<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii</id>
  <title type="text">soc.history.war.world-war-ii Google Group</title>
  <subtitle type="text">
  History &amp; events of World War Two. (Moderated)
  </subtitle>
  <link href="/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/feed/atom_v1_0_msgs.xml" rel="self" title="soc.history.war.world-war-ii feed"/>
  <updated>2009-11-28T03:32:41Z</updated>
  <generator uri="http://groups.google.co.uk" version="1.99">Google Groups</generator>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Bruce Burden</name>
  <email>bruc...@realtime.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-28T03:32:41Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/d390431cd5e41cb0/d893e8ffa77bd9ad?show_docid=d893e8ffa77bd9ad</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/d390431cd5e41cb0/d893e8ffa77bd9ad?show_docid=d893e8ffa77bd9ad"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Most maneuverable fighter.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I am not going to argue, for or against, the statement &lt;br&gt; above. I would, however, like to know why you have selected &lt;br&gt; wing loading as the telling arguement, as opposed, to say, &lt;br&gt; roll rate. &lt;br&gt; Personally, such open ended questions can&#39;t be defined, &lt;br&gt; therefore, can&#39;t be answered, and the discussion will loop
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Padraigh ProAmerica</name>
  <email>ogro...@webtv.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-28T02:36:14Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/d390431cd5e41cb0/261eb1fd4bcbebc9?show_docid=261eb1fd4bcbebc9</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/d390431cd5e41cb0/261eb1fd4bcbebc9?show_docid=261eb1fd4bcbebc9"/>
  <title type="text">Most maneuverable fighter.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  In a discussion with someone the other day, this subject came up. We &lt;br&gt; kicked around the usual suspects- P-51 Mustang; Spitfire, ME-109, Zero. &lt;br&gt; But- I remember reading several years ago that the real answer was the &lt;br&gt; twin-engined P-61 Black Widow night-fighter; the P-61 could reportedly &lt;br&gt; turn INSIDE a Spitfire!
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>aakermit</name>
  <email>aaker...@earthlink.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T21:42:30Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/1d07caf59fa2df36/12a0e5d586438c04?show_docid=12a0e5d586438c04</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/1d07caf59fa2df36/12a0e5d586438c04?show_docid=12a0e5d586438c04"/>
  <title type="text">Re: WWII in HD</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I think maybe this same approach was used for the series &amp;quot;WWII in &lt;br&gt; Color&amp;quot; that came out a couple of years ago. The good news in all this &lt;br&gt; is that there remains an audience for this material and &amp;quot;newbies&amp;quot; are &lt;br&gt; being exposed to this history for the first time. &lt;br&gt; -Greg
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alan</name>
  <email>alan_nor...@comcast.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T20:27:32Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/9e9546315ddcbeb1?show_docid=9e9546315ddcbeb1</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/9e9546315ddcbeb1?show_docid=9e9546315ddcbeb1"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Eisenhower vs. Devers on crossing the Rhine</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I think there was some fear by the Americans that they would be &lt;br&gt; perceived as handing the government to De Gaulle. They wanted a free &lt;br&gt; election to allow the French to chose whoever they wanted. I&#39;m certain &lt;br&gt; you know far more than I about post war French politics, so I&#39;ll &lt;br&gt; gladly agree with your assessment of what happened vs what might have
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Louis C</name>
  <email>louis...@yahoo.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-27T18:58:28Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/3783732b4cfa1aa0?show_docid=3783732b4cfa1aa0</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/3783732b4cfa1aa0?show_docid=3783732b4cfa1aa0"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Eisenhower vs. Devers on crossing the Rhine</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Alan wrote: &lt;br&gt; There is no doubt that France would have ended up an independent &lt;br&gt; country. &lt;br&gt; But the postwar elections saw a new generation entering politics, with &lt;br&gt; the old elites thoroughly discredited by both the 1940 defeat and &lt;br&gt; their colllaborationist record under Vichy. Had the Americans run the &lt;br&gt; country, they would likely have supported &amp;quot;tried and true&amp;quot; political
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Don Phillipson</name>
  <email>e...@spamblock.ncf.ca</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T20:11:45Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/c36eda54ba067049/51ebb023cb19f97c?show_docid=51ebb023cb19f97c</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/c36eda54ba067049/51ebb023cb19f97c?show_docid=51ebb023cb19f97c"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Was Hitler a beliver in theism?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  that &lt;br&gt; eg &lt;br&gt; Answers are non-simple i.e. we should not expect the same &lt;br&gt; personal beliefs at all dates in a life, or uniformity between &lt;br&gt; private beliefs and public practice. Verifiable facts include: &lt;br&gt; 1. Hitler was raised a Catholic, as was normal for everyone &lt;br&gt; (except Jews) in Austria. &lt;br&gt; 2. As head of government, Hitler supervised Third Reich
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Dave</name>
  <email>davidwi...@comcast.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T18:14:11Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/1d07caf59fa2df36/0025ed8c9edc685a?show_docid=0025ed8c9edc685a</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/1d07caf59fa2df36/0025ed8c9edc685a?show_docid=0025ed8c9edc685a"/>
  <title type="text">Re: WWII in HD</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  My hunch is that documentarians over the years have plucked the most &lt;br&gt; dramatic and instructive shots from other documentaries, particularly &lt;br&gt; the latter. This &amp;quot;HD&amp;quot; effort seems to include a lot of stuff that &lt;br&gt; remained in the archives or ended up on the cutting room floor. I &lt;br&gt; think the two most used shots are of the Arizona exploding and of
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alan</name>
  <email>alan_nor...@comcast.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T18:13:30Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/42ccbd0bcdf207ba?show_docid=42ccbd0bcdf207ba</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/42ccbd0bcdf207ba?show_docid=42ccbd0bcdf207ba"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Eisenhower vs. Devers on crossing the Rhine</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  The Americans avowed purpose was self determination. At least this was &lt;br&gt; their aim under FDR. I don&#39;t know if this would have been achieved, &lt;br&gt; whenever the US meddles in another countries politics it usually turns &lt;br&gt; out bad for everyone concerned. &lt;br&gt; Another aspect is the distrust of De Gaulle&#39;s motives by the US and
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>SolomonW</name>
  <email>solom...@nospammail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T18:06:58Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/fdaa7e983fcf1e0c?show_docid=fdaa7e983fcf1e0c</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/fdaa7e983fcf1e0c?show_docid=fdaa7e983fcf1e0c"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Eisenhower vs. Devers on crossing the Rhine</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  An allegation made at the time, that I think is correct is that De Gaulle &lt;br&gt; wanted to remove away from the center of power as many Frenchmen with &lt;br&gt; political ideals that he disapproved of. So he put them in military units &lt;br&gt; under officers that he controlled far away. Several communist felt that the &lt;br&gt; army was more a prison.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>SolomonW</name>
  <email>solom...@nospammail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T18:06:51Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/c36eda54ba067049/b299adb53844737a?show_docid=b299adb53844737a</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/c36eda54ba067049/b299adb53844737a?show_docid=b299adb53844737a"/>
  <title type="text">Was Hitler a beliver in theism?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Hitler was an opportunist and a liar. What he said often should not be &lt;br&gt; believed. Still all we have on this question are his comments. So here is a &lt;br&gt; page here on Hitler&#39;s religious beliefs which discusses several of his &lt;br&gt; comments &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; My question is do you think that Hitler believed in some form of theism?
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Louis C</name>
  <email>louis...@yahoo.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T09:02:01Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/69f4edb6c173dbd9?show_docid=69f4edb6c173dbd9</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/69f4edb6c173dbd9?show_docid=69f4edb6c173dbd9"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Eisenhower vs. Devers on crossing the Rhine</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  There certainly was for a while, though I wonder how much it was &lt;br&gt; really believed, deep down, as opposed to it being acquiesced to as a &lt;br&gt; narrative that everybody could agree with. Remember that people who &lt;br&gt; had been adults during WWII didn&#39;t start stepping aside before the &lt;br&gt; 1960s. Until then, the hatreds born from the war were still very much
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>WaltBJ</name>
  <email>waltb...@mindspring.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-26T00:22:53Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/1d07caf59fa2df36/aa55eb19fc6ab57d?show_docid=aa55eb19fc6ab57d</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/1d07caf59fa2df36/aa55eb19fc6ab57d?show_docid=aa55eb19fc6ab57d"/>
  <title type="text">Re: WWII in HD</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  You are correct. It is film that someone has dug up out of archives &lt;br&gt; somewhere. I heard a rumor that some had surfaced in Australia of all &lt;br&gt; places. So far no one on any of the programs has mentioned where they &lt;br&gt; were found. I have seen Tarawa, Kwajalein, Peleliu and B17s and &lt;br&gt; aircrews in England and US infantry in Germany. One B17 scene showed
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alan</name>
  <email>alan_nor...@comcast.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-25T18:50:12Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/4e91803a20719ea3?show_docid=4e91803a20719ea3</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/4e91803a20719ea3?show_docid=4e91803a20719ea3"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Eisenhower vs. Devers on crossing the Rhine</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I&#39;ve always thought Eisenhower&#39;s mistakes were when he ignored &lt;br&gt; logistical considerations. Most glaringly when he prioritized Market- &lt;br&gt; Garden over clearing the Schelde Estuary. Even well after the fact he &lt;br&gt; thought his decision was the right one. Once again, he thought winning &lt;br&gt; the bridgehead at Arnhem would shorten the war.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>ThePro</name>
  <email>pierrot.rob...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-25T16:09:15Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/65ba333d633536a4?show_docid=65ba333d633536a4</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/65ba333d633536a4?show_docid=65ba333d633536a4"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Eisenhower vs. Devers on crossing the Rhine</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  &amp;lt;snip&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; AFAIK there was quite a bit of propaganda about this in the post-war &lt;br&gt; years. &lt;br&gt; I have some French friends, in their forties, who learned in school &lt;br&gt; and still believe that De Gaulle &amp;quot;saved France from the Americans&amp;quot; and &lt;br&gt; that Overlord was not needed because the French Resistance by itself &lt;br&gt; was just about to get rid of the Germans. Go figure...
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Geoffrey Sinclair</name>
  <email>gsinclai...@froggy.com.au</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-25T15:52:09Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/5140301121fe969e?show_docid=5140301121fe969e</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/browse_thread/thread/aefd42ceb1c3b393/5140301121fe969e?show_docid=5140301121fe969e"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Eisenhower vs. Devers on crossing the Rhine</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  The article is picking up on the book, Decision at Strasbourg, &lt;br&gt; Ike&#39;s Strategic Mistake to halt the Sixth Army Group at the &lt;br&gt; Rhine in 1944 by David Colley. &lt;br&gt; The book seems to use quotes from people like Patton and &lt;br&gt; makes the usual claims, the road to Berlin might have been &lt;br&gt; opened. It also claims it was going to be a sizeable US force
  </summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
