Text 15366, 213 rader
Skriven 2005-11-01 16:29:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Kommentar till en text av WARD DOSSCHE
Ärende: American War Help
=========================
-=> Quoting Ward Dossche to Frank Scheidt <=-
> 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 ...
WD>
WD> I think you are honest in your remarks and not just a troublemaker. So
WD> let me offer the following clarification.
I am gradually getting the impression that you, *too*, believe
that what you write is the truth ... [sigh] ... kind of unusual
in FidoNet ...
WD> From 1936 through 1939 Stalin organised a purge among the Russian
WD> officers. About 4 out of 5 were shot because they were deemed to be
WD> enemies of the Communist cause. That includes 3 or 4 of the 5
WD> Marshalls. Technically he wiped-out as good as his complete general
WD> staff because "they were not good communists".
WD>
WD> By 1940 that left the Russian army completely understaffed with very
WD> young untrained and unprepared officers in charge. There was no overal
WD> Russian command-structure either anymore and decisions/planning often
WD> had to be taken/performed locally without the intelligency needed for
WD> them.
I knew that. And it's *that* which explains the Russian problems
during the war with Finland.
WD> When the Nazis invaded Russia, the Russians had a superior force of
WD> armor for example, like 3 times as many tanks. But nobody was in charge
WD> of logistics so in many cases tanks went into battle, drove the
WD> Nazi-forces back, and when they ran out of fuel the tanks were
WD> abandoned and the Nazis advanced again. In troops the number was about
WD> equal, in aircraft the Russians had more but they made the same mistake
WD> as the Americans did at Pearl Harbour ... they were neatly lined-up and
WD> the Nazis had a field-day destroying the Russian air-force.
WD> Let us not forget that in Stalin uncle Adolph nearly had a twin ...
WD> also a dictator, also a military incompetent, also a ridiculous
WD> ideology. Stalin had trusted Hitler, when the Nazis amassed troops and
WD> supplies close to the Russian border Nazi-officials said it was to get
WD> them out of range of the British bombers, Stalin bought it and ordered
WD> not to shoot-down the several hundred reconnaissance flights the Nazis
WD> were conducting over Russia as far as the Ural. The signs were very
WD> clear but not to Stalin.
OK ...
WD> So when the Nazis marched into Russia, the Russians were completely
WD> unprepared, which explained the rapid advance.
WD>
WD> The Nazis also had an ideology which stated they needed "Lebensraum",
WD> meaning space to live. The plan was take all the food Russia could
WD> produce, starve the population to death and replace it by ethnic
WD> Germans to create a Great German nation. In the process millions and
WD> millions innocent Russian civilians were murdered and starved to death.
> Belgium was occupied in 1939-40.
WD>
WD> Belgium was attacked on May 10th 1940, not 1939.
No argument there, since the *big* German push was in the spring
of 1940. I had relied on a flawed memory. The invasion of
Poland was about the *real* invasion of that first year.
> The Russian "Eastern Front" for
> Germany didn't begin until June 1941.
WD>
WD> The build-up of a force in the east however began as soon as the
WD> advancing troops in the west reached the Atlantic Ocean and the North
WD> Sea.
I don't know about that, but I *do* recall the invasion of Russia
by the Germans was in June 1941. BTW, everything I've stated
here are things I've *remembered* as I've looked *nothing* up.
So you should take into account I'm recalling events of six
decades ago.
> 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.
WD>
WD> Merely explaining the apprehension that some people have towards the
WD> US.
I'm still not certain of that, knowing the temper of the times.
> BTW there was a great deal of
> exaggeration of "rape" during those frantic times.
WD>
WD> On the countrary, reading the old local papers from those days one can
WD> read the stories. The city of Antwerp alone had over a thousand
WD> registered pregnancies by young girls as a result of American rape.
Sometimes "rapture" is later claimed to be "rape". Have you
taken that into account?
WD> There was a baby-boom 9 months after they passed-through ...
WD>
WD> The same problems still exist when naval-units of NATO enter port. I
WD> lived for about 30 years at exactly the dock where these units always
WD> moored, I saw what I saw ... also fighting, stabbing, MP's running all
WD> over the place etc... always American personnel, never the Brits, never
WD> Canadians, never Spaniards, never French...
> 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.
WD>
WD> My guess is they would have shut-up about it as much as they could,
WD> nothing honourable in it.
I don't think so. If many American troops were doing that then
it would have been considered acceptable by most of them. When
I spoke with the guys who had been there they'd have mentioned it
-- if only to "blame" the "other guys" ...
WD> There have been many TV-programmes here about kids fathered by
WD> American military personel. When they went searching for their
WD> biological fathers they were almost always met with hostility like "How
WD> dare you intrude into the life of a law-abiding American citizen, war
WD> hero and father of 3-4 fine American kids". I'm pretty certain such
WD> programmes "never" make it overthere.
I've never seen or heard of any such TV ...
> -- *all* invading armies are guilty of such acts --
WD>
WD> Hey ... we were not being "invaded" ... we were being "liberated" ...
WD> there's a difference.
I used the term in a general sense -- to mean a massive inflow of
foreign troops.
> In the *Pacific*?!?!?! What did they do there other than stab
> the Japs in the back after the war was essentially over?
WD>
WD> [about Russians]
WD>
WD> I said that all the Russian-losses were more than the losses of all
WD> other parties combined, including the European and Pacific theatre.
I thought you said that happened in their belated war with the Japs.
> I don't think so. The Russians later acknowledged that -- after
> the fall of Communism, of course.
WD>
WD> That's bridging to the future, a mere political statement. What the
WD> convoys did was deliver a number of essentials to keep the Russian
WD> military-effort afloat.
WD> You have to be realistic ... with one or maximum 2 convoys a week (but
WD> usually just one) of let's say 50 freighters each carrying 10,000
WD> tonnes (that is a gross exageration, usually that was only half as
WD> evidenced by the U-boat logs where victories were claimed) then a
WD> convoy would carry 500,000 tonnes of goods "a week", assuming there
WD> were no losses ... for the needs of Russia that is a drop on a hot
WD> plate. Please be reasonable.
BTW, your expression "drop on a hot plate" is not one which is
used here. Its equivalent, however, is "drop in a bucket" ...
WD> The convoy-help assured that the enormous industrial potential of
WD> Russia had some time to start-up, but once it was going the convoys
WD> lost in importance.
> Of course the Russians didn't just sit down and accept the German
> invasion. However without American supplies they'd have been
> beaten.
WD>
WD> There is no way that in a conventional war you can beat Russia ...
WD> look at a map what size it has ... there is no way an invader can
WD> generate the troops necessary to cover such an area. It's the same with
WD> the US ... in a conventional war you cannot beat the US ... it is too
WD> big ... and both countries when given some leeway have such a potential
WD> that they'll always be able to mount a decisive counter-strike.
> 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.
WD>
WD> Duh? ... I'm surprised at that. My impression is that when the going
WD> gets tough, America one way or the other unites.
That's true enough. However during Lyndon Johnson's beloved
Vietnam war the "news"media in general turned against the
administration and America in general. This continued until 9/11
when they switched back to being pro-American ... for a few
months then back to the bash-Bush, anti-American stance ...
Don't mistake what I've said. The American press during the
1940s was *completely* different from what we have today. Back
then, if what you say was true, the press would *never* have
reported it. However the current press would have *anxiously*
dug out every detail and blasted that on the front page so as to
make the U.S. look bad. Consider, for example, the prison
scandals in Iraq with the mistreated prisoners. Pictures came
out a year or two ago. Currently the press is doing its best to
have *more* pictures made available despite the Pentagon's
statement that the ones not yet disclosed are merely more of the
same, about the same event, and show nothing new. The *press*,
however isn't satisfied with that -- they are *anxious* to make
the U.S. military look as bad as possible and further inflame the
Arabic world!
... * <ÄÄ<<< Tribble -<ÄÄ*ÄÄ <ÄÄ<<< Tribble after sword fight
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)
|