At 11:41 AM 10/1/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote:
>
> > >If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been
> > >saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in
> > >Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there
> > >is oil there?
> >
> > You said so also and it was a courageous president who helped Europe,
> > behind the back of the congress and senate. Not until Japan attacked you
> > because of ? (yes oil), you got involved in the second world war. It might
>
>We were involved before then, but not with our own personnel. We had
>already sent large amounts of weapons to Great Britain (including 50
>destroyer battleships), in exchange for letting us lease military bases
>to set up military outposts.
Exactly what I said, your president did that on his own initiative with the
outposts as an excuse. This because he could do it without the approval of
the congress and senate. It was no political or popular support in US at
the time, since the major attitude was isolationistic.
> > also
> > be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier
> killed and
>
>Yup, that was unfortunate. Of course, that number (I think the Soviet
>Union lost 25 million people roughly)
5 million soldiers against 500,000 soldiers for the western alliance. Not
including civilian casualties. It is actually one to ten for Soviet Union
and I made a mistake on the keyboard before.
>also includes a very large number of
>non-military personnel. And, it should be added that initially the Soviet
>Union had signed an agreement with Germany to be partially on their side,
>when the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east on September 17, 1939.
>Germany then turned on the Soviets, and attacked them about 18 months
>later.
It always puzzled me that UK and France started the second world war by
declaring war with Germany and not Soviet Union, based on the treaty with
Poland they should have. After all, Germany took the German one third of
Poland that was allocated to Poland by the peace in first world war and
Soviet Union the other two thirds. But if you read "Mein Kampf" you realize
that Hitlers real enemies was Communism/Zionism and maybe the events
following Poland was unexpected and he had reasons to believe that
Britain/France would stay on the sidelines. My parents was voluntaries in
Finland (nurse and surgeon), 1939 they fought against Germany/Soviet Union
and 1942 Germany helped Finland against Soviet Union. After the second
peace treaty with Soviet Union the Finish had to throw out the Germans by
force.
> > that US contributed with 10% of the allied forces. But after the war my
> > generation
> > benefited from great entertainment and a fantastic time, we enjoyed
> very much
> > all the war movies that showed US single handed winning the second world
> > war in Europe.
>
>Hollywood producers do not represent the sentiment of the American public.
>They make their living by either making stories up, or glorifying
>("improving upon") historical occurrences. I'd say that without the help
>of the US, it is not unlikely to believe that today much of Europe would
>be called "Germany" and be covered by flags with swastikas.
I already agreed with that and it was mainly the general US population with
workers and the manufacturing that made the difference. The US troops was
also a very important contribution, but slightly over valued by Hollywood
as engaged in the war efforts and the continuing Cold War.
>However, that
>is not the same as saying that we single-handedly won the war - rather
>that we played a role that was integral in defetaing the axis powers (both
>in terms of materials - oil, weapons, etc., as well as in military
>personnel). Our naval and air forces made a huge impact.
Naval in the sense of production of transportation with convoy defender
ships was huge and crucial. Air force in the sense of huge development and
production of bombers for preparation before and after the invasion. The
lonely defense by Britain's air and navy after the retreat from the
mainland, was the hugest and most heroic fight in the second world war,
supported by the US president not the US law makers.
> The UN Secutiry Council was created to make sure that such a thing
>never occurs again, when a tyrant is allowed to invade and conquer
>countries at his own whim, while other countries sit idly by thinking
>"well, he hasn't invaded us yet, so we're not going to do anything". If in
>1939, the US, the Soviets, Britain, and France immediately agreed to
>attack Germany after Hitler sent his forces into Poland, how many millions
>of lives would have been saved?
Britain and France actually did do it and tried to provoke Germany to
attack the Mignot Line of defense. US was not involved and declared
politically that they were not interested. Soviet Union was on Germany's
side by agreement. As response, Germany bypassed the Mignot Line trough
Netherlands and Belgium, occupied France and trough out the British.
Britain and France was very well prepared on a traditional trench war.
Germany had developed a strong and rapid mobile force with air support,
that tactics was well tested in the Spanish civil war and should not have
been a surprise for Britain and France. The Finns did also prove that this
tactics was very powerful in the 1939 winter war against Soviet Union and
German air support, where they had a one Finnish to ten Soviets ratio on
casualties.
> Thus, the UN Security Council NEEDS to take action when another
>tyrant starts invading countries at his own whim, and killing people
>within his own country that he doesn't like. We can't just sit idly by and
>say "well, he hasn't directly invaded our territory yet, so we're not
>going to do anything". Unless we learn the errors of our past, we are
>doomed to repeat them.
Do I have to remind you that it existed a predecessor to UN before the
second world war?
> The UN should model its actions on the policies of Winston
>Chirchill and FDR - in particular, FDR's "Four Freedoms Speech", and
>acting together to create such a world (i.e. his speech to congress on
>January 6, 1941 calling for congress to act to help establish a world
>founded on freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom
>from want, and freedom from fear.
Let us hope that it works better now than before the second world war.
Unilateral actions was what destroyed the predecessor and maybe everybody
now realize the need for respect for UN decisions. I am worried about the
noises from US about unilateral actions.
>But we're veering a bit off topic now. :)
Yes and we never learn.
>Mike
>
>
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Biofuels list archives:
>http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
>Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
