"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BDD9E393.2DB7F%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> in article 41b3dee5@news.greennet.net, allan connochie at
> allan@EASYNET.CO.UK wrote on 12/6/04 9:27 AM:
>
> >
> > "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
> > news:BDD9BC27.2DB63%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
> >> in article 41b3af3e@news.greennet.net, allan connochie at
> >> allan@EASYNET.CO.UK wrote on 12/6/04 6:03 AM:
> >>
> >>> I think the French sacrifice of around 900,000 dead hardly pales into
> >>> insignificance.  In human life they gave far more towards the war than
the
> >>> US.  In real terms never mind bothering about percentages when their
> >>> contribution dwarves the American one, as does the British sacrifice.
Of
> >>> course the French collapsed.  I'm not arguing with that.  They did
however
> >>> share a border with the then greatest military machine on earth.  We
had the
> >>> Channel and the North Sea as a defense, whilst the US had massive
oceans. My
> >>> point was that France declared war on Germany when the latter country
> >>> attacked a third country.  Both the US and the USSR actually waited
until
> >>> they were either attacked or had war declared on them by Germany. By
England
> >>> I take it you mean the UK/Britain?  Of course it nearly didn't survive
the
> >>> Battle of Britain but the point was it was victorious in that said
battle. I
> >>> repeat would D-Day have been remotely possible had Britain fallen? Can
the
> >>> British and Canadian contributions to D-Day be regarded as
insignificant?
> >>>
> >>> Allan
> >>
> >> You condemn the US for waiting to join the war? Why did England wait
nine
> >> years after China was first attacked to get involved?
> >
> > Pardon!  When did I condemn anyone? Neither I am belittling any nation's
> > contribution.  Rather I'm pointing out the error in your posts when you
> > dismiss the war efforts of other nations. In my first post on this
subject I
> > end off with the statement "all the said countries made large and
> > significant contributions".   Clearly saying that all the countries
> > mentioned made massive sacrifices. Sometimes though you have to sit back
and
> > compare figures and facts to truly understand and appreciate the
sacrifice
> > other smaller nation's made.
> >
> > Also when talking to other nationalities it's best to have some regard
as to
> > how you portray the subject. For instance you stated that the English
just
> > managed to survive the Battle of Britain.  It's only a couple of days
ago in
> > this thread that you were pulled up by myself for wrongly calling the UK
by
> > the name Britain.  You said you knew the history of the formation of the
> > state.  Yet here you are again, cross-posting to a Scottish newsgroup,
and
> > writing all non-English Brits out of the war entirely. To give you an
idea
> > of the Scottish contribution to the war effort.  We had around 50,000
> > military killed in the conflict.  That is of course 1% of the entire
> > population.  Had America had the same casualty rate then you would have
had
> > (based on current population) around 2.6 million deaths.  In fact you
had
> > 295,000 deaths.  Now again this is not belittling the US sacrifice
because
> > again it was large in itself, but again it maybe explains why you get
some
> > negative reaction from folk from smaller countries when you discount the
war
> > sacrifices of their parent's and grand-parent's generations.
> >
> > Allan
>
> While the number of British deaths might be high per capita, it is
> ridiculous to use that as the standard. Such a criteria would give too
much
> contribution to small nations whose impact was less than some larger
> countries.

I'm not trying to inflate the importance of Scottish contributions rather
than trying to show why your remarks get some people going.


>
> It is not saying that the British didn't fight bravely, only it is saying
> that the contribution to the cause wasn't as great as some anglophiles wou
ld
> suggest.

Well it was great as far as they were concerned.  Who else stopped the Nazi
progress in the west if it wasn't the UK and her allies?  With a little help
from some friends Britain basically saved herself.  Plus you've still not
answered the two main points I put.  Would D-Day have been possible if the
Germans had won the Battle Of Britain?  Was the British and Canadian
contribution to the D-Day landings etc insignificant?  I think the liberated
French realise the liberation of Europe was essentially a joint campaign
even if 'some' Americans nowadays don't.  In Fecamp and Rouen this summer
they were celebrating the D-Day anniversary and both places were awash with
British and Canadian flags as well as the American one.


Allan