Suck on reality you royal scumbag RFC historical revisionists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm

Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College
London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von
Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet
Union, under the lend-lease agreement
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.

Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the
significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but
that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.

Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received
from their allies.

"You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a
Willis is!" he says.

"The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final
stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces'
mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success
than if we had not such help."

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, zero conscience wrote:
> Suck on reality you royal scumbag RFC historical revisionists:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm
>
> Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College
> London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von
> Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:
>
> Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
> The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet
> Union, under the lend-lease agreement
> The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.
>
> Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the
> significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but
> that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.

Russians invented everything, from the airplane to television. To hear
Russians tell the story.

> Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received
> from their allies.
>
> "You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a
> Willis is!" he says.

A Willys. Also a Studebaker.

Soviet trucks built on American designs were produced into the 1960s.

>
> "The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final
> stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces'
> mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success
> than if we had not such help."

The only equipment the Soviet Union had for amphibious invasion was
supplied by the US. Luckily the atomic bombs ended the war before the
Soviets' lack of experience in amphibious invasion became an issue.

On 27/09/2015 10:24 pm, zero conscience wrote:
> Suck on reality you royal scumbag RFC historical revisionists:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm
>
> Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College
> London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von
> Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:
>
> Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
> The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet
> Union, under the lend-lease agreement
> The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.
>
> Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the
> significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but
> that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.
>
> Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received
> from their allies.
>
> "You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a
> Willis is!" he says.
>
> "The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final
> stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces'
> mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success
> than if we had not such help."

BUT YOU RAN OFF IN 'NAM!

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:19:00 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> The only equipment the Soviet Union had for amphibious invasion was
> supplied by the US. Luckily the atomic bombs ended the war before the
> Soviets' lack of experience in amphibious invasion became an issue.

The war in Europe was over before the atomic bombs were deployed.

A major impact was the attack on pearl Harbor. Without this the USA would not have entered the war so soon or their entry would have been delayed. There were a large number of powerful leaders that supported or were sympathetic towards Germany. This is generally forgotten.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 2015-09-28 8:29 AM, Helpful person wrote:

>
> The war in Europe was over before the atomic bombs were deployed.
>
> A major impact was the attack on pearl Harbor. Without this the USA
> would not have entered the war so soon or their entry would have been
> delayed. There were a large number of powerful leaders that
> supported or were sympathetic towards Germany. This is generally
> forgotten.

It may be forgotten in the US. Some of us are well aware of it. When we
hear Americans claiming to have saved Europe's butt twice we are all to
well aware of the fact that the US did not enter WWI until 1917 and
wasn't a presence in Europe until 1918, when things were already turning
against Germany, and we remember that in WW II the US sat out for more
than two years while its allies fought the Nazis.

wrote:
> The other thing overlooked is that it was Lend Lease and it is only
> recently, a couple of years ago, that the UK stopped paying the US
> back for all the loans. One of the reasons the German economy
> thrived, it didn't have to pay anything after 1945, in fact the US
> lavished them with gifts.

That's one thing about the US. Once we win, we give the country back
to level heads and help them to move on and prosper. Japan is a good
example of that too.

This reminds me of the old Peter Sellers movie, "The Mouse that
Roared." They were a suffering tiny country so they came up with this
plan to attack the US. Theory was...once the US wins the war, they
will help us to build up the economy.

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 8:55:13 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-09-28 8:29 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >
> > The war in Europe was over before the atomic bombs were deployed.
> >
> > A major impact was the attack on pearl Harbor. Without this the USA
> > would not have entered the war so soon or their entry would have been
> > delayed. There were a large number of powerful leaders that
> > supported or were sympathetic towards Germany. This is generally
> > forgotten.
>
> It may be forgotten in the US. Some of us are well aware of it. When we
> hear Americans claiming to have saved Europe's butt twice we are all to
> well aware of the fact that the US did not enter WWI until 1917 and
> wasn't a presence in Europe until 1918, when things were already turning
> against Germany, and we remember that in WW II the US sat out for more
> than two years while its allies fought the Nazis.

However, it is probably true that the war in Europe would have probably been lost if the USA did not enter the war.

http://www.richardfisher.com

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> and we remember that in WW II the US sat out for more
> than two years while its allies fought the Nazis.

And you forget that the US was sending many supplies to allies even
before we entered the war. Give the US credit there. We did help
before and we helped much more when we started sending troops. Without
the US, it's questionable whether the Nazi's would have lost that war.

Also give credit to the Russians. First allies to Germany until Hitler
stupidly decided to turn on them. That was probably his biggest
mistake. Those kids earned equal credit for defeating the Nazis.

And as far as the Japanese, we melted them a few months later just as
soon as the a-bomb was perfected.

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 5:55:13 AM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-09-28 8:29 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >
> > The war in Europe was over before the atomic bombs were deployed.
> >
> > A major impact was the attack on pearl Harbor. Without this the USA
> > would not have entered the war so soon or their entry would have been
> > delayed. There were a large number of powerful leaders that
> > supported or were sympathetic towards Germany. This is generally
> > forgotten.
>
> It may be forgotten in the US. Some of us are well aware of it. When we
> hear Americans claiming to have saved Europe's butt twice we are all to
> well aware of the fact that the US did not enter WWI until 1917 and
> wasn't a presence in Europe until 1918, when things were already turning
> against Germany, and we remember that in WW II the US sat out for more
> than two years while its allies fought the Nazis.

The US had no real reason to intervene either time, except out of a
sense of Noblesse Oblige. The Monroe Doctrine clearly set out that we
would limit our military activities to the Western Hemisphere. Let
old Europe destroy itself if it so chose.

In World War II the Brits mounted an active propaganda campaign to suck
the US into the war, led by Sir William Stephenson. Paul Fussell points
out the mawkish "My Sister and I," by the non-existent Dutch boy Dirk
van der Heide, was carefully calculated to elicit sufficient sympathy
for the embattled Brits that people would not object to our butting in.
A tune based on the book recorded by Jimmy Dorsey and His Orchestra
rose to number 7 on the charts. Stephenson's NYC propaganda operation
was called "British Security Coordination."

The dodge of having the pseudo-Aryan Japanese attack a single remote
base was enough to get the job done.

The butcher's bill for WW II: Over 400,000 Americans killed, mostly for
no reason.

But the Americans grew to recognize that the Europeans were incapable of
managing their own affairs, and decided to impose a Pax Americana by
maintaining military bases throughout the continent. Thus they could
take care of flareups as they occurred; not wait till the entire continent
was in danger of destroying itself again. They decided to call this
arrangement "NATO," but it was clear who was in charge.

On 2015-09-28 9:10 AM, Gary wrote:
> wrote:
>> The other thing overlooked is that it was Lend Lease and it is only
>> recently, a couple of years ago, that the UK stopped paying the US
>> back for all the loans. One of the reasons the German economy
>> thrived, it didn't have to pay anything after 1945, in fact the US
>> lavished them with gifts.
>
> That's one thing about the US. Once we win, we give the country back
> to level heads and help them to move on and prosper. Japan is a good
> example of that too.

Oh? A bunch of American settlers moved into Texas and then revolted and
formed their own republic. Most of the rest of the southwestern states
used to be part of Mexico until there was a war. I guess we don't
really know what they would have done with Canada when the Americans
invaded in 1812 aiming to take it away from Britain. They initially
thought all they had to do was march in and we would all surrender.
The US went to war with Spain and still has a number of territories that
it won in that conflict. Don't forget the many Indian wars where they
defeated the native people and shipped them off to reservations.




> This reminds me of the old Peter Sellers movie, "The Mouse that
> Roared." They were a suffering tiny country so they came up with this
> plan to attack the US. Theory was...once the US wins the war, they
> will help us to build up the economy.


It was a comedy, an even better one than the current GOP leadership race.

On 2015-09-28 9:13 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 8:55:13 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-09-28 8:29 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The war in Europe was over before the atomic bombs were deployed.
>>>
>>> A major impact was the attack on pearl Harbor. Without this the USA
>>> would not have entered the war so soon or their entry would have been
>>> delayed. There were a large number of powerful leaders that
>>> supported or were sympathetic towards Germany. This is generally
>>> forgotten.
>>
>> It may be forgotten in the US. Some of us are well aware of it. When we
>> hear Americans claiming to have saved Europe's butt twice we are all to
>> well aware of the fact that the US did not enter WWI until 1917 and
>> wasn't a presence in Europe until 1918, when things were already turning
>> against Germany, and we remember that in WW II the US sat out for more
>> than two years while its allies fought the Nazis.
>
> However, it is probably true that the war in Europe would have probably been lost if the USA did not enter the war.


In WWI the Allies were already making advances in the west. British and
it's commonwealth armies were pushing the Germans back. The American
forces were sent to support the French. In Europe in WWII German had
already called of it's planned invasion of the British Isles after their
air assault had been beaten back in the Battle of Britain.

Sure, the American forces helped turned the tide. There is no doubt
about that. Just imagine how many Allied lives might have survived had
they come in at the beginning instead of waiting until it was half over.
You should have thought about that back in 2001 when G Dubya was
carping about who America's friends where and you was with the
terrorists. I was hoping that they would wait 2-3 years before deciding
whose side they were on like the US did in those two wars.

In article >, says...
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > and we remember that in WW II the US sat out for more
> > than two years while its allies fought the Nazis.
>
> And you forget that the US was sending many supplies to allies even
> before we entered the war.

You mean selling supplies, Cash and Carry. We paid, in gold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_a...orld_War_II%29

In 1941 the USA changed selling to lending.

The UK only finished paying back its debt to USA (with interest) in
2006.

Then there's the whole question of America selling supplies to the
enemy, in both world wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nye_Committee

https://libcom.org/library/allied-mu...-nazi-germany-
world-war-2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

Janet.

On 2015-09-28 9:22 AM, Gary wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> and we remember that in WW II the US sat out for more
>> than two years while its allies fought the Nazis.
>
> And you forget that the US was sending many supplies to allies even
> before we entered the war. Give the US credit there. We did help
> before and we helped much more when we started sending troops. Without
> the US, it's questionable whether the Nazi's would have lost that war.

Yes. They made a lot of money selling war materials.

>
> Also give credit to the Russians. First allies to Germany until Hitler
> stupidly decided to turn on them. That was probably his biggest
> mistake. Those kids earned equal credit for defeating the Nazis.

That's why I am not terribly sympathetic to the Soviets and their
losses. I figure that they enabled Hitler in his invasion of Poland.

>
> And as far as the Japanese, we melted them a few months later just as
> soon as the a-bomb was perfected.
I have no problems with that. I was getting fed up with reading all the
sob stories for Hiroshima and Nagasaki every August and how the media
was dumping on the US for nuking them. The Japanese soldiers
systematically raped and slaughtered twice as many Chinese in the city
of Nanking as were killed in the two nuclear attacks combined. I will
emphasize the systematic nature of the slaughter because they had cruel
and unusual methods. Almost every female between the ages of 7 and 70
was raped, and then they were often murdered and mutilated. Men were
bound together with barbed wire, doused with gasoline and set on fire.
Some were lined up for officers to have head chopping contests. Others
were used for bayonet practice. They deserved what they got.

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-09-28 9:10 AM, Gary wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> The other thing overlooked is that it was Lend Lease and it is only
> >> recently, a couple of years ago, that the UK stopped paying the US
> >> back for all the loans. One of the reasons the German economy
> >> thrived, it didn't have to pay anything after 1945, in fact the US
> >> lavished them with gifts.
> >
> > That's one thing about the US. Once we win, we give the country back
> > to level heads and help them to move on and prosper. Japan is a good
> > example of that too.
>
> Oh? A bunch of American settlers moved into Texas and then revolted and
> formed their own republic. Most of the rest of the southwestern states
> used to be part of Mexico until there was a war.

The overwhelming part of the Southwestern US had been no more part of
Mexico than the Moon has been part of the United States. Spain had
claimed huge tracts of land, but was only able to muster a few tiny
civilian and military settlements. The Missions, in which huge (for the
day) numbers of natives were Christianized, were the most successful
settlements. After Mexico seized control from Spain, huge tracts of
land were passed out to officers and noncoms of the former Spanish Army,
which makes one wonder how wholehearted their commitment to Spanish rule
had been.

> I guess we don't
> really know what they would have done with Canada when the Americans
> invaded in 1812 aiming to take it away from Britain.

The root cause was Britain's failure to respect American sovereignty
and its claims on the high seas that Americans were still British.
You have a substantial fraction of your seafaring population kidnapped
by the world's largest sea power, and see if you like it.

The Americans decided to hurt the Brits anyway they could, and the
North American colonies were an easy choice.

> They initially
> thought all they had to do was march in and we would all surrender.

No American cared about a few arpents of snow, to borrow Voltaire's
description of Canada. It was just a reprisal action.

> The US went to war with Spain and still has a number of territories that
> it won in that conflict.

I guess one (Puerto Rico) is a number.

> Don't forget the many Indian wars where they
> defeated the native people and shipped them off to reservations.

And Canada's "First Nations" welcomed their dispossessors and cheerfully
yielded up the continent to them? When did Canada's natives stop killing
Jesuits like Fr. Jogues?

On 9/27/2015 11:18 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, zero conscience wrote:
>> Suck on reality you royal scumbag RFC historical revisionists:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm
>>
>> Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College
>> London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von
>> Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:
>>
>> Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
>> The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet
>> Union, under the lend-lease agreement
>> The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.
>>
>> Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the
>> significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but
>> that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.
>
> Russians invented everything, from the airplane to television. To hear
> Russians tell the story.
>
>> Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received
>> from their allies.
>>
>> "You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a
>> Willis is!" he says.
>
> A Willys. Also a Studebaker.
>
> Soviet trucks built on American designs were produced into the 1960s.
>
>>
>> "The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final
>> stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces'
>> mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success
>> than if we had not such help."
>
> The only equipment the Soviet Union had for amphibious invasion was
> supplied by the US. Luckily the atomic bombs ended the war before the
> Soviets' lack of experience in amphibious invasion became an issue.
>

+1!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/28/2015 10:14 AM, wrote:
> On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-09-28 9:10 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> The other thing overlooked is that it was Lend Lease and it is only
>>>> recently, a couple of years ago, that the UK stopped paying the US
>>>> back for all the loans. One of the reasons the German economy
>>>> thrived, it didn't have to pay anything after 1945, in fact the US
>>>> lavished them with gifts.
>>>
>>> That's one thing about the US. Once we win, we give the country back
>>> to level heads and help them to move on and prosper. Japan is a good
>>> example of that too.
>>
>> Oh? A bunch of American settlers moved into Texas and then revolted and
>> formed their own republic. Most of the rest of the southwestern states
>> used to be part of Mexico until there was a war.
>
> The overwhelming part of the Southwestern US had been no more part of
> Mexico than the Moon has been part of the United States. Spain had
> claimed huge tracts of land, but was only able to muster a few tiny
> civilian and military settlements. The Missions, in which huge (for the
> day) numbers of natives were Christianized, were the most successful
> settlements. After Mexico seized control from Spain, huge tracts of
> land were passed out to officers and noncoms of the former Spanish Army,
> which makes one wonder how wholehearted their commitment to Spanish rule
> had been.
>
>> I guess we don't
>> really know what they would have done with Canada when the Americans
>> invaded in 1812 aiming to take it away from Britain.
>
> The root cause was Britain's failure to respect American sovereignty
> and its claims on the high seas that Americans were still British.
> You have a substantial fraction of your seafaring population kidnapped
> by the world's largest sea power, and see if you like it.
>
> The Americans decided to hurt the Brits anyway they could, and the
> North American colonies were an easy choice.
>
>> They initially
>> thought all they had to do was march in and we would all surrender.
>
> No American cared about a few arpents of snow, to borrow Voltaire's
> description of Canada. It was just a reprisal action.
>
>> The US went to war with Spain and still has a number of territories that
>> it won in that conflict.
>
> I guess one (Puerto Rico) is a number.
>
>> Don't forget the many Indian wars where they
>> defeated the native people and shipped them off to reservations.
>
> And Canada's "First Nations" welcomed their dispossessors and cheerfully
> yielded up the continent to them? When did Canada's natives stop killing
> Jesuits like Fr. Jogues?
>

DING!!!!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/28/2015 10:05 AM, Janet wrote:
> Then there's the whole question of America selling supplies to the
> enemy, in both world wars

BULLSHIT!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/28/2015 9:53 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Don't forget the many Indian wars where they defeated the native people
> and shipped them off to reservations.
>

And your "first nations" welcomed your limey *******s with open arms?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 11:49:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
>
> But the Americans grew to recognize that the Europeans were incapable of
> managing their own affairs, and decided to impose a Pax Americana by
> maintaining military bases throughout the continent. Thus they could
> take care of flareups as they occurred; not wait till the entire continent
> was in danger of destroying itself again. They decided to call this
> arrangement "NATO," but it was clear who was in charge.

Wow, you've swallowed the propaganda. Nearly every conflict (Europe) after WW2 was caused by the USAs actions at the end of the war. They held up the US and UK troops entrance to Berlin to allow the Russians to get there at the same time. They ignored the warnings from Churchill (proven correct) that they were enabling a tyrant and enemy to grab all of Eastern Europe. This was the direct cause of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War which nearly led us into nuclear destruction. Need I mention the many other conflicts created by US action?

http://www.richardfisher.com

On 9/28/2015 7:13 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> it is probably true that the war in Europe would have probably been lost if the USA did not enter the war.


WTF?!?!?!?!

"Probably"???

You're an under-educated dolt!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/28/2015 6:55 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Some of us are well aware of it. When we hear Americans claiming to have
> saved Europe's butt twice we are all to well aware of the fact that the
> US did not enter WWI until 1917


And then ENDED IT!

You ****ing canuckleheaded goon!






--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:18:52 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, zero conscience wrote:

Looks like the Boner Boy has found a new set of suckers to stroke.
How does it feel Spamtrap?

On 9/28/2015 2:38 AM, Saint George wrote:
> YOU RAN OFF IN 'NAM!


YOU NEED TO DIE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/28/2015 11:06 AM, Helpful person wrote:
> Nearly every conflict (Europe) after WW2 was caused by the USAs actions at the end of the war.

You ****ing lying little assbag!

United States, Massachusetts, Wakefield

472 Main St.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 10:06:15 AM UTC-7, Helpful person wrote:
> On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 11:49:36 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >
> >
> > But the Americans grew to recognize that the Europeans were incapable of
> > managing their own affairs, and decided to impose a Pax Americana by
> > maintaining military bases throughout the continent. Thus they could
> > take care of flareups as they occurred; not wait till the entire continent
> > was in danger of destroying itself again. They decided to call this
> > arrangement "NATO," but it was clear who was in charge.
>
> Wow, you've swallowed the propaganda. Nearly every conflict (Europe) after WW2 was caused by the USAs actions at the end of the war. They held up the US and UK troops entrance to Berlin to allow the Russians to get there at the same time.
>

While Monty chafed at not being able to play a more important role,
Eisenhower's objective was military, not political. Ike wanted to
defeat the German Army. The Soviets were almost at the Elbe, and so
were the Americans and Brits.

>
They ignored the warnings from Churchill (proven correct) that they were enabling a tyrant and enemy to grab all of Eastern Europe.
>

So Churchill did not realize that the Soviets were his ally? Churchill
was not present at Yalta and Potsdam when Europe was carved up into
spheres of influence?

>
This was the direct cause of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War which nearly led us into nuclear destruction. Need I mention the many other conflicts created by US action?
>

And the last war among England, France, and Germany occurred when?

The last major conflict within Europe was what year, please?

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 10:24:23 AM UTC-7, Cat Radish wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:18:52 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7, zero conscience wrote:
>
> Looks like the Boner Boy has found a new set of suckers to stroke.
> How does it feel Spamtrap?

Did you know that Britain's Royal Marines used American-made WW II
vintage DUKWs ("Ducks") for amphibious training until 2012?

On 2015-09-28 11:49 AM, wrote:

>> It may be forgotten in the US. Some of us are well aware of it. When we
>> hear Americans claiming to have saved Europe's butt twice we are all to
>> well aware of the fact that the US did not enter WWI until 1917 and
>> wasn't a presence in Europe until 1918, when things were already turning
>> against Germany, and we remember that in WW II the US sat out for more
>> than two years while its allies fought the Nazis.
>
> The US had no real reason to intervene either time, except out of a
> sense of Noblesse Oblige. The Monroe Doctrine clearly set out that we
> would limit our military activities to the Western Hemisphere. Let
> old Europe destroy itself if it so chose.
>
The Monroe Doctrine also said that the US would not meddle in the
affairs of existing European colonies, but it did intervene in the Cuban
War of Independence. In the Spanish American War the US gained control
of Cuba for a while and acquired Puerto Rico and Guam.


>
> The dodge of having the pseudo-Aryan Japanese attack a single remote
> base was enough to get the job done.
>
> The butcher's bill for WW II: Over 400,000 Americans killed, mostly for
> no reason.
>
> But the Americans grew to recognize that the Europeans were incapable of
> managing their own affairs, and decided to impose a Pax Americana by
> maintaining military bases throughout the continent. Thus they could
> take care of flareups as they occurred; not wait till the entire continent
> was in danger of destroying itself again. They decided to call this
> arrangement "NATO," but it was clear who was in charge.


The shame of it is that if the US had gone into WW I early, or had at
least shown an interest, it might not have happened. The failure of the
US to ratify the Treaty of Versailles helped Hitler to carry out his
plans to try to dominate Europe. They did not even joint the League of
Nations, an organization that the US pushed for at the end of WWI.If
there had been signs of resolve to contain Nazi Germany that war might
not have happened.

On 9/28/2015 1:57 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> The shame of it is that if the US had gone into WW I early, or had at
> least shown an interest, it might not have happened.

Bullshit LIE!

Hey, are we also responsible for Galileo's imprisonment?

You gutless moron!

> The failure of the
> US to ratify the Treaty of Versailles helped Hitler to carry out his
> plans to try to dominate Europe.

Bullshit!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
The Treaty of Versailles (French: Traité de Versailles) was one of the
peace treaties at the end of World War I. It ended the state of war
between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on 28 June 1919,
exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I were dealt
with in separate treaties.[6] Although the armistice, signed on 11
November 1918, ended the actual fighting, it took six months of
negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty.
The treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on
21 October 1919, and was printed in The League of Nations Treaty Series.

Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and
controversial required "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of
Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the
war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing
similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the
War Guilt clause. The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial
territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that
had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these
reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or
£6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion
in 2015). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes, predicted
that the treaty was too harsh €” a "Carthaginian peace", and said the
reparations figure was excessive and counter-productive, views that,
since then, have been the subject of ongoing debate by historians and
economists from several countries.

The result of these competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the
victors was a compromise that left none contented: Germany was neither
pacified nor conciliated, nor was it permanently weakened. The problems
that arose from the treaty would lead to the Locarno Treaties, which
improved relations between Germany and the other European Powers, and
the re-negotiation of the reparation system resulting in the Dawes Plan,
the Young Plan, and the indefinite postponement of reparations at the
Lausanne Conference of 1932.

> They did not even joint the League of
> Nations, an organization that the US pushed for at the end of WWI.

So we're to blame for Versailles, but offered a far better alternative.

Is that your pea-brained denouement, ****wit???

> If there had been signs of resolve to contain Nazi Germany that war might
> not have happened.

It's not America's mandate to proctor Yuropeon squabbles, you ****ing
ignoramus!


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 2015-09-28 12:14 PM, wrote:

>>> That's one thing about the US. Once we win, we give the country back
>>> to level heads and help them to move on and prosper. Japan is a good
>>> example of that too.
>>
>> Oh? A bunch of American settlers moved into Texas and then revolted and
>> formed their own republic. Most of the rest of the southwestern states
>> used to be part of Mexico until there was a war.
>
> The overwhelming part of the Southwestern US had been no more part of
> Mexico than the Moon has been part of the United States. Spain had
> claimed huge tracts of land, but was only able to muster a few tiny
> civilian and military settlements. The Missions, in which huge (for the
> day) numbers of natives were Christianized, were the most successful
> settlements.

I was in California a couple weeks ago and I have to admit that it was
the first time I paid much attention to place names in that state, and I
could not help but notice the Spanish influence in the state, namely in
the number of older towns and cities with Spanish names.


>After Mexico seized control from Spain, huge tracts of
> land were passed out to officers and noncoms of the former Spanish Army,
> which makes one wonder how wholehearted their commitment to Spanish rule
> had been.

It should make you realize that if Mexico was able to pass out huge
tracts of land that Mexico it must have had sovereignty.


>
>> I guess we don't
>> really know what they would have done with Canada when the Americans
>> invaded in 1812 aiming to take it away from Britain.
>
> The root cause was Britain's failure to respect American sovereignty
> and its claims on the high seas that Americans were still British.
> You have a substantial fraction of your seafaring population kidnapped
> by the world's largest sea power, and see if you like it.

That was only one of many factors in that war, that and American
insistence on being able to conduct trade with embargoed ports. Aside
from British claims that they impressed on British sailors from American
ships, that problem was solved shortly after the war started. There were
already Warhawks pushing to invade and conquer Canada. Impressment was
just another issue to sway public opinion.




>
> The Americans decided to hurt the Brits anyway they could, and the
> North American colonies were an easy choice.
Yep. They wanted to seize them. They failed. They also wanted to punish
Britain for its support of the South in the Civil War and supported
several attempts by the Feniens to invade Canada.


> No American cared about a few arpents of snow, to borrow Voltaire's
> description of Canada. It was just a reprisal action.

Yet, the US came up with Manifest Destiny, the idea that they were
destined to control all of North America.


>
>> The US went to war with Spain and still has a number of territories that
>> it won in that conflict.
>
> I guess one (Puerto Rico) is a number.

Guam.... that makes two. I would suggest that those two would refute the
claim that the US never kept any territory that it won in war.

>
>> Don't forget the many Indian wars where they
>> defeated the native people and shipped them off to reservations.
>
> And Canada's "First Nations" welcomed their dispossessors and cheerfully
> yielded up the continent to them? When did Canada's natives stop killing
> Jesuits like Fr. Jogues?

First of all, you may be confused about Jogues. He and his fellow
missionaries were spreading their good word among the Huron, who were
native to that part of Canada, and he was "martyred" by a Iroquois war
party. The Iroquois where allied with the English and were the enemy of
the French and the Huron. You might throw Brebeuf into your argument
too. He was also "martyred" by the Iroquois who were invading Huron lands.

There were some Indians allied with the Metis in the Red River
Rebellion, but that one conflict is nothing compared to the long list of
Indian Wars in the US.

On 9/28/2015 3:55 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

>> The root cause was Britain's failure to respect American sovereignty
>> and its claims on the high seas that Americans were still British.
>> You have a substantial fraction of your seafaring population kidnapped
>> by the world's largest sea power, and see if you like it.
>
> That was only one of many factors in that war, that and American
> insistence on being able to conduct trade with embargoed ports. Aside
> from British claims that they impressed on British sailors from American
> ships, that problem was solved shortly after the war started. There were
> already Warhawks pushing to invade and conquer Canada. Impressment was
> just another issue to sway public opinion.

Oh good grief, what a ****ing paranoid liar!

https://www.marinersmuseum.org/sites...avy/08/08a.htm

Of all the causes for the War of 1812, the impressment of American
sailors into the Royal Navy was the most important for many Americans.
The British practice of manning naval ships with "pressed" men, who were
forcibly placed into service, was a common one in English history,
dating back to medieval times.

Sailors being pressed. From the collections of The Mariners' Museum.
Under British law, the navy had the right, during time of war, to sweep
through the streets of Great Britain, essentially arresting men and
placing them in the Royal Navy.
Naval press gangs operated throughout England in organized districts
overseen by naval captains. When there was a need for new recruits the
gangs would move through the waterfront districts searching for
"Roderick Random," as they called the men they pressed. Under law, the
press gangs could take almost anyone they happened to find. However,
some individuals were protected from the press: apprentices already
indentured to a master, seamen with less than two years' experience at
sea, fishermen, and others associated with maritime trade and industry
such as riggers, shipwrights, and sailmakers. These men were essential
to the economic well-being of the empire and were not to be conscripted
by press gangs. However, simply identifying oneself as a member of a
protected segment of British society was not enough to guarantee one's
freedom. Each "protected man" was required to carry with him a document
called a protection that identified him and his trade. If he could not
produce his protection on demand by the press gang, he could be pressed
without further question.

Press gangs operated on land and sea. Impress cutters patrolled harbors
and coastal areas searching for ships returning from voyages with men
who might be pressed into service. Any officer of the Royal Navy could,
when in need of men, stop English vessels on the high seas and press
crewmen into service. Legally, foreigners were protected from the press,
but this legality was often ignored, and the practice of pressing men at
sea became common. In the eyes of the Royal Navy, all Englishmen were
available for service even if they were on the ship of a foreign nation.
Therefore, it was not uncommon for British naval vessels to stop
American ships searching for English crewmen.

A letter of Impressment Protection. From the collections of The
Mariners' Museum. During these searches, American sailors who could not
prove their citizenship were often pressed.

During the latter part of the eighteenth century, as England slugged its
way through prolonged wars with France, the need for able seamen grew
dramatically. During the peacetime that preceded the Napoleonic Wars,
the Royal Navy had about 10,000 men; by the War of 1812, the number had
risen to 140,000. The overwhelming majority of these men came from the
press. To maintain the navy's strength, the press gangs were constantly
at work. Not only did they have to replace men who were killed or died
in service, but they also had to replace the countless vacancies created
by desertion. Lord Nelson estimated that between 1793 and 1801 perhaps
as many as 40,000 men deserted the navy. With demand for sailors always
high and supply sometimes lacking, it is not surprising that the press
gangs preyed from time to time on protected men, including Americans.


>> No American cared about a few arpents of snow, to borrow Voltaire's
>> description of Canada. It was just a reprisal action.
>
> Yet, the US came up with Manifest Destiny, the idea that they were
> destined to control all of North America.

Had ZERO to do with controlling Canuckistan, you paranoid oaf!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

The phrase "manifest destiny" is most often associated with the
territorial expansion of the United States from 1812 to 1860. This era,
from the end of the War of 1812 to the beginning of the American Civil
War, has been called the "age of manifest destiny".[37] During this
time, the United States expanded to the Pacific Ocean€”"from sea to
shining sea"€”largely defining the borders of the contiguous United
States as they are today.[38]

War of 1812
Main article: War of 1812
One of the causes of the War of 1812 may have been an American desire to
annex or threaten to annex British Canada in order to stop the Indian
raids into the Midwest, expel Britain from North America, and gain
additional land.[39][40] The American victories at the Battle of Lake
Erie and the Battle of the Thames in 1813 ended the Indian raids and
removed one of the reasons for annexation. The American failure to
occupy any significant part of Canada prevented them from annexing it
for the second reason, which was largely ended by the Era of Good
Feelings, which ensued after the war between Britain and the United States.

To end the War of 1812 John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and Albert Gallatin
(former Treasury Secretary and a leading expert on Indians) and the
other American diplomats negotiated the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 with
Britain. They rejected the British plan to set up an Indian state in
U.S. territory south of the Great Lakes. They explained the American
policy toward acquisition of Indian lands:

The United States, while intending never to acquire lands from the
Indians otherwise than peaceably, and with their free consent, are fully
determined, in that manner, progressively, and in proportion as their
growing population may require, to reclaim from the state of nature, and
to bring into cultivation every portion of the territory contained
within their acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support
of millions of civilized beings, they will not violate any dictate of
justice or of humanity; for they will not only give to the few thousand
savages scattered over that territory an ample equivalent for any right
they may surrender, but will always leave them the possession of lands
more than they can cultivate, and more than adequate to their
subsistence, comfort, and enjoyment, by cultivation. If this be a spirit
of aggrandizement, the undersigned are prepared to admit, in that sense,
its existence; but they must deny that it affords the slightest proof of
an intention not to respect the boundaries between them and European
nations, or of a desire to encroach upon the territories of Great
Britain. . . . They will not suppose that that Government will avow, as
the basis of their policy towards the United States a system of
arresting their natural growth within their own territories, for the
sake of preserving a perpetual desert for savages.[41]

>>> The US went to war with Spain and still has a number of territories that
>>> it won in that conflict.
>>
>> I guess one (Puerto Rico) is a number.
>
> Guam.... that makes two. I would suggest that those two would refute the
> claim that the US never kept any territory that it won in war.

Straw man.

NO one said we haven't kept territory won in a war.

>>
>>> Don't forget the many Indian wars where they
>>> defeated the native people and shipped them off to reservations.
>>
>> And Canada's "First Nations" welcomed their dispossessors and cheerfully
>> yielded up the continent to them? When did Canada's natives stop killing
>> Jesuits like Fr. Jogues?
>
> First of all, you may be confused about Jogues.

First of all you dodged the question!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...logy010898.htm

The Canadian government apologized today to the country's Indian, Inuit
and other aboriginal peoples for decades of mistreatment, offering an
emotional atonement for policies that sought to stamp out native culture
and confined Indian children in often abusive government-run schools.

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/intro2.html

Hidden from History:
The Canadian Holocaust

Chronology of Events: Genocide in Canada

1857: The Gradual Civilization Act is passed by the Legislature of Upper
Canada, permanently disenfranchising all Indian and Metis peoples, and
placing them in a separate, inferior legal category than citizens.

1874: The Indian Act is passed in Canadas Parliament, incorporating the
inferior social status of native people into its language and
provisions. Aboriginals are henceforth imprisoned on reserve lands and
are legal wards of the state.

1884: Legislation is passed in Ottawa creating a system of state-funded,
church administered Indian Residential Schools.

1905: Over one hundred residential schools are in existence across
Canada, 60% of them run by the Roman Catholics.

1907: Dr. Peter Bryce, Medical Inspector for the Department of Indian
Affairs, tours the residential schools of western Canada and British
Columbia and writes a scathing report on the "criminal" health
conditions there. Bryce reports that native children are being
deliberately infected with diseases like tuberculosis, and are left to
die untreated, as a regular practice. He cites an average death rate of
40% in the residential schools.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 2:55:40 PM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-09-28 12:14 PM, wrote:
>
> >>> That's one thing about the US. Once we win, we give the country back
> >>> to level heads and help them to move on and prosper. Japan is a good
> >>> example of that too.
> >>
> >> Oh? A bunch of American settlers moved into Texas and then revolted and
> >> formed their own republic. Most of the rest of the southwestern states
> >> used to be part of Mexico until there was a war.
> >
> > The overwhelming part of the Southwestern US had been no more part of
> > Mexico than the Moon has been part of the United States. Spain had
> > claimed huge tracts of land, but was only able to muster a few tiny
> > civilian and military settlements. The Missions, in which huge (for the
> > day) numbers of natives were Christianized, were the most successful
> > settlements.
>
> I was in California a couple weeks ago and I have to admit that it was
> the first time I paid much attention to place names in that state, and I
> could not help but notice the Spanish influence in the state, namely in
> the number of older towns and cities with Spanish names.
>
>
> >After Mexico seized control from Spain, huge tracts of
> > land were passed out to officers and noncoms of the former Spanish Army,
> > which makes one wonder how wholehearted their commitment to Spanish rule
> > had been.
>
> It should make you realize that if Mexico was able to pass out huge
> tracts of land that Mexico it must have had sovereignty.

Right, the degree of attachment of Mexicans to the future US was JUST
LIKE the attachment of Germans to Germany, Italians to Italy, and
Japanese to Japan -- not. Sorry.

>
> >
> >> I guess we don't
> >> really know what they would have done with Canada when the Americans
> >> invaded in 1812 aiming to take it away from Britain.
> >
> > The root cause was Britain's failure to respect American sovereignty
> > and its claims on the high seas that Americans were still British.
> > You have a substantial fraction of your seafaring population kidnapped
> > by the world's largest sea power, and see if you like it.
>
> That was only one of many factors in that war, that and American
> insistence on being able to conduct trade with embargoed ports. Aside
> from British claims that they impressed on British sailors from American
> ships, that problem was solved shortly after the war started.

Too bad it took starting a war to get it resolved. Hey, maybe that was
the cause of the war? Nah, things are never that straightforward.

> There were
> already Warhawks pushing to invade and conquer Canada. Impressment was
> just another issue to sway public opinion.

Why? The US had just purged itself of the freedom haters, the honest-to-
goodness British subjects. Let them serve on His Majesty's ships.

>
> >
> > The Americans decided to hurt the Brits anyway they could, and the
> > North American colonies were an easy choice.
> Yep. They wanted to seize them. They failed. They also wanted to punish
> Britain for its support of the South in the Civil War and supported
> several attempts by the Feniens to invade Canada.

Wait, what? We're still talking 1812 as far as I know.
Here's a map of the US, from that era. The place was pretty big and we
did not really need to add a peninsula or two:

http://www.gatewayno.com/history/ima...hase-large.jpg

> > No American cared about a few arpents of snow, to borrow Voltaire's
> > description of Canada. It was just a reprisal action.
>
> Yet, the US came up with Manifest Destiny, the idea that they were
> destined to control all of North America.

"From sea to shining sea" was the goal. Not up to Hudson's Bay.

> >> The US went to war with Spain and still has a number of territories that
> >> it won in that conflict.
> >
> > I guess one (Puerto Rico) is a number.
>
> Guam.... that makes two. I would suggest that those two would refute the
> claim that the US never kept any territory that it won in war.

ok, the US kept only former territories of European colonial powers
that it won in war.


> >
> >> Don't forget the many Indian wars where they
> >> defeated the native people and shipped them off to reservations.
> >
> > And Canada's "First Nations" welcomed their dispossessors and cheerfully
> > yielded up the continent to them? When did Canada's natives stop killing
> > Jesuits like Fr. Jogues?
>
> First of all, you may be confused about Jogues. He and his fellow
> missionaries were spreading their good word among the Huron, who were
> native to that part of Canada, and he was "martyred" by a Iroquois war
> party. The Iroquois where allied with the English and were the enemy of
> the French and the Huron. You might throw Brebeuf into your argument
> too. He was also "martyred" by the Iroquois who were invading Huron lands..

Wow, more spin than a turntable set to 78 rpm. Is Canadian "history"
shelved with fiction in your libraries?

>
> There were some Indians allied with the Metis in the Red River
> Rebellion, but that one conflict is nothing compared to the long list of
> Indian Wars in the US.

Can you doublecheck this list from wikipedia?
17th century Beaver Wars

1610 Battle of Sorel
1628 Action of 17 July 1628
1644 Action at Ville-Marie
1649 Raid on St. Ignace and St. Louis
1660 Battle of Long Sault
1689 Lachine massacre
1691 Battle of La Prairie
1692 Mohawk Valley raid
1692 Battle of Fort Vercheres
1689 - 1697 King William's War

1689 Battle of the Lake of Two Mountains
1690 Battle of Coulée Grou
1690 Battle of Port Royal
1690 Battle at Chedabucto
1690 Battle of Quebec
1693 Battle of Fort Albany
1694 Capture of York Factory
1696 Naval action in the Bay of Fundy
1696 Raid on Chignecto
1696 Siege of Fort Nashwaak
1696 - 1697 Avalon Peninsula Campaign
1696 Siege of Ferryland
1696 Raid on Petty Harbour
1696 Siege of St. John's
1697 Battle of Carbonear

1702 - 1713 Queen Anne's War

1702 Raid on Newfoundland
1704 Raid on Chignecto
1704 Raid on Grand Pré
1705 Siege of St. John's
1707 Siege of Port Royal
1709 Battle of St. John's
1709 Battle of Fort Albany
1710 Siege of Port Royal
1711 Battle of Bloody Creek

1722 - 1725 Father Rale's War

1722 Battle of Winnepang
1723 Raid on Canso
1724 Raid on Annapolis Royal
1725 Raid on Canso

1744 - 1748 King George's War

1744 Raid on Canso
1744 Siege of Fort Anne
1745 Siege of Port Toulouse
1745 Siege of Louisbourg
1746 Battle at Port-la-Joye
1747 Battle of Grand Pré

1749 - 1755 Father Le Loutre's War

1749 Raid on Dartmouth
1749 Siege of Grand Pre
1749-1750 Battles at Chignecto
1750 Battle at St. Croix
1751 Raid on Dartmouth
1751 Raid on Chignecto
1751 Raids on Halifax
1753 Attack at Country Harbour

1763 - 1766 Pontiac's War

1763 Battle of Point Pelee
1794 Attack on South Branch House
1816 Pemmican War
1838 Nicola's War

Conflicts along the Okanagan Trail in 1858 in British Columbia were related to the Yakima War in Washington Territory
Fraser Canyon War (1858) - British Columbia (white irregulars in British territory against the Nlaka'pamux)
Lamalcha War (1863) -- British Columbia (Royal Navy vs Lamalcha people
Chilcotin War (1864) -- British Columbia (White workers against the Tsilhqot'in)
Fisherville War (1860s) -- British Columbia
Tobacco Plains War (1860s) -- British Columbia
Rossland War (1860s) -- British Columbia
Red River Rebellion (1869) -- Nord-Ouest/Rupert's Land
Great Sioux War (1876-77)
Wild Horse Creek War (1880s) -- British Columbia (see Fort Steele)
North-West Rebellion (1885) -- Saskatchewan Territory (Métis people against Canadian forces)
Poundmaker's War (1885) -- Saskatchewan Territory (Canadian army against Cree warriors)
Battle of Cut Knife (1885) (Canadian army against Cree and Assiniboine warriors)

On 9/28/2015 10:42 PM, wrote:
>>> No American cared about a few arpents of snow, to borrow Voltaire's
>>> > >description of Canada. It was just a reprisal action.
>> >
>> >Yet, the US came up with Manifest Destiny, the idea that they were
>> >destined to control all of North America.
> "From sea to shining sea" was the goal. Not up to Hudson's Bay.
>

Bingo!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---