1 in 20 UK schoolchildren thought Hitler was coach of a German football team
La N
Hitler was a footballer, say pupils
(UKPA) - 2 days ago
One in 20 UK schoolchildren thought Adolf Hitler was a coach of the German
football team, a survey has revealed.
And one in six youngsters said they thought Auschwitz was a Second World War
theme park while one in 20 said the Holocaust was a celebration at the end
of the war.
The survey for a veterans' charity also found one in 10 thought the SS stood
for Enid Blyton's Secret Seven, and one in 12 believed the Blitz was a
European clean-up operation following the Second World War.
Scottish-based charity Erskine, which provides nursing and medical care for
veterans, said it would now take part in a nationwide scheme to educate
schoolchildren about the two world conflicts.
The charity questioned 2,000 children between the ages of nine and 15 about
their knowledge of the key people and events of the two wars.
While a quarter admitted they did not think about the soldiers who died in
the conflicts, and 40 per cent said they did not know when Remembrance Day
was, 70 per cent of all those surveyed said they wanted to learn more about
the two wars in school.
Major Jim Panton, chief executive of Erskine, said: "Some of the answers to
this poll have shocked us and it has shown that Erskine, amongst others, has
a part to play, not just in caring for veterans but in educating society as
a whole."
The charity said it wanted some of the 1,350 veterans it cares for every
year to share their experiences of the war with younger generations.
Erskine will work in partnership with Their Past Your Future (TPYF) project,
a partnership of the Imperial War Museum, the Museums, Libraries and
Archives England, the Northern Ireland Museum Council, the National Library
of Wales and the Scottish Museums Council, to help schoolchildren learn more
about the conflicts.
Andrew Salmond, a project manager for TPYF in Scotland, said: "This
initiative offers a fantastic opportunity to inform young people about the
experiences of war - both at home and abroad."
Copyright � 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
Add News to your Google Homepage
Allan
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_mrJm.51033$Db2.19258@edtnps83...
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iNK4m_4fHfX4UZGPMp5hOxwlrwaw
>
> Hitler was a footballer, say pupils
> (UKPA) - 2 days ago
>
> One in 20 UK schoolchildren thought Adolf Hitler was a coach of the German
> football team, a survey has revealed.
I always have my doubts about the value of these stories. I spotted one this
week on the front page of the Daily Mail with a big headline stating that
Scots schoolchildren thought Culloden was a battle involving the Vikings.
However when the article was closely examined what it amounted to was the
fact that one kid thought it involved the Vikings. With this one about
Hitler we don't know how the question was put and the break down of results
between the age ranges isn't stated. Did it involve giving 9 and 10 year
olds a multiple choice stating was Hitler (a) a nazi war leader (b) a
musician (c) a football coach? I don't know about the curriculum in
England and Wales but my daughter just did her history project on WW2 last
year in Primary 7 when she was 11 to 12. So they are possibly asking
hunderds of kids these questions before any of them have touched it in
school history lessons - which is bound to skew the overall figures. Unless
their parents sit them down and tell them at least the main points of 20thC
history then maybe it ain't surprising that they aren't too knowledgebale at
that age? We are talking about events of almost 70 years ago when many of
their grand-parents weren't even born! I don't know but if you took me back
to 1970 as a 10 year old and asked me what the Boer War involved then I
imagine I'd struggle.
Allan
naebad
> "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:_mrJm.51033$Db2.19258@edtnps83...
>
> >http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iNK4m_4fHfX4UZ...
>
> > Hitler was a footballer, say pupils
> > (UKPA) - 2 days ago
>
> > One in 20 UK schoolchildren thought Adolf Hitler was a coach of the German
> > football team, a survey has revealed.
>
> I always have my doubts about the value of these stories. I spotted one this
> week on the front page of the Daily Mail with a big headline stating that
> Scots schoolchildren thought Culloden was a battle involving the Vikings.
> However when the article was closely examined what it amounted to was the
> fact that one kid thought it involved the Vikings. With this one about
> Hitler we don't know how the question was put and the break down of results
> between the age ranges isn't stated. Did it involve giving 9 and 10 year
> olds a multiple choice stating was Hitler (a) a nazi war leader (b) a
> musician (c) a football coach? I don't know about the curriculum in
> England and Wales but my daughter just did her history project on WW2 last
> year in Primary 7 when she was 11 to 12. So they are possibly asking
> hunderds of kids these questions before any of them have touched it in
> school history lessons - which is bound to skew the overall figures. Unless
> their parents sit them down and tell them at least the main points of 20thC
> history then maybe it ain't surprising that they aren't too knowledgebale at
> that age? We are talking about events of almost 70 years ago when many of
> their grand-parents weren't even born! I don't know but if you took me back
> to 1970 as a 10 year old and asked me what the Boer War involved then I
> imagine I'd struggle.
>
> Allan
Most of their parents don't know either - they are too young or
ignorant.
Have you ever met the eligible men of the inner cities of Scotland?
They are glorified Neds.
They only know about impregnating girls and a punch-ups. The girls
they make pregnant are no better.
They end up as single mothers on a housing estate. The only history
any of them will have studied will be as seen on TV or in a fantasy
video game.
Naebad
Allan
"naebad" <nae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7985cc86-f52f-43f0...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
********************************************
Aye I imagine the vast majority of adults know who Hitler is though you have
a point. I've seen grown adults who themselves could hardly do simplish
arithmetic denounce youngsters for being academically challenged. In
general I think the kids get a bad deal from the press and from some oldies
in more ways than one.
Allan
Nebulous
wrote:
I heard it on the wireless, and the person from Erskine's, who was
talking about it sounded quite embarrassed.
It was multi-choice, with one 'correct' answer, two close ones, and
one off the wall one.
To me it definitely highlighted a generation gap, but one that showed
the veterans organisation as being more out of touch than the children
were.
I get a bit fed-up of the criticism young people take. They are seen
as a soft target and are blamed for a lot of the ills in the world.
Yet the ones I know are thoughtful, considerate, well-versed in and
concerned about the world around them.
It wasn't them who engaged in an orgy of debt and just about
bankrupted the world. It wasn't them who were so profligate with the
world's resources that we are hitting major problems with pollution
and inequity. We need to look a lot closer to home than the children
if we are looking for someone to blame.
Neb
The Phantom Piper
I recently (within the past 2-3 months) heard a poll being
announced that a sizable percentage (I believe it was in
the mid-40s, although I might be wrong) of Americans 18-25
year of age believed that America fought *with* the Germans
*against* the Russians in WWII.
I've just searched briefly for it but with no luck; I do remember
shaking my head and being utterly gobsmacked at the high
percentage. I mean, it's not like the Popular Culture (movies,
games, TV shows) hasn't turned out enough material to allow
these kids to be informed...
*This* Is How History Repeats Itself,
The Phantom Piper
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Nebulous" <ja...@pigtail.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fr3df5p14hq0fliut...@4ax.com...
> To me it definitely highlighted a generation gap, but one that showed
> the veterans organisation as being more out of touch than the children
> were.
>
> I get a bit fed-up of the criticism young people take. They are seen
> as a soft target and are blamed for a lot of the ills in the world.
95% correct for the Hitler question isn't the end of the world anyway -
there's *always* one dumbo who wasn't listening.
And if they are into Enid Blyton's Secret Seven they can't be much more than
8 or 9 anyway?
I'm not even sure when remembrance day is myself - 11th November maybe?
They are still snot-nosed attention-seeking little brats mind you. Give them
all a good thrashing - even if you don't know why deserve it, they will.
Allan
> wrote:
> I get a bit fed-up of the criticism young people take. They are seen
> as a soft target and are blamed for a lot of the ills in the world.
I wholeheartedly agree. One example was the first time my son cycled to and
from school. We live at opposite ends of the town and you have to basically
go through the busy parts of town and traverse some iffy roads so as he was
only about 10 I thought I'd walk the route with him a couple of times as I
haven't a cycle myself. Coming home we were going along Inch Road and the
road is very busy with parents on the school run and buses etc. I shouted
from behind telling him to cut left up Forestfield which is a quiet
residential bit. He stopped the cycle and turned round to try and hear what
I was saying and at that point he had only the front wheel resting on what
is a resonably wide pavement. An elderly lady then started really berating
him for being on the pavement. I caught up and asked her what the problem
was (and rememember his cycle was static and only partly on the pavement)
and she started saying things like "in my day we didn't ride on the
pavement" etc. After pointing out that he wasn't actually even riding on the
pavement I told her to look around at the heavy traffic and suggested that
she may not have had that problem in her day! It seemed to dawn on her and
she seemed to agree but had I not been there I'm sure she would have
thought nothing of it. Likewise there are virtually no play facilities
around us and wee kids get chased for simply playing in the streets - no
doubt by people who revel in nostalgia about their own playing in the
street. I try to teach the kids to respect their elders but it is a two way
street and there seems to be at least some among the older generation who
have infinite patience and repect for their own grand-children but virtually
none for anyone else's. There is also the manners thing. Twice on Fridy
during our lunch-time walk Claire and I made way or held doors for elderly
women and both times they totally ignored us and walked by without the hint
of a thank you or acknowledgement. Again the same people would probably
berate youngsters for their lack of manners. A rude person is a rude person
whatever age they are.
Allan
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:UpmdnaWm5Pn9AWvX...@westnet.com.au...
"Tough Love", breeds more successful children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8348938.stm
--
Auld Bob
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:E_OdnTzAjIA0PWvX...@bt.com...
>> Give them all a good thrashing - even if you don't know why they deserve
>> it, they will.
>>
> Strange you should say that. There is an item in today's news that claims,
> "Tough Love", breeds more successful children.
Amazing isn't it?
It takes a huge team of sociologists and researchers weeks and months to
collate analyse data from 9,000 families, at huge cost no doubt, to arrive
at a conclusion you or I could have told them in 30 seconds flat.
I've been saying for years that the time to prevent loutish teenage behavoir
is not when they are 15 years old but when they are 2 or 3.years old.
It just seems totally obvious to me. When the 'terrible twos' first
discover that they revolve around the universe and the universe doesn't
revolve them and they begin having the same sort of tantrums the Christians
had when they discovered same - *that's* the time that makes or breaks a
person as a succesfull human being, not when they are in a remand home.
It's absolutely no use trying waiting until the obnoxious brats are lobbing
Molotov cocktails through OAP's letter boxes and then trying to do something
about it.
I've seen so many 'parents' create rods for their own backs and monsters
on-society-for-the-unleashing-of it's just painfull.
But these days there is nothing one can do about it. I can just imagine the
reaction if I were to box the neighbours kids round the ears for chopping
down a beautifull tree in MY garden (which they did only last year) I'd be
in court quicker than you could say child abuse - once I'd been discharged
from hospital that is.
And woe betide anyone who *dares* tosuggest that their perfect little
darlings are anything less than angelic because *they* are lazy, useless and
utterly incompetant parents.
And isn't it always the case that those less capable of rearing them breed
like ****ing rats too.
I would have liked to have had more kids but when I was in a potentially
stable relationship we simply couldn't afford it. That factor just doesn't
seem to enter into the equation these days. In fact if anything it seems to
be the reverse. The less one can afford kids the more they have.
Right - well that little rant must have pissed off *someone*surely?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Allan" <al...@noemail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:F5xJm.10653$s_4....@newsfe02.ams2...
>
> "Nebulous" <ja...@pigtail.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fr3df5p14hq0fliut...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:17:48 -0000, "Allan" <al...@noemail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> I get a bit fed-up of the criticism young people take. They are seen
>> as a soft target and are blamed for a lot of the ills in the world.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree.
I used to wholeheartedly agree until I was about 18 and then I changed my
mind.
> There is also the manners thing. Twice on Fridy during our lunch-time walk
> Claire and I made way or held doors for elderly women and both times they
> totally ignored us and walked by without the hint of a thank you or
> acknowledgement.
Tell me about it. You know I actualy hesitate to hold open a door for any
woman under 70 these days- for fear I might get handbagged for being a
patronising sexist bastard.
I mean, I *am* a patronising sexist bastard - no doubt about it - but *they*
don't know that at the time.
But sometimes when I've opened a door for a younger woman - well - if looks
could kill....doubtless they expect the perverted creep (me) to rape them on
the next instant.
And heaven forfend you should ever pay them a compliment - what with mobile
phones the thought police would there in minutes flat.
And then they wonder why decent chaps like us don't want them in our bars.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"The Phantom Piper" <ThePhan...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:206b19a4-c589-4353...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
I recently (within the past 2-3 months) heard a poll being
announced that a sizable percentage (I believe it was in
the mid-40s, although I might be wrong) of Americans 18-25
year of age believed that America fought *with* the Germans
*against* the Russians in WWII.
IIRC they thought "the US fought against the Germans *and* the Russsians".
And also, IIRC, the percentage was a lot higher than 40.
No doubt the same morons will also grow up thinking "the US saved Britain
from seaborne invasion" and not the other way round.
There are even a few elderly *adults* who believe that. John Wayne has got a
lot to answer for.
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
about 72 years ago. The old lady called it, "The daised wean syndrome", (The
Spoiled Child Syndrome). She may have spoken broad Scots but she was far
from being an uneducated person. If anyone came to the area and just asked
for, "Granny", she was the one they sent them to. We had an army camp and a
Prisoner of War camp on our doorstep, (literally), and every soldier and
prisoner from the lowest private to the highest ranked officer called her
Granny and she treated them all as her Grand Children. She advised more
soldiers and prisoners than the officers appointed for that task.
--
Auld Bob
deem...@aol.com
> "The Phantom Piper" <ThePhantomPi...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:206b19a4-c589-4353...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
"Britain saved the US from seaborne invasion"?
deem...@aol.com
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>
> news:D7KdnXOZcKANK2vX...@westnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
There's an old quote by Plato(?) that goes something like "The
most important education is proper training in the nursery".
La N
I agree that children should not be blamed for the ills and ignorance of the
world. They are inheriting a world that was mightily f*ed up by their
parents and grandparents generations. Kids are doing the best they can
under these circumstances.
- nilita
Adam Whyte-Settlar
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8897f31d-9e44-4d01...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
According to Roosevelt.
But what would he know.
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
Gee, Germany couldn't even hop the Channel...but I'm sure the
Atlantic would've been no problem.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5b6f62d3-54f3-43c1...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
They couldn't 'hop the channel' *because* Britain smashed the Luftwaffe.
Duh.
If the RAF had failed and they had defeated Britain (which they would have
done) and added our navy to theirs and Russia hadn't beaten them at
Stalingrad - which was a damn close run thing - then who would have stopped
them using Russias huge resources and the rest of Europes and Russias
navies.
I think you were pretty hard pushed to beat the Japs let alone the rest/
Don't kid yourself. We saved you. If it wasn't for us you would be speaking
German by now.
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8897f31d-9e44-4d01...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
What makes you think they didn't?
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
When all those U-boars were sitting just outside the USA territorial waters,
before Perl Harbour forced the USA into the war, and the USA could not
attack them because they were not at war with Germany, who do you think was
taking them on? Remember Canada was part of the British Empire and the
British Empire was at war with the Germans & Japanese.
The plain facts are that the USA only declared war on Japan AFTER Perl
Harbour and after Hitler declared War on the USA. So history speaks for
itself - the USA were forced into the war by the Japanese attack and the
German declaration of war on the USA.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
in the Pacific. If the Japanese had been able to push right through Burma
they could have circled the USA forces and cut them off. So, as usual, you
have forgotten the forgotten army that saved your bacon.
--
Auld Bob
naebad
> "Nebulous" <j...@pigtail.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:fr3df5p14hq0fliut...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:17:48 -0000, "Allan" <al...@noemail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > I get a bit fed-up of the criticism young people take. They are seen
> > as a soft target and are blamed for a lot of the ills in the world.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree. One example was the first time my son cycled to and
> from school. We live at opposite ends of the town and you have to basically
> go through the busy parts of town and traverse some iffy roads so as he was
> only about 10 I thought I'd walk the route with him a couple of times as I
> haven't a cycle myself. Coming home we were going along Inch Road and the
> road is very busy with parents on the school run and buses etc. I shouted
> from behind telling him to cut left up Forestfield which is a quiet
> residential bit. He stopped the cycle and turned round to try and hear what
> I was saying and at that point he had only the front wheel resting on what
> is a resonably wide pavement. An elderly lady then started really berating
> him for being on the pavement. I caught up and asked her what the problem
> was (and rememember his cycle was static and only partly on the pavement)
> and she started saying things like "in my day we didn't ride on the
> pavement" etc. After pointing out that he wasn't actually even riding on the
> pavement I told her to look around at the heavy traffic and suggested that
Then did you give her a good whack to re-enforce the learning?
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
So, what does that have to do with Germany invading the US?
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
Because Germany wouldn't have been able to do it....with or
without Britain?
deem...@aol.com
So, how were they going to "hop the Atlantic"?
> If the RAF had failed and they had defeated Britain (which they would have
> done) and added our navy to theirs
What would've been left of the RN would've sailed for Canada to
continue fighting or been interned in US ports. Besides, the
USN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RN + Kriegsmarine.
and Russia hadn't beaten them at
> Stalingrad - which was a damn close run thing - then who would have stopped
> them using Russias huge resources and the rest of Europes and Russias
> navies.
USN>>>>>>>>>>>>pretty much the rest of the world's navies put
together. All a German victory over Britain would've done was meant
the first A-bombs would've fallen on Germany.
> I think you were pretty hard pushed to beat the Japs let alone the rest/
> Don't kid yourself. We saved you. If it wasn't for us you would be speaking
> German by now.-
Darn, that's as stupid as Merkins thinkin' the US is the only
reason the Allies beat the Germans. (Is that your best bait?)
deem...@aol.com
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>
> news:8PWdnUuGvL61f2vX...@westnet.com.au...
>
>
>
>
>
We've been over this before. The US stomped Japan with less than
20% of our strength. Burma was a sideshow.....not that it mattered to
those who fought there.
Nebulous
The Jesuit one was something like:-
"You give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man."
La N
It's time, I think, to once again pull out that old Robert Fulghum
chestnut:
All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I
learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school
mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.
These are the things I learned:
a.. Share everything.
b.. Play fair.
c.. Don't hit people.
d.. Put things back where you found them.
e.. Clean up your own mess.
f.. Don't take things that aren't yours.
g.. Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
h.. Wash your hands before you eat.
i.. Flush.
j.. Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
k.. Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint
and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
l.. Take a nap every afternoon.
m.. When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and
stick together.
n.. Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the
roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but
we are all like that.
o.. Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the
Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
p.. And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you
learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love
and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.
Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult
terms and apply it to your family life or your work or government or your
world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it
would be if we all - the whole world - had cookies and milk at about 3
o'clock in the afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or
if all governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where
they found them and to clean up their own mess.
And it is still true, no matter how old you are, when you go out in the
world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.
[Source: "ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN" by Robert
Fulghum. See his web site at http://www.robertfulghum.com/ ]
Fifeshire Floozie
>There is also the manners thing. Twice on Friday during our
>walk Claire and I made way or held doors for elderly women and both
>times they totally ignored us and walked by without the hint of a
>thank
>you or acknowledgement. Again the same people would probably berate
>youngsters for their lack of manners.
Adam and I just got home from Wendy's. As we went in, he held the door
open for an elderly couple who were leaving and both of them smiled
and said, 'Thank you very much'. As we were leaving he again held the
door open for another elderly lady and she too smiled and thanked him.
But then, Canadians are known for their politeness ;-)
>A rude person is a rude person whatever age they are.
That's for sure!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_5100000/newsid_5103000/5103048.stm"Younger people more politeUndercover reporters staged scenarios to test whether people wouldhold a door open, say 'thank you' and help someone pick up papers theyhad dropped.In more than 2000 tests, they found that people in New York were muchmore likely to be polite than people in London - and in particular,were very willing to hold doors open.London ranked joint 15th with Paris,Top 10 politest citiesNew York, USAZurich, SwitzerlandToronto, CanadaBerlin, Germany; Sao Paulo, Brazil; Zagreb, CroatiaAuckland, New Zealand; Warsaw, PolandMexico City, MexicoStockholm, SwedenBudapest, Hungary; Madrid, Spain; Prague, Czech Republic; Vienna,AustriaBuenos Aires, Argentina; Johannesburg, South Africa; Lisbon, Portugal;London, UK; Paris, FranceLondon, UK ranked 15th highest "
naebad
err no! In fact the Russians would have been the winners outright
without any US intervention at all.
Slight drawback with that of course..
Custos Custodum
news:f5eef5d1vhkb9or7v...@4ax.com:
> "Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>:
>:<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
>:news:8897f31d-9e44-4d01...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.
>:.. On Nov 8, 7:35 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>:> "The Phantom Piper" <ThePhantomPi...@comcast.net> wrote in
>:> messagenews:206b19a4-c589-4353...@d9g2000prh.googlegro
>:> ups.com... On Nov 7, 7:59 pm, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com>
>:> wrote:
>:>
>:>
>:>
>:> > Hitler was a footballer, say pupils
>:>
>:> I recently (within the past 2-3 months) heard a poll being
>:> announced that a sizable percentage (I believe it was in
>:> the mid-40s, although I might be wrong) of Americans 18-25
>:> year of age believed that America fought *with* the Germans
>:> *against* the Russians in WWII.
>:>
>:> IIRC they thought "the US fought against the Germans *and* the
>:> Russsians". And also, IIRC, the percentage was a lot higher than 40.
>:>
>:> No doubt the same morons will also grow up thinking "the US saved
>:> Britain from seaborne invasion" and not the other way round.
>:> There are even a few elderly *adults* who believe that. John Wayne
>:> has got a
>:> lot to answer for.
>:
>: "Britain saved the US from seaborne invasion"?
>:
>:What makes you think they didn't?
>:
>
> Because there's no credible way to launch an amphibious assault across
> the Atlantic.
1982.
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0f8a8802-d08b-4e89...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Pure speculation. You think that untried troops, unused to battle, would
have stood a chance against battle hardened stormtroopers? Make no mistake,
before the USA came into the war, the Germans were becoming battle weary. If
you really want to know the Russians were the largest factor in the defeat
of Germany. The USA made great claims about the war in Italy but they were
not the only forces there. Ever heard of the D-Day dodgers?
The story goes, veterans of the Italian campaigns were called "D-Day
Dodgers" by Nancy Astor after she received a letter from a disgruntled
British soldier who signed it "D-Day Dodger". She assumed that it was a
harmless nickname and so replied to the letter using the same. Regrettably
she was accused of casting an odious slur on the army in Italy. They noted
sardonically that they had participated in several "D-Days" of their own
before the landings in Normandy became synonymous with the phrase D-Day.
The soldiers in Italy prepared their own lyrics to the song 'Lily Marlene',
one of their favourites. They called it 'We are the D-Day Dodgers' and it
became their theme.
We are the D-Day Dodgers,
Out in Italy,
Always on the vino,
Always on the spree.
Eighth Army skivers and their tanks,
We go to war in ties like swanks.
For we are the D-Day Dodgers,
In sunny Italy.
We landed at Salerno,
A holiday with pay.
Jerry brought his bands out
To cheer us on his way,
Showed us the sights and gave us tea,
We all sang songs, the beer was free.
For we are the D-Day Dodgers,
The lads that D-Day dodged
Palermo and Cassino
Were taken in our stride,
We did not go to fight there,
We just went for the ride.
Anzio and Sangro are just names,
We only went to look for dames,
For we are the D-Day Dodgers,
In sunny Italy.
On our way to Florence,
We had a lovely time,
We drove a bus from Rimini,
Right through the Gothic Line,
Then to Bologna we did go,
And went bathing in the River Po,
For we are the D-Day Dodgers,
The lads that D-Day dodged
We hear the boys in France
Are going home on leave,
After six months service
Such a shame they're not relieved.
And we're told to carry on a few more years,
Because our wives don't shed no tears.
For we are the D-Day Dodgers,
Out in sunny Italy.
Once we had a "blue light"
That we were going home,
Back to dear old Blighty,
Never more to roam.
Then someone whispered: 'In France we'll fight,'
We said: 'Not that, we'll just sit tight,'
For we are the D-Day Dodgers,
The lads that D-Day dodged.
Dear Lady Astor,
You think you know alot,
Standing on a platform
And talking tommy rot.
Dear England's sweetheart and her pride,
We think your mouth is much too wide
From the D-Day Dodgers,
Out in sunny Italy.
Look around the hillsides,
Through the mist and rain,
See the scattered crosses,
Some that bear no name.
Heartbreak and toil and suffering gone,
The lads beneath, they slumber on.
They are the D-Day Dodgers,
Who'll stay in Italy.
Casualties
(KIA - Killed in Action, WIA - Wounded in Action, MIA - Missing in Action)
9th Sept 1943 to 15th Aug 1944.
UK: 5,017 KIA, . 23,070 WIA, , 9,736 MIA. Total 37,823
US: 13,225 KIA, 53,896 WIA, 8,012 MIA. Total 75,133
French: 5,246 KIA, . 20,852 WIA, , 9,736 MIA. Total 28,041
16th Aug to 15th Dec 1944
UK: 1,373 KIA, . 5,875 WIA, , 873 MIA. Total 8,121
US: 3,585 KIA, 16,130 WIA, 1,738 MIA. Total 21,453
Anzio Campaign Jan - March 1944
During the four months of the Anzio Campaign the Allied VI Corps suffered
over 29,200 combat casualties (4,400 KIA, 18,000 WIA, 6,800 MIA) and 37,000
noncombat casualties. Two-thirds of these losses, amounting to 17 percent of
VI Corps' effective strength, were inflicted between the initial landings
and the end of the German counteroffensive on 4 March.
Salerno Landing - Sept 9 -16, 1943
British X Corps 531 KIA 1,915 WIA 1,561 MIA
U.S. VI Corps 225 KIA 835 WIA 589 MIA
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7777ff2f-f35b-4060...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Are you going to explain how the USA could have managed to beat the Japanese
if it had not been for the Chindits and the 14 Army. Not to mention the RAF
transport that supplied them and both tied up loads of Japanese troops and
prevented them advancing through Burma and encircling the USA Pacific
forces. BTW. Did you know there were RN ships fighting with the USA forces
in the Pacific?
To be brutally frank - the USA, up to Perl Harbour and the German
declaration of war upon her had a policy of isolatonalism. They were in the
worst depression the World has ever known. When the WWII started the USA saw
the main chance and they passed a Act to SELL equipment to the allies under
a bay and take away basis. The first line in that act goes, "In defense, (US
spelling), of the US". That meant the USA acknowledged that this WWII was
also their war, otherwise why would they be defending themselves by having
the British Empire and the Free European forces fighting for them?
That first act by which the United States aided its World War II allies
with war materials, such as ammunition, tanks, airplanes, and trucks, and
with food and other raw materials. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had
committed the United States in June 1940 to materially aiding the opponents
of fascism, but, under existing U.S. law, Great Britain had to pay for its
growing arms purchases from the United States with cash, popularly known as,
"Cash-and-Carry".. By the summer of 1940, the new British prime minister,
Winston Churchill, was warning that his country could not pay cash for war
materials much longer.
In order to remedy this situation, Roosevelt on Dec. 8, 1940, proposed the
concept of lend-lease, and the U.S. Congress passed his Lend-Lease Act in
March 1941. This legislation gave the president the authority to aid any
nation whose defense he believed vital to the United States and to accept
repayment "in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit
which the President deems satisfactory." Though lend-lease had been
authorized primarily in an effort to aid Great Britain, it was extended to
China in April and to the Soviet Union in September. This Act's first line
also began, "In defense of the US", and The UK only made the last payment to
the USA a couple of years ago.
So there you are WE WERE FIGHTING FOR THE USA AS WELL AS OURSELVES WHILE THE
USA SAT BACK AND LET US FIGHT AND DIE FOR YOU WHILE YOU MADE FAT PROFITS AND
GOT YOURSELVES OUT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Furthermore you did not come to
save our bacon you came to fight, (AT LONG LAST), for yourselves AS YOU HAD
NO OTHER OPTION after the Japanese attacked you and Germany declared war
upon you. Furthermore you were not official part of the allied forces as
your country never signed the treaty that formed, "The Allies", but you were
only Associated Allies.
Now let us see you disprove those facts but before you do let me make myself
clear - We were, and are, grateful for your help but never try and \tell us
again that you won the war nor that you came to fight for us. (AND WHILE WE
ARE ON THE SUBJECT YOU DID NOT CAPTURE THE ENIGMA CODE EITHER).
--
Auld Bob
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:VpKdnbob9Zemc2vX...@bt.com...
They aren't 'forgotten' in the US - nobodies ever ****ing heard of them.
No 2 ex's father was in the chindits. His wife didn't hear a word about him
for nearly two years.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7777ff2f-f35b-4060...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Oh - and the Germans would just have let that happen right?
Besides, the
USN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RN + Kriegsmarine.
and Russia hadn't beaten them at
> Stalingrad - which was a damn close run thing - then who would have
> stopped
> them using Russias huge resources and the rest of Europes and Russias
> navies.
USN>>>>>>>>>>>>pretty much the rest of the world's navies put
together. All a German victory over Britain would've done was meant
the first A-bombs would've fallen on Germany.
LOL. Actualy without the British and Norwegians the first A bombs would have
fallen on Washington.
> I think you were pretty hard pushed to beat the Japs let alone the rest/
> Don't kid yourself. We saved you. If it wasn't for us you would be
> speaking
> German by now.-
Darn, that's as stupid as Merkins thinkin' the US is the only
reason the Allies beat the Germans. (Is that your best bait?)
It's OK - we didn't expect any thanks from the likes of you.
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:db427e44-a5d5-4cc5...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
That sideshow stopped the Japanese, tied up there forces and prevented you
fighting on more fronts. If you were such great hot-shots why did you need
to drop atom bombs? And another thing, you would not have had atom bombs
before the Germans if it had not been for the RAF, The Norway Bus, UK
Paratroops and the resistance. If not for them it could have been the
Germans and Japanese bombing USA cities. Further to that you also had UK
people working on the Manhattan Project. Just what do you think would have
happened if Russia had not born the brunt of the German attacks and Hitler
had gone out through Russia? It is not too far from Russian territory to
North America. So don't kid yourselves, the war was won but only just. It is
never a good idea to belittle your enemies and,make no mistake the German
army was composed of superb fighting men.
--
Auld Bob
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hd7f7b$b4a$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
And it was a damn site farther down to damn near Antarctica and with about
2% of the resources the Germans would have been able to muster after
siezeing British and Russian Empire resources and manpower. The Germans were
well on their way to developing their own nuclear weapons too - not to
mention the first long range missiles.. Unhindered by Russia and Britain and
with all of Eurasia's resources it would have been a very diffrent story for
the Yanks. They've got us to thank for remaining 'the land of the free'.
Honestly - they havn't got a clue about the realities of WWII. History
didn't happen unless Hollywood made a film about it.
deem...@aol.com
You might need a geography lesson. How would forces in Burma go
about "encircling the USA Pacific forces"?
BTW. Did you know there were RN ships fighting with the USA forces
> in the Pacific?
Yes. Mainly with US-built planes on the carriers.
>
> To be brutally frank - the USA, up to Perl Harbour and the German
> declaration of war upon her had a policy of isolatonalism. They were in the
> worst depression the World has ever known. When the WWII started the USA saw
> the main chance and they passed a Act to SELL equipment to the allies under
> a bay and take away basis. The first line in that act goes, "In defense, (US
> spelling), of the US". That meant the USA acknowledged that this WWII was
> also their war, otherwise why would they be defending themselves by having
> the British Empire and the Free European forces fighting for them?
I don't believe I've denied that.
Well, the US could've just kicked Japan's ass and left Europe to
the Euros....but that would've been pretty stupid.
Furthermore you were not official part of the allied forces as
> your country never signed the treaty that formed, "The Allies", but you were
> only Associated Allies.
Gee, maybe y'all should've told us you didn't need our
help...being "only" Associated Allies.
>
> Now let us see you disprove those facts but before you do let me make myself
> clear - We were, and are, grateful for your help but never try and \tell us
> again that you won the war nor that you came to fight for us.
Please show me where I've ever done that.
(AND WHILE WE
> ARE ON THE SUBJECT YOU DID NOT CAPTURE THE ENIGMA CODE EITHER).
NO, THE POLES DID THAT!
> --
>
> Auld Bob
La N
>>
>> and Russia hadn't beaten them at
>>
>>> Stalingrad - which was a damn close run thing - then who would have
>>> stopped
>>> them using Russias huge resources and the rest of Europes and
>>> Russias navies.
>>
Geeze, them Yurps are speaking ill of Merks again.
Well, here I'm going to stand up for you, Mr. Deems.
You Merks done gone in and kicked Eye-raki butt real good!!!!! (nobody does
it better)
deem...@aol.com
How were they going to stop them?
>
> Besides, the
> USN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RN + Kriegsmarine.
>
> and Russia hadn't beaten them at
>
> > Stalingrad - which was a damn close run thing - then who would have
> > stopped
> > them using Russias huge resources and the rest of Europes and Russias
> > navies.
>
> USN>>>>>>>>>>>>pretty much the rest of the world's navies put
> together. All a German victory over Britain would've done was meant
> the first A-bombs would've fallen on Germany.
>
> LOL. Actualy without the British and Norwegians the first A bombs would have
> fallen on Washington.
No, it cost too much for anyone else to have produced them.
>
> > I think you were pretty hard pushed to beat the Japs let alone the rest/
> > Don't kid yourself. We saved you. If it wasn't for us you would be
> > speaking
> > German by now.-
>
> Darn, that's as stupid as Merkins thinkin' the US is the only
> reason the Allies beat the Germans. (Is that your best bait?)
>
> It's OK - we didn't expect any thanks from the likes of you.
Wow, another leap of your vaunted logic. Your critical thinking
skills here really suck....as does your reading comprehension.
deem...@aol.com
That's open to question. Add to the German side the forces they
used facing Britain and subtract the Lend Lease and the results aren't
anywhere near a surefire Soviet victory.
deem...@aol.com
How were they going to get there in any numbers? How were they
going to supply them?
I hadn't seen those lyrics. Thanks.
>
> Casualties
>
> (KIA - Killed in Action, WIA - Wounded in Action, MIA - Missing in Action)
>
> 9th Sept 1943 to 15th Aug 1944.
>
> UK: 5,017 KIA, . 23,070 WIA, , 9,736 MIA. Total 37,823
>
> US: 13,225 KIA, 53,896 WIA, 8,012 MIA. Total 75,133
>
> French: 5,246 KIA, . 20,852 WIA, , 9,736 MIA. Total 28,041
>
> 16th Aug to 15th Dec 1944
>
> UK: 1,373 KIA, . 5,875 WIA, , 873 MIA. Total 8,121
>
> US: 3,585 KIA, 16,130 WIA, 1,738 MIA. Total 21,453
>
> Anzio Campaign Jan - March 1944
> During the four months of the Anzio Campaign the Allied VI Corps suffered
> over 29,200 combat casualties (4,400 KIA, 18,000 WIA, 6,800 MIA) and 37,000
> noncombat casualties. Two-thirds of these losses, amounting to 17 percent of
> VI Corps' effective strength, were inflicted between the initial landings
> and the end of the German counteroffensive on 4 March.
>
> Salerno Landing - Sept 9 -16, 1943
> British X Corps 531 KIA 1,915 WIA 1,561 MIA
> U.S. VI Corps 225 KIA 835 WIA 589 MIA
>
> --
>
> Auld Bob-
Yes, Italy was Churchill's baby. The "soft underbelly" and all
that.
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:49bb89db-4af6-41b2...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Clever that! Aircraft on Cruisers.
Especially as the reason the USA came to Europe to fight Germans was because
Germany had declared war on her.
Furthermore you were not official part of the allied forces as
> your country never signed the treaty that formed, "The Allies", but you
> were
> only Associated Allies.
Gee, maybe y'all should've told us you didn't need our
help...being "only" Associated Allies.
First of all you did not come to help us. You came for our help to fight the
Germans who had declared war upon you..
You did not come to fight for us you came to help us fight for you. Your
country acknowledged we had been doing the fighting for you since the date
of the Cash & Carry Act.
How ironic, seeing as your government had already refused to fight but twice
stated that you were SELLING us arms and equipment to defend you.
Both in the Cash and Carry Act and the Lease Lend Act. Go look it up - it is
there for all to see.
deem...@aol.com
I agree except "more fronts". The Japanese couldn't get many more
troopps to the Pacific and wouldn't have been able to supply them if
they could've gotten them there.
If you were such great hot-shots why did you need
> to drop atom bombs?
We didn't "have to". It was seen as the shortest/cheapest way to
end the war. The invasions were already being planned.
And another thing, you would not have had atom bombs
> before the Germans if it had not been for the RAF, The Norway Bus, UK
> Paratroops and the resistance. If not for them it could have been the
> Germans and Japanese bombing USA cities.
Could've, but probably not. They'd need bases. Also, the
likelihood of anyone else successfully completing a workable A-bomb
was pretty slim given the costs....but anything is possible.
Further to that you also had UK
> people working on the Manhattan Project.
And they probably would've continued even if Britain was
conquered. Remember all those Free French, Poles, Czechs, etc, etc?
The Dominions were still in the fight and any Brits who wanted
to...including a substantial part of any surviving RN ships and
men...would've continued the fight.
Just what do you think would have
> happened if Russia had not born the brunt of the German attacks and Hitler
> had gone out through Russia? It is not too far from Russian territory to
> North America.
How many Germans could've been transported to Alaska and what
were they going to do once they got there?
So don't kid yourselves, the war was won but only just. It is
> never a good idea to belittle your enemies and,make no mistake the German
> army was composed of superb fighting men.
Jesus H. Christ! Who has "belittled" anyone?
> --
>
> Auld Bob-
deem...@aol.com
> "Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hd7f7b$b4a$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:f5eef5d1vhkb9or7v...@4ax.com:
>
> >> "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >>:
> >>:<deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but without US support, the
Falklands would be the Malvinas. (And that might be a good thing)
Also, invading a few small islands against pretty much zero naval
opposition is just a bit different than invading a continent against a
navy that was stronger than everyone else put together.
The Germans were
> well on their way to developing their own nuclear weapons too
Myth.
- not to
> mention the first long range missiles..
Not long range enough.
Unhindered by Russia and Britain and
> with all of Eurasia's resources it would have been a very diffrent story for
> the Yanks. They've got us to thank for remaining 'the land of the free'.
> Honestly - they havn't got a clue about the realities of WWII. History
> didn't happen unless Hollywood made a film about it.
Keep telling yourself that.
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bc5c461e-2f92-4037...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Ah! But both the Cash & Carry and The Lease Lend acts were what dragged the
USA out of the Great Depression and without them you would have lacked the
resources to have really armed yourselves enough to have proved to be a
potent enough force to fight back. Did not we already mention that the Cash
& Carry Act were acknowledged by your government as, "In defense of the US"?
So, if there was nothing to defend yourself against why were you defending
yourself by selling us arms and equipment?
The USA was a country in deep depression with millions out of work and your
government instigating public works to try and drag the country out of
trouble. This was the USA in 1939 ------
"The Great Depression took place from 1930 to 1939. During this time the
prices of stock fell 40%. 9,000 banks went out of business and 9 million
savings accounts were wiped out. 86,00 businesses failed, and wages were
decreased by an average of 60%. The unemployment rate went from 9% all the
way to 25%, about 15 million jobless people".
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7be3290d-1ce6-45b7...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Italy was more like a large boot with steel toecaps.
Happy
"Allan" <al...@noemail.co.uk> wrote
>
< [snip]
> We are talking about events of almost 70 years ago when many of
> their grand-parents weren't even born! I don't know but if you took me
> back to 1970 as a 10 year old and asked me what the Boer War involved then
> I imagine I'd struggle.
>
The Boer War? Isn't that they call these long threads in SCS?
La N
> and your government instigating public works to try and drag the
> country out of trouble. This was the USA in 1939 ------
>
> "The Great Depression took place from 1930 to 1939. During this time
> the prices of stock fell 40%. 9,000 banks went out of business and 9
> million savings accounts were wiped out. 86,00 businesses failed, and
> wages were decreased by an average of 60%. The unemployment rate went
> from 9% all the way to 25%, about 15 million jobless people".
Wouldn't it be wonderful if war were still good for the economy ... sigh
.....
(she said with tongue in cheek)
deem...@aol.com
You know, the whole world suffered from that depression. The US
had greater bounce-back capability than pretty much anyone else.
>
> "The Great Depression took place from 1930 to 1939. During this time the
> prices of stock fell 40%. 9,000 banks went out of business and 9 million
> savings accounts were wiped out. 86,00 businesses failed, and wages were
> decreased by an average of 60%. The unemployment rate went from 9% all the
> way to 25%, about 15 million jobless people".
>
> --
>
> Auld Bob-
Wow, another history lesson? The US was slowly emerging from the
depression when the war broke out...as was most of the rest of the
world. Did war orders help? Sure, but the US orders were quite
substantial......more than what we produced for the Allies.
deem...@aol.com
We came both to help you and to fight along side you in our own
interests. Just as Britain didn't have to declare war on Germany after
the Polish invasion...she chose to. And the Dominions didn't have to
follow suit...they chose to.
> You did not come to fight for us you came to help us fight for you. Your
> country acknowledged we had been doing the fighting for you since the date
> of the Cash & Carry Act.
Gee, I thought you might've been fighting for, I don't know,
YOURSELVES?
>
> How ironic, seeing as your government had already refused to fight but twice
> stated that you were SELLING us arms and equipment to defend you.
> Both in the Cash and Carry Act and the Lease Lend Act. Go look it up - it is
> there for all to see.
I know. You don't seem to understand how our govt works. FDR
couldn't declare war on Germany. FDR did all he could...in fact, he
exceeded his Constitutional powers...to get us into the war and to
help the Allies. The wording of the Lend Lease Act was so it could
make it through Congress....and it was a near thing at that. No
Congressional approval, no Lend Lease.
>
>
>
> > Now let us see you disprove those facts but before you do let me make
> > myself
> > clear - We were, and are, grateful for your help but never try and \tell
> > us
> > again that you won the war nor that you came to fight for us.
>
> Please show me where I've ever done that.
>
> (AND WHILE WE
>
> > ARE ON THE SUBJECT YOU DID NOT CAPTURE THE ENIGMA CODE EITHER).
>
> NO, THE POLES DID THAT!
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > Auld Bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b36fa808-24c4-4496...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Why not? We were supplying the Forgotten Army from the air.
If you were such great hot-shots why did you need
> to drop atom bombs?
We didn't "have to". It was seen as the shortest/cheapest way to
end the war. The invasions were already being planned.
Aw\!Cummon! The USA was fighting tooth and nail across the Pacific
Islands.In fact that was some of the hardest won terrain in WWII
Good grief there were Japs still coming out of the jungles and islands for
very many years after the war.
And another thing, you would not have had atom bombs
> before the Germans if it had not been for the RAF, The Norway Bus, UK
> Paratroops and the resistance. If not for them it could have been the
> Germans and Japanese bombing USA cities.
Could've, but probably not. They'd need bases
And/or long range rockets that they were well on the way to having
. Also, the
likelihood of anyone else successfully completing a workable A-bomb
was pretty slim given the costs....but anything is possible.
They were way ahead of you until the allies in Europe kept taking out their
plant and machinery.
You only had, "The Costs", because you were charging your allies who were
fighting for you for the arms and supplies you were selling them.
In 1939 the USA was a depressed country - had you forgotten that?
Further to that you also had UK
> people working on the Manhattan Project.
And they probably would've continued even if Britain was
conquered. Remember all those Free French, Poles, Czechs, etc, etc?
The Dominions were still in the fight and any Brits who wanted
to...including a substantial part of any surviving RN ships and
men...would've continued the fight.
Just what do you think would have
> happened if Russia had not born the brunt of the German attacks and Hitler
> had gone out through Russia? It is not too far from Russian territory to
> North America.
How many Germans could've been transported to Alaska and what
were they going to do once they got there?
Attack of course.
So don't kid yourselves, the war was won but only just. It is
> never a good idea to belittle your enemies and,make no mistake the German
> army was composed of superb fighting men.
Jesus H. Christ! Who has "belittled" anyone?
You do every time you try to tell us that you won the war and/or came to
save our bacon.
You first of all dragged yourselves out of the great depression by charging
us for what you sold us, yet admitted that this was to defend the USA. When
the Japs declared war on you by attacking you and the Germans declared war
you came to defend yourselves and not as you claim to save our bacon.
--
Auld Bob
.
> --
>
> Auld Bob-
deem...@aol.com
Because the Japanese didn't have that capability? Also, the
Burma front was mainly supplied in the traditional sea and land
manner. Air supply was supplemental...even then, the US/UK were the
only ones who could've done that much.
>
> If you were such great hot-shots why did you need
>
> > to drop atom bombs?
>
> We didn't "have to". It was seen as the shortest/cheapest way to
> end the war. The invasions were already being planned.
>
> Aw\!Cummon! The USA was fighting tooth and nail across the Pacific
> Islands.In fact that was some of the hardest won terrain in WWII
> Good grief there were Japs still coming out of the jungles and islands for
> very many years after the war.
Yes. It was very hard fought. We also only used about 20% of our
resources against Japan. The only chance Japan had was to make it too
costly...they were a pekingese taking on a rottweiler.
>
> And another thing, you would not have had atom bombs
>
> > before the Germans if it had not been for the RAF, The Norway Bus, UK
> > Paratroops and the resistance. If not for them it could have been the
> > Germans and Japanese bombing USA cities.
>
> Could've, but probably not. They'd need bases
>
> And/or long range rockets that they were well on the way to having
Not that long-ranged.
>
> . Also, the
> likelihood of anyone else successfully completing a workable A-bomb
> was pretty slim given the costs....but anything is possible.
>
> They were way ahead of you until the allies in Europe kept taking out their
> plant and machinery.
Not really. They were ahead in a few areas, behind in others.
Hitler didn't believe in it....case closed.
>
> You only had, "The Costs", because you were charging your allies who were
> fighting for you for the arms and supplies you were selling them.
> In 1939 the USA was a depressed country - had you forgotten that?
Bullshit. You think resources, labor, etc just appear out of thin
air?
>
> Further to that you also had UK
>
> > people working on the Manhattan Project.
>
> And they probably would've continued even if Britain was
> conquered. Remember all those Free French, Poles, Czechs, etc, etc?
> The Dominions were still in the fight and any Brits who wanted
> to...including a substantial part of any surviving RN ships and
> men...would've continued the fight.
>
> Just what do you think would have
>
> > happened if Russia had not born the brunt of the German attacks and Hitler
> > had gone out through Russia? It is not too far from Russian territory to
> > North America.
>
> How many Germans could've been transported to Alaska and what
> were they going to do once they got there?
>
> Attack of course.
Attack what?
>
> So don't kid yourselves, the war was won but only just. It is
>
> > never a good idea to belittle your enemies and,make no mistake the German
> > army was composed of superb fighting men.
>
> Jesus H. Christ! Who has "belittled" anyone?
>
> You do every time you try to tell us that you won the war and/or came to
> save our bacon.
> You first of all dragged yourselves out of the great depression by charging
> us for what you sold us, yet admitted that this was to defend the USA. When
> the Japs declared war on you by attacking you and the Germans declared war
> you came to defend yourselves and not as you claim to save our bacon.
Where the fuck have I claimed that? Show me or get off that old
tired horse.
> --
>
> Auld Bob
> .
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > Auld Bob-- Hide quoted text -
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ffec11e2-8360-4b70...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Myth.
Rubbish!
The German nuclear energy project in Nazi Germany, Uranverein (Uranium
Club), began in April 1939, just months after the discovery of nuclear
fission in January 1939. The first effort ended in months, but the second
effort began under the auspices of the German Army Ordnance Office on the
day World War II began, 1 September 1939. The program eventually expanded
into the following main efforts: the Uranmaschine (nuclear reactor), uranium
and heavy water production, and uranium isotope separation. The zenith of
the effort came when it was realized that nuclear fission would not
contribute significantly to ending the war. In January 1942, the Army
Ordnance Office turned the program over to the Reich Research Council, but
continued to fund the program. At this time, the program split up between
nine major institutes where the directors dominated the research and set
their own objectives. At that time, the number of scientists working on
applied nuclear fission began to diminish, with many applying their talents
to more pressing war-time demands.
The most influential people in the Uranverein were Kurt Diebner, Abraham
Esau, Walther Gerlach, and Erich Schumann; Schumann was one of the most
powerful and influential physicists in Germany. Diebner, throughout the life
of the nuclear energy project, had more control over nuclear fission
research than did Walther Bothe, Klaus Clusius, Otto Hahn, Paul Harteck, or
Werner Heisenberg. Abraham Esau was appointed as Hermann G�ring's
plenipotentiary for nuclear physics research in December 1942; Walther
Gerlach succeeded him in December 1943.At the end of the war, the Allied
powers competed to obtain surviving components of the nuclear industry
(personnel, facilities, and materiel), as they did with the V-2 program.
- not to
> mention the first long range missiles..
Not long range enough.
And you think they were not working on it?
Need I remind you - Von Braun was a German and it was the German engineering
that The USA and Russia were using to get to the Moon.
Unhindered by Russia and Britain and
> with all of Eurasia's resources it would have been a very diffrent story
> for
> the Yanks. They've got us to thank for remaining 'the land of the free'.
> Honestly - they havn't got a clue about the realities of WWII. History
> didn't happen unless Hollywood made a film about it.
Keep telling yourself that.
How about this -
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7c677516-fc8f-44cd...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Of course we fought for ourselves, and the French, Poles etc., but we were
also fighting for YOU as your government acknowledged in both the Cash &
Carry Act and the Lend/Lease Act. What the hell do you think the phrase, "In
defense of the US", meant when you did not have a single USA serviceman
fighting?
That USA pilot that joined the RAF as a volunteer was fighting for us,
though, but that was not your country.
>
> How ironic, seeing as your government had already refused to fight but
> twice
> stated that you were SELLING us arms and equipment to defend you.
> Both in the Cash and Carry Act and the Lease Lend Act. Go look it up - it
> is
> there for all to see.
I know. You don't seem to understand how our govt works. FDR
couldn't declare war on Germany. FDR did all he could...in fact, he
exceeded his Constitutional powers...to get us into the war and to
help the Allies. The wording of the Lend Lease Act was so it could
make it through Congress....and it was a near thing at that. No
Congressional approval, no Lend Lease.
Well your last pres had no bother invading Afghanistan and Iraq did he?
La N
> to save our bacon.
A lot of Merks have claimed that. But Deems isn't one of them.
Josiah Jenkins
deem...@aol.com
> plenipotentiary for nuclear physics research in December 1942; Walther
> Gerlach succeeded him in December 1943.At the end of the war, the Allied
> powers competed to obtain surviving components of the nuclear industry
> (personnel, facilities, and materiel), as they did with the V-2 program.
They never built a working reactor. They gave up when they
realized it would take too much time and too many resources.
>
> - not to
>
> > mention the first long range missiles..
>
> Not long range enough.
>
> And you think they were not working on it?
> Need I remind you - Von Braun was a German and it was the German engineering
> that The USA and Russia were using to get to the Moon.
They were nowhere near a working ICBM. They would've had nukes
raining down way before they were developed.
deem...@aol.com
You mean with Congressional approval? Those invasions?
The Phantom Piper
>
> You mean by people like you making up statistics in their heads?
You do realise the trap you've just dug
for yourself and leapt into, don't you?
If I ever *do* find the thing, you'll not only
be proven Wrong, but humiliated as a fool
and a Liar as well...
So: Thanks For That! */;~D
(Oh, by the way, look what an interesting
thing I *did* turn up in my re-search just
now looking for the US/German thingie):
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031
"Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders
intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that
the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the
'State of the First Amendment 2007' national survey released
Sept. 11 by the First Amendment Center."
"Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses
extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme - down
16 points from 72% in 2000."
(Have Fun Adam),
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> "Britain saved the US from seaborne invasion"?
"We had to fight them There so we didn't have to fight them Here."
*Sheesh*!,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> Gee, Germany couldn't even hop the Channel...but
> I'm sure the Atlantic would've been no problem.
Dude. It was _NO PROBLEM_. Seriously:
Do Some Reading,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> I think you were pretty hard pushed to beat the Japs let
> wasn't for us you would be speaking German by now.
As someone who _can_ and _does_ see both sides
of this issue, I'd like to state that it *WAS* a Group
Effort and that it *DID* take _both sides_ and propose
a Group Hug in the name of Sweet Reason.
From Lend-Lease to Overlord the presence of the USA
_was_ critical to victory in the European Theatre, just
as the efforts in the Pacific were _necessary_ to victory
there (including in Burma). If what you said above is
true then it's equally true all Aussies and Kiwis would
be speaking Japanese if not for the US.
Likewise, Deems, it is a _fact_ that without both the UK
*and* the Russkies, things would have been a damned
sight worse in Europe than they turned out. And given
the Third Reich's research into Nuclear Fission, if the US
had relied only on its own efforts, both Washington and
NY might be a bit more like Hiroshima and Nagasaki than
they are today.
So COOL IT, the both of yez!
Minding The Lads,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> So, how were they going to "hop the Atlantic"?
A.) They had _already "hopped" it_, in submarines.
B.) In bombers, carrying Nuclear Weapons, in about 1944-45.
Any Other Questions?,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> LOL. Actualy without the British and Norwegians the
> first A bombs would have fallen on Washington.
I see you beat me to it. */:~D
> It's OK - we didn't expect any thanks from the likes of you.
Now, now: you've taken a bit of a one-sided stance here
as well, haven't you? In all earnestness: it *did* take a
_concerted effort_, and *WE* could _NOT_ have won if
the bickering by the Principles had been at this level all
throughout it.
(And while we're at it, let's all recognise that the _Germans_
helped out quite a bit: until lat 1943, they weren't even on
Full Shifts at German factories! That and the problems with
their Command Structure made the whole hellish thing far
easier than it would have been otherwise...)
Gott Sei Dank!,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> Nope. If you actually ever find it again, that's
> a different day, isn't it?
The problem I'm having is that I *heard* it,
being reported over the television set (and
not all that long ago, either). When I search
for it using Google (and I've tried several
different likely configurations, including the
use of Boolean expressions vis: 'think OR
believe', 'poll OR survey', etc.) what I get
in returns are pretty well divided between
the Other Discussion in _this thread_ (ie:
who Saved who in WWII), polls on just who
Hates America Most And Why, and beliefs
about the Middle East and/or 9/11. So far,
I've waded through about 800 results, 100
at a time, with no success.
But it *IS* Out There, _somewhere_...
(I did find a mere Quote, from a Russian Journalist,
expressing her shock and dismay at the number
of Americans she met in New York who thought
the US and Germany were allied in WWII against
Russia - but a Quote's not a Survey and what was
being mentioned on the News was a _survey_.
> Declaration of Independence: "... Nature's God ... Creator ..."
What *is* it with Conservatards and mistaking the
Declaration Of Independence for the Constitution?
The poll *CLEARLY* mentioned the _constitution_,
yet you - just as with that eejit Boehner at the Bachmann
Teabag Overdrive rally in DC recently - started quoting
from the Delclaration instead! Can't you pea-brains
get at least ONE thing correct?!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/Boehner_mixes_up_Constitution_and_Declaration.html
Oh, hmmm... */:~/
Sorry: I forgot.
Nevermind,
The Phantom Piper
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:20 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, how were they going to "hop the Atlantic"?
>
> A.) They had _already "hopped" it_, in submarines.
Wow, they were going to build a fleet of giant, troop-carrying
subs? And another fleet to carry the supplies? Gee, if they could do
that, why didn't they win the war?
>
> B.) In bombers, carrying Nuclear Weapons, in about 1944-45.
Bombers that never existed carrying weapons that never existed.
Colo(u)r me unimpressed.
>
> Any Other Questions?,
Surely, this isn't your best bait?
>
> The Phantom Piper
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:22 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think you were pretty hard pushed to beat the Japs let
> > alone the rest. Don't kid yourself. We saved you. If it
> > wasn't for us you would be speaking German by now.
>
> As someone who _can_ and _does_ see both sides
> of this issue, I'd like to state that it *WAS* a Group
> Effort and that it *DID* take _both sides_ and propose
> a Group Hug in the name of Sweet Reason.
>
> From Lend-Lease to Overlord the presence of the USA
> _was_ critical to victory in the European Theatre, just
> as the efforts in the Pacific were _necessary_ to victory
> there (including in Burma). If what you said above is
> true then it's equally true all Aussies and Kiwis would
> be speaking Japanese if not for the US.
>
> Likewise, Deems, it is a _fact_ that without both the UK
> *and* the Russkies, things would have been a damned
> sight worse in Europe than they turned out.
I've never said differently. all I said was Germany wasn't going
to successfully invade the US.
And given
> the Third Reich's research into Nuclear Fission, if the US
> had relied only on its own efforts, both Washington and
> NY might be a bit more like Hiroshima and Nagasaki than
> they are today.
Germany didn't have the resources to produce nukes. Maybe with
Russia and the rest of Europe they could have...maybe. But by then,
it's much more likely the US would've had them. We know when that was.
German acquisition is purely conjecture. They themselves estimated at
least 10 years.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
I must've missed those German transport........backed by that
huge German fleet.....supported by all those German aircraft carriers.
The Phantom Piper
>
> Surely, this isn't your best bait?
I have the feeling that we're talking about two
different things here: I was addressing your
comments about "hopping the Atlantic" as
meaning "in the general War Effort" - not as
specific to an Invasion.
The Germans would not (_EVER_) have
attempted an invasion of the United States.
In fact, they gave the Japanese a document
in 193(9?) which was a study by the High
Command showing that an occupation of
the United States was unfeasible due to the
high number of firearms in private hands,
and the American determination to use them
in an endless Partisan War. The Japanese
similarly abandoned all plans of Invasion due
to that document and their own subsequent
confirmation of its findings.
What the Germans *would* have done (apart
from what they _did_ do, torpedoing any number
of US vessels in plain sight of the US coastline)
is to put the Nukes on planes and ships and
launched them into US Cities. Notably New
York and Washington D.C.
Such a strike (when America did not have the
bomb yet) would have caused both a Political
*and* an Economic Decapitation - rendering
further US involvement against Germany unlikely,
if not impossible.
And yes, Virginia, the Germans *would* have
had the Nukes first if it weren't for the UK and
the Norwegians. Look up Operations 'Grouse',
'Freshman', and 'Gunnerside'.
Not Glowing (Much),
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> Germany didn't have the resources to produce nukes.
And *WHY* would that have been? Eh?
Could it be because a good deal of the Heavy Water
that Germany would have had had been spirited away
to Perth, Scotland for storage? Might it have been
the UK-Trained Norwegian Commandos? Or the wee
dustup in the skies of the UK? Or that spot of bother
in the North Atlantic?
Gosh, I Wonder...,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> So you don't think the Declaration of Independence
> had anything at all to do with their 'intent'?
Well let's see: I linked to and quoted a Poll which
*specifically* mentioned the _US Constitution_ as
part of its Subject, and you replied with a _specific_
quote from the *Declaration Of Independence*...
So it appears that _your_ "intent" was to make the
same sort of arse out of yourself that Boehner did
of himself the other day, when *he* confused the two.
But do keep trying Spinner, I find it:
Most Amusing,
The Phantom Piper
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:de469a42-4e28-4416...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 7:30 pm, "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> On Nov 8, 6:08 pm, "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Nov 8, 11:13 am, "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
>
> > >news:8PWdnUuGvL61f2vX...@westnet.com.au...
>
> > > >> But what would he know.-
>
> > > > Atlantic would've been no problem.
>
> > > > Luftwaffe.
> > > > Duh.
> > > > would
> > > > have
> > > > Stalingrad - which was a damn close run thing - then who would have
> > > > stopped them using Russias huge resources and the rest of Europes
> > > > and
> > > > Russias navies.
> > > > Don't kid yourself. We saved you. If it wasn't for us you would be
> > > > speaking German by now.
>
> > > bacon
> > > in the Pacific. If the Japanese had been able to push right through
> > > Burma
> > > they could have circled the USA forces and cut them off. So, as usual,
> > > you
> > > have forgotten the forgotten army that saved your bacon.
> > > --
>
> > > Auld Bob-
>
> > We've been over this before. The US stomped Japan with less than
> > 20% of our strength. Burma was a sideshow.....not that it mattered to
> > those who fought there.
>
> > That sideshow stopped the Japanese, tied up there forces and prevented
> > you
> > fighting on more fronts.
>
> I agree except "more fronts". The Japanese couldn't get many more
> troopps to the Pacific and wouldn't have been able to supply them if
> they could've gotten them there.
>
> Why not? We were supplying the Forgotten Army from the air.
Because the Japanese didn't have that capability? Also, the
Burma front was mainly supplied in the traditional sea and land
manner. Air supply was supplemental...even then, the US/UK were the
only ones who could've done that much.
>
> If you were such great hot-shots why did you need
>
> > to drop atom bombs?
>
> We didn't "have to". It was seen as the shortest/cheapest way to
> end the war. The invasions were already being planned.
>
> Aw\!Cummon! The USA was fighting tooth and nail across the Pacific
> Islands.In fact that was some of the hardest won terrain in WWII
> Good grief there were Japs still coming out of the jungles and islands for
> very many years after the war.
Yes. It was very hard fought. We also only used about 20% of our
resources against Japan. The only chance Japan had was to make it too
costly...they were a pekingese taking on a rottweiler.
>
> And another thing, you would not have had atom bombs
>
> > before the Germans if it had not been for the RAF, The Norway Bus, UK
> > Paratroops and the resistance. If not for them it could have been the
> > Germans and Japanese bombing USA cities.
>
> Could've, but probably not. They'd need bases
>
> And/or long range rockets that they were well on the way to having
Not that long-ranged.
>
> . Also, the
> likelihood of anyone else successfully completing a workable A-bomb
> was pretty slim given the costs....but anything is possible.
>
> They were way ahead of you until the allies in Europe kept taking out
> their
> plant and machinery.
Not really. They were ahead in a few areas, behind in others.
Hitler didn't believe in it....case closed.
>
> You only had, "The Costs", because you were charging your allies who were
> fighting for you for the arms and supplies you were selling them.
> In 1939 the USA was a depressed country - had you forgotten that?
Bullshit. You think resources, labor, etc just appear out of thin
air?
More utter rubbish!
I've already told you where the resources came from.
The money you were milking from the Allies for Cash & Carry and Lend/lease
that you were selling to them.
Your country was up to its neck in a recession with, if memory serves, 15
million out of work, (and you don't, even yet, have a social system), that
was 15 million out of work and God knows how many starving women and
children. Your country could not afford to fight back as it was bankrupt.
Hang it! The USA only stopped exporting scrap iron to Japan in 1940. So
while the USA was selling arms & equipment to the UK she was also selling
scrap iron to Japan to aid Japan's war efforts.In was not until July of
1941 the USA froze Japan's assets and that was only because Japan were
threatening the oil, tin and rubber of British Malaya and the Dutch East
Indies. In October 1941 Tojo became Janans Prime Minister. In November Japan
demanded the U.S. release Japanese assets and stop U.S. naval expansion in
the Pacific. This led to the December 7th attack on Pearl Harbour after
these talks broke down. On December 8, Congress declared a state of war
with Japan; three days later Germany and Italy declared war on the United
States.Then the United States brought the armed forces up to a total of
15,100,000, (the same total as the unemployed due to the recession). So
there you are, while you were selling arms to the Allies you were still
dealing with Japan and even selling them iron to build weapons to use
against us. Then In February 1942, 120,000 Japanese-Americans were interned
behind barbed wire in 10 wretched temporary camps. 63 percent of these
Japanese-Americans were American-born and, thus U.S. citizens.
>
> Further to that you also had UK
>
> > people working on the Manhattan Project.
>
> And they probably would've continued even if Britain was
> conquered. Remember all those Free French, Poles, Czechs, etc, etc?
> The Dominions were still in the fight and any Brits who wanted
> to...including a substantial part of any surviving RN ships and
> men...would've continued the fight.
>
> Just what do you think would have
>
> > happened if Russia had not born the brunt of the German attacks and
> > Hitler
> > had gone out through Russia? It is not too far from Russian territory to
> > North America.
>
> How many Germans could've been transported to Alaska and what
> were they going to do once they got there?
>
> Attack of course.
Attack what?
German u-boats were sitting just outside your territorial waters right up
until the Germans declared war on the USA. Just how far do you think the USA
would have got if her fleet, what remained after Pearl Harbour, had been
unable to break out? The Allies had been fighting them since 1939.
>
> So don't kid yourselves, the war was won but only just. It is
>
> > never a good idea to belittle your enemies and,make no mistake the
> > German
> > army was composed of superb fighting men.
>
> Jesus H. Christ! Who has "belittled" anyone?
>
> You do every time you try to tell us that you won the war and/or came to
> save our bacon.
> You first of all dragged yourselves out of the great depression by
> charging
> us for what you sold us, yet admitted that this was to defend the USA.
> When
> the Japs declared war on you by attacking you and the Germans declared war
> you came to defend yourselves and not as you claim to save our bacon.
Where the fuck have I claimed that? Show me or get off that old
tired horse.
Of course you claim that every time you attempt to tell us that you won the
war, that you came to save our bacon and that, without the funds you were
getting from the allies, had the capacity to beat the Japanese with one hand
tied behind your back. Get your facts right before you make rash claims. As
I have shown your country was selling arms & equipment to the Allied forces
and, at the same time, selling iron to the Axis forces while sitting on your
fat arses rakeing in the money that enabled you to mobilise AFTER the
Japanese & Germans declared war on you. I've given you dates and facts. Can
you deny they are correct?
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:485dc4df-8c51-4fed...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 11:41 pm, The Phantom Piper <ThePhantomPi...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:20 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, how were they going to "hop the Atlantic"?
>
> A.) They had _already "hopped" it_, in submarines.
Wow, they were going to build a fleet of giant, troop-carrying
subs? And another fleet to carry the supplies? Gee, if they could do
that, why didn't they win the war?
They didn't need to. Your fleet was already depleted after Pearl Harbour and
the submarines could have kept the rest in port while the Japanese hit you
from other directions.
Remember that the Allies had been fighting those submarines for you since
1939.
>
> B.) In bombers, carrying Nuclear Weapons, in about 1944-45.
Bombers that never existed carrying weapons that never existed.
Colo(u)r me unimpressed.
Who was it that was reducing the German war efforts in both rocketry and
atom bombs - it sure was not the USA sitting on their fat arses behind their
own borders while selling arms and equipment to the allies and, at the same
time, selling stuff to the Japanese. Remember it was not until after 1940/1
that the USA froze Japanese assets and stopped selling them iron. Remember
too that you did not come to fight your own battles until then but were
passing acts to defend yourselves by selling the allies stuff. Pity you did
not think to defend yourself by freezing Japanese assets and stopping
selling them iron to use against us until they actually attacked you.
--
Auld Bob
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
You should really quit flogging this horse. He's tired and you
can't get any more mileage out of him. It has to be bait, so I guess
I'll quit replying.
>
> --
>
> Auld Bob
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Josiah Jenkins" <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.invalid> wrote in message
news:cf1ff51h4i3gad54r...@4ax.com...
I presumed he meant the 'e' should be an 'o'.
Robert Peffers
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0a819ba2-d9e4-434a...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
Don't you remember that we were helping you with that Manhattan Project
while also doing our best to wipe out the German efforts?
Don't you also remember we were helping to fund your efforts with the money
we were paying you for arms & equipment?
Then also remember we were fighting and dying while keeping the Germans
occupied with other matters while you were sitting at home developing things
with our help?
That keeping them busy extended to all fronts including in the Pacific,
Africa, Asia and Europe.
--
Auld Bob