Text 15206, 120 rader
Skriven 2005-10-30 10:33:28 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
     Kommentar till en text av FRANK SCHEIDT
Ärende: Re: Plates
==================
> WD> The Battle of Britain was fought, won by the Brits (on their own) and
> WD> lost by the Nazis, in 1939. Operation Barbarossa started around the
> WD> middle of 1941, about 2 years later.
 
> The Battle of Britain took place in the middle of 1940 dragging
> on until early 1941 ...
 
According to the RAF the Battle of Britain was definitely over in October 1940.
That's an official source.
 
> Among other things *that* is true ... however not only division
> of the spoils of war were involved but the *winning* ... the US
> carried the load!
 
The "speed" of the winning definitely "yes". The Nazis were already on the
defensive on June 6th 1944. The war in Europe might have lasted 6-9 months
longer without the US according to military strategists (who only are guessing
of course) and peace-deals would have been different. For example no
Nüremberg-trials etc...
 
In all this the role of the Red Army is grossly underestimated.
 
> I think we'd be happy if Europe would simply admit facts!
 
The US's contribution has always been acknowledged and continues to be so. But
please understand the following.
 
My late mother as a 20 year old good-looking girl lived under Nazi occupation
for over 4 years. She always told that although life was tough due to shortages
of all kind the ordinary Germans never bothered them and were polite. Girls
could walk the streets, when alone Germans would escort them home after curfew,
nothing happened. Because if something happened the standard-punishment was
"Eastern Front".
 
When the Brits and Canadians liberated Antwerp here nothing happened and people
still moved about free on the streets.
 
When the Americans moved-in girls could not be left on the streets anymore
because there were gang-rapes all-over, there was murder, criminality,
thieving, black-marketeering ... all by Americans.
 
My mother told that though they were glad to have been liberated they could
only leave the house when escorted by other local men because a woman on her
own was not safe anymore.
 
So it came to pass when in 1995 the 50th anniversary of the liberation of
Europe was celebrated all of the veterans whom marched or were driven through
the streets were cheered, but when the Americans passed through many signs
went-up reading "Are you my father?"
 
This is not an accusation, Frank, merely trying to tell you that the liberation
of Europe has many more facets than the pure fighting-part.
 
> Thank you for making my case!  In both wars, especially WWII it
> was the massive, uninterrupted manufacturing capacity of the US
> which kept both Russia and Britain afloat as well as providing
> the war materials for the U.S. to win the war -- not really
> single-handed but close to it.  Our "allies" and the Germans were
> exhausted ...
 
You are not giving credit to the effort and the losses of the Russians who made
the single largest sacrifice and made up for over half the number of victims of
the complete WWII, both in Europe and the Pacific.
 
If you believe that the once or twice a week convoys into Murmansk supported
the total Russian war-effort then you are a galaxy off-track. The Russian
war-machine was just like the American slow to gain speed but once working it
was unstoppable and its demand for raw materials could never be covered by the
convoys which in the end were a symbolic drop on a hot plate.
 
The Russians built their own Mustang-P51 fighters, but modified to their needs.
They built thousands of DC3's but modified and under a different name, they
used a different rifle and machine-gun callibre, they made their own tanks and
ammo ... no ore ever got shipped to Russia, remember! It had oil-reserves
larger than the Americans, and still do as a matter of fact.
 
It's not that those American supplies were not welcome, they were and they
helped get accross some difficult logistic hurdles, but once the Bear started
moving there was no stopping.
 
Some history sources also fail to mention that these supplies to Russia were
not lent nor leased ... Russia had to pay for them in gold. This particular
fact only surfaced during the late 80-ies or early 90-ies when a diving-team
wanted to explore the wreck of a British cruiser and were refused to go down on
the pretext that it was a wargrave. Further research revealed that it had a
cargo of Russian gold aboard, payment for goods. The research was sparked by
the fact that such large units never entered Russian ports but thisone did and
its presence was completely screened-off at the time. I forgot the name of that
boat though.
 
> Just out of curiosity, Ward, is what you've said, actually
> *claimed* in European history books?  Somewhat like the Japs who
> tend to distort their part in WWII.  I don't blame you for coming
> up with such stuff.  What I really *am* curious about, though, is
> what your history books claim.  I was in the U.S. Army during
> WWII and, of course, followed events at that time, as well as the
> post-war period, very closely.
 
I guess there is not one single truth during a period of war and, BTW, thank
you for serving!
 
A major source of data which I present is from the aformentioned book by Albert
Speer based on existing wardiaries in the "Bundesarchiv" in present-day
Germany.
 
The memoirs of Churchill contain a wealth of historical data supporting what I
said and these memoirs have until now not been proven wrong.
 
Also there is an interesting interview with Churchill in TIME-magazine of, I
believe, 1936 sometime where he verbatim states that had the US not entered WW1
in 1917 there would have been a negotiated-peace between all war-weary parties
which would have left Germany not as poor as it was, millions of boys would not
have been killed and the seed of Nazism would not have been planted.
 
... This was 3 years before the outbreak of hostilities ...
 
 \%/@rd

--- DB 1.89sl/100000
 * Origin: "Leonard will be free" - http://www.leonardpeltier.org (2:292/854)