Y'ALL KNOW, if the USA had stayed home and minded its own business and said
piss off to the rest of the enlightened countries of the world in the 20th
Century, the ones of you that were not speaking German or Japanese, Italian,
Chinese, or Russian, would certainly be leading diferent lives than the ones
you lead today.
as for the mighty RED AIR FORCE, the LUFTWAFFE was unable to match numbers
with it on the EASTERN FRONT, hence the Soviets had air control for a part of
the war.
and of course our Russian allies, had made a peace treaty with the Japanese so
they could concentrate of the Axis.
and they still used huge quantities of American manufactured machines,
weapons, ammo, clothing and food in their war against the Axis.
this does not reduce the importance of Russian actions in WW II as an
ally, but remember, they also co-invaded Poland.
having talked with many old landsers, upon reflection they admit that Reich
did as much to defeat the Reich as any of the ALLIEs. some interesting reading
about Germany's war time production and political decisions that limited it
also will provide some clues to problems created by the Reich for the Reich.
i seem to remember that America supplied arms, ammo, equipment, vehicles,
ships, aircraft, training facilities, food, medicine, medical technology, POW
storage and etc for THE ALLIES, all the while fighting its own war.
honestly, i like Germans, Brits, Canucks and Aussies. i liked most Europeans
and Scandinavians too. i liked most of the folks i met in Japan and Korea,
even some of the folks i met in the RVN. ditto for other folks from around the
planet.
and i do not "wrap myself in an American flag" as some of you like to say.
i can tell the difference between right, wrong, and do not give a shit too.
but, i do not like the patronizing tone, DEREK is displaying towards America
and Americans, or that a lot of y'all are showing.
maybe we should have sayed home and left y'all folks ancestors to sizzle in
their own shit instead of bailing you out, rebuilding you, and protecting you
with OUR MONEY and OUR BLOOD...
with your assistance, of course.
i am starting to get a bit irritated with folks now, including Americans who
like to say things i perosnally do not agree with.
but feel free to say them, it is your right as an American, and i guess your
privilage to do so as a foreigner.
but one question here for EVERYONE:
how many of you have served in your own country's armed forces or any police,
fire or rescue service? how many of you have actually done something for the
good of all or the good of the few? how many of you have actually made
physical, financial, personal, and psychological sarcifices for the things you
treasure most?
not many, i suspect. most of y'all had lead comfortable lives, free from want,
hardship, fear, death, famine, and disease...
quite a few, if not most are well educated either by your own efforts or the
labors of others.
none live in "poverty", i suspect.
and there is nothing wrong with this.
but you should always remember that YOU have the life YOU HAVE NOW because
some one else carried the can when it needed carrying....
John irritates me sometimes too. and being a soldier is not a license to be an
asshole (John is not an asshole either).
another question:
how many of you have actually killed another human being? or seen your friends
killed or maimed?
very damned few.
i am tired. my head hurts. i am old. i am fat. i am crippled up.
But you know what? i am proud of me, proud of my service to my country and
yours, proud i was able to serve the public good, and PROUD OF MY COUNTRY.
i may not say things as slick as some of you do, and may not be as well
educate or speciliast educated as some of you, but i can look myself in the
mirror, state my thoughts, and stand by my friends without feeling fear of PC
or being caugh wearing two faces.
DAWGIE, getting pissed with all of this.
> At 10:23 AM 5/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Mind you, so would the inhabitants of the country that said piss off.
Dawg,
> DAWGIE, getting pissed with all of this.
If you are in that frame of mind, it probably isn't the best time to send an
email. Email is a difficult enough communications medium when everyone is
calm.
> how many of you have served in your own country's armed forces
You are, I'm afraid, very wrong here.
But perhaps more imporantly this is way off topic. How about discussing the
Stargrunt stats for an American Marine platoon circa 2026?
Nicholas Caldwell clcaldwell@kreative.net
[quoted original message omitted]
> Y'ALL KNOW, if the USA had stayed home and minded its own business
Actually, if we stayed out of World War I, the world would be a much different
place. Germany probably would have defeated France, and held onto Alsace
Lorainne and "historical Poland" less the part held onto by the
Austro-Hungarian Empire (assuming it survived, which is rather
doubtful). The Nazi's would not have come to power, and the Soviet Union would
have been smaller and with a lot less population. Stalin would still have
probably have come to power, and he probably would have still planned a war
with Germany. That would have been a very interesting war, because there would
have been no purge of the Soviet officiers before the war. Stalin got the idea
of purges from Hitler's Kristalnacht (Stalin wasn't a very original thinker,
and tend to do things to excess). What would have happened from there is hard
to say, but I doubt the world would be a worse place then it is today.
Now what would have been much better would have been if the U.S. and Great
Britian had stayed out of the war. France probably would have been defeated in
1914, 1915 at the latest. Russia would not have been able to hold out long
against Germany alone. I suspect the czar would have sued for peace with the
condition of not territorial changes from the start of the war. The Soviets
would then probably not have come to power at all in Russia, and the world
would be a much, much different place then it is today, and probably better.
> and of course our Russian allies, had made a peace treaty with the
When was the last time you tried to fight a war with the bulk of your industry
and population on the far side of Asia? They tried this in
1904-1905 and it was a nightmare. In World War I they had mountains of
supplies stacked up (mostly from the U.S.) in Vladivostock then they could
ever hope to move to the west. In the skirmishes with Japan in the 1930's they
still had a logistical nightmare.
> and they still used huge quantities of American manufactured machines,
Well I should hope so. If the Soviets had fallen, defeating Hitler would have
been much tougher.
> this does not reduce the importance of Russian actions in WW II as an
Well of course, Stalin wanted to get closer to Berlin. It would make his
planned invasion of Germany (in the mid 1940's) that much easier...
> having talked with many old landsers, upon reflection they admit
Bureaucratic stupidity is universal. Look at the U.S. Navy Bureau Ord. and the
mess with U.S. torpedoes at the beginning of the U.S. operations in World War
II. But the Reich had it worse then the U.S., fortunately.
> i seem to remember that America supplied arms, ammo, equipment,
You don't, but John Atkinson is another matter.
> i can tell the difference between right, wrong, and do not give a shit
This American hasn't liked John Atkinson's anti-rest of the world tone
for a LONG TIME.
> maybe we should have sayed home and left y'all folks ancestors to
If we had stayed out of World War I, we probably wouldn't have need to get
involved in World War II (Imperial Germany versus the Soviets), and there
probably never would have been a cold war...
> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:23:36 -0500 (CDT)
> maybe we should have sayed home and left y'all folks ancestors to
At least to some degree our Money. The UK was still paying the US for the
above in the 50's. So to my mind the US chose cash over gratitude.
That's an oft-overlooked point about Roosevelt and the Lend Lease
program. He very effectively used our funding of Britains war with Germany to
strip the Empire of it's Western hemisphere possesions (Bermuda and Iceland)
and most of it's financial reserves as well as applying pressure on
Commonwealth trade protection.
This is very possibly a motivation for the formation of the NAC -
Britain gettings some of it's own back. Churchill would be proud.
Frankly, the idea of a formal coalition of the English speaking peoples
appeals to me, given a strong written constitution.
> Adam Benedict Canning wrote:
> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:23:36 -0500 (CDT)
> At least to some degree our Money. The UK was still paying the US for
As of the early 90's, I heard that the U.S. was still keeping track of the
interest. Source was a Political Science professor at the local University. I
don't know if the Brits are still paying, he didn't mention if they were or
weren't.
By the way, Finnland did pay off her war debt in total.
--- Adam Benedict Canning
> <dahak@dahak.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> > protecting you with OUR MONEY and OUR BLOOD . . .
1)So tell me, when did Britain finish paying off their debt? AFAIK, the only
nation that payed back what they owed us from WWII was Finland. They payed for
their Brewster Buffaloes in full.
2)Ummm... how much do you value the US casualties lost, and when are you
delivering the cash?
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> 1)So tell me, when did Britain finish paying off their
It happened under Thatcher, can't tell you exactly when.
The sudden stoppage of the drain of foreign currency had a very significant
positive impact on the UK economy though.
You must remember that the UK pissed away all the national treasure it had
accumulated since about 1815 on World Wars 1 and 2. In 1938, something like
12% of the US's economy was
owned by UK shareholders. By mid 1941, when Lend-Lease
started, it was less than 0.001%, the rest had had to be
sold and used to buy US goods to qualify for Lend-Lease.*
(note also that the US economy of 1938 was a mere shadow of the size it was in
1945).
> 2)Ummm. . . how much do you value the US casualties
Good question. I don't know the answer, John. We in Oz
try to pay what we can - as we did in Korea, in Vietnam,
in the Gulf, and as we're doing in Afghanistan. Not in money, but blood.
But every time a US multi-billion-dollar agribusiness or
industrial conglomerate gets another transfusion of cash
> As of the early 90's, I heard that the U.S. was still keeping track of
Hmm, if the US are keeping track of the interset, perhaps the UK should start
charging rent for the airbases that the US have in the UK.
From: On Behalf Of Michael Llaneza
Sent: 01 June 2002 19:10
Subject: Re: AMERICANS
> That's an oft-overlooked point about Roosevelt
Err? Iceland, a UK possession? When? Bermuda still is, AFAIK.
Greenland must have had a strange status; the Danish king (and government?)
had been captured early in 1940.
No-one asked us to cough up any of the Carribean
islands even though they were seen as "back yard" after the war. Or did we
hand over a couple of the Lesser Antilles?
> This is very possibly a motivation for the
Oh no he wouldn't. Churchill would have been much more in favour of your
following sentiment, even if it were only on a "53rd state" basis.
> Frankly, the idea of a formal coalition of the
Over the outstanding loans question, Meynard(?) Keynes had to back to
Washington immediately
after the end of Lend-Lease in September 1945
for a loan of (then) GBP1.1B, or USD4.3B. He described our situation as a
"financial Dunkirk".
Most of the loan was spent by the post-war Atlee
government, though die-hard socialists have also
blamed the government for trying to maintain the
country's pre-war overseas "obligations".
This financial state of affairs may help explain the "Cinderella" status of
our forces in Korea
and the apparent post-war rush to abandon many
of our colonies. After Suez (ultimately a victim of the same financial
weaknesses) the Empire was written off at the highest levels, with only a few
small enclaves remaining after the African
states were encouraged to jump ship in the mid-
1960s.
Today the loan would be worth GBP70B, or USD70B. The final payment of GBP244M
is scheduled for 2006 if we don't take up an option to defer.
Partly from The (London) Sunday Times, 2/06/02.
My main reference for Roosevelt's dismantling of the Empire come's from
"Churchill's Grand Alliance", by Charmley (Harcourt Brace, San Diego,
the 1996 edition ISBN 0-15-600470-4). It's a thick read, but very
detailed and appears to be well supported.
> CS Renegade wrote:
> That's an oft-overlooked point about Roosevelt
Well, just the military bases actually. But there was a flag transfer ceremony
at each and.
> Greenland must have had a strange status; the
Wasn't a Crown posession, and Roosevelt couldn't find anyone to sign for
it :-) But given Iceland we didn't need Greenland.
> No-one asked us to cough up any of the Carribean
No, I don't think so. The sun is still Not Setting on a couple of spots in the
Carribean. If the Lesser Antilles were worth anything stratgeically the RN
would have long ago put a base there. And Roosevelt
would have asked for it.
> This is very possibly a motivation for the
While Churchill actually did suggest a customs and passport union between
America and Britain (it's in his History of WW2), he would likely have changed
his tune after Roosevelt snubbed him in favor of Stalin a couple of times.
He'd still regret the acrimony.
> This financial state of affairs may help explain
That was the idea. Unfortunately our assuming the mantle in the Middle
East seems to have been short-sighted, or at least not very well thought
out.
> Today the loan would be worth GBP70B, or USD70B.
We'll be polite if you miss a payment :-)
> [quoted text omitted]
I believe they very well might already
I know that some the training grounds we used in Germany were leased from
"someone" (probably the Gov't or Germany) while others were "Owned" by the US
Army and thus the US pays property taxes on them. In addition, monies were
paid for the rounds fired at certain ranges as a tax for the pollution (noise
and otherwise) and the lead concerns of those rounds that "soaked" the ground.
I can't imagine that similar arrangements haven't been made in Britain. If
not, then it is very likely that a treaty precludes it. If that's the case,
then "Wah."
Of all the "host nations" I have anything but a passing knowledge of, I think
it's the Japanese of Okinawa that have the most to gripe about
versus our soldier's presence and effect on their lives: Far too many
Marines (a minority of them to be sure, but enough to spoil it for everyone
else) seem to think that Japanese women (and little girls, horribly enough)
willingly welcome whatever the creepy soldiers' misogynistic mind can think
up.
--Flak
> On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 09:21, sowerbyj@fiu.edu wrote: