J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Was it purely that they were deaf? If so, would they have been one of
the few cases where an external preamp (in the room, not masthead) was
actually useful (or were the noise figures of external preamps pretty
bad then)?

We used to fit second-hand transistorised masthead amps inside those
early UHF sets that had valve tuners. What an improvement!

Bill

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in

As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

"He" wouldn't have had the choice. It was the British government that
declared war, not the King. Its entirely true that Edward VIII was at odds
with the Government, and the Wallace Simpson affair gave them the excuse
they needed to get rid of him. But he wouldn't have been able to stop
Britain declaring war even had he still been the King in 1939.

If Germany had kept its nonagression pact with the Soviet Union, and been
satisifed with Europe, there may not have been a "world" war.

That seems to me to be the biggest "if" all. It seems that the invasion of
the Soviet Union was Hitler's ultimate aim all along, the other invasions:
Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc. were just "warm-ups" for the main event.
..

David.

David Looser wrote:

Absolutely. I accept that in 1944 there was an embryonic "United Nations" of
26 nations that had agreed to continue the fight against the Axis powers.
However it is clear that the D-day landings were not discussed and
authorised by these 26 nations, but were planned by the US and UK alone. It
is problable that most of the 26 would have known nothing about the D-day
plans until after it happened.

Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, forces from the occupied
countries, all took part in the invasion of Europe.

Bill

David Looser wrote:
wrote

FDR was a piece of excrement who was used by certain forces to
achieve certain ends. WWII could have been avoided,

Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?

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.

An interesting claim. Who do you claim was "goading" the Japanese? And what
evidence do you have to back it up?

So the Japs 'knew enough not to F with us' did they? So what was Pearl
Harbor? A diplomatic mission?

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

Absolutely. I accept that in 1944 there was an embryonic "United Nations"
of 26 nations that had agreed to continue the fight against the Axis
powers. However it is clear that the D-day landings were not discussed
and authorised by these 26 nations, but were planned by the US and UK
alone. It is problable that most of the 26 would have known nothing about
the D-day plans until after it happened.

Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, forces from the occupied
countries, all took part in the invasion of Europe.

What does the word "most" mean to you Bill?

How many governments were consulted prior to D-day? The governments in exile
of the occupied countries certainly wouldn't have been told anything, and
those of the commonwealth countries likely were merely informed. This does
not even come close to justifying the claim that the invasion was a "United
Nations" action.

David.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He would
have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't allowed to
marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he could
influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

The marriage bit was a red herring. It was the cleaned up for the public
version of getting rid of him because he was a fascist. If he was not
deposed, it would have meant that there was sufficient support for the
fascists in the UK to keep him in power.

Assuming that support did exist, then one can easily (at least I can)
speculate that he would of not declared war on Germany until they
attacked the UK.

Didn't the UK sign a non-agression pact with Germany over the Studetenland in
September of 1938?

With a King and Parliment supporting the fascists, how far could
Germany have gone without the UK declaring war?

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

David Looser wrote:

That seems to me to be the biggest "if" all. It seems that the invasion of
the Soviet Union was Hitler's ultimate aim all along, the other invasions:
Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc. were just "warm-ups" for the main event.

Of course it's a big if, but assuming that after Germany occupied continental
Europe to the Soviet Union, with no one attacking them, it's not impossible.

If, as I said in a previous post, there was enough fascist support in the
UK to leave Germany alone and the Soviet Union kept to their nonagression
pact, Hitler may have been satisfied with what he had.

I'm sure he had many reasons to attack the Soviet Union, IMHO one of them
was to reduce the capability of the UK and the US by diverting supplies
from the US to the Soviet Union.

Bear in mind that the Soviet Union lost over 20 million citizens during the
war, and I think that faced with a loss of that size, even Stalin would
of sat on his hands, as it were, if he could have avoided it.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He
would have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't
allowed to marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he
could influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

The marriage bit was a red herring. It was the cleaned up for the public
version of getting rid of him because he was a fascist. If he was not
deposed, it would have meant that there was sufficient support for the
fascists in the UK to keep him in power.

It was no red herring. The Church of England in those days had a great
deal of influence. And a future king was simply not allowed to marry a
divorcee. Even after WW2, a princess was banned from marrying one too -
and there was little chance of her ever becoming queen. Things are
different now.

BTW, simply because someone is a fascist doesn't mean to say he'll support
each and every other one in a different country. Any more than a communist
does.

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 11:06:28h +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

They're lovely old posters aren't they?

You could buy the first one if you like it?

What disturbs me is the reaction from people in this newsgroup
that even though evidence is presented which clearly shows
that the term "United Nations" was in use, based upon
the Atlantic Treaty of 1941, they continue to deny the facts
because they stubbornly cling to the post-1945 United Nations
Organisation meaning of "United Nations".

J G Miller wrote:
On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 11:06:28h +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

They're lovely old posters aren't they?

You could buy the first one if you like it?

What disturbs me is the reaction from people in this newsgroup
that even though evidence is presented which clearly shows
that the term "United Nations" was in use, based upon
the Atlantic Treaty of 1941, they continue to deny the facts
because they stubbornly cling to the post-1945 United Nations
Organisation meaning of "United Nations".

You can't educate pork.

Bill