North Korea,  formal name is Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,  i.e. DPRK  (which is easier to write).

So what is their beef do you reckon?  Maybe they are pissed off that for 60 years they have been constantly isolated in a state of 'suspended war'.

Maybe it goes back further.  More than 100 years ago the Japanese invaded Korea and pretty much enslaved the Koreans,  I am sure they were kindly masters, eh?

Second world war,  Japan defeated and Koreans could have expected to get their freedom but no,  the Allies decided to divide the country, half to the Yanks, half to the communists.  Governments imposed on each half and the guy the Yanks chose for the South turned out to be a real arsehole who finally died in Hawaii with his corruptly acquired millions at his side.  The Russians put a Korean in charge who had fought the Japanese in China, but we don't really know much more than that about him.

1950,  war breaks out.  Funny thing is no one knows who fired the first shot.  On the one hand the Yanks (the same people as told us about Saddam's WMDs) blamed the North but anyone who had been reading the newspapers at the time would know that Rhee (the Yank's man in the South) had been advocating taking the North by force for some time and there had been several incidents of firing across the DMZ.  We don't really know who started the Korean war but we know who finished it.  No one,  the war was never finished, just a state of truce that the South refused to sign.  They didn't even properly agree of the borderline especially the maritime borders.

Every  year the Yanks and the ROK hold military 'exercises' where they prat about giving the DPRK a big whakapohane then they squeal like stuck pigs when the North throws some of that poo back at them.

Seems the North have finally decided it is time to press for a finish to the war of 1950-53.

Ringer wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

[...] Every  year the Yanks and the ROK hold military 'exercises' where they prat about giving the DPRK a big whakapohane then they squeal like stuck pigs when the North throws some of that poo back at them. Seems the North have finally decided it is time to press for a finish to the war of 1950-53.

While the yanks and Sth Koreans are playing war games the people of Nth Korea busy themselves by attending church and visiting the local Rhododendron and Happy Face Painting Extravaganza. ::)

Yeah, go for it Nth Korea. Let's see them reach for the red button.

We in Australia hold war games but do you see the Papua New Guineans stockpiling nukes in case we attack them?

Good take on the situation and the history of NK.

Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad (he will eventually get it) sat back and took it, not so with Kim Jong Un....he won't hold back.

Rider....the Bush Doctrine, it's all there, it clearly states 'any country who is not with us is against us'....so there'd be quite a few to wipe out yet.

I'm waiting for the Pakistani conflict.

salad in wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

We in Australia hold war games but do you see the Papua New Guineans stockpiling nukes in case we attack them?

Hmmmmm,  I wonder how relaxed you would be if Indonesia held war games in Beagle Gulf... ::)

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

I'm waiting for the Pakistani conflict.

I think it has already started, it hasn't reached Islamabad just yet.

Yea, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad and Dear Leader was watching what was happening there.  I am sure Arnold Dinnerjacket was watching too.

Ringer wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

salad in wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 6:25pm: We in Australia hold war games but do you see the Papua New Guineans stockpiling nukes in case we attack them? Hmmmmm,  I wonder how relaxed you would be if Indonesia held war games in Beagle Gulf... ::)

I think you're being melodramatic. I would be upset if the Indonesians were staging war games on Cable Beach. Beagle Gulf war games by the Indonesians is a long way off because the Australian taxpayer has only purchased patrol boats (to my knowledge) for the Indonesian navy at this stage.

Ringer wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

North Korea,  formal name is Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,  i.e. DPRK  (which is easier to write). So what is their beef do you reckon?  Maybe they are pissed off that for 60 years they have been constantly isolated in a state of 'suspended war'. Maybe it goes back further.  More than 100 years ago the Japanese invaded Korea and pretty much enslaved the Koreans,  I am sure they were kindly masters, eh? Second world war,  Japan defeated and Koreans could have expected to get their freedom but no,  the Allies decided to divide the country, half to the Yanks, half to the communists.  Governments imposed on each half and the guy the Yanks chose for the South turned out to be a real arsehole who finally died in Hawaii with his corruptly acquired millions at his side.  The Russians put a Korean in charge who had fought the Japanese in China, but we don't really know much more than that about him. 1950,  war breaks out.  Funny thing is no one knows who fired the first shot.  On the one hand the Yanks (the same people as told us about Saddam's WMDs) blamed the North but anyone who had been reading the newspapers at the time would know that Rhee (the Yank's man in the South) had been advocating taking the North by force for some time and there had been several incidents of firing across the DMZ.  We don't really know who started the Korean war but we know who finished it.  No one,  the war was never finished, just a state of truce that the South refused to sign.  They didn't even properly agree of the borderline especially the maritime borders. Every  year the Yanks and the ROK hold military 'exercises' where they prat about giving the DPRK a big whakapohane then they squeal like stuck pigs when the North throws some of that poo back at them. Seems the North have finally decided it is time to press for a finish to the war of 1950-53.

Do you want to give us the full version of the history of Korea or just your truncated version?

salad in wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 6:40pm:

Do you want to give us the full version of the history of Korea or just your truncated version?

Please feel free to fill in the bits I left out, I will be watching to help you if you get stuck.

salad in wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

I would be upset if the Indonesians were staging war games on Cable Beach.

Why would that be?  Are you at war with Indonesia?

There are certain similarities between Korean history and that of Vietnam.

Both nations were used to foreign occupations over many centuries, then saw the defeat of the Japanese in WW2 as a chance to build a sovereign nation. Naturally there were differences among Koreans as to how that nation would look.

As in Vietnam, rather than allowing the Koreans to settle their own future, the world powers used the peninsula to fight their ideological wars. Firstly it was the US v Soviet Union, then US v China.

The "answer" was to draw a line down the middle of a single country and declare it two nations. This simplistic approach didn't work in either Vietnam or Korea.

In both countries the history of the south was dominated by a succession of corrupt, inept governments. The north was ruled by dictatorship.

But here, the comparison ends. North Vietnam had a leader with patience, charisma and genius. North Korea has a serious of drab, grim Kim Ils.

NK looks like a country caught in a time warp of the 1950s, the Soviet Union under Stalin, or China under Mao.

Ringer! ~ Still being counter-intuitive I see. Backing the bad guys again. Didn't your mother tell you you'd go blind if you keep doing this?

I doubt very much that Kim Jong-un's emotional and moral age would be more than that of an 8 year old.

Just his haircut alone is fair warning that we're dealing with a lunatic here.

And seen how short his fingers are? That's a classical textbook give-away that the guy's a certifiable imbecile.

And then the final testimonial that cites him as a complete idiot is that his new buddy is America's Dennis Rodman.

And he's got his finger on the button for a nuclear war and the total destruction of North Korea.

But you still think he's a stand-up guy, don't you Ringer?

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 5^th, 2013 at 7:53pm:

But here, the comparison ends. North Vietnam had a leader with patience, charisma and genius. North Korea has a serious of drab, grim Kim Ils. NK looks like a country caught in a time warp of the 1950s, the Soviet Union under Stalin, or China under Mao.

Don't forget the state of war since 1950.

Ringer wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 4:48am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 7:53pm: But here, the comparison ends. North Vietnam had a leader with patience, charisma and genius. North Korea has a serious of drab, grim Kim Ils. NK looks like a country caught in a time warp of the 1950s, the Soviet Union under Stalin, or China under Mao. Don't forget the state of war since 1950.

War hasn't changed, it still boils down to breaking your enemy's ability and will to fight while trying to maintain you ability and will to continue fighting. At it's most basic, conducting a war is a function of what capabilities all involved parties have to start with, how well they can maintain or expand those capabilities against their opponents, and how fast they can destroy their enemy's capability. Essentially it's still all about killing people and breaking sh*t until either the other guy says Uncle or you run out of people to kill and sh*t to break.

And we have way the hell more capability to kill people and break sh*t than the NorKs do.

Chard wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:13am:

Ringer wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 4:48am: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 7:53pm: But here, the comparison ends. North Vietnam had a leader with patience, charisma and genius. North Korea has a serious of drab, grim Kim Ils. NK looks like a country caught in a time warp of the 1950s, the Soviet Union under Stalin, or China under Mao. Don't forget the state of war since 1950. War hasn't changed, it still boils down to breaking your enemy's ability and will to fight while trying to maintain you ability and will to continue fighting. At it's most basic, conducting a war is a function of what capabilities all involved parties have to start with, how well they can maintain or expand those capabilities against their opponents, and how fast they can destroy their enemy's capability. Essentially it's still all about killing people and breaking sh*t until either the other guy says Uncle or you run out of people to kill and sh*t to break. And we have way the hell more capability to kill people and break sh*t than the NorKs do.

That's only true if you use nukes and are prepared to accept the South as collateral damage. Your will has been broken by the Vietnamese, the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgents and DRNK. What's the plan this time?

Grey wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:31am:

Chard wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 7:13am: Ringer wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 4:48am: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 5th, 2013 at 7:53pm: But here, the comparison ends. North Vietnam had a leader with patience, charisma and genius. North Korea has a serious of drab, grim Kim Ils. NK looks like a country caught in a time warp of the 1950s, the Soviet Union under Stalin, or China under Mao. Don't forget the state of war since 1950. War hasn't changed, it still boils down to breaking your enemy's ability and will to fight while trying to maintain you ability and will to continue fighting. At it's most basic, conducting a war is a function of what capabilities all involved parties have to start with, how well they can maintain or expand those capabilities against their opponents, and how fast they can destroy their enemy's capability. Essentially it's still all about killing people and breaking sh*t until either the other guy says Uncle or you run out of people to kill and sh*t to break. And we have way the hell more capability to kill people and break sh*t than the NorKs do. That's only true if you use nukes and are prepared to accept the South as collateral damage. Your will has been broken by the Vietnamese, the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgents and DRNK. What's the plan this time?

Problems with that argument:

1. The DPRK has enough conventional qrtillery pointed at the northern third of the RoK that any serious conflict on the peninsula automatically means South Korea will effectively be destroyed as a nation. That has been the primary threat the DPRK has posed since the armistance was first signed. We know this and so does the RoK which is why our primary counter to the DPRK has been revolved around being able to guarantee that the DPRK will not survive either.

The US isn't under any signifigant direct threat, so there isn't any actual reason for us to hold back. The RoK has operated under the assumption that they won't survive as a viable state actor is a real war breaks out, so their isn't any reason to hold back once the shooting starts for them either. It really does come down to if Kim Jong Un is really willing to lose everything. His father and grandfathef we both smart enough to realize that being dictator to a series of irradiated craters wouldn't be much fun, so we'll see if the Fat Kid has the same sense of self-preservation.

2. The US has never been very good at handling insurgencies. That said, we're frighteningly good at large scale warfare against conventional uniformed militaries.

Chard wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:13am:

And we have way the hell more capability to kill people and break sh*t than the NorKs do.

Doesn't mean you have the capability of winning wars.

Ringer wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 10:49am:

Chard wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 7:13am: And we have way the hell more capability to kill people and break sh*t than the NorKs do. Doesn't mean you have the capability of winning wars.

lol!!! that's obvious

Won't you be running out of manpower soon Chard? Your soldiers are necking themselves quicker than the Taliban can say  "Allahu Akbar".

The Yanks can't afford another war - they are already bankrupt.

The fat one knows this so he's pushing his luck.

Whatever their history, and no doubt they've taken several kicks in the teeth, as has China, we come back to the point of where they are at now.
Whenever I see a film clip of NK I think I'm back watching a Nuremberg Rally. Only the North Koreans do the goosestep even better.
We've got a mixture here of a country that thinks it's a victim of oppression and a leadership that thinks the only way to stay in power is to use oppression and aggression.
The only thing the rest of the world can do is try to contain it peacefully and not overreact. I can't see Obama overreacting.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

The Yanks can't afford another war - they are already bankrupt. The fat one knows this so he's pushing his luck.

Unless China wants to bankroll this war, it won't happen, and I doubt China want a bar of it.

America's got nothing and the EU zone is no better off, that's why Kim Jong Un can afford to be a bit aggressive, he knows they're financially impotent. They will most likely beg other nation's to finance the war on their behalf, but I wonder if any will take up the offer.

Now would the best time to strike America, if North Korea are that way inclined, but I don't really think they want war any more than we do. They just know that they can afford to flex their muscles a bit.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

Whatever their history, and no doubt they've taken several kicks in the teeth, as has China, we come back to the point of where they are at now. Whenever I see a film clip of NK I think I'm back watching a Nuremberg Rally. Only the North Koreans do the goosestep even better. We've got a mixture here of a country that thinks it's a victim of oppression and a leadership that thinks the only way to stay in power is to use oppression and aggression. The only thing the rest of the world can do is try to contain it peacefully and not overreact. I can't see Obama overreacting.

In some ways it would be better to have a republican president, they generally aren't under any pressure to be seen as 'strong leaders', ( but not the chimp obviously ).

'Conventional warfare' is a bit of an oxymoron; the main point being to introduce new factors that give a massive advantage. That said there's little doubt that American firepower is greater than any army they'd care to take on.

Right now China is 'onside', but if Americans start lobbing nukes into NK you can safely bet that wont last.

the problem of NK has been deferred far too long. It really has to be dealt with once and for all. The only way of doing that seems to me for America to take a step back publicly, while privately offering China all the support they'd like to sort out the problem. It is China's problem and they need to step up.

Best thing would be for China to invite Kim to Beijing and arrest him ;D I'm betting their intelligence on the ground situation is better than anybody elses.

It's a bad situation, Nk is almost certainly bluffing and blustering but ignoring them while they build nuclear capability is fraught with risk for the worlds next generation.

Why do you say it is China's problem?

Ringer wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 10:49am:

Chard wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 7:13am: And we have way the hell more capability to kill people and break sh*t than the NorKs do. Doesn't mean you have the capability of winning wars.

Actually that's precisely how you win at conventional, symetrical warfare. Turns out it works for nuclear war as well.

Funny thing is I have been reading newspapers, watching newsreels and TV news for more than 50 years and I cant recall ever seeing one American victory parade.

So if you know how to win wars why doesn't your government?

Lets take a moment to consider North Korea..

OK


*****************

Done - whats next.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

Lets take a moment to consider North Korea.. OK ***************** Done - whats next.

That more than most people manage... :)

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 12:00pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 11:43am: The Yanks can't afford another war - they are already bankrupt. The fat one knows this so he's pushing his luck. Unless China wants to bankroll this war, it won't happen, and I doubt China want a bar of it. America's got nothing and the EU zone is no better off, that's why Kim Jong Un can afford to be a bit aggressive, he knows they're financially impotent. They will most likely beg other nation's to finance the war on their behalf, but I wonder if any will take up the offer. Now would the best time to strike America, if North Korea are that way inclined, but I don't really think they want war any more than we do. They just know that they can afford to flex their muscles a bit.

Hi Pansi,
It's all quite interesting -
the last time we had a nuclear crisis like this was October 1962 in Cuba.
That all fizzled out but they weren't dealing with the dear one.


It's all quite reckless to play with these nuclear toys.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 12:00pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 11:43am: The Yanks can't afford another war - they are already bankrupt. The fat one knows this so he's pushing his luck. Unless China wants to bankroll this war, it won't happen, and I doubt China want a bar of it. America's got nothing and the EU zone is no better off, that's why Kim Jong Un can afford to be a bit aggressive, he knows they're financially impotent. They will most likely beg other nation's to finance the war on their behalf, but I wonder if any will take up the offer. Now would the best time to strike America, if North Korea are that way inclined, but I don't really think they want war any more than we do. They just know that they can afford to flex their muscles a bit. Hi Pansi, It's all quite interesting - the last time we had a nuclear crisis like this was October 1962 in Cuba. That all fizzled out but they weren't dealing with the dear one. It's all quite reckless to play with these nuclear toys.

The Cuban crisis was essentially the same thing bobby. Old men sizing up their testicles to see who has the biggest pair.

I think this one will fizzle out too.

Don't forget the yanks have painted Kim Jong Un's father, Castro, Gorbachov, Putin and numerous others over the years, as mad men who were ready to end the world.

I wouldn't take any notice of them, just a desperate president looking for sympathy for his crumbling country. America.....distraction issues. We do the same ie boat people, gay marriage.....distraction issues.

Yes Pansi,
who has the biggest balls?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

Yes Pansi, who has the biggest balls?

I don't think the President of South Korea would have any. ;)

Ringer wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 3:14pm:

Funny thing is I have been reading newspapers, watching newsreels and TV news for more than 50 years and I cant recall ever seeing one American victory parade.

So what you're saying is you have an absolutely terrible memory and you failed history as well?


Quote:

So if you know how to win wars why doesn't your government?

Yes, becauee we totally didn't defeat the Iraqi military twice... nope, never happened. Didn't do the same to the Afghan military when we punted the taliban from government. We absolutely never bombed North Vietnam to a peace table. The Korean War war just puttered out and everyone sort of just said "f*ck it, lets sleep in" for the last sixty years. Both World Wars never happened either...

Seriously, what smacking planet are you from? It certainly isn't Earth.

I was agreeing with you all the way Chard until you got to Vietnam .... you sure you want to claim that one?

John Smith wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 4:55pm:

I was agreeing with you all the way Chard until you got to Vietnam .... you sure you want to claim that one?

Or WW2, the Johnny come lately bastards. For two years they were rubbing their hands over the potential bottom line of having a Nazi Empire as their major trading partner. The Battle of Britain, (decimated the Luftwaffe) El Alamein (severly weakening the axis in Nth Africa) and Stalingrad, (Put an end to German hope of victory) had all happened between 2.25 years and six months  before an official american boot entered the war in Europe.

Big up the American volunteers who made up the three Eagle Squadrons of the RAF.

Chard wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

Yes, becauee we totally didn't defeat the Iraqi military twice... nope, never happened.

Can't have been much of a defeat if you had to do it twice..



Quote:

Didn't do the same to the Afghan military when we punted the taliban from government.

Ha ha, the Talebes are stronger than ever.



Quote:

We absolutely never bombed North Vietnam to a peace table. The Korean War war just puttered out and everyone sort of just said "f*ck it, lets sleep in" for the last sixty years.

Korea?  That's a laugh,  your guys were running so hard they left all their gear behind, you were bloody lucky the Chinese let you off with returning to square one.  I guess that's why your country has been so pissed ever since and clings on to the dream that your experience in Korea was somehow worth all the blood spilt.




Quote:

Both World Wars never happened either...

  I know everything about WWII,  how the yanks drove the Luftwaffe from the skies and saved England from invasion and certain defeat,  how the yanks cracked the Nazi Enigma codes and destroyed the Atlantic U-boat fleets,  how Paton's tanks destroyed the Panzer hordes and saved those ungrateful commies and how the Marines liberated Berlin in bloody street by street fighting.

Lets face facts, your country is always at war somewhere or other and has not won anything in two generations.... :-[

Quote:

Seriously, what smacking planet are you from? It certainly isn't Earth.

  Certainly not from Faux News.

Ringer,

Quote:

Lets face facts, your country is always at war somewhere or other and has not won anything in two generations....

You ungrateful turd.
If it wasn't for the Yanks in WW2 we wouldn't be here.
The Japs would have slaughtered us.

Grey wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 4:55pm: I was agreeing with you all the way Chard until you got to Vietnam .... you sure you want to claim that one? Or WW2, the Johnny come lately bastards. For two years they were rubbing their hands over the potential bottom line of having a Nazi Empire as their major trading partner. The Battle of Britain, (decimated the Luftwaffe) El Alamein (severly weakening the axis in Nth Africa) and Stalingrad, (Put an end to German hope of victory) had all happened between 2.25 years and six months  before an official american boot entered the war in Europe. Big up the American volunteers who made up the three Eagle Squadrons of the RAF.

Ah, so we have another historically challenged person focusing on individual battles and completely misunderstanding why the allies had won. See, President Roosevelt knew Germany was out to start poo and start regearing our military and our economy for a war footing clear back in 1936. The main thing is the evonomic side, because it turns out that having a larger industrial base then everyone else involved in the war on both side turned out to be the deciding factor.itvs what allowed us to build ships, aircraft, tanks, shells, bombs, and bullets far faster than anyone could. That in turn meant when we entered the ar fully we did so with a fresh military fully equiped and had enough reserves we could not only replace our loses, we could do the same for our allies.

How much larger was our industrial capacity?  In 1937 the US Navy stood at a total 335 warships. In 1938 it was 380. By 1941 the number was up to 790 and in the following three years we more than doubled the size of our navy every year. We produced more warships and capital warships than every other combatand in the war on both sides.

And we did it with less than 50% of our economy on a war footing.

You complain about coming late, yet there we were building up enough military forces to not only bring the hammer down in Western Europe, we were also having to bare the bulk of allied force in the Pacific as well. This is just one aspect of why I can honestly say that without the US the fate of the UK and USSR would have been in doubt and we would have had to end up waiting for AWPD-1 to get carried out around 1948 in order to end the war.

See, the pouers that watch the History Channel harp on about battles, the dumbasses harp on about wonderweapons, but the people who actually know their history are talking logistics.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:20pm:

Ringer, Quote: Lets face facts, your country is always at war somewhere or other and has not won anything in two generations.... You ungrateful turd. If it wasn't for the Yanks in WW2 we wouldn't be here. The Japs would have slaughtered us.

Like I said, two generation ago.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 5:50am:

Grey wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 5:50pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 4:55pm: I was agreeing with you all the way Chard until you got to Vietnam .... you sure you want to claim that one? Or WW2, the Johnny come lately bastards. For two years they were rubbing their hands over the potential bottom line of having a Nazi Empire as their major trading partner. The Battle of Britain, (decimated the Luftwaffe) El Alamein (severly weakening the axis in Nth Africa) and Stalingrad, (Put an end to German hope of victory) had all happened between 2.25 years and six months  before an official american boot entered the war in Europe. Big up the American volunteers who made up the three Eagle Squadrons of the RAF. Ah, so we have another historically challenged person focusing on individual battles and completely misunderstanding why the allies had won. See, President Roosevelt knew Germany was out to start poo and start regearing our military and our economy for a war footing clear back in 1936. The main thing is the evonomic side, because it turns out that having a larger industrial base then everyone else involved in the war on both side turned out to be the deciding factor.itvs what allowed us to build ships, aircraft, tanks, shells, bombs, and bullets far faster than anyone could. That in turn meant when we entered the ar fully we did so with a fresh military fully equiped and had enough reserves we could not only replace our loses, we could do the same for our allies. How much larger was our industrial capacity?  In 1937 the US Navy stood at a total 335 warships. In 1938 it was 380. By 1941 the number was up to 790 and in the following three years we more than doubled the size of our navy every year. We produced more warships and capital warships than every other combatand in the war on both sides. And we did it with less than 50% of our economy on a war footing. You complain about coming late, yet there we were building up enough military forces to not only bring the hammer down in Western Europe, we were also having to bare the bulk of allied force in the Pacific as well. This is just one aspect of why I can honestly say that without the US the fate of the UK and USSR would have been in doubt and we would have had to end up waiting for AWPD-1 to get carried out around 1948 in order to end the war. See, the pouers that watch the History Channel harp on about battles, the dumbasses harp on about wonderweapons, but the people who actually know their history are talking logistics.

But where were you when Britain faced invasion?

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:23am:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 5:50am: Grey wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 5:50pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 4:55pm: I was agreeing with you all the way Chard until you got to Vietnam .... you sure you want to claim that one? Or WW2, the Johnny come lately bastards. For two years they were rubbing their hands over the potential bottom line of having a Nazi Empire as their major trading partner. The Battle of Britain, (decimated the Luftwaffe) El Alamein (severly weakening the axis in Nth Africa) and Stalingrad, (Put an end to German hope of victory) had all happened between 2.25 years and six months  before an official american boot entered the war in Europe. Big up the American volunteers who made up the three Eagle Squadrons of the RAF. Ah, so we have another historically challenged person focusing on individual battles and completely misunderstanding why the allies had won. See, President Roosevelt knew Germany was out to start poo and start regearing our military and our economy for a war footing clear back in 1936. The main thing is the evonomic side, because it turns out that having a larger industrial base then everyone else involved in the war on both side turned out to be the deciding factor.itvs what allowed us to build ships, aircraft, tanks, shells, bombs, and bullets far faster than anyone could. That in turn meant when we entered the ar fully we did so with a fresh military fully equiped and had enough reserves we could not only replace our loses, we could do the same for our allies. How much larger was our industrial capacity?  In 1937 the US Navy stood at a total 335 warships. In 1938 it was 380. By 1941 the number was up to 790 and in the following three years we more than doubled the size of our navy every year. We produced more warships and capital warships than every other combatand in the war on both sides. And we did it with less than 50% of our economy on a war footing. You complain about coming late, yet there we were building up enough military forces to not only bring the hammer down in Western Europe, we were also having to bare the bulk of allied force in the Pacific as well. This is just one aspect of why I can honestly say that without the US the fate of the UK and USSR would have been in doubt and we would have had to end up waiting for AWPD-1 to get carried out around 1948 in order to end the war. See, the pouers that watch the History Channel harp on about battles, the dumbasses harp on about wonderweapons, but the people who actually know their history are talking logistics. But where were you when Britain faced invasion?

Go look up the  "Lend-Lease Act". Then go look up "Operation Sealöwe" so you can understand why Britain never was under any serious threat of invasion. Seriously, do none of you actually have an education?

Chard, in arguing that Britain was never in danger of invasion, you use the benefit of hindsight, at the time the threat was considered very real.

For balance, people should also look up "America First Committee", a huge group set up to keep the US out of the war. One of its most prominent figures was aviator Charles Lindbergh.

The committee disbanded only after Pearl Harbour.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:54am:

Go look up the  "Lend-Lease Act". Then go look up "Operation Sealöwe" so you can understand why Britain never was under any serious threat of invasion.

Battle for Britain,  Summer 1940.  Operation Sea Lion abandoned in Sept (?) 1940. 

Lend lease act signed March 1941.


Quote:

Seriously, do none of you actually have an education?

Maybe, perhaps you have an education but you should ask for a refund on your tuition fees...


After his failure to invade Britain Hitler turned towards invading the USSR.  Perhaps he thought he could win that one but it might have been thought by others that he would fail. 

If Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941 and had been beaten America might have found themselves in a world where Britain was reduced to a barely significant island and Stalin ruled all Europe.  Is that why the US managed to draw up the courage necessary to get involved?  Were they prepared to live with a Nazi Europe but not a Communist Europe?

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 8:20am:

Chard, in arguing that Britain was never in danger of invasion, you use the benefit of hindsight, at the time the threat was considered very real.

The RN and USN were both well aware of exactly how much sealift capability the Kriegsmarine was capable of at the time. That's why there was so much emphisis placed on air defense instead of coastal defense.

That said, we had contingency plans in place back in 1939 for every thing from losing Britain to losing everything East of Newfoundland for how to go about defeating Germany. Even assuming that somehow the German invaded and occupied the UK they were still doomed. It just would have prolonged the end of the war to late '48 to early '49 and resulted in there no long being a nation called Germany.


Quote:

For balance, people should also look up "America First Committee", a huge group set up to keep the US out of the war. One of its most prominent figures was aviator Charles Lindbergh. The committee disbanded only after Pearl Harbour.

There were a lot of organizations opposed to getting involved in a war with Germany. You combine that with a public that still remember how much of a  clusterf*ck WWI was. It's a testiment to FDR's skills as a politician that he was able to build our military up so much and get also most half of our industry past congress.

Ringer, Germany DID attack Russia and WAS defeated.

The US entered the European war:

1. Because Germany declared war on it after Pearl Harbour to keep faith with Japan, and
2. Because of a significant change in US public opinion after Pearl Harbour

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

Ringer, Germany DID attack Russia and WAS defeated.

Oh! I didn't know that, I thought it was the US that defeated the Nazis!  Surely you don't mean to say there was anyone else involved! ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:23am:

But where were you when Britain faced invasion?

It's not like the British didn't have a navy. Actually for most of the 100-200 years up to the 1940s, the British had the strongest navy in the world. They had lots of ships and lots of experience. It would have been pretty hard for the Germans to escort troop transports to Britain and to continue reinforcing them with supplies. I think the idea of bombing Britain by air was to bypass its navy. Unfortunately, I don't think there was much they could have done without precision bombing. Arthur Harris' idea of bombing German cities did very little to reduce German industrial capacity, so I doubt that the Germans did much to destroy Britain's ability to fight as well. That's assuming the British wouldn't just chicken out and surrender because they couldn't afford to have civilians dying.


Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

If Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941 and had been beaten America might have found themselves in a world where Britain was reduced to a barely significant island and Stalin ruled all Europe.  Is that why the US managed to draw up the courage necessary to get involved?  Were they prepared to live with a Nazi Europe but not a Communist Europe?

Are you aware of the British attack on Mers-el-Kebir/Operation Catapult? One of the reasons why Roosevelt didn't get involved in the war early on was because Britain wasn't showing that it would stand up to the Germans. It was because of something Churchill did that Roosevelt finally decided to give aid to the British.

I think it would help if we looked at what the situation was at the time. One of Winston Churchill's biggest fears was that with the French government then under German control, the French Navy might also come under German control as well. Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, urging him to offer assistance, lest the British government and its Navy fall under the control of German hands. This could have been viewed as a threat by Roosevelt, because Churchill was saying that if the Germans held a gun to their heads, the British might declare war on the USA and attack its ships.

I can't remember what Roosevelt's reply was based on the documentary I saw, but Churchill realised he couldn't get Roosevelt's help if he didn't do something drastic himself. Churchill made a difficult decision. He decided to seize control of the French Navy by force and turn on their allies. Churchill sent British ships to every French fleet, issuing them with an ultimatum: come with us, leave your French ports and continue the fight against the Germans, or be destroyed. The French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir didn't comply and was bombarded mercilessly by the British.

It was only after Churchill showed that he would stand up to the Germans that Roosevelt offered to send ships and supplies to Britain.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

It was only after Churchill showed that he would stand up to the Germans that Roosevelt offered to send ships and supplies to Britain.

Oh dear!  It seems you are saying that had Churchill not convinced Roosevelt  the Nazis would have been able to conquer all of Europe  (then attack Russia, get defeated and leave Stalin as master of all Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia).

Can I recommend people view "The World at War", possibly the best doco series ever made.
Episode 4 - Britain Alone.

The benefits of this series were that it is made in 1971. The men who were there are still just middle aged.
The Luftwaffe commander met Hitler following the Battle of Britain.

He told Hitler that the episode showed that his men cannot defeat Britain from the air alone and that future attacks must be supported by a land invasion.

Hitler stated to him he had no intention whatsoever of sending an invasion force.

Hitler was bemused why Britain - who he regarded as "genetic cousin" to Germans refused to align with Germany.

He stated the aim was the attacking of the "unter menschen" people in the East and Britain will come around later.

So while it is true that Hitler never intended to invade Britain, even those at the top of the Luftwaffe didn't know this at the time.
The threat of invasion was very real and there would be precious little Roosevelt could have done with an isolationist Congress and the likes of Joe Kennedy fighting him there.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:54am: Go look up the  "Lend-Lease Act". Then go look up "Operation Sealöwe" so you can understand why Britain never was under any serious threat of invasion. Battle for Britain,  Summer 1940.  Operation Sea Lion abandoned in Sept (?) 1940.  Lend lease act signed March 1941.

You asked where the US was when Britain was under threat of invasion, not where we were when the Battle of Britian happened, you dishonest sh*t. I brought up Sealöwe to show that Britain never was under an actual threat of being invaded. Lend-Lease was an example of us not only selling the UK the weapons, munitions, and raw material they needed on one hell of a line of crefit.



Quote:

Maybe, perhaps you have an education but you should ask for a refund on your tuition fees...

That's pretty hilarious coming from a guy that can't read and whose knowledge of history requires and internet connection.


Quote:

After his failure to invade Britain Hitler turned towards invading the USSR.  Perhaps he thought he could win that one but it might have been thought by others that he would fail.

Germany invaded Russia in order to secure access to middle eastern oil, and it would have had a much greater chance of success had a massive increase in allied heavy bombing not happened. Once the US got in on the act with the RAAF, Germany was forced to divert hundreds of thousands of men and millions of tons of ordinamce for air defense that could have gone to the eastern front.



Quote:

If Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941 and had been beaten America might have found themselves in a world where Britain was reduced to a barely significant island and Stalin ruled all Europe.  Is that why the US managed to draw up the courage necessary to get involved?  Were they prepared to live with a Nazi Europe but not a Communist Europe?

No, we planned on destroying Germany back in '38.  Russia simply did not have the capability to take on Germany alone.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

You asked where the US was when Britain was under threat of invasion, not where we were when the Battle of Britian happened, you dishonest sh*t. I brought up Sealöwe to show that Britain never was under an actual threat of being invaded. Lend-Lease was an example of us not only selling the UK the weapons, munitions, and raw material they needed on one hell of a line of crefit.

I wonder if it is dishonesty or ignorance that causes you to ignore that their failure in the Battle of Britain was what caused the Nazis to abandon Operation Sealion.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

It was only after Churchill showed that he would stand up to the Germans that Roosevelt offered to send ships and supplies to Britain.

No, that was what enabled FDR to get Lend-Lease past congress.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

The threat of invasion was very real and there would be precious little Roosevelt could have done with an isolationist Congress and the likes of Joe Kennedy fighting him there.

Ok, you can read a map, yes? Britain is a smacking island and Germamy didn't have the ships needed to  get a large enough force to Britain. How the hell was Geany supposed to invade short of teaching their soldiers to walk on water?

Did you know that people can swim across The Channel?

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

Did you know that people can swim across The Channel?

It would be pretty exhausting carrying all those weapons and ammunition across. I also don't think armoured tanks and artillery can swim and I don't think the dolphins in the sea would have been strong enough to carry them across for the Germans.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

Did you know that people can swim across The Channel?

Let's not forget that the food would get wet and you might have sharks following you. There's also jellyfish and they can be nasty too. Millions of German soldiers would make a great meal for the creatures in the sea. Yummy humans.

Didn't Napolean think of using a tunnel?

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

Didn't Napolean think of using a tunnel?

The problem with the Germans digging a tunnel all the way to England is that the British could easily send some divers under the sea and blow it up. The British would likely be doing reconnaissance on the coast of the European mainland and if they noticed the Germans transporting dirt from the tunnel, they would think something fishy was going on. Even if they did reach England, how quickly could the army get across? You would only have 12 hours between sunset and sunrise to poke up from a hole in the ground and get into position. There's no way of knowing for sure where you'd be. A few miscalculations and you could end up in the middle of a barracks. The element of surprise would be uncertain.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

Did you know that people can swim across The Channel?

Germany PTing their entire military enough for their soldiers to not only swim the channel, but do so carrying all their kit is only slightly less improbable then successfully teaching them to walk on water.

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/growing-fears-that-north-korea-actually-has-the-technology-to-launch-nuclear-missiles/story-fndir2ev-1226614149427

Growing fears that North Korea actually has the technology to launch nuclear missiles
From: News Limited Network
April 07, 2013 10:29AM


http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/04/07/1226614/155297-tensions.jpg
A South Korean soldier stands on a military guard post near the demilitarized zone (DMZ) dividing the two Koreas in the border city of Paju. Source: AFP
THE United States has delayed testing one of its own intercontinental ballistic missiles as some analysts say they believe North Korea can launch nuclear warheads.
A senior defence official has said the Pentagon delayed an intercontinental ballistic missile test in order not to inflame already flash-point tensions with the rogue state.
Scheduled to be launched this week from the  Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the official said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided to put off the long-planned Minuteman 3 test until sometime next month.
The test was not connected to the ongoing U.S.-South Korean military exercises that have been going on in that region and have stoked North Korean anger and fueled an escalation in threatening actions and rhetoric.
North Korea's military warned earlier this week that it was authorized to attack the U.S. using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons.
However, North Korea is generally regarded d as being years away from perfecting the technology to back up its bold threats of a pre-emptive strike on the United States.
But a recent string of successful tests has introduced a strong measure of doubt.


______________

" A senior defence official has said the Pentagon delayed an intercontinental ballistic missile test in order not to inflame already flash-point tensions with the rogue state.
Scheduled to be launched this week from the  Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the official said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided to put off the long-planned Minuteman 3 test until sometime next month. "


did'nt the US threaten nuclear war with russia

at one stage circa cuban missile crisis and

the bay of pigs?


namaste

I think we can all agree that Britain was in no real danger of a German invasion.

But the British didn't know that at the time and neither did the Americans.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 4:19pm:

I think we can all agree that Britain was in no real danger of a German invasion. But the British didn't know that at the time and neither did the Americans.

British and US intelligence were perfectly aware of Germany's lack of ships, and unlike some people they could read a map well enough to know you can't invade an island without ships.

Let this be a lesson for why watch tv documentaries on a subject is no substitute for having received formal education on that subject.

So the Battle of Britain was unnecessary and Churchill lied to his people.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

So the Battle of Britain was unnecessary and Churchill ied to his people.

Yes and no. No  in that the Battle for Britain needed to be fought just to keep the Luftwaffe from rampaging over England if nothing else. Yes in that telling the public the Germans were going to invade drummed up much support, most notably by convincing the US House and Senate to officially throw American into the Allied corner of the war.

It's almost as if Churchill and FDR were colaborating. Oh, wait, they were.

Of course they were...

I have read a great deal on the topic and never seen anything authoritative that British intelligence KNEW, rather than conjectured, that a Nazi invasion was impossible.

Can you suggest any source worth looking at?

I expect we will have to wait a while for that.. :-/

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:42pm: So the Battle of Britain was unnecessary and Churchill ied to his people. Yes and no. No  in that the Battle for Britain needed to be fought just to keep the Luftwaffe from rampaging over England if nothing else. Yes in that telling the public the Germans were going to invade drummed up much support, most notably by convincing the US House and Senate to officially throw American into the Allied corner of the war. It's almost as if Churchill and FDR were colaborating. Oh, wait, they were.

The Battle Of Britain was very much related to plans of invasion.  The Germans new they needed command of the skies over the invasion fleet.  When they failed to destroy the RAF Operation Sealion was abandoned.


Ignorance is bliss, you must be a very happy chappy!

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Of course they were... I have read a great deal on the topic and never seen anything authoritative that British intelligence KNEW, rather than conjectured, that a Nazi invasion was impossible. Can you suggest any source worth looking at?

Peter Fleming and Richard Cox bothe wrote on the subject, either of their books "operation Sea Lion" is a good place to start. George Chalou's "The Secret War: The Office of Strategic Services in WWII" and Francis Hinsley's "British Intelligence in the Second World War" both give fairly in depth looks at just how pervasive US and British intelligence was. Have to hunt it down, but I'm pretty sure I've got a .pdf of Fleming's Operation Sea Lion if you're interested.

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 5:07pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 4:42pm: So the Battle of Britain was unnecessary and Churchill ied to his people. Yes and no. No  in that the Battle for Britain needed to be fought just to keep the Luftwaffe from rampaging over England if nothing else. Yes in that telling the public the Germans were going to invade drummed up much support, most notably by convincing the US House and Senate to officially throw American into the Allied corner of the war. It's almost as if Churchill and FDR were colaborating. Oh, wait, they were. The Battle Of Britain was very much related to plans of invasion.  The Germans new they needed command of the skies over the invasion fleet.  When they failed to destroy the RAF Operation Sealion was abandoned.

Defeating the RAF would still leave the RN to run roughshod over anything trying to cross the channel and still fails to address the fact that the Kriegsmarine simply did not have the sealift to move and supply an invasion of Britain, skippy.



Quote:

Ignorance is bliss, you must be a very happy chappy!

Ignorance can be corrected through education, meanwhile weapons-grade stupidity is incurable, moron. Go back to you village before someone puts out a missing persons notice for their idiot.

Chard wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

Defeating the RAF would still leave the RN to run roughshod over anything trying to cross the channel and still fails to address the fact that the Kriegsmarine simply did not have the sealift to move and supply an invasion of Britain, skippy..

The BBC reported 26 August 2010 that files had been released by MI5 detailing German plans for the invasion.

"It gives an indication of what might have happened if the Battle of Britain had gone the other way"

There is no doubt that Germany had plans for the invasion of England which were abandoned when they failed to destroy the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

BTW, the plan involved the use of barges (of which there were many in Europe) not a  Kriegsmarine  sealift.

You have a few gaps in that education.


Skippy?  Don't think I have ever been called that before! ;D

Nice to see all the posts concentrating  on the successful defence of Great Britain, enjoyable history lessons as they are and highly entertaining to boot....what happened to considering North Korea?

No one considers North Korea. ::)

Ringer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 7th, 2013 at 6:22pm: Defeating the RAF would still leave the RN to run roughshod over anything trying to cross the channel and still fails to address the fact that the Kriegsmarine simply did not have the sealift to move and supply an invasion of Britain, skippy.. There is no doubt that Germany had plans for the invasion of England which were abandoned when they failed to destroy the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

There's plenty of doubt considering Germany never had any serious intention of going through with their plan in the first place.


Quote:

BTW, the plan involved the use of barges (of which there were many in Europe) not a  Kriegsmarine  sealift.

Are you seriously this unbelievably stupid? It was the goddamned Kriegsmarine's idea to use barges in the first place. Even they knew that couldn't pull it off and they suggested river barges in order to point out just how unprepared they were to attempt landing and invasion force.



Quote:

Skippy?  Don't think I have ever been called that before! ;D

Give it some time. I'm certain I'll probably upgrade you to being "Scooter" before the thread is done.

Thank you for the kind endearments but no amount of soft talking or wriggling on the hook can change the fact that you presented Lend Lease when I asked where America was when England was in danger of being invaded.

I have two problems with that, if you knew (which of course you don't) that England was never in danger of invasion you should have just said so instead of referring to Operation Sealion.  The second is that Lend Lease was not implemented until some months after the period in question.

It has been a pleasure to 'discuss' this matter with you and I look further to our next meeting.

Pō Marie

Repeating a claim that you were not only proven wrong on, but also tried to lie about doesn't make thwt claim any less full of sh*t, Skippy.

Oh dear, how can I possibly leave the board tonight when you continue with these pleasant words.

You have not proved anything,  you can offer opinions but that is all they are.

Here is a summary of my position........ just to help you keep on track...

Germany planned and began preparations for an invasion of England.  The plan required command of the sky over  The Channel and with that in mind the Germans started a war against the RAF in particular targeting airfields and facilities in what became known as the Battle of Britain.

The Germans failed to destroy the RAF and shortly thereafter the German invasion plans were postponed (and never resurrected) .

Germany had plans for an invasion of England and had even begun the invasion plans by targeting the airfields of England.   

America was nowhere to be seen while this was going on.

Your bringing up Lend Lease showed a lack of knowledge of the dates involved.

Good night,  sleep tight.

[quote author=Chard link=1365148798/47#47 date=1365310996]
You asked where the US was when Britain was under threat of invasion, not where we were when the Battle of Britian happened, you dishonest sh*t. I brought up Sealöwe to show that Britain never was under an actual threat of being invaded. Lend-Lease was an example of us not only selling the UK the weapons, munitions, and raw material they needed on one hell of a line of crefit.
[quote]

Right 'The Blitz' wasn't an aerial softening up in preparation for invasion, it was just Hitlers way of helping with urban renewal.

We know that America saw that war could be profitable, as long as you supplied but didn't use.

The Bush family and the Nazis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

The funding of the Nazis

http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-banks-funded-the-nazis/31983


Quote:

...A brief aside is required here to explain what type of company I.G. Farben actually was. At the time, it was the world’s largest chemical company and through the talents of its scientists and engineers, it secured the vital self-sufficiency that was to enable Germany to maneuver in the world of power politics. From its laboratories and factories flowed the strategic raw materials that Germany’s own territory could not supply, the synthetics of oil, gasoline, rubber, nitrates, and fibers. In addition, I.G. produced vaccines and drugs such as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa drugs, as well as poison gases and rocket fuels. The depth of I.G. Farben’s connection to Nazi policy was finally realized at Auschwitz, the extermination center where four million people were destroyed in accordance with Hitler’s “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”. Drawn by the seemingly limitless supply of death camp labor, Farben built I.G. Auschwitz, a huge industrial complex designed to produce synthetic rubber and oil. This installation used as much electricity as the entire city of Berlin, and more than 25,000 camp inmates died during its construction. I.G. Farben eventually built its own concentration camp, known as Monowitz, which was closer to the site of the complex than Auschwitz was, in order to eliminate the need to march prisoners several miles to and from the plant every day. This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors. I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place...

http://mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html

Grey wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 12:53am:

[quote author=Chard link=1365148798/47#47 date=1365310996] You asked where the US was when Britain was under threat of invasion, not where we were when the Battle of Britian happened, you dishonest sh*t. I brought up Sealöwe to show that Britain never was under an actual threat of being invaded. Lend-Lease was an example of us not only selling the UK the weapons, munitions, and raw material they needed on one hell of a line of crefit. [quote] Right 'The Blitz' wasn't an aerial softening up in preparation for invasion, it was just Hitlers way of helping with urban renewal.

Which blitz? Thrre were several of then.

The Blitz didn't really get going until Hitler ordered less attention be paid to the airfields and more to bombing cities.

Some hold the opinion that switching to the cities allowed the RAF to recover and ensured invasion would never again be an option,  Hitler's mistake that may have saved England.

(This version of events may differ from that in American history books! :D)

Grey wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 1:33am:

The Bush family and the Nazis http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar The funding of the Nazis http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-banks-funded-the-nazis/31983 Quote: ...A brief aside is required here to explain what type of company I.G. Farben actually was. At the time, it was the world’s largest chemical company and through the talents of its scientists and engineers, it secured the vital self-sufficiency that was to enable Germany to maneuver in the world of power politics. From its laboratories and factories flowed the strategic raw materials that Germany’s own territory could not supply, the synthetics of oil, gasoline, rubber, nitrates, and fibers. In addition, I.G. produced vaccines and drugs such as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa drugs, as well as poison gases and rocket fuels. The depth of I.G. Farben’s connection to Nazi policy was finally realized at Auschwitz, the extermination center where four million people were destroyed in accordance with Hitler’s “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”. Drawn by the seemingly limitless supply of death camp labor, Farben built I.G. Auschwitz, a huge industrial complex designed to produce synthetic rubber and oil. This installation used as much electricity as the entire city of Berlin, and more than 25,000 camp inmates died during its construction. I.G. Farben eventually built its own concentration camp, known as Monowitz, which was closer to the site of the complex than Auschwitz was, in order to eliminate the need to march prisoners several miles to and from the plant every day. This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors. I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place... http://mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/3/oil.html

good research of facts

facts are truths

onward to victory

namaste

- : )

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=273548

Iran lines up behind North Korea, warns the US of “great losses”

Posted By: RumorMail [Send E-Mail]
Date: Sunday, 7-Apr-2013 22:59:30
Tehran’s intercession in the Korean crisis on the side of its ally in Pyongyang was predictable, even though the US preferrs to ignore the close interrelations between the two allies.

And so, on Friday, April 5, Deputy Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces Brig. Gen. Masoud Jazayeri stepped forward to point the finger at Washington:
[“The presence of the Americans in [South] Korea has been the root cause of tensions in this sensitive region in the past and present. The US and its allies will suffer great losses if a war breaks out in this region,” he said, adding for good measure: “Independent countries will not submit to the US mischief. The time for Washington’s bullying and extortion is long past.”

DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources: The second part of the statement was a perfect fit for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s flat refusal to accept US demands on Iran’s nuclear program. The Korean crisis gave the Iranians the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

As Kim Jong-Un moved two intermediate missiles to the east coast of North Korea, Gen. Jazayeri’s rhetoric landed on the latest round of talks the six powers were holding with Iran in Amaty, Kazhakstan for a diplomatic resolution of Iran’s nuclear challenge.

Washington hoped to spread some cheer over a diplomatic process that had long past proven futile by planting advance reports that Khamenei had ordered a slowdown of Iran’s nuclear program up to the June presidential election to avoid crossing a red line that would trigger a military response.

But when the parties came to the table, Iran’s senior negotiator Saeed Jalili refused outright to respond to the proposals put before Tehran in the previous session.

He seemed to have taken his cue from Kim Jong-Un, who too has stuck to his father’s rejectionism in the face of every American proposal for dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program.
DEBKAfile: The inevitable convergence of the Korean and Iranian crises confronts America’s three top officials, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, with their most challenging international test.

http://countdowntozerotime.org/2013/04/06/iran-lines-up-behind-north-korea-warns-the-us-of-great-losses/

“Independent countries will not submit to the US mischief. The time for Washington’s bullying and extortion is long past.”

We hope

We wish