Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D-Day to Berlin BBC1 programme enlightening!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 12:11:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it very
enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got so
sidelined by Eisenhower for example. Cheeky - the Americans to come into the
war late like that with very little war experience compared to Monty who had
a vast experience gained in the desert - and sideline him whilst taking all
the credit for taking Berlin with the Russians! Just why did we even let the
Americans to do that? Now I know why quite a few people in this country
treat Americans so warily!

But also interesting to see that this battle of wits with Eisenhower led to
Monty making the biggest mistake of his career with Arnhem. Its suprisingly
clear to see when you watch the programme.

And I see the Americans still havent changed - they still operate on a
purely political basis eg the Iraq war. Personally Im very embarrassed that
Britain had anything to do with helping America in this illegal operation. I
wont be voting for Blair thats for sure.

In fact it seems that we are one of the only countries who didnt join the
second world war without thinking they had something politic - I think it
was very noble of Britain to help Poland and France out like that losing
many people in the process.

In fact its also very similar to the First World War which Ive been watching
in World War One in Colour - its enlightening to also see just how many
countries simply joined in the First World War (most of the countries in
Europe in fact) just becuase they felt they had something to gain from it,
i.e. territory.

Its a sad world we live in, and made even worse by the fact that we are
still thinking this way today.
--

Regards
Nats

'It's life, Jim, but not as we know it'
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 12:11:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <d4u0t4$aqo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk says...
> Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it very
> enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got so
> sidelined by Eisenhower for example. Cheeky - the Americans to come into the
> war late like that with very little war experience compared to Monty who had
> a vast experience gained in the desert - and sideline him whilst taking all
> the credit for taking Berlin with the Russians! Just why did we even let the
> Americans to do that? Now I know why quite a few people in this country
> treat Americans so warily!
>
> But also interesting to see that this battle of wits with Eisenhower led to
> Monty making the biggest mistake of his career with Arnhem. Its suprisingly
> clear to see when you watch the programme.
>
> And I see the Americans still havent changed - they still operate on a
> purely political basis eg the Iraq war. Personally Im very embarrassed that
> Britain had anything to do with helping America in this illegal operation. I
> wont be voting for Blair thats for sure.
>
> In fact it seems that we are one of the only countries who didnt join the
> second world war without thinking they had something politic - I think it
> was very noble of Britain to help Poland and France out like that losing
> many people in the process.
>
> In fact its also very similar to the First World War which Ive been watching
> in World War One in Colour - its enlightening to also see just how many
> countries simply joined in the First World War (most of the countries in
> Europe in fact) just becuase they felt they had something to gain from it,
> i.e. territory.
>
> Its a sad world we live in, and made even worse by the fact that we are
> still thinking this way today.

Maybe you should find a political group.
--

Epi

------------
Have you ever noticed NPR stations only play
classical and jazz music, yet 9x% percent of
their stories on music are on rock groups.
Hmmm...Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
April 30, 2005 12:11:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Nats" <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 4u0t4$aqo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it very
> enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got so
> sidelined by Eisenhower for example. Cheeky - the Americans to come into
the
> war late like that with very little war experience compared to Monty who
had
> a vast experience gained in the desert - and sideline him whilst taking
all
> the credit for taking Berlin with the Russians! Just why did we even let
the
> Americans to do that? Now I know why quite a few people in this country
> treat Americans so warily!
>
> But also interesting to see that this battle of wits with Eisenhower led
to
> Monty making the biggest mistake of his career with Arnhem. Its
suprisingly
> clear to see when you watch the programme.
>
> And I see the Americans still havent changed - they still operate on a
> purely political basis eg the Iraq war. Personally Im very embarrassed
that
> Britain had anything to do with helping America in this illegal operation.
I
> wont be voting for Blair thats for sure.
>
> In fact it seems that we are one of the only countries who didnt join the
> second world war without thinking they had something politic - I think it
> was very noble of Britain to help Poland and France out like that losing
> many people in the process.
>
> In fact its also very similar to the First World War which Ive been
watching
> in World War One in Colour - its enlightening to also see just how many
> countries simply joined in the First World War (most of the countries in
> Europe in fact) just becuase they felt they had something to gain from it,
> i.e. territory.
>
> Its a sad world we live in, and made even worse by the fact that we are
> still thinking this way today.
> --
>
> Regards
> Nats
>
> 'It's life, Jim, but not as we know it'


<yawn>












>
>
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 12:11:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Nats wrote:
> Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it very
> enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got so
> sidelined by Eisenhower for example.

Monty wasn't "sidelined." He was placed in command of all ground forces
for Operation Overlord (the D-Day invasion), and afterwards he was given
command of one of an entire Army Group. Given the preponderance of
American men and equipment in the allied armies after June '44, why
would you expect anything better?


Cheeky - the Americans to come into the
> war late like that with very little war experience compared to Monty who had
> a vast experience gained in the desert - and sideline him whilst taking all
> the credit for taking Berlin with the Russians!

Sheesh! I doubt that documentary you watched said the Americans
participated in the capture of Berlin. Likewise, I'm sure the US never
"took credit" for it.


> Just why did we even let the Americans to do that?

WIthout the US, there would have been no invasion of the Continent,
other than Dieppe-style nuisance raids. Simply put, the vast majority
of the Allied armies required to defeat Nazi Germany were *not* British.
Had the US managed to stay out of the war in Europe, it might very
likely have ended when the Red Army finally reached the Atlantic!


> Now I know why quite a few people in this country
> treat Americans so warily!

<laughter!> You're attitude contrasts markedly with that reported of
your countrymen in 1942-45!


> But also interesting to see that this battle of wits with Eisenhower led to
> Monty making the biggest mistake of his career with Arnhem. Its suprisingly
> clear to see when you watch the programme.

<snicker!> Judging from this post, it seems that a lot of nonsensical
notions seem "surprisingly clear" to you.


> And I see the Americans still havent changed - they still operate on a
> purely political basis eg the Iraq war. Personally Im very embarrassed that
> Britain had anything to do with helping America in this illegal operation. I
> wont be voting for Blair thats for sure.

Non sequitur. What does the Montgomery - Eisenhower relationship,
and/or the American participation in WW2 have to do with Iraq in the
present? As I pointed out above, Monty was given a command commensurate
with the amount of British troops under allied command. He wasn't
shuffled aside, nor were his talents ignored for "political reasons."
Surely you aren't trying to claim that the USA got involved in WW2 for
"purely political reasons!"


> In fact it seems that we are one of the only countries who didnt join the
> second world war without thinking they had something politic - I think it
> was very noble of Britain to help Poland and France out like that losing
> many people in the process.

You are clearly ignorant of the long British tradition of opposing the
strongest power on the continent by creating ties with the lesser
powers. And by the way, this policy wasn't adopted for the benefit of
anyone but Britain.


> In fact its also very similar to the First World War which Ive been watching
> in World War One in Colour - its enlightening to also see just how many
> countries simply joined in the First World War (most of the countries in
> Europe in fact) just becuase they felt they had something to gain from it,
> i.e. territory.

I think you need to watch a *lot* more TV programs!


> Its a sad world we live in, and made even worse by the fact that we are
> still thinking this way today.

"Thinking?" Hoo-boy! ;-)
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 12:34:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:1175hc75s7amd89@corp.supernews.com...
> Nats wrote:
> > Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it very
> > enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got so
> > sidelined by Eisenhower for example.
>
> Monty wasn't "sidelined." He was placed in command of all ground forces
> for Operation Overlord (the D-Day invasion), and afterwards he was given
> command of one of an entire Army Group. Given the preponderance of
> American men and equipment in the allied armies after June '44, why
> would you expect anything better?
>
>
> Cheeky - the Americans to come into the
> > war late like that with very little war experience compared to Monty who
had
> > a vast experience gained in the desert - and sideline him whilst taking
all
> > the credit for taking Berlin with the Russians!
>
> Sheesh! I doubt that documentary you watched said the Americans
> participated in the capture of Berlin. Likewise, I'm sure the US never
> "took credit" for it.
>
>
> > Just why did we even let the Americans to do that?
>
> WIthout the US, there would have been no invasion of the Continent,
> other than Dieppe-style nuisance raids. Simply put, the vast majority
> of the Allied armies required to defeat Nazi Germany were *not* British.
> Had the US managed to stay out of the war in Europe, it might very
> likely have ended when the Red Army finally reached the Atlantic!
>
>
> > Now I know why quite a few people in this country
> > treat Americans so warily!
>
> <laughter!> You're attitude contrasts markedly with that reported of
> your countrymen in 1942-45!
>
>
> > But also interesting to see that this battle of wits with Eisenhower led
to
> > Monty making the biggest mistake of his career with Arnhem. Its
suprisingly
> > clear to see when you watch the programme.
>
> <snicker!> Judging from this post, it seems that a lot of nonsensical
> notions seem "surprisingly clear" to you.
>
>
> > And I see the Americans still havent changed - they still operate on a
> > purely political basis eg the Iraq war. Personally Im very embarrassed
that
> > Britain had anything to do with helping America in this illegal
operation. I
> > wont be voting for Blair thats for sure.
>
> Non sequitur. What does the Montgomery - Eisenhower relationship,
> and/or the American participation in WW2 have to do with Iraq in the
> present? As I pointed out above, Monty was given a command commensurate
> with the amount of British troops under allied command. He wasn't
> shuffled aside, nor were his talents ignored for "political reasons."
> Surely you aren't trying to claim that the USA got involved in WW2 for
> "purely political reasons!"
>
>
> > In fact it seems that we are one of the only countries who didnt join
the
> > second world war without thinking they had something politic - I think
it
> > was very noble of Britain to help Poland and France out like that losing
> > many people in the process.
>
> You are clearly ignorant of the long British tradition of opposing the
> strongest power on the continent by creating ties with the lesser
> powers. And by the way, this policy wasn't adopted for the benefit of
> anyone but Britain.
>
>
> > In fact its also very similar to the First World War which Ive been
watching
> > in World War One in Colour - its enlightening to also see just how many
> > countries simply joined in the First World War (most of the countries in
> > Europe in fact) just becuase they felt they had something to gain from
it,
> > i.e. territory.
>
> I think you need to watch a *lot* more TV programs!
>
>
> > Its a sad world we live in, and made even worse by the fact that we are
> > still thinking this way today.
>
> "Thinking?" Hoo-boy! ;-)


considering it was a british production i'm surprised they mentioned the
usa participated at all.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 8:53:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Nats wrote:
> Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it very
> enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got so
> sidelined by Eisenhower for example.

Hello,

I suggest you read Max Hastings: Armageddon: The Battle for Germany,
1944-1945 Knopf ISBN 0-375-41433-9. As you know Max Hastings is British
and he gives a balanced presentation.

Both the U.S and Britain allowed the Soviets to do most of the fighting
and dying. During the 3 months in East Prussia the Red Army suffered
almost as many causalities as the Anglo-American armies in the entire
north-west European campaign

Monty was lucky to keep his command and only did because the Americans
allowed it.

Ron
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 10:08:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Ron Nurmi" <rnurmi@netins.net> wrote in message
news:D 50up2$s0n$1@news.netins.net...
> Nats wrote:
> > Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it very
> > enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got so
> > sidelined by Eisenhower for example.
>
> Hello,
>
> I suggest you read Max Hastings: Armageddon: The Battle for Germany,
> 1944-1945 Knopf ISBN 0-375-41433-9. As you know Max Hastings is British
> and he gives a balanced presentation.
>
> Both the U.S and Britain allowed the Soviets to do most of the fighting
> and dying. During the 3 months in East Prussia the Red Army suffered
> almost as many causalities as the Anglo-American armies in the entire
> north-west European campaign
>
> Monty was lucky to keep his command and only did because the Americans
> allowed it.
>
> Ron

i remember my father {he was a marine} and his buds{many army} bitching
that ike let the russians into berlin and that we could/should have beaten
them there. i asked if they would have rather the 250,000 dead the ruskis
suffered for berlin alone be american boys.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 10:33:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <d4u0t4$aqo$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk says...

> Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it very
> enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got so
> sidelined by Eisenhower for example. Cheeky - the Americans to come into the
> war late like that with very little war experience compared to Monty who had
> a vast experience gained in the desert - and sideline him whilst taking all
> the credit for taking Berlin with the Russians! Just why did we even let the
> Americans to do that? Now I know why quite a few people in this country
> treat Americans so warily!

Well, you were certainly within your rights to tell us, "Bugger off, you
cheeky sods, we'll just 'andle 'itler on our own."

One wonders why this was not done.

Indeed, this strategy would have released America (and its meager
resources...) from the invasion of Europe - where we clearly were
neither needed nor wanted - and allowed us to get about the business of
dealing with Japan.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech
today, using the word =3Ftorture=3F 38 times: On the Anniversary
of the Abu Ghraib Scandal. His gloating relish in recounting
tales of America=3Fs transgressions, seared into his memory
just like John F. Kerry=3Fs mythical Christmas voyage to Cambodia,
is almost as repellent as his bloated, about-to-explode-like-
a-German-toad physical appearance. What an absolutely reprehensible
human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance
and bitterness of today=3Fs Democratic party."
- Charles Johnson
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 10:42:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <d50up2$s0n$1@news.netins.net>, rnurmi@netins.net says...

> Both the U.S and Britain allowed the Soviets to do most of the fighting
> and dying. During the 3 months in East Prussia the Red Army suffered
> almost as many causalities as the Anglo-American armies in the entire
> north-west European campaign

"Allowed?"

Interesting word, this.

> Monty was lucky to keep his command and only did because the Americans
> allowed it.

And there it is again, shining like a bright new penny.

How - *exactly* - did the American "allow" the British government to let
Monty retain his baton?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech
today, using the word =3Ftorture=3F 38 times: On the Anniversary
of the Abu Ghraib Scandal. His gloating relish in recounting
tales of America=3Fs transgressions, seared into his memory
just like John F. Kerry=3Fs mythical Christmas voyage to Cambodia,
is almost as repellent as his bloated, about-to-explode-like-
a-German-toad physical appearance. What an absolutely reprehensible
human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance
and bitterness of today=3Fs Democratic party."
- Charles Johnson
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 10:43:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <zI-dnZTj79MKT-_fRVn-3g@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...

> considering it was a british production i'm surprised they mentioned the
> usa participated at all.

Perhaps it was another instance of the BBC "sexing up" their reporting
with plain, unadulterated bullshit.

Like usual.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech
today, using the word =3Ftorture=3F 38 times: On the Anniversary
of the Abu Ghraib Scandal. His gloating relish in recounting
tales of America=3Fs transgressions, seared into his memory
just like John F. Kerry=3Fs mythical Christmas voyage to Cambodia,
is almost as repellent as his bloated, about-to-explode-like-
a-German-toad physical appearance. What an absolutely reprehensible
human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance
and bitterness of today=3Fs Democratic party."
- Charles Johnson
May 1, 2005 2:21:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> considering it was a british production i'm surprised they mentioned the
> usa participated at all.
>

I wouldn't worry too much, the OP was exactly 'representive' of the
programme in queston ...
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 4:15:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cddd3ee8a8f3b3e98a2b6@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <d50up2$s0n$1@news.netins.net>, rnurmi@netins.net says...
>
> > Both the U.S and Britain allowed the Soviets to do most of the fighting
> > and dying. During the 3 months in East Prussia the Red Army suffered
> > almost as many causalities as the Anglo-American armies in the entire
> > north-west European campaign
>
> "Allowed?"
>
> Interesting word, this.
>
> > Monty was lucky to keep his command and only did because the Americans
> > allowed it.
>
> And there it is again, shining like a bright new penny.
>
> How - *exactly* - did the American "allow" the British government to let
> Monty retain his baton?
>

monty went too far on one occasion in demanding complete control of all
allied ground forces and ike was going to throw the gauntlet down and demand
he be removed or ike would resign
alanbrooke realized that ike would win that fight and he had freddy de
guingand explain it to monty and monty promptly appologized to save his ass.
he was more tractable after that.

the u.s. was definately the senior partner and everybody but monty realized
that.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:48:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I watched the programme D-Day To Berlin and found it highly critical of
Monty. He came over as a vain-glorious warrior who was willing to
secure his place in history over the bodies of his soldiers.Patton was
shown in a more sympathetic light as a leader who wanted the war over
quickly but was hampered by fuel shortages and Eisenhower's decision to
operate on a broad front.

JL
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 4:25:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

jlinwood@aol.com wrote:
> I watched the programme D-Day To Berlin and found it highly critical of
> Monty. He came over as a vain-glorious warrior who was willing to
> secure his place in history over the bodies of his soldiers.Patton was
> shown in a more sympathetic light as a leader who wanted the war over
> quickly but was hampered by fuel shortages and Eisenhower's decision to
> operate on a broad front.
>

What an odd juxtaposition! I usually hear Monty & Patton described in
the reverse, though I don't think either case is true.

I think Montgomery was a very good general but his personality tended to
annoy his colleagues, especially his American colleagues, and he appears
to have made no effort to ameliorate this problem. His insistence on
meticulous preparations before launching any attack has been criticized
by those who would have preferred a more free-wheeling style, but Monty
was an infantryman with WW1 experience, and his successes tended to
reinforce that style of combat. Patton, in contrast, was a cavalryman
with WW1 tank experience, and his successes reinforced *his* notions on
how battles ought to be fought. Both men have records in which can be
found much to praise and also, much to criticize. But they *were*
difficult subordinates and frequently thought they knew how the war
should proceed better than Eisenhower, and they told him so. ;-)

BTW (to the OP), the American generals then serving in Europe, almost to
a man, thought Eisenhower was too *pro-British* at their expense.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:13:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:42:45 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <d50up2$s0n$1@news.netins.net>, rnurmi@netins.net says...
>
>> Both the U.S and Britain allowed the Soviets to do most of the fighting
>> and dying. During the 3 months in East Prussia the Red Army suffered
>> almost as many causalities as the Anglo-American armies in the entire
>> north-west European campaign
>
>"Allowed?"
>
>Interesting word, this.

Allowed seems like the right word. Stalin wanted Berlin for propaganda
reasons. Ike wasn't willing to shed the blood of his own troops for
what he saw as a political target so he allowed the Russians the
'glory' of taking it. Seems like a smart move on my part.
..
Rgds, Frank
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 4:45:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <IvR4QopJ=M7YGsLP+AZezYZGI+JE@4ax.com>,
fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...

> >The central point is not, I believe, that the Russians thought they
> >would hold onto those provinces but rather that they believed they would
> >be able to fight the Germans there rather than further east.
>
> If Stalin hadn't been interested in a land-grab, why invade Finland
> the first chance he got?

Well, y'see, Frank, he had these *claims*!

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech
today, using the word =3Ftorture=3F 38 times: On the Anniversary
of the Abu Ghraib Scandal. His gloating relish in recounting
tales of America=3Fs transgressions, seared into his memory
just like John F. Kerry=3Fs mythical Christmas voyage to Cambodia,
is almost as repellent as his bloated, about-to-explode-like-
a-German-toad physical appearance. What an absolutely reprehensible
human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance
and bitterness of today=3Fs Democratic party."
- Charles Johnson
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 5:54:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Also, the 20 million dead didn't include Stalin.

--

Epi

------------
Have you ever noticed NPR stations only play
classical and jazz music, yet 9x% percent of
their stories on music are on rock groups.
Hmmm...Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 12:24:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1ce2a6b5ad67387298a2c7@news-east.giganews.com:

> Is there a single part of Europe that can't "claim" virtually any
> other part?

Heck, don't limit yourself - we can virtually "claim" the US.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:28:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
{snip}
>> Is there a single part of Europe that can't "claim" virtually any
>> other part?
>
> Heck, don't limit yourself - we can virtually "claim" the US.

We are just waiting for them to see the error of their ways and rejoin the
Commonwealth. I guess that will happen about the same time the French give
us Calais back and the Germans give us Hanover.

Cheers
Martin
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:D 5clgc$21j$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk...
> "Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> {snip}
> >> Is there a single part of Europe that can't "claim" virtually any
> >> other part?
> >
> > Heck, don't limit yourself - we can virtually "claim" the US.
>
> We are just waiting for them to see the error of their ways and rejoin the
> Commonwealth. I guess that will happen about the same time the French give
> us Calais back and the Germans give us Hanover.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
>

don't you have it backwards on hanover?
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:38:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Martin Rapier" <m.rapier@shef.ac.uk> wrote in
news:D 5clgc$21j$1@hermes.shef.ac.uk:

> "Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> {snip}
>>> Is there a single part of Europe that can't "claim" virtually any
>>> other part?
>>
>> Heck, don't limit yourself - we can virtually "claim" the US.
>
> We are just waiting for them to see the error of their ways and rejoin
> the Commonwealth. I guess that will happen about the same time the
> French give us Calais back

Calais is Frankish territory, not French - as heirs of the Frankish
culture we claim it back.

> and the Germans give us Hanover.

You probably mean give England back to Hanover :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:40:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-8mdneMr4_bxo-ffRVn-gw@comcast.com...
{snip}
> don't you have it backwards on hanover?

LOL! I'm sure you could make a very strong case that Britain is actually
part of Germany, after all our language is 65% German and we have a German
monarchy...

Martin
May 9, 2005 4:39:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
>> Sudetenland and the the rest of Czechoslovakia, he had no reason to
>>expect Chamberlain to defend Poland - and he was right! Britain didn't
>>lift a finger.
>
>
> Huh? Britain immediately declared war over Poland. So did France.
>

But what did they DO - nothing - exactly what Stalin expected. Never
heard of the phony war?

Graham
May 9, 2005 5:10:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
>
>>They also had
>>"claims" on the areas of Poland they occvpied dating back several
>>hvndred years. Claims that were vpheld by western powers as late as
>>1920 as the Cvrzon line - svggested border between the newly reborn
>>Polish state and the Soviet Union. Poland conqvered the same areas in a
>>war of aggression.
>
>
> Is there a single part of Evrope that can't "claim" virtvally any other
> part?
>
>

Svre bvt there is an ethnic basis for the Cvrzon line, and Poland
grabbed the territory east of that line in a for the newborn Soviet
state very hvmiliating war less than 20 years earlier.

Graham
May 9, 2005 6:59:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> In article <qMHfe.13$D74.82@news.oracle.com>, nospam@nospam.net says...
>
>
>>>Is there a single part of Europe that can't "claim" virtually any other
>>>part?
>
>
>>Sure but there is an ethnic basis for the Curzon line, and Poland
>>grabbed the territory east of that line in a for the newborn Soviet
>>state very humiliating war less than 20 years earlier.
>
>
> I'm sure apologists for Stalin can "justify" the Iron Curtain. I'm not
> buying it.
>

It is not a question of appologizing. No body is complaining about the
French wanting Alsace back in 1918 after loosing it in 1870. Why is it
only the Russians wanting the 1920 treaty borders that is frowned upon?
In the period we are talking about it was "normal" for strong
countries to annex bits of weaker contries or whole countries,
especially if they had a "good" excuse. Between 1900 and 1945 it
happened dozens of times in Europe. And if you go back 50 years or so..
can you say Texas, California, New Mexico?

I suppose it's alright when "you" do it but if I suggest Stalin was
meerly copying the "Great" powers, and had his excuses I am an
apologist. I am not saying Stalin was great or cool or anything else
just trying to look at history without blinkers on.

Graham
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 11:57:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Graham" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:qMHfe.13$D74.82@>
> Sure but there is an ethnic basis for the Curzon line, and Poland
> grabbed the territory east of that line in a for the newborn Soviet
> state very humiliating war less than 20 years earlier.
>
> Graham
>

a war the russians started by the way. if stalin didn't attack poland in 39
the war between germany and poland id much different, the gremans weren't
running wild like popular historry seems to believe. it was the russian
invasion that stretched poland to the breaking point
May 10, 2005 1:00:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ray o'hara wrote:
> "Graham" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:qMHfe.13$D74.82@>
>
>>Sure but there is an ethnic basis for the Curzon line, and Poland
>>grabbed the territory east of that line in a for the newborn Soviet
>>state very humiliating war less than 20 years earlier.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>
>
> a war the russians started by the way. if stalin didn't attack poland in 39
> the war between germany and poland id much different, the gremans weren't
> running wild like popular historry seems to believe. it was the russian
> invasion that stretched poland to the breaking point
>
>

So now it not only is Stalin's fault the war started but if he hadn't
joined in the Poles would have beaten Germany and saved us all!

Nice to have a fall guy that no one likes (not even me). All the wars
and woes in the world from 1930 to 1956 there all his fault! And
anything bad that came after of course he laid the foundations. Without
Stalin the Afghan revolution would never have taken place, the Russians
would not have invaded. The Americans would not have trained Bin Laden
to fight the Russians and there would have been no Sept. 11. It's all
Stalin's fault!!

I would ROFL if it wasn't so sad.

Graham
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:00:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Graham" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NbZfe.1$622.29@news.oracle.com...
> ray o'hara wrote:
> > "Graham" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:qMHfe.13$D74.82@>
> >
> >>Sure but there is an ethnic basis for the Curzon line, and Poland
> >>grabbed the territory east of that line in a for the newborn Soviet
> >>state very humiliating war less than 20 years earlier.
> >>
> >>Graham
> >>
> >
> >
> > a war the russians started by the way. if stalin didn't attack poland
in 39
> > the war between germany and poland id much different, the gremans
weren't
> > running wild like popular historry seems to believe. it was the russian
> > invasion that stretched poland to the breaking point
> >
> >
>
> So now it not only is Stalin's fault the war started but if he hadn't
> joined in the Poles would have beaten Germany and saved us all!
>
> Nice to have a fall guy that no one likes (not even me). All the wars
> and woes in the world from 1930 to 1956 there all his fault! And
> anything bad that came after of course he laid the foundations. Without
> Stalin the Afghan revolution would never have taken place, the Russians
> would not have invaded. The Americans would not have trained Bin Laden
> to fight the Russians and there would have been no Sept. 11. It's all
> Stalin's fault!!
>
> I would ROFL if it wasn't so sad.
>
> Graham
>


you ave a vivid imagination, you invent posts and then reply to them.
typical of folks like you with some odd agenda.

poland could have resisted germany much better if russia hadn't attacked.
maybe even thwarted the attack.

after the treaty of brest-litovst the ukraine was independent, the russians
attacked and destroyed it , estonia ,latvia and lithuania were too, then the
ussr attacked poland{not vice versa} but i guess you're right, since the
czars had once controled those places they rightfully belonged to the ussr
and i agree that it was impudent of them to not just aquiese to soviet
demands for surrender, why those pesky poles even won their war against the
commies. what cheek.

you are a moron.

i meant the russians started the 1920 war. a war you think the russians were
justified in making as once they had controled poland and so in your mind
are entitled to it in perpetuity
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:12:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Graham" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:D jHfe.12$D74.43@news.oracle.com...
{snip}
>> Huh? Britain immediately declared war over Poland. So did France.
>
> But what did they DO - nothing - exactly what Stalin expected. Never heard
> of the phony war?

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the men of the Royal Airforce &
Royal Navy who died during the phoney war 'doing nothing'.

Martin
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 5:25:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cea69e310ea19ee98a305@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <50%fe.9$622.56@news.oracle.com>, nospam@nospam.net says...
>
> > >>But what did they DO - nothing - exactly what Stalin expected. Never
heard
> > >>of the phony war?
>
> > > I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the men of the Royal Airforce
&
> > > Royal Navy who died during the phoney war 'doing nothing'.
>
> And a reference to the "phoney war" is disingenuous at best; after all,
> the "phoney" part was followed by a rather "hot" bit, involving the
> destruction and occupation of France, the evacuation of the BEF, and the
> start of an aerial bombardment of Britain that produced significant
> casualties.

speaking of the phoney war, it became very real 65 years ago today.
a lady i know lived in the town of ecthernach lux. she was an american girl
who met and married a dentist there before the war while taking the tour of
europe after college.
she remembered hearing a blast as the germans blew up the border crossing
guard house.
she said it took three days for the column of tanks and vehicles to pass
through, the exhaust killed all the flowers.
later she was in the underground due to her language skills speaking
english,french,german and luxembourgese. she preformed quite heroically in
the battle of the bulge passing through the lines around bastogne delivering
messasges from gut off units. she has a plaque awarded by the 101st airborne
signed by general macauliffe praising and thanking her.

you never know who those old folks are or what they've done.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 5:29:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceaa79ccc4d5c4b98a308@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <KE3ge.36$622.60@news.oracle.com>, nospam@nospam.net says...
>
> > My apologies Giftzwerg for the spelling!
>
> <laughter>
>
> You're embroiled in a thread with e.e. o'hara, and *you're* apologizing
> for the spelling?
>

like i noticed or cared that he spelled your name wrong , gifty
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:28:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1A3ge.35$622.104@news.oracle.com>, nospam@nospam.net says...
>
>
> ray o'hara wrote:
> > "Graham" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:NbZfe.1$622.29@news.oracle.com...
> >
> >>ray o'hara wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Graham" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:qMHfe.13$D74.82@>
> >>>
> >>>>Sure but there is an ethnic basis for the Curzon line, and Poland
> >>>>grabbed the territory east of that line in a for the newborn Soviet
> >>>>state very humiliating war less than 20 years earlier.
> >>>>
> >>>>Graham
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> a war the russians started by the way. if stalin didn't attack poland
> >
> > in 39
> >
> >>>the war between germany and poland id much different, the gremans
> >
> > weren't
> >
> >>>running wild like popular historry seems to believe. it was the russian
> >>>invasion that stretched poland to the breaking point
> The fact is that I have several historical atlas's that show eastern
> Poland to have been inhabited by a majority of "White Russians" and
> Ukranians at the time of the treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 and
> supposedly based treaty frontiers on ethnic divides. The treaty made
> famous exceptions when it came to Germany.

Germany really cleaned up with that treaty didn't they? They did much
better in another treaty with the Russians though.

What is your opinion of Stalin. Just so we know where you say you're
coming from. He wasn't the Russian people. Just one more thing they
had to endure in their history. Others as well, of course.
--

Epi

------------
I perceive that smoking
cigarettes is very healthy for me.
Perception is reality.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:44:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <XlJfe.19$D74.110@news.oracle.com>, nospam@nospam.net says...

> It is not a question of appologizing. No body is complaining about the
> French wanting Alsace back in 1918 after loosing it in 1870. Why is it
> only the Russians wanting the 1920 treaty borders that is frowned upon?
> In the period we are talking about it was "normal" for strong
> countries to annex bits of weaker contries or whole countries,
> especially if they had a "good" excuse. Between 1900 and 1945 it
> happened dozens of times in Europe. And if you go back 50 years or so..
> can you say Texas, California, New Mexico?

And the Polish territory in question was only putatively "Russian" after
they wrested it from a Poland that had held it for centuries in the
three great partitions of the latter 18th Century... can we not, then,
per your argument, view Poland's reclamation of that territory in 1920
as just fair turnabout?

Greater point being: if you overlap every border change ever in Europe
on a blank white outline map of Europe you end up with a black map.
"This was once ours" is a horseshit argument.

--
srm
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:34:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceabeacd7c868b198a30b@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <PqydnQHlaK3mch3fRVn-tw@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
>
> > > > My apologies Giftzwerg for the spelling!
> > >
> > > <laughter>
> > >
> > > You're embroiled in a thread with e.e. o'hara, and *you're*
apologizing
> > > for the spelling?
> > >
> >
> > like i noticed or cared that he spelled your name wrong , gifty
>
> He's pretty much spelling his own name right, though - which is more
> than you can say.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg

i use all the correct letters,
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:19:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Graham" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:g7lge.10$uh7.91@news.oracle.com...
> >
> I agree to that! Having read Churchills encyclopedic history of WW2 I
> believe they were not ready in 1942 and that they got "trapped" by
> different agendas, into using the landing craft in Italy in 1943 leaving
> too little time for a '43 invasion.



the allies weren't ready to invade in 43, it was churchill and the british
who insisted the invasion be postponed and italy be substituded instead. for
himto say he was trapped is disengenuous in the extreme.
churchill gave good speeches,hee wrote very readable books.
he mishandled the royal navy in ww1,pushed the gallipoli advnture and
finally he got sacked for his incompitence. his strategic thinking in ww2
was no better and many decisisions he made led to disaster, from weakening
the western desert force at the moment of victory to send troops to greece,
a move the crippled and set back the afican campaign 2 years. the absolutly
crazed anzio fiasco was his idea, the troops needed to pul that off weren't
there and the idea of them taking rome by coup de main would have only
shortened the distance they would travel to german pow camps.
churchill was an idiot and his ww2 history is as much to cover his ass as it
is history.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:55:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On the 11 May 2005, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

> churchill gave good speeches,hee wrote very readable books.
> he mishandled the royal navy in ww1

How? After Jutland the German Grand Fleet never left port. The U-Boat
menace failed to bring Britain to its knees. Looks like a success to
me.

> pushed the gallipoli advnture

The root cause of the Gallipoli debacle was inadequate maps and charts.
It made strategic sense to try it.

> and finally he got sacked for his incompitence.

I admit I've missed this one. Reference?

> his strategic thinking in ww2
> was no better

What was the result of the Second World War?

--
Graham Thurlwell.
Jades' First Encounters Site.
http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 12:30:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ray o'hara wrote:
> "Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
> news:11859qf8eraen6e@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>ray o'hara wrote:
>>
>>> the allies weren't ready to invade in 43,
>>
>>Churchill maintained (counter to Gen. George Marshall's arguments) that
>>the Allies weren't ready to invade France, and he was *absolutely*
>
> the brits fought tooth and nail against invading france, it was only
> american persistence that got it done, he wanted to invade greece,he wanted
> to invade the blakans, he wanted to come to the aid of finland. he wanted to
> get the russians more than the germans, he never understood the russians
> were an enemy we could live with.

So it *wasn't* Churchill alone, was it?


>
>>>he mishandled the royal navy in ww1,
>>
>>That would have been big news to the Germans!
>
>
> he interfered in tactical desicisions. if jellicoe had been left alone he
> might have annihilated the germans

Name one instance where Churchill interfered in an ongoing battle.
Hell, if it weren't for Churchill, Jellicoe might not have had a fleet
strong enough to counter the Germans.


>
>
>
>>>pushed the gallipoli advnture and
>>
>>Churchill never wanted a landing, his original idea was to send a fleet
>>to force the Dardanelles which very nearly worked, and might well have
>>done so if admiral on the scene had believed in the plan as much as
>>Churchill.
>>
>>
>
> very nearly have worked, first they tried ships,then they tried land, but
> they didn't co-ordinate them, gallipoli was winnie's idea, it was a ghastly
> failure,

The Gallipoli landings were *not* Churchill's idea, in fact he argued
strongly against them. He was outvoted, and only *after* the landings
became inevitable did he throw his support fully behind them. His whole
idea was to take Turkey out of the war by old fashioned gunboat
diplomacy, not become bogged down in fighting them. He wanted to "turn
the long flank" by other means. Anchoring a British fleet in Istanbul
harbor (or so he hoped) would cause the Turkish government to return to
a state of neutrality. Invading their territory would only inflame them
and was contrary to his concept.


>>>finally he got sacked for his incompitence.{incompetence}
>>
>>He resigned as First Lord of the Admiralty to take the heat off the
>>Prime Minister. He then volunteered to command a battalion on the
>>Western Front.
>
>
> he and fisher got sacked,

Nonsense!


>
>>>his strategic thinking in ww2 was no better
>>
>>In other words, he did very well!
>
>
> right by prolonging the war in africa to make futile shows in greece and
> again in asia.

If he actually *did* "prolong" the war in Africa (and I claim he did
not), then that must be to his credit since Africa was a complete waste
of time, manpower and resources for the Germans!


> in his book"the forgotten war, the eastern front" on the eastern front in
> ww1 he tosses out a gem,"what you do,do well" by that he meant, pick a plan
> and give it full support, but as prime minister he always violated it{great
> book by the way,best on the subject}

Churchill was certainly an emotional man. He was forever charging off
at full gallop in support of whichever scheme had his attention at the
moment. That much is undeniable. When he was right as he often was, he
was spectacularly right. When he was wrong, he was likewise
spectacularly wrong. However, I think the charges you have laid against
him in this thread are ridiculous.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:50:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <MPG.1ced0490fbefd8f498a30f@news-east.giganews.com>,
giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
> In article <MPG.1cecf31eb7b4689b9896d3@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > that "only because they were attacked" applies to us too.
> >
> > That's true. Not for Roosevelt, but the American people. Be it right
> > or wrong, I find it totally understandable. You can't claim that you
> > were the savior in WWII out of the goodness of your heart then. The
> > point is, no one can say that for Russia.
>
> Nobody gets into a global war purely "out of the goodness of their
> hearts." It's nice when national interests and geopolitical realities
> happen to coincide with doing the right thing, but expecting altruism
> when the first practical result is likely to be millions of casualties
> isn't all that reasonable.

I just woke up when I replied. I didn't use the exact right words. Sue
me.
--

Epi

------------
Some people enjoy the things that money can buy.
Others just like the money itself.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 8:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ray o'hara wrote:
> "Ron Nurmi" <rnurmi@netins.net> wrote in message
> news:D 50up2$s0n$1@news.netins.net...
> > Nats wrote:
> > > Been watching the D-Day to Berlin docudrama on BBC1. Finding it
very
> > > enlightening as a British citizen. I didnt realise that Monty got
so
> > > sidelined by Eisenhower for example.
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I suggest you read Max Hastings: Armageddon: The Battle for
Germany,
> > 1944-1945 Knopf ISBN 0-375-41433-9. As you know Max Hastings is
British
> > and he gives a balanced presentation.
> >
> > Both the U.S and Britain allowed the Soviets to do most of the
fighting
> > and dying. During the 3 months in East Prussia the Red Army
suffered
> > almost as many causalities as the Anglo-American armies in the
entire
> > north-west European campaign
> >
> > Monty was lucky to keep his command and only did because the
Americans
> > allowed it.
> >
> > Ron
>
> i remember my father {he was a marine} and his buds{many army}
bitching
> that ike let the russians into berlin and that we could/should have
beaten
> them there. i asked if they would have rather the 250,000 dead the
ruskis
> suffered for berlin alone be american boys.

I don't know that you can substitute Americans for Russians and have
everything else be equal. Didn't the Russians place a lot less
emphasis on the value of human life in their tactics than the
Americans? And didn't the Germans demonstrate a big preference for
surrendering to the British or Americans rather than the Russians? So
is it likely that if it was Americans taking Berlin they would have
spent more time and effort on artillery and air strikes and exposed the
soldiers themselves to less enemy fire? And would the defenders be
more likely to surrender earlier rather than fight on desperately? I
don't know the answer to any of this but it seems to me the battle for
Berlin might have progressed much differently if it were Americans
attacking it and the casualties on both sides could have been lower.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:18:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Briarroot mentioned

>> Now I know why quite a few people in this country
>> treat Americans so warily!
>
><laughter!> You're attitude contrasts markedly with that reported of
>your countrymen in 1942-45!

"Overpaid, oversexed and over here!" was applied equally to US forces
in Australia and the UK. Don't say you've not heard THAT phrase. It's
been current for over sixty years now.
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:18:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Martin Rapier mentioned

>"Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>{snip}
>>> Is there a single part of Europe that can't "claim" virtually any
>>> other part?
>>
>> Heck, don't limit yourself - we can virtually "claim" the US.
>
>We are just waiting for them to see the error of their ways and rejoin the
>Commonwealth. I guess that will happen about the same time the French give
>us Calais back and the Germans give us Hanover.
>
>Cheers
>Martin
>
>
>
And the Welsh take back everything West of Offa's Dike, bach!
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:19:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Martin Rapier mentioned

>"ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:-8mdneMr4_bxo-ffRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>{snip}
>> don't you have it backwards on hanover?
>
>LOL! I'm sure you could make a very strong case that Britain is actually
>part of Germany, after all our language is 65% German and we have a German
>monarchy...
>
>Martin
>
>
The two kingdome (counting the Elector as King) were actually united
under William IV. It was only that the Hannoverian throne wouldn't
allow Victoria to succeed (because she was female) that they're
separated today.
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:47:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Miowarra Tomokatu wrote:
> While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
> world domination, Briarroot mentioned
>
>
>>>Now I know why quite a few people in this country
>>>treat Americans so warily!
>>
>><laughter!> You're attitude contrasts markedly with that reported of
>>your countrymen in 1942-45!
>
>
> "Overpaid, oversexed and over here!" was applied equally to US forces
> in Australia and the UK. Don't say you've not heard THAT phrase. It's
> been current for over sixty years now.
> .
>

And it was said with affection! Don't tell my *you've* never heard of
wry wit.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:57:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Miowarra Tomokatu wrote:
>
>
> There was no French political will in 1936 which would have allowed a
> military prevention of the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, let
> alone the military capability.
>

You are correct, they had no political will - but military capability?
The French had around 100 divisions counting reserves. How many did the
Germans have? Hell, if the French had just *mobilized* their armed
forces they probably wouldn't have had to march anywhere anyway, and
history might have been favorably altered. You can't win if you don't
even try.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 3:20:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On or about 5/16/2005 6:47:29 AM, Briarroot <woodsyl@iwon.com> said:
> Miowarra Tomokatu wrote:
>> While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
>> world domination, Briarroot mentioned
>>
>>>>Now I know why quite a few people in this country
>>>>treat Americans so warily!
>>>
>>><laughter!> You're attitude contrasts markedly with that reported of
>>>your countrymen in 1942-45!
>>
>> "Overpaid, oversexed and over here!" was applied equally to US forces
>> in Australia and the UK. Don't say you've not heard THAT phrase. It's
>> been current for over sixty years now.
>> .
>>
>
> And it was said with affection! Don't tell my *you've* never heard of
> wry wit.

Don't forget the rejoinder: "Underpaid, undersexed and under Eisenhower."

Cheers,

Bret
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:05:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:59:06 +0200, Graham <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:


> Why is it only the Rvssians wanting the 1920 treaty borders that is frowned vpon?

Becavse it wasn't a Rvssian ethnic territory in the first place? Trve,
it wasn't Polish either, majority of the popvlation was Ukrainian and
Belorvssian althovgh cities like Lwov and Wilna were predominantly
Polish.

The ideal solvtion for people living there wovld have been to have
their own democratic independent covntries. With that solvtion ovt of
the pictvre, the choice between Poland and Soviet Union shovld not be
that difficvlt.


Drax
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:32:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Bret Ripley wrote:
> On or about 5/16/2005 6:47:29 AM, Briarroot <woodsyl@iwon.com> said:
>
>>Miowarra Tomokatu wrote:
>>
>>>While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
>>>world domination, Briarroot mentioned
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Now I know why quite a few people in this country
>>>>>treat Americans so warily!
>>>>
>>>><laughter!> You're attitude contrasts markedly with that reported of
>>>>your countrymen in 1942-45!
>>>
>>>"Overpaid, oversexed and over here!" was applied equally to US forces
>>>in Australia and the UK. Don't say you've not heard THAT phrase. It's
>>>been current for over sixty years now.
>>>.
>>>
>>
>>And it was said with affection! Don't tell my *you've* never heard of
>>wry wit.
>
>
> Don't forget the rejoinder: "Underpaid, undersexed and under Eisenhower."
>

Heheheh! ;-)
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 6:55:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Briarroot mentioned

>Miowarra Tomokatu wrote:
>>
>>
>> There was no French political will in 1936 which would have allowed a
>> military prevention of the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, let
>> alone the military capability.
>>
>
>You are correct, they had no political will - but military capability?
>The French had around 100 divisions counting reserves. How many did the
>Germans have? Hell, if the French had just *mobilized* their armed
>forces they probably wouldn't have had to march anywhere anyway, and
>history might have been favorably altered. You can't win if you don't
>even try.

It was considered.

M. Flandin (Foreign Minister in the March 1936 Sarraut government) (1)
reported that the proposal created an "outcry" among most of his
colleagues who were "more concerned with domestic than foreign
policy". There was also a General Election due in six weeks (and we
know the effect one of THOSE has on politicians) (grin).

A post-war French parliamentary enquiry summed up the problem as "To
force three regiments of the Wehrmacht to withdraw, we had to engage
the whole French Army." Why? Because there was no unit capable of
being mobilised individually and put on a war footing.

Add to that the report on March 11th 1936, from the Fench General
Staff to the Government, that the German occupying force already in
the Rhineland Zone amounted to 90,000, comprising six to seven
divisions plus 205,000 auxiliaries amounting to fifteen divisions
making a total force strength of 295,000. This was eight times the
real strength which was nineteen infantry batallions and eighteen
artillery units for a total of 14,500 troops, plus 22,000 local police
who were to be incorporated in the army, for a grand total of 36,500
troops. Notice the absolute and continuing need for good intel as the
foundation of good policy decisions!!

Given the French losses in WWi which dictated all their defensive
strategies from 1919 to 1940, there was no hope of even sending a
military-political "message". The French government approached HM
Government for a commitment to support a French police action under
their treaty obligations to keep the Rhineland demilitarised (the
Versailles Treaty) but Stanley Baldwin the British Prime Minister is
quoted by Flandin as saying: "If there is one chance in a hundred that
war results from your police action, I do not have the right to commit
England; because England is not in a state to go to war."

It's all a fascinating "what-if" scenario and that sort of alternate
history gaming fascinates me, too.

(1) By 1936, France had had twenty-four different governments in ten
years.
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 11:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <mtao81lt8o2iprng84v41477rqpe91gdvt@4ax.com>,
not@thistime.net says...

> >> Elements of that opinion either still linger or re-surface in all
> >> democracies from time to time, but I do hope we've learned our lessons
> >> of history well enough to stamp them out before they become dangerous.
> >
> >There are still looney-tunes commies running around; witness the Marxist
> >nature of the some of the "antiglobalization" cranks.
>
> I was actually referring to the Far Right Wing armed loonies in the US
> and their Christian-Rightist political lobby groups (they really ARE
> dangerous) as well as the National Front/National Alliance in the UK
> and the assorted neo-Nazi groups in Germany.

I know you were. That's the point.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"If a Qur'an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have
justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered
the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers.
They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly.
But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had
nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and
murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged
act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad."

- Robert Spencer
!