David Looser wrote:
"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:56:08 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
It wasn't a US invasion by the way. It was a United Nations invasion.
The UN wasn't formed then. More than a year after D-day.
There is a subtle difference between "United Nations" as used by
William Wright and "UN" as used by yourself.

Surely you would accept what is written on the UN web site?

http://www.un.ORG/en/aboutun/history/index.shtml

snip

Nevertheless its incorrect to call the D-day landings a "United Nations"
invasion.

D-day was not planned and authorised by the 26 signatories of the embryonic
United Nations,
It was accepted that there was a nucleus of powers leading the UN.

Bill

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:47:39 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]

Never mind what it sounds like. Does it make any sense?

d

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
After America joined the war in December 1941, the title "United
Nations" was adopted — at the instigation of Roosevelt — by the Allies
fighting the Axis forces. The title United Nations was adopted on
January 1st 1942 and was used by all those nations who were at war with
the Axis.

This so-called United Nations Declaration stated that all signatories
agreed with the principles of the Atlantic Charter. Twenty-six nations
signed it in January 1942, including Britain, America, Soviet Russia
and China.

So troops from 26 nations took part in the invasion?

No reason why they should. 'From each according to their means...'
Isn't that what you believe in Dave?

Bill

On Feb 9, 4:59*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
David Looser wrote:

According to the history books the US entered WW2 because it was attacked by
the Japanese. It seems that Michael A. Terrell thinks that Japan is in
Europe.

The US was already active in the war, but not officially. US volunter pilots
were flying missions against both Japan and Germany. THe US was providing
equipment and supplies on a "lend lease" program that allowed them to do it
for free, without violating the official neutrality polices.

US ships were acting as "human shields" to shipping convoys in hope that
a U-Boat would miss their target and hit one, allowing the US to enter into
the war.

Bear in mind that although Roosevelt was pro-war, a lot of people in the US
supported Hitler or wanted to remain neutral. He was just waiting for
an excuse to enter the war.

FDR was a piece of excrement who was used by certain forces to
achieve certain ends. WWII could have been avoided, but they wanted us
in it, badly. So the Japanese-who were brutish toward other Asians but
knew enough not to F with us and had no designs on our turf-were
systematically goaded into attacking Pearl Harbor. It worked well.

We should have stayed out of that stinking war, in which I lost
relatives on both sides. The international bankers and their proxies
should have been allowed to take their medicine and we'd be done with
it.

Most of the men in my family were warriors. I stayed out of the
military, to my mixed regret now.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:00:01 +0000, David Looser wrote:

So it was an "allied powers" invasion, not a "United Nations" one.

The allied powers *were* the United Nations, -- see earlier
posting with details of the Atlantic Treaty establishing the
United Nations in 1942.

Was General Dwight D Eisenhower in his pronouncement concerning
the actions of the forces of the allied powers referring to them as
the forces of the "United Nations" is just plain wrong?

Again, it is important to stress that the term "United Nations"
as used before 1945 has a different meaning to that of post 1945
when it is used to refer to the "United Nations Organisation",
often abbreviated to UNO or just UN.

QUOTE

SUPREME HEADQUARTERS ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which
we have striven these many months.

The eyes of liberty loving people everywhere march with you.

In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other
Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war
machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples
of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained,
well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs
of 1940-41.

The *United Nations* have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,

in open battle, man to man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced
their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground.

Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons
and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of
trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world
are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and
skill in battle.

We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon
this great and noble undertaking.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Order of the Day
June 6, 1944

UNQUOTE

Perhaps this poster from 1942 will convince you that the
United Nations were fighting the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy,
and Japan?

Title: The United Nations Fight For Freedom

http://historygallery.COM/worldwar2/UnitedNations.htm

On Feb 9, 11:43*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Terry Casey" wrote in message

...









In article ,
says...

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

snip

Looking back in hindsight, it would have been very likely that if
Europe
was
not invaded in 1994, by 1946 the Luftwaffe would of had a jet engine
bomber that was undetectable until 20 miles of the coast, able to
fly to New York and an atomic bomb to drop from it.

Not a bomber - it would have been the A10 rocket.

No, there was also a super bomber based on conventional technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

"The most promising proposals were based on conventional principles of
aircraft design and would have yielded aircraft very similar in
configuration and capability to the Allied heavy bombers of the day..."

Which conflicts with the idea of a stealth bomber ...

Right. It wasn't jet powered, either. The jet engines of the day had service
lives measured in integer hours, which means that a flight from Europe to
the US would be pretty much guaranteed to fail. Fuel economy was miserable
as well.

The TBO of the first production German turbojet engine, the Junkers
Jumo 004, was 25 hours. I don't recall specific fuel economy but it
was not terribly worse than second generation axial flow turbojets,
such as the GE J-47 that powered the B-47 and many fighters. One of
which flew over my house a couple of weeks ago-a great noise. Since a
jet sortie of this magnitude would have been a twelve hour flight, it
would have worked.

The Jumo 004 was a very advanced engine, all considered, and with
better hot section materials and a later fuel control system would
have been a credible engine fifteen or twenty years later. Even today
it would be an interesting project, if "interesting" would finance a
high six/low seven figure sum. Hey, it would create employment, unlike
the supposedly shovel ready projects of the imbecilic leadership we
have today.

A better plan for the Germans would have been a B-36 scale aircraft
powered by another Junkers project, the opposed piston diesels which
could make maximum use of turbocharging and thus fly at an altitude
the US had nothing to intercept it with, neither AAA, anti aircraft
missiles nor fighters. Specially modified B-36 aircraft, it is now
forgotten, were capable of reaching altitudes equaling the first
generation U-2s, I think the record was something like 66,300 feet.

On Feb 9, 2:18*pm, "David Looser" wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in ...

Arny Krueger wrote:

Right. It wasn't jet powered, either. The jet engines of the day had
service
lives measured in integer hours, which means that a flight from Europe to
the US would be pretty much guaranteed to fail. Fuel economy was
miserable
as well.

According to the wikipedia entry (quoted in an earlier post), it had the
speed to make it from Paris to New York in about 6-7 hours.

The jet engines would not of gotten you to New York and back, but it would
of gotten an atomic bomb to New York, which is what was intended.

All this is pure speculation. The "flying wing" jet fighter flew test
flights, but crashed killing it's pilot. It was a second copy (that never
flew) that was "liberated" to the USA after the war. None of the other
designs for an "Amerika Bomber" made it off the drawing board. How long
would it have taken to develop any design to the point that it could make
the trans-Atlantic flight? How long would it have taken the Nazis to develop
an atomic bomb, bearing in mind that Germany had ceased all work leading to
one back in '42?

David.

The Germans had the intellectual capacity to build nuclear weapons but
not the industrial capacity to do so.

The United States had more manufacturing capacity in 1944 than the
rest of the world combined. It had real estate to spare on which to
build plants, population to work at them, and none of it was subject
to bombardment as were most other combatants. And the Manhattan
Project was above all else a manufacturing project. It was the
equivalent of a modest sovereign nation unto itself, and like later
efforts like the Skunk Works, it was shielded from external
kibbitzing.

The "Amerika-Bomber" was no more a realistic project than the Ford
Nucleon car or the Starship Enterprise of Star Trek. The Hortens had
had some success with flying wing aircraft, but there are a lot of
reasons why no one builds them today, aside from a few stealth designs
that will be obsolete with future radar developments which are
inevitable. But the engines were not the issue. They'd have taken a
Luftwaffe crew there and back if they had enough fuel.

The Germans pretty well gave up nuclear work when they themselves
realized this. Most of the General Staff and the smarter commanders
knew by 1943 loss was inevitable: a negotiated peace was the best they
were going to do, and for that to happen Hitler had to die. Hitler was
quite insane by then, and the General Staff never trusted or respected
him anyway.

I don't know of any TVs with only 1 IF stage for video.

*'Madman' Earl Muntz made some real crap.

Even his stripped-back products had 3 (6AU6) video IF stages. If memory
serves, they may have had only 1 IF stage for sound, but with intercarrier
sound, that's not a fair comparison.

By the late 60s a number of mainstream manufacturers were building sets that
were influenced by Muntz.

He loved 'Reflex circuits' where a single tube was used at multiple
frqurncies. *He was stingy as hell about bypass capacitors and
shielding, as well.

Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:15:42 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

Perhaps this poster from 1942 will convince you

And here is another United Nations poster, this one from 1943

http://upload.wikimedia.ORG/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

wrote:


I don't know of any TVs with only 1 IF stage for video.

'Madman' Earl Muntz made some real crap.

Even his stripped-back products had 3 (6AU6) video IF stages. If memory
serves, they may have had only 1 IF stage for sound, but with intercarrier
sound, that's not a fair comparison.

By the late 60s a number of mainstream manufacturers were building sets that
were influenced by Muntz.

He loved 'Reflex circuits' where a single tube was used at multiple
frequencies. He was stingy as hell about bypass capacitors and
shielding, as well.

Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.


I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.