| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 03 2005 : 11:33:53 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.[yet again] |
  |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 03 2005 : 11:50:07 AM
|
I saw before I logged in, a message from the REMF, stating I selectively posted citations. If I was selective, boy, I sure am sloppy as he doesn't seem to realize that with the posting in question, I shot my own argument down and proved his regarding the numbers of Spencers sold.
Uh, Paulie, I have no nightmares nor guilt complex about not being in the military either. Another obfuscating argument on your part. Trying to throw the stuff at the wall in hopes that some will stick.
Please explain to us, again, how the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge as a matter of practical combat. We all like to hear fairy tales.
Practical:
1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand.
2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.
4. Capable of being used or put into effect; useful: practical knowledge of Japanese. See Usage Note at practicable.
5. Intended to serve a purpose without elaboration: practical low-heeled shoes.
6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.
7. Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative.
8. Being actually so in almost every respect; virtual: a practical disaster.
Later,
Billy
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 03 2005 : 4:41:00 PM
|
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.[yet again] |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 03 2005 : 5:13:49 PM
|
"Half your quotes of me are misquotes, anyone can go back and see what I really said. No problem, I stand by my previous positions."
Please, I would love them to be able to find something incorrect unless I am deliberately paraphrasing, which I do try to identify. The only thing I can think of is my quote of you, "As a matter of practical combat, the Spencer directly stopped Pickett's Charge." I think I stuck "directly" in there during an early rebuttal of your foolish position.
"I find your ad hominum attacks rather dull and not too original! "
From the King of Ad Hominum attack tactics, I suppose I am not too original when compared with you.
"Posted - Today : 3:11:35 PM Billy: If you don't like me! Keep your mother in at night!"
And I suppose that is a threat? Yep, a real John Wayne type you are Paulie. A former law officer? LMAO!
"But, I will tell you one thing, no matter my personal opinion of Gen. Westmoreland, or any other ex-soldier, you are not fit at this stage of experience in your life to hold the toilet paper for them to wipe their butt's!"
Paulie, I am not talking about any soldier or cop or fireman as I hold people who put their bodies between my family and myself and the bad guys or life-threatening circumstances in genuine respect. I don't respect a REMF such as yourself nor expect you to understand the difference.
"Unfortunately, being caught selectively posting on what should have been a rather minor issue has caused a loss in credibility."
Funny, it wasn't an issue with you until the next post I made when I still disagreed with your delusional fantasies about the Spencer on Cemetery Ridge.
And the funniest thing I have seen all day?
"English is a rather precise language! You need to get a better command of it if you expect it to work for you!"
From of all people, the Used Car Salesman of Custerology, Paulie.
Later Paulie, gotta do some real research for myself tonight as I have spent too much time doing your work for you. Tell me one thing, you live in the Sacramento area. There are some nice research facilities around there, why don't you take advantage of them?
Billy
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 04 2005 : 10:09:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
BJ: If you refer to me as a MF, keep your mother in at night! Not a threat. Just trying to help you!
If you don't like any of this why don't you slit you wrists, it will lower your blood pressure!
Well, no probs keeping Mom in at night since she passed in 1984. Since I already know what you are going to say (you are really transparent Paulie), just remember this...my Mom undoubtedly would be ashamed of at least one of the people I hang out with here, you. I can see her now saying, "I raised you better than to associate with trash like that Paul character." But, what guy ever listens to Mom?
No, I have no problems worthy of slitting my wrists with you misconstruing and obfuscating posts to attempt to shift the onus of your unproven argument somewhere else. If I had made such a dumbass statement, I don't think I would do the same, but it maybe would have been tempting to do. If you choose to go through life as a loudmouth bully, have at it.
Later Paulie,
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on May 04 2005 10:11:07 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 05 2005 : 11:02:41 PM
|
"Posted - Today : 9:11:02 PM Show Profile Reply with Quote
Billy: Does this mean you don't love me anymore? Well doggone it, I guess I have lost out to DC! But, I can see where you might be more attracted to him. You two probably can communicate in Elvish which I am ignorant of. I will try to overcome my deep disappointment! Remember to practice safe sex!!!
Warlord"
Paulie, never loved you, barely tolerate you. However, that being beside the point, your wiggling like a broke-back snake to avoid answering hard questions regarding: a) proof of Spencer rifles stopping Pickett's Charge and b) what phony PMs you are braying about and c) what proof that the repeating rifles, not necessarily the Spencer, played any pivotal role in any engagement beyond Hoover's Gap. On the last, I will be more than glad to listen to facts, or at least reputable sources. So far, on all three questions, you have not offered any facts, only opinions and hell-fire and damnation to all who call you out for expressing your opinion as fact.
As I told you on the Phobe/Phile thread, Sheridan's forces, armed mostly with Spencer carbines (at least the portions that were engaged), could not defeat Hampton's rebs, primarily armed with sawn-off Enfield rifles. For those not keeping score, this was the battle of Trevilian Station. If Sheridan had accomplished his task of cutting the railroad from Lynchburg to Richmond and been able to aid Hunter, the Confederate army would have had no supplies. Gregg's division of troops, after Sheridan was defeated at Trevalian Station where they saw little to no combat, were routed from Samaria Church by Confederates who were armed with single-shot carbines, Enfields and some captured Spencers from Trevalian Station. This, despite the fact that Gregg's division was armed with Spencer carbines.
Paulie, post facts instead of innuendo, slander or insults and you may get some support from others.
Later,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 06 2005 : 10:02:38 AM
|
My bad...this is where it started and this is where it should stay. On the other thread I was merely responding to your innuendo.
"Billy; You lied, you posted selectively ignoring points that proved mine. So instead of being the board researcher, you are now a selectively posting phony. You did it to yourself. I didn't do it to you! You should be mad at yourself!"
Paul, please grasp the difference. I was arguing a point, not having researched it (as my posting a link which disproved my argument showed). I will, for your benefit (as most others seem to see the difference) clearly differentiate what I offer as pure research for the hell of it and research to prove a point. However, the result is the same, it is research, something you have proven that you are not inclined to do. Generally speaking, anything on the Research thread will be "pure" research. Anything else on another thread will be in support of an ongoing argument, whether or not I am directly involved.
"Oh, another thing Billy, I don't discuss facts with liars, except at my discretion!!!"
Facts don't lie Paul. Interpretations of the facts may be lies but, who is lying? The person who states, without proof or understanding of the battles which comprised Gettysburg, that the Spencer "as a matter of practical combat stopped Pickett's Charge" or the person who proves that no cavalry were involved in repulsing the charge and that no infantry regiments on Cemetery Ridge were armed with repeating rifles.
You are just a poseur who attempts to hide his lack of knowledge behind obfuscation, innuendo, threats, bullying and rants.
Later,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on May 06 2005 10:38:11 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 06 2005 : 11:34:21 AM
|
Wild, apologies for the belated reply, but I've been a little busy. I don't intend to continue the discussion on Ireland's role in WW2. You've been nothing less than polite to me in past, and I get very little enjoyment from upsetting other people (apart from tweaking DC's whiskers that is), which is likely to happen if I continue along that vein.
However I do dispute some of your other comments.
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
. 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.
Bluntly I think that is plain wrong.
I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware the Battle of the Bulge is one of the biggest battles staged ever in history. Half a million German and other Axis troops faced an army of 600,000 American's and 50,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers in colossal, sprawling battle that lasted nearly a month, and produced 80,000 allied casualties and 100,000 German.
If you know better, then please correct me, but I think that the Battle of the Bulge was bigger than the battles of Kursk and Khakov. Which would leave only the sieges of Stalingrad, Lenningrad and Berlin as possibly bigger battles, and even then I would wonder.
I might also mention the closing of the Falaise (spelling?) Gap, where I believe the Germans suffered significant casualties.
As for the 15% casualty figure. I haven't done any research, but it just sounds wrong. Britain fought Germany for 6 years. From France in 1940, to Norway and then Greece, Crete. The campaigns in North Africa, then, and then in combination with the American's, up the spine of Italy and finally from Normandy to Germany. Additionally both the RAF and USAAF (or whatever they were called then) extensively bombed Germany.
So I find it hard to swallow the 15%. Unless the casualty figures inflicted by the Soviets were inflated by all the German prisoners they took in the last days of the war.
quote:
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.
They helped win the war against Hilter. They prevented Soviet domination of Western Europe and most importantly of all they didn't plunge Europe into another catastrophic war. The Soviets were feeling their oats in '45. They had massive battle tried armies, excellent generals (Marshall Zhukov for instance), good equipment - some of the best tanks in the world at that time. If the west had gone to war against the Soviets then, the devastation could have been massive, so much so that WW2 may have been a pale prelude in comparison. |
Edited by - dave on May 06 2005 11:40:13 AM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 06 2005 : 3:01:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Billy: You desperately want to be respected as the researcher on this board. But, you have been caught selectively posting. I understand your embarassment! But you can argue your false assumptions and lies with someone else. I have no respect for you. My facts have been posted, my positions drawn. I do not consider you a mature or serious person as your continual ad hominum attacks show. I certainly do not consider you a honest researcher anymore. Talk to someone who is listening.
Desperately? Nope, not one bit.
Selectively posting? Uhhh, you mean as in "in practical combat, the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge."? Something like that maybe?
Your facts? You haven't offered anything but opinion with no facts nor evidence to support your contention.
Continual ad hominem attacks [hint, use a dictionary]? May I offer this as a definition of ad hominem?
"ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case..."
Let's examine ad hominem posts:
In response to Larsen’s post on 10/3/04 at 2:06:48 p.m. on Responsibility thread, pg. 6:
“Posted - October 03 2004 : 4:49:07 PM
Larsen; You are the floating turd. Your perfidy and just plain B.S. show you are not intersted in a genuine discusion! I think you are familiar with much of this detail but simply wish to start personal arguments and detract from the real discussions! I now suspect you are merely a armchair diletantte playing games. So go F--- yourself!!
Sincerely Warlord
Warlord”
or
Pg. 7 same thread-in response to voices in his head I presume:
“bHist: Or is that behind? Talk about immature? A grown man playing like he is a Captain? Captain of what, the girls volley ball team? Me being despicable? You sound like a little girl with lace on her panties! Screeching? sounds like you are the one doing that!
I have went to several other sites here and Larsen is there demanding citations, usually of wiggins. Larsen grow up, and get a fresh line! Of course you sound immature too! WOW! I am begining to think Wiggins may be right about several of you slimebags (oh No).
KMA
Warlord”
or
In response to Wild’s of 10/4/04 at 8:30:16 a.m. Responsibility thread pg. 7:
“You indeed are the worthless one, you slimy third worlder! I have already smoked you out(Slimy Maggot)! Go have a warm beer and snicker over the killed seventh trooper's while you pretend your something you are not, and vote for political parties who disarm you and your people, pompous fool! Major, HAH! For those of you wondering why I am treating these idiots like this, I came on this board to ask some questions and was treated like dirt! It is also for the good people who have been run off this board by maggots like this!!!
Kiss My You Know What
Warlord”
And the best (I have boldfaced the most entertaining sections).
Posted - October 02 2004 : 5:19:35 PM
To the Wigger: It is probably beneath me to reply to you! However, if you do not think a real battle does not instill fear in mens hearts you are sadly mistaken. As far as being a pasty wannabe, I think you can tell who I am and what I have been. I have dealt with many old blowhard ex-cops in my life and you fit the pattern. Be careful you don't get in over you head! Wiggs I think you actually believe your replies to board members actually have factual and logical merit, they most times do not! You need to wake up to this!!! Indians fighting at 1200 yards, no indians between the troopers, all the troopers firing high or not firing at all! Tell me, are you drinking when you write these replies!!
Next, I believe I have put up more citable information in the last two days than you have in the last two months.
Furthermore, your ongoing arguments with Dark Cloud and Larsen only reinforce the foregoing! If you step back and look at Dark Cloud he appears to be a genuinely informed intellectual. Larsen is very good also, albeit somewhat shill sometimes (I too am guilty of this). They are both very well versed in the LBH Battle. I would much rather argue with you except it is too easy. It's like you showed for a battle of wits, unarmed!!
Warlord"
Above from p.6 of Responsibility thread.
If I wanted to waste another 10 minutes, I could find more.
Later folks,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on May 06 2005 3:07:37 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 06 2005 : 6:37:11 PM
|
Hi Dave.Nice to hear from you.
I don't intend to continue the discussion on Ireland's role in WW2. You've been nothing less than polite to me in past, and I get very little enjoyment from upsetting other people (apart from tweaking DC's whiskers that is), which is likely to happen if I continue along that vein.
Not at all me awl flower.I welcome an honest exchange and I don't ever get upset at what I read.
Neutrality is a complex issue and might require an entire board to itself but certainly feel free to post your opinions on it.
Bluntly I think that is plain wrong.
You are right.Checking my sources I see I should have posted 15% to 20%.So just let me consume this slice of humble pie.
However in case you dispute the upper figure let me state some figures.At Stalingrad the Germans suffered casualties of the order of 700000.At Kursk it was 500000.The eastern front at times was 1300 miles long.It ran from the Artic to the Black sea.The Western front was never more than a fraction of that.The land war in the East lasted nearly 4 years,that in the West [excluding Italy and North Africa]11 months.on D Day the Allies landed one army group the 21st it consisted of the US 1st and British 2nd army.On the eastern front there were numerious army groups.
You mention Norway and Greece.These were fought by a few British divisions.North Africa was no more than a skirmish up and down a desert road.El Alamein was fought by armies numbering 230000 v 100000.These numbers are dwarfed by Battles on the Eastern front.The war in Italy saw no more that 2 allied armies in action[guess]
Britain fought Germany for 6 years
Sure but mainly in the air and on the sea.
They helped win the war against Hilter.
They sided with evil against evil.Which ment evil won.But of course they could not admit this so Hitler became the only bogeyman and they stayed very quiet about uncle Joe.
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 12:01:28 AM
|
Paulie, address the question and desist with the obfuscation:
NAME THE UNIT OF THE FEDERAL ARMY ON CEMETERY RIDGE ON JULY 3, 1863 ARMED WITH SPENCER OR ANY REPEATING RIFLE!!!
See, it is simple! If, as you persist in saying, "in a matter of practical combat the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge," you should have that knowledge at your fingertips!
Paulie, this argument is between yourself and myself. Shall I bring your wife into it, not that I would as I am too much a gentleman to do that, unlike certain other folks I can name.
Obfuscation...
You are a poseur Paulie! You have no more knowledge of what you speak of than a slug has knowledge of legs.
Sleep tight sweetie, just remember I will be here to keep your sorry butt honest from hereon.
Oh, when you say you are not worried, why not answer the orignal question with facts rather than opinions?
Later,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on May 07 2005 12:03:36 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 10:36:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Checking my sources I see I should have posted 15% to 20%.So just let me consume this slice of humble pie.
However in case you dispute the upper figure let me state some figures.At Stalingrad the Germans suffered casualties of the order of 700000.At Kursk it was 500000.
500,000?
I checked a couple of websites, figures ranged from 50,000 - 70,000 German dead, and approximately 150,000 wounded, which gives 200,000 - 220,000 casualties. Yes, its a massive figure, horrendous actually, but quite considerably less (by about half) than 500,000. That figure to me sounds suspiciously like Soviet propaganda (unless you meant to type 50,000 dead and mis-typed 500,000 by mistake?).
I have no argument that the battles of the eastern front were massive, or that the Russians fought hard for over 2 and half years on their drive to Berlin, I'm just disputing the size of the casualty figures. I do think the Russians did inflict far more casualties on the German's than the western allies, but I not convinced the disparity is as great as the figures you have stated suggest.
quote:
North Africa was no more than a skirmish up and down a desert road.El Alamein was fought by armies numbering 230000 v 100000.
My father who was a great deal older than myself was at that little skirmish (he was an electrician working on P-40 Kittyhawks). While I agree that El Alamein was a comparatively small battle compared to Stalingrad it was a strategically important battle which could have had dire results for the Allies (including the Russian's had it been lost) as the next step would have been the Nile Delta and then onto the oilfields of Iraq, possession of which would have boosted the German war machine no end.
So maybe I'm biassed due to my fathers participation, but I would hardly call El Alamein a skirmish, even when compared to the battles of the eastern front.
quote:
They helped win the war against Hilter.
quote:
They sided with evil against evil.Which ment evil won.But of course they could not admit this so Hitler became the only bogeyman and they stayed very quiet about uncle Joe.
The question I would ask is simply this. Had Britain and America plunged not only themselves but their European allies into a devastating war with the Soviets, who would have been evil then? |
Edited by - dave on May 07 2005 10:38:50 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 11:46:03 AM
|
I think here are more examples of the various uses of the term "casualty." As I understand it, a casualty is unable to report for battle, and as such means dead, wounded, captured, or missing. It shakes out in histories that it sometimes means just dead, sometimes dead and wounded, but rarely all four categories. On the Eastern Front, captured were considered dead by both sides, not without reason. It's a major issue in military history, because remarkably round numbers, when huge, are immediately suspect. Casualties become just the dead. The Soviets claimed the war killed about 20+ million of them, and it's probably true although they had no accurate census anyway the further East you went, the issue being how many were killed by the Soviets themselves, I guess. Also, how many were civvies pressed into service at some of these battles distorts the numbers in both directions.
And even these aren't the biggest battles in European history. In the first WW, the Somme and Verdun next door killed a few million British, German, and French soldiers. Not casualties, killed. After they ended, the height requirements for the armies of all three shrank notably. Stupid affairs, and bigger than the next war's biggest battles.
Rommel wasn't even at El Alamein, was he? And given the huge British advantages, the Germans were flatly whipped. They couldn't resupply sufficiently with the Med still owned by the Brits. And I think it is agreed that a lot of the African campaigns were, in the cold light of history, not that important. They built up Rommel as this evil genius and that made Monty's rep, and Patton's, all for Brit and Yank home morale. But after the war, R's absence and overrating were pretty apparent, but with the vets alive the myth had to be maintained.
Not that this reflects on Custer or anything............or a zillion other battles and wars.
The US is now getting around to admitting how useless and badly done many of the Pacific island hopping campaigns were, due to upper level failure. Halsey has come in for the worst after Fletcher, Short, and Kimmel, but MacArthur and Nimitz both are now taking objective - as opposed to rival service - lumps. Some of it's 20-20 hindsight, but some in spite of what was then known for service or personal reasons. It's not generally known how violent some conferences became, like when the carriers were withdrawn from Guadalcanal, admirals got doused with, eh, bilge as they left flagships. Much of that good cheer led to the fiasco of Savo Island and other stellar early battles. Bad times. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 2:07:27 PM
|
Dave,
We could exchange figures from different sources relating to the different parameters of battles/campaigns for ever and not prove any particular point.I think DC covers the definition of casualties pretty well and bearing in mind that being taken prisoner on the Eastern front ment death the figures just go off the scale.
However just to illustrate the point I'm making.If you equate a war front to a meat grinder ,in the East you have one extending over a thousand miles and its been in production for 4 years.Now compare that with the meat grinder in the West which extended for a few hundred miles and has been in operation for 11 months.Now take into consideration the workers operating these meat grinders.The troops of the democratic Allies, man for man were an inferior species to those of the totalitarian states.The Russians and Germans expected to die.The civilian troops of the West expected to go home.Hitler Youth divisions held up Monty.A single German tank destroyed a Canadian division.[Now I know about how the Ozzies and New Zelanders destroyed the German parachute army in Crete but you lot were the exception] The war in the East was a brutal savage war of extermination while that in the West was a "civilized"war with conventions being respected by both sides.
This is just off the top of my head with no research but I would expect that a similar situation existed in the Pacific with the US inflicting anything up to 80% of the casualties on the Japs.
While I agree that El Alamein was a comparatively small battle compared to Stalingrad it was a strategically important battle which could have had dire results for the Allies
Agreed perhaps one of the most important battles of the second world war was the smallest.The battle of Britian in which the Brits suffered 400 casualties and the Germans perhaps twice that number.
but I would hardly call El Alamein a skirmish,
Apologies.Just a flippant comparison.
The question I would ask is simply this. Had Britain and America plunged not only themselves but their European allies into a devastating war with the Soviets, who would have been evil then?
Dead right you are.Thus to salve consciences we got the rhetoric and the Poles got the boot. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 3:39:12 PM
|
Again Wild: what were the options? Neither the US nor Britain's people would have fought a war against the Soviets who were, in any case, there and had a certain amount of popular support, which you ignore. And again, Poland's image now is decidedly different in the West than what it was pre war, when it was considered nearly as bad as the Russians, a backward and cruel country. They could not have been surprised given the way things shook out, and it saved them a civil war. There wasn't the huge affection for Poland there is now, even among Polish Americans who had left for good reasons.
It sounds terribly meaningful to condemn from distance, but there wasn't much enthusiasm, at first, even for the Berlin airlift. Also, Korea and the rest of the world...... You read the papers of 1944 and 45 and then come back and tell us that the US populace would have gone back to war in Europe. Poland's fate was being between Russia and Germany. Nothing to be done, all high western rhetoric aside. It took fifty years, but the war was won and with considerably less trauma than the alternative whose bloody and radioactive shirt you wave with such condemnation. The last fifty years are a picnic compared to what we'd be dealing with now had you had your way and we'd nuked Russia. Ye gods.
The SS and US airborne units took very few, if any prisoners of the other's soldiers. They were simply shot by both sides. Some American units apparently took no, zero, prisoners ever, which is suspicious. Britain and the US never faced more than 15% of Germany's ground forces ever. We machine gunned survivors of torpedoed Japanese ships. It was a race war in the Pacific, and more vicious but far more one sided.
For all the screw ups and mistakes and disasters, the Asian War of Stilwell and the Pacific Islands is far more impressive than the European as a demonstration of enomormous strength. That we fought them both still has military commanders in other nations clearing their throats, given nobody else has had that ability before or after.
Since Bush blamed Yalta today, we can expect to see this hammered about in the press, and I bet it will hinge on that same question: what could have been done different? Would Stalin have pulled back? Surreal supposition. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 6:19:33 PM
|
By golly Paulie, of all the fiction you have posted to this board, that is the second best post yet. I say second best because it does not top the ultimate fictional post you made:
"In a matter of practical combat, the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge."
That, little Paulie, is still the most mirth-provoking line you have written. Don't worry, many successful authors find that they have written their best works when young, thus they drift downward in a spiral of mediocrity, psychosis, and alcohol and drug abuse; thus you are in good company.
Billy
|
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 07 2005 : 11:16:18 PM
|
Goodness--!!
I soo think it's time to begin another thread that relates to LBH!
(PS--have I told any of you of my Russian *friends* who believe it was the Russian Army that was most responsible for the Allied victory in WWII? And that both the actions in N. Africa and Normandy were really too little, too late, no matter what Dubya claims?)
Okay, hoka hey!
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 09 2005 : 08:40:08 AM
|
Again Wild: what were the options?
Well they choose coexistance which means a higher priority was placed on preserving the empire and US interests than on Poland's cause or that of freedom and democracy.
Neither the US nor Britain's people would have fought a war against the Soviets who were, in any case, there and had a certain amount of popular support,
It would be a mistake to think that licking up to the school yard bully was support.More like self preservation.
There wasn't the huge affection for Poland there is now,
Well it helps if the guy you are going to sell out has bad breath.
It sounds terribly meaningful to condemn from distance,
I don't condemn,but neither do I swallow this victory in Europe spin.
You read the papers of 1944 and 45 and then come back and tell us that the US populace would have gone back to war in Europe.
You are absolutely right.They wanted no part of it in the first place.
Nothing to be done, all high western rhetoric aside. It took fifty years, but the war was won and with considerably less trauma than the alternative whose bloody and radioactive shirt you wave with such condemnation.
Well in Europe perhaps.But in the Pacific the baliwick of the US,there was no such coyness about bloody radioactive shirts.
What would the US know about trauma?The Iron Curtain was as much a creation of the West as it was of the Soviets.Poland ,Czechsolovics,and the Balkan States to mention just a few are conveniently airbrushed out of the West's conscience to become open air gulags with only the silent screams of Warsaw,Prague and Budapest to rouse curiosity.[Thankfully never on VE day]
Since Bush blamed Yalta today, we can expect to see this hammered about in the press, and I bet it will hinge on that same question: what could have been done different? Would Stalin have pulled back? Surreal supposition.
Bush is fighting for "democracy and freedom" in Iraq so there is nothing to be lost by taking the situation in Europe in 1945 and trotting out the old "freedom and democracy "rhetoric. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 09 2005 : 09:27:45 AM
|
Wild, you avoid the obvious issue.
Churchill had already kissed goodbye to Empire, bankrupt since 1916 in any case. The US refused to back up pound sterling and the dollar became the exchange of record throughout. That was it, and England had to divest.
The US and Britain were in no shape to take on the Soviets. What was the point to declaring a war you could not win on behalf of a nation where substantial numbers had deep affection for the Soviets? Better to instigate slaughter without end and extend a hostile environment for another century than bow to reality and, it turns out, win peacefully a half century later with essentially no trauma? Would Poland, in any form, be better off today for that?
And further, you still haven't come to grips with the fact that Poland was divided, had a large communist party even before the war, and the 'British' Poles were authoritarian in mindset and not compatable with a progressive Europe, however much they spoke the 'democracy' line.
You keep trying to interpret these events in terms and ways that reflect upon how Ireland was treated in reality and convenient myth. It warps your perceptions to continually try to show Britain as compatable with this Irish Republican image of King Billy's Empire. There's certainly truth to it, but Ireland just wasn't the big deal to London or the world stage Ireland always pretends it was to its citizens. It was till very recently just a hemmorhoid to Parliament.
The US knows nothing about trauma, as our hysteria over 9-11 proves. It was an awful event, but compared to what many others have been through, almost nothing in the scheme of things. We haven't had a war here since 1865 of note, and even then all rural. It's hard to imagine the US of such delicate sensibilities facing into the wind as Britain had to in 1941 or, bluntly, as Japan did in 1945 when both nations faced unbelievably huge odds against them, something we've never had to face at all. Fortunately, Germany was led by an idiot.
In this regard, you'll note this forum's conceit on the "forging of the American character" is rather strained. The US has a dangerous myth when its citizens believe that it was heroic battlefield actions of daring individuals (and, of course, our natty firearms) and not its gargantuan industrial might that mostly won its wars. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 09 2005 : 10:58:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Well in Europe perhaps.But in the Pacific the baliwick of the US,there was no such coyness about bloody radioactive shirts.
To be fair, what was the alternative?
When they were drawing up the plans for Operation Downfall, the American's estimated that 1.5 million troops supported by 3 million reserve personnel would be required. They also estimated that they would suffer between 250,000 - 1,000,000 casualties. Thats a lot in anyones language, even for the Russians (and even if it was an over estimate).
In comparison to tackling the Soviets in eastern Europe, invading Japan would have been a picnic. Remember what the Soviets did to the Kwangtung army in August '45? |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 09 2005 : 11:23:11 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
In this regard, you'll note this forum's conceit on the "forging of the American character" is rather strained. The US has a dangerous myth when its citizens believe that it was heroic battlefield actions of daring individuals (and, of course, our natty firearms) and not its gargantuan industrial might that mostly won its wars.
The US isn't any loner in this particular conceit. In Australia we have the myth of how the Australian character was forged by the heroic bronzed ANZAC's on the machine gun raked shores of Gallipoli. And how if it wasn't for the incompetence of the British officers, the victorious Australian forces would have quickly driven the Turks from the peninsula.
Australian memories of WWII are similarly selective, we remember the heroic resistance of the militia units on the Kokoda trail or the stubborn defence of Tobruk or even the role of the Australian pilots in the dam busting raids on the Ruhr, but few remember how Australian units ran like rabbits at Singapore or how one unit earned itself the unfortunate sobriquet of the greyhounds (and no it wasn't from the dash and enthusiasm they displayed when going into battle).
Having said that, generally Australian troops fought well and courageously, just like their British, German, American, Chinese, Japanese etc counterparts.
So I wouldn't worry too much, its an attitude shared by most nations (or at least by those nations with martial histories). |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 09 2005 : 3:02:24 PM
|
Barbara Tuchman on England:
No nation has ever produced a military history of such verbal nobility as the British. Retreat or advance, win or lose, blunder or bravery, murderous folly or unyielding resolution, all emerge alike clothed in dignity and touched with glory.... Everyone is splendid: soldiers are staunch, commanders cool, the fighting magnificent. Whatever the fiasco, aplomb is unbroken. Mistakes, failures, stupidities, or other causes of disaster mysteriously vanish. Disasters are recorded with care and pride and become transmuted into things of beauty.... Other nations attempt but never quite achieve the same self-esteem.
We gave it a go at LBH.
She goes on to point out that exactly why Singapore fell is never exactly addressed in British histories to her time. This is from "Stilwell and the American Experience in China." |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 10 2005 : 1:26:02 PM
|
To be fair, what was the alternative
Dave
Well let's just look at the military situation in 1945.
The US,Britain and the commonwelth countries were beyond striking range of any arm of the USSR's forces.The USSR could be blockaded.It could be attacked from either East or West.The US was a nuclear power.A couple of hits just behind enemies lines might just sever the lines of communication.One bomber might not have much of a chance of getting through but if you send up 1000 decoys well then?
And USSR was not sure how many bombs the US had.Also many of USSR's own republics were not reliable not to mention the East European countries it had over run.And last but not least Stalin was a coward.
They also estimated that they would suffer between 250,000 - 1,000,000 casualties.
How long could a defenceless bombarded and blockaded Japan have lasted?No as DC says this was a race war.The boys had got themselves two big crackers and they were determined to use them.
even the role of the Australian pilots in the dam busting raids
"P for Popsey you can begin your run now"."Rodger leader.Here we go"."Good Luck"
Wild, you avoid the obvious issue.
Churchill had already kissed goodbye to Empire,
Someone should have told the Kenians,the Cypriots,The Arabs and the Indians.
The US and Britain were in no shape to take on the Soviets.
The US was never nor has it been since in better shape.They could build ocean going ships in 24 hours.
What was the point to declaring a war
A war was not necessary.At Yalta they threw in a hand of 4 aces.Just what did they get with the hand the held?Did Stalin concede one inch?
King Billy's Empire.
Maybe you mean John Bull's empire?
You keep trying to interpret these events in terms and ways that reflect upon how Ireland was treated in reality and convenient myth. It warps your perceptions to continually try to show Britain as compatable with this Irish Republican image of King Billy's Empire. There's certainly truth to it, but Ireland just wasn't the big deal to London or the world stage Ireland always pretends it was to its citizens. It was till very recently just a hemmorhoid to Parliament.
All a bit deep DC but suffice to say that that hemmorhoid became the template for other hemmorhoids like the one Uncle Sam picked up in Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 10 2005 : 2:23:52 PM
|
Wild, by paragraph:
1. The USSR could be blockaded. So what? Not like much arrived by boat to a nation with no warm water ports, depending how you view or invade the Black Sea. And this lust to nuke the Soviets is just stupid beyond ken. A nuclear attack to sever lines of communication? Are you insane? Communication between what and who to what end? The reaction of the world would be? The blowback would be? You destroy Moscow. Um......then what? The people would rise and greet us as liberators? This is just moronic. We'd have provided the unifying action for the Soviets forever. Russia, white or red, was not forgiving about us invading at the end of WWI, either, and still is not. Most Americans don't even know we did.
Further, Wild, the one clear reason the US nuked Japan is that the military wasn't thrilled about invading, the citizen army wasn't thrilled about drawing out the war, you're victim to this false image of determined America good for another few years. That's not the reality. America wanted it over, over, over. Big time. There is no surety America would fight its recent Ally if ordered.
2. See above. It wasn't race that dropped the bombs, it was Home Before Christmas. It was a race war, but the decision was made at remove from those very real concerns.
3. Oh, for God's sake.
4. Someone did, and that was that. England couldn't afford underwriting the occupation of these entities to no further point. The US Navy protected shipping lanes these days.
5. They could build LIberty Ships in 24 hours. Now, they had to junk 90% of their fleet or sell it. There was no will whatsoever to fight another war, Wild. Anywhere. The Soviets were welcomed by significant segments - hardly majorities - of Eastern Europe. What is apparant now and two years later was not in 1945.
6. This from a guy advocating a nuke strike to knock out communications. What four aces? Their armies simply were not going to fight another war to take out the Soviets. Why should Stalin concede anything? His Army was in possession of land they'd fought for. Getting rather tired of being invaded from the West, buffer states will do.
7. No, William of Orange, the Boyne, etc.
8. Not even template category. Nobody cared outside of Ireland, and not even all of Ireland. That makes my point. You're trying to cast Ireland in this role as the first of the Oppressed Nations Fighting Tyranny, a shining object lesson, all-purpose, whether to native Americans or Vietnamese. It's not, Wild. It's just Ireland. It's an open question whether the average Irish farmer had a better deal under the Brits than under the perpetual war and thuggery that preceded the Brits, now draped in fictional gossamer. Hard to say. History does show that colonization by England, in the cold light of History, generally proves a good deal in the long run. Proof in the pudding.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Springfield Cartridge ID
