In article
,
says...

Several men in my family fought on the Allied side during the Second World War.
One of them was a general, who made decisions that led to the killing of
thousands of men. Another of them was a private in the infantry, who dug his
own foxhole and griped about military regulations. The newspapers and the
history books might say that the general made a greater contribution than the
private toward winning the war. Yet we know that both of them did their best,
and today we honour both their memories of service equally.

Careful Nick,

You've just given Briarroot more material for
speculation as to who you a-) .

My interest is trying to work out what part of
history you specialise in. I refuse to believe that you
are one of many who wrote on Will Godwin; but then I
never got beyond "Political Justice" and some biographies
thereof. I plead guilty to devoting several minutes to
this pleasant speculation.


'Victory in Burma came, not from the work of any one man, or even of a few men,
but from the sum of many men's efforts. We all, even those among us who may have
seemed to fail, did our best. Luckily, that combined best proved good enough.'
--Field Marshal William Slim (Defeat into Victory, preface)

But first they had a hell of a licking.


Regards,

Simon.

In article ,
says...
Have you not seen Enigma or U571? The Americans practically won the war
single handedly don't you know

I can't recall a Hollywood film on HMS Thetis. This
submarine sank on its trials just before WWII broke out.
There were workman from Cammell Laird still on board. In
a desperate measure to save the crew an attempt was made
to refloat which resulted in the heel of the Thetis being
visible, just as Thetis herself once held the infant
Achilles with only the heel above water. Assuming my
memory is not at fault, a few men were saved; but 99 lost
their lives. I believe a diver got trapped and died of
the bends attempting to raise the tomb, raising the toll
to 100. An unlucky ship, but a brave crew who held their
discipline even though they knew they were going to die.

IIRC submarines nowadays have Thetis locks (or whatever
the technical name is) to prevent flooding from wrongly
opening torpedo tubes.

Maybe there's material here for a Sci-Fi film should
Hollywood choose to Americanise it.


Regards,


Simon.

Nick wrote:

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Liar) wrote:
The Americans did *not* liberate France alone, but as part of an Allied
effort. In his book, "Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation
of Paris", John Keegan also describes the contributions of the British,
Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.

While it is true the Americans did not liberate France in 1944 by themselves,
it is also true that without the American Army none of the other armies would
have been able to participate in that liberation.

The liberation of France in 1944 was an *Allied* victory, not just an American
victory. Yes, I doubt that the British, Canadians, Poles, and Free French
could have won without the support of the United States forces. And I doubt
that the United States forces could have won without the support of the British,
Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces. Why not share the credit?

Several men in my family fought on the Allied side during the Second World War.
One of them was a general,

snip

Which 'dude' might that have been Nicky Boy? & also are you a 'real'
nutter?..

_Mick

Raithmir wrote:

Have you not seen Enigma or U571? The Americans practically won the war
single handedly don't you know

(funny, I thought us brits had some hand in it somewhere. Perhaps making the
tea?)

How droll, perhaps 'you' Brits. had too much 'trouble' pulling your
snouts from the filthy 'trough' of pig addiction..

Henrik Dinesen wrote:

Don't care to much about the rest, but from my reading it appears that
Enigma was a british invention, used by the brits, but in strong
"coordiantion" with the usa...

Oh, puleese..

Chapman billy wrote:

In article ,
says...
Have you not seen Enigma or U571? The Americans practically won the war
single handedly don't you know

I can't recall a Hollywood film on HMS Thetis. This
submarine sank on its trials just before WWII broke out.
There were workman from Cammell Laird still on board. In
a desperate measure to save the crew an attempt was made
to refloat which resulted in the heel of the Thetis being
visible, just as Thetis herself once held the infant
Achilles with only the heel above water. Assuming my
memory is not at fault, a few men were saved; but 99 lost
their lives. I believe a diver got trapped and died of
the bends attempting to raise the tomb, raising the toll
to 100. An unlucky ship, but a brave crew who held their
discipline even though they knew they were going to die.

IIRC submarines nowadays have Thetis locks (or whatever
the technical name is) to prevent flooding from wrongly
opening torpedo tubes.

Maybe there's material here for a Sci-Fi film should
Hollywood choose to Americanise it.

Regards,

Simon.

Maybe, so what? Generally speaking 'movies' are a sad reflection on each
& every tiresome, tedious detail of everyday life, that's just my view
of course, but unfortunately for Hollywood, I mean it..

Perhaps we were too busy learning the meaning of sarcasm and how to read and
write proper like.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Raithmir wrote:

Have you not seen Enigma or U571? The Americans practically won the war
single handedly don't you know

(funny, I thought us brits had some hand in it somewhere. Perhaps making
the
tea?)

How droll, perhaps 'you' Brits. had too much 'trouble' pulling your
snouts from the filthy 'trough' of pig addiction..

Briarroot wrote in message ...
Nick (The Liar) wrote:
Briarroot wrote in message
...
Nick wrote to Matt Nemmers:
The Americans did *not* liberate France alone, but as part of an
Allied effort. In his book, "Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the
Liberation of Paris", John Keegan also describes the contributions of
the British, Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.

While it is true the Americans did not liberate France in 1944 by
themselves, it is also true that without the American Army none of the
other armies would have been able to participate in that liberation.

Here's how General Douglas MacArthur of the United States, the Supreme
Allied Commander in the South Pacific theatre of the Second World War, and
his staff reported on the contributions of the Australian forces under his
command:

"Whenever a communique came from MacArthur's headquarters, it was prefaced
with 'American and Allied forces...' even if there were only a dozen
Americans involved. If there were *no* Americans involved, the communique
would begin with the phrase, 'Allied forces...' ... many Australians
bitterly resented MacArthur's glorification of himself and American forces."
--Eric Bergerud (Touched with Fi the Land War in the South Pacific,
p. 248)
(Bergurud is an American military historian.)

Not only is this completely irrelevant, but it wanders off on a tangent. A
practice which you consistently attempt in your role as Anti-US Propagandist.

On the contrary, the *relevant observation* here is that some
Americans, such as General MacArthur's headquarters and apparently
several writers in this newsgroup, seem to disdain *sharing the
credit* for the Allied victories in the Second World War with any
non-American forces or peoples. Instead, those proudly "flag-waving"
Americans evidently prefer to believe that the United States won the
Second World War essentially on its own, and they seem to resent my
suggestion (in another post) that the credit should be *shared*
among all the Allies.

I have met a Canadian veteran who said that he has become tired of
hearing how Americans (usually non-veterans) boast about the United
States alone "saving Canada" from being conquered during the Second
World War. Those Americans tend to assume ignorantly that Canada
entered the war only *after* the United States did. He told me,
sarcastically, that he expected that if the 1942 raid on Dieppe
(of the 5000 Allied troops the 70% were Canadians; 1% were
Americans) had succeeded, then those Americans would have claimed
it as a "great American victory".

"Australians, after all, provided the bulk of the land forces in
New Guinea until 1944 and a large portion of the U.S. Fifth Air
Force....In 1942 and 1943 Australia's war effort was *central* to
Allied success. When the American war machine appeared in strength
in 1944 and the war moved into the Central Pacific and Philippines,
this ceased to be so."
--Eric Bergurud (Touched with Fi the Land War in the
South Pacific, p. 249)

(Was Eric Bergurud guilty of writing "anti-American propaganda"?)

How many Americans would know that "in 1942 and 1943 Australia's
war effort was central to Allied success" in the South Pacific
theatre of operations?

Here's one Australian soldier's account of an Australian officer
who summarily executed some Japanese medical corps prisoners-of-war
because he preferred not to waste any rations on feeding them.
(He was not court-martialled.):

"The battle of Oivi turned into a slaughterhouse affair. Our movement was too
swift...for the Japanese to escape. Many Japanese tried to cross the Kumusi
River. A few succeeded, but most drowned or committed suicide. But some
medical corps Japs were captured. They had put up their hands, the only time
I ever heard of that happening. And one of our officers shot all of them in
cold blood. He was proud of it and boasted of it. He had been decorated, but
was quite mad really. His explanation: We would have to supply guards and food
for them back to Moresby! Well, this disturbed a lot of men. They no longer
trusted him and the padres never spoke to him. Neither did many men, and that
included postwar reunions. Headquarters did send an enquiring party to question
witnesses but no one would come forward."
--Bill Crooks (quoted in "Touched with Fire", pp. 423-4)

In the thread, "OT Dresden teapots" (16 August 2003), "Briarroot" wrote:
"...The bottom line is that there is only one moral imperative in war.
That is to win for your side, while preserving as many of the lives of
*your own* troops as possible. If killing every single enemy civilian can
save the lives of a single one of your soldiers, it is the task of Generals
to see that it happens...."

In the thread, "OT Dresden teapots" (17 August 2003), "Briarroot" wrote:
"What I did was point out the obvious; that if all of the enemy are dead, then
the war is over and can be considered to have been successfully concluded.
This has been long been the model of war making by the human race. Recent
European tradition (inherited by their former colonies) in the last several
centuries has moderated this model, but the older system is still sound...."

Here's a link to information on the international Genocide Convention:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/

'Victory in Burma came, not from the work of any one man, or even of a few men,
but from the sum of many men's efforts. We all, even those among us who may have
seemed to fail, did our best. Luckily, that combined best proved good enough.'
--Field Marshal William Slim (Defeat into Victory, preface)

--Nick

Raithmir skrev:
Perhaps we were too busy learning the meaning of sarcasm and how to read and
write proper like.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

Raithmir wrote:

Have you not seen Enigma or U571? The Americans practically won the war
single handedly don't you know

(funny, I thought us brits had some hand in it somewhere. Perhaps making

the

tea?)

How droll, perhaps 'you' Brits. had too much 'trouble' pulling your
snouts from the filthy 'trough' of pig addiction..




Sarcasm, ironi and maybe some misinformations..?!
One thing is certain though: This thread is a really helpful one, for
those who wants to use software for chess purposes...

"Raithmir" wrote in message ...
Have you not seen Enigma or U571?

Actually, I have watched the 2001 British film, 'Enigma', directed by Michael
Apted, with its screenplay by Tom Stoppard, which was based on the novel by
Robert Harris. But I doubt that was what you really meant in your question.

The Americans practically won the war single handedly don't you know

I know that evidently many, if not most, Americans prefer to continue believing
that's an 'indisputable historical fact', and some of them also like to keep
saying it in public (whenever they are not too busy worshipping their flag).

"The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One" by
John Mosier, an American professor of English (not history), is a popular
history (2001) that attempts to prove that the United States "practically
won the war (yes, the First World War) single-handedly". As far as I know,
the reviews from professional military historians have been quite unfavourable
(e.g. "This is the worst type of military history." --John Childs, University
of Leeds), but most reviews by non-historians in the United States have been
favourable. I have little doubt that, notwithstanding the historical evidence
and the well-considered views of better historians, many Americans will prefer
to believe Mosier's conclusions.

(funny, I thought us brits had some hand in it somewhere.

And which Hollywood films could you cite as compelling 'historical evidence'
on behalf of your conjecture? :-)

Perhaps making the tea?)

Someone used to tell me that most Americans fail to appreciate the value
of tea. And evidently many Americans don't quite understand the value of
'sharing the credit' with their 'allies'.

A Russian (whose brother was working for the BBC) once told me that one
American had beem boasting to him that the *United States alone* had "saved
Russia" from being conquered by Hitler. That American seemed to believe that
the Soviet Union had done little, if any, fighting against Germany in the war.
The Russian (who had grown up in Volgograd, formerly Stalingrad) asked the
American if he had ever heard of the decisive Soviet victory in the Battle
of Stalingrad. The American immediately replied that the United States must
deserve *full credit* (presumably on account of supplying Lend-Lease ordnance,
which actually was a minor factor at most in Stalingrad) for the Allied
(at least, he did not say 'American') victory in the Battle of Stalingrad.
When the Russian disagreed, the American promptly accused him of having been
'brainwashed by anti-American propaganda'. Perhaps that American could write
a 'popular history' article with the title, "Stalingrad: Why the Battle Must
be Remembered as a Great American Victory".

Nick wrote:
The liberation of France in 1944 was an *Allied* victory, not just an
American victory. Yes, I doubt that the British, Canadians, Poles, and
Free French could have won without the support of the United States forces.
And I doubt that the United States forces could have won without the
support of the British, Canadian, Polish, and Free French forces.
Why not share the credit?

'Victory in Burma came, not from the work of any one man, or even of a few
men, but from the sum of many men's efforts. We all, even those among us who
may have seemed to fail, did our best. Luckily, that combined best proved
good enough.'
--Field Marshal William Slim (Defeat into Victory, preface)

--Nick