Last charge of the Churchill brigade

[Weatherlawyer]

Following on from all that adulation given to a fat, drunken,
incompetent in the thread about Torpedo Bombers; can anyone on this
group tell me of any successful interferences Winston the Mad came up
with at any time in WW 2?

Getting a bunch of US politicians drunk and getting Ambassador Kennedy
recalled aside, that is.

[David E. Powell]

Knocked off Mussolini via Southern Strategy in Italy.

Supported Tito and backed Tito as he tied down a bunch of German
forces in Yugoslavia.

Sent the Manhattan Project scientists to the USA, which came in useful
for the Allies.

Was able to send commanders who organized resistance in Asia and did
yeoman work fighting the Japanese in Burma and near the Indian border,
diverting and destroying a lot of Japanese troops as well as
protecting the Indian borders.

Hosted the buildup for Operation Overlord in the UK and used UK
intelligence assets to help guarantee the massive plans and buildup
were not discovered by the Germans.

Did not surrender, ever.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Keep *that* up David and someone's going to accuse you of being *unAmerican*
! :-)

cheers....Jeff

[William Black]

Support for Tito, the Tizzard Mission, insisting that TUBE ALLOYS be
combined with the MANHATTAN PROGRAMME, allowing US access to GCCS
information in 1940.

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[Eugene Griessel]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:37:12 +0000, William Black
<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/03/12 01:28, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>> Following on from all that adulation given to a fat, drunken,
>> incompetent in the thread about Torpedo Bombers; can anyone on this
>> group tell me of any successful interferences Winston the Mad came up
>> with at any time in WW 2?
>>
>> Getting a bunch of US politicians drunk and getting Ambassador Kennedy
>> recalled aside, that is.
>
>Support for Tito, the Tizzard Mission, insisting that TUBE ALLOYS be
>combined with the MANHATTAN PROGRAMME, allowing US access to GCCS
>information in 1940.

Talking about fat drunken incompetents when is Weatherlawyer ever
going to get anything right?

Eugene L Griessel

The most elementary and valuable statement in science,
the beginning of wisdom, is 'I do not know.'

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Did not surrender, ever.

And that's it?
A regular super hero.

Makes Tony Blair look such a wimp.

[Ray O'Hara]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d3c6f1d9-b47c-4265...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

===================================================================

the US supplied Tito who created himself anyway.

short of Oswald Mosely becoming PMnobody else would have sureendered either.
the Germans didn't have the ability to cross the channel.and all you're
doing is listing things England did and ascribing them to Winnie the Fool.

[Keith W]

Ray O'Hara wrote:
> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:d3c6f1d9-b47c-4265...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 8:28 pm, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the US supplied Tito who created himself anyway.
>

Well no, while US aircraft certainly parachuted aid into Yugoslavia
the critical Treaty of Vis which established a combined command
of the Royalist and Communist forces under the control of Tito was
pushed hard by Churchill. The allied men on the ground were led by
the SAS officer Fitzroy Maclean. MacLean was a remarkable man
who was a Conservatve MP from an aristicratic background and yet
managed to build an excellent relationship with the communist partisans
and after the war was recognized with the following awards.

Order of Kutuzov (Soviet Union)
Croix de Guerre (France)
Order of the Partisan Star (Yugoslavia)
Baron of Maclean of Strachur and Glensluain
Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle

> short of Oswald Mosely becoming PMnobody else would have sureendered
> either. the Germans didn't have the ability to cross the channel.and
> all you're doing is listing things England did and ascribing them to
> Winnie the Fool.

Surrender no but signing a peace treaty which left Germany in undisputed
control of the continent was a definite possibility and one which was
being pushed by Lorf Halifax who was Churchill's main political
rival.

Keith

[William Black]

On 10/03/12 14:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
> the US supplied Tito

Cite please.

I never knew the US manufactured STEN guns...

(
http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Partisans/Russian-Yugoslav-partisans.htm
Third picture down, the young lady has one)

[Eugene Griessel]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:18:37 +0000, William Black
<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/03/12 14:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> the US supplied Tito
>
>Cite please.

Ray is unfettered and unhampered by knowledge - a fact he has
demonstrated here repeatedly by being wrong so often it is hardly
worth mentioning.

Eugene L Griessel

A man who fails to take his own death into account is a fool. A
self-centred fool who doesn't love anyone.

[William Black]

On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Did not surrender, ever.
>
> And that's it?
> A regular super hero.
>

Duplicitous bastard.

As I have said many times before, he isn't my favourite politician and
he was certainly a drunk, but he did undoubtedly change history and
your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.

You're almost as bad as that Plastic Paddy O'Hara. He's just plain
thick, but you've no excuse as you're nowhere nearly as stupid as he is.

[Eugene Griessel]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:30:40 +0000, William Black
<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>>
>> And that's it?
>> A regular super hero.
>>
>Duplicitous bastard.
>
>As I have said many times before, he isn't my favourite politician and
>he was certainly a drunk, but he did undoubtedly change history and
>your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.
>
>You're almost as bad as that Plastic Paddy O'Hara. He's just plain
>thick, but you've no excuse as you're nowhere nearly as stupid as he is.

Neither of whom could pass a simple test on Churchill. People with
unmotivated irrational hatreds are hardly worth listening to,
especially when those are based upon falsehoods.

Eugene L Griessel

The history of mankind is an immense sea of errors in which few obscure
truths may be here and there found. - C de Beccaria

[Keith W]

William Black wrote:
> On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>>
>> And that's it?
>> A regular super hero.
>>
> Duplicitous bastard.
>
> As I have said many times before, he isn't my favourite politician
> and he was certainly a drunk, but he did undoubtedly change history
> and your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.
>

I am reminded of what Abraham Lincoln said to someone who
complained about the drinking of Ulysses Grant.

"Tell me what brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a
barrel of it to my other generals."


Keith

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> irrational hatreds are hardly worth listening to,

Does that include your hatred of black people when you
were in the racist former South African military?

Or your Nazi uncles who served "irrational hatreds"?

(now you pretend to be one of us)
;-)

[Ray O'Hara]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0QK6r.116189$dZ7....@newsfe08.ams2...

the OSS sent agents to the Balkans too.

[Ray O'Hara]

"William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jjfusu$t21$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 10/03/12 14:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> the US supplied Tito
>
> Cite please.
>
> I never knew the US manufactured STEN guns...
>
> (
> http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Partisans/Russian-Yugoslav-partisans.htm
> Third picture down, the young lady has one)
>

so a Sten gun proves only England sent help.
sure Bill.

[William Black]

You're a liar.

I said that it was Churchill's decision to support Tito.

You then claimed that only the US supplied Tito.

I showed that you were, at best, misinformed.

That you were so incredibly badly misinformed when there's a picture of
just about every partisan group in the world (Including the Chinese)
between about 1941 and 1955 using STEN guns is almost unbelievable.

[William Black]

On 10/03/12 16:21, Eugene Griessel wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:18:37 +0000, William Black
> <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/03/12 14:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> the US supplied Tito
>>
>> Cite please.
>
> Ray is unfettered and unhampered by knowledge - a fact he has
> demonstrated here repeatedly by being wrong so often it is hardly
> worth mentioning.

To quote 'Evil' in 'Time Bandits' He is 'so mercifully free of the
ravages of intelligence.'

[Ray O'Hara]

"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:eqvml7pb08iuiv2tf...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:18:37 +0000, William Black
> <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/03/12 14:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> the US supplied Tito
>>
>>Cite please.
>
> Ray is unfettered and unhampered by knowledge - a fact he has
> demonstrated here repeatedly by being wrong so often it is hardly
> worth mentioning.
>

Gene, you believe nothing but propaganda.

[William Black]

I once asked a very senior Foreign Office official how they decided
about foreign political figures.

He replied, "Well, who would you go out with for an evening's drinking
and 'entertainment' and would you invite them to your mother's for
afternoon tea"

Looking at WWII leaders I think only Churchill and Tito manage to be
suitable for both, although a night out with Chiang Kai-shek might be
fun...

Ho Chi Minh fits as well...

[Kerryn Offord]

On 3/10/2012 11:37 PM, William Black wrote:
> On 10/03/12 01:28, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>> Following on from all that adulation given to a fat, drunken,
>> incompetent in the thread about Torpedo Bombers; can anyone on this
>> group tell me of any successful interferences Winston the Mad came up
>> with at any time in WW 2?
>>
>> Getting a bunch of US politicians drunk and getting Ambassador Kennedy
>> recalled aside, that is.
>
> Support for Tito, the Tizzard Mission, insisting that TUBE ALLOYS be
> combined with the MANHATTAN PROGRAMME, allowing US access to GCCS
> information in 1940.
>

What about transfer of jet technology?

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 10, 4:30 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Did not surrender, ever.
>
> > And that's it?
> > A regular super hero.
>
> Duplicitous bastard.

Quite.

Giving Half of Europe to a proven genocidal maniac hardly resolved the
issue over which Britain declared war on Germany.

> As I have said many times before, he isn't my favourite politician and
> he was certainly a drunk, but he did undoubtedly change history and
> your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.

I don't deny that he was certainly a popular image at the time and a
notable rabble rouser. I rather believe that history was inradical
change without his help in those days.

I am just trying to set matters right about his deeds or the lack
thereof.

It seems that his dogged insistence of set piece battles (already out
of date shown in WW1 when flight made it impossible to move massed
troops secretly.

When the USA entered the war, whatever made the US military
concentrate on Europe rather than the US's more immediate problems, it
wasn't Churchill.

It may well have been the threat of the Atom Bomb; I believe the need
for allied combined research and Britain's parlous state made any work
on that in Britain too risky.

Finances certainly would have curtailed British research. I believe a
lot of military and semi military research was exported to the States
in the early days of the war. The canard for jet aircraft for example.

Whatever the case, the arrival of military advisers eventually taking
over leadership of all European allied forces. Thought the USA could
be cajoled into the disastrous set pieces Churchill advocated, they
were reticent about his objectives not solely because of his part in
the WW1 failure in the Dardanelles.

It's hard to believe his record in WW2 didn't count heavily against
any advice from him.

[William Black]

On 10/03/12 22:34, Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:30 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>>
>>> And that's it?
>>> A regular super hero.
>>
>> Duplicitous bastard.
>
> Quite.
>
> Giving Half of Europe to a proven genocidal maniac hardly resolved the
> issue over which Britain declared war on Germany.

He didn't declare that war.

>> As I have said many times before, he isn't my favourite politician and
>> he was certainly a drunk, but he did undoubtedly change history and
>> your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.
>
> I don't deny that he was certainly a popular image at the time and a
> notable rabble rouser. I rather believe that history was inradical
> change without his help in those days.
>
> I am just trying to set matters right about his deeds or the lack
> thereof.
>
> It seems that his dogged insistence of set piece battles (already out
> of date shown in WW1 when flight made it impossible to move massed
> troops secretly.

You do, of course, have some examples of failed set piece battles he
insisted on people fighting.

> When the USA entered the war, whatever made the US military
> concentrate on Europe rather than the US's more immediate problems, it
> wasn't Churchill.

Actually it probably was.

A deal had been made between the two heads of government and it
certainly wasn't the USA thatw as pushing for a 'Germany first' policy
that didn't meet their short term needs.

> It may well have been the threat of the Atom Bomb; I believe the need
> for allied combined research and Britain's parlous state made any work
> on that in Britain too risky.

The US didn't know a bomb was possible until after the Germany First
policy had been agreed.

> Finances certainly would have curtailed British research. I believe a
> lot of military and semi military research was exported to the States
> in the early days of the war. The canard for jet aircraft for example.

That 'I believe' is a bit of a give away isn't it.

Any proof or did you just make it all up?

> Whatever the case, the arrival of military advisers eventually taking
> over leadership of all European allied forces. Thought the USA could
> be cajoled into the disastrous set pieces Churchill advocated,

Name them please.

they
> were reticent about his objectives not solely because of his part in
> the WW1 failure in the Dardanelles.

Balls.

You really are full of shit.

[William Black]

Ah, well this buffoon thinks the British refused to do anything about
jets at all.

I think he's been reading the Daily Mirror Book of History again...

[Keith W]

Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:30 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David
>> E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>>
>>> And that's it?
>>> A regular super hero.
>>
>> Duplicitous bastard.
>
> Quite.
>
> Giving Half of Europe to a proven genocidal maniac hardly resolved the
> issue over which Britain declared war on Germany.
>

Indeed but once he USA had decided on that policy what was
Britain supposed to do ?

Note that it was Churchill who coined the phrase 'iron curtain' and
Atlee who was PM from July 1945 onwards

Keith

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/03/12 21:41, Kerryn Offord wrote:
>
> > What about transfer of jet technology?
>
> Ah,  well this buffoon thinks the British refused to do anything about
> jets at all.

You do?
You weren't that far wrong.

The RAF and the engineering company associated with Whittle, between
them, drove him barmy. It wasn't until two engineers were asked to go
and look at the Whittle engine that Rolls and Vickers began to take
him seriously.

In fact, even after their inspection it wasn't until they had returned
unimpressed and actually given the matter some more thought that they
realised the test bed machine they had seen was putting out as much
power as the well developed Merlin.

And that is when the jet took off.
It would have made an unbeatable weapon of the Mosquito at the
outbreak of the war, had that too not suffered the intransigence of
idiots.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <12c56fab-0763-438f...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems that his dogged insistence of set piece battles (already out
> of date shown in WW1 when flight made it impossible to move massed
> troops secretly.

I guess you've never heard of SOE

[Eugene Griessel]

It presuppose he has been reading any book of history - his posts do
not seem to show he has.

Eugene L Griessel

'...one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was
that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful
termination of their C programs...'

[Keith W]

Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/03/12 21:41, Kerryn Offord wrote:
>>
>>> What about transfer of jet technology?
>>
>> Ah, well this buffoon thinks the British refused to do anything about
>> jets at all.
> You do?
> You weren't that far wrong.
>
> The RAF and the engineering company associated with Whittle, between
> them, drove him barmy. It wasn't until two engineers were asked to go
> and look at the Whittle engine that Rolls and Vickers began to take
> him seriously.
>

Well no, Whittle was in fact a serving RAF officer who had been sent
by them to University to study engineering. In an unprecedented
move that would never be allowed today they allowed him to
patent his invention and set up a company to produce it
even though it had been designed on their time !

He actually signed an agreement with the engineering firm
British Thomson-Houston and the prototype was built
by the newly formed company Power jets.

In June 1939 the Air Ministry discovered during an inspection
that Power jets was in dire financial straits but was impressed
enough to buy the prototype and lease it back to Powerjets
at a peppercorn rent as well injecting further development funds

The government ORDERED the engine on the basis of the
prototype in April 1940 with an initial order for 3,000 engines
PER MONTH but Whittle's company was quite unable to actually
put the thing into production.

Whittle at this point was still a serving RAF Officer and had in
fact been promoted to Wing Commander. He was an
extremely difficult man to work with being exceptionally
intolerant of other people and relationships with the the
first contractor Rover deteriorated to the point that they
wanted nothing more than to get out of the contract.

In the end a deal was done in which Rolls Royce took
over the engine contract and immediately simplified the
design and were finally able to get the thing in production.

Much has been made of the factthat the government nationalized
Power Jets but recall that Whittle was given £100,000 pounds
for a development that he made while being paid his RAF
salary. It also needs to be recalled that it was Whittle hismlf
who suggested the company be nationalised in the vain hope
that he could somehow stay in command after being bought out.


Keith

[Weatherlawyer]

Isn't he the one who made a rabid attack on unprotected US civilians?
Leaving chaos behind him that was exacerbated by the most regular type
of troops the USA was fielding on both sides back in the day:
Deserters.

Remind me how his superb tactics overwhelmed his opponents.
He was heading east with his only threat behind him in the manoeuvre
that made him famous.

But the US Civil War was brought up in the earlier thread. Something I
meant to reply to in that I overlooked:

Lincoln replaced McClellan because he wanted a more decisive action.
The type of political blunder that Lincoln couldn't stop making.

It's always a problem when a military endeavour is controlled by
politicians. All the more so when they are as incompetent as Winston
Churchill. It's always difficult for politicians to behave themselves.
They tend to react like women.

Didn't Jellicoe suffer the same fate for not losing the battle of....
where was that place?

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 10, 2:11 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:d3c6f1d9-b47c-4265...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 9, 8:28 pm, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Following on from all that adulation given to a fat, drunken,
> > incompetent in the thread about Torpedo Bombers; can anyone on this
> > group tell me of any successful interferences Winston the Mad came up
> > with at any time in WW 2?
>
> > Getting a bunch of US politicians drunk and getting Ambassador Kennedy
> > recalled aside, that is.
>
> Knocked off Mussolini via Southern Strategy in Italy.
>
> Supported Tito and backed Tito as he tied down a bunch of German
> forces in Yugoslavia.
>
> Sent the Manhattan Project scientists to the USA, which came in useful
> for the Allies.
>
> Was able to send commanders who organized resistance in Asia and did
> yeoman work fighting the Japanese in Burma and near the Indian border,
> diverting and destroying a lot of Japanese troops as well as
> protecting the Indian borders.
>
> Hosted the buildup for Operation Overlord in the UK and used UK
> intelligence assets to help guarantee the massive plans and buildup
> were not discovered by the Germans.
>

> Wore his underpants over his trousers.

>
> ===================================================================
>
> the US supplied Tito who created himself anyway.
>

> short of Oswald Mosely becoming PM, nobody else would have surrendered either.
> the Germans didn't have the ability to cross the channel and all you're

> doing is listing things England did and ascribing them to Winnie the Fool.

Ah yes but he was in charge (except for the times he gave orders to
engage the enemy in situations that flew in the face of reason. But
you wouldn't count them when you came to rewrite it all.)

Any idea how difficult it would have been for anyone not in possession
of German machine pistols and the like to reinvent the wheel?

Or was the construction of Sten guns entirely beyond the abilities of
westernised and non westernised orientals?

It's a good job the fat bastard had a broad back, seeing as he had to
swim to all those places fully loaded.
He'd have go my vote for that if it meant keeping him gainfully
occupied.

I wonder if that's why he was appointed Fool Chief.

[Kerryn Offord]

Or the Commandos...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Commandos
The British Commandos were formed during the Second World War in June
1940, following a request from the British Prime Minister, Winston
Churchill, for a force that could carry out raids against
German-occupied Europe.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <d26122d6-6db5-4fd2...@hv2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/03/12 21:41, Kerryn Offord wrote:
> >
> > > What about transfer of jet technology?
> >
> > Ah,  well this buffoon thinks the British refused to do anything about
> > jets at all.
> You do?
> You weren't that far wrong.
>
> The RAF and the engineering company associated with Whittle, between
> them, drove him barmy. It wasn't until two engineers were asked to go
> and look at the Whittle engine that Rolls and Vickers began to take
> him seriously.
>
> In fact, even after their inspection it wasn't until they had returned
> unimpressed and actually given the matter some more thought that they
> realised the test bed machine they had seen was putting out as much
> power as the well developed Merlin.

They must have been exceptional engineers in that it took more thought to
realize the machine was as powerful as the Merlin

[cman...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:34:17 PM UTC-5, Weatherlawyer wrote:
> Giving Half of Europe to a proven genocidal maniac hardly resolved the
> issue over which Britain declared war on Germany.

The eastern half of Europe was not Churchill (or FDR's) to give to Stalin. What gave the USSR the eastern half of Europe was not talk in Yalta but the enormous sacrifices of their soldiers. The only way to eject them from Eastern Europe would be another war, which the citizens of Britain and the US were not willing to wage.

> When the USA entered the war, whatever made the US military
> concentrate on Europe rather than the US's more immediate problems, it
> wasn't Churchill.

It was the realization that Germany was the more dangerous threat, because if they could fully steal the industrial and natural resources of Europe they would certainly be a terrible foe, while the Japanese only had the much less well developed economies of Asia to steal from.

> Whatever the case, the arrival of military advisers eventually taking
> over leadership of all European allied forces. Thought the USA could
> be cajoled into the disastrous set pieces Churchill advocated, they
> were reticent about his objectives not solely because of his part in
> the WW1 failure in the Dardanelles.

I recently read S.M. Plokhy's _Yalta: The Price of Peace._ It is a detailed attempt to understand what everyone was actually saying at each point in the meeting at Yalta. And the point I was left with was that each of the Big Three (Stalin, FDR, Churchill) were motivated to a surprisingly large extent by concerns from the 1890-1920 era.

In order of priority: FDR desperately wanted Soviet help against the Japanese, and he wanted to fix Woodrow Wilson's failures and create a workable organization like the League of Nations, but better. The independence of Eastern Europe was his third priority. Churchill's top two priorities were the protection of the UK lifeline to India (control of the Eastern Med, Balkan issues, Montreaux Convention, Iran, etc.) and maintaining a balance of power in Western Europe (an independent and reasonably strong France AND Germany), with the independence of Eastern Europe a third priority. Stalin's primary goal was to maintain a buffer to prevent anything like WW2 from ever happening again, to gain things that the Czar had either lost (territory from Japan lost in 1905) or wanted but had been unable to deliver (renegotiating Montreaux), with rebuilding the shattered USSR a third priority.

Note how many of the goals reflected thinking not just from 1930 but from 1920: things that had been issues when the Big Three were low and mid-ranking politicians, rather than the essentially unchallenged statesmen of February 1945. It is a good reminder that though historians work backwards from the Cold War, the actual participants can't, and must necessarily base their work on their previous experiences.

Chris Manteuffel

[Alistair Gunn]

Weatherlawyer twisted the electrons to say:

> Ah yes but he was in charge (except for the times he gave orders to
> engage the enemy in situations that flew in the face of reason. But
> you wouldn't count them when you came to rewrite it all.)

Since you seem to believe that there are so many situations, why don't
you try listing some of them? So far your claims are conspicuous only by
the lack of any supporting evidence ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Alistair Gunn]

Eugene Griessel twisted the electrons to say:

> It presuppose he has been reading any book of history - his posts do
> not seem to show he has.

... actually his raging anglophobia reminds me the evan-creature.

[William Black]

Idiot.

[Eugene Griessel]

Make one wonder what value and credibility such epithets have when
bestowed by a verifiable fool, idiot and ignoramus.


Eugene L Griessel

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.

[Keith W]

Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:39 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>> On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>>>> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>>
>>>> And that's it?
>>>> A regular super hero.
>>
>>> Duplicitous bastard.
>>
>>> As I have said many times before, he isn't my favourite politician
>>> and he was certainly a drunk, but he did undoubtedly change history
>>> and your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.
>>
>> I am reminded of what Abraham Lincoln said to someone who
>> complained about the drinking of Ulysses Grant.
>>
>> "Tell me what brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to
>> send a barrel of it to my other generals."
>
> Isn't he the one who made a rabid attack on unprotected US civilians?

No he was a union general who made war on the CONFEDERATE states

Try and at least grasp the basics old chap.

Keith

[a425couple]

"Weatherlawyer" <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> Following on from all that adulation given to a fat, drunken,
> incompetent in the thread about Torpedo Bombers; can anyone on this
> group tell me of any successful interferences Winston the Mad came up
> with at any time in WW 2?

One area that nobody else so far has mentioned is public speeches.
I do feel they can inform, raise morale and enthusiasm, and
improve productivity.
Winston Churchill made quite a few that have been considered
memorable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_speeches
"1940: Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat, a phrase used by U.S. President
Theodore Roosevelt in 1897 but popularized by Winston Churchill in
the first of three inspirational radio addresses during the opening months
of World War II.
1940: We Shall Fight on the Beaches, from the second radio talk by
Winston Churchill, promising to never surrender.
1940: This Was Their Finest Hour, the third address by Winston Churchill,
giving a confident view of the military situation and rallying the British
people.
1940: Never Was So Much Owed by So Many to So Few by Winston
Churchill, speaking in another radio talk about the air and naval defenders
of Great Britain.
1946: Sinews of Peace by Winston Churchill, introducing the phrase Iron
Curtain to describe the division between eastern and western Europe."

> Getting a bunch of US politicians drunk --- aside, that is.

Perhaps this last fits in with above, but, would another
potential UK PM, have been as adept as Churchill in
appealing to FDR and the USA public about the UK/USA
special relationship?

[Keith W]

He made a huge impression on Harry Hopkins who had been sent as a
an unofficial emissary from FDR to assess Britains situation and
determination to fight on. Churchill personally accompanied him
all over the country giving him full access to anywhere he wanted
to go including secret locations he could never have otherwise
entered. He met business leaders, members of the armed forces
and toured shipyards , war industries and military bases as well
as well as the ordinary people in bombed out districts of London
and Coventry

On his departure Hopkins made the following speech at a small dinner
party hosted by Churchill in his honour .

"I suppose you wish to know what I am going to say to President Roosevelt
on my return. Well I am going to quote to you one verse from the Book of
Books ...

"Whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge, thy
people
shall be my people, and thy God my God."

He was as good as his word and was one of the major movers and shakers
behind Lend Lease. Its hard to imagine Lord Halifax having the same effect.

Keith

[Andrew Chaplin]

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:12c56fab-0763-438f...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
<snip>

> It seems that his dogged insistence of set piece battles (already out
> of date shown in WW1 when flight made it impossible to move massed

> troops secretly.<snip>

Care to examine the record of the most successful formations in the BEF:
the Australian Corps and Canadian Corps? Both were masters of the set piece
attack. In the latter case, they mindful of operational security and
deception planning because they understood that their very presence
signaled the main effort of an offensive operation to the Germans; they
were able to redeploy without giving the game away before the Battle of
Amiens by using air superiority to keep out reconnaissance aircraft and
movement at night.

Have a look at the ground campaign of the end of the 1990-'91 Gulf War, it
is a classic set-piece action.

The set-piece will always be in found in doctrine. It is just that the
planning becomes more complex as the instructions to subordinates have to
be clearer to express how the commander would see them deal with
contingencies--and, as soon as you cross the start line, Sod's Law dictates
that there will be a contingency.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[David E. Powell]

On Mar 10, 10:07 pm, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:39 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > William Black wrote:
> > > On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:
> > >> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> Did not surrender, ever.
>
> > >> And that's it?
> > >> A regular super hero.
>
> > > Duplicitous bastard.
>
> > > As I have said many times before,  he isn't my favourite politician
> > > and he was certainly a drunk,  but he did undoubtedly change history
> > > and your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.
>
> > I am reminded of what Abraham Lincoln said to someone who
> > complained about the drinking of Ulysses Grant.
>
> > "Tell me what brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a
> > barrel of it to my other generals."
>
> Isn't he the one who made a rabid attack on unprotected US civilians?

Where? Vicksburg? It was a city and he was ordered to take it.

> Leaving chaos behind him that was exacerbated by the most regular type
> of troops the USA was fielding on both sides back in the day:
> Deserters.

Abetted by the fact that much law and order in the south suffered as
more able bodied folks were sent to the front.

> Remind me how his superb tactics overwhelmed his opponents.
> He was heading east with his only threat behind him in the manoeuvre
> that made him famous.

Lee surrendered to him. I suppose that counts as his tactics
succeeding.

> But the US Civil War was brought up in the earlier thread. Something I
> meant to reply to in that I overlooked:
>
> Lincoln replaced McClellan because he wanted a more decisive action.
> The type of political blunder that Lincoln couldn't stop making.

It wasn't Lincoln's blunder. McClellan was highly recommended and had
done an excellent job building and organizing the army, which was
swelling with many new recruits, and forming it into a fighting
force.

The Peninsular campaign sort of did it for McClellan though as delays
cost time in a maneuver that depended on speed to flank the
Confederacy. Eventually Grant went down Richmond way but it was a lot
of years and lives later, using more attrition heavy tactics.

The Peninsula campaign concept had precedent in the Mexican war where
the US had landed troops in Mexico and hit the Mexicans from an
unexpected direction.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 11, 5:03 am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-

bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In fact, even after their inspection it wasn't until they had returned
> > unimpressed and actually given the matter some more thought that they
> > realised the test bed machine they had seen was putting out as much
> > power as the well developed Merlin.
>
> They must have been exceptional engineers in that it took more thought to
> realize the machine was as powerful as the Merlin

It was a problem of translation.

Frank Whittle had been an exceptional pilot in the RAF and was still a
commissioned officer in it. He had been working with a company making
turbines. This might have been the reason for the visit. I forget.

Whittle had already begun inventing the mathematics that would be used
from then on to design turbines and jets.

IIRC, the "boffins" saw this contraption looking like something from a
distillery and asked what it was capable of.

The rest is history.

[Weatherlawyer]

Very true.
Churchill was a very low watt bulb.
But then he was a politician.

No wonder he seemed blindingly bright.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 11, 7:34 pm, Andrew Chaplin <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com>
wrote:

> Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:12c56fab-0763-438f...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> <snip>
>
> > It seems that his dogged insistence of set piece battles (already out
> > of date shown in WW1 when flight made it impossible to move massed
> > troops secretly.<snip>
>
> Care to examine the record of the most successful formations in the BEF:
> the Australian Corps and Canadian Corps? Both were masters of the set piece
> attack. In the latter case, they mindful of operational security and
> deception planning because they understood that their very presence
> signaled the main effort of an offensive operation to the Germans; they
> were able to redeploy without giving the game away before the Battle of
> Amiens by using air superiority to keep out reconnaissance aircraft and
> movement at night.
>
> Have a look at the ground campaign of the end of the 1990-'91 Gulf War, it
> is a classic set-piece action.
>
> The set-piece will always be in found in doctrine. It is just that the
> planning becomes more complex as the instructions to subordinates have to
> be clearer to express how the commander would see them deal with
> contingencies

All the more difficult once you have to start working with allies.

> and, as soon as you cross the start line, Sod's Law dictates
> that there will be a contingency.

What were they in Dieppe and Market Garden?

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <e06624b7-bb07-4286...@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

So you are saying he was inspected by inept engineers?

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <6866ecb3-8b4f-4ebd...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Very true.
> Churchill was a very low watt bulb.
> But then he was a politician.
>
> No wonder he seemed blindingly bright.

so you are a politician?

[David E. Powell]

Dieppe was consciosly done as an exercise of a landing and port
capture. The information gained on the raid led to the tactics and
gear used in Overlord.

Market Garden was a mess-up all around but sadly all the nations in
the war had them, it was a question of who could survive them and
which were worse or more critical than others.

[William Black]

Dieppe was a raid and so 'close ended' anyway.

MARKET GARDEN was a cock-up.

In both cases the contingency plan was getting as many people out as
possible when it all went horribly wrong.

Or did you think the survivors were just abandoned?

[a425couple]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gI37r.5209$_N4....@newsfe07.ams2...

Very interesting. Thank you. I agree.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:lf0nl7tc1orq77m9t...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:30:40 +0000, William Black
> <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>>>
>>> And that's it?
>>> A regular super hero.
>>>
>>Duplicitous bastard.
>>
>>As I have said many times before, he isn't my favourite politician and
>>he was certainly a drunk, but he did undoubtedly change history and
>>your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.
>>

>>You're almost as bad as that Plastic Paddy O'Hara. He's just plain
>>thick, but you've no excuse as you're nowhere nearly as stupid as he is.
>
> Neither of whom could pass a simple test on Churchill. People with
> unmotivated irrational hatreds are hardly worth listening to,
> especially when those are based upon falsehoods.


it's not irrational to think an incompetent drunk who bungled things he
personally got involved was a hinderance
not an asset.
Yeah he looked all bulldoggy and he gave good speeches. but that was as far
as it went.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:5Q07r.136188$ZT6....@newsfe23.ams2...

The CSA failed. The USA claimed their was no CSA and proved it.
Grant Faced 4 CSA armies. 3 he outright captured in the field.
Pillow/Buckner at Ft Donelson, Pemberton at Vicksburg and Lee at Appomattox.
the other army he faced twice. under A.S.Johnston at Shiloh after which with
A.S.J dead it had to retreat
and again at Chattanooga under Bragg. it fled the field in total rout
find anybody with a better record

[Ray O'Hara]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5Q07r.136188$ZT6....@newsfe23.ams2...

I guess you think America started the Pacific war at Pearl Harbor too.

[William Black]

On 12/03/12 23:38, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> Yeah he looked all bulldoggy and he gave good speeches. but that was as far
> as it went.

In the early period when he was Prime Minister that was enough.

[Ray O'Hara]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc41d54e-b7e9-4f69...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

===============================================================

If any ACW General deserves the title of Butcher it is Lee.
He loved the frontal assault as shown at Malvern Hill and on July 3rd at
Gettysburg. both were abysmal failures.
Lee also lost more men during the war than Grant.

[Ray O'Hara]

"William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jjgnsl$de9$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 10/03/12 22:34, Weatherlawyer wrote:

>> On Mar 10, 4:30 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E.
>>> Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>>>
>>>> And that's it?
>>>> A regular super hero.
>>>
>>> Duplicitous bastard.
>>

>> Quite.

>>
>> Giving Half of Europe to a proven genocidal maniac hardly resolved the
>> issue over which Britain declared war on Germany.
>

> He didn't declare that war.

>
>>> As I have said many times before, he isn't my favourite politician and
>>> he was certainly a drunk, but he did undoubtedly change history and
>>> your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.
>>

>> I don't deny that he was certainly a popular image at the time and a
>> notable rabble rouser. I rather believe that history was inradical
>> change without his help in those days.
>>
>> I am just trying to set matters right about his deeds or the lack
>> thereof.

>>
>> It seems that his dogged insistence of set piece battles (already out
>> of date shown in WW1 when flight made it impossible to move massed
>> troops secretly.
>

> You do, of course, have some examples of failed set piece battles he
> insisted on people fighting.

>
>
>> When the USA entered the war, whatever made the US military
>> concentrate on Europe rather than the US's more immediate problems, it
>> wasn't Churchill.
>

> Actually it probably was.
>
> A deal had been made between the two heads of government and it certainly
> wasn't the USA thatw as pushing for a 'Germany first' policy that didn't
> meet their short term needs.
>
>> It may well have been the threat of the Atom Bomb; I believe the need
>> for allied combined research and Britain's parlous state made any work
>> on that in Britain too risky.
>
> The US didn't know a bomb was possible until after the Germany First
> policy had been agreed.
>
>> Finances certainly would have curtailed British research. I believe a
>> lot of military and semi military research was exported to the States
>> in the early days of the war. The canard for jet aircraft for example.
>
> That 'I believe' is a bit of a give away isn't it.
>
> Any proof or did you just make it all up?

>
>> Whatever the case, the arrival of military advisers eventually taking
>> over leadership of all European allied forces. Thought the USA could
>> be cajoled into the disastrous set pieces Churchill advocated,
>

> Name them please.

>
>
> they
>> were reticent about his objectives not solely because of his part in
>> the WW1 failure in the Dardanelles.
>

> Balls.
>
> You really are full of shit.
>


He really was instrumental is the clusterfuck known as Gallipoli.
Something the British staff declared a bad idea in 1907 and which the
politicians ignored in 1915.
and when not advocation machine gunning striking workers and gassing Kurds
he was all for declaring war on Stalin over Finland, fortunately he wasn't
in power.

p.s. Half of Europe was "saved" from a genocidal maniac by handing it over
to another genocidal maniac.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s25ol7t7j7td01o7u...@4ax.com...

> William Black <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/03/12 22:34, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 4:30 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E.
>>>> Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>>>>
>>>>> And that's it?
>>>>> A regular super hero.
>>>>
>>>> Duplicitous bastard.
>>>
>>> Quite.
>>>
>>> Giving Half of Europe to a proven genocidal maniac hardly resolved the
>>> issue over which Britain declared war on Germany.
>>
>>He didn't declare that war.
>>
>

> Uh, he didn't say he did. He said BRITAIN did.

>
>>
>>> When the USA entered the war, whatever made the US military
>>> concentrate on Europe rather than the US's more immediate problems, it
>>> wasn't Churchill.
>>
>>Actually it probably was.
>>
>>A deal had been made between the two heads of government and it
>>certainly wasn't the USA thatw as pushing for a 'Germany first' policy
>>that didn't meet their short term needs.
>>
>

> You largely got 'Germany First' because after Pearl Harbor we didn't
> have the capability to do Japan first. We needed to build up the Navy
> and amphibious forces first.

>
>>
>>> It may well have been the threat of the Atom Bomb; I believe the need
>>> for allied combined research and Britain's parlous state made any work
>>> on that in Britain too risky.
>>
>>The US didn't know a bomb was possible until after the Germany First
>>policy had been agreed.
>>
>

> So your claim is that a 'Germany First' policy had been agreed to TWO
> YEARS BEFORE THE US ENTERED THE WAR? Before, in fact, Germany and
> Britain were even at war?
>
> The US "knew a bomb was possible" before all that, you see. There was
> an August, 1939 letter to Roosevelt from Einstein, Szillard, Teller,
> and Wigner that did that. In point of fact, we'd shot past you in
> weapon research long before you decided to enter a cooperative
> agreement.

>
>>
>>> Finances certainly would have curtailed British research. I believe a
>>> lot of military and semi military research was exported to the States
>>> in the early days of the war. The canard for jet aircraft for example.
>>
>>That 'I believe' is a bit of a give away isn't it.
>>
>>Any proof or did you just make it all up?
>>
>

> So now your claim is that Britain DID NOT disclose that research to
> the US? REALLY? Don't you get whiplash whirling about like that?

>
>>
>>You really are full of shit.
>>
>

> It would appear that he is not alone in that.
>

We did Germany First" because they were the more dangerous foe while Japan
had already done its worst and was out of steam.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:jjh5e5$dse$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 3/11/2012 2:21 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>> In
>> article<12c56fab-0763-438f...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>> Weatherlawyer<weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that his dogged insistence of set piece battles (already out
>>> of date shown in WW1 when flight made it impossible to move massed
>>> troops secretly.
>>

>> I guess you've never heard of SOE
>
> Or the Commandos...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Commandos
> The British Commandos were formed during the Second World War in June
> 1940, following a request from the British Prime Minister, Winston
> Churchill, for a force that could carry out raids against German-occupied
> Europe.
>
>
>

Great movie fodder but just pin pricks.

[Ray O'Hara]

<cman...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2978038.3633.1331446689280.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtv42...

On Saturday, March 10, 2012 5:34:17 PM UTC-5, Weatherlawyer wrote:

> Giving Half of Europe to a proven genocidal maniac hardly resolved the
> issue over which Britain declared war on Germany.

The eastern half of Europe was not Churchill (or FDR's) to give to Stalin.
What gave the USSR the eastern half of Europe was not talk in Yalta but the
enormous sacrifices of their soldiers. The only way to eject them from
Eastern Europe would be another war, which the citizens of Britain and the
US were not willing to wage.

> When the USA entered the war, whatever made the US military
> concentrate on Europe rather than the US's more immediate problems, it
> wasn't Churchill.

It was the realization that Germany was the more dangerous threat, because
if they could fully steal the industrial and natural resources of Europe
they would certainly be a terrible foe, while the Japanese only had the much
less well developed economies of Asia to steal from.

> Whatever the case, the arrival of military advisers eventually taking
> over leadership of all European allied forces. Thought the USA could

> be cajoled into the disastrous set pieces Churchill advocated, they

> were reticent about his objectives not solely because of his part in
> the WW1 failure in the Dardanelles.

I recently read S.M. Plokhy's _Yalta: The Price of Peace._ It is a detailed
attempt to understand what everyone was actually saying at each point in the
meeting at Yalta. And the point I was left with was that each of the Big
Three (Stalin, FDR, Churchill) were motivated to a surprisingly large extent
by concerns from the 1890-1920 era.

In order of priority: FDR desperately wanted Soviet help against the
Japanese, and he wanted to fix Woodrow Wilson's failures and create a
workable organization like the League of Nations, but better. The
independence of Eastern Europe was his third priority. Churchill's top two
priorities were the protection of the UK lifeline to India (control of the
Eastern Med, Balkan issues, Montreaux Convention, Iran, etc.) and
maintaining a balance of power in Western Europe (an independent and
reasonably strong France AND Germany), with the independence of Eastern
Europe a third priority. Stalin's primary goal was to maintain a buffer to
prevent anything like WW2 from ever happening again, to gain things that the
Czar had either lost (territory from Japan lost in 1905) or wanted but had
been unable to deliver (renegotiating Montreaux), with rebuilding the
shattered USSR a third priority.

Note how many of the goals reflected thinking not just from 1930 but from
1920: things that had been issues when the Big Three were low and
mid-ranking politicians, rather than the essentially unchallenged statesmen
of February 1945. It is a good reminder that though historians work
backwards from the Cold War, the actual participants can't, and must
necessarily base their work on their previous experiences.

Chris Manteuffel


========================================================

The West could have reached Berlin first

[peter skelton]

"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message news:jjm1d4$30g$1...@dont-email.me...

That ensured the continuance of the war against the great evil of his
generation. His other contribution was, as has often been pointed out, was
to forge the alliance that eventually defeated it.

In other words, he lead his people where they needed to go and arranged for
the success of their struggle. What the bloody hell do you think the job of
a statesman is?

Peter

[Ray O'Hara]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1cfe0b4c-9ce8-4f4c...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

=================================================================

What would the Allies have done had Dieppe succeeded.?
and it alerted the Germans to the vulnerability of the coast.
the only unit to achieve its objectives at Dieppe was Peter Young's 3rd RMCo

[peter skelton]

"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message news:jjm31g$blt$1...@dont-email.me...

The other choice was to hand all of Europe, and incidentally a good chunk of
the rest of the world, to the first maniac.

That he was no tactical genius is not the issue, neither are his personal
habits.

[Ray O'Hara]

"William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jjjc0h$np2$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 11/03/12 21:24, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 7:34 pm, Andrew Chaplin<ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com>
>> wrote:
>> All the more difficult once you have to start working with allies.
>>
>>> and, as soon as you cross the start line, Sod's Law dictates
>>> that there will be a contingency.
>>
>> What were they in Dieppe and Market Garden?
>>
>
> Dieppe was a raid and so 'close ended' anyway.
>
> MARKET GARDEN was a cock-up.
>
> In both cases the contingency plan was getting as many people out as
> possible when it all went horribly wrong.
>
> Or did you think the survivors were just abandoned?
>

Ike should have either called off M-G or backed it fully .
Had they followed Monty's idea of concentrating on a single "deep dagger
thrust" the Germans would have also been free to concentrate their forces
against it.

Monty should have instead cleared the Scheldt Estuary and opened up the
route to Antwerp.
that would have shortened the War.

[William Black]

That is the sound of our Plastic Paddy moving the goal posts...

[William Black]

On 13/03/12 00:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> The West could have reached Berlin first

Is this before or after the German offensive in the West in late 1944?

And, be honest, look at the German resistance there, did we want to?

[Ray O'Hara]

"William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jjg404$rs6$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 10/03/12 17:40, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "William Black"<black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:jjfusu$t21$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/03/12 14:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>> the US supplied Tito
>>>
>>> Cite please.
>>>
>>> I never knew the US manufactured STEN guns...
>>>
>>> (
>>> http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Partisans/Russian-Yugoslav-partisans.htm
>>> Third picture down, the young lady has one)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> so a Sten gun proves only England sent help.
>> sure Bill.
>>
>>
> You're a liar.
>
> I said that it was Churchill's decision to support Tito.
>
> You then claimed that only the US supplied Tito.
>
> I showed that you were, at best, misinformed.
>
> That you were so incredibly badly misinformed when there's a picture of
> just about every partisan group in the world (Including the Chinese)
> between about 1941 and 1955 using STEN guns is almost unbelievable.
>


I did NOT claim only the US supplied Tito you half-assed phony Hindu.
and now you are making counter-claims to things I never said.
but that is youe MO. lie and obfusticate but at all costs avoid the truth.

[William Black]

On 13/03/12 00:15, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> What would the Allies have done had Dieppe succeeded.?

Define 'success' here.

It was a raid.

[William Black]

On 13/03/12 00:06, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> He really was instrumental is the clusterfuck known as Gallipoli.

True.

Which part of WWII was that in exactly?

[William Black]

It's so easy to make these sort of statements after everyone is safely dead.

If you wish to play 'what if' games there are 'what if' newsgroups.

[William Black]

On 13/03/12 00:25, Ray O'Hara wrote:
> "William Black"<black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jjg404$rs6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/03/12 17:40, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "William Black"<black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jjfusu$t21$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 10/03/12 14:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:


>>>>> the US supplied Tito

>

> I did NOT claim only the US supplied Tito

Liar.

Read the above.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 12, 11:56 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/12 23:38, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
>
>

> >   Yeah he looked all bulldoggy and he gave good speeches. But that was as far
> > as it went.

You think he wrotye all those speeches by himself?

We will fight them on the beacheth.
We will fight them on the shoretrh.

We will nevvah give in.

And?

We will fight them with broom thtickth we will fight them with petrol
bomth
And we will fight them with 18 year old half trained thargeants and
what remainth of the RAF after I sent the rest to Franth to get
killed.

> In the early period when he was Prime Minister that was enough.

Quite.

Quite enough to get your face filled it you talk the talk like that in
most pubs in Britain and don't have what it takes to do anything else.

Apart from undoing the air defence that his predecessors had the
brains to set up.

And Norway.

Then Greece.



And Crete.

Pretty nearly Malta, the feckwit. Good grief!

And Egypt or at least his part in that.
Whose idea was it that the Hood et al, should engage in fisticuffs
with an equal number of superior ships?

I'm only asking because I'd like to blame him for that too.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 12, 11:45 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message

My bad. I thought he was the bloke who pillaged Georgia.
That was a US state IIRC. Some say it still is.

Not sure.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 13, 12:17 am, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> That he was no tactical genius is not the issue, neither are his personal
> habits.

What thread was this meant for?

A man who was a military incompetent over-ruling his military staff
has some pretty dangerous personal habits.

Treachery not included.
(Because that isn't a personal habit so much as a capital crime.)

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 13, 12:26 am, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/12 00:06, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> > He really was instrumental is the clusterfuck known as Gallipoli.
>

> Which part of WWII was that in exactly?

Part One aka Great War.
(I edited the subject to suit you.)

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 13, 12:28 am, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/12 00:18, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "William Black"<blackuse...@gmail.com>  wrote in message

> >news:jjjc0h$np2$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 11/03/12 21:24, Weatherlawyer wrote:
> >>> On Mar 11, 7:34 pm, Andrew Chaplin<ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> All the more difficult once you have to start working with allies.
>
> >>>> and, as soon as you cross the start line, Sod's Law dictates
> >>>> that there will be a contingency.
>
> >>> What were they in Dieppe and Market Garden?
>
> >> Dieppe was a raid and so 'close ended' anyway.
>
> >> MARKET GARDEN was a cock-up.
>
> >> In both cases the contingency plan was getting as many people out as
> >> possible when it all went horribly wrong.
>
> >> Or did you think the survivors were just abandoned?
>
> > Ike should have either called off M-G or backed it fully .
> > Had they followed Monty's idea of concentrating on a single "deep dagger
> > thrust" the Germans would have also been free to concentrate their forces
> > against it.
>
> > Monty should have instead cleared the Scheldt Estuary and opened up the
> > route to Antwerp.
> > that would have shortened the War.
>
> It's so easy to make these sort of statements after everyone is safely dead.
>
> If you wish to play 'what if' games there are 'what if' newsgroups.

This is a WTF thread you numb skull.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 12, 11:50 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess you think [the United States of?] America started the Pacific war at Pearl Harbour too.

I rather believe they did. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
They couldn't start it in the Atlantic though, could they; convoys,
Reuben James' and all included.

They even got to open the firing.
Weren't they bloody clots!

[Andrew Swallow]

On 13/03/2012 00:17, peter skelton wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara" wrote in message news:jjm31g$blt$1...@dont-email.me...
>

{snip}

>> p.s. Half of Europe was "saved" from a genocidal maniac by handing it
>> over
> to another genocidal maniac.
>
> The other choice was to hand all of Europe, and incidentally a good
> chunk of the rest of the world, to the first maniac.
>
> That he was no tactical genius is not the issue, neither are his
> personal habits.

Churchill knew to win fight your enemies one at at time.

His order was:
Italy
Germany
Japan
USSR

His iron curtain speech declared/announced the Cold War against the USSR.

The Korean war was soon against China.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 13/03/2012 00:25, William Black wrote:
> On 13/03/12 00:15, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>
>> What would the Allies have done had Dieppe succeeded.?
>
>
> Define 'success' here.
>
> It was a raid.
>
>

Success - taking the town without getting wiped out.

Following success the Allies would have repeated Dieppe with twice the
troops in 1943. IMHO They would have been insufficient to capture Germany.

Andrew Swallow

[cman...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 12, 2012 8:11:00 PM UTC-4, Raymond O&#39;Hara wrote:

> The West could have reached Berlin first

In theory. At certain points the leading edge of the Western Allies armies was closer to Berlin than the leading edges of the Soviet armies. However:

A) The Battle of Berlin cost the Soviets over 80,000 dead. The entire war cost the US only 400,000 dead, so we're talking about 20% of the US casualties in the entire war to get a single city, tacked on at the end of the war. How will that play among the American public?

B) Stalin, aware that the Americans and British were surprisingly close, redoubled Soviet efforts, putting Konev and Zhukov into a race with each other to make sure that the city was captured as soon as possible.

C) FDR and Truman both needed Soviet support for the war against Japan, and pissing off the Soviets in Europe was not the way to get that.

This is why letting the Soviets have Berlin made perfect sense. Potentially getting a bit more of Germany for a moderately improved position in the Cold War was in no way worth extending the actual, shooting, extremely hot war against Japan.

Chris Manteuffel

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <a783761a-efcf-4058...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >>> All the more difficult once you have to start working with allies.
> >
> > >>>> and, as soon as you cross the start line, Sod's Law dictates
> > >>>> that there will be a contingency.
> >
> > >>> What were they in Dieppe and Market Garden?
> >
> > >> Dieppe was a raid and so 'close ended' anyway.
> >
> > >> MARKET GARDEN was a cock-up.
> >
> > >> In both cases the contingency plan was getting as many people out as
> > >> possible when it all went horribly wrong.
> >
> > >> Or did you think the survivors were just abandoned?
> >
> > > Ike should have either called off M-G or backed it fully .
> > > Had they followed Monty's idea of concentrating on a single "deep dagger
> > > thrust" the Germans would have also been free to concentrate their forces
> > > against it.
> >
> > > Monty should have instead cleared the Scheldt Estuary and opened up the
> > > route to Antwerp.
> > > that would have shortened the War.
> >
> > It's so easy to make these sort of statements after everyone is safely dead.
> >
> > If you wish to play 'what if' games there are 'what if' newsgroups.
>
> This is a WTF thread you numb skull.

okay so WTF are you good for?

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <f41799ec-4555-4248...@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > The CSA failed. The USA claimed their was no CSA and proved it.
> > Grant Faced 4 CSA armies. 3 he outright captured in the field.
> > Pillow/Buckner at Ft Donelson, Pemberton at Vicksburg and Lee at Appomattox.
> > the other army he faced twice. under A.S.Johnston at Shiloh after which with
> > A.S.J dead it had to retreat
> > and again at Chattanooga under Bragg. it fled the field in total rout
> > find anybody with a better record
>
> My bad. I thought he was the bloke who pillaged Georgia.
> That was a US state IIRC. Some say it still is.
>
> Not sure.

This is of course your problem: thinking that you are thinking

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <370b3712-6682-46b8...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> > >   Yeah he looked all bulldoggy and he gave good speeches. But that was as
> > > far
> > > as it went.
>
> You think he wrotye all those speeches by himself?

You can provide proof otherwise?

Didn't think so

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>We did Germany First" because they were the more dangerous foe while Japan
>>had already done its worst and was out of steam.
>>
>
>
> Poppycock! Please explain how Germany was 'more dangerous' and how
> Japan was 'out of steam' after Pearl Harbor.

Cowwect, Fwed, the people on the U.S. west coast were more worried about Japan.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> William Black <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 13/03/12 00:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>The West could have reached Berlin first
>>
>>Is this before or after the German offensive in the West in late 1944?
>>
>>And, be honest, look at the German resistance there, did we want to?
>>
>
>

> My father's unit was ordered to stop and sit in place for days until
> the Russians got to Berlin. So yeah, we could have gotten there days
> before the Russians did.

well, your father, should know...who could dispute
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> William Black <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 13/03/12 00:25, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>"William Black"<black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:jjg404$rs6$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>On 10/03/12 17:40, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"William Black"<black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:jjfusu$t21$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 10/03/12 14:11, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>the US supplied Tito
>>
>>>I did NOT claim only the US supplied Tito
>>
>>Liar.
>>
>>Read the above.
>>
>
>

> I paid my barber.
>
> According to your 'logic', above, I just claimed to be the only person
> who has ever given my barber money.

Fwed...Wee Willie *still* won't get it
;-)

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 13, 12:13 am, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara"  wrote in messagenews:jjm1d4$30g$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
>
> news:lf0nl7tc1orq77m9t...@4ax.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:30:40 +0000, William Black
> > <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 10/03/12 10:03, Weatherlawyer wrote:
> >>> On Mar 10, 3:25 am, "David E. Powell"<David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Did not surrender, ever.
>
> >>> And that's it?
> >>> A regular super hero.
>
> >>Duplicitous bastard.
>
> >>As I have said many times before,  he isn't my favourite politician and
> >>he was certainly a drunk,  but he did undoubtedly change history and
> >>your denial of that is less than elegant or honest.
>

> >>You're almost as bad as that Plastic Paddy O'Hara.  He's just plain
> >>thick,  but you've no excuse as you're nowhere nearly as stupid as he is.
>
> > Neither of whom could pass a simple test on Churchill.  People with
> > unmotivated irrational hatreds are hardly worth listening to,
> > especially when those are based upon falsehoods.
> >it's not irrational to think an incompetent drunk who bungled things he
>
> personally got involved was a hinderance
> not an asset.>Yeah he looked all bulldoggy and he gave good speeches. but that was as far
>
> as it went.
>
> That ensured the continuance of the war against the great evil of his
> generation. His other contribution was, as has often been pointed out, was
> to forge the alliance that eventually defeated it.
>
> In other words, he lead his people where they needed to go and arranged for
> the success of their struggle. What the bloody hell do you think the job of
> a statesman is?

Killing Canadians.
Blaming all the right people.

You tell me.

What IS the real job of a politician?

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 13, 4:39 am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <f41799ec-4555-4248-a1ad-7c078aeed...@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The CSA failed. The USA claimed their was no CSA and proved it.
> > > Grant Faced 4 CSA armies. 3 he outright captured in the field.
> > > Pillow/Buckner at Ft Donelson, Pemberton at Vicksburg and Lee at Appomattox.
> > > the other army he faced twice. under A.S.Johnston at Shiloh after which with
> > > A.S.J dead it had to retreat
> > > and again at Chattanooga under Bragg. it fled the field in total rout
> > > find anybody with a better record
>
> > My bad. I thought he was the bloke who pillaged Georgia.
> > That was a US state IIRC. Some say it still is.
>
> > Not sure.
>

> This is of course your problem: thinking that you are thinking.

Not true.

My problem is that I am nursing a thread in response to educated,
interested people from a culture that is yet to come out of therapy.

And regain control of itself.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 13, 3:28 am, cmant...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 12, 2012 8:11:00 PM UTC-4, Raymond O&#39;Hara wrote:
> > The West could have reached Berlin first
>
> In theory. At certain points the leading edge of the Western Allies armies was closer to Berlin than the leading edges of the Soviet armies. However:
>
> A) The Battle of Berlin cost the Soviets over 80,000 dead. The entire war cost the US only 400,000 dead, so we're talking about 20% of the US casualties in the entire war to get a single city, tacked on at the end of the war. How will that play among the American public?

You think that the peoples committee for getting hold of nuclear
science was hindered by any need to spare its serfs?

How many of the front line did Stalin honour?
The truth is he continued to kill them long after the war ended.
Starting with all the traitors that managed to survive as prisoners of
war.

There is something wrong with your maths.

> B) Stalin, aware that the Americans and British were surprisingly close, redoubled Soviet efforts, putting Konev and Zhukov into a race with each other to make sure that the city was captured as soon as possible.

Oh Genereral Getidunski, the British are close. Fire more bullets,
throw another serf on the fire.

> C) FDR and Truman both needed Soviet support for the war against Japan, and pissing off the Soviets in Europe was not the way to get that.

Ah that's the reason Russia became an ally over night. I wondered what
Patton said that was wrong.

> This is why letting the Soviets have Berlin made perfect sense. Potentially getting a bit more of Germany for a moderately improved position in the Cold War was in no way worth extending the actual, shooting, extremely hot war against Japan.

I tell ya what Joe, ya'all have Berlin and throw a few serfs on the
fire our way eh, buddy; waddaya say?

Makes perfect sense.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 13, 1:53 am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/2012 00:25, William Black wrote:> On 13/03/12 00:15, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> >> What would the Allies have done had Dieppe succeeded.?
>
> > Define 'success' here.
>
> > It was a raid.
>
> Success - taking the town without getting wiped out.

Disaster - What happened next.

> Following success the Allies would have repeated Dieppe with twice the
> troops in 1943.  IMHO They would have been insufficient to capture Germany.

Apparently they wanted to capture some prisoners and talk to them.
Plant a flag.
And go home in time for tea.

Who did get the blane for that one?

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 13, 4:37 am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <a783761a-efcf-4058-b177-702b94650...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

Pointing out deficiencies in the thinking of certain parties.
But don't let logic get in your way.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 11, 1:35 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Weatherlawyer wrote:

> > On Mar 10, 11:26 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/03/12 21:41, Kerryn Offord wrote:
>
> >>> What about transfer of jet technology?
>
> >> Ah, well this buffoon thinks the British refused to do anything about
> >> jets at all.
> > You do?
> > You weren't that far wrong.
>
> > The RAF and the engineering company associated with Whittle, between
> > them, drove him barmy. It wasn't until two engineers were asked to go
> > and look at the Whittle engine that Rolls and Vickers began to take
> > him seriously.
>
> Well no, Whittle was in fact a serving RAF officer who had been sent
> by them to University to study engineering. In an unprecedented
> move that would never be allowed today they allowed him to
> patent his invention and set up a company to produce it
> even though it had been designed on their time !
>
> He actually signed an agreement with the engineering firm
>  British Thomson-Houston and the prototype was built
> by the newly formed company Power jets.
>
> In June 1939 the Air Ministry discovered during an inspection
> that Power jets was in dire financial straits but was impressed
> enough to buy the prototype and lease it back to Powerjets
> at a peppercorn rent as well injecting further development funds
>
> The government ORDERED the engine on the basis of the
> prototype in April 1940 with an initial order for 3,000 engines
> PER MONTH but Whittle's company was quite unable to actually
> put the thing into production.
>
> Whittle at this point was still a serving RAF Officer and had in
> fact been promoted to Wing  Commander. He was an
> extremely difficult man to work with being exceptionally
> intolerant of other people and relationships with the the
> first contractor Rover deteriorated to the point that they
> wanted nothing more than to get out of the contract.
>
> In the end a deal was done in which Rolls Royce took
> over the engine contract and immediately simplified the
> design and were finally able to get the thing in production.
>
> Much has been made of the factthat the government nationalized
> Power Jets but recall that Whittle was given £100,000 pounds
> for a development that he made while being paid his RAF
> salary. It also needs to be recalled that it was Whittle hismlf
> who suggested the company be nationalised in the vain hope
> that he could somehow stay in command after being bought out.

Not quite, but almost.

Plus the double dealing of the management of the firm that should have
been helping him with the engineering drove him to the point of
nervous breakdown.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Mar 11, 10:27 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
bug...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> So you are saying he was inspected by inept engineers?

The rest is history.

[William Black]

That's because you're not bright enough to check your facts before posting.

In this day and age that indicates a level of intelligence that society
in general should be concerned about in someone not in some sort of
residential care.

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[William Black]

On 13/03/12 01:53, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 13/03/2012 00:25, William Black wrote:
>> On 13/03/12 00:15, Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>> What would the Allies have done had Dieppe succeeded.?
>>
>>
>> Define 'success' here.
>>
>> It was a raid.
>>
>>
> Success - taking the town without getting wiped out.

Didn't matter.

What it did show was that the military technology of the day wasn't
capable of getting heavy equipment off a pebble beach.