D-Day (Page 2): Well, hell, I knew you weren't there since I went into the Army just a few days over 10 years after that event. How could you have been a Viet vet if you had been born...

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

viet vet wrote:

No I was not at Stalingrad nor was I in ww-2 (born in 1946) but I am an avid fan of history and I read both German and Russian and have read many accounts of the war from many different aspects so I am probably more informed on the subject than most

Well, hell, I knew you weren't there since I went into the Army just a few days over 10 years after that event. How could you have been a Viet vet if you had been born in the 1920s?

Hey, I talked about that war with a lot of Germans when I was there in 1956 for more than 10 months and I wonder if their stories were the same as those you have read.

viet vet

oldroy wrote:

Is there a chance that you read Obama's speech from his one visitation at the ceremonies? I say that you didn't but surely thank you for putting it there for us since I surely didn't listen to it when he delivered it. It seems that he said too much about what you try to deride, though, so maybe you should read what his writers wrote for him.

OK , another speech and a fairly decent one , Obama is a good speaker as are most politicians so what has that got to do with my knowledge of ww-2

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

justkillingtime wrote:

As reported on Wikipedia the Official British Hist... (show quote)

Try this article from HuffPo about Normandy. I think it may have been written right after Obama made his one trip to the place which came at a time not usually used by American leaders. I am talking about the fact that they tended to go to the 10 year celebrations and Obama went to the 65th one. Maybe you won't want to read this since it doesn't say much about Obama but says a lot more about Bush and his speech there.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/06/obama-in-good-company-on-d-day/

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

justkillingtime wrote:

True again, but Anglo-American propaganda kept most in the West in the dark about it.

Go ahead and define propaganda for us so we can know what you are saying. I remember the days of WW II and the pictures and stories in Life magazine and don't remember anything like the propaganda you intimate.

viet vet

oldroy wrote:

Go ahead and define propaganda for us so we can know what you are saying. I remember the days of WW II and the pictures and stories in Life magazine and don't remember anything like the propaganda you intimate.

So just what are you having a problem with JKT has intimated some facts that might be off but what did I say that was so onerous, or do you just want to grouse at me

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

viet vet wrote:

So just what are you having a problem with JKT has intimated some facts that might be off but what did I say that was so onerous, or do you just want to grouse at me

Quite an answer for my question about propaganda. Do you have a definition in mind?

viet vet

oldroy wrote:

Quite an answer for my question about propaganda. Do you have a definition in mind?

I wasn't using propaganda but historical reality, why the reference to propaganda your reasoning is unclear

justkillingtime

oldroy wrote:

Does it make any sense to you that the Battle of the Bulge may not have stopped even if Berlin was destroyed by the atomic bomb or do you think that FDR wanted to drop it on German forces around the Bulge. You do know what was left of Berlin after the Russians got into the city, I hope.

GIs on the ground would not have known squat about the a-bomb until it was used in battle. And if you had paid attention to what I actually posted you would see that FDR wanted to use the bomb to drive the Germans out of the Ardennes. He was thinking of the bomb as a tactical weapon instead of a strategic weapon.

Quote:

You guys certainly are having some fun and the arithmetic used by your buddy was weak. The numbers he dug up total much nearer 200,000 than his 100,000 but then adding may not be a strong thing with him.

No jackass, he was talking about American casualties, which were around 100,000. This is not counting Krauts or civilians.

justkillingtime

viet vet wrote:

No I was not at Stalingrad nor was I in ww-2 (born in 1946) but I am an avid fan of history and I read both German and Russian and have read many accounts of the war from many different aspects so I am probably more informed on the subject than most

Including most World War II Vets who can only know their small part of it.

I took German from grades 8 through my high school graduation. But I had bad teachers the whole time. The first was a Hungarian (who served in the Wehrmacht on the Russian front) D. Lit. We took the whole school year to cover the first 69 pages of the textbook. The next teacher (U.S. Army brat) covered everything too fast for us to really learn it trying to get us caught up. We had just finished the 2nd textbook at the mid-point of my 11th grade year (the two books should have taken just 3 years to complete) when she left to take a job in another state. The last teacher was a German immigrant by way of Ohio. The only thing we were graded on for the last year and a half was a weekly composition. I wish now I had spent the time studying something else.

My college degree is in biology, but I took 40 credit hours in history. I have studied history on my own for as long as I have been able to read.

justkillingtime

oldroy wrote:

Is there a chance that you read Obama's speech from his one visitation at the ceremonies? I say that you didn't but surely thank you for putting it there for us since I surely didn't listen to it when he delivered it. It seems that he said too much about what you try to deride, though, so maybe you should read what his writers wrote for him.

???

justkillingtime

oldroy wrote:

I am talking about the fact that they tended to go to the 10 year celebrations and Obama went to the 65th one.

Mainly because most of the Vets who were there arent expected to attend the 70th anniversary ceremonies.

justkillingtime

oldroy wrote:

Go ahead and define propaganda for us so we can know what you are saying. I remember the days of WW II and the pictures and stories in Life magazine and don't remember anything like the propaganda you intimate.

Go to Hell.

justkillingtime

viet vet wrote:

I wasn't using propaganda but historical reality, why the reference to propaganda your reasoning is unclear

We used propaganda mainly to illustrate how brave and effective our fighting forces were. We didnt want another allied country to steal the spotlight or our thunder lest civilian support for the war effort decline. We could have easily slacked off after Kursk thinking we could let the Russians do most of the fighting. But this would have prolonged the war while enabling the Russians to end up controlling more of Europe after the War.

viet vet

justkillingtime wrote:

Including most World War II Vets who can only know... (show quote)

I have degrees in both physics and Chemistry and I speak read and write 9 languages , I had a sister who did the same with 29 languages out of seven kids in the family I was considered the slow one, my other siblings have much greater accomplishments than I do and please do not think I am bragging I am not

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

viet vet wrote:

I wasn't using propaganda but historical reality, why the reference to propaganda your reasoning is unclear

You used the word and I asked you what it means. I still want you to define the word. Hell, I may have been wrong about it all these years. If so, I misled a lot of students explaining what it is.