 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / June 2004_While Britain Slept_
Your own damned fault. You people dropped your guard in the 1920's and 1930's and did not look to your National Security. You are still paying for that egregious mistake. History has a long memory. Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill warned you and you contemptuously, ignorantly and arrogantly ignored him. Then you expected a complete bail-out from the American People for your foolishness over 20 years? No Way! You are a sovereign nation -- you must be responsible, in the final analysis, for your own fate. This is not kindergarten or bean bag. "The cortege was coming toward the steps. We looked out the window: a perfect tableaux of ceremonial excellence from every branch of the armed forces. Mrs. Thatcher watched. She turned and said to me, "This is the thing, you see, you must stay militarily strong, with an undeniable strength. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated."" Peggy Noonan Get over the idea that the "guv'nor" or Lord will always bail you out and set you right again after you screw up. We call that the "Plantation Mentality" here in Hawai'i -- a state of Permanent Dependence. Your silly-buggers British CLASS System has further served to accentuate, deepen and intensify your failure. Let's hope you learned your lesson well and will not make THAT stupid mistake again ---- but quite obviously you have not -- since we still hear this whining, bleating and caterwauling from many of you. The first responsibility of a government, ANY government, is to PROTECT and DEFEND its people. Your governments, both Conservative and Labour, failed in that sacred duty before the Second World War. Dereliction Of Duty -- Directly Attributable to the British People who ELECTED those Governments. There Is No Free Lunch -- Ignorance, Sloth, Arrogance, Mindless Pacifism, Appeasement And Stupidity will inevitably lead to Tragedy, Sorrow And Tears. That's what happened to Britain in the 1930's. You thought you could just sit quietly in your tight little islands, sip tea, eat fish and chips and Yorkshire pudding, cultivate your own little gardens and say -- "What, Me Worry" -- and you did NOT have the protection of two broad oceans ---- which is what saved America. No More. Wake Up British Ragamuffins, Laggards, Sluggards and Blaggards. If you had YOUR WAY Britain would today be making the SAME mistakes she made in the 1930's. YOU are the short-sighted dunderheads who would dump Tony Blair, your Prime Minister, and his National Security policies if you could. -- Blair UNDERSTANDS these lessons, whereas too many, certainly NOT all, of you Brits do NOT. Now, go out into Trafalgar Square again, get blind drunk, deface statues, defecate in the streets and make arrant fools of yourselves. Great Entertainment for the rest of us -- even better than watching your pond-scum, ragamuffin, soccer [football] hoodlums. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum. "Trust But Verify" "Freddie Clark" <fredclark@SPAM@loxinfo.co.th> wrote in message news:cam89d$56j$1@news.loxinfo.co.th... | Who mentioned the US taxpayer??, We repaid the Government of the US with | whom the Lend-Lease deal had been struck. The repayment and terms of the | deal also included provisions other than straight cash payment. | | from the Memoirs of Harold Wilson | "Lend-Lease also involved Britain's surrender of her rights and royalties in | a series of British technological achievements. Although the British | performance in industrial techniques in the inter-war years had been marked | by a period of more general decline, the achievements of our scientists and | technologists had equalled the most remarkable eras of British inventive | greatness. Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear | research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world. | Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of | the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the | United States. Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for | these inventions, both our wartime and our post-war balance of payments | would have been very different. | The Attlee Government had to face the consequences of this surrender of our | technological patrimony, but there was worse to come. Congress had voted | Lend-Lease until the end of the war with Germany and Japan and no longer. | When the European war ended, most people expected the conflict with Japan to | last for another year or so. The atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima | ended that assumption. Almost within the hour, President Truman, unwillingly | no doubt, but without any choice in the matter, notified Attlee that | Lend-Lease was being cut off. At that time it was worth 」2,000 million a | year. There was no possible means of increasing our exports to the United | States to earn that sort of sum. Britain was in pawn, at the very time that | Attlee was fighting to exert some influence on the postwar European | settlement. The only solution was to negotiate a huge American loan, the | repayment and servicing of which placed a burden on Britain's balance of | payments right into the twenty-first century." | | regards | | Freddie I know I shouldn't, but . . . > Your own damned fault. > > You people dropped your guard in the 1920's and 1930's and did not look > to your National Security. You are still paying for that egregious > mistake. History has a long memory. Is that supposed to refer to your idea of the causes of World War II? I'm surprised at your ignorance. > Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill warned you and you contemptuously, > ignorantly and arrogantly ignored him. Ain't hindsight grand? In the 1920s, Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Warmongering wasn't his brief. > Then you expected a complete bail-out from the American People for your > foolishness over 20 years? > > No Way! You forget. You joined the fray. Made millions out of it through US-won-the-war-singlehandedly movies. > You are a sovereign nation -- you must be responsible, in the final > analysis, for your own fate. This is not kindergarten or bean bag. The rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s was rejected by Britain. That it was something which then dominated Europe wasn't Britain's fault or of her creation, but it was the fate of us all. But isn't it a strange thing. You, too, are a sovereign nation. You, too must responsible, in the analysis, for your own fate. The USA is still in the kindergarten. She didn't come to help her friends until some of her own toys were damaged. > "The cortege was coming toward the steps. We looked out the window: a > perfect tableaux of ceremonial excellence from every branch of the armed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Plantation Mentality" here in Hawai'i -- a state of Permanent > Dependence. We are aware of the mentality of some parts of Hawai'i. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the residence if they have similar snobbish views. The USA is not the "guv'nor" or "Lord" of Britain. We are allies. America is too conceited for her own good, just like an excited toddler, and you, unfortunately for the rest of your nation, are the personification of that childishness. > Your silly-buggers British CLASS System has further served to > accentuate, deepen and intensify your failure. Actually, the American CLASS System has always been much stronger than the British one. But where the British system was based on education and training (unfortunately, attainable only by virtue of birth) the American system was based fairly on money. It still is. That is why America is like a greedy child. > Let's hope you learned your lesson well and will not make THAT stupid > mistake again ---- but quite obviously you have not -- since we still > hear this whining, bleating and caterwauling from many of you. You never learn your lessons at all. You go on making the same mistakes decade after decade. > The first responsibility of a government, ANY government, is to PROTECT > and DEFEND its people. > > Your governments, both Conservative and Labour, failed in that sacred > duty before the Second World War. What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? Britain helped to defend her allies. Allies, as well as munitions, are vital in self-defence. You think Britain should not have rushed off to defend Poland, and that the USA should not have helped to defend Allied Europe? > Dereliction Of Duty -- Directly Attributable to the British People who > ELECTED those Governments. Time to go back to the clinic. > There Is No Free Lunch -- Ignorance, Sloth, Arrogance, Mindless > Pacifism, Appeasement And Stupidity will inevitably lead to Tragedy, > Sorrow And Tears. As America finds out, decade after decade. > That's what happened to Britain in the 1930's. You thought you could > just sit quietly in your tight little islands, sip tea, eat fish and > chips and Yorkshire pudding, cultivate your own little gardens and > say -- "What, Me Worry" -- and you did NOT have the protection of two > broad oceans ---- which is what saved America. America can be complacent in her isolation. Britain never has that luxury. She has near neighbours, not all of whom have always been her friends. In Britain in the 1930s, people could not afford to sip tea and eat fish and chips. Many were starving because of the recession. Just as they were in much of the rest of Europe and in America as well. > No More. > > Wake Up British Ragamuffins, Laggards, Sluggards and Blaggards. > > If you had YOUR WAY Britain would today be making the SAME mistakes she > made in the 1930's. And what mistakes would they be? Not adopting fascism? Ignoring the plight of our friends and neighbours? > YOU are the short-sighted dunderheads who would dump Tony Blair, your > Prime Minister, and his National Security policies if you could. -- > Blair UNDERSTANDS these lessons, whereas too many, certainly NOT all, of > you Brits do NOT. Blair has lied to his cabinet and lied to the nation. Blair understands not one iota of history. He certainly does not look to the past for either his inspiration or for lessons to be learned. He has ruled without cabinet, meaning he has not deferred to or debated with the people who represent us. He is a show-business politician who started his student days with longings of being a rock star. His wife is the daughter of a man who was a popular heart-throb characters in a highly-popular 1960s comedy show. The daughter of a man who had 7 (lost count) daughters by different mothers, few of whom he bothered to marry. When he did marry, he married the soap opera queen of the day, Elsie Tanner of Coronation Street. Blair can act his way out of a paper bag. He can say just what you want to hear. > Now, go out into Trafalgar Square again, get blind drunk, deface > statues, defecate in the streets and make arrant fools of yourselves. While you embark on your cruise-ships and eat so much you need a wheelchair to get to your table. > Great Entertainment for the rest of us -- even better than watching your > pond-scum, ragamuffin, soccer [football] hoodlums. Or the shoot-outs and living computer games on the other side of the pond which result in so many unncessary deaths. No nation is perfect. Yours, least of all. This is the worst, most silly post I have seen you make. I cannot believe your ignorance. > D. Spencer Hines > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum. Veni, Vidi, Carry him to the Asylum. Renia > The rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s was rejected by Britain. That > it was something which then dominated Europe wasn't Britain's fault or > of her creation, but it was the fate of us all. No, the UK and France could have stopped Hitler when he first took troops into the DMZ. They didn't. Maybe Hitler would can decided to cut a deal with Poliand and taken a chunk out of Russia. > > The rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s was rejected by Britain. > > That it was something which then dominated Europe wasn't Britain's > > fault or of her creation, but it was the fate of us all. > No, the UK and France could have stopped Hitler when he first took > troops into the DMZ. They didn't. And the likely reaction of the USA? It's an interesting What If...? and I don't like the idea of an Allies (UK & France) versus Axis (Germany, Italy, Spain, USA) conflict with the USSR waiting to pick up the pieces.  SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines Right! 7 March 1936 -- Hitler marched his troops into the Rhineland and reoccupied it ---- while the vapid, wimpish, British and French did NOTHING. Hitler's generals were ready to topple him if the British and French had had the courage to call Hitler's bluff. They DIDN'T....they were FECKLESS and UNPREPARED. Hitler had rearmed -- Britain had not. Don't blame the United States for that disastrous blunder. Renia Stulta, like many Brits, doesn't know her own History. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor | > The rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s was rejected by Britain. That | > it was something which then dominated Europe wasn't Britain's fault or | > of her creation, but it was the fate of us all. [Renia Stulta Simmonds] | No, the UK and France could have stopped Hitler when he first took | troops into the DMZ. They didn't.... >Right! > >7 March 1936 -- Hitler marched his troops into the Rhineland and >reoccupied it ---- while the vapid, wimpish, British and French did >NOTHING. Actually if you read up the French were quite alarmed and tried desperately to get British and world opinion to help push them back. they just were not equipped to do it on their own. ________ Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world. > Actually if you read up the French were quite alarmed and tried > desperately to get British and world opinion to help push them back. > they just were not equipped to do it on their own. They were. :>Right! :> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :desperately to get British and world opinion to help push them back. :they just were not equipped to do it on their own. Yes, they only had more and better armor than anyone else in Europe. What they weren't equipped with was the guts to act. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > 7 March 1936 -- Hitler marched his troops into the Rhineland and > reoccupied it ---- while the vapid, wimpish, British and French did > NOTHING. What exactly do you suggest the British do? While marching on Berlin sounds nice it isn't going to happen unless the French will play... SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > 7 March 1936 -- Hitler marched his troops into the Rhineland and > > reoccupied it ---- while the vapid, wimpish, British and French did [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > While marching on Berlin sounds nice it isn't going to happen unless the > French will play... What could the Brits have done? Well, they could have assembled a mobile yet heavily armed force at a channel port and made the offer to the French of "assisting" them (the French) in removing the German miliary from the DMZ. This would have given the Frogs a little more backbone. If "done right" the operation would have resulted in hundreds of German POWs. This would have been a major embarassment to the German military and given THEM the backbone to stand up to Hitler & co. Of course, we will never know, will we. > > 7 March 1936 -- Hitler marched his troops into the Rhineland and > > reoccupied it ---- while the vapid, wimpish, British and French did [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > is no basis for a system of government The British signed a naval agreement with Hitler in 1935. > > While marching on Berlin sounds nice it isn't going to happen unless the > > French will play... "Marching on Berlin" wasn't called for. Marching on the DMZ was. Either Frank or England actually pulled it off (England, of course, needed 'Permission" to move its troops over France. > > -- > > William Black [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The British signed a naval agreement with Hitler in 1935. So? Nothing to do with the DMZ. > > > 7 March 1936 -- Hitler marched his troops into the Rhineland and > > > reoccupied it ---- while the vapid, wimpish, British and French did [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > While marching on Berlin sounds nice it isn't going to happen unless the > > French will play... > The British signed a naval agreement with Hitler in 1935. I think you'll find that the naval treaties of the 'thirties had more signatories than just the UK and Germany. Ever heard of 'Cherry Trees'? SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government >> The British signed a naval agreement with Hitler in 1935. > > I think you'll find that the naval treaties of the 'thirties had more > signatories than just the UK and Germany. Actually, I think you'll find the 1935 London Naval Treaty was an Anglo-German treaty. > Ever heard of 'Cherry Trees'? Yes, but that phrase came from the Washington Treaty of the 20s, a referred to HMS Nelson & Rodney. SignatureNik Simpson >>> The British signed a naval agreement with Hitler in 1935. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, I think you'll find the 1935 London Naval Treaty was an > Anglo-German treaty. Whoops, the Treaty I'm thinking of wasn't the London Treaty, but it was a purely Anglo-German affair signed in 1935 which supposedly limited Germany to 35% of the tonnage of the RN. SignatureNik Simpson >>The rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s was rejected by Britain. That >>it was something which then dominated Europe wasn't Britain's fault or >>of her creation, but it was the fate of us all. > > No, the UK and France could have stopped Hitler when he first took troops > into the DMZ. They didn't. Both countries were still recovering from the previous war and were at pains to avoid another one. The British Labour party took what we would describe today as a politically correct view: avoid war. If the previous war was ugly, another war would be even uglier. They thought appeasement was worth trying. Besides, the events in Manchuria had sucked up some of Britain's resources, there was an impending difficult General Election, and they were trying to snuggle up with Mussolini and catch Italy as an ally, seeing Communism as a far greater threat than fascism. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, particularly when not all the component parts of events are taken into consideration. Things were far more complicated than even this. > Maybe Hitler would can decided to cut a deal with Poliand and taken a chunk > out of Russia. Can you rephrase that 2nd para? But presumably you suggest Hitler may have wanted to annexe Poland in order to attack Russia, with Poland's connivance? Hitler had just become Best Friends with Stalin, a means to an end, of course, so it may have been part of his plan, but the Polish Corridor was not the best way to achieve this. Renia > > Maybe Hitler would can decided to cut a deal with Poliand and taken a chunk > > out of Russia. > > Can you rephrase that 2nd para? But presumably you suggest Hitler may > have wanted to annexe Poland in order to attack Russia, with Poland's > connivance? On the diplomatic front the Hitler "administration" attempted the wheel and deal with anyone and everybody to double team against a 3rd country. With Russian, Germany invaded Poland. With Poland, Germany could have taken on other neighbors of Poland. Just look at a map. THE mistake between the wars was the unwillingness of the French to act when the Germans sent troops into the DMZ. This was 100% a French mistake. The PC crowd doesn't like this because "France suffered during WWII." It's still unpopular because of the obvious parallel between the US action in Gulf War II and the events of the mid 30's. >The PC crowd doesn't like this because "France suffered during WWII." It's >still unpopular because of the obvious parallel between the US action in >Gulf War II and the events of the mid 30's. Which of course is nonsense. what kind of appeasement is it when on Gulf 1, we kicked the snot out of Saddam's military. Destroyed virtually all of his armament, reduced it by over a 100,000 soldiers, and left it weak and feeble. And then commenced military fly overs over 2/3rds of the country, and injected inspectors to gauge compliance. Saddam had no capability for expansion (as pre 9-11 quotes from both Powell and Rice attested). He'd made no aggressive moves since 1993. The folks who call this appeasement are blowing smoke and trying to justify an optional war by false comparison. ________ Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world. :>>The rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s was rejected by Britain. That :>>it was something which then dominated Europe wasn't Britain's fault or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :war was ugly, another war would be even uglier. They thought appeasement :was worth trying. And yet you chastise the United States for not wanting to be dragged into yet another European war? I see. Britain screwed up, so it is our fault that we didn't step in right away and rescue them when it all hit the fan and GIVE them everything instead of foolishly expecting them to BUY it. :> Maybe Hitler would can decided to cut a deal with Poliand and taken a chunk :> out of Russia. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :an end, of course, so it may have been part of his plan, but the Polish :Corridor was not the best way to achieve this. So why go to war over Poland (with only one of the aggressors involved and not both) when you wouldn't go to war over the Saar, Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc? Signature"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill snip > So why go to war over Poland (with only one of the aggressors involved > and not both) when you wouldn't go to war over the Saar, Austria, > Czechoslovakia, etc? snip Britain only had a treaty with Poland, Fred. Jamie :snip : [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : :Britain only had a treaty with Poland, Fred. Which they didn't really make until she was threatened. Why wait? Why do you need a treaty to act against a country which is violating the peace treaty you made with her that ended the last war between you? If your reasoning is that Britain only had a treaty with Poland (it doesn't require a treaty obligation to take action), why not declare war on both aggressors who attacked Poland? [I know the excuse, uh, answer. Do you?] SignatureYou are What you do When it counts. > :snip > : [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > [I know the excuse, uh, answer. Do you?] OK Fred, why didn't the US declare war on Germany when they invaded Czechoslovakia? I tell you why Britain didn't, because in my grandmother's fire-place was a WWI shell that held the pokers, on the mantelpiece was the photographs of the fallen brothers. What was your excuse? Jamie :> :snip :> : [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :OK Fred, why didn't the US declare war on Germany when they invaded :Czechoslovakia? Because it was viewed as a European issue. :I tell you why Britain didn't, because in my grandmother's fire-place :was a WWI shell that held the pokers, on the mantelpiece was the :photographs of the fallen brothers. So, after using the excuse that Britain had a treaty with Poland for why Britain declared war over Poland and not over the others, you want to dredge this in? So, would you care to answer the original question I asked, which was why, if the treaty with Poland was the reason, did Britain only declare war on *ONE* of the aggressors and not both of them? As I said before, I know the excuse that is offered for this. :What was your excuse? Don't need one. Hitler was a European problem that could have been solved by Europe if you had only acted. But you didn't, and now you whine about us not bailing you out FAST enough. Feh! Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > :> :snip > :> : [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > why Britain declared war over Poland and not over the others, you want > to dredge this in? Just pointing out why appeasement was so strong. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it, how did Nev and the Frogs know, that acting over the Rhineland wouldn't strengthen Hitler's position with army? Btw, the point about my grandmother, would apply even more strongly to every French grandmother of her generation. > So, would you care to answer the original question I asked, which was > why, if the treaty with Poland was the reason, did Britain only > declare war on *ONE* of the aggressors and not both of them? Wouldn't have been a wise thing to do, better to try to get them at each others throats, Germany was seen as the biggest threat to Britain. Presumably if Hitler had complied with the Anglo-French ultimatum, then the Soviets would have been given the same ultimatum. > As I said before, I know the excuse that is offered for this. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Feh! I haven't whined about anything, I pointed out to you that Britain was only obliged to come to Poland's aid. Britain had no more or less moral duty to act before this than the US. Btw, if the US had acted at an early stage then possibly there would have been no Soviet - Japanese non aggression pact, and probably no Pearl Harbour. Jamie > > :> :snip > > :> : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > :> the peace treaty you made with her that ended the last war between > > :> you? And you, btw > > :> If your reasoning is that Britain only had a treaty with Poland (it > > :> doesn't require a treaty obligation to take action), why not > declare > > :> war on both aggressors who attacked Poland? > > :> > > :> [I know the excuse, uh, answer. Do you?] OK Fred, lets here your version, and we will compare it to Chamberlain's and Churchill's. Jamie snip :> > :> :snip :> > :> : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : : And you, btw Most of the punitive stuff was put in over our objections, btw. And Germany, being smack in the middle of Europe, was still viewed as a European problem, btw. :> > :> If your reasoning is that Britain only had a treaty with Poland (it :> > :> doesn't require a treaty obligation to take action), why not declare [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :OK Fred, lets here your version, and we will compare it to Chamberlain's :and Churchill's. The usual excuse offered by UKians is that the treaty with Poland only called out invasion by Germany, so it was therefore somehow 'ok' for the USSR to invade Poland (even acting in concert with Germany) and they get a 'pass' when it comes to the UK declaring war on folks for invading Poland. Of course, the fact that such an agreement was made in such a carefully circumscribed manner at a time when it was obvious that Germany was going to take German land appropriated at the end of WWI and used to create Poland back from Poland makes it pretty obvious that the UK was merely trying to set up a situation where the government could say to the people, "They started it." Given that, why wait until German is strong and there is nothing you can effectively do right away? It's pretty clear that the purpose of the agreement was not to protect the Poles, but just to have an excuse to point to for getting into a war with Germany. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > :> > :> :snip > :> > :> : [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > the agreement was not to protect the Poles, but just to have an excuse > to point to for getting into a war with Germany. So Nev was really a warmonger and not an appeaser. Britain declared war, September 3rd two days after Germany invaded, the Soviet's moved on the 17th to the line where the Tsar's army had asked for an armistice in WW1.. This was the line Stalin had asked for when the Anglo-Franks had asked him to guarantee Poland's border, when this was turned down, he asked how many divisions can France deploy against Germany, 30 came the answer, and how many can Britain deploy, 2 and 2 later came the reply. Two later, he said raising his eyebrows, I will have to deploy 300 if I agree to this. Btw, using your logic Britain and France should have declared war on Poland as well as Germany over Czechoslovakia. Jamie >From: Fred J. McCall fmccall@earthlink.net >:What was your excuse? > >Don't need one. Hitler was a European problem that could have been >solved by Europe if you had only acted. Or, by extension, it was a continental problem which _France_ could have solved if they had wanted to. Why did they need Britain? SignatureMike Stone - Peterborough England No war is over till the _losers_ say it is On 6/15/04 2:46 PM, in article canj9t$a01$2@usenet.otenet.gr, "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote: > Actually, the American CLASS System has always been much stronger than > the British one. But where the British system was based on education and > training (unfortunately, attainable only by virtue of birth) the > American system was based fairly on money. It still is. That is why > America is like a greedy child. I hold no brief for Spencer Hines, God knows, but I have to comment on the foregoing: the clam that "the American CLASS System has always been much stronger than the British one" is utter balderdash. I can rise above some levels of ignorance but this calumny is so egregious, it requires an answer. In the history of mankind success in no society has ever been based as much on merit and as little on social position as that of the United States. Further, I think that most Brits recognize that this is so. While I admire the British, I don't admire their class consciousness. Unlike some of the criticisms leveled here by Brits against Margaret Thatcher, we Americans pay little attention to the diction of our leaders and are unconcerned by their failure to have attended ritzy public schools, or by the fact that their fathers may have been -- gasp -- "in trade." Grey Satterfield > On 6/15/04 2:46 PM, in article canj9t$a01$2@usenet.otenet.gr, "Renia" > <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > failure to have attended ritzy public schools, or by the fact that their > fathers may have been -- gasp -- "in trade." Grey, a quick reading of the post that you quite rightly criticise from 'Brits' that demean Margaret Thatcher for being a Grocer's daughter - seem to come from Left wing demi-communists. IMHO, the biggest and loudest protestors of Margaret Thatcher's upbringing and education are the sons-of-toil and ivory-tower academics who've either never done an honest days work or perversely come up with statements such as 'I'm only an "engineer" and I take pride in not understanding how a company functions'. Britain is not a class obsessed country occupying some black-and-white grainy fog-bound scenario existing in the minds of USA-ian audience. It's a vibrant dynamic world that has brought jet-engines, Television, Radar, etc. etc to a more-or-less grateful world. The turbulence of UK society is expressed perhaps in the saying;- from Rags to Riches and back to Rags in three generations. However, as an admirer of most^Wsome things North American even I recognise that the Kennedy Family scions didn't exactly spring unaided from the Massachusetts [1] soil to their prominence in your Federal Political schema. The Governator _is_ a remarkable -but excoriated, and mocked for his accent- example of 'the American Dream' but otherwise it certainly seems to help if one's Daddy can pay for schooling at the Private establishments that so many of the rich and famous seem to have attended. BTW, the Leaders of the (current) Opposition party Thatcher, Major, Hague (Scot) and Howard are from your lower classes. The nuLabor elite are the products of public (fee-paying) schools. BTW2 - Am I the only one to notice the inappropriateness of starting a thread entitled "_While Britain Slept_" by someone purportedly ex-USN and resident in Hawaii? The monster only awoke _after_ it had been given a bloody big poke! Remind me, who declared war on whom in 1941? SignatureBrian [1] Thank goodness for spell checkers; that place has too many consonants. >BTW2 - Am I the only one to notice the inappropriateness >of starting a thread entitled "_While Britain Slept_" by >someone purportedly ex-USN and resident in Hawaii? >The monster only awoke _after_ it had been given a >bloody big poke! Remind me, who declared war on whom >in 1941? I'd thought the same thing, but he conditioned his opening remark with something about Britain not be protected by isolation with two large oceans. ________ Conservatives whine about the Liberals controlling the world like the Nazis whined about the Jews controlling the world. perversely come up with > statements such as 'I'm only an "engineer" and I take pride > in not understanding how a company functions'. I do hope that isn't an attack on me, because if it is you can take it back. I know exactly how a company functions, what I always objected to was not being allowed to know what was going on. > BTW, the Leaders of the (current) Opposition party Thatcher, > Major, Hague (Scot) and Howard are from your lower classes. > The nuLabor elite are the products of public (fee-paying) schools. Howard sits outside of the English class system (and it is English), he is Jewish and the child of immigrants. Hague was born in Wentworth in Yorkshire and went to Harrogate Grammar School, and as such is certainly middle class. Thatcher was certainly the product of the same Grammar School system. Major is interesting, there's a year or so missing when he seems to have lived on his wits on the streets of Brixton prior to going into politics with the old GLC where he made his reputation burning out the old reactionary racist and sexist 'Church and State' Tories from the London Conservative Party. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government . Of course in the USA such a gap would be political suicide... -- William Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > perversely come up with > > statements such as 'I'm only an "engineer" and I take pride > > in not understanding how a company functions'. > > I do hope that isn't an attack on me, because if it is you can take it > back. You're condemmed out of your own mouth (keyboard) > I know exactly how a company functions, what I always objected to was not > being allowed to know what was going on. The sentence contains two parts - I know how a company functions and .. not being allowed to know what was going on. The two parts contradict each other. Unless the company that employed you was a privately owned proprietry enterprise or a Partnership then it must have filed Annual Accounts with Company House - you used the term 'Directors' so it can't have been privately owned.. That you boast of 'not knowing what was going on ' indicates that you don't know how a company operates. The term 'Limited' is a health warning not an award. You apparently based your own and possibly your family's wealth and expectations on the viabilty of a company that you boast hadn't a clue of how vunerable it was in the marketplace. If you wanted to know about the company or 'what was going on' did you obtain a company status report from (say) Dunn & Bradshaw. How did they rate the company? What dividend did it pay? What was the issued share capital? What was the size of their indebtenss? When was it due? What was the average delay in it paying its creditors? All information in the public domain availbale to anyone - who wants to know what is going on. The information is public and the set of population 'allowed' to know is _everyone_! Now, go run a whelk stall and learn how a company functions! > > BTW, the Leaders of the (current) Opposition party Thatcher, > > Major, Hague (Scot) and Howard are from your lower classes. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > reactionary racist and sexist 'Church and State' Tories from the London > Conservative Party. Why have you missed out his experience with a Bank "Standard & Chartered"? And his RTA resulting in a broken knee then repatriation to England before entering politics. But you've certainly added detail to the fact of the Conservative Party being the party of opportunity which recognises ability and doesn't demand class-background for its politicians. SignatureBrian > Unless the company that employed you was a privately owned proprietry > enterprise or a Partnership then it must have filed Annual Accounts with > Company House - you used the term 'Directors' so it can't have been > privately owned.. That you boast of 'not knowing what was going on ' > indicates that You por sad little man. Do you know just how hard it was to get that sort of information in the mid to late seventies? I did what checking you could do in those days, which was to look at a list of companies held in most large libraries compiled by a large city 'intelligence' company along with an evaluation of their health. . > you don't know how a company operates. The term 'Limited' is a health > warning not an award. You apparently based your own and possibly your > family's wealth and expectations on the viabilty of a company that you > boast hadn't a clue of how vunerable it was in the marketplace. Silly man. It was a job, in the Britain of the late seventies that was all that mattered If you > wanted to know about the company or 'what was going on' did you obtain > a company status report from (say) Dunn & Bradshaw. What did that cost then? How did they rate > the company? What dividend did it pay? What was the issued share capital? It paid no share dividend and the share capital was £100, all owned by the directors or their wives, as is still the case with most small companies in the UK. > What was the size of their indebtenss? When was it due? > What was the average delay in it paying its creditors? > All information in the public domain availbale to anyone - who wants to > know what is going on. The information is public and the set of population > 'allowed' to know is _everyone_! But not easily available in those days. No net, expensive charges and nobody really chasing companies that didn't submit accounts (which my employer hadn't done for the three years before they went bust) > Now, go run a whelk stall and learn how a company functions! I have run my own comapny, and have run several others over the years, and so far I'm doing ok thank you. How many companies have you broken so far? > > Major is interesting, there's a year or so missing when he seems to have > > lived on his wits on the streets of Brixton prior to going into politics [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Chartered"? And his RTA resulting in a broken knee then repatriation > to England before entering politics. Because the fact that he was a banker isn't interesting. Bankers aren't, they're boring. Major became a banker after he entered politics, probably as a pretend job fixed for him by the party I'm more interested in Major before he became boring... SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > Unless the company that employed you was a privately owned proprietry > enterprise or a Partnership then it must have filed Annual Accounts with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 'allowed' to know is _everyone_! > Now, go run a whelk stall and learn how a company functions! None of which tells you anything about how it *functioned*. There's a lot, lot more going on behind publicly displayed figures! Surreyman > Major is interesting, there's a year or so missing when he seems to have > lived on his wits on the streets of Brixton prior to going into politics > with the old GLC where he made his reputation burning out the old > reactionary racist and sexist 'Church and State' Tories from the London > Conservative Party. So was Major a product of the Grammar School system - although he hated it. I was there with 'im! Surreyman >On 6/15/04 2:46 PM, in article canj9t$a01$2@usenet.otenet.gr, "Renia" ><renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >failure to have attended ritzy public schools, or by the fact that their >fathers may have been -- gasp -- "in trade." We've been here bofore, about 3 years ago, when I raised the question of the old rhyme; Here's to dear old Boston, Home of the bean and the cod. Where the Lowells speak only to the Cabots, And the Cabots speak only to God. (IIRC) A society that can produce that little gem is not immune from class-conciousness. Mike - M.J.Powell On 6/16/04 8:12 AM, in article Ijx1zzOzcE0AFwYC@pickmere.demon.co.uk, "M. J. Powell" <mike@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On 6/15/04 2:46 PM, in article canj9t$a01$2@usenet.otenet.gr, "Renia" >> <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > A society that can produce that little gem is not immune from > class-conciousness. This is certainly true but, to paraphrase an immortal line from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," "we got better." :>) More seriously, the social relationships of a few Eastern Seaboard elites had little to do with the social structure of the United States as a whole. Even in the 19th Century, while folks such as the Lowells and the Cabots took themselves seriously, most other Americans did not. Americans generally have always believed that they were limited only by their own skill and ambition and that that their parents' social status had little to do with their ability to succeed. Grey Satterfield :Americans :generally have always believed that they were limited only by their own :skill and ambition and that that their parents' social status had little to :do with their ability to succeed. And that's still true. Oh, it would help to start rich and connected, but I can't complain. Signature"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky when it comes to killin' folks." -- William Munny, "Unforgiven" > More seriously, the social relationships of a few Eastern Seaboard elites > had little to do with the social structure of the United States as a whole. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > skill and ambition and that that their parents' social status had little to > do with their ability to succeed. Perhaps you mean white, anglo-saxon protestant male Americans. SignatureDrew ---- "Not to engage in this pursuit of ideas is to live like ants instead of like men." - Mortimer J. Adler On 6/17/04 10:22 PM, in article lridnQhwr6GD_U_d4p2dnA@comcast.com, "Drew Nicholson" <anicholson16@comcast.net> wrote: >> More seriously, the social relationships of a few Eastern Seaboard elites >> had little to do with the social structure of the United States as a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Perhaps you mean white, anglo-saxon protestant male Americans. Since this is Usenet, I had figured that someone would play the race card. I thought of the race problem in the United States before I posted but didn't mention it because I immediately recognized it for what it was: a separate issue, beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. Grey Satterfield > On 6/17/04 10:22 PM, in article lridnQhwr6GD_U_d4p2dnA@comcast.com, "Drew > Nicholson" <anicholson16@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > didn't mention it because I immediately recognized it for what it was: a > separate issue, beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. Actually, the race issue in the US is also a class issue. And it's not beond the scope. Most americans do not believe that their parents' social status has little to do with their ability to succeed. SignatureDrew ---- "Reputation is what others know about you. Honour is what you know about yourself. Guard your honour and let your reputation sort itself out." -- Aral Vorkosigan (paraphrased) :Actually, the race issue in the US is also a class issue. Bullshit. :And it's not beond the scope. Most americans do not believe that their :parents' social status has little to do with their ability to succeed. More bullshit. If most Americans believe as you do (they don't), it would be because your lot have been lying them into being professional victims. In my opinion, your sort are the worst racists, with your claims that people cannot succeed without 'special treatment' because of the colour of their skin. Signature"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates > On 6/15/04 2:46 PM, in article canj9t$a01$2@usenet.otenet.gr, "Renia" > <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > failure to have attended ritzy public schools, or by the fact that their > fathers may have been -- gasp -- "in trade." But, as discussed in previous posts, they're happy to adopt folksy farmboy images to appear to be the common man. As far as 'pretentious class' goes, same difference. I think, if you re-read, you'll see that most UK posters here have decried Thatcher's *pretence*, not the fact that her father was a grocer. A genuine man (or woman) of *whatever* class is admired here. A pretentious person of whatever class is not. The 'class' bit is already there. One, you or Hines cannot grow it. Just recently I was at the funeral of a local man of very modest means and even less achievement, but who was universally liked. The person giving the eulogy ended with the words "He was a gentleman". That said, and says, it all. Surreyman > I know I shouldn't, but . . . > > You are a sovereign nation -- you must be responsible, in the final > > analysis, for your own fate. This is not kindergarten or bean bag. > > The rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s was rejected by Britain. That > it was something which then dominated Europe wasn't Britain's fault or > of her creation, but it was the fate of us all. It isn't a question of whose fault it was. It was Hitler's "fault". It is a matter of being responsible for your own national security. Hitler could have easily been stopped once he started violationg treaty. Long before he invaded Poland, he was clearly a threat, clearly in violation of treaty, and easily stopped. Britian admirably stood in the way of a completely Fascist Europe. The English sacrificed so much for the benefit of the entire world. No one should bash the English for their part in WWII. However that does not change the fact that a little pre-emptive "war mongering" is often the best chance for peace. The result of pacifism in Europe in the 1930's was world war in the 1940's. > But isn't it a strange thing. You, too, are a sovereign nation. You, too > must responsible, in the analysis, for your own fate. The USA is still > in the kindergarten. She didn't come to help her friends until some of > her own toys were damaged. Actually she did. She sent supplies to Britain for some time before 12/7/1941. But as for participating in WWII, no the US waited until too long to help. And who was it that helped the US in the Pacific? > Actually, the American CLASS System has always been much stronger than > the British one. The dumb paragraph of the week trophy is awarded to you. > > The first responsibility of a government, ANY government, is to PROTECT > > and DEFEND its people. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? Germany was in violation of treaty once (really before) it announced the existance of a standing army. It should have been stopped then. Hindsight is 20/20. In the 1930's, the world was weary of war and pacifists had no idea what scourge they were allowing to build. It is wrong for any person today to say that they would have thought the same way if they had been born in 1890. We didn't know then what we know now--that you cannot appease evil. The real mistake is in forgetting what we did learn. >And who was it that helped the US in the Pacific? Well, we were fighting there too from the start of the overt war (ever heard of Singapore? It was meant to be nearly as impregnable as the Philippines...) Also, we *did* lend you a carrier - HMS Victorious - for Pacific work in 1942 when losses and damage had depleted your fleet and the formidable war-winning output of the US shipyards had not yet got replacements into service. (This isn't meant to be a 'we did more for you than you did for us' claim, BTW - but HMS Victorious' loan to the USN is as little remembered as the USN sending the USS WASP to ferry fighters to Malta. A lot of mutual assistance went on that has since been forgotten) SignatureHe thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk Please tell us more about HMS Victorious in U.S. Service ---- some trenchant stories, dates and campaigns would be good. Thanks. DSH | >And who was it that helped the US in the Pacific? | [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | | Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk > Please tell us more about HMS Victorious in U.S. Service ---- some > trenchant stories, dates and campaigns would be good. Ah yes, USS Robin. I've been trying to determine if USS Robin was an official name/designation, or just a nickname. On 6/16/04 5:07 PM, in article 96Il6KUoSM0AFwek@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk, "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> And who was it that helped the US in the Pacific? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > war-winning output of the US shipyards had not yet got replacements into > service. To suggest that Great Britain did not help us to the full extent of her ability to do so in WW-II is, not to put too fine a point on it, ill-informed. Grey Satterfield > On 6/16/04 5:07 PM, in article 96Il6KUoSM0AFwek@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk, "Paul > J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ability to do so in WW-II is, not to put too fine a point on it, > ill-informed. That is true. But to suggest that we were the only nation that refused to help its allies when asked is also ill-informed. The US didn't think she was completely unable to help, or she wouldn't have asked. > > I know I shouldn't, but . . . > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > And who was it that helped the US in the Pacific? The Chinese were already at war with the number one threat to US security. Japan was going to go to war with the US at some point. > > Actually, the American CLASS System has always been much stronger than > > the British one. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > know now--that you cannot appease evil. The real mistake is in > forgetting what we did learn. > > Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message > news:<canj9t$a01$2@usenet.otenet.gr>... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > The Chinese were already at war with the number one threat to US security. Anyone else? The situation in Europe in 1935 was far more complicated than you people seem to realize. The USSR had been virtually unhindered by the great depression and was rapidly becoming an industrial and military force that seriously threatened the security of Western Europe. Lenin's rantings in the 20's about bringing peace to Europe on the points of bayonets had thoroughly alarmed them. Stalin's succession continued the situation even further. The Soviet Union had the resources and the population to engulf Europe. It would have taken the combined resources of Britain, France and Germany to prevent this catastrophe. That is why Britain and France DELIBERATELY allowed German rearmament . Unfortunately Germany was ruled by a maniac who who couldn't see where Germany's best interests lay.He double crossed them and by 1939 Britain and France saw him as at least as big a threat as Russia. That's why they declared war on Hitler when he invaded Poland. Now they wanted to use Russia against the German monster they had created. The rest is history. <snip> > That's what happened to Britain in the 1930's. You thought you could > just sit quietly in your tight little islands, sip tea, eat fish and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you had YOUR WAY Britain would today be making the SAME mistakes she > made in the 1930's. "What, me worry" indeed. I'm afraid thier criminally stupid, JUVENILE mindset hasn't changed one bit since the 1930s. Witness the unique - and uniquely retarded - British obsession with pop music. Of all things! Hey UK ragamuffins, are you already betting on the 'Christmas No.1' this year? LOL! Tell me, what kind of a nation allows two goals in overtime - in a game that was already won?! Double LOL!!! Ah well, always good for a laugh. <wipe tear> And, as Frankee says, f.ck you right back! Hilarious! >"What, me worry" indeed. I'm afraid thier criminally stupid, JUVENILE >mindset hasn't changed one bit since the 1930s. Witness the unique - and >uniquely retarded - British obsession with pop music. Of all things! I'm so bored with the U...S...A... But what can I do? Yankee detectives Are always on the TV 'Cos killers in America Work seven days a week Never mind the stars and stripes Let's print the Watergate Tapes I'll salute the New Wave And I hope nobody escapes I'm so bored with the U...S...A... But what can I do? -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL On 6/15/04 5:27 PM, in article crtuc0trh57k47cdgqr3ii3o1mdgsk8u3u@4ax.com, >> "What, me worry" indeed. I'm afraid thier criminally stupid, JUVENILE >> mindset hasn't changed one bit since the 1930s. Witness the unique - and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I'm so bored with the U...S...A... > But what can I do? We all have our strengths and weaknesses. :>) Grey Satterfield >On 6/15/04 5:27 PM, in article crtuc0trh57k47cdgqr3ii3o1mdgsk8u3u@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Grey Satterfield It was not meant as a generic attack on the USA but aimed at an individual. -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL :It was not meant as a generic attack on the USA but aimed at an :individual. Then it was badly done. And that regardless of the stupidity of cross-posting what is intended to be a personal attack on an individual (worded in such a way as to be a swipe at an entire country) to 5 newsgroups. You are a moron. [See, that's how you do a personal attack. No doubt in anyone's mind that it is aimed at one specific individual and it's obvious who that individual is. And I didn't even have to smear the rest of Britain to do it.] Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > > Wake Up British Ragamuffins, Laggards, Sluggards and Blaggards. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hilarious! Where is the hilarity in consistently exhibiting total lack of originality emulating the contorted prose of an inveterate loon? Morris, the eternal sycophant and dull-witted as the come, picks up Mr. Hines fights in his protective shadow, and laughs all the way to making himself the buffon's buffon. He reminds me of a little nasty guy I knew once. He followed one of the neighborhood's notorious bullies and always managed to get in a kick or two of his own when the bully beat someone up. But one day the bully moved out of town and little Morris was not to be seen. He skirted the back alleys from A to B but eventually he was caught, pushed into a corner, and taken apart. He begged abjectly before anyone even touched him but it did him no good and such is that many in the neighborhood rejoiced at hearing his screams and seeing him take a bath in his own tears, blood, and urine. Morris' story in USENET looks the same, virtually. > > Wake Up British Ragamuffins, Laggards, Sluggards and Blaggards. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hilarious! Where is the hilarity in consistently exhibiting total lack of originality emulating the contorted prose of an inveterate loon? Morris, the eternal sycophant and dull-witted as the come, picks up Mr. Hines' fights in his protective shadow, and laughs all the way to making himself the buffon's buffon. He reminds me of a little nasty guy I knew. He followed one of the neighborhood's notorious bullies and always managed to get in a kick or two of his own when the bully beat someone up. But one day the bully moved out of town and little Morris was not to be seen. He skirted the back alleys from A to B but eventually he was caught, pushed into a corner, and taken apart. He begged abjectly before anyone even touched him but it did him no good and such is that many in the neighborhood rejoiced at hearing his screams and seeing him take a bath in his own tears, blood, and urine. Morris' story in USENET looks the same, virtually. >YOU are the short-sighted dunderheads who would dump Tony Blair, your >Prime Minister, and his National Security policies if you could. -- >Blair UNDERSTANDS these lessons, whereas too many, certainly NOT all, of >you Brits do NOT. Hurrah for Blair and his fellow English Socialists. To Gordon Brown, the longest serving Chancellor of modern times, certainly the best Labour one ever and possibly the best of any party. I can get you the posters so you can be the envy of all your neighbours in Hawaii. -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL Here's an intelligent post on this topic: ------------------------- Re: Finally: The Intellectuals Take a Stand by "susupply" <susupply@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 15, 2003 at 08:52 AM "William F Hummel" <wfhummel@[EMAIL PROTECTED] who don't know much about history, wrote in message news:f5r67v49qjg2v0rbpurekmfgut38tshda1@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Anyone who thinks the French were an effective fighting force > vis-a-vis the Germans doesn't understand either the French or the > Germans under Hitler. That would include Germany's General Blomberg who was recommending to Hitler that he withdraw the German forces. And also, then Colonel, later General, Alfred Jodl, who testified at Nuremburg: "Considering the situation we were in, the French covering army could have blown us to pieces." In fact, it includes Hitler himself. As William Shirer put it: << [The French army] could have [destroyed Hitler's forces]-and had it, that almost certainly would have been the end of Hitler, after which history might have taken quite a different and brighter turn than it did, for the dictator could never have survived such a fiasco. Hitler himself admitted as much. "A retreat on our part," he conceded later, "would have spelled collapse. " It was Hitler's iron nerves alone, which now, as during many crises that Lay ahead, saved the situation and, confounding the reluctant generals, brought success. But it was no easy moment for him. "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland Paul Schmidt, his interpreter, heard him later say, "were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance. Shirer puts quite a bit of blame on the British for not supporting the French in military action: <<... it must also be recorded that [Hitler] was aided not only by the hesitations of the French but by the supineness of their British allies. The French Foreign Minister, Pierre ]etienne Flandin, flew to London on March 11 [1936] and begged the British government to back France in a military counteraction in the Rhineland. His pleas were unavailing. Britain would not risk war even though Allied superiority over the Germans was overwhelming. As Lord Lothian remarked, "The Germans, after all, are only going into their own back garden." >> Note that: "Allied superiority over the Germans was overwhelming"." --------------------------------------------------------- As to Renia Stulta? Well, she has blotted her copybook again. Pity... But Hilarious. Both Edward Wood, later Lord Halifax [3rd Viscount Halifax] and Anthony Eden [later 1st Earl of Avon] were deeply regretful about Britain's sorry-arsed performance in March 1936. Read, Mark, Learn And Inwardly Digest, Renia Stulta. John 5:14 D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum. "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:... | Right! | [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | | No, the UK and France could have stopped Hitler when he first took | | troops into the DMZ. They didn't.... Bingo! <Fx> Mournful, weepy violin being played off-stage, left. "[But] it was the fate of us all." Renia Stulta Simmonds --------------------- Hilarious! How airy-fairy can you get? Renia Stulta Simmonds will demonstrate for us, folks. Renia Stulta, the Left-Wing, Blair-Hating, Lady Bountiful of SHM squeaks, er speaks -- or rather EMOTES -- from the air-filled caverns of her empty, pointy little head. How Sweet It Is! I'll bet even Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda are not this farblondjet, misinformed, historically illiterate and clueless, Virginia. "Loverly...." D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum. | | > The rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s was rejected by | | > Britain. That it was something which then dominated Europe wasn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | No, the UK and France could have stopped Hitler when he first took | | troops into the DMZ. They didn't.... Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill -- Speech in the House of Commons on the resignation of Anthony Eden as Foreign Secretary -- 22 February 1938 ------------------------------------------------ "The resignation of the late Foreign Secretary may well be a milestone in history. Great quarrels, it has been well said, arise from small occasions but seldom from small causes. The late Foreign Secretary adhered to the old policy which we have all forgotten for so long. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have entered upon another and a new policy. The old policy was an effort to establish the rule of law in Europe, and build up through the League of Nations effective deterrents against the aggressor. Is it the new policy to come to terms with the totalitarian Powers in the hope that by great and far-reaching acts of submission, not merely in sentiment and pride, but in material factors, peace may be preserved.? A firm stand by France and Britain, under the authority of the League of Nations, would have been followed by the immediate evacuation of the Rhineland without the shedding of a drop of blood; and the effects of that might have enabled the more prudent elements of the German Army to gain their proper position, and would not have given to the political head of Germany the enormous ascendancy which has enabled him to move forward. Austria has now been laid in thrall, and we do not know whether Czechoslovakia will not suffer a similar attack." Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill -- Speech in the House of Commons on the resignation of Anthony Eden as Foreign Secretary -- 22 February 1938 -------------------------------------- This was LONG before the Munich Conference of September 1938 -- when Czechoslovakia was ALSO effectively surrendered to Hitler without a fight. You Brits should have listened to WINSTON. You did NOT -- so you SUFFERED. You are still paying the price for those mistakes. The Wages Of Sin, Sloth And Stupidity.... And many millions of you have been just as cowardly about Saddam and Al Qaeda today. Just as you would not listen to Winston in the 1930's you will not listen to Blair in the first decade of the 21st Century and you accuse him of lying to the British People. You simply DON'T LEARN from your MISTAKES. Yes, we have millions of the same sort of ignorant, arrogant, ragamuffins, appeasers, pacifists, America-haters and other assorted low-lifes in the United States. There is no doubt about that. 'Nuff Said. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum. re D Hines june 15 Was Britain the only one unprepared? You haven't watched newsreels of GI' s in 1940 drilling with broomsticks instead of rifles, on maneuvers with trucks marked TANK. Pearl Harbor defended by fighter aircraft the pilots nicknamed "flying turkeys"?? Russia so ill prepared they lost 6,000 aircraft in the first in the first week of the blitzkrieg. Four million Russian prisoners in the first six months. In 1939 Britain sunk the Graf Spee, and bombed Berlin, in 1940 the Royal Air Force taught the Luftwaffe that the skies over over Britain belong to Britain and no one else. They shot down down enough Jerry aircraft to make parts of England look like a German junk yard. In 1941 the Royal Navy sunk the Bismark and in 1942 mauled the kriegsmarine so much that Hitler eventually decided to scrap the surface fleet. continuation of previous post. General rule number 1 Don't knock Britain! General rule number 2 Don't knock JFK! Another a.s kicking awaits on that Bubba's book silliness when you care to reply!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.