c campaign under General MacArthur as supreme commander
> > > were many times fewer than in the European theatre under Eisenhower.
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob.
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Rick Littrell" <[EM
t; From: "Rick Littrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
>
> > Dear Bob,
> >
> > With respect to the US contribution to the
many times fewer than in the European theatre under Eisenhower.
> Regards,
> Bob.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rick Littrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re:
under Eisenhower.
Regards,
Bob.
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Littrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
> Dear Bob,
>
> With respect to
Whether or not the US took Rome or invaded in 1944 the war was lost for
Germany. They could no longer replace their losses while the Soviet
ability to put in men and material into the field was steadily rising.
The German army was essentially an army within an army. A small, highly
mobil
The US involvement in the fighting in Europe
was not pivotal to the outcome.
Clearly any good student of history knows that US losses in Europe
during WWII were completely drawfed by those of Germany and Russian, but
to claim that US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal
to
The US involvement in the fighting in Europe
was not pivotal to the outcome.
Clearly any good student of history knows that US losses in Europe
during WWII were completely drawfed by those of Germany and Russian, but
to claim that US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal
to
-
From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Bob,
Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is
possible that my source
know.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: bmolloy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 4/4/05 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Hello Hakan,
Again with respect, it is not "well known" that the
Pacific losses in WW2 were great
quot;Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
>
> Bob,
>
> Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is
> possible that my sou
the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and
of course the source.
Regards,
Bob.
- Original Message -
From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy
Bob,
Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is
possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who
says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were
10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of
Bulge. It is also so
Hello Hakan,
(snip)
> The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the
> European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking
> out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they
> did in Europe.
With respect, the total allied losses under General
M
Doug,
The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the
European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking
out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they
did in Europe. Otherwise I find your number interesting and I have
seen them before.
As Darryl pointed ou
I'm not too up on the history either. I do know that militqry
equipment was provided on lend-lease, which meant that if it was still
around after the war, the Brits had to give it back.
So a month or so after V-J day, the U.S. under the influence of Congress
said "OK, time's up, give it back." So
Won't argue with your figures, & I ain't a historian so please if anyone
knows different please say so, but to my knowledge the assistance provided
by the US to Britain during WWII was not "free". It had to be paid back, at
least in part, which is why rationing continued in Britain for so long, we
16 matches
Mail list logo
