On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 11:09:38h +0000, David Looser wrote:

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.

My understanding was that the most important strategic reason for the
eastward invasion was to take hold of the oil refineries and wells
in Grozny and Baku which were needed to keep the German
industrial-military complex going and of course to deny these
supplies to the USSR which was dependent upon them.

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
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".

A post that could only be written by someone who simply cannot be bothered
to read the posts he claims to be responding to. Try responding to what I
*actually* wrote!

David.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...

The marriage bit was a red herring.

Your understanding of the British constitution appears to be extremely weak.

The "marriage issue" was no red herring, it was a genuine constitutional
issue. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, and the Church
banned the re-marriage of divorcees.

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.

How do you work that one out? Deposing a King is a very unlikely event, and
its *not* happening would have proved nothing about support for the fascists
in the UK.

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.

Again you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that it was *his*
choice whether to declare war or not. It was not, that choice lay with the
government. Had Edward VIII still been King in 1939 he'd have been told in
no uncertain terms to keep his views to himself and play the role of
national fugurehead as the government directed.

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

Yes, Chamberlain's famous "bit of paper" which applied only to the
Sudetenland; Chamberlain naively thought that Hitler would be satisfied with
that, history shows how misguided Chamberlain was. Britain also had a much
more significant military pact with Poland which was unaffected by the "bit
of paper".

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

Eh! where does this "and Parliament" bit come from? What makes you think
parliament would ever have supported the fascists?

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...

The marriage bit was a red herring.

Your understanding of the British constitution appears to be extremely
weak.

The "marriage issue" was no red herring, it was a genuine constitutional
issue. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, and the Church
banned the re-marriage of divorcees.

It says a lot about attitudes at the time that people kicked up such as
stink about it. What would have happened if the King had said "bugger the
constitution: I *will* marry Wallace and I *will* remain King" - what
sanction (other than generating a lot of hot air) could the Government and
the Church of England have taken against him. OK, so he'd have got a lot of
people's back up, but maybe he could have toughed that out. Maybe if he had,
he might have forced the Church of England to accept marriage to a divorcee
and to change their stuffy attitude. But I believe that religion should very
much be a servant, not a master - anyone who says "I want to do it but it's
against my religion" has, by definition, chosen the wrong religion to
follow: I'd respect someone much more if they said "I don't want to do it
because it's against my religion".

I'm not saying that he should have remained King. Given his Nazi sympathies,
he would have been a political embarrassment if he'd remained on the throne
right up to the declaration of war. And that is the real reason (IMHO) that
he should have been coerced to step down. The fact that he was a superficial
wastrel didn't help his cause! However the marriage-to-a-divorcee issue,
while evidently very important to some people, is utterly irrelevant as far
as I'm concerned as long as he doesn't commit bigamy - ie make damn sure the
divorce is legal! In other words, the end result was probably correct but it
was justified on a very specious excuse.

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

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944 ...


Is that what it says in American history books?

No. Our history books say that beaches were assaulted by Americans, British,
and Canadian armies that also included Australian soldiers. More
specifically the American First Army and the British Second Army.

In article , Geoffrey S. Mendelson
wrote:

[Snip]

If (again speculation) the US had not invaded Europe in June of 1944,

US + UK + Canada were all in the invasion forces

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article , 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, rather it was a US-lead action that involved
only a few other nations, in particular, of course, the UK.


Not US led. The CiC of the invasion force was British


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

David.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
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?

and what did they do at Singapore?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

wrote in message
...


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.

My dad, being an incorrigible cheapskate bought one that we used for at
least a decade.

It did well enough on the 3 US and 1 Canadian station in the Detroit area,
but did not do so well on the UHF station that was started up by a local
university, even with a UHF converter with extra amplification.

On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 19:14:19h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

but did not do so well on the UHF station that was started up by a
local university, even with a UHF converter with extra amplification.

Was WTVS actually *started* by Wayne State University though?


From http://www.dptv.ORG/aboutus/history.shtml

QUOTE

Detroit Public Television (DPTV) began broadcasting in 1955 as
WTVS Channel 56, a non-commercial, educational TV station licensed
to the Detroit Educational Television Foundation.

UNQUOTE


From http://media.wayne.EDU/2011/03/25/wayne-state-university-and-detroit-public-tv

QUOTE

In the 1950s and 1960s, Wayne State's University Television *co-produced*
educational, entertainment, and public affairs programs with DPTV.

UNQOTE