Chirac refuses to give up his necktie!

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

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

In article , devil
wrote:

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..

If I have got it right about 750.000,- American and British died
during WWII, while there was 25.000.000 million Russians that died.

Jan

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:17:20 +0200, Magda wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:49:08 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, devil
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... 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.

You mean "stretchy" ?

Aren't they?

Good for sex, you know.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:37:26 -0700, Go Fig wrote:


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..

Wrong. If you go bavk to google, you'll find that I have mentioned a
number of times in similar arguments that one key reason for the US to
limit their involvement in Europe was that they had a handful in the
Pacific.

Truly the American war. But then, they had no choice and in the larger
scheme of things, they really should share the blame with Japan. This was
more a colonial war, or at least a war for regional hegemont, than
anything else. (Besides racism, that is. On both sides.)

As to a second front for Russia, I would think that both Russia and Japan
liked it better the way it ended up being.

(Earl) wrote in message om...
[snip]
One thing is that the combined British and Canadian forces landing
on D-Day were greater than the American,

A bit of obsfucation, but understandable considering the
general US bias that WWII history gets on this side of the
pond. The combined forces were larger ON THAT DAY. But the
total number of troops over the subsequent weeks coming through
those landing areas is another story. Additionally, many troops
didn't arrive by land per se, but came through the air (including
British and Canadian troops). Finally, the landing area that
had the worst time of it was Omaha which was most likely just
coincidentally a primarly US landing zone.

yet the D-Day celebrations had come to be an American celebration.

A tendancy more towards history and culture I'd suspect. So
many wars in europe that it was in effect "just another". And
there are alot of things about that war that much of France
would probably like to forget ever happened. Alternately,
WWI and II (pretty much the same war really) put the US on
the map as one of the super powers. The war probably has
more significance to the US than to Europe.

The British have long objected to this.
[snip]

As well they should. But again, a bit of their own doing,
and understandably so. The Battle of Britian was vastly
more significant in many ways to the British than D-Day.
In the end it should all be remembered as a combined victory.
So many contributed in so many ways that it is disrespectful
to all of them to attempt to divy up credit some how.

On 16/06/04 20:16, in article
, "me"
wrote:

Finally, the landing area that
had the worst time of it was Omaha which was most likely just
coincidentally a primarly US landing zone.


It should be remarked that of all the landing areas, only the American
Utah landing achieved the first day objective set for it. The first
day objectives included the taking of Caen and Bayeux, the connecting
road for these cities and having all the landing zone join except
with the Utah landing.

Although I have visited the area a number of times and read up
a bit I don`t think I have read an explanation of why these
first day objectives were not achieved? The defending forces, about
60,000 were much inferior to the landing forces of around
150,000 (I seem to remember correctly).

Certainly Omaha beach looked like the toughest area and the Utah
landing was fortunately not where planned. The Utah landing
had the support of the parachute units but these were
only about 40% effectively reunited on the ground.

Fortunately the Germans did not have more forces in the region
and did not move those available at Calais into the battle
of the next few weeks.

Whatever, it was one of the great battles of history and had
a definitive outcome. We also have spent sometime on the battle
field at Verdun, that is a different story. It was of greater
magnitude, matching that of Stalingrad but was effectively a
bloody stalemate leading to the deaths of about 400,000 French
and nearly the same number of Germans. That battle field is still
worth a visit but in mid-winter when there is no vegetation and
one can still see the scars left on the landscape. The cemetery
at Verdun in horribly depressing, one has difficulty rationalizing
the deaths of all these young men.

Earl

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

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

1) Russia did not sign that treaty. You would more properly refer to
the Soviet stabbing Poland in the back in 1939 and the German-Soviet
non-agression treaty. The Soviets also stabbed themselves in the back.

2) In the late 1920s, when Germany ran into financial difficulties the US
unilaterally "cancelled" German payments to France which the French were
using to pay off their war debt to the USA. The US expected the French
to continue paying off the debt however. Whatever, the Versailles Treaty
was a cruel mistake and lead to WWI, part two.

3) Lastly many Americans supported Hitler`s Germany, including Henry
Ford who received a medal for it from Hitler in 1938. There are
academic "rumors" that Ford supported the Nazis financially at some point,
these being exposed in the relationships with the Wagner family
in the 1930s. Why Ford was awarded a German medal remains a mystery
from the period. He was a known anti-Semite but then many Americans
were in the 1930s. We have tended to forget this nasty fact and prefer
to point the finger elsewhere.

Earl

In article , Earl
wrote:

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

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

1) Russia did not sign that treaty. You would more properly refer to
the Soviet stabbing Poland in the back in 1939 and the German-Soviet
non-agression treaty.

No, I wouldn't.

Germany did most all of its illegal aircraft training in Russia, in
addition to storing other illegal military items for Germany.

They reaped what they sowed....

jay
Thu Jun 17, 2004



The Soviets also stabbed themselves in the back.

2) In the late 1920s, when Germany ran into financial difficulties the US
unilaterally "cancelled" German payments to France which the French were
using to pay off their war debt to the USA. The US expected the French
to continue paying off the debt however. Whatever, the Versailles Treaty
was a cruel mistake and lead to WWI, part two.

3) Lastly many Americans supported Hitler`s Germany, including Henry
Ford who received a medal for it from Hitler in 1938. There are
academic "rumors" that Ford supported the Nazis financially at some point,
these being exposed in the relationships with the Wagner family
in the 1930s. Why Ford was awarded a German medal remains a mystery
from the period. He was a known anti-Semite but then many Americans
were in the 1930s. We have tended to forget this nasty fact and prefer
to point the finger elsewhere.

Earl

In article , Earl Evleth wrote:
On 16/06/04 20:16, in article
, "me"
wrote:

Finally, the landing area that
had the worst time of it was Omaha which was most likely just
coincidentally a primarly US landing zone.


It should be remarked that of all the landing areas, only the American
Utah landing achieved the first day objective set for it. The first
day objectives included the taking of Caen and Bayeux, the connecting
road for these cities and having all the landing zone join except
with the Utah landing.

Although I have visited the area a number of times and read up
a bit I don`t think I have read an explanation of why these
first day objectives were not achieved? The defending forces, about
60,000 were much inferior to the landing forces of around
150,000 (I seem to remember correctly).

Explanations I have read include:
1. It was not realised when setting the objective that the 21st Panzer
division would be in the way on D-Day.
2. Disorganisation following the landing. The support vehicles were landed
before the armoured brigades assigned to cut off the approaches to Caen.Which
delayed things.
3. The Germans used the time to commit all their reserves; 1 SS Pz, II SS Pz &
XLVII Pz Corps to defend Caen.
4. As more German reserves were moved to Normandy, they too were sucked into
the defence of Caen, leaving other sectors weak. The British/Commonwealth
forces had 14 divisions facing 14 German divisions, the Americans had 19
divisions facing 9 German divisions. Which is why the breakout happened in the
American sector.

So, while the immediate objective of Caen was taken a few weeks late, the
broad strategic objective of pinning German troops down was achieved, as
planned.

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

Germany did most all of its illegal aircraft training in Russia, in
addition to storing other illegal military items for Germany.

Cite a reference to that, I have never encountered that claim.

There was no German-Russian military cooperation prior to WWII (September 1939)
by which time the German airforce was off and running, having
shown their stuff already in Spain. In Poland they showed there
stuff more.

You state "Germany did most all of its illegal aircraft training in Russia"

What do you mean by that? In the past you have not been able to
back up what you say, so if you have the info, supply it.

Earl

On 17 Jun 2004 10:44:12 -0700, (Earl) wrote:

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

Germany did most all of its illegal aircraft training in Russia, in
addition to storing other illegal military items for Germany.

Cite a reference to that, I have never encountered that claim.

Google luftwaffe and lipetsk. Quite a number of references,
including: http://www.feldgrau.com/ger-sov.html

Gordon