[42424] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: More history (on meaning of Pearl Harbor) [OT]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Donner)
Sun Sep 16 00:09:25 2001
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010915234409.01fafbe8@localhost>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:59:05 -0400
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>,
Vadim Antonov <avg@exigengroup.com>
From: Paul Donner <pdonner@cisco.com>
Cc: Dean Robb <Dean@PC-Easy-va.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010916033212.2C2AB7BFD@berkshire.research.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 11:32 PM 9/15/2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> >The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference
> >from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth. What US
> >involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis.
>
>Excluding, I assume, U.S. industrial production.
Let's not forget the massive pounding the US aerial bombing (US 8th AAF,
et. al.)
gave the German military industrial complex nor the $11B in support to the USSR
by the USA, which has yet to be repaid (the US went on the give in excess
of $48.6B
in aid to Europe and other countries the world over from 1941 to 1946).
-Donner
> >
> >No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet
> >Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler.
> >
> >Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel
> >they teach you as "history". "Fascist powers were doomed" because of
> >Pearl Harbor, sure. Until you check the figures and actually think for a
> >second or two.
>
>Educated Americans know about the relative casualty figures, I assure
>you.
