If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:yb6Bb.473401$Fm2.460449@attbi_s04... I hate getting into semantic battles, and if this is one, I quit. I concur with that also: I may have chosen the wrong interpretation of the phrase on both sides. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:21:10 GMT, Michael 182 wrote:
*hmmm* still no clue ... well, *googling* ... oh. Pearl Harbor. Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe and/but well known in the US, I assume. Come on Martin - I agree with a lot of your posts that accuse the US of a provinicial world-view, but to say Pearl Harbor was not a date important in world history is ludicrous. oh, I think you got me wrong here. I don't meant that Pearl Harbor was not an important event in history (au contraire!). I meant the date itself (Dec 7th) is not one that someone on my side of the pond is remembering (maybe it is in th media on round dates like 60, 65, 70 years or so). It was the precipitating event that drew the US into WWII, which, as I remember, had a pretty large effect on Europe. Saying Pearl Harbor is an unimportant date in European history is like saying the rise of Nazism was unimportant in US history. see above; and yes, when it would be me saying that what you meant I would understand your argumentation. But as said above: it was not the event, it was the date. (hope I got that right) #m -- http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:30:17 -0800, David Brooks wrote:
Or, for a closer analogy, the day Britain declared war. early September 1939 .. the 9th or so. after Hitler invaded Poland, France and England declared war (as it was written in a treaty for assistance [wording?] with Poland). #m -- http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:38:38 GMT, Michael 182 wrote:
I hate getting into semantic battles, and if this is one, I quit. Martin said "Hm, not that important of a date here in Europe but well known in the US, I assume." *whooa* well, maybe I missed fine meanings in wording ... If the meaning was that the event was important but the date was not well known, I agree with you. yes, yes, yes. this is it. If the meaning was "not that important of a date here in Europe " then, of course, my initial post makes my point. sure. and I would not agree with someone saying that. Michael #m -- http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:22:57 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
Funny, I'd say the chain of events began two years earlier, when England and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. The US participation was simply a later link in that chain. Technically true, but it is unlikely that France and England would be democracies today, had Japan not jolted us into the war. Thus, some links in the chain are more important than others... You mean: USA wouldn't have joined into the war without the Japanese agression? I doubt that the USA would have remained neutral as there have been some attackes by german submarines in US ports and en-route on the Atlantic and the US more and more supporting England. #m -- http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:29:04 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:
Hm, I don't have the details, but isn't there a stoy about the Japanese ambassador to the USA being late delivering the declaration of war? Yeah. He was late. Wouldn't have changed the outcome. true. formalism only. That was the day that brought the U.S. into the war, and the first time in a longlong time that the U.S. had had its backside handed to it by an aggressive enemy. besides: this was the last time the USA declared war. And, yes, I don't think the outcome of WWII would have been a free Austria without the U.S. in the middle of it. true Roosevelt was one of the principal founders of the United Nations, after all. but the UN had nothing to do with our peace treaty (at least: we had one, Germany had none) I don't think Stalin, Degualle, and Churchill would have been able to pull it off; Stalin would not have come to the table. And even in '45 Britain could not have stood alone against the U.S.S.R.'s creation of satellite states. yes. And it sure was also good negotiations by Leopold Fiegl. Had Russia freed Austria first troops to free Vienna where Russian troops. it would not have been the neutral republic it was for the last half of the 20th. yep. Funny thing that it was possible to form such a small nation with neutrality at that time. Rob #m -- http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Well, I'm confused, but I think we are in complete agreement ;-)
Michael "Martin Hotze" wrote in message news On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:21:10 GMT, Michael 182 wrote: see above; and yes, when it would be me saying that what you meant I would understand your argumentation. But as said above: it was not the event, it was the date. (hope I got that right) #m -- http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:36:19 GMT, Michael 182 wrote:
Well, I'm confused, but I think we are in complete agreement ;-) good. very good. :-)) Michael martin -- http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:30:17 -0800, "David Brooks"
wrote: Agreed, but see my post on distinguishing the date from the event. Following your analogy, Americans should be able to immediately identify the day/month a certain person became Reichskanzler. Ooo, you got me. I think it was autumn 1933, but I can't remember the month. And I don't remember the day, month, or year for "Kristallnacht", only that it predated the Blitzkrieg into Poland. Am I wrong? Or, for a closer analogy, the day Britain declared war. September 1939? I take your point, though. The order of the events in time is more important than the exact date. Rob |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:14:34 GMT, Martin Hotze
wrote: If the meaning was that the event was important but the date was not well known, I agree with you. yes, yes, yes. this is it. Oh! OK, yeah, I don't have a problem with that. Sorry for the provincialism, if that's even a word one can use for a nation that covers almost as much land area as the U.S. does. On a related issue, I had a curious experience watching Swiss television on the 20th anniversary of the moon landing. The producers noted it and spent the bulk of the hour talking about the Swiss experiment that went with Aldrin and Armstrong to the moon. It was an interesting shift in perspectives, to say the least. Rob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
lease back financing 5, 10, 20 years | R.Hubbell | Owning | 28 | February 13th 04 04:56 AM |
65 years ago today Ike takes command | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 6 | January 18th 04 07:44 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
After 23 years, Marines get last Super Stallion CH-53E helicopter | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 25th 03 10:04 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt": An Awesome WWII DoubleFeature at Zeno's Drive-In | zeno | Piloting | 0 | July 14th 03 07:31 PM |