1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and
arrogant) and the US not helped the UK (a very smart move on our part),
its pretty much a slam dunk:

Certainly had Germany not attacked Russia it could have consolidated it's
position within Europe. But then it was Russia that Hitler had his eyes on
right from the start. But had the invasion of Russia gone ahead as it did,
but the US not enter the European war, it's likely that the European war
would have become a straight fight between Germany and the Soviet Union, and
my money's on the Soviet Union winning (though not without an even more
protracted and bloody conflict than we actually had). Without US support
it's likely that Britain would have been starved into signing a separate
peace with Germany, though I doubt that Hitler would have risked a second
attempt at invasion, not after his defeat in 1940 and with his troops tied
up in the east.

You're all talking German.

Did the populations of Eastern European countries all speak Russian between
1945 and 1989? So why would the populations of any European country (other
than those that have always spoken German) have adopted German had they
remained under German control?

By 1944 the US production of munitions pretty well matched that of all the
other parties to the war combined including Germany. Leave out Germany
and we were marching up on doubling that of all the other allies combined.

You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did not the US defeat
in Vietnam demonstrate that such things are not always the critical factors
in winning wars?


David.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote


Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and
arrogant)



There was more to it than ego - he was gagging for the oil.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest
aircraft carrier in the world, and stood behind it. A
brilliant idea.

That suggests money flowed from the US to the UK. Whilst
this was true in the short term, the US made a *very*
large profit out of anything supplied to the UK, when the
final sums were done.

The US also waited until well after the Battle of Britain
before joining in. Makes sense to be on the winning side,
I suppose. But were very sadly missing at the times of
true peril. Like when there was a very real danger of the
UK being invaded.

The US had a serious problem with pacifism at the time.


Have you read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Torpedo-Juncti.../dp/0440210275

??

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that
'digital' has done him no real favours - especially
when it comes to music.

That comment simply says you have no grasp of the issues.

Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music, not obsess over
the means for doing so.


Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their iPods?


The real value of any music playback system lies in the enjoyment it
brings from providing pleasureable music to listen to.



Not true for all 'audiophiles'....


The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not the media or the
hardware for playing it back.


Not true for all 'audiophiles'....



Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for
a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where
the very best results were required.

Digital generally provided better sound quality that actually lasted past
a few playings.


Not true for all 'audiophiles'....



Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any
crap into some semblance of respectability?

Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo elitist we've
always known.


Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no idea about anything
much.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


If Arny has experience of the *professional audio* world
it shouldn't be to hard to list it.

Keith if you weren't suffering from memory loss, you'd know better.


I have no idea what 'professional' work you have done.



(Unpaid, volunteer work doesn't count.)

Its the quality of work that makes it professional, not the size of the
cash renumeration.


Ah, I see - you haven't been paid for *any* recording work then?

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote


Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really stupid and
arrogant)



There was more to it than ego - he was gagging for the oil.


And "living space" for the "master race".

David.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

One day Joe Ordinaire will wake up to the fact that
'digital' has done him no real favours - especially
when it comes to music.

That comment simply says you have no grasp of the
issues.

Totally agreed. Joe Oridinaire wants to listen to music,
not obsess over the means for doing so.

Huh? Are you saying iPod users don't care about their
iPods?

Joe Oridinaire doesn't buy iPods. IPods are a premium product.

The real value of any music playback system lies in the
enjoyment it brings from providing pleasureable music to
listen to.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Audiophiles are nuts, according to Joe Oridinaire


The most prized lasting value comes from the music, not
the media or the hardware for playing it back.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Audiophiles are shacked out, according to Joe Oridinaire


Digital recording made a huge difference to vinyl - for
a start. Ended the need for direct cut recordings where
the very best results were required.

Digital generally provided better sound quality that
actually lasted past a few playings.

Not true for all 'audiophiles'....

Not all audiophiles are vinylphiles. In fact very few of them could care
less about vinyl.

Like in photography these days, you can 'Photoshop' any
crap into some semblance of respectability?

Kieth proves himself to be the same out-of-touch pseudo
elitist we've always known.

Arny proves that once outside his Comfort Zone he has no
idea about anything much.

Well Keithe, you'ev always been a sucker for very weak proof.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


If Arny has experience of the *professional audio* world
it shouldn't be to hard to list it.

Keith if you weren't suffering from memory loss, you'd
know better.


I have no idea what 'professional' work you have done.



(Unpaid, volunteer work doesn't count.)

Its the quality of work that makes it professional, not
the size of the cash renumeration.


Ah, I see - you haven't been paid for *any* recording
work then?

I generally pay my property taxes with recording money.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Not at all. Had Germany not ever attacked Russia (really
stupid and arrogant) and the US not helped the UK (a
very smart move on our part), its pretty much a slam
dunk:

Certainly had Germany not attacked Russia it could have
consolidated it's position within Europe. But then it was
Russia that Hitler had his eyes on right from the start. But had the
invasion of Russia gone ahead as it did, but
the US not enter the European war, it's likely that the
European war would have become a straight fight between
Germany and the Soviet Union, and my money's on the
Soviet Union winning (though not without an even more
protracted and bloody conflict than we actually had).

History shows that Stalin had pretty well kicked Hitler's butt before D-Day.

Stalin probably wouldn't have been able to roll across the border into
Berlin as easily as he did without us applying unbearable pressure to
Hitler's Western front.

Without US support it's likely that Britain would have
been starved into signing a separate peace with Germany,
though I doubt that Hitler would have risked a second
attempt at invasion, not after his defeat in 1940 and
with his troops tied up in the east.

Kery words being "Troops being tied up in the east".

You're all talking German.

Did the populations of Eastern European countries all
speak Russian between 1945 and 1989?

Hitler and Stalin were 2 vastly different people.

So why would the
populations of any European country (other than those
that have always spoken German) have adopted German had
they remained under German control?

Stalin was not nearly as much into the master race thing as Hitler was.

By 1944 the US production of munitions pretty well
matched that of all the other parties to the war
combined including Germany. Leave out Germany and we
were marching up on doubling that of all the other
allies combined.

You seem obsessed by munitions production and money. Did
not the US defeat in Vietnam demonstrate that such things
are not always the critical factors in winning wars?

Vietnam was a completely different thing than WW2. There was never a
question of Vietnam being a "total war" like WW2 was. The rules of
engagement were completly different abnd very restrained. History shows that
we still ended up bombing Vietnam into the stone age even though we never
dropped nukes. That was probably an unintended consequence.

1 of 2 'unpostables!
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Churchill sold the UK to Roosevelt as the largest
aircraft carrier in the world, and stood behind it. A
brilliant idea.

That suggests money flowed from the US to the UK. Whilst
this was true in the short term, the US made a *very*
large profit out of anything supplied to the UK, when
the final sums were done.

The US also waited until well after the Battle of
Britain before joining in. Makes sense to be on the
winning side, I suppose. But were very sadly missing at
the times of true peril. Like when there was a very
real danger of the UK being invaded.

The US had a serious problem with pacifism at the time.


Have you read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Torpedo-Juncti.../dp/0440210275


I know the probable contents by other means. It seems arguable that this
was covered up to appease the pacifists. It was a scandal that we let it go
as far and long as we did.