Re: This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Whisky-dave, Oct 17, 2011.

  1. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Oct 16, 1:57 am, Rich <> wrote:
    > The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and his
    > colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.
    >
    > http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-
    > labs/index.html


    Welll it's easy isn;t it, how about Michael Faraday ?
    Without him I doubt they#'d hads been a C program or UNIX.

    But we can never really say whether or not one person has the
    ultimate
    of importance in their field as most relay on others.
    Then what aboput teh first grpoup of peole that invented the written
    word or symbol
    without them deniis ritchie or even ourselves would probalby be
    learning/teaching
    how to skin animals or sowing corn or whatever, even camera designers
    would be
    working in fieilds.
    So I';m not sure how relivant it is to go back as say one person isn't
    as important as another.

    I;'d heard that the reason WWII came about was because Hitlers mother
    was going to have an abortion
    but her doctor talked her out of it, so is that doctor responsible for
    WWII .
     
    Whisky-dave, Oct 17, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Whisky-dave

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:30:04 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    <> wrote:
    [...]
    >I;'d heard that the reason WWII came about was because Hitlers mother
    >was going to have an abortion
    >but her doctor talked her out of it, so is that doctor responsible for
    >WWII .


    I guess that depends on which side of the nature-vs-nurture debate you
    come down on. Though, if you figure there were/are plenty folks with
    his nature, it was more the fault of those who gave him the
    opportunity to act on it the way he did.
     
    John A., Oct 17, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Whisky-dave

    Irwell Guest

    On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:30:04 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave wrote:

    > On Oct 16, 1:57 am, Rich <> wrote:
    >> The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and his
    >> colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.
    >>
    >> http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-
    >> labs/index.html

    >
    > Welll it's easy isn;t it, how about Michael Faraday ?
    > Without him I doubt they#'d hads been a C program or UNIX.
    >
    > But we can never really say whether or not one person has the
    > ultimate
    > of importance in their field as most relay on others.
    > Then what aboput teh first grpoup of peole that invented the written
    > word or symbol
    > without them deniis ritchie or even ourselves would probalby be
    > learning/teaching
    > how to skin animals or sowing corn or whatever, even camera designers
    > would be
    > working in fieilds.
    > So I';m not sure how relivant it is to go back as say one person isn't
    > as important as another.
    >
    > I;'d heard that the reason WWII came about was because Hitlers mother
    > was going to have an abortion
    > but her doctor talked her out of it, so is that doctor responsible for
    > WWII .


    And the Virgin Mary should have said "No".
     
    Irwell, Oct 17, 2011
    #3
  4. Whisky-dave

    GMAN Guest

    In article <18qczhqctcj5i$.zsxe0ss7ztnk$>, Irwell <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:30:04 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    >> On Oct 16, 1:57 am, Rich <> wrote:
    >>> The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and his
    >>> colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-
    >>> labs/index.html

    >>
    >> Welll it's easy isn;t it, how about Michael Faraday ?
    >> Without him I doubt they#'d hads been a C program or UNIX.
    >>
    >> But we can never really say whether or not one person has the
    >> ultimate
    >> of importance in their field as most relay on others.
    >> Then what aboput teh first grpoup of peole that invented the written
    >> word or symbol
    >> without them deniis ritchie or even ourselves would probalby be
    >> learning/teaching
    >> how to skin animals or sowing corn or whatever, even camera designers
    >> would be
    >> working in fieilds.
    >> So I';m not sure how relivant it is to go back as say one person isn't
    >> as important as another.
    >>
    >> I;'d heard that the reason WWII came about was because Hitlers mother
    >> was going to have an abortion
    >> but her doctor talked her out of it, so is that doctor responsible for
    >> WWII .

    >
    >And the Virgin Mary should have said "No".


    So should Abrahams wife then.
     
    GMAN, Oct 17, 2011
    #4
  5. Whisky-dave

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 17, 5:30 am, Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > On Oct 16, 1:57 am, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > > The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and his
    > > colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.

    >
    > >http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-
    > > labs/index.html

    >
    > Welll it's easy isn;t it, how about Michael Faraday ?
    > Without him I doubt they#'d hads been a C program or UNIX.
    >


    Now were getting into an absolutely brilliant TV series that discussed
    what lead to what.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078588/
     
    RichA, Oct 17, 2011
    #5
  6. Whisky-dave

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:23:46 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-10-17 12:56:39 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <> said:
    >
    >> Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2011-10-17 02:30:04 -0700, Whisky-dave <>
    >>> said:
    >>>>
    >>>> I;'d heard that the reason WWII came about was because Hitlers mother
    >>>> was going to have an abortion
    >>>> but her doctor talked her out of it, so is that doctor responsible
    >>>> for WWII .
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> It would be just as reasonable to say the only reason Hitler came to
    >>> power, and subsequently WWII came about, was because the Central
    >>> powers lost WWI, and Germany was gutted by the Western Allies in 1919
    >>> with the Treaty of Versailles.

    >>
    >> Quite.
    >>
    >> Also, you could say the Central Powers lost the war unconditionally because
    >> the U.S. entered it in 1917, with great quantities of fresh troops,
    >> munitions and food. The European forces by then were pretty much exhausted
    >> on both sides, and probably would have had to settle the whole thing
    >> eventually with something much less drastic and punitive than the Versailles
    >> treaty.

    >
    >True the US entrance prevented the stalemate. However the French were
    >bent on revenge and always had the intent to cripple Germany totally.
    >Versailles was selected by the French as a return to the site of their
    >humiliation at the end of the Franco-Prussian War.
    >
    >>
    >> Also, if Chamberlain, humiliated after Munich, had not out of pique made
    >> those foolish guarantees to Poland, the Poles probably would have been
    >> reasonable about negotiating with Hitler over the matter of returning Danzig
    >> to Germany -- which most British, even the bellicose Churchill, thought
    >> should have been done anyway. Danzig was ethnically 95% German and wanted to
    >> be returned to Germany just as much as Hitler wanted it returned. There
    >> might have been a war anyway, but it wouldn't have been another world war.
    >> Hitler certainly never wanted war with Britain or any other part of the
    >> west.

    >
    >Again this leads back to Versailles and the effective dismantling of
    >the Prussian Empire, Danzig being in the pre-Versailles East-Prussia.
    >Then there was Czechoslovakia, being carved from the Austro-Hungarian
    >Empire, with one big chunk coming out of Germany, isolating another
    >group of ethnic germans. All providing fuel for Mr. H and WWII.
    >
    >Strangely enough, the Balkan states came out of Versailles as
    >independent nations and enjoyed relative peace through the 1920's &
    >30's. Stalin put an end to that with Tito's help. When that ruthless
    >dictator died so did Yugoslavia creating the return to the ethnic and
    >religious wars of an earlier time. Those states now exist prety much as
    >they had been draw at Versailles.


    I think Jermaine had a hand in it as well.

    >> Also, if a certain butterfly had not fluttered by in quite that way at just
    >> the right moment in Indonesia, of course everything might have been
    >> different. ;-)

    >
    >...and there it is.


    I have heard there is evidence that most of the world's governments
    are controlled by a cabal of butterflies. (Why do you think they're
    called "monarchs"?)
     
    John A., Oct 18, 2011
    #6
  7. Whisky-dave

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:37:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Oct 17, 5:30 am, Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >> On Oct 16, 1:57 am, Rich <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and his
    >> > colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.

    >>
    >> >http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-
    >> > labs/index.html

    >>
    >> Welll it's easy isn;t it, how about Michael Faraday ?
    >> Without him I doubt they#'d hads been a C program or UNIX.
    >>

    >
    >Now were getting into an absolutely brilliant TV series that discussed
    >what lead to what.
    >
    >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078588/


    The first Connections series. Much better than the half-hearted
    attempt they made in the 90s, where some of the "connections" were,
    IIRC, that someone happened to be across town doing something
    otherwise unrelated.
     
    John A., Oct 18, 2011
    #7
  8. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Oct 17, 4:41 pm, Irwell <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:30:04 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave wrote:
    > > On Oct 16, 1:57 am, Rich <> wrote:
    > >> The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and his
    > >> colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.

    >
    > >>http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-
    > >> labs/index.html

    >
    > > Welll it's easy isn;t it, how about Michael Faraday ?
    > > Without him I doubt they#'d hads been a C program or UNIX.

    >
    > > But we can never really say whether or not one person has the
    > > ultimate
    > > of importance in their field as most relay on others.
    > > Then what aboput teh first grpoup of peole that invented the written
    > > word or symbol
    > > without them deniis ritchie or even ourselves would probalby be
    > > learning/teaching
    > > how to skin animals or sowing corn or whatever, even camera designers
    > > would be
    > > working in fieilds.
    > > So I';m not sure how relivant it is to go back as say one person isn't
    > > as important as another.

    >
    > > I;'d heard that the reason WWII came about was because Hitlers mother
    > > was going to have an abortion
    > > but her doctor talked her out of it, so is that doctor responsible for
    > > WWII .

    >
    > And the Virgin Mary should have said "No".


    She was no virgin..
     
    Whisky-dave, Oct 18, 2011
    #8
  9. Whisky-dave

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 17, 8:36 pm, John A. <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:37:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Oct 17, 5:30 am, Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > >> On Oct 16, 1:57 am, Rich <> wrote:

    >
    > >> > The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and his
    > >> > colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.

    >
    > >> >http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-
    > >> > labs/index.html

    >
    > >> Welll it's easy isn;t it, how about Michael Faraday ?
    > >> Without him I doubt they#'d hads been a C program or UNIX.

    >
    > >Now were getting into an absolutely brilliant TV series that discussed
    > >what lead to what.

    >
    > >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078588/

    >
    > The first Connections series. Much better than the half-hearted
    > attempt they made in the 90s, where some of the "connections" were,
    > IIRC, that someone happened to be across town doing something
    > otherwise unrelated.


    Part of the ugliness of the 1990's one was that it was cheaply shot on
    video. It looked awful.
     
    RichA, Oct 18, 2011
    #9
  10. Whisky-dave

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > > On 2011-10-17 12:56:39 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <> said:
    > >
    > >> Savageduck wrote:
    > >> On 2011-10-17 02:30:04 -0700, Whisky-dave <>
    > >> said:
    > >>>
    > >>> I;'d heard that the reason WWII came about was because Hitlers mother
    > >>> was going to have an abortion but her doctor talked her out of it, so
    > >>> is that doctor responsible for WWII .


    Damned right! I want him drummed out of the AMA >immediately<, if not
    sooner.

    > >> It would be just as reasonable to say the only reason Hitler came
    > >> to power, and subsequently WWII came about, was because the Central
    > >> powers lost WWI, and Germany was gutted by the Western Allies in 1919
    > >> with the Treaty of Versailles.

    > >
    > > Quite.


    Yes, "quite" indeed. As losers have been "gutted" throughout history,
    what was so unique about Germany's plight?

    > > Also, you could say the Central Powers lost the war unconditionally
    > > because the U.S. entered it in 1917, with great quantities of fresh
    > > troops, munitions and food. The European forces by then were pretty
    > > much exhausted on both sides, and probably would have had to settle
    > > the whole thing eventually with something much less drastic and
    > > punitive than the Versailles treaty.

    >
    > True the US entrance prevented the stalemate.


    In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of Nations,
    that led to WWII. The return to isolationist policy, doomed any chance the
    organization had for success.

    > However the French were bent on revenge and always had the intent to cripple
    > Germany totally. Versailles was selected by the French as a return to the
    > site of their humiliation at the end of the Franco-Prussian War.


    This nonsense has been repeated for decades on end, yet it's simply wrong.
    It was highly hypocritical for the Germans to play power politics and then
    cry foul, when their conquerors did likewise.

    Besides, Versailles was a virtual picnic, compared to what Germany wanted
    to impose on prostrate, Bolshevik-led Russia. Ever heard of the Treaty of
    Brest-Litovsk, by any chance?

    > > Also, if Chamberlain, humiliated after Munich, had not out of pique made
    > > those foolish guarantees to Poland, the Poles probably would have been
    > > reasonable about negotiating with Hitler over the matter of returning
    > > Danzig to Germany -- which most British, even the bellicose Churchill,
    > > thought should have been done anyway. Danzig was ethnically 95% German
    > > and wanted to be returned to Germany just as much as Hitler wanted it
    > > returned. There might have been a war anyway, but it wouldn't have been
    > > another world war. Hitler certainly never wanted war with Britain or any
    > > other part of the west.


    Nobody could fathom Herr Schicklegrubber's mind, alas. The lone certainty
    is that he enjoyed seizing upon fears and prejudices, and Versailles gave
    him the excuse he needed to justify Germany's aggressive actions.

    > Again this leads back to Versailles and the effective dismantling of
    > the Prussian Empire, Danzig being in the pre-Versailles East-Prussia.
    > Then there was Czechoslovakia, being carved from the Austro-Hungarian
    > Empire, with one big chunk coming out of Germany, isolating another
    > group of ethnic germans. All providing fuel for Mr. H and WWII.


    France was then the most powerful country in continental Europe, and
    should've been able to stand up to Germany, single-handedly. Sadly, it
    proved to be a paper tiger, and the myth of the supposedly invincible
    panzer hordes began.

    > Strangely enough, the Balkan states came out of Versailles as
    > independent nations and enjoyed relative peace through the 1920's &
    > 30's. Stalin put an end to that with Tito's help. When that ruthless
    > dictator died so did Yugoslavia creating the return to the ethnic and
    > religious wars of an earlier time. Those states now exist prety much as
    > they had been draw at Versailles.


    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    > > Also, if a certain butterfly had not fluttered by in quite that way

    > at just the right moment in Indonesia, of course everything might have
    > been different. ;-)
    >
    > ...and there it is.


    You leave him out of it, he was good bug! A bit flighty, perhaps...

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #10
  11. Whisky-dave

    John Turco Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:07:23 -0500, John Turco <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > France was then the most powerful country in continental Europe, and
    > > should've been able to stand up to Germany, single-handedly. Sadly, it
    > > proved to be a paper tiger, and the myth of the supposedly invincible
    > > panzer hordes began.

    >
    > Its not a myth. One of Guderian's problems was that the 'panzer
    > hordes' did in fact advance so rapidly that the German conventional
    > units were left far behind. No one, French, Belgian, British or
    > German, were prepared for what Guderian could do once his Panzer
    > units were unleashed.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens



    An influential U.S. newspaper (the "New York Times") created
    the mythical "blitkrieg" concept. Alas, research has failed
    to uncover any evidence that the Germans practiced such a
    military doctrine.

    Germany's hordes promptly plowed through lightweights (such
    as Poland and the Netherlands), to nobody's amazement. When
    the same thing happened to big, bad France, it was simply
    assumed that a revolutionary new way of "lightning warfare"
    had been invented.

    No, it wasn't that the Germans were unstoppable. They faced
    either minor powers (e.g., Poland) or incompetent major ones
    (France).

    Indeed, the French army was better equiped than Germany's,
    and far more mechanized. When coupled with the formidable
    Maginot Line, they had every means to bloody the Germans'
    noses, at the very least. [Did they presume the latter
    were just stupid (or too "honorable") to invade neutral
    Belgium?]

    Shockingly, the French quickly collapsed and then, Herr
    Schicklegrubber became bold enough to attack the Soviet
    Union. The Russians' early lack of preparedness further
    contributed to many German victories, and the blitkrieg
    legend grew out of control...it survives to this day,
    largely unchallenged.

    Germany's superb officer corp was the real key to its
    success. Equivalent leadership was sorely absent among
    the other European combatants' armed forces (Britain
    included).

    In the end, the crucial Battle of France was won by men,
    not machines. Fans of the blitkrieg theory conveniently
    overlook this fact, and prefer to dwell in their fantasy
    world(s).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 12, 2011
    #11
  12. Whisky-dave

    John Turco Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    > > John Turco wrote:


    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > > In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
    > > Nations, that led to WWII.

    >
    > <snort>
    >
    > That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?



    Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
    War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
    hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 12, 2011
    #12
  13. Whisky-dave

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>
    >>> John Turco wrote:

    >
    > <heavily edited for brevity>
    >
    >>> In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
    >>> Nations, that led to WWII.

    >>
    >> <snort>
    >>
    >> That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?

    >
    >
    > Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
    > War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
    > hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?
    >



    WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty
    of Versailles.

    WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority
    of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into
    Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 13, 2011
    #13
  14. Whisky-dave

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/13/2011 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-11-12 18:31:07 -0800, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
    >>> Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> John Turco wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <heavily edited for brevity>
    >>>
    >>>>> In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
    >>>>> Nations, that led to WWII.
    >>>>
    >>>> <snort>
    >>>>
    >>>> That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
    >>> War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
    >>> hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the
    >> Treaty of Versailles.

    >
    > Are you in some time-warp. WWI was 1914-1918 Versailles was signed in 1919.


    Typo alert

    >>
    >> WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A
    >> majority of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he
    >> moved into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as
    >> Hitler.

    >
    > Chamberlain, was actually worse than the simplified history tells the
    > story.
    > His appeasement policy started with Mussolini and the invasion of
    > Ethiopia. He went against the advice of Anthony Eden, and effectively
    > recognized the fascist occupation of Ethiopia. He also compounded the
    > Italian & German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Mussolini out
    > maneuvered him in that arena. When it came to confronting Hitler at
    > Munich, Chamberlain undermined French Prime Minister, Edouard Daladier
    > who was in the process of organizing a Three Power summit to settle the
    > Sudeten question. Chamberlain made his agreement with Hitler,
    > deliberately avoiding consulting the French.
    >
    > The French failure to deal with Germany militarily had nothing to do
    > with their political will, but fell on their planners and military
    > leaders. Only De Gaulle voiced opposition to the French defense
    > philosophy but at that time he was small fry, a colonel at the French
    > military academy.
    >
    >

    IIRC DeGaulle was ridiculed for his position. I don't recall if he was
    actually disciplined.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 13, 2011
    #14
  15. Whisky-dave

    John Turco Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:33:04 -0600, John Turco <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:07:23 -0500, John Turco <>
    > >> > wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > France was then the most powerful country in continental Europe,
    > >> > and should've been able to stand up to Germany, single-handedly.
    > >> > Sadly, it proved to be a paper tiger, and the myth of the
    > >> > supposedly invincible panzer hordes began.
    > >>
    > >> Its not a myth. One of Guderian's problems was that the 'panzer
    > >> hordes' did in fact advance so rapidly that the German conventional
    > >> units were left far behind. No one, French, Belgian, British or
    > >> German, were prepared for what Guderian could do once his Panzer
    > >> units were unleashed.
    > >>
    > >> Regards,
    > >>
    > >> Eric Stevens

    > >
    > >
    > > An influential U.S. newspaper (the "New York Times") created
    > > the mythical "blitkrieg" concept. Alas, research has failed
    > > to uncover any evidence that the Germans practiced such a
    > > military doctrine.
    > >
    > > Germany's hordes promptly plowed through lightweights (such
    > > as Poland and the Netherlands), to nobody's amazement. When
    > > the same thing happened to big, bad France, it was simply
    > > assumed that a revolutionary new way of "lightning warfare"
    > > had been invented.
    > >
    > > No, it wasn't that the Germans were unstoppable. They faced
    > > either minor powers (e.g., Poland) or incompetent major ones
    > > (France).

    >
    > With respect, your claims are a load of cobblers. :)


    Poland was an obvious pushover, whereas France had the muscle
    to give Germany a tussle (my, how poetic of me!).

    Do you dispute either of those points?

    > Thanks to Guderian, in 1940-41 the Germans had a style of
    > warfare which completely overwhelmed even the most determined
    > opposition.


    You're not paying attention, my fine, feathered kiwi! The
    Germans hadn't faced any "determined opposition" by the
    Poles, Dutch, Norwegians and French.

    Even the Russians fled in disarray, until they realized
    the gravity of their situation.

    > > Indeed, the French army was better equiped than Germany's,
    > > and far more mechanized. When coupled with the formidable
    > > Maginot Line, they had every means to bloody the Germans'
    > > noses, at the very least. [Did they presume the latter
    > > were just stupid (or too "honorable") to invade neutral
    > > Belgium?]
    > >
    > > Shockingly, the French quickly collapsed and then, Herr
    > > Schicklegrubber became bold enough to attack the Soviet
    > > Union. The Russians' early lack of preparedness further
    > > contributed to many German victories, and the blitkrieg
    > > legend grew out of control...it survives to this day,
    > > largely unchallenged.

    >
    > Quite true, but it is a mistake to interpret this as
    > signifying the Germans had nothing special.


    They must've been practically orgasmic, after their first
    encounter with the U.S. Army. In 1943 (February 19–25),
    at Kassarine Pass, Tunisia, the Germans prevailed...and
    decisively.

    Alas, the American troops were inexperienced and under
    British command. Eventually, they would evolve their
    own able leaders (e.g., the armor magician, General
    George S. Patton) and regularly clobber the Germans.

    Late in WWII, the Army often encircled and captured
    vast numbers of German soldiers. Far more importantly,
    Kassarine Pass was the only main battle that Germany
    won against the U.S.A., during the entire war!

    If "blitkrieg" ever existed as a genuine military
    doctrone, Patton deserves credit for it. The speed
    of his fabled "Third Army" overwhelmed the staunch
    German defenses in France, and the rest is history.

    > > Germany's superb officer corp was the real key to its
    > > success. Equivalent leadership was sorely absent among
    > > the other European combatants' armed forces (Britain
    > > included).
    > >
    > > In the end, the crucial Battle of France was won by men,
    > > not machines. Fans of the blitkrieg theory conveniently
    > > overlook this fact, and prefer to dwell in their fantasy
    > > world(s).

    >
    > Fact? It sounds more like an unsupported opinion.


    Much corroboration exists; I'm not spinning stories, here.

    > You should read 'Panzer Leader' by General Heinz Guderian.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    I've read Patton's "War As I Knew It" (originally published
    in 1947, some two years after his tragic 1945 death). That
    was way back in 1984 or '85, and I don't remember much of
    it; nor am I willing to unearth my paperback edition of the
    book.

    My vivid memory of its painted cover is a different matter.
    It features a striking and colorful scene of Patton, about
    to draw his sidearm.

    He's readying to shoot a stubborn burro, blocking a narrow
    mountain pass in Sicily. The unfortunate animal's carcass
    went over the cliff, enabling Patton's tanks to proceed.

    [Tastefully depicted in "Patton" (1970), with George
    C. Scott in the title role. That Hollywood movie was
    based on Ladislas Farago's "Patton: Ordeal and Triumph"
    (a 1964 biography), also lying around here, somewhere.]

    In any event, both Guderian's and Patton's words should
    be viewd with caution. Their respective perspectives
    were at the tactical level and hence, too narrow to be
    of value in understanding the broader strategic issues
    of WWII.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 21, 2011
    #15
  16. Whisky-dave

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:
    >
    > > On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > >> Neil Harrington wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> John Turco wrote:

    > >
    > > <heavily edited for brevity>
    > >
    > >>> In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
    > >>> Nations, that led to WWII.
    > >>
    > >> <snort>
    > >>
    > >> That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?

    > >
    > >
    > > Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
    > > War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
    > > hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?

    >
    >
    > WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty
    > of Versailles.



    Such "harsh terms" have been common, throughout human history. Germany's
    Herr Schicklegrubber merely used Versailles as a pretext, to start WWII.

    If the more objective U.S. leaders had stepped in, to help negotiate a
    fairer treaty, the war may likely have never begun, in the first place.
    They were unconcerned with the bitterness of European squables; thus,
    Germany probably would've been spared undue punishment and humiliation.

    > WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority
    > of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into
    > Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler.


    That's exactly why the >U.S.< needed to become involved! Leaving matters
    to sniveling weaklings (e.g., Britain's Neville Chamberlain) was sheer
    shortsightedness on the Americans' part, and had tragic consequences.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 21, 2011
    #16
  17. Whisky-dave

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > The French failure to deal with Germany militarily had nothing to do
    > with their political will, but fell on their planners and military
    > leaders. Only De Gaulle voiced opposition to the French defense
    > philosophy but at that time he was small fry, a colonel at the
    > French military academy.



    Despite what George Patton said of "fixed fortications"...the
    building of the Maginot Line wasn't where the "French defense
    philosophy" failed. Making it the centerpiece of defensive
    strategy against a possible German invasion, was plausable
    enough.

    The actual "monument to man's stupidity" involved the poor
    reactions of France's military leadership, once the Germans
    attacked in 1940. Further, the country had been undermined
    by "Fifth Column" elements, such as occurred in Norway (i.e.,
    Vidkun Quisling, the infamous traitor).

    Ironically, in 1944 and '45, the Germans >themselves< made
    far better use of the captured Maginot Line, in attempting
    to repulse the U.S. Army's fierce attacks. Unluckily for
    those brave defenders, the Americans needed to breach the
    imposing chain, and couldn't simply skirt it.

    So, the tremendous U.S. firepower became the proverbial
    irresistible force.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Nov 21, 2011
    #17
  18. Whisky-dave

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/20/2011 9:02 PM, John Turco wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
    >>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> John Turco wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <heavily edited for brevity>
    >>>
    >>>>> In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of
    >>>>> Nations, that led to WWII.
    >>>>
    >>>> <snort>
    >>>>
    >>>> That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World
    >>> War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country
    >>> hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI?

    >>
    >>
    >> WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty
    >> of Versailles.

    >
    >
    > Such "harsh terms" have been common, throughout human history. Germany's
    > Herr Schicklegrubber merely used Versailles as a pretext, to start WWII.


    He did not use it as a Pretext. He stated the obvious, and promised
    relief from its harsh terms. Just because harsh terms were historically
    common, doesn't make them not short sighted and stupid.
    Think our civil war. Had we hung Lee we might easily still be fighting.



    >
    > If the more objective U.S. leaders had stepped in, to help negotiate a
    > fairer treaty, the war may likely have never begun, in the first place.
    > They were unconcerned with the bitterness of European squables; thus,
    > Germany probably would've been spared undue punishment and humiliation.




    True.
    >
    >> WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority
    >> of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into
    >> Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler.

    >
    > That's exactly why the>U.S.< needed to become involved! Leaving matters
    > to sniveling weaklings (e.g., Britain's Neville Chamberlain) was sheer
    > shortsightedness on the Americans' part, and had tragic consequences.
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2011
    #18
  19. Whisky-dave

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 21, 8:49 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:02:04 -0600, John Turco <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:33:04 -0600, John Turco <>
    > >> > wrote:

    >
    > >> >> Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >> >> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:07:23 -0500, John Turco <>
    > >> >> > wrote:

    >
    > >> >> > France was then the most powerful country in continental Europe,
    > >> >> > and should've been able to stand up to Germany, single-handedly.
    > >> >> > Sadly, it proved to be a paper tiger, and the myth of the
    > >> >> > supposedly invincible panzer hordes began.

    >
    > >> >> Its not a myth. One of Guderian's problems was that the 'panzer
    > >> >> hordes' did in fact advance so rapidly that the German conventional
    > >> >> units were left far behind. No one, French, Belgian, British or
    > >> >> German, were prepared for what Guderian could do once his Panzer
    > >> >> units were unleashed.

    >
    > >> >> Regards,

    >
    > >> >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > >> > An influential U.S. newspaper (the "New York Times") created
    > >> > the mythical "blitkrieg" concept. Alas, research has failed
    > >> > to uncover any evidence that the Germans practiced such a
    > >> > military doctrine.

    >
    > >> > Germany's hordes promptly plowed through lightweights (such
    > >> > as Poland and the Netherlands), to nobody's amazement. When
    > >> > the same thing happened to big, bad France, it was simply
    > >> > assumed that a revolutionary new way of "lightning warfare"
    > >> > had been invented.

    >
    > >> > No, it wasn't that the Germans were unstoppable. They faced
    > >> > either minor powers (e.g., Poland) or incompetent major ones
    > >> > (France).

    >
    > >> With respect, your claims are a load of cobblers.   :)

    >
    > >Poland was an obvious pushover, whereas France had the muscle
    > >to give Germany a tussle (my, how poetic of me!).

    >
    > >Do you dispute either of those points?

    >
    > >> Thanks to Guderian, in 1940-41 the Germans had a style of
    > >> warfare which completely overwhelmed even the most determined
    > >> opposition.

    >
    > >You're not paying attention, my fine, feathered kiwi! The
    > >Germans hadn't faced any "determined opposition" by the
    > >Poles, Dutch, Norwegians and French.

    >
    > What? The same French who you have just said 'had the muscle'?
    >


    Yep spelt musculaires, in white wine sauce I assume.
    :)
    ]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >Even the Russians fled in disarray, until they realized
    > >the gravity of their situation.

    >
    > >> > Indeed, the French army was better equiped than Germany's,
    > >> > and far more mechanized. When coupled with the formidable
    > >> > Maginot Line, they had every means to bloody the Germans'
    > >> > noses, at the very least. [Did they presume the latter
    > >> > were just stupid (or too "honorable") to invade neutral
    > >> > Belgium?]

    >
    > >> > Shockingly, the French quickly collapsed and then, Herr
    > >> > Schicklegrubber became bold enough to attack the Soviet
    > >> > Union. The Russians' early lack of preparedness further
    > >> > contributed to many German victories, and the blitkrieg
    > >> > legend grew out of control...it survives to this day,
    > >> > largely unchallenged.

    >
    > >> Quite true, but it is a mistake to interpret this as
    > >> signifying the Germans had nothing special.

    >
    > >They must've been practically orgasmic, after their first
    > >encounter with the U.S. Army. In 1943 (February 19–25),
    > >at Kassarine Pass, Tunisia, the Germans prevailed...and
    > >decisively.

    >
    > >Alas, the American troops were inexperienced and under
    > >British command. Eventually, they would evolve their
    > >own able leaders (e.g., the armor magician, General
    > >George S. Patton) and regularly clobber the Germans.

    >
    > >Late in WWII, the Army often encircled and captured
    > >vast numbers of German soldiers. Far more importantly,
    > >Kassarine Pass was the only main battle that Germany
    > >won against the U.S.A., during the entire war!

    >
    > >If "blitkrieg" ever existed as a genuine military
    > >doctrone, Patton deserves credit for it. The speed
    > >of his fabled "Third Army" overwhelmed the staunch
    > >German defenses in France, and the rest is history.

    >
    > >> > Germany's superb officer corp was the real key to its
    > >> > success. Equivalent leadership was sorely absent among
    > >> > the other European combatants' armed forces (Britain
    > >> > included).

    >
    > >> > In the end, the crucial Battle of France was won by men,
    > >> > not machines. Fans of the blitkrieg theory conveniently
    > >> > overlook this fact, and prefer to dwell in their fantasy
    > >> > world(s).

    >
    > >> Fact?  It sounds more like an unsupported opinion.

    >
    > >Much corroboration exists; I'm not spinning stories, here.

    >
    > >> You should read 'Panzer Leader' by General Heinz Guderian.

    >
    > >> Regards,

    >
    > >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > >I've read Patton's "War As I Knew It" (originally published
    > >in 1947, some two years after his tragic 1945 death). That
    > >was way back in 1984 or '85, and I don't remember much of
    > >it; nor am I willing to unearth my paperback edition of the
    > >book.

    >
    > >My vivid memory of its painted cover is a different matter.
    > >It features a striking and colorful scene of Patton, about
    > >to draw his sidearm.

    >
    > >He's readying to shoot a stubborn burro, blocking a narrow
    > >mountain pass in Sicily. The unfortunate animal's carcass
    > >went over the cliff, enabling Patton's tanks to proceed.

    >
    > >[Tastefully depicted in "Patton" (1970), with George
    > >C. Scott in the title role. That Hollywood movie was
    > >based on Ladislas Farago's "Patton: Ordeal and Triumph"
    > >(a 1964 biography), also lying around here, somewhere.]

    >
    > >In any event, both Guderian's and Patton's words should
    > >be viewd with caution. Their respective perspectives
    > >were at the tactical level and hence, too narrow to be
    > >of value in understanding the broader strategic issues
    > >of WWII.

    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 22, 2011
    #19
  20. Whisky-dave

    John Turco Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:02:04 -0600, John Turco <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> Eric Stevens wrote:


    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > > Poland was an obvious pushover, whereas France had the muscle
    > > to give Germany a tussle (my, how poetic of me!).
    > >
    > > Do you dispute either of those points?
    > >
    > >> Thanks to Guderian, in 1940-41 the Germans had a style of
    > >> warfare which completely overwhelmed even the most determined
    > >> opposition.

    > >
    > > You're not paying attention, my fine, feathered kiwi! The
    > > Germans hadn't faced any "determined opposition" by the
    > > Poles, Dutch, Norwegians and French.

    >
    > What? The same French who you have just said 'had the muscle'?


    <edited>

    France possessed sufficient military strength to stymie Germany;
    such "muscle" proved meaningless, as it remained largely unused.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Dec 22, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dr.Zonk

    No More Mr. Nice Guy

    Dr.Zonk, Feb 14, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    420
    Pookie
    Feb 14, 2005
  2. Guy Macon (Guy Macon)

    GUY MACON HAS NO COLLEGE DEGREE (Guy Macon, pseudo-engineer Guy Macon)

    Guy Macon (Guy Macon), Feb 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    446
    Guy Macon (Guy Macon)
    Feb 4, 2005
  3. otter

    Re: This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker

    otter, Oct 17, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    811
    Whisky-dave
    Oct 28, 2011
  4. RichA

    Re: This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker

    RichA, Oct 17, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    240
    John Turco
    Dec 22, 2011
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    233
    Joe Makowiec
    Feb 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page