Why no CHINA vs MEC?

[Hephaistion]

Uh no, Russia was not ever a member of the Axis Powers, they were actually Allies, and were part of the "Lend/Lease" program and flew our Airacobra P-39 as a Tank-buster in addition to the IL-2 Sturmovik.
It is funny to read posts from people who have never cracked a history book.
Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria
Allies: U.S., Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia

( http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001288.html )


I think we should rewrite history based on your assumptions. Crack a book, you will look less foolish in the future.

[dmonkey]

Right, come on people, this is middle school history here.

[ynxyg]

A massive 128player battle would be ****ing awsome and pretty amazing to watch actual real time battle with that many people involed online, if there was 4 sides then it could be a even bigger battle with a joint effort so it would be a 2 vs 2 battle, or just raise the number of pople on the team so its 1 v1 but with like 64 people per side. Im sure when internet speeds become faster and everyone has a faster stable connection massive battles like these will become more common online.


**** just think of seeing Squads (12 v 12 arial dog fights) of jets going at it over head while your on ground with a masive ground battle. like 20 tanks and Amored vihicles going out at it. Of course the team with the best team work will win , since a team full of lone wofies vs a good army will get there asses kicked.


EA/DICE We want ( I know I do) 64 vs 64 Battles .

[WeeeOooO]

Uh no, Russia was not ever a member of the Axis Powers, they were actually Allies, and were part of the "Lend/Lease" program and flew our Airacobra P-39 as a Tank-buster in addition to the IL-2 Sturmovik.
It is funny to read posts from people who have never cracked a history book.
Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria
Allies: U.S., Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia

( http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001288.html )


I think we should rewrite history based on your assumptions. Crack a book, you will look less foolish in the future.

Its odd that you tell people to crack a book but you are in fact quoting from the internet. And no, Russia was originally a member of the Axis

The public text of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was simply an agreement of nonaggression and neutrality, referring as a precedent to the German-Soviet neutrality pact of 1926. The real agreement was in a secret protocol which in effect partitioned not only Poland (along the line of the Vistula) but much of Eastern Europe. To the Soviets were allotted Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Bessarabia; to the Nazis, everything to the West of these regions, including Lithuania. Each of the two signatories was to ask the other no questions about the disposition of its own ''sphere of interest." This nonaggression pact, coupled with the trade treaty and arrangements for large-scale exchange of raw materials and armaments, amounted to an alliance.

As for the 'three side' things, I'm sure I can scrounge up atleast a few wars that were fought between more than two sides.

Link for the above quote:

http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/stalin/lectures/NaziSoviet.html

[Hephaistion]

Its odd that you tell people to crack a book but you are in fact quoting from the internet. And no, Russia was originally a member of the Axis



As for the 'three side' things, I'm sure I can scrounge up atleast a few wars that were fought between more than two sides.

Link for the above quote:
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...aziSoviet.html

1926 was not WWII, thus kinda nullifying your whole little rant. WWII started when Germany invaded Poland.

[WeeeOooO]

The Nazi-Soviet pact referred to a previous one in 1926. Can you read? Or just insult?

The public text of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was simply an agreement of nonaggression and neutrality, referring as a precedent to the German-Soviet neutrality pact of 1926.

[Hephaistion]

Its odd that you tell people to crack a book but you are in fact quoting from the internet. And no, Russia was originally a member of the Axis



As for the 'three side' things, I'm sure I can scrounge up atleast a few wars that were fought between more than two sides.

Link for the above quote:
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...aziSoviet.html

Couple of more holes in your little theory.
"By May of 1926, Hitler had overcome any remaining rivals within the Nazi Party and assumed the title of supreme leader (Führer). Ideological differences and infighting between factions of the Nazi Party were resolved by Hitler through his considerable powers of personal persuasion during closed door meetings with embattled leaders."
This was the forceable rise of power by the Nazi Party, Hitler appointing himself Chancellor Of Germany and declaring the Nazi Party the ruling party of unified Germany. Nazism or Nationalism rising from Hilter's belief that Germany had been margianlized bythe Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (Hitler was an Austrian Corporal in WWI, and often referred to as "The Austrian Corporal" by Old Hardline German officers

(The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 is the peace treaty created as a result of six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which put an official end to World War I between the Allies and Central Powers. The treaty was a follow-up to an armistice signed months before in the forest of Compiègne, which put an end to the fighting. The treaty required that Germany claim full responsibility for causing the war, and pay large amounts of compensation (war reparations) to the allies. Germany also lost territory to many surrounding countries, had its military forces severely limited and was stripped of its overseas and African colonies. Representatives of the new German government (Weimar Republic) were forced by the victors to sign the treaty, otherwise fighting was threatened to begin anew. Thus Germany's foreign minister, Hermann Müller, undersigned it on June 28, 1919. The treaty was ratified by the League of Nations on January 10, 1920. In Germany the treaty caused a shock—often referred to as a trauma or anti-Versailles-complex— which eventually contributed to the collapse of the Weimar Republic in 1933, and thus Adolf Hitler's rise to power.)

At this point the Nazi Party consisted of 17000 members, and your pact wasn't signed until 1939 (not 1926), On 28th August, 1939, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed in Moscow, formally known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939 (Cracking a book refers to studying, not the physical act of opening a book). And although there was a pact that established a footing between the Nazi Party and Soviet Union, it was short lived and Russia never fought as an Axis Power. This was actually a delaying tactic by the Soviets to stave off what Stalin realized was the inevitable agression of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union (and it's natural resources and industrial power, the uncanny ability to produce durable tanks and aircraft drove Hitler insane, and he wanted air/ground superiority). In 1926 there ws no term Axis/Allies

Here is a lesson on the formation of the "Axis"

On September 18, 1931, Manchuria was an object of Japanese invasion during Mukden incident. Italy, facing opposition to its war in Abysinnia from the League of Nations, forged an alliance with Germany, which had withdrawn from the League in 1933. The term was first used by Benito Mussolini, in November 1936, when he spoke of a Rome-Berlin axis in reference to the treaty of friendship signed between Italy and Germany on October 25, 1936. The two countries would form an "axis" around which the other states of Europe could revolve. Later, in May 1939, this relationship transformed into an alliance, dubbed the "Pact of Steel".

1926 obviosly predates the formation of the Axis.

Here are some more facts about the Axis.
The American neutrality acts, passed successively during the middle 1930’s, placed increasingly strict controls on the ability of the United State to assist any parties that would become involved in the seemingly inevitable conflict on the European mainland. When Hitler ordered the annexation of Austria in 1938, he was able to convince Britain and France that it was solely an internal matter. After a German threat to annex the Sudetenland, Prime Minister Chamberlain initiated talks with Germany that culminated with the signing of the Munich Pact. The Czechs agreed to give the Sudetenland to Germany in exchange for a promise that no further Czechoslovakian lands would be sought. Chamberlain returned victorious and declared that he had achieved “peace in our time.” Less than six months later, in March of 1939, Hitler captured the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Britain offered aid to the Poles if Germany attempted further conquests. France already had a standing mutual defense treaty with the Polish government. Throughout the escalating crisis, the United States was paralyzed by the highly restrictive neutrality acts. It was not able to offer assistance to those nations resisting Axis expansion, though it was clearly in their best long-term interest to do so. Had the Axis Powers seen a strong and determined response from the United States in the face of their conquests, they may have slowed their imperialistic efforts, though it is unlikely an entirely different outcome could have resulted.

The militarist ascendancy to positions of power within the Japanese government under Emperor Hirohito marked the beginning of aggression in the Pacific Theater. The first dispute between Japan and China involved the Manchuria Province. Eventually Japanese military forces, under the pretense of preventing Chinese sabotage, seized control of the area. Additional fighting occurred when a Chinese patrol boat clashed with Japanese troops at the Marco Polo Bridge near Beijing. Shortly, Japan joined the Axis coalition and signed a neutrality pact of its own with the Soviet Union. Additional Japanese attempts to gain control of Southeast Asia caused increasing tension with the United States, which would eventually culminate with the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941


And yes I can read, I just find it curoius when people quote historical facts out of context.

[DimmuBorgir]

the M.E. and China have nothing against eachother, thats why

[MarkHawk]

3 team maps would suck.... because everyone wants to be US.

Mec vs China would be awesome because both teams wouldn't care as much, if they were MEC or CHINA.

Everyone wants to be US and it's plain boring sometimes.

[dfr.mav]

64v64 would be absolutely insane. screw the USS Essex, you'd get the entire battle group assigned to that carrier, battleships, destroyers, etc. that would literally be a war. you would have like 4 F-18s, 4 F-15s and 4 F-35s. INSANE

[Wranger4400]

Because that battle would suck ass.

[WarriorJ]

Question: Why is USMC in every map?
Answer: We are the world police. :)

[Hephaistion]

"As for the 'three side' things, I'm sure I can scrounge up atleast a few wars that were fought between more than two sides."


I have one for you:

The Bosnian/Croat/Muslim Conflict in the former Yugoslavia 1992-1996 (that was actaullya 5+ sided war:

Muslims (Bosnain, Croat, Macedonian ) Christians (Croat, Bosnian) Serbs, UN, USA (Non-UN).

[innerchild]

dudes before you hijacking this topic with facts about wars etc open up another topic for that...... go back to the original question stated in this topic..

yes i do find it odd that you can not have mec vs china.
wondering why they did not do this..

[Hephaistion]

What is wrong with a good old thread-jacking?