New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 3 Aug 2006 13:36 On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:08:25 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > >> > Don Bowey wrote: >> > >> > > On 8/2/06 10:02 PM, in article 44D1834D.314D1A6B(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, >> > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > I'm wondering if it wouldn't have made more sense for Britain to have made >> > > > peace with Germany on the condition that France was un-occupied and >> > > the > 3 countries would rule a New >> > > Europe. >> > > > >> > > > We could have quietly had Hitler assasinated so many of the Jews would have >> > > > lived and Russia would have quietly taken the hint and kept out of the way. >> > > > >> > > > Had we gone that way, I reckon it's likely that half the globe would be >> > > > 'European' now ( think of the combined overseas territories of the former >> > > > colonial powers ) and the USA would simply be a colony again ! >> > > >> > > >> > > Dream on. My only comment is that this would be a very different world had >> > > the US not entered into the war in Europe. >> > >> > You're deluding yourself about possible scenarios. It was WW2 that made the USA a >> > world power. Without it you'd still be a backwater. >> > >> > Graahm >> >> England wouldn't exist. A "Backwater" country could not have >> converted all of its industry to war materials, food, and medical >> supplies > >You would appear to be talking about the UK it seems ! > > >> The US was already a power to be >> reckoned with, but we were minding our own business. > >So much so in your sleep encumbered state that Japan nearly delivered a knockout blow to >you at Pearl Harbor. Had the carriers not been out at sea, US naval power in the Pacific >could have been entirely discounted for several years ! > >> When push came to shove, we shoved, and won. > >You mean you were cajoled into it. > > >> You can whine, lie and cry all you want, but >> the facts are the facts. You could not have produced the steel, >> aluminum, copper and other needed metals in large enough quantities in >> time to build anything on the scale needed to win a World War. > >Which is why we asked you ! Tizard knew the value of large-scale industrial >manufacturing. We paid our bills too ! > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizard_Mission > >In return you got our 'golden jewels' utterly free of charge like radar and jet engines. > Radar and jet engines were being developed all over the world; like so many other technologies, their time had come. You're in for a heap of bookkeeping if you try to figure out the debt every country owes to every other country for science and technology. John
From: John Larkin on 3 Aug 2006 13:41 On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:28:13 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:32:13 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>> Eeyore wrote: >>>>> Don Bowey wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/2/06 10:02 PM, in article 44D1834D.314D1A6B(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, >>>>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm wondering if it wouldn't have made more sense for Britain to have made >>>>>>> peace with Germany on the condition that France was un-occupied and >>>>>> the > 3 countries would rule a New >>>>>> Europe. >>>>>>> We could have quietly had Hitler assasinated so many of the Jews would have >>>>>>> lived and Russia would have quietly taken the hint and kept out of the way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Had we gone that way, I reckon it's likely that half the globe would be >>>>>>> 'European' now ( think of the combined overseas territories of the former >>>>>>> colonial powers ) and the USA would simply be a colony again ! >>>>>> Dream on. My only comment is that this would be a very different world had >>>>>> the US not entered into the war in Europe. >>>>> You're deluding yourself about possible scenarios. It was WW2 that made the USA a >>>>> world power. Without it you'd still be a backwater. >>>>> >>>>> Graahm >>>> >>>> England wouldn't exist. A "Backwater" country could not have >>>> converted all of its industry to war materials, food, and medical >>>> supplies, or supplied so many trained solders in several generations, >>>> you little brain dead rag doll. The US was already a power to be >>>> reckoned with, but we were minding our own business. When push came to >>>> shove, we shoved, and won. You can whine, lie and cry all you want, but >>>> the facts are the facts. You could not have produced the steel, >>>> aluminum, copper and other needed metals in large enough quantities in >>>> time to build anything on the scale needed to win a World War. >>> What would likely have happened would be that the Germany would have >>> exhauseted itself beating the Russians. >> >> Without direct US aid, the UK would have lost the Battle of Britian - >> it was won by a razor-edge margin - and the invasion would have been >> on, and likely successful. Hitler only turned east when Goring >> couldn't subdue the RAF. > >That would still have been the position if the US had stayed out of the >European war. > >>> The British Empire would have had time to fully militarise, >> >> They were fully militarized early in the war. Their resources were >> very limited. > >Not so. >Britain was not 'up to speed' until 1943. >The resources of the Empire would have taken longer to fully utilise for >the war. India alone could have supplied men for an army of millions >given time. > >Dirk England would have starved if the US Navy hadn't been helping the convoys, loaded with American food and ammo, get through. Those millions of Indian troops couldn't have reached Britain, and would have had nothing to eat and nothing to shoot if they had swum all the way. Germany was just too far ahead in militarization, and the U-boats were too good. John
From: bill.sloman on 3 Aug 2006 13:57 Eeyore wrote: > bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > Phat Bytestard wrote: > > > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:17:36 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" > > > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: > > > > > > >Eeyore wrote: > > > >> > > > >> bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > > >> > > Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > > > Obviously too many head shots. > > > > This is field-hockey, not ice-hockey, as I've already mentioned > > I've had some balls fly pretty damn close to my head though ! > > I'll never forget one I caught and returned - it was *just* inside the legal > shoulder level limit ! That made my stick crack and them some ! It was a goal > too ! Speaking as a goalee, I hate that sort of goal - the ball is in the net before the goalee has a chance to react. Of course, it *is* the right way to score a goal. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Woodgate on 3 Aug 2006 13:53 In message <34c4d2p7opp8cvr997gvhfnm0sf7047gsn(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 3 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes >the grass-roots likability of most Americans. As manifested by the personal abuse levelled at any dissenter in this and many other threads? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: John Fields on 3 Aug 2006 14:30
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:05:11 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <null(a)example.net> wrote: >My point is, that a person who claims that war can be reduced by making >more war is clearly insane. It's like trying to put out a fire by pouring >gasoline on it. --- That's a stupid analogy. Our getting involved in WW2 and making more war obviously reduced the number of casualties and the length of the war. Using the analogy of burning a fire bridge to contain an existing conflagration in order to let it burn itself out is more accurate. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |