| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - April 28 2005 : 2:47:37 PM
|
The majority of Northern Ireland's inhabitants said not.
What promise had the US made to Poland it broke?
What war you talking about? The US didn't fight for Poland, and never claimed it did. It fought to defeat the Nazis who pointlessly declared war on the US.
Fantasize the fate of Ireland under Hitler if England had fallen... Of course, de Valera thought he could get a treaty, evidence that supports the story that ......
FDR thought Eamonn de Valera about the stupidest man he'd ever met. I believe that tale crawled into the Time-Life history of WWII, so you might reference it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 4:41:13 PM
|
Warlord
Perhaps it might be best to define who you mean by "you"
DC
What promise had the US made to Poland it broke?
Promises?It recognised the free polish government in exile.[And remember those gallant Polish fighter pilots]Sold them down the drain.
The majority of Northern Ireland's inhabitants said not
How do you think that majority was arrived at?
Of course, de Valera thought he could get a treaty, evidence that supports the story that ......
Churchill promised him the North if he entered the war.Churchill would sell his own mother if he thought.....
What war you talking about? The US didn't fight for Poland,Yes it did .What do you think the term Allies means.
FDR thought Eamonn de Valera about the stupidest man he'd ever met.Yeh he was a bit odd. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 7:32:19 PM
|
Governments in exile aren't elected and aren't the nation. See: the history of Cuba of late, Iraq.... They may or may not represent a large contingent. In any case, nobody could have taken the Soviets in a ground war at that point, and I'm sure the Poles really didn't want to have one fought there. There was nothing that could be done.
By conquest. You lost. Just like when the Celts took it from the people already there, whoever they were.
He couldn't sell his mother, from all reports she wasn't that difficult in the first place. As Poland noted, England keeps its treaties, and she left India, so De Valera may have lost, big time, if that story is true. There being a parliament and all.
Got me. Sloppy writing. I meant the US did not enter the war to fight for Poland as England and France did, and as they had to. France and Poland didn't exist during the US's participation, really, so they were trotted out for publicity purposes. China, Soviet Union, England and Empire, US were the Allies, and Holland, Argentina and the other 'allies' did little more than not fight us, although the Dutch navy was pretty damned good, just small. And the French DID fight us at first.
Odd? Lord Salisbury was odd. That guy was dense. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on April 28 2005 7:32:44 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 09:13:36 AM
|
Governments in exile aren't elected and aren't the nation.The Polish people gave their allegence to the Government in exile and the Warsaw uprising was an expression of this.How quickly the US forgot it's comrades from Arnhem and Cassino.
In any case, nobody could have taken the Soviets in a ground war at that point,
One nuke on Moscow
and I'm sure the Poles really didn't want to have one fought there.See above for Warsaw uprising
By conquest. You lost.
Never conquered.Always disputing one way or the other.
As Poland noted, England keeps its treaties,
No it does not as Poland noted, there was a joint invasion of Poland.War was declared on only the Germans.
France and Poland didn't exist during the US's participationFrance existed with the ligitmate government in Vicy.As I'v already stated the US recognised the Polish government.
so they were trotted out for publicity purposes
Fooled, used and then sold out.[Poles]
That guy was dense.
Who Dev? I don't know.We gave the Brits the weather forcast and sold eggs and bacon to the German U Boats,Lit the way for Yank B52s and lit up Dublin as a navigation ref for the Luftwaffe.Dev got us through it with hardly a scratch but no Marshall plan for us. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 09:59:49 AM
|
B52's weren't flown during WWII. They weren't developed until the 1950's or 60's.
Pedanticism aside - what was Britain or the US for that matter supposed to do about Poland post war? At the end of WWII the Russian army was perhaps the most powerful land army in the world (the US airforce and navy were far stronger than their Soviet counterparts). I've read that Churchill was extremely unhappy about the Russians occupying and controlling Poland and East Germany, but realistically there was little he or anyone else could do about it.
The only military option as you've pointed out was the nuclear one - and that was a road that no one (wisely) wanted to walk. What would the west have gained from slaughtering 100,000's of innocent Russian civilians in a nuclear attack, apart from to gain the lasting emnity of the Russian people.
When it really comes down to it, Churchill and the other western leaders at the time, chose the right path, unfortunately it took till 1989 for the wisdom of that choice to be vindicated. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 10:30:53 AM
|
B52's weren't flown during WWII.
Darn I ment them flying fort thingies.
Pedanticism aside - what was Britain or the US for that matter supposed to do about Poland post war?
Sure they had a decision to make.That decision ment they lost the war.
As regards nukes they had no problem with innocent Japs and McArthur wanted to use them against China.
I've read that Churchill was extremely unhappy about the Russians occupying and controlling Poland and East Germany,
It's called apeasement.Uncle Joe ok Adolf no [well not after the business with the Czechs . |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 10:51:06 AM
|
You have no basis for saying 'the Polish people' gave their allegiance to the government in exile. Significant numbers supported the Soviets as saviors at first, and there were Polish units of the German army.
If we had, you'd now be calling us war mongers for killing all those innocents..... In any case, what nuke? Our immediate supply was gone by Nagasaki. No production line then. Russia was no Japan, Wild: it had a very large and very good Air Force at the end of the war. No relaxing trek in, drop, out. That's a really stupid off-hand remark, 'nuke Moscow.'
Warsaw uprising was composed almost entirely of the Jewish quarter. Poland before the war was notoriously anti-Semitic and arch Catholic conservative, which the Nazis happily uitilized. Since the war, its image has been buffed up by Cold Warriors and because of JP2 and its rebellion against the Soviets, but its almost an image reversal. It was not a sympathetic prewar government, having land claims against its neighbors, and a military run government with monarchist overtones.
Utterly conquered, always whining. Only in comic books are you conquered 'only when you admit it.' Like the Native Americans, the ruling people were always able to utilize tribal schisms and play you off against each other, which had worked for centuries.
True. But the treaty involved Poland and Germany and war was declared when Germany invaded first, Soviet intentions unclear. Given the nonaggression pact, it could reasonably be assumed the Soviets were protecting fellow Slavs (something always talked about) by providing a safe zone. It wasn't true, but based on what was known then. Are you suggesting England should have declared war on the Soviets? That would have kept Hitler in power.
Vichey France was not legitimate and made no pretense of being legitimate. It was the puppet of Hitler. Further, it fought England and the United States openly, which is why we inflated DeGaulle and recognized him. The Polish government in exile was recognized for publicity purposes, like DeGaulle. The Poles in England were an impressive group - and damned good pilots - but they did not represent their nation, however it's now being patted into shape.
The best we had there were B-17's, not 52's. How proud Ireland must be to have stood on the sidelines while the greatest mass murderers and most clearly evil governments in modern history were fought. De Valera kept you safe? Baloney. If England had fallen, the Nazis would have had you in coal mines and slave labor till you dropped, any attractive women would become kept, your delusion of persecution recalibrated with actual horror. England kept you safe, coincidently, but it's ridiculous to pretend that an actual idiot like De Valera was responsible. Ireland's constant, overinflated and melodramatic sense of persecution is probably why the world routinely failed to rush to support you in various rebellions against British rule. With all the expatriots, you'd think there would be more, but no. The drug lords and gun runners of Boston collected lots of cash for the IRA but they'd be damned before returning to Ireland themselves to live.
And Marshall Plan? For what? What were you owed, given along with eggs and milk you kept track of Allied ships for sub use. What major war damage did you sustain?
They weren't fooled. They knew well that the boots on which ground would determine the post war world. It's not like Poland rushed to save the Czechs or was terribly concerned with anything except itself. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on April 29 2005 10:56:16 AM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 1:02:02 PM
|
Paul, aren't you somewhat gilding the lily by stating 200,000 Spencers? This web site offers the following information (please note the portion I boldfaced):
http://www.civilwar.si.edu/weapons_spencer.html
Spencer carbine
The Spencer carbine was one of the most popular firearms of the Civil War though it was not issued until the latter part of 1863. Its distinguishing feature is that it had a magazine that could hold seven metallic rimfire cartridges, which were fed to the breech by a compressed spring in the magazine. The magazine was loaded through the butt of the rifle. When the trigger guard was lowered, the breech block dropped down, and the spent cartridge case was ejected. As the trigger guard returned to its normal position, the breech block moved up and in the process, caught a new cartridge and inserted it in the breech. To expedite the loading process, the Blakeslee quick-loading cartridge box was designed, which held several loaded magazines that could be quickly inserted in the butt. In all, more than 95,000 Spencer carbines were purchased during the war by the federal government.
Division of the History of Technology, Armed Forces History
National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution
Behring Center
Transfer from the U.S. War Department
Another site says, "According to procurement records (January 1, 1861 to June 30, 1866) the Union army did finally order 94,196 of the carbines but the initial delivery date of December 26, 1861 was delayed for more than a year due to a production problem with the gun's extractor."
http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/carbinesetc.htm
And this quote:
"From 1860 to 1869 almost 140,000 Spencer rifles and carbines were made in military configuration. A relatively small number of sporting rifles were made, certainly not many. I believe it would be safe to say that total Spencer production did not exceed 145,000 pieces."
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/blancard/spencer.htm A pretty interesting site....check out the exploded views of various lever-action rifles.
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 4:19:51 PM
|
DC
Warsaw uprising was composed almost entirely of the Jewish quarter.
If you are going to pontificate on Poland in WW2 it would be helpful if you could distinguish between the rising in the Jewish ghetto [April 43]and the general uprising of the Polish home army [Aug 44].
Significant numbers supported the Soviets as saviors at first, and there were Polish units of the German army.
Was there any army they were not in?
You have no basis for saying 'the Polish people' gave their allegiance to the government in exile.
In wartime allegiance can only be gauged by the willingness of the people to fight under a particular leadership.This leadership was in exile in London.It was supported and recognised by the Democratic Western powers.It exercised direction over the Polish home army who put up the greatest resistance to German occupation than any other resistance movement.And its exiles in Britian distinguished themselves in all areas of the war.
At Yalta the US and Britian handed them over to another bloodthirsty dictator.[It is estimated that Stalin exterminated 7 million Russians who had remained under German occupation]
In any case, what nuke?
In Feb 45 I believe two were nearing completion
Utterly conquered, always whining.
I think we were utterly conquered at least 50 times in the last 800 years but ya only got to be utterly free once.
it could reasonably be assumed the Soviets were protecting fellow Slavs
But of course and they started with the Polish officer corps at Katyn.
Are you suggesting England should have declared war on the Soviets? That would have kept Hitler in power.
Of course.Tiny Finland beat the crap out of them.
That would have kept Hitler in power
No it would not.It would have brought Stalin to his senses as the Waffen SS came knocking on his door.
Vichey France was not legitimate and made no pretense of being legitimate.Don't know what you mean.They signed an armistice and agreed terms.
The Poles in England were an impressive group - and damned good pilots - but they did not represent their nation, however it's now being patted into shape.
Crap.Who best to represent their nation that those who risk their lives for it.
How proud Ireland must be to have stood on the sidelines while the greatest mass murderers and most clearly evil governments in modern history were fought.
I know.What we really needed was a Pearl Harbor to get our attention.
England kept you safe,
Geography kept us safe.Unlike the poor Poles who had that worthless treaty with Britian.
why the world routinely failed to rush to support you in various rebellions against British rule.
How about the French,Spanish,Germans and the US who saved Dev from the firing squad.
What major war damage did you sustain?
Well there was that stray German bomber which jettisoned it bombs on us.Put the heart crossways in us it did.
It's not like Poland rushed to save the Czechs or was terribly concerned with anything except itself.
What country was?All I 'm saying is that the US and Britian lost the War.But then sometimes it is best to lose. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 4:40:17 PM
|
Posted - April 20 2005 : 04:07:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any smallarms weapon had a significant influence on the outcome of the battle it was the Sharpes carbine and that in the hands of Bufords troops who fought a brillant classic dragoon delaying action which deprived Lee of Cemetery Ridge.
The above is from a post of mine outlining the vital role of the Sharps carbine at Gettysburg.
He next carried the argumentation that repeating rifles and inferred Sharps (more advanced technological weapons) had no effect on Gettysburg
The above is posted by Warlord.I make no comment.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 5:13:52 PM
|
1. True, I was incorrect and melded them, but the distinction doesn't serve you. After the Germans, you are suggesting Poland lusted for a war against the Soviets fought in Poland for their freedom? No. Significant numbers supported the Soviets.
2. Maybe not, but you have said 'the Polish people' supported the British held government in exile, when Polish opinion was way divided. There's no basis for that claim of yours.
3. Yes. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, August '45. There was no way to bomb Moscow anyway.
4. Which everyone with reason assumed was the Nazis, and came to light way after the fact.
5. Setting aside Finland's sustained quivering during the big war, because they knew they'd previously faced a tiny portion of an Army rent by the slaughter of its officer corps, there's location, location, location. How the hell could England......you're kidding.
6. Stalin and sense. Hmm. Yes, likely. The Waffen SS did knock on his door, but the front hall was too big for them to survive the journey into the house.
7. Vichy France signed over half its land and disbanded its entire army and thereby ceased to be sovereign, and since it violated its own constitution, and this was done without a vote of the citizenry, it's hardly valid, and the Allies didn't treat it as such. Quisling looks like a stallion of patriotism by comparison. Another paper signing in that damned railroad car. Vichy France fought the Allies at sea and in North Africa until its exiled military switched sides, sorta/kinda under de Gaulle whom they hated. If they took Vichy seriously, the Allies would have treated - would have to treat - France as a conquered enemy.
8. That's the Poles' decision, however convenient to assume our Poles represented all. There was an element pro west, one pro German, one pro Soviet, others. All fought 'for Poland.'
9. Even with Irish attention, what difference? Bad poetry in German?
10. Please. If England had been invaded and fell, there was nothing to save you, least of all geography. God knows, America wouldn't.
11. Don't know that's true. But entertainment value, if so. He'd periodically offer his views.
12. No country was. But why should the US rush to save Poland when we had no ability or obligation - above that of Ireland's - to save it? England took on Germany when it was really too weak to do so and didn't flinch. Much, anyway, given everything. The US and Britain won their war against Germany. There was nothing to be done about the Soviets, they were too strong and already there. A war to no beneficial purpose or end is foolish. And, in any case, taking the long view we won that war as well. Or rather, the Soviets lost it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 7:39:14 PM
|
"He next carried the argumentation that repeating rifles and inferred Sharps (more advanced technological weapons) had no effect on Gettysburg or any other major battles in the war!"
Paul, as much as I hate to say this, his original argument regarding your statement that the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge is correct. The Springfield and cannon firing canister stopped Pickett's Charge. The Spencer may have had influence in the cavalry battle, assuming that Stuart had been able to break through, perhaps the amount of reinforcements available to Meade may have been less...I doubt it because from all accounts, they had enough grunts with the Springfield to enfilade the advancing Rebel infantry once they got close enough.
Yeah, I saw that and recognized the "trap" but from all I have been able to read, only New York really went out as a state and purchased firearms for their volunteer regiments. The remainder of the states lived mostly by what the Federal government handed out (states were not so much different then than now are they?). Individual regiments or battalions did purchase the Spencer and Henry...something like 16,000 Henry's were sold to volunteer troops but usually, again from my limited reading, on a subscription basis from the troops.
Be good,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on April 29 2005 7:46:24 PM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - April 30 2005 : 12:15:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
3. Yes. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, August '45. There was no way to bomb Moscow anyway.
It could have been done. I don't know if America had another bomb waiting on the sidelines in 1945, but they certainly had the raw materials readily available. The difficulty would have been in the delivery. A pre-emptive strike would likely have worked, but if the Soviets were already on a war footing with the US, and if their air defences around Moscow were in place, then the chances of success would have plummetted dramatically.
There was a window of oportunity for the US between 1945-49 (when the Soviets detonated their first bomb). But it was a course that the US wisely shied away from.
quote:
7. Vichy France signed over half its land and disbanded its entire army and thereby ceased to be sovereign, and since it violated its own constitution, and this was done without a vote of the citizenry, it's hardly valid, and the Allies didn't treat it as such. Quisling looks like a stallion of patriotism by comparison. Another paper signing in that damned railroad car. Vichy France fought the Allies at sea and in North Africa until its exiled military switched sides, sorta/kinda under de Gaulle whom they hated.
To salve the pride of any stray Australian (aside from myself) you might also point out that Australian and other forces also fought (and comprehensively defeated) them in Syria and Lebannon. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 30 2005 : 01:07:59 AM
|
Paul, I haven't read anything but the first sentence of your "you are full of BS" response before I had to respond.
If I must, I will itemize the infantry battalions and regiments which opposed Pickett's Charge. Custer and his Woverine's Spencers had no DIRECT impact on the pivot point of the entire Confederate infantry offense for the third day. Rather than harp that we are wrong on this point, please identify a cavalry regiment involved in the direct repulsion of Pickett's Charge. You can't do it. It's that simple.
While I respect your knowledge of firearms I will not let you rewrite history no more than I will Wild.
Best of wishes,
Billy
P.S. I just read the second sentence:
"My statement about Picketts's charge was as a matter of practical combat the Spencer stopped his charge! "
Again, please show me were the various infantry regiments on Cemetery Ridge were armed with Spencers and I will agree with you...since you will not be able to do that, I can snicker to my heart's content because you are FACTUALLY wrong bubba!
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on April 30 2005 01:15:13 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 30 2005 : 09:18:41 AM
|
DC
I note and appreciate your immediate and unequivocal acceptance of one or two points.It makes for a more mature exchange.
In commenting on the actions of nations we often fall into the trap of attriubting to them qualities which would normally be attributed to individuals.Such as honor,courage,loyalty ect.These qualities really have no influence on the actions of states.The bedrock which sustains a state is self interest and self advancement.[The UN and the boyscouts aside]
Britian by signing a treaty with Poland gave a hostage to fortune.The US by association and by recognising the exiled Polish government signed up to this commitment.But a war situation is fluid.1945 was a different war to the one in 1939.The US and Britian saw that they were now unable to deliver so the Poles were jettisoned.
It was in Ireland's self interest to remain neutral.Our little 2 division army would have made no difference.If Britian won then Great.If it lost then at least we had not upset Adolf too much.Not very honorable.But then there was more Irish individuals in the British army than there was Poles or even in our own army.The US at the time thought that an isolationist policy was the one that served it best.The Brits before the war offered Adolf Germany's old African colonies back.Sweden allowed German troops travel through its territory to invade its neighbour.Denmark capitulated without a shot being fired.Belgium ended it's alliance with France and Italy,Finland and Rumania changed sides.
There was no way to bomb Moscow anyway.
Minsk,Kiev?
there's location, location, location. How the hell could England......you're kidding
No convoys to Archangle.How long would Joe have lasted then?
Please. If England had been invaded and fell, there was nothing to save you, least of all geography. God knows, America
wouldn't.
No nothing at all.But if we had sided with the Allies do you think we would have had a place at Yalta?
England took on Germany when it was really too weak to do so and didn't flinch. Much, anyway, given everything.
Britian failed to face down Hitler when he had nothing yet still took back the Rhineland and the Sudetenland .Sold out the Austrians and Czechs.What more would be needed to constitute "flinching".
The US and Britain won their war against Germany.
And they had their victory parade in the center of London.Troops from all units and nationalities were represented accept yes you guessed it the gallant men [and women]who fought in the Battle of Britian,rescued the remnants of the Brit parachute division at Arhnem and captured Monte Cassino---The Poles. |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - April 30 2005 : 11:13:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
It was in Ireland's self interest to remain neutral.Our little 2 division army would have made no difference.If Britian won then Great.If it lost then at least we had not upset Adolf too much.Not very honorable.
I doubt that the New Zealand army had more than 2 divisions either, and they had the excuse of being located in the South Pacific - yet they still participated in the war. So I think there was extremely little excuse for Ireland not to join the fight against one of the most evil regimes in human history.
quote:
But then there was more Irish individuals in the British army than there was Poles or even in our own army.
I'm aware of that, I don't blame the Irish people for your lack of partipation in the war. The Irish government however..., there are few wars in history which can be considered truely justifiable, and WWII was one of those exceptions - much to the shame of the Irish government.
quote:
there's location, location, location. How the hell could England......you're kidding
No convoys to Archangle.How long would Joe have lasted then?
Without a doubt lend-lease improved the Russian situation greatly, but by no means were the Russians dependant on western aid. By 1942 the Russians were virtually self sufficient in small arms and tank production, their weaknesses in strategic bombers, virtual total absence of naval forces was never a factor in what was almost entirely a land based war.
quote:
But if we had sided with the Allies do you think we would have had a place at Yalta?
Whats that got to do with anything? Australia and Canada were both more populous countries than Ireland, both countries lost numerous servicemen (and women) around the globe and neither was represented at Yalta. So why on earth would Ireland need representation at Yalta?
quote:
Britian failed to face down Hitler when he had nothing yet still took back the Rhineland and the Sudetenland .Sold out the Austrians and Czechs.What more would be needed to constitute "flinching".
Easy, by not declaring war on the 1st September 1939.
Its easy to be critical in hindsight. Too easy to forget that a greatly weakened England was still recovering from the twin blows of the Great Depression and the first World War, easy to forget that Chamberlain thought that he could bring peace in his time through negotiation.
At the end when it became obvious that negotiation had become untenable and it was obvious that there were no more options the British did the right thing and declared war. Many countries including Ireland should be grateful that they did. Just as many countries (including Australia) should be equally grateful that a few years later that the US joined the British cause. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 30 2005 : 11:53:38 AM
|
Wild,
The Soviets have always been portrayed here in the West as totally held together by western aid. It helped a lot, but probably more in the nature of shortening, rather than winning, the war. It's now cheerfully admitted the Germans only had about 15% of their armies facing the West. All else was Russia, pretty much, and since Stalin had sent everything back East, where it took a while to set up tank factories and stuff, Russia was in pretty good shape even without us. They have everything they need. Stalingrad wasn't due to western aid.
Kiev, Moscow, doesn't matter. The Soviets had a huge and good airforce and no bomber formateions would make it far. They rammed and kamikazied against German bombers and there was no way we were going to attempt a nuclear raid and then have the plane go down, the bomb recovered. Nor, Wild, would one or two nuclear bombs do the trick anyway. They'd hide it from the rest of the nation, and bomb Europe. It's a really stupid suggestion. And we knew, at that time, they had spies in the Manhattan Project and would have a bomb sooner or later.
No place at Yalta, and why would you have deserved it? Neither did France, Poland, Norway, China, Holland get to pull up a chair.
Chamberlain did allow it, but had no army able to fight a war in central Europe, so what else could he do but negotiate a stalling treaty? England was still bankrupt from WWI. France did have an army, and was there, and did nothing. England had no obligation beyond moral to help the Czechs. No more than Ireland. Everyone let Hitler get away with it.
And where were the gallant Poles at that time? With the gallant Indians? Burmese? You keep stretching to find syllogism to Ireland. Ireland failed on its own, to serve itself and its people and to fight a war that needed winning. You fail to mention what sort of government the English Poles wanted for their homeland.
As for the Irish in the British Army, what percentage were from Northern Six and considered themselves NOT part of Ireland? The vast, vast majority. I hope you're not counting them as Irish for the sake of this argument? How many fought in the British Army? Quite a few, if you just call them Irish and make no distinctions between north and south. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 30 2005 : 2:16:12 PM
|
"NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, YOU LIED ABOUT A CITATION YOU POSTED!!!'
No lie. If I made a mistake, please be so kind as to point it out to me and I will own up to it. Unlike you, I am aware that I can be, and sometimes am, wrong.
As far as your 200,000 Spencers, perhaps you might want to read the entire quote from the web page:
"When the war ended, 105,804 of the 200,000 Spencers in use were purchased by private individuals."
Please note the first four words, they are important. Despite all the verbal attacks by you in an transparent attempt to obfustcate the primary issue, you haven't proven your erroneous contention that (and I paraphrase), "in a matter of practical combat, the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge."
Note: the word used, "obfuscate" was deliberately chosen as it fits.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=obfuscate
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 30 2005 : 6:28:12 PM
|
Dave,DC good posts.
DC
As for the Irish in the British Army, what percentage were from Northern Six and considered themselves NOT part of Ireland? The vast, vast majority. I hope you're not counting them as Irish for the sake of this argument? How many fought in the British Army? Quite a few, if you just call them Irish and make no distinctions between north and south.
The figures are Eire 70000 North 50000.Now 40% of the pop. of the North are Irish nationalists.So that 50000 is split 30000 and 20000,giving 90000 Irish, 30000 Ulster loyalists.OK
Long before Hitler invaded the USSR IN 1941,uncle Joe had created within its borders the greatest edifice of repression,mass murder and human suffering the world had ever seen.
The West tolerated this tyrant because his crimes were against his own people unlike Hitler who sought world dominance.At Yalta the allies did business with him handing over millions in Eastern Europe to his tender mercy.This frolicing with the devil was hidden by fluffing up the other bogeyman.The great con of the 20th century.Evil was appeased in 1938 and again 1945 by the great colonial democracies.Democracies who in 1938 rushed to recognise the fascist Franco.And neutrals like Ireland who have been villified because they did not side with these champions of freedom?
I doubt that the New Zealand army had more than 2 divisions either, and they had the excuse of being located in the South Pacific - yet they still participated in the war. So I think there was extremely little excuse for Ireland not to join the fight against one of the most evil regimes in human history.
Dave
I might be wrong in this and if I am apologies no slight intended ,but does not New Zealand ,Canada,and Oz have a Union Jack on their flag. We do not belong to the greater British family.We are not desended from colonists and owe no alligence to the Mother country.Britian was a colonial power from whom we had just won our independence.Our political and military leaders in 1939 were the same generation who had fought in our war of independence.Remember that Britian was prepared to do business with Hitler.The US was even prepared to see Britian go under.Who in 1939 knew how evil a tyrant Hitler was?
much to the shame of the Irish government.
Was there any country above shame?
So why on earth would Ireland need representation at Yalta?
The big two and the devil were carving up the world and it would have been helpful to know if you were a carver or a carvee.
Its easy to be critical in hindsight.
Then apply the same rules to the neutrals.
At the end when it became obvious that negotiation had become untenable and it was obvious that there were no more options the British did the right thing and declared war. Many countries including Ireland should be grateful that they did.
Well DC might see this as whinging but when you have been on the wrong side of Britians decisions for 800 years its nice to get one going your way after all that time.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 30 2005 : 7:19:25 PM
|
1. 40% of the north are Catholics. Not necessarily Irish nationalists. There are probably pro-English living in Dublin. In any case, you're assuming enlistees would follow that percentage. More to the point, the Irish government seems to have not been listening to its people, again, if so many young Irish Catholics saw the necessity of defeating Hitler. I hold no candle for the Orangemen, by the by.
In 1938 and in 1945 there was nothing the democracies could do. No military available (they thought; turned out Nazis were ahead in the image department)existed except the German and Soviet to take on the other. They did recognize Franco, because of Gibralter and because of Germany. No need to push him into the Axis. Like Ireland, Spain was also neutral but could reasonably be forgiven because of the civil war previous. And it's not like the communists fighting Franco were democrats, either.
2. Wrong. You are descended from colonialists, just not those of Great Britain, for the most part. You're pretend aboriginals, as even our Native Americans might be. Your people killed off the original, or at least previous, inhabitants. Who knew about Hitler in 39? Churchill, Poland, Czechs, Austrians, Jews, FDR, and most anyone who'd dealt with him. In the early 30's nobody knew squat about him, and he was buffoonish.
3. None above shame.
4. Europe isn't the world, news flash. Gee, you're not on the winning side, you openly refused assistance requested from the winning side, so are you a carver or a carvee at the table? Nobody is handing you a knife, but who can tell? Such a deep puzzler......
5. We do apply it to the neutrals. You don't apply it to the winners.
6. It is whining. Ireland has no concept of itself except as victim. It's actually afraid to be judged as a free nation responsible to itself, or has been till lately and in direct proportion to loss of church influence. You think things went your way? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 01 2005 : 08:52:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Billy: That was no mistake and you and I know it. You admitted you were aware of the "trap" when you posted it! To me that means you did not think I would read the citation
Cheap way to try to attack me on the Pickett Charge issue you and wild tried to fabricate on me. Didn't work!
What worked, is I now will not trust any citation you post! When you lose respect, you have to work hard to earn it back.
I don't really care if the number of Spencer's maufactured during the war years was 150 or 250 thousand, the point I was making was there was a superior weapon issued in substantial numbers. Enough to change the outcome of battles. I know you either don't understand that or you are twisting for your own puposes. I don't care!
What I do care about is I thought you were a competent researcher. I no longer have that opinion. Regrettable.
Certainly it is regrettable that your reading skills are on par with your social skills.
By "trap" Paulie, I meant in regards to my position.
Since you have not the faintest concept of what research is, let me explain something to you. When you research a topic, usually either you know nothing about that topic and want to learn more or one you have a point of view you wish to prove. If researching for the second reason, sometimes it happens that you find stuff which may be detrimental to your point of view. That brings up the conflict of which is more important, your viewpoint or intellectual honesty. I prefer to choose the latter. Simple as that.
And by the way Paulie, your regard for me has as much importance to me as that stuff I scraped off the sole of my shoe while mowing grass yesterday.
Later,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 01 2005 : 09:16:15 AM
|
Now back to the regularly scheduled show. As far as Spencers at Gettysburg, I spent roughly three hours yesterday searching through the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies for any reference of the two combined. I could not find it.
For those who wish to try themselves, here is the URL.
http://www.soldierquest.org/OR_army.htm
The above is simply a mirror site to Cornell's Making of America site. Here is the direct URL for that.
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/browse.monographs/waro.html
The Gettysburg campaign is in Series 1, vol. XXVII (27), parts 1-3.
You can search the entire work at the top of the page right before it lists the various volumes. Or you can select a volume and search within the volume.
Search terms I used were: Spencer (will pull up everything by the name of Spencer), breech-loading, magazine, repeating. Using the Boolean search: Spencer & rifle, breech-loading & rifle and some more I can't remember now.
I did not try a proximity search but will do that now using: repeating & rifle. No significant results but you all judge for yourselves.
Hint: the search results come up in pages which the criteria entered is met. If a long page and you want to use ctrl-F to search, at the top left after opening the page, change the "View As" from "50%" to "Text" and then search.
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 01 2005 : 2:41:00 PM
|
. 40% of the north are Catholics. Not necessarily Irish nationalists. There are probably pro-English living in Dublin. In any case, you're assuming enlistees would follow that percentage.
And
Wrong. You are descended from colonialists
DC
It is not always feasible to calibrate one's post to the .0001% standard of accuracy you require.But just this once I'll humor you.The figures should have read Eire 89999,Northern loylists 30001.
At the last world anthropological conference held in Oohmebumbum it was agreed that continued residence at a recognised geographical location for more than 3000 years confered on the residents the status of aboriginal.
More to the point, the Irish government seems to have not been listening to its people, again, if so many young Irish Catholics saw the necessity of defeating Hitler.
You must be joking.Keep the Micks out of a fight?
In 1938 and in 1945 there was nothing the democracies could do.You think this was a Good v Evil conflict?
France and Britian were colonial powers in conflict with rising fascism and they responded by appeasement.They sold out the only democratic country in central Europe while rushing to recognise Franco whose fascists overthrew the democratic republican government of Spain.
Not a single country entered this war other than France,Britian and its commonwelth without being first attacked.All the world was neutral until attacked.[Don't mention South America which the US owned].
Entry into this war would have resulted in us helping protect British Colonies.It would have had the Brits back in control of our ports.It would have been a complete committment with no say in the final outcome.
This war was one of fascism against communism with the colonial powers assisting the communists.Of the total casualties inflicted on the fascists, the US and its Allies were responsible for a negligible 15% of them.Not a single battle [including D Day]on the Western front would rank in the top 10 battles of the war. In one battle alone on the Eastern front the Soviets destroyed more devisions than the Allies had on the Western front.
Yalta was where good met evil and evil prevailed.The US and Britian sold out its Ally Poland.Agreed to the subjugation of Eastern Europe.During the war ,there were thousands in London and Washington who had witnessed Stalin's camps and murders.But they were effectively sinenced by war censorship.Buchenwald was emptied of one set of inmates,and then filled with Stalins victims.But in the euphoria of victory the West acquiesced and the grand rhetoric was employed to foster the illusion that the West had won the war.
6. It is whining. Ireland has no concept of itself except as victim.
Well it looks like we have been religated to second place by the Jews.It appears that they have now got holocaust denial recognised as a crime.
It's actually afraid to be judged as a free nation responsible to itself, or has been till lately and in direct proportion to loss of church influence. You think things went your
way?
We are a free soverign non allined country with a solid non rectionary democratic government.Our standing and record in world affairs is second to none.Time and again we have been called in by the UN to help clean up after the colonialists and imperalists.We are accepted as peacemakers where the US and British cannot go.We are the only white nation with troops in Liberia and are soon to send a contingent to the Sudan.We have taken our place among the nations of Europe and have helped build a new political union.We have a young dynamic population and our economy goes from strenght to strenght.
We took a stand in 1939 and survived against all odds. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 01 2005 : 7:04:20 PM
|
"Unfortunately, you went further after I pointed out the citation carried the 200,000 Spencer's figure to you. It also supports my opinion on the Battle of Gettysburg and the advantage the Spencer conferred on the Federal troops! Turning Lee's army back!!!'
See, this is circular logic at its best! My entire contention is that the Spencer had no impact upon Pickett's Charge and now that you push the issue, I will add that it had nowhere as significant an impact upon the cavalry battle. If you are going to use the guy who has the online book (the first four chapters anyway) talking about "streams of fire from the seven-shot repeater", please remember in his intro he made no claims such as you have.
Hmmm, let's go over a few of the things you said. In one of the attack posts from yesterday, you imply that I stated I was a firearms expert. Please direct me to where I said that. It can't be done. I find information, I hand it off to Dave & Prolar and to a lesser extent Wild to confirm the validity of anything I find dealing with firearms. I pull the trigger, it goes "bang", I clean it is my only "claim" to expertise in firearms. Of course with your perverted logic, that means if I turn on the ignition and push the accelerator in my car, I am a mechanic. Yeah, yeah.
Regarding the postings of yesterday or Friday, dealing with you causes the mind to want to forget about what you are dealing with. I posted that, to paraphrase, I saw the trap. As I said, it was a trap to my position, i.e., it proved me wrong. I never said it was a mistake, but I will admit I was mistaken about the number of Spencers purchased in total, not only by the Federal government.
Nothing wrong with the boldfacing-I was still stuck on the Federal government portion.
Face it Paulie, if I had not posted the other side which proved my argument incorrect, you were too lazy to have found it on your own.
And Paulie, it matters not to me whether you read the links I post nor what you think of me, my "contributions" or life in general. I think that you are a simple fraud. If you were an "intelligence analyst" during Vietnam, you were likely one of those analysts who told Westmoreland that, "no way, no how are the VC going to break the Tet cease-fire." You haven't ever shown anything near the capability to be anything more than a busboy at the local greasy spoon, despite "letters" after your name.
With sincere contempt and lack of respect,
Billy
P.S. Regarding who I want to be like? One thing is for sure Paulie, it sure isn't you.
You know, I just really noticed something Paulie. After my initial post with the Spencer links, you were explaining things, it was only after I disagreed with your "as a matter of practical combat the Spencer directly stopped Pickett's Charge" quotation that your attack-dog (or actually, closer to a whining hyena) mode came into play. What't the matter, you don't like people disagreeing with the all powerful Oz?
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on May 01 2005 7:08:47 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 01 2005 : 9:17:49 PM
|
"You certainly are not firearms experts in any firearms circles! You are simply an immature phony!!!"
Paulie, you unmedicated fool, you posted that on 4/30 at 14:07. Yet, you have the gall, to state:
"I also don't recall implying you were an expert in firearms or anything else. If I did, my mistake."
Yep, your mistake. As always Paulie, you try to obfuscate the issue. I have no pretensions on being a combat veteran, never have, and hopefully, never will. Having said that, you are the first I have met, from WWI vets who served with my granddad, to my "big brother" who went over to VN as a forward artillery observer when I was 13 or so. He never wanted to talk about the war either. Neither did my uncle who won a CBI for the Rhineland offensive during WWII. In short Paulie, I am starting to think that you were no more than a REMF, to quote the terms of the era. Combat veterans don't blow their horns as you do.
You are no more than a loud mouthed blow hard. Your tactics are to defame, and outscream the opponent, quoting your mythical expertise. You know, I am starting to wonder if you are not just an adolescent kid who has heard his dad talk about war and law enforcement.
Hmmm, the more I think about it, the more it fits...
Gotta go and eat dinner,
*smooch*
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on May 01 2005 9:19:08 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Cartridge ID
