Text 17016, 282 rader
Skriven 2005-11-26 11:04:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av WARD DOSSCHE
Ärende: [1/2] Wars
==================
 >>> Part 1 of 2...

-=> Quoting Ward Dossche to Frank Scheidt <=-

 > WD> There's only one country in the world which had a quite successful
 > WD> TV-show about its leadership. The TV-show was called "That's my
 > Bush"
 
 > Yeah, so "successful" it was located on a tiny (at that time) TV
 > channel, The Comedy Channel.
 WD> 
 WD> So you saw/knew about it ... it was a smash-hit, just too high
 WD> production-cost per unit. 

It was *far* from being a "smash-hit" ... mildly humorous, but 
that's about it ...

 WD> The moment you cannot laugh with your
 WD> leadership is a sad time ... we enjoy our government and royal
 WD> household being ridiculed quite often. 
 > WD> The most vocal person about GWB is an American: Michael Moore!
 
 > Most of his statements against the US have been thoroughly
 > discredited.
 WD> 
 WD> You wish!
 
And my wishes have been granted!

 > One example is Gerald Ford who was depicted as a hopelessly
 > clumsy individual, based on one incident -- he stumbled one
 > time when getting out of an airplane.  The fact was he was a
 > good athlete in college ... to the "news"media, however, he was a
 > very clumsy person.
 WD> 
 WD> There exist images of Ford falling at least three times from airplane
 WD> stairs. 

I'm not sure of that ... even so, that could happen to anyone, 
without indicating general clumsiness.  BTW, I didn't care for 
Gerald Ford so I'm not trying to "cover" for him.

 > Dan Quayle was pilloried mercilessly for his potato/potatoe
 > spelling as though that was extremely important.  Then he
 > was ridiculed for allegedly saying he wished he spoke Latin
 > so he could converse with the Latin Americans -- not too
 > long after *that* came out a reporter *admitted* she had
 > made it up on a dull day ... and so it goes.
 WD> 
 WD> And that journalist was eventually uncovered to be a pro-Republican
 WD> writer and her statement false. So it actaully happened ... video
 WD> images exist with quayle saying all these stupid things, they're just
 WD> not to be found in US film/video-vaults.

They're probably not found in American vaults because they were 
manufactured in Europe and not though worthy of saving.
 
 > WD> I suppose you haven't heard that former dictator Pinochet from
 > WD> Argentina is only sued in one country worldwide for his crimes
 > WD> against humanity ... Belgium ... and that all others, including the
 > WD> mightiest country on earth, turn a blind eye. Of course, it's a rarely
 > WD> overlooked footnote in world history how Pinochet rose to power.
 
 > When the US doesn't do something with international consequences
 > it's in our own interest.  What might seem simple can have large
 > political consequences.  Pinochet is an old man, almost dead.
 > Let him alone.
 WD> 
 WD> So you are unware he was military and monetary helped by the CIA to
 WD> overthrow the democratic elected regime of Allende? 

Did I say I was unaware of that?

 WD> That Pinochet
 WD> murdered Allende and spread a reign of terror with thousands of people
 WD> murdered and/or dissappeared? Please go on a Thursday the 'Playa de
 WD> Mayos' in Argentina's Buenos Aires to see the weekly protest by the
 WD> so-called 'Silly Mothers' demanding the return of or news about their
 WD> dissappeared sons. Go to www.madres.org. 

Huh?  *Now* you've got Pinochet in Argentina?  Could you have him 
mixed-up with Juan Peron?

 WD> Thank you USA.

You're welcome ...
 
 > The number of casualties of the French and English *naturally*
 > will exceed those of the American dead since France and England
 > were involved in the dreaded "trench-warfare" for *years*, I
 > believe it was Marshal Haig who insisted on the pointless charge
 > and counter-charge over "No Man's Land" resulted in tremendous
 > casualties.  When the Americans entered WWI General Pershing
 > *refused* to get stuck in that mess.  For that reason and because
 > we were in the war for a far shorter time period.
 WD> 
 WD> What rubbish .... during the same period of time and in the same
 WD> general area we record 368 US graves versus about 200,000 British and
 WD> 43 US MIA's against 37,000 British MIA's.
 WD> 
 WD> It does not mean the US troops acted cowardlike but is quite simply
 WD> explained because of their smaller numbers. They were there and they
 WD> made a contribution. 

Why do I suspect you're distorting the data?  Consider this:  The 
British and French (thanks to Haig) kept rushing the German lines 
only to be mowed down by the "new" weapons, machine guns.  This 
went on day-after-day, month-after-month then the Americans 
arrived.  Obviously the first contingent would be small so the 
total number of casualties would be small.  Furthermore Gen. 
Pershing wasn't going to go along with the madness of Marshall 
Haig hence fewer American troops were killed.  Thus there were 
*far* more British/French troops involved than American troops.

 WD> "Winning that war by the US" however is a
 WD> well-embedded hoax of later times mainly inspired by
 WD> Hollywood-productions on WW2 creating the same false impression about
 WD> WW2-history. 

You *want* to believe that, so you *do* believe it.  OK.  It 
really doesn't matter to me as I know the *facts*.

 > I think I had a good idea as to what was going on ... I read all
 > the newspapers at the time and considered my own personal
 > experiences to be trivial though they certainly helped ...
 WD> 
 WD> No-one was well informed other than the undeniable headlines.
 WD> Newspapers, on either side, printed what they were told by authorities
 WD> to print, that's called propaganda.

Of *course* each nation's press prints what the authorities 
permit in wartime.  However one can read between the lines.  For 
example during the Korean conflict of the early 1950s a typical 
daily article would have us shooting down, say, 22 North Korean 
planes with no losses on our side.  This went on day-after-day 
until it indicated the North Koreans must have had an airforce of 
hundreds-of-thousands all the while it was seldom one of our own 
planes was shot down.  This was *obvious* nonsense and was easy 
to see through.  The same thing took place in the press during 
WWII.
 
 > Certainly the notorious "Non-Aggression Pact of 1939" could be
 > considered a "peace-treaty", but I was thinking of one which
 > might have involved a Russian surrender in 1941 and later.
 WD> 
 WD> Stalin surrendering? ;-)
 
No. He was insane and would *never* have surrendered.  Someone in 
the Soviet would have killed him *then* they'd have surrendered.  
That's the way it goes in dictatorships.

 > Supplies "lent" to the British, French and Russians were *always*
 > referred to as "Lend-Lease".  The only cash involved was
 > *American* cash.
 WD> 
 WD> I was talking about "gold", not "cash". Please look-up the fate of HMS
 WD> Edinburgh which was topredoed April 29th 1942 with a cargo of 5 tons
 WD> of gold from Russia "as payment for war war equipment".

I recall such a ship.  All that shows is that the Soviets paid 
for *some* of our shipments.
 
 WD> It has been reported in "Time", look at:
 WD> 
 WD> http://www.time.com/time/archive/printout/0,23 57,921064,00.html
 WD> 
 WD> or try:
 WD> 
 WD> http://www.world-war.co.uk/index.php3
 WD> 
 WD> go to "stories" then "stories1" and select "edinburgh"
 WD> 
 WD> Russia "bought" the goods ... nothing "lend lease" ...
 
*Most* was Lend-Lease, though some was obviously paid for.

 > Without US help I don't think there's any *doubt* that Hitler
 > would have won!
 WD> 
 WD> You are incredible:

Thank you ...
 
 WD> * Nazi Germany was short of mineral resources (uranium, oil, coal,
 WD> iron ore) * 

Germany short of *coal*?!?!?!   You've gotta be kidding!  As for 
oil they had the Ploesti oil fields under their control.

 WD> The German Navy had virtually been annihilated by the Royal
 WD> Navy 

You've got *that* right.  It was one of the few really 
*important* contributions by the British.

* The Luftwaffe had virtually been annihilated by the Royal Air
 WD> Force... 

Oh?  The U.S. Army Air Forces eventually wiped out the Luftwaffe, 
with some help by the RAF, of course.  BTW, a close friend was a 
tail-gunner on a B-24 based in England.  He told me the first day 
they *arrived* in England, German radio named each of them *by 
name* and said Goering's Yellow Noses will greet them in the 
morning.  Scary.

 WD> * Whole Nazi-divisions had been destroyed by the Russians
          
*After* the Americans entered the war thus tying up much of the 
German military.

 WD> * Zhukov had already annihilated Paulus' 6th army in Stalingrad in
 WD> Jan.1943 and Nazi Germany had already lost the war on the eastern
 WD> front by that time. 

Of *course*, since much of the German Army was involved in 
fruitlessly fighting the Americans.

 WD> The Russians fought with Russian tanks, Russian
 WD> weapons, Russian callibers, Russian planes, Russian food and Russian
 WD> oil. 

Certainly they used what equipment they had.  So?  BTW, *oil* is 
one thing we *didn't* have to supply them with.

 WD> I can't believe you dare claim being informed about WW2-events.
 
Believe it I *am*.  You, OTOH, seem to have been overwhelmed by 
European "history".  I note one thing, though, you don't seem to 
have much praise for the Frence ... heh heh heh ...

 > Remember it took the Nazis only from June 1941 to December 1941
 > to advance from the Russian border to the gates of Moscow!
 WD> 
 WD> It took the Japanese less than a day to dissable the US Pacific fleet
 WD> in Pearl Harbour. So what? 

That has nothing to do with the fact that it took the Germans 
only one-half year to be within sight of Moscow, then, after the 
Americans entered the war it *still* took the Russians *two* 
years to get back to the Polish border.

 WD> The Japanese only awakened the American
 WD> giant and the Nazis only awakened the Russian bear. 

The situations weren't *nearly* comparable.

 WD> Once both these
 WD> countries' war economies were in full swing it was a done deal.
 WD> 
In the final analysis it was American *war* *production* which 
won WWII ...

 WD> I've said it before and I will repeat ... you cannot beat the US nor
 WD> Russia in a conventional war.

 > WD> In some of the above Cemeteries, many of the local people
 > WD> have adopted a grave of a soldier who is unknown to them,
 > WD> but he is "their adopted son," in thanks and honor for
 > WD> his sacrifice in giving them their Liberty and Freedom in
 > WD> 1944-5. It is just amazing that these people still give
 > WD> thanks and pay tribute to their heroes after all these 56 years!
 
 > That is really a *touching* tribute!  That clashes with what has
 > been said here that the American soldiers were hated throughout
 > Europe.   My brother was in the 101st Airborne.  Ten years after
 > the "Battle of the Bulge" the people of Belgium offered all
 > American veterans of that battle paid transportation to
 > celebrate the tenth anniversary (I believe it was the tenth).
 WD> 
 WD> We nearly go every year during the Christmas period to Bastogne. It's
 WD> an impressive area on the high-plateau there when it freezes and the
 WD> cold wind blows. Difficult to imagine what those troops went through
 WD> during all those weeks of cold, bitter cold.
 WD> 
 WD> There are many memorials but every year there is also an American
 WD> ceremony at the monument of Mardasson just outside Bastogne, it is at

 >>> Continued to next message...

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)