From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Why we go for non-black women
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:22:38 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american

As quoted from <1464@blue.cis.pitt.edu> by pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Paul M Mweene):

> In article <1idu69INNn4i@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
> >
> >The United States sent guns, tanks, ammo, and supplies to the USSR
> >to fight the Nazis on the Eastern Front. The USSR sent the bodies to
> >fight and die there, on the battlefields and in the cities. When
> >the Nazis besieged Leningrad for 900 days (yes, 900 days), 300,000
> >people starved to death but the city never fell. 
> 
> While there is some truth in what you are saying, this represents a case
> of claiming more credit thn is deserved. For one thing, the Lend-Lease
> program by the USA to the USSR reprensented only $10 bn (and I might have
> som zeros too many). To say that Russia survived on the strength of Amer
> ican weapons is too far fetched since American military AID amounted to
> a small proportion of the Russian military effort.
> 
Lend Lease got them through some VERY bad times.  Remember, they practically
gave away much of their territory and industrial capacity in the initial
stages of the war.  When your factories are behind enemy lines or on railcars
headed east, you're grateful for whatever you can get.  The Soviets were
indeed grateful for what they got and made good use of it.  Don't forget, they
were even using Winchesters that had been sent to Imperial Russia for WWI.  
They were DESPERATE.

> Observe also that it was the Russians who tore the gut out of the German
> of the war machine, by routing more armies, capturing more weapons, and
> raining more bombs than western alliance combined. This is a fact ackno
> ledged by western leaders shortly after the war.
> 
They also had more troops to work with and LOST more troops doing it.  This was
a direct result of STAVKA incompetance, a lack of competant and experienced
officers in the field, and poorly trained and equipped troops.  To a large
extent, the Soviet Union's wounds were self inflicted.

> Before you start parting each other on the back, remember that one american
> leader said that the USA hoped that Germany and Russia would fight each other
> to death because they were both equally evil.
> 
They WERE equally evil.  We still helped them because the Germans were viewed
as more DANGEROUS, at least in the short term.

> Also, the feeling among Russians is that the Western alliance deliberately
> did not open a second front in western Europe in order to allow Russia to
> bear the brunt of the war. And when the offensive at normandy, it did so very
> late in the war (1944) and its scale was neglible to the some of the wars 
> that had been fought on the Russian front. 

1. How would ANOTHER Dieppe have helped the Soviets?  

2. We didn't toss troops away like they did.  We COULDN'T toss them away in that
manner.  We didn't HAVE them.

> Consider the fact that Russia suffered 20 million of the fifty million who
> died in the war. America and Britain suffered less than 1 million combined
> deaths.
> 
Consider that that is a VERY suspect figure, in light of the fact that the 
Gulag was running all through the war.  Also consider that it's no honor to
lose troops through incompetance.  It doesn't reflect on the troops, it DOES
reflect on their so called leaders.  The COMPETENT senior officers were shot
almost to a man.  Stalin singlehandedly almost lost the war for the Soviet
Union in the weeks before and after the German invasion.

> Also USA made a $50 bn profit from the war which enabled it to impose a
> hegemony on the world subsequently. Prior to to the war the Europeans had
> been the superpowers of the world.
> 
I don't really think that you can blame the US because the Europeans enjoy
slaughtering each other in droves.  Do you think that we should have just
GIVEN them weapons to slaughter each other?  If the US government didn't
BUY the weapons it used to fight WWII, where do you think they'd have come
from?

By the way, how many European countries have payed their WWII (never mind
WWI) debts to the US...?

> Finally, and most importantly, remember the millions of Africans who fought
> in this (and the first) war. They had absolutely no buisness being in a white
> mans war and were always forcibly conscripted. Though there name are not listed
> at any war memorial (even in some African countries!) they saw service as far
> afield as Burma and Berlin. One of my uncles was killed resisting conscription

Now here, I REALLY have to take issue with you.  Can you explain to me how a
German victory would have benefited Africans?  Can you say that Nigerians or
Ghanians would have been BETTER off under a German, no make that NAZI colonial
administration?  Compared to the alternative, even apartheid was a bed of 
roses.  If WHITE Jews were merely an industrial commodity or vermin to be
destroyed, where did that place BLACKS?

I'm sorry that your uncle was killed.  Do you really think he'd have done 
better under Hans Frank or Reinhardt Heydrich...?

England, Spain and France brought the slaves to slavery.  I don't think there's
any question that the Germans would have brought slavery back to the source.


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------