Skip to comments.
NAZIS’ CHURCH FOE REFUSES TO BREAK (12/30/38)
Microfiche-New York Times archives
| 12/30/38
| No byline
Posted on 12/30/2008 5:40:30 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
To: PAR35
Thanks. That means I am not crazy. Just addle-brained.
21
posted on
12/30/2008 5:29:36 PM PST
by
Homer_J_Simpson
("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
To: Homer_J_Simpson
In the sad story about the little girl not being allowed to be buried in the Catholic cemetery because her family was no longer Catholic, it is fascinating to see the Nazis associating with a minority group (protestants in Styria), using their ‘victimization’ to advance against a political opponent, in this case the Austrian Catholics.
To: Homer_J_Simpson
It's very interesting to see the posturing of countries like Great Britain in the lead up to the war. Lot's of information about military capabilities, etc., all intended as propaganda I assume to make statement to Germany.
Also I never knew the happenings of the Kennedys was news so far back. Ol' smuggler Joe must have had quite a bit of influence.
To: Homer_J_Simpson; CougarGA7
"According to a chart in Appendix F of Gathering Storm, At 9/3/39 the British had seven aircraft carriers operational and two under construction. That is more than I would have guessed but it is still a long way from twelve." Check out this site:
Illustrious Class Aircraft Carriers
Note that at this point in 1938, all four new carriers were under construction, and assuming the Times is a bit out of date, adding the Ark Royal would make five "under construction."
That leaves us to wonder what the old "seven" operational carriers were in 1938. No doubt, as you say, converted coalers & the like...
And I think you suggest the right idea, that these were intended more for anti-submarine warfare -- hugely important, but not the same category as battleships -- rather than anti-battleshipship weapons.
Always interesting to see how they then thought the next war would be fought, verses how it actually turned out...
24
posted on
12/31/2008 8:49:01 AM PST
by
BroJoeK
(a little historical perspective...)
To: BroJoeK
Hard to say. Wasn't Spaatz saying at this time that airpower was going to make the Battleship obsolete and was chastized for it (I'd have to look that up, I think it was Spaatz).
At any rate I remembered from an old episode of Wings over Water that the early carriers were all coverted ships (i.e U.S.S. Langley) but that naval aviation pretty much went on a fast track as far as purpose, mission, and equipment during the post WWI era. One of the reasons for this was the restrictions placed on captital ships by treaties during that time. Aircraft carriers did not fall under the tonnage and capability restrictions that battleships did.
25
posted on
12/31/2008 2:27:08 PM PST
by
CougarGA7
(Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson