Subject: WWII-L Digest - 1 Apr 1994 to 2 Apr 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 00:00:45 -0500

There are 6 messages totalling 148 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. INF: Environmental effects of WWII
  2. Weap: B-17 vs B-24
  3. INF: USAAF 30 MAR 44
  4. Hs-117
  5. Spain's Franco (compared with Hitler/Muss.):  Good Guy? (2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 1 Apr 1994 21:49:04 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INF: Environmental effects of WWII

Interesting thing, this idea of "total war".  Everything else takes a
back seat.  I can't even BEGIN to imagine the political repercussions
of attacking an oil tanker in this day of "environmentalism" (if
that's a word).  Perhaps "environmentality".

Don't forget though that today's tankers are *orders of magnitude*
larger than those used then.

Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
PO Box 1420
Dahlgren, VA 22448 USA
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 2 Apr 1994 06:03:59 -0500
From:    Daniel Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Weap: B-17 vs B-24

On Fri, 1 Apr 1994, DAVID WILMA 415-744-2485 wrote:

>           could.  The selection of the Liberator for the lion's share of
>           the work in the Pacific may be instructive.  I don't recall ever
>           hearing the exact reasons for this.  Performance?  Numbers?
>
At least at the beginning, the Pacific Theater got the inferior and older
weapons to hold the line while the major war effort was pressed against
Germany.

What about rough-field capability? That was one reason the B-25 replaced
the B-26 in the Pacific in 1943.

Regards - Dan Ford   <e-mail: [email-masked]>
                     <postal: 433 Bay Road, Durham NH 03824 USA>
                     <voice or fax: +1-603-868-5850>

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 2 Apr 1994 10:04:31 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INF: USAAF 30 MAR 44

Hello, Jim!

Glad to oblige, although I am certain that others will answer this.

>  Ww> Germany; they claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft in the air and 1-0-2 on
>
> Could someone brief me as to how we read the claim counts, please?

    1-0-0 means one shot down (verified), 1st 0 means no probables,
and the 2nd 0 means none damaged. Thus 1-0-2 means that one was
definitely shot down, no probably shot-down aircraft and 2 were
damaged. Damaged in the sense that in all likelihood they got back to
base.

    Hope this helps.

    Terry

Terry Moore, Professor of German and French, Amarillo College
P.O. Box 447, Amarillo, Texas 79178, voice 806-371-5077
fax 806-371-5370

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 2 Apr 1994 11:51:24 EST
From:    S214000 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Hs-117

Hello Mr. Moore,
I just read your post about the Hs-239 and was wondering if you could
send me the post about the Hs-117. I don't think I saw that one. If you
have anymore of such posts in the future I'd very much like to see them
as my interest in Military history includes aviation. Thank you.
Mike Wilson<[email-masked]>

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 2 Apr 1994 17:04:39 -0600
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Spain's Franco (compared with Hitler/Muss.):  Good Guy?

Hitler was a former corporal (who got his much-beloved Iron
  Cross only thanks to the fair-mindedness and compassion of a
  Jewish-German officer, I understand) and Mussolini had no
  military experience at all (I believe).

Spain's fascist leader, Francisco Franco, was a professional
  army officer -- a colonel when he began his takeover/struggle?

Overall, Franco seems to have been a much more judicious leader.
  Did his professional military background make him MORE cautious
  about the risks of military adventuring?

Other than Guernica, were the Spanish fascists any worse than the
  Republicans, in regard to atrocities during the Spanish Civil War?

Franco seemed to begin his takeover because of the social problems/
  disintegration and corruption of Spain.  Considering how he paved
  the way to the Spanish democracy we seem to have now, didn't his
  military takeover/junta HELP Spain?  He seems to have had a higher
  sense of duty -- loyalty -- than the officer corps of Germany and
  Italy  who (rather than getting involved politically/realistically)
  allowed their countries to fall into the hands of infinitely less
  responsible politicians like Hitler and Mussolini.

(Of course, once Hitler and Mussolini got into power, their control
  of their media made their dictatorships irreversible.  Media
  dictatorships indeed!)

Why has Franco gotten such "bad press," considering the beneficial
  outcome of his leadership?

Lou Coatney, Western Illinois University Library ('til 30Jun94)

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 2 Apr 1994 20:00:07 -0800
From:    "Office TH325, Extension 3566" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Spain's Franco (compared with Hitler/Muss.):  Good Guy?

>[email-masked]

>Hitler was a former corporal (who got his much-beloved Iron
>  Cross only thanks to the fair-mindedness and compassion of a
>  Jewish-German officer, I understand) and Mussolini had no
>  military experience at all (I believe).
>

Robert Leckie in "Delivered From Evil" says that Mussolini saw 17 months
of action in the Alps during WWI, first as a private and later as a
corporal.  He was injured in some kind of an accident (my sources
disagree on what).

John Riegsecker
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
University of Puget Sound

[email-masked]

------------------------------

End of WWII-L Digest - 1 Apr 1994 to 2 Apr 1994
***********************************************