O
october_baby
Guest
Than you!! That’s what I was trying to explain to him.
- Status
L
Limerickman
Guest
America only entered WWII when it was brought kicking and screaming in to the conflict by the Japanese.As British people we are very much made aware of America’s role in WW2 and at no point was it my intention was to play that role down.
My contention was that America saved the world from the Third Reich. They didn’t. America, Russia, Britain (and its Commonwealth) alomg with Australia, Canada a dozen other allied nations and Russia did. Together. Thanks are due even today: Thanking each other as nations and above all thanking the men and women of that generation.
Asking for personal “thanks” is absurd> It would be as absurd for me to ask thanks from you as an American for the radar or for cracking the Enigma Code.
The man who should have been thanked for that was Alan Turing. He builtt Bombe the machine that cracked the code every morning of the war in under 20 minutes.
Sadly his thanks was inhuman treatment leading to his tragic suicide.
Up to that point, America was happy to profiteer from the misery of the War in Europe.
America would have been perfectly happy to continue to profit from the war too.
In terms of the military conflict, I still hold that Stalingrad and the Ostfront helped break German confidence which was decisive to the outcome of WWII.
British resistance and the resolve she showed during the Battle of Britain is up there too.
The folks at Bletchley Park as you point out did sterling work too.
O
october_baby
Guest
Let me get this straight, Britain had enough strength to invade Europe all on their lonesome,
and Russia did’t need America in the pacific trying down Japenese troops that would otherwise invade Siberia, therefore giving Russia enough troops to overwhelm Germany.
Plus Britain and Russia did’t NEED all those supplies from America, right?
Sure, Britain and Russia and the rest of the world did’t NEED America, right?
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Which is exactly why scriptural context is vital.I didn’t even recognize who the author of the other saying was.
Lest we be swayed by the modern corruption of Liberation Theology.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
My pleasure.Than you!! That’s what I was trying to explain to him.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The example teaches ‘voluntary,’ according to the Catholic Commentary. So, we all have choices in the matter.Which is exactly why scriptural context is vital.
Lest we be swayed by the modern corruption of Liberation Theology.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Like I said before, the passage you cited in Acts was a prelude to the monastic life.
And it was NOT a recommendation for the laity of the Church as a form of socialistic political doctrine.
Now we agree.:tiphat:
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
The American Lend Lease Act brought vital American supplies into Britain BEFORE Japan attack the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. And those supplies came via a perilous route across the Atlantic under constant attack from German U-Boats and at the urgent behest (and desperate pleas) of the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
Before that, the U.S. also supplied high-octane fuel to give British fighter planes a vital edge over the superior numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft.
The U.S. also supplied Russia with vital materials before America was thrust into combat.
Is that your definition of “profiteering from the misery of the War in Europe”?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I didn’t call them ‘socialistic.’ I disagree with many uses of the term ‘socialism.’ Many use it wrongly, to justify other ‘actions.’
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
N
Northumbrian
Guest
Never said you said that.
My exchange was with October Baby and I did not say that he/she said that either.
I said that as an American one may have been taught that America was THE saviour of the world from the Third reich.
And America wasn’t.
They were ONE of the saviours.
And you are right when you say that showing gratitude is not degrading. I have shown thanks and I meant it. I only wish the thanks to be mutual to both of our grandparents and those of other allied nations for the sake of historical accuracy and the truth.
The line “I am not saying you were helpless, so I am am not degrading you” is degrading in itself and not something you say to the previoous generations of worthy allies.
C
CaptFun
Guest
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThXSPWUo0iEikbpVSTEoocz3Q4FkEaP8JZaRxQPYYkXSm71BU1gg
Not like St. Bernadette, St. Vincent De Paul, or St. Katherine Laboure … like THAT crowd of athiest murderers. And we have a Cardinal who Chavez used to insult coming to say the funeral mass. Hmm.
This same VP Maduro (Chavez’s successor for now) is the one who claimed Hugo died in the Bosom of the Church and received Sacraments. I sure hope all the charity he got in the ninth inning of his life has led Chavez (and Maduro) to free some of the political prisoners he had in jail for violating “free speech” laws.
huffingtonpost.com/robert-amsterdam/hunger-strikes-expose-hug_b_304557.html
It would be a shame if they had to hear the wonderful news about their newly forgiven Prodigal benefactor from a jail cell still.
When the Soviets put Lenin and Stalin in the glass tombs it was a near atheist deification of them. Chavez is to be whisked from a Catholic Church to this kind of a thing?
N
Northumbrian
Guest
It is just a cultural thing.
No disrespect intended, but don’t Americans revere their past leaders?
Mount Rushmore and the Lincoln Memorial: what are they?
No disrespect intended, but don’t Americans revere their past leaders?
Mount Rushmore and the Lincoln Memorial: what are they?
J
jediliz
Guest
But we don’t embalm their bodies and display them for decades+ after their deaths. Even former Presidents like Reagan only had a viewing at the US Capitol and then his family buried him after the Funeral. Mount Rushmore doesn’t have George, et al’s bodies on display! Same with those other memorials. They aren’t the actual BODIES…they are just remembering great presidents. This is DIFFERENT when they EMBALM a body and plan to DISPLAY it permanently after death!
Now I am thinking that Only God knows if Chavez had a conversion before his death.
V
Veronica7
Guest
I’m agreeing with SamH here… we can critique a national leader’s official public legacy and track record, if we have enough facts about them.
Obviously we can’t know the state of someone’s soul when he dies, but we can talk about whether his public actions for his country were 100% evil, or whether there is some gray area.
In Chavez’ case, I’m of the latter persuasion. probably because I don’t adhere to our American idea of unbridled capitalism. Our Popes have warned against it, just as they’ve warned about communism, but there are a lot of Catholics who don’t seem to know this.
It also continues the time-honored practice of more powerful and wealthy countries taking control of 3rd world countries’ natural resources. There is a degree of collusion between heads of giant companies and our government, so the exploitation for the sake of monetary greed gets a pass.
I can’t point fingers at Chavez for everything he did because our own country is messing up pretty badly too. Again, at least he kept abortion illegal in Venezuela. Kudos to him for that.
Kind of an important side note: if our country developed alternative energy sources instead of depending on oil and trying to corner the market, Hugo Chavez would probably not even be on our radar. Strange.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
I’m sorry if I mistook your exchange with October Baby as a response to me. My apologies.
As an American, I was taught that America’s role in WWII was instrumental. An the historical record bears that out. The enormous output of manpower, materials, and human lives and misery in a war on two fronts that the average American had little vested interest in, was frankly - unprecedented. And in historical terms, it certainly was. Nothing like it had ever been done before or since. And that is a simple matter of fact.
Frankly, one of the key obstacles that stood in the way of Germany’s invasion of Britain, was American high-octane fuel that gave British Spitfires and Hurricanes a huge performance advantage over the formidable Messerschmitt Bf 109.
And another serious distraction for Hitler was the effects of America’s unprecedented industrial production capabilities on the Russia Front. The Russians were being supplied with critical machinery, resources, and supplies, from the U.S. This helped to relieve and eventually reverse the combat weaknesses of the Russian forces.
At one point in the conflict the kill ratio of Russian troops to Waffen SS troops was 14:1. There were so many mass desertions by Russians that Stalin had to issue his “Not A Step Back” order after the Red Army had suffered losses of 59% of their initial strength in 1941. That’s how grim things were getting. The Russians were basically using men as cannon fodder against superior German forces. So what derailed the impending Russian disaster? America’s decisive entry point into the war.
What really shocked Hitler, was America’s strategic decision to enter the war in the European Theater immediately after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. Hitler wanted to end the fighting on the Eastern Front, or at least minimize it, before the Americans had a chance to get deeply involved in the war in Europe. The Axis assumed that America would focus it’s attention in the Pacific. As a result, the American strategic surprise played a key role in Hitlers fatal decision to override the Wehrmacht General Staff by hastily diverting Germany’s best units to Stalingrad. Whatever plan they chose it would have to have sweeping strategic importance. Limited operations, like collapsing the salients or finally taking Leningrad, would simply not force the war to a close. The German summer offensive in the south of the Eastern Front was driven by two main objectives — time and material resources. Hitler was adamant to complete the offensive before the United States joined the war, and secondly, he was determined to secure the oil resources in the Caucasus which would deny them to the Soviet Union while securing an alternative petroleum resource for key Germany units.
However the disarray caused by America’s early focus on Germany cause Hitler to override his Generals plans repeatedly, with disastrous results. One of the worst was operation Fall Blau. Army Group South was originally selected for a quick spearhead through the southern Russian steppes into the Caucasus to capture the vital Soviet oil fields in that region. It was to include the seasoned German 6th, 17th, 4th Panzer and 1st Panzer Armies. Hitler intervened, however, ordering the Army Group to split in two with one branch advancing to the east towards the Volga and Stalingrad. As a result, the primary thrust never secured the key strategic oil fields in the Caucasus. Hitler’s formidable (and fuel hungry) Panzer units were destined to run out of fuel and thus become immobilized. As a result this turned the battle into a lopsided disaster of German infantry versus Russian armor and mechanized infantry.
To make matters even worse for the Germans, the Russians were able to concentrate their production of air craft into a clear numbers advantage over the Luftwaffe. This was mainly the result of American supply (name removed by moderator)ut which freed up Russia’s other domestic resources. The Soviet Army was being supplied by the American government under the Lend-Lease program. And **during the last quarter of 1942, the U.S. sent the Soviet Union 60,000 trucks, 11,000 jeeps, 2 million pairs of boots, 50,000 short tons of explosives, 450,000 short tons of steel and 250,000 short tons of aviation gas. **
Now I ask you: Does this make America’s contribution anything less than extraordinary?
Did other Allied forces and civilians perform valiantly? You bet.
As Americans, most of us learned about the heroic resolve of the British people under the fearless leadership of Winston Churchill during the Battle of Britain. And his famous “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” address to the House of Commons in 1940 still sends a rush of defiant resolve up the spines of most Americans to this day. You see, we contrarian yanks with our fierce independence know a thing or two about personal freedom and underdog defiance in the face of imperial tyrants.
Or at least… we use to before a sizable group of us forgot our history and embraced this socialist dictator in the White House.:dts:
On a personal note (and more to the heart of this matter) I have had numerous British friends over the years, and I have to say, after all these generations, there is still a lingering animosity in your culture over the American GI’s stay in your country during WWII. And I have no doubt that it is justified on many levels. I believe the old British adage of the day sums it all up:
“The Yanks were oversexed, overpaid, overfed and over here.”
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
So far (knock on wood) we’ve never revered a Marxist tyrant, like Chavez.
Although FDR certainly paved the way for the ridiculous cult of personality worship by the Leftist with this Fabian Socialist currently inhabiting the White House.
M
matutemats
Guest
Oh, Seamus. You apparently do not know what is to be ruled under a populist regime. I’m telling you, I am enduring that in Argentina, and we are going Venezuela’s way.
M
matutemats
Guest
You do apparently not know him. There is a speech he gave where he explicitly states he does not believe in God and criticizes the Church.IIRC Chavez kept abortion illegal in Venezuala.
For all his crimes, he won’t be facing that one.
As a fellow catholic we should be praying for his soul.
Not mocking.
God have mercy on us all.
Now, that he rules a Catholic country and want’s to appear as a Christian, up to him.
M
matutemats
Guest
i am fed up of people who think like you.
You live in europe, and don’t know nothing of south american conditions.
Come to argentina, i’ll tour you through the shanty towns that started with anti-imperialists populists governments.
Want that?
- Status