I think the Eastern Front is ignored mainly because there in no good guy. Stalin murdered more people than all of the tyrants in the 20th century put together, and Hitler is, well, Hitler.
Hard to find entertainment in a story where you hate all the characters.
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Biggest myth in history?
airwarrior

Member Since: November 21, 2002
entire network: 2,085 Posts
KitMaker Network: 559 Posts

Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007 - 02:22 PM UTC
long_tom

Member Since: March 18, 2006
entire network: 2,362 Posts
KitMaker Network: 309 Posts

Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007 - 02:56 PM UTC
I thought the idea of the French Foreign Legion anyway was that you joined it to forget your former girlfriend.
(A common joke from the early 20th century, BTW)
(A common joke from the early 20th century, BTW)spooky6

Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts

Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007 - 05:38 PM UTC
Quoted Text
IIRC the FFL have never won a battle.
Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? The Legion's won many battles, like Narvik in 1940, when they drove out the Germaan garrison and captured the town in spite of being outnumbered 3:1.
hellbent11

Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts

Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007 - 05:46 PM UTC
Oh, I am afraid I may take some flak for this.. but here goes...
#1 Lincoln "freed" the slaves with the Amancipation Proclamation.. which only covered slaves in the Confederacy and was only designed to hurt the South's production ability.
#2 the Civil war was fought over slavery...where most people of the time felt that it was states rights vs the power/role of the federal government. IMHO the end of slavery was a byproduct of the war.
Hope I didn't step on any toes...
#1 Lincoln "freed" the slaves with the Amancipation Proclamation.. which only covered slaves in the Confederacy and was only designed to hurt the South's production ability.
#2 the Civil war was fought over slavery...where most people of the time felt that it was states rights vs the power/role of the federal government. IMHO the end of slavery was a byproduct of the war.
Hope I didn't step on any toes...
goldenpony

Member Since: July 03, 2007
entire network: 3,529 Posts
KitMaker Network: 422 Posts

Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 12:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Oh, I am afraid I may take some flak for this.. but here goes...
#1 Lincoln "freed" the slaves with the Amancipation Proclamation.. which only covered slaves in the Confederacy and was only designed to hurt the South's production ability.
#2 the Civil war was fought over slavery...where most people of the time felt that it was states rights vs the power/role of the federal government. IMHO the end of slavery was a byproduct of the war.
Hope I didn't step on any toes...
![]()
![]()
Very good points. The whole problem is too many focus about the salvery issue. Lincoln never wanted to end slavery. He just did not want it spread into new states. The south saw this as a threat to thier way of life and economy. They wanted the states to be allowed to be the choice on slavery. It can come right down to $$$$$$$$$.
Hohenstaufen

Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 04:10 AM UTC
Well here goes for a British perspective on things.
As regards the French never winning any wars, well the last one they won against us unaided was in 1066! Of course you could make the case that since they invaded England then, half of us are of French descent anyway, so our victories at Crecy, Agincourt, Quebec, Waterloo etc don't count! This would be like saying that the Americans didn't really win their War of Independence because they were really still English but rebels! (BTW The War of Independence is also sometimes referred to as "The American Revolution" over here.) I say unaided above because obviously they were fighting on the side of the American colonies, which gives them a half share in a victory over us in 1783, and they were only there in the first place because they saw it as a chance to stir up trouble in our back yard after we'd booted them out of Canada. On the other hand, since "Norman" means "North man" i.e. the Normans were originally from Scandinavia, you could say that Hastings in 1066 was just an internal family feud! Is this convoluted enough for you?
If you want a straightforward myth debunked, how about that Stalingrad was the turning point of WW2 (or El Alamein, or Midway)? All wrong. The battle that meant that Hitler would never win was the Battle of Britain in1940. By failing to invade the UK, Hitler was left (a) with a foe at his back, allbeit one unable to do much in the short term, (b) a European base for the U.S. Army that would play a major part in liberating Western Europe. Once Hitler chose to invade Russia he was eventually doomed anyway, whatever happened, as Napoleon had been before him. If you don't believe me, how about this. After the surrender, Russian journalists interviewed von Rundstedt about the turning point of the war. They expected him to say Stalingrad, but he said the Battle of Britain. When they challenged him, he just replied "Without that victory, what others would there have been?" (in German of course). The Russians closed their notebooks and went away.
Political correctness in the US dictates that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. No serious student of history anywhere else in the world has ever doubted that it was fought for states rights. Incidentally, a point no one has bothered to bring up, blacks in the South were materially much worse off after slavery was abolished, since their Southern employers no long owned them , they didn't give a toss for their welfare. You don't seem to read much in US circles about the fact that (a) the British were the first to make slavery illegal (in 1807) and ban it throughout the Empire (in 1837), (b) the Royal Navy was actively involved in enforcing this ban worldwide; but of course that could just be written off as us Brits throwing our weight about again (especially since the stop and search methods led to the war of 1812). The KKK were only seen as the "good guys" in "Birth of a Nation" made in 1915. Don't know what that says about Hollywood...
Dunno about Ronald Reagan (or any other President) winning the Cold War. I thought it was won by default as the US was the only superpower still on its feet after the Russians bankrupted themselves trying to out produce the West in nuclear and conventional weapons (China didn't really count then, a situation that has changed radically in the last 20 years).
As regards the French never winning any wars, well the last one they won against us unaided was in 1066! Of course you could make the case that since they invaded England then, half of us are of French descent anyway, so our victories at Crecy, Agincourt, Quebec, Waterloo etc don't count! This would be like saying that the Americans didn't really win their War of Independence because they were really still English but rebels! (BTW The War of Independence is also sometimes referred to as "The American Revolution" over here.) I say unaided above because obviously they were fighting on the side of the American colonies, which gives them a half share in a victory over us in 1783, and they were only there in the first place because they saw it as a chance to stir up trouble in our back yard after we'd booted them out of Canada. On the other hand, since "Norman" means "North man" i.e. the Normans were originally from Scandinavia, you could say that Hastings in 1066 was just an internal family feud! Is this convoluted enough for you?
If you want a straightforward myth debunked, how about that Stalingrad was the turning point of WW2 (or El Alamein, or Midway)? All wrong. The battle that meant that Hitler would never win was the Battle of Britain in1940. By failing to invade the UK, Hitler was left (a) with a foe at his back, allbeit one unable to do much in the short term, (b) a European base for the U.S. Army that would play a major part in liberating Western Europe. Once Hitler chose to invade Russia he was eventually doomed anyway, whatever happened, as Napoleon had been before him. If you don't believe me, how about this. After the surrender, Russian journalists interviewed von Rundstedt about the turning point of the war. They expected him to say Stalingrad, but he said the Battle of Britain. When they challenged him, he just replied "Without that victory, what others would there have been?" (in German of course). The Russians closed their notebooks and went away.
Political correctness in the US dictates that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. No serious student of history anywhere else in the world has ever doubted that it was fought for states rights. Incidentally, a point no one has bothered to bring up, blacks in the South were materially much worse off after slavery was abolished, since their Southern employers no long owned them , they didn't give a toss for their welfare. You don't seem to read much in US circles about the fact that (a) the British were the first to make slavery illegal (in 1807) and ban it throughout the Empire (in 1837), (b) the Royal Navy was actively involved in enforcing this ban worldwide; but of course that could just be written off as us Brits throwing our weight about again (especially since the stop and search methods led to the war of 1812). The KKK were only seen as the "good guys" in "Birth of a Nation" made in 1915. Don't know what that says about Hollywood...
Dunno about Ronald Reagan (or any other President) winning the Cold War. I thought it was won by default as the US was the only superpower still on its feet after the Russians bankrupted themselves trying to out produce the West in nuclear and conventional weapons (China didn't really count then, a situation that has changed radically in the last 20 years).
NebLWeffah

Member Since: October 13, 2004
entire network: 1,683 Posts
KitMaker Network: 284 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 04:26 AM UTC
Two things.....
The Hollywood perpetuated myth that the US won the second world war all by themselves.
and....
That Columbus discovered America. In truth, what he did 'discover' and prove was that the world was a lot bigger than we thought. I don't doubt his feat of seamanship and nautical prowess to navigate three small ships each no bigger than my kitchen table to a point much farther than the end of any chart of the time (remember - "here be dragons"...?) and leading them to the so called New World. What followed might be classified as invasion and genocide if it where to happen today, but why let a little bit of creative history get in the way....
Bob
The Hollywood perpetuated myth that the US won the second world war all by themselves.
and....
That Columbus discovered America. In truth, what he did 'discover' and prove was that the world was a lot bigger than we thought. I don't doubt his feat of seamanship and nautical prowess to navigate three small ships each no bigger than my kitchen table to a point much farther than the end of any chart of the time (remember - "here be dragons"...?) and leading them to the so called New World. What followed might be classified as invasion and genocide if it where to happen today, but why let a little bit of creative history get in the way....
Bob
Hohenstaufen

Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 04:31 AM UTC
The French insistance on the "sunken road" being a decisive factor at Waterloo may have some basis in fact. After the battle, the Belgian king had an enormous mound built to commemorate the part Dutch/Belgian troops played in the battle (they made up a significant part of Wellington's army, alongside Germans and Hanoverians). Known as the Lion Mound, as it is surmounted by a lion looking towards France, the earth was found from the battlefield around it, significantly altering the skyline on the top of the ridge. Wellington was still around on it's completion, and was somewhat put out, commenting that they had "ruined his battlefield".
Cambronne (sp?) probably never said "La Garde meurte, mais ne se rende pas" or even "Merde!" when called on to surrender, but what the hell, it makes a good story.
If Custer had taken along the Gatling guns attached to his regiment, instead of leaving them behind lest they slow him down, Little Big Horn could have had a very different outcome.
Cambronne (sp?) probably never said "La Garde meurte, mais ne se rende pas" or even "Merde!" when called on to surrender, but what the hell, it makes a good story.
If Custer had taken along the Gatling guns attached to his regiment, instead of leaving them behind lest they slow him down, Little Big Horn could have had a very different outcome.
Hohenstaufen

Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 04:40 AM UTC
Another myth. The 24th Foot was not a Welsh regiment in 1879. The members of B Company who defended Rorkes Drift were fairly evenly divided between those of English, Irish and Welsh extraction (the Welsh were recruited in Birmingham the year before, Birmingham was then in Warwickshire, theoretically I suppose it still is). At the time the 24th was the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment. There was a Volunteer battalion which recruited from the Welsh Marches called the South Wales Borderers, and a depot in Brecon, and this was the title the Regiment assumed after the Cardwell Reforms of 1881. The 6th Foot became the Warwickshire Regiment.
Removed by original poster on 10/03/07 - 23:57:29 (GMT).
Drader

Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 08:26 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Well here goes for a British perspective on things.
As regards the French never winning any wars, well the last one they won against us unaided was in 1066!
What about the 100 Years War?
David
Drader

Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 08:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
That Columbus discovered America. In truth, what he did 'discover' and prove was that the world was a lot bigger than we thought.
It's difficult to work out what was behind Columbus' argument about the size of the Earth. Various Greek and other mathematicians had produced fairly accurate estimates of the size of the earth (as well as lots of spurious ones) long ago. Newfoundland had of course been briefly settled by the Vikings and Basque whalers and cod fishermen from other parts of Europe were crossing the Atlantic by the middle of the 15th century, so the American continent wasn't unknown. Columbus was no fool and had done his research.
I suspect that Columbus deliberately selected a low figure as part of his pitch to Ferdinand and Isabella, in order to get them to sponsor his voyage.
David
Hohenstaufen

Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts

Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 09:28 PM UTC
Yes, quite right David, not my period! How do you forget about 100 years?! My excuse is that I wasn't really thinking that getting your own country back (except for Calais) was a victory, but of course it is. The French victory ended any legitimate English claims to the French throne, and laid the basis of France as a homogenous country (previously it was split three ways, French, English and Burgundian possessions).
Actually this reminds me of an earlier myth, that of Richard I (the Lionheart). Far from being the great British king of legend, he spoke only French, hated England and spent almost no time there, most of the time being on crusade. He left the administration of England to his brother John, always depicted as an evil tyrant because of Magna Carta, but who in fact was probably one of our most effective monarchs, particularly bearing in mind that he was hamstrung by the constant demands for money from his feckless brother to continue his warmongering, and later to ransom him when he was captured while returning from the Holy land.
Actually this reminds me of an earlier myth, that of Richard I (the Lionheart). Far from being the great British king of legend, he spoke only French, hated England and spent almost no time there, most of the time being on crusade. He left the administration of England to his brother John, always depicted as an evil tyrant because of Magna Carta, but who in fact was probably one of our most effective monarchs, particularly bearing in mind that he was hamstrung by the constant demands for money from his feckless brother to continue his warmongering, and later to ransom him when he was captured while returning from the Holy land.
goldenpony

Member Since: July 03, 2007
entire network: 3,529 Posts
KitMaker Network: 422 Posts

Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 01:58 AM UTC
Steve,
I did not know that about Richard I, interesting.
I did not know that about Richard I, interesting.
Airchalenged

Member Since: October 21, 2006
entire network: 188 Posts
KitMaker Network: 56 Posts

Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 05:11 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextOh, I am afraid I may take some flak for this.. but here goes...
#1 Lincoln "freed" the slaves with the Amancipation Proclamation.. which only covered slaves in the Confederacy and was only designed to hurt the South's production ability.
#2 the Civil war was fought over slavery...where most people of the time felt that it was states rights vs the power/role of the federal government. IMHO the end of slavery was a byproduct of the war.
Hope I didn't step on any toes...
![]()
![]()
Very good points. The whole problem is too many focus about the salvery issue. Lincoln never wanted to end slavery. He just did not want it spread into new states. The south saw this as a threat to thier way of life and economy. They wanted the states to be allowed to be the choice on slavery. It can come right down to $$$$$$$$$.
![]()
Here is a "nice" little fact I found on line.
Quoted Text
Lincoln did not believe that whites and blacks could live together in peace. He had planned to relocate the entire black population of the United States to Central America.
You can actually see the beginning of this thread for a similar topic.
here is a random fact for thought as well:
Quoted Text
talk about oops! The first civilian killed by the abolitionist John Brown and his cohorts at Harper’s Ferry was a free black man.
goldenpony

Member Since: July 03, 2007
entire network: 3,529 Posts
KitMaker Network: 422 Posts

Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 07:44 AM UTC
Here is one that is interesting.
Wyatt Erp was acting totally for law and order in Tombstone.
*Hint* Not really!
Wyatt Erp was acting totally for law and order in Tombstone.
*Hint* Not really!
long_tom

Member Since: March 18, 2006
entire network: 2,362 Posts
KitMaker Network: 309 Posts

Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 12:50 PM UTC
Here's one I'm surprised hasn't come up: The 1937 purge of the Soviet Army deprived it of all its good officers on ideological grounds and caused it to perform so badly in 1941.
Actually, the purge was to get rid of a lot of incompetent officers, which was a real problem in the Soviet Army of the time, and that was caused by overexpansion of the military and poor development and training. It was that which was really responsible for the poor performance of 1941. Also, bad military officers were simply discharged from the military and expelled from the Communist Party (membership a requirement for officers), rather than receiving harsher punishments.
Actually, the purge was to get rid of a lot of incompetent officers, which was a real problem in the Soviet Army of the time, and that was caused by overexpansion of the military and poor development and training. It was that which was really responsible for the poor performance of 1941. Also, bad military officers were simply discharged from the military and expelled from the Communist Party (membership a requirement for officers), rather than receiving harsher punishments.
trickymissfit
Member Since: October 03, 2007
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts

Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 03:35 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThe reason for the (US) civil war was to free the slaves.
In our education system it seems that any answer other than “to free the slaves” is incorrect, regardless of the reasons that motivated men to risk there lives.
I'm glad to see someone agrees with me.
Quoted TextThat the Japanese made a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had intended the declaration of war to be delivered prior to the attack.
Good point. A Reader's Digest documentary I have said that the failure of the Japanese embassy to deliver the declaration on time, was due to the ambassador's inability to type quickly. I don't know how accurate that is, just a thought.
* we were taught in school that when they shot up Ft. Sumter; it was the start of the War Between The States. But that's not even close! What started the Civil was was when Lincoln sent 90,000 Union regulars into Northern Virginia.
* the attack on Pearl Harbor went almost exactly an hour too soon.
* My all time favorite one is that the Japanese Zero was built of wood! That story persisted all the way into the early seventies
gary
rockthekazbah12

Member Since: September 07, 2007
entire network: 52 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts

Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 03:35 AM UTC
I'm not just saying this to try to be cool. My aunt Peggy Evans was 2nd in command of counter-terrorism for the CIA in the Reagan administration and I think the first Bush administration of the 90's. From what I've been told it is not purely a bureaucracy but many actions they have tried to take against our enemies were not done because of bureaucratic red tape.
trickymissfit
Member Since: October 03, 2007
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts

Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 06:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Okay I was mostly talking about what the actual army was fighting for. I guess I should change the myth to "the confederate army was fighting for slavery" or "the common confederate soldier was a slave holder and was fighting to keep his slaves" or something along those lines. I hadn't actually put that much thought into the government side of the issue.
Matt
Shelby Foote once said that 70% of the Confederate Army as well as 70% of the Union said they would not go to war over slavery. Those numbers kinda make sense to me as the only parties that made an issue of it was Lincoln and his chroneys. That war was fought over "states rights." And I might add, states rights have been affirmed by the Supreme Court at least ten times since then.
I seriously think that if people were to dig into Lincoln and his actions with a completely unbiased view; he would be well known as a "dictator."
Why? Look into his actions:
* he tried to have the entire Supreme Court imprisioned when they informed him that they would affirm states rights if it came before them.
* he had the Congressional Representatives from at least one state arrested because they disaggreed with his views (Maryland)
* he had members of the press arrested for what they printed (1st Amendment & the Bill of Rights in itself). To add something else here; FDR did the samething too.
* he knowing waged a war against a civilian population as well as the military (this is a war crime)
* he knew that there were bands of thugs, robbers,and rapist that that followed alongside some of his units (Sheridan comes to light here).
Eli Whitney set the wheels in motion to kill slavery. The steam engine would also be in there as well. So with slavery dieing (except in the Northeast) a slow death; what was that war fought over? Purely economics (like most wars are fought over in the last 150 years). Ever heard the term "cotten is king?" Well in the 1860's it was king. Where was all the cotten money at? In the deep south, of course. And who wanted a piece of that action? The bankers in the north! Suggest you all do an economic study of the early 1860's from at least three sources. Remember what Harry S. Truman once said; "History Is Written By The Victors." The more I study history, the more I see he was right on.
gary
trickymissfit
Member Since: October 03, 2007
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts

Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 06:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextOh, he had plenty to do with it, though it's politically incorrect to say so.
Not "politically incorrect" , simply incorrect. The thing Reagan can be credited with was some moral leadership, such as denouncing the Berlin wall. But the communist system was defeated from within, especially by the truly heroic people of Poland, and ultimately by Gorbachev's refusal to send in the Red Army to put down the latest in a long series of rebellions. Once people knew he wasn't going to send tanks into the streets of eastern Europe, things really fell apart and it was a matter of time.
This is a big, complex subject but IMO Reagan's role is vastly overrated in the USA.
what Reagan did was to "out research" the Soviets (guess that's they way to say it anyway). He went into weapons development that was ahead of anything the Russians had up their sleeves. An example would be the B-1 bomber and the M-1 tank. In so doing the Russians had to spend a ton of money that they really didn't have just to keep up. This became an endless "catch 22!" Look what "Star Wars" alone did to the Russian economy! The Russians have been quoted in the past as saying that they really were not all that afraid of "Star Wars" as much as what we might find in doing our research. The same holds true with sumbmarines and submarine launched missiles. They are spending tons of money trying to catch up, and in the process breaking themselves without ever firing a shot. China is next and they already know it.
gary
Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 06:23 AM UTC
Back to biggest myths, rather than historical representation
The perceived Nazi redoubt in the Bavarian Alps, or what about the Myth that various high ranking Nazis escaped Berlin at the last hour, to resettle amongst others in South Amerika? Sightings aplenty over the years, so it must be true..
Cheers
Henk
The perceived Nazi redoubt in the Bavarian Alps, or what about the Myth that various high ranking Nazis escaped Berlin at the last hour, to resettle amongst others in South Amerika? Sightings aplenty over the years, so it must be true..
Cheers
Henk
trickymissfit
Member Since: October 03, 2007
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts

Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 06:57 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextAll those programs were begun under Jimmy Carter believe it or not. The big buildup started while he was President, but the effects only kicked in while Reagan was in. I'm not trying to rehab Jimmy Carter here, but Reagan would not have had the benefit of those programs had he initiated them...they would have been too late for his presidency.We built the B1, the MX, the Pershing 2, started down the road to the largest peace time build up of American Military might in history.
..... None of this would have happened without the help of our allies and without Ronald Reagan.
![]()
WRONG! All Carer did was to cancel the B-1, and did his best to get rid of the M-1 tank. The one thing Jimmy Carter was good at was doing nothing, and screwing up everything that did work well. Anybody here know about Carter leaving 315 POWs behind in Laos? The data is in his library. Jimmy Carter now adays is almost constantly in violation of the Logan Act, and many of his actions border treason.
Carter did do a few intersting things during his tenure. He managed to get the price of peanuts tripled (I happen to love peanut butter). He cleaned up nearly everybody's dishonorable discharge (his son had one for dope). He brought all the draft dodgers back with no penalty while other's sons died or were maimed in combat. He had the highest priced gas we've ever seen in a peacetime (inflation factored in of course). He had the absolute highest interest rates for home mortgages (even without factoring in inflation). He invented the "Usury Index", and used it to win an election. But only found it was his undoing in the end. Anybody remember 21% mortgage rates?
gary
redshirt

Member Since: January 26, 2007
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts

Posted: Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 09:21 PM UTC
We built the B1, the MX, the Pershing 2, started down the road to the largest peace time build up of American Military might in history.
..... None of this would have happened without the help of our allies and without Ronald Reagan.
________________________________________
All those programs were begun under Jimmy Carter believe it or not. The big buildup started while he was President, but the effects only kicked in while Reagan was in. I'm not trying to rehab Jimmy Carter here, but Reagan would not have had the benefit of those programs had he initiated them...they would have been too late for his presidency.
________________________________________
WRONG! All Carer did was to cancel the B-1, and did his best to get rid of the M-1 tank. The one thing Jimmy Carter was good at was doing nothing, and screwing up everything that did work well. Anybody here know about Carter leaving 315 POWs behind in Laos? The data is in his library. Jimmy Carter now adays is almost constantly in violation of the Logan Act, and many of his actions border treason.
Carter did do a few intersting things during his tenure. He managed to get the price of peanuts tripled (I happen to love peanut butter). He cleaned up nearly everybody's dishonorable discharge (his son had one for dope). He brought all the draft dodgers back with no penalty while other's sons died or were maimed in combat. He had the highest priced gas we've ever seen in a peacetime (inflation factored in of course). He had the absolute highest interest rates for home mortgages (even without factoring in inflation). He invented the "Usury Index", and used it to win an election. But only found it was his undoing in the end. Anybody remember 21% mortgage rates?
gary
How does any of this apply to the topic, or respond to the myth in the statements that you quote. Not that I am a jimmy fan but, but your Rant is full of double talk and sensationalism.
The B1 and M1 were underway during his administration. Yes, he canceled the B1 and tried to cancel the M1, the economy was in crisis and the budget deficit was not helping.
Carter was simultaneously good at doing nothing, screwing everything up that worked well and did a few interesting things?
In fulfilling his campaign promise to grant amnesty to draft dodgers, discharges other than honorable for those who didn’t dodge were reviewed to provide eligibly to VA services, benefits and civil service.
Should he have upheld those discharges on those sons risked death and maiming when they could have avoided the whole thing by dodging?
The highest price for gas during peace– true, but consider the factors: deregulation, the Iranian crisis, the weak dollar and oil company manipulation of supply. Also, he could have pushed for war with Iran and avoided this statistic. But then the price would have had to been adjusted for the blood spent.
By “usury index” I assume you are referring to the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980. Do you recall stagflation? As painful as this deregulation was and how it was later abused under Reagan (not by) it was necessary to consolidate the nationalization of the banking industry. Although it allowed it, it did not cause the 21.5 prime rate – The economy did. Double-digit inflation, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth, the growing budget deficit, the cost of the war in Vietnam and the Cold War made money scarce. At the same time the usury laws were further stopping the flow of money needed to fuel the economy. Sure you did not have to pay 21.5% but you probably didn’t get the loan anyway and if you did mortgage interest is tax deductible. As painful as it was, it was probably the single most effective step taken to end stagflation.
As to . “Anybody here know about Carter leaving 315 POWs behind in Laos? The data is in his library.”
Its news to me and “The data is in his library” is not a reference.
Also accusing someone of federal offences and a capital crime is serious enough that the specifics should not be left out.
Don’t believe everything you hear or read, research you information, reference your sources and stay on topic.
..... None of this would have happened without the help of our allies and without Ronald Reagan.
________________________________________
All those programs were begun under Jimmy Carter believe it or not. The big buildup started while he was President, but the effects only kicked in while Reagan was in. I'm not trying to rehab Jimmy Carter here, but Reagan would not have had the benefit of those programs had he initiated them...they would have been too late for his presidency.
________________________________________
WRONG! All Carer did was to cancel the B-1, and did his best to get rid of the M-1 tank. The one thing Jimmy Carter was good at was doing nothing, and screwing up everything that did work well. Anybody here know about Carter leaving 315 POWs behind in Laos? The data is in his library. Jimmy Carter now adays is almost constantly in violation of the Logan Act, and many of his actions border treason.
Carter did do a few intersting things during his tenure. He managed to get the price of peanuts tripled (I happen to love peanut butter). He cleaned up nearly everybody's dishonorable discharge (his son had one for dope). He brought all the draft dodgers back with no penalty while other's sons died or were maimed in combat. He had the highest priced gas we've ever seen in a peacetime (inflation factored in of course). He had the absolute highest interest rates for home mortgages (even without factoring in inflation). He invented the "Usury Index", and used it to win an election. But only found it was his undoing in the end. Anybody remember 21% mortgage rates?
gary
How does any of this apply to the topic, or respond to the myth in the statements that you quote. Not that I am a jimmy fan but, but your Rant is full of double talk and sensationalism.
The B1 and M1 were underway during his administration. Yes, he canceled the B1 and tried to cancel the M1, the economy was in crisis and the budget deficit was not helping.
Carter was simultaneously good at doing nothing, screwing everything up that worked well and did a few interesting things?
In fulfilling his campaign promise to grant amnesty to draft dodgers, discharges other than honorable for those who didn’t dodge were reviewed to provide eligibly to VA services, benefits and civil service.
Should he have upheld those discharges on those sons risked death and maiming when they could have avoided the whole thing by dodging?
The highest price for gas during peace– true, but consider the factors: deregulation, the Iranian crisis, the weak dollar and oil company manipulation of supply. Also, he could have pushed for war with Iran and avoided this statistic. But then the price would have had to been adjusted for the blood spent.
By “usury index” I assume you are referring to the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980. Do you recall stagflation? As painful as this deregulation was and how it was later abused under Reagan (not by) it was necessary to consolidate the nationalization of the banking industry. Although it allowed it, it did not cause the 21.5 prime rate – The economy did. Double-digit inflation, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth, the growing budget deficit, the cost of the war in Vietnam and the Cold War made money scarce. At the same time the usury laws were further stopping the flow of money needed to fuel the economy. Sure you did not have to pay 21.5% but you probably didn’t get the loan anyway and if you did mortgage interest is tax deductible. As painful as it was, it was probably the single most effective step taken to end stagflation.
As to . “Anybody here know about Carter leaving 315 POWs behind in Laos? The data is in his library.”
Its news to me and “The data is in his library” is not a reference.
Also accusing someone of federal offences and a capital crime is serious enough that the specifics should not be left out.
Don’t believe everything you hear or read, research you information, reference your sources and stay on topic.
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 06:12 AM UTC
Quoted Text
* we were taught in school that when they shot up Ft. Sumter; it was the start of the War Between The States. But that's not even close! What started the Civil was was when Lincoln sent 90,000 Union regulars into Northern Virginia.
gary
My wife is a Civil War history buff and has checked her sources (though she probably didn't need to). Anything you have heard about Lincoln sending 90,000 Federal troops into Northern Virginia BEFORE the war started is a myth. Number one there was no such force at that time, and it was AFTER the firing on Ft. Sumter that Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to be called up. Sorry but you have been a victim of the myth thing.

Jim
PS: Please keep this interesting topic civil or it will be locked. ~ Thanks.
PPS: Perhaps some of you need to just check your facts a bit more (proving the point of this topic). For example if you lookup the B1 program on Wikipedia you get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer, which btw points out that the program was already underway during Nixon's term. Here's the interesting historical bit though....
Quoted Text
The program remained highly controversial. In particular, Senator William Proxmire continually derided it in public, arguing it was an outlandishly expensive dinosaur. During the 1976 federal election campaign, Jimmy Carter made it one of the Democratic Party's platforms, saying "The B-1 bomber is an example of a proposed system which should not be funded and would be wasteful of taxpayers' dollars."
Another cancellation
When Carter took office in 1977 he ordered a review of the entire program. By this point the projected cost of the program had risen to over $100 million per aircraft, although this was lifetime cost over twenty years. He was informed of the relatively new work on stealth aircraft that had started in 1975, and decided that this was a far better avenue of approach than the B-1. Pentagon officials also stated that the ALCM launched from the existing B-52 fleet would give the USAF equal capability of penetrating Soviet airspace. With a 1500 mile range, the ALCM could be launched well outside the range of any Soviet defenses, and penetrate at low altitude just like a bomber, but in much greater numbers. A program to improve the B-52 and develop and deploy the ALCM would cost perhaps 20% of the price to deploy the planned 244 B-1A's.
On 30 June 1977 Carter announced that the B-1A would be canceled, in favor of ICBMs, SLBMs, and a fleet of modernized B-52s armed with ALCMs.[5] Carter called it "one of the most difficult decisions that I've made since I've been in office." No mention of the stealth work was made public, the program being top secret, but today it is known that he started the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) project in early 1978, which eventually led to the B-2 Spirit.
![]() |











