Terry Casey wrote:

I think you will find that it was an Allied invasion ...

I know, I was wondering if anyone was actually paying attention. :-)

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have


According to the NOVA program "Hitler and the Bomb"

http://www.pbs.ORG/wgbh/nova/military/nazis-and-the-bomb.html

"This was not because the country lacked the scientists,
resources, or will, but rather because its leaders
did not really try."

According to "Hitler's Bomb" by Rainer Karlsch published in March 2005,
the NSDAP regime did succeed in creating a dirty bomb but lacked
the pure grade uranium required for a true atomic bomb.

http://www.smh.com.SU/news/World/Hitler-won-atomic-bomb-race-but-couldnt-drop-it/2005/03/04/1109700677446.html

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d

There is a story (of questionable validity) that work on atomic weapons was
halted, because they were based on "Jewish" science.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:27:59 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

It is all to do with the inevitable consonant and vowel shifting that
occurs in dialects and languages, something like

formally he would have

can become he would avv

which becomes he would aff

which become he would of

Don Pearce wrote...

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

I call it phonetic writing, it seems to be more common these days, they
have never seen the written phrase so write what they think people are
saying.
The country is going to the dogs.
Our local paper does a "man in the street" item where they ask passers
by their opinions on local issues: They recently asked "do you use the
new library?"
http://www.the-neighbourhood.com/projects/corby-cube
Of the five people interviewed, one responded yes, he particularly
liked military books, one said he didn't read much and prefered to
watch DVD's but he had been to see the library and the other three said
they hadn't read a book since they left school and had never been near
the place.

I'm a member of the local Free Cycle group and people regularly offer
or ask for chests and sets of draws. One lady offered an otterman; he
was in good condition apparently, and on one memorable occasion
somebody was trying to get rid of a big red poof.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

J G Miller wrote:

It is all to do with the inevitable consonant and vowel shifting that
occurs in dialects and languages, something like

formally he would have

can become he would avv

which becomes he would aff

which become he would of


A lot (which I was taught not use) of things have changed in the last 50
years and English has mutated. In my case, I don't really care, I try to
use what I remember is proper grammar, but sometimes I am behind the times
or fail.

You can imagine my shock the first time I read that someone was gifted a
blender and other modernizations that have occured in the last decade.

But, sometimes I am just being a wise guy because on the internet no one
notices, and one can break the rules, such as starting a sentence with but.

On that note on a local mailing list, someone asked:

"Many people have been recomending me to study to become a technical
writer. Does anyone know anything about it? Is there a demand in Israel?
Whats the pay like? How advanced does my English have to be?"

I wrote back "Your English is not good enough."

He never even said thank you.

Geoff.



--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

You were privy to the deliberations of the Japanese government? I'm
impressed!

Oh, come on. I said IMHO, and it was exactly that, an opionon of someone
born after the war, commenting in 2012 what they did in 1945.

OK :-)

An awful lot of "ifs" there!

Yes, that's why it's speculaton.


The US threw enormous recourses at building an atomic bomb, recourses
that
Germany simply didn't have in 1944. They didn't have the recourses to
build
a transatlantic stealth bomber either. The fighter (which of course never
saw action) was no more than a concept demonstrator, it didn't have the
range to reach the UK let alone the US, nor did it have the load-carrying
capability to carry an atomic bomb. How long would it have taken Germany,
already coming under serious pressure from the Red Army and seriously
short
of fuel, materials and manpower to develop both?

I have no idea. What we do know is that the US accomplished most of it
through "brute force" (my words) by throwing enormous recourses (your
words)
at it.

Germany may not of had the resources, but they may of had better
scientists.
They certainly were years ahead of the Allies in rocket science.

Just because they were years ahead in rocket science doesn't mean they were
years ahead in everything. For example they had nothing to compare with the
British "Ultra" code-breaking operation. Also they lagged behind the allies
with Radar. When it comes to nuclear science, many of their best scientists
left the country in the late pre-war period either because they were Jewish
or because they were unwilling to work for the Nazis. These scientists then
lent their expertise to the Manhattan project. The US atomic bomb
development effort was greatly aided by the contribution of scientists from
Germany or from countries occupied by Germany.

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944, and saying that things would
of turned out differently if it had occured a year or two later. Care
to speculate on what the Soviet Army would of done too?


Allied invasion!

Would have done about what? By 1944 the Red Army was on a roll which Germany
was unable to stop. Had there been no D-day landing then in my view the
Soviets would simply have gone on to occupy the whole of Germany, and
probably Italy and all the countries occupied by Germany as well.
Whether they would have been able to set up puppet communist regimes in them
(and keep them all in order) they way they just about managed in Eastern
Europe is another matter entirely.

David.

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]
--
Chris Morriss

In article , Chris Morriss wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]

I usually take it as an indication that the perpetrator only knows the
language through sound, probably because they have never got into the
habit of reading books.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I usually take it as an indication that the perpetrator only knows the
language through sound, probably because they have never got into the
habit of reading books.

It's also an indication that the person is a visual or aural thinker and
does not think in words.

A very common trait of creative people.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:47:39 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote:

In message , Don Pearce
writes
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]

Never mind what it sounds like. Does it make any sense?

d

On Feb 9, 4:59*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
David Looser wrote:

According to the history books the US entered WW2 because it was attacked by
the Japanese. It seems that Michael A. Terrell thinks that Japan is in
Europe.

The US was already active in the war, but not officially. US volunter pilots
were flying missions against both Japan and Germany. THe US was providing
equipment and supplies on a "lend lease" program that allowed them to do it
for free, without violating the official neutrality polices.

US ships were acting as "human shields" to shipping convoys in hope that
a U-Boat would miss their target and hit one, allowing the US to enter into
the war.

Bear in mind that although Roosevelt was pro-war, a lot of people in the US
supported Hitler or wanted to remain neutral. He was just waiting for
an excuse to enter the war.

FDR was a piece of excrement who was used by certain forces to
achieve certain ends. WWII could have been avoided, but they wanted us
in it, badly. So the Japanese-who were brutish toward other Asians but
knew enough not to F with us and had no designs on our turf-were
systematically goaded into attacking Pearl Harbor. It worked well.

We should have stayed out of that stinking war, in which I lost
relatives on both sides. The international bankers and their proxies
should have been allowed to take their medicine and we'd be done with
it.

Most of the men in my family were warriors. I stayed out of the
military, to my mixed regret now.

On Feb 9, 11:43*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Terry Casey" wrote in message

...









In article ,
says...

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

snip

Looking back in hindsight, it would have been very likely that if
Europe
was
not invaded in 1994, by 1946 the Luftwaffe would of had a jet engine
bomber that was undetectable until 20 miles of the coast, able to
fly to New York and an atomic bomb to drop from it.

Not a bomber - it would have been the A10 rocket.

No, there was also a super bomber based on conventional technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

"The most promising proposals were based on conventional principles of
aircraft design and would have yielded aircraft very similar in
configuration and capability to the Allied heavy bombers of the day..."

Which conflicts with the idea of a stealth bomber ...

Right. It wasn't jet powered, either. The jet engines of the day had service
lives measured in integer hours, which means that a flight from Europe to
the US would be pretty much guaranteed to fail. Fuel economy was miserable
as well.

The TBO of the first production German turbojet engine, the Junkers
Jumo 004, was 25 hours. I don't recall specific fuel economy but it
was not terribly worse than second generation axial flow turbojets,
such as the GE J-47 that powered the B-47 and many fighters. One of
which flew over my house a couple of weeks ago-a great noise. Since a
jet sortie of this magnitude would have been a twelve hour flight, it
would have worked.

The Jumo 004 was a very advanced engine, all considered, and with
better hot section materials and a later fuel control system would
have been a credible engine fifteen or twenty years later. Even today
it would be an interesting project, if "interesting" would finance a
high six/low seven figure sum. Hey, it would create employment, unlike
the supposedly shovel ready projects of the imbecilic leadership we
have today.

A better plan for the Germans would have been a B-36 scale aircraft
powered by another Junkers project, the opposed piston diesels which
could make maximum use of turbocharging and thus fly at an altitude
the US had nothing to intercept it with, neither AAA, anti aircraft
missiles nor fighters. Specially modified B-36 aircraft, it is now
forgotten, were capable of reaching altitudes equaling the first
generation U-2s, I think the record was something like 66,300 feet.

On Feb 9, 2:18*pm, "David Looser" wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in ...

Arny Krueger wrote:

Right. It wasn't jet powered, either. The jet engines of the day had
service
lives measured in integer hours, which means that a flight from Europe to
the US would be pretty much guaranteed to fail. Fuel economy was
miserable
as well.

According to the wikipedia entry (quoted in an earlier post), it had the
speed to make it from Paris to New York in about 6-7 hours.

The jet engines would not of gotten you to New York and back, but it would
of gotten an atomic bomb to New York, which is what was intended.

All this is pure speculation. The "flying wing" jet fighter flew test
flights, but crashed killing it's pilot. It was a second copy (that never
flew) that was "liberated" to the USA after the war. None of the other
designs for an "Amerika Bomber" made it off the drawing board. How long
would it have taken to develop any design to the point that it could make
the trans-Atlantic flight? How long would it have taken the Nazis to develop
an atomic bomb, bearing in mind that Germany had ceased all work leading to
one back in '42?

David.

The Germans had the intellectual capacity to build nuclear weapons but
not the industrial capacity to do so.

The United States had more manufacturing capacity in 1944 than the
rest of the world combined. It had real estate to spare on which to
build plants, population to work at them, and none of it was subject
to bombardment as were most other combatants. And the Manhattan
Project was above all else a manufacturing project. It was the
equivalent of a modest sovereign nation unto itself, and like later
efforts like the Skunk Works, it was shielded from external
kibbitzing.

The "Amerika-Bomber" was no more a realistic project than the Ford
Nucleon car or the Starship Enterprise of Star Trek. The Hortens had
had some success with flying wing aircraft, but there are a lot of
reasons why no one builds them today, aside from a few stealth designs
that will be obsolete with future radar developments which are
inevitable. But the engines were not the issue. They'd have taken a
Luftwaffe crew there and back if they had enough fuel.

The Germans pretty well gave up nuclear work when they themselves
realized this. Most of the General Staff and the smarter commanders
knew by 1943 loss was inevitable: a negotiated peace was the best they
were going to do, and for that to happen Hitler had to die. Hitler was
quite insane by then, and the General Staff never trusted or respected
him anyway.

I don't know of any TVs with only 1 IF stage for video.

*'Madman' Earl Muntz made some real crap.

Even his stripped-back products had 3 (6AU6) video IF stages. If memory
serves, they may have had only 1 IF stage for sound, but with intercarrier
sound, that's not a fair comparison.

By the late 60s a number of mainstream manufacturers were building sets that
were influenced by Muntz.

He loved 'Reflex circuits' where a single tube was used at multiple
frqurncies. *He was stingy as hell about bypass capacitors and
shielding, as well.

Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

wrote:


I don't know of any TVs with only 1 IF stage for video.

'Madman' Earl Muntz made some real crap.

Even his stripped-back products had 3 (6AU6) video IF stages. If memory
serves, they may have had only 1 IF stage for sound, but with intercarrier
sound, that's not a fair comparison.

By the late 60s a number of mainstream manufacturers were building sets that
were influenced by Muntz.

He loved 'Reflex circuits' where a single tube was used at multiple
frequencies. He was stingy as hell about bypass capacitors and
shielding, as well.

Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.


I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes:

wrote:
[]
Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

Is that the reflexing someone mentioned, or just a general term for
cheap circuit techniques? I'm not familiar with the name, but (a) I'm in
UK (b) I'm not in the trade.

In a similar vein (though OT for UTB), Amstrad put actually useful - as
opposed to just gaming - computing into many homes and small businesses
where there would not have been any otherwise, especially with his PCW
(personal computer Word processor) series that included a printer. The
machines were often derided by others but provided computing - with
printing, so therefore actually of some use - at a low price. (In UK, in
I think about the early '80s.)

I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.


Was it purely that they were deaf? If so, would they have been one of
the few cases where an external preamp (in the room, not masthead) was
actually useful (or were the noise figures of external preamps pretty
bad then)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a
profound truth may well be another profound truth. -Niels Bohr, physicist
(1885-1962)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes:

wrote:
[]
Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

Is that the reflexing someone mentioned, or just a general term for
cheap circuit techniques? I'm not familiar with the name, but (a) I'm in
UK (b) I'm not in the trade.


A reflex circuit would use the same tube to amplify signals at
different frequencies, like an IF amp and an audio amp by using tuned
circuits to separate the signals. It worked, within reason, but was
touchy. Muntz's habit of removing bypass caps from working designs made
the layout of the point to point wiring quite critical.


In a similar vein (though OT for UTB), Amstrad put actually useful - as
opposed to just gaming - computing into many homes and small businesses
where there would not have been any otherwise, especially with his PCW
(personal computer Word processor) series that included a printer. The
machines were often derided by others but provided computing - with
printing, so therefore actually of some use - at a low price. (In UK, in
I think about the early '80s.)


I used some Commodore 64 equipment for video test generators &
character generators in CATV and while building a commercial TV
station. The baseband video was better than the $60,000 Metrodata
graphics system at the CATV headend, and the video test patterns allowed
me to repair and align the video stages in a 30 year old RCA 25 KW UHF
TV transmitter.


I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.


Was it purely that they were deaf? If so, would they have been one of
the few cases where an external preamp (in the room, not masthead) was
actually useful (or were the noise figures of external preamps pretty
bad then)?


If they could have afforded a decent TV amp in the '50s or '60s, they
could have bought a better tv for less than the amp & the Muntz TV.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

wrote

FDR was a piece of excrement who was used by certain forces to
achieve certain ends. WWII could have been avoided,

Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?

but they wanted us
in it, badly. So the Japanese-who were brutish toward other Asians but
knew enough not to F with us and had no designs on our turf-were
systematically goaded into attacking Pearl Harbor. It worked well.

An interesting claim. Who do you claim was "goading" the Japanese? And what
evidence do you have to back it up?

David.

David Looser wrote:

Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?

FDR was pro-war (or anti-NAZI, depending upon your point of view).

The US had large anti-war (pro-peace) and fascist (pro-Nazi), and
isolationist (do what you want, just don't do it here) populations.
Combined they were enough to prevent him from joining the war.

The fact that the Japanese attacked the US, and (by accident) the attack
was a surprise gave FDR the excuse he needed.

So while it would of been likely that the US did not enter the war in 1941
if there was no attack on Pearl Harbor, eventually Roosevelt would have found
a way, or an attack would of happened.

As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

If Germany had kept its nonagression pact with the Soviet Union, and been
satisifed with Europe, there may not have been a "world" war.

Not likely, but a long train of "ifs" that were possible.


Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He would
have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't allowed to
marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he could
influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in

As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

"He" wouldn't have had the choice. It was the British government that
declared war, not the King. Its entirely true that Edward VIII was at odds
with the Government, and the Wallace Simpson affair gave them the excuse
they needed to get rid of him. But he wouldn't have been able to stop
Britain declaring war even had he still been the King in 1939.

If Germany had kept its nonagression pact with the Soviet Union, and been
satisifed with Europe, there may not have been a "world" war.

That seems to me to be the biggest "if" all. It seems that the invasion of
the Soviet Union was Hitler's ultimate aim all along, the other invasions:
Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc. were just "warm-ups" for the main event.
..

David.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He would
have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't allowed to
marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he could
influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

The marriage bit was a red herring. It was the cleaned up for the public
version of getting rid of him because he was a fascist. If he was not
deposed, it would have meant that there was sufficient support for the
fascists in the UK to keep him in power.

Assuming that support did exist, then one can easily (at least I can)
speculate that he would of not declared war on Germany until they
attacked the UK.

Didn't the UK sign a non-agression pact with Germany over the Studetenland in
September of 1938?

With a King and Parliment supporting the fascists, how far could
Germany have gone without the UK declaring war?

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

David Looser wrote:

That seems to me to be the biggest "if" all. It seems that the invasion of
the Soviet Union was Hitler's ultimate aim all along, the other invasions:
Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc. were just "warm-ups" for the main event.

Of course it's a big if, but assuming that after Germany occupied continental
Europe to the Soviet Union, with no one attacking them, it's not impossible.

If, as I said in a previous post, there was enough fascist support in the
UK to leave Germany alone and the Soviet Union kept to their nonagression
pact, Hitler may have been satisfied with what he had.

I'm sure he had many reasons to attack the Soviet Union, IMHO one of them
was to reduce the capability of the UK and the US by diverting supplies
from the US to the Soviet Union.

Bear in mind that the Soviet Union lost over 20 million citizens during the
war, and I think that faced with a loss of that size, even Stalin would
of sat on his hands, as it were, if he could have avoided it.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He
would have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't
allowed to marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he
could influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

The marriage bit was a red herring. It was the cleaned up for the public
version of getting rid of him because he was a fascist. If he was not
deposed, it would have meant that there was sufficient support for the
fascists in the UK to keep him in power.

It was no red herring. The Church of England in those days had a great
deal of influence. And a future king was simply not allowed to marry a
divorcee. Even after WW2, a princess was banned from marrying one too -
and there was little chance of her ever becoming queen. Things are
different now.

BTW, simply because someone is a fascist doesn't mean to say he'll support
each and every other one in a different country. Any more than a communist
does.

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 11:09:38h +0000, David Looser wrote:

It seems that the invasion of the Soviet Union was Hitler's ultimate
aim all along, the other invasions: Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc.
were just "warm-ups" for the main event.

My understanding was that the most important strategic reason for the
eastward invasion was to take hold of the oil refineries and wells
in Grozny and Baku which were needed to keep the German
industrial-military complex going and of course to deny these
supplies to the USSR which was dependent upon them.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...

The marriage bit was a red herring.

Your understanding of the British constitution appears to be extremely weak.

The "marriage issue" was no red herring, it was a genuine constitutional
issue. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, and the Church
banned the re-marriage of divorcees.

It was the cleaned up for the public
version of getting rid of him because he was a fascist. If he was not
deposed, it would have meant that there was sufficient support for the
fascists in the UK to keep him in power.

How do you work that one out? Deposing a King is a very unlikely event, and
its *not* happening would have proved nothing about support for the fascists
in the UK.

Assuming that support did exist, then one can easily (at least I can)
speculate that he would of not declared war on Germany until they
attacked the UK.

Again you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that it was *his*
choice whether to declare war or not. It was not, that choice lay with the
government. Had Edward VIII still been King in 1939 he'd have been told in
no uncertain terms to keep his views to himself and play the role of
national fugurehead as the government directed.

Didn't the UK sign a non-agression pact with Germany over the Studetenland
in
September of 1938?

Yes, Chamberlain's famous "bit of paper" which applied only to the
Sudetenland; Chamberlain naively thought that Hitler would be satisfied with
that, history shows how misguided Chamberlain was. Britain also had a much
more significant military pact with Poland which was unaffected by the "bit
of paper".

With a King and Parliment supporting the fascists, how far could
Germany have gone without the UK declaring war?

Eh! where does this "and Parliament" bit come from? What makes you think
parliament would ever have supported the fascists?

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...

The marriage bit was a red herring.

Your understanding of the British constitution appears to be extremely
weak.

The "marriage issue" was no red herring, it was a genuine constitutional
issue. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, and the Church
banned the re-marriage of divorcees.

It says a lot about attitudes at the time that people kicked up such as
stink about it. What would have happened if the King had said "bugger the
constitution: I *will* marry Wallace and I *will* remain King" - what
sanction (other than generating a lot of hot air) could the Government and
the Church of England have taken against him. OK, so he'd have got a lot of
people's back up, but maybe he could have toughed that out. Maybe if he had,
he might have forced the Church of England to accept marriage to a divorcee
and to change their stuffy attitude. But I believe that religion should very
much be a servant, not a master - anyone who says "I want to do it but it's
against my religion" has, by definition, chosen the wrong religion to
follow: I'd respect someone much more if they said "I don't want to do it
because it's against my religion".

I'm not saying that he should have remained King. Given his Nazi sympathies,
he would have been a political embarrassment if he'd remained on the throne
right up to the declaration of war. And that is the real reason (IMHO) that
he should have been coerced to step down. The fact that he was a superficial
wastrel didn't help his cause! However the marriage-to-a-divorcee issue,
while evidently very important to some people, is utterly irrelevant as far
as I'm concerned as long as he doesn't commit bigamy - ie make damn sure the
divorce is legal! In other words, the end result was probably correct but it
was justified on a very specious excuse.

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944 ...


Is that what it says in American history books?

No. Our history books say that beaches were assaulted by Americans, British,
and Canadian armies that also included Australian soldiers. More
specifically the American First Army and the British Second Army.

wrote in message
...


I don't know of any TVs with only 1 IF stage for video.

'Madman' Earl Muntz made some real crap.

Even his stripped-back products had 3 (6AU6) video IF stages. If memory
serves, they may have had only 1 IF stage for sound, but with
intercarrier
sound, that's not a fair comparison.

By the late 60s a number of mainstream manufacturers were building sets
that
were influenced by Muntz.

He loved 'Reflex circuits' where a single tube was used at multiple
frqurncies. He was stingy as hell about bypass capacitors and
shielding, as well.

Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

My dad, being an incorrigible cheapskate bought one that we used for at
least a decade.

It did well enough on the 3 US and 1 Canadian station in the Detroit area,
but did not do so well on the UHF station that was started up by a local
university, even with a UHF converter with extra amplification.

On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 19:14:19h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

but did not do so well on the UHF station that was started up by a
local university, even with a UHF converter with extra amplification.

Was WTVS actually *started* by Wayne State University though?


From http://www.dptv.ORG/aboutus/history.shtml

QUOTE

Detroit Public Television (DPTV) began broadcasting in 1955 as
WTVS Channel 56, a non-commercial, educational TV station licensed
to the Detroit Educational Television Foundation.

UNQUOTE


From http://media.wayne.EDU/2011/03/25/wayne-state-university-and-detroit-public-tv

QUOTE

In the 1950s and 1960s, Wayne State's University Television *co-produced*
educational, entertainment, and public affairs programs with DPTV.

UNQOTE

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 19:14:19h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

but did not do so well on the UHF station that was started up by a
local university, even with a UHF converter with extra amplification.

Was WTVS actually *started* by Wayne State University though?


From http://www.dptv.ORG/aboutus/history.shtml

QUOTE

Detroit Public Television (DPTV) began broadcasting in 1955 as
WTVS Channel 56, a non-commercial, educational TV station licensed
to the Detroit Educational Television Foundation.

UNQUOTE


From
http://media.wayne.EDU/2011/03/25/wayne-state-university-and-detroit-public-tv

QUOTE

In the 1950s and 1960s, Wayne State's University Television *co-produced*
educational, entertainment, and public affairs programs with DPTV.

UNQOTE

I have no information that seriously conflicts with published authorities. I
was just working off of memories of the day.

On 14/02/2012 14:37, Arny Krueger wrote:

I have no information that seriously conflicts with published authorities. I
was just working off of memories of the day.



'which' seriously conflicts
'From' memories of the day

You are welcome
Ron

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 09:37:48h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

I have no information that seriously conflicts with published
authorities. I was just working off of memories of the day.

Well the fact that a lot of the early programs were co-productions
with Wayne State would tend to suggest to viewers that WTVS was
started by the Wayne State it-self.

I was not able to find anything else on the web of the history
of WTVS and I wonder if some of the first board members of
Detroit Public Television were perhaps linked to WSU.

On the radio dial, as you know, WSU owns and operates WDET,
but in fact WSU did not start the station. It was originally
WUAW and started and operated by the UAW in 1948 who sold it
to WSU for USD 1 in 1952. This is the reason why WDET, although
a public station, operates on a commercial frequency 101,9 MHz
and not in the reserved public broadcasting sub-band.

So perhaps unlike other larger and more prosperous universities,
WSU did not have the resources to launch a radio station its-self
and the even higher startup costs of a TV station were just out of
the question?

Maybe you could make some inquiries with local historians?

J G Miller wrote:

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 09:37:48h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

? I have no information that seriously conflicts with published
? authorities. I was just working off of memories of the day.

Well the fact that a lot of the early programs were co-productions
with Wayne State would tend to suggest to viewers that WTVS was
started by the Wayne State it-self.

I was not able to find anything else on the web of the history
of WTVS and I wonder if some of the first board members of
Detroit Public Television were perhaps linked to WSU.

On the radio dial, as you know, WSU owns and operates WDET,
but in fact WSU did not start the station. It was originally
WUAW and started and operated by the UAW in 1948 who sold it
to WSU for USD 1 in 1952. This is the reason why WDET, although
a public station, operates on a commercial frequency 101,9 MHz
and not in the reserved public broadcasting sub-band.

So perhaps unlike other larger and more prosperous universities,
WSU did not have the resources to launch a radio station its-self
and the even higher startup costs of a TV station were just out of
the question?

Maybe you could make some inquiries with local historians?


Have you dug through the FCC broadcast database? There is a wealth
of data availible if you have the time to look for it.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 11:42:42h -0500,
Michael A. Terrell asked:

Have you dug through the FCC broadcast database?

No, but a quick check now in the ownership database records
pulls up the oldest record available as being from 1979,

http://licensing.fcc.GOV/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=11068

and this only shows the applicant name Detroit Educational
Television Foundation, with no details of the managing committee.

My question related to 1955 and whether any of the management
committe of DETF were in fact from, or affliated to, Wayne State University.

J G Miller wrote:

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 11:42:42h -0500,
Michael A. Terrell asked:

? Have you dug through the FCC broadcast database?

No, but a quick check now in the ownership database records
pulls up the oldest record available as being from 1979,

?http://licensing.fcc.GOV/cgi-bin/ws....tion_id=11068?

and this only shows the applicant name Detroit Educational
Television Foundation, with no details of the managing committee.

My question related to 1955 and whether any of the management
committe of DETF were in fact from, or affliated to, Wayne State University.


All FCC records are supposed to be there, somewhere. Someone dug out
early records on WLW a while back. Has the station always had the same
call letters?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 12:41:25h -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

All FCC records are supposed to be there, somewhere.

Supposed.

Using the search facility at

http://www.fcc.gov/data/search-gallery

returns no record before 1979 under the item

Consolidated Public Database System €“ Application Search Results

and no record before 2001 under the item

Consolidated Public Database System €“ Ownership Report Search

Has the station always had the same call letters?

To the best of my knowledge since it went on air in 1955, it
has always been WTVS

J G Miller wrote:

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 12:41:25h -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

? All FCC records are supposed to be there, somewhere.

Supposed.

Using the search facility at

?http://www.fcc.gov/data/search-gallery?

returns no record before 1979 under the item

Consolidated Public Database System €“ Application Search Results

and no record before 2001 under the item

Consolidated Public Database System €“ Ownership Report Search

? Has the station always had the same call letters?

To the best of my knowledge since it went on air in 1955, it
has always been WTVS


I used to have no problem finding old records, but it looks like they
have 'downsized' the database. I can't even find the TV station I built
in Destin, Florida. That was around 1989m on Ch 58 with the call of
WMRX.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.