Philip,
The US was involved in WWI, though not to the extent of the UK,
certainly. The involvement of two of my uncles was sufficient to get one
buried in France and the other gassed so that his lungs were never right
thereafter. I believe that the US Expeditionary forces suffered only 50M
casualties. Incredible, isn't it, that that number is only a small
fraction of the ones the Tommys suffered, not to mention the Belgians,
French, Alsations and all the rest who got dragged into the
conflagration.
Bob
On Thu, 11 Dec 97 21:25:22 -0000 Phil <mgworld@chp.ltd.uk> writes:
>On 11/12/97 8:36 pm ROBERT G. HOWARD said
>
>> No, unfortunately. Gallipoli in this reference is something far
>worse,
>>one of the incomprehensible human events that call into question the
>idea
>>that mankind is on the top of the evolutionary pyramid.
>> Gallipoli is a peninsula on the west side of the Dardanelles.
>During
>>WWI, it was decided by the Brits that the peninsula should be invaded
>>from the sea, the territory being Turkish and Turkey being an ally of
>>Germany. The lads directed to do the landings were, principally, from
>New
>>Zealand and Australia. The invasion was a disaster, and the troops
>on
>>shore were left there without reinforcement for weeks. In addition to
>a
>>disaster, it was a disgrace for the casualty rate was appalling.
>WWI is
>>noted today for its casualty rates, and the dogged determination of
>>strategic planners to continue pushing an immovable object against an
>>irresistible force.
>
>Sounds terrible. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the
>US
>wasn't involved in WW1?
>
>Philip Raby
>Editor, MG World
>PO Box 163, Bicester OX6 3YS, UK
>Tel: 01869 340061 Fax: 01869 340063 Mobile 0467 767361
>www.chp.ltd.uk
>
>
|