000 years before America did. Nice try...
EvilxMerlin 3 months ago
@EvilxMerlin England?? You mean Britain!!
martynrobin121 3 months ago
@martynrobin121 are you gonna stoprepeating yourself or are you actualyl gonna try and make a point?
SlyDessertFox 2 months ago
@SlyDessertFox My point, Was North Korea invades the South and attempts to spread Communism. The United Nations liberates the South and then invades the North to spread Democracy. Both sides were in the wrong.
martynrobin121 2 months ago
@martynrobin121
Shut up you commie bastard.
LukeWapelhorst 2 months ago
@ItNice26 If you picked up a textbook and read you would know that Germany declared war on the US
Zabatsue 3 months ago
@Zabatsue I know that. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the Germans lacked the Navy to bring an invasion force to THREATEN the US. Our mainland was more threatened by Japan than it was Germany.
ItNice26 3 months ago
@ItNice26 Germany at the time of late 1941 to early 1942 had a formidable navy but the US could also have been attacked by the Nazi Vengeance weapons, and long range heavy bombers that could hit the eastern coast after the UK was taken out hitler would move all his troops to the Soviet front, after they had been defeated he would move his forces to France and board ships for america
Zabatsue 3 months ago
@martynrobin121 How stupid can you be thinking the North Koreans are free?
snowcamper 2 months ago
@snowcamper I never said that North Koreans were free, Look at the propaganda its "BAD & EVIL" Becuase North is Communist and invaded South. Yet its "Good" when the United Nations invaded North Korea because they wanted 2 spread capitalism. WAKE UP! Both sides done the same things, Took advantage of weak nations 2 spread like a disease.Are the people in American free? Ex-marines and ex-Police, Old Veterans,etc been beaten & tortured for protesting for better world,etc are they FREE?
martynrobin121 2 months ago
Comment removed
ItNice26 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martynrobin121 The Brits defended their assets in Burma and helped keep the Japs out of India, but they did nothing to cause the demise of the Japanese empire. The British troops in Burma were second rate at best and modestly equipped. Britain's best soldiers were in North Africa. Burma on a relative scale was a small campaign and many British units relied on their commonwealth troops from India.
ItNice26 4 months ago
@ItNice26 In 1940, Adolf Hitler asked the British for peace-talks. Germany,Italy would withdraw from W.Europe. Winston Churchill refused any peace-talks with the Axis. During the war Germany made many attempts of peace, Many Nazi key leaders in secret talks even Himmler. In 1941 after Pearl Harbour,Phillipines disaster, U.S became involved. Churchill was asked if there will be peace talks with Germany and the Axis, Churchill said "There shall be no peace for Germany, They would give in too easy"
martynrobin121 4 months ago
@martynrobin121 you are the dumbest mother fucker ever 1 it's not illigal for the U.N. to go into a country to help it considering it's the U.N. and 2 this failed invasion of North Korea you keep talking about never even existed they could have taken it if they wanted they decided not to
babacoop 2 months ago
@babacoop The invasion of N.Korea was illegal. You dont seem to understand just like the Communist the U.N invaded weak nation 2 spread democracy & puppet Goverments. Look at the illegal invasion & occupation of Iraq? Somuch for helping! Your terroist attacks so called helping invasion have cost the lives of millions, People are still been killed today in Asia due to your weapons, Also in Mid-East due your terroist attackd and Africa, The Libyan massacre 35,000 dead. Thanks for all the death!!
martynrobin121 2 months ago
@martynrobin121 if your going that route then the invasion of south korea by north korea was also illigal nevermind that there was no invasion of north korea and idky your saying your terrorist im not an american i just battle stupid on the internet, you don't seem to understand the difference between invasion and occupying it invading it would mean us actually taking it over. and when bad people die it's a good thing so your welcome we killed the shit out some nazi bitches
babacoop 2 months ago
@babacoop Yes, That is my POINT! The North invaded South 2 spread Communism, And the U.N invaded the North 2 spread democracy. No matter what propaganda you are told, All sides were trying 2 do the same. And as for killing the Nazis i seem to remember it was the Soviets,British who kileld them and you tagged along for the last push. And yes, America is the home of terroism. Its your main weapon, That is why most nations want nuclear weapons, Because the U.S threats terroist attacks,etc.
martynrobin121 2 months ago
@martynrobin121 i literally just said i'm not an american
babacoop 2 months ago
@martynrobin121 Actually, primarily U.S. intervention into North Korea in 1950 following their advance to the partition line was actually an attempt to eliminate the threat of North Korea invading again, not to 'spread democracy', as communications between Truman and MacArthur show. North Korea was an aggressor nation that had attempted to invade a sovereign country, under terms of war U.N. and U.S. forces were completely justified in eliminating that threat.
LunaticFringe20 2 months ago
@LunaticFringe20 The United Nations pushed the North out of the South. The U.N then took advantage 2 spread democracy and invade a sovereign country. When the U.N was pushed out of N.Korea by China that idiot Mcarthur wanted 2 use Nuclear Terroist attacks 2 force China out of N.Korea. The U.N is the aggressor nations that invades & occupy sovereign weaker nations. The latest example is Iraq that idiot Bush & Blair even said they knew it was lies, And they say it was a mistake,They should be shot
martynrobin121 2 months ago
@martynrobin121 Look, under terms of war, they were justified in attempting to eliminate the North Korean threat because of the fact that they started the war. Regardless of whether North Korea was sovereign or not, they invaded another country, and thus the U.N. was justified in an invasion, regardless of what you say. You're just revising history to fit your own agenda.
LunaticFringe20 2 months ago
@LunaticFringe20 You want to talk about the terms of war? How about Operation Unthinkable the Allies planned to attack the Soviet Union as easy as 1945. How about the puppet wars(Starting conflicts around the world and giving puppets your weapons to see how effective they are) NATO nearly started world war 2 and because of threats most nations around the world want nuclear weapons to defend themsefls and their civilans against possible terroists attacks by the West all the spying,etc.
martynrobin121 2 months ago
@martynrobin121 NATO was not around during world war 2.
SlyDessertFox 2 months ago
@SlyDessertFox Obviously NATO was not around during WW2. I said they done ther best to start World war 3. The reason so many nations around the world want Nuclear Weapons is for defence against illegal invasion & occupation by NATO. China wanted WMD because the West made threats to wipe out the people in terroist attacks, Iran wants WMD because they are main target and dont want to end up like Iraq. Russia they wanted Nukes because the West was planned attacks as early as 1945.
martynrobin121 2 months ago
@martynrobin121 If you would know they should have taken Russia because there allies with china which is spreading communism,which is bad.The reason why anyone would want nuclear weapons is to have power, power = land, land = money or/and spreading something like communism or belief even.
DiamondCraftable 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 And I'm not saying that the UN has never done bad things, it has, but you are deliberately reconstructing elements of history and then going on about Western propaganda while using your own bias to construct this image of the U.N. as some kind of military machine. In reality you fail to understand the contextualization of foreign policy decisions and then just construct your own notions to tie it into a conspiracy, you'd even be laughed at by post-structuralists.
LunaticFringe20 2 months ago
@LunaticFringe20 You dont seem to get my point- Both North & South wanted a United Korea however the North attacked first and the U.N got involved due to the crusade on Communism. The Mission for the U.N was to liberate the South, However the U.N took advantage and went against the agenda. China got involved kicked the U.N out of N.korea and things were put how they should have been. Remember the U.N are just as bad as the Communists, But we are smarter, Well we were smarter now we dont care.
martynrobin121 2 months ago
@martynrobin121 "N.korea and things were put how they should have been" Are you saying you like communism heck you like in GB which could be in
Gabon
Great Britain
Guinea Bissau
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Great Barrington, Massachusetts
Great Britain
And you may not even live in a communist country so why don't you go live in china?
DiamondCraftable 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 Though elections were scheduled, the Soviet Union refused to cooperate with United Nations plans to hold general and free elections in the two Korea's -Bam- Russia made the war and guess what; supported by the People's Republic of China, with military and material aid from the Soviet Union this is why china got involved. So Soviet union HAD to have had a influenced N Korea or nothing would have happened
DiamondCraftable 1 month ago
@DiamondCraftable The UN invasion of North Korea was illegal.
Just like the Communist, The West wanted to spread their form of Goverment.
China got involved and won the Conflict in N.Korea.
The UN agenda was to liberate the South from the North, Not invade North.
You obviously dont get the point, Its "evil" when the Communist invade nations to spread their form of Goverment, YET When the West does the same its "legal", WAKE UP. Both sides have their own interests,goals.
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 The difference between Communist takeover and the takeover by a Democratic Liberal nation is that the Communists kill off millions of dissidents while the Democratic Liberal nations allow freedom.
GeneralHobbs 1 month ago 3
@martynrobin121 And North Korean's invasion of South Korea was legal?
Turnback 1 month ago
@Turnback The North invasion of the South was 100% illegal. (The North wanted to sprad its form of Goverment and take the South by Force)
And the UN invasion of North Korea was also 100% illegal. (Just like the North, The UN wanted to spread its form of Goverment and take over by brutal force)
The Cold war, Was NATO & Soviets who used puppets and nations for their war games, It was simple who ever spread its form Goverment fast as disease would win, NATO spread like cancer.
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 Let me ask you this their government is retarded in north Korea it is not helping the people now that is because there government is making nuclear weapons and growing a military then feed the people rather then let them starve now how do you know we are just not knocking down 2 birds with one stone and repelling communist from making this happen again and fix this instead of saying Spread it is more like helping give.
DiamondCraftable 1 month ago
@DiamondCraftable You dont seem to understand, North Korea needs a big army and Nuclear weapons, They are target for NATO and have been invaded in the past. Look at India? Ther corrupt Goverment spends its Money on Military,etc while 69% of its People live in Poverty & poor. Look at China the richest nation on the planet, Yet its people live in Poverty. Look at Brazil? New growing nations, Yet their people live in poverty.
martynrobin121 2 weeks ago
@martynrobin121 really nukes. nukes destroy countries and India biggest middle class that is just because of there high pop same with china but it also helps them and they don't seem to care.
DiamondCraftable 2 weeks ago
@DiamondCraftable FALSE!! Nuclear Weapons DO NOT destroy Countries, WMD destroy Cities and innocents.
martynrobin121 1 week ago
@martynrobin121 actually we are both wrong Nuclear weapons don't people who are greedy or/and people who are a extreme in their region
DiamondCraftable 1 week ago
@babacoop Well, it was a SORTof invasion, and thInmun Gun failed because the USmarines held a Pusan- and North Korean morale collapsed after the Inchon landings.
rigamarrow 3 weeks ago
@babacoop Obviously YOU are the "dumbest mother fucker".. You said "The UN could have taken North Korea if they wanted, However.. The UN did invade North Korea and went against the Agenda, However China sent its CEF and crushed the UN invasion, Infact the Allies did not knopw how fast to run. The UN was routed, And that coward Mcarthur wanted to use Nuclear Terroist attacks to end the conflict. He was sacked and thats THAT!
martynrobin121 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sigh* i hate it when movies use non era tanks..
popsnacks2 5 months ago
sigh* i hate it when movies use non era tanks
popsnacks2 5 months ago
Patton wouldn't have lasted 2 minutes against the best German generals on the eastern front.
EddieExile 5 months ago
@EddieExile Nor would he have lasted against Rommel if they had started on equal footings. But to be fair Patton was certainly the best American General of the war (bar Eisenhower-but I put Eisenhower at no 1 for diplomatic reasons rather than martial)
thebigJM92 5 months ago
@thebigJM92
Absolutely true - Patton is a tad overrated by the americans......
EddieExile 5 months ago
He was one of the greats up there with ceaser
dumass4848 5 months ago
Best war movie ever made.
KnightOwl2006 6 months ago
Zhukov vs Patton...
i prfer zhukov but ask a solider he would hate both Patton nearly shot a man because he hade a nervous breakdown in an artillery barrage zhukov shot any coward who retreated
Rommel vs Zhukov vs patton vs Monty
hahahaah!
jasincl 7 months ago
Give this man our modern military and he could rule the whole goddamn world in a week.
PintSizedSlasherJr 8 months ago 2
Even worse, when they used real newsreel footage you saw Shermans
specom 1 year ago 3
@specom I think I know another reason why they used Patton tanks: The film was filmed in Spain, so the Patton tanks could be Spanish Army stocks, like in BoTB.
MHXDownfall 11 months ago
Patton tank vs Patton tank. Worse than seeing M47 Pattons as King Tigers battling M24 Chaffees as Shermans.
MHXDownfall 1 year ago 3
The only thing that bothered me about this movie was that they didn't use Shermans.
specom 1 year ago 28
@specom Heh, maybe they're inspired by "Battle of the Bulge".
MHXDownfall 1 year ago 3
@specom well. at least they used Pattons instead of anything else other then Shermans
lolackay 5 months ago
this is a great movie
TheTemplar321 1 year ago 13