From: hthomas@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Henry Thomas)
Subject: Re: (was): Guns, ...(French bashing)
Reply-To: Henry Thomas <hthomas@ph.tn.tudelft.nl>
Organization: INRIA (fr), TU DELFT (nl)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:54:07 GMT

pjt@newton.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Tanenbaum) writes:

> In article <1992Aug31.120532.13315@dutrun2.tudelft.nl> hthomas@ph.tn.tudelft.nl writes:
>...
> The original (US) poster was guilty of simplification and hyperbole, as I
> suggested earlier.  Of course the UK made a tremendous contribution.  So
> did the Soviets (besides merely the Russians).  Of course the US armed forces
> were not prepared to perform in, say 1940, the deeds that they would accomplish
> within the next five years.  A US invasion of France would have been
> unthinkably more difficult had the Brits not held on as long as they did.
> Its ultimate success would have been far less likely if the Germans had not
> been obliged to commit such resources to an Eastern Front.
>      So, is your European brand of revisionism so complete as to suggest the
> UK and/or the USSR could have accomplished their valiant deeds without the
> massive infusion of armaments, etc. from the US?  And did the Red Army not
> enjoy a symmetric--if smaller--benefit from Hitler's perceived and then
> materialized need to ward off the US/UK invasion?  If not, then why did the
> Soviets push so forcefully for the Western invasion to begin?  My point is
> this: had the US remained mired in complete isolationism the forces opposing
> Germany (not to mention Japan) would have had a much, much tougher time of it.
> There was a very large element of self-interest in US involvement, nobody says
> the Yanks are saints.  But the US role in complete allied victory was
> tremendous.

Yes, of course, it was a global effort, and the americans helped much.
And they also know where is their interest:
Until 1941 they styed neutral, and get money from UK with the
"cash and carry" system. During the war, ITT made profit via PORSCHE
which was manucfacturing guns for Germany. Money was going to the US
through Switzerland. When the plants where destroyed in 1945, ITT get
refunded by the US government. 

I've been told that the US secret services where aware of Pearl
Harbour, and let it happen. That explain why most of the fleet was
away, doing training far away. The US president wanted to force the US
in the war. I don't know what credit to give to that.  Maybe you can
help me.

>      As to your comments about cowardly Americans bombing French civilians
> while the brave Britaniques risked all in demonstrating their superior aiming
> skills... this is a descent to the same irresponsibility that first angered
> you in the "we saved your asses" posting.  Such generalizations are shameful,
> and they dishonor the memories of the innocent bourgeois as well as the
> record of those Americans who risked their lives in what you seem to want to
> appropriate as your war.
>      +++paul

I didn't say "cowardly". Fullpoint. What I say is that the americans
miniized the risks for their planes, and english minimized the risks
for the civilians. And I tell you: Brest, Cherbourg, Lorient and many
others towns where completely destroyed by the americans bombing. And
people don't ressent it too much. But it is a fact.

All US people are not so ignorant. I was very surprised when an US
citizen (living in the Netherlands -- it is a civilized one :-) asked
if people were angry about the american bombing.

---------------

OK -- stop US bashing. My initial point in the first posting was that
is piss me off that this argument (we saved your asses) is so commonly
used. As someone else said, we can then talk of lafayette and go back
to cro-magnon. There is no point in that.

				Henry.
-- 
-- Henry Thomas   	e-mail: hthomas@ph.tn.tudelft.nl
T.U. Delft, Technische Natuurkunde, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ Delft
Netherlands, tel: +31 (0)15-782419, fax +31 (0)15-626740
-- Art has to be Forgotten. Beauty must be Realized.	[Piet Mondriaan]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.esperanto