It was 62 years ago today...

[Jay Honeck]

The date that shall live in infamy...

A few toasts:

To my Father's generation, for saving the world...

To those of my Father's generation who paid the ultimate price for our
freedom...

To all those of my generation, who as a result were never born...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> The date that shall live in infamy...

..... was _yesterday_.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[G.R. Patterson III]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> .... was _yesterday_.

Whoops .... Just noticed that your date posted is in GMT.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:25:22 -0500, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>> The date that shall live in infamy...
>
>.... was _yesterday_.

what happened? (too lazy to put in on google)

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Geoffrey Barnes]

Let me guess... your history teachers in high school were just like mine,
and always ran into the end of the school year before they got to World War
II, right?

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> what happened? (too lazy to put in on google)
>
> #m

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:28:05 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>what happened? (too lazy to put in on google)

!!!!!!

Aside from 11 Sep 2001, 7 Dec 1941 counts as the largest-casualty
surprise attack on United States soil in all its history.

Almost 3000 people died when the Japanese, who (I'm told) thought that
a preemptive attack would cow the U.S., sank a goodly portion of the
fleet based at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which shook the U.S. out of
protectionism and brought it into the second World War.

(Y'know, that tiny thing Germans don't study anymore?)

In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism started
that day, Martin.

Rob

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:

>Let me guess... your history teachers in high school were just like mine,
>and always ran into the end of the school year before they got to World War
>II, right?

*hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
US, I assume.

but to answer your question: no, we also came up to the 60s in the last
century.

#m

>
>"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> what happened? (too lazy to put in on google)
>>
>> #m
>
>

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[David Brooks]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
>
> >Let me guess... your history teachers in high school were just like mine,
> >and always ran into the end of the school year before they got to World
War
> >II, right?
>
> *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
> Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
> US, I assume.

Concur. My generation in England knew about Pearl Harbor, but would have to
go to the reference books if someone asked us the date. That would then
provoke the usual "late for that war too" comment.

Now, how many American 20-somethings don't know the date?

-- David Brooks

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:53:57 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:28:05 GMT, Martin Hotze >
>wrote:
>
>>what happened? (too lazy to put in on google)
>
>!!!!!!

hu?

>Aside from 11 Sep 2001, 7 Dec 1941 counts as the largest-casualty
>surprise attack on United States soil in all its history.

So the date is important to whom? correct.

>Almost 3000 people died when the Japanese, who (I'm told) thought that
>a preemptive attack would cow the U.S., sank a goodly portion of the
>fleet based at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which shook the U.S. out of
>protectionism and brought it into the second World War.

Hm, I don't have the details, but isn't there a stoy about the Japanese
ambassador to the USA being late delivering the declaration of war?

>(Y'know, that tiny thing Germans don't study anymore?)
>

*hihi*

>In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism started
^^^^^^^
>that day, Martin.
^^^^^^^^

yes, very funny.

>Rob

martin

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[James Robinson]

Rob Perkins wrote:
>
> In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism
> started that day, Martin.

Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
participation was simply a later link in that chain.

[Michael 182]

Or you could keep going back to the rise of Nazism, or probably earlier
links.

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Rob Perkins wrote:
> >
> > In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism
> > started that day, Martin.
>
> Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
> and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
> participation was simply a later link in that chain.

[Michael 182]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
>

> *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
> Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
> US, I assume.

Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US of a
provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date important in
world history is ludicrous. It was the precipitating event that drew the US
into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe. Saying
Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying the
rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history.

[Jay Honeck]

> > In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism
> > started that day, Martin.
>
> Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
> and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
> participation was simply a later link in that chain.

Technically true, but it is unlikely that France and England would be
democracies today, had Japan not jolted us into the war.

Thus, some links in the chain are more important than others...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:03:41 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>Hm, I don't have the details, but isn't there a stoy about the Japanese
>ambassador to the USA being late delivering the declaration of war?

Yeah. He was late. Wouldn't have changed the outcome. That was the day
that brought the U.S. into the war, and the first time in a longlong
time that the U.S. had had its backside handed to it by an aggressive
enemy.

And, yes, I don't think the outcome of WWII would have been a free
Austria without the U.S. in the middle of it. Roosevelt was one of the
principal founders of the United Nations, after all. I don't think
Stalin, Degualle, and Churchill would have been able to pull it off;
Stalin would not have come to the table. And even in '45 Britain could
not have stood alone against the U.S.S.R.'s creation of satellite
states. Had Russia freed Austria it would not have been the neutral
republic it was for the last half of the 20th.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:18:42 -0800, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>> *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
>> Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
>> US, I assume.
>
>Concur. My generation in England knew about Pearl Harbor, but would have to
>go to the reference books if someone asked us the date. That would then
>provoke the usual "late for that war too" comment.
>
>Now, how many American 20-somethings don't know the date?

Most of them, unfortunately.

Just not *me*.

Rob

[David Brooks]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:aX5Bb.473209$Fm2.460844@attbi_s04...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
> >
>
> > *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
> > Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in
the
> > US, I assume.
>
> Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US of a
> provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date important
in
> world history is ludicrous. It was the precipitating event that drew the
US
> into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe.
Saying
> Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying the
> rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history.

Agreed, but see my post on distinguishing the date from the event. Following
your analogy, Americans should be able to immediately identify the day/month
a certain person became Reichskanzler. Or, for a closer analogy, the day
Britain declared war.

But I do realize I'm putting (alternative) words into Martin's mouth.

-- David Brooks

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> A few toasts:
>
> To my Father's generation, for saving the world...
>
> To those of my Father's generation who paid the ultimate price
> for our freedom...
>
> To all those of my generation, who as a result were never born..

To my hero, my next door neighbor Ken Taylor, who was a back seat gunner
in one of the SBD dive bombers that sank the Jap carriers at the battle
of Midway. Ken was later put ashore with the rest of his air group on
Guadalcanal and got shelled virtually point blank by Jap battleships. He
is one of a quickly-vanishing few WWII vets still with us. If you know
one, don't miss a chance to say "thanks."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Michael 182]

I hate getting into semantic battles, and if this is one, I quit. Martin
said "Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe but well known in the
US, I assume."

If the meaning was that the event was important but the date was not well
known, I agree with you. If the meaning was "not that important of a date
here in Europe " then, of course, my initial post makes my point.

Michael


"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:aX5Bb.473209$Fm2.460844@attbi_s04...
> >
> Agreed, but see my post on distinguishing the date from the event.
Following
> your analogy, Americans should be able to immediately identify the
day/month
> a certain person became Reichskanzler. Or, for a closer analogy, the day
> Britain declared war.
>
> But I do realize I'm putting (alternative) words into Martin's mouth.
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>

[Phil McAverty]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:28:05 GMT, Martin Hotze >
> wrote:
>
> >what happened? (too lazy to put in on google)
>
> !!!!!!
>
> Aside from 11 Sep 2001, 7 Dec 1941 counts as the largest-casualty
> surprise attack on United States soil in all its history.
>
> Almost 3000 people died when the Japanese, who (I'm told) thought that
> a preemptive attack would cow the U.S., sank a goodly portion of the
> fleet based at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which shook the U.S. out of
> protectionism and brought it into the second World War.
>
> (Y'know, that tiny thing Germans don't study anymore?)
>
> In short, the chain of events which freed Austria from Naziism started
> that day, Martin.

I don't think so. The single biggest event that really started the chain of
events leading to the end of the war was Hitler's decision to attack the
Soviet Union.
It was Hitler's biggest mistake - made the same mistake as Napoleon. The
mistake ended up destroying their armies. The Germans put their toughest
soldiers on the Eastern Front, leaving "softer" soldiers for the D Day
landing troops to face. Being in France was a holiday compared to the
Eastern Front.

Hollywood does a poor job or portraying history. I gather they a doing a
film , starring Tom Cruise about an American pilot in the Battle of Britain,
10 July - 31 Oct 1940 which will have him winning the battle single handed.
Not bad considering there were only 7 pilots from the US.

It reminds me of another movie U571 which misrepresents historical fact. But
hey, why let truth get in the way of a good story.

Funny, you could say the same about Iraq too.

[Gig Giacona]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:18:42 -0800, "David Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >> *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
> >> Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in
the
> >> US, I assume.
> >
> >Concur. My generation in England knew about Pearl Harbor, but would have
to
> >go to the reference books if someone asked us the date. That would then
> >provoke the usual "late for that war too" comment.
> >
> >Now, how many American 20-somethings don't know the date?
>
> Most of them, unfortunately.
>
> Just not *me*.
>
> Rob

I just asked 3 girls in my office ages and answers below...

21..... "Pearl Harbor, but I only know because it's my anniversary."
30..... "Huh"
35..... "Pearl Harbor" She knew it from the movie.

None of the three could give me a year.

[David Brooks]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:yb6Bb.473401$Fm2.460449@attbi_s04...
> I hate getting into semantic battles, and if this is one, I quit.

I concur with that also: I may have chosen the wrong interpretation of the
phrase on both sides.

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:21:10 GMT, Michael 182 wrote:

>> *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
>> Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
>> US, I assume.
>
>Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US of a
>provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date important in
>world history is ludicrous.

oh, I think you got me wrong here. I don't meant that Pearl Harbor was not
an important event in history (au contraire!).
I meant the date itself (Dec 7th) is not one that someone on my side of the
pond is remembering (maybe it is in th media on round dates like 60, 65, 70
years or so).

> It was the precipitating event that drew the US
>into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe. Saying
>Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying the
>rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history.

see above; and yes, when it would be me saying that what you meant I would
understand your argumentation. But as said above: it was not the event, it
was the date.

(hope I got that right)

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:30:17 -0800, David Brooks wrote:

>Or, for a closer analogy, the day
>Britain declared war.

early September 1939 .. the 9th or so. after Hitler invaded Poland, France
and England declared war (as it was written in a treaty for assistance
[wording?] with Poland).

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:38:38 GMT, Michael 182 wrote:

>I hate getting into semantic battles, and if this is one, I quit. Martin
>said "Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe but well known in the
>US, I assume."
>

*whooa* well, maybe I missed fine meanings in wording ...

>If the meaning was that the event was important but the date was not well
>known, I agree with you.

yes, yes, yes. this is it.

> If the meaning was "not that important of a date
>here in Europe " then, of course, my initial post makes my point.
>

sure. and I would not agree with someone saying that.

>Michael

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:22:57 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
>> and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
>> participation was simply a later link in that chain.
>
>Technically true, but it is unlikely that France and England would be
>democracies today, had Japan not jolted us into the war.
>
>Thus, some links in the chain are more important than others...

You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
agression?
I doubt that the USA would have remained neutral as there have been some
attackes by german submarines in US ports and en-route on the Atlantic and
the US more and more supporting England.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:29:04 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:

>>Hm, I don't have the details, but isn't there a stoy about the Japanese
>>ambassador to the USA being late delivering the declaration of war?
>
>Yeah. He was late. Wouldn't have changed the outcome.

true. formalism only.

> That was the day
>that brought the U.S. into the war, and the first time in a longlong
>time that the U.S. had had its backside handed to it by an aggressive
>enemy.

besides: this was the last time the USA declared war.

>And, yes, I don't think the outcome of WWII would have been a free
>Austria without the U.S. in the middle of it.

true

>Roosevelt was one of the
>principal founders of the United Nations, after all.

but the UN had nothing to do with our peace treaty (at least: we had one,
Germany had none)

>I don't think
>Stalin, Degualle, and Churchill would have been able to pull it off;
>Stalin would not have come to the table. And even in '45 Britain could
>not have stood alone against the U.S.S.R.'s creation of satellite
>states.

yes. And it sure was also good negotiations by Leopold Fiegl.

>Had Russia freed Austria

first troops to free Vienna where Russian troops.

>it would not have been the neutral
>republic it was for the last half of the 20th.

yep. Funny thing that it was possible to form such a small nation with
neutrality at that time.

>Rob

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Michael 182]

Well, I'm confused, but I think we are in complete agreement ;-)

Michael

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:21:10 GMT, Michael 182 wrote:
>
> see above; and yes, when it would be me saying that what you meant I would
> understand your argumentation. But as said above: it was not the event, it
> was the date.
>
> (hope I got that right)
>
> #m
> --
> http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
> http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:36:19 GMT, Michael 182 wrote:

>Well, I'm confused, but I think we are in complete agreement ;-)

good. very good. :-))

>Michael

martin

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:30:17 -0800, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>Agreed, but see my post on distinguishing the date from the event. Following
>your analogy, Americans should be able to immediately identify the day/month
>a certain person became Reichskanzler.

Ooo, you got me.

I think it was autumn 1933, but I can't remember the month. And I
don't remember the day, month, or year for "Kristallnacht", only that
it predated the Blitzkrieg into Poland. Am I wrong?

>Or, for a closer analogy, the day
>Britain declared war.

September 1939?

I take your point, though. The order of the events in time is more
important than the exact date.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:14:34 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>>If the meaning was that the event was important but the date was not well
>>known, I agree with you.
>
>yes, yes, yes. this is it.

Oh! OK, yeah, I don't have a problem with that. Sorry for the
provincialism, if that's even a word one can use for a nation that
covers almost as much land area as the U.S. does.

On a related issue, I had a curious experience watching Swiss
television on the 20th anniversary of the moon landing. The producers
noted it and spent the bulk of the hour talking about the Swiss
experiment that went with Aldrin and Armstrong to the moon.

It was an interesting shift in perspectives, to say the least.

Rob

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:52:16 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:

>And I
>don't remember the day, month, or year for "Kristallnacht", only that
>it predated the Blitzkrieg into Poland. Am I wrong?

The Reichskristallnacht was the first big 'testing' how the system of
surpressing the Jewish people will work. The nazis (with the help of the
general polulation) burned down Synagoges etc. - it has no direct
connection or cause to the invasion of Poland.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:55:27 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:

>On a related issue, I had a curious experience watching Swiss
>television on the 20th anniversary of the moon landing. The producers
>noted it and spent the bulk of the hour talking about the Swiss
>experiment that went with Aldrin and Armstrong to the moon.
>
>It was an interesting shift in perspectives, to say the least.
>

well, I'd put it this way: the landing on the moon, the whole program etc.
is well covered in many documentations. I read the first time now from you
about a Swiss experiment. And this would also be the case for many folks
from Switzreland, I guess. So this would bring another light to the story
and make the event more interesting for the average viewer.

(just like I am always thinking - whenever I see the space shuttle - that
the heat shield ceramic plates on the space shuttle are made in Austria
[about 1 hour drive by car from here]; it brings a related light to the
event)

>Rob

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Jay Honeck]

> You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
> agression? I doubt that the USA would have remained neutral as there have
been some
> attackes by german submarines in US ports and en-route on the Atlantic and
> the US more and more supporting England.

Well, in many ways Hitler was a fool (attacking the U.S.S.R before finishing
off Great Britain, for example, was just plain stupid), but I don't think he
would have drawn the U.S. into the war by choice.

The absolute fury of the American population at the Japanese attack's
audacity was critical in keeping public support for the war stoked. As you
may have noticed, public support for a war is critical in America... Would
the American public have supported going to war against Japan -- and,
particularly, Germany -- *without* being attacked first? From what my
parents have told me, the answer to that question was "no".

Thus, Pearl Harbor truly marked the first day in a long march toward
Austria's freedom...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:42:58 -0000, "Phil McAverty"
> wrote:

>It reminds me of another movie U571 which misrepresents historical fact. But
>hey, why let truth get in the way of a good story.

In their interviews I think the directors and producers of U571 made
clear that they were more interested in a good story.

Rob, who rented the DVD :-)

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:22:57 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>besides: this was the last time the USA declared war.

I think y'all are going to have to recognize that formal declarations
of war are not going to happen anymore. The mess of WWI and WWII,
drawing *everyone* into the conflict because of cross-alliances,
taught us all that formal declarations only make the conflict bigger.

If the troops are ordered moved or deployed, and the Congress funds it
before or after the fact, that's your declaration. Lump it. :-(

(And don't get *me* wrong. When the bullets fly, I'm mourning too.)

>>Roosevelt was one of the
>>principal founders of the United Nations, after all.
>
>but the UN had nothing to do with our peace treaty (at least: we had one,
>Germany had none)

I wasn't thinking of the Austrian peace treaty, about which I really
have no opinion, except to be glad that it was a free nation. (And may
I say, a couple of your border guards can be real martinets.)

>first troops to free Vienna where Russian troops.

They liberated Vienna, but Austria and Vienna were both partitioned
among the Allies. Seeds of that UN thing again.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:18:21 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
>agression?

Correct. The isolationist factions were strong enough to keep us clear
of the main confrontation even though, as you point out, there were
some submarine attacks. Pearl Harbor made our swing voters willing to
be drafted.

We probably would have defended our own borders, nothing more. Think
of the immediate response to the U.S.S. Cole; it took the deaths of
civilian noncombatants to push us to where we are today.

Rob

[Michael 182]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:FB7Bb.469677$Tr4.1294247@attbi_s03...
> As you
> may have noticed, public support for a war is critical in America...

Are you distinguishing declarations of war from the many police actions
since WWII?

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> > As you
> > may have noticed, public support for a war is critical in America...
>
> Are you distinguishing declarations of war from the many police actions
> since WWII?

Not for the sake of this discussion.. Public support for ANY kind of
prolonged military action is necessary in a democracy.

Had the U.S. not been attacked by Japan, it's unlikely that we would have
declared war on Germany alone. In this scenario, had Hitler then not
attacked Russia, the U.K. would surely have fallen -- and Martin would
probably not be hooked up to the internet today.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Brooks]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...

> >Or, for a closer analogy, the day
> >Britain declared war.
>
> September 1939?
>
> I take your point, though. The order of the events in time is more
> important than the exact date.

Now we have that out of the way, I'll take Jay's point. Let's honor the
Greatest Generation and the leaders who swayed nations into standing firm.
The commonality of purpose extended to the home front too.

Not all of them committed acts of heroism - my own father spent most of the
duration in a hammock in New Delhi, if you believe his own account - but
this was a time when we all did stand together and being part of a nation
really stood for something.

As it happens, Britons don't particularly mark Sep 3, although they are
probably reminded in some way each year. Armistice Day, Nov 11, is the
annual remembrance.

-- David Brooks

[Jim Baker]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:53:57 GMT, Rob Perkins
> > wrote:
>
>
> >fleet based at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which shook the U.S. out of
> >protectionism and brought it into the second World War.
> >
> >(Y'know, that tiny thing Germans don't study anymore?)
>
> Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
>
You must be on a roll ;-))

[Big John]

Martin

Would have thought those in Europe would remember as it lead to the US
getting involved in the European conflict and helping to defeat
Germany, Italy, etc.

Big John

How short the memory. You probably would have been speaking German.


On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:05:08 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
>
>>Let me guess... your history teachers in high school were just like mine,
>>and always ran into the end of the school year before they got to World War
>>II, right?
>
>*hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
>Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
>US, I assume.
>
>but to answer your question: no, we also came up to the 60s in the last
>century.
>
>#m
>
>>
>>"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> what happened? (too lazy to put in on google)
>>>
>>> #m
>>
>>

[AES/newspost]

In article <FB7Bb.469677$Tr4.1294247@attbi_s03>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Would
> the American public have supported going to war against Japan -- and,
> particularly, Germany -- *without* being attacked first? From what my
> parents have told me, the answer to that question was "no".

My understanding is that as Hitler took over Germany, built up his
"Wehrmacht" and his concentration camps, went after the Juden, and
generally became increasingly more threatening throughout the 1930s,
public opinion in U.S. became increasing opposed to the U.S. being drawn
into the conflict in Europe.

"Keep our boys out of foreign wars" was one of the major slogans, and I
believe there were increasingly active demonstrations against our
becoming involved (I was around then, but a little young to remember
details, and we hadn't yet had the '60s to teach demonstrators all the
modern techniques for non-violent violent protests).

I thought back to the above situation frequently a year or so ago, every
time I read about how our government, and those of many other nations,
should not get involved in Iraq because of the public demonstrations in
those countries against becoming involved with Saddam.

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> The date that shall live in infamy...

Well, WWII started a few years earlier for most of the world...

[Bob Fry]

"Michael 182" > writes:

> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
> >
>
> > *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
> > Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the
> > US, I assume.
>
> Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US of a
> provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date important in
> world history is ludicrous.

He didn't say that, though.

> It was the precipitating event that drew the US
> into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe. Saying
> Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying the
> rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history.

Probably the Soviet Union had more to do with beating Germany than
the US. We were of course by far the biggest factor in beating Japan.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> whenever I see the space shuttle - that
> the heat shield ceramic plates on the
> space shuttle are made in Austria

And if you ever watched Candian TV, you would think that the full name of
the Space Shuttle is really, "The American Space Shuttle with it's
Candian-Built Robot Arm"! :)

[James Robinson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Thus, Pearl Harbor truly marked the first day in a long march toward
> Austria's freedom...

There was no question that the US participation was critical to the end
of the war, and December 7 was the start of major American
participation. But I look at it more as a turning point in the overall
struggle against the Nazis. The force of US industry combined with
fresh troops was certainly necessary to swing the course of the war,
which had been very one-sided in favor of Germany up to that point.

However, to say that it was the start or the first day diminishes the
role of those people who had been struggling, and dying in large numbers
in the battle against the Nazis for the previous two years. They had
been engaged in fighting on their home soil, and it was a struggle for
survival. The British had already rebuffed the Luftwaffe in the Battle
of Britain, and maintained superiority over the seas with the sinking of
the Bismarck.

The eastern front was opened up only six months prior to the attack on
Pearl Harbor with the invasion of Russia, and you could equally say that
the war would not have ended as it had without Russian participation.
Their subsequent losses were staggering in comparison to the other
allies, and they contributed huge amounts of armor and soldiers. Some
of the largest battles of the war took place on the eastern front,
involving thousands of tanks and millions of soldiers in single battle
lines. Had these resources not been tied up on the eastern front, it
would have been nowhere near as easy to march against Berlin from the
west.

While the Russians were immediately forced into fight when they were
invaded, the US took some time to mobilize, and it wasn't until almost
another year had elapsed before Allied forces moved against the
Afrikacorps in Morocco and Algeria with US participation. In the
meantime, the Russians endured the siege of Stalingrad, and the
accompanying losses.

There are many events that could be classified as the start of the
resistance against Hitler, and my contention is that the first step was
in the declaration of war against Germany by England and France, since
that signaled the end of the policy of appeasement.

[Big John]

#m

Don't know what history you are reading but you need to go back and
re-study.

Big John


On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:18:21 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:22:57 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England
>>> and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US
>>> participation was simply a later link in that chain.
>>
>>Technically true, but it is unlikely that France and England would be
>>democracies today, had Japan not jolted us into the war.
>>
>>Thus, some links in the chain are more important than others...
>
>You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
>agression?
>I doubt that the USA would have remained neutral as there have been some
>attackes by german submarines in US ports and en-route on the Atlantic and
>the US more and more supporting England.
>
>#m

[none]

what about Reagan's war on drugs?



>
> besides: this was the last time the USA declared war.
>

[Jay Honeck]

> *This* conclusion is wrong, IMHO. The internet would have been invented
anyway.

Right. But you wouldn't be allowed to use it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> England and Russia, or England and America. Why France is considered a
> "victor" nation, I don't know.

I haven't heard France referred to as a "victor nation" since I was a boy in
the '60s.

And even then it was only done to placate DeGaulle, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:20:39 +0100, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Had the U.S. not been attacked by Japan, it's unlikely that we would have
>> declared war on Germany alone.
>
>I don't have the details handy, but AFAIR: USA declared war on Japan and as
>Japan and Germany where allies, Germany then declared war on the USA.
>
>Am I wrong?

Actually this isn't exactly correct. While it's true that Hitler
declared war on America after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he was not
obigated by treaty to do so.

The specifics of the treaty required him to declare war on America IF
America attacked Japan, not the other way around.

It isn't clear why Hitler decided to declare war on the U.S. It is
possible he, like Japan, underestimated the ability of America to
effectively wage war.

Corky Scott

[ShawnD2112]

I'll chime in here and ask my fellow American countrymen what year the Nazi
party rose to power. The event of Pearl Harbor was important, but the date
probably wouldn't be remembered by any that weren't alive at the time here
in the UK. It's not a seminal date in their history, any more than the date
Germany invaded Poland is important in the US. Likewise, most Americans
don't know when Paris was liberated, but I'll bet most French people have
some idea.

Shawn
"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:aX5Bb.473209$Fm2.460844@attbi_s04...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
> >
>
> > *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
> > Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in
the
> > US, I assume.
>
> Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US of a
> provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date important
in
> world history is ludicrous. It was the precipitating event that drew the
US
> into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe.
Saying
> Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying the
> rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history.
>
>
>

[Michael 182]

Bob, Shawn,

Read the thread. The confusion about date versus event was cleared up
yesterday.

Michael

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
> I'll chime in here and ask my fellow American countrymen what year the
Nazi
> party rose to power. The event of Pearl Harbor was important, but the
date
> probably wouldn't be remembered by any that weren't alive at the time here
> in the UK. It's not a seminal date in their history, any more than the
date
> Germany invaded Poland is important in the US. Likewise, most Americans
> don't know when Paris was liberated, but I'll bet most French people have
> some idea.
>
> Shawn
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:aX5Bb.473209$Fm2.460844@attbi_s04...
> >
> > "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
> > > Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in
> the
> > > US, I assume.
> >
> > Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US of
a
> > provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date important
> in
> > world history is ludicrous. It was the precipitating event that drew the
> US
> > into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe.
> Saying
> > Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying
the
> > rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tony Cox]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
> France is considered a victor nation along with England, Russia and the
> United States. Among the four of them they got to carve up Germany and
> Austria.
>
> Not that there's anything wrong with the winners getting their piece of
the
> pie. But why France? And if it was done to placate CDG - who the hell was
he
> to demand being considered a victor?
>
> I just never understood that.
>

The big worry after the end of the war was that France would
go communist. Restoration of their national pride was key to
enhancing the prestige of non-communists. This was also logic
behind restoring Vietnam to France (although the latter was
more a UK thing than a US one, strangely enough considering
what happened later).

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[Brian Burger]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Michael Nouak wrote:

>
> "Geoffrey Barnes" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ink.net...
> > "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> > > whenever I see the space shuttle - that
> > > the heat shield ceramic plates on the
> > > space shuttle are made in Austria
> >
> > And if you ever watched Candian TV, you would think that the full name of
> > the Space Shuttle is really, "The American Space Shuttle with it's
> > Candian-Built Robot Arm"! :)
>
> Ha! Just when I thought it was the "Candian-Built Robot Arm with its
> American Space Shuttle"...

I think you both mean "Canadian" - note the extra A! :) (eh?)

I've also noticed the Canadarm-Shuttle thing - most of the Shuttle footage
Canadian TV shows have the Maple-Leaf-decaled Arm right at screen centre,
too.

Brian.

[Dave]

"Big John" > wrote in message > Martin
>
> Would have thought those in Europe would remember as it lead to the US
> getting involved in the European conflict and helping to defeat
> Germany, Italy, etc.
>
> Big John
>
> How short the memory. You probably would have been speaking German.

Big John your are a grade 1Asshole - Martin already speaks German, he is
Austrian.

The date of the attack on Pearl Harbour is not in grained on the minds of
Europeans. Lets face it we do not commemorate when the war started
(depending on which country you are from it started on different dates
anyway). The second world war did not start on 7 th December 1941. That was
only the date the Japanese gave the US an invitation to join the war they
could not refuse.

[ShawnD2112]

Roger that. Noticed after I transmitted. Still, it was a fun debate to
follow...
"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:8RnBb.4989$8y1.25566@attbi_s52...
> Bob, Shawn,
>
> Read the thread. The confusion about date versus event was cleared up
> yesterday.
>
> Michael
>
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'll chime in here and ask my fellow American countrymen what year the
> Nazi
> > party rose to power. The event of Pearl Harbor was important, but the
> date
> > probably wouldn't be remembered by any that weren't alive at the time
here
> > in the UK. It's not a seminal date in their history, any more than the
> date
> > Germany invaded Poland is important in the US. Likewise, most Americans
> > don't know when Paris was liberated, but I'll bet most French people
have
> > some idea.
> >
> > Shawn
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > news:aX5Bb.473209$Fm2.460844@attbi_s04...
> > >
> > > "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:34:55 GMT, Geoffrey Barnes wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > *hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor.
> > > > Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known
in
> > the
> > > > US, I assume.
> > >
> > > Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US
of
> a
> > > provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date
important
> > in
> > > world history is ludicrous. It was the precipitating event that drew
the
> > US
> > > into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe.
> > Saying
> > > Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying
> the
> > > rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dave]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:FB7Bb.469677$Tr4.1294247@attbi_s03...
> > > You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese
> > > agression? I doubt that the USA would have remained neutral as there
> have
> > been some
> > > attackes by german submarines in US ports and en-route on the Atlantic
> and
> > > the US more and more supporting England.
> >
> > Well, in many ways Hitler was a fool (attacking the U.S.S.R before
> finishing
> > off Great Britain, for example, was just plain stupid), but I don't
think
> he
> > would have drawn the U.S. into the war by choice.
>
> German and American naval forces were duking it out in the North Atlantic
> before 7 Dec 41, which IMO would have led to the US eventually entering
the
> war at some point. The USS Greer attacked, and was then counter-attacked
by,
> a U-Boat in September (I think), and the USS Reuben James was sunk late
> October. The question is, would the US have entered the war soon enough to
> make a difference without the Japanese attack?
>
> IMO, most of the credit for winning the war in Europe should go to the
> Brits, for having the stamina to hold out for as long as they did. If they
> had lost it in '40 or early '41, the world would definitely be a different
> place today. As it was, they held out long enough for a) Hitler to invade
> Russia ("How to Throw Away Your Resources 101"), and for b) the US to
throw
> its industrial might into the fight. The combined Russian and American war
> efforts then eventually turned the tide against Germany, leading to a
sound
> defeat. There's no telling what would have happened if it had been just
> England and Russia, or England and America. Why France is considered a
> "victor" nation, I don't know.
>
> Mike

Politics - the French were and always have been a total waste of space and
were mightily ****ed off went he British sunk their navy after they
surrendered.

The French have always resented the English speakers for liberating France
and standing up to the Germans.

Even today with the European Union. the French are the poodles of the
Germans.

Dave

[Tony Cox]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big John" > wrote in message > Martin
> >
> > How short the memory. You probably would have been speaking German.
>
> Big John your are a grade 1Asshole - Martin already speaks German, he is
> Austrian.

Surely he should be speaking Australian?

>
> The date of the attack on Pearl Harbour is not in grained on the minds of
> Europeans. Lets face it we do not commemorate when the war started
> (depending on which country you are from it started on different dates
> anyway). The second world war did not start on 7 th December 1941. That
was
> only the date the Japanese gave the US an invitation to join the war they
> could not refuse.
>

I suppose that date is as good as any -- after all, that's the
date that there were the maximum number of participants -- and
it never technically was a 'world war', since not everyone took
part.

It is an important date from the British perspective. When
Churchill heard the news he is reported to have said that "Today
we have won the war".

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[Tony Cox]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> IMO, most of the credit for winning the war in Europe should go to the
> Brits, for having the stamina to hold out for as long as they did.

And particularly (bringing this thread OT) to the lads in the RAF,
and the designers and builders of the Spitfire and Hurricane.

> .................................................. .......................
If they
> had lost it in '40 or early '41, the world would definitely be a different
> place today. As it was, they held out long enough for a) Hitler to invade
> Russia ("How to Throw Away Your Resources 101"), and for b) the US to
throw
> its industrial might into the fight.
>

It was a close thing, not helped of course by JFK's
ambassador father & his continual reports of Britain's
imminent collapse.

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[Big John]

Dave

I wonder which occupation zone Martin was in?

He may be bi-lingual and speak Russian also? If he grew up under the
Russians of that era I can understand where he is coming from.

I wonder why those who now enjoy the benefits of the US getting Into
the European phase of WWII and providing the hardware and majority of
manpower after Dunkirk and the surrender of France, have such a hard
time giving us credit.

I'm wondering if Martin feels he would have the lifestyle he has today
if Austria had continued to be occupied by Germany?

On the US remembrance of Pearl Harbor. It is none of anyone else's
business. It happened to us and our blood was spilled and we can give
remembrances as we see fit.

All that being said, I wish the H..... A..'s would just shut up and
step out of the picture. It's our date of remembrance, not theirs.


Big John

You get one more shot. I'm getting pretty close to the
end..................


On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:54:13 -0000, "Dave" >
wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message > Martin
>>
>> Would have thought those in Europe would remember as it lead to the US
>> getting involved in the European conflict and helping to defeat
>> Germany, Italy, etc.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>> How short the memory. You probably would have been speaking German.
>
>Big John your are a grade 1Asshole - Martin already speaks German, he is
>Austrian.
>
>The date of the attack on Pearl Harbour is not in grained on the minds of
>Europeans. Lets face it we do not commemorate when the war started
>(depending on which country you are from it started on different dates
>anyway). The second world war did not start on 7 th December 1941. That was
>only the date the Japanese gave the US an invitation to join the war they
>could not refuse.
>

[Rob Perkins]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:16:53 +0100, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>> I say, a couple of your border guards can be real martinets.)
>
>martinets?

A martinet is a person with police or military authority who makes a
point of using all of it, especially to incovenience people or for
self-aggrandizement.

It's how I came, one day, to be liable for the import tax on a bicycle
which I didn't own, since my roommate didn't speak the best German. No
argument to the contrary would phase him; he was bound and determined
to collect that import tax, even though the language on importation of
personal goods was very clearly explained, and the both of us were
very properly registered in a nearby Austrian town.

100 whole shillings, that time. I filed a complaint with the border
authority before I left the country. An official there explained that
it should never have happened at all.

Rob

[Montblack]

("Phil McAverty" wrote)
> I don't think so. The single biggest event that really started the chain
of events leading to the end of the war was Hitler's decision to attack the
Soviet Union.

> It was Hitler's biggest mistake - made the same mistake as Napoleon. The
> mistake ended up destroying their armies. The Germans put their toughest
> soldiers on the Eastern Front, leaving "softer" soldiers for the D Day
> landing troops to face. Being in France was a holiday compared to the
> Eastern Front.


If I have to rank this - I think Russia had more to do with the German
defeat in WWII than did the involvement of the US.

What Russia and Germany did to each other on the Eastern Front, from
1941-1945, is staggering to our western sensibilities.

Ultimately, Russia defeated the Germans ...with our help.

(Family note)
My Uncle didn't land on the Normandy beaches on D-Day, he went over a few
days later.
Uncle Jack enjoyed saying - "I beat Eisenhower to France!"

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Dave]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:16:53 +0100, Martin Hotze
> > wrote:
>
> >> I say, a couple of your border guards can be real martinets.)
> >
> >martinets?
>
> A martinet is a person with police or military authority who makes a
> point of using all of it, especially to incovenience people or for
> self-aggrandizement.
>
That description fits most Sheriffs

[Jay Honeck]

> (Family note)
> My Uncle didn't land on the Normandy beaches on D-Day, he went over a few
> days later.
> Uncle Jack enjoyed saying - "I beat Eisenhower to France!"

My Father -- a rear-echelon Captain in the Signal Corps during World War
II -- had nothing but wonderful things to say about his time in France.
(Although he didn't have anything good to say about the natives.) He
transferred there (from England) after the battle front was well into
Germany, and -- from the few tales he would tell -- his life consisted of
long periods of poker, partying and some minor military trials. Later, he
would assist at the Nuremburg trials, which wasn't so fun.

My Mother, who lived with her Mother-in-law for the duration of the war,
would always grow uncomfortable when the subject of his time in France was
broached. I never found out why, exactly, but I suspect there was a good
reason...

He did tell me that they bought there first post-war house with his poker
winnings!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Phil McAverty" wrote)
> > I don't think so. The single biggest event that really started the chain
> of events leading to the end of the war was Hitler's decision to attack
the
> Soviet Union.
>
> > It was Hitler's biggest mistake - made the same mistake as Napoleon. The
> > mistake ended up destroying their armies. The Germans put their toughest
> > soldiers on the Eastern Front, leaving "softer" soldiers for the D Day
> > landing troops to face. Being in France was a holiday compared to the
> > Eastern Front.
>
>
> If I have to rank this - I think Russia had more to do with the German
> defeat in WWII than did the involvement of the US.
>
> What Russia and Germany did to each other on the Eastern Front, from
> 1941-1945, is staggering to our western sensibilities.
>
> Ultimately, Russia defeated the Germans ...with our help.
>
> (Family note)
> My Uncle didn't land on the Normandy beaches on D-Day, he went over a few
> days later.
> Uncle Jack enjoyed saying - "I beat Eisenhower to France!"

>
> --
> Montblack
> http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif
>
>
>

[Tony Cox]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tony Cox" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >
> > Surely he should be speaking Australian?
>
> I would call you a dumbass, but I am a nice person, so I _won't_ do
that....
>
> http://sh1.antville.org/stories/601049/
> http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/opinion/staffviews/1110_austrian.html
> http://www.austria-cafe.com/
> http://www.sagen.at/texte/gegenwart/oesterreich/allgemein/oesterreich.html
>

Hilarious! An e-mail designed to irritate that hit the mark
for once. I'd never realized that Austrians were so sensitive.

Cheers!

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> My Father -- a rear-echelon Captain in the Signal Corps during World War
> II -- had nothing but wonderful things to say about his time in France.

Mine was a BAR gunner with the "big red one". Hit the line about two weeks
before the Bulge. He didn't have much good to say about France. Or anyplace
else he fought. He was also at the trials.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Rob Perkins]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:31:49 -0000, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:

>I'll chime in here and ask my fellow American countrymen what year the Nazi
>party rose to power.

1933. And I have to say, "na und?", because I suspect I'm
statistically unique among Americans for knowing it.

Rob, who didn't Google for the answer

[Michael 182]

My father was a field medic (He was a med student at the time). I can't
imagine the horrors he encountered, but I know he has never talked about
them or any other aspect of the war with his kids...

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:44 GMT, Rob Perkins
> wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:31:49 -0000, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:
>
>>I'll chime in here and ask my fellow American countrymen what year the Nazi
>>party rose to power.
>
>1933. And I have to say, "na und?", because I suspect I'm
>statistically unique among Americans for knowing it.
>
>Rob, who didn't Google for the answer

I also knew the answer, but then I've been reading on World War II
history since I was a kid back in the 50's.

Corky Scott

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Rob Perkins > writes:

> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:31:49 -0000, "ShawnD2112"
> > wrote:
>
> >I'll chime in here and ask my fellow American countrymen what year the Nazi
> >party rose to power.
>
> 1933. And I have to say, "na und?", because I suspect I'm
> statistically unique among Americans for knowing it.

Reasonably likely. I thought 1933, but I already know I'm
statistically unique in a lot of ways myself (love the phrase,
incidentally).

Pearl Harbor Day is well-remembered because we've just recently lost
the people who heard about it on the radio as a big shock (and not all
of them, there are still some around). The coming to power of the
Nazis wasn't the same sort of immediate shock, so far as I can tell
from reading histories (I wasn't there at the time; either time).

That is to say, the memory value of Pearl Harbor has exceeded its
historic importance for the past 50 years, but is now declining
rapidly.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Jay Honeck]

> That is to say, the memory value of Pearl Harbor has exceeded its
> historic importance for the past 50 years, but is now declining
> rapidly.

In their times, "Remember the Maine!" and "Remember the Alamo!" rang with
the same resonance that "Remember Pearl Harbor!" does now.

Of course, for our generation, they've *all* been preempted by "Remember
September 11th!"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"