The worst game out there. The game scales europe and is massivly played by hardly any people.
Also know for having people try to say its very good.
Also know for having people try to say its very good.
by Anonymous March 7, 2003
Call of Duty: World War 2 is Sledgehammer Games new, upcoming Call of Duty game of 2017. With currently over 17M Views and over 900,000 likes on YouTube, Call of Duty: World War 2 is what will bring Call of Duty out of the grave after 4 years of constant negativity and hate towards the series.
Have you seen the new Call of Duty: World War 2 trailer for 2017? Dude! We are going back to World War 2!
by Pvtcandybar99 May 30, 2017
by Jshiisksksjajajaj January 27, 2015
Americans are taught from early on in school that World War II was all about Pearl Harbor and that "we" went in to Europe and kicked ass, and then had no choice and blew up two entire cities in Japan. And then everything was perfect for everyone!
The REALITY - The United States sat back while every one of its most important allies suffered brutality. Germany was taking over Europe, bit by bit. The had ALL of Europe basically in their grip (along with Italy and their gang) except for the few neutral countries (who they marched right through anyway) and Great Britain, which eventually had no choice but to just sit and defend itself because it was vulnerable from every direction. While city after city in England and Scotland was demolished, while thousands upon thousands of British citizens were blown to bits, burnt to death, or smothered, Americans said, 'nah, we'll wait thanks. But here's some bombs - you can pay us later." Finally when Roosevelt realized there was no choice but to enter the war (because the world was basically in shock that one of the only surviving superpowers, besides England, was sitting on their hands while the world was being taken over by three men) - he made sure that a big "event" would happen to throw American sentiment across the sea. So we had Pearl Harbor, and then all those fresh, well fed American soldiers took off to join the parched, injured, half-starved Allies.
Now cut to 2001. America gets attacked by an extremist group - not a government - and 3000 people tragically die. Bush decided to blame it on Iraq, as an impetus to bring them down for trying to assinate his fire (and because Iraq sits on a huge buttload of oil.) So when Bush cries out to the rest of the world to try to start World War III, a lot of countries, well, sat on THEIR hands. They remembered the millions of dead family members. They could still see the effects of the horrible bombing blitzes of World War II. They had seen TENS of thousands of civilians die in one night, or over a week, and just have to cope. America has been attacked on its own soil TWICE, and only once by a country. Someday we as Americans will learn the mistake our pseudo-government has made, because we are now the most hated nation on earth, and we have no excuse for it.
The REALITY - The United States sat back while every one of its most important allies suffered brutality. Germany was taking over Europe, bit by bit. The had ALL of Europe basically in their grip (along with Italy and their gang) except for the few neutral countries (who they marched right through anyway) and Great Britain, which eventually had no choice but to just sit and defend itself because it was vulnerable from every direction. While city after city in England and Scotland was demolished, while thousands upon thousands of British citizens were blown to bits, burnt to death, or smothered, Americans said, 'nah, we'll wait thanks. But here's some bombs - you can pay us later." Finally when Roosevelt realized there was no choice but to enter the war (because the world was basically in shock that one of the only surviving superpowers, besides England, was sitting on their hands while the world was being taken over by three men) - he made sure that a big "event" would happen to throw American sentiment across the sea. So we had Pearl Harbor, and then all those fresh, well fed American soldiers took off to join the parched, injured, half-starved Allies.
Now cut to 2001. America gets attacked by an extremist group - not a government - and 3000 people tragically die. Bush decided to blame it on Iraq, as an impetus to bring them down for trying to assinate his fire (and because Iraq sits on a huge buttload of oil.) So when Bush cries out to the rest of the world to try to start World War III, a lot of countries, well, sat on THEIR hands. They remembered the millions of dead family members. They could still see the effects of the horrible bombing blitzes of World War II. They had seen TENS of thousands of civilians die in one night, or over a week, and just have to cope. America has been attacked on its own soil TWICE, and only once by a country. Someday we as Americans will learn the mistake our pseudo-government has made, because we are now the most hated nation on earth, and we have no excuse for it.
The American View of World War II is getting lost in time, because it didn't have much impact on any future generations, as it did in Europe and Asia, and every other country who fought for the length of the war.
The example isn't there - it's the lack of example. The United States does nothing to set an example anywhere, nor does it encourage its own citizens to think on a global level. It's all about US, USA, USA, USA. Scary stuff.
The example isn't there - it's the lack of example. The United States does nothing to set an example anywhere, nor does it encourage its own citizens to think on a global level. It's all about US, USA, USA, USA. Scary stuff.
by Douglish August 24, 2007
by IrishRepublicanArmy January 21, 2004
Over-simplification of a complex subject.
An analogy would be for a star player who had a good game to claim all the credit after the game and put his team-mates down. Even if the star player did have a great game, all the other members of the team played well and did their part in winning the game -- and helping the star player deliver a great individual performance.
This sort of behaviour (i) is pointless because it relies on speculation about what might have happened had things been different and (ii) displays a real lack of grace, particularly when it is the star player that is doing it.
Many nations (large and small) came together to fight against tyranny during World War II, and their commitment to that cause and their sacrifice was enormous. This is what should be remembered -- not whether one nation's contribution or sacrifice was greater than the others.
An analogy would be for a star player who had a good game to claim all the credit after the game and put his team-mates down. Even if the star player did have a great game, all the other members of the team played well and did their part in winning the game -- and helping the star player deliver a great individual performance.
This sort of behaviour (i) is pointless because it relies on speculation about what might have happened had things been different and (ii) displays a real lack of grace, particularly when it is the star player that is doing it.
Many nations (large and small) came together to fight against tyranny during World War II, and their commitment to that cause and their sacrifice was enormous. This is what should be remembered -- not whether one nation's contribution or sacrifice was greater than the others.
"Man, listen to Lance Armstrong claim all the credit for winning 6 Tours de France in a row! You think he'd forgotten there were 8 other guys out there riding for him. What a poor sport! It's just like those guys who bang on and on about the American View of World Ward II"
Note -- this is a stupid example to illustrate the point. Lance is a true sportsman and would never behave this way.
Note -- this is a stupid example to illustrate the point. Lance is a true sportsman and would never behave this way.
by Lance_fan June 24, 2005
The US view on WW2 is very skewed, biased and innacurate... Lets just say that the war, in Europe at least, would have still been won by the allies (Britain and USSR) even if the US stayed out of it. USA never had any big battles and didn't do a lot of fighting, compared to some of the biggest battles in history which took place on the Eastern Front.
by Stalin March 18, 2005