No matter what the subject matter...always count on Doug for a good set of
answers, thoughtfully provoking. Where I came by the first question?
Britain had a defense pact with several nations one of which was Poland.
England entered into the fray in 'defense of Poland' which had been invaded
by Germany. At the time Herr Hitler had said, over and over, we have no
quarrel with England, do not consider them enemies, and have to wish to
fight them. Hyperbole or not England declared war on Germany because of
Germany's invasion of Poland. However by 1945 Poland, far from being freed
came under the complete sujugation of the 'other invader'. Let us not
forget while Germany invaded from West to East, Russia simultaneously
invaded from East to West. This was no less a violation of the treaty which
caused England to enter against Germany. Therefore it can easily be argued
the original reason for going to war, the freeing of Poland, was in
practical fact not accomplished for many decades after 1939. I think the
actual nullification of that original pact happened at Yalta when Roosevelt
and Churchill (and some French guy) agreed on 'sphere's of influence, at
war's end. Roosevelt and Churchill, well anyway Roosevelt for I think
Churchill was always in favor of 'using' the Soviets but otherwise had no
use for them, ostensibly made the error of believing Stalin. Although I
find it ludicrous Roosevelt could have been that politically naive and
rather think he knew all along what would happen. The lesson learned should
have stayed in the forefront )of political minds but obviously was
forgotten by many to include G. Bush Sr. when he made a deal with the
opposition and violated his "Read My Lips" policy. More to the point it's
been forgotten in almost every instance where J. Carter has been involved.
Now THAT ought to get you going for the next two three months or so!
History....not the way you wish it happened....just as it happened.

Question? If a huge national debt that is a small pittance by percentage of
the GDP was good for Clinton...why isn't it good for Bush?

M.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Michael wrote:
I always wondered if any historians figured out the end of WWII
coincided
with the day Poland regained it's freedom from Russia.

???

Where do you get these ideas? If that's the case, then WW2 is still
going on because North Korea is as much a Russian client state as ever,
and Cuba became one well after the "end" of WW2 if you don't count
Poland; but if you do count Poland then it's occupied territory now.
Maybe the Germans should invade North Korea and Cuba, thus ending the
war. We can't do it for them because with regard to WW2, we are Russia's
allies.




... That being the
ostensible reason given for the start of WWII. Not the longest war in
history but certainly the most odd in terms of how fought.

Hardly. I suggest you look up some of the previous European dynastic
wars, for example the War of the Spanish Succession... now there were
some complex webs to untangle.


... Five years of
intense battle and 40 more years of economic warfare with the Poles
amongst
others bearing most of the non economic burden. How they MUST value
their freedom after all those years as socialist slaves.

Why don't you go there and find out? I have a number of Polish friends
including a couple who just moved back because they think (with some
good reasons) that their children's future is brighter there than here.


One of the two great unanswered questions of war. The other being did
Texas lose it's Lone Star Republic rights because of the civil war?

No more so than any other state. The War of Northern Aggression settled
the issue of state's rights under the Constitution... there aren't any.
Next I suppose we should look at the question of individual rights... no
wait, let's not...

DSK

"Michael" wrote
.. . . How they MUST value their freedom after all those years as socialist
slaves.

I don't know Michael, however, my daughter just spent 6 months in East
Germany, and one of the things that surprised her most was that the people
their, particularly the older folks who lived through the nightmare, do not
seem to have adjusted well to freedom. Very odd.
Scout

Hmmm,,, that's worth a second or third look. An initial reaction would be
thinking back to the German mindset of the early 20th century Alle est en
ordnung. (forgive the spelling it isn't one of my languages) which valued
obedience to the State, Party, Family above all. Give many decades of
National then International Socialism which has no room for individualism
and living in fear if you don't make the trains run on time....hmmm....I
think it would be odd not to find that viewpoint. As some of our fellow
posters have shown time and time again having to think, evaluate, reason,
ascertain facts for oneself is not always possible. Sometimes it's just
easier to follow the party line be it Herr Carville or Herr Goebbels. You
have to admit members of the former 'other party' like Doug or Thom are
damn few and far between. In that light I think you'll see a huge
difference with the Libertarians as the new second party especially as we
move ever closer to the formation of the North American Union.

M.



"Scout" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote
. . . How they MUST value their freedom after all those years as
socialist
slaves.

I don't know Michael, however, my daughter just spent 6 months in East
Germany, and one of the things that surprised her most was that the people
their, particularly the older folks who lived through the nightmare, do
not
seem to have adjusted well to freedom. Very odd.
Scout

Scott Vernon wrote:
Where ya been, Jax?

SV

Jail?