Denys Beauchemin <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message news:<[log in to unmask]>...
> I have subscribed to this list continuously since 1995.  During that
> time, I have come to expect a modicum of education in the people who
> post, especially when it comes to off-topic threads.  I have found many
> of these threads entertaining and even, at times, educational especially
> when the writer was accurate in his or her arguments.  Debating under
> these conditions is fun and I think everyone gains, if not in agreement,
> at least in understanding.
>
> The more recent threads dealing with the liberation of Iraq and the WMDs
> have been a departure from the norm.  Some people have lowered the usual
> standards of debate by ad hominem attacks, stating easily-refutable
> falsehoods and general mischief.  These last few days have seen a
> recrudescence of these undesirable traits, to the point where the signal
> to noise ratio is extremely low.
>
> Whereas it was fun and challenging to debate with certain people, it is
> now so easy as to not be interesting anymore.  The hatred infusing some
> people has totally blinded them to the facts and to the lessons of
> history.  In this message, my last on the subject, I will address some
> of the more egregious errors and falsehoods that have been presented
> recently.
>
> Richard Barker ostensibly from the UK wrote a few days ago:
>
> "But Brice you are missing the point completely.  America DID NOT save
> Europe in WWII, the clue is in the first 'W'.  I guess I could easily
> say
> Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, France, Russia,
> Belgium, India, Britain, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, etc
> saved America from speaking German/Japanese.
>
> It was a world wide effort it involved the co-operation of many
> countries. Of course America's contribution was substantial and maybe
> without them the war wouldn't have been won at all, but it is
> ridiculously arrogant and insulting to infer that somehow America took
> on this noble cause to save us poor Europeans.  They had to get involved
> in a war that affected the whole world.
>
> How about I start banging on about how Wellington saved the world from
> speaking French."
>
> The ignorance of recent history contained in the above message is
> spectacular.

Nothing compared to the ignorance demonstrated in your response,
though.

> Where do I begin?  Well, Mr. Barker you could easily say
> what you said, but you would be wrong.  In more ways than you know.
>
> In fact, America DID save Europe (and the rest of the world) in WWII.
> At first it saved England with something with which you might be
> passingly familiar, called Lend-Lease.  This is the mechanism whereby
> America poured millions of tons of weapon systems, vehicles, ships,
> aircraft, munitions, supplies, medicine, food, fuel, and cash to
> England.  If it had not been for Lend-Lease and America's phenomenal
> production and generosity, England would have been invaded or at the
> very least, rendered totally impotent.

Complete rubbish.  Of the goods receieved by Briatin under Lend-Lease,
the US got the equivalent of 50% back in goods send _to_ the US _from_
Britain as Reverse Lend-Lease, 4.5% as waived licence payments on
technology built to British patents and used by the US during the war,
and 4.5% from other Commonwealth nations as reciprocal aid to US
forces.  A furthur 4% was paid by Britain to the US at the termination
of Lend-Lease.  The remaining 37% amounted to between $5 and $11.5
billion (depending on whether you compensate for the excessive bias in
favour of the dollar in the excahnge rate imposed by the US).

Bear in mind, however, that British internal defence spending up to
only March 1941 amounted to $19 billion, of which only $2.8 billion
was spent in the US as pure cash sales (i.e. _not) Lend-Lease).  By
March 1943 Britain had spent (in all senses) around $6-7 billion in
the US (this include the $600 million cost of taking over - as a
goodwill gensture - French orders of relatively useless equipment
before she fell), and actually received $4.458 billion worth of goods.

Lend-Lease was forced on Britain because America insisted that it
would accept cash for supplies payment in either US dollars or gold,
while at the same time insisting that Britain liquidate foreign
investments that had, for example, provided around $1 billion
annually.  Other countries, however, were happy to accept payment in
Sterling, and continued to do so.

> One of the very first objects of Lend-Lease was composed of fifty, that's
> 50, five-oh, US Destroyers sent to England and other nations of the
> Commonwealth.  My uncle served as an officer on one of the six that were
> allocated to Canada, HMCS Annapolis, escorting convoys to England. My father
> was an engineer in a munitions plant in Canada during the war.

Nope, the 50 _obsolete WW1-era_ destroyers were exchanged for
long-term leases on military bases throughout the world that America
had good use of for the rest of the 20th century.  They were not
provided under Lend-Lease.  And, in fact, most of them required such
extensive refitting and modernisation that they took years to come
into services and many of them never did.

> Whilst Canada supplied a lot of munitions and armament to England during
> the war, it was a mere drop in the bucket compared to what America supplied.

Goods recieved under Lend-Lease accounted for 17.3% of the British war
effort in monetary terms, mostly in the last two years of the War;
when ofset against Reverse Lend-Lease, etc., it's less than 5%.  At
the same time, Britain produced 69.5% of munitions used by
Commonwealth forces as a whole.

> And BTW, America forgave most of the Lend-Lease debt after the war.

Urban myth.  Everythign was effectively paid off by 1960. The only
country to effectively default was the Soviet Union, and that was
settled by 1972.


> America liberated Europe with the assistance of the British, Canadian
> and Anzac forces.   Which country did the heavy lifting on D-Day?

That'll be the Royal Navy, British &Commonwealth and Free European
merchant shipping.

> I suggest you read some history, preferably not from the BBC.

Better the BBC than whatever has been "informing" you, clearly

> If America had not participated in the war, Nazism would be the law of the
> land in Europe.
>
> Australia and New Zealand contributed to the European war effort, but
> this was minimal.  Do not forget they were otherwise distracted in their
> own neighborhood, especially after 1941.  America saved Australia and
> New Zealand from Japanese invasion by waging and convincingly winning
> the battle of Midway.

Japan was strecthed with what it did manage to invade.  Australia and
especially New Zealand were non-starters.  Without Antipodean
co-operation, however, America would have been pretty stuffed.

> Poland was overrun by the Germans and the Soviets in a matter of a few
> weeks, with minimal losses to the invaders.  Czechoslovakia had already
> been annexed before September 1939.  Hungary was an Axis sympathizer and
> remained neutral until Germany invaded Russia in June 1941.  At that
> point it declared war on the Soviet Union and became a full Axis partner
> to Germany and Italy.  Hungary certainly did NOT save America from
> speaking German/Japanese.
>
> France was overrun in early 1940.  You might remember the disaster (or
> miracle) of Dunkirk, this is where the British Army lost most of its
> trucks, tanks, guns and cannons.  All replaced by the Americans.

Not even remotely so.

> The Soviet Union was on the side of the Germans when the war started,
> they invaded Poland along with the Germans.

No, they had a non-agression pact.  Saying "we're not going to attack
you," isn't the same as, "we are with you."

> The Soviets only changed their mind after Hitler attacked them in June
> 1941.  Russia's participation in the war was very important.  However
> one must remember that America supplied even more arms, planes,
> munitions, trucks, supplies and high-octane gasoline to Russia than
> they did to England.

No they didn't.  Lend-Lease shipments from the US exceeded $50, of
which $31 went to Britain & the Commonwealth, $11 billion to the
Soviet Union and the remaining to other nations such as China.

Of course, Britain sent 14% of its total tank production to the Soviet
Union - more than 5,200 on top of the 7,500 supplied by the US.
Brits, however, do not feel the need to crow on that the Russians
should be eternally grateful to us.  But then again, the Soviet Union
built more than 110,000 of its own tanks, which puts the other
contributions into perspective.

> I have recently been reading stories and articles about women pilots who
> flew factory-fresh fighter planes into Alaska, where Soviet pilots would
> take delivery of these planes and fly them into Russia.  There were also
> untold numbers of convoys doing the Murmansk run to bring supplies to
> the Soviets.

Yes, convoys that were overwhelming non-American in composition.

> If it had not been for America providing phenomenal amounts of vital
> supplies to the Soviets, they would have folded also.

Yeah, sure.

> Belgium was invaded in just 3 days.  India participated in the Pacific
> and only in small ways.

Really?  All those Indian and British troops pushing the Japs out of
Burma?  America would have had it a lot harder on the Pacific islands
if Japan hadn't had so many troops tied up there.

> Canada did do a lot in the ETO, but it was nowhere near what America did.

One-fifths of the troops landed on D-Day compared to two-fifths each
for the British and Americans.  Proportionally the smaller populations
of the other Commonwealth countries contributed heavily.

> Sweden was neutral during the war.

So was Turkey, Spain and Switzerland.  So what?

> Norway was invaded in just a few weeks in April 1940.

At which point virtually all Norwegian merchant ships sailed to
Britain.  The bulk of the oil tankers that supplied the UK were
Norwegian, crewed by men who chose to exile themselves from their
families and homeland.  _That_ is real sacrifice worthy of a gratitude
that should never be forgotten.

> As a note, the task of liberating Norway was mostly undertaken by
> Canadians.  Denmark was also invaded very quickly at the same time Norway
> was run over. Finland only looked out for Finland; they fought off the
> Soviets and the Germans at first.  Then they attacked and fought off the
> Soviets again, but on the side of the Germans

No, the Finns fought off a Soviet invasion in late 1939, but had to
cede territory in the peace terms.  When Germany invaded the Societ
Union, Finland took the opportunity to grab this land back, but did
not go beyond the 1939 border.  The country traded with Nazi Germany,
but refused to co-operate with demands to hand over any of its tiny
Jewish population (bar a handful of non-Finnish hardened habitual
criminals).  When German forces retreated from the Soviet Union in
1944, Stalin attempted to regain the land ceded in 1941, but was again
successfully fought off, although again the land was ceded to the USSR
in peace agreements.

> (you might look again at the Finnish aircrafts and their markings during
> WWII.)

Another spectacular example of your ignorance.  The swastika is an
ancient Hindu good luck sign and wasalso the family emblem of a
nobleman who provided the first aircraft used in the Finnish civil
war.  In his honour the Finnish air force adopted it as their marking
in 1918 - long before Hitler has even thought of the Nazi Party, let
alone chosen and adapted the symbol himself.

> Finally, they fought against the Germans towards the end of the war.

Bingo!  You actually got something right.  Finland declared war on
Germany in March 1945.
>
> I would say that when it comes to history, Mr. Barker's comments are to
> be taken with a large rock of salt from now on.

While yours requires something resembling a small mountain.

> -----------------------------------
>
> Mr. John Pitman ostensibly from Australia avers:
>
> "In WW II, non-US allies had more troops IN CONTACT with the ENEMY until
> AFTER D-DAY..."
>
> This is one of those useless and irrelevant "factoids" that contribute
> nothing to the discussion.  Even if it were true, big deal.  The war in
> the Pacific, the island-hopping campaign was underway, involving the US
> Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines.  The US Army and Army Air Corps
> were also heavily engaged in North Africa and then Sicily and Italy all
> before D-Day.

So was the British Army, the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and their
Commonwealth equivalent.

> The US Army Air Corps was busy waging a huge daylight bombing offensive
> over Europe.

While the RAF, RCAF, RAAF, etc. were bombing by night.

> A multitude of convoys were plying the terribly dangerous routes of the
> North Atlantic and elsewhere.

Again, mostly non-American in composition, be it merchantmen or naval
vessels, greatly aided by British decryption and radar developments.

> In fact, after the initial lighting-fast invasion of most of Europe, the
> only people fighting the Axis were the Americans, the Soviets and the
> British "along with Empire Boys," and let's not forget the Chinese.
> America was supplying everyone through Lend-Lease.

Yes, America was making a minor contribution to the war efforts of
"everyone" through Lend-Lease.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *