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
,
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
: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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
, 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
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
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
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
Hakan, you are not well informed.
World War II killed and missing
...armed forces KM... total population of country
Australia26,976.6 million
New Zealand..11,625.2 million
Canada...42,04211 million
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
