Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "jack" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 05:51:56 +1100 Lines: 92 Message-ID: References: <6omdnTnQgKNKXx_LnZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <871ta5kuta.fsf@garlic.com> <87wprxj96i.fsf@garlic.com> <87mvsska3k.fsf@garlic.com> <638004010.473170649.277938.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <569099402.473346400.524315.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> <6t-dnRN2WtVFKhvLnZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net LMoSVApuDLCrP9EWg14ECAMH3SPfSVQP+JQl7Vf/S0Xw2Cgk8= Cancel-Lock: sha1:35JG4K3Uj9fSsLa5Y57Lq0wZVFY= In-Reply-To: <6t-dnRN2WtVFKhvLnZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@giganews.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:155736 "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message news:6t-dnRN2WtVFKhvLnZ2dnUU78IOdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/01/2016 13:15, Peter Flass wrote: >> Lon wrote: >>> On 12/31/2015 11:09, mausg@mail.com wrote: >>>> On 2015-12-31, mausg@mail.com wrote: >>>>> On 2015-12-30, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:21:33 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Roosevelt gave away a large chunk of Europe to the Russians fir 50 >>>>>>> years in >>>>>>> exchange for them doing something they would have done anyway. I'm >>>>>>> now >>>>>>> reading _Endgame 1945_ about the final days of the war, and we >>>>>>> should never >>>>>>> have stuck to the agreements, it was basically a crime. Churchill >>>>>>> was more >>>>>>> realistic about the Russians, but was the junior partner in the >>>>>>> alliance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice. The Soviet troops were in >>>>>> place and Stalin, being an absolete dictator, could've gone to war >>>>>> to protect his conquests. In contrast, England was utterly >>>>>> exhausted, >>>>>> and the US people would not stayed at war to defend eastern Europe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps FDR could've wrung a few more concessions from Stalin, but >>>>>> he was substantially limited. >>>>>> >>>>>> The final defeat of Germany required hand-to-hand combat in the >>>>>> streets. Eisenhower wisely let the Soviets do that. >>>>>> >>>>>> To have saved eastern Europe, Allied troops would have had to invade >>>>>> all of Germany, then proceed eastward at enormous cost in lives, >>>>>> materiel, and time, all of which they did not have, but Stalin did >>>>>> have. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, Stalin sought more, but was pushed back, such as forced >>>>>> out of Iran, Greece, and Turkey. Later, he was forced to back >>>>>> off from taking Berlin. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Small piece of history I read somewhere. There was a lot of bargining >>>>> before the actual fighting in WWII, including about that small piece >>>>> of Turkey around the ruins of Antioch, which the French had occupied >>>>> in their invasion of Syria after WWI. There was a dispute between >>>>> France and Turkey over this strip of land, and France conceded it to >>>>> Turkey as part of some agreement not to join Germany in WWII. (For >>>>> some reason, the Armenians in that area had somewhat escaped the >>>>> genocide in 1915, and are still there.) This where the Russian bomber >>>>> was downed recently. >>>>> >>>> Perhaps we could move the thread to a more appropiate group. I >>>> started to post myself because messages were scarce around Christmas. >>>> >>>> PS, a thought, what would have been the outcome if the British attack >>>> on Quebec had failed, and French Canada had remained as a constraint >>>> on the Westward move of the Colonists?.. >>>> >>> >>> Interesting concept, but it presumes all else would have remained the >>> same. I'd suspect that remaining a British colony would actually have >>> been advantageous for the USofA as it has been for Canada, Australia, >>> etc. etc. etc. >>> >> >> Advantageous for a lot of us, although the British probably would have >> tried to defend the rights of the indian tribes against the colonists. >> I've suggested before that if Britain had only provided for election of >> colonists to parliament things could have been different. Based on >> population this would have been a small number of MPs, and probably from >> the wealthy conservative class that later became Loyalists, but it would >> have pre-empted the "no taxation without representation" argument, and >> served as a forum for discussing the most egregious complaints. >> >> This could have been a model for an Anglo-Saxon empire including all of >> North America plus Australia and New Zealand. >> > > The other thing that needed investigating was the states wanted control of > their governors. One of the main revolutionary talking points was that the > governors be paid (i.e. work for) the states rather than by London. > > I also suspect that the southern states were worried about slavery. The > War of Independence started shortly after the courts in both England and > Scotland had banned slavery. The courts in both England and Scotland never banned slavery.