From: "Robert Comer" 

> So sad. So so sad. I am not belittling either your county's participation
> nor ours. Heck we were the only country in the fight from start to finish.
> However I do find it odd how you are getting so upset about this & yet had
> nothing to say wrt Marks comments e.g.:

I'm getting so upset about it because it's not what I studied about WWII,
I'm not a historian by any means, but I have focused my history studies on
a few different times and places and learned them VERY well, WWII is one
time I have studied thoroughly.  (My other favorite is Japan and it's
history going from way before the shogunate until just after WWII.)  My
focus has been more of a sociological bent than pure history, but you can't
help learning the history to figure out the why's.

As to why I don't argue the same with Mark, there's not much point, we're
so diametrically opposed with regards to current events, that there's no
way to have meaningful dialog right now. Do not take it as support for his
position!

--
Bob Comer





"Adam"  wrote in message
news:44d095e8{at}w3.nls.net...
> Robert Comer wrote:
>> And you guys are ignoring the whole of history and focusing on one fact.
>>
>> Frankly, I'm not so shocked that you belittle our participation given
>> what's happening now, but I am shocked that you would belittle your own
>> country's and others contribution to the war.
>>
>
> So sad. So so sad. I am not belittling either your county's participation
> nor ours. Heck we were the only country in the fight from start to finish.
> However I do find it odd how you are getting so upset about this & yet had
> nothing to say wrt Marks comments e.g.:
>
> "I don't necessarily disagree with that Geo., but don't forget that Israel
> represents the freedom won in WWII; they exist only because we won WWII.
> Indeed, Adam and Phil are free to berate America daily, or hourly it seems
> sometimes, in English, only because we won WWII for them as well."
>
>
> Heck when Geo tried to vaguely insert some balance....
>
> "> *We* didn't win the war, everyone on the side we were on won the war,
> > > that's
> > > why it was called a *world* war..
>
> Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity Geo., what I meant by *we* was the
> west in general."
>
> & still no problem with the "belittling" of the Soviet/Red Army
> participation even though they were by far the major participant.
>
>> There's a LOT of things that would be very different if it were only a
>> one front war for Germany.  If it just were the eastern front Germany
>> wouldn't have lost so much manufacturing capacity to western bombers, nor
>> tied up the air force and other high tech forces, and would also have
>> freed up more ground forces for the east.  If it were just a western
>> front Germany would have a lot more ground forces to fight in the west.
>> Either way may have tipped the balance in Germany's favor.
>>
>
> Not a lot more.
>
> "Some 190 to 270 of the best divisions of the Wehrmacht and the armed
> forces of satellite countries fought simultaneously on the Eastern front.
> In Northern Africa, the Allies stood up against 9-20 divisions in
> 1941 -1943, 7-26 divisions in Italy in 1943-1945, and 56-75 divisions in
> France in 1944."
>
> & most of those we fought were "recovering from being on the Eastern
> Front". Heck Italy etc was a cushy number vs being on the eastern front.
>
> All the "satellite countries" only fought in the Eastern front (e.g.
> Spain, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria etc.) In fact while the Spaniish
> provided a division fighting n the eastern Front we still made out that
> Spain was a neutral country.
>
> The only non-German army we had to fight was a full participant in the
> shape of Italy & guess what...they too fought on the Eastern front.
>
> Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5