Text 15208, 209 rader
Skriven 2005-10-30 06:27:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Kommentar till en text av WARD DOSSCHE
Ärende: American War Help
=========================
-=> Quoting Ward Dossche to Frank Scheidt <=-
> 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 ...
WD> According to the RAF the Battle of Britain was definitely over in
WD> October 1940. That's an official source.
Perhaps the "official" ending may have that date. The most
intense bombing of London may have ended by then but the battle
continued. The bombings continued. After Hitler invaded Russia
he lacked the airpower to continue on a massive scale.
> 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!
WD> The "speed" of the winning definitely "yes". The Nazis were already on
WD> the defensive on June 6th 1944. The war in Europe might have lasted 6-9
WD> months longer without the US according to military strategists (who
WD> only are guessing of course) and peace-deals would have been different.
WD> For example no Nüremberg-trials etc...
That certainly clashes with what *I* have read ...
WD> In all this the role of the Red Army is grossly underestimated.
I don't think so. They did a fine job of soaking up German
ammunition. Remember this: It took the Red Army two *years* to
cover the same ground the Germans did in *one-half* year ... and
*that* was only because the US had entered the war ...
> I think we'd be happy if Europe would simply admit facts!
WD> The US's contribution has always been acknowledged and continues to be
WD> so. But please understand the following.
WD> My late mother as a 20 year old good-looking girl lived under Nazi
WD> occupation for over 4 years. She always told that although life was
WD> tough due to shortages of all kind the ordinary Germans never bothered
WD> them and were polite. Girls could walk the streets, when alone Germans
WD> would escort them home after curfew, nothing happened. Because if
WD> something happened the standard-punishment was "Eastern Front".
Belgium was occupied in 1939-40. The Russian "Eastern Front" for
Germany didn't begin until June 1941. Hence prior to June 1941
no "Eastern Front" threat would have been of any use -- actually
probably not until the German advance stalled, in December 1941.
WD> When the Brits and Canadians liberated Antwerp here nothing happened
WD> and people still moved about free on the streets.
WD> When the Americans moved-in girls could not be left on the streets
WD> anymore because there were gang-rapes all-over, there was murder,
WD> criminality, thieving, black-marketeering ... all by Americans.
So? What did that have to do with the massive contribution the
US made to winning the war. BTW there was a great deal of
exaggeration of "rape" during those frantic times. I recall, for
example, when General Eisenhower decided to acknowledge the rapes
by paying the raped women a small amount of compensation -- I
believe it was only $15, though I may be wrong. There was one
noted case in which one woman complained that a certain American
soldier had raped her several times each week for six months!!
WD> My mother told that though they were glad to have been liberated they
WD> could only leave the house when escorted by other local men because a
WD> woman on her own was not safe anymore.
No disrespect to your late mother but her story may have been
exaggerated a bit ... [sigh] ... surely if her story were
accurate (WRT rapes, other criminality, etc.) I would have heard
of it from the many guys I knew who served in the European
Theater. I heard nothing about that. I don't doubt it happened
-- *all* invading armies are guilty of such acts -- but there's
more here than meets the eye.
WD> So it came to pass when in 1995 the 50th anniversary of the liberation
WD> of Europe was celebrated all of the veterans whom marched or were
WD> driven through the streets were cheered, but when the Americans passed
WD> through many signs went-up reading "Are you my father?"
So the few rapes wiped out the massive contribution the American
soldiers made to liberating Europe ... [sigh] ... such is life
...
WD> This is not an accusation, Frank, merely trying to tell you that the
WD> liberation of Europe has many more facets than the pure fighting-part.
I'm well-aware of that ...
> 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 ...
WD> You are not giving credit to the effort and the losses of the Russians
WD> who made the single largest sacrifice and made up for over half the
WD> number of victims of the complete WWII, both in Europe and the Pacific.
In the *Pacific*?!?!?! What did they do there other than stab
the Japs in the back after the war was essentially over?
WD> If you believe that the once or twice a week convoys into Murmansk
WD> supported the total Russian war-effort then you are a galaxy off-track.
I don't think so. The Russians later acknowledged that -- after
the fall of Communism, of course.
WD> The Russian war-machine was just like the American slow to gain speed
WD> but once working it was unstoppable and its demand for raw materials
WD> could never be covered by the convoys which in the end were a symbolic
WD> drop on a hot plate.
Yeah ... sure ... [sigh] ...
WD> The Russians built their own Mustang-P51 fighters, but modified to
WD> their needs. They built thousands of DC3's but modified and under a
WD> different name, they used a different rifle and machine-gun callibre,
WD> they made their own tanks and ammo ... no ore ever got shipped to
WD> Russia, remember! It had oil-reserves larger than the Americans, and
WD> still do as a matter of fact.
Of course the Russians didn't just sit down and accept the German
invasion. However without American supplies they'd have been
beaten.
WD> It's not that those American supplies were not welcome, they were and
WD> they helped get accross some difficult logistic hurdles, but once the
WD> Bear started moving there was no stopping.
And the "moving" would never have taken place without the
American supplies as well as the American threat on the Western
Front! Actually the "moving" would have continued -- to the
East.
WD> Some history sources also fail to mention that these supplies to
WD> Russia were not lent nor leased ... Russia had to pay for them in gold.
WD> This particular fact only surfaced during the late 80-ies or early
WD> 90-ies when a diving-team wanted to explore the wreck of a British
WD> cruiser and were refused to go down on the pretext that it was a
WD> wargrave. Further research revealed that it had a cargo of Russian gold
WD> aboard, payment for goods. The research was sparked by the fact that
WD> such large units never entered Russian ports but thisone did and its
WD> presence was completely screened-off at the time. I forgot the name of
WD> that boat though.
I've *never* read that. And don't forget, the current American
"news"media are strongly anti-American. They tend to exaggerate
everything which makes America look bad. This is quite a
contrast to the situation prior to the Vietnam War when the
newsmedia supported the U.S. Hence if anything anti-American WRT
WWII was uncovered you can be certain it would be blasted all
over the American "news"media ...
> 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.
WD> I guess there is not one single truth during a period of war and, BTW,
WD> thank you for serving!
Our survival was at stake ...
WD> A major source of data which I present is from the aformentioned book
WD> by Albert Speer based on existing wardiaries in the "Bundesarchiv" in
WD> present-day Germany.
I suspect much of that is very self-serving. Something like the
fact that after Germany had surrendered it was *extremely*
difficult to find anyone there would would admit to having been a
member of the Nazi Party.
WD> The memoirs of Churchill contain a wealth of historical data
WD> supporting what I said and these memoirs have until now not been proven
WD> wrong.
*All* memoirs, regardless of the author, tend to be self-serving
and to cover-over any less-than-heroic deeds by the author.
WD> Also there is an interesting interview with Churchill in TIME-magazine
WD> of, I believe, 1936 sometime where he verbatim states that had the US
WD> not entered WW1 in 1917 there would have been a negotiated-peace
WD> between all war-weary parties which would have left Germany not as poor
WD> as it was, millions of boys would not have been killed and the seed of
WD> Nazism would not have been planted.
Churchill was extremely sensitive about WWI at that time because
of his terrible blunder in the Gallipoli campaign!
WD> ... This was 3 years before the outbreak of hostilities ...
... and a mere eighteen years after WWI ...
... Caterpillar: An upholstered worm.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)
|