Discussion:
US revisionism.
(too old to reply)
Serge
2007-07-08 14:52:24 UTC
Permalink
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.

Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".

And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.

And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.

The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.

But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.

They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.

The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.

Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.

Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.

1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.

2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.

Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.

.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!

Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.

The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.

Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.

As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.

In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.

A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Todd Grant
2007-07-08 15:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
No fucking shit.

On June 18, 1812 the United States of America declared war on Britain for the
express purpose of invading Canada and asserting itself as the sole power in
North America (excluding Mexico).

50,000 British troops with 500,000 Canadian militia (including 30,000 Indians)
drove them back and burned the Whitehouse!

How big was their army?

At least three times the size!

What do they tell their children in history books?

Nothing but bull crap.

Look it up.

It's amazing how close two nations can be in so many ways, when stuff like that
is still debated because of the sheer idiocy of American revisionism!
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-08 18:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Grant
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
No fucking shit.
On June 18, 1812 the United States of America declared war on Britain
Did they "declare war" or just attack while Britain
had its "back turned" facing the French?
I think it was the latter!
Doug
2007-07-08 19:05:17 UTC
Permalink
How many sane people bother to complain about events that occurred over 150
years ago?
Post by Robert Sveinson
Post by Todd Grant
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
No fucking shit.
On June 18, 1812 the United States of America declared war on Britain
Did they "declare war" or just attack while Britain
had its "back turned" facing the French?
I think it was the latter!
SPierce
2007-07-08 23:30:27 UTC
Permalink
"Doug" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Tzaki.4037$***@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
(snipped)
Post by Doug
How many sane people bother to complain about events that occurred over 150
years ago?
It's the result of poor upbringing. Bad manners. The events of any time in
history can be analysed without being personal or displaying bitterness.

University used to be the place to find out little known aspects of history
that the mass did not know about and you got taught as much about the events
leading up to some telling victory or change in society.

Now the Internet allows the uncouth mind to grab at bits of history without
their context and so you have this mindless brawling based on some political
standpoint instead of pure academic interest.
Doug
2007-07-09 00:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by Doug
How many sane people bother to complain about events that occurred over
150 years ago?
It's the result of poor upbringing. Bad manners. The events of any
time in history can be analysed without being personal or displaying
bitterness.
University used to be the place to find out little known aspects of
history that the mass did not know about and you got taught as much about
the events leading up to some telling victory or change in society.
Now the Internet allows the uncouth mind to grab at bits of history
without their context and so you have this mindless brawling based on some
political standpoint instead of pure academic interest.
Well at least not everyone hates "yanks". In another 50 years most "yanks"
won't be of European extraction at all, at which point "yanks" will be an
almost meaningless expression from a bygone era.

If these people have nothing better to do than complain about events that
happened
over 160 years ago -- they have an easy life.

All I can say is, people in Australia and Canada should be spending less
time bashing a dying country like the USA and more time trying to make
sure their countries don't end up the same way.
SPierce
2007-07-09 00:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by Doug
How many sane people bother to complain about events that occurred over 150
years ago?
It's the result of poor upbringing. Bad manners. The events of any time
in history can be analysed without being personal or displaying bitterness.
University used to be the place to find out little known aspects of history
that the mass did not know about and you got taught as much about the events
leading up to some telling victory or change in society.
Now the Internet allows the uncouth mind to grab at bits of history without
their context and so you have this mindless brawling based on some political
standpoint instead of pure academic interest.
Well at least not everyone hates "yanks". In another 50 years most "yanks"
won't be of European extraction at all, at which point "yanks" will be an
almost meaningless expression from a bygone era.
If these people have nothing better to do than complain about events that
happened
over 160 years ago -- they have an easy life.
All I can say is, people in Australia and Canada should be spending less
time bashing a dying country like the USA and more time trying to make
sure their countries don't end up the same way.
ON the Internet and in Newsgroups you are seeing the minds of teenagers most of
the time. I'm 72, today actually, so I see life from a different perspective.
And I owe my life to Americans who flew B17s out of Britain during the war so I
can appreciate what Americans have done for humanity and quite frankly idolise
them.

A 19 year old B19 pilot bombed a Doodlebug launching site that was scaring the
shit out of us living in the flight path to London from Calais on June 14 1944
. Then on the way back, right above my head, his plane was dropped on from
above by another B17 that had got shot up and lost power. 14 young Americans
men died falling out of the sky that day. I worship those men. So I have a
different perspective from experience.

Also. people are not learning from history because they no longer have an
historical view of life, only emotionally reactive...like juveniles. Men are
not growing up as they used to, but staying in some cocooned perpetual
adolescence and wanting to play sport as a substitute for living and bringing up
a family.
Doug
2007-07-09 02:53:12 UTC
Permalink
I never would have guessed you were 72, I figured maybe 64 or so tops!

It's amazing how ugly the world has become.

In Los Angeles, 60 years ago, there was a nice jewish community called
Boyle Heights. Now it's a gang-ridden hell hole that no caucasian (or black
for that matter) would dare walk through day or night. The synagogue that
is still there is nothing but a gutted ruin covered in graffiti.

When did you decide to immigrate to Australia? Do you like Australia
better than the UK? What do you think of the UK now?
Post by SPierce
ON the Internet and in Newsgroups you are seeing the minds of teenagers
most of the time. I'm 72, today actually, so I see life from a different
perspective. And I owe my life to Americans who flew B17s out of Britain
during the war so I can appreciate what Americans have done for humanity
and quite frankly idolise them.
A 19 year old B19 pilot bombed a Doodlebug launching site that was
scaring the shit out of us living in the flight path to London from
Calais on June 14 1944 . Then on the way back, right above my head, his
plane was dropped on from above by another B17 that had got shot up and
lost power. 14 young Americans men died falling out of the sky that day.
I worship those men. So I have a different perspective from experience.
Also. people are not learning from history because they no longer have an
historical view of life, only emotionally reactive...like juveniles. Men
are not growing up as they used to, but staying in some cocooned perpetual
adolescence and wanting to play sport as a substitute for living and
bringing up a family.
SPierce
2007-07-09 07:26:00 UTC
Permalink
"Doug" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:sqhki.8730$***@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
(snipped)
Post by Doug
When did you decide to immigrate to Australia? Do you like Australia
better than the UK? What do you think of the UK now?
On my first trip out to Australia in 1951 I was goggle eyed at the *Plenty* of
everything in the shops. This was at a time when rationing was still in force
in the UK. You could buy huge bars of chocolate for peanuts. I hadn't seen
chocolate since 1940.
It was a land of Plenty in everything and everyone spoke English. It was just
like seeing your relatives from way back but they had a better life and
perpetual sunshine to go with it. And they supplied Britain with a lot of
frozen beef, wool, dried fruit, butter, you name it it was all here. Ships
took a week to load and unload cargo and you got to know people. And the
girls were gorgeous and tanned and looked disgustingly healthy.

No ship ever left the Australian coast with a full crew on the way back to the
UK. Same in New Zealand. Everyone British. I even found an uncle in
Wellington who had jumped ship there in 1929 and my father had lost touch with
him during the war.
These two outposts of the Empire were rich beyond dreams. Not corrupted by
'diversity' in those days

A lot of the older crewmen had girl friends they telegraphed from the ship
ahead to tell them when they were arriving. They brought out very posh London
clothing or shoes for them as gifts. A lot of the men just jumped ship and
married here.

If you saw the conditions in Britain just after the war you wonder why anyone
would want to go back and live there. It was an eye opener for a 16 year old.
I too had plans but its along story.
Doug
2007-07-09 22:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
On my first trip out to Australia in 1951 I was goggle eyed at the
*Plenty* of everything in the shops. This was at a time when rationing
was still in force in the UK. You could buy huge bars of chocolate for
peanuts. I hadn't seen chocolate since 1940.
It was a land of Plenty in everything and everyone spoke English. It was
just like seeing your relatives from way back but they had a better life
and perpetual sunshine to go with it. And they supplied Britain with a
lot of frozen beef, wool, dried fruit, butter, you name it it was all
here. Ships took a week to load and unload cargo and you got to know
people. And the girls were gorgeous and tanned and looked disgustingly
healthy.
No ship ever left the Australian coast with a full crew on the way back to
the UK. Same in New Zealand. Everyone British. I even found an uncle
in Wellington who had jumped ship there in 1929 and my father had lost
touch with him during the war.
These two outposts of the Empire were rich beyond dreams. Not corrupted
by 'diversity' in those days
A lot of the older crewmen had girl friends they telegraphed from the
ship ahead to tell them when they were arriving. They brought out very
posh London clothing or shoes for them as gifts. A lot of the men just
jumped ship and married here.
If you saw the conditions in Britain just after the war you wonder why
anyone would want to go back and live there. It was an eye opener for a
16 year old. I too had plans but its along story.
Interesting story, have you been back to the UK since you emigrated from
there?
Are you a full citizen in Australia?
Douglas Berry
2007-07-10 02:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
On my first trip out to Australia in 1951 I was goggle eyed at the
*Plenty* of everything in the shops. This was at a time when rationing
was still in force in the UK. You could buy huge bars of chocolate for
peanuts. I hadn't seen chocolate since 1940.
It was a land of Plenty in everything and everyone spoke English. It was
just like seeing your relatives from way back but they had a better life
and perpetual sunshine to go with it. And they supplied Britain with a
lot of frozen beef, wool, dried fruit, butter, you name it it was all
here. Ships took a week to load and unload cargo and you got to know
people. And the girls were gorgeous and tanned and looked disgustingly
healthy.
No ship ever left the Australian coast with a full crew on the way back to
the UK. Same in New Zealand. Everyone British. I even found an uncle
in Wellington who had jumped ship there in 1929 and my father had lost
touch with him during the war.
These two outposts of the Empire were rich beyond dreams. Not corrupted
by 'diversity' in those days
A lot of the older crewmen had girl friends they telegraphed from the
ship ahead to tell them when they were arriving. They brought out very
posh London clothing or shoes for them as gifts. A lot of the men just
jumped ship and married here.
If you saw the conditions in Britain just after the war you wonder why
anyone would want to go back and live there. It was an eye opener for a
16 year old. I too had plans but its along story.
My father emigrated to the US in 1952 for the same reasons. The
post-war depression destroyed any real chance at work, and after his
unsuccesful stint in the Army, he wanted a change.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
SPierce
2007-07-10 05:04:33 UTC
Permalink
"Douglas Berry" <***@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
(snipped)
Post by Douglas Berry
My father emigrated to the US in 1952 for the same reasons. The
post-war depression destroyed any real chance at work, and after his
unsuccesful stint in the Army, he wanted a change.
--
There wasn't a post-war depression as such...just a lot of bombed houses and
shortages of everything. There were much worse conditions than existed
during wartime because the money had run out and we were relying on American
loans and aid for years after.

Men were coming home from fighting to find their wives living with
relatives, or living with another bloke, because the house was bombed,
and could'nt be repaird because there was no timber or tools or anything to
do the work with. So after fighting for their country they came home to
the hazzards of living with in-laws...more anxiety than war-time for many.

The children were being brought back from the country to their fathers they
hadn't seen for 5 years and didn't know them. On top of that they often
spoke with a different regional accent to the one they were evacuated from,
and feelings of not belonging to each other...very traumatic for some.
This was the genesis of the post-war juvenile delinquency. It happened in
America too.

There was a general feeling of resentment over money being available for
war but not for peace. This was true of course because a lot of British
assets went to pay for the war and America had to keep lending us more just
to keep going for years. There wasn't an actual Depression...just shortages
of everything that made life liveable until the wartime technology was being
transferred into peacetime goods.

It took 15 years despite the Berlin air-lift and Nasser blocking the Suez.
The 1960 box-like Mini Minor car was the first symbol of post war wealth
creation and got a massive sales boost from the film with Michael Cain " The
Italian Job ". Finally the economic misery was over.

It doesn't sound a long time in history to recover from war but it seemed
at the time to be misery every day after being the so-called 'victors'.
This is why so many emigrated.
Serge
2007-07-10 12:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by Doug
When did you decide to immigrate to Australia? Do you like
Australia better than the UK? What do you think of the UK now?
No ship ever left the Australian coast with a full crew on the way back
to the UK. Same in New Zealand.
These two outposts of the Empire were rich beyond dreams.
Not corrupted by 'diversity' in those days
Well, at least not until you unwashed poms arrived on-mass
Post by SPierce
If you saw the conditions in Britain just after the war you wonder
why anyone would want to go back and live there.
This may be an alien concept to someone who deserted their country of birth,
but for patriotic reasons. Like helping to rebuild it, rather then running
out on it.

You didn't see Aussies turn their back on their own country like you
traitorous pommy bastards.
Post by SPierce
It was an eye opener for a 16 year old. I too had plans but its along
story.
Thank Christ you didn't bore us with it.
Col. Chuck Powers
2007-07-09 12:41:54 UTC
Permalink
I owe my life to Americans who flew B17s out of Britain during the war.
Damn right!

Me and my buddies busted our asses helping you goddamn
limeys in the last war.

I was attached to Bomber Command as a liaison officer in '44
and more times than not your aircrews were forced to board
their planes at the point of a gun.

Most of those yellow bellied mother-fuckers dropped their
bomb loads in the English Channel before hauling-ass back
to the rain-sodden cesspool that was England.

Hell! it's still a rain-sodden cesspool.

If it weren't for the sacrifices of the United States you limey
sonsofbitches would be cowering under the heel of the
Nazi jackboot.

God Bless America.

Colonel Chuck Powers (ret)
USAF
Kwyjibo
2007-07-09 12:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
I owe my life to Americans who flew B17s out of Britain during the war.
Damn right!
Me and my buddies busted our asses helping you goddamn
limeys in the last war.
I was attached to Bomber Command as a liaison officer in '44
and more times than not your aircrews were forced to board
their planes at the point of a gun.
Most of those yellow bellied mother-fuckers dropped their
bomb loads in the English Channel before hauling-ass back
to the rain-sodden cesspool that was England.
Hell! it's still a rain-sodden cesspool.
If it weren't for the sacrifices of the United States you limey
sonsofbitches would be cowering under the heel of the
Nazi jackboot.
What fucking dickhead.
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
God Bless America.
He needs to do *something* to it. Might be a bit late for blessings or other
such silly witchcraft though.
--
Kwyj.
David Johnston
2007-07-09 16:04:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:41:54 +1000, "Col. Chuck Powers"
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
I owe my life to Americans who flew B17s out of Britain during the war.
Damn right!
Me and my buddies busted our asses helping you goddamn
limeys in the last war.
I was attached to Bomber Command as a liaison officer in '44
and more times than not your aircrews were forced to board
their planes at the point of a gun.
What a fine example of U.S. revisionism.
Doug
2007-07-09 16:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Duh, could this be a troll? I believe *every* word of this, you should too!
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
I owe my life to Americans who flew B17s out of Britain during the war.
Damn right!
Me and my buddies busted our asses helping you goddamn
limeys in the last war.
I was attached to Bomber Command as a liaison officer in '44
and more times than not your aircrews were forced to board
their planes at the point of a gun.
Most of those yellow bellied mother-fuckers dropped their
bomb loads in the English Channel before hauling-ass back
to the rain-sodden cesspool that was England.
Hell! it's still a rain-sodden cesspool.
If it weren't for the sacrifices of the United States you limey
sonsofbitches would be cowering under the heel of the
Nazi jackboot.
God Bless America.
Colonel Chuck Powers (ret)
USAF
SPierce
2007-07-09 21:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Duh, could this be a troll? I believe *every* word of this, you should too!
Of course. If " Col. Chuck Powers" would be so kind as to tell me where he
was stationed I could check him out.
Col. Chuck Powers
2007-07-10 12:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
Post by Doug
Duh, could this be a troll? I believe *every* word of this, you should too!
Of course. If " Col. Chuck Powers" would be so kind as to tell me
where he was stationed I could check him out.
RAF Bardney, flying four engine Avro Lancasters.

And I've gotta say Stan, that when I was stationed in England during the
war, those limey gals put it about like there was no tomorrow.

I admit to feeling bad sometimes, knowing that the English army were
surrendering in droves or being shot in the back as they ran from a fight
while my buddies and I were porking their girlfriends and wives back home.

We Americans used to call England the biggest whorehouse on earth.

For a Hershey bar, a pair of stockings or a stick of gum those gals would
have their dresses up over their heads quicker than a nigger stopped dancing
at the end of a rope.

All you needed was an American accent in those days, and those gals would
spread their legs wider than the Grand Canyon. But I never understood that
"English Rose" tag, most of them smelt like fishing smacks.

I haven't been back for over 50 years but I believe nothing's changed.


God bless America!

Colonel Chuck Powers (ret)
USAF
SPierce
2007-07-10 13:55:55 UTC
Permalink
"Col. Chuck Powers" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:46938159$0$12820$***@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
(snipped)
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
RAF Bardney, flying four engine Avro Lancasters.
So you are an American who flew in British Lancaster Bombers. Interesting.

What Missions were you on.
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-10 23:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
RAF Bardney, flying four engine Avro Lancasters.
So you are an American who flew in British Lancaster Bombers.
Maybe the gun at HIS back is a true story!

Interesting.
Post by SPierce
What Missions were you on.
Doug
2007-07-10 20:17:59 UTC
Permalink
I we look at the news headers for this guy he's posting from Australia.

Did this ever actually happen? Did yanks ever fly British bombers?

I think Col. Chuck Powers DNE. He's a fictitious character dreamed up by
an Australian who obviously despises yanks.

If he was a Colonel in the USAF it should be easy to check out. All he
has to do is give us his Wing, Group, Squadron. Colonels are so high
up the command chain it won't be hard to figure out if a Col. Chuck Powers
ever existed in the USAF.

He's full of BS, he claims to have flown lancasters in WW2 but also claims
in other posts to have served two tours in Vietnam.

He's a troll.
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
Post by SPierce
Post by Doug
Duh, could this be a troll? I believe *every* word of this, you should too!
Of course. If " Col. Chuck Powers" would be so kind as to tell me
where he was stationed I could check him out.
RAF Bardney, flying four engine Avro Lancasters.
And I've gotta say Stan, that when I was stationed in England during the
war, those limey gals put it about like there was no tomorrow.
I admit to feeling bad sometimes, knowing that the English army were
surrendering in droves or being shot in the back as they ran from a fight
while my buddies and I were porking their girlfriends and wives back home.
We Americans used to call England the biggest whorehouse on earth.
For a Hershey bar, a pair of stockings or a stick of gum those gals would
have their dresses up over their heads quicker than a nigger stopped dancing
at the end of a rope.
All you needed was an American accent in those days, and those gals would
spread their legs wider than the Grand Canyon. But I never understood that
"English Rose" tag, most of them smelt like fishing smacks.
I haven't been back for over 50 years but I believe nothing's changed.
God bless America!
Colonel Chuck Powers (ret)
USAF
SPierce
2007-07-10 23:13:41 UTC
Permalink
"Doug" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:_PRki.7852$***@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
(snipped)
Post by Doug
If he was a Colonel in the USAF it should be easy to check out. All he
has to do is give us his Wing, Group, Squadron. Colonels are so high
up the command chain it won't be hard to figure out if a Col. Chuck Powers
ever existed in the USAF.
Yes, I did a lot of research to find out the names and missions of the men who
died when they crashed together. It's a lot easier to find out now on the
Internet. I was lucky 10 years ago because someone else had made it a personal
mission to find out about them and I got all their personal details. I even
telephoned the surviving pilot in America and had a chat. He still flies
around in those noisy home made minuture helicopter things.

But the most extrordinary thing happened when I was reading an American's plea
for information in an American Airforce veterans web page about his father being
killed in an air-crash over the Thames in 1944 and wanted to know what happened.
As soon as I saw his name I was able to tell him the whole story. I actually
watched his father bale out and float into the water. He drowned
unfortunately.

The Col. Chuck just doesn't ring true. But he can have his say and I'll
listen.
Doug
2007-07-11 16:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
But the most extrordinary thing happened when I was reading an American's
plea for information in an American Airforce veterans web page about his
father being killed in an air-crash over the Thames in 1944 and wanted to
know what happened. As soon as I saw his name I was able to tell him the
whole story. I actually watched his father bale out and float into the
water. He drowned unfortunately.
In the hostile, unfriendly world of today that was an unusually kind act.
I'm sure the family appreciates your kindness.
Post by SPierce
The Col. Chuck just doesn't ring true. But he can have his say and I'll
listen.
Col. Chuck is a troll, he's posting from an Australian news server. I've
found
other newsgroup posts in which he claims to have served two tours in
Vietnam.
I suppose it's barely possible he could've flown bomber missions in WW2 AND
served in Vietnam, but it sounds unlikely to me.

Robert Sveinson
2007-07-10 23:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
Post by SPierce
Post by Doug
Duh, could this be a troll? I believe *every* word of this, you should too!
Of course. If " Col. Chuck Powers" would be so kind as to tell me
where he was stationed I could check him out.
RAF Bardney, flying four engine Avro Lancasters.
Having a little trouble remembering the squadron numbers are you?
Dave Smith
2007-07-11 00:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
RAF Bardney, flying four engine Avro Lancasters.
And I've gotta say Stan, that when I was stationed in England during the
war, those limey gals put it about like there was no tomorrow.
I admit to feeling bad sometimes, knowing that the English army were
surrendering in droves or being shot in the back as they ran from a fight
while my buddies and I were porking their girlfriends and wives back home.
I trust it was with the women on top because pathological liars like you
can only fuck up.
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 02:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
I owe my life to Americans who flew B17s out of Britain during the war.
Damn right!
Me and my buddies busted our asses helping you goddamn
limeys in the last war.
I was attached to Bomber Command as a liaison officer in '44
and more times than not your aircrews were forced to board
their planes at the point of a gun.
Did they accept pathological liars in the USAF?
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
If it weren't for the sacrifices of the United States you limey
sonsofbitches would be cowering under the heel of the
Nazi jackboot.
Amazingly, the people you called cowards held off a German invasion while
the US sat back and did nothing.
The next thing we know you will be telling us about the pin point accuracy
of the day light American air raids, which were turned out to be no more
accurate the night time raids by the RAF.
h***@yahoo.com
2007-07-10 08:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
The next thing we know you will be telling us about the pin point accuracy
of the day light American air raids, which were turned out to be no more
accurate the night time raids by the RAF.
Visual daylight bombing was pretty accurate. It was the radar-guided
bombing that US bombers used in overcast weather that wasn't very
accurate.

Still, I don't think any firestorms erupted when US bombers tried to
use radar guidance to hit a legitimate target, even though they often
missed. Starting a firestorm seems to require a deliberate attempt to
spread incendiaries through an entire city, as the UK did in Germany
and the US did in Japan.
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 13:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Dave Smith
The next thing we know you will be telling us about the pin point accuracy
of the day light American air raids, which were turned out to be no more
accurate the night time raids by the RAF.
Visual daylight bombing was pretty accurate.
It had sold to the air force as being highly accurate, and that accuracy
had been demonstrated under ideal conditions. Conditions in north western
Europe were not ideal, and it turned out to have been no more accurate than
the RAF was in their night time raids.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
It was the radar-guided
bombing that US bombers used in overcast weather that wasn't very
accurate.
Oddly, the RAF was using radar and getting results just as good as the USAF
was getting with the Norden precision bomb sight.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Still, I don't think any firestorms erupted when US bombers tried to
use radar guidance to hit a legitimate target, even though they often
missed. Starting a firestorm seems to require a deliberate attempt to
spread incendiaries through an entire city, as the UK did in Germany
and the US did in Japan.
The US helped in Germany. The USAF was supposed to lead off the attack on
Dresden but was grounded by bad weather, so the RAF started off, and then
the USAF joined in.
h***@yahoo.com
2007-07-10 22:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Dave Smith
The next thing we know you will be telling us about the pin point accuracy
of the day light American air raids, which were turned out to be no more
accurate the night time raids by the RAF.
Visual daylight bombing was pretty accurate.
It had sold to the air force as being highly accurate, and that accuracy
had been demonstrated under ideal conditions. Conditions in north western
Europe were not ideal, and it turned out to have been no more accurate than
the RAF was in their night time raids.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
It was the radar-guided
bombing that US bombers used in overcast weather that wasn't very
accurate.
Oddly, the RAF was using radar and getting results just as good as the USAF
was getting with the Norden precision bomb sight.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Still, I don't think any firestorms erupted when US bombers tried to
use radar guidance to hit a legitimate target, even though they often
missed. Starting a firestorm seems to require a deliberate attempt to
spread incendiaries through an entire city, as the UK did in Germany
and the US did in Japan.
The US helped in Germany. The USAF was supposed to lead off the attack on
Dresden but was grounded by bad weather, so the RAF started off, and then
the USAF joined in.
We helped, but as far as I know we never started any firestorms in
Germany. Firestorms only seemed to start with deliberate attempts to
take out an entire city.

The order of who bombed Dresden first didn't impact who was targeting
what. Even if the US had bombed first they would have tried to use
radar guidance to hit the railyards, and even if the UK had hit
Dresden second, they still would have tried to set fire to the entire
city.
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 22:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Dave Smith
The US helped in Germany. The USAF was supposed to lead off the attack on
Dresden but was grounded by bad weather, so the RAF started off, and then
the USAF joined in.
We helped, but as far as I know we never started any firestorms in
Germany. Firestorms only seemed to start with deliberate attempts to
take out an entire city.
As I indicated, the USAF was supposed to lead off the attack on Dresden,
but they were grounded by bad weather. The plan was for the USAF to start
the attack during the day and the RAF would take over at night, to be
followed by more USAF. The weather is the only reason that the RAF ended
up starting things going there.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
The order of who bombed Dresden first didn't impact who was targeting
what. Even if the US had bombed first they would have tried to use
radar guidance to hit the railyards, and even if the UK had hit
Dresden second, they still would have tried to set fire to the entire
city.
The point is that there was a claim that it was only the British that did
it. The Americans were in on it just as much. I don't know about the
Americans using radar on that one but I do know that the RAF had been using
radar since at least 1943 because my father flew with a Pathfinder squadron
and his plane was equipped with radar to locate targets.
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-10 23:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Dave Smith
The US helped in Germany. The USAF was supposed to lead off the attack on
Dresden but was grounded by bad weather, so the RAF started off, and then
the USAF joined in.
We helped, but as far as I know we never started any firestorms in
Germany. Firestorms only seemed to start with deliberate attempts to
take out an entire city.
This is the first time that I have seen a claim that the USAAF "helped"!
They always claim to have done it all themselves!
How very strange!
Post by Dave Smith
As I indicated, the USAF was supposed to lead off the attack on Dresden,
but they were grounded by bad weather. The plan was for the USAF to start
the attack during the day and the RAF would take over at night, to be
followed by more USAF. The weather is the only reason that the RAF ended
up starting things going there.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
The order of who bombed Dresden first didn't impact who was targeting
what. Even if the US had bombed first they would have tried to use
radar guidance to hit the railyards, and even if the UK had hit
Dresden second, they still would have tried to set fire to the entire
city.
The point is that there was a claim that it was only the British that did
it. The Americans were in on it just as much. I don't know about the
Americans using radar on that one but I do know that the RAF had been using
radar since at least 1943 because my father flew with a Pathfinder squadron
and his plane was equipped with radar to locate targets.
The USAAF had H2S and GEE and GH and Oboe for their "precision BLIND
bombing!
And they claim that they invented them all!
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-10 23:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Dave Smith
The next thing we know you will be telling us about the pin point accuracy
of the day light American air raids, which were turned out to be no more
accurate the night time raids by the RAF.
Visual daylight bombing was pretty accurate.
It had sold to the air force as being highly accurate, and that accuracy
had been demonstrated under ideal conditions. Conditions in north western
Europe were not ideal, and it turned out to have been no more accurate than
the RAF was in their night time raids.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
It was the radar-guided
bombing that US bombers used in overcast weather that wasn't very
accurate.
Oddly, the RAF was using radar and getting results just as good as the USAF
was getting with the Norden precision bomb sight.
Ah yes. 1,000 B 17s and ONE bomb aimer [bombardier] and 999
TOGGLIERS!
Post by Dave Smith
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Still, I don't think any firestorms erupted when US bombers tried to
use radar guidance to hit a legitimate target, even though they often
missed. Starting a firestorm seems to require a deliberate attempt to
spread incendiaries through an entire city, as the UK did in Germany
and the US did in Japan.
The US helped in Germany. The USAF was supposed to lead off the attack on
Dresden but was grounded by bad weather, so the RAF started off, and then
the USAF joined in.
And the USAAF had attacked Dresden before Feb, 1945, and bombed it 4 times
in Feb and March 1945. RAF went once, in two waves.
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-10 22:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Dave Smith
The next thing we know you will be telling us about the pin point accuracy
of the day light American air raids, which were turned out to be no more
accurate the night time raids by the RAF.
Visual daylight bombing was pretty accurate. It was the radar-guided
bombing that US bombers used in overcast weather that wasn't very
accurate.
Still, I don't think any firestorms erupted when US bombers tried to
use radar guidance to hit a legitimate target, even though they often
missed. Starting a firestorm seems to require a deliberate attempt to
spread incendiaries through an entire city, as the UK did in Germany
and the US did in Japan.
Which brings up the question:
Why, when the USAAF was bombing railroad marshalling yards did
they also drop "incendiaries?

And I guess no claim can be made that the USAAF had NO part
in the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden.
Neither the USAAF nor the RAF had the ability to plan and
carry out a raid that caused firestorms in Europe.
Tokyo is on the other hand was populated by Japanese,
so fire bombing them was all right!
SPierce
2007-07-11 00:51:56 UTC
Permalink
"Robert Sveinson" <***@mts.net> wrote in message news:laUki.6840$***@newsfe13.lga...
(snipped)
Post by Robert Sveinson
Why, when the USAAF was bombing railroad marshalling yards did
they also drop "incendiaries?
And I guess no claim can be made that the USAAF had NO part
in the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden.
Neither the USAAF nor the RAF had the ability to plan and
carry out a raid that caused firestorms in Europe.
Tokyo is on the other hand was populated by Japanese,
so fire bombing them was all right!
You are a juvenile.

You have no idea about what you are commenting about.

Making a moral judgement about how a war was fought is futile. The only thing
that matters in war is winning...and you do it as quickly as possible and use
whatever method brings that about.
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-10 22:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
I owe my life to Americans who flew B17s out of Britain during the war.
Damn right!
Me and my buddies busted our asses helping you goddamn
limeys in the last war.
I was attached to Bomber Command as a liaison officer in '44
and more times than not your aircrews were forced to board
their planes at the point of a gun.
Did they accept pathological liars in the USAF?
Post by Col. Chuck Powers
If it weren't for the sacrifices of the United States you limey
sonsofbitches would be cowering under the heel of the
Nazi jackboot.
Amazingly, the people you called cowards held off a German invasion while
the US sat back and did nothing.
No! They didn't do "nothing"! They got rich selling to Germany as
well as the UK
Post by Dave Smith
The next thing we know you will be telling us about the pin point accuracy
of the day light American air raids, which were turned out to be no more
accurate the night time raids by the RAF.
They did call it "precision BLIND bombing"!
Like Tokyo. And they claimed not to target civilians!
Serge
2007-07-10 12:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by Doug
How many sane people bother to complain about events that occurred over
150 years ago?
The events of any time in history can be analysed without being personal
or displaying bitterness.
Tell that to Saddam Hussein's critics.
Doug
2007-07-08 19:03:06 UTC
Permalink
I don't remember reading/studying anything about the War of 1812 when I was
in school in
the US, so I guess there was no revisionism there.

There's one BIG reason you Canadians should be thrilled about the US being
your
Southern neighbor: we're a nice, big buffer state between you and the third
world
that is latin america. You don't think they're coming for you NEXT? Check
this out:
http://www.mexica-movement.org/

Maybe we should just open up our Southern and Northern borders and let the
human
wave of hispanics/latinos stream up your way. Maybe we could arrange for a
bus service
for them from our Southern border to your Southern border. Or maybe we could
deport
them North instead of South.
Post by Todd Grant
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
No fucking shit.
On June 18, 1812 the United States of America declared war on Britain for the
express purpose of invading Canada and asserting itself as the sole power in
North America (excluding Mexico).
50,000 British troops with 500,000 Canadian militia (including 30,000 Indians)
drove them back and burned the Whitehouse!
How big was their army?
At least three times the size!
What do they tell their children in history books?
Nothing but bull crap.
Look it up.
It's amazing how close two nations can be in so many ways, when stuff like that
is still debated because of the sheer idiocy of American revisionism!
Siobhan Medeiros
2007-07-09 05:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
I don't remember reading/studying anything about the War of 1812 when I was
in school in
the US, so I guess there was no revisionism there.
There's one BIG reason you Canadians should be thrilled about the US being
your
Southern neighbor: we're a nice, big buffer state between you and the third
world
that is latin america. You don't think they're coming for you NEXT? Check
this out:http://www.mexica-movement.org/
Maybe we should just open up our Southern and Northern borders and let the
human
wave of hispanics/latinos stream up your way. Maybe we could arrange for a
bus service
for them from our Southern border to your Southern border. Or maybe we could
deport
them North instead of South.
Yeah, right. Like that could work. Idiot.
Post by Doug
Post by Todd Grant
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
No fucking shit.
On June 18, 1812 the United States of America declared war on Britain for the
express purpose of invading Canada and asserting itself as the sole power in
North America (excluding Mexico).
50,000 British troops with 500,000 Canadian militia (including 30,000 Indians)
drove them back and burned the Whitehouse!
How big was their army?
At least three times the size!
What do they tell their children in history books?
Nothing but bull crap.
Look it up.
It's amazing how close two nations can be in so many ways, when stuff like that
is still debated because of the sheer idiocy of American revisionism!
Vandar
2007-07-08 15:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children,
Approximately 200,000 people died as a result of the two bombings.
According to you, none of them were men.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
when it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
Which he did.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
Thus America won.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
Which they did.
Post by Serge
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Like fucking hell there wasn't.
Post by Serge
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
Try hundreds, revisionist.
Post by Serge
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
The 400,000 soldiers trying to defend Normandy for the Germans would
disagree.
Post by Serge
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
"In the East, the vastness of space will... permit a loss of
territory... without suffering a mortal blow to Germany’s chance for
survival. Not so in the West! If the enemy here succeeds... consequences
of staggering proportions will follow within a short time." - Adolf
Hitler speaking about Operation Overlord.
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
There is little doubt that the Russians played a HUGE role in beating
down the German forces, but to claim the Americans didn't contribute in
a meaningful way is to be a revisionist.
Post by Serge
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
350,000 deaths is paltry? Since when is an overwhelming victory
considered a useless act?
Post by Serge
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Yes, you are.

Care to revise the facts about the Pacific theater as well?
kangarooistan
2007-07-08 16:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children,
Approximately 200,000 people died as a result of the two bombings.
According to you, none of them were men.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
when it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
Which he did.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
Thus America won.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
Which they did.
Post by Serge
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Like fucking hell there wasn't.
Post by Serge
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
Try hundreds, revisionist.
Post by Serge
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
The 400,000 soldiers trying to defend Normandy for the Germans would
disagree.
Post by Serge
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
"In the East, the vastness of space will... permit a loss of
territory... without suffering a mortal blow to Germany's chance for
survival. Not so in the West! If the enemy here succeeds... consequences
of staggering proportions will follow within a short time." - Adolf
Hitler speaking about Operation Overlord.
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
There is little doubt that the Russians played a HUGE role in beating
down the German forces, but to claim the Americans didn't contribute in
a meaningful way is to be a revisionist.
Post by Serge
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
350,000 deaths is paltry? Since when is an overwhelming victory
considered a useless act?
Post by Serge
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Yes, you are.
Care to revise the facts about the Pacific theater as well?

Why bother , every body knows the Yanks started the war in the Pacific
when they blockaded japans oil suppilies to forced Japan into the war

kanga
=====

Tell me mate

Did the yanks treat the native peoplesin Nth America like the poms
treated the Australian native peoples

-----------------

In 1777 the British landed on the island of Tasmania and by 1802 had
established it as a prison colony on which to house Europe's
criminals. As early as 1804 a deliberate campaign of genocide was
enacted by the colonial British government towards Tasmania's native
population. Blacks were mutilated and killed for sport. Native men
were shot, speared or clubbed to death while women were tortured and
used as sexual slaves. After The Black War, the official designation
for the extermination of Tasmania's natives, those who survived were
rounded up and placed in concentration camps. Between 1802 and 1830
the native population of Tasmania was reduced from an estimated 8,000
to 75 people. Pictured here are Truganini, William Lanney and Bessy
Clarke--- the last three full-blooded Tasmanians.


In May 1876, Truganini, the last full-blooded Tasmanian, died at the
age of 73. Truganini's life had been one of hardships from the very
start. Her mother had been brutally stabbed to death by whites. Her
uncle had been shot to death by whites. Her sisters were kidnapped and
sold by whites. And her intended husband was drowned by whites in her
presence while his murderers raped her. It can well be said that this
woman lived the typical life of a Tasmanian native under European
rule. After her burial Truganini's body was exhumed and her skeleton
put upon display in a Tasmanian museum. It was not until 1976 that
those who had stolen her land and destroyed her people saw fit to put
her body to rest.


There is evidence of whites murdering natives in Tasmania for dog
food.

Reports document whites roasting Tasmanian infants alive.

A report tells of a white man who cut off the little finger of a
Tasmanian to use as a tobacco stopper.

A report tells of a white settler, desirous of a native concubine, who
kills her husband, hangs his decapitated head around her neck, and
then whips her to his shack.



Holocaust: The Numbers
The natives of Australia and Tasmania were decimated following contact
with Europeans. The 300,000 natives whom whites encountered in
Australia in the 18th century, would dwindle to a pathetic 3,000 by
1930. Today these peoples account for less than 2% of the Australian
population and remain oppressed. (Photos and Information courtesy of
Peoples of the Earth, and African Presence in Early Asia ed. by Runoko
Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima
Greg Carr
2007-07-08 19:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children,
Approximately 200,000 people died as a result of the two bombings.
According to you, none of them were men.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
when it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
Which he did.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
Thus America won.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
Which they did.
Post by Serge
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Like fucking hell there wasn't.
Post by Serge
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
Try hundreds, revisionist.
Post by Serge
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
The 400,000 soldiers trying to defend Normandy for the Germans would
disagree.
Post by Serge
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
"In the East, the vastness of space will... permit a loss of
territory... without suffering a mortal blow to Germany's chance for
survival. Not so in the West! If the enemy here succeeds... consequences
of staggering proportions will follow within a short time." - Adolf
Hitler speaking about Operation Overlord.
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
There is little doubt that the Russians played a HUGE role in beating
down the German forces, but to claim the Americans didn't contribute in
a meaningful way is to be a revisionist.
Post by Serge
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
350,000 deaths is paltry? Since when is an overwhelming victory
considered a useless act?
Post by Serge
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Yes, you are.
Care to revise the facts about the Pacific theater as well?
Why bother , every body knows the Yanks started the war in the Pacific
when they blockaded japans oil suppilies to forced Japan into the war
Bad grammar. Japan by that time had invaded China and its troops were raping
woman in the Rape of Nanking etc.
Post by Vandar
kanga
=====
Tell me mate
Did the yanks treat the native peoplesin Nth America like the poms
treated the Australian native peoples
It is a bad history.
Post by Vandar
-----------------
In 1777 the British landed on the island of Tasmania and by 1802 had
established it as a prison colony on which to house Europe's
criminals. As early as 1804 a deliberate campaign of genocide was
enacted by the colonial British government towards Tasmania's native
population. Blacks were mutilated and killed for sport. Native men
were shot, speared or clubbed to death while women were tortured and
used as sexual slaves. After The Black War, the official designation
for the extermination of Tasmania's natives, those who survived were
rounded up and placed in concentration camps. Between 1802 and 1830
the native population of Tasmania was reduced from an estimated 8,000
to 75 people. Pictured here are Truganini, William Lanney and Bessy
Clarke--- the last three full-blooded Tasmanians.
In May 1876, Truganini, the last full-blooded Tasmanian, died at the
age of 73. Truganini's life had been one of hardships from the very
start. Her mother had been brutally stabbed to death by whites. Her
uncle had been shot to death by whites. Her sisters were kidnapped and
sold by whites. And her intended husband was drowned by whites in her
presence while his murderers raped her. It can well be said that this
woman lived the typical life of a Tasmanian native under European
rule. After her burial Truganini's body was exhumed and her skeleton
put upon display in a Tasmanian museum. It was not until 1976 that
those who had stolen her land and destroyed her people saw fit to put
her body to rest.
There is evidence of whites murdering natives in Tasmania for dog
food.
Reports document whites roasting Tasmanian infants alive.
A report tells of a white man who cut off the little finger of a
Tasmanian to use as a tobacco stopper.
A report tells of a white settler, desirous of a native concubine, who
kills her husband, hangs his decapitated head around her neck, and
then whips her to his shack.
Holocaust: The Numbers
The natives of Australia and Tasmania were decimated following contact
with Europeans. The 300,000 natives whom whites encountered in
Australia in the 18th century, would dwindle to a pathetic 3,000 by
1930. Today these peoples account for less than 2% of the Australian
population and remain oppressed. (Photos and Information courtesy of
Peoples of the Earth, and African Presence in Early Asia ed. by Runoko
Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima
Siobhan Medeiros
2007-07-09 05:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Vandar
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children,
Approximately 200,000 people died as a result of the two bombings.
According to you, none of them were men.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
when it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
Which he did.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
Thus America won.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
Which they did.
Post by Serge
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Like fucking hell there wasn't.
Post by Serge
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
Try hundreds, revisionist.
Post by Serge
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
The 400,000 soldiers trying to defend Normandy for the Germans would
disagree.
Post by Serge
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
"In the East, the vastness of space will... permit a loss of
territory... without suffering a mortal blow to Germany's chance for
survival. Not so in the West! If the enemy here succeeds... consequences
of staggering proportions will follow within a short time." - Adolf
Hitler speaking about Operation Overlord.
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
There is little doubt that the Russians played a HUGE role in beating
down the German forces, but to claim the Americans didn't contribute in
a meaningful way is to be a revisionist.
Post by Serge
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
350,000 deaths is paltry? Since when is an overwhelming victory
considered a useless act?
Post by Serge
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Yes, you are.
Care to revise the facts about the Pacific theater as well?
Why bother , every body knows the Yanks started the war in the Pacific
when they blockaded japans oil suppilies to forced Japan into the war
Yeah, right. The poor Japs never did anything bad. Just ask the
Chinese or the Koreans. They should have been all smiles and
handshakes after Manchuria. Fucking idiot.
Post by Vandar
kanga
=====
Tell me mate
Did the yanks treat the native peoplesin Nth America like the poms
treated the Australian native peoples
-----------------
In 1777 the British landed on the island of Tasmania and by 1802 had
established it as a prison colony on which to house Europe's
criminals. As early as 1804 a deliberate campaign of genocide was
enacted by the colonial British government towards Tasmania's native
population. Blacks were mutilated and killed for sport. Native men
were shot, speared or clubbed to death while women were tortured and
used as sexual slaves. After The Black War, the official designation
for the extermination of Tasmania's natives, those who survived were
rounded up and placed in concentration camps. Between 1802 and 1830
the native population of Tasmania was reduced from an estimated 8,000
to 75 people. Pictured here are Truganini, William Lanney and Bessy
Clarke--- the last three full-blooded Tasmanians.
In May 1876, Truganini, the last full-blooded Tasmanian, died at the
age of 73. Truganini's life had been one of hardships from the very
start. Her mother had been brutally stabbed to death by whites. Her
uncle had been shot to death by whites. Her sisters were kidnapped and
sold by whites. And her intended husband was drowned by whites in her
presence while his murderers raped her. It can well be said that this
woman lived the typical life of a Tasmanian native under European
rule. After her burial Truganini's body was exhumed and her skeleton
put upon display in a Tasmanian museum. It was not until 1976 that
those who had stolen her land and destroyed her people saw fit to put
her body to rest.
There is evidence of whites murdering natives in Tasmania for dog
food.
Reports document whites roasting Tasmanian infants alive.
A report tells of a white man who cut off the little finger of a
Tasmanian to use as a tobacco stopper.
A report tells of a white settler, desirous of a native concubine, who
kills her husband, hangs his decapitated head around her neck, and
then whips her to his shack.
Holocaust: The Numbers
The natives of Australia and Tasmania were decimated following contact
with Europeans. The 300,000 natives whom whites encountered in
Australia in the 18th century, would dwindle to a pathetic 3,000 by
1930. Today these peoples account for less than 2% of the Australian
population and remain oppressed. (Photos and Information courtesy of
Peoples of the Earth, and African Presence in Early Asia ed. by Runoko
Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima
Doug
2007-07-08 16:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
350,000 deaths is paltry? Since when is an overwhelming victory considered
a useless act?
25,000 US merchant mariners died during WWII. They weren't considered
combatants, but they were killed just the same. I personally know a WW2
US veteran (90th infantry division) who saw US merchant ships sunk in his
convoy. No ships stopped to pick up survivors.

How many Chinese, Korean, Phillipine civilians were killed by the Japanese
during WW2?
SPierce
2007-07-08 23:46:11 UTC
Permalink
"Doug" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Pu8ki.4031$***@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
(snipped)
Post by Doug
25,000 US merchant mariners died during WWII. They weren't considered
combatants, but they were killed just the same. I personally know a WW2
US veteran (90th infantry division) who saw US merchant ships sunk in his
convoy. No ships stopped to pick up survivors.
Yes, in the 1950s I went to sea in the merchant navy and sailed with men who
had survived the Murmansk convoys. They had all been topedoed and survived
for various reasons. They behaved normally during working hours but the effect
of the torpedoes came out when they had a few drinks in the evenings. Big
hulking Stornaway men crying alone was an embarrassing sight for a teenager.

They still put the coconut matting across their cabin door-sill at night in
case the door jammed on them...and this was 10 years after the war.
Doug
2007-07-09 00:13:12 UTC
Permalink
The merchant navy in the 50's that must be something worth talking about.
I'll bet you have some interesting stories to tell.

I should probably stop all this cross-posting. I'll take out alt.conspiracy.

If your ship was sunk in the Murmansk convoys and you went in the water,
that would pretty much be the end wouldn't it?

It would be interesting to hear more about the contributions that Canada
and Australia made to WW2. I don't get to hear much about either in my
soc.history.war.world-war-ii, although I've read about the Singapore
disaster.
Post by SPierce
Yes, in the 1950s I went to sea in the merchant navy and sailed with men
who had survived the Murmansk convoys. They had all been topedoed and
survived for various reasons. They behaved normally during working hours
but the effect of the torpedoes came out when they had a few drinks in the
evenings. Big hulking Stornaway men crying alone was an embarrassing
sight for a teenager.
They still put the coconut matting across their cabin door-sill at night
in case the door jammed on them...and this was 10 years after the war.
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-09 00:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
The merchant navy in the 50's that must be something worth talking about.
I'll bet you have some interesting stories to tell.
I should probably stop all this cross-posting. I'll take out
alt.conspiracy.
If your ship was sunk in the Murmansk convoys and you went in the water,
that would pretty much be the end wouldn't it?
Atlantic convoys eventually had "rescue" ships attached
to rescue the men torpedoed. I can't find the reference
at the moment, but IIRC that was some time in 1943/44.
So at least they did try.
Post by Doug
It would be interesting to hear more about the contributions that Canada
and Australia made to WW2. I don't get to hear much about either in my
soc.history.war.world-war-ii, although I've read about the Singapore
disaster.
A good [fat] book about the RN during WW II is
Engage the Enemy More Closely by Correlli Barnett.
It may have the reference to the rescue ships but I can't
find it.

In the 1960s I knew a merchant marine veteran but had not enough smarts or
compassion to get him to tell me his story.
Siobhan Medeiros
2007-07-09 05:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sveinson
Post by Doug
The merchant navy in the 50's that must be something worth talking about.
I'll bet you have some interesting stories to tell.
I should probably stop all this cross-posting. I'll take out
alt.conspiracy.
If your ship was sunk in the Murmansk convoys and you went in the water,
that would pretty much be the end wouldn't it?
Atlantic convoys eventually had "rescue" ships attached
to rescue the men torpedoed. I can't find the reference
at the moment, but IIRC that was some time in 1943/44.
So at least they did try.
Post by Doug
It would be interesting to hear more about the contributions that Canada
and Australia made to WW2. I don't get to hear much about either in my
soc.history.war.world-war-ii, although I've read about the Singapore
disaster.
A good [fat] book about the RN during WW II is
Engage the Enemy More Closely by Correlli Barnett.
It may have the reference to the rescue ships but I can't
find it.
In the 1960s I knew a merchant marine veteran but had not enough smarts or
compassion to get him to tell me his story.
Yeah, problem is when you're in a tanker, rescue ships and lifeboats
don't do much good. One torpedo, and they just exploded. Nothing
left to rescue.
SPierce
2007-07-09 06:49:57 UTC
Permalink
"Siobhan Medeiros" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Yeah, problem is when you're in a tanker, rescue ships and lifeboats
don't do much good. One torpedo, and they just exploded. Nothing
left to rescue.
Not quite. When the torpedo hit and exploded in an oil tanker, the oil itself
did not explode, it caught alight and spilled out around the ship and any men
who dived overboard or got blown into the water got caught alight in the flames.
If it was carrying aviation gas then yes it had more chance exploding and
killing them quickly.

And other ships in the convoy were not allowed to stop and pick up survivors
even if there were any.
Siobhan Medeiros
2007-07-09 07:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
(snipped)
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Yeah, problem is when you're in a tanker, rescue ships and lifeboats
don't do much good. One torpedo, and they just exploded. Nothing
left to rescue.
Not quite. When the torpedo hit and exploded in an oil tanker, the oil itself
did not explode, it caught alight and spilled out around the ship and any men
who dived overboard or got blown into the water got caught alight in the flames.
If it was carrying aviation gas then yes it had more chance exploding and
killing them quickly.
I heard from someone once who was in the merchant marine that they did
indeed, explode. But it's not worth quibbling over. The bottom line
it was incredibly dangerous and many people died.
Post by SPierce
And other ships in the convoy were not allowed to stop and pick up survivors
even if there were any.
Yes, because stopping would probably get them torpedoed too.
Serge
2007-07-10 12:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siobhan Medeiros
Post by SPierce
And other ships in the convoy were not allowed to stop and pick up
survivors even if there were any.
Yes, because stopping would probably get them torpedoed too.
Gee! That's absolutely amazing, Siobhan. Such insight!

Are you a savant?

An idiot savant?

Or just an idiot?
Tankfixer
2007-07-09 03:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by SPierce
They still put the coconut matting across their cabin door-sill at night in
case the door jammed on them...and this was 10 years after the war.
There was still a danger from loose mines even then.

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Kwyjibo
2007-07-10 12:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
Post by Vandar
Post by Serge
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
350,000 deaths is paltry? Since when is an overwhelming victory
considered a useless act?
25,000 US merchant mariners died during WWII. They weren't considered
combatants, but they were killed just the same. I personally know a WW2
US veteran (90th infantry division) who saw US merchant ships sunk in his
convoy.
Just as the US deliberately targeted Japanese merchant shipping and the
Germans targeted US and UK merchant shipping.
They all did it.
--
Kwyj.
E. Barry Bruyea
2007-07-10 22:19:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:52:42 +1000, "Kwyjibo"
Post by Kwyjibo
Post by Doug
Post by Vandar
Post by Serge
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
350,000 deaths is paltry? Since when is an overwhelming victory
considered a useless act?
25,000 US merchant mariners died during WWII. They weren't considered
combatants, but they were killed just the same. I personally know a WW2
US veteran (90th infantry division) who saw US merchant ships sunk in his
convoy.
Just as the US deliberately targeted Japanese merchant shipping and the
Germans targeted US and UK merchant shipping.
They all did it.
Merchant shipping is and always been a legitimate target in war.
Neutrals can be boarded and checked for contraband cargo.
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-08 18:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children,
Not to mention of course the 100,000 people killed
in the "fire bombing" of Tokyo, all the while claiming
[as they do today] that CIVILIANS are not targetted,
and they ONLY do PRECISION bombing.
They even did PRECISION BLIND BOMBING!
Post by Serge
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
And they also neglect to mention that they supplied the
chemicals and the AGRICULTURAL SPRAYING
helicopters to administer the chemical!
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
They won because the "insurgents" wore civilian clothing
and hid among women and children!
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
Yes they did. They stopped selling goods to the
Nazis when the tide of the war was turning against the Nazis.
Post by Serge
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
Well no.......
They did bomb the shit out of French coastal cities.
Greg Carr
2007-07-08 20:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sveinson
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children,
Not to mention of course the 100,000 people killed
in the "fire bombing" of Tokyo, all the while claiming
[as they do today] that CIVILIANS are not targetted,
and they ONLY do PRECISION bombing.
They even did PRECISION BLIND BOMBING!
i read it was 140,000. The US also devestated Dresden and the Brits Hamburg.
The Soviet Air Force never claim close to these level of attacks.
Interesting to note that the US bombed Berlin on the same day the Normandy
landings were happening and they were advancing Italy.
Post by Robert Sveinson
Post by Serge
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
And they also neglect to mention that they supplied the
chemicals and the AGRICULTURAL SPRAYING
helicopters to administer the chemical!
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
They won because the "insurgents" wore civilian clothing
and hid among women and children!
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
Yes they did. They stopped selling goods to the
Nazis when the tide of the war was turning against the Nazis.
The US was indispensable in defeating the Nazis.
Post by Robert Sveinson
Post by Serge
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
Well no.......
They did bomb the shit out of French coastal cities.
And the French govt after the war thanked them. They also bombed Berlin,
Cologne, Frankfurt and every other German city you have ever heard of.
Robert Sveinson
2007-07-08 22:32:48 UTC
Permalink
"Greg Carr" <***@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:Ysbki.98786$***@pd7urf3no...>>>> They may as well have stayed at
home for all the good they did.
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Robert Sveinson
Well no.......
They did bomb the shit out of French coastal cities.
And the French govt after the war thanked them. They also bombed Berlin,
Cologne, Frankfurt and every other German city you have ever heard of.
WHEN???
Tankfixer
2007-07-09 03:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
i read it was 140,000. The US also devestated Dresden and the Brits Hamburg.
The Soviet Air Force never claim close to these level of attacks.
The Soviets extracted thier pound of flesh in a more personal method...

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Greg Carr
2007-07-08 19:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children,
Approximately 200,000 people died as a result of the two bombings.
According to you, none of them were men.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
when it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
Which he did.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
Thus America won.
The revisionism is yours.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
Which they did.
Post by Serge
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Like fucking hell there wasn't.
Post by Serge
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
Try hundreds, revisionist.
Post by Serge
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
The 400,000 soldiers trying to defend Normandy for the Germans would
disagree.
Post by Serge
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
"In the East, the vastness of space will... permit a loss of territory...
without suffering a mortal blow to Germany’s chance for survival. Not so
in the West! If the enemy here succeeds... consequences of staggering
proportions will follow within a short time." - Adolf Hitler speaking
about Operation Overlord.
Hitler was addicted to amphetamines by this time and syphillis had further
addled his mind. He could figure it out but the idiot who originally posted
this could not.
Post by Vandar
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
There is little doubt that the Russians played a HUGE role in beating down
the German forces, but to claim the Americans didn't contribute in a
meaningful way is to be a revisionist.
Post by Serge
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
350,000 deaths is paltry? Since when is an overwhelming victory considered
a useless act?
Post by Serge
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Yes, you are.
Care to revise the facts about the Pacific theater as well?
Anarchore
2007-07-08 16:08:18 UTC
Permalink
NewsReader : Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
Newsgroups : aus.politics,alt.conspiracy,us.politics,nz.politics,can.politics
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
The war was engineered by the Jews, like most others.
SaPeIsMa
2007-07-08 17:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were BOTH military centers
Look it up
YOU are the ignorant revisionist
Post by Serge
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
Which he did
Look it up
YOU are the ignorant revisionist
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
They were ?
Look it up
YOU are the ignorant revisionist
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
They were
Without US war production, supplying the Allies and the Soviets, the war
would have lasted far longer
Look it up
YOU are the ignorant revisionist
Post by Serge
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
Maybe you should have stayed at home for all the ignorant cant you are
spoutng
Greg Carr
2007-07-08 19:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
Nonsense. Millions of Americans were against that war when it was going on
and movies and books critical of it have been financial successes and
critical raves.
Post by Serge
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
I agree with that decision 90%. If they had done it to the Imperial Palace
as well it would be 100%. Nippon could have surrendered before the bombs
were dropped. Even when addressing his subjects for the first time to
announce the end of the war he never said the country had lost the war. The
Soviets then stole the designs for nuclear weapons.
Post by Serge
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
They captured him, he got a fair trial and he was executed while his foes
taunted him.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
Lie.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
Lie.
Post by Serge
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Lie. Italian campaign, North Africa, Battle Of The Atlantic. The Soviets
invaded and conquered the Baltic States, Poland, attacked Finland and were
just as bad as the Nazis who were their partners in invading Poland.
Post by Serge
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
because of massive Allied bombing campaigns if you believe that premise. By
the way the US sent the Soviets military aid not the other way around.
Post by Serge
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
The Germans didn't have a chance and were too stupid to surrender but it
wasn't a cake walk. For example Amercian POW's were executed by SS troops.
Post by Serge
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
Actually there were 2 :-) They very bravely and with great skill managed to
strafe one of the landing beaches. The massive bombing campaigns has badly
damaged the cocaine addict, fat man Goring's Luftwaffe. The Soviets were
never able to mount the aerial attacks on the Nazis that the Brits and US
did.
Post by Serge
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
I've seen the rows of grave markers in New West marked June 6, 1944 and
there were a lot more than twelve. The US had a lot more killed on D-Day
than the Commonwealth.
Post by Serge
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The Wehrmacht failed in North Africa, Italy, Eastern Front and Western
Front. Over 4k German soldiers died fighting on D-day.
Post by Serge
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
LThe rapists of the Soviet forces had a huge impact on the failure of the
Third Reich but would have failed without the help of the other Allies.
Post by Serge
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
i've read numerous books about WW2 and not one agrees with you. You are an
idiot.
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
Because they were never invaded and unlike stupid Stalin they didn't purge
their military prior to WW2.
Post by Serge
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Not one historian agrees with you.
Tex
2007-07-08 22:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
Nonsense. Millions of Americans were against that war when it was going on
and movies and books critical of it have been financial successes and
critical raves.
Post by Serge
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
I agree with that decision 90%. If they had done it to the Imperial Palace
as well it would be 100%. Nippon could have surrendered before the bombs
were dropped. Even when addressing his subjects for the first time to
announce the end of the war he never said the country had lost the war.
The Soviets then stole the designs for nuclear weapons.
Post by Serge
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
They captured him, he got a fair trial and he was executed while his foes
taunted him.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
Lie.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
Lie.
Post by Serge
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Lie. Italian campaign, North Africa, Battle Of The Atlantic. The Soviets
invaded and conquered the Baltic States, Poland, attacked Finland and were
just as bad as the Nazis who were their partners in invading Poland.
Post by Serge
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
because of massive Allied bombing campaigns if you believe that premise.
By the way the US sent the Soviets military aid not the other way around.
Post by Serge
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
The Germans didn't have a chance and were too stupid to surrender but it
wasn't a cake walk. For example Amercian POW's were executed by SS troops.
Post by Serge
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
Actually there were 2 :-) They very bravely and with great skill managed
to strafe one of the landing beaches. The massive bombing campaigns has
badly damaged the cocaine addict, fat man Goring's Luftwaffe. The Soviets
were never able to mount the aerial attacks on the Nazis that the Brits
and US did.
Post by Serge
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
I've seen the rows of grave markers in New West marked June 6, 1944 and
there were a lot more than twelve. The US had a lot more killed on D-Day
than the Commonwealth.
Post by Serge
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The Wehrmacht failed in North Africa, Italy, Eastern Front and Western
Front. Over 4k German soldiers died fighting on D-day.
Post by Serge
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
LThe rapists of the Soviet forces had a huge impact on the failure of the
Third Reich but would have failed without the help of the other Allies.
Post by Serge
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
i've read numerous books about WW2 and not one agrees with you. You are an
idiot.
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
Because they were never invaded and unlike stupid Stalin they didn't purge
their military prior to WW2.
Post by Serge
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Not one historian agrees with you.
Well, Serge is one of those conspiracy kooks who believe the Apollo 11
mission was a hoax. I've been challenging him for ages to name a single
scientist who agrees with him, and he hasn't been able to do so :)
BDK
2007-07-09 00:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
Nonsense. Millions of Americans were against that war when it was going on
and movies and books critical of it have been financial successes and
critical raves.
Post by Serge
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
I agree with that decision 90%. If they had done it to the Imperial Palace
as well it would be 100%. Nippon could have surrendered before the bombs
were dropped. Even when addressing his subjects for the first time to
announce the end of the war he never said the country had lost the war. The
Soviets then stole the designs for nuclear weapons.
Post by Serge
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
They captured him, he got a fair trial and he was executed while his foes
taunted him.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
Lie.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
Lie.
Post by Serge
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Lie. Italian campaign, North Africa, Battle Of The Atlantic. The Soviets
invaded and conquered the Baltic States, Poland, attacked Finland and were
just as bad as the Nazis who were their partners in invading Poland.
Post by Serge
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
because of massive Allied bombing campaigns if you believe that premise. By
the way the US sent the Soviets military aid not the other way around.
Post by Serge
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
The Germans didn't have a chance and were too stupid to surrender but it
wasn't a cake walk. For example Amercian POW's were executed by SS troops.
Post by Serge
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
Actually there were 2 :-) They very bravely and with great skill managed to
strafe one of the landing beaches. The massive bombing campaigns has badly
damaged the cocaine addict, fat man Goring's Luftwaffe. The Soviets were
never able to mount the aerial attacks on the Nazis that the Brits and US
did.
Post by Serge
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
I've seen the rows of grave markers in New West marked June 6, 1944 and
there were a lot more than twelve. The US had a lot more killed on D-Day
than the Commonwealth.
Post by Serge
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The Wehrmacht failed in North Africa, Italy, Eastern Front and Western
Front. Over 4k German soldiers died fighting on D-day.
Post by Serge
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
LThe rapists of the Soviet forces had a huge impact on the failure of the
Third Reich but would have failed without the help of the other Allies.
Post by Serge
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
i've read numerous books about WW2 and not one agrees with you. You are an
idiot.
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
Because they were never invaded and unlike stupid Stalin they didn't purge
their military prior to WW2.
Post by Serge
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Not one historian agrees with you.
Not one sane person agrees with him either.

BDK
Douglas Berry
2007-07-09 01:59:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:45:29 GMT there was an Ancient "Greg Carr"
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Serge
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
I've seen the rows of grave markers in New West marked June 6, 1944 and
there were a lot more than twelve. The US had a lot more killed on D-Day
than the Commonwealth.
3,000 on Omaha, and we lost 700, not 12, at Utah.

T%he need for some people to minimize the US contribution to the war
always amazes me. Yes, the Soviet Union tied up the bulk of the
Wehrmacht, but it was the Western Allies who destroyed Germany's
industry with strategic bombing and were the first onto German soil.

All the Allies contributed. I'm the grandson of a US Army officer and
a British Army officer, and they both fought for my frredom.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
animal05
2007-07-09 11:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Berry
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:45:29 GMT there was an Ancient "Greg Carr"
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Serge
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
I've seen the rows of grave markers in New West marked June 6, 1944 and
there were a lot more than twelve. The US had a lot more killed on D-Day
than the Commonwealth.
3,000 on Omaha, and we lost 700, not 12, at Utah.
T%he need for some people to minimize the US contribution to the war
always amazes me. Yes, the Soviet Union tied up the bulk of the
Wehrmacht, but it was the Western Allies who destroyed Germany's
industry with strategic bombing and were the first onto German soil.
Not to mention the industrial force behind the allied powers. Britain
would have been further isolated and starved were it not for the US
supply line.
Post by Douglas Berry
All the Allies contributed. I'm the grandson of a US Army officer and
a British Army officer, and they both fought for my frredom.
My dad served in New Guinea, one uncle was a B24 pilot in Europe,
another, who was blind in one eye, served as a German POW guard in Kansas.
Post by Douglas Berry
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
p***@yahoo.com
2007-07-09 12:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Berry
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:45:29 GMT there was an Ancient "Greg Carr"
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Serge
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
I've seen the rows of grave markers in New West marked June 6, 1944 and
there were a lot more than twelve. The US had a lot more killed on D-Day
than the Commonwealth.
3,000 on Omaha, and we lost 700, not 12, at Utah.
T%he need for some people to minimize the US contribution to the war
always amazes me. Yes, the Soviet Union tied up the bulk of the
Wehrmacht, but it was the Western Allies who destroyed Germany's
industry with strategic bombing and were the first onto German soil.
Not to mention, a HUGE amount of the equipment the Soviets used to
defeat the Wermacht was supplied by America and transported to
Murmansk by the Royal Navy (and Merchant Navy crews from almost every
Allied , and some neutral, nations).
Post by Douglas Berry
All the Allies contributed.
Exactly.

<snip>
Serge
2007-07-10 13:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yahoo.com
Not to mention, a HUGE amount of the equipment the Soviets used to
defeat the Wermacht was supplied by America and transported to
Murmansk by the Royal Navy (and Merchant Navy crews from almost every
Allied , and some neutral, nations).
The average allied contribution for all materials used by the Russians was
around 5%.

And most of it was rubbish.

Soviet equipment pissed all over it.

The best tank of the war was the Russian designed T34 which
rendered nearly all of the German armour obsolete. It was nearly
impervious to the standard 37 and 50 mm anti-tank guns and
outclassed the two main German tanks, the Mark III and Mark IV.

In fact Germany's most outstanding Panzer leader, General Guderian
and many of his officers, suggested that the Germans copy the T34
with a minimum of modifications

.....High praise indeed.

The Soviet pre-eminent aircraft was the Ilyushin-2 Shturmovik

Total production of the Shturmovik was over 42,000, making
it one of the most heavily produced aircraft in history.

In fact the American World War I fighter ace Eddie Rickenbacker
was shown a demonstration of the Shturmovik during a visit to
the USSR, leaving him extremely impressed. He reported it the
best attack aircraft in existence, that the USA had never built
anything like it, and that such a machine should be part of every army.

The Shturmovik made a major contribution to the success at
Kursk. They destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in
a mere 20 minutes, inflicted losses of 2,000 men and 270 tanks
in two hours of attack on the 3rd Panzer Division, and effectively
destroyed the 17th Panzer Division in four hours of strikes, smashing
240 vehicles out of their total of almost 300.

As I said earlier, the US and British might as well have stayed at
home for all the good they did.
BDK
2007-07-10 18:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
Post by p***@yahoo.com
Not to mention, a HUGE amount of the equipment the Soviets used to
defeat the Wermacht was supplied by America and transported to
Murmansk by the Royal Navy (and Merchant Navy crews from almost every
Allied , and some neutral, nations).
The average allied contribution for all materials used by the Russians was
around 5%.
And most of it was rubbish.
Soviet equipment pissed all over it.
The best tank of the war was the Russian designed T34 which
rendered nearly all of the German armour obsolete. It was nearly
impervious to the standard 37 and 50 mm anti-tank guns and
outclassed the two main German tanks, the Mark III and Mark IV.
In fact Germany's most outstanding Panzer leader, General Guderian
and many of his officers, suggested that the Germans copy the T34
with a minimum of modifications
.....High praise indeed.
The Soviet pre-eminent aircraft was the Ilyushin-2 Shturmovik
Total production of the Shturmovik was over 42,000, making
it one of the most heavily produced aircraft in history.
In fact the American World War I fighter ace Eddie Rickenbacker
was shown a demonstration of the Shturmovik during a visit to
the USSR, leaving him extremely impressed. He reported it the
best attack aircraft in existence, that the USA had never built
anything like it, and that such a machine should be part of every army.
The Shturmovik made a major contribution to the success at
Kursk. They destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in
a mere 20 minutes, inflicted losses of 2,000 men and 270 tanks
in two hours of attack on the 3rd Panzer Division, and effectively
destroyed the 17th Panzer Division in four hours of strikes, smashing
240 vehicles out of their total of almost 300.
As I said earlier, the US and British might as well have stayed at
home for all the good they did.
Wow, how amazingly clueless you are. Really sad.

BDK
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 19:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
Post by p***@yahoo.com
Not to mention, a HUGE amount of the equipment the Soviets used to
defeat the Wermacht was supplied by America and transported to
Murmansk by the Royal Navy (and Merchant Navy crews from almost every
Allied , and some neutral, nations).
The average allied contribution for all materials used by the Russians was
around 5%.
And most of it was rubbish.
The US provided the Soviets with a lot of aid. By mid 1942 they had sent
4,400 tanks and 3,100 aircraft. They also sent tens of thousands of trucks,
which the Soviets needed to move their war materials. Perhaps you find it
easier to simply dismiss those items as rubbish, but without citing some
examples of the weaknesses of those goods you do nothing to justify your
condemnation of the US for its part in providing aid for the USSR. You
might have had a more convincing argument if you had shown how the US got
the Soviets to fight the Germans by providing them with substantial aid.
That saved them from having to do it themselves. They split the German
defences.
E. Barry Bruyea
2007-07-10 22:31:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:13:56 -0400, Dave Smith
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Serge
Post by p***@yahoo.com
Not to mention, a HUGE amount of the equipment the Soviets used to
defeat the Wermacht was supplied by America and transported to
Murmansk by the Royal Navy (and Merchant Navy crews from almost every
Allied , and some neutral, nations).
The average allied contribution for all materials used by the Russians was
around 5%.
And most of it was rubbish.
The US provided the Soviets with a lot of aid. By mid 1942 they had sent
4,400 tanks and 3,100 aircraft. They also sent tens of thousands of trucks,
which the Soviets needed to move their war materials. Perhaps you find it
easier to simply dismiss those items as rubbish, but without citing some
examples of the weaknesses of those goods you do nothing to justify your
condemnation of the US for its part in providing aid for the USSR. You
might have had a more convincing argument if you had shown how the US got
the Soviets to fight the Germans by providing them with substantial aid.
That saved them from having to do it themselves. They split the German
defences.
He's just one more idiot who has fallen for six decades of propaganda
on the part of the Soviets/Russians and just hasn't bothered to study
a little history. He has also ignored that the Soviets were a great
help in preparing Hitler to launch WWII with millions of tons of
strategic materials and had for years allowed Germans to train on
Soviet soil in violation of Versailles Treaty.
Serge
2007-07-11 11:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by E. Barry Bruyea
He's just one more idiot who has fallen for six decades of propaganda
on the part of the Soviets/Russians and just hasn't bothered to study
a little history.
I usually don't respond to intellectual lightweights, but if its a history
lesson you're after..........

The war was essentially fought and won on the Eastern Front. A Front that
saw the routing of the German, Romanian and Hungarian armies, culminating in
the Battle for Berlin and the subsequent suicide of Hitler and the surrender
of the surviving German forces.

You only need examine the casualty figures to see where the bulk of the
fighting took place, the Soviet Union lost a staggering twenty million dead.
The overwhelming bulk of the 5 million German dead were also lost on the
Eastern Front, losses sustained in the largest and bloodiest land battles in
history.

British dead, including civilians and Commonwealth troops, numbered a paltry
500,000. Whilst American losses were a laughable 350,000. As I said earlier,
they might as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.

As for the British, they had their arses kicked all the way from Dunkirk to
Singapore and back again, getting a sound thrashing at Crete, Dieppe and
Arnhem, along the way. I vividly remember seeing footage of a sniggering
wehrmacht picking up thousands of pairs of British army boots from the
beaches of Dunkirk after the BEF stabbed the French in the back and did a
runner. The only 'contribution' the British made to the war effort, was to
leave enough equipment on the beaches to arm a dozen German divisions.

Come to think of it, the only 'battle' involving the Poms which I can
recall, was the 'Battle' of Britain, in which 397 pilots were killed. In a
conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated 50,000,000 people, it
wasn't really a battle, in fact it doesn't even qualify as a disagreement.
The incompetent British lost 832 fighters, the Germans lost only 668 (the
Germans fighter pilots were obviously a class above their opposition),
together with 600 slow, lumbering, sitting duck bombers. Jesus, even though
the poms had early-warning radar and lay in wait for the lumbering bombers
like a pack of jackals, they still managed to lose more fighters than the
Germans lost bombers. A pathetic outcome by any objective analysis and a
further indictment of the incompetence of the British military.

Yes, I'm afraid it was all left up to the Soviet Union.

For example, in 1943 at Kursk, the largest clash of armour ever, 196 of the
best German divisions (two-thirds of the German army) were defeated,
together with 32 divisions and 8 brigades from Germany's allies. A total of
228 divisions and 8 brigades cut to pieces.

The Soviet-German front at that time remained as it had been, the chief and
decisive front of the war, as only 7 divisions and 2 brigades (2.7% of the
German army) were in action against Anglo-American forces.

Although it was fashionable during the Cold War to suggest that the Russian
winter was responsible for the German defeat (no pun intended) it should be
remembered that German forces spent four long years in the Soviet Union.

We should pay homage to the Russian generals, Zhukov in particular. A man
considered by analysts to have been the most brilliant commander in military
history.

Stalin as commander in chief should be given due credit for overseeing that
victory and delivering us from the heel of the Nazi insanity.

The fact is, the D-day invasion of Europe and the subsequent light
resistance that was encountered would have been impossible if Hitler had not
attacked the Soviet Union.

As for Stalin, he's undoubtedly sitting at the Right Hand of God for saving
His "chosen people" from complete extermination.

Serge.
Tex
2007-07-11 11:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
Post by E. Barry Bruyea
He's just one more idiot who has fallen for six decades of propaganda
on the part of the Soviets/Russians and just hasn't bothered to study
a little history.
I usually don't respond to intellectual lightweights,
On the contrary, you've been busted talking to yourself before :)
SPierce
2007-07-11 00:22:37 UTC
Permalink
"Dave Smith" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:***@sympatico.ca...
(snipped)
Post by Dave Smith
The US provided the Soviets with a lot of aid. By mid 1942 they had sent
4,400 tanks and 3,100 aircraft. They also sent tens of thousands of trucks,
which the Soviets needed to move their war materials. Perhaps you find it
easier to simply dismiss those items as rubbish, but without citing some
examples of the weaknesses of those goods you do nothing to justify your
condemnation of the US for its part in providing aid for the USSR. You
might have had a more convincing argument if you had shown how the US got
the Soviets to fight the Germans by providing them with substantial aid.
That saved them from having to do it themselves. They split the German
defences.
Also the Russian factories were build by Henry Ford pre-war as farm tractor
factories that got made into producing tanks. The Russians had sent over
engineers to America to copy the factory layout. One particular factory they
copied from photo's and had it up and running in 50 days.
Ford also provided the blueprints for the Opel factory in Germany pre-war and
was part owner. Sort of makes life difficult when your provide the means for
others to kill you.

The same thing's happening with the Chinese. No-one ever learns from history.
Slow motion idiocy.

I see you are trying to teach Serge some history. A waste of time.
E. Barry Bruyea
2007-07-10 22:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
Post by p***@yahoo.com
Not to mention, a HUGE amount of the equipment the Soviets used to
defeat the Wermacht was supplied by America and transported to
Murmansk by the Royal Navy (and Merchant Navy crews from almost every
Allied , and some neutral, nations).
The average allied contribution for all materials used by the Russians was
around 5%.
And most of it was rubbish.
Soviet equipment pissed all over it.
What a load of Soviet Propaganda crap. Over 100,000 trucks were
shipped to the Soviets during a period when they were virtually devoid
of decent land transport for troops and logistical support.
Regardless of the total % of supplies given the Soviets, it was enough
to save their butts while they moved their manufacturing away from
easy range of the Luftwaffe. It gave them the time they needed. As
to it being 'crap'; so is your information.

The most significant Battle of WWII was the Battle of The Atlantic,
which was won by the allies, without which, the Russians would have
been either defeated of signed a separate peace with Hitler and in
that weakened condition, they would have been attacked by the Japanese
in the East.
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 14:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Berry
T%he need for some people to minimize the US contribution to the war
always amazes me.
Think of it as a stunned reaction to the US attitude that they did it all.
They came in more than two years after WW II started, and they stayed out
of WW I until it was all over, and then carry on about how everyone would
be speaking German had it not been for them.
Post by Douglas Berry
All the Allies contributed. I'm the grandson of a US Army officer and
a British Army officer, and they both fought for my frredom.
My father in law fought with the US Army in WW I an was involved in
training for the Canadian army in WW II. One uncle fought his way through
Sicily and Italy with the Canadian enemy, two others served in the navy,
and another was underage but joined late in the war and it was over before
he got shipped overseas. My father signed up as soon as he was of age,
worked ground crew for two years and then remustered to air crew. He was in
the RCAF, assigned to a New Zealand Squadron that was attached to the RAF.
He was shot down on his 19th operation, was the only survivor of the crash,
made contact with the Resistance and escaped from occupied territory.
Post by Douglas Berry
--
Serge
2007-07-11 11:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
Nonsense. Millions of Americans were against that war when it was going
on and movies and books critical of it have been financial successes and
critical raves.
Come off it, they only turned against the war when it went pear-shaped.

Just like in Iraq. All gung-ho, flag-waving cretins until things start
going wrong.

<Carr's remaining babble snipped as a service to Usenet>
Siobhan Medeiros
2007-07-09 05:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
Just the ones that get a failing grade.
Post by Serge
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
Ok, I'm not exactly a fan of the Americans, but the bullshit level
here is just too high for my tolerance.

350,000 dead "paltry"? Please. And while things might have gone well
on tah beach, thousands died on Omaha beach alone. And while it's
true they didn't do much in the European theatre until D-day, they
were instrumental in breaking the Japanese in the Pacific Theatre.

Also, in my opinion the decision to drop the bomb probably resulted in
a net saving of Japanese lives. The alternative would have been an
even more bloody invasion.

Liars and fools are the trademark of the right. For the sake of
progressives everywhere, please change sides.
Dux
2007-07-09 05:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
The biggest contribution to the defeat of the Germans was....

Europeans.

Not a single shot was fired when the US landed in Italy.

Europe was ready for a change and defeated their govs with underground
movements, like the Partisans, etc...

US history books are full of biased crap.
t***@gmail.com
2007-07-09 05:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dux
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
.........That's right! 12 men. BwahhahahaHAHAHAHAhaha!!!
Why? because all the Germans were in Russia where the real
fighting was taking place. Where division after division were
chewed up by the Russians as the Wehrmacht tried to hold a
two-thousand mile front against relentless Soviet attacks.
The fact is, *all* German resources were engaged in trying to
stop the inexorable advance of the Soviet forces.
Any student of history will tell you that the Normandy
landings didn't contribute one jot to the destruction of the
Nazis.
As I said, the Yanks could have stayed at home for all the
good they did.
In a conflagration that saw the deaths of an estimated
50,000,000 people, American losses were a paltry 350,000.
A sideshow by any objective analysis.
The biggest contribution to the defeat of the Germans was....
Europeans.
Not a single shot was fired when the US landed in Italy.
Europe was ready for a change and defeated their govs with underground
movements, like the Partisans, etc...
US history books are full of biased crap.
Guess you forgot about the non-US history books.
Douglas Berry
2007-07-09 12:58:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:23:21 +1000 there was an Ancient "Dux"
Post by Dux
Not a single shot was fired when the US landed in Italy.
So, the 4,400 allies who died in the invasion of Anzio all had heart
attacks?

What an idiot.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
Dux
2007-07-09 23:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Berry
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:23:21 +1000 there was an Ancient "Dux"
Post by Dux
Not a single shot was fired when the US landed in Italy.
So, the 4,400 allies who died in the invasion of Anzio all had heart
attacks?
Churchill and General Lucas should be blamed for those casualties.

Even so, did they fight against the Italians, or Germans?

Idiot.
Douglas Berry
2007-07-10 02:01:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:38:00 +1000 there was an Ancient "Dux"
Post by Dux
Post by Douglas Berry
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:23:21 +1000 there was an Ancient "Dux"
Post by Dux
Not a single shot was fired when the US landed in Italy.
So, the 4,400 allies who died in the invasion of Anzio all had heart
attacks?
Churchill and General Lucas should be blamed for those casualties.
Even so, did they fight against the Italians, or Germans?
At Anzio?

Germans. Under the command of Kesselring and von Mackensen.

And it was the Germans who were shooting at the Allies. War involves
casualties, and the Anzio attack was a necessary movement.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
BDK
2007-07-10 07:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dux
Post by Douglas Berry
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:23:21 +1000 there was an Ancient "Dux"
Post by Dux
Not a single shot was fired when the US landed in Italy.
So, the 4,400 allies who died in the invasion of Anzio all had heart
attacks?
Churchill and General Lucas should be blamed for those casualties.
Even so, did they fight against the Italians, or Germans?
Idiot.
Did you just sleep through history class, or were you huffing paint, or
what?

BDK
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 02:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Berry
Post by Dux
Not a single shot was fired when the US landed in Italy.
So, the 4,400 allies who died in the invasion of Anzio all had heart
attacks?
The initial landings were made in the south and were all but unopposed.
That was in September. The Anzio landing did not happen until 4 months
later.
Post by Douglas Berry
What an idiot.
Just wondering if you are man enough to take that back.
Vandar
2007-07-10 02:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Douglas Berry
Post by Dux
Not a single shot was fired when the US landed in Italy.
So, the 4,400 allies who died in the invasion of Anzio all had heart
attacks?
The initial landings were made in the south and were all but unopposed.
That was in September. The Anzio landing did not happen until 4 months
later.
In the initial invasion of Italy, in September of 1943, the allies lost
over 2000 men. Given the fact that you consider 2000 dead in a two week
span "all but unopposed", under 4000 in Iraq over 4 years must seem like
an absolute cakewalk to you.
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 13:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by Dave Smith
The initial landings were made in the south and were all but unopposed.
That was in September. The Anzio landing did not happen until 4 months
later.
In the initial invasion of Italy, in September of 1943, the allies lost
over 2000 men. Given the fact that you consider 2000 dead in a two week
span "all but unopposed", under 4000 in Iraq over 4 years must seem like
an absolute cakewalk to you.
That two week period was not the landing. Try to keep up.
Vandar
2007-07-10 14:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Vandar
Post by Dave Smith
The initial landings were made in the south and were all but unopposed.
That was in September. The Anzio landing did not happen until 4 months
later.
In the initial invasion of Italy, in September of 1943, the allies lost
over 2000 men. Given the fact that you consider 2000 dead in a two week
span "all but unopposed", under 4000 in Iraq over 4 years must seem like
an absolute cakewalk to you.
That two week period was not the landing. Try to keep up.
Yes it was
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 00:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
No country on Earth comes close to the US on revisionism.
What do you expect. It goes right back to the revolution where they created
a land with equal rights for all, as long as they were white males. The
revolution was more about their anger over the British move to stop
westward expansion into Indian territory and plans to end slavery than
about freedom and liberty. Colonists were bullied into fighting on the
side of the rebels. You could join them or risk having your business
boycotted or torched. After the British gave up more than 10% of the
population packed up and left for Canada, the islands or back to Britain.
Post by Serge
Rather like the Japanese who insist they committed no crimes
against humanity in China, the US does the same about the millions
they killed in Asia to prevent the mythical "Domino theory".
Well, I think they have been fairly open about their activities in Vietnam,
unlike the Japanese who deny their atrocities and have actively repressed
the information about their activities.
Post by Serge
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
There is no problem justifying it in my books. The Japanese started it,
first in China and then throughout south east Asia. After the atrocities
they committed on such a grand scale they get no sympathy from me.
Post by Serge
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
True, especially since it was the US who provided them with a lot of the
materials and technology for the WMD programs and satellite intelligence on
Iranian positions to "calibrate" their chemical attacks.
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
True enough. They never would have pulled it off without the French fleet
at their backs. They also think they won the War of 1812. They invaded
Canada figuring they could just grab it to punish the British for
blockading European ports and for impressing (British) sailors off American
ships, and figured that the Canadians would welcome their "liberation".
They ended up without meeting their objectives, which translates to a huge
failure. They lost. They did get the British to stop impressing their
sailors, but the war in Europe was over, so that became a non issue.

They portray the defenders at the Alamo as defenders of freedom and
liberty, but overlook the fact that Texas was part of Mexico where they had
made arrangements to settle, but when they didn't get the deal they
expected the fought and took the land from Mexico and became a slave
state. Then Americans started moving into New Mexico and California. When
the mexican government refused to sell them the territories they provoked a
war and part of the resolution to the war was an agreement fo sell the land
to the US.
Post by Serge
But I guess their most laughable rewrite of history was the
claim that they made a contribution in defeating the Nazis.
They may as well have stayed at home for all the good they did.
There is no doubt that they tipped the balance and help secure a victory.
Unfortunately, many of them are under the impression that they won the war
single handed and overlook the fact that they sat out of it for more than
two years and were prepared to see France and England fall on their faces.
Post by Serge
The only time the US really faced the Germans was during the
invasion of Europe after the Germans were bled white by the
Russians. What the US basically encountered during the
D-Day landings were wizened up old men and young boys,
together with remnants of second rate Hungarian and Romanian
divisions shattered on the Russian front.
Not true. They saw action in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. In Sicily
they spent a lot of time "out flanking" the Germans and left it to the
British and Canadians to fight the Germans. In Italy the British and
Canadians fought a long series of battles up through Italy while the
Americans decided to try another flanking manoeuvre and ended up stuck on
the beach at Anzio until the British and Canadians got diverted to help
them get off the beach. Then they made a move to liberate Rome, again
leaving the British and Canadians to do the fighting.
Post by Serge
Let's be clear on this. There was no significant German
opposition to the Allied landings at Normandy.
Simply put, it was a cake walk for the Allies.
1) Not *one* allied plane was shot down by German fighters
during D-Day. Why? Because there were none.
2) There were five landing beaches: Utah; Omaha; Gold;
Juno and Sword.
Twelve men were killed "storming" Utah beach.
Resistance was stiff at Omaha. It would have gone better if they had
dropped the DD tanks off close enough to shore to be able to make it, but
they chickened out and dropped them off so far from shore than most of them
sank in the heavy seas, so the troops making the landing did not have the
tank support they needed. Meanwhile, Canadian and British troops made it
to their objectives, and some had to be sent back to help the Americans get
off their beach.
Doug
2007-07-10 04:11:11 UTC
Permalink
You here referring to the territories that Mexico stole from the native
american indians. If it should go back to anyone, it should be the native
american indian population from whom it was originally stolen...not
Mexico.

As a matter of fact I'm going to be contacting representatives of the
remaining Native American Indian Nations tomorrow to find out
their own take on Mexico's claim to THEIR land.

If you think the US mistreated it's native american indian population
you should read up on how Mexico treated them and how it still
treats them (chiefly decscendents of the Mayan empire).

"Dave Smith" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:***@sympatico.ca...
.
Post by Dave Smith
They portray the defenders at the Alamo as defenders of freedom and
liberty, but overlook the fact that Texas was part of Mexico where they had
made arrangements to settle, but when they didn't get the deal they
expected the fought and took the land from Mexico and became a slave
state. Then Americans started moving into New Mexico and California. When
the mexican government refused to sell them the territories they provoked a
war and part of the resolution to the war was an agreement fo sell the land
to the US.
Tankfixer
2007-07-10 06:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
If it should go back to anyone, it should be the native
american indian population from whom it was originally stolen.
Are you proposing to give it back to the Neanderthals who were here when
the emigrants came over the ice bridge from Asia ?


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Serge
2007-07-10 12:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tankfixer
Post by Doug
If it should go back to anyone, it should be the native
american indian population from whom it was originally stolen.
Are you proposing to give it back to the Neanderthals who were here when
the emigrants came over the ice bridge from Asia ?
You wish!
Tankfixer
2007-07-11 01:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serge
Post by Tankfixer
Post by Doug
If it should go back to anyone, it should be the native
american indian population from whom it was originally stolen.
Are you proposing to give it back to the Neanderthals who were here when
the emigrants came over the ice bridge from Asia ?
You wish!
You better believe it son.
I've got the unibrow to prove I'm a decendant of them..

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
BDK
2007-07-11 06:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tankfixer
Post by Serge
Post by Tankfixer
Post by Doug
If it should go back to anyone, it should be the native
american indian population from whom it was originally stolen.
Are you proposing to give it back to the Neanderthals who were here when
the emigrants came over the ice bridge from Asia ?
You wish!
You better believe it son.
I've got the unibrow to prove I'm a decendant of them..
Hi Cuz!!

I have the Unibrow/Monobrow courtesy of my Grandfather, also I seem to
have inherited his insanely heavy beard, too. Sadly his awesome head of
hair passed me by..

BDK
Post by Tankfixer
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Tankfixer
2007-07-11 14:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by BDK
Post by Tankfixer
Post by Serge
Post by Tankfixer
Post by Doug
If it should go back to anyone, it should be the native
american indian population from whom it was originally stolen.
Are you proposing to give it back to the Neanderthals who were here when
the emigrants came over the ice bridge from Asia ?
You wish!
You better believe it son.
I've got the unibrow to prove I'm a decendant of them..
Hi Cuz!!
I have the Unibrow/Monobrow courtesy of my Grandfather, also I seem to
have inherited his insanely heavy beard, too. Sadly his awesome head of
hair passed me by..
Hmm, by that description we may BE cousins !

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Doug
2007-07-10 20:25:11 UTC
Permalink
The only thing I'm saying is that Mexico's claims to the SW US are spurious
and
that the various Hispanic/Latino special interest groups who support this
viewpoint
cannot claim to represent the views of the Native American Indian Nations
that
still exist in the US.
Post by Tankfixer
Post by Doug
If it should go back to anyone, it should be the native
american indian population from whom it was originally stolen.
Are you proposing to give it back to the Neanderthals who were here when
the emigrants came over the ice bridge from Asia ?
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Tankfixer
2007-07-11 01:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug
The only thing I'm saying is that Mexico's claims to the SW US are spurious
and
that the various Hispanic/Latino special interest groups who support this
viewpoint
cannot claim to represent the views of the Native American Indian Nations
that
still exist in the US.
Mexico is (un)lucky we didn't just annex them the first two times they
took us on.
Post by Doug
Post by Tankfixer
Post by Doug
If it should go back to anyone, it should be the native
american indian population from whom it was originally stolen.
Are you proposing to give it back to the Neanderthals who were here when
the emigrants came over the ice bridge from Asia ?
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
BradGuth
2007-07-10 19:50:38 UTC
Permalink
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
h***@yahoo.com
2007-07-10 22:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Apologies if this is a repeat, but as far as I can tell my first post
didn't go through.
Post by Serge
And they continue to justify dropping WMD on the heavily
populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds
of thousands of babies, toddlers, women and children, when
it was little more than a warning to the Soviet Union not to get
too greedy in post-war Europe.
It was much more than an attempt to make the Soviets behave. The
primary reason for the bombings was an attempt to force Japan to
surrender.

And why shouldn't we justify the bombings? Someone had to do
something to make Japan stop.
Post by Serge
Why bother , every body knows the Yanks started the war in the Pacific
when they blockaded japans oil suppilies to forced Japan into the war
We blockaded Japan in 1945. There was no blockade of Japan in 1941.
And Japan started the war in the Pacific long before Pearl Harbor.
Post by Serge
Post by Serge
And they have the unmitigated gall to criticise Saddam Hussein
for using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
And they also neglect to mention that they supplied the
chemicals and the AGRICULTURAL SPRAYING
helicopters to administer the chemical!
Saddam bought the chemical precursors from European companies and had
the chemicals synthesized in Iraq.

It is true that the US did sell him dual-use items like the
helicopters, but that does not make us culpable for his use of the
weapons against civilians.
Post by Serge
Post by Serge
The poor slobs even reckon they won the American War of
Independence when it was clearly the French who were
responsible for defeating the British.
They won because the "insurgents" wore civilian clothing
and hid among women and children!
That is hardly the way the Continental Army fought.
Dave Smith
2007-07-10 22:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
It was much more than an attempt to make the Soviets behave. The
primary reason for the bombings was an attempt to force Japan to
surrender.
And why shouldn't we justify the bombings? Someone had to do
something to make Japan stop.
That works for me. The Japanese had behaved atrociously since their
invasion of China. They deserved whatever they got.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by kangarooistan
Why bother , every body knows the Yanks started the war in the Pacific
when they blockaded japans oil suppilies to forced Japan into the war
We blockaded Japan in 1945. There was no blockade of Japan in 1941.
And Japan started the war in the Pacific long before Pearl Harbor.
There was not a blockade but there were trade embargoes in place.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Saddam bought the chemical precursors from European companies and had
the chemicals synthesized in Iraq.
They also got a lot from the US. The US administration spun a lot of
stories to deflect blame to the Europeans, but I think you will find they
got more from American sources than they did from the Europeans.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by kangarooistan
They won because the "insurgents" wore civilian clothing
and hid among women and children!
That is hardly the way the Continental Army fought.
If you read Loyalist accounts of the rebellion you will get the distinct
impression that a lot of the Continental Army were unemployed hooligans
funded by wealthy land owners who wanted to protect their own interests,
like slaves. They were used to bully the citizens into supporting the
rebellion through violence and arson.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...