Well, since we've been discussing France
(Answers in following thread) :

INVENTIONS

The 19th and early 20th centuries were prodigious times for inventions
and discoveries. With the industrial revolution in full blossom,
scientists, engineers and dilettantes alike were at work in every nation
hoping to have their name attached to the next breakthrough, if not
emblazoned on the cast-iron frame of the next mechanical wonder, symbol
of progress and source of prosperity for the inventor. It is often
difficult today to assign anteriority with any degree of certainty, and
the number of coincidences and similitude of work by different
protagonists, in different nations, often unknown to one another, is
nothing short of astonishing. Much historical work has been done though,
and it is possible to re-trace the development of many inventions, and in
many, if not most cases to attribute clear inventors' rights.

Following is a list of important inventions and discoveries which French
people learn as being part of their national heritage. Try to guess which
truly are:


PHOTOGRAPHY

MOTION PICTURES

AVIATION

THE AUTOMOBILE

THE BICYCLE

SOUND RECORDING

RADIOACTIVITY (discovery of)

IMMUNOLOGY


BONUS QUESTION:
What nationality can legitimately claim Radio broadcasting, the Internal
Combustion Engine, and the Telephone?

Greg Farris > wrote:
> AVIATION

I don't see how "Aviation" is an invention. The word seems to specify a
broad category, not any single machine.

Still, I believe the Frenchmen Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier are
considered the fathers of aviation due to their development of manned hot
air balloons. But they were presumably inspired by the book "Experiments
and Observations on Different Kinds of Air" by the Englishman Joseph
Priestley.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Greg Farris > wrote:
>> AVIATION
>
> I don't see how "Aviation" is an invention. The word seems to specify a
> broad category, not any single machine.
>
> Still, I believe the Frenchmen Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier are
> considered the fathers of aviation due to their development of manned hot
> air balloons. But they were presumably inspired by the book "Experiments
> and Observations on Different Kinds of Air" by the Englishman Joseph
> Priestley.

The Motgolfier brothers used hot air produced by a smoky fire but they
thought smoke caused the lift, rather than a density difference. The
reason they always had a bottle of wine to give to the people at the
landing spot was to quell the fears associated with a highly colored,
smoke-breathing monster landing in the fields. So, I don't believe they
really understood what they were doing.

Somewhat later Rosiere (sp?) invented the gas balloon. So, he must have
understood what he was doing. Unfortunately he died in a flight across
the English Channel.

Balloons were the first military aircraft. They were used to observe
battles in the French Revolution.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>
>Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Greg Farris > wrote:
>>> AVIATION
>>
>> I don't see how "Aviation" is an invention. The word seems to specify a
>> broad category, not any single machine.
>>
>> Still, I believe the Frenchmen Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier are
>> considered the fathers of aviation due to their development of manned hot
>> air balloons. But they were presumably inspired by the book "Experiments
>> and Observations on Different Kinds of Air" by the Englishman Joseph
>> Priestley.
>
>The Motgolfier brothers used hot air produced by a smoky fire but they
>thought smoke caused the lift, rather than a density difference. The
>reason they always had a bottle of wine to give to the people at the
>landing spot was to quell the fears associated with a highly colored,
>smoke-breathing monster landing in the fields. So, I don't believe they
>really understood what they were doing.

Why not? Sounds OK to me!


>
>Somewhat later Rosiere (sp?) invented the gas balloon. So, he must have
>understood what he was doing. Unfortunately he died in a flight across
>the English Channel.

Though it is not clearly established, I believe that surviving the experience
is part of the qualification drill. That's why all those Chinese who sent
themselves to the moon on firecrackers are not credited with inventing space
travel - that is until one of them comes back to tell us about it.

Arrgh! Thar be a lot of long words there matie!
We're naught but humble pirates (pilots) and
therefore unable to acquiesce to your request.

Capt. Barbosa



"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Well, since we've been discussing France
> (Answers in following thread) :
>
> INVENTIONS
>
> The 19th and early 20th centuries were prodigious times for inventions
> and discoveries. With the industrial revolution in full blossom,
> scientists, engineers and dilettantes alike were at work in every nation
> hoping to have their name attached to the next breakthrough, if not
> emblazoned on the cast-iron frame of the next mechanical wonder, symbol
> of progress and source of prosperity for the inventor. It is often
> difficult today to assign anteriority with any degree of certainty, and
> the number of coincidences and similitude of work by different
> protagonists, in different nations, often unknown to one another, is
> nothing short of astonishing. Much historical work has been done though,
> and it is possible to re-trace the development of many inventions, and in
> many, if not most cases to attribute clear inventors' rights.
>
> Following is a list of important inventions and discoveries which French
> people learn as being part of their national heritage. Try to guess which
> truly are:
>
>
> PHOTOGRAPHY
>
> MOTION PICTURES
>
> AVIATION
>
> THE AUTOMOBILE
>
> THE BICYCLE
>
> SOUND RECORDING
>
> RADIOACTIVITY (discovery of)
>
> IMMUNOLOGY
>
>
> BONUS QUESTION:
> What nationality can legitimately claim Radio broadcasting, the Internal
> Combustion Engine, and the Telephone?
>

Most major technologies were created by a combination of efforts based
in many countries, although some countries were often more prominent
than others in certain fields.

France has a long and impressive history in the development of
technology, extending over several centuries. As in the rest of
Europe, this trend came to an end in France during the World Wars,
when Europeans decided to spend a century fighting and killing each
other instead of advancing society. Since that time, no country in
Europe, including France, has made much of a difference. It's a
tremendously huge loss, and one that most people don't seem to be
aware of.

The United States wasn't a player until fairly recently (slightly over
a century), but it was unaffected by the world wars, and now has a
leadership position that isn't likely to be challenged by Europeans
any time soon. It doesn't help that the world wars produced an
impressive brain drain, mainly from Europe to the United States.

It doesn't make sense for any country to "claim" anything, although
that doesn't stop them from doing so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The United States wasn't a player until fairly recently (slightly over
> a century), but it was unaffected by the world wars...

What?! I think it's time you step away from the simulator, and learn
a little bit about the real world...

We were quite fortunate that the wars weren't, for the most part,
fought on our soil, but the US had about 16 million men and women in
the various branches of the armed forces during WWII alone. Over
400,000 were killed during the war. That's about twice the number of
military fatalities suffered by France, to chose one random example...


"Unaffected" my ass.

"Gary" > wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> The United States wasn't a player until fairly recently (slightly over
>> a century), but it was unaffected by the world wars...
>
> What?! I think it's time you step away from the simulator, and learn
> a little bit about the real world...
>
> We were quite fortunate that the wars weren't, for the most part,
> fought on our soil, but the US had about 16 million men and women in
> the various branches of the armed forces during WWII alone. Over
> 400,000 were killed during the war. That's about twice the number of
> military fatalities suffered by France, to chose one random example...
>
>
> "Unaffected" my ass.

In rereading his post, I think he's talking about the effect on
scientific development, not the impact on the military. Much of Europe's
infrastructure was destroyed in the wars, so they tended to concentrate
on rebuilding the infrastructure economy, rather than putting money into
R&D.

As far as your number of fatalities, there certainly are differences
between sources, but most suggest that the number of military fatalities
was similar when comparing the US and France. US fatalities were about
295,000, and French about 340,000. Of course the population of the US was
about three times that of France in 1939.

Considering the effect on the country, you also have to include civilian
fatalities. Depending on the source, there were anywhere between 500,000
and 700,000 civilian fatalities in France. The US had perhaps 10,000
civilian fatalities.

Gary writes:

> What?! I think it's time you step away from the simulator, and learn
> a little bit about the real world...

The US lost 400,000. The USSR alone lost 20 million, and 100 million
died altogether in WWII, with 75% of them being civilian. Civilian
losses for the US were virtually nil, and there was no signifcant
damage of infrastructure other than Pearl Harbor.

> "Unaffected" my ass.

You don't know how good you have it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

James Robinson writes:

> In rereading his post, I think he's talking about the effect on
> scientific development, not the impact on the military. Much of Europe's
> infrastructure was destroyed in the wars, so they tended to concentrate
> on rebuilding the infrastructure economy, rather than putting money into
> R&D.

A lot of infrastructure was destroyed. Additionally, any non-military
research came to a halt, and never really got started again after the
war. There was also a brain drain from Europe, aggravated by Nazi
persecution of Jews, because many of the leading scientists in Europe
were Jewish (and thus were inclined to leave, or were prevented from
doing anything useful by the Nazis).

All in all, the Europeans blew it. They had their playground fights,
and the price they paid--beyond the hundred million people dead--was a
permanent window seat in the developed world.

> The US had perhaps 10,000 civilian fatalities.

In the CONUS and Hawaii? Where?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gary writes:
>
>> What?! I think it's time you step away from the simulator, and learn
>> a little bit about the real world...
>
> The US lost 400,000. The USSR alone lost 20 million, and 100 million
> died altogether in WWII, with 75% of them being civilian. Civilian
> losses for the US were virtually nil, and there was no signifcant
> damage of infrastructure other than Pearl Harbor.
>
>> "Unaffected" my ass.
>
> You don't know how good you have it.
>
Please site your source for those numbers. The wiki article said a
total of 65 million killed with the SU loosing 23.2 million of which
10.7 million were military. US KIA were 407,000 troops and 11,200
civilians. As for the infrastructure costs, while the US did not lose
much beyond Pearl Harbor to bombings, it lost a great deal to the
redirection of it's industrial complex to produce the goods needed to
fight the war in the rest of the world. The US also paid a majority of
the costs of fighting the war.

It was affected.

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:HVQZg.4245$kG5.2173@trndny07...
>>
> The US also paid a majority of the costs of fighting the war.
>

And cleaning up afterwards.

Well, it is interesting how these things go... Early scientific
leaders were Greek and Egyptian with science traveling into Arabia...
The Romans were not scientists but they were adopters and builders of
technology, especially large civil works, roads, aquaducts, etc...

The countries convulsed with death and destruction at this time in the
middle east, were in the middle ages repositories of science with
mathematics and astronomy prominent... Though neither Egypt nor Arabia
became builders/users of technology based upon their sciences - the
pyramids being an exception in the case of the egyptians... That task
fell onto Europe with the industrial revolution, where Europe was
persued into the revolution by the USA...
As was mentioned the European states wasted their energy, resources,
their scientific and technology leadership, in incrementally increasing
bloody feuds covering some 250 years..

Now the USA seems to be coming to a crossroads where we will either
climb to a new level of scientific and industrial achievements, or
lapse into exhaustion and the penury of socialism and become a has been
begging for scraps at the periphery of the new world leaders, China and
Indoasia... The hemorrhaging of our resources into endless (at least
looking that way) war and death in the middle east by the Bush
administration does not bode well for the rapidly increasing
competition with the Chinese for technological and military leadership
of the world... At this point it looks like the rise, decline, and fall
of the american empire is pushing rapidly into the decline phase...
It's been a brief, if spectacular, ride...

denny

John Theune writes:

> Please site your source for those numbers.

Why? Gary didn't cite his.

> The wiki article said ...

I've written Wikipedia articles myself. If I put my figures into an
article, will that make them reliable?

> It was affected.

It was pretty much out of harm's way, and it was one of the few
countries to be so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.