Chirac refuses to give up his necktie!

"Sjoerd" wrote in message
...

"Go Fig" schreef in bericht
...
There were many, many straws that finally broke the back of the USSR,
Reagan piled it on and broke its back... 'without a shot'

It is incredible how you can believe such simple propaganda. The Soviet
Union imploded, and a reasonable man came to power there, who set the
actions in motion that were the beginning of the end of the system in that
country. Reagan and all he did was a very minor factor in all this. If the
SU had wanted, it could have spend 90% of its budget on the military (as
North Korea is doing), and the Cold War would still be on-going (and the
US
would be broke by now!)

There have been peculiar American efforts to promote the idiot to be a great
statesman.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:47:20 +0200, Sjoerd wrote:


"Go Fig" schreef in bericht
...

Yes, and it was the Russians who liberated the Dutch in WWII.

Which shows that you believe propaganda from various sources. For your
information: it were mostly Canadians that liberated the Netherlands in
1945.

But it was still mostly Russia's work at breaking Hitler's backbone. They
waited for that to happen before starting a serious offensive in the West.
Large number of US casualties that an earlier offensive would have
entailed would have been way too risky politically in the US.

And of course, Dieppe was a live demo for Stalin's eyes. Canadians were
expandable.

(Not really saying it was wrong, BTW. On either issue. But credit
belongs where it's due.)

In article , devil
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:47:20 +0200, Sjoerd wrote:


"Go Fig" schreef in bericht
...

Yes, and it was the Russians who liberated the Dutch in WWII.

Which shows that you believe propaganda from various sources. For your
information: it were mostly Canadians that liberated the Netherlands in
1945.

But it was still mostly Russia's work at breaking Hitler's backbone.

Allied air strikes were the crippling blow to Hitler.


They
waited for that to happen before starting a serious offensive in the West.
Large number of US casualties that an earlier offensive would have
entailed would have been way too risky politically in the US.

And of course, Dieppe was a live demo for Stalin's eyes. Canadians were
expandable.

(Not really saying it was wrong, BTW. On either issue. But credit
belongs where it's due.)


You are aware that the U.S. GAVE the USSR more than $5bil (1940s
dollars) in munitions alone... and another almost $5bil in other goods
and services.

Is credit due here?

jay
Tue Jun 15, 2004

devil wrote:


And of course, Dieppe was a live demo for Stalin's eyes. Canadians were
expandable.

That probably should read "expendable".

Although, come to think of it, some of us are expanding at an
alarming rate.

-- Ron

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:01:15 -0400, Ronald Hands wrote:

devil wrote:


And of course, Dieppe was a live demo for Stalin's eyes. Canadians were
expandable.

That probably should read "expendable".

No doubt.

Although, come to think of it, some of us are expanding at an
alarming rate.

Oh well.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:07:45 -0700, Go Fig wrote:

In article , devil
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:47:20 +0200, Sjoerd wrote:


"Go Fig" schreef in bericht
...

Yes, and it was the Russians who liberated the Dutch in WWII.

Which shows that you believe propaganda from various sources. For your
information: it were mostly Canadians that liberated the Netherlands in
1945.

But it was still mostly Russia's work at breaking Hitler's backbone.

Allied air strikes were the crippling blow to Hitler.

Meanwhile some US corporations made sure Germany managed to keep a good
supply of roller bearings for instance.

I suspect the role of the air strikes, while perhaps not insignificant, is
perhaps not as big as that.

They
waited for that to happen before starting a serious offensive in the
West. Large number of US casualties that an earlier offensive would
have entailed would have been way too risky politically in the US.

And of course, Dieppe was a live demo for Stalin's eyes. Canadians
were expandable.

(Not really saying it was wrong, BTW. On either issue. But credit
belongs where it's due.)


You are aware that the U.S. GAVE the USSR more than $5bil (1940s
dollars) in munitions alone... and another almost $5bil in other goods
and services.

Is credit due here?

Funny how this comes up everytime the issue of the US role comes up. No
doubt, that played a role. And I acknowledge the US cash every time. I
am surprised you never seem to notice.


I am sure if Stalin would have taken cash instead of blood for letting the
division of Germany where it ended up, the US would have paid too.

:-)

Some people have no class at all, look at our late prince Claus
(husband of Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands).
He threw his tie of
infront all them industrials, saying "away with conventions" or words
of that stretch.
Now that is class, who is Chirac but a lousy
communist.

Alextreme


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

In article , devil
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:07:45 -0700, Go Fig wrote:

In article , devil
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:47:20 +0200, Sjoerd wrote:


"Go Fig" schreef in bericht
...

Yes, and it was the Russians who liberated the Dutch in WWII.

Which shows that you believe propaganda from various sources. For your
information: it were mostly Canadians that liberated the Netherlands in
1945.

But it was still mostly Russia's work at breaking Hitler's backbone.

Allied air strikes were the crippling blow to Hitler.

Meanwhile some US corporations made sure Germany managed to keep a good
supply of roller bearings for instance.

I suspect the role of the air strikes, while perhaps not insignificant, is
perhaps not as big as that.

There is little doubt that Churchill and Roosevelt intended to use the
blood of the Russians first, but armies move on their stomachs.

You can scoff at direct quotes from German principles of the time...
'their "new" vested interests'... but the audits of production are very
clear... and consistent with the direct quotes I have provided.

What is clear is that the Germans did far better at rebuilding (or
moving underground) then the allies thought at the time, but this came
from diverting HUGE resources, manpower, from the eastern front.



They
waited for that to happen before starting a serious offensive in the
West. Large number of US casualties that an earlier offensive would
have entailed would have been way too risky politically in the US.

And of course, Dieppe was a live demo for Stalin's eyes. Canadians
were expandable.

(Not really saying it was wrong, BTW. On either issue. But credit
belongs where it's due.)


You are aware that the U.S. GAVE the USSR more than $5bil (1940s
dollars) in munitions alone... and another almost $5bil in other goods
and services.

Is credit due here?

Funny how this comes up everytime the issue of the US role comes up. No
doubt, that played a role. And I acknowledge the US cash every time. I
am surprised you never seem to notice.

OK fair enough... but I'll add this perspective; the U.S. started 1941
with a standing army that was not in the top 10 of the world.

What rarely comes up is the U.S. blood lost in the Pacific, much to the
direct benefit of the Russians, who would of had a very active 2nd
front... but for the U.S..


I am sure if Stalin would have taken cash instead of blood for letting the
division of Germany where it ended up, the US would have paid too.

Roosevelt was not a good Commander and Chief, at least at seeing the
big picture, but he did keep the Alliance together... that he maintains
was one of his biggest concerns.

jay
Tue Jun 15, 2004



:-)

Go Fig wrote in message ...
In article , devil
wrote:


You are aware that the U.S. GAVE the USSR more than $5bil (1940s
dollars) in munitions alone... and another almost $5bil in other goods
and services.

It was "lend-lease" paid for with Russian Blood. This is a point of
irritation still with the Russians and at the time is was felt
that the Allies delayed the landings in Normandy in order that
more Russians would die, weakening the USSR.

Some 80% of the total Germany military losses occurred on the
Russian front and historians largely give the Red Army the major
credit in defeating the Germans

A reasonably good recent book debunking much of what people
believed abour WWII in Europe is "The Blitzkrieg Myth" by John
Mosier.

Self-congratulatory myth making is, of course, standard in all
places and at all times. We have recently found out that of the
50 special "shock and awe" raids to knock out Iraqi leaders
none succeeded. Bunker busters and hi-precision laser bombs
give the PR image as having been extremely successful.

The problem is, Go Fig, not that we are lied to, but that we
gobble up these lies with delight. One only fools fools.

Earl

In article , Earl
wrote:

Go Fig wrote in message
...
In article , devil
wrote:


You are aware that the U.S. GAVE the USSR more than $5bil (1940s
dollars) in munitions alone... and another almost $5bil in other goods
and services.

It was "lend-lease" paid for with Russian Blood. This is a point of
irritation still with the Russians and at the time is was felt
that the Allies delayed the landings in Normandy in order that
more Russians would die, weakening the USSR.

They reaped what they sowed, they helped Germany avoid the terms of the
Versailles Treaty.


jay
Wed Jun 16, 2004





Some 80% of the total Germany military losses occurred on the
Russian front and historians largely give the Red Army the major
credit in defeating the Germans

A reasonably good recent book debunking much of what people
believed abour WWII in Europe is "The Blitzkrieg Myth" by John
Mosier.

Self-congratulatory myth making is, of course, standard in all
places and at all times. We have recently found out that of the
50 special "shock and awe" raids to knock out Iraqi leaders
none succeeded. Bunker busters and hi-precision laser bombs
give the PR image as having been extremely successful.

The problem is, Go Fig, not that we are lied to, but that we
gobble up these lies with delight. One only fools fools.

Earl