| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Tell me it ain't so? is it?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Tell me it ain't so? is it?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 05:51
GCLE, a footnote to this:  " Now you're being deliberately stupid. For one thing, provide an effective strategic air force. The French Foreign Legion was then an infantry force. - and still is now, though it has been updated for more of an SAS like role. "

The Foreign Legion is a branch of the Infantry, just as the Mechanized Infantry, Parachutists, Marine Infantry, and Chasseurs Alpins are. That said, engineering has always been considered as part of the Foreign Legion's 'heavy' infantry capability. Currently, there are two Legion Engineer Regiments, and I presume they still have the Cavalry (tank) Regiment. As for an SAS role, one of the architects of the post-Algerian re-orientation of the 2nd Foreign Para Regiment was a WWII SAS veteran. I see the SAS roles as being spread across three regiments (which are battalion sized). Those would be the 1st Marine Paras, the 2nd Foreign Paras, and whatever has become of the 11th Choc post Rainbow Warrior. (Officially, it was disbanded). Not sure of the current role of the 13th Para Dragoons, but at one time it was strategic reconnaissance.

All of these are units with standards of admittance to match the British Paras and Marines, and U.S.Rangers, and of course there are smaller elements whose entrance requires the passage of an SAS type selection process.


Edited by lirelou - 01 Jun 2012 at 05:55
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 08:31
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Al Jass, in re:  "As for the Maginot line, it was a useless defensive system that was anyway easily breached with minimal force (a company of pioneers if I remember correctly) well before the war ended so it wouldn't have mattered if France completed this wall (which cost 25% of all France's budget annually during its construction) or not."

You remember wrongly. It wasn't breached, it was by-passed. The 'breaching' was more than a company of pioneers, and done merely for the newsreels. And it ws far more than a mere wall. It wouldn't have withstood the Armies of 1944, but in 1940 the Blitzkrieg was merely the spear point, and the German Army behind that armored point largely a marching one whose artillery was dragged by horsepower. The supreme irony was it had been left unfinished in precisely the points the German Army had approached from in 1914.

I prefer Allistair Horne's "To Lose a Battle".
 
No it was. Germans took all forts in the Sedan area by May 19th freeing even more German troops to expand the bridgehead and fan out to the south. They also breached it from the east and conquered Strassbourg and Colmar by June 15th. They also breached it in the vicinity of Wissembourg (the site of the famous 1870 battle) in late May. All this was done with weak 2nd rate forces (army group C was Germany's weakest and it has less than half the number of divisions the French had defending the Maginot line).
 
As for Alistair Horne, I think I mentioned before that this French apologist is worthless to me. After Reading his grand OAS apologist book "A Savage War of Peace" I wrote him of the list. Plus his book is too old and was written without much of the classified information that appeared later and completely changed the narrative on the campaign.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 10:42
@lirelou, I accept all of that. However, personally, rightly or wrongly,I tend to classify engineering units as infantry, as I do signals, logistics and field intelligence (which is strictly I suppose wrong of me). However there was Foreign Legion artillery (mortar units) present in Vietnam, and you're correct that cavalry regiment was around somewhere, so my sweeping statement was admittedly just that - sweeping. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 11:16
@zagros
I don't know where you get the idea from that the British (English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Manx) though the French, generically, to be cowards. Incompetent, yes, especially at sea and especially at gunnery. Unlikeable, yes. 

The only time when there was a tendency that way was as a result of May-June 1940, but Churchill and de Gaulle were very quick to crush it. Much of the literature and cinema of the time built on characters who answered De Gaulle's 'Appel', and Casablanca , itself a tribute to French heroism (and that of European resistance in general) had just as powerful an effect on the English as on the Americans. Glamorous figures like Saint- Exupéry also helped. 

In fact at very nearly all periods of earlier history, France and England had been enemies: it's not enemies that you denigrate, but people you thnk should be supporting you, but let you down. If anything the prevailing stereotype was that of Conan Doyle's Brigadier Gérard - braggart, foolhardy, comically jealous of his honour and reputation, stupid even - the kind of man that would shoot a fox - but not, not cowardly.
    


Edited by gcle2003 - 01 Jun 2012 at 11:17
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 12:08
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


I prefer Allistair Horne's "To Lose a Battle".


I read "To Lose a Battle" a couple of years ago. A good book, but it suffered from the common problem of books written by people who lived through the events they describe. With strong preconceived ideas about war, they hold them as constants, and then seek their answers at wrong places. Even if Horne shows some understanding on the technical matters of modern war, he still indulges to repeat the same old arguments such as poor French morale, training etc.

I have no personal sympathy for the French and no reason to defend their honor. However Horne uses poor arguments to prove his intepretations. Writing from memory, I rememebr for instance an incident where he compares the French gunners who apparently fled when under Stuka attacks with the Polish who apaprently were holding their positions. No actual evidence from this Polish episode was brought up to allow for direct comparisson, and with a cool mind, anyone with some knowledge of WWII would point out that without air cover and deployed in the open ,the French artillery would be silenced with or without their gunners on them. Similarly, even though horne spends some time to describe the not-so-optimal AT capabilities of the French infantry he still prefers to attribute the dispresal of infantry division by the Panzer divisions to poor French morale rather than see the obvious fact of  early WWII, that armorued formations were very hard to stop with pre-war tables of organizations. Horne shows his true colors when he compares the performace of a British territorial division to its French equivalents, using Rommel's words who apparently saw the British fighting more tenaciously than the French (note Rommel is not necessarily an objective source). He glosses over the fact that in the final analysis this British infantry division was brushed aside just as thoroughly and easily by a Panzer division, as any French. 

The cynic in me does not believe in the effect of ideals and ideology on (conventional) armies. Also, in all aspects of preparation for war -conscription, mobilization, training, armament etc- France was both very experienced and also there is no indication to suggest that in 1939-1940 it devietaed from the nomral. Hornes allegations that French personnel was ifnerior than German is ridiculous, for Germany had not had conscription for many years and had substantial personnel problems and alos because France, even with a reduced conscript/reservist class turnout, still was able to man her army mostly with men in their '20s. And after several months with the colors (follwoing the mobilization of Sept 1939) the reservists were no longer ddifferent in cohesion/mentality than their active counterparts.

My point is that there are very obvious military operational factors that determined the outcome, that there is no need to go so far as to try to explain it by referring to WWI and to the Right Wing-Left Wing political stuggles in France in the '30s.


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

As for Alistair Horne, I think I mentioned before that this French apologist is worthless to me. After Reading his grand OAS apologist book "A Savage War of Peace" I wrote him of the list. Plus his book is too old and was written without much of the classified information that appeared later and completely changed the narrative on the campaign.

So, you haven't read "to Lose a Battle". How exactly do you know that the "narrative of the campaign" changed "completely"?
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 17:30
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

@zagros
I don't know where you get the idea from that the British (English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Manx) though the French, generically, to be cowards. Incompetent, yes, especially at sea and especially at gunnery. Unlikeable, yes. 

The only time when there was a tendency that way was as a result of May-June 1940, but Churchill and de Gaulle were very quick to crush it. Much of the literature and cinema of the time built on characters who answered De Gaulle's 'Appel', and Casablanca , itself a tribute to French heroism (and that of European resistance in general) had just as powerful an effect on the English as on the Americans. Glamorous figures like Saint- Exupéry also helped. 

In fact at very nearly all periods of earlier history, France and England had been enemies: it's not enemies that you denigrate, but people you thnk should be supporting you, but let you down. If anything the prevailing stereotype was that of Conan Doyle's Brigadier Gérard - braggart, foolhardy, comically jealous of his honour and reputation, stupid even - the kind of man that would shoot a fox - but not, not cowardly.
    


It's defamation all the same and there's no denying English disdain for the French.  Cowardice is just its most recent incarnation, adopted by those odious lackwits that constituted the senior element of the Bush administration.  Like I said, I believe its root is English and gave reasoning for my belief.  The French were not just military rivals but economic and continue to be so today, portraying them negatively abroad is thus advantageous.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 17:47

Quote
You didn't get 'occupied' if you were already collaborating. Nor did you need Quislings if the government was already on your side. You got occupied when you stopped collaborating. Enough European countries collaborated with the Germans to be going along with - Finland, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria...Italy. The set (not occupied & 'did not co-operate) did not exist.

Quote
(Buckskins)
So the above countries were secretly on the allied side all during WW2. Your such a font of knowledge Graham, and if you were Finnish you would not have support Germany fighting the Soviet Union?

Quote
Try reading the paragraph again. You might understand it next time. I said the only countries not occupied by the Germans in Western Europe collaborated with them, at least while not occupied. Italy for instance was only occupied after it stopped collaborating. I didn't say anything about what I would have done if I'd been a Finn.  In actual fact as an English child from a Conservative family I supported them in '39/'40 and deplored them after the allied themselves with Hitler. 

Buckskins.
Quote
I presumed you were lucid enough to comprehend the fact that your definition of "occupied" as the manifestation of "collaboration" or lack of is unacceptable. The Finns allied themselves with Germany as they were the lesser of two evils and promised independence. 

Occupied means that a person or country has surrendered, therefor the winning country would practically own that country. Just like what Germany did to Denmark and a few more in world war two.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_occupied_mean#ixzz1wYH0Mpj7

(Buckskins)
Quote
Would that be when they kicked the British army's butts into the English Channel? , or when Hitler halted bombing RAF assets and switched to London just as the RAF was about to be grounded?


Quote
It would be when  the Germans were stopped at Alamein, though they stopped the Germans westward advance in '40 when they found they weren't strong enough to keep on trying. Even Hitler could recognise hitting his head on a brick wall.


(Buckskins)
Quote

 With the Africa Corps halted in their Western advance, how odd for them to appear at EL  Alamein, or was it against the rules to stop for resupply and maintainence?


Quote
En passant, why do you insist on keeping on with idiotic phrases liked 'kicked their butts'?

(Buckskins)
Quote
Parce qu'il est evident que vous irrite donc.


Quote
Beneath contempt. Montgomery was a cautious general, true. Cautious generals have a habit of winning in the long run

(Buckskins)
Quote
We can agree to disagree on that one, big time.

Quote
 The Germans were again beaten decisive by the RN and the RAF. It may be news to you but this was in the 20th century when those two arms were mostly pre-eminent (as in fact the US also recognised during the war, eventuallly making the USAF an independent arm). Only on the Russian fronts and the Chinese one was army strength decisive.

(Buckskins)
Quote
The RN needed 50 warships to sink one German battleship, and that was after it had sunk the Hood.  

Quote
Ridiculous exaggeration. 50 warships is simply nonsense. As for Hood, big she was but antiquated, 20 years, a whole generation of ship design, behind Bismarck.  The thing is the British could afford to lose her, just as they could afford to lose Ark Royal, because they also had effective control of the Atlantic airspace. Apart from Bismarck's one singe excursion the rest of the German surface fleet simple scuttled itself (Graf Spee), or hid (Prinz Eugen and so on). 

 (Buckskins)
Quote
 You're right Graham,it wasn't 50 ships. 
Nearly a hundred ships of all kinds were deployed to operate with, against, or because of Bismarck:

    * The British battleships HMS King George V, Prince of Wales, Ramillies, Revenge, Rodney, and Nelson.
    * The British battlecruisers HMS Hood, Repulse and Renown
    * The British aircraft carriers HMS Victorious (800Z and 825 Naval Air Squadrons) and Ark Royal (810, 818, and 820 Naval Air Squadrons)
    * The British heavy cruisers HMS Suffolk, Norfolk, Dorsetshire, and London; and HMS Exeter, with convoy WS-8B.
    * The British light cruisers HMS Kenya, Galatea, Aurora, Neptune, Hermione, Edinburgh, Manchester, Arethusa, Birmingham, and Sheffield; and HMS Cairo, with convoy WS-8B.
    * The British destroyers HMS Achates, Antelope, Anthony, Echo, Somali, Eskimo, Jupiter, Electra, Icarus, Active, Inglefield, Intrepid, Lance, Legion, Punjabi, Windsor, Mashona, Cossack, Sikh, Zulu, Maori, Tartar, Faulknor, Foresight, Forester, Foxhound, Fury, Sherwood, and Hesperus.
    * The British submarines H44, Uproar, Sealion, Seawolf, Tigris, Sturgeon, Severn, and Pandora.
    * The Canadian destroyers HMCS Assiniboine, Saguenay, and Columbia
    * The Free French submarine Minerve
    * The Australian destroyer HMAS Nestor
    * The Polish destroyer ORP Piorun


(Buckskins)
Quote
When the Prince of Wales and Repulse showed up in the far East they were sunk faster than a New York minute by the Japanese. Without Enigma (That the Poles gave you) Germany would have starved you into surrender. We not only had to supply you with weapons and raw materials, we had to feed you. The RAF never defeated the Luftwaffe. Goring and Hitler defeated themselves playing Generals. The RAFBC contribution to war on Germany was to murder German women and kids in the middle of the night. It was the USAAF that targeted German war production...in the daytime.

Quote
All of that is balls. Britain was never starving or anywhere near it. After all the RN was successfully and almost completely blockading Germany, whereas the German navy had to rely on submarines. Which aren't very good blockade runners.

(Buckskins)
Quote
In August 1940, only 7,000 women had joined but with the crisis caused by Hitler’s U-boats, a huge drive went on from this date on to get more women working on the land. Even Churchill feared that the chaos caused by the U-boats to our supplies from America would starve out Britain.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/women_WW2.htm

A starving, indebted Britain, took cold comfort in welfare state promises made by the Labour Party – and Clement Attlee (a sheep in sheep’s clothing as described by Churchill) became the Prime Minister of Britain.

http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/1945-britain-imperial-ambitions-of-a-starving-nation/


Before the second world war, Britain imported 55 million tonnes of food a year, most of it form Canada and the USA, including a surprising 70% of it's meat.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1524504/Professor-John-Raeburn.html

Quote
(Buckskins.)
It's interesting that the Germans post WW2 came off food rationing before the British. A 
sign of things to come.


May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 18:00
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

 

It's defamation all the same and there's no denying English disdain for the French.  Cowardice is just its most recent incarnation, adopted by those odious lackwits that constituted the senior element of the Bush administration.  Like I said, I believe its root is English and gave reasoning for my belief.  The French were not just military rivals but economic and continue to be so today, portraying them negatively abroad is thus advantageous.

'Defamation' I accept as being commonplace, though not universal. I can't remember anyone defaming Curie or Pasteur or Hugo or Gide though.

But defaming someone is not the same as accusing him of cowardice. I agree with you about the lackwits, but I haven't come across much of that attitude in the UK. As I said before, those lackwits were merely expressing their annoyance at the French for not going along with the US/UK.

Think of the French military and you tend to think of the Para brigades in the late '50s, or Napoleoon's legions. Neither of them exactly examples of the kind of people who would run away.

Even at sea, where the RN was so consistent a victor in their engagements, I can't recall the French ever being accused of cowardice - not even at Trafalgar. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 18:32
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

So, you haven't read "to Lose a Battle". How exactly do you know that the "narrative of the campaign" changed "completely"?
 
I didn't read it completely though I read enough parts to confirm my theory which you also confirmed.
 
As for the narrative of the campaign, I read a several books on this campaign and through the years especially after the 1990 and after the majority of French mid-level officers and generals died a marked change in the narrative can be detected.
 
The best work that describes the changes is the aforementioned book by Frieser (you can look it up at google books). Modern research tell a substantially different story than the one commenly known like the role of the French air force (two thirds of it grounded throughout the war in Southern bases) and their absense in battle or the opportunities that the French squandered on an hourly basis especially in the Sedan area where the French decided to stop advancing at Stonne and did nothing to block German advance to the west despite having every opportunity to do so.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 19:24
xristar, in re your:  " No actual evidence from this Polish episode was brought up to allow for direct comparisson, and with a cool mind, anyone with some knowledge of WWII would point out that without air cover and deployed in the open ,the French artillery would be silenced with or without their gunners on them. "

Perhaps the cynic in you should have wondered why French artillery in France would have been without air cover, and deployed in the open? They did, after all, possess an Air Force, and had months to prepare for the fight, not to mention some experience with field fortifications from the last war.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 21:04
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You didn't get 'occupied' if you were already collaborating. Nor did you need Quislings if the government was already on your side. You got occupied when you stopped collaborating. Enough European countries collaborated with the Germans to be going along with - Finland, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria...Italy. The set (not occupied & 'did not co-operate) did not exist.
So the above countries were secretly on the allied side all during WW2. Your such a font of knowledge Graham, and if you were Finnish you would not have support Germany fighting the Soviet Union?
Try reading the paragraph again. You might understand it next time. I said the only countries not occupied by the Germans in Western Europe collaborated with them, at least while not occupied. Italy for instance was only occupied after it stopped collaborating. I didn't say anything about what I would have done if I'd been a Finn.  In actual fact as an English child from a Conservative family I supported them in '39/'40 and deplored them after they allied themselves with Hitler. 

I presumed you were lucid enough to comprehend the fact that your definition of "occupied" as the manifestation of "collaboration" or lack of is unacceptable. The Finns allied themselves with Germany as they were the lesser of two evils and promised independence. 

Occupied means that a person or country has surrendered, therefor the winning country would practically own that country. Just like what Germany did to Denmark and a few more in world war two.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_occupied_mean#ixzz1wYH0Mpj7
Another virtually unintelligible response. Apart from anything else it's time you learned how to use the quote facility so people can follow the exchanges.

Of course the Finns allied themselves with the Germans because it seemed like a better deal. That's just a rephrasing of what I SAID. THIS TIME FOR UTTER SIMPLICITY the Finns COLLABORATED. Therefore they were NOT OCCUPIED.

If you didn't collaborate, you got occupied. If you did collaborate you did not get occupied.

In fact that didn't only refer to German invasions: Iceland didn't collaborate with the Allies (or was suspected of not doing so) and so Iceland got occupied by the British. Thailand co-operated with the Japanese and didn't get occupied. 

Do I really have to add to that that whether or not you got occupied was a decision taken if you did not collaborate BEFORE the occupation. Obviously as in Norway and everywhere else, the puppet governments that were installed collaborated AFTER the occupation.

This is all too simple for words.
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

]
Would that be when they kicked the British army's butts into the English Channel? , or when Hitler halted bombing RAF assets and switched to London just as the RAF was about to be grounded?

It would be when  the Germans were stopped at Alamein, though they stopped the Germans westward advance in '40 when they found they weren't strong enough to keep on trying. Even Hitler could recognise hitting his head on a brick wall.
With the Africa Corps halted in their Western advance, how odd for them to appear at EL  Alamein, or was it against the rules to stop for resupply and maintainence?

Read the damned paragraph again - or are you awaiting some kind of eye operation? I said they stopped the Germans' WESTERN advance in '40. That was at the Atlantic coastline. What happened at Alamein was that the German EASTWARD (SOUTH-EASTWARD would be better) advance was stopped. And that was '41. So the British finally stopped the Germans advances at Alamein. Leaving the Russians to stop the German advances on their front, as i mentioned.But anyone who knows anything at all about WW2 would know that. I obviously and necessarily managed to overestimate your knowledge.
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
En passant, why do you insist on keeping on with idiotic phrases liked 'kicked their butts'?

Parce qu'il est evident que vous irrite donc.
So you can't speak French either?
Originally posted by Bucskins Bucskins wrote:

Quote
Beneath contempt. Montgomery was a cautious general, true. Cautious generals have a habit of winning in the long run
We can agree to disagree on that one, big time. 
Eisenhower? Grant? Washington? Wellington? Fabius? Read (a translation of) De Bello Gallico .

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The Germans were again beaten decisive by the RN and the RAF. It may be news to you but this was in the 20th century when those two arms were mostly pre-eminent (as in fact the US also recognised during the war, eventuallly making the USAF an independent arm). Only on the Russian fronts and the Chinese one was army strength decisive.

The RN needed 50 warships to sink one German battleship, and that was after it had sunk the Hood.  
Ridiculous exaggeration. 50 warships is simply nonsense. As for Hood, big she was but antiquated, 20 years, a whole generation of ship design, behind Bismarck.  The thing is the British could afford to lose her, just as they could afford to lose Ark Royal, because they also had effective control of the Atlantic airspace. Apart from Bismarck's one singe excursion the rest of the German surface fleet simple scuttled itself (Graf Spee), or hid (Prinz Eugen and so on). 

 You're right Graham,it wasn't 50 ships. 
Nearly a hundred ships of all kinds were deployed to operate with, against, or because of Bismarck:

    * The British battleships HMS King George V, Prince of Wales, Ramillies, Revenge, Rodney, and Nelson.
    * The British battlecruisers HMS Hood, Repulse and Renown
    * The British aircraft carriers HMS Victorious (800Z and 825 Naval Air Squadrons) and Ark Royal (810, 818, and 820 Naval Air Squadrons)
    * The British heavy cruisers HMS Suffolk, Norfolk, Dorsetshire, and London; and HMS Exeter, with convoy WS-8B.
    * The British light cruisers HMS Kenya, Galatea, Aurora, Neptune, Hermione, Edinburgh, Manchester, Arethusa, Birmingham, and Sheffield; and HMS Cairo, with convoy WS-8B.
    * The British destroyers HMS Achates, Antelope, Anthony, Echo, Somali, Eskimo, Jupiter, Electra, Icarus, Active, Inglefield, Intrepid, Lance, Legion, Punjabi, Windsor, Mashona, Cossack, Sikh, Zulu, Maori, Tartar, Faulknor, Foresight, Forester, Foxhound, Fury, Sherwood, and Hesperus.
    * The British submarines H44, Uproar, Sealion, Seawolf, Tigris, Sturgeon, Severn, and Pandora.
    * The Canadian destroyers HMCS Assiniboine, Saguenay, and Columbia
    * The Free French submarine Minerve
    * The Australian destroyer HMAS Nestor
    * The Polish destroyer ORP Piorun


That's balls. You claimed it took 50 ships to SINK Bismarck. What you've done is list all the ships that received messages warning them to look out for any strange German battleships they might find floating around. You might as well argue that if a robber is caught by a pair of policemen in Brooklyn on an APB, it took all of the NYPD to capture him. Sinking and finding are different things. 

Bismarck was of course immobilised and left unmanoeuvrable by air attacks from Victorious and Ark Royal, but apart from the carriers there were only 3 battleships, 4 cruisers and 7 destroyers involved in the action of sinking her. 

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

When the Prince of Wales and Repulse showed up in the far East they were sunk faster than a New York minute by the Japanese. Without Enigma (That the Poles gave you) Germany would have starved you into surrender. 

We not only had to supply you with weapons and raw materials, we had to feed you.
There was no-one else you could sell them to. 
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
 The RAF never defeated the Luftwaffe. Goring and Hitler defeated themselves playing Generals. The RAFBC contribution to war on Germany was to murder German women and kids in the middle of the night. It was the USAAF that targeted German war production...in the daytime.

All of that is balls. Britain was never starving or anywhere near it. After all the RN was successfully and almost completely blockading Germany, whereas the German navy had to rely on submarines. Which aren't very good blockade runners.

In August 1940, only 7,000 women had joined but with the crisis caused by Hitler’s U-boats, a huge drive went on from this date on to get more women working on the land. Even Churchill feared that the chaos caused by the U-boats to our supplies from America would starve out Britain.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/women_WW2.htm

Anyone who goes to that site will have no problem realising why it has no status as an authority.

If Britain was starving, why was fish not rationed? Why were potatoes not rationed? Why not rabbits? Why not bread? Why could you eat in restaurants and cafes as much as you liked? Price controls meant meals couldn't cost more than five shillings, but the average price in British Restaurants (my parents ran one) for a three-course meal was 1s. 3d. so 5 shillings was enough for four normal sized meals. Pheasants and partridges were also not rationed. 

At the worst time of the war you could eat every week over a pound of fresh meat, a half-pound of ham/bacon, a half-pound of cheese, and as much fish, rabbit and other game as you could swallow. Officially eggs were rationed but most people kept chickens (and you'd be surprised how many kept pigs). That's not starving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom

In fact it is generally recognised that children who grew up under rationing (my generation) were healthier and fitter than those before the war and after. 
Quote A starving, indebted Britain, took cold comfort in welfare state promises made by the Labour Party – and Clement Attlee (a sheep in sheep’s clothing as described by Churchill) became the Prime Minister of Britain.

http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/1945-britain-imperial-ambitions-of-a-starving-nation/
Cartoons from anti-government newspapers together with speculations of an Indian politician, on top of a typically witty Churchillian attack in Parliament. All of which are hardly relevant anyway because they are post-war. What do you think was holding up supplies - ghost submarines with ghost crews?
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Before the second world war, Britain imported 55 million tonnes of food a year, most of it form Canada and the USA, including a surprising 70% of it's meat.
Trying for the Irrelevant Post of the Month award?

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1524504/Professor-John-Raeburn.html
A source that completely and utterly destroys your case. Did you bother to read it?
Originally posted by Article submitted by Buckskins Article submitted by Buckskins wrote:

Raeburn's branch was instrumental in setting up what became the "Dig for Victory" programme, which encouraged the civilian population to convert lawns and flowerbeds into allotments.
It was widely regarded as a great success; 10 million leaflets were distributed, and a series of iconic posters was produced. It was estimated that 1,400,000 people cultivated vegetable gardens, while others raised rabbits, goats and chickens. By 1943, more than a million tons of vegetables were being produced, and even the moat of the Tower of London was converted into an allotment.
By the next year, a quarter of the official production of eggs came from domestic sources, while pigs - popular because they could be fed on kitchen waste - became a craze. Nine hundred "pig clubs" sprang up, and around 6,000 animals were kept in private gardens.
The campaign even produced an anthem: Dig! Dig! Dig! And your muscles will grow big / Keep on pushing the spade / Don't mind the worms / Just ignore their squirms /And when your back aches laugh for glee / Just keep on digging / Till we give our foes a wigging / Dig! Dig! Dig! for Victory!
Despite the success of the campaign, Raeburn and his colleagues were keen that the converts to market gardening did not rest on their laurels.

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


It's interesting that the Germans post WW2 came off food rationing before the British. A 
sign of things to come.
If you think it's interesting that a more agriculturally oriented country should produce more food than a more industrial one. However it was not a sign of things to come. Germany was to become much more industrially oriented. Also of course you appear to mean West Germany, not the whole country.



Edited by gcle2003 - 01 Jun 2012 at 21:09
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2012 at 23:05
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The best work that describes the changes is the aforementioned book by Frieser (you can look it up at google books).

I looked it up on amazon and it has good reviews. Perhaps I'll buy it some time.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

xristar, in re your:  " No actual evidence from this Polish episode was brought up to allow for direct comparisson, and with a cool mind, anyone with some knowledge of WWII would point out that without air cover and deployed in the open, the French artillery would be silenced with or without their gunners on them. "

Perhaps the cynic in you should have wondered why French artillery in France would have been without air cover, and deployed in the open? They did, after all, possess an Air Force, and had months to prepare for the fight, not to mention some experience with field fortifications from the last war.

You misunderstood what I said -perhaps it's my fault if I'm not clear. It was exactly the failure of the French airforce to keep the Stukas away that caused the French artillery to be silenced and not the lack of morale ("cowardice") of the French artillerymen. With the German aicraft bombing and strafing the French freely, the blame falls on the French airforce and not the artillerymen. My own knowledge of the subject (from different campaigns) is that Stukas could casue a lot of damage on artillery when they were able to detect it. Horne however feels that such event further proves his position that the french had a morale/determination problem. I don't think that Horne discovered such in his research. I think he had this idea preeconcieved. Not necessarily because he is British. I have no doubt that the French themselves, immediately after the events and unable to understand how tanks and aircraft had upset the balance of ground warfare since WW1, indulged to explain the French shortcomings with ideological/political reasons. Horne constantly compares the WWII French unfavorably to the WWI ones, as having lost their spirit, fraternirty etc. I think he may be echoing ideas common in France at that time. But I don't agree, at least not the importance he gives to such factors. I don't think the WWII French soldier was any worse than the WWI one. The reaons of the defeat and the demoralisation must be sought in more technical areas, where the French clearly failed.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 00:25
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

 

It's defamation all the same and there's no denying English disdain for the French.  Cowardice is just its most recent incarnation, adopted by those odious lackwits that constituted the senior element of the Bush administration.  Like I said, I believe its root is English and gave reasoning for my belief.  The French were not just military rivals but economic and continue to be so today, portraying them negatively abroad is thus advantageous.

'Defamation' I accept as being commonplace, though not universal. I can't remember anyone defaming Curie or Pasteur or Hugo or Gide though.

But defaming someone is not the same as accusing him of cowardice. I agree with you about the lackwits, but I haven't come across much of that attitude in the UK. As I said before, those lackwits were merely expressing their annoyance at the French for not going along with the US/UK.

Think of the French military and you tend to think of the Para brigades in the late '50s, or Napoleoon's legions. Neither of them exactly examples of the kind of people who would run away.

Even at sea, where the RN was so consistent a victor in their engagements, I can't recall the French ever being accused of cowardice - not even at Trafalgar. 


I am not talking of cowardice in itself, I have stated throughout that cowardice is just the latest facet of anti-French sentiment, or has morphed into it (if it wasn't originally).  I didn't say ever that the English historically saw the French as cowards.  It's a case of "mud sticks"; its easy to add more pejoratives to an extant list.  I suppose I expanded the conversation to the root of general anti-French sentiment of which a designation of cowards has become a part.  Although taking a step back, I seem to remember the hoohaa wasn't cowardice per se so much as French military incompetence with such things as the googling French military victories hoax.


Edited by Zagros - 02 Jun 2012 at 00:26
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jun 2012 at 22:29
Quote
Graham
Try reading the paragraph again. You might understand it next time. I said the only countries not occupied by the Germans in Western Europe collaborated with them, at least while not occupied. Italy for instance was only occupied after it stopped collaborating. I didn't say anything about what I would have done if I'd been a Finn.  In actual fact as an English child from a Conservative family I supported them in '39/'40 and deplored them after they allied themselves with Hitler. 
End Graham


(Buckskins)
I presumed you were lucid enough to comprehend the fact that your definition of "occupied" as the manifestation of "collaboration" or lack of is unacceptable. The Finns allied themselves with Germany as they were the lesser of two evils and promised independence. 

Occupied means that a person or country has surrendered, therefor the winning country would practically own that country. Just like what Germany did to Denmark and a few more in world war two.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_occupied_mean#ixzz1wYH0Mpj7
End(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
Another virtually unintelligible response.
End(Graham)

Buckskins.
"Another virtually unintelligible response."  (Translation) "l'm cornered so I will do my usual Red Herring Smoke Bomb reply on this one.
End(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
 Apart from anything else it's time you learned how to use the quote facility so people can follow the exchanges.
End(Graham)

Buckskins.
(Translation) I'l shift the blame to Buckskins for that dog's breakfast I made of my last string of posts.
End(Buckskins)


Quote
(Graham)
Of course the Finns allied themselves with the Germans because it seemed like a better deal. That's just a rephrasing of what I SAID. THIS TIME FOR UTTER SIMPLICITY the Finns COLLABORATED. Therefore they were NOT OCCUPIED.

If you didn't collaborate, you got occupied. If you did collaborate you did not get occupied.

In fact that didn't only refer to German invasions: Iceland didn't collaborate with the Allies (or was suspected of not doing so) and so Iceland got occupied by the British. Thailand co-operated with the Japanese and didn't get occupied. 

Do I really have to add to that that whether or not you got occupied was a decision taken if you did not collaborate BEFORE the occupation. Obviously as in Norway and everywhere else, the puppet governments that were installed collaborated AFTER the occupation.

This is all too simple for words.
End (Graham)

Buckskins
I wonder if the French, Belgians, ECT knew they were not occupied by Germany during WW2. Evidently they didn't know that "Occupied" and "Collaborate" are mutually exclusive?.
End(Buckskins) 


 (Buckskins)
Would that be when they kicked the British army's butts into the English Channel? , or when Hitler halted bombing RAF assets and switched to London just as the RAF was about to be grounded?
(End Buckskins)

Quote
(Graham)
It would be when  the Germans were stopped at Alamein, though they stopped the Germans westward advance in '40 when they found they weren't strong enough to keep on trying. Even Hitler could recognise hitting his head on a brick wall.
End (Graham)

(Buckskins)
With the Africa Corps halted in their Western advance, how odd for them to appear at EL  Alamein, or was it against the rules to stop for resupply and maintenance?
(End Buckskins)


Quote
(Graham)
Read the damned paragraph again - or are you awaiting some kind of eye operation? I said they stopped the Germans' WESTERN advance in '40. That was at the Atlantic coastline. What happened at Alamein was that the German EASTWARD (SOUTH-EASTWARD would be better) advance was stopped. And that was '41. So the British finally stopped the Germans advances at Alamein. Leaving the Russians to stop the German advances on their front, as i mentioned.But anyone who knows anything at all about WW2 would know that. I obviously and necessarily managed to overestimate your knowledge.
End(Graham)

Buckskins
"It would be when  the Germans were stopped at Alamein" Seen that sentence before have you?

PS. You may be a historian but your knowledge of WW2 is that of a slow learning 12 years old. That in no way detracts from your presumed expertise in other historical areas, and your being hired to teach economics at University level.
End(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
En passant, why do you insist on keeping on with idiotic phrases liked 'kicked their butts'?
(End(Graham)

(Buckskins)
Parce qu'il est evident que vous irrite donc.
(End Buckskins)

Quote
Graham.
So you can't speak French either?
End(Graham)

Buckskins
That's correct Graham. I can't speak French.
End (Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
Beneath contempt. Montgomery was a cautious general, true. Cautious generals have a habit of winning in the long run
End(Graham)

Buckskins
We can agree to disagree on that one, big time.
(End Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
Eisenhower? Grant? Washington? Wellington? Fabius? Read (a translation of) De Bello Gallico.
End(Graham)

Buckskins
Like I said. (“Big Time”
End (Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
The Germans were again beaten decisive by the RN and the RAF. It may be news to you but this was in the 20th century when those two arms were mostly pre-eminent (as in fact the US also recognised during the war, eventuallly making the USAF an independent arm). Only on the Russian fronts and the Chinese one was army strength decisive.
End(Graham)

Buckskins
It’s a pity the RN couldn’t sprout feet and liberate Caen for you, or the RAFBC bombing German logistics and military assets in the daytime, instead of what they did to German civilians instead.

Buckskins
The RN needed 50 warships to sink one German battleship, and that was after it had sunk the Hood. 
End (Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
Ridiculous exaggeration. 50 warships is simply nonsense. As for Hood, big she was but antiquated, 20 years, a whole generation of ship design, behind Bismarck.  The thing is the British could afford to lose her, just as they could afford to lose Ark Royal, because they also had effective control of the Atlantic airspace. Apart from Bismarck's one singe excursion the rest of the German surface fleet simple scuttled itself (Graf Spee), or hid (Prinz Eugen and so on). 
End(Graham)

Buckskins
HMS Hood

HMS Hood was the pride of the Royal Navy. HMS Hood was a massively armed battlecruiser with what was thought to be armour equal to her armaments. To all intents, HMS Hood was considered to be one of the most powerful battlecruisers afloat in World War Two.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hms_hood.htm

 You're right Graham,it wasn't 50 ships. 
Nearly a hundred ships of all kinds were deployed to operate with, against, or because of Bismarck:

    * The British battleships HMS King George V, Prince of Wales, Ramillies, Revenge, Rodney, and Nelson.
    * The British battlecruisers HMS Hood, Repulse and Renown
    * The British aircraft carriers HMS Victorious (800Z and 825 Naval Air Squadrons) and Ark Royal (810, 818, and 820 Naval Air Squadrons)
    * The British heavy cruisers HMS Suffolk, Norfolk, Dorsetshire, and London; and HMS Exeter, with convoy WS-8B.
    * The British light cruisers HMS Kenya, Galatea, Aurora, Neptune, Hermione, Edinburgh, Manchester, Arethusa, Birmingham, and Sheffield; and HMS Cairo, with convoy WS-8B.
    * The British destroyers HMS Achates, Antelope, Anthony, Echo, Somali, Eskimo, Jupiter, Electra, Icarus, Active, Inglefield, Intrepid, Lance, Legion, Punjabi, Windsor, Mashona, Cossack, Sikh, Zulu, Maori, Tartar, Faulknor, Foresight, Forester, Foxhound, Fury, Sherwood, and Hesperus.
    * The British submarines H44, Uproar, Sealion, Seawolf, Tigris, Sturgeon, Severn, and Pandora.
    * The Canadian destroyers HMCS Assiniboine, Saguenay, and Columbia
    * The Free French submarine Minerve
    * The Australian destroyer HMAS Nestor
    * The Polish destroyer ORP Piorun

(End)Buckskins

Quote
Graham
That's balls. You claimed it took 50 ships to SINK Bismarck. What you've done is list all the ships that received messages warning them to look out for any strange German battleships they might find floating around.
End(Graham)

Buckskins
They were active participants in the hunt for the Bismark when the RN lost it. In fact it was a Catalina and American pilot that found it for you.
(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
 You might as well argue that if a robber is caught by a pair of policemen in Brooklyn on an APB, it took all of the NYPD to capture him. Sinking and finding are different things. 
End(Graham)

Buckskins
No Graham, that would be your silly argument. The ships mentioned were active participants in the hunt for the Bismark. "I don't care how you do it, but you must.... ... ......., Winston.
(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
Bismarck was of course immobilised and left unmanoeuvrable by air attacks from Victorious and Ark Royal, but apart from the carriers there were only 3 battleships, 4 cruisers and 7 destroyers involved in the action of sinking her. 
End(Graham)

Buckskins
And when we dropped the A bomb on Nagasaki it was the bombardier that killed thousands of Japanese and ended WW2.
(Buckskins)
 
(Buckskins)
When the Prince of Wales and Repulse showed up in the far East they were sunk faster than a New York minute by the Japanese. Without Enigma (That the Poles gave you) Germany would have starved you into surrender. 

We not only had to supply you with weapons and raw materials, we had to feed you.
End(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
There was no-one else you could sell them to.
 End(Graham)

Buckskins
Indeed there was. We could have sold some more to Germany. There was of course Bundles for Britain, free of charge sir.
End(Buckskins)

Buckskins
 The RAF never defeated the Luftwaffe. Goring and Hitler defeated themselves playing Generals. The RAFBC contribution to war on Germany was to murder German women and kids in the middle of the night. It was the USAAF that targeted German war production...in the daytime.
End (Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
All of that is balls. Britain was never starving or anywhere near it. After all the RN was successfully and almost completely blockading Germany, whereas the German navy had to rely on submarines. Which aren't very good blockade runners.
End(Graham)

Buckskins
In August 1940, only 7,000 women had joined but with the crisis caused by Hitler’s U-boats, a huge drive went on from this date on to get more women working on the land. Even Churchill feared that the chaos caused by the U-boats to our supplies from America would starve out Britain.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/women_WW2.htm
(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
Anyone who goes to that site will have no problem realising why it has no status as an authority.
End(Graham)

Buckskins
That's a British site, don't tell me you are a misogynist into the bargain?.
(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
If Britain was starving, why was fish not rationed? Why were potatoes not rationed? Why not rabbits? Why not bread? Why could you eat in restaurants and cafes as much as you liked? Price controls meant meals couldn't cost more than five shillings, but the average price in British Restaurants (my parents ran one) for a three-course meal was 1s. 3d. so 5 shillings was enough for four normal sized meals. Pheasants and partridges were also not rationed.
 

At the worst time of the war you could eat every week over a pound of fresh meat, a half-pound of ham/bacon, a half-pound of cheese, and as much fish, rabbit and other game as you could swallow. Officially eggs were rationed but most people kept chickens (and you'd be surprised how many kept pigs). That's not starving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom

In fact it is generally recognised that children who grew up under rationing (my generation) were healthier and fitter than those before the war and after.
End(Graham)

Buckskins
Pheasants, Partridges, I'm sure Mrs housefrau was thrilled with the news. I imagine she thought of that when she was given the recipe for Sparrow pie, and was made known to her that Salmon and Venison were also on the menu. Government permission was required if you wanted to kill a Chicken. No one doubts that the privileged ate well. You would know. I can help you out with the BREAD question.
 
WW2 BENGALI HOLOCAUST: 6-7 million Hindus & Muslims died in Churchill's 1943-1945 Bengal Famine
The WW2 Bengali Holocaust involved the mass starvation of 6-7 million Indians in the provinces of Bihar, Orissa , Assam and Bengal associated with the man-made, British-imposed 1943-1945 Bengal Famine.

the British authorities took strategic steps that affected the availability of food in Bengal. Food was required for soldiers, workers in industrial cities such as Calcutta and for export to other parts of the Empire.

Repeated requests for food imports into India (Indian population 400 million; Bengal population 60 million) in 1943 and 1944 resulted in only about half a million tons of grain being imported into India in this period. In contrast the food stocks of the U.K. (population about 50 million) rose by about 10 million tons in the latter half of 1943.

Churchill repeatedly opposed food for India and specifically intervened to block provision of 10,000 tons of grain offered by Canada.

https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ww2-bengali-holocaust

Analysis of World War II cabinet meetings, forgotten ministry records and personal archives show that full grain ships from Australia were passing India on their way to the Mediterranean region, where huge stockpiles were building up.

“It wasn’t a question of Churchill being inept: sending relief to Bengal was raised repeatedly and he and his close associates thwarted every effort,” Mukerjee told AFP in a telephone interview.


“The United States and Australia offered to send help but couldn’t because the war cabinet was not willing to release ships. And when the US offered to send grain on its own ships, that offer was not followed up by the British.”
http://www.echarcha.com/forum/showthread.php?p=599570
End(Buckskins)

 Buckskins
 A starving, indebted Britain, took cold comfort in welfare state promises made by the Labour Party – and Clement Attlee (a sheep in sheep’s clothing as described by Churchill) became the Prime Minister of Britain.

http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/1945-britain-imperial-ambitions-of-a-starving-nation/
End (Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
Cartoons from anti-government newspapers together with speculations of an Indian politician, on top of a typically witty Churchillian attack in Parliament. All of which are hardly relevant anyway because they are post-war. What do you think was holding up supplies - ghost submarines with ghost crews?
End(Graham) 

Buckskins
Before the second world war, Britain imported 55 million tonnes of food a year, most of it from Canada and the USA, including a surprising 70% of it's meat.
End(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
Trying for the Irrelevant Post of the Month award?
End(Graham)

Buckskins
No Graham, quite frankly even prior to WW2 the British diet left plenty to be desired. It was noted by American and Australian servicemen that the average Brit soldier was PUNY.
End(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1524504/Professor-John-Raeburn.html
A source that completely and utterly destroys your case. Did you bother to read it?
 Article submitted by Buckskins wrote:

Raeburn's branch was instrumental in setting up what became the "Dig for Victory" programme, which encouraged the civilian population to convert lawns and flowerbeds into allotments.
It was widely regarded as a great success; 10 million leaflets were distributed, and a series of iconic posters was produced. It was estimated that 1,400,000 people cultivated vegetable gardens, while others raised rabbits, goats and chickens. By 1943, more than a million tons of vegetables were being produced, and even the moat of the Tower of London was converted into an allotment.
By the next year, a quarter of the official production of eggs came from domestic sources, while pigs - popular because they could be fed on kitchen waste - became a craze. Nine hundred "pig clubs" sprang up, and around 6,000 animals were kept in private gardens.
The campaign even produced an anthem: Dig! Dig! Dig! And your muscles will grow big / Keep on pushing the spade / Don't mind the worms / Just ignore their squirms /And when your back aches laugh for glee / Just keep on digging / Till we give our foes a wigging / Dig! Dig! Dig! for Victory!
Despite the success of the campaign, Raeburn and his colleagues were keen that the converts to market gardening did not rest on their laurels.
End(Graham)

Buckskins
Oh well, lets have the hogs in the backyard and we are good to go. Mrs Brit hausfrau would also be thrilled with that one. Just let it eat the grass and rocks in the backyard.

WW2 Food Rations.

This is the ration for one adult per week.

BACON and HAM ……… 4ozs ( 100g )
MEAT …………………… to the value of 1s.2d ( 6p today ). Sausages were not rationed but difficult to obtain : offal was originally unrationed but sometimes formed part of the meat ration.
BUTTER ………………… 2ozs ( 50g )
CHEESE ………………… 2ozs ( 50g ) sometimes it rose to 4ozs ( 100g ) and even up to 8ozs ( 225g )
MARGARINE ……………… 4ozs ( 100g )
COOKING FAT …………… 4ozs ( 100g ) often dropping to 2ozs ( 50g )
MILK …………………… 3 pints ( 1800ml ) sometimes dropping to 2 pints ( 1200ml ). Household ( skimmed, dried ) milk was available. This was I packet each 4 weeks.
SUGAR …………………… 8ozs ( 225g )
PRESERVES ……………… 1lb ( 450g ) every 2 months
TEA ……………………… 2ozs ( 50g )
EGGS …………………… 1 shell egg a week if available but at times dropping to 1 every two weeks. Dried eggs ----- 1 packet each 4 weeks.
SWEETS …………………… 12 ozs ( 350g ) each 4 weeks.

You were allowed to buy one can of fish at times.

http://www.memorylanehf.oddquine.co.uk/food.htm


That can't be right huh Graham? I mean if fish was not rationed, and y'aal were gorging on all that meat,(4ozs) and presuming your Hens were not constipated, (1 egg every week...maybe) 

Because so many things had to be brought to the UK by a ship, and the German U-boats were sinking many of them as they crossed the Atlantic Ocean from North America. In order to send much-needed supplies to Great Britain, people in Canada and the USA had to give up SOME of what they were used to, but the rationing here was no where as bad as it was in Great Britain.
An entire generation of British kids grew up undersized and sickly due to a lack of vitamins during their first few years of life during the war years. 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_rationed_during_World_War_2

Buckskins
It's interesting that the Germans post WW2 came off food rationing before the British. A 
sign of things to come.
End(Buckskins)

Quote
Graham
If you think it's interesting that a more agriculturally oriented country should produce more food than a more industrial one. However it was not a sign of things to come. Germany was to become much more industrially oriented. Also of course you appear to mean West Germany, not the whole country
End(Graham)

Buckskins
Actually I was also thinking of post WW2 when the Germans had the UK eating their dust within a decade. They have been running Europe ever since.

End (Buckskins)
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 12:05
@Buckskins, when you can learn to write a sensible connected argument about something without simply invoking all the prejudiced garbage you can find, I might bother to reply. If you were capable of using a simple straightforward quotation system that would help too. 

Of all that mess of idiocy I'll just point out that at the time the US was not active in the war, and while a US Catalina aircraft did sight Bismarck at one point it was an incidental sighting, nothing to do with the successful hunt for the ship. And incidentally all those ships you mention weren't actively hunting either nor, whicih was my point, were they involved in the SINKING as you claimed in your reifiulous original post.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 14:43
Graham, adopting a patronizing attitude and attempting to blow smoke up my butt when you are wrong, is no way for a man of letters in History like yourself to be conducting himself. I may add your snide remarks are a poor substitute for substance, in particular given your position of Moderator. There is nothing wrong with being wrong on occasion. I enjoy many of your posts as they are indeed educational and interesting to me. I would ask you to refrain from being abusive to people who challenge you. Have a nice day sir.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2012 at 18:21
That is ludicrous.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2012 at 00:18
Mr B- It seems you haven't spent your excommunication period pouring over the history section of your local library. A number of ships were involved with the Bismark operation because there were a lot of ships available in those days, and it was a high value target. The Germans would have done the same thing in similar circumstances, if they had the resources. In fact they did, allocating as many submarines as possible to what they considered high value convoys. Your suggestion that it was some sort of superior technology or tactics on the part of Germany that called for such large effort is absurd. In fact it was one obsolete biplane that delivered what may have been the fatal blow, destroying the ships rudder.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2012 at 17:04
Vanc, " Your suggestion that it was some sort of superior technology or tactics on the part of Germany that called for such large effort is absurd. "

 I suggested no such thing.
 Other than that I surprisingly concur with the rest of your post. It's so refreshing from your usual anti American platform.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2012 at 18:41
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Mr B- It seems you haven't spent your excommunication period pouring over the history section of your local library. A number of ships were involved with the Bismark operation because there were a lot of ships available in those days, and it was a high value target. The Germans would have done the same thing in similar circumstances, if they had the resources. In fact they did, allocating as many submarines as possible to what they considered high value convoys. Your suggestion that it was some sort of superior technology or tactics on the part of Germany that called for such large effort is absurd. In fact it was one obsolete biplane that delivered what may have been the fatal blow, destroying the ships rudder.


Was it? I thought it was a lucky shot on the horizon in choppy waters from one of the pursuing ships.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2012 at 20:18
The air attack effectively immobilised her, especially by damaging the rudder so that the ship couldn't be steered. Thereafter she was just a sitting duck for the British ships and aircraft to hit until she went down. 

The last two hits on her were torpedoes from the cruiser Dorsetshire. But far as I'm aware there's no universally accepted view of what actually sank her. It's been claimed that the crew themselves scuttled the ship, but one would have thought that in that case more of the crew would have escaped.

(There weren't any actually pursuing ships at the time since she would have had to be going anywhere to be pursued.)
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2012 at 20:32
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Mr B- It seems you haven't spent your excommunication period pouring over the history section of your local library. A number of ships were involved with the Bismark operation because there were a lot of ships available in those days, and it was a high value target. The Germans would have done the same thing in similar circumstances, if they had the resources. In fact they did, allocating as many submarines as possible to what they considered high value convoys. Your suggestion that it was some sort of superior technology or tactics on the part of Germany that called for such large effort is absurd. In fact it was one obsolete biplane that delivered what may have been the fatal blow, destroying the ships rudder.


Was it? I thought it was a lucky shot on the horizon in choppy waters from one of the pursuing ships.
 
 
My point was simply that the hit on the rudder was a key moment in the battle, which led to a fatal ending. It was not delivered by some superior technology, or the brilliant machinations of a master race, but by one dated aircraft using standard tactics. 
 
Mr B seems to place tremendous significance in making judgements based on ethnicity, specifically- good in the case of Germany, horrible in the case of Britain. Hence the listing of the supposedly hundreds of ships needed by the (incompetent) Brits to face off the single ship of the (masterful) Germans. This is of course nonsense. There were many ships and aircraft active in the North Atlantic at the time, and of course they would have been notified, and some peripherally involved. But the tactics and technology were similar. In the end it was a few aircraft and a couple of ships that did the deed, not an unusual state of affairs at all.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2012 at 00:53
I know.  I just got my facts muddled. x)
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2012 at 21:09
Actually the crew members swore the Bismarck was scuttled by the crew.

I would like someone to point out where I claimed HUNDREDS of ships were needed to sink the Bismarck. On second thoughts, don't bother. Just one more reason to resume ignoring Vanc's twisted posts.

I consider this thread closed, for obvious reasons.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2012 at 22:13
Agreed that you never said it took 100 ships to sink the Bismark. You said it took 50.

I have found this a very interesting thread. I agree that the French have a military history to be proud of. For centuries their has been animosity between the French and the English, as has been said by other on the thread. However their is a lack of evidence of some grand British conspiracy to brand the French as cowards for all time as a cover for their own defeat in Northen Europe in 1940.

As for branding the French as cowards, most of the popular culture references I have seen come from the US. When Bart Simpson goes to France he his taken in by a pair of corrupt Fenchmen who use him to make cheep wine using anti-freze. When Bart finally meets a French policeman, the Frenchman's major concern is the fact that the villans are putting anti-freeze in the wine. Homer gets as dirty as a Frenchman. The US allies "who fought so poorly and surrendered so readily".

The only major source of British popular culture making fun of the Fench that I can think of is the comedy series "Ello Ello", where the French are protrayed as sexual, incompetent, cowardly and occasionally as collaborators. On the other hand the British in the show are portrayed as upper class twits, incompetent, can't speek French and completely confused by events, and the Germans incompetent, cowardly, confused and occasioanlly homosexual. The show was bloody funny.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 09:48
I don't know if you're referring to me there, but I didn't say the english labelled the French as cowards as part of a conspiracy.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 12:05
No sweat, Zagos, I was not referring to you.

I was referring to the general replying in this thread to Backsins first question if we think that the British put the blame of defeat on France to turn Dunkirk into a victory. It just seems to me that their is a lack of evidence towards some British born plan the vilify the French has cowards to cover their own defeat by the Germans in Northern Europe in May/June 1940.

I was also pointing out that most anti French humor I hear in Australian comes from American sources.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 12:42
OK, good. Just to reiterate, my view was that it (cowardice) was the latest iteration of anti-French sentiment in a line potentially dating back to the 100 years war.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10361
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 15:39
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

........  I would like someone to point out where I claimed HUNDREDS of ships were needed to sink the Bismarck...............
 
Thats not so hard  -     try   this one...
 
This is what you said...
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

You're right Graham,it wasn't 50 ships.
Nearly a hundred ships of all kinds were deployed to operate with, against, or because of Bismarck
You didn't say hundreds - but close enough...
 
Another subject...
As an extra service, not least for your benefit Buckskins, I made this post a while back...
 
And lastly...  I need a favor of you...
I have noticed your aversion against everything british, no matter what.
Of course the British have made things they probably do not like to brag about,...
- but name me ONE nation who can claim that they are innocent and free of all sins, atrocities, murders, traitors, stupidity and so on???
It doesn't exsist, we all know that, so consider it a rethorical question...
 
But allow me another question, and this is the favor i need from you ...
Please tell me WHY you obviously despise the british to this extent and in all the contexts we have seen here since you joined..
There must be a specific reason since the British are just one of many nations - and not alot worse than many other nations as I see it...
 
I will eagerly await your answer...
 
 
 
 
 
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
Voltage View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 13 Mar 2013
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 17:42
Perchance to answer the question why they are considered is from the days of Nelson,  read any of the accounts on it and you will think they are complete cowards 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.152 seconds.