POLES HOLD GERMANS IN BATTLE FOR WARSAW (9/7/39)

Microfiche-New York Times archives, McHenry Library, U.C. Santa Cruz | 9/7/39 | Otto D. Tolischus, Hanson W. Baldwin, G.H. Archambault, P.J. Philip, Ferdinand Kuhn Jr.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

EDITORIAL

[GeronL]

Wow. Let have a movie made about the Grand Stroll

[tcrlaf]

Manaar was sunk on 6 September by U-38
No Mention of “Tamara” on Uboat.net

Also today the United States cargo Ship Warrior is detained by the British
Released 11 days; Cargo removed NE Atlantic

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The French Commander Gamelin is hopefully thoroughly discussed in military academies as an example of how not to be a military commander.

[GeronL]

“The Stroll” starring the cast of Pink Panther

[Huck]

Not exactly. According to this old newspaper, he wanted to help our allies with equipment/arms. The GOP was opposed to it.

[GeronL]

hhhhmmmm

I’ll have to think on that

[BroJoeK]

"My only criticism of the book was it spent way too much time on supply statistics."

How do they say it?

"Amateurs talk tactics. Dilettantes talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics"

;-)

[BroJoeK]

"Paradoxically and ironically, the French government may have forgone a chance to win, not lose, the war of 1939-1940 not because of lack of confidence but because of overconfidence."

An extraordinary insight. Might we say, the French had a plan -- or at least an idea -- for how to win the war, and would not let the Germans or any other intervening circumstances divert them from it?

[henkster]

Yes. They had “Plan A,” which was winning the war without really having to fight it. You should read “Strange Victory” in its entirety to see the bizarre logic behind “Plan A.” As for “Plan B” there was none.

[CougarGA7]

Lol. True, but once you have an understanding that the Napoleonic standard was 18 wagons per 1000 troops you don’t need to bring it back up every chapter, nor do you need to get too involved with the mule to horse ratio. Especially when you have built a very good book around the developing doctrine of offensive entrenchment and the increasing difficulty of the frontal assault.

[BroJoeK]

GeronL: "That was also FDR’s “official position” I believe right up until Pearl Harbor, then both parties agreed I think to go to war"

Huck: "Not exactly. According to this old newspaper, he wanted to help our allies with equipment/arms. The GOP was opposed to it."

GeronL: "hhhhmmmm"

Here's one way to think about it -- the 1940 presidential election.

Besides New Yorker Roosevelt, the Democrats had two leading candidates, another New Yorker James Farley and Texan John Nance Garner. None of these were known as isolationists.

On the Republican side were four major candidates:

• Businessman Wendell Willkie of New York
• Manhattan District Attorney Thomas Dewey of New York
• Senator Robert Taft of Ohio
• Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg of Michigan

Taft and Vandenberg were Isolationists. New Yorker Wilkie got the nomination, and ran accusing FDR of a plan to take America to war. Roosevelt responded by promising he would:

"not send American boys into any foreign wars."

And the result was: 27 million for FDR, 22 million for Wilkie. And notice the election map:

It looks a bit like today's maps, except of course, the once Democratic "solid South" now mostly votes Republican, and those folks were not Isolationists back in 1940.

[BroJoeK]

"nor do you need to get too involved with the mule to horse ratio"

Ha! ;-)

You don't know my background, of course. I love logistics, built a career on it. No interest in strategy -- leave that to the armchair generals. Logistics is what wins -- or more often loses -- wars, as the brilliant German military of 1939 & 1940 will soon enough learn, to its dismay.