From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 21:02:42 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

When Churchill took over as PM in May of 1940, half of his army was soon
dead on the mainland,

Nope.

Most of the British army was evacuated to England (mostly but not
entirely at Dunkirk where 300,000 Brits were evacuated as well as
200,000 some of whom went to England, most returned to France just in
time to surrender) - and they left most of their equipment on the
continent but DID escape with their lives.

This temporarily made 1st Canadian Division a VERY important part of
British defence plans as until the veterans of Dunkirk were able to
re-arm, 1st Canadian was the ONLY fully equipped division in the UK
during the period of maximum fear over a potential Sealion attack. By
January 1941 the British Army was re-equipped and fairly strong but
for that 3 month period, 1st Canadian played a critical role. (As they
did in 1944 but 4th quarter 1940 was a totally different war than June
1944)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:10:09 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

History repeats, doesnrCOt it? Nowadays, Israel is seen as an important >bulwark against ... something or other. And therefore Americans must
turn a blind eye to any atrocities it is committing against the people
living on lands that it wants for itself.

If Israel is committing any atrocities at all (which is disputable)
their "evil deeds" are a small fraction of what Hitler did and the
Gazan tendency (along with their friends in America and Europe) is
particularly insulting to link Israel to the Nazis (as the Arabs are
intending to be and their fanbois in the West are too clueless to
understand) - and it's particularly terrible as the Jews were Hitler's
primary (but not only) target.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 17:22:30 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

When Churchill took over as PM in May of 1940, half of his army was
soon dead on the mainland,

Nope.

William Hyde

Ah, you have a different view of history ?-a Please present it to us.

I use the version that involves facts.

Counting injured and captured, as well as dead, British casualties were
far less than 50%. The number of dead was not remotely close to your claim.

If what our friend said was remotely true no way would Churchill have
sent troops to North Africa in the fall of 1940 during Britain's time
of maximum danger. The fact he did so confirms Churchill's view that
Britain was in far less danger of invasion than many were claiming.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 17:55:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

You are correct according to wikipedia. I got a different impression
from the "Darkest Hour" movie somehow.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555426/

Lynn

I certainly hope neither Wikipedia or the movie you cite are your
primarily sources on early WW2 (e.g. before the invasion of Russia)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 16:17:26 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

In his first term he attacked transgendered people especially those
serving honorably in the Military.
In his second term he reattacked the transgenders in the Military and
as well denied the existence of civilian transgendered people with his >executive order which also ruled out the very real existence of the >intersexual people. These are not a large group and no threat to
the nations non-transgendered folks.

In your 2nd paragraph are you referring to folks surgically
transgendered or are you talking about the small minority of those
small number of people who carry chromosomes other than XX and XY?

(e.g. only one X chromosome, XXX, XXY etc. Note that Y chromosome only
doesn't exist presumeably because that gene combination is not viable
- e.g. able to survive - in the womb - there are all kinds of combos
and all rare - altogether that's about 1 in 10000 of the general
population. Not completely insignificant but not a large portion of
the population either)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 16:17:26 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

Trump does not equal Hitler but he poorly imitates Hitler, though
he acts like Mussolini at times. If he would just shave his head...

I don't think Trump resembles Hitler at all - you do have a point on
Mussolini particularly with respect to multiple sexual partners
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 09:17:18 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:

Eighty years later we have the benefit of hindsight. Although we still keep >appeasing fascists anyway.

North America and Europe are appeasing Communists (and their "fellow travellers") FAR more than we do fascists as people like Mayor Mamdani
and Starmer regularly demonstrate.

And the rhetoric is steadily turning leftwards as is rampant in the UK particularly with respect to illegal migrants.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:52:25 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

In his memoirs he said:

"I asked General Weygand, in French (which I spoke indifferently in both >senses of the word) - `Ou est la masse de Manouvre?'"

"He replied `Aucune'"

"I was surprised. Hadn't the previous war proven that it was always >necessary to have a strategic reserve?".

I can't say that my recollection is word for word correct, but it's
close. I do recall the French and WSC's quip about his use of it.

Churchill definitely described the encounter with Weygand as you just
did in his 6 volume history - which I assume is what you call his
memoirs.

What is interesting about that history is the role played by the
Attlee government since Attlee (who had worked with Churchill during
the war as part of his wartime coalition) that WW2 histories would be
written in the first 10 years after the war and that it was highly
important to present the British point of view. And of course he also
knew Churchill was a noted writer in his own right and that he
naturally WOULD present the British point of view better than anybody
else. Most importantly from his point of view, Attlee also knew that
while Churchill was writing his history, he'd be spending less time in
the Commons that the Leader of the Oppositoin probably should be
spending.

One of my wife's greatest birthday gifts to me was a 1st hard cover
edition of the 6 volume set - no dust jackets (which were part of the
1st printing) but otherwise, the set was intact. I had already read
all 6 volumes by that point but I was still extremely grateful for the
gift.

(I'm expecting my children to get most of my things when I'm gone and
of my 3 children hope my eldest - who did history honours in
university - to get these books. The set is in extremely good
condition)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2