On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:35:03 +0900, Ernest Schaal
<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:

>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?

Why did the US?

Why was the US (Esso) selling oil to the Germans via a Swedish
subsidiary as late as 1943, even though the US had been at war with
Germany since the end of 1941? Same reason they don't go to war with
us in 1939 - because there's better money in supplying weaponry
compared to actually fighting a war, as the US and the UK are
currently discovering now that their little plan to rip off Iraq's oil
has been spotted by the rest of the world.

Michil