Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1

    And then there were 3...

    The world has lost yet another World War I vet.

    The French are down to just 3 living vets from the war and they can't be long in this world as they're well over 100.

    Here's the story.



    The sad part is that in just 25 or 30 years the last of the World War II vets will be dying off.
    Up, up, and OKAAAAY!!!

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Slicker View Post
    The world has lost yet another World War I vet.

    The French are down to just 3 living vets from the war and they can't be long in this world as they're well over 100.

    Here's the story.



    The sad part is that in just 25 or 30 years the last of the World War II vets will be dying off.

    Not to be a downer, but at this rate, the last of the Iraqi War vets will die off by 2008. Unfortunately, it won't be due to natural causes.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Slicker View Post
    The world has lost yet another World War I vet.
    The French are down to just 3 living vets from the war and they can't be long in this world as they're well over 100.
    I was reading somewhere that there may be more surviving vets, but for some reason or another they aren't "officially" recognized as having served in WWI. Perhaps they were underage or simply picked up arms and joined in vigilante-style? Just guesses.
    The sad part is that in just 25 or 30 years the last of the World War II vets will be dying off.
    I bet that gets much more publicity because of the "popularity" or WWII. I'm willing to bet that more people can tell you about the Bulge or Wake Island than can tell you about Verdun or the Somme. I actually thought about doing my graduate work on why WWII is so "cool" compared to other wars.
    It's a blacked-out blur but I'm pretty sure it ruled.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainSolo1138 View Post
    I actually thought about doing my graduate work on why WWII is so "cool" compared to other wars.
    I've often wondered that myself. I would have to say that it was the the grand scale of WWII (being a literal world war rather than the, for the most part, European war that WWI was) and the fact that 3 militarily powerful nations (Germany, Japan, and Italy) were all trying to take over the world.




    I should really start a dedicated WWI/WWII thread so we can talk of these things.
    Up, up, and OKAAAAY!!!

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Slicker View Post
    (Germany, Japan, and Italy)
    Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Italy was really just the little country that could(n't). I think Mussolini was perfectly content to be Hitler's little lapdog. I'd actually replace them with Russia. Once Stalin got things going he didn't want to stop.

    I should really start a dedicated WWI/WWII thread so we can talk of these things.
    Not a bad idea, but I'm pretty sure it'd end up in the forum-which-shall-not-be-named.
    It's a blacked-out blur but I'm pretty sure it ruled.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainSolo1138 View Post
    Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Italy was really just the little country that could(n't). I think Mussolini was perfectly content to be Hitler's little lapdog. I'd actually replace them with Russia. Once Stalin got things going he didn't want to stop.
    I was going with the Axis powers but the Russia part is totally right.

    I also try to steer clear of bashing on Italy as being weak since I haven't read on them alone. I only see bits and pieces when they're compared to the Germans. I'm sure on there own they were good fighters but when compared to the Germans most armies looked like carp.
    Up, up, and OKAAAAY!!!

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Slicker View Post
    I'm sure on there own they were good fighters but when compared to the Germans most armies looked like carp.
    Maybe when compared to the Hitler Youth minor leagues.

    *Africa, 1940: 30,000 British troops halt 250,000 Italian troops
    *Ethiopia, 1941: With about the same 8:1 disadvantage, the British beat the Italians.
    *Yugoslavia, 1941: The Italians defeat the British and occupy their territory. After the Wehrmacht jumps in to help.
    *Stalingrad, 1942: 200,000 Italians fight on the outskirts of the real battle but still manage to lose nearly half of their men.
    *Egypt, 1942: The Italians push the British back into Egypt. After Erwin Rommel takes over.

    Overall, Italy has an 0-9 war record.

    What were you saying?
    It's a blacked-out blur but I'm pretty sure it ruled.

  8. #8
    I said they were good fighters...but there upper leadership was complete carp. When the Italians served under a German general (Rommel in particular) they fought as good as the Germans.
    Up, up, and OKAAAAY!!!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainSolo1138 View Post

    Overall, Italy has an 0-9 war record.

    But their women are WAY hotter than the rest.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by stillakid View Post
    But their women are WAY hotter than the rest.
    Especially the elliejabbapop. She's a stunner!
    Quote Originally Posted by Slicker
    I said they were good fighters...but there upper leadership was complete carp. When the Italians served under a German general (Rommel in particular) they fought as good as the Germans.
    OK, I'll agree with that.
    It's a blacked-out blur but I'm pretty sure it ruled.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO