[OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hakan, you are not well informed. World War II killed and missing ...armed forces K&M... total population of country Australia26,976.6 million New Zealand..11,625.2 million Canada...42,04211 million Britain.357,11645 million France..210,00045 million USA.405,399...125 million USSR..low est.6,115,000...170 million? Germany...3,500,00065 million Japan.1,270,00080 million Finland..80,000.3 million The initial landings of the Normandy invasion comprised Infantry divisions 2 USA, 2 British, 1 Canadian Airborne divisions 2 USA, 1 British By the end of the war in Europe the Americans had about 2.5 million men on the continent, the British about 850,000. In the Pacific, the way from Pearl Harbor to Okinawa was a hard bloody slog. The U.S. Navy and Marines alone had about 60,000 killed and missing, almost all in the Pacific. The U.S. navy had 5 fleet carriers sunk, at least one other was never returned to service after being damaged, and lost many other lesser warships. In August 1945 Japan was incapable of doing anything except resisting am invasion with existing stockpiles; it could acquire or make no fuel and little in the way of weapons or ammunition. It could not threaten its enemies seriously. The atomic bombs were a political weapon useful in persuading the insane Japanese army-controlled government to surrender, as well as in intimidating the USSR. The Allies could have blockaded the Japanese home islands until the Japanese surrendered, but the American people and politicians weren't willing to wait. The USA, once the Japanese and Germans insisted that it join the war, made a tremendous military and naval effort. In addition the Soviet war effort was heavily dependent on American supplies for everything from food to aluminum. The mobility of the Red Army depended largely on tens of thousands of American trucks. The British war effort also depended heavily on supplies and equipment provided free by the U.S. - after the British had bankrupted themselves carrying on the war almost single-handed. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Hakan Falk wrote: > > Dear Henri and Rick, > > I only like to put this "we took out Hitler" to rest. That the Americans > single handed took out Hitler, is a myth that only exists in Hollywood movies. > > The crucial material support from US in WWII was the deliveries of war > material. The US infantry troop participation in Europe was on a low level > and not crucial. By only look at the loss of soldiers, you understand > clearly who was doing the major fighting. > > Russia 6,000,000 troop causalities > Europe Alliance600,000 > USA 60,000 > > Germany was very advanced and introduced for the first time the modern > warfare and materials, with a massive air support. They tested much of it > in the Spanish civil war. > > US took out Japan, not on the ground, but with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This > at a time when the European part of WWII was at its end. > > I do agree that the US propaganda methods was/is superior. Something that > Hitler and his administration several times acknowledged and copied. This > superiority is maintained even today. > > Hakan > > > > At 05:13 PM 4/2/2005, you wrote: > >Dear Henri, > > > >We took out Hitler because Germany declared war on us after Japan attacked > >us at Pearl Harbor. Sadam did not declare war on us and presented no > >immediate threat. [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Won't argue with your figures, & I ain't a historian so please if anyone knows different please say so, but to my knowledge the assistance provided by the US to Britain during WWII was not "free". It had to be paid back, at least in part, which is why rationing continued in Britain for so long, well after the end of the war. Regards Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 April 2005 01:31 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Hakan, you are not well informed. World War II killed and missing ...armed forces K&M... total population of country Australia26,976.6 million New Zealand..11,625.2 million Canada...42,04211 million Britain.357,11645 million France..210,00045 million USA.405,399...125 million USSR..low est.6,115,000...170 million? Germany...3,500,00065 million Japan.1,270,00080 million Finland..80,000.3 million The initial landings of the Normandy invasion comprised Infantry divisions 2 USA, 2 British, 1 Canadian Airborne divisions 2 USA, 1 British By the end of the war in Europe the Americans had about 2.5 million men on the continent, the British about 850,000. In the Pacific, the way from Pearl Harbor to Okinawa was a hard bloody slog. The U.S. Navy and Marines alone had about 60,000 killed and missing, almost all in the Pacific. The U.S. navy had 5 fleet carriers sunk, at least one other was never returned to service after being damaged, and lost many other lesser warships. In August 1945 Japan was incapable of doing anything except resisting am invasion with existing stockpiles; it could acquire or make no fuel and little in the way of weapons or ammunition. It could not threaten its enemies seriously. The atomic bombs were a political weapon useful in persuading the insane Japanese army-controlled government to surrender, as well as in intimidating the USSR. The Allies could have blockaded the Japanese home islands until the Japanese surrendered, but the American people and politicians weren't willing to wait. The USA, once the Japanese and Germans insisted that it join the war, made a tremendous military and naval effort. In addition the Soviet war effort was heavily dependent on American supplies for everything from food to aluminum. The mobility of the Red Army depended largely on tens of thousands of American trucks. The British war effort also depended heavily on supplies and equipment provided free by the U.S. - after the British had bankrupted themselves carrying on the war almost single-handed. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
I'm not too up on the history either. I do know that militqry equipment was provided on lend-lease, which meant that if it was still around after the war, the Brits had to give it back. So a month or so after V-J day, the U.S. under the influence of Congress said "OK, time's up, give it back." So they did. The Americans then proceeded to dump a lot of the returned equipment (aircraft for example) into the sea. A lot of naval aircraft then had to be replaced by the impoverished Brits from new production in Britain. A lot of consumables had been paid for by loans if I recall correctly. The Americans refused to make much in the way of new loans for this purpose, although the British had committed their economy to the war effort to an extent far beyond the U.S. and needed a long time to re-adjust. They also wanted repayment to start forthwith. Part of the nasty U.S. attitude was due to the fact that Roosevelt was dead, and the people in the Administration and Congress didn't realize that Britain had made an enormous effort not only to maintain her independence from Hitler but to save the civilized world, and had provided the U.S, with much priceless technology (the jet engine, the cavity magnetron (radar), nuclear science and technology) on her own initiative without asking for payment. For example, Congress ignored commitments the U.S. had made on nuclear information. Part of it was due to traditional American attitudes (Brits were colonialist exploiters), part of ot due to the fact that the British were spending money on introducing a mild form of socialism, and partly due to a wish that the U.K. should be finished as a world power, to be replaced by the U.S. Lend-lease and the loans didn't start until the UK had spent all its foreign assets, was flat broke, and would otherwise have had to wind down its war effort, and probably make a deal with Hitler since she wouldn't have been able to defend herself. Of course the Labour government in Britain didn't exactly cover itself in glory in managing the economy after the war, for example it dealt with the coal crisis quite incompetently. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, malcolm maclure wrote: > Won't argue with your figures, & I ain't a historian so please if anyone > knows different please say so, but to my knowledge the assistance provided > by the US to Britain during WWII was not "free". It had to be paid back, at > least in part, which is why rationing continued in Britain for so long, well > after the end of the war. > > Regards > > Malcolm [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Doug, The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they did in Europe. Otherwise I find your number interesting and I have seen them before. As Darryl pointed out Hitler took out himself, with the Russian forces narrowing in, fighting in the streets around him. Many of his staff had left Berlin, to be able to give themselves up to the western part of the alliance. I am also confused by the numbers for Finland, that your source give. They must include the 1939 war and this can hardly be included in WWII. The 1941 war was less bloody. The Finns did throu out the Germans, who had helped them, as a part of the peace treaty with the Russians. This part was very short and it was the Germans who got killed, since they were moving on the roads and were not keen on fighting in the forests, it was like target shooting for the Finns. It is said that Hitler were not keen on taking on the Finns and the Swedes, after seen them fighting in Finland. His estimate was that it would take too much resources and got a lower priority Hakan At 02:31 AM 4/3/2005, you wrote: Hakan, you are not well informed. World War II killed and missing ...armed forces K&M... total population of country Australia26,976.6 million New Zealand..11,625.2 million Canada...42,04211 million Britain.357,11645 million France..210,00045 million USA.405,399...125 million USSR..low est.6,115,000...170 million? Germany...3,500,00065 million Japan.1,270,00080 million Finland..80,000.3 million The initial landings of the Normandy invasion comprised Infantry divisions 2 USA, 2 British, 1 Canadian Airborne divisions 2 USA, 1 British By the end of the war in Europe the Americans had about 2.5 million men on the continent, the British about 850,000. In the Pacific, the way from Pearl Harbor to Okinawa was a hard bloody slog. The U.S. Navy and Marines alone had about 60,000 killed and missing, almost all in the Pacific. The U.S. navy had 5 fleet carriers sunk, at least one other was never returned to service after being damaged, and lost many other lesser warships. In August 1945 Japan was incapable of doing anything except resisting am invasion with existing stockpiles; it could acquire or make no fuel and little in the way of weapons or ammunition. It could not threaten its enemies seriously. The atomic bombs were a political weapon useful in persuading the insane Japanese army-controlled government to surrender, as well as in intimidating the USSR. The Allies could have blockaded the Japanese home islands until the Japanese surrendered, but the American people and politicians weren't willing to wait. The USA, once the Japanese and Germans insisted that it join the war, made a tremendous military and naval effort. In addition the Soviet war effort was heavily dependent on American supplies for everything from food to aluminum. The mobility of the Red Army depended largely on tens of thousands of American trucks. The British war effort also depended heavily on supplies and equipment provided free by the U.S. - after the British had bankrupted themselves carrying on the war almost single-handed. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Hakan Falk wrote: > > Dear Henri and Rick, > > I only like to put this "we took out Hitler" to rest. That the Americans > single handed took out Hitler, is a myth that only exists in Hollywood movies. > > The crucial material support from US in WWII was the deliveries of war > material. The US infantry troop participation in Europe was on a low level > and not crucial. By only look at the loss of soldiers, you understand > clearly who was doing the major fighting. > > Russia 6,000,000 troop causalities > Europe Alliance600,000 > USA 60,000 > > Germany was very advanced and introduced for the first time the modern > warfare and materials, with a massive air support. They tested much of it > in the Spanish civil war. > > US took out Japan, not on the ground, but with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This > at a time when the European part of WWII was at its end. > > I do agree that the US propaganda methods was/is superior. Something that > Hitler and his administration several times acknowledged and copied. This > superiority is maintained even today. > > Hakan > > > > At 05:13 PM 4/2/2005, you wrote: > >Dear Henri, > > > >We took out Hitler because Germany declared war on us after Japan attacked > >us at Pearl Harbor. Sadam did not declare war on us and presented no > >immediate threat. [snip] ___ Biof
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hello Hakan, (snip) > The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the > European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking > out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they > did in Europe. With respect, the total allied losses under General MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of 106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Bob, Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. Hakan At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: Hello Hakan, (snip) > The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the > European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking > out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they > did in Europe. With respect, the total allied losses under General MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of 106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hello Hakan, Again with respect, it is not "well known" that the Pacific losses in WW2 were greater than in Europe. If that is the case I'd like to see your source for the statement. MacArthur was supreme commander in the Pacfic. I have given you his total losses throughout his campaign which ranged all the way from his starting point in Australia to the moment he accepted the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. I based these on figures given my William Manchester, one of the most respected American biographers of the postwar period. The precise wording of his footnote, on page 639 of the 1979 Hutchinson paperback edition "American Caesar - Douglas MacArthur, reads "American casualties in the Bulge were 106,502. MacArthur's 90,437". The item to which this footnote refers reads: "The Battle of the Bulge (a four week break-out by German armoured columns under General Von Rundsted in the Ardennes beginning December 16, 1944, and ending January 16, 1945) ...resulted in as many American casualties as were sustained in th entire Southwest Pacfic area campaign from Australia to Tokyo." To look at a couple of single battles in Europe. At the battle of Anzio in Italy, where the Allies fought for nearly four months (January 22 to May 25, 1943) to secure a beachhead that placed them only 37 miles from Rome, the total American, i.e. not Allied, casualties were 72,306 GIs. In the battle of Normandy - June 6 to July 31, 1944 - Eisenhower lost 28,366 GIs. The bottom line is that American losses in Europe were many, many times those in the Pacific. Please don't tell me that these figures are no indication. They are exact battlefield totals. I have given your chapter and verse for my sources. If you have figures to the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and of course the source. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come > > Bob, > > Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is > possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who > says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were > 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of > Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost > around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is > well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. > > Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. > > Hakan > > > At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: > >Hello Hakan, > > > >(snip) > > > > > > > The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the > > > European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking > > > out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they > > > did in Europe. > > > > With respect, the total allied losses under General > >MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the > >entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. > >In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single > >battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of > >106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by > >William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). > > > >Regards, > >Bob. > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Bob, I have to make a variant of a famous statement by saying, "If the numbers do not fit, you have to quit" LOL Hakan At 03:35 AM 4/5/2005, you wrote: Hello Hakan, Again with respect, it is not "well known" that the Pacific losses in WW2 were greater than in Europe. If that is the case I'd like to see your source for the statement. MacArthur was supreme commander in the Pacfic. I have given you his total losses throughout his campaign which ranged all the way from his starting point in Australia to the moment he accepted the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. I based these on figures given my William Manchester, one of the most respected American biographers of the postwar period. The precise wording of his footnote, on page 639 of the 1979 Hutchinson paperback edition "American Caesar - Douglas MacArthur, reads "American casualties in the Bulge were 106,502. MacArthur's 90,437". The item to which this footnote refers reads: "The Battle of the Bulge (a four week break-out by German armoured columns under General Von Rundsted in the Ardennes beginning December 16, 1944, and ending January 16, 1945) ...resulted in as many American casualties as were sustained in th entire Southwest Pacfic area campaign from Australia to Tokyo." To look at a couple of single battles in Europe. At the battle of Anzio in Italy, where the Allies fought for nearly four months (January 22 to May 25, 1943) to secure a beachhead that placed them only 37 miles from Rome, the total American, i.e. not Allied, casualties were 72,306 GIs. In the battle of Normandy - June 6 to July 31, 1944 - Eisenhower lost 28,366 GIs. The bottom line is that American losses in Europe were many, many times those in the Pacific. Please don't tell me that these figures are no indication. They are exact battlefield totals. I have given your chapter and verse for my sources. If you have figures to the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and of course the source. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come > > Bob, > > Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is > possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who > says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were > 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of > Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost > around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is > well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. > > Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. > > Hakan > > > At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: > >Hello Hakan, > > > >(snip) > > > > > > > The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the > > > European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking > > > out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they > > > did in Europe. > > > > With respect, the total allied losses under General > >MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the > >entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. > >In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single > >battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of > >106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by > >William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). > > > >Regards, > >Bob. > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hi All, I thought I would just add this brief qualifying remark. Deaths and casualties are somewhat different things. Casualties involve both dead, wounded, and missing. Casualties also include non-battlefield accidents or any loss of manpower requiring replacement. If I am wrong someone let me know. Tom -Original Message- From: bmolloy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/4/05 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Hello Hakan, Again with respect, it is not "well known" that the Pacific losses in WW2 were greater than in Europe. If that is the case I'd like to see your source for the statement. MacArthur was supreme commander in the Pacfic. I have given you his total losses throughout his campaign which ranged all the way from his starting point in Australia to the moment he accepted the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. I based these on figures given my William Manchester, one of the most respected American biographers of the postwar period. The precise wording of his footnote, on page 639 of the 1979 Hutchinson paperback edition "American Caesar - Douglas MacArthur, reads "American casualties in the Bulge were 106,502. MacArthur's 90,437". The item to which this footnote refers reads: "The Battle of the Bulge (a four week break-out by German armoured columns under General Von Rundsted in the Ardennes beginning December 16, 1944, and ending January 16, 1945) ...resulted in as many American casualties as were sustained in th entire Southwest Pacfic area campaign from Australia to Tokyo." To look at a couple of single battles in Europe. At the battle of Anzio in Italy, where the Allies fought for nearly four months (January 22 to May 25, 1943) to secure a beachhead that placed them only 37 miles from Rome, the total American, i.e. not Allied, casualties were 72,306 GIs. In the battle of Normandy - June 6 to July 31, 1944 - Eisenhower lost 28,366 GIs. The bottom line is that American losses in Europe were many, many times those in the Pacific. Please don't tell me that these figures are no indication. They are exact battlefield totals. I have given your chapter and verse for my sources. If you have figures to the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and of course the source. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come > > Bob, > > Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is > possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who > says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were > 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of > Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost > around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is > well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. > > Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. > > Hakan > > > At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: > >Hello Hakan, > > > >(snip) > > > > > > > The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the > > > European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking > > > out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they > > > did in Europe. > > > > With respect, the total allied losses under General > >MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the > >entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. > >In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single > >battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of > >106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by > >William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). > > > >Regards, > >Bob. > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
With respect to the US contribution to the European theater consider that at Stalingrad the German losses were 300,000 and the Russian 400,000 and Stalingrad was a battle that the Russians won! At Kursk the Germans lost 100,000 killed and wounded and the Russians 250,000 killed and 600,000 wounded. It was the largest armored battle prior to the 1967 Arab - Israeli war. The US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome. Rick bmolloy wrote: Hello Hakan, Again with respect, it is not "well known" that the Pacific losses in WW2 were greater than in Europe. If that is the case I'd like to see your source for the statement. MacArthur was supreme commander in the Pacfic. I have given you his total losses throughout his campaign which ranged all the way from his starting point in Australia to the moment he accepted the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. I based these on figures given my William Manchester, one of the most respected American biographers of the postwar period. The precise wording of his footnote, on page 639 of the 1979 Hutchinson paperback edition "American Caesar - Douglas MacArthur, reads "American casualties in the Bulge were 106,502. MacArthur's 90,437". The item to which this footnote refers reads: "The Battle of the Bulge (a four week break-out by German armoured columns under General Von Rundsted in the Ardennes beginning December 16, 1944, and ending January 16, 1945) ...resulted in as many American casualties as were sustained in th entire Southwest Pacfic area campaign from Australia to Tokyo." To look at a couple of single battles in Europe. At the battle of Anzio in Italy, where the Allies fought for nearly four months (January 22 to May 25, 1943) to secure a beachhead that placed them only 37 miles from Rome, the total American, i.e. not Allied, casualties were 72,306 GIs. In the battle of Normandy - June 6 to July 31, 1944 - Eisenhower lost 28,366 GIs. The bottom line is that American losses in Europe were many, many times those in the Pacific. Please don't tell me that these figures are no indication. They are exact battlefield totals. I have given your chapter and verse for my sources. If you have figures to the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and of course the source. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. Hakan At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: Hello Hakan, (snip) The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they did in Europe. With respect, the total allied losses under General MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of 106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
The US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome. Clearly any good student of history knows that US losses in Europe during WWII were completely drawfed by those of Germany and Russian, but to claim that US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome of the war is utterly assinine. Maybe June 6th 1944 rings a bell? Do I believe the Hollywood myth that corn fed American farm boys singlehandedly swooped it to pull the Allies chesnuts from the fire? Of course not. But Germany certainly could have thrown more forces at the Russians if not for Normandy and Italy. In case you forgot, US forces liberated Rome just 2 days before DDay. In fact, at the time of the Normandy invasion, the Italian campaign tied up 26 German divisions that could have been otherwise used as reinforcements. Not pivotal? I'd have to disagree. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
The US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome. Clearly any good student of history knows that US losses in Europe during WWII were completely drawfed by those of Germany and Russian, but to claim that US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome of the war is utterly asinine. Do I believe the Hollywood myth that corn fed American farm boys singlehandedly swooped it to pull the Allies chestnuts from the fire? Of course not. But maybe June 6th 1944 rings a bell? Germany certainly could have thrown more forces at the Russians if not for Normandy and Italy. Indeed, when US forces liberated Rome just 2 days before D Day, the Italian campaign was tying up 26 German divisions that could have otherwise been used as reinforcements. Not pivotal? I beg to differ. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Whether or not the US took Rome or invaded in 1944 the war was lost for Germany. They could no longer replace their losses while the Soviet ability to put in men and material into the field was steadily rising. The German army was essentially an army within an army. A small, highly mobile, heavily armored well trained and equipped force was backed by a larger but more traditional army. The bulk of the German forces in Russia walked and used horses for transport. When the elite forces were destroyed at Stalingrad and Kursk it was over. It also didn't help matters that Hitler was constantly ordering the army to stand and fight for every inch of ground rather than fall back and regroup. His only hope would have been to focus all of his strength on stopping the Russian advance and trying to get a separate peace in east but it is unlikely that by 1944 Stalin would have agreed to this. He was not known for being a forgiving person. Rick John Hayes wrote: Rick Littrell wrote: The US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome. Clearly any good student of history knows that US losses in Europe during WWII were completely drawfed by those of Germany and Russian, but to claim that US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome of the war is utterly assinine. Maybe June 6th 1944 rings a bell? Do I believe the Hollywood myth that corn fed American farm boys singlehandedly swooped it to pull the Allies chesnuts from the fire? Of course not. But Germany certainly could have thrown more forces at the Russians if not for Normandy and Italy. In case you forgot, US forces liberated Rome just 2 days before DDay. In fact, at the time of the Normandy invasion, the Italian campaign tied up 26 German divisions that could have been otherwise used as reinforcements. Not pivotal? I'd have to disagree. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hi Rick, Good to hear from you. I think we're at cross purposes here. My sole concern re US losses in WW2 was to underline one point: total American dead in the Pacific campaign under General MacArthur as supreme commander were many times fewer than in the European theatre under Eisenhower. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: "Rick Littrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come > Dear Bob, > > With respect to the US contribution to the European theater consider > that at Stalingrad the German losses were 300,000 and the Russian > 400,000 and Stalingrad was a battle that the Russians won! At Kursk the > Germans lost 100,000 killed and wounded and the Russians 250,000 killed > and 600,000 wounded. It was the largest armored battle prior to the > 1967 Arab - Israeli war. The US involvement in the fighting in Europe > was not pivotal to the outcome. > > Rick ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
> The US involvement in the fighting in Europe > was not pivotal to the outcome. There's no question that the Soviets did the lion's share of fighting and defeating the German Army. However, leaving aside lend-lease shipments, there's one area in which the involvement of the Western Allies (the US and UK) was pivotal to the defeat of Germany, and that was the Air war, and the bombing campaigns. Richard Overy, in his book "How the Allies Won" (if I'm recalling the title correctly) makes that case rather well. Bill On Apr 9, 2005 8:19 PM, bmolloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Rick, > Good to hear from you. I think we're at cross purposes here. My > sole concern re US losses in WW2 was to underline one point: total American > dead in the Pacific campaign under General MacArthur as supreme commander > were many times fewer than in the European theatre under Eisenhower. > Regards, > Bob. > > - Original Message - > From: "Rick Littrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:49 AM > Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come > > > Dear Bob, > > > > With respect to the US contribution to the European theater consider > > that at Stalingrad the German losses were 300,000 and the Russian > > 400,000 and Stalingrad was a battle that the Russians won! At Kursk the > > Germans lost 100,000 killed and wounded and the Russians 250,000 killed > > and 600,000 wounded. It was the largest armored battle prior to the > > 1967 Arab - Israeli war. The US involvement in the fighting in Europe > > was not pivotal to the outcome. > > > > Rick > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Bill, The material support from US (lend lease), was absolutely pivotal to defeat Germany and thereby also the US industrial workers. This is something that I acknowledge and also said earlier in the discussion. The fighter air war, was won by both the British technology and pilots. The terror bombing strategy and technology was invented and developed by the Germans and dependent again more on the industrial workers than the pilots skills and US was pivotal. Europe paid its dues for the pivotal US industrial support, both monetary and by favor US corporate activities in Europe. We can take this to an other level and look at the reasons, plus the power groups in WWII, but it would be too long for me at the moment. Hakan At 01:08 AM 4/11/2005, you wrote: > The US involvement in the fighting in Europe > was not pivotal to the outcome. There's no question that the Soviets did the lion's share of fighting and defeating the German Army. However, leaving aside lend-lease shipments, there's one area in which the involvement of the Western Allies (the US and UK) was pivotal to the defeat of Germany, and that was the Air war, and the bombing campaigns. Richard Overy, in his book "How the Allies Won" (if I'm recalling the title correctly) makes that case rather well. Bill On Apr 9, 2005 8:19 PM, bmolloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Rick, > Good to hear from you. I think we're at cross purposes here. My > sole concern re US losses in WW2 was to underline one point: total American > dead in the Pacific campaign under General MacArthur as supreme commander > were many times fewer than in the European theatre under Eisenhower. > Regards, > Bob. > > - Original Message - > From: "Rick Littrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:49 AM > Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come > > > Dear Bob, > > > > With respect to the US contribution to the European theater consider > > that at Stalingrad the German losses were 300,000 and the Russian > > 400,000 and Stalingrad was a battle that the Russians won! At Kursk the > > Germans lost 100,000 killed and wounded and the Russians 250,000 killed > > and 600,000 wounded. It was the largest armored battle prior to the > > 1967 Arab - Israeli war. The US involvement in the fighting in Europe > > was not pivotal to the outcome. > > > > Rick ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hakan, I just joined the list a couple of days ago, so I must have missed your earlier comments. Cheers Bill On Apr 11, 2005 2:24 PM, Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill, > > The material support from US (lend lease), was absolutely > pivotal to defeat Germany and thereby also the US industrial > workers. This is something that I acknowledge and also said > earlier in the discussion. The fighter air war, was won by both > the British technology and pilots. The terror bombing strategy > and technology was invented and developed by the Germans > and dependent again more on the industrial workers than the > pilots skills and US was pivotal. > > Europe paid its dues for the pivotal US industrial support, > both monetary and by favor US corporate activities in Europe. > We can take this to an other level and look at the reasons, > plus the power groups in WWII, but it would be too long > for me at the moment. > > Hakan > > > At 01:08 AM 4/11/2005, you wrote: > > > The US involvement in the fighting in Europe > > > was not pivotal to the outcome. > > > >There's no question that the Soviets did the lion's share of fighting > >and defeating the German Army. However, leaving aside lend-lease > >shipments, there's one area in which the involvement of the Western > >Allies (the US and UK) was pivotal to the defeat of Germany, and that > >was the Air war, and the bombing campaigns. Richard Overy, in his book > >"How the Allies Won" (if I'm recalling the title correctly) makes that > >case rather well. > > > >Bill > > > > > >On Apr 9, 2005 8:19 PM, bmolloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Rick, > > > Good to hear from you. I think we're at cross purposes here. > > > My > > > sole concern re US losses in WW2 was to underline one point: total > > > American > > > dead in the Pacific campaign under General MacArthur as supreme commander > > > were many times fewer than in the European theatre under Eisenhower. > > > Regards, > > > Bob. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Rick Littrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:49 AM > > > Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come > > > > > > > Dear Bob, > > > > > > > > With respect to the US contribution to the European theater consider > > > > that at Stalingrad the German losses were 300,000 and the Russian > > > > 400,000 and Stalingrad was a battle that the Russians won! At Kursk the > > > > Germans lost 100,000 killed and wounded and the Russians 250,000 killed > > > > and 600,000 wounded. It was the largest armored battle prior to the > > > > 1967 Arab - Israeli war. The US involvement in the fighting in Europe > > > > was not pivotal to the outcome. > > > > > > > > Rick > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
