Yank's don't understand Europe- most never go there
B. Weidmann
Paolo Pizzi schrieb in Nachricht <349B490F...@earthlink.net>...
>Interesting, when it's European entertainment products
>being exported all over the world and wiping out indigenous
>music and theater with opera and Shakespeare you call it
>"culture", when it's US entertainment products doing exactly
>the same in reverse you call it "imperialism".
Agree. "De gustibus non est disputandum." :-)
But you probably understand that statements like the quote below might
influence the view of *some* europeans...
He wasnt kidding thats for sure...
Mr. Don McDonald 22.12.97 at alt.activism.death-penalty:
--------quote---------
"After all, this is the United States (the greatest country on the face of
the Earth,
BTW) that we're talking about, not some backward little European
country.
> It may come as a surprise to you but not everyone is american
More's the pity for them. :-(
> so they
> dont know where your ex presidents came from and they also dont know
> and mostly dont care, where your little rock and roll museum is.
Such a parochial view. Not surprising given that you don't enjoy
the luxury of being an American. Just to broaden your world view,
he's talking about Cleveland, Ohio. Where The Rock-n-Roll museum
is. You know; where Drew Carey lives. "...All the little chicks
with the crimson lips, singing Cleveland ROCKS!, Cleveland ROCKS!
Ohio!... Ohio!... Ohio!...".
-------end-quote------
See?
Regards
B. Weidmann
--
In Order to reply by Email please use: bwei...@gmx.net
Bwei...@rocketmail.com is just my "Trashcan".
-"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and the whole
world will be blind and toothless." -M. K. Gandhi-
Alan Pollock
deso...@bama.ua.edu wrote:
>You're defending Americans who for the most part criticized America (snip)
Actually, I'm not defending those Americans at all. I was replying to a
poster who had stated that we had no culture, no writers etc. I then
enumerated a few.
>I'm an American, but I'm afraid in this one thing I'll have to agree with
>Sigmund Freud when he said: "America is a mistake, a giant mistake."
I disagree. Self-criticism is a good quality, as it allows one to attempt
corrections, changes. That's what America is: a roiling cauldron of change
and experimentation.
The writers you quoted said what needed saying. I'm glad of it, as you
probably are. Where we differ is in our conclusions. I see such honesty as a
reflection of the work in progress this country is. It's sometimes raukus,
brash, fast and loose, but it's full of vitality and I wouldn't have it any
other way. Nex
__________________________________________________________________________
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms, perhaps
then in springtime our hearts would be at peace." Ariwara no Narihira
__________________________________________________________________________
houghi
On 25 Dec 1997 06:12:33 GMT, ne...@king.cts.com (Alan Pollock) wrote:
>
>deso...@bama.ua.edu wrote:
>
<snip>
Thanks for the X-post and a merry X-mas an happy newyear.
--
houghi - delete one houghi from the return adress
> If you reply, please do not post in HTML or MIME.
> I CAN read it, but I will not react.
> Keep Usenet a tidy place, just like your neighborhood.
Bari Rat
Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
>
> On 24 Dec 1997, Alan Pollock wrote:
>
> > Faulkner? Aaron Copeland? Hemingway? Emerson? Thoreau? Jackson
> Pollock? Robert Frost? I could go on, but I'm not yet sure if any of those
> names are familiar to you. Nex
>
> You're defending Americans who for the most part criticized America
> Lost Generation, fled to Europe with other Americans sickened by the war
> (F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc.). Burroughs and Baldwin were practically
> exiled; Charlie Chaplin (UK) was barred entry into the U.S. America's
> greatest minds were anti-American (or anti-American governemt or
> anti-capitalism).
> And Thoreau had this to say about America:
>
> "This American government - what is it but a tradition...endeavoring to
> transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of
> its integrity?" ("Civil Disobedience")
>
> "The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they
> are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought
> against a standing government." (ibid)
>
> "How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today?
> I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." (ibid)
>
> ____________
>
> James Baldwin, on why he left: "...I most bitterly blamed the American
> republic..."
>
> __________________
>
> Mark Twain: "I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eage put
> its talons on any other land." (Oct. 15, 1900)
> again: "On thes terms I would rather be a traitor than an
> archangel. On these terms I am quite willing to be called a traitor -
> quite willing to wear that honorable badge - and not willing to be
> affronted with the title of Patriot and classed with the General Funstons
> of the world when so help me God I have not done anything to deserve it."
> (April 19, 1902)
> again: "The political and commercial morals of the United States
> are not merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet."
> again: "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there
> is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
>
> ______________
>
> Kurt Vonnegut: "We are the most hated nation on Earth."
> _____________
>
> William James: "We used to believe that we were of a different clay from
> other nations, that there was something deep in the American heart that
> answered to our happy birth, free from the hereditary burden which the
> nations of Europe bear, and which obliges them to grow by preying on their
> neighbors. Idle dream! pure Fourth fo July fancy, scattered in five
> minutes by the first temptation [war in the Philippines]...It is good to
> rid ourselves of cant and humbug, and to know the truth about
> ourselves...The country has once for all regurgitated the Declaration of
> Independence and the Farewell Address, and it won't swallow again
> immediately what it is so happy to have vomited up...We are objects of
> fear to other lands." ("Address to the Annual Meeting of the New England
> Anti-Imperialist League," November 30, 1903)
>
> ______________
>
> John Dewey: "The average citizen of the United States has little knowledge
> of the extent of American business and financial interests in Mexico. It
> does not occur to him that, from the standpoint of intelligent Mexicans,
> that country is in great danger of hbecoming an economic dependency of
> this country. As things go, the Mexicans and other Central and South
> Americans might awaken some morning and find their natural resources,
> agricultural and grazing lands, mines and oil wells, mainly in the hands
> of foreigners, largely Americans, and managed for the profit of investors
> from foreign countries." (March 23, 1927)
>
> -------------------
>
> H.L. Mencken: "The American people, taking one with another, constitute
> the most timorous, snivelling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and
> goose-steppers ever gathered under one flage in Christendom since the end
> of the middle ages."
> again: "No one ever went broke underestimating the tastes of the
> American people."
> again: "Perhaps the most revolting character that the United
> States ever produced was the Christian business man."
> again: "I used to wonder why Woodrow Wilson was so excessively
> admired despite his palpable hypocrisy. Gradually the reason dawned on me.
> It is that hypocrisy is actually a kind of ideal in America. When the
> American cannot be really virtuous he becomes a hypocrite, and soon or
> late he convinces both himself and his neighbors that his hypocrisy is a
> sufficient surrogate for the virtue he lacks."
> ______________________
>
> William Burroughs: "Maybe we lost."
> again: "If this was the Middle Ages, and Magellen was an American,
> and we sailed around the planet and found out it was round instead of
> flat, we wouldn't tell anybody so we could attack from the rear."
>
> ______________________
>
> How about Bob Dylan: "They made everything from toy guns that spark to
> flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark; it's easy to see without
> looking too far that not much is really sacred." ["It's Alright, Ma (I'm
> Only Bleeding)"]
>
> ____________________
>
> Timothy Leary: "There's something very ominous about this tendency to call
> anybody that you don't agree with insane...Twenty years ago, they'd say
> you were a Communist. Not the really sophisticated totalitarian method is
> to say that someone who is a dissenter, who is against the society, is
> insane. In Russia, they're very smooth; they take their philosophers and
> their dissenting poets and they don't put them in Siberia anymore - they
> put them in an asylum. Now, maybe it's insane to be against what's
> happening in the United States. Maybe it's insane to have hope that
> something could be done about it. If that's insane, count me in...I think
> I belong in Americans society. I think that a society that imprisons its
> philosophers is playng with very bad magic. You can't imprison ideas. And
> the one thing that we can see in societies that become constricted and
> repressed is that the life flow goes out. It's a scandal, a national
> scandal, that I'm here." (from prison, Dec. 3, 1973)
>
> ___________________
>
> Malcolm X: "No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the twenty-two million
> black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the twenty-two
> million black people who are the victims of democracy - nothing but
> disguised hypocracy. So I'm not standing here speaking to you as an
> American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver - no, not I.
> I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America
> through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an
> American nightmare." (speech in Cleveland, April 3, 1964)
>
> __________________
>
> I'm an American, but I'm afraid in this one thing I'll have to agree with
> Sigmund Freud when he said: "America is a mistake, a giant mistake."
temporarily ) residence only ! The day that I escape permanently from
this sinkhole of a nation and return to the civilised old world will be
the happiest day since ...well, the last time I was there. Europe is far
more civilised than the USA. I have lived in both and I must say the USA
isn't up to the level of North Africa let alone Europe. Any American
worth a shit criticised the fuck out of the USA except for entertainers
who were hardly intellectual giants.What can you say about a country
that BANNED for 40 years books by its greatest living writer Henry
Miller. Its only a semi-free country and not truly free. You can take
your land of the right to bear arms and affirmative action and have it -
I don't want it. It took living in Europe for me to feel like I was an
actual complete human being. I would rather have Europe's problems than
America's any day.
Mark.J.Desocio
On Thu, 25 Dec 1997, Bari Rat wrote:
>>>> I'm an American, but I'm afraid in this one thing I'll have to agree
with Sigmund Freud when he said: "America is a mistake, a giant mistake."
> I agree 100%. I'm also an American by birth, citizenship, and (
> temporarily ) residence only ! The day that I escape permanently from
> this sinkhole of a nation and return to the civilised old world will be
> the happiest day since ...well, the last time I was there. Europe is far
> more civilised than the USA. I have lived in both and I must say the USA
> isn't up to the level of North Africa let alone Europe. Any American
> worth a shit criticised the fuck out of the USA except for entertainers
> who were hardly intellectual giants.What can you say about a country
> that BANNED for 40 years books by its greatest living writer Henry
> Miller. Its only a semi-free country and not truly free. You can take
> your land of the right to bear arms and affirmative action and have it -
> I don't want it. It took living in Europe for me to feel like I was an
> actual complete human being. I would rather have Europe's problems than
> America's any day.
I agree with you except on that last sentence: Europe's biggest problem is
combatting America's religious-like zeal to export ITS problems to the
rest of the world. I think it was The Smith's singer Morrissey, in talking
about McDonald's and shopping malls in the UK, said "I don't understand
why the British don't recognize this American invasion for what it is, and
take to the streets in a revolutionary fervor to kick them out once and
for all" [paraphrase].
Can you imagine if the rest of the world decided to stop buying
American products and kicked American businesses out of their countries
and reclaimed their natural resources? The world would lie in rubble, I
have no doubt about it. Hiroshima would look like Disney World compared to
what the U.S. would do! I may be exaggerating a bit, but think about it!
As soon as the world stops buying into the product that America is selling
it - America as paradise - the sooner it will realize that the U.S. may be
the single greatest threat to world peace, stability, and individual
freedom.
Michael
Alan Pollock
Mark.J.Desocio (deso...@bama.ua.edu) wrote:
:
:
:
And I disagree with your disagreement. Europe's biggest problems have more to
do with getting the Community to work better, the Euro, racism in countries
like France, and a slew of other items. Every area has its problems. To
believe that US culture is one of the biggest in Europe may just be a rather
US-centered view disguised as criticism. Nex
Joel
Europe should be happy the AMERICAN's saved their asses in the Great
War
and WWII.
With your head so large how can there be any room left in the whole of
Europe ?
unki
david....@club-internet.fr wrote:
>
> Joel <swi...@linkny.com> écrivait:
>
> >Europe should be happy the AMERICAN's saved their asses
>
> Thank us for that.
>
> And also for putting up with your nonsensical delirium.
>
> David Silberstein
and incorrect view of history. "We saved your asses" Ha ha do they
really believe that?
Paolo Pizzi
unki wrote:
> and incorrect view of history. "We saved your asses" Ha ha do they
> really believe that?
You're right, the nazis were defeated by European (German?)
partisans, the Americans only arrived when it was over.
This is more or less the "correct" view of history as taught
in European schools.
Pathetic...
Paolo Pizzi
Cypress, CA
U.S.A.
Donato Zipeto
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> unki wrote:
>
> > and incorrect view of history. "We saved your asses" Ha ha do they
> > really believe that?
>
> You're right, the nazis were defeated by European (German?)
> partisans, the Americans only arrived when it was over.
>
> This is more or less the "correct" view of history as taught
> in European schools.
Nobody ever told me this at school... (...Italy)
I was told indeed that nazis were defeated by britain, france, USA and
*USSR*... among others...
I wonder if this guy has ever been at school...and which kind of
school...
Donato
Anne d'Hooge
Donato Zipeto wrote:
>
> Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > unki wrote:
> >
> > > and incorrect view of history. "We saved your asses" Ha ha do they
> > > really believe that?
> >
> > You're right, the nazis were defeated by European (German?)
> > partisans, the Americans only arrived when it was over.
> >
> > This is more or less the "correct" view of history as taught
> > in European schools.
>
> Nobody ever told me this at school... (...Italy)
Or anywhere else in Europe.
>
> I was told indeed that nazis were defeated by britain, france, USA and
> *USSR*... among others...
Dutch, Belgian...(worked from Britain), Canadian,...
BTW, the Americans got stuck in Belgium, and the British saved their
asses.
> Donato
Anne
Paolo Pizzi
Donato Zipeto wrote:
> > You're right, the nazis were defeated by European (German?)
> > partisans, the Americans only arrived when it was over.
> >
> > This is more or less the "correct" view of history as taught
> > in European schools.
>
> Nobody ever told me this at school... (...Italy)
Oh yeah right, nobody tells in Italian schools that the partisans
liberated cities like Naples by themselves, right?
> I was told indeed that nazis were defeated by britain, france, USA and
> *USSR*... among others...
Right again, emphasis on the USSR, because you ARE convinced that
THEY won the war and not the Americans, right? I remembered you
already made a fool of yourself on this issue, if you want to
insist you're very welcome to and I'll gladly show that you don't
know anything about modern history again.
> I wonder if this guy has ever been at school...and which kind of
> school...
Well, judging by your poor English ("in school" my dear and names
of countries must be capitalized) I can say that your wonderful
European education isn't quite up to the standard...No wonder
you could never get your Ph.D. here in the States... (oh yeah,
right, you never wanted it, we know the story of the fox and
the sour grapes.)
Donato Zipeto
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > This is more or less the "correct" view of history as taught
> > > in European schools.
> >
> > Nobody ever told me this at school... (...Italy)
>
> Oh yeah right, nobody tells in Italian schools that the partisans
> liberated cities like Naples by themselves, right?
I never heard that. Actually, in most cases, the history of our century
is not "touched". Sometimes I wonder why...
> > I was told indeed that nazis were defeated by britain, france, USA and
> > *USSR*... among others...
>
> Right again, emphasis on the USSR, because you ARE convinced that
No, just because russians entered in Berlin, the capital of the Nazi
germany...
> THEY won the war and not the Americans, right? I remembered you
I wonder if you are able to read...
I will quote again: "britain, France, USA and USSR, among others..."
> already made a fool of yourself on this issue, if you want to
> insist you're very welcome to and I'll gladly show that you don't
> know anything about modern history again.
Sure... I know I can not compete with the "expert in history of the XX
century"... No one was able to make the whole soc.culture.italian laugh
as you did...
According to the level of cross-posting, your goal seems to be the
international fame...
> > I wonder if this guy has ever been at school...and which kind of
> > school...
>
> Well, judging by your poor English ("in school" my dear and names
> of countries must be capitalized) I can say that your wonderful
by the way, name of people too... How comes you never do it?
> European education isn't quite up to the standard...No wonder
> you could never get your Ph.D. here in the States... (oh yeah,
> right, you never wanted it, we know the story of the fox and
> the sour grapes.)
I don't know how many times I told this... When I asked to apply for
getting the PhD, 3 DIFFERENT professors, looking at my records, told me
that I could have been enrolled at the PhD level. They asked me if I was
willing to earn 20.000$ as a student, or 40.000$ as a PhD fellow...
What everybody would have done in my shoes?
hey, if you want a .gif of the Stanford certificate, I can send it
anytime...
Donato
Donato Zipeto
Anne d'Hooge <dho...@club.innet.be> wrote:
> Donato Zipeto wrote:
> >
> > Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > This is more or less the "correct" view of history as taught
> > > in European schools.
> >
> > Nobody ever told me this at school... (...Italy)
>
> Or anywhere else in Europe.
I am not surprised you don't know the guy...
He just excaped from the mental hospital of cypress, where he has been
during the last months...
> > I was told indeed that nazis were defeated by britain, france, USA and
> > *USSR*... among others...
>
> Dutch, Belgian...(worked from Britain), Canadian,...
> BTW, the Americans got stuck in Belgium, and the British saved their
> asses.
Right. Among others...
So, many thanks to the american soldier who helped europeans to defeat
nazis, but thanks also to british, australians, russians, etc....
There were not only american soldiers fighting during the II WW...
Donato
Paolo Pizzi
Donato Zipeto wrote:
> > Dutch, Belgian...(worked from Britain), Canadian,...
> > BTW, the Americans got stuck in Belgium, and the British saved their
> > asses.
>
> Right. Among others...
> So, many thanks to the american soldier who helped europeans to defeat
> nazis, but thanks also to british, australians, russians, etc....
> There were not only american soldiers fighting during the II WW...
This is hilarious, Ms. Hooge mistakenly talks about British
saving US asses in Belgium when it was exactly the other
way round with British troops being kicked at Arnhem (BTW Holland,
not Belgium) and the US coming to the rescue. And the pathetic
Zipeto just follows on without even knowing what he's talking about.
If on the other hand Ms. Hooge's meant the Battle of the
Bulge, claiming that the rescue came from General Montgomery
instead of General Patton's 3rd Army is even more ridicolous.
The US was not the only Allied country to fight in WW2, but
it was the determining factor of the ultimate defeat of Nazi
Germany. When Britain and her colonies were fighting alone
(sort of, after 1940 they already received substantial US
aid, like 50 destroyers rushed to the Royal Navy, more than
all of those owned by the German Navy) they only got their
faces slapped big time and the tide only turned in late 1942,
when the US industrial machine had started to go full steam.
Anne d'Hooge
> Sure... I know I can not compete with the "expert in history of the XX
> century"... No one was able to make the whole soc.culture.italian laugh
> as you did...
> According to the level of cross-posting, your goal seems to be the
> international fame...
He's not doing very well.
>
> > > I wonder if this guy has ever been at school...and which kind of
> > > school...
> >
> > Well, judging by your poor English ("in school" my dear and names
> > of countries must be capitalized) I can say that your wonderful
Poor English ? I suppose his Italian is better then your English.
>
> by the way, name of people too... How comes you never do it?
He can't even read a name correctly, let alone spell it.
Anne
Donato Zipeto
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > So, many thanks to the american soldier who helped europeans to defeat
> > nazis, but thanks also to british, australians, russians, etc....
> > There were not only american soldiers fighting during the II WW...
>
> This is hilarious, Ms. Hooge mistakenly talks about British
> saving US asses in Belgium when it was exactly the other
> way round with British troops being kicked at Arnhem (BTW Holland,
idiot, I am talking about the whole war, not about a single battle or a
single fight...
In belgium there were no russians... And I am thanking them too among
all others...
Donato
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
In soc.culture.german Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: The US was not the only Allied country to fight in WW2, but
: Germany.
Certainly it plays an important role. But determining? Far from that.
When Britain and her colonies were fighting alone
: (sort of, after 1940 they already received substantial US
: aid, like 50 destroyers rushed to the Royal Navy,
Yeah, and the Royal Navy sents carriers to support US operations in
the pacific.
more than
: all of those owned by the German Navy) they only got their
: faces slapped big time and the tide only turned in late 1942,
: when the US industrial machine had started to go full steam.
The Soviets fought two years two stop the Germans and another two
years to drove the Wehrmacht towards the borders of Germany BEFORE any
major US unit enter continental Europe (ok, they were in Italy since
1943, and hell, they really managed to engage nearly 10% of the
Wehrmacht: as much as the partisans in Yugoslavia did...).
In the battle of the Normandy the British and Canadian troops engaged
most of the German troops and also their best formations - and these
two took the highest casualties from all Allies in the Normandy. At
that time Germany & Co had 59 Divisions in the west (partly far away
from the battlefield at the atlantic coast etc.) and 25 in
Italy... and 184 Divisions in engagement with the Soviets and
partisans in eastern and south eastern Europe. During 1944 and 1945
German units were happy when they were transfered from the east to the
west front.
The German losses in the whole ground campaign in the west were
reached in the east in the battle of Stalingrad alone - and it took
several battles of the Stalingrad scale to disintegrate the
Wehrmacht. The Soviets paid with 10 - 30 million deaths for VE-day,
and the US?
I honour those US soldiers which fought in WWII, but most of the
credit belongs to other countries. The real ranking of who contributed
most to victory against the Nazis is inverse to Hollywood ranking.
Thomas Kr"amerk"amper
Paolo Pizzi
Donato Zipeto wrote:
> > This is hilarious, Ms. Hooge mistakenly talks about British
> > saving US asses in Belgium when it was exactly the other
> > way round with British troops being kicked at Arnhem (BTW Holland,
> idiot, I am talking about the whole war, not about a single battle
> or a single fight...
Well Mr. Zipeto, short of making a fool of yourself, we now expect
you to show us a good example of a major WW2 battle where British
troops saved US asses... Come on, that's almost new year and
I'm in the mood for great laughs.
Paolo Pizzi
Anne d'Hooge wrote:
> > > Well, judging by your poor English ("in school" my dear and names
> > > of countries must be capitalized) I can say that your wonderful
>
> Poor English ? I suppose his Italian is better then your English.
Tell me what's wrong with my English if you can, I could easily
do it with Zipeto's.
And I'm still waiting for your answer as which WW2 battle fought
in Belgium saw the British saving US asses. You don't want to make
a fool of yourself by not be able to providing any, do you, Anne?
Paolo Pizzi
Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
> In soc.culture.german Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : The US was not the only Allied country to fight in WW2, but
> : it was the determining factor of the ultimate defeat of Nazi
> : Germany.
>
> Certainly it plays an important role. But determining? Far from that.
On what base you state that?
Do you want me to list the humongous aid Britain and the USSR
received from the US? Would you still be willing to say that
it wasn't THE determining factor?
> When Britain and her colonies were fighting alone
> : (sort of, after 1940 they already received substantial US
> : aid, like 50 destroyers rushed to the Royal Navy,
>
> Yeah, and the Royal Navy sents carriers to support US operations in
> the pacific.
I take it you know very little of military history. The British
carrier fleet supported US operations in the Pacific no sooner than
1945, when the Japanese fleet (that had kicked their asses big
time in 1941-42 something like sinking TWO British battleships
in the same day) had already been virtually wiped out in the battle
of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf, ENTIRELY fought by the US
Navy on the Allied side. As a matter of facts the 7th fleet
(the British) was totally unneeded and uncalled for, it even
hampered US fleet operations as they lacked experience in oceanic
underway refueling. Nimitz didn't want it and he had very good
reasons (like the above mentioned one) to keep the British out
of the Pacific theater in 1945. The ONLY reason the 7th fleet was
aggregated was POLITICS, the British had to "win" something, and
if they didn't join the US fleet in 1945, their legacy in the
Pacific would only be that of utter defeat (see Malaya where a
Japanese force of one third the size of the British garrison
slapped their faces and conquered Singapore in a matter of weeks.)
Not to mention the naval battles of 1942 when the Royal Navy was
completely HUMILIATED by the Japanese losing two battleships, one
carrier and four cruisers in a matter of months, inflicting
virtually NO damage on the Japanese.
And BTW, by 1945 the handful of British carriers in the Pacific
had deckloads of AMERICAN-BUILT planes, most of the British ones
were simply obsolete or unfit for carrier usage in the Pacific.
> The Soviets fought two years two stop the Germans and another two
> years to drove the Wehrmacht towards the borders of Germany BEFORE any
> major US unit enter continental Europe (ok, they were in Italy since
> 1943, and hell, they really managed to engage nearly 10% of the
> Wehrmacht: as much as the partisans in Yugoslavia did...).
Again you don't know the facts. By 1943 the Russian had already
received an incredible load of supplies from the US. Much more
than what is commonly accepted. (Read the appendix on Albert
Seaton's excellent "The Russo-German war 1941-45" if you are
interested in the exact figures) Heck, Italy would have won the
war on their own in 1940 with the amount of aid Russia received
from the US. Something like 500,000 trucks, 13,000 AFV's
(of which 10,000 tanks), 20,000 aircraft, 11,000 railway trucks
and 2,000 locomotives, 90 freight ships, over 300 naval vessels almost
20 millions of tons of supplies. Did you know that? Probably not...
> In the battle of the Normandy the British and Canadian troops engaged
> most of the German troops and also their best formations - and these
> two took the highest casualties from all Allies in the Normandy.
That wasn't a deliberate choice, the Germans obviously tried to
hit the weakest link in the chain.
> The German losses in the whole ground campaign in the west were
> reached in the east in the battle of Stalingrad alone - and it took
> several battles of the Stalingrad scale to disintegrate the
> Wehrmacht. The Soviets paid with 10 - 30 million deaths for VE-day,
> and the US?
The Soviets had a high casualty rate because Joe Stalin
didn't have much respect for life and would throw millions of
infantry conscripts against the panzers. Not too mention the
painful casualties that the Germans inflicted upon them in
1941-42, when the Russian were unprepared and the Nazi steamroller
would lay an enormous pizza of Russian blood (sorry, too graphic
maybe but it reflects what sadly really happened...)
> I honour those US soldiers which fought in WWII, but most of the
> credit belongs to other countries.
Most of the credit may not belong to US soldiers but it certainly
belongs to US industrial power feeding the entire Allied war
machine.
Nilo
Paolo Pizzi ha scritto nel messaggio
<34A9A444...@earthlink.net>...
>Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
>
>> I honour those US soldiers which fought in WWII, but most
of the
>> credit belongs to other countries.
**************
>Most of the credit may not belong to US soldiers but it
certainly
>belongs to US industrial power feeding the entire Allied
war
>machine.
**************
Peremptory and true!
Regards,
NILO
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
:> In soc.culture.german Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> : The US was not the only Allied country to fight in WW2, but
:> : it was the determining factor of the ultimate defeat of Nazi
:> : Germany.
:>
:> Certainly it plays an important role. But determining? Far from that.
: On what base you state that?
: Do you want me to list the humongous aid Britain and the USSR
: received from the US? Would you still be willing to say that
: it wasn't THE determining factor?
:> When Britain and her colonies were fighting alone
:> : (sort of, after 1940 they already received substantial US
:> : aid, like 50 destroyers rushed to the Royal Navy,
:>
:> Yeah, and the Royal Navy sents carriers to support US operations in
:> the pacific.
: I take it you know very little of military history. The British
: carrier fleet supported US operations in the Pacific no sooner than
: 1945, when the Japanese fleet (that had kicked their asses big
: time in 1941-42 something like sinking TWO British battleships
: in the same day)
yep, and six US battleships in the same hour.
:> The Soviets fought two years two stop the Germans and another two
:> years to drove the Wehrmacht towards the borders of Germany BEFORE any
:> major US unit enter continental Europe (ok, they were in Italy since
:> 1943, and hell, they really managed to engage nearly 10% of the
:> Wehrmacht: as much as the partisans in Yugoslavia did...).
: Again you don't know the facts. By 1943 the Russian had already
: received an incredible load of supplies from the US.
And built an even more incredible amount of supplies by themselves.
Much more
: than what is commonly accepted. (Read the appendix on Albert
: Seaton's excellent "The Russo-German war 1941-45" if you are
: interested in the exact figures) Heck, Italy would have won the
: war on their own in 1940 with the amount of aid Russia received
: from the US. Something like 500,000 trucks, 13,000 AFV's
: (of which 10,000 tanks),
Oh, I'm impressed, in over four years only four times the monthly tank
production of the Soviets...
20,000 aircraft,
Wow, not even half of the wartime production of one single Soviet type
(~40000)
11,000 railway trucks
: and 2,000 locomotives, 90 freight ships, over 300 naval vessels almost
: 20 millions of tons of supplies. Did you know that? Probably not...
Sure, you can't believe anyone could know something.
:> In the battle of the Normandy the British and Canadian troops engaged
:> most of the German troops and also their best formations - and these
:> two took the highest casualties from all Allies in the Normandy.
: That wasn't a deliberate choice, the Germans obviously tried to
: hit the weakest link in the chain.
Ah, that's why the US were close to give up Omaha Beach while the
Brits and Canadians advanced quickly...
:> The German losses in the whole ground campaign in the west were
:> reached in the east in the battle of Stalingrad alone - and it took
:> several battles of the Stalingrad scale to disintegrate the
:> Wehrmacht. The Soviets paid with 10 - 30 million deaths for VE-day,
:> and the US?
: The Soviets had a high casualty rate because Joe Stalin
: didn't have much respect for life and would throw millions of
: infantry conscripts against the panzers.
And he threw more tanks against German panzers than the US ever
built.
Not too mention the
: painful casualties that the Germans inflicted upon them in
: 1941-42, when the Russian were unprepared
...for defense only
and the Nazi steamroller
: would lay an enormous pizza of Russian blood (sorry, too graphic
: maybe but it reflects what sadly really happened...)
They also had very high casualties until the very end of the war, the
battles of the 'Seelower H"ohen' and Berlin.
:> I honour those US soldiers which fought in WWII, but most of the
:> credit belongs to other countries.
: Most of the credit may not belong to US soldiers but it certainly
: belongs to US industrial power feeding the entire Allied war
: machine.
The Soviets built most of their weapons by themselves - and often
better ones. The Brits often found that the US weapons were usefull
only after major improvements, like larger cannons for tanks or better
engines for fighters; and they built a lot of weapons by
themselves. The first determining step towards victory, the BoB, was
fought without any major US contribution. In North Africa Montgomery
saved the US troops for a desaster. In Italy the deciding breakthrough
at Monte Cassino wasn't due to US troops, which on the other hand were
close to ship in at Anzio, but were saved by British battleships. In
the Normandy British-improved Sherman tanks were the only tank of the
Allies with a chance against German Tigers, the Brits and Canadians
bound most of the German force, at Mortain British-built
rocked-equipped Typhoon fighters saved the US asses for a German
counterattack towards Avranches, but at Arnheim the US troops failed,
they were to slow to help the Brits...
But I don't expect you to change your mind, which we all know is
absolutly ultimative.
: Paolo Pizzi
: Cypress, CA
: U.S.A.
Thomas Kr"amerk"amper
Paolo Pizzi
Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
> : I take it you know very little of military history. The British
> : carrier fleet supported US operations in the Pacific no sooner than
> : 1945, when the Japanese fleet (that had kicked their asses big
> : time in 1941-42 something like sinking TWO British battleships
> : in the same day)
>
> yep, and six US battleships in the same hour.
Actually one, the Arizona which is still there, the other five were
fixed and later smashed the Japanese Fleet at Surigao straits in 1944.
The comparison is unfair, Pearl Harbor was raided when Japan was
technically AT PEACE with the US, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS
Repulse were arrogantly sent to kick Japanese asses with the wrong
idea that the little "squinted-eyes-yellow-monkeys" were no
match for them. What a waste of life, as usual poor soldier
pay for the arrogance of their politicians...
> : Again you don't know the facts. By 1943 the Russian had already
> : received an incredible load of supplies from the US.
>
> And built an even more incredible amount of supplies by themselves.
Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
> Oh, I'm impressed, in over four years only four times the monthly tank
> production of the Soviets...
Care to back this figure with something more than your voice?
Let's see if the Soviet produced 3,500 tanks a month that
means the overall tank production at the end of the war
would be 168,000 tanks. Hardly...Unless you believe USSR
official bloated figures, and given your political ideas
I'm sure you do...
> 20,000 aircraft,
>
> Wow, not even half of the wartime production of one single Soviet type
> (~40000)
Where did scrap metal to build Stormoviks come from? You tell me...
> : That wasn't a deliberate choice, the Germans obviously tried to
> : hit the weakest link in the chain.
>
> Ah, that's why the US were close to give up Omaha Beach while the
> Brits and Canadians advanced quickly...
If you knew the geography of the region you would understand...
> : The Soviets had a high casualty rate because Joe Stalin
> : didn't have much respect for life and would throw millions of
> : infantry conscripts against the panzers.
>
> And he threw more tanks against German panzers than the US ever
> built.
Again, think about where raw materials and scrap metal came from...
The US built less tanks because they also had to build bombers
and the hugest navy history has ever seen in order to defeat
Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
Japan two days after the first atomic bomb, very heroic...)
Without US bombers knocking German factories out at a very high
price in blood your communist friends wouldn't make it.
What about Russian bombers attacking German production, have you
ever seen one? I haven't...
And BTW, His Majesty bombardiers were much more safely flying
at night, the brunt of the Luftwaffe was taken by US flyers.
> They also had very high casualties until the very end of the war, the
> battles of the 'Seelower H"ohen' and Berlin.
Right, for the same reason: the typical Communist lack of respect
for human life, in order to gain few useless meters and claim
a tactical victory, the Red Army would have thousands killed,
something Americans (or British) would never accept.
> : Most of the credit may not belong to US soldiers but it certainly
> : belongs to US industrial power feeding the entire Allied war
> : machine.
>
> The Soviets built most of their weapons by themselves -
Oh yeah, now tell me where raw materials, scrap metal and food for
the soldiers and the production machine came from...
> In North Africa Montgomery saved the US troops for a desaster.
Not really, while it's true that US troops suffered a tactical
defeat at Kasserine by the DAK they surely weren't saved by
the Brits.
> In Italy the deciding breakthrough at Monte Cassino wasn't due to
> US troops.
That's a very limited view of history, yes the first troops
to enter the abbey at Montecassino were Polish, but would
they be able to pull that off without USAAF medium bombers
and fighter-bombers knocking out each and every supply train
heading South?
> which on the other hand were close to ship in at Anzio, but were
> saved by British battleships.
This is not true, British battleships (TWO...) were not much
influential, they didn't have much shore bombardment
experience (something the US Navy later mastered in the Pacific)
and one of them was soon knocked out of the fight by a German
radio guided bomb. The battleships were hardly necessary,
they were there mostly to scare the Germans off, but the
best bombardment results (like knocking out pillboxes) were
achieved by US Navy cruisers that could get closer and
deliver ordnance in a much more precise way.
Clint Hyer
Why is this thread being posted to soc.culture.new-zealand? I, for
one, subscribed to this group to learn about new-zealand views, not to
learn about the European battles of World War II. :>)
Clint
In article <1d235yy.oid...@blanc.imvir.pasteur.fr> zip...@pasteur.fr
(Donato Zipeto) writes:>Path:
newsreader.jvnc.net!newsserver2.jvnc.net!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu
!eerie.fr!jussieu.fr!pasteur.fr!zipeto>From: zip...@pasteur.fr (Donato Zipeto)>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.german,soc.culture.e
urope,soc.culture.french,soc.culture.italian,soc.culture.belgium,soc.culture.ne
therlands,soc.culture.swiss,soc.culture.new-zealand>Subject: Re: Yank's don't
understand Europe- most never go there>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:01:34
+0200>Organization: LIV - Institut Pasteur>Lines: 16>Message-ID:
<1d235yy.oid...@blanc.imvir.pasteur.fr>>References: <8812
12789....@wagasa.cts.com> <88297883...@wagasa.cts.com> <P
ine.SOL.3.95.971224...@bama.ua.edu> <34A3546B.4A
4...@freeyellow.com> <34A671C6...@linkny.com> <34af6981.10394
8...@news.club-internet.fr> <34A723E6.28C8@h>otmail.com> <34A73702
.4B5D...@earthlink.net> <1d20x74.1is...@blanc.imvir.past
eur.fr> <34A86D...@club.innet.be> <1d22svc.zc4ltjdq7n9N@blanc
.imvir.pasteur.fr> <34A8FEF0...@earthlink.net>>NNTP-Posting
-Host: blanc.imvir.pasteur.fr>X-Trace: montespan.pasteur.fr 88350
1176 7074 (None) 157.99.2.38>X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pasteur.
fr>X-Face: Hi]MS5S9TT{gP`[,Er?NP'^Z'F{Qgg^9o'=Te:w!54>Du|o-\!=o*k
b4RkT?,> Ve&uM@IJb:[s%@d^2?GZ>C0OfVq_6ADQExy*o5#siVGE_)6\4
~BN*~,(CwF%(b|*,ve[> Oi45m0n>X-Newsreader: MacSOUP 2.3>Xre
f: newsreader.jvnc.net soc.culture.usa:82904 soc.culture.canada:4
8163 soc.culture.german:22861 soc.culture.europe:40983
soc.culture.french:29621 soc.culture.italian:36164 soc.culture.belgium:24303
soc.culture.netherlands:32145 soc.culture.swiss:8521
so>c.culture.new-zealand:15608
>Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > So, many thanks to the american soldier who helped europeans to defeat
>> > nazis, but thanks also to british, australians, russians, etc....
>> > There were not only american soldiers fighting during the II WW...
>>
>> This is hilarious, Ms. Hooge mistakenly talks about British
>> saving US asses in Belgium when it was exactly the other
>> way round with British troops being kicked at Arnhem (BTW Holland,
>idiot, I am talking about the whole war, not about a single battle or a
>single fight...
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
: Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
: that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
: films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
Ever seen a map? Your '1/3' is nonsense.
:> Oh, I'm impressed, in over four years only four times the monthly tank
:> production of the Soviets...
: Care to back this figure with something more than your voice?
: Let's see if the Soviet produced 3,500 tanks a month that
: means the overall tank production at the end of the war
: would be 168,000 tanks. Hardly...Unless you believe USSR
: official bloated figures, and given your political ideas
: I'm sure you do...
Wow, impressive demonstration of your math skills. In good old Europe
a quarter of 10000 is still 2500. And yes, this number of tanks
was produced in the USSR - even in 1941, when they still were more or
less at peacetime production level, they were able to compensate the
nearly 20000 tanks destroyed by the Germans. I'm not surprised that
you obviously can't believe this, since it doesn't fit into your
primitive US- and Europe-pictures.
:> 20,000 aircraft,
:>
:> Wow, not even half of the wartime production of one single Soviet type
:> (~40000)
: Where did scrap metal to build Stormoviks come from? You tell me...
I didn't say that the US made NO contribution. I'm just trying to
adjust your misconcept of the relations.
:> : That wasn't a deliberate choice, the Germans obviously tried to
:> : hit the weakest link in the chain.
:>
:> Ah, that's why the US were close to give up Omaha Beach while the
:> Brits and Canadians advanced quickly...
: If you knew the geography of the region you would understand...
Sure, the US troops fought always on the worst grounds...
:> : The Soviets had a high casualty rate because Joe Stalin
:> : didn't have much respect for life and would throw millions of
:> : infantry conscripts against the panzers.
:>
:> And he threw more tanks against German panzers than the US ever
:> built.
: Again, think about where raw materials and scrap metal came from...
: The US built less tanks because they also had to build bombers
: and the hugest navy history has ever seen in order to defeat
: Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
Could this be some kind of 'typical' US-american behaviour, calling
everyone not believing in US proganda a communist friend?
: Japan two days after the first atomic bomb, very heroic...)
: Without US bombers knocking German factories out at a very high
: price in blood your communist friends wouldn't make it.
Probably; maybe attacking civilian areas comes closer to US
professions (cross reference to your atomic bomb remark). But again,
the Brits had a very high share in that.
: What about Russian bombers attacking German production, have you
: ever seen one? I haven't...
: And BTW, His Majesty bombardiers were much more safely flying
: at night, the brunt of the Luftwaffe was taken by US flyers.
Right. But the only important military effect was the destruction of
the fuel industry - in late spring 1944 when the Soviets were already
winning in the east (the later destruction of the traffic ways only
kept the west Allied losses smaller).
:> They also had very high casualties until the very end of the war, the
:> battles of the 'Seelower H"ohen' and Berlin.
: Right, for the same reason: the typical Communist lack of respect
: for human life, in order to gain few useless meters and claim
: a tactical victory, the Red Army would have thousands killed,
: something Americans (or British) would never accept.
Exactly what I'm telling you. The US were never willing to pay such a
prize. If it wasn't for the Soviets we would live today under a Nazi
regime.
:> : Most of the credit may not belong to US soldiers but it certainly
:> : belongs to US industrial power feeding the entire Allied war
:> : machine.
:>
:> The Soviets built most of their weapons by themselves -
: Oh yeah, now tell me where raw materials, scrap metal and food for
: the soldiers and the production machine came from...
Yep, PARTLY they come from the US. The British Empire also had a large
share and both contribute only a fraction of the domestic production,
with some exceptions like plane fuel and trucks.
:> In North Africa Montgomery saved the US troops for a desaster.
: Not really, while it's true that US troops suffered a tactical
: defeat at Kasserine by the DAK they surely weren't saved by
: the Brits.
The Germans had to stop their advance due to Montgomerys attack in
their rear. And the Germans chose to attack the US troops instead of
the Brits, because they knew the weakest part in the line.
:> In Italy the deciding breakthrough at Monte Cassino wasn't due to
:> US troops.
: That's a very limited view of history, yes the first troops
: to enter the abbey at Montecassino were Polish, but would
: they be able to pull that off without USAAF medium bombers
: and fighter-bombers knocking out each and every supply train
: heading South?
Nope. Most of your bombers only attack a save civilian zone arround
the abbey, killing many civilians. The Germans enter the abby only
after the US attacks.
:> which on the other hand were close to ship in at Anzio, but were
:> saved by British battleships.
: This is not true, British battleships (TWO...) were not much
: influential, they didn't have much shore bombardment
: experience (something the US Navy later mastered in the Pacific)
: and one of them was soon knocked out of the fight by a German
: radio guided bomb. The battleships were hardly necessary,
: they were there mostly to scare the Germans off, but the
: best bombardment results (like knocking out pillboxes) were
: achieved by US Navy cruisers that could get closer and
: deliver ordnance in a much more precise way.
That's how you rewrite history. The German advance was stopped when
the British battleships move close to the coast and started their
bombardment - when the US headquarter was already shipped in.
Anne d'Hooge
Clint Hyer wrote:
>
> Why is this thread being posted to soc.culture.new-zealand? I, for
> one, subscribed to this group to learn about new-zealand views, not to
> learn about the European battles of World War II. :>)
Because he wants world wide fame of some sort.
>
> Clint
>
> In article <1d235yy.oid...@blanc.imvir.pasteur.fr> zip...@pasteur.fr
> (Donato Zipeto) writes:>Path:
>
> >Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> > So, many thanks to the american soldier who helped europeans to defeat
> >> > nazis, but thanks also to british, australians, russians, etc....
> >> > There were not only american soldiers fighting during the II WW...
> >>
> >> This is hilarious, Ms. Hooge mistakenly talks about British
> >> saving US asses in Belgium when it was exactly the other
> >> way round with British troops being kicked at Arnhem (BTW Holland,
I wonder when he will be able to spell my name right.
Paolo Pizzi
Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
> : Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
> : that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
> : films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
>
> Ever seen a map? Your '1/3' is nonsense.
I believe the one who needs to see a map of the ex-USSR is you.
Of course what I meant to say was 1/3 of the USEFUL territory...
> Wow, impressive demonstration of your math skills. In good old Europe
> a quarter of 10000 is still 2500.
The person I was replying to was talking about the whole AFV figure,
and 1/4 of 13,500 is a little less than 3,500.
> And yes, this number of tanks
> was produced in the USSR - even in 1941
Per month? You mean to imply that in 1941 the USSR produced 30,000
tanks? You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking
about.
> : If you knew the geography of the region you would understand...
>
> Sure, the US troops fought always on the worst grounds...
Again you're speaking from you ignorance. Get a good history
book and learn about Point du Hoc, then come back and tell
me it was a very easy spot to conquer...
> : Again, think about where raw materials and scrap metal came from...
> : The US built less tanks because they also had to build bombers
> : and the hugest navy history has ever seen in order to defeat
> : Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
>
> Could this be some kind of 'typical' US-american behaviour, calling
> everyone not believing in US proganda a communist friend?
No, it's not US propaganda, the huge amount of US aid to Russia
is a FACT that Socialist demagogues like you tend to ignore.
> Probably; maybe attacking civilian areas comes closer to US
> professions
Not so, I'd say that the wonderful idea of bombing civilians
was invented by your German friends in 1936 Spain (open
your wonderful European history book under the chapter:
"Guernica", if there is one...) and the person responsible
for the most civilian deaths in aerial bombardment in history
is the infamous "bomber Harris", not exactly a member of the
US Army Air Force... As you can see it's EUROPEANS that
are responsible for inventing such a monstruosity and
killing the most people by carrying it out.
> : What about Russian bombers attacking German production, have you
> : ever seen one? I haven't...
> : And BTW, His Majesty bombardiers were much more safely flying
> : at night, the brunt of the Luftwaffe was taken by US flyers.
>
> Right. But the only important military effect was the destruction of
> the fuel industry
Nonsense, again. And even if this made-up tidbit was true I
believe that depriving your enemy of fuel is no small feat...
> : Right, for the same reason: the typical Communist lack of respect
> : for human life, in order to gain few useless meters and claim
> : a tactical victory, the Red Army would have thousands killed,
> : something Americans (or British) would never accept.
>
> Exactly what I'm telling you. The US were never willing to pay such a
> prize. If it wasn't for the Soviets we would live today under a Nazi
> regime.
Horseshit. The Russian high casualty rate was pointless, just to
satisfy that monster of Stalin whom I take you admire a lot.
And again horseshit and a slap in the face to the thousands of
US bombers dead in the European skys so that a jerk like you
could be free to spit on their graveyards.
> : Oh yeah, now tell me where raw materials, scrap metal and food for
> : the soldiers and the production machine came from...
>
> Yep, PARTLY they come from the US.
No way, you don't know anything about military history, that's
clear to everyone. The USSR just didn't have the kind of
logistics needed to carry out a war on that scale, without
US food, trucks, trains and any sort of supplies they would
have lost big time. When WW2 started the Russian infantry was
one of the LEAST mechanized in the whole Europe. As a matter
of facts as late as 1944 most of their artillery was still
horse-pushed.
> The British Empire also had a large share
In raw materials? You've got to be kidding...
> and both contribute only a fraction of the domestic production,
> with some exceptions like plane fuel and trucks.
Oh yeah, planes, fuel and trucks, no big deal right?
Now imagine that the US wasn't in the fight, no aid
to USSR and the bulk of the Luftwaffe fighters on the
Eastern front instead of in German skies trying to
repel US bombers. Could the Soviets still produce 40,000
Stormoviks (ground attack planes, sitting ducks
for Luftwaffe fighters) and go about killing German
tanks with near impunity? More likely they had to
produce an incredible amount of fighters themselves
to face their German counterparts, a daunting task
without any foreign scrap metal to use, and probably
they could only have produced less than 1/4 of their
IL2's... (and of course most of them would have easily
fell prey of hordes of Me109's and FW190's that just
WEREN'T THERE because they were too busy defending
Germany from US bombers...)
Got the picture?
> : Not really, while it's true that US troops suffered a tactical
> : defeat at Kasserine by the DAK they surely weren't saved by
> : the Brits.
>
> The Germans had to stop their advance due to Montgomerys attack in
> their rear. And the Germans chose to attack the US troops instead of
> the Brits, because they knew the weakest part in the line.
This does not prove that the Brits saved US asses by any stretch
of the imagination. Yes, US troops in 1942 Africa didn't have
any combat experience, unlike their British comrades, but they
did learn fast...
> : That's a very limited view of history, yes the first troops
> : to enter the abbey at Montecassino were Polish, but would
> : they be able to pull that off without USAAF medium bombers
> : and fighter-bombers knocking out each and every supply train
> : heading South?
>
> Nope. Most of your bombers only attack a save civilian zone arround
> the abbey, killing many civilians. The Germans enter the abby only
> after the US attacks.
Again you don't know nothing of military history and you'd better
keep quiet instead of blundering with such ludicrous claims.
Almost every German supply train heading South for
Montecassino was attacked and disabled by US P47 fighter
bombers based in Sardinia with stations and supply centers
destroyed on a daily base by US B25 medium bombers based at
Foggia. No civilians were attacked around Montecassino,
except for those who happened to work in strategic targets
like train stations and supply depots.
> : This is not true, British battleships (TWO...) were not much
> : influential, they didn't have much shore bombardment
> : experience (something the US Navy later mastered in the Pacific)
> : and one of them was soon knocked out of the fight by a German
> : radio guided bomb. The battleships were hardly necessary,
> : they were there mostly to scare the Germans off, but the
> : best bombardment results (like knocking out pillboxes) were
> : achieved by US Navy cruisers that could get closer and
> : deliver ordnance in a much more precise way.
>
> That's how you rewrite history. The German advance was stopped when
> the British battleships move close to the coast and started their
> bombardment - when the US headquarter was already shipped in.
Again you don't know what you're talking about. And as usual
I'll give you some FACTS against your BS:
Operation Avalanche:
TWO British battleships intervene, one of them, HMS
Warspite, is hit by two German FX1440 r/c bombs and soon
knocked out of the fight.
Now tell me that ONE ww1 vintage battleship with only 8 guns
and a lousy rate of fire could be more influential in shore
bombardment than dozens of modern cruisers with as many as
15 guns (smaller but with a rate of fire two or even three
times that of an old battleship like HMS Warspite or Valiant)
that can get MUCH CLOSER to shore. And BTW most of the US
cruisers already had radar controlled gun directors (if you
know what it means, I doubt it...) while the two British
battleships didn't. Obviously you know nothing about naval
things, I wonder why you try to challenge me, masochism maybe?
Your accusation of me re-writing history is ludicrous
and it only reveals your complete lack of knowledge on
this subject.
Paolo Pizzi
Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
> You're defending Americans who for the most part criticized America
> mercilessly (and rightly so).
You're right, that's exactly my point: while American intellectuals
are generally free and independent enough to get at their politicians,
Europeans aren't, they'd rather kiss their butts and get great
government jobs and power.
acti...@worldonline.nl
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
>>
>> yep, and six US battleships in the same hour.
>Actually one, the Arizona which is still there, the other five were
>fixed and later smashed the Japanese Fleet at Surigao straits in 1944.
>The comparison is unfair, Pearl Harbor was raided when Japan was
>technically AT PEACE with the US, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS
>Repulse were arrogantly sent to kick Japanese asses with the wrong
>idea that the little "squinted-eyes-yellow-monkeys" were no
>match for them. What a waste of life, as usual poor soldier
>pay for the arrogance of their politicians...
>
Arrogance. That's the right word in most of such postings.
If somehow they made massacre against Japanese asses, that would
have been called with other words.
>Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
>that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
>films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
Yes, you have a chance to see Russian combat movies all around,
especialy glorifying Americans.
>> Ah, that's why the US were close to give up Omaha Beach while the
>> Brits and Canadians advanced quickly...
>If you knew the geography of the region you would understand...
As any other defeat of any army.
>> And he threw more tanks against German panzers than the US ever
>> built.
>Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
>Japan two days after the first atomic bomb, very heroic...)
You dare to mention it. The biggest crime in human history!
Was that heroic?
And then:
>Right, for the same reason: the typical Communist lack of respect
>for human life, in order to gain few useless meters and claim
>a tactical victory, the Red Army would have thousands killed,
>something Americans (or British) would never accept.
Which army has a respect for 'trained to kill or be killed' human life? U.S.' ?
It is only a matter of percentage as you probably learned it.
>> : Most of the credit may not belong to US soldiers but it certainly
>> : belongs to US industrial power feeding the entire Allied war
>> : machine.
>>
>> The Soviets built most of their weapons by themselves -
>Oh yeah, now tell me where raw materials, scrap metal and food for
>the soldiers and the production machine came from...
Don't forget the air needed for their factory workers to breathe.
That was freely coming from all sides.
>> In North Africa Montgomery saved the US troops for a desaster.
>Not really, while it's true that US troops suffered a tactical
>defeat at Kasserine by the DAK they surely weren't saved by
>the Brits.
>> In Italy the deciding breakthrough at Monte Cassino wasn't due to
>> US troops.
>That's a very limited view of history, yes the first troops
>to enter the abbey at Montecassino were Polish, but would
>they be able to pull that off without USAAF medium bombers
>and fighter-bombers knocking out each and every supply train
>heading South?
>> which on the other hand were close to ship in at Anzio, but were
>> saved by British battleships.
>This is not true, British battleships (TWO...) were not much
>influential, they didn't have much shore bombardment
>experience (something the US Navy later mastered in the Pacific)
>and one of them was soon knocked out of the fight by a German
>radio guided bomb. The battleships were hardly necessary,
>they were there mostly to scare the Germans off, but the
>best bombardment results (like knocking out pillboxes) were
>achieved by US Navy cruisers that could get closer and
>deliver ordnance in a much more precise way.
Not a one admission. Did you mention arrogance?
>Paolo Pizzi
>Cypress, CA
>U.S.A.
Senad
Donato Zipeto
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Donato Zipeto wrote:
>
> > > This is hilarious, Ms. Hooge mistakenly talks about British
> > > saving US asses in Belgium when it was exactly the other
> > > way round with British troops being kicked at Arnhem (BTW Holland,
>
> > idiot, I am talking about the whole war, not about a single battle
> > or a single fight...
>
> Well Mr. Zipeto, short of making a fool of yourself, we now expect
> you to show us a good example of a major WW2 battle where British
> troops saved US asses... Come on, that's almost new year and
> I'm in the mood for great laughs.
Well Mr. Paolo Asshole Pizzi, in another message in the same thread you
are asking the same question to the person who said that...
Please use a little bit of your nut-size-brain and read back: "I am
talking about the whole war... etc." I never wrote about british troops,
asses saved, belgium and so on...
Do you really thinks somebody is going to give credit to you, after this
further desolating demonstration of stupidity? Do you really wanna make
a fool of yourself on all soc.culture.* newsgroups, after having been
for years the clown of soc.culture.italian?
Poor man...
Donato
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
:> : Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
:> : that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
:> : films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
Yep, and they called the spam the 'Second front', which might give
even you some idea about the quality of the US engagement.
:>
:> Ever seen a map? Your '1/3' is nonsense.
: I believe the one who needs to see a map of the ex-USSR is you.
: Of course what I meant to say was 1/3 of the USEFUL territory...
Nice excuse...
:> Wow, impressive demonstration of your math skills. In good old Europe
:> a quarter of 10000 is still 2500.
: The person I was replying to was talking about the whole AFV figure,
: and 1/4 of 13,500 is a little less than 3,500.
Another excuse... you were replying to my post, in which I without any
ambiguity tell you about the factor of 4 directly after your number of
10000. In addition I spoke explicitly of tanks. Learn reading before
you try to join usenet.
:> And yes, this number of tanks
:> was produced in the USSR - even in 1941
: Per month? You mean to imply that in 1941 the USSR produced 30,000
: tanks? You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking
: about.
So you idiot mean 7*2500 is 30000?
And don't mis-quote my posts as substitute for arguments. In the
original sentence the 'even in 1941' isn't related to the 2500 per
month figure.
:> : If you knew the geography of the region you would understand...
:>
:> Sure, the US troops fought always on the worst grounds...
: Again you're speaking from you ignorance. Get a good history
: book and learn about Point du Hoc, then come back and tell
: me it was a very easy spot to conquer...
Yo, the US had always a 'Point du Hoc' to attack...
:> : Again, think about where raw materials and scrap metal came from...
MOstly from domestic production.
:> : The US built less tanks because they also had to build bombers
:> : and the hugest navy history has ever seen in order to defeat
:> : Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
:>
The UK and SU together built as many planes as the US in WWII... and
used many of them before the US entered the war and even more before
the US played any significant role in it.
:> Could this be some kind of 'typical' US-american behaviour, calling
:> everyone not believing in US proganda a communist friend?
: No, it's not US propaganda, the huge amount of US aid to Russia
: is a FACT that Socialist demagogues like you tend to ignore.
Ah, now I'm called a 'Socialist'. Completly out of arguments now, mh?
:> Probably; maybe attacking civilian areas comes closer to US
:> professions
: Not so, I'd say that the wonderful idea of bombing civilians
: was invented by your German friends in 1936 Spain
Nope. Aerial bombardment of civilian targets was even common in
WWI. Bombardment by any kind of weapon is common since ancient times
when longe range weapons became available.
(open
: your wonderful European history book under the chapter:
: "Guernica", if there is one...) and the person responsible
: for the most civilian deaths in aerial bombardment in history
: is the infamous "bomber Harris",
Nonsense. The USAAF had a high share in the attacks of German towns
(for example, Dresden was a British-US joint venture, the southern
towns were almost exclusivly attacked by the USAAF). But the attacks
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the conventional bombings of other
Japanese towns like Tokio yield to the heaviest civilian losses due to
aerial bombing in the whole war.
not exactly a member of the
: US Army Air Force... As you can see it's EUROPEANS that
: are responsible for inventing such a monstruosity and
: killing the most people by carrying it out.
:> : What about Russian bombers attacking German production, have you
:> : ever seen one? I haven't...
:> : And BTW, His Majesty bombardiers were much more safely flying
:> : at night, the brunt of the Luftwaffe was taken by US flyers.
Yep, in 1944, when the Germans were already losing the war due to the
Soviets. And so effective, that 1944 was the by far best year of
production for the Germans.
:>
:> Right. But the only important military effect was the destruction of
:> the fuel industry
: Nonsense, again. And even if this made-up tidbit was true I
: believe that depriving your enemy of fuel is no small feat...
It was important. But it happend when the Germans were already losing
the war, due to the Soviet attacks. So by no means one could come to
the conclusion that the USA were the determining factor.
:> : Right, for the same reason: the typical Communist lack of respect
:> : for human life, in order to gain few useless meters and claim
:> : a tactical victory, the Red Army would have thousands killed,
:> : something Americans (or British) would never accept.
:>
:> Exactly what I'm telling you. The US were never willing to pay such a
:> prize. If it wasn't for the Soviets we would live today under a Nazi
:> regime.
: Horseshit. The Russian high casualty rate was pointless, just to
: satisfy that monster of Stalin whom I take you admire a lot.
I guess you build most of your opinions in such a way - just by
fantasizing.
: And again horseshit and a slap in the face to the thousands of
: US bombers dead in the European skys so that a jerk like you
: could be free to spit on their graveyards.
I'm not spitting on anyones graveyards. Those which are dead gave
anything they have.
:> : Oh yeah, now tell me where raw materials, scrap metal and food for
:> : the soldiers and the production machine came from...
:>
:> Yep, PARTLY they come from the US.
: No way, you don't know anything about military history, that's
: clear to everyone.
So you also suffer from shizoprenia, regarding yourself as 'everyone'?
The USSR just didn't have the kind of
: logistics needed to carry out a war on that scale, without
: US food, trucks, trains and any sort of supplies they would
: have lost big time.
Maybe. Most certainly no single country was able to stop the Germans
in the early fourties. But Great Britain and the SU together were
close to that. Maybe the US contribution was the last drop and
shortens the war a little bit, thus lowering the losses, but not more.
When WW2 started the Russian infantry was
: one of the LEAST mechanized in the whole Europe.
Maybe in your simple picture of Europe consisting of only four or five
countries.
On the other hand they also had the largest tank force in the World,
four times larger than that of the attacking Germans. And they had the
largest air force.
As a matter
: of facts as late as 1944 most of their artillery was still
: horse-pushed.
Not a bad choice in a country without many roads. BTW, the Germans
also had a large fraction of horse-pushed weapons and they used horses
also widely for general logistics - like most other armies at that time.
:> The British Empire also had a large share
: In raw materials? You've got to be kidding...
:> and both contribute only a fraction of the domestic production,
:> with some exceptions like plane fuel and trucks.
: Oh yeah, planes, fuel and trucks, no big deal right?
Right. The Soviets got 13% of their war time plane production via
Land-Lease, with a big contribution from the UK - hardly a determining
US contribution. Trucks were also not determining, since their army
essentially rely on other transportation systems. Fuel was one of
their smallest problems, but most certainly the US AND UK contribution
helped a bit.
: Now imagine that the US wasn't in the fight, no aid
: to USSR and the bulk of the Luftwaffe fighters on the
: Eastern front instead of in German skies trying to
: repel US bombers.
I remember most of the German fighters already deployed in the west in
1942 - long before any USAAF plane had shown up above German. That's
exactly your problem, you steadily ignore every actions which took
place without/before the late US contribution.
Could the Soviets still produce 40,000
: Stormoviks (ground attack planes, sitting ducks
: for Luftwaffe fighters) and go about killing German
: tanks with near impunity? More likely they had to
: produce an incredible amount of fighters themselves
: to face their German counterparts, a daunting task
: without any foreign scrap metal to use, and probably
: they could only have produced less than 1/4 of their
: IL2's... (and of course most of them would have easily
: fell prey of hordes of Me109's and FW190's that just
: WEREN'T THERE because they were too busy defending
: Germany from US bombers...)
: Got the picture
:> : Not really, while it's true that US troops suffered a tactical
:> : defeat at Kasserine by the DAK they surely weren't saved by
:> : the Brits.
:>
:> The Germans had to stop their advance due to Montgomerys attack in
:> their rear. And the Germans chose to attack the US troops instead of
:> the Brits, because they knew the weakest part in the line.
: This does not prove that the Brits saved US asses by any stretch
: of the imagination. Yes, US troops in 1942 Africa didn't have
: any combat experience, unlike their British comrades, but they
: did learn fast...
Why didn't they show somewhere afterwards what they have learned?
:> : That's a very limited view of history, yes the first troops
:> : to enter the abbey at Montecassino were Polish, but would
:> : they be able to pull that off without USAAF medium bombers
:> : and fighter-bombers knocking out each and every supply train
:> : heading South?
:>
:> Nope. Most of your bombers only attack a save civilian zone arround
:> the abbey, killing many civilians. The Germans enter the abby only
:> after the US attacks.
: Again you don't know nothing of military history and you'd better
: keep quiet instead of blundering with such ludicrous claims.
: Almost every German supply train heading South for
: Montecassino was attacked and disabled by US P47 fighter
: bombers based in Sardinia with stations and supply centers
: destroyed on a daily base by US B25 medium bombers based at
: Foggia. No civilians were attacked around Montecassino,
: except for those who happened to work in strategic targets
: like train stations and supply depots.
It's a well documented fact that the USAAF attacked the demilitarized
zone around the abbey, destroying all the century old buildings and
killing many civilians.
:> : This is not true, British battleships (TWO...) were not much
:> : influential, they didn't have much shore bombardment
:> : experience (something the US Navy later mastered in the Pacific)
:> : and one of them was soon knocked out of the fight by a German
:> : radio guided bomb. The battleships were hardly necessary,
:> : they were there mostly to scare the Germans off, but the
:> : best bombardment results (like knocking out pillboxes) were
:> : achieved by US Navy cruisers that could get closer and
:> : deliver ordnance in a much more precise way.
:>
:> That's how you rewrite history. The German advance was stopped when
:> the British battleships move close to the coast and started their
:> bombardment - when the US headquarter was already shipped in.
: Again you don't know what you're talking about. And as usual
: I'll give you some FACTS against your BS:
: Operation Avalanche:
: TWO British battleships intervene, one of them, HMS
: Warspite, is hit by two German FX1440 r/c bombs and soon
: knocked out of the fight.
: Now tell me that ONE ww1 vintage battleship with only 8 guns
: and a lousy rate of fire could be more influential in shore
: bombardment than dozens of modern cruisers with as many as
: 15 guns (smaller but with a rate of fire two or even three
: times that of an old battleship like HMS Warspite or Valiant)
The battleships also had in addition guns of cruiser level, but that's
not the point. The battleships simply had a much longer fire range and
did real damage, despite the psychological effects of the big shells.
: that can get MUCH CLOSER to shore. And BTW most of the US
: cruisers already had radar controlled gun directors (if you
: know what it means, I doubt it...) while the two British
: battleships didn't. Obviously you know nothing about naval
: things, I wonder why you try to challenge me, masochism maybe?
Challenge? No, I give you some of the education that you obviously
have missed.
: Your accusation of me re-writing history is ludicrous
: and it only reveals your complete lack of knowledge on
: this subject.
: Paolo Pizzi
: Cypress, CA
: U.S.A.
Thomas Kr"amerk"amper
Monty
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 07:35:34 -0800, Joel <swi...@linkny.com> wrote:
>Europe should be happy the AMERICAN's saved their asses in the Great
>War
>and WWII.
>
>With your head so large how can there be any room left in the whole of
>Europe ?
>
A co-worker of mine ( American, Texan even ) went apeshit when he
heard that the Dutch weren't too happy with security measures taken
for Bill Clinton, when he visited Amsterdam. He stated the same as you
do above. He said : " If it hadn't been for the US, you wouldn't exist
".
My reply was : " If it hadn't been for Europe, US wouldn't exist
either ".
Both very strong statements, both longshots.
Know your history before stating this kind of military supremacy BS.
Reason number one : Great Britain ( The battle of...... )
Reason number two : Russia.
Funny thing that Hitler made the same mistake Napoleon made......
Thank you,
Alain Montilla
Monty
I've been reading this thread for quite a while, and these statements
make me think you don't understand anything about Europe. I'm not
claiming I know a lot about the States ( only been there twice ), but
these statements make me want to puke. I want a motivation behind this
statement, not just plain old arrogance.
Thank you,
Alain Montilla
Monty
>unki wrote:
>
>> and incorrect view of history. "We saved your asses" Ha ha do they
>> really believe that?
>
>You're right, the nazis were defeated by European (German?)
>partisans, the Americans only arrived when it was over.
>
>This is more or less the "correct" view of history as taught
>in European schools.
>
Say, did you go to school on Europe? Must have been a lousy one.
This is NOT what I learnt. Do you know that this is taught somewhere
in Europe for a fact ???
Donato Zipeto
Clint Hyer <hy...@tigger.jvnc.net> wrote:
> Why is this thread being posted to soc.culture.new-zealand? I, for
> one, subscribed to this group to learn about new-zealand views, not to
> learn about the European battles of World War II. :>)
>
> Clint
Maybe because there were also new-zeland soldiers fighting here in
Europe during the WWII, and they deserve credit and thanks, don't you
think so?
Anyway, for a more technical answer, you should ask the originator of
this thread and find out why he decided to crosspost on all these
soc.culture.* newsgroups...
Donato
Paolo Pizzi
acti...@worldonline.nl wrote:
> Yes, you have a chance to see Russian combat movies all around,
> especialy glorifying Americans.
Yes, you DO have a chance to see Russian combat movies AFTER that
monstruosity called Communism collapsed, and not only the few
that trickled to the West during the cold war.
> >Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
> >Japan two days after the first atomic bomb, very heroic...)
>
> You dare to mention it. The biggest crime in human history!
> Was that heroic?
No, but it was pretty necessary to save at least a million
US casualty had an invasion of Japan been carried out.
And don't tell me that your Communist friends wouldn't
have used the atomic bomb on Berlin IF they had it.
> Which army has a respect for 'trained to kill or be killed'
> human life? U.S.' ? It is only a matter of percentage as
> you probably learned it.
I didn't mean respect for enemy lives, that is something brought
by today's PC that forces the US to compromise with ruthless
dictators like Saddam. Had Hitler waited 50 years there wouldn't
have been WW2, someone like Bill Clinton would concede him
anything he asked, just like Chamberlain...
Paolo Pizzi
Monty wrote:
> >You're right, that's exactly my point: while American intellectuals
> >are generally free and independent enough to get at their politicians,
> >Europeans aren't, they'd rather kiss their butts and get great
> >government jobs and power.
> >
>
> I've been reading this thread for quite a while, and these statements
> make me think you don't understand anything about Europe.
Oh yeah, right. Too bad I was born and raised in Europe, not in the
US...
> I'm not
> claiming I know a lot about the States ( only been there twice ), but
> these statements make me want to puke. I want a motivation behind this
> statement, not just plain old arrogance.
Have you ever seen European writers, directors, musicians etc. taking
a stand against their Socialist governments? Hardly... I don't see
how they could since their governments give them power, a huge
salary (oh yeah, they're artists, they deserve to be payed much
more than their real market value, taxpayers will foot the bill...)
and prestigious institutions to lead.
These are FACTS, hardly arrogance.
Pedro T
>Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
>
>> : Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
>> : that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
>> : films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
>>
>> Ever seen a map? Your '1/3' is nonsense.
>
>I believe the one who needs to see a map of the ex-USSR is you.
>Of course what I meant to say was 1/3 of the USEFUL territory...
Yes, but we don't read your mind. You wrote "1/3" of the territory,
you didn't mention the word "useful": But actually by the time the
Nazis attacked USSR, most of the industrial power of the country had
been moved to the Urals.
>Again you're speaking from you ignorance. Get a good history
>book and learn about Point du Hoc, then come back and tell
>me it was a very easy spot to conquer...
Maybe you're reading a nationalistic history book and you're not
getting the whole picture accurately. I'm not talking about Point du
Hoc, I'm talking about all your ideas about the WWII
>> : Again, think about where raw materials and scrap metal came from...
>> : The US built less tanks because they also had to build bombers
>> : and the hugest navy history has ever seen in order to defeat
>> : Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
>>
>> Could this be some kind of 'typical' US-american behaviour, calling
>> everyone not believing in US proganda a communist friend?
>
>No, it's not US propaganda, the huge amount of US aid to Russia
>is a FACT that Socialist demagogues like you tend to ignore.
Gee man, you still live in the Cold War era. This is the 90's. Wake
up!!!
>> : Right, for the same reason: the typical Communist lack of respect
>> : for human life, in order to gain few useless meters and claim
>> : a tactical victory, the Red Army would have thousands killed,
>> : something Americans (or British) would never accept.
>>
>> Exactly what I'm telling you. The US were never willing to pay such a
>> prize. If it wasn't for the Soviets we would live today under a Nazi
>> regime.
Mr Paolo Pizzi,
You say that the Americans won the war, you undervalue the importance
of the other countries in the war (specially Britain). But just think
about this scenario:
In 1940, the British are fighting agains the Blitz all alone. Imagine
that they lose the Battle of England, Germany dominates the skies, and
so, soon after Great Britain is occupied by the Germans. It was not
such an unlikely thing (luckily it didn't happen). Germany would
dominate most of Europe and would have no big rival. Therefore,
Germany wouldn't fight USSR (at least not so early).
What would be USA in this scenario, with no external markets? The
Great Depression had ended in 1933, USA wasn't so strong yet, and this
scenario would drive USA down again.
Germany would have time to develop the nuclear bomb (they weren't that
far away!). Plus, the Americans wouldn't have a base in Europe to
attack the Germans. Plus, they wouldn't have to fight just half the
German army (the Western Front) but all the army. I'm not so sure if
USA would succeed.
So what I mean is that, while helping the Europeans (and the Americans
helped the Europeans very much in the war effort), the Americans were
saving their asses too.
>No way, you don't know anything about military history, that's
>clear to everyone. The USSR just didn't have the kind of
>logistics needed to carry out a war on that scale, without
>US food, trucks, trains and any sort of supplies they would
>have lost big time. When WW2 started the Russian infantry was
>one of the LEAST mechanized in the whole Europe. As a matter
>of facts as late as 1944 most of their artillery was still
>horse-pushed.
Are you sure about this? Is that what your nationalistic American book
tells you?
Monty
Ah, hold up. I understand from your words that the intellectual
Europeans should stand up against their SOCIALIST government.
So that is where the problem is. Protesting against right-wing is out
of the question, I guess...
Well, if these statements are FACTS, and you have been brought up in
Europe, you know for a FACT that
A: Europe is divided into many countries. That means that you can not
judge a typical European, since there is no such thing as a typical
European. Maybe typical German, Frenchman and so on, but not typical
European.
B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
governments.
C : I could name ( and I will not, since it is so friggin' obvious ) a
lot of writers, poets, entertainers, journalists and so on that
protest against any kind of government in any country.
Btw, where did you get the idea that for instance writers get paid by
any government. What's this BS ? Are you a frequent visitor of
alt.conspiracy, by any chance ??
I know for a FACT that you're just full of it. If you think you can
judge all Europeans due to the fact you have been brought up here, I
hate to burst your bubble. Know why ?
You just didn't pay any attention growing up.
Would it be fair to say that you're a typical loudmouth yankee ?
Nope, it wouldn't, because there are actually a lot of sensible
Americans . You, looking at your posts about USA saving the world, are
not one of them.
Cya,
Alain.
Pedro T
>Have you ever seen European writers, directors, musicians etc. taking
>a stand against their Socialist governments? Hardly... I don't see
Socialism? There's a huge difference between socialism and communism.
It's better to call it social democracy. And actually...yeah, the
artist community is the most criticising, most of them don't have
those huge salaries payed by the state.
>These are FACTS, hardly arrogance.
FACTS in your own mind.
Paolo Pizzi
Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
> :> : Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
> :> : that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
> :> : films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
>
> Yep, and they called the spam the 'Second front', which might give
> even you some idea about the quality of the US engagement.
Again you're spitting on someone's grave, shame on you!
> :> Ever seen a map? Your '1/3' is nonsense.
>
> : I believe the one who needs to see a map of the ex-USSR is you.
> : Of course what I meant to say was 1/3 of the USEFUL territory...
>
> Nice excuse...
No excuse needed, the point was that 1/3 of the resources were
tied up and you can't contest it, most of the Russian tundra
and large portion of Siberia were plain useless in a war.
> : The person I was replying to was talking about the whole AFV figure,
> : and 1/4 of 13,500 is a little less than 3,500.
>
> Another excuse... you were replying to my post, in which I without any
> ambiguity tell you about the factor of 4 directly after your number of
> 10000. In addition I spoke explicitly of tanks. Learn reading before
> you try to join usenet.
Ehm I believe it's you who needs to give an explanation, it's you
who goofed the tank number.
> So you idiot mean 7*2500 is 30000?
OK comrade, you're losing big and you can only resort to personal
insults, like all your communist friends.
You stated that in 1941 the Russians produced 2,500 tanks per
month and in my book one year is made up of 12 months, regardless
of the start of Operation Barbarossa. Or maybe you implied that
Russian tank production before May 1941 was ZERO? Now, who's
the idiot?
> And don't mis-quote my posts as substitute for arguments. In the
> original sentence the 'even in 1941' isn't related to the 2500 per
> month figure.
I didn't misquoted anything, you stated that even in 1941 the
Russians were churning out 2,500 tanks per month which is
not only ludicrous but a clear sign of your ignorance and
your Communist fervor.
> Yo, the US had always a 'Point du Hoc' to attack...
No, only near Omaha Beach, where you said they were pinned
down blaming their inefficiency and you didn't know why.
> Again, think about where raw materials and scrap metal came from...
>
> Mostly from domestic production.
"Mostly" isn't enough a good argument to demonstrate that US
aid was useless. Care to talk about FIGURES like I did or
want to continue to speak only with your arrogance/ignorance?
> :> : The US built less tanks because they also had to build bombers
> :> : and the hugest navy history has ever seen in order to defeat
> :> : Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
> :>
>
> The UK and SU together built as many planes as the US in WWII... and
> used many of them before the US entered the war and even more before
> the US played any significant role in it.
Again you don't know what you're talking about and again your figures
only come from your arrogance and not from authoritative references
like the ones I quoted. 60% of the Russian air force was destroyed
(mostly on the ground) in the first months of Operation Barbarossa.
The Russian could only fly their IL-2's because there were hardly
any German fighters to counter them and they were free to go about
killing Wehrmacht tanks. Do you know where they were tied up?
Of course in German skies trying to fend US B17's off...
Learn history, you only know few tidbits that seem fresh out of
a Communist propaganda book...
> : No, it's not US propaganda, the huge amount of US aid to Russia
> : is a FACT that Socialist demagogues like you tend to ignore.
>
> Ah, now I'm called a 'Socialist'. Completly out of arguments now, mh?
You ARE a Socialist, even worse, you are a Communist because what you
say is EXACTLY, word by word, what Communist propaganda books used
to write about WW2. That is before the collapse of Communism and
before the National Archives in Moscow were open to reveal 74 years
of LIES and bloated figures that only die-hard Communists can still
believe.
> Nope. Aerial bombardment of civilian targets was even common in
> WWI.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha, this is a great one!!! There were no
bombers in ww1 capable of carrying out strategic bombing, the
closest you can get is the pathetic attempt of the Zeppelins
on London, more or less a dozen dead and a lot of smoke, that's
it. And again even if you accept this, it's still Europeans
that invented it!!!
> : the person responsible
> : for the most civilian deaths in aerial bombardment in history
> : is the infamous "bomber Harris",
>
> Nonsense. The USAAF had a high share in the attacks of German towns
> (for example, Dresden was a British-US joint venture, the southern
> towns were almost exclusivly attacked by the USAAF). But the attacks
> of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the conventional bombings of other
> Japanese towns like Tokio yield to the heaviest civilian losses due to
> aerial bombing in the whole war.
You see, it's again your IGNORANCE speaking. 80,000 people died in
the Tokyo firebombing raids, a similar figure died at Hiroshima,
including those who died of the atomic aftermath. The Dresden and
Leipzig bombing, pretty much a British business, completely unneedeed,
just for the sake of revenge (the two cities would be overrun
only weeks after the massacre) caused over 500,000 casualties.
> :> : What about Russian bombers attacking German production, have you
> :> : ever seen one? I haven't...
> :> : And BTW, His Majesty bombardiers were much more safely flying
> :> : at night, the brunt of the Luftwaffe was taken by US flyers.
>
> Yep, in 1944, when the Germans were already losing the war due to
> the Soviets.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha thanks again for great laughs. In 1944
the Luftwaffe was almost non existent on the Eastern front and
the Russian could enjoy the incredible luxury of having their
air force made up for over 50% of FIGHTER-BOMBERS that would
have fell easy prey of German fighters if there were no US
and British bombers in Germany.
You wonder why I call you a Communist? You don't know anything
about the history of WW2 but you know the Communist propaganda
bits very well and you don't even care to check some serious
reference when you get trashed by my arguments.
> It was important. But it happend when the Germans were already losing
> the war, due to the Soviet attacks. So by no means one could come to
> the conclusion that the USA were the determining factor.
Oh yeah, considering that the "Soviet attacks" were supplied by
US-made trucks, train and freighters I'd say that you have
scored one against yourself...
> : Horseshit. The Russian high casualty rate was pointless, just to
> : satisfy that monster of Stalin whom I take you admire a lot.
>
> I guess you build most of your opinions in such a way - just by
> fantasizing.
No, that's you. I have in excess of 2,000 books on military history
in my library, all you have is your Communist propaganda.
Read any serious book on the Russo-German war (Carell or Seaton
just for start) and you'll learn how millions of young inexperienced
Russian conscripts were thrown against the Panzers in useless
charges. And BTW learn of the Katyn massacre, perpetrated by your
Communist friends, something Communist propaganda books always
attributed to the Germans... So maybe you'll understand how LITTLE
respect for the life of their own comrades the Communists had...
> : No way, you don't know anything about military history, that's
> : clear to everyone.
>
> So you also suffer from shizoprenia, regarding yourself as 'everyone'?
What's shizoprenia, a new European dance?
> The USSR just didn't have the kind of
> : logistics needed to carry out a war on that scale, without
> : US food, trucks, trains and any sort of supplies they would
> : have lost big time.
>
> Maybe.
Mmm, sounds like you're starting to understand and thus
contraddict yourself. It's an improvement...
> Most certainly no single country was able to stop the Germans
> in the early fourties. But Great Britain and the SU together were
> close to that.
Exactly WHEN? Until the US joined the fray the situation was
pretty bleak on all fronts, especially the Russian. Again
study history and dump those Communist propaganda leaflets...
> When WW2 started the Russian infantry was
> : one of the LEAST mechanized in the whole Europe.
>
> Maybe in your simple picture of Europe consisting of only four or five
> countries.
Utter nonsense, smaller countries were obviously even worse-off.
> On the other hand they also had the largest tank force in the World,
> four times larger than that of the attacking Germans. And they had the
> largest air force.
Yes, you're right, so how can you explain that such a marvelous
military force was crushed and ridiculized by inferior German
forces in a matter of months? How can you explain millions of
Russians POW's in the hand of the Germans? How can you explain
60% of the Russian air force trashed to bits and pieces in
a couple of month? Shall we start talking about QUALITY instead
of QUANTITY?
> As a matter
> : of facts as late as 1944 most of their artillery was still
> : horse-pushed.
>
> Not a bad choice in a country without many roads.
So, I wonder why the Red Army was so quick in retiring the horses
and use a brand new US triple-axer in their places as soon as
they could get ahold of them. By 1945 most of the horses were
gone and the replacement was made in the USA...
> BTW, the Germans also had a large fraction of horse-pushed
> weapons
Not large by any stretch of the imagination, the Germans were the
first to use Hanomags to draw their 88's and quickly relegated
the horses to push general stores.
> : Oh yeah, planes, fuel and trucks, no big deal right?
>
> Right. The Soviets got 13% of their war time plane production via
> Land-Lease
Care to back this figure with something more than your
arrogance? I believe it's an impossible task since reliable
figures on Russian wartime production just don't exist
and the official ones have long been proven false by
Western and Post-Communist Russian historians.
And even if we do believe the bloated official figures
the total of aircraft in Russian service was roughly
80,000, 20,000 of which lend-leased from the US.
So, it's not 13% but a rather hefty 25%, and that even
taking Russian figures as reliable ones. (hardly...)
> with a big contribution from the UK
Utter BS, the Russian received no significant aircraft
contribution from the British, again you're just making
your argument up, you're just so unlucky that you found
me and not someone who believes your crap without being
able to prove it as such.
> Trucks were also not determining, since their army
> essentially rely on other transportation systems.
Such as? Feet?
> : Now imagine that the US wasn't in the fight, no aid
> : to USSR and the bulk of the Luftwaffe fighters on the
> : Eastern front instead of in German skies trying to
> : repel US bombers.
>
> I remember most of the German fighters already deployed in the west in
> 1942 - long before any USAAF plane had shown up above German. That's
> exactly your problem, you steadily ignore every actions which took
> place without/before the late US contribution.
Late US contribution? You've got to be kidding, show me ONE front
that looked good in December 1941. Russia? No way. North Africa?
No way. Continental Europe? Completely under the Nazis.
Again, what the hell are you talking about?
> : This does not prove that the Brits saved US asses by any stretch
> : of the imagination. Yes, US troops in 1942 Africa didn't have
> : any combat experience, unlike their British comrades, but they
> : did learn fast...
>
> Why didn't they show somewhere afterwards what they have learned?
They didn't? You've got to be kidding me, US troops were ordered
to slow down and wait for the commies for political purposes.
General Patton would be in Berlin much before any Russian soldiers
if Truman wasn't the wimp he was.
BTW, the vast majority of ex German generals after WW2 named
Patton as the best enemy general, not Montgomery, not Zhukov.
> It's a well documented fact that the USAAF attacked the demilitarized
> zone around the abbey, destroying all the century old buildings and
> killing many civilians.
USAAF bombers raided the abbey, this is true, but never deliberately
bombed civilians as you imply. And while destroying the abbey was
a mistake no single monk lost his life in there.
BTW, the US military were the ONLY to have "monument and art"
units which preserved as much as possible the art masterpieces
and returned them to their legitimate owners after the war.
Your Communist friends looted Germany at will, brought a
disgusting booty to the USSR and never returned anything.
> The battleships also had in addition guns of cruiser level, but that's
> not the point.
Again your fantasies are easy target for anyone who knows
even a little of naval history. No ww2 battleship has EVER had
cruiser guns, even the most sophisticated ones (US Iowa
class or Japanese Yamato class) only had 5" guns as their
secondary batteries and that my friends is the typical
mount of DESTROYERS, not exactly cruisers by any stretch
of the imagination. Again learn if you hate being trashed
by me every time.
> The battleships simply had a much longer fire range and
> did real damage
Yes, IF you can land your shell in the right place...
Quite hard when you HAVE to keep farer from shore
(and thus the range factor is gone) and quite hard
when all you have is an optically control fire
director as opposed to the US cruiser with RADAR
directed fire. Got the picture?
> Challenge? No, I give you some of the education that you obviously
> have missed.
Oh yeah, you think you're winning your little pissing contest
and you don't even realize how easy was to trash your made
up arguments. Battleship with cruiser guns, hahahahahahaha
what an education you're giving me, hahahahahahahahahahaha
Thanks comrade for great laughs.
Paolo Pizzi
Pedro T wrote:
> Socialism? There's a huge difference between socialism and communism.
> It's better to call it social democracy. And actually...yeah, the
> artist community is the most criticising, most of them don't have
> those huge salaries payed by the state.
Yes, and in order to survive they have to kiss the asses of those
who do. In absence of that there can't be any possible career.
The European artist community usually only reserves its blame for
the US.
> FACTS in your own mind.
Not exactly, Pierre Boulez, Giorgio Strehler, Jean Luc Godard,
Pina Bausch, Helene Weigel, Luca Ronconi, Tom Stoppard,
Kenneth Branagh, Luciano Berio, Werner Herzog, Jean Anouilh
(just to name a few) are/were powerful beaurocrats holding higly
paid government positions as "official keepers" of the European
culture. They'd never say anything against the Socialist/Communist
politicians that gave them power and money. There is no such
equivalent in the US, no such government great-money-great-power
position as "director of American Culture" unless "American
Culture" is a private company, often run by dedicated volunteers
instead of higly paid political kiss-asses like in Europe. Artists
are artists and not instruments of the US government that decide
what's good and what's not. They may be broke but they're definitely
much more independent then their kissing-political-asses European
counterparts. (This of course regardless of the quality of their
work, I leave arguments like "we're better than you" to arrogant
people like you.)
Again I'm giving you FACTS against your BS.
Paolo Pizzi
Donato Zipeto wrote:
> > Well Mr. Zipeto, short of making a fool of yourself, we now expect
> > you to show us a good example of a major WW2 battle where British
> > troops saved US asses... Come on, that's almost new year and
> > I'm in the mood for great laughs.
>
> Well Mr. Paolo Asshole Pizzi, in another message in the same thread you
> are asking the same question to the person who said that...
Yes, she was WRONG and you acknowledged everything she said,
hence you were wrong too.
> Please use a little bit of your nut-size-brain and read back: "I am
> talking about the whole war... etc." I never wrote about british troops,
> asses saved, belgium and so on...
No, you just ACKNOWLEDGED it, I know, too damn hard to understand
for you...
> Do you really thinks somebody is going to give credit to you, after this
> further desolating demonstration of stupidity? Do you really wanna make
> a fool of yourself on all soc.culture.* newsgroups, after having been
> for years the clown of soc.culture.italian?
He DID make a fool of himself, I knew it...
Paolo Pizzi
Donato Zipeto wrote:
> Do you really thinks somebody
Grazie per l'ennesima dimostrazione del tuo favoloso inglese,
tu si che sei uomo di cultura...
> after having been
Grande!!!
Paolo Pizzi
Monty wrote:
> >Have you ever seen European writers, directors, musicians etc. taking
> >a stand against their Socialist governments? Hardly... I don't see
> >how they could since their governments give them power, a huge
> >salary (oh yeah, they're artists, they deserve to be payed much
> >more than their real market value, taxpayers will foot the bill...)
> >and prestigious institutions to lead.
> >
> >These are FACTS, hardly arrogance.
>
> Ah, hold up. I understand from your words that the intellectual
> Europeans should stand up against their SOCIALIST government.
> So that is where the problem is. Protesting against right-wing is out
> of the question, I guess...
Don't tweak my words please. Independent thinkers protest against
ANY kind of power, right wing extremist and communists/socialists
don't dare to when their peers are ruling. Very simple. And that
makes European intellectuals pretty similar to those serving
Nazi Germany or Communist Russia...
> Well, if these statements are FACTS, and you have been brought up in
> Europe, you know for a FACT that
> A: Europe is divided into many countries. That means that you can not
> judge a typical European, since there is no such thing as a typical
> European. Maybe typical German, Frenchman and so on, but not typical
> European.
Sorry, regardless of the country Europe has an unfortunate tradition
of keeping the arts under political wings, I don't see how it could
be otherwise since arts & entertainment in Europe are HEAVILY (and
I stress the adjective) government backed. It's not by chance that
those politicians unwilling to cope with Nazism and Communism seeked
shelter in the US...
> B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
> your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
> governments.
Really? Are you sure or is your info based on what was happening
two years ago? Go check who's ruling France now and eat a humble
pie...
> C : I could name ( and I will not, since it is so friggin' obvious ) a
> lot of writers, poets, entertainers, journalists and so on that
> protest against any kind of government in any country.
Those who protest against Socialist regimes are usually called
"dissidents" and certainly they are *not* considered artists
by their governments. Name a European intellectual who has
any kind of power and is not a leftist. You have two options:
1. You believe that only leftists could be intellectuals
(and my point is well proven)
2. Intellectuals that aren't leftist are repressed
(and my point is proven again)
> Btw, where did you get the idea that for instance writers get
> paid by any government. What's this BS ? Are you a frequent
> visitor of alt.conspiracy, by any chance ??
Writers that write for movies are mostly paid by governments.
Writers that write for the theater are mostly paid by governments.
Writers that publish books for unprofitable publishing operations
which are only cover-ups of the parties to recycle some dirty
contribution money are mostly paid by the government (since
if the government didn't keep them alive with grants they just
couldn't survive.)
I'd say that you don't know much about how culture is managed
in Europe, or maybe, like many Europeans, you're just playing
ostrich and burying your neck in the ground.
> I know for a FACT that you're just full of it. If you think you can
> judge all Europeans due to the fact you have been brought up here, I
> hate to burst your bubble.
I don't judge all Europeans, fortunately not all of them are
Socialists and the ones that are free from kissing their
government asses do agree with me on most issues.
Of course I presume you call them "fascists" just like
anyone who dares to criticize a Socialist regime...
> Nope, it wouldn't, because there are actually a lot of sensible
> Americans .
Yes, the leftists, right? All others are a bunch of fools...
> You, looking at your posts about USA saving the world, are
> not one of them.
Thank you, intolerant Marxist, you've just proven my point
several times.
Beth Wise
On 02-Jan-98 10:00:57, Monty said in soc.culture.new-zealand:
>>unki wrote:
>>
>>> and incorrect view of history. "We saved your asses" Ha ha do they
>>> really believe that?
>>
>>You're right, the nazis were defeated by European (German?)
>>partisans, the Americans only arrived when it was over.
>>
>>This is more or less the "correct" view of history as taught
>>in European schools.
>>
> Say, did you go to school on Europe? Must have been a lousy one.
> This is NOT what I learnt. Do you know that this is taught somewhere
> in Europe for a fact ???
I really hope people don't believe everything they're taught in school.
Pardon me while I insert an anecdote: My sisters and I grew up seperately.
I stayed here in Pennsylvania while they moved to South Carolina. Up here
we were taught that the North won the Civil War, but my sisters were taught
that the South won. Now obviously both sides didn't win the damn war and
*someone* has been lied to. (And I won't even comment on how sad it is that
there's at least one small area in SC that harbors such a delusion.)
--
Beth Wise, alt.atheist #859 | "Your scientists were so
aka Ink on #Amiga, Undernet | preoccupied with whether or not
inky(at)csrlink(dot)net | they could that they didn't stop
http://inky.home.ml.org/ | to think if they should."
Amiga 4000/040/25MHz/18MB | - "Ian Malcolm," Jurassic Park
dickSHADE
>Pedro T wrote:
>
>> Socialism? There's a huge difference between socialism and communism.
>> It's better to call it social democracy. And actually...yeah, the
>> artist community is the most criticising, most of them don't have
>> those huge salaries payed by the state.
>
>Yes, and in order to survive they have to kiss the asses of those
>who do. In absence of that there can't be any possible career.
>The European artist community usually only reserves its blame for
>the US.
Your mind is full with non-sense stereotypes. It's useless to argue
against your stupid ideas, you'll never understand.
>> FACTS in your own mind.
>
>Not exactly, Pierre Boulez, Giorgio Strehler, Jean Luc Godard,
>Pina Bausch, Helene Weigel, Luca Ronconi, Tom Stoppard,
>Kenneth Branagh, Luciano Berio, Werner Herzog, Jean Anouilh
>(just to name a few) are/were powerful beaurocrats holding higly
>paid government positions as "official keepers" of the European
>culture. They'd never say anything against the Socialist/Communist
>politicians that gave them power and money. There is no such
>equivalent in the US, no such government great-money-great-power
>position as "director of American Culture" unless "American
>Culture" is a private company, often run by dedicated volunteers
>instead of higly paid political kiss-asses like in Europe. Artists
>are artists and not instruments of the US government that decide
>what's good and what's not. They may be broke but they're definitely
>much more independent then their kissing-political-asses European
>counterparts. (This of course regardless of the quality of their
>work, I leave arguments like "we're better than you" to arrogant
>people like you.)
Those names you mentioned aren't very famous, at least most of them.
That shows a lot. I don't care if the (non) famous artists you mention
are payed by the state and forbiden to say anything against socialism
(as a matter of fact, most surely would say anything against
communism, as most of Europe was untill not long ago dominated by
right-wing parties - England, Germany (still is), Italy, Holland,
Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, etc). But if you feel happier thinking
that USA is the best and the American culture too, who am I to ruin
your extreme happiness?
Actually the American artists aren't broke, they live with a lot more
money than their European colleagues. And stop calling everyone what
you really are. I don't remember anyone here saying "the European
artists are better than the Americans". You are really annoying Paolo,
irritating with your fool ideas about Europe. Get a life!
Philippe Chatiliez
The USA did not "save" Europe but helped a lot.
What you say about schools in Europe is wrong. In France anyway, it is.
No, I was never taught that the nazis were defeated by European
partisans and the Americans only arrived when it was over.
I was taught that:
-- the Russians fought the nazis on the East front and this weakened
Germany very badly
-- US + English + Canadian + very few French troops disembarked on the
West front (in Normandy mainly, where the German troops were not ready
to fight)
-- US + english + french troops disembarked on the South front (Italy
and South of France) after terrible battles in North Afrika
-- the partisans in France and Italy + the Mafia in Italy helped to
fight against the German troops.
Do you think all this is a lie and only the US "saved" Europe?
Philippe Chatiliez
Philippe Chatiliez
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Have you ever seen European writers, directors, musicians etc. taking
> a stand against their Socialist governments? Hardly...
In France, many did and still do. Even left wing "artits" do.
> I don't see how they could since their governments give them power,
> a huge salary (oh yeah, they're artists, they deserve to be payed much
> more than their real market value, taxpayers will foot the bill...)
> and prestigious institutions to lead.
Salaries from the government are never huge and the very very few
"writers, directors, musicians... etc " who got a salary from the
government got it for taking care of some very specific tasks (such as
Boulez managing the IRCAM) which did not bring them much power and
brought them much less money than what they'd have done if they'd taken
the time for doing their own thing.
Philippe Chatiliez.
Philippe Chatiliez
You know, what we call "culture" here is not only about selling
entertainment products. It means bringing art and beauty to the people.
That's why, for an example, The Louvre is free on wednesdays.
In this context, I think that people such as Pierre Boulez, Jean Luc
Godard, Pina Bausch, Kenneth Branagh, Werner Herzog and Jean Anouilh are
excellent choices for taking some kind of a role in what you call the
"keeping of European culture" while we call it "education".
Governments -- left or right wing -- who "hired" them for leading some
institutions should be honored and applauded.
But I deny any of those people became a "beaurocrats". Not only most of
them did wonderful things while doing their various tasks but many of
them still stood against their governments (socialist governments or
not) even if they were paid by them.
Believe me, Jean-Luc Godard, among others, never kept quiet a minute. It
would take more than a "salary" for making Jean-Luc Godard shutting up
;-) When he was offered a medal called "the merit order" he turned down
the offer and answered to the Minister of Culture he has no order to get
from anyone ;-) I love this guy. A real artist never kisses asses
anyway. Leave that to grocers such as Michael Jackson or Mariah Carey.
But a real artist can be involved in the political-life. Which is
something grocers such as Michael Jackson or Mariah Carey never do
except for charities which vernish their (poor) brand image. I even dare
say being involved ih the political-life is part of an artist's duty (we
should talk about the artists duties instead of talking about their
(copy)rights).
And if an artist does not want to do anything with or for the government
or the public-services institutions, he's totally free to turn down the
offer. We also have a real market with real customers, real shops and
real products.
You say that in America (please say "USA" instead) "Artists are artists
and not instruments of the US government that decide what's good and
what's not".
Of course, most of them are too busy at trying to make a few million
bucks giving the people the shit they're asking for. This is what I call
grocers. And by the way, don't you think that Michael Jackson made
himself an instrument of the "American Dream"? He even turned white.
Here, the government does NOT decide what's good and what's not. This is
a caricatural way to look at things. It just opens a few doors for
trying to make cultural-products less market-dependant. And it tries to
give people what they did not ask for, because they never heard about it
in the first place, otherwise things would never go ahead. Look at what
Hollywodd produces these days, it's not even "cinema" anymore. It's
video games without interactivity.
Please stop calling "socialist-communist" anyone not agreeing with you.
Even the Russians don't use this kind of method nowadays.
Philippe Chatiliez.
dickSHADE
>> B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
>> your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
>> governments.
>
>Really? Are you sure or is your info based on what was happening
>two years ago? Go check who's ruling France now and eat a humble
>pie...
That's right, Leonel Jospin is Socialist. Once again, Socialist is
years-light away from being communist - it'd be good if you understood
this.
>Those who protest against Socialist regimes are usually called
>"dissidents" and certainly they are *not* considered artists
>by their governments. Name a European intellectual who has
>any kind of power and is not a leftist. You have two options:
>
>1. You believe that only leftists could be intellectuals
> (and my point is well proven)
>2. Intellectuals that aren't leftist are repressed
> (and my point is proven again)
How can anyone say this and also say that he understands Europe????
You are talking about a continent where most of the countries are much
more democratic than USA, and where the human rights are much more
respected.
>Writers that write for movies are mostly paid by governments.
The European movies aren't best sellers, they don't aim to be.
>Writers that write for the theater are mostly paid by governments.
Once again, it's the financial issue in question.
>Writers that publish books for unprofitable publishing operations
>which are only cover-ups of the parties to recycle some dirty
>contribution money are mostly paid by the government (since
>if the government didn't keep them alive with grants they just
>couldn't survive.)
If culture is for you just the above, than I begin to understand why
your ideas are so incredibly aliened.
>I'd say that you don't know much about how culture is managed
>in Europe, or maybe, like many Europeans, you're just playing
>ostrich and burying your neck in the ground.
Yeah, and YOU know!!! You're the best!!!
>> I know for a FACT that you're just full of it. If you think you can
>> judge all Europeans due to the fact you have been brought up here, I
>> hate to burst your bubble.
>
>I don't judge all Europeans, fortunately not all of them are
>Socialists and the ones that are free from kissing their
>government asses do agree with me on most issues.
>Of course I presume you call them "fascists" just like
>anyone who dares to criticize a Socialist regime...
Anyone like you that states that Europe is bad because of the
Socialism, most of the Europeans are Marxist, etc, is likely to be a
fascist yeah, whether you believe it or not. Call me communist if you
want, I know I'm not, and I'll never vote for them.
>> Nope, it wouldn't, because there are actually a lot of sensible
>> Americans .
>
>Yes, the leftists, right? All others are a bunch of fools...
No, all the others who accept the difference. Unfortunately you in USA
don't have much to choose, it's either Republicans or Democrats, which
are mainly the same, so you have not much choice.
>> You, looking at your posts about USA saving the world, are
>> not one of them.
>
>Thank you, intolerant Marxist, you've just proven my point
>several times.
And you've proven mine. Thank you very much sir.
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
:> :> : Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
:> :> : that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
:> :> : films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
:>
:> Yep, and they called the spam the 'Second front', which might give
:> even you some idea about the quality of the US engagement.
: Again you're spitting on someone's grave, shame on you!
Again you lie...
:> :> Ever seen a map? Your '1/3' is nonsense.
:>
:> : I believe the one who needs to see a map of the ex-USSR is you.
:> : Of course what I meant to say was 1/3 of the USEFUL territory...
:>
:> Nice excuse...
: No excuse needed, the point was that 1/3 of the resources were
: tied up and you can't contest it, most of the Russian tundra
: and large portion of Siberia were plain useless in a war.
In your original statement was nothing said about 'useful' or
'resources'. You're a faker.
:> : The person I was replying to was talking about the whole AFV figure,
:> : and 1/4 of 13,500 is a little less than 3,500.
:>
:> Another excuse... you were replying to my post, in which I without any
:> ambiguity tell you about the factor of 4 directly after your number of
:> 10000. In addition I spoke explicitly of tanks. Learn reading before
:> you try to join usenet.
: Ehm I believe it's you who needs to give an explanation, it's you
: who goofed the tank number.
Just read the my post again and try to use your brain.
:> So you idiot mean 7*2500 is 30000?
: OK comrade, you're losing big and you can only resort to personal
: insults, like all your communist friends.
: You stated that in 1941 the Russians produced 2,500 tanks per
: month and in my book one year is made up of 12 months, regardless
: of the start of Operation Barbarossa. Or maybe you implied that
: Russian tank production before May 1941 was ZERO? Now, who's
: the idiot?
No question about, you are. I talked explicitly about wartime
production.
:> And don't mis-quote my posts as substitute for arguments. In the
:> original sentence the 'even in 1941' isn't related to the 2500 per
:> month figure.
: I didn't misquoted anything, you stated that even in 1941 the
: Russians were churning out 2,500 tanks per month which is
: not only ludicrous but a clear sign of your ignorance and
: your Communist fervor.
Again you lie. I stated that even in 1941 the Russian were able to
compensate for the 20000 tank losses. You run completly out of
arguments, hence, you steadily misquote my postings.
:> Yo, the US had always a 'Point du Hoc' to attack...
: No, only near Omaha Beach, where you said they were pinned
: down blaming their inefficiency and you didn't know why.
They were never very efficient.
:> Again, think about where raw materials and scrap metal came from...
:>
:> Mostly from domestic production.
: "Mostly" isn't enough a good argument to demonstrate that US
: aid was useless. Care to talk about FIGURES like I did or
: want to continue to speak only with your arrogance/ignorance?
Again you lie. I never said that the US help was useless. It was by
no means determining.
:> :> : The US built less tanks because they also had to build bombers
:> :> : and the hugest navy history has ever seen in order to defeat
:> :> : Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
:> :>
:>
:> The UK and SU together built as many planes as the US in WWII... and
:> used many of them before the US entered the war and even more before
:> the US played any significant role in it.
: Again you don't know what you're talking about and again your figures
: only come from your arrogance and not from authoritative references
: like the ones I quoted. 60% of the Russian air force was destroyed
: (mostly on the ground) in the first months of Operation Barbarossa.
Which was a often quoted German propaganda lie, something like
Schwarzkopfs 4000+ destroyed tanks in the Kuweit theater - pure
nonsense.
You can look up production numbers were ever you want, you will find
something like 300000 US, 160000 Soviet, 140000 British and 140000
German, take or give 10000.
: The Russian could only fly their IL-2's because there were hardly
: any German fighters to counter them and they were free to go about
: killing Wehrmacht tanks. Do you know where they were tied up?
: Of course in German skies trying to fend US B17's off...
Oh you great idiot. Tell me were your B17's were in 1941, 1942 and
even 1943 (sure, in 1943 were some 'test flights' over Germany). So
you idiot think that the 1944 B17 attacks helped the Soviets to stop
the Germans in 1941-1943?
: Learn history, you only know few tidbits that seem fresh out of
: a Communist propaganda book...
Bla bla bla
:> : No, it's not US propaganda, the huge amount of US aid to Russia
:> : is a FACT that Socialist demagogues like you tend to ignore.
:>
:> Ah, now I'm called a 'Socialist'. Completly out of arguments now, mh?
: You ARE a Socialist, even worse, you are a Communist because what you
: say is EXACTLY, word by word, what Communist propaganda books used
: to write about WW2.
Hahahaha
That is before the collapse of Communism and
: before the National Archives in Moscow were open to reveal 74 years
: of LIES and bloated figures that only die-hard Communists can still
: believe.
:> Nope. Aerial bombardment of civilian targets was even common in
:> WWI.
: hahahahahahahahahahahaha, this is a great one!!! There were no
: bombers in ww1 capable of carrying out strategic bombing, the
: closest you can get is the pathetic attempt of the Zeppelins
: on London, more or less a dozen dead and a lot of smoke, that's
: it. And again even if you accept this, it's still Europeans
: that invented it!!!
Yep, but bombing of civilian areas was invented long before. But
later, no other country developed it to that perfection like the US.
:> : the person responsible
:> : for the most civilian deaths in aerial bombardment in history
:> : is the infamous "bomber Harris",
:>
:> Nonsense. The USAAF had a high share in the attacks of German towns
:> (for example, Dresden was a British-US joint venture, the southern
:> towns were almost exclusivly attacked by the USAAF). But the attacks
:> of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the conventional bombings of other
:> Japanese towns like Tokio yield to the heaviest civilian losses due to
:> aerial bombing in the whole war.
: You see, it's again your IGNORANCE speaking. 80,000 people died in
: the Tokyo firebombing raids, a similar figure died at Hiroshima,
: including those who died of the atomic aftermath. The Dresden and
: Leipzig bombing, pretty much a British business, completely unneedeed,
Idiot, the USAAF also attacked Dredsen massivly. Right is only your
statement that it was unnecessary.
: just for the sake of revenge (the two cities would be overrun
: only weeks after the massacre) caused over 500,000 casualties.
Now you're quoting Neo-Nazi propaganda lies, thus with your own logic
you are a Neo-Nazi?
:> :> : What about Russian bombers attacking German production, have you
:> :> : ever seen one? I haven't...
:> :> : And BTW, His Majesty bombardiers were much more safely flying
:> :> : at night, the brunt of the Luftwaffe was taken by US flyers.
:>
:> Yep, in 1944, when the Germans were already losing the war due to
:> the Soviets.
: hahahahahahahahahahahahaha thanks again for great laughs. In 1944
: the Luftwaffe was almost non existent on the Eastern front and
Sure, that's why they Germans had even in April 1945 some 1500 planes
at the Oder front...
The Luftwaffe was never bigger than in 1944.
: the Russian could enjoy the incredible luxury of having their
: air force made up for over 50% of FIGHTER-BOMBERS that would
: have fell easy prey of German fighters if there were no US
: and British bombers in Germany.
: You wonder why I call you a Communist? You don't know anything
: about the history of WW2 but you know the Communist propaganda
: bits very well and you don't even care to check some serious
: reference when you get trashed by my arguments.
Anyone who reads this will judge you right...
:> It was important. But it happend when the Germans were already losing
:> the war, due to the Soviet attacks. So by no means one could come to
:> the conclusion that the USA were the determining factor.
: Oh yeah, considering that the "Soviet attacks" were supplied by
: US-made trucks, train and freighters I'd say that you have
: scored one against yourself...
:> : Horseshit. The Russian high casualty rate was pointless, just to
:> : satisfy that monster of Stalin whom I take you admire a lot.
:>
:> I guess you build most of your opinions in such a way - just by
:> fantasizing.
: No, that's you. I have in excess of 2,000 books on military history
: in my library,
So why not start reading them?
all you have is your Communist propaganda.
: Read any serious book on the Russo-German war (Carell or Seaton
: just for start) and you'll learn how millions of young inexperienced
: Russian conscripts were thrown against the Panzers in useless
: charges. And BTW learn of the Katyn massacre, perpetrated by your
: Communist friends, something Communist propaganda books always
: attributed to the Germans... So maybe you'll understand how LITTLE
: respect for the life of their own comrades the Communists had...
:> : No way, you don't know anything about military history, that's
:> : clear to everyone.
:>
:> So you also suffer from shizoprenia, regarding yourself as 'everyone'?
: What's shizoprenia, a new European dance?
Look it up in your library.
:> The USSR just didn't have the kind of
:> : logistics needed to carry out a war on that scale, without
:> : US food, trucks, trains and any sort of supplies they would
:> : have lost big time.
:>
:> Maybe.
: Mmm, sounds like you're starting to understand and thus
: contraddict yourself. It's an improvement...
I don#t contradict myself. May you see some contradiction to the lies
that you wrote about me.
:> Most certainly no single country was able to stop the Germans
:> in the early fourties. But Great Britain and the SU together were
:> close to that.
: Exactly WHEN? Until the US joined the fray the situation was
: pretty bleak on all fronts, especially the Russian. Again
: study history and dump those Communist propaganda leaflets...
Sure, the Germans were stopped at Moscow one day before Peral Habour,
so obviously they were stopped by the US (maybe CIA?), because they
were so impressed by this great US victory..
:> When WW2 started the Russian infantry was
:> : one of the LEAST mechanized in the whole Europe.
:>
:> Maybe in your simple picture of Europe consisting of only four or five
:> countries.
: Utter nonsense, smaller countries were obviously even worse-off.
Seems that you have really no idea about logic...
:> On the other hand they also had the largest tank force in the World,
:> four times larger than that of the attacking Germans. And they had the
:> largest air force.
: Yes, you're right, so how can you explain that such a marvelous
: military force was crushed and ridiculized by inferior German
: forces in a matter of months? How can you explain millions of
: Russians POW's in the hand of the Germans? How can you explain
: 60% of the Russian air force trashed to bits and pieces in
: a couple of month? Shall we start talking about QUALITY instead
: of QUANTITY?
Good point. In fact, the quality of US supplies was often VERY bad.
:> As a matter
:> : of facts as late as 1944 most of their artillery was still
:> : horse-pushed.
:>
:> Not a bad choice in a country without many roads.
: So, I wonder why the Red Army was so quick in retiring the horses
: and use a brand new US triple-axer in their places as soon as
: they could get ahold of them. By 1945 most of the horses were
: gone and the replacement was made in the USA...
Again a lie. The Soviets even enter Berlin with horses-pushed weapons
and logistics.
:> BTW, the Germans also had a large fraction of horse-pushed
:> weapons
: Not large by any stretch of the imagination, the Germans were the
: first to use Hanomags to draw their 88's and quickly relegated
: the horses to push general stores.
Nope. One of the last German units was a cavalry division. And during
the winter fightings in Russia they also relied pretty much on horses,
because trucks were useless.
:> : Oh yeah, planes, fuel and trucks, no big deal right?
:>
:> Right. The Soviets got 13% of their war time plane production via
:> Land-Lease
: Care to back this figure with something more than your
: arrogance?
Yep, you idiot, I took your 20000-planes-figure and the entire Soviet
wartime production.
I believe it's an impossible task since reliable
: figures on Russian wartime production just don't exist
: and the official ones have long been proven false by
: Western and Post-Communist Russian historians.
Sure, but you believe US numbers?
: And even if we do believe the bloated official figures
: the total of aircraft in Russian service was roughly
: 80,000, 20,000 of which lend-leased from the US.
: So, it's not 13% but a rather hefty 25%, and that even
: taking Russian figures as reliable ones. (hardly...)
80000 is pure nonsense.
:> with a big contribution from the UK
: Utter BS, the Russian received no significant aircraft
: contribution from the British, again you're just making
: your argument up, you're just so unlucky that you found
: me and not someone who believes your crap without being
: able to prove it as such.
Idiot, they got a lot of British planes, Hurricanes, Spits and
bombers. You really know NOTHING.
:> Trucks were also not determining, since their army
:> essentially rely on other transportation systems.
: Such as? Feet?
Mostly horses and yes, feet, too. They also used many of their tanks
for transportation and many German trucks.
:> : Now imagine that the US wasn't in the fight, no aid
:> : to USSR and the bulk of the Luftwaffe fighters on the
:> : Eastern front instead of in German skies trying to
:> : repel US bombers.
:>
:> I remember most of the German fighters already deployed in the west in
:> 1942 - long before any USAAF plane had shown up above German. That's
:> exactly your problem, you steadily ignore every actions which took
:> place without/before the late US contribution.
: Late US contribution? You've got to be kidding, show me ONE front
: that looked good in December 1941. Russia? No way.
Russia. The Germans were stopped in the first December week.
North Africa?
North Africa. Italy has much difficulties with the Brits.
: No way. Continental Europe? Completely under the Nazis.
: Again, what the hell are you talking about?
You know that you are wrong about the Luftwaffe fighters in the west,
that#s why you're ignoring my statement.
:> : This does not prove that the Brits saved US asses by any stretch
:> : of the imagination. Yes, US troops in 1942 Africa didn't have
:> : any combat experience, unlike their British comrades, but they
:> : did learn fast...
:>
:> Why didn't they show somewhere afterwards what they have learned?
: They didn't? You've got to be kidding me, US troops were ordered
: to slow down and wait for the commies for political purposes.
Mh, let's see, from D-Day on the west Allies were behind their goals,
it took them 3 month in the Normandy instead of a few weeks, during
that the Soviets made what? 700km or so? During that the Soviets
killed entire army group center with more German troops than were
deployed in the whole Normandy.
: General Patton would be in Berlin much before any Russian soldiers
: if Truman wasn't the wimp he was.
Sure, the Germans would have handed over Berlin without fight to the
west Allies. At that time they fought only whom they feared.
: BTW, the vast majority of ex German generals after WW2 named
: Patton as the best enemy general, not Montgomery, not Zhukov.
To be exact you should state 'German generals in the west'.
:> It's a well documented fact that the USAAF attacked the demilitarized
:> zone around the abbey, destroying all the century old buildings and
:> killing many civilians.
: USAAF bombers raided the abbey, this is true, but never deliberately
: bombed civilians as you imply. And while destroying the abbey was
: a mistake no single monk lost his life in there.
: BTW, the US military were the ONLY to have "monument and art"
: units which preserved as much as possible the art masterpieces
: and returned them to their legitimate owners after the war.
Yep, I know, for example, the 'Qedlinburger Domschatz' was saved by
the US troops and given back - for millions of DM in 1991 or so.
And you forgot that the Germans destroyed much art in the SU, for
which the Soviets had a right for compensation. I remember no single
piece of art destroyed in the US by Germany.
: Your Communist friends looted Germany at will, brought a
: disgusting booty to the USSR and never returned anything.
Since you stay with calling my 'communist', I will now call you a Nazi
idiot.
:> The battleships also had in addition guns of cruiser level, but that's
:> not the point.
: Again your fantasies are easy target for anyone who knows
: even a little of naval history. No ww2 battleship has EVER had
: cruiser guns, even the most sophisticated ones (US Iowa
: class or Japanese Yamato class) only had 5" guns as their
: secondary batteries and that my friends is the typical
: mount of DESTROYERS, not exactly cruisers by any stretch
: of the imagination. Again learn if you hate being trashed
: by me every time.
Bismarck and Tripitz had 15cm secondary batteries, as had the German
'town' cruisers, you Nazi idiot.
:> The battleships simply had a much longer fire range and
:> did real damage
: Yes, IF you can land your shell in the right place...
: Quite hard when you HAVE to keep farer from shore
: (and thus the range factor is gone) and quite hard
: when all you have is an optically control fire
: director as opposed to the US cruiser with RADAR
: directed fire. Got the picture?
You Nazi idiot do not know that RADAR isn't very helpful for indirect
fire on land targets.
:> Challenge? No, I give you some of the education that you obviously
:> have missed.
: Oh yeah, you think you're winning your little pissing contest
: and you don't even realize how easy was to trash your made
: up arguments. Battleship with cruiser guns, hahahahahahaha
: what an education you're giving me, hahahahahahahahahahaha
: Thanks comrade for great laughs.
You Nazi idiot quite have make yourself laughable, that's true...
: Paolo Pizzi
: Cypress, CA
: U.S.A.
Paolo Pizzi
Philippe Chatiliez wrote:
>
> You know, what we call "culture" here is not only about selling
> entertainment products. It means bringing art and beauty to the people.
> That's why, for an example, The Louvre is free on wednesdays.
Typical Marxist view: art is only what teaches the masses...
I presume that Mozart's serenades, written to entertain
spoiled and careless rich people aren't "art" by that
definition...
BTW The National Gallery in Washington is ALWAYS free.
The Louvre might be free on Wednesday but it's damn
expensive every other day of the week...
> In this context, I think that people such as Pierre Boulez, Jean Luc
> Godard, Pina Bausch, Kenneth Branagh, Werner Herzog and Jean Anouilh are
> excellent choices for taking some kind of a role in what you call the
> "keeping of European culture" while we call it "education".
Right, as Marx said "culture" is education, right?
Now a question, WHO decides that the afore mentioned people are
worthy of the millions of dollars European governments grant them?
Who decides that other movie makers, musicians, writers, painters
etc. are NOT worthy of even the slight consideration?
Easy answer: POLITICIANS. Now of course European politicians are
fine art lovers and very sensitive and knowledgeable people and would
NEVER pick those artists that bring forth their ideas (if any) and
help them raise funds for their cause (if any except for getting
at the power and huge public funds...)
> You say that in America (please say "USA" instead) "Artists are artists
> and not instruments of the US government that decide what's good and
> what's not".
>
> Of course, most of them are too busy at trying to make a few million
> bucks giving the people the shit they're asking for.
You see? Whoever makes money CAN'T be an artist. Whoever makes
a living by SELLING his/her own things instead of relying on
public money obtained by kissing political asses is not worthy
of being considered an artist. Marx himself coulnd't have said
it better.
> This is what I call grocers.
OK, then I guess Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo etc. were all
"grocers" since the reason they created their art was ONLY to
make money... Marxism didn't even exist back then...
> Here, the government does NOT decide what's good and what's not. This is
> a caricatural way to look at things. It just opens a few doors for
> trying to make cultural-products less market-dependant.
Oh yeah of course, the more you dare to tell the truth about the
corrupt Euro politicians (people in the US have the courage to kick
corrupt politicians out of office, it hardly happens in Europe...)
the more they feel obliged and open doors and wonderful opportunity
to those artists who deserve attention. And of course, as I said
before, European politicians are very sensitive people and they
sure KNOW who's good and who's not...
> Please stop calling "socialist-communist" anyone not agreeing
> with you.
I'm calling socialist/communist whoever like you uses the
same definition of "art" found in Marx books.
Paolo Pizzi
Philippe Chatiliez wrote:
> Do you think all this is a lie and only the US "saved" Europe?
Without US industrial power the Russian would never make it.
And this is factual.
Paolo Pizzi
dickSHADE wrote:
> How can anyone say this and also say that he understands Europe????
> You are talking about a continent where most of the countries are much
> more democratic than USA, and where the human rights are much more
> respected.
That's pretty much your idea, but of course as with any intolerant
Marxist you can't even conceive that there are other opinions...
> >Writers that write for movies are mostly paid by governments.
>
> The European movies aren't best sellers, they don't aim to be.
So what? Can you understand that if it's a government that pays
screenwriters chances are that they'll only pick those who kiss
their asses? Too hard to grasp?
> >Writers that write for the theater are mostly paid by governments.
>
> Once again, it's the financial issue in question.
No, it's their independence from the political power in question,
or lack thereof...
> >Writers that publish books for unprofitable publishing operations
> >which are only cover-ups of the parties to recycle some dirty
> >contribution money are mostly paid by the government (since
> >if the government didn't keep them alive with grants they just
> >couldn't survive.)
>
> If culture is for you just the above, than I begin to understand why
> your ideas are so incredibly aliened.
I'm pretty sure you're totally clueless as what I'm talking about
since you've never heard names like Godard or Boulez.
> >I'd say that you don't know much about how culture is managed
> >in Europe, or maybe, like many Europeans, you're just playing
> >ostrich and burying your neck in the ground.
>
> Yeah, and YOU know!!! You're the best!!!
No, I just happen to know what's going on there, you don't even
know what I'm talking about...
> Anyone like you that states that Europe is bad because of the
> Socialism, most of the Europeans are Marxist, etc, is likely to be a
> fascist yeah, whether you believe it or not. Call me communist if you
> want, I know I'm not, and I'll never vote for them.
I knew you'd say that. Sure all Americans are fascists, as your
friend Joe Stalin would say...
> No, all the others who accept the difference. Unfortunately you in USA
> don't have much to choose, it's either Republicans or Democrats, which
> are mainly the same, so you have not much choice.
Yeah, they're both fascists for you I presume...
> >Thank you, intolerant Marxist, you've just proven my point
> >several times.
>
> And you've proven mine.
Hardly, but as long as you think so and make a fool of yourself
that's fine.
Paolo Pizzi
Philippe Chatiliez wrote:
> Salaries from the government are never huge and the very very few
> "writers, directors, musicians... etc " who got a salary from the
> government got it for taking care of some very specific tasks (such as
> Boulez managing the IRCAM)
Sticking to this example, Boulez is paid by the French government
to manage IRCAM twice as much as what a US college professor
would be paid at Yale or Columbia for a similar position (managing
a electronic music/sound research lab.) That's because Yale and
Columbia are part of a market and IRCAM can be allotted as
many funds as the politicians deem necessary. And politicians
NEVER give any money without getting something back.
I agree that Boulez is rich enough not to do it for the money,
he does it for the wonderful pleasure of deciding who is
worthy of being called an artist and who's not.
In the US artists are independent enough to understand this,
in Europe they're too involved with them to even think about
it.
(For the brain-impaired this does not mean US artists are
better than their European counterparts, I'm talking about
their independence, or lack thereof, from the political system.)
Paolo Pizzi
dickSHADE wrote:
> >Not exactly, Pierre Boulez, Giorgio Strehler, Jean Luc Godard,
> >Pina Bausch, Helene Weigel, Luca Ronconi, Tom Stoppard,
> >Kenneth Branagh, Luciano Berio, Werner Herzog, Jean Anouilh
> >(just to name a few) are/were powerful beaurocrats holding higly
> >paid government positions as "official keepers" of the European
> >culture. They'd never say anything against the Socialist/Communist
> >politicians that gave them power and money. There is no such
> >equivalent in the US, no such government great-money-great-power
> >position as "director of American Culture" unless "American
> >Culture" is a private company, often run by dedicated volunteers
> >instead of higly paid political kiss-asses like in Europe. Artists
> >are artists and not instruments of the US government that decide
> >what's good and what's not. They may be broke but they're definitely
> >much more independent then their kissing-political-asses European
> >counterparts. (This of course regardless of the quality of their
> >work, I leave arguments like "we're better than you" to arrogant
> >people like you.)
>
> Those names you mentioned aren't very famous, at least most of them.
Thank for showing that you're as ignorant as not to have a clue
about who they are/were and as arrogant as to state that they
aren't famous just because you don't know them...
> But if you feel happier thinking that USA is the best and the
> American culture too, who am I to ruin your extreme happiness?
I don't think USA is the best and American culture too, I leave
this king of pointless arguments to people like you. I just said
that in the US artists are more independent and probably don't
need to kiss political asses as much as in Europe.
> Actually the American artists aren't broke, they live with a lot more
> money than their European colleagues.
Of course I'm talking about people in the same positions and not
about rock-stars, but if you don't have the slightest idea of
who Jean Luc Godard or Pierre Boulez are you obviously don't
know what the hell I'm talking about.
> I don't remember anyone here saying "the European
> artists are better than the Americans".
I don't remember ever saying American artists are better than
European, I only said they're more independent. Too hard
to understand for you I realize...
> You are really annoying Paolo, irritating with your fool
> ideas about Europe. Get a life!
You're a pathetic intolerant, you'd make a very good Nazi
or Communist.
Monty
>Monty wrote:
>
>> >Have you ever seen European writers, directors, musicians etc. taking
>> >a stand against their Socialist governments? Hardly... I don't see
>> >how they could since their governments give them power, a huge
>> >salary (oh yeah, they're artists, they deserve to be payed much
>> >more than their real market value, taxpayers will foot the bill...)
>> >and prestigious institutions to lead.
>> >
>> >These are FACTS, hardly arrogance.
>>
>> Ah, hold up. I understand from your words that the intellectual
>> Europeans should stand up against their SOCIALIST government.
>> So that is where the problem is. Protesting against right-wing is out
>> of the question, I guess...
>
>Don't tweak my words please. Independent thinkers protest against
>ANY kind of power, right wing extremist and communists/socialists
>don't dare to when their peers are ruling. Very simple. And that
>makes European intellectuals pretty similar to those serving
>Nazi Germany or Communist Russia...
I'm not tweaking your words, that's you who does the tweaking my man.
You were stressing that intellectuals in Europe didn't stand up
against their socialist governments, so I'm just answering to your own
words. Hardly any tweaking involved here. To make a bold statement
like above shows again you don't know Europe too well. The list of
names you gave us could easily be countered by us Europeans giving you
an even longer list of names of people who actually get into a lot of
fights with governments of their respective countries.
Again, I wil not do so, because if you say you actually know that much
about Europe, you'd know these names as well, wouldn't you ?
>> Well, if these statements are FACTS, and you have been brought up in
>> Europe, you know for a FACT that
>> A: Europe is divided into many countries. That means that you can not
>> judge a typical European, since there is no such thing as a typical
>> European. Maybe typical German, Frenchman and so on, but not typical
>> European.
>
>Sorry, regardless of the country Europe has an unfortunate tradition
>of keeping the arts under political wings, I don't see how it could
>be otherwise since arts & entertainment in Europe are HEAVILY (and
>I stress the adjective) government backed. It's not by chance that
>those politicians unwilling to cope with Nazism and Communism seeked
>shelter in the US...
Only in your mind. I can't believe the BS you're putting down. The
arrogance just makes me wanna puke.
Ever heard of Pablo Picasso ??
>> B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
>> your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
>> governments.
>
>Really? Are you sure or is your info based on what was happening
>two years ago? Go check who's ruling France now and eat a humble
>pie...
K, gotta give you credit here, since France actually has a left-wing
government, BUT is being heavily bothered by Gaullist Chirac.
France has such a blurry government system, that you could hardly say
that there is actually a heavier weight on one side on the scale than
on the other side. But then again, I could name a lot more countries
in Europe that have a right-wing government.
>> C : I could name ( and I will not, since it is so friggin' obvious ) a
>> lot of writers, poets, entertainers, journalists and so on that
>> protest against any kind of government in any country.
>
>Those who protest against Socialist regimes are usually called
>"dissidents" and certainly they are *not* considered artists
>by their governments. Name a European intellectual who has
>any kind of power and is not a leftist. You have two options:
>1. You believe that only leftists could be intellectuals
> (and my point is well proven)
>2. Intellectuals that aren't leftist are repressed
> (and my point is proven again)
Excuse me, the word "dissident" is not a word that comes from any
western european country. Maybe your flashy american newschannels call
'em that name, but I haven't heard from that word being used to point
out any person here in Europe. And don't start talking about Sacharov
for instance, because he was a former Soviet, and the former U.S.S.R.
is not to be considered Europe.
And anyway, who told you that governments decide who are artists and
who are not ? I still think this is only the choice of the public.
And again, you state that I must name a non-leftist with any kind of
power. What kind of power are you referring to ? Political power, or
the power to influence the people on the streets by making statements
in for instance music, art and plays ?
You think you have a point, but you're too arrogant to see that it is
impossible for you to judge on European comunity, since there are so
many differences between the various countries, that you're just
making a fool out of yourself stating that it is the way you say it
is. It just is not. Imagine I would attack your ( not so wonderful )
legal system, or your ( not so wonderful ) law that allows everybody
to have guns at home, without knowing the EXACT background.
You'd be annoyed, wouldn't you ? And that is just a single topic, in a
single country. You have the arrogance to talk and judge about 20+
countries ( Europe ) in a wide diversity of topics.
That again makes me think you're leaning a bit towards the right.
>> Btw, where did you get the idea that for instance writers get
>> paid by any government. What's this BS ? Are you a frequent
>> visitor of alt.conspiracy, by any chance ??
>Writers that write for movies are mostly paid by governments.
Crap. What an ignorance, sheeh.......
>Writers that write for the theater are mostly paid by governments.
Even more crap. Hahaha, I'm getting it now.
>Writers that publish books for unprofitable publishing operations
>which are only cover-ups of the parties to recycle some dirty
>contribution money are mostly paid by the government (since
>if the government didn't keep them alive with grants they just
>couldn't survive.)
Again, where does your information come from ?? This is so much
nonsense that it just hurts to read it.
Ah, let's please not start on dirty money, or dirty tricks pulled by
governments. You've had your share as well.
>I'd say that you don't know much about how culture is managed
>in Europe, or maybe, like many Europeans, you're just playing
>ostrich and burying your neck in the ground.
Naah, of course that's easy. I don't know much, I'm playing ostrich.
So you know it all ? Well, come out with it for once, because the
statements you make are so black and white.
And that is, generaly spoken, my problem with you. You shout all you
want, but referring to your previous post, your words actually need
tweaking. I'm not saying that things you state are not happening (
they sometimes actually do, and I know of other names than the ones
you have written down ), but many times it has been the other way
around as well, and that is what you are forgetting.
>> I know for a FACT that you're just full of it. If you think you can
>> judge all Europeans due to the fact you have been brought up here, I
>> hate to burst your bubble.
>
>I don't judge all Europeans, fortunately not all of them are
>Socialists and the ones that are free from kissing their
>government asses do agree with me on most issues.
>Of course I presume you call them "fascists" just like
>anyone who dares to criticize a Socialist regime...
No, I wouldn't call them fascists. Everybody has a right to have their
opinion. But in your right-wing mind there is not one doubt that you
could actually be wrong with all your statements about the old world.
You simply can't see the fact that you have tunnelvision, and refuse
to look past it, because you are afraid you might fin something that
proves you wrong.
>> Nope, it wouldn't, because there are actually a lot of sensible
>> Americans .
>
>Yes, the leftists, right? All others are a bunch of fools...
Again, nope. Don't put words in my mouth.
Right-wing people actually do have some sensible points, just like
left-wing governments. But, again, what I hate is you denying the
possibilty of you being wrong with your statements.
It's imply like this : Right wingers are not all fools, and
left-wingers are not all fools. But you see a lot of conspiracy, and I
ask you to prove them, instead of calling them facts. If you'd do
that, I could counter anyway, but since you're so convinced of
yourself, it would be a waste of time.
>> You, looking at your posts about USA saving the world, are
>> not one of them.
>
>Thank you, intolerant Marxist, you've just proven my point
>several times.
Intolerant Marxist ? Ha , that's funny. Again, judging me, putting
words in my mouth, while you don't know my background. Seems to be
your problem with a lot of things, basically.
Cya,
Monty
Filip De Vos
Paolo Pizzi (timee...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
: > : Hardly, most of the raw materials came from the US, don't forget
: > : that 1/3 of the country was invaded, and even in Russian combat
: > : films all you see when Red Army soldiers eat is American spam...
: >
: > Ever seen a map? Your '1/3' is nonsense.
: I believe the one who needs to see a map of the ex-USSR is you.
: Of course what I meant to say was 1/3 of the USEFUL territory...
: > Wow, impressive demonstration of your math skills. In good old Europe
: > a quarter of 10000 is still 2500.
: The person I was replying to was talking about the whole AFV figure,
: and 1/4 of 13,500 is a little less than 3,500.
: > And yes, this number of tanks
: > was produced in the USSR - even in 1941
: Per month? You mean to imply that in 1941 the USSR produced 30,000
: tanks? You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking
: about.
'fraid you severely underestimate the Russians. The T-37 was designed to
be built fast by non-skilled labour (like woman and adolescents on
starvation rations).
An entire city/industrial complex churned them out, buried deep in the
Urals. 'Tankograd'.
: > : If you knew the geography of the region you would understand...
: >
: > Sure, the US troops fought always on the worst grounds...
: Again you're speaking from you ignorance. Get a good history
: book and learn about Point du Hoc, then come back and tell
: me it was a very easy spot to conquer...
The yanks did not deem it neccesary to employ the ingenious Britsh
contraptions like chain-flailing anti-mine tankes, self-propelled drive-up
ramps etc. In consequence, got stuck on the beach.
: > : Again, think about where raw materials and scrap metal came from...
: > : The US built less tanks because they also had to build bombers
: > : and the hugest navy history has ever seen in order to defeat
: > : Nazi Germany AND Japan (your communist friends only attacked
: >
: > Could this be some kind of 'typical' US-american behaviour, calling
: > everyone not believing in US proganda a communist friend?
: No, it's not US propaganda, the huge amount of US aid to Russia
: is a FACT that Socialist demagogues like you tend to ignore.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anybody who does not agree with you is a socialist/communist? Heh.
And the amount was not 'huge' by any stretch of the imagination.
: > Probably; maybe attacking civilian areas comes closer to US
: > professions
: Not so, I'd say that the wonderful idea of bombing civilians
: was invented by your German friends in 1936 Spain (open
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROTF. Aerial bombardment was 'invented' in the _First_ World War.
Zeppelins, later heavier than air planes like Gothas took off from Belgium
to bombard London amongst others. As for _bombarding civilians, tout court
(as opposed to _aerial blobardment), that is something as old as
artillery.
: your wonderful European history book under the chapter:
: "Guernica", if there is one...) and the person responsible
: for the most civilian deaths in aerial bombardment in history
: is the infamous "bomber Harris", not exactly a member of the
: US Army Air Force... As you can see it's EUROPEANS that
Quite fortunately General Curtis LeMay never got to throw nukes.
"The whole point about strategic bombardment is that it must be massive".
: are responsible for inventing such a monstruosity and
: killing the most people by carrying it out.
: > : What about Russian bombers attacking German production, have you
: > : ever seen one? I haven't...
: > : And BTW, His Majesty bombardiers were much more safely flying
: > : at night, the brunt of the Luftwaffe was taken by US flyers.
: >
: > Right. But the only important military effect was the destruction of
: > the fuel industry
: Nonsense, again. And even if this made-up tidbit was true I
: believe that depriving your enemy of fuel is no small feat...
: > : Right, for the same reason: the typical Communist lack of respect
: > : for human life, in order to gain few useless meters and claim
: > : a tactical victory, the Red Army would have thousands killed,
: > : something Americans (or British) would never accept.
: >
: > Exactly what I'm telling you. The US were never willing to pay such a
: > prize. If it wasn't for the Soviets we would live today under a Nazi
: > regime.
: Horseshit. The Russian high casualty rate was pointless, just to
: satisfy that monster of Stalin whom I take you admire a lot.
: And again horseshit and a slap in the face to the thousands of
: US bombers dead in the European skys so that a jerk like you
: could be free to spit on their graveyards.
: > : Oh yeah, now tell me where raw materials, scrap metal and food for
: > : the soldiers and the production machine came from...
: >
: > Yep, PARTLY they come from the US.
: No way, you don't know anything about military history, that's
: clear to everyone. The USSR just didn't have the kind of
: logistics needed to carry out a war on that scale, without
: US food, trucks, trains and any sort of supplies they would
: have lost big time. When WW2 started the Russian infantry was
Utter nonsense. The tide had allready turned by the time aid in quantity
started to reach the Russians. Without it, they would have taken half a
year, more. A year, tops. And five million dead more, of course.
: one of the LEAST mechanized in the whole Europe. As a matter
And the main weapon of that war was the tank. Infantery can walk.
: of facts as late as 1944 most of their artillery was still
: horse-pushed.
: > The British Empire also had a large share
: In raw materials? You've got to be kidding...
: > and both contribute only a fraction of the domestic production,
: > with some exceptions like plane fuel and trucks.
: Oh yeah, planes, fuel and trucks, no big deal right?
: Now imagine that the US wasn't in the fight, no aid
: to USSR and the bulk of the Luftwaffe fighters on the
: Eastern front instead of in German skies trying to
Germans did not need to substantially beef up their air defences until
mid-'43 or so, when the tide had allready turned in the east.
: repel US bombers. Could the Soviets still produce 40,000
: Stormoviks (ground attack planes, sitting ducks
Sure, main contruction material was wood. Plenty of trees in Siberia.
: for Luftwaffe fighters) and go about killing German
: tanks with near impunity? More likely they had to
: produce an incredible amount of fighters themselves
: to face their German counterparts, a daunting task
: without any foreign scrap metal to use, and probably
See above.
: they could only have produced less than 1/4 of their
: IL2's... (and of course most of them would have easily
So? Main Russian armamament was the T-37. They sensibly concentrated
production on tanks.
: fell prey of hordes of Me109's and FW190's that just
: WEREN'T THERE because they were too busy defending
: Germany from US bombers...)
: Got the picture?
Yep, and that is that you are fixiated on Americans=superior and all the
rest=bumblers.
--
Filip De Vos FilipP...@rug.ac.be
There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system.
-- John S. Lewis --
RPP
>Philippe Chatiliez wrote:
>
>> Do you think all this is a lie and only the US "saved" Europe?
>
>Without US industrial power the Russian would never make it.
>And this is factual.
>
>
>Paolo Pizzi
>Cypress, CA
>U.S.A.
Its a dillusion. Without US industrial power, the war would have
lasted until 1947 at the latest, and the outcome would have been the
same. USA certainly helped out but their contribution was not necesary
for victory. In fact, had USA totally stayed out it would have been
much better, because Germany wouldnt have been able to grow in
strangth thanks to American industrialists who in a very real way were
extremely important to German rearmament. No US indutry, no German
rearmament.
GerryB
THIS THREAD HAS DISSOLVED DOWN TO A LOT OF CRAP AND IS SPOILING THIS NG!
PACK UP AND START A NEW NG IF IT GETS YOU GOING!!
GERRYB
Paolo Pizzi wrote in message <34AF89C2...@earthlink.net>...
Donato Zipeto
Thomas Kraemerkaemper <krae...@ampere.Physik.Uni-Dortmund.DE> wrote:
PP:
> : No, that's you. I have in excess of 2,000 books on military history
> : in my library,
>
He meant "2000 box of plastic toy-soldiers..."...
> So why not start reading them?
> You Nazi idiot quite have make yourself laughable, that's true...
After being the clown of soc.culture.italian, paul pizzi wants to be the
star of soc.culture.rest-of-the-world...
Donato
Donato Zipeto
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Donato Zipeto wrote:
> > Well Mr. Paolo Asshole Pizzi, in another message in the same thread you
> > are asking the same question to the person who said that...
>
> Yes, she was WRONG and you acknowledged everything she said,
> hence you were wrong too.
I aknowledged the presence in europe of british, australians, canadians
etc. soldiers...
> > Please use a little bit of your nut-size-brain and read back: "I am
> > talking about the whole war... etc." I never wrote about british troops,
> > asses saved, belgium and so on...
>
> No, you just ACKNOWLEDGED it, I know, too damn hard to understand
> for you...
I know it's hard to understand it using your single neuron...
Don't try too hard or you will burn the last one...
> > Do you really thinks somebody is going to give credit to you, after this
> > further desolating demonstration of stupidity? Do you really wanna make
> > a fool of yourself on all soc.culture.* newsgroups, after having been
> > for years the clown of soc.culture.italian?
>
> He DID make a fool of himself, I knew it...
"He" knew it...
PP is the guy who, among others, claimed on SCI that Dejanews was a site
build up by communist friends to modify PP's posts...
Think about it.
Donato
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
In soc.culture.german Donato Zipeto <zip...@pasteur.fr> wrote:
: Thomas Kraemerkaemper <krae...@ampere.Physik.Uni-Dortmund.DE> wrote:
: PP:
:> : No, that's you. I have in excess of 2,000 books on military history
:> : in my library,
:>
: He meant "2000 box of plastic toy-soldiers..."...
:> So why not start reading them?
:> You Nazi idiot quite have make yourself laughable, that's true...
: After being the clown of soc.culture.italian, paul pizzi wants to be the
: star of soc.culture.rest-of-the-world...
He already got the prize ;^)
: Donato
Thomas Kr"amerk"amper
Anzuelo los Mosas
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net>:
>Philippe Chatiliez wrote:
>> Do you think all this is a lie and only the US "saved" Europe?
>Without US industrial power the Russian would never make it.
>And this is factual.
Without Europe the US wouldn't exist. Without the wars that largely
destroyed Europe in the first half of this century, the US wouldn't
be the superpower it is today. Without the cold war the US would
have been isolationist. And this is factual.
Get a life man! Fuck your arrogant nationalist bullshit. The
destruction of the Nazi-vermin was a joint venture of _all_ of the
allied forces, much as you want to prove otherwise.
And please don't forget that even in 1940 a relative large fraction
of the US population had Nazi-sympathies. And that both Japan and
Germany declared war on _you_, not the other way around.
Nevertheless, from a country that was never liberated by US soldiers
I want to express my thanks to all US soldiers and citizens who were
involved in WWII. I will never forget.
Anzuelo
Monty
Hehehehe, laughed my ass off just now.......
I quote :
"PP is the guy who, among others, claimed on SCI that Dejanews was a
site
build up by communist friends to modify PP's posts...
Think about it."
I just did. Cracked me up. Paolo, you can name me a Marxist,
intolerant and so on. You don't know me. You're wrong.
But hey, if you want to call me that, who am I to stop you ?
I asked you if you were a frequent visitor of alt.conspiracy, but now
I won't even bother. You're mental. And afraid of other cultures.
So that leaves me with an option I never use, namely to ignore you.
You think everybody who isn't agreeing with you is a communist, and
that is REALLY sad......
Cya,
Alain Montilla
Philippe Chatiliez
Let me answer to your three posts in one row.
In my first post, my first line was: "The USA did not "save" Europe but
helped a lot". Then I had listed a few examples of where the Allied
Forces had been involved, never forgetting to mention the USA. And
finally I had concluded: "Do you think all this is a lie and only the US
"saved" Europe?"
And the only thing you answered is:
> Without US industrial power the Russian would never make it.
> And this is factual.
This is a very unfair answer. I NEVER denied the US industrial power had
helped the Russians. All I was saying is MANY countries and forces and
people from different countries had been involved against the Nazis. And
I'm very thankful for what the USA did.
Then in your following post, you make me say things I never said. For an
example, I NEVER said "art is only what teaches the masses...". I would
not allow myself defining art. And if I ever had to do it, I would never
do it this way. My line was:
"culture" here is not only about selling entertainment products.
As you see, I was talking about CULTURE. And I was NOT condemning
entertainment either. Many entertainment products are perfectly alright.
That's why I had written "not only". And then I had added: "It means
bringing art and beauty to the people". And as you can see, I had not
used the verb "teach". I was talking about "bringing", which means
giving people a chance to access to. There's nothing Marxist in that. Or
any french republican is a marxist.
------------
Now, let me go point by point.
> The National Gallery in Washington is ALWAYS free.
Good news. That's what I call bringing art and beauty to the people. Are
the USA a marxist country?
> The Louvre might be free on Wednesday but it's damn
> expensive every other day of the week...
No. It is not.
> I presume that Mozart's serenades, written to entertain
> spoiled and careless rich people aren't "art" by that
> definition...
I remind you I never defined art. And everything Mozart wrote is art I
think. No matter why he wrote it or whom he wrote it for. Btw, when you
talk about what Mozart wrote, don't use the word "serenade". He never
wrote one.
> Right, as Marx said "culture" is education, right?
I never said that. My line was: what you call the "keeping of European
culture" ... we call it "education". I was saying WHY our governments do
what they do, I was NOT saying culture IS education in any manner.
Culture is: knowledge, behaviour, language... shared by the members of a
certain group. For an example: you and I, we don't have the same
culture. And I'm afraid the USA and Europe don't share the same culture
anymore, which may become the main problem in the next few years.
Now, talking about European Politicans, it seems you don't like them do
you? Or may be you don't understand the way they and WE think. Of course
some of them do ask a few movie makers, musicians, writers, painters
etc... to take care of some institution. But:
1/ this does not mean that the "others are NOT worthy of even the slight
consideration" as you say (they still can do what they want, get funds
from other institutions or producers... as independant as they wish)
2/ the ones who are asked are free to turn down the offer (because they
are independant)
3/ even if they do say yes, they're still allowed to disagree with the
government that pays them (many do and/or did).
And you have a very naive way to look at the politicians when you say
"politicians NEVER give any money without getting something back". Of
course they do want something in return, but not the ass-licking of a
few Boulez, Bejard or Godard (who never ass-licked anyone) BUT the votes
from the thousands of people who agree with what they do and had the
opportunity to go to a ballet or wherever for very cheap. Having Bejard
managing Le Theatre National de Paris (TNP) brought wonders and miracles
to millions of people.
Also, why do you care about how much Boulez is paid by the French
government to manage IRCAM? Let the French government spend what it
wants at what it wants. It's not your business. I would not allow myself
saying anything about how the US government spends its bucks. And if
Boulez makes twice as much as what a US college professor would be paid
at Yale or Columbia for a similar position, I'm sorry. And if it is
because Yale and Columbia are "part of a market"... as you say, well
well well, then it's no surprise why so few poor people can acess to US
universities. They're not students, they're customers. We don't do
things this way here. We'll see where the US are at in about 15 years.
Then, somewhere, you imply I think this way:
> Whoever makes money CAN'T be an artist. Whoever makes
> a living by SELLING his/her own things instead of relying on
> public money obtained by kissing political asses is not worthy
> of being considered an artist.
Wrong. I NEVER said this. I don't think this way. I do believe many
succesful creative people are/were real artists. Some very good artists
sell a lot, some don't, some really bad entertainers sell a lot, some
don't. Pick any flavor you like.
When you say that Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo etc created their
art ONLY to make money. Oh c'mon. Mozart could not help writing music;
Shakespeare, we don't know much about him do we? And Michaelangelo was
probably a bit skizoid so it's hard to know. We could list artists from
all over the world since the beginning of our era... Naming a few very
greedy ones, thinking about some who simply did not give a damn about
what the public thought (Picasso for an example)... etc. RECOGNITION and
the NEED to create something are probably the main drivers for artists.
If they like money or not may come as an extra.
Now, please don't talk about the corrupt Euro politicians the way you
do. There are corrupted people all over the world, and in France too we
kick them out when they've been proven guilty. And many corrupted ones
are in jail these days. It seems you know very very little about us. No
surprise in a way: US papers and TV hardly mention
foreign-countries-home-affairs.
-------
You know, I could treat you the way you treat me and call you a fascist
simply because we disagree. But I won't do it. Because the way you
refuse to understand the world around you and the way you blindly
believe in your own system (which is not all bad) is closer to what the
Marxists did. May be you're a marxist without knowing after all.
Philippe Chatiliez.
Paolo Pizzi
Donato Zipeto wrote:
> > Yes, she was WRONG and you acknowledged everything she said,
> > hence you were wrong too.
>
> I aknowledged the presence in europe of british, australians, canadians
> etc. soldiers...
Let's see what I jackass you made of yourself:
>> Dutch, Belgian...(worked from Britain), Canadian,...
>> BTW, the Americans got stuck in Belgium, and the British saved their
>> asses.
> Right. Among others..
^^^^^
Which means: right, the Americans got stuck in Belgium and the British
saved their asses, among others. Again, I'm asking you for the second
time WHERE all this happened, except in your imagination, of course...
Donato Zipeto
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
No... definitely not.
It means
"dutch, belgian, canadian..."
Right. Among others... (others, meaning soldiers of other countries
fighting in europe...).
You could not ask me where all this happened, because I didn't say that.
It was just "your immagination, of course", as usual...
And he talks about "jackass you made of yourself"...
Nice shot, PiPi...
Donato
Donato Zipeto
Thomas Kraemerkaemper <krae...@ampere.Physik.Uni-Dortmund.DE> wrote:
Really? After just a couple of posts?
It took longer on soc.culture.italian...
Donato
alessandro coricelli
> On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 17:41:48 -0800, Paolo Pizzi
> <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
> your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
> governments.
You're right, France has a right wing goverment !!!!! ?
Lionel Jospin is a famous right wing administrator.
"When will you ever learn ? "
A.
Paolo Pizzi
Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
> In your original statement was nothing said about 'useful' or
> 'resources'. You're a faker.
It was pretty obvious I'd say, unless you believe you can
farm on the Urals and build factories underneath the Caspian Sea.
> Again you lie. I stated that even in 1941 the Russian were able to
> compensate for the 20000 tank losses. You run completly out of
> arguments, hence, you steadily misquote my postings.
Question, what books have you read about ww2 and specifically
about the Eastern front? Care to back some of your bullshit
with something more reliable than your arrogance? It's not
the first time I'm asking you but of course you never cared
to reply comrade...
> : No, only near Omaha Beach, where you said they were pinned
> : down blaming their inefficiency and you didn't know why.
>
> They were never very efficient.
Again, waiting for some data to check yet another pathetic claim...
> : "Mostly" isn't enough a good argument to demonstrate that US
> : aid was useless. Care to talk about FIGURES like I did or
> : want to continue to speak only with your arrogance/ignorance?
>
> Again you lie. I never said that the US help was useless.
You lie comrade, when you state that USSR could win on their
own you automatically imply that US aid was useless. Too hard
to understand comrade?
> It was by no means determining.
Again waiting for data...
> : Again you don't know what you're talking about and again your figures
> : only come from your arrogance and not from authoritative references
> : like the ones I quoted. 60% of the Russian air force was destroyed
> : (mostly on the ground) in the first months of Operation Barbarossa.
>
> Which was a often quoted German propaganda lie
You see, you're a pathetic arrogant jerk, you obviously don't know
that after the fall of communism and the declassification of most
Russian ww2 records, historians like Paul Carell (it wouldn't surprise
me that you don't know whom he was...) were proven RIGHT and ALL
the official communist bloated figures were proven FALSE. Just like
that claim of your communist friends that the Germans were responsible
for the Katyn massacre, something I'm sure you have read in your
Communist propaganda book...
> something like Schwarzkopfs 4000+ destroyed tanks in the Kuweit theater
> - pure nonsense.
Prove it that it was pure nonsense. How do you know? Were you there?
Care to give us the "right" figures and show us what they really
were? I'm sure you'll skip this, you have NEVER quoted anything
to back your arrogance. You can't, of course...
> : The Russian could only fly their IL-2's because there were hardly
> : any German fighters to counter them and they were free to go about
> : killing Wehrmacht tanks. Do you know where they were tied up?
> : Of course in German skies trying to fend US B17's off...
>
> Oh you great idiot. Tell me were your B17's were in 1941, 1942 and
> even 1943 (sure, in 1943 were some 'test flights' over Germany). So
> you idiot think that the 1944 B17 attacks helped the Soviets to stop
> the Germans in 1941-1943?
Again you're making a fool of yourself, again I'll trash you mercilessly
and demonstrate that you don't have a clue about military history.
In 1941 the Russian Air Force was pretty much destroyed on the ground
by the Luftwaffe. By 1942 the US had already joined the war and by
1943 they had already sent the Russians something like 10,000 aircraft.
The vast majority of the IL2's were produced in 1944-45 and that proves
that you're an idiotic moron who doesn't know what is talking about,
yet arrogant enough to make a jackass of himself.
> : hahahahahahahahahahahaha, this is a great one!!! There were no
> : bombers in ww1 capable of carrying out strategic bombing, the
> : closest you can get is the pathetic attempt of the Zeppelins
> : on London, more or less a dozen dead and a lot of smoke, that's
> : it. And again even if you accept this, it's still Europeans
> : that invented it!!!
>
> Yep
All right, yep, you're an idiot and I proved you wrong twice.
> but bombing of civilian areas was invented long before. But
> later, no other country developed it to that perfection like the US.
As I said Europeans are responsible for the largest massacres in
history like Leipzig and Dresden. Care to back this idiotic
statement? Not a chance...
> : You see, it's again your IGNORANCE speaking. 80,000 people died in
> : the Tokyo firebombing raids, a similar figure died at Hiroshima,
> : including those who died of the atomic aftermath. The Dresden and
> : Leipzig bombing, pretty much a British business, completely unneedeed,
>
> Idiot, the USAAF also attacked Dredsen massivly.
I don't think so. Before the terrible NIGHT (hint for the Communist
jackass: RAF flew at night) Dresden was pretty much unscathed,
AFTER the slaughter there was very little to bomb. Again I can
trash you at will, you're a total ignorant.
> : just for the sake of revenge (the two cities would be overrun
> : only weeks after the massacre) caused over 500,000 casualties.
>
> Now you're quoting Neo-Nazi propaganda lies, thus with your own logic
> you are a Neo-Nazi?
That's pretty much the truth, you can even find it in your Communist
propaganda books, of course the Brits were bad because they weren't
communists...
> : hahahahahahahahahahahahaha thanks again for great laughs. In 1944
> : the Luftwaffe was almost non existent on the Eastern front and
>
> Sure, that's why they Germans had even in April 1945 some 1500 planes
> at the Oder front...
Oh yeah, big deal, 1,500 German planes against almost 70,000 Russian
planes, you're right the bulk of the Luftwaffe was on the Eastern
front and the Soviets were very heroic by defeating them with a
"mere" 45:1 advantage...
> The Luftwaffe was never bigger than in 1944.
Right, but only a handful were in Russian skies...
>
> : the Russian could enjoy the incredible luxury of having their
> : air force made up for over 50% of FIGHTER-BOMBERS that would
> : have fell easy prey of German fighters if there were no US
> : and British bombers in Germany.
>
> : You wonder why I call you a Communist? You don't know anything
> : about the history of WW2 but you know the Communist propaganda
> : bits very well and you don't even care to check some serious
> : reference when you get trashed by my arguments.
>
> Anyone who reads this will judge you right...
Of course anyone who's not a Communists jackass like you.
> : No, that's you. I have in excess of 2,000 books on military history
> : in my library,
>
> So why not start reading them?
I did, and that's why I can trash you at will. And you didn't and
that's why you can only INVENT figure and never quote anything
to back them up...
> : What's shizoprenia, a new European dance?
>
> Look it up in your library.
Nope, not found. Maybe you meant Schizophrenia but your wonderful
European high-school didn't teach you how to spell correctly
in English?
> : Exactly WHEN? Until the US joined the fray the situation was
> : pretty bleak on all fronts, especially the Russian. Again
> : study history and dump those Communist propaganda leaflets...
>
> Sure, the Germans were stopped at Moscow one day before Peral Habour
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah that's a good one...
Isn't that the Germans stopped themselves because Hitler (your
wonderful Austrian hero) was an idiot and decided against the
will of his generals to head South instead of taking Moscow?
Again, I can trash you at will, you know absolutely nothing
about history, you just make it up...
> : Yes, you're right, so how can you explain that such a marvelous
> : military force was crushed and ridiculized by inferior German
> : forces in a matter of months? How can you explain millions of
> : Russians POW's in the hand of the Germans? How can you explain
> : 60% of the Russian air force trashed to bits and pieces in
> : a couple of month? Shall we start talking about QUALITY instead
> : of QUANTITY?
>
> Good point. In fact, the quality of US supplies was often VERY bad.
Care to quote ONE book that states so or again shall we attribute
this other pathetic claim to your arrogance only?
US had an incredible supply machine, not even the Germans could
compete with them, let alone the pathetic communists. But of
course you don't know, like always you don't have a clue and you
just make things up.
> : So, I wonder why the Red Army was so quick in retiring the horses
> : and use a brand new US triple-axer in their places as soon as
> : they could get ahold of them. By 1945 most of the horses were
> : gone and the replacement was made in the USA...
>
> Again a lie. The Soviets even enter Berlin with horses-pushed weapons
> and logistics.
I said MOST, didn't say ALL.
> : Not large by any stretch of the imagination, the Germans were the
> : first to use Hanomags to draw their 88's and quickly relegated
> : the horses to push general stores.
>
> Nope. One of the last German units was a cavalry division. And during
> the winter fightings in Russia they also relied pretty much on horses,
> because trucks were useless.
hahahahahahahahahahaha, I want to see a cavalry division pushing
an 88. That is again if you have the slightest idea what you're
talking about, which I'm convinced you haven't...
> : Care to back this figure with something more than your
> : arrogance?
>
> Yep, you idiot, I took your 20000-planes-figure and the entire Soviet
> wartime production.
20,000 out of 80,000 is hardly 13%...
> I believe it's an impossible task since reliable
> : figures on Russian wartime production just don't exist
> : and the official ones have long been proven false by
> : Western and Post-Communist Russian historians.
>
> Sure, but you believe US numbers?
No, I'd rather believe the REAL Russian figures that came out after
the fall of your beloved communism and which were pretty close
to those claimed by the Germans and backed by the US.
But of course you haven't read anything that has been published
from 1991 on and of course you know absolutely nothing...
> : And even if we do believe the bloated official figures
> : the total of aircraft in Russian service was roughly
> : 80,000, 20,000 of which lend-leased from the US.
> : So, it's not 13% but a rather hefty 25%, and that even
> : taking Russian figures as reliable ones. (hardly...)
>
> 80000 is pure nonsense.
You're right, 80,000 is the official Russian figure,
divided roughly into 40,000 IL2's and other ground
attack fighter-bombers, 20,000 lend-lease planes
(this figure is on the other hand quite right)
and 20,000 other planes. Very likely it's something
between 60,000-70,000 and that makes the lend-lease
aircraft something like 30% of the total. Makes
perfect sense...
> : Utter BS, the Russian received no significant aircraft
> : contribution from the British, again you're just making
> : your argument up, you're just so unlucky that you found
> : me and not someone who believes your crap without being
> : able to prove it as such.
>
> Idiot, they got a lot of British planes, Hurricanes, Spits and
> bombers. You really know NOTHING.
I didn't say they got no British planes, just that their number
is not significant when compared to US planes. The total number
of Hurricanes (the largest contribution from the UK) was something
close to 2,000, that is a mere 10% of the total.
> :> Trucks were also not determining, since their army
> :> essentially rely on other transportation systems.
>
> : Such as? Feet?
>
> Mostly horses and yes, feet, too. They also used many of their tanks
> for transportation and many German trucks.
Bullshit, utter bullshit. Do you know what they used as an alternative
to trucks? US-made TRAINS: 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 cars.
> : Late US contribution? You've got to be kidding, show me ONE front
> : that looked good in December 1941. Russia? No way.
>
> Russia. The Germans were stopped in the first December week.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha The Germans STOPPED they were
not stopped. They stopped and proceeded South. They suffered
minor setbacks but they were still winning.
> North Africa?
>
> North Africa. Italy has much difficulties with the Brits.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Sorry but in December 1941
the Brits had already been pretty much beaten up by the DAK.
Italy had problems in 1940, when the Germans weren't there.
> : No way. Continental Europe? Completely under the Nazis.
> : Again, what the hell are you talking about?
>
> You know that you are wrong about the Luftwaffe fighters in the west,
> that#s why you're ignoring my statement.
What statement? You're making the whole thing up...
> Mh, let's see, from D-Day on the west Allies were behind their goals,
> it took them 3 month in the Normandy instead of a few weeks, during
> that the Soviets made what? 700km or so? During that the Soviets
> killed entire army group center with more German troops than were
> deployed in the whole Normandy.
Again you don't know what you're talking about, there are no
hedgerows in Ukraine...
> : General Patton would be in Berlin much before any Russian soldiers
> : if Truman wasn't the wimp he was.
>
> Sure, the Germans would have handed over Berlin without fight to the
> west Allies. At that time they fought only whom they feared.
Wonder why? You tell me comrade...
> : BTW, the vast majority of ex German generals after WW2 named
> : Patton as the best enemy general, not Montgomery, not Zhukov.
>
> To be exact you should state 'German generals in the west'.
Not exactly. Of course you can't include those generals that
never fought the Americans, like von Paulus who was captured
at Stalingrad. Do you know who Patton invited after the
German surrender to thank them for their consideration?
(A dinner that never took place because politicians got
mad at Patton having dinner with Nazi officials...)
They were great admirers of Patton and they had ALL fought
in the East at one time or another. Tell me who they were,
IF you know...
> And you forgot that the Germans destroyed much art in the SU, for
> which the Soviets had a right for compensation.
You see, you're talking like a Communist propaganda book...
> Since you stay with calling my 'communist', I will now call you a Nazi
> idiot.
A-hem you're the one talking with Hitler's argument. To me nazis and
communists are pretty much the same: arrogant intolerants like you
for example. You would have made a pretty good Hitler Jugend member,
I'm sure (you're too much of an idiot, you can't be more than 25,
you're probably 15...)
> : Again your fantasies are easy target for anyone who knows
> : even a little of naval history. No ww2 battleship has EVER had
> : cruiser guns, even the most sophisticated ones (US Iowa
> : class or Japanese Yamato class) only had 5" guns as their
> : secondary batteries and that my friends is the typical
> : mount of DESTROYERS, not exactly cruisers by any stretch
> : of the imagination. Again learn if you hate being trashed
> : by me every time.
>
> Bismarck and Tripitz had 15cm secondary batteries, as had the German
> 'town' cruisers, you Nazi idiot.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I don't recall Bismarck and Tirpitz bombarding the Italian
coast, as for Malaya and Valiant their "cruiser-level"
guns were pretty much unusable as they were boxed and
untrainable (if you know what it means...)
And BTW US HEAVY cruisers had 20cm guns which have a
much higher RANGE than LIGHT CRUISER 15 cm. guns.
That is what I was contesting you, no battleship ever
had heavy cruiser guns in ww2.
> You Nazi idiot do not know that RADAR isn't very helpful for indirect
> fire on land targets.
Don't forget that YOU are the Austrian who makes the same statements
as Hitler on the US...If you prefer to be called a Nazi idiot instead
of a Communist moron suit yourself, and grow up stupid KID.
Again I can trash you at will since you know nothing of naval
technology, a radar directed fire control isn't a traditional
radar by any stretch of the imagination, but of course you don't
know...like always.
> You Nazi idiot quite have make yourself laughable, that's true...
That's truly funny, I'm trashing you at will and you don't even
realize it. No wonder you're the perfect Nazi or Communists,
which is pretty much the same things for fanatic idiots like
you: a cult.
I'm pretty tired of this, so go ahead and reply with some more
bullshit that will only show your ignorance and utter reliance
on Communist propaganda books which like every fanatic idiot
you seem to have digested pretty well.
Did I say 15? No, you can't be more than 10...
Monty
Why don't you read all the posts first before commenting ?
Donato Zipeto
alessandro coricelli <alessandro...@snet.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 17:41:48 -0800, Paolo Pizzi
> > <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
> > your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
> > governments.
>
> You're right, France has a right wing goverment !!!!! ?
> Lionel Jospin is a famous right wing administrator.
> "When will you ever learn ? "
>
> A.
hahahahahahaha....
I missed this one!
paolopi', the "XXth century history expert"...
hahahahahahaha....
Donato
Dr.Ulrich Roessler
Paolo Pizzi (timee...@earthlink.net) wrote:
[..]
: > : Again you don't know what you're talking about and again your figures
: > : only come from your arrogance and not from authoritative references
: > : like the ones I quoted. 60% of the Russian air force was
: > : destroyed (mostly on the ground) in the first months of
: > : Operation Barbarossa.
: >
: > Which was a often quoted German propaganda lie
: You see, you're a pathetic arrogant jerk, you obviously don't know
: that after the fall of communism and the declassification of most
: Russian ww2 records, historians like Paul Carell (it wouldn't
: surprise me that you don't know whom he was...)
My guess: Paolo doesn't know this himself.
Paul Carrell was the post-war pen-name of one Paul E.Schmidt
who served during the war as a leading aide of Goebbels in
the propaganda-ministery.
His books, though very successful during the Cold War because
they implied that the Nazi-crusade against Soviet Union was
justified somehow as a sort of premature anti-communist action,
aren't exactly precise sources of information about WWII.
Anyhow, as far I can see, military historians of WWII do not
consider his books to be reliable works on the history of WWII,
especially his book on the Barbarossa onslaught.
See e.g. G.L.Weinberg's general history "A world at arms" or
the multi-volume history by the Militaergeschichtliches
Forschungsamt ("Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg")
which is now issued in English as "Germany and the Second World War"
by the Oxford University Press. These books might be a good
addition to Paolo's big library in case he really reads them.
u.roessler uro...@Rcs7.urz.tu-dresden.de
Paolo Pizzi
Donato Zipeto wrote:
> > Yes, she was WRONG and you acknowledged everything she said,
> > hence you were wrong too.
>
> I aknowledged the presence in europe of british, australians, canadians
> etc. soldiers...
Let's see what I jackass you made of yourself:
>> Dutch, Belgian...(worked from Britain), Canadian,...
>> BTW, the Americans got stuck in Belgium, and the British saved their
>> asses.
> Right. Among others..
^^^^^
Which means: right, the Americans got stuck in Belgium and the British
saved their asses, among others. Again, I'm asking you for the second
time WHERE all this happened, except in your imagination, of course...
Paolo Pizzi
Pedro T wrote:
> Yes, but we don't read your mind. You wrote "1/3" of the territory,
> you didn't mention the word "useful": But actually by the time the
> Nazis attacked USSR, most of the industrial power of the country had
> been moved to the Urals.
On top of the mountains? I don't think so. Now I hope you understand
what I meant...
> Maybe you're reading a nationalistic history book and you're not
> getting the whole picture accurately. I'm not talking about Point du
> Hoc, I'm talking about all your ideas about the WWII
Ideas that have been largely confirmed by the declassification of
Soviet documents after the fall of Communism.
> >No, it's not US propaganda, the huge amount of US aid to Russia
> >is a FACT that Socialist demagogues like you tend to ignore.
>
> Gee man, you still live in the Cold War era. This is the 90's. Wake
> up!!!
There are still millions of Communists in Europe, especially in
Italy, France and Russia. I believe YOU need to wake up...
> You say that the Americans won the war, you undervalue the importance
> of the other countries in the war (specially Britain).
Please don't tweak my words, I said that the most determining factor
of the outcome of ww2 was US industrial power and I challenge you
to prove me wrong.
> In 1940, the British are fighting agains the Blitz all alone.
Nope, there were French, Belgian, Dutch etc. By the time England
was alone the Blitz was well over.
> Imagine that they lose the Battle of England, Germany dominates the
> skies, and so, soon after Great Britain is occupied by the Germans.
> It was not such an unlikely thing (luckily it didn't happen). Germany
> would dominate most of Europe and would have no big rival.
Right as the UK alone would be incapable of pulling something like
D-DAY on their own. Actually they did try to land in France before
D-DAY without Americans, it ended in utter disaster, they were
slaughtered on the beaches. Poor bastards...
> What would be USA in this scenario, with no external markets?
The same as USA after WW2 I guess, with the entire Europe and
Japan without any money to buy anything and yet US economy
was at its peak. Probably the US didn't need any "external"
market...
> So what I mean is that, while helping the Europeans (and the Americans
> helped the Europeans very much in the war effort), the Americans were
> saving their asses too.
They were saving their interests maybe but consider that as late
as November 1941 very few Americans were in favor of a war against
Germany and hadn't Hitler declared war on the US I don't know if
it was easy for FDR to get a declaration of war on Germany from
Congress. Surely most people in the US wanted to avenge Pearl Harbor
and didn't care very much about the Germans.
> >No way, you don't know anything about military history, that's
> >clear to everyone. The USSR just didn't have the kind of
> >logistics needed to carry out a war on that scale, without
> >US food, trucks, trains and any sort of supplies they would
> >have lost big time. When WW2 started the Russian infantry was
> >one of the LEAST mechanized in the whole Europe. As a matter
> >of facts as late as 1944 most of their artillery was still
> >horse-pushed.
>
> Are you sure about this? Is that what your nationalistic American book
> tells you?
No, it's what you can find at the National Archives in Moscow. After
the fall of Communism, that is. Before, the only things you could
get were the official bloated figures and pathetic lies like that
of the German massacre of Katyn. A lie which Western European
communists have always believed until the truth came out...
Paolo Pizzi
Monty wrote:
> You were stressing that intellectuals in Europe didn't stand up
> against their socialist governments, so I'm just answering to your own
> words. Hardly any tweaking involved here. To make a bold statement
> like above shows again you don't know Europe too well.
You were uncapable to prove me wrong, you didn't even know whom those
people were and yet you were so arrogant to tell they were noone.
> The list of
> names you gave us could easily be countered by us Europeans giving you
> an even longer list of names of people who actually get into a lot of
> fights with governments of their respective countries.
Go ahead, if you can...
> Again, I wil not do so, because if you say you actually know that much
> about Europe, you'd know these names as well, wouldn't you ?
Still waiting...
> >Sorry, regardless of the country Europe has an unfortunate tradition
> >of keeping the arts under political wings, I don't see how it could
> >be otherwise since arts & entertainment in Europe are HEAVILY (and
> >I stress the adjective) government backed. It's not by chance that
> >those politicians unwilling to cope with Nazism and Communism seeked
> >shelter in the US...
>
> Only in your mind. I can't believe the BS you're putting down. The
> arrogance just makes me wanna puke.
> Ever heard of Pablo Picasso ??
Yes, and again with this poor example you're making a fool of
yourself as his country was rather a FASCIST one than SOCIALIST.
Had his country been socialists he would have been in bed with
their politicians, pretty much like he was in bed with the
politicians of the country that hosted him...
> But then again, I could name a lot more countries
> in Europe that have a right-wing government.
You could but somehow you never do. I'm waiting...
> Excuse me, the word "dissident" is not a word that comes from any
> western european country. Maybe your flashy american newschannels call
> 'em that name, but I haven't heard from that word being used to point
> out any person here in Europe. And don't start talking about Sacharov
> for instance, because he was a former Soviet, and the former U.S.S.R.
> is not to be considered Europe.
Really? And what is to be considered, Asia? And what about the
entire Eastern bloc, Africa maybe?
> And anyway, who told you that governments decide who are artists and
> who are not ?
If you knew how culture is managed in Europe and had a bit of brain
you'd understand. Pretty much everything is in the hand of the
governments and therefore POLITICIANS get to choose who's the
superintendent of a theater, who gets millions of dollars to do
a movie, who gets a grant for his great visual art... Very simple.
> You think you have a point, but you're too arrogant to see that it is
> impossible for you to judge on European comunity, since there are so
> many differences between the various countries
And yet so many similarities in the way culture is managed...
And it's no wonder that European cultural productions are more
and more joint efforts of SEVERAL governments. Of course I
presume this does not tell you much...
The rest of your nonsense doesn't even deserve my attention.
Paolo Pizzi
Philippe Chatiliez wrote:
> "Do you think all this is a lie and only the US
> "saved" Europe?"
Where did I ever say that only the US saved Europe?
I said that US industrial power was THE most determining
factor and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
> I remind you I never defined art. And everything Mozart wrote is art I
> think. No matter why he wrote it or whom he wrote it for. Btw, when you
> talk about what Mozart wrote, don't use the word "serenade". He never
> wrote one.
Really? Are you absolutely sure or you don't have a clue about
classical music?
Does "Eine Kleine Nachmusik K525" tell you anything? (And I'm
just quoting the more disgustingly famous...) Probably not...
> > Right, as Marx said "culture" is education, right?
>
> I never said that. My line was: what you call the "keeping of European
> culture" ... we call it "education". I was saying WHY our governments do
> what they do
Of course you didn't get my point...
So, is it right for you that a POLITICIANS who very likely does
not understand crap about art gets to choose WHOM are the people
that manage the arts in his country? Who do you think he'd likely
pick:
1. Some kiss-asses that helps his political agenda, no matter
how a lousy artist he or she is
2. Someone who is a great artist but hate politicians and won't
take any crap from them
> For an example: you and I, we don't have the same
> culture.
You're wrong, I'm 100% European.
> Now, talking about European Politicans, it seems you don't like them do
> you?
I don't like ANY politician.
> Or may be you don't understand the way they and WE think. Of course
> some of them do ask a few movie makers, musicians, writers, painters
> etc... to take care of some institution. But:
> 1/ this does not mean that the "others are NOT worthy of even the slight
> consideration" as you say
Name a European artist who has power and money who's not a leftist...
If you can't, you then have two choices:
1. Artists can only be leftists (pretty much like in old USSR...)
2. Artists who are not leftists are repressed
> And you have a very naive way to look at the politicians when you say
> "politicians NEVER give any money without getting something back".
No, I'm very REALISTIC, something very few Europeans are...
> Also, why do you care about how much Boulez is paid by the French
> government to manage IRCAM? Let the French government spend what it
> wants at what it wants. It's not your business.
No, but it's probably the business of some other European avant-guarde
composer probably more creative than Boulez (which is only a beaurocrat)
and that would probably deserve to be in his place.
Of course if IRCAM was a private institutions it would probably had
the right person on top and not just someone whose political ties
are stronger.
> We'll see where the US are at in about 15 years.
Still miles ahead of Europe, and still thousands of Europeans will
seek a US PhD...
> When you say that Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo etc created their
> art ONLY to make money. Oh c'mon. Mozart could not help writing music
??? What do you mean? It's pretty well documented that for example
the serenades (those you don't even know) were mostly written
to please aristocracy brats at parties, like the Requiem was
commissioned by an idiot that later (when Mozart was dead) claimed
it as its own (no, it wasn't Salieri as in Puskin's play and Forman's
movie.)
> Shakespeare, we don't know much about him do we?
We know pretty much about his company and his theater, both pretty
much aimed at making money...
> And Michaelangelo was probably a bit skizoid so it's hard to know.
Not that hard, we know very well how much he was paid for his
sculptures...
> Now, please don't talk about the corrupt Euro politicians the way you
> do. There are corrupted people all over the world
Right, the problem is that while Americans are generally independent
enough to trash them at will (no matter whether they are Republicans
or Democrats) Europeans go for plain denial and like ostrichs they
just bury their head in the ground and pretend they're much better
off politically.
> and in France too we kick them out when they've been proven guilty.
Oh yeah, as long as they're not Socialists... Which makes me think
if Socialists are real saints or maybe if, like I said, Europeans
go for plain denial...
> It seems you know very very little about us. No
> surprise in a way: US papers and TV hardly mention
> foreign-countries-home-affairs.
Again you're wrong, I don't think CNN International was a
French invention...
Remember, it was a fellow European that claimed France had
a right-wing government and an "ignorant" American to correct
him...
Eisen Chao
Anzuelo los Mosas (rhoe...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net>:
:
:
: >> Do you think all this is a lie and only the US "saved" Europe?
: >Without US industrial power the Russian would never make it.
: >And this is factual.
:
: Without Europe the US wouldn't exist. Without the wars that largely
: destroyed Europe in the first half of this century, the US wouldn't
: be the superpower it is today.
Except this is utter nonsense as the U.S. of A. had already
overtaken Great Britain in industrial output by the time
of the Spanish-American war (1890).
That ... (* Y-uuURRRPPPPppp *) excuse me please, I just got
back from lunch .... destroyed itself in a fatricidal
world war was merely iceing on the cake.
: Without the cold war the US would
: have been isolationist. And this is factual.
Without Euro-Peons destroying civiliczed society not
only once, but thwice this century, we Americans
would be perfectly content to be isolationists.
: Get a life man! Fuck your arrogant nationalist bullshit. The
: destruction of the Nazi-vermin was a joint venture of _all_ of the
: allied forces,
Excepting of course the 40,000 Dutchmen that joined the Waffen SS as
well as the throngs of cheering, applauding Dutch supporters
of the Germans as they marched into conquered Amsterdam in 1940.
: much as you want to prove otherwise.
:
: And please don't forget that even in 1940 a relative large fraction
: of the US population had Nazi-sympathies.
But with a population of over 100 million, only a few score
individuals choose to fight on Nazi Germany's side, unlike
you Dutch (10 million) and your more than half-hearted support
of Germany.
: And that both Japan and Germany declared war on _you_, not
: the other way around.
And if we had declared war on the Axis, then what ?
"You are war-mongering agressors! You go around
striking the first blow!"
Euro-Peons: Sheesh !
: Nevertheless, from a country that was never liberated by US soldiers
Blaming us, are we ?
FYI, the Liberation of the Lowlands was the responsibility
of Britian and her Commonwealth levies. That they failed to
achieve their assigned goals is not a reflection of the performace
of the U.S. Army. U.S> forces went as far east as the Elbe river and
met the Russians deep inside Czechoslovakia.
: I want to express my thanks to all US soldiers and citizens who were
:
Paolo Pizzi
alessandro coricelli wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 17:41:48 -0800, Paolo Pizzi
> > <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
> > your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
> > governments.
>
> You're right, France has a right wing goverment !!!!! ?
> Lionel Jospin is a famous right wing administrator.
> "When will you ever learn ? "
Guarda chi si vede, Coricelli. Come sempre disonesto fino al
collo tanto da quotare sotto il mio nome qualcosa che NON
ho scritto.
Tra l'altro stai facendo una correzione a qualcuno che
probabilmente condivide la tua religione, stupendo
autogol!
Patetico, come da tradizione...
Ovviamente da uno come te e' impossible un'ammissione di
torto e le necessarie SCUSE...
Paolo Pizzi
alessandro coricelli wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 17:41:48 -0800, Paolo Pizzi
> > <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
> > your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
> > governments.
>
> You're right, France has a right wing goverment !!!!! ?
> Lionel Jospin is a famous right wing administrator.
> "When will you ever learn ? "
What you quoted is not mine jackass!
Paolo Pizzi
Donato Zipeto wrote:
> > > B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
> > > your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
> > > governments.
> >
> > You're right, France has a right wing goverment !!!!! ?
> > Lionel Jospin is a famous right wing administrator.
> > "When will you ever learn ? "
> >
> > A.
>
> hahahahahahaha....
> I missed this one!
> paolopi', the "XXth century history expert"...
> hahahahahahaha....
That is NOT my quote, Mr. Zipeto, your comrade misquoted
me...
Come da tradizione Zipeto si rende ancor piu' ridicolo di
chi mi ha fraudolentemente attribuito un quote non mio.
E adesso vai con la solita arrampicata su uno specchio,
ci sara' da divertirsi come SEMPRE...
Paolo Pizzi
Dr.Ulrich Roessler wrote:
> My guess: Paolo doesn't know this himself.
Wrong guess.
> Paul Carrell was the post-war pen-name of one Paul E.Schmidt
> who served during the war as a leading aide of Goebbels in
> the propaganda-ministery.
>
> His books, though very successful during the Cold War because
> they implied that the Nazi-crusade against Soviet Union was
> justified somehow as a sort of premature anti-communist action,
> aren't exactly precise sources of information about WWII.
By YOUR standards comrade, I can understand that.
I imagine that what you find "reliable" is the fairy tale
of German soldiers killing thousands at Katyn, right?
A.A.Montilla
On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 15:06:17 -0800, Paolo Pizzi
<timee...@earthlink.net> revealed chemical distortions in his brain
when he wrote:
>alessandro coricelli wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 17:41:48 -0800, Paolo Pizzi
>> > <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > B: Not all Eurpean governments are socialist, as you imply ( sp ? ) in
>> > your message. Spain and France for instance have right wing
>> > governments.
>>
>> You're right, France has a right wing goverment !!!!! ?
>> Lionel Jospin is a famous right wing administrator.
>> "When will you ever learn ? "
>
>Guarda chi si vede, Coricelli. Come sempre disonesto fino al
>collo tanto da quotare sotto il mio nome qualcosa che NON
>ho scritto.
>
>Tra l'altro stai facendo una correzione a qualcuno che
>probabilmente condivide la tua religione, stupendo
>autogol!
>
>Patetico, come da tradizione...
>
>Ovviamente da uno come te e' impossible un'ammissione di
>torto e le necessarie SCUSE...
He's right. It wasn't written by him. As I already said, I was wrong
with the above, and I explained why I put this down. Nevertheless,
stupid mistake. So, indeed an " autogol ".
Plus Ultra
Laurent ANIORT
Paolo Pizzi wrote:
>
> Pedro T wrote:
>
> > Yes, but we don't read your mind. You wrote "1/3" of the territory,
> > you didn't mention the word "useful": But actually by the time the
> > Nazis attacked USSR, most of the industrial power of the country had
> > been moved to the Urals.
>
> On top of the mountains? I don't think so. Now I hope you understand
> what I meant...
>
underground sites in the Urals mountains to protect them from bombings.
These factories produced T-47 assault tanks which were very basic but
helped the russian army reconquer back all the lost territory. The red
army suffered a huge amount of casualties (10 Million ?) and bear
almost all the full strength of the wermacht as the hostilities on the
western front had almost ceased : from 1942, end of the battle for
britain to 1944 and D-Day, there was almost no battle in western
Europe.
> > >No, it's not US propaganda, the huge amount of US aid to Russia
> > >is a FACT that Socialist demagogues like you tend to ignore.
> >
> > Gee man, you still live in the Cold War era. This is the 90's. Wake
> > up!!!
>
> There are still millions of Communists in Europe, especially in
> Italy, France and Russia. I believe YOU need to wake up...
Without being a socialist, I make the same answer :
Gee man, you still live in the Cold War era. This is the 90's.Wake Up.
The meaning of "Communist" is Europe in the 90's is somehow different
from what it was in USSR under Stalin. In western Europe, the growing
threat comes from a rising nazi right wing.
>
> > You say that the Americans won the war, you undervalue the importance
> > of the other countries in the war (specially Britain).
>
> Please don't tweak my words, I said that the most determining factor
> of the outcome of ww2 was US industrial power and I challenge you
> to prove me wrong.
>
I challenge you. What I do no want is the word "MOST". The US played
their part in WWII. But so did all other countries.
Before Pearl Harbour
the US were "isolationists", and the government did nothing to help
Europe or any other country.
In North Africa,
the only action of the US troops was firing on the French troops in
Algiers. With the capitulation of the Rommel army in Tunisia, the
way to South Europe, Italy then France (Provence : Anvil operation)
was open.
In Eastern Europe,
the US supplies to the USSR came quite late, and only after the USSR
army had proved that it was worthy.
I do not want to downgrade the US role in WWII. Al I say is that the
US played a great part in the victory but as always, US citizens
overestimate that part.
> > In 1940, the British are fighting agains the Blitz all alone.
>
> Nope, there were French, Belgian, Dutch etc. By the time England
> was alone the Blitz was well over.
As a French I am laughing. The French Army lasted 2 months, the Dutch
and Belgan 1 month. The Battle of England began after Dunkerque (June
41) and lasted until the start of 42. The RAF stopped the LuftWaffe.
>
> > Imagine that they lose the Battle of England, Germany dominates the
> > skies, and so, soon after Great Britain is occupied by the Germans.
> > It was not such an unlikely thing (luckily it didn't happen). Germany
> > would dominate most of Europe and would have no big rival.
>
> Right as the UK alone would be incapable of pulling something like
> D-DAY on their own. Actually they did try to land in France before
> D-DAY without Americans, it ended in utter disaster, they were
> slaughtered on the beaches. Poor bastards...
No. Check your records. The Canadians tried to land in Dieppe and
were slaughtered. And this unsuccessful try helped put together the
plans for Normandy landing.
> > >No way, you don't know anything about military history, that's
> > >clear to everyone. The USSR just didn't have the kind of
> > >logistics needed to carry out a war on that scale, without
> > >US food, trucks, trains and any sort of supplies they would
> > >have lost big time. When WW2 started the Russian infantry was
> > >one of the LEAST mechanized in the whole Europe. As a matter
> > >of facts as late as 1944 most of their artillery was still
> > >horse-pushed.
> >
> > Are you sure about this? Is that what your nationalistic American book
> > tells you?
>
> No, it's what you can find at the National Archives in Moscow. After
> the fall of Communism, that is. Before, the only things you could
> get were the official bloated figures and pathetic lies like that
> of the German massacre of Katyn. A lie which Western European
> communists have always believed until the truth came out...
>
Stop. The US help to USSR came very late. The USSR had to give
their best lands to the Germans, but you underestimate the power
of Stalin and the hatred of Germans in Russia. Infantrymen and
a very cold winter were the key to the USSR victory in Stalingrad.
Stalin sacrificed a great deal of its population in that way, but
won the first real victory against a German army.
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
In soc.culture.german Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
:> In your original statement was nothing said about 'useful' or
:> 'resources'. You're a faker.
: It was pretty obvious I'd say, unless you believe you can
: farm on the Urals and build factories underneath the Caspian Sea.
Still excusing, Nazi idiot?
:> Again you lie. I stated that even in 1941 the Russian were able to
:> compensate for the 20000 tank losses. You run completly out of
:> arguments, hence, you steadily misquote my postings.
: Question, what books have you read about ww2 and specifically
: about the Eastern front? Care to back some of your bullshit
: with something more reliable than your arrogance? It's not
: the first time I'm asking you but of course you never cared
: to reply comrade...
Read the 'Tagebuch des OKW'... it should be in your 'huge' library...
:> : No, only near Omaha Beach, where you said they were pinned
:> : down blaming their inefficiency and you didn't know why.
:>
:> They were never very efficient.
: Again, waiting for some data to check yet another pathetic claim...
I listed several occasions where the US had much problems while other
Allies advanced at the same front or had to help the US troops. Its
your problem that you ignore every argument posted by others.
:> : "Mostly" isn't enough a good argument to demonstrate that US
:> : aid was useless. Care to talk about FIGURES like I did or
:> : want to continue to speak only with your arrogance/ignorance?
:>
:> Again you lie. I never said that the US help was useless.
: You lie comrade, when you state that USSR could win on their
: own you automatically imply that US aid was useless. Too hard
: to understand comrade?
And again you show to usenet the malfunction of your logical
abilities...
:> It was by no means determining.
: Again waiting for data...
So am I.
:> : Again you don't know what you're talking about and again your figures
:> : only come from your arrogance and not from authoritative references
:> : like the ones I quoted. 60% of the Russian air force was destroyed
:> : (mostly on the ground) in the first months of Operation Barbarossa.
:>
:> Which was a often quoted German propaganda lie
: You see, you're a pathetic arrogant jerk, you obviously don't know
: that after the fall of communism and the declassification of most
: Russian ww2 records, historians like Paul Carell (it wouldn't surprise
: me that you don't know whom he was...) were proven RIGHT and ALL
: the official communist bloated figures were proven FALSE. Just like
: that claim of your communist friends that the Germans were responsible
: for the Katyn massacre, something I'm sure you have read in your
: Communist propaganda book...
I know Paul Carell... but again you're working with misquotes, this
time your victim is P. Carell, who cannot defend himself in this
group. I got it now: You have essentially no idea about the meaning of
the words 'right' and 'all', have you? Otherwise you wouldn't make
such stupid statements.
:> something like Schwarzkopfs 4000+ destroyed tanks in the Kuweit theater
:> - pure nonsense.
: Prove it that it was pure nonsense. How do you know? Were you there?
: Care to give us the "right" figures and show us what they really
: were? I'm sure you'll skip this, you have NEVER quoted anything
: to back your arrogance. You can't, of course...
You simple-minded Nazi-idiot should have the US GAO report in your
'huge' library... try to read it. If you have difficulties with some
of the longer words post it, may I can help you.
The first people which recognized the US propaganda bullshit were the
Arabs in southern Iraq, which did not have personal experience with
the official USA and thus had no fudge factor to revalue the US
statements. They payed with some thousand lives for that.
:> : The Russian could only fly their IL-2's because there were hardly
:> : any German fighters to counter them and they were free to go about
:> : killing Wehrmacht tanks. Do you know where they were tied up?
:> : Of course in German skies trying to fend US B17's off...
:>
:> Oh you great idiot. Tell me were your B17's were in 1941, 1942 and
:> even 1943 (sure, in 1943 were some 'test flights' over Germany). So
:> you idiot think that the 1944 B17 attacks helped the Soviets to stop
:> the Germans in 1941-1943?
: Again you're making a fool of yourself, again I'll trash you mercilessly
: and demonstrate that you don't have a clue about military history.
: In 1941 the Russian Air Force was pretty much destroyed on the ground
: by the Luftwaffe. By 1942 the US had already joined the war and by
: 1943 they had already sent the Russians something like 10,000 aircraft.
: The vast majority of the IL2's were produced in 1944-45 and that proves
: that you're an idiotic moron who doesn't know what is talking about,
: yet arrogant enough to make a jackass of himself.
Another occasion where you lost track of your argumentation... you
told us, that the US B17's kept the German fighters in the West. I
answered 'right, from 1944 on, when the war was entirely won by the
Soviets', thus the US bombers in the West made no contribution (or
only very small in 1943) until the war was decided.
:> : hahahahahahahahahahahaha, this is a great one!!! There were no
:> : bombers in ww1 capable of carrying out strategic bombing, the
:> : closest you can get is the pathetic attempt of the Zeppelins
:> : on London, more or less a dozen dead and a lot of smoke, that's
:> : it. And again even if you accept this, it's still Europeans
:> : that invented it!!!
:>
:> Yep
: All right, yep, you're an idiot and I proved you wrong twice.
So? Show me where - and don't fake again.
:> but bombing of civilian areas was invented long before. But
:> later, no other country developed it to that perfection like the US.
: As I said Europeans are responsible for the largest massacres in
: history like Leipzig and Dresden. Care to back this idiotic
: statement? Not a chance...
I repeat again, for the small-minded ones like you: The USAAF took
part in the Dresden massacre. No one knows the real losses in Dresden,
numbers vary between 25000 and 135000. Leipzig was definitly none of
the 'largest massacres in history', you idiot. The largest massacres
due to aerial bombing, which in fact were Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki
and Dresden, were mostly comitted by the USAAF alone.
:> : You see, it's again your IGNORANCE speaking. 80,000 people died in
:> : the Tokyo firebombing raids, a similar figure died at Hiroshima,
:> : including those who died of the atomic aftermath. The Dresden and
:> : Leipzig bombing, pretty much a British business, completely unneedeed,
:>
:> Idiot, the USAAF also attacked Dredsen massivly.
: I don't think so. Before the terrible NIGHT (hint for the Communist
: jackass: RAF flew at night) Dresden was pretty much unscathed,
: AFTER the slaughter there was very little to bomb. Again I can
: trash you at will, you're a total ignorant.
Sure, that's why some 300-400 US bombers attacked the day after the
first British night attack: nothing left to destroy.
:> : just for the sake of revenge (the two cities would be overrun
:> : only weeks after the massacre) caused over 500,000 casualties.
:>
:> Now you're quoting Neo-Nazi propaganda lies, thus with your own logic
:> you are a Neo-Nazi?
: That's pretty much the truth, you can even find it in your Communist
: propaganda books, of course the Brits were bad because they weren't
: communists...
I can't see why this could be related to the Brits now... still out of
arguments and looking for Allies, Mr. Nazi-idiot?
:> : hahahahahahahahahahahahaha thanks again for great laughs. In 1944
:> : the Luftwaffe was almost non existent on the Eastern front and
:>
:> Sure, that's why they Germans had even in April 1945 some 1500 planes
:> at the Oder front...
: Oh yeah, big deal, 1,500 German planes against almost 70,000 Russian
: planes, you're right the bulk of the Luftwaffe was on the Eastern
: front and the Soviets were very heroic by defeating them with a
: "mere" 45:1 advantage...
You small-minded Nazi should have found somewhere in your 'huge'
library that during the Oder-operation the Soviets had some 6000
planes versus some 1500 German ones. Or could you back your idiotic
'70000 plane' figure?
:> The Luftwaffe was never bigger than in 1944.
: Right, but only a handful were in Russian skies...
Nope, as I have shown you above.
:>
:> : the Russian could enjoy the incredible luxury of having their
:> : air force made up for over 50% of FIGHTER-BOMBERS that would
:> : have fell easy prey of German fighters if there were no US
:> : and British bombers in Germany.
:>
:> : You wonder why I call you a Communist? You don't know anything
:> : about the history of WW2 but you know the Communist propaganda
:> : bits very well and you don't even care to check some serious
:> : reference when you get trashed by my arguments.
:>
:> Anyone who reads this will judge you right...
: Of course anyone who's not a Communists jackass like you.
:> : No, that's you. I have in excess of 2,000 books on military history
:> : in my library,
:>
:> So why not start reading them?
: I did, and that's why I can trash you at will. And you didn't and
: that's why you can only INVENT figure and never quote anything
: to back them up...
Hahaha... show us some of your quotes from your 'huge' library...
:> : What's shizoprenia, a new European dance?
:>
:> Look it up in your library.
: Nope, not found. Maybe you meant Schizophrenia but your wonderful
: European high-school didn't teach you how to spell correctly
: in English?
Oh wow... what a huge mistake... this kind of argumentation gives you
the credit you deserve..
:> : Exactly WHEN? Until the US joined the fray the situation was
:> : pretty bleak on all fronts, especially the Russian. Again
:> : study history and dump those Communist propaganda leaflets...
:>
:> Sure, the Germans were stopped at Moscow one day before Peral Habour
: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah that's a good one...
: Isn't that the Germans stopped themselves because Hitler (your
: wonderful Austrian hero) was an idiot and decided against the
: will of his generals to head South instead of taking Moscow?
No, you idiot: They were stopped at Moscow 1941 due to a Soviet
counter offensive. It was 1942, when Hitler decided to attack in the
south. Strange, that even this trivial fact was not well-documented in
you 'huge' library... and that you don't knew that by heart... or did
you think Pearl Habour was in 1942, idiot?
: Again, I can trash you at will, you know absolutely nothing
: about history, you just make it up...
:> : Yes, you're right, so how can you explain that such a marvelous
:> : military force was crushed and ridiculized by inferior German
:> : forces in a matter of months? How can you explain millions of
:> : Russians POW's in the hand of the Germans? How can you explain
:> : 60% of the Russian air force trashed to bits and pieces in
:> : a couple of month? Shall we start talking about QUALITY instead
:> : of QUANTITY?
:>
:> Good point. In fact, the quality of US supplies was often VERY bad.
: Care to quote ONE book that states so or again shall we attribute
: this other pathetic claim to your arrogance only?
: US had an incredible supply machine, not even the Germans could
: compete with them, let alone the pathetic communists.
Not in quantity, that's true, but in quality and that's what we're
talking about here, you idiot.
But of
: course you don't know, like always you don't have a clue and you
: just make things up.
:> : So, I wonder why the Red Army was so quick in retiring the horses
:> : and use a brand new US triple-axer in their places as soon as
:> : they could get ahold of them. By 1945 most of the horses were
:> : gone and the replacement was made in the USA...
:>
:> Again a lie. The Soviets even enter Berlin with horses-pushed weapons
:> and logistics.
: I said MOST, didn't say ALL.
Ok, I add: 'with _mostly_ horsed pushed weapons and logistics'.
:> : Not large by any stretch of the imagination, the Germans were the
:> : first to use Hanomags to draw their 88's and quickly relegated
:> : the horses to push general stores.
:>
:> Nope. One of the last German units was a cavalry division. And during
:> the winter fightings in Russia they also relied pretty much on horses,
:> because trucks were useless.
: hahahahahahahahahahaha, I want to see a cavalry division pushing
: an 88. That is again if you have the slightest idea what you're
: talking about, which I'm convinced you haven't...
They had even 88 pushed by horses... in 1945 they even pushed planes
at the airfields by horses, due to lack of fuel... but that was not
the point, which again you missed completly.
:> : Care to back this figure with something more than your
:> : arrogance?
:>
:> Yep, you idiot, I took your 20000-planes-figure and the entire Soviet
:> wartime production.
: 20,000 out of 80,000 is hardly 13%...
Right. But again you missed the point, because I spoke about the
entire Soviet wartime production, numbers given in my last
posting. You argue like Hitler, who never could believe the Soviet
production numbers and explained again and again his generals that the
war in the east was already won by Germany.
:> I believe it's an impossible task since reliable
:> : figures on Russian wartime production just don't exist
:> : and the official ones have long been proven false by
:> : Western and Post-Communist Russian historians.
:>
:> Sure, but you believe US numbers?
: No, I'd rather believe the REAL Russian figures that came out after
: the fall of your beloved communism and which were pretty close
: to those claimed by the Germans and backed by the US.
: But of course you haven't read anything that has been published
: from 1991 on and of course you know absolutely nothing...
:> : And even if we do believe the bloated official figures
:> : the total of aircraft in Russian service was roughly
:> : 80,000, 20,000 of which lend-leased from the US.
:> : So, it's not 13% but a rather hefty 25%, and that even
:> : taking Russian figures as reliable ones. (hardly...)
:>
:> 80000 is pure nonsense.
: You're right, 80,000 is the official Russian figure,
: divided roughly into 40,000 IL2's and other ground
: attack fighter-bombers, 20,000 lend-lease planes
: (this figure is on the other hand quite right)
: and 20,000 other planes. Very likely it's something
: between 60,000-70,000 and that makes the lend-lease
: aircraft something like 30% of the total. Makes
: perfect sense...
You idiot, entire Soviet war time production was ~160000.
:> : Utter BS, the Russian received no significant aircraft
:> : contribution from the British, again you're just making
:> : your argument up, you're just so unlucky that you found
:> : me and not someone who believes your crap without being
:> : able to prove it as such.
:>
:> Idiot, they got a lot of British planes, Hurricanes, Spits and
:> bombers. You really know NOTHING.
: I didn't say they got no British planes, just that their number
: is not significant when compared to US planes. The total number
: of Hurricanes (the largest contribution from the UK) was something
: close to 2,000, that is a mere 10% of the total.
So you agree, that the entire lend-lease contribution of 10% of the
domestic production is not significant? Nice.
BTW: It were nearly 3000 Hurricanes, plus 1300 Spits, plus others...
:> :> Trucks were also not determining, since their army
:> :> essentially rely on other transportation systems.
:>
:> : Such as? Feet?
:>
:> Mostly horses and yes, feet, too. They also used many of their tanks
:> for transportation and many German trucks.
: Bullshit, utter bullshit. Do you know what they used as an alternative
: to trucks? US-made TRAINS: 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 cars.
:> : Late US contribution? You've got to be kidding, show me ONE front
:> : that looked good in December 1941. Russia? No way.
:>
:> Russia. The Germans were stopped in the first December week.
: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha The Germans STOPPED they were
: not stopped. They stopped and proceeded South. They suffered
: minor setbacks but they were still winning.
Why don't you read P. Carell 'Unternehmen Barbarossa' to learn about
the facts, you little idiot?
:> North Africa?
:>
:> North Africa. Italy has much difficulties with the Brits.
: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Sorry but in December 1941
: the Brits had already been pretty much beaten up by the DAK.
: Italy had problems in 1940, when the Germans weren't there.
You poor little idiot know really nothing about what you're
talking. Shall I tell you again the facts, idiot? In December 1941 the
Brits enter Lybia again, deliberate Tobruk and forced the DAK to
withdraw from Bengasi. At the end of December 1941 the DAK was back at
it's initial positions, you idiot. Furthermore at the end of 1941 the
Italians surrender in Eritrea, Abessinia and Somalia, total Italian
losses: some 200000 soldiers. Only a moron like you could call this
a 'beatening of the Brits'.
So North Africa is another front that looked good in December 1941,
you idiot. Thus, when the USA were forced to enter the war the Germans
were already stopped everywhere: in the west (Battle of Britain), in
the east (Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov) and in the south (Bengasi). They
had another chance in 1942, but were stopped again without any US
troops involved.
:> : No way. Continental Europe? Completely under the Nazis.
:> : Again, what the hell are you talking about?
:>
:> You know that you are wrong about the Luftwaffe fighters in the west,
:> that#s why you're ignoring my statement.
: What statement? You're making the whole thing up...
Blablabla... you have no arguments
:> Mh, let's see, from D-Day on the west Allies were behind their goals,
:> it took them 3 month in the Normandy instead of a few weeks, during
:> that the Soviets made what? 700km or so? During that the Soviets
:> killed entire army group center with more German troops than were
:> deployed in the whole Normandy.
: Again you don't know what you're talking about, there are no
: hedgerows in Ukraine...
ah, now it's the hedgerows... the Ukraine was one of the worst grounds
one can imagine... but: You idiot even don't know where the Ukraine
is. The defeat of army group center in summer 1944 was in Belorussia,
you poor little idiot, a country with only one major road at that time.
:> : General Patton would be in Berlin much before any Russian soldiers
:> : if Truman wasn't the wimp he was.
:>
:> Sure, the Germans would have handed over Berlin without fight to the
:> west Allies. At that time they fought only whom they feared.
: Wonder why? You tell me comrade...
:> : BTW, the vast majority of ex German generals after WW2 named
:> : Patton as the best enemy general, not Montgomery, not Zhukov.
:>
:> To be exact you should state 'German generals in the west'.
: Not exactly. Of course you can't include those generals that
: never fought the Americans, like von Paulus who was captured
: at Stalingrad. Do you know who Patton invited after the
: German surrender to thank them for their consideration?
: (A dinner that never took place because politicians got
: mad at Patton having dinner with Nazi officials...)
: They were great admirers of Patton and they had ALL fought
: in the East at one time or another. Tell me who they were,
: IF you know...
:> And you forgot that the Germans destroyed much art in the SU, for
:> which the Soviets had a right for compensation.
: You see, you're talking like a Communist propaganda book...
You idiot tell us now why this is only propaganda in your fantasy!
:> Since you stay with calling my 'communist', I will now call you a Nazi
:> idiot.
So now it's 'heavy' cruisers only...
:> You Nazi idiot do not know that RADAR isn't very helpful for indirect
:> fire on land targets.
: Don't forget that YOU are the Austrian who makes the same statements
: as Hitler on the US...
You poor little idiot know nothing about me... I'm not Austrian, nor
do I live in Austria nor do I have any other connection to Austria.
If you prefer to be called a Nazi idiot instead
: of a Communist moron suit yourself, and grow up stupid KID.
: Again I can trash you at will since you know nothing of naval
: technology, a radar directed fire control isn't a traditional
: radar by any stretch of the imagination, but of course you don't
: know...like always.
You poor little Nazi idiot know nothing, that is clear.
:> You Nazi idiot quite have make yourself laughable, that's true...
: That's truly funny, I'm trashing you at will and you don't even
: realize it. No wonder you're the perfect Nazi or Communists,
: which is pretty much the same things for fanatic idiots like
: you: a cult.
: I'm pretty tired of this, so go ahead and reply with some more
: bullshit that will only show your ignorance and utter reliance
: on Communist propaganda books which like every fanatic idiot
: you seem to have digested pretty well.
: Did I say 15? No, you can't be more than 10...
Thomas Kr"amerk"amper
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
In soc.culture.german Dr.Ulrich Roessler <uro...@urz.tu-dresden.de> wrote:
[snip]
: Paul Carrell was the post-war pen-name of one Paul E.Schmidt
: who served during the war as a leading aide of Goebbels in
: the propaganda-ministery.
: His books, though very successful during the Cold War because
: they implied that the Nazi-crusade against Soviet Union was
: justified somehow as a sort of premature anti-communist action,
: aren't exactly precise sources of information about WWII.
: Anyhow, as far I can see, military historians of WWII do not
: consider his books to be reliable works on the history of WWII,
: especially his book on the Barbarossa onslaught.
: See e.g. G.L.Weinberg's general history "A world at arms" or
: the multi-volume history by the Militaergeschichtliches
: Forschungsamt ("Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg")
: which is now issued in English as "Germany and the Second World War"
: by the Oxford University Press. These books might be a good
: addition to Paolo's big library in case he really reads them.
Quite interesting information!!!
Thomas Kr"amerk"amper
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
:> Yes, but we don't read your mind. You wrote "1/3" of the territory,
:> you didn't mention the word "useful": But actually by the time the
:> Nazis attacked USSR, most of the industrial power of the country had
:> been moved to the Urals.
: On top of the mountains? I don't think so. Now I hope you understand
: what I meant...
This idiot is really a fool... knows nothing about the facts. Most
Soviet weapon industries were and still are at the Ural mountains.
:> You say that the Americans won the war, you undervalue the importance
:> of the other countries in the war (specially Britain).
: Please don't tweak my words, I said that the most determining factor
: of the outcome of ww2 was US industrial power and I challenge you
: to prove me wrong.
Without the BoB: No base in western Europe for the US.
Without the Soviets: At least 3 times more German soldiers in the Normandy.
Without the Soviets: 60% more German planes over western Europe.
Without the Brits: The Axis in control of North Africa.
Without the partisans in former Yogoslavia: 40% more divisions in Italy.
The West Europeans and the Soviets gave millions of lives to defeat
Nazi Germany - and you steadily argue about the importance of the US
aid like spam...
:> In 1940, the British are fighting agains the Blitz all alone.
: Nope, there were French, Belgian, Dutch etc. By the time England
: was alone the Blitz was well over.
You idiot even don't know that the Battle of Britain was called 'the
Blitz' and that this took place AFTER the surrender of the
Netherlands, Belgium and France.
:> Imagine that they lose the Battle of England, Germany dominates the
:> skies, and so, soon after Great Britain is occupied by the Germans.
:> It was not such an unlikely thing (luckily it didn't happen). Germany
:> would dominate most of Europe and would have no big rival.
: Right as the UK alone would be incapable of pulling something like
: D-DAY on their own. Actually they did try to land in France before
: D-DAY without Americans, it ended in utter disaster, they were
: slaughtered on the beaches. Poor bastards...
You idiot even don't know that it were the brave Canadians who land at
Dieppe, not the Brits.
:> What would be USA in this scenario, with no external markets?
: The same as USA after WW2 I guess, with the entire Europe and
: Japan without any money to buy anything and yet US economy
: was at its peak. Probably the US didn't need any "external"
: market...
You idiot even don't know that your internal market is actually mostly
paid by Japanese credits.
: Paolo Pizzi
: Cypress, CA
: U.S.A.
Thomas Kr"amerk"amper
Thomas Kraemerkaemper
:> "Do you think all this is a lie and only the US
:> "saved" Europe?"
: Where did I ever say that only the US saved Europe?
: I said that US industrial power was THE most determining
: factor and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
How that?
They produced in no category more than 50% of the combined Allied
production, but much less in most.
They had a very small share in the deployed armed forces in Europe.
Even the much smaller Great Britain has a higher share in the total
efforts.
Thomas Kr"amerk"amper
Donato Zipeto
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Donato Zipeto wrote:
>
> > > Yes, she was WRONG and you acknowledged everything she said,
> > > hence you were wrong too.
> >
> > I aknowledged the presence in europe of british, australians, canadians
> > etc. soldiers...
>
> Let's see what I jackass you made of yourself:
>
> >> Dutch, Belgian...(worked from Britain), Canadian,...
> >> BTW, the Americans got stuck in Belgium, and the British saved their
> >> asses.
>
> > Right. Among others..
> ^^^^^
Right. Dutch, belgian, canadian "among others"... [fighting here in
europe, and not only US soldiers...]
Then there is a BTW, which I could not care less...
> Which means: right, the Americans got stuck in Belgium and the British
> saved their asses, among others. Again, I'm asking you for the second
> time WHERE all this happened, except in your imagination, of course...
Nobody else replied on that.
I guess everybody clearly understood what I meant.
I should not repeat 10 times just because a fucking idiot has nothing
better to do in his poor life...
Donato
Paolo Pizzi
Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
> This idiot is really a fool... knows nothing about the facts. Most
> Soviet weapon industries were and still are at the Ural mountains.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
They were put there AFTER the Germans had invaded the whole
Western USSR. So, my trashing wasn't enough, you must be a real
masochist...
> Without the BoB: No base in western Europe for the US.
> Without the Soviets: At least 3 times more German soldiers in the Normandy.
> Without the Soviets: 60% more German planes over western Europe.
> Without the Brits: The Axis in control of North Africa.
> Without the partisans in former Yogoslavia: 40% more divisions in Italy.
Without European Allied whose ass had been severly kicked by the
Germans there wouldn't be any need for a US intervention.
> The West Europeans and the Soviets gave millions of lives to defeat
> Nazi Germany - and you steadily argue about the importance of the US
> aid like spam...
I have already DESTROYED you with the words of your comrade Zhukov,
you lost, live with it.
> : Right as the UK alone would be incapable of pulling something like
> : D-DAY on their own. Actually they did try to land in France before
> : D-DAY without Americans, it ended in utter disaster, they were
> : slaughtered on the beaches. Poor bastards...
>
> You idiot even don't know that it were the brave Canadians who land at
> Dieppe, not the Brits.
Needless nitpicking that only reveals your lack of arguments...
They surely weren't US troops... Point stays: they did try
to land without US troops and got their sorry asses massacred.
> You idiot even don't know that your internal market is actually mostly
> paid by Japanese credits.
Care to back this LUDICROUS statement with something more reliable
than the arrogance of an imbecile 15-year old Communist kid?
Paolo Pizzi
Hi comrade,
let me just cut though your bullshit and trash you again:
"It is now said that the allies never helped us........ However, one
cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which
we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the
war." "And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in
abundance".
( Marshall Zhukov, from the Journal of Slavic Military Studies,
Vol. 7, No. 3, Sept. 1994, pp567-586)
> : Question, what books have you read about ww2 and specifically
> : about the Eastern front? Care to back some of your bullshit
> : with something more reliable than your arrogance? It's not
> : the first time I'm asking you but of course you never cared
> : to reply comrade...
>
> Read the 'Tagebuch des OKW'... it should be in your 'huge' library...
Yes, I believe it is, quote it instead of making things up...
> I listed several occasions where the US had much problems while other
> Allies advanced at the same front or had to help the US troops. Its
> your problem that you ignore every argument posted by others.
No red imbecile, you only quoted Omaha beach totally ignoring
the Point du Hoc problem, it's just that you don't know
anything.
> : You lie comrade, when you state that USSR could win on their
> : own you automatically imply that US aid was useless. Too hard
> : to understand comrade?
>
> And again you show to usenet the malfunction of your logical
> abilities...
Oh yeah, now that I trashed you with the Zhukov quote I'm
really going to have fun with your reply...
> : Again waiting for data...
>
> So am I.
You pathetic little liar, I've already swamped you with production
data and always quoting the source, unlike you.
> Another occasion where you lost track of your argumentation... you
> told us, that the US B17's kept the German fighters in the West. I
> answered 'right, from 1944 on, when the war was entirely won by the
> Soviets', thus the US bombers in the West made no contribution (or
> only very small in 1943) until the war was decided.
You really don't have the brain to understand ANYTHING.
By 1944 the Russian were winning ONLY beacause they had
ALREADY received millions of tons of war and raw
materials, as your comrade Zhukov testifies (and he
was sure a bona fide Communist like you, not certainly
a US spy...)
> :> : hahahahahahahahahahahaha, this is a great one!!! There were no
> :> : bombers in ww1 capable of carrying out strategic bombing, the
> :> : closest you can get is the pathetic attempt of the Zeppelins
> :> : on London, more or less a dozen dead and a lot of smoke, that's
> :> : it. And again even if you accept this, it's still Europeans
> :> : that invented it!!!
> :>
> :> Yep
>
> : All right, yep, you're an idiot and I proved you wrong twice.
>
> So? Show me where - and don't fake again.
1. You stated that US made the most casualties with strategic bombing
I proved you WRONG
2. You stated that US raids on Japanese cities killed more people
that what the British did at Leipzig-Dresden
I proved you WRONG
3. You stated that strategic aerial bombing was pretty much a US
invention
I proved you WRONG (Guernica)
4. You stated that in ww1 there were strategic bombers
I proved you WRONG
Fake? If there's a fake that's YOU comrade...
> I repeat again, for the small-minded ones like you: The USAAF took
> part in the Dresden massacre. No one knows the real losses in Dresden,
> numbers vary between 25000 and 135000.
Ok, let me trash you again with DATA and let me prove you a
pathetic IDIOT that can only MAKE HIS ARGUMENTS UP:
1,600 RAF bombers took part in two waves to the Dresden bombing,
by the time the 400 USAAF bombers arrived, the day after, there
was hardly anyone else to kill. So, that massacre is entirely
a British one.
Let me quote just a few passage from some pretty important
historical works, I won't quote the source because I want
to have fun seeing you rebutting this arguments with made
up ones...
"As a firm believer in mass raids, Air Marshal Harris developed
the "saturation" technique of mass bombing--that of concentrating
clouds of bombers in a giant raid on a single city, with the object
of completely demolishing it."
" Allied strategic bombing was the most deadly form of economic
warfare ever devised and showed another side of the indiscriminateness
of industrial war. But in mid-1941 the British Chiefs of Staff soberly
concluded that morale, not industry, was Germany's most vulnerable point
and ordered Sir Arthur Harris of the RAF Bomber Command to concentrate
on "area bombing" of cities. Churchill's scientific adviser Professor
L.A. Lindemann of Oxford (later Lord Cherwell) concurred in April 1942
that one-third of all Germans could be rendered homeless in 15 months
by strategic bombing of cities. The Royal Air Force accordingly assigned
its new Lancaster four-engine bombers to a total war on German
civilians.
After attacks on Lübeck and the Ruhr, Harris sent a thousand planes
against Cologne on May 30-31 in an attack that battered one-third of
the city. In 1943, after an interlude of bombing German submarine pens,
the Lancasters launched the Battle of the Ruhr totaling 18,506 sorties
and the Battle of Hamburg numbering 17,021. The fire raids in Hamburg
killed 40,000 people and left a million homeless. The Royal Air Force
then hit Berlin (November 1943 to March 1944) with 20,224 sorties,
avenging many times over all the damage done by the Luftwaffe to London.
By early 1943 the U.S. 8th Air Force joined in the air campaign but
eschewed terror bombing."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, you Euro-fascist, who is responsible for the worst aerial
bombing in ww2, the US?
> Leipzig was definitly none of
> the 'largest massacres in history', you idiot.
35,000 people dead, no big deal, right? And what
about Hamburg? 45,000+, again thanks to British
terror bombing.
You see, you pathehic Euro-fascist, it's because
of people like you that Europe has always produced
monsters such as Hitler and Stalin. Yesterday you
cheered Hitler and today you applaude Stalin, certainly
not much of a change...
> Sure, that's why some 300-400 US bombers attacked the day after the
> first British night attack: nothing left to destroy.
You're right, nothing left do destroy and hardly anyone to kill,
pretty much a useless mission.
> : Oh yeah, big deal, 1,500 German planes against almost 70,000 Russian
> : planes, you're right the bulk of the Luftwaffe was on the Eastern
> : front and the Soviets were very heroic by defeating them with a
> : "mere" 45:1 advantage...
>
> You small-minded Nazi should have found somewhere in your 'huge'
> library that during the Oder-operation the Soviets had some 6000
> planes versus some 1500 German ones. Or could you back your idiotic
> '70000 plane' figure?
40,000 Stormoviks and other fighter-bombers
20,000 fighters
20,000 lend lease planes
Now, you Euro-peon, tell me where they were in 1944-45, away
from the front taking a vacation?
Again, you're contraddicting yourself with your very same
arguments.
> : Right, but only a handful were in Russian skies...
>
> Nope, as I have shown you above.
You have shown absolutely NOTHING, only that you're making
up figures and arguments. And you get trashed on a regular
basis by the hard FACTS...
> Hahaha... show us some of your quotes from your 'huge' library...
I did, imbecile, it's you who never quotes ANYTHING but your
arrogance...
> : Nope, not found. Maybe you meant Schizophrenia but your wonderful
> : European high-school didn't teach you how to spell correctly
> : in English?
>
> Oh wow... what a huge mistake... this kind of argumentation gives you
> the credit you deserve..
Nope, this kind of argumentation is pretty damn appropriate for
a pathetic Euro-shit that claims to have a great education, to
know foreign languages well and in fact can't even spell in
English...
> : hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah that's a good one...
> : Isn't that the Germans stopped themselves because Hitler (your
> : wonderful Austrian hero) was an idiot and decided against the
> : will of his generals to head South instead of taking Moscow?
>
> No, you idiot: They were stopped at Moscow 1941 due to a Soviet
> counter offensive. It was 1942, when Hitler decided to attack in the
> south. Strange, that even this trivial fact was not well-documented in
> you 'huge' library... and that you don't knew that by heart... or did
> you think Pearl Habour was in 1942, idiot?
Almost, idiotic Euro-fascist, December 1941 is pretty damn close
to 1942, isn't it imbecile?
> : Care to quote ONE book that states so or again shall we attribute
> : this other pathetic claim to your arrogance only?
> : US had an incredible supply machine, not even the Germans could
> : compete with them, let alone the pathetic communists.
>
> Not in quantity, that's true, but in quality and that's what we're
> talking about here, you idiot.
So, let me recap, pathetic Euro-filth, you're implying that
the Russian supply machine was better than that of the US?
ahahahahahahaha, imbecile, if the Russian supply machine
was good it was ONLY because iw was pretty much entirely
a US business...
You pathetic Communist shit sound like a mid 70's USSR textbook,
if you go to Moscow now they'll sure spit on piece of shit
Communist like you.
> : I said MOST, didn't say ALL.
>
> Ok, I add: 'with _mostly_ horsed pushed weapons and logistics'.
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. By the time
the Russians entered Berlin there were very FEW horses and
pretty much all of them only relegated to secondary supplies
(like clothing etc.) Most of their heavy gear was carried
by US-made trucks.
Again you can only make your arguments up.
> :> Nope. One of the last German units was a cavalry division. And during
> :> the winter fightings in Russia they also relied pretty much on horses,
> :> because trucks were useless.
>
> : hahahahahahahahahahaha, I want to see a cavalry division pushing
> : an 88. That is again if you have the slightest idea what you're
> : talking about, which I'm convinced you haven't...
>
> They had even 88 pushed by horses... in 1945
Really? Show me a picture please... I wonder how can you
retreat whit thousands of t34's up your ass making a couples
of miles an hour... This is as funny as British
battleships having secondary guns the same size of turret
batteries of US heavy cruisers. You know what's an 88, right?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
It's way to easy to trash you...
> they even pushed planes
> at the airfields by horses, due to lack of fuel...
Oooooooooooooooooh, really? Can you understand the difference
between local ops where you need to remove a wreck from a
grass strip fast and tactical operations where you retreat
hundreds of miles in a week with t34's chasing you?
Oh yeah right, the Germans had their artillery pieces and
airplanes drawn by horses...
> : 20,000 out of 80,000 is hardly 13%...
>
> Right.
So, if I'm right that means you're WRONG and that means
that your 13% is pretty much your INVENTION, just like
anything you state. Point proven, thanks.
> But again you missed the point, because I spoke about the
> entire Soviet wartime production
Again, I'll let Zhukov speak for you and sink your
bullshit forever:
"It is now said that the allies never helped us....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much what you say, Euro-crap, exactly what was
written in Communist propaganda books that you seem
to have learned by heart.
"However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Really Marshall Zukhov? But out little Euro-shit just said we gave
you only 13% of your wartime production... DO you think he's just
a pathetic liar? Naaaaa, it's rather a pathetic IGNORANT whose fault
is to be a pathetic die-hard Communist who still believes in the
crap the your comrades have put out for 50 years...
" without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
have continued the war."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well said Marshall Zhukov, not all Europeans are ignorant morons
like our Nazi-Communist Euro-filth. Thanks a lot. Oh, BTW, here
is the source to kill this idiot for good:
Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, Sept. 1994,
pp567-586
> Why don't you read P. Carell 'Unternehmen Barbarossa' to learn about
> the facts, you little idiot?
Sorry little shit, I quoted Carell's book and you didn't even
know what that was...
> So North Africa is another front that looked good in December 1941,
> you idiot. Thus, when the USA were forced to enter the war the Germans
> were already stopped everywhere
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Looked good, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
so good that in 1942 the British suffered the worst humiliations
ever in North Africa and the Mediterranean. Their only major
victories in 1940-41 were against the hapless Italians. What
the British did against the DAK was ludicrous, only INSIGNIFICANT
engagements and small tactical successes like Sidi Rezegh. And the
proof is written in history books: just take a look at what happened
in 1942. The Brits were winning in Africa in 1941? I don't
think so, otherwise the DAK wouldn't have kicked their sorry
asses in 1942 big time. Again you can only make your arguments
up...
> Blablabla... you have no arguments
I have pretty much destroyed you an all fronts, you were
a pathetic adversary...
> : Again you don't know what you're talking about, there are no
> : hedgerows in Ukraine...
>
> ah, now it's the hedgerows... the Ukraine was one of the worst grounds
> one can imagine...
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Hitler and the Russians rolled thousands of tanks through the
FLATS of Ukraine and you say that it was one of the worst grounds?
I believe there's HARDLY a BETTER battlefield for tanks then
Ukraine, no wonder it was the theater for some of the largest
tank battles in history, IDIOT!!!! Again you can only INVENT stuff...
Ukraine consists ALMOST ENTIRELY of plains, you MORON, there
can't be a better place for tanks...
> :> And you forgot that the Germans destroyed much art in the SU, for
> :> which the Soviets had a right for compensation.
>
> : You see, you're talking like a Communist propaganda book...
>
> You idiot tell us now why this is only propaganda in your fantasy!
You see, Euro-totalitarian (you're the living proof that die-hard
Communists are no better than the Nazis...) NOBODY can say that
a nation has the right to LOOT, even if they got looted before.
And only Communist propaganda can claim that the Russians had
the RIGHT to *steal* German art.
Paolo Pizzi
Thomas Kraemerkaemper wrote:
> They produced in no category more than 50% of the combined Allied
> production, but much less in most.
"It is now said that the allies never helped us........ However, one
^^^
cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
war." "And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in
^^^^
abundance".
( Marshall Zhukov, from the Journal of Slavic Military Studies,
Vol. 7, No. 3, Sept. 1994, pp567-586)
So, if Zhukov admitted that without US industrial production they
could not have continued the war, he admitted that the US industrial
powere was THE most determining factor to the ultimate Nazi defeat.
Case closed.
Paolo Pizzi
Laurent ANIORT wrote:
> > On top of the mountains? I don't think so. Now I hope you understand
> > what I meant...
> >
> Sorry to disagree, but almost all the tank factories had been moved to
> underground sites in the Urals mountains to protect them from bombings.
Exactly, ask yourself why...No other choice maybe? Don't tell me
that the underground shelters were a strategic choice because the
Russians knew very well the Germans DID NOT have strategic bombers
capable of reaching that far.
> These factories produced T-47 assault tanks which were very basic but
> helped the russian army reconquer back all the lost territory.
T47? You mean T34...
> > Please don't tweak my words, I said that the most determining factor
> > of the outcome of ww2 was US industrial power and I challenge you
> > to prove me wrong.
> I challenge you. What I do no want is the word "MOST". The US played
> their part in WWII. But so did all other countries.
As Marshall Zhukov said "without US aid we just couldn't continue
to wage war."
> > Right as the UK alone would be incapable of pulling something like
> > D-DAY on their own. Actually they did try to land in France before
> > D-DAY without Americans, it ended in utter disaster, they were
> > slaughtered on the beaches. Poor bastards...
>
> No. Check your records. The Canadians tried to land in Dieppe and
> were slaughtered.
That's exactly what I was thinking about, without mentioning the
specifics...
> And this unsuccessful try helped put together the plans for
> Normandy landing.
Well, not exactly, Dieppe was an utter fiasco, the only thing
they learned from that unfortunate incident was that they'd
need MUCH MORE than that to successfully land in Europe, and
if Rommel was given the Panzer divisions he had asked, it's
very likely that he could have massacred the invasion on the
beaches. DDAY was a great military feat but luck played quite
a part...
> > No, it's what you can find at the National Archives in Moscow. After
> > the fall of Communism, that is. Before, the only things you could
> > get were the official bloated figures and pathetic lies like that
> > of the German massacre of Katyn. A lie which Western European
> > communists have always believed until the truth came out...
> >
>
> Stop. The US help to USSR came very late.
Nope, the USSR were receiving stuff even before the US entered
the war.
> The USSR had to give their best lands to the Germans, but
> you underestimate the power of Stalin and the hatred of Germans
> in Russia.
Not exactly, hatred for the Germans started AFTER they had invaded
USSR and treated their people like underdogs. Had the Germans
treated them more decently they could have found millions available
to join them against the Communists. In 1941 I believe Stalin was
hated much more than Hitler by the Russians...
> Infantrymen and a very cold winter were the key to the USSR victory
> in Stalingrad.
Remember what Zhukov said, without US aid they would lose the war.
Case closed.
> Stalin sacrificed a great deal of its population in that way, but
> won the first real victory against a German army.
Stalin threw millions of poor people whose life meant nothing for him
against the Germans in futile charges. He should have ended like Hitler,
unfortunately in Europe there are still millions of Communists and
Nazis...
Philippe Chatiliez
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Where did I ever say that only the US saved Europe?
> I said that US industrial power was THE most determining
> factor and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
That's what you've been taught, that's not what I've been taught. But as
I said earlier: I do thank the USA for all the help they brought.
... Now, talking about "serenades" by Mozart, as I said, he never wrote
one. And then you answered:
> Really? Are you absolutely sure or you don't have a clue about
> classical music?
>
It's a despiteful answer. I DO have a clue about classical music. Music
means more than 30 years of my life. I studied music. Harmony,
composing... The whole thing. Please look in your dictionnary what the
word "serenade" means.
> Does "Eine Kleine Nachmusik K525" tell you anything? (And I'm
> just quoting the more disgustingly famous...) Probably not...
Nachmusik means "night music", french for this is "nocturne", not
serenade.
About politicians choosing the people for "managing" the arts in the
country, there again your answer is depiteful (about the politicans):
> So, is it right for you that a POLITICIANS who very likely does
> not understand crap about art gets to choose WHOM are the people
> that manage the arts in his country?
Why do you think all politicans don't understand art? Some do, some
don't, and the ones who don't have people around them; advisors who do
know.
And who said those people they pick up "manage" the arts. C'mon. They
are in charge of a very few things, a very few insitutions, which are
not many compared to everything we have in the country.
> Who do you think he'd likely
> pick:
>
> 1. Some kiss-asses that helps his political agenda, no matter
> how a lousy artist he or she is
> 2. Someone who is a great artist but hate politicians and won't
> take any crap from them
You make the choice so narrow, so ridiculously caricatural. We have very
good artists who are not kiss-asses. I mentionned Maurice Bejard as the
manager of the TNP.
Now, about our "culture"...
> > For an example: you and I, we don't have the same
> > culture.
I said. And you answered;
> You're wrong, I'm 100% European.
Being European does not mean sharing the same culture. I was not
opposing you and I as a european vs a USian, but as you and I. As simple
as that.
The you say:
> I don't like ANY politician.
Why being so eager? It's sad really. You must be very unhappy. Don't you
have any confidence in anyone? Do you prefer systems to people? Poor
you.
> Name a European artist who has power and money who's not a leftist...
This is a stupide game. OK. Here are a few: Franco Zefirelli, who made
great movies, he's a pro-Berloscuni, almost extreme-right. Alain Delon,
a very good french actor (who acted in great and terrible movies):
almost extreme-right sometimes. Michel Sardou, a french popular singer:
right wing... Many many many. You're a living-cliche I'm afraid. Thus:
> 1. Artists can only be leftists (pretty much like in old USSR...)
> 2. Artists who are not leftists are repressed
Both of your lines are wrong.
And when you say:
> No, I'm very REALISTIC, something very few Europeans are...
C'mon. How dare you say such a thing?.. May be you should be a DREAMER,
you'd feel much better. Look higher towards the stars, you'll go ahead.
Talking about Boulez and IRCAM, you say:
> Of course if IRCAM was a private institutions it would probably had
> the right person on top and not just someone whose political ties
> are stronger.
Btw, Boulez IS right wing. And he's a good composer and a good manager
for the IRCAM. If IRACM was a private company, it might or might not
have somebody better than him. How can you assume it would be
necessarely better? Some private companies or institutions are run by
major ass-holes.
> > We'll see where the US are at in about 15 years.
>
> Still miles ahead of Europe, and still thousands of Europeans will
> seek a US PhD...
Do you really believe Europe is far behind? Europe currently produces
2/3 of the richness in the whole world. When it is going to be well
organized with, among other things, a common money, it will be, at last,
seen as continent. Then we can compare with the USA. And I don't mean
I'm glad and proud about all that, I don't mind really. I'm not trying
to put the USA donw you know. I don't mind either.
> > When you say that Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo etc created their
> > art ONLY to make money. Oh c'mon. Mozart could not help writing music
>
Mozart: of course he wrote things for pleasing aristocracy. But why
being so despiteful about these people? And does this mean Mozart did
not have the NEED to write? Money, or pleasing people, were not his main
goals. Or may be we did not read the same books.
... Shakespeare, as I said, was not writing for the money. Now, the fact
his theater troup needed bread is obvious: no money, no actors, no play.
But this is about producing, not about writing.
... Michaelangelo:
> we know very well how much he was paid for his
> sculptures...
Of course we know, but this does not mean we know he was doing them
because of the money. This guy could not help being Michaelangelo and
working as hell.
... Corrupted Euro politicians: many socialist corrupted politicans
found themselves into troubles recently. Some of them lost all their
civil-rights. Some of them are in jail. You do HATE socialists do you?
But it seems you hate mankind before all. You sound so much like a
desperate person. The way you insult people in this news group is
terrifying really. Also, as I previously said, it seems you know very
very little about us. And please don't take CNN International as good
example of a US TV talking about Europe/France... It's a joke really.
Any french national TV, in the 8 pm news, talk more about the USA than
CNN International about France in a whole day.
> Remember, it was a fellow European that claimed France had
> a right-wing government and an "ignorant" American to correct
> him...
I never pretended a fellow European can't be wrong.
Philippe Chatiliez.
Philippe Chatiliez
Paolo Pizzi <timee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> So, if Zhukov admitted that without US industrial production they
> could not have continued the war, he admitted that the US industrial
> powere was THE most determining factor to the ultimate Nazi defeat.
>
> Case closed.
Are you a judge? A military? A marsian?
Philippe Chatiliez.
Jude R. Montarsi
Ok Philippe and Paolo,
Lass uns eine kleine nactchmusik machen! Stai zite already mit dis
subject!
Grazie Dio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: jmon...@cub.kcnet.org
Jude Rene Montarsi Jude Rene Montarsi
Lock Haven, PA 17745 USA and 00184 Roma (RM) ITALIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wim Cannaerts
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Paolo Pizzi wrote:
> > : What's shizoprenia, a new European dance?
> >
> > Look it up in your library.
>
> European high-school didn't teach you how to spell correctly
> in English?
Our English may not be as good as your English but I'm pretty sure that
our Dutch, French and German are better then yours. Unless of course you
went to one of our fine European High schools.
Wim Cannaerts
s96...@zorro.ruca.ua.ac.be