Why We Lost The Vietnam War

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Name ONE National Park in the UK where
agriculture is banned, take your time.

Norfolk Broads? )

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...



The UK could make all it wanted.


It could not make all it wanted during WWII.



Britain was pretty much self sufficient with regard to
infantry weapons[...]

After the Fall of France and the evacuation of the BEF, Britain did not have
enough infantry weapons to arm the British Army in the Home Islands.
Emergency shipments of WWI era Enfield pattern rifles manufactured in the
United States, American Thompson sub-machine guns, and a wild assortment of
sportman's rifles and shotguns had to be rushed to Britian to rearm the
British armed forces.

and artillery but relied heavily on
US supplied tanks , trucks and armoured cars.

The air force relied totally on US production for its
transport aircraft , a large percentage of its long range
maritime patrol aircraft and the RN was reliant on US
produced fighters on its carrier force

Also most of the British aircraft carriers were American built light
carriers and escort carriers.


Keith

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...



No, yet again you fail. When importing
large qualities of grain, etc from
north America, It meant the UK could
concentrate on war production. Simple
when you know how.

It meant nothing of the sort.

It did.

Women were conscipted to work
on to the land to increase food production.

That is true, yet they didn't need to go 100% self sufficiency in food, as
they could import it when the U boast were suppressed.

By 1940 every plot of land that could
grow food including school playing fields
had been ploughed up and planted.

That was mainly for morale purposes, as was build Anderson air raid
shelters, which the government knew were pretty useless in a direct, or
near
direct hit.

It still wasnt enough.

In 1940 you are probably correct. However food production was far higher
in
subsequent years.

By the end of the war, Britain used virtually all of its arable land and
still failed to produce more than an average of 900 calories of food per
person or 30% to 51% of the food it consumed. without the imported food,
famine would have been starving people to death in Britain as it did so in
the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Failed. Not so.


It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than the
state
of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a US
perspective, the UK is small.

My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big. The
UK
is
nor small.

Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of
Russia.

Which means nothing at all.

It means Britian is 1.4% the size of Russia and tiny by comparison. It means
Britain is a small nation in area, being in the very lowest percentile of
small nations, which are nations with only 33% or less of the area of
Russia.

The UK is not small.

The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest nation
conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the third
smallest nations in the world.

"Brett" wrote in message
news
"Spiv" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

They did know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the
Atlantic was won, so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought from
its colony, Canada, and the USA.

Canada was a British colony during WWII?

Yes. Independence in 1948, for most of Canada and Newfoundland in 1959.
The Canadian constitution was given back in 1982.

It says this further down the thread.

You've said many things in this thread,
but very few of them are correct.

100% correct. Now focus.

The British Army was overwhelmingly supplied by UK produced arms.

But not completely, the UK still had to import arms.

The UK could make all it wanted.

It could not make all it wanted during WWII.

Not in the early part.

Did you stop attending school 8 or 9 years before you were 15?

Insults. Clear you have lost it.

"Spiv" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
news
"Spiv" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

They did know how and went near to doing it, but the battle of the
Atlantic was won, so cheap and plentiful grain could be brought
from
its colony, Canada, and the USA.

Canada was a British colony during WWII?

Yes. Independence in 1948, for most of Canada and Newfoundland in
1959.
The Canadian constitution was given back in 1982.

It says this further down the thread.

You've said many things in this thread,
but very few of them are correct.

100% correct. Now focus.

The British Army was overwhelmingly supplied by UK produced arms.

But not completely, the UK still had to import arms.

The UK could make all it wanted.

It could not make all it wanted during WWII.

Not in the early part.

Did you stop attending school 8 or 9 years before you were 15?

Insults.

No it was a serius question. When I'm insulting you I set the follow-to to
alt.morons.

Clear you have lost it.

So it was 9 years.

"Brett" wrote in message
...




http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/departm...tDocumentId=18

Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada We have
signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada
Gazette
declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has
existed
in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939

At our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this tenth day of
September,
in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine and in
the
Third year of Our Reign.

By Command,

W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister of Canada.

Keith

But will he know which one didn't declare war?



Since he doesnt know which ones did ....

Keith

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...



The UK could make all it wanted.


It could not make all it wanted during WWII.



Britain was pretty much self sufficient with regard to
infantry weapons[...]

After the Fall of France and the evacuation of the BEF, Britain did not
have
enough infantry weapons to arm the British Army in the Home Islands.
Emergency shipments of WWI era Enfield pattern rifles manufactured in the
United States, American Thompson sub-machine guns, and a wild assortment
of
sportman's rifles and shotguns had to be rushed to Britian to rearm the
British armed forces.


Actually most of those went to home guard units. The only
weapons that ended up in the regular units was the Thompson

and artillery but relied heavily on
US supplied tanks , trucks and armoured cars.

The air force relied totally on US production for its
transport aircraft , a large percentage of its long range
maritime patrol aircraft and the RN was reliant on US
produced fighters on its carrier force

Also most of the British aircraft carriers were American built light
carriers and escort carriers.


True for the CVE's but not the light fleet carriers which were British
designed and built

Keith

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Failed. Not so.


It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than
the
state
of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From a
US
perspective, the UK is small.

My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big. The
UK
is
nor small.

Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of
Russia.

Which means nothing at all.

It means Britian is 1.4% the size of
Russia and tiny by comparison.

Which does not mean Britain is small.

It means Britain is a small nation in area,

It is not.

The UK is not small.

The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest nation
conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the third
smallest nations in the world.

Still not small though.

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"D. Patterson" wrote in message
...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Spiv" wrote in message
...

Failed. Not so.


It depends on one's point of view. The UK is a bit smaller than
the
state
of
Oregon, and there are eight US states larger than Oregon. From
a
US
perspective, the UK is small.

My God, where do they come from? By Dutch standards it is big.
The
UK
is
nor small.

Not only is the UK small, it is tiny. It is only 1.4% the size of
Russia.

Which means nothing at all.

It means Britian is 1.4% the size of
Russia and tiny by comparison.

Which does not mean Britain is small.

It means Britain is a small nation in area,

It is not.

The UK is not small.

The evidence of Britain being only 1.4% the size of the largest nation
conclusively demonstrates Britian is a very small nation among the third
smallest nations in the world.

Still not small though.

Have it your way, Britain is smaller than small, because it is tiny. I was
giving you the benefit of the doubt, but 1.4% really is tiny, rather than
just small. If it were much smaller, we would have to include it along with
Vatican City as being infinitessimal...like your sorry excuse for a brain.