Discussion:
Don't know what to make of this
(too old to reply)
Gene DiGennaro
2010-03-18 15:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Hmm...looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. The cynic in me has me wondering if
this order came down from BHO himself, knowing modern liberalism's war
on the Boy Scouts. Dammitt, just as my son is poised to earn his Eagle
Scout Badge too.

http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
Paul S Wolf
2010-03-18 15:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Hmm...looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. The cynic in me has me wondering if
this order came down from BHO himself, knowing modern liberalism's war
on the Boy Scouts. Dammitt, just as my son is poised to earn his Eagle
Scout Badge too.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
I'm positive it did NOT come from the POTUS. My guess is its a manpower
and budget issue.

President Obama has indicated his support of BSA, and, as others in the
past have done, has agreed to serve as the Honorary President of the
BSA. His signature now appears on Eagle certificates and wallet cards,
and his office, as many other government offices, continues to send out
Eagle recognition letters, cards, and certificates.
--
Yours in Scouting,
Paul S. Wolf, PE, FITE mailto:***@usscouts.org
*****************************************************
Secretary, U.S. Scouting Service Project, Inc.
http://www.usscouts.org/start.asp
*****************************************************
Pat Flannery
2010-03-18 19:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Hmm...looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. The cynic in me has me wondering if
this order came down from BHO himself, knowing modern liberalism's war
on the Boy Scouts. Dammitt, just as my son is poised to earn his Eagle
Scout Badge too.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
Get Neal Armstrong on their case, he was an Eagle Scout.
He could bring along Buzz "Tenderfoot" Aldrin if there is any fighting
to be done.
The strange story of the attempted subversion of the Boy Scouts by the
Hitler Youth: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154942.html
Think of the horror if they had succeeded...little Nazi Girl Scouts
showing up at your door with cookies shaped like Swastikas, Stukas, and
Tiger tanks, no doubt baked over piles of burning books!
Lucky that Life Scout Indiana Jones was on our side! :-)

Pat
Val Kraut
2010-03-19 01:56:59 UTC
Permalink
".looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. >
It would be interesting if this is part of something larger - The NASA
budget has been criticized in the past for spending too much on special
items in the right congressman's or senator's district on things like
Planetariums, computers for the high school, scholarships to a local college
that has nothing to do with space, aircraft or engineering - you get the
idea. I wonder what else got cut.
little Nazi Girl Scouts showing up at your door with cookies shaped like
Swastikas, Stukas, and Tiger tanks,
I'm getting hungry just thinking about it - Tiger tanks in red brown and tan
striped icing with medium green sprinkles, the stukas in green over gray
icing with coconut. Maybe not too wierd - I knew a guy who did Easter eggs
with little paper wings painted like Messerschmidts and Spitfires.
Pat Flannery
2010-03-19 07:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Val Kraut
".looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts.>
It would be interesting if this is part of something larger - The NASA
budget has been criticized in the past for spending too much on special
items in the right congressman's or senator's district on things like
Planetariums, computers for the high school, scholarships to a local college
that has nothing to do with space, aircraft or engineering - you get the
idea. I wonder what else got cut.
If it is, Glenn Beck will warn us about it...and I'm willing to bet by
the time he gets done with it, it will be revealed as a lot more
sinister than any of us could possibly imagine.
Although we could imagine quite a bit...but not, I think, as much as
Glenn Beck.
Post by Val Kraut
little Nazi Girl Scouts showing up at your door with cookies shaped like
Swastikas, Stukas, and Tiger tanks,
I'm getting hungry just thinking about it - Tiger tanks in red brown and tan
striped icing with medium green sprinkles, the stukas in green over gray
icing with coconut.
Just avoid that "Zyklon B Gift Box" those things are killers.
Post by Val Kraut
Maybe not too wierd - I knew a guy who did Easter eggs
with little paper wings painted like Messerschmidts and Spitfires.
I want to make sculptures out of eggs this Easter that are shaped and
painted like the Pope.
I'm going to call them Eggs Benedict. ;-)

Pat
Pat Flannery
2010-03-19 10:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
If it is, Glenn Beck will warn us about it...and I'm willing to bet by
the time he gets done with it, it will be revealed as a lot more
sinister than any of us could possibly imagine.
Although we could imagine quite a bit...but not, I think, as much as
Glenn Beck.
BTW, Jon Stewart nailed Beck's ass to the floorboards last night in
one of the funniest parodies I've seen in my entire life:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/jon-stewart-glenn-beck-parody_n_505329.html

Pat
Gene DiGennaro
2010-03-19 13:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Hmm...looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. The cynic in me has me wondering if
this order came down from BHO himself, knowing modern liberalism's war
on the Boy Scouts. Dammitt, just as my son is poised to earn his Eagle
Scout Badge too.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
Get Neal Armstrong on their case, he was an Eagle Scout.
He could bring along Buzz "Tenderfoot" Aldrin if there is any fighting
to be done.
The strange story of the attempted subversion of the Boy Scouts by the
Hitler Youth:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154942.html
Think of the horror if they had succeeded...little Nazi Girl Scouts
showing up at your door with cookies shaped like Swastikas, Stukas, and
Tiger tanks, no doubt baked over piles of burning books!
Lucky that Life Scout Indiana Jones was on our side! :-)
Pat
Don't forget the USSR's Young Pioneers. Sadly in many countries,
scouting was/is used to train youth for paramilitary operations.
However, when I look at my own son's scout troop, I see a bunch of
nerdy 11-17 year olds who like to get outdoors. I can't imagine them
doing paramilitary anything! I was a nerdy scout type too, and if you
ask my wife, I still am!
Pat Flannery
2010-03-19 18:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Don't forget the USSR's Young Pioneers. Sadly in many countries,
scouting was/is used to train youth for paramilitary operations.
However, when I look at my own son's scout troop, I see a bunch of
nerdy 11-17 year olds who like to get outdoors. I can't imagine them
doing paramilitary anything! I was a nerdy scout type too, and if you
ask my wife, I still am!
James T. Kirk was never a Boy Scout.
And because of that, he constantly broke Scouting's rule about never
having sex with other species of life.
There is no merit badge for bestiality, although there is one for animal
husbandry.

Pat
willshak
2010-03-19 18:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Don't forget the USSR's Young Pioneers. Sadly in many countries,
scouting was/is used to train youth for paramilitary operations.
However, when I look at my own son's scout troop, I see a bunch of
nerdy 11-17 year olds who like to get outdoors. I can't imagine them
doing paramilitary anything! I was a nerdy scout type too, and if you
ask my wife, I still am!
James T. Kirk was never a Boy Scout.
And because of that, he constantly broke Scouting's rule about never
having sex with other species of life.
There is no merit badge for bestiality, although there is one for
animal husbandry.
Pat
Isn't that the same thing? He was the animal's husband for a few
minutes. :-)
(I know it isn't the same)
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
frank
2010-03-20 04:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Hmm...looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. The cynic in me has me wondering if
this order came down from BHO himself, knowing modern liberalism's war
on the Boy Scouts. Dammitt, just as my son is poised to earn his Eagle
Scout Badge too.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
Get Neal Armstrong on their case, he was an Eagle Scout.
He could bring along Buzz "Tenderfoot" Aldrin if there is any fighting
to be done.
The strange story of the attempted subversion of the Boy Scouts by the
Hitler Youth:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154942.html
Think of the horror if they had succeeded...little Nazi Girl Scouts
showing up at your door with cookies shaped like Swastikas, Stukas, and
Tiger tanks, no doubt baked over piles of burning books!
Lucky that Life Scout Indiana Jones was on our side! :-)
Pat
Don't forget the USSR's Young Pioneers. Sadly in many countries,
scouting was/is used to train youth for paramilitary operations.
However, when I look at my own son's scout troop, I see a bunch of
nerdy 11-17 year olds who like to get outdoors. I can't imagine them
doing paramilitary anything! I was a nerdy scout type too, and if you
ask my wife, I still am!
I was a Boy Scout overseas in Japan, council started cracking down
when we all were wearing the bush hat instead of the approved head
gear. Though they didn't say much about all the bayonets that were
carried in addition to the official Scout knives....

This was mid / late 60s, the 'Go to hell' patch might have put them
over the edge. ...

Then there was the bong at summer camp with whiskey and water with
regular tobacco..way different from the States.

Made Eagle eventually. They survived us all.
OM
2010-03-20 06:05:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:57:14 -0700 (PDT), frank
Post by frank
I was a Boy Scout overseas in Japan, council started cracking down
when we all were wearing the bush hat instead of the approved head
gear. Though they didn't say much about all the bayonets that were
carried in addition to the official Scout knives....
...I was a Scout in the early 70's, and there was a big row amongst
the various councils in Texas over the "red beret" that had been
introduced as optional headgear to the "Smokey the Bear" and
"Pisscutter/C*ntcap" hats. Old school Scoutmasters didn't like them,
while those who'd only been Scoutmasters for less than a few years
were all for them "because it kept the Scout uniform from being
boring". In the end, the feuding was all for naught because a) it was
decided that each individual troop would get their own choice of which
headgear to wear, and b) those stupid enough to choose the Red Beret
would wind up finding out that if they wore them in the field and got
caught in even a light mist, a wet beret would stain anything it was
allowed to come into contact with.

My first and second troops both stuck with the Pisscutters, although
in the case of the first one the Pisscutter won by aonly two member
margin over the Smokey hats, which were *far* better at keeping the
sun out of your eyes. The second troop, as I found out far too late,
was just a bunch of redneck retards...

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
doug holverson
2010-04-06 14:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Hmm...looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. The cynic in me has me wondering if
this order came down from BHO himself, knowing modern liberalism's war
on the Boy Scouts. Dammitt, just as my son is poised to earn his Eagle
Scout Badge too.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
Get Neal Armstrong on their case, he was an Eagle Scout.
He could bring along Buzz "Tenderfoot" Aldrin if there is any fighting
to be done.
The strange story of the attempted subversion of the Boy Scouts by the
Hitler Youth:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154942.html
Think of the horror if they had succeeded...little Nazi Girl Scouts
showing up at your door with cookies shaped like Swastikas, Stukas, and
Tiger tanks, no doubt baked over piles of burning books!
Lucky that Life Scout Indiana Jones was on our side! :-)
Pat
Don't forget the USSR's Young Pioneers. Sadly in many countries,
scouting was/is used to train youth for paramilitary operations.
However, when I look at my own son's scout troop, I see a bunch of
nerdy 11-17 year olds who like to get outdoors.
Anything that gets a nerd out of the basement and out into the great
outdoors probably isn't bad.

DGH

m***@ohiohills.com
2010-03-20 14:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
The strange story of the attempted subversion of the Boy Scouts by the
Hitler Youth:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154942.html
That's hilarious. In those days, didn't the British see everyone else
as a potential threat?
Post by Pat Flannery
Think of the horror if they had succeeded...little Nazi Girl Scouts
showing up at your door with cookies shaped like Swastikas, Stukas, and
Tiger tanks, no doubt baked over piles of burning books!
I would expect that burning books wouldn't get hot enough. Also, the
burning leather bindings might add an unpleasant taste to the
cookies. I think cookies shaped like Tiger tanks and Stukas would be
fun to have. To do it right, one would need U-boat shaped cookies,
too. (Somewhere around here I have a photo of a Christmas tree
decorated with electric swastika lights. That made me laugh out loud,
but it's a little extreme even for me.)
Post by Pat Flannery
Lucky that Life Scout Indiana Jones was on our side! :-)
Was it established in the movies that he was a Life Scout?


Mike
Pat Flannery
2010-03-20 18:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@ohiohills.com
Post by Pat Flannery
The strange story of the attempted subversion of the Boy Scouts by the
Hitler Youth:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154942.html
That's hilarious. In those days, didn't the British see everyone else
as a potential threat?
The WOGs begin at Marseille, sir.
Don't even get me started on the Chinaman or the Hun.
Post by m***@ohiohills.com
Post by Pat Flannery
Think of the horror if they had succeeded...little Nazi Girl Scouts
showing up at your door with cookies shaped like Swastikas, Stukas, and
Tiger tanks, no doubt baked over piles of burning books!
I would expect that burning books wouldn't get hot enough. Also, the
burning leather bindings might add an unpleasant taste to the
cookies.
Given some of the other burning things they could have cooked them over,
say Mr. and Mrs. Finklestein, books look like a pretty benign choice
for baking heat.
Post by m***@ohiohills.com
I think cookies shaped like Tiger tanks and Stukas would be
fun to have. To do it right, one would need U-boat shaped cookies,
too. (Somewhere around here I have a photo of a Christmas tree
decorated with electric swastika lights. That made me laugh out loud,
but it's a little extreme even for me.)
The less said about the Panzer 14 Swastika Boots, the better:
Loading Image...
Indi's scout training no doubt included identifying animal tracks, and
although the track of the coyote and a small gray wolf may seem
identical at first: http://www.bsatroop542.org/AnimalId.htm
...the track of a Nazi wearing Panzer 14 Boots is highly distinctive.
Post by m***@ohiohills.com
Post by Pat Flannery
Lucky that Life Scout Indiana Jones was on our side! :-)
Was it established in the movies that he was a Life Scout?
Sorta:
http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Boy_Scouts

Pat
Gray Ghost
2010-03-20 20:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@ohiohills.com
Post by Pat Flannery
The strange story of the attempted subversion of the Boy Scouts by the
Hitler Youth:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154942.html
That's hilarious. In those days, didn't the British see everyone else
as a potential threat?
Post by Pat Flannery
Think of the horror if they had succeeded...little Nazi Girl Scouts
showing up at your door with cookies shaped like Swastikas, Stukas, and
Tiger tanks, no doubt baked over piles of burning books!
I would expect that burning books wouldn't get hot enough. Also, the
burning leather bindings might add an unpleasant taste to the
cookies. I think cookies shaped like Tiger tanks and Stukas would be
fun to have. To do it right, one would need U-boat shaped cookies,
too. (Somewhere around here I have a photo of a Christmas tree
decorated with electric swastika lights. That made me laugh out loud,
but it's a little extreme even for me.)
Not so funny. I recently saw an article (and can't recall where offhand) about
how the Nazis tried to coop Christmas in exactly that way.

Frank (the other one)
Pat Flannery
2010-03-21 04:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Ghost
Not so funny. I recently saw an article (and can't recall where offhand) about
how the Nazis tried to coop Christmas in exactly that way.
There's one on that right over here:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/feier37.htm
Some more examples of militarizing Christmas are here:
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/vorweihnachten1943.htm
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/weihnacht44.htm
I particularly like Hitler's thoughts on Christmas on the back of the
second one:

"All nature is a gigantic struggle between strength and weakness, an
eternal victory of the strong over the weak." —Adolf Hitler

...this is a slight revision of classical Christian thought. ;-)

Pat
Gray Ghost
2010-03-21 01:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Gray Ghost
Not so funny. I recently saw an article (and can't recall where offhand)
about how the Nazis tried to coop Christmas in exactly that way.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/feier37.htm
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/vorweihnachten1943.htm
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/weihnacht44.htm
I particularly like Hitler's thoughts on Christmas on the back of the
"All nature is a gigantic struggle between strength and weakness, an
eternal victory of the strong over the weak." —Adolf Hitler
...this is a slight revision of classical Christian thought. ;-)
Pat
Yeah I have the site bookmarked. It's been a while. The Christmas 44 is pretty
sad and delusional.

Frank
Pat Flannery
2010-03-21 05:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Ghost
Yeah I have the site bookmarked. It's been a while. The Christmas 44 is pretty
sad and delusional.
I have a book that has a collection of English language articles from
the Nazi "Signal" propaganda magazine, that's a pretty warped thing to
go through also.


Pat
willshak
2010-03-21 12:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Gray Ghost
Yeah I have the site bookmarked. It's been a while. The Christmas 44 is pretty
sad and delusional.
I have a book that has a collection of English language articles from
the Nazi "Signal" propaganda magazine, that's a pretty warped thing to
go through also.
Pat
I have 2 or 3 of those Signal books in the attic, packed in a box with
other WWII books that I bought for reference when I was a kit building
addict back in the late 70s.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Pat Flannery
2010-03-22 03:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by willshak
I have 2 or 3 of those Signal books in the attic, packed in a box with
other WWII books that I bought for reference when I was a kit building
addict back in the late 70s.
They take real glee in describing the Luftwaffe laying waste to cities
in the countries they are invading.
Regarding the bombing of Rotterdam, Holland, under a large photo of the
city center reduced to a mass of burnt rubble:

"THE SPECTACLE OF 'TOTAL' WAR.
After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned how
hopeless it was to resist the German Luftwaffe - and paid for the lesson
by destruction of the centre of the city."

A few years later, the shoe was going to be decidedly on the other foot,
and I suspect they were regretting they ever wrote things like that.
Watching the magazine first running a article about how they won in
Stalingrad, and then having to explain how withdrawing from Stalingrad
was a brilliant strategic move in the next issue is not without its
amusement.
When the sheiss really starts hitting der fan, it's of course time to
start rolling out Leonidas and the 300 Spartans and telling everyone
that although Germany is about to lose the war, it was for a good cause,
as it created the concept of a United Europe...which it did...the only
small problem was that this United Europe was united in a desire to kill
every Nazi it could for stomping every country in the place into the
ground. ;-)

Pat
The Old Man
2010-03-22 00:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by willshak
I have 2 or 3 of those Signal books in the attic, packed in a box with
other WWII books that I bought for reference when I was a kit building
addict back in the late 70s.
They take real glee in describing the Luftwaffe laying waste to cities
in the countries they are invading.
Regarding the bombing of Rotterdam, Holland, under a large photo of the
"THE SPECTACLE OF 'TOTAL' WAR.
After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned how
hopeless it was to resist the German Luftwaffe - and paid for the lesson
by destruction of the centre of the city."
A few years later, the shoe was going to be decidedly on the other foot,
and I suspect they were regretting they ever wrote things like that.
Watching the magazine first running a article about how they won in
Stalingrad, and then having to explain how withdrawing from Stalingrad
was a brilliant strategic move in the next issue is not without its
amusement.
When the sheiss really starts hitting der fan, it's of course time to
start rolling out Leonidas and the 300 Spartans and telling everyone
that although Germany is about to lose the war, it was for a good cause,
as it created the concept of a United Europe...which it did...the only
small problem was that this United Europe was united in a desire to kill
every Nazi it could for stomping every country in the place into the
ground. ;-)
Pat
Try checking out some of the Articles in "Air Trails" from the war
years, especially 1942 and 1943. They were talking about how the
Luftwaffe was flattening every European city that resisted - and what
was going to happen to them as well.
Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who writes it....
Pat Flannery
2010-03-22 04:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by willshak
I have 2 or 3 of those Signal books in the attic, packed in a box with
other WWII books that I bought for reference when I was a kit building
addict back in the late 70s.
They take real glee in describing the Luftwaffe laying waste to cities
in the countries they are invading.
Regarding the bombing of Rotterdam, Holland, under a large photo of the
"THE SPECTACLE OF 'TOTAL' WAR.
After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned how
hopeless it was to resist the German Luftwaffe - and paid for the lesson
by destruction of the centre of the city."
A few years later, the shoe was going to be decidedly on the other foot,
and I suspect they were regretting they ever wrote things like that.
Watching the magazine first running a article about how they won in
Stalingrad, and then having to explain how withdrawing from Stalingrad
was a brilliant strategic move in the next issue is not without its
amusement.
When the sheiss really starts hitting der fan, it's of course time to
start rolling out Leonidas and the 300 Spartans and telling everyone
that although Germany is about to lose the war, it was for a good cause,
as it created the concept of a United Europe...which it did...the only
small problem was that this United Europe was united in a desire to kill
every Nazi it could for stomping every country in the place into the
ground. ;-)
Pat
Try checking out some of the Articles in "Air Trails" from the war
years, especially 1942 and 1943. They were talking about how the
Luftwaffe was flattening every European city that resisted - and what
was going to happen to them as well.
Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who writes it....
Difference being that Germany was the aggressor in its attack on Europe
and the Soviet Union; nobody attacked Germany first and then got invaded
by them in defense.
Then there was setting the precedent of terror bombing of civilian
targets, which the Luftwaffe had set clean back in the Spanish Civil War
with the bombing of Guernica, and made a major tool in WWII right from
the word go - either you offered no resistance to the invading Germans
or your civilian population was considered a legitimate target if they
so desired.
You come off a lot better in history if you:
1.) Wait till someone attacks you before attacking them.
2.) Make sure it's your enemy that sets the precedent in any form of
attack on a civilian population.
It was awfully hard for Germany to complain about the destruction of its
cities by the Allies after the Blitz on London and the destruction of
Coventry, as well as what happened to Warsaw and Rotterdam. And it was
Germany that declared war on the US, and not the other way around.
Frankly, after the vast number of Russians killed by Germany during WWI
and WWII, I'm somewhat surprised that Stalin - who was not known as a
merciful man by any means - didn't have all the Germans in the areas
occupied by Soviet troops exterminated, as that's exactly what the Nazis
had in mind for the Russians if they won.

Pat
The Old Man
2010-03-22 11:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by willshak
I have 2 or 3 of those Signal books in the attic, packed in a box with
other WWII books that I bought for reference when I was a kit building
addict back in the late 70s.
They take real glee in describing the Luftwaffe laying waste to cities
in the countries they are invading.
Regarding the bombing of Rotterdam, Holland, under a large photo of the
"THE SPECTACLE OF 'TOTAL' WAR.
After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned how
hopeless it was to resist the German Luftwaffe - and paid for the lesson
by destruction of the centre of the city."
A few years later, the shoe was going to be decidedly on the other foot,
and I suspect they were regretting they ever wrote things like that.
Watching the magazine first running a article about how they won in
Stalingrad, and then having to explain how withdrawing from Stalingrad
was a brilliant strategic move in the next issue is not without its
amusement.
When the sheiss really starts hitting der fan, it's of course time to
start rolling out Leonidas and the 300 Spartans and telling everyone
that although Germany is about to lose the war, it was for a good cause,
as it created the concept of a United Europe...which it did...the only
small problem was that this United Europe was united in a desire to kill
every Nazi it could for stomping every country in the place into the
ground. ;-)
Pat
Try checking out some of the Articles in "Air Trails" from the war
years, especially 1942 and 1943. They were talking about how the
Luftwaffe was flattening every European city that resisted - and what
was going to happen to them as well.
Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who writes it....
Difference being that Germany was the aggressor in its attack on Europe
and the Soviet Union; nobody attacked Germany first and then got invaded
by them in defense.
Then there was setting the precedent of terror bombing of civilian
targets, which the Luftwaffe had set clean back in the Spanish Civil War
with the bombing of Guernica, and made a major tool in WWII right from
the word go - either you offered no resistance to the invading Germans
or your civilian population was considered a legitimate target if they
so desired.
1.) Wait till someone attacks you before attacking them.
2.) Make sure it's your enemy that sets the precedent in any form of
attack on a civilian population.
It was awfully hard for Germany to complain about the destruction of its
cities by the Allies after the Blitz on London and the destruction of
Coventry, as well as what happened to Warsaw and Rotterdam. And it was
Germany that declared war on the US, and not the other way around.
Frankly, after the vast number of Russians killed by Germany during WWI
and WWII, I'm somewhat surprised that Stalin - who was not known as a
merciful man by any means - didn't have all the Germans in the areas
occupied by Soviet troops exterminated, as that's exactly what the Nazis
had in mind for the Russians if they won.
Pat- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I fully understand what you are saying Pat, but if you found yourself
transported to Germany in November 1939, you'd find that Joe
Knockwurst truely believed that Poland ~attacked~ Germany first
because it's what Herr Doktor Goebbels had just told him on the radio
last night. <historical sarcasm mode on> And the brave troops of the
Fatherland were only protecting its citizens from the attacks of the
perfidious Slavs and their alies the sneaky Frenchmen and the meddling
Brits.** <historical sarcasm mode off> And Slimey Joe was a Master of
the Political Lie.
I agree, the thugs who ruled Germany got exactly what they deserved.

** the above statement was handed to me almost word for word by my
late ex-mother-in-law who heard it on the radio in November 1939 while
living in a small town in southern Austria.
Pat Flannery
2010-03-22 18:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
I fully understand what you are saying Pat, but if you found yourself
transported to Germany in November 1939, you'd find that Joe
Knockwurst truely believed that Poland ~attacked~ Germany first
because it's what Herr Doktor Goebbels had just told him on the radio
last night.<historical sarcasm mode on> And the brave troops of the
Fatherland were only protecting its citizens from the attacks of the
perfidious Slavs and their alies the sneaky Frenchmen and the meddling
Brits.**<historical sarcasm mode off> And Slimey Joe was a Master of
the Political Lie.
I agree, the thugs who ruled Germany got exactly what they deserved.
** the above statement was handed to me almost word for word by my
late ex-mother-in-law who heard it on the radio in November 1939 while
living in a small town in southern Austria.
I remember running into a aged woman on a farm around here who used to
be a translator for the SS during the war (her husband was a GI who
brought her home with him) She was still big on Hitler and had a signed
copy of Mein Kampf. Besides propaganda, I think there was a underlying
social and philosophical outlook in the German populace that the Nazis
simply exploited to their own ends*.
Another woman, who is a German language teacher at our local college,
makes frequent summer trips over to Germany, and that lets her note how
things are developing after reunification.
One thing she consistently notes is "ranking behavior" is still a mighty
powerful force among the Germans; your status in society is established
not by who you are or what you do, but by who is beneath you for some
reason. Is your family from industrious western Germany, or lazy eastern
Germany? If from the west, the good "High German" northern part, or the
inferior "Low German" southern part? The latest thing was to rank people
by how many cubic centimeters their apartment had in it. So once again,
it all came down to lack of enough living room area. ;-)
As many have noted, the Nazis merely extrapolated that conceit into a
battle between nations and peoples, with all Germans being inherently
better than any other nation's populace - which made the lower class
Germans feel great as now they had someone to look down on also, just
like they themselves were looked down on: "Our family may not have its
roots in the Prussian aristocracy, but we're better than any damn
Frenchman, I can tell you that."
Combine that concept with someone to blame for why you were looked down
on or your life wasn't happy - the damned Jews - and you could get every
malcontent or socially marginalized person in the country on your side,
as under the new order their hidden worth would finally be recognized
and rewarded. And the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic in
Germany was just about ideal for generating malcontents and socially
marginalized people in vast numbers.

*One thing about Goebbels that becomes obvious after you read some of
his quotes is that when it came right down to it, he detested the German
people for being stupid enough to buy into all of his lies so
trustingly. He compared them to little trained dogs who he could hold a
hoop in front of, and they would jump through it every time.

Pat
h***@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
2010-03-23 03:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
I fully understand what you are saying Pat, but if you found yourself
transported to Germany in November 1939, you'd find that Joe
Knockwurst truely believed that Poland ~attacked~ Germany first
because it's what Herr Doktor Goebbels had just told him on the radio
last night.<historical sarcasm mode on> And the brave troops of the
Fatherland were only protecting its citizens from the attacks of the
perfidious Slavs and their alies the sneaky Frenchmen and the meddling
Brits.**<historical sarcasm mode off> And Slimey Joe was a Master of
the Political Lie.
I agree, the thugs who ruled Germany got exactly what they deserved.
** the above statement was handed to me almost word for word by my
late ex-mother-in-law who heard it on the radio in November 1939 while
living in a small town in southern Austria.
I remember running into a aged woman on a farm around here who used to
be a translator for the SS during the war (her husband was a GI who
brought her home with him) She was still big on Hitler and had a
signed copy of Mein Kampf. Besides propaganda, I think there was a
underlying social and philosophical outlook in the German populace
that the Nazis simply exploited to their own ends*.
Another woman, who is a German language teacher at our local college,
makes frequent summer trips over to Germany, and that lets her note
how things are developing after reunification.
Not far-fetched at all. My mother was born 1933 in Bruck-an-der-Mur in
Austria, remembers the war years (her first look at a black man, who
gave her and other school girls chocolates through the wires of the POW
camp), the terror of strafing at school (where some of her schoolfriends
were killed by the Tiefflieger) and running for the sale mines, and then
the 10 years of the Russian occupation. The Russian apparently were
still hunting down hard-core nazis in the forests and hills years after
the war (although one might equally think that there may have been quite
a few non-Nazi but anti-occupation folks among them).

And yet statism leaves its scars: my mother can still say some things
that Hitler did were good. Now I do not disagree that a person's deeds
are certainly not all bad, but the things she and others like her think
of as beneficial are part and parcel of the very same actions that led
to the destruction of Germany and Austria: state-run projects piling up
the debt and focussing on the preparations for war (construction and
labor projects) or indoctrination and control of the populace (education
and medical policies).

As for my dad's side, um, let us just say the Namibian Germans include
many unrepentant would-be Nazis (who never experienced the war but
vicariously enjoyed it).

Gernot
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 15:51:52 UTC
Permalink
On 3/22/2010 7:59 PM,
Post by h***@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Not far-fetched at all. My mother was born 1933 in Bruck-an-der-Mur in
Austria, remembers the war years (her first look at a black man, who
gave her and other school girls chocolates through the wires of the POW
camp), the terror of strafing at school (where some of her schoolfriends
were killed by the Tiefflieger) and running for the sale mines, and then
the 10 years of the Russian occupation. The Russian apparently were
still hunting down hard-core nazis in the forests and hills years after
the war (although one might equally think that there may have been quite
a few non-Nazi but anti-occupation folks among them).
And yet statism leaves its scars: my mother can still say some things
that Hitler did were good. Now I do not disagree that a person's deeds
are certainly not all bad, but the things she and others like her think
of as beneficial are part and parcel of the very same actions that led
to the destruction of Germany and Austria: state-run projects piling up
the debt and focussing on the preparations for war (construction and
labor projects) or indoctrination and control of the populace (education
and medical policies).
The only other German I ever ran into that was around during the war
years was a former Hitler Youth who ended up making stained glass
windows for churches of all things.
He recounted how the war was sold to people as a religious crusade to
save Christianity from Communism.

Pat
s***@some.domain
2010-03-22 20:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
I have 2 or 3 of those Signal books in the attic, packed in a box wit=
h
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
other WWII books that I bought for reference when I was a kit buildin=
g
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
addict back in the late 70s.
They take real glee in describing the Luftwaffe laying waste to cities
in the countries they are invading.
Regarding the bombing of Rotterdam, Holland, under a large photo of th=
e
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
"THE SPECTACLE OF 'TOTAL' WAR.
After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned how
hopeless it was to resist the German Luftwaffe - and paid for the less=
on
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
by destruction of the centre of the city."
A few years later, the shoe was going to be decidedly on the other foo=
t,
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
and I suspect they were regretting they ever wrote things like that.
Watching the magazine first running a article about how they won in
Stalingrad, and then having to explain how withdrawing from Stalingrad
was a brilliant strategic move in the next issue is not without its
amusement.
When the sheiss really starts hitting der fan, it's of course time to
start rolling out Leonidas and the 300 Spartans and telling everyone
that although Germany is about to lose the war, it was for a good caus=
e,
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
as it created the concept of a United Europe...which it did...the only
small problem was that this United Europe was united in a desire to ki=
ll
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
every Nazi it could for stomping every country in the place into the
ground. ;-)
Pat
Try checking out some of the Articles in "Air Trails" from the war
years, especially 1942 and 1943. They were talking about how the
Luftwaffe was flattening every European city that resisted - and what
was going to happen to them as well.
Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who writes it....
Difference being that Germany was the aggressor in its attack on Europe
and the Soviet Union; nobody attacked Germany first and then got invaded
by them in defense.
Then there was setting the precedent of terror bombing of civilian
targets, which the Luftwaffe had set clean back in the Spanish Civil War
with the bombing of Guernica, and made a major tool in WWII right from
the word go - either you offered no resistance to the invading Germans
or your civilian population was considered a legitimate target if they
so desired.
1.) Wait till someone attacks you before attacking them.
2.) Make sure it's your enemy that sets the precedent in any form of
attack on a civilian population.
It was awfully hard for Germany to complain about the destruction of its
cities by the Allies after the Blitz on London and the destruction of
Coventry, as well as what happened to Warsaw and Rotterdam. And it was
Germany that declared war on the US, and not the other way around.
Frankly, after the vast number of Russians killed by Germany during WWI
and WWII, I'm somewhat surprised that Stalin - who was not known as a
merciful man by any means - didn't have all the Germans in the areas
occupied by Soviet troops exterminated, as that's exactly what the Nazis
had in mind for the Russians if they won.
Pat- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I fully understand what you are saying Pat, but if you found yourself
transported to Germany in November 1939, you'd find that Joe
Knockwurst truely believed that Poland ~attacked~ Germany first
because it's what Herr Doktor Goebbels had just told him on the radio
last night. <historical sarcasm mode on> And the brave troops of the
Fatherland were only protecting its citizens from the attacks of the
perfidious Slavs and their alies the sneaky Frenchmen and the meddling
Brits.** <historical sarcasm mode off> And Slimey Joe was a Master of
the Political Lie.
I agree, the thugs who ruled Germany got exactly what they deserved.
** the above statement was handed to me almost word for word by my
late ex-mother-in-law who heard it on the radio in November 1939 while
living in a small town in southern Austria.
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows, (the
small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10 years. it was
only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than outright
murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and that was almost a
death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners surrendered at stalingrad. about
5,000 survived. the pow camps were just as brutal as the german camps had been
minus the outright gas chambers, firing pits and lethal injections. stalin
used them psychologically, too. relatives were often left to wonder if their
soldier was even alive. the russians were slow to publish names of pow's.
they only reluctantly bowed to world opinion.
the pows were starved, beaten and died of diseases that were easily treated.
check out hans bauer's book about his captivity. he had a leg amputated
because of poor medical care. the rest of the book is equally cheery.
side by side, neither country has anything positive to commend them. if given
a choice, a nice clean bullet was often preferable to being a pow.
i suspect that a lot of germans were not fooled about poland.
Gray Ghost
2010-03-22 21:55:09 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by willshak
I have 2 or 3 of those Signal books in the attic, packed in a box
wit= h other WWII books that I bought for reference when I was a
kit buildin= g addict back in the late 70s.
They take real glee in describing the Luftwaffe laying waste to
cities in the countries they are invading.
Regarding the bombing of Rotterdam, Holland, under a large photo of
"THE SPECTACLE OF 'TOTAL' WAR.
After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned
how hopeless it was to resist the German Luftwaffe - and paid for
the less= on by destruction of the centre of the city."
A few years later, the shoe was going to be decidedly on the other
foo= t, and I suspect they were regretting they ever wrote things
like that. Watching the magazine first running a article about how
they won in Stalingrad, and then having to explain how withdrawing
from Stalingrad was a brilliant strategic move in the next issue is
not without its amusement. When the sheiss really starts hitting der
fan, it's of course time to start rolling out Leonidas and the 300
Spartans and telling everyone that although Germany is about to lose
the war, it was for a good caus= e, as it created the concept of a
United Europe...which it did...the only small problem was that this
United Europe was united in a desire to ki= ll every Nazi it could
for stomping every country in the place into the ground. ;-)
Pat
Try checking out some of the Articles in "Air Trails" from the war
years, especially 1942 and 1943. They were talking about how the
Luftwaffe was flattening every European city that resisted - and what
was going to happen to them as well.
Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who writes it....
Difference being that Germany was the aggressor in its attack on Europe
and the Soviet Union; nobody attacked Germany first and then got
invaded by them in defense.
Then there was setting the precedent of terror bombing of civilian
targets, which the Luftwaffe had set clean back in the Spanish Civil
War with the bombing of Guernica, and made a major tool in WWII right
from the word go - either you offered no resistance to the invading
Germans or your civilian population was considered a legitimate target
if they so desired.
1.) Wait till someone attacks you before attacking them.
2.) Make sure it's your enemy that sets the precedent in any form of
attack on a civilian population.
It was awfully hard for Germany to complain about the destruction of
its cities by the Allies after the Blitz on London and the destruction
of Coventry, as well as what happened to Warsaw and Rotterdam. And it
was Germany that declared war on the US, and not the other way around.
Frankly, after the vast number of Russians killed by Germany during WWI
and WWII, I'm somewhat surprised that Stalin - who was not known as a
merciful man by any means - didn't have all the Germans in the areas
occupied by Soviet troops exterminated, as that's exactly what the
Nazis had in mind for the Russians if they won.
Pat- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I fully understand what you are saying Pat, but if you found yourself
transported to Germany in November 1939, you'd find that Joe
Knockwurst truely believed that Poland ~attacked~ Germany first
because it's what Herr Doktor Goebbels had just told him on the radio
last night. <historical sarcasm mode on> And the brave troops of the
Fatherland were only protecting its citizens from the attacks of the
perfidious Slavs and their alies the sneaky Frenchmen and the meddling
Brits.** <historical sarcasm mode off> And Slimey Joe was a Master of
the Political Lie.
I agree, the thugs who ruled Germany got exactly what they deserved.
** the above statement was handed to me almost word for word by my
late ex-mother-in-law who heard it on the radio in November 1939 while
living in a small town in southern Austria.
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows,
(the small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10
years. it was only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than
outright murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and that
was almost a death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners surrendered at
stalingrad. about 5,000 survived. the pow camps were just as brutal as
the german camps had been minus the outright gas chambers, firing pits
and lethal injections. stalin used them psychologically, too. relatives
were often left to wonder if their soldier was even alive. the russians
were slow to publish names of pow's. they only reluctantly bowed to
world opinion. the pows were starved, beaten and died of diseases that
were easily treated. check out hans bauer's book about his captivity. he
had a leg amputated because of poor medical care. the rest of the book is
equally cheery. side by side, neither country has anything positive to
commend them. if given a choice, a nice clean bullet was often preferable
to being a pow. i suspect that a lot of germans were not fooled about
poland.
I have a book round here that talks about the origins of WWII focusing on the
cluster flop of Versailles and the maladministration of the Armistice by the
Allies. In one section it mentions that in the early 1930s a senior Polish
general or politician called for the dissolution of Germany as being to
dangerous.

I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, yet. But in context it seemed
quite reasonable. it's the kind of thing that could have really torqed the
Jerries off. Maybe it wasn't so much that they weren't fooled, it may have
been they didn't care.

Frank
s***@some.domain
2010-03-23 01:56:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@216.196.97.142>, grey_ghost471-***@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:
snipped because it was too much long....
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows,
(the small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10
years. it was only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than
outright murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and that
was almost a death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners surrendered at
stalingrad. about 5,000 survived. the pow camps were just as brutal as
the german camps had been minus the outright gas chambers, firing pits
and lethal injections. stalin used them psychologically, too. relatives
were often left to wonder if their soldier was even alive. the russians
were slow to publish names of pow's. they only reluctantly bowed to
world opinion. the pows were starved, beaten and died of diseases that
were easily treated. check out hans bauer's book about his captivity. he
had a leg amputated because of poor medical care. the rest of the book is
equally cheery. side by side, neither country has anything positive to
commend them. if given a choice, a nice clean bullet was often preferable
to being a pow. i suspect that a lot of germans were not fooled about
poland.
I have a book round here that talks about the origins of WWII focusing on the
cluster flop of Versailles and the maladministration of the Armistice by the
Allies. In one section it mentions that in the early 1930s a senior Polish
general or politician called for the dissolution of Germany as being to
dangerous.
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, yet. But in context it seemed
quite reasonable. it's the kind of thing that could have really torqed the
Jerries off. Maybe it wasn't so much that they weren't fooled, it may have
been they didn't care.
Frank
there was certainly no love lost historically. the prussians had a long
history of playing whack-a-pole and the poles had allied with other enemies of
germany at various times. so just as there was a long history of hatred for
jews, the poles also were germany's foe.
sadly for the poles, they sit on every major invasion route across europe. so
the joke was that everyone hates jews, poles and mad dogs. the germans, the
russians, the french, everybody stepped on poland. her borders grew and shrank
with every political breeze in the euro air. sadly, the poles seemed adept at
pissing everyone off, too.
the idea of dissolving germany surely must have been gas on the fire. so you
called it right.
Gray Ghost
2010-03-23 01:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@some.domain
was too much long....
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows,
(the small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10
years. it was only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than
outright murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and that
was almost a death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners surrendered at
stalingrad. about 5,000 survived. the pow camps were just as brutal as
the german camps had been minus the outright gas chambers, firing pits
and lethal injections. stalin used them psychologically, too. relatives
were often left to wonder if their soldier was even alive. the russians
were slow to publish names of pow's. they only reluctantly bowed to
world opinion. the pows were starved, beaten and died of diseases that
were easily treated. check out hans bauer's book about his captivity.
he had a leg amputated because of poor medical care. the rest of the
book is equally cheery. side by side, neither country has anything
positive to commend them. if given a choice, a nice clean bullet was
often preferable to being a pow. i suspect that a lot of germans were
not fooled about poland.
I have a book round here that talks about the origins of WWII focusing on
the cluster flop of Versailles and the maladministration of the Armistice
by the Allies. In one section it mentions that in the early 1930s a
senior Polish general or politician called for the dissolution of Germany
as being to dangerous.
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, yet. But in context it seemed
quite reasonable. it's the kind of thing that could have really torqed
the Jerries off. Maybe it wasn't so much that they weren't fooled, it may
have been they didn't care.
Frank
there was certainly no love lost historically. the prussians had a long
history of playing whack-a-pole and the poles had allied with other
enemies of germany at various times. so just as there was a long history
of hatred for jews, the poles also were germany's foe.
sadly for the poles, they sit on every major invasion route across
europe. so the joke was that everyone hates jews, poles and mad dogs.
the germans, the russians, the french, everybody stepped on poland. her
borders grew and shrank with every political breeze in the euro air.
sadly, the poles seemed adept at pissing everyone off, too.
the idea of dissolving germany surely must have been gas on the fire. so
you called it right.
What i didn't get is with such belligerence on thier part they didn't develop
a better military. Not saying thier soldiers weren't brave, but they were
kinda on the cusp of the technology revolution in the 30s and then just went
sideways.

I guess they could have gotten trapped in the same tween wars trap many
countries did, not really appreciating the developements or having
bureaucracies that were to rigid to adapt. But ya know if I had been a Pole in
the 30s, looking East and looking West, I'da wanted to seriously upgrade my
military. In retrospect you knew the two big isms were gonna duke it out and
that Poland would be a corridor or battlefield. Or both.

Frank
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 05:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Ghost
What i didn't get is with such belligerence on thier part they didn't develop
a better military. Not saying thier soldiers weren't brave, but they were
kinda on the cusp of the technology revolution in the 30s and then just went
sideways.
I guess they could have gotten trapped in the same tween wars trap many
countries did, not really appreciating the developements or having
bureaucracies that were to rigid to adapt. But ya know if I had been a Pole in
the 30s, looking East and looking West, I'da wanted to seriously upgrade my
military. In retrospect you knew the two big isms were gonna duke it out and
that Poland would be a corridor or battlefield. Or both.
I assume one major factor was the cost of building up a military that
could defend against either Germany or the Soviet Union (or, as it ended
up, both at once) versus the country's GDP...Hitler used the military
build-up of Germany as one of his main levers in its economic rebirth,
and the Soviets just had vast numbers of troops and equipment that they
could call on in time of war.
Poland found itself in a situation where it simply couldn't afford to
defend itself competently, so relied on its treaties with Britain and
France for protection.
Of course, when the invasion came, it was all over too quickly for
either Britain or France to do anything about it, not that they could
have done much anyway against the armies of Germany and the
Soviets...they needed to keep their forces intact for what they knew was
going to happen next.
If there was a country that really flopped in its defense prior to WWII,
it was France. Its military was a complete disorganized mess at the
start of the war, and despite some very technically good equipment, they
were made quick work of by the revolutionary Blitzkrieg tactics and
combined air-ground attacks that were used against their poor command
and control system.

Pat
s***@some.domain
2010-03-23 04:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
was too much long....
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows,
(the small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10
years. it was only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than
outright murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and that
was almost a death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners surrendered at
stalingrad. about 5,000 survived. the pow camps were just as brutal as
the german camps had been minus the outright gas chambers, firing pits
and lethal injections. stalin used them psychologically, too. relatives
were often left to wonder if their soldier was even alive. the russians
were slow to publish names of pow's. they only reluctantly bowed to
world opinion. the pows were starved, beaten and died of diseases that
were easily treated. check out hans bauer's book about his captivity.
he had a leg amputated because of poor medical care. the rest of the
book is equally cheery. side by side, neither country has anything
positive to commend them. if given a choice, a nice clean bullet was
often preferable to being a pow. i suspect that a lot of germans were
not fooled about poland.
I have a book round here that talks about the origins of WWII focusing on
the cluster flop of Versailles and the maladministration of the Armistice
by the Allies. In one section it mentions that in the early 1930s a
senior Polish general or politician called for the dissolution of Germany
as being to dangerous.
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, yet. But in context it seemed
quite reasonable. it's the kind of thing that could have really torqed
the Jerries off. Maybe it wasn't so much that they weren't fooled, it may
have been they didn't care.
Frank
there was certainly no love lost historically. the prussians had a long
history of playing whack-a-pole and the poles had allied with other
enemies of germany at various times. so just as there was a long history
of hatred for jews, the poles also were germany's foe.
sadly for the poles, they sit on every major invasion route across
europe. so the joke was that everyone hates jews, poles and mad dogs.
the germans, the russians, the french, everybody stepped on poland. her
borders grew and shrank with every political breeze in the euro air.
sadly, the poles seemed adept at pissing everyone off, too.
the idea of dissolving germany surely must have been gas on the fire. so
you called it right.
What i didn't get is with such belligerence on thier part they didn't develop
a better military. Not saying thier soldiers weren't brave, but they were
kinda on the cusp of the technology revolution in the 30s and then just went
sideways.
I guess they could have gotten trapped in the same tween wars trap many
countries did, not really appreciating the developements or having
bureaucracies that were to rigid to adapt. But ya know if I had been a Pole in
the 30s, looking East and looking West, I'da wanted to seriously upgrade my
military. In retrospect you knew the two big isms were gonna duke it out and
that Poland would be a corridor or battlefield. Or both.
Frank
it is hard for me to believe they did that. it was as delusional as the french
behind their billion dollar holes in the ground. but i muct profess a distinct
lack of knowledge of polish history and suspect there is much i don't know.
we all have 20/20 hindsight, so my presumptions would certainly be wrong.
i'm sure of one thing, that it was a complicated mix of history, politics,
national character and the abilities of entire nations to to self delude
themselves. the history of the 20th century seems to be delusional.
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 06:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@some.domain
it is hard for me to believe they did that. it was as delusional as the french
behind their billion dollar holes in the ground. but i muct profess a distinct
lack of knowledge of polish history and suspect there is much i don't know.
we all have 20/20 hindsight, so my presumptions would certainly be wrong.
i'm sure of one thing, that it was a complicated mix of history, politics,
national character and the abilities of entire nations to to self delude
themselves. the history of the 20th century seems to be delusional.
Poland would have been smarter to ally itself with a country bordering
it rather than Britain and France.
Assuming Poland was attacked, how exactly were Britain or France to get
men and material to it to defend it?
The only seaport was at Danzig, and to get there, naval forces would
have to sail along the north coast of Germany, easy prey to air and
submarine attacks.
The whole Polish defense treaty was a big bluff, that counted on no one
daring to go to war with Britain or France.
H. G. Wells once wrote that the Danzig Corridor was perfectly designed
to start a war, and that's where WWII starts in his book "The Shape Of
Things To Come".

Pat
s***@some.domain
2010-03-23 07:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@some.domain
Post by s***@some.domain
it is hard for me to believe they did that. it was as delusional as the
french
Post by s***@some.domain
behind their billion dollar holes in the ground. but i muct profess a
distinct
Post by s***@some.domain
lack of knowledge of polish history and suspect there is much i don't know.
we all have 20/20 hindsight, so my presumptions would certainly be wrong.
i'm sure of one thing, that it was a complicated mix of history, politics,
national character and the abilities of entire nations to to self delude
themselves. the history of the 20th century seems to be delusional.
Poland would have been smarter to ally itself with a country bordering
it rather than Britain and France.
Assuming Poland was attacked, how exactly were Britain or France to get
men and material to it to defend it?
The only seaport was at Danzig, and to get there, naval forces would
have to sail along the north coast of Germany, easy prey to air and
submarine attacks.
The whole Polish defense treaty was a big bluff, that counted on no one
daring to go to war with Britain or France.
H. G. Wells once wrote that the Danzig Corridor was perfectly designed
to start a war, and that's where WWII starts in his book "The Shape Of
Things To Come".
Pat
true but older ties were just not broken. loyalty can be a real handicap.
and incredibly expensive.
Bruce Burden
2010-03-24 02:39:39 UTC
Permalink
In rec.models.scale Pat Flannery <***@daktel.com> wrote:
:
: Poland would have been smarter to ally itself with a country bordering
: it rather than Britain and France.
:
Like, who?

Germany, who would gladly have "repatriated" Danzig, for
instance?

Russia, where if you weren't (White) Russian, you were so much
trash underfoot?

The Poles, rightly, didn't trust either country, and everybody
else they had a border with was too small to be of any help. Also,
keep in mind that Germany and the USSR had already carved up Poland,
so do you really think a "treaty" would have been worth the paper it
was printed on?
:
: Assuming Poland was attacked, how exactly were Britain or France to get
: men and material to it to defend it?
:
Britiain had the quaint idea that it would take at least
six years for a country to prepare and go to war. Be that as it
may, they managed to overlook the fact that Germany and Russia
were, in fact, preparing for renewed hostilities.

When Britian realized, perhaps belatedly, that hostilities
were a lot closer than six years away, their preparations went,
not surprisingly, to their sad state of affairs. Poland, and the
self-defense treaty, was a far distant thought by then. Oops, so
sorry.

Pols haven't changed - they are remarkable good about ignoring
"inconvenient truths".

Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
Gray Ghost
2010-03-23 04:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@some.domain
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
it was too much long....
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows,
(the small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10
years. it was only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than
outright murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and
that was almost a death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners
surrendered at stalingrad. about 5,000 survived. the pow camps were
just as brutal as the german camps had been minus the outright gas
chambers, firing pits and lethal injections. stalin used them
psychologically, too. relatives were often left to wonder if their
soldier was even alive. the russians were slow to publish names of
pow's. they only reluctantly bowed to world opinion. the pows were
starved, beaten and died of diseases that were easily treated. check
out hans bauer's book about his captivity. he had a leg amputated
because of poor medical care. the rest of the book is equally cheery.
side by side, neither country has anything positive to commend them.
if given a choice, a nice clean bullet was often preferable to being
a pow. i suspect that a lot of germans were not fooled about poland.
I have a book round here that talks about the origins of WWII focusing
on the cluster flop of Versailles and the maladministration of the
Armistice by the Allies. In one section it mentions that in the early
1930s a senior Polish general or politician called for the dissolution
of Germany as being to dangerous.
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, yet. But in context it
seemed quite reasonable. it's the kind of thing that could have really
torqed the Jerries off. Maybe it wasn't so much that they weren't
fooled, it may have been they didn't care.
Frank
there was certainly no love lost historically. the prussians had a long
history of playing whack-a-pole and the poles had allied with other
enemies of germany at various times. so just as there was a long
history of hatred for jews, the poles also were germany's foe.
sadly for the poles, they sit on every major invasion route across
europe. so the joke was that everyone hates jews, poles and mad dogs.
the germans, the russians, the french, everybody stepped on poland. her
borders grew and shrank with every political breeze in the euro air.
sadly, the poles seemed adept at pissing everyone off, too.
the idea of dissolving germany surely must have been gas on the fire.
so you called it right.
What i didn't get is with such belligerence on thier part they didn't
develop a better military. Not saying thier soldiers weren't brave, but
they were kinda on the cusp of the technology revolution in the 30s and
then just went sideways.
I guess they could have gotten trapped in the same tween wars trap many
countries did, not really appreciating the developements or having
bureaucracies that were to rigid to adapt. But ya know if I had been a
Pole in the 30s, looking East and looking West, I'da wanted to seriously
upgrade my military. In retrospect you knew the two big isms were gonna
duke it out and that Poland would be a corridor or battlefield. Or both.
Frank
it is hard for me to believe they did that. it was as delusional as the
french behind their billion dollar holes in the ground. but i muct
profess a distinct lack of knowledge of polish history and suspect there
is much i don't know. we all have 20/20 hindsight, so my presumptions
would certainly be wrong. i'm sure of one thing, that it was a
complicated mix of history, politics, national character and the
abilities of entire nations to to self delude themselves. the history of
the 20th century seems to be delusional.
More than that, I think the pace of technology fooled a lot of people. The
very nature of war changed in the 30s for those that could or would see it.
Certainly the very pace at which could be conducted could be said to have been
changed by several orders of magnitude.

German tanks had FM radios and Gamelin was using motorcycle dispatch riders to
communicate with his army - turnaround measured in a day or more.

Of course even those that got it, didn't get it enough.
--
God, guns and guts made America great.

And Janet Napolitano nervous.

Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
s***@some.domain
2010-03-23 07:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
it was too much long....
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by s***@some.domain
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows,
(the small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10
years. it was only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than
outright murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and
that was almost a death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners
surrendered at stalingrad. about 5,000 survived. the pow camps were
just as brutal as the german camps had been minus the outright gas
chambers, firing pits and lethal injections. stalin used them
psychologically, too. relatives were often left to wonder if their
soldier was even alive. the russians were slow to publish names of
pow's. they only reluctantly bowed to world opinion. the pows were
starved, beaten and died of diseases that were easily treated. check
out hans bauer's book about his captivity. he had a leg amputated
because of poor medical care. the rest of the book is equally cheery.
side by side, neither country has anything positive to commend them.
if given a choice, a nice clean bullet was often preferable to being
a pow. i suspect that a lot of germans were not fooled about poland.
I have a book round here that talks about the origins of WWII focusing
on the cluster flop of Versailles and the maladministration of the
Armistice by the Allies. In one section it mentions that in the early
1930s a senior Polish general or politician called for the dissolution
of Germany as being to dangerous.
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, yet. But in context it
seemed quite reasonable. it's the kind of thing that could have really
torqed the Jerries off. Maybe it wasn't so much that they weren't
fooled, it may have been they didn't care.
Frank
there was certainly no love lost historically. the prussians had a long
history of playing whack-a-pole and the poles had allied with other
enemies of germany at various times. so just as there was a long
history of hatred for jews, the poles also were germany's foe.
sadly for the poles, they sit on every major invasion route across
europe. so the joke was that everyone hates jews, poles and mad dogs.
the germans, the russians, the french, everybody stepped on poland. her
borders grew and shrank with every political breeze in the euro air.
sadly, the poles seemed adept at pissing everyone off, too.
the idea of dissolving germany surely must have been gas on the fire.
so you called it right.
What i didn't get is with such belligerence on thier part they didn't
develop a better military. Not saying thier soldiers weren't brave, but
they were kinda on the cusp of the technology revolution in the 30s and
then just went sideways.
I guess they could have gotten trapped in the same tween wars trap many
countries did, not really appreciating the developements or having
bureaucracies that were to rigid to adapt. But ya know if I had been a
Pole in the 30s, looking East and looking West, I'da wanted to seriously
upgrade my military. In retrospect you knew the two big isms were gonna
duke it out and that Poland would be a corridor or battlefield. Or both.
Frank
it is hard for me to believe they did that. it was as delusional as the
french behind their billion dollar holes in the ground. but i muct
profess a distinct lack of knowledge of polish history and suspect there
is much i don't know. we all have 20/20 hindsight, so my presumptions
would certainly be wrong. i'm sure of one thing, that it was a
complicated mix of history, politics, national character and the
abilities of entire nations to to self delude themselves. the history of
the 20th century seems to be delusional.
More than that, I think the pace of technology fooled a lot of people. The
very nature of war changed in the 30s for those that could or would see it.
Certainly the very pace at which could be conducted could be said to have been
changed by several orders of magnitude.
German tanks had FM radios and Gamelin was using motorcycle dispatch riders to
communicate with his army - turnaround measured in a day or more.
Of course even those that got it, didn't get it enough.
yeah, cultural lag was quite extreme due to the radical nature of war's tech.
what was experimental and tenative in ww1 was perfected and far advanced in
the 20 year break in the europeon world war. i see both conflicts as one
struggle, perhaps not even really resolved in eastern europe. it is not
impossible for a large war in europe, perhaps less likely but not impossible.
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 16:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@some.domain
yeah, cultural lag was quite extreme due to the radical nature of war's tech.
what was experimental and tenative in ww1 was perfected and far advanced in
the 20 year break in the europeon world war. i see both conflicts as one
struggle, perhaps not even really resolved in eastern europe. it is not
impossible for a large war in europe, perhaps less likely but not impossible.
Certainly a lot of problems in Eastern Europe that were put on ice at
the end of WWII came right back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and
many have yet to be fully resolved.
It was surprising after all the work Britain did on tank tactics between
the wars that they weren't better prepared to deal with Guderian's
panzer tactics in WWII.
Although the French had some of the best tanks in the world at the start
of the war, their employment of them against the invading Germans was
abysmal as far as tactics went.

Pat
Gray Ghost
2010-03-23 15:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by s***@some.domain
yeah, cultural lag was quite extreme due to the radical nature of war's
tech. what was experimental and tenative in ww1 was perfected and far
advanced in the 20 year break in the europeon world war. i see both
conflicts as one struggle, perhaps not even really resolved in eastern
europe. it is not impossible for a large war in europe, perhaps less
likely but not impossible.
Certainly a lot of problems in Eastern Europe that were put on ice at
the end of WWII came right back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and
many have yet to be fully resolved.
It was surprising after all the work Britain did on tank tactics between
the wars that they weren't better prepared to deal with Guderian's
panzer tactics in WWII.
Although the French had some of the best tanks in the world at the start
of the war, their employment of them against the invading Germans was
abysmal as far as tactics went.
Pat
2 reasons actually. The Brits did do a lot but they missed the essentials.

1) It isn't just about tanks, it's about combined arms. The Brits had nothing
that was adequate for close support at the start of the war. The RAF was still
a WWI era air force at the start of the war with some remarkable exceptions.

2) The Brits suffered from a very common ailment regarding tanks. Which kind
and how many of each. Cruiser vs infantry. Both good in thier roles but not
interchangeable. Also the Brits seemed to suffer from some design problems,
the early mark cruisers had lots of mechanical problems. And even the good
ones weren't as expandable/upgradeable as other countries. Most Brit tank
designs peaked early in thier career, whereas Shreman and Churchil peaked
late.
--
God, guns and guts made America great.

And Janet Napolitano nervous.

Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
h***@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
2010-03-24 04:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by s***@some.domain
yeah, cultural lag was quite extreme due to the radical nature of war's tech.
what was experimental and tenative in ww1 was perfected and far advanced in
the 20 year break in the europeon world war. i see both conflicts as one
struggle, perhaps not even really resolved in eastern europe. it is not
impossible for a large war in europe, perhaps less likely but not impossible.
Certainly a lot of problems in Eastern Europe that were put on ice at
the end of WWII came right back after the fall of the Soviet Union,
and many have yet to be fully resolved.
It was surprising after all the work Britain did on tank tactics
between the wars that they weren't better prepared to deal with
Guderian's panzer tactics in WWII.
Although the French had some of the best tanks in the world at the
start of the war, their employment of them against the invading
Germans was abysmal as far as tactics went.
De Gaulle did show genius, but with such small numbers and without
coordinated air support and infantry, not to mention logistics such as
fuel and ammunition and food, there wasn't a lot that could be done by
such as he.

Gernot
Gray Ghost
2010-03-24 05:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by s***@some.domain
yeah, cultural lag was quite extreme due to the radical nature of war's
tech. what was experimental and tenative in ww1 was perfected and far
advanced in the 20 year break in the europeon world war. i see both
conflicts as one struggle, perhaps not even really resolved in eastern
europe. it is not impossible for a large war in europe, perhaps less
likely but not impossible.
Certainly a lot of problems in Eastern Europe that were put on ice at
the end of WWII came right back after the fall of the Soviet Union,
and many have yet to be fully resolved.
It was surprising after all the work Britain did on tank tactics
between the wars that they weren't better prepared to deal with
Guderian's panzer tactics in WWII.
Although the French had some of the best tanks in the world at the
start of the war, their employment of them against the invading
Germans was abysmal as far as tactics went.
De Gaulle did show genius, but with such small numbers and without
coordinated air support and infantry, not to mention logistics such as
fuel and ammunition and food, there wasn't a lot that could be done by
such as he.
Gernot
The French are all the more pitiful becuase they probably were in a position
to stop the Germans. A lot of French equipment would have been quite up to the
task. Communications is what killed them, for want of a radio Gamelin was
never in control of the battle, never. French armored tactics weren't any good
either, but the numbers may have made the difference. I do know this much,
when the French surrendered thier were airfields full of modern, capable
aircraft in southern France. There is no excuse for that.
--
God, guns and guts made America great.

And Janet Napolitano nervous.

Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
s***@some.domain
2010-03-24 08:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Ghost
Post by h***@KENT.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by s***@some.domain
yeah, cultural lag was quite extreme due to the radical nature of war's
tech. what was experimental and tenative in ww1 was perfected and far
advanced in the 20 year break in the europeon world war. i see both
conflicts as one struggle, perhaps not even really resolved in eastern
europe. it is not impossible for a large war in europe, perhaps less
likely but not impossible.
Certainly a lot of problems in Eastern Europe that were put on ice at
the end of WWII came right back after the fall of the Soviet Union,
and many have yet to be fully resolved.
It was surprising after all the work Britain did on tank tactics
between the wars that they weren't better prepared to deal with
Guderian's panzer tactics in WWII.
Although the French had some of the best tanks in the world at the
start of the war, their employment of them against the invading
Germans was abysmal as far as tactics went.
De Gaulle did show genius, but with such small numbers and without
coordinated air support and infantry, not to mention logistics such as
fuel and ammunition and food, there wasn't a lot that could be done by
such as he.
Gernot
The French are all the more pitiful becuase they probably were in a position
to stop the Germans. A lot of French equipment would have been quite up to the
task. Communications is what killed them, for want of a radio Gamelin was
never in control of the battle, never. French armored tactics weren't any good
either, but the numbers may have made the difference. I do know this much,
when the French surrendered thier were airfields full of modern, capable
aircraft in southern France. There is no excuse for that.
a lot made it cross channel rather than surrender sometimes quite innovative
tech. a brit friends dad used to tell us of the exotica piled up in coastline
airfields. it's sad that they didn't have theri shit together at all.
Fred J. McCall
2010-03-26 19:41:41 UTC
Permalink
grey_ghost471-***@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:

:
:The French are all the more pitiful becuase they probably were in a position
:to stop the Germans. A lot of French equipment would have been quite up to the
:task.
:

They had better tanks than the Germans did.

:
:Communications is what killed them, for want of a radio Gamelin was
:never in control of the battle, never.
:

It wasn't just communications. It was tactics and doctrine.

:
:French armored tactics weren't any good
:either, but the numbers may have made the difference.
:

The French had more armored forces than the Germans AND they were on
the defensive on their own terrain.

:
:I do know this much,
:when the French surrendered thier were airfields full of modern, capable
:aircraft in southern France. There is no excuse for that.
:

Sure there is. It was the French.
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 16:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Ghost
More than that, I think the pace of technology fooled a lot of people. The
very nature of war changed in the 30s for those that could or would see it.
Certainly the very pace at which could be conducted could be said to have been
changed by several orders of magnitude.
German tanks had FM radios and Gamelin was using motorcycle dispatch riders to
communicate with his army - turnaround measured in a day or more.
Of course even those that got it, didn't get it enough.
An interesting concept that wasn't used for the opening phases of
Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of the Soviet Union) was to
send a fast-moving panzer army straight towards Moscow that wouldn't
have any supply lines behind it; all resupply was to be done by fuel,
ammunition, and other fighting material dropped to it by the Luftwaffe.
The concept certainly didn't lack boldness.
Although everyone remembers the Maginot Line as being something like
this:
Loading Image...
The reality was a lot closer to this:
Loading Image...
And even then it was poorly designed, with individual fort installations
lacking interlocking fields of fire for their heavy weapons so that at
many points it would have been fairly easy to penetrate.
To at least bring this on-topic for sci.space.history and
rec.models.rockets, read the story under the Maginot Line one on that
second link, about the guy flying to 32,000 feet in the rocket.
This was revealed to be a hoax:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201420.html
http://tinyurl.com/y92xxkr


Pat
m***@ohiohills.com
2010-03-23 15:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
To at least bring this on-topic for sci.space.history and
rec.models.rockets, read the story under the Maginot Line one on that
second link, about the guy flying to 32,000 feet in the rocket.
This was revealed to be a hoax:http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201420.html
http://tinyurl.com/y92xxkr
Pat, do you have access to the rest of Ley's article? This is a tale
I've always wanted to hear explained fully.


Mike
The Old Man
2010-03-23 17:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
To at least bring this on-topic for sci.space.history and
rec.models.rockets, read the story under the Maginot Line one on that
second link, about the guy flying to 32,000 feet in the rocket.
This was revealed to be a hoax:http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201420.html
http://tinyurl.com/y92xxkr
Pat, do you have access to the rest of Ley's article?  This is a tale
I've always wanted to hear explained fully.
Mike
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201421.html
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 21:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by m***@ohiohills.com
Post by Pat Flannery
To at least bring this on-topic for sci.space.history and
rec.models.rockets, read the story under the Maginot Line one on that
second link, about the guy flying to 32,000 feet in the rocket.
This was revealed to be a hoax:http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201420.html
http://tinyurl.com/y92xxkr
Pat, do you have access to the rest of Ley's article? This is a tale
I've always wanted to hear explained fully.
Mike
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201421.html
BTW, since we are now in that time period, here's something you _have_
to see. Remember how one of the arguments for passenger seaplanes was
that if you suffered engine failure over the ocean you could glide down
and land while awaiting rescue?
Well, what if you could glide down and land...and then raise the masts
and sail to shore? Meet the Beardmore Inverness:

The amazing thing is, it doesn't look at all bad under sail power,
particularly in side view.

Pat
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 21:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@ohiohills.com
Post by Pat Flannery
To at least bring this on-topic for sci.space.history and
rec.models.rockets, read the story under the Maginot Line one on that
second link, about the guy flying to 32,000 feet in the rocket.
This was revealed to be a hoax:http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201420.html
http://tinyurl.com/y92xxkr
Pat, do you have access to the rest of Ley's article? This is a tale
I've always wanted to hear explained fully.
Got clever and increased the HTML number by one; here's the rest of it:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1937/1937%20-%201421.html

Pat
Bruce Burden
2010-03-23 03:17:57 UTC
Permalink
In rec.models.scale Gray Ghost <grey_ghost471-***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: What i didn't get is with such belligerence on thier part they didn't develop
: a better military. Not saying thier soldiers weren't brave, but they were
: kinda on the cusp of the technology revolution in the 30s and then just went
: sideways.
:
I think I read somewhere that the Brits prevented the Poles
from modernizing/improving/expanding its military, considering
such a move "inflamatory".

Instead, the Brits promised to protect Poland. Yep, we know
how that turned out.

And, besides, how long was Poland going to hold out?

Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
s***@some.domain
2010-03-23 04:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Burden
: What i didn't get is with such belligerence on thier part they didn't develop
: a better military. Not saying thier soldiers weren't brave, but they were
: kinda on the cusp of the technology revolution in the 30s and then just went
: sideways.
I think I read somewhere that the Brits prevented the Poles
from modernizing/improving/expanding its military, considering
such a move "inflamatory".
Instead, the Brits promised to protect Poland. Yep, we know
how that turned out.
And, besides, how long was Poland going to hold out?
Bruce
for sure, a huge aggressor in the east and a modern killing machine in the
west. and abandonment by theri "allies".
damn.......
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 05:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@some.domain
there was certainly no love lost historically. the prussians had a long
history of playing whack-a-pole and the poles had allied with other enemies of
germany at various times. so just as there was a long history of hatred for
jews, the poles also were germany's foe.
sadly for the poles, they sit on every major invasion route across europe. so
the joke was that everyone hates jews, poles and mad dogs. the germans, the
russians, the french, everybody stepped on poland. her borders grew and shrank
with every political breeze in the euro air. sadly, the poles seemed adept at
pissing everyone off, too.
the idea of dissolving germany surely must have been gas on the fire. so you
called it right.
The Ukraine ended up in that same sort of situation by being stuck
between two major powers, as well as of course the Balkan states by
being squarely in the middle of all sorts of competing spheres of
national interest.

Pat
s***@some.domain
2010-03-23 04:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@some.domain
Post by s***@some.domain
there was certainly no love lost historically. the prussians had a long
history of playing whack-a-pole and the poles had allied with other enemies
of
Post by s***@some.domain
germany at various times. so just as there was a long history of hatred for
jews, the poles also were germany's foe.
sadly for the poles, they sit on every major invasion route across europe. so
the joke was that everyone hates jews, poles and mad dogs. the germans, the
russians, the french, everybody stepped on poland. her borders grew and
shrank
Post by s***@some.domain
with every political breeze in the euro air. sadly, the poles seemed adept
at
Post by s***@some.domain
pissing everyone off, too.
the idea of dissolving germany surely must have been gas on the fire. so you
called it right.
The Ukraine ended up in that same sort of situation by being stuck
between two major powers, as well as of course the Balkan states by
being squarely in the middle of all sorts of competing spheres of
national interest.
Pat
yes, the were piss in a hurricane.
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 05:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Ghost
I have a book round here that talks about the origins of WWII focusing on the
cluster flop of Versailles and the maladministration of the Armistice by the
Allies. In one section it mentions that in the early 1930s a senior Polish
general or politician called for the dissolution of Germany as being to
dangerous.
I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, yet. But in context it seemed
quite reasonable. it's the kind of thing that could have really torqed the
Jerries off. Maybe it wasn't so much that they weren't fooled, it may have
been they didn't care.
The concept came up again during WWII with the Morgenthau plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan
The implementation of the Marshall Plan instead of the extreme versions
of the Morgenthau Plan for West Germany can rightly be considered one of
the greatest American political successes of the postwar years, giving
us real bragging rights over the Soviet handling of East Germany that
were obvious to the whole world.

Pat
Pat Flannery
2010-03-23 04:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@some.domain
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows, (the
small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10 years. it was
only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than outright
murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and that was almost a
death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners surrendered at stalingrad. about
5,000 survived. the pow camps were just as brutal as the german camps had been
minus the outright gas chambers, firing pits and lethal injections. stalin
used them psychologically, too. relatives were often left to wonder if their
soldier was even alive. the russians were slow to publish names of pow's.
they only reluctantly bowed to world opinion.
the pows were starved, beaten and died of diseases that were easily treated.
check out hans bauer's book about his captivity. he had a leg amputated
because of poor medical care. the rest of the book is equally cheery.
side by side, neither country has anything positive to commend them. if given
a choice, a nice clean bullet was often preferable to being a pow.
i suspect that a lot of germans were not fooled about poland.
The treatment British and American POWs received at the hands of the
Germans was far better than that German POWs received at the hands of
the Soviets, but the same couldn't be said for captured Soviet soldiers,
who were often shipped off to slave labor camps to be slowly...and
intentionally...starved to death while building things like the V-1 and
V-2 missiles.
The Nazis figured out the math on how to get maximum work out of a slave
laborer at lowest cost in food, and the way to do it was to put them on
a sub-sustenance level of calories and let them slowly lose weight till
they finally died of starvation over a period of weeks or months after
arrival at the camp.
Since the intention was to exterminate them anyway, this was a good way
to cut the costs of killing them to a minimum, while getting some useful
economic benefit off of the process of their extermination.
Even Stalin might have blanched at a concept like that, though it could
have been he was worried about what the other Allies would have thought
if they ever found out that the Soviet's were doing something like that.
Stalin's behavior reminds me of that quote from the movie "Flash Gordon"
about no one dying without a direct order from Emperor Ming.
The need for internal show trials during the Great Purge, and the desire
to get the suspect to sign a "confession" by beating him half to death
so it all looked legal, took up so much daily time on the part of
Beria's predecessor, Nikolai Yezhov, that it left him a broken man from
lack of sleep.

Pat
s***@some.domain
2010-03-23 04:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by s***@some.domain
don't forget that stalin had his own people who had been german pows, (the
small number that survived) killed or sent to the gulags for 10 years. it was
only his death that saved many of them.
his method of dealing with german pow's was often much worse than outright
murder. most of the pows were locked up for 10 years, and that was almost a
death sentance. out of 95-110,000 prisoners surrendered at stalingrad. about
5,000 survived. the pow camps were just as brutal as the german camps had
been
Post by s***@some.domain
minus the outright gas chambers, firing pits and lethal injections. stalin
used them psychologically, too. relatives were often left to wonder if their
soldier was even alive. the russians were slow to publish names of pow's.
they only reluctantly bowed to world opinion.
the pows were starved, beaten and died of diseases that were easily treated.
check out hans bauer's book about his captivity. he had a leg amputated
because of poor medical care. the rest of the book is equally cheery.
side by side, neither country has anything positive to commend them. if given
a choice, a nice clean bullet was often preferable to being a pow.
i suspect that a lot of germans were not fooled about poland.
The treatment British and American POWs received at the hands of the
Germans was far better than that German POWs received at the hands of
the Soviets, but the same couldn't be said for captured Soviet soldiers,
who were often shipped off to slave labor camps to be slowly...and
intentionally...starved to death while building things like the V-1 and
V-2 missiles.
The Nazis figured out the math on how to get maximum work out of a slave
laborer at lowest cost in food, and the way to do it was to put them on
a sub-sustenance level of calories and let them slowly lose weight till
they finally died of starvation over a period of weeks or months after
arrival at the camp.
Since the intention was to exterminate them anyway, this was a good way
to cut the costs of killing them to a minimum, while getting some useful
economic benefit off of the process of their extermination.
Even Stalin might have blanched at a concept like that, though it could
have been he was worried about what the other Allies would have thought
if they ever found out that the Soviet's were doing something like that.
Stalin's behavior reminds me of that quote from the movie "Flash Gordon"
about no one dying without a direct order from Emperor Ming.
The need for internal show trials during the Great Purge, and the desire
to get the suspect to sign a "confession" by beating him half to death
so it all looked legal, took up so much daily time on the part of
Beria's predecessor, Nikolai Yezhov, that it left him a broken man from
lack of sleep.
Pat
there were no flies on stalin. he showed very little regard for anyone's
opinion until very late. beria had pretty free reign and he used. personally
he was a real piece of work. he had movie stars, other men's wives and
basically any woman he wanted brought to him and raped them. then he had his
nkvd toss them out and off he went till next time. stalin knew and didn't
care.
beria knew he was dead as soon as stalin was and it went that way.
the germans got more mileage out of their pow's, that vaunted efficency, but
the russians did a good job of resource urilization as it was called.
willshak
2010-03-22 15:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by The Old Man
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by willshak
I have 2 or 3 of those Signal books in the attic, packed in a box with
other WWII books that I bought for reference when I was a kit building
addict back in the late 70s.
They take real glee in describing the Luftwaffe laying waste to cities
in the countries they are invading.
Regarding the bombing of Rotterdam, Holland, under a large photo of the
"THE SPECTACLE OF 'TOTAL' WAR.
After Warsaw, it was Rotterdam that, issuing a challenge, learned how
hopeless it was to resist the German Luftwaffe - and paid for the lesson
by destruction of the centre of the city."
A few years later, the shoe was going to be decidedly on the other foot,
and I suspect they were regretting they ever wrote things like that.
Watching the magazine first running a article about how they won in
Stalingrad, and then having to explain how withdrawing from Stalingrad
was a brilliant strategic move in the next issue is not without its
amusement.
When the sheiss really starts hitting der fan, it's of course time to
start rolling out Leonidas and the 300 Spartans and telling everyone
that although Germany is about to lose the war, it was for a good cause,
as it created the concept of a United Europe...which it did...the only
small problem was that this United Europe was united in a desire to kill
every Nazi it could for stomping every country in the place into the
ground. ;-)
Pat
Try checking out some of the Articles in "Air Trails" from the war
years, especially 1942 and 1943. They were talking about how the
Luftwaffe was flattening every European city that resisted - and what
was going to happen to them as well.
Propaganda is propaganda, no matter who writes it....
Difference being that Germany was the aggressor in its attack on
Europe and the Soviet Union; nobody attacked Germany first and then
got invaded by them in defense.
Then there was setting the precedent of terror bombing of civilian
targets, which the Luftwaffe had set clean back in the Spanish Civil
War with the bombing of Guernica, and made a major tool in WWII right
from the word go - either you offered no resistance to the invading
Germans or your civilian population was considered a legitimate target
if they so desired.
1.) Wait till someone attacks you before attacking them.
or stage an attack to justify your attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
Post by Pat Flannery
2.) Make sure it's your enemy that sets the precedent in any form of
attack on a civilian population.
It was awfully hard for Germany to complain about the destruction of
its cities by the Allies after the Blitz on London and the destruction
of Coventry, as well as what happened to Warsaw and Rotterdam. And it
was Germany that declared war on the US, and not the other way around.
Frankly, after the vast number of Russians killed by Germany during
WWI and WWII, I'm somewhat surprised that Stalin - who was not known
as a merciful man by any means - didn't have all the Germans in the
areas occupied by Soviet troops exterminated, as that's exactly what
the Nazis had in mind for the Russians if they won.
Pat
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
doug holverson
2010-04-06 14:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Flannery
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Hmm...looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. The cynic in me has me wondering if
this order came down from BHO himself, knowing modern liberalism's war
on the Boy Scouts. Dammitt, just as my son is poised to earn his Eagle
Scout Badge too.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
Get Neal Armstrong on their case, he was an Eagle Scout.
He could bring along Buzz "Tenderfoot" Aldrin if there is any fighting
to be done.
The strange story of the attempted subversion of the Boy Scouts by the
Hitler Youth: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154942.html
Think of the horror if they had succeeded...little Nazi Girl Scouts
showing up at your door with cookies shaped like Swastikas, Stukas, and
Tiger tanks, no doubt baked over piles of burning books!
'Cept that would be like sooooo Metal, dude!

DGH
J. Hugh Sullivan
2010-03-18 17:02:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Gene DiGennaro
Post by Gene DiGennaro
Hmm...looks like NASA is temporarily suspending its recognition of
Eagle Scouts and Gold Girl Scouts. The cynic in me has me wondering if
this order came down from BHO himself, knowing modern liberalism's war
on the Boy Scouts. Dammitt, just as my son is poised to earn his Eagle
Scout Badge too.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
The last time I checked the Navy was granting a two pay grade increase
to all Eagle Scouts. The other services were granting one. That's
probably more important than any one of the score of letters one can
get except maybe from Bob Hope.

Congratulations to your son from me, my two sons and 2 grandsons who
are also Eagles.

Hugh
Eagle, Class of '43
CDR, USNR-Ret. (Mustang)
Loading...