PDA

View Full Version : Quotes quiz



WaistGunner
07-19-2006, 01:34 PM
In another thread someone suggested an idea for a quote quiz. I loved that idea so I would be happy to start it off. I love quotes.

If you answer correctly you get to post the next quote.


"If I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

Gen. Sandworm
07-19-2006, 02:23 PM
In another thread someone suggested an idea for a quote quiz. I loved that idea so I would be happy to start it off. I love quotes.

If you answer correctly you get to post the next quote.


"If I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

Curtis Lemay

Gen. Sandworm
07-24-2006, 03:11 AM
Was I right on that one????

WaistGunner
07-24-2006, 11:52 AM
Sorry,
Yes you were right. He was referring to the firebombing campaign on Japan in 1945.

WaistGunner
07-24-2006, 11:57 AM
You stated your answer so matter of fact I figured you didn't have a doubt wether you were right or wrong so I've just been waiting for the next quote.

Hiddenrug
09-06-2006, 02:43 AM
Heres one. Some chicken, Some neck!

WaistGunner
09-09-2006, 03:04 PM
Heres one. Some chicken, Some neck!

Was it Winston Churchill in his address to the Canadian Parliment?

Hiddenrug
09-10-2006, 02:52 AM
Exactly chap!

Norris
09-17-2006, 10:50 AM
got an easy one but

" there is no such thing as retreating its only advancing in the other direction"

Gen. Sandworm
10-02-2006, 06:20 AM
got an easy one but

" there is no such thing as retreating its only advancing in the other direction"

Patton

PzKpfw VI Tiger
12-26-2006, 11:34 AM
Hope you don't mind if I jump in.

How about this one.

"Men are basically smart or dumb and lazy or ambitious. The dumb and ambitious ones are dangerous and I get rid of them. The dumb and lazy ones I give mundane duties. The smart ambitious ones I put on my staff. The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders."

Gen. Sandworm
12-27-2006, 06:36 AM
Hope you don't mind if I jump in.



Christ I was beginning to think you died! Welcome back!

PzKpfw VI Tiger
12-27-2006, 05:59 PM
Christ I was beginning to think you died! Welcome back!

haha. thanks for the welcome General, nice to know you're still around :) .

Cuts
02-04-2007, 04:06 AM
Hope you don't mind if I jump in.

How about this one.

"Men are basically smart or dumb and lazy or ambitious. The dumb and ambitious ones are dangerous and I get rid of them. The dumb and lazy ones I give mundane duties. The smart ambitious ones I put on my staff. The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders."

The Desert Fox.

Egorka
03-14-2007, 08:41 AM
Here is another one. Who said this smart phrase and when?





"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither od them think anything of their pledged word."

Librarian
03-14-2007, 06:16 PM
Well… It seems to me that previously mentioned sentence was outspoken by Mr. Harry S. Truman – a personality with a classicistic two-tone necktie on this photo.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/HarryS.jpg

And the very day is June 23rd 1941, a day after Germany attacked the Soviet Union.

Egorka
03-15-2007, 04:04 AM
Correct! Very good googling skills, Librarian! ;)

Trumans words where printed in New York Times on 24-June-1941. so I guess he said it the day before.

Here is the scan of the article "Our Policy Nazi-Soviet War" (left).

The second scan (right) is the echo of the first one 10 years later (New York Times, 03-Feb-1951), article "West's Treachery Assailed in Soviet".

Egorka
03-15-2007, 04:19 AM
Hi,

Here is a new one. Who said this and when (this one is more tricky)?
Who abused word "appeasement " in this case? ;)





"In conclusion may I express my ardent wish that Your Excellency's appeal for peace may contribute towards general appeasement which the people of the world so sorely need to return once more to the blessed path of progress and civilization."

Librarian
03-16-2007, 03:07 PM
Oh, no my dear Mr. Egorka – I am not using that magnificent data-crunch creation – as a professional librarian I do possess something even more sophisticated – OPAC. Believe me, aforesaid contraption is truly magnificent.:)

And yes – aforementioned snippet was verbalized by a man with a black Bow Tie from the preceding photo. And the date is August 25, 1939.

As usualy - all the best!

Egorka
03-16-2007, 05:10 PM
Oh, no my dear Mr. Egorka – I am not using that magnificent data-crunch creation – as a professional librarian I do possess something even more sophisticated – OPAC. Believe me, aforesaid contraption is truly magnificent.:)

And yes – aforementioned snippet was verbalized by a man with a black Bow Tie from the preceding photo. And the date is August 25, 1939.

As usualy - all the best!

Nanannannanaaa... Wrong! Hehehehee... if you have found the document contaning the quote, I suggest you read it carefully again. ;) The date is right though.

Come on, you can do it!

N.B: Librarian, thanks for participating. Without you this Quiz would be a bit lonely place for my sarcastic quote collection.

Rising Sun*
03-17-2007, 08:06 AM
Can I offer one? It might be well known but it's still a nice line although there are various versions of it reported.

"It's not your duty to die for your country. It's your duty to make the other poor bastard die for his country."

american sniper
03-17-2007, 11:19 AM
George S. Patton

My turn i know this one every one knows but i think this is the best quote from the whole war

"Nuts"

Egorka
03-17-2007, 04:04 PM
George S. Patton

My turn i know this one every one knows but i think this is the best quote from the whole war

"Nuts"

Guys,

You are rushing things. My quote about "apeacement" has not been formally cracked yet...
:cool:

Librarian
03-20-2007, 06:53 AM
I am deeply ashamed, my dear Mr. Egorka. I was so rushed that I just tossed here the first mental content of my careless reading. Confiteor: Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!:oops:

Of course, correct answer is: Ignace Moszicki, President of the Polish Republic.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/PolishPresidentMoscicki.jpg

BTW – I think that I have found one pretty interesting and unknown quotation. This time it will be my turn.;)

As always – all the best!

Egorka
03-20-2007, 09:28 AM
Librarian, Excellent! But you are right, tea culpa, tea maxima culpa ;)

The first time I read that document I actually made the same mistake!

This is the docuement where Roosevelt quotes Moszicki:
President Roosevelt to the Chancelor of Germany (Hitler), [Telegram], AUGUST 25, 1939.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/fdr7.htm

What is yours?

Shadow Of Evil
04-08-2007, 08:59 AM
here is an extremely easy one:

"He who wants to live must fight, and he who does not want to fight in this world, has no right too exist"

Egorka
04-17-2007, 01:47 AM
Answer: Adolf Hitler


Here is an other easy one. And not very much WW2 related. Maybe just tiny bit. I though of this one while bying breakfast in my bakary. :)

Ich bin ein berliner!

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 02:05 AM
Answer: Adolf Hitler


Here is an other easy one. And not very much WW2 related. Maybe just tiny bit. I though of this one while bying breakfast in my bakary. :)

Ich bin ein berliner!


President John F Kennedy on visiting West Berlin in 1963.

I'm old enough to remember it happening.

Egorka
04-17-2007, 02:58 AM
You of course know what this statement means literally, right?

Amrit
04-17-2007, 03:06 AM
You of course know what this statement means literally, right?

:D

And yet they still cheered!

Egorka
04-17-2007, 03:17 AM
Donuts! Is there anything they are not good for?




Homer Simson

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 03:18 AM
You of course know what this statement means literally, right?

I know what it's been said to mean literally but I'm not sure it does.

I'm not a German speaker so I can't make my own judgment, but the better view seems to be that it was gramatically correct German and that he was not calling himself a jelly doughnut.

Much as I hate quoting Wiki on anything, this article covers the issue.


"Jelly doughnut" urban legend

A Berliner.According to an urban legend, Kennedy made a slightly embarrassing grammatical error by saying "Ich bin ein Berliner," referring to himself not as a citizen of Berlin, but as a common pastry:

Kennedy should have said "Ich bin Berliner" to mean "I am a person from Berlin." By adding the indefinite article ein, his statement implied he was a non-human Berliner, thus "I am a jelly doughnut".

The legend stems from a play on words with Berliner, the name of a doughnut variant filled with jam or plum sauce that is thought to have originated in Berlin, although it was not known under that name in Berlin or nearby parts of Germany at that time, where it was called Pfannkuchen (pancake).

In fact, the statement is grammatically correct and cannot be misunderstood in that context. The urban legend is not widely known in Germany, where Kennedy's speech is considered a landmark in the country's postwar history. The indefinite article is omitted generally when speaking of an individual's profession or residence (ex: "Er ist Soldat" for "He is a soldier") but including it is merely redundant, not ambiguous.

The origins of the legend are obscure. One prominent instance of its re-telling was in 1988 when William J. Miller erroneously wrote in an April 30 New York Times article:

What they did not know, but could easily have found out, was that such citizens never refer to themselves as "Berliners." They reserve that term for a favorite confection often munched at breakfast. So, while they understood and appreciated the sentiments behind the President's impassioned declaration, the residents tittered among themselves when he exclaimed, literally, "I am a jelly-filled doughnut."

Although it has no basis in fact, the legend has since been repeated by reputable media, such as the BBC [2], The Guardian [3], MSNBC [4], CNN [5], Time magazine [6], and in several books about Germany written by English-speaking authors.

As for the creation of the speech, it had been reviewed by journalist Robert Lochner, who was educated in Germany, and had been practiced several times in front of numerous Germans, including Berlin Mayor Willy Brandt. The many video and audio recordings of the event show only enthusiastic applause following the statement. During the speech Kennedy used the phrase twice, ending his speech on it. However, Kennedy did pronounce the sentence with his Boston accent, reading from his note "ish bin ein Bearleener," which he had written out phonetically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner

Egorka
04-17-2007, 05:17 AM
:) I read this article. Wiki is a crap in this case. This sentence is wrong:

"The indefinite article is omitted generally when speaking of an individual's profession or residence (ex: "Er ist Soldat" for "He is a soldier") but including it is merely redundant, not ambiguous".
It is NOT redundant! It changes the meaning.

The only issue could be that the citizens of Berlin did not reffer to donuts as Berliners. That could be correct.

But today when I passed by the bakery (in Copenhagen) I asked for "en berliner". And you know what? I got a couple! :) VERY HEALTHY! :)

Correction: One of my German colleagues says that you can say EIN, but it is more slang than normal official language. The donuts are not calles "Berliner" in Berlin, but almost in the whole rest of the country.

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 06:04 AM
:) Wiki is a crap in this case.

Oh! No!

You mean I can't trust Wiki?

I am devastated. ;)

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 07:17 AM
Egorka

WTF is a Russian fluent in German doing in a Copenhagen bakery?

You're not opening the Second Front, are you? :D

Egorka
04-17-2007, 07:44 AM
Egorka

WTF is a Russian fluent in German doing in a Copenhagen bakery?

You're not opening the Second Front, are you? :D

Second front? No, mate! No way!
You have to wait for the second front for 3 years!
In the mean while I can send you a berliner instead! :mrgreen:

P.S: I live and work in Copenhagen these days.

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 08:11 AM
You have to wait for the second front for 3 years!


Only in Russia.

Italy got a second front in about half that time, and it wasn't even an Ally! :)

Everything took longer in Russia, because of the very long queues. :D

Egorka
04-17-2007, 08:57 AM
Only in Russia.

Italy got a second front in about half that time, and it wasn't even an Ally! :)

Everything took longer in Russia, because of the very long queues. :D

Please, do not get me started on this "second front" in Italy... :shock:

Lets rather put some quotes in here...

Rising Sun*
04-18-2007, 07:43 AM
"I represent 60,000 dead Australians." (And numerous variants.)

Why was it said, and to whom?

Amrit
04-18-2007, 07:50 AM
Billy Hughes, Australian PM to Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference over the claims on German colonies in the Pacific (New Guinea) and reparations. Wilson hated him

Rising Sun*
04-18-2007, 09:21 AM
Billy Hughes, Australian PM to Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference over the claims on German colonies in the Pacific (New Guinea) and reparations. Wilson hated him

That's it.

There are various versions, but the essence of all versions is that Wilson objected to a minor nation like Australia participating in the peace treaty negotiations with the big boys like America, which came in late and lost fewer men by number or percentage from a vastly larger population than other combatants, thus establishing America’s customary participation in a world war.

In WWI, America lost about 53,000 dead from a population of about 100 million. Australia lost about 60,000 dead from a population of less than 5 million. Australia had the highest percentage casualty rate of Imperial troops sent overseas: 65%. New Zealand 59%. Britain 51%.

So, when during the peace treaty negotiations Wilson condescendingly asked Hughes who he represented, Hughes said, more or less "Mr President, I represent 60,000 dead Australians." Wilson shut up.

Hughes was not, of course, Australian by birth but Welsh. You've got to love that Welsh attitude. Spending all that time in the dark with pit ponies makes them quite taciturn.

Separate issue. The man in your signature has an impressive record. Presumably he’s related to you. Apparently he transferred from the RAF to the RIAF to fight in Burma? Like to tell us more about him?

Amrit
04-18-2007, 09:52 AM
And the longest serving parliamentarian in australian history. But I have to admit that I'd never have heard of him if I hadn't gotten interested in the Peace Conference (for a completely different reason - the rejection of Japan's proposal for acceptance that all races are equal).

Who wrote "Let someone else get killed!"

As to Squadron Leader Pujji, no he's not a relative. But he is someone who I admire greatly. Volunteered for the RAF back in 1940, travelled from India with 23 other Indians, and saw his first action on sweeps over France with the squadrons mentioned. He is said to have shot down 2 aircraft, before being transferred to North Africa for ground attack duties. Was shot down in the desert, and was very lucky to be found by a passing convoy.

He was transferred to the Indian Air Force, and continued operations throughout the war over Burma (completing two tours). He was also the first Indian to be allowed to keep his turban, and had special headphones made. He states that he loved Britain when he first arrived and was made very welcome by everyone. He just wishes the same was true when he came back and settled here in 1974.

DFC citation:
This officer has flown on many reconnaissance sorties over Japanese occupied territory, often in adverse monsoon weather. He has obtained much valuable information of enemy troop movements and dispositions, which enabled an air offensive to be maintained against the Japanese troops throughout the monsoon. Flight Lieutenant Pujji has shown himself to be a skilful and determined pilot who has always displayed outstanding leadership and courage

My user-name is from his aircraft.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 08:42 AM
My user-name is from his aircraft.

I missed that photo first time around for some reason.

I have to confess that, until you arrived on the scene, it had never really occurred to me that there were Indian pilots in the RAF or RIAF.

It's an interesting history that perhaps you could expand upon if you know more about it.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 08:45 AM
Who wrote "Let someone else get killed!"


Joseph Heller?

A line by Yossarian?

Milo Minderbinder?

Or some other character in Catch-22?

Actually, upon reflection, I'm reasonably sure that it was me, upon receiving my call-up notice. I didn't want to get deaded! :D

Amrit
04-19-2007, 09:25 AM
I missed that photo first time around for some reason.

I have to confess that, until you arrived on the scene, it had never really occurred to me that there were Indian pilots in the RAF or RIAF.

It's an interesting history that perhaps you could expand upon if you know more about it.

The site below has done an excellent job of highlighting the Indian contribution to the RAF and the RIAF during the war. I'm currently reading "The Salford Lancaster - the fate of 106 Squadron's PB304". One of the gunners was a Sergeant Mohand Singh, who had been training to be a doctor in London when he was called up. He flew 22 missions before being killed in the crash of the books title.

There are many more lesser known "coloured" Commonwealth airmen who flew in the RAF, but trying to track them down has been proving to be difficult.

http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/


Joseph Heller?

A line by Yossarian?

Milo Minderbinder?

Or some other character in Catch-22?


Yep, you're right - Catch-22. But I can't remember who said it either. I read the book years ago and it's one of the quotes that I still remember.


Actually, upon reflection, I'm reasonably sure that it was me, upon receiving my call-up notice. I didn't want to get deaded! :D

:D

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 07:43 PM
The site below has done an excellent job of highlighting the Indian contribution to the RAF and the RIAF during the war. I'm currently reading "The Salford Lancaster - the fate of 106 Squadron's PB304". One of the gunners was a Sergeant Mohand Singh, who had been training to be a doctor in London when he was called up. He flew 22 missions before being killed in the crash of the books title.

There are many more lesser known "coloured" Commonwealth airmen who flew in the RAF, but trying to track them down has been proving to be difficult.

http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/

Thanks for that.

It's interesting stuff.

Walther
04-20-2007, 07:34 AM
I know what it's been said to mean literally but I'm not sure it does.

I'm not a German speaker so I can't make my own judgment, but the better view seems to be that it was gramatically correct German and that he was not calling himself a jelly doughnut.

Much as I hate quoting Wiki on anything, this article covers the issue.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner

Actually his pronounciation was so bad it rather sounded like "Ich bin ein Paar Wiener" (I'm a pair of sausages)

Jan

Walther
04-20-2007, 07:40 AM
I know what it's been said to mean literally but I'm not sure it does.

I'm not a German speaker so I can't make my own judgment, but the better view seems to be that it was gramatically correct German and that he was not calling himself a jelly doughnut.

Much as I hate quoting Wiki on anything, this article covers the issue.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner

Actually his pronounciation was so bad it rather sounded like "Ich bin ein Paar Wiener" (I'm a pair of sausages)

Jan

Rising Sun*
04-20-2007, 08:13 AM
Actually his pronounciation was so bad it rather sounded like "Ich bin ein Paar Wiener" (I'm a pair of sausages)

Jan

He was probably referring to the next two presidents to follow him. :D

Egorka
04-20-2007, 02:11 PM
Actually his pronounciation was so bad it rather sounded like "Ich bin ein Paar Wiener" (I'm a pair of sausages)

Jan

Jan, what you, as a German, can say about meaning of "Ich bin ein Berliner"?

Cuts
06-05-2007, 12:47 PM
George S. Patton

My turn i know this one every one knows but i think this is the best quote from the whole war

"Nuts"

Which of course, was never said.

Gen. Sandworm
06-05-2007, 01:16 PM
Which of course, was never said.

Thats debatable! Its just one of those that can be argued and we will never know. However thats what was related to the press and troops. Most likely it was probably "shit" and toned down later.

Cuts
06-07-2007, 05:48 AM
However thats what was related to the press and troops. Most likely it was probably "shit" and toned down later.

Spot on !
With the moral watchog of the media breathing down the neck of everyone it was, and possibly still is, not the done thing to have an 'All-American Hero' acting like a soldier and normal human being and uttering base four-letter words.

But "Nuts !" it never was.

Gen. Sandworm
06-07-2007, 05:59 AM
Well if he didnt say it he might as well have. Makes you wonder if this had happened today would it be related the same way. Im not so sure. Depends on the situation i guess.

Egorka
06-25-2007, 03:01 PM
Guys, I have this easy one, though not WW2 related:



"I beleve that this nation shoulld commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth"
Who said this?

AllHailCesar
06-26-2007, 09:34 AM
Kennedy.

Rising Sun*
06-27-2007, 08:39 AM
Kennedy.

If you mean JFK, yes.

But it's interesting to see where this grand plan fits into a much bigger scheme, which some might see as America trying to regain the glory of, among other things, being top dog in space after the Russians had put a dog into space years before the Americans had managed to get anything much up there. And, just a month or so before Kennedy's speech, the Russians had got the first man into space for a single but hugely significant orbit.

So, here's where it fits into America's presidential vision at the time, in JFK's 'Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs' on May 25, 1961



Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, my copartners in Government, gentlemen-and ladies:

The Constitution imposes upon me the obligation to "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union." While this has traditionally been interpreted as an annual affair, this tradition has been broken in extraordinary times.

These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause.

No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom.

That is our conviction for ourselves--that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man--or any nation--or any system--except as it is hostile to freedom. Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote the freedom doctrine.

I.

The great battleground for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe--Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East--the lands of the rising peoples. Their revolution is the greatest in human history. They seek an end to injustice, tyranny, and exploitation. More than an end, they seek a beginning.

And theirs is a revolution which we would support regardless of the Cold War, and regardless of which political or economic route they should choose to freedom.

For the adversaries of freedom did not create the revolution; nor did they create the conditions which compel it. But they are seeking to ride the crest of its wave--to capture it for themselves.

Yet their aggression is more often concealed than open. They have fired no missiles; and their troops are seldom seen. They send arms, agitators, aid, technicians and propaganda to every troubled area. But where fighting is required, it is usually done by others--by guerrillas striking at night, by assassins striking alone--assassins who have taken the lives of four thousand civil officers in the last twelve months in Vietnam alone--by subversives and saboteurs and insurrectionists, who in some cases control whole areas inside of independent nations.

[At this point the following paragraph, which appears in the text as signed and transmitted to the Senate and House of Representatives, was omitted in the reading of the message:

They possess a powerful intercontinental striking force, large forces for conventional war, a well-trained underground in nearly every country, the power to conscript talent and manpower for any purpose, the capacity for quick decisions, a closed society without dissent or free information, and long experience in the techniques of violence and subversion. They make the most of their scientific successes, their economic progress and their pose as a foe of colonialism and friend of popular revolution. They prey on unstable or unpopular governments, unsealed, or unknown boundaries, unfilled hopes, convulsive change, massive poverty, illiteracy, unrest and frustration.]

With these formidable weapons, the adversaries of freedom plan to consolidate their territory--to exploit, to control, and finally to destroy the hopes of the world's newest nations; and they have ambition to do it before the end of this decade. It is a contest of will and purpose as well as force and violence--a battle for minds and souls as well as lives and territory. And in that contest, we cannot stand aside.

We stand, as we have always stood from our earliest beginnings, for the independence and equality of all nations. This nation was born of revolution and raised in freedom. And we do not intend to leave an open road for despotism.

There is no single simple policy which meets this challenge. Experience has taught us that no one nation has the power or the wisdom to solve all the problems of the world or manage its revolutionary tides--that extending our commitments does not always increase our security--that any initiative carries with it the risk of a temporary defeat--that nuclear weapons cannot prevent subversion--that no free people can be kept free without will and energy of their own--and that no two nations or situations are exactly alike.

Yet there is much we can do--and must do. The proposals I bring before you are numerous and varied. They arise from the host of special opportunities and dangers which have become increasingly clear in recent months. Taken together, I believe that they can mark another step forward in our effort as a people. I am here to ask the help of this Congress and the nation in approving these necessary measures.

II. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS AT HOME

The first and basic task confronting this nation this year was to turn recession into recovery. An affirmative anti-recession program, initiated with your cooperation, supported the natural forces in the private sector; and our economy is now enjoying renewed confidence and energy. The recession has been halted. Recovery is under way.

But the task of abating unemployment and achieving a full use of our resources does remain a serious challenge for us all. Large-scale unemployment during a recession is bad enough, but large-scale unemployment during a period of prosperity would be intolerable.

I am therefore transmitting to the Congress a new Manpower Development and Training program, to train or retrain several hundred thousand workers, particularly in those areas where we have seen chronic unemployment as a result of technological factors in new occupational skills over a four-year period, in order to replace those skills made obsolete by automation and industrial change with the new skills which the new processes demand.

It should be a satisfaction to us all that we have made great strides in restoring world confidence in the dollar, halting the outflow of gold and improving our balance of payments. During the last two months, our gold stocks actually increased by seventeen million dollars, compared to a loss of 635 million dollars during the last two months of 1960. We must maintain this progress--and this will require the cooperation and restraint of everyone. As recovery progresses, there will be temptations to seek unjustified price and wage increases. These we cannot afford. They will only handicap our efforts to compete abroad and to achieve full recovery here at home. Labor and management must--and I am confident that they will--pursue responsible wage and price policies in these critical times. I look to the President's Advisory Committee on Labor Management Policy to give a strong lead in this direction.

Moreover, if the budget deficit now increased by the needs of our security is to be held within manageable proportions, it will be necessary to hold tightly to prudent fiscal standards; and I request the cooperation of the Congress in this regard--to refrain from adding funds or programs, desirable as they may be, to the Budget--to end the postal deficit, as my predecessor also recommended, through increased rates--a deficit incidentally, this year, which exceeds the fiscal 1962 cost of all the space and defense measures that I am submitting today--to provide full pay-as-you-go highway financing--and to close those tax loopholes earlier specified. Our security and progress cannot be cheaply purchased; and their price must be found in what we all forego as well as what we all must pay.

Rising Sun*
06-27-2007, 08:41 AM
III. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS ABROAD

I stress the strength of our economy because it is essential to the strength of our nation. And what is true in our case is true in the case of other countries. Their strength in the struggle for freedom depends on the strength of their economic and their social progress.

We would be badly mistaken to consider their problems in military terms alone. For no amount of arms and armies can help stabilize those governments which are unable or unwilling to achieve social and economic reform and development. Military pacts cannot help nations whose social injustice and economic chaos invite insurgency and penetration and subversion. The most skillful counter-guerrilla efforts cannot succeed where the local population is too caught up in its own misery to be concerned about the advance of communism.

But for those who share this view, we stand ready now, as we have in the past, to provide generously of our skills, and our capital, and our food to assist the peoples of the less-developed nations to reach their goals in freedom--to help them before they are engulfed in crisis.

This is also our great opportunity in 1961. If we grasp it, then subversion to prevent its success is exposed as an unjustifiable attempt to keep these nations from either being free or equal. But if we do not pursue it, and if they do not pursue it, the bankruptcy of unstable governments, one by one, and of unfilled hopes will surely lead to a series of totalitarian receiverships.

Earlier in the year, I outlined to the Congress a new program for aiding emerging nations; and it is my intention to transmit shortly draft legislation to implement this program, to establish a new Act for International Development, and to add to the figures previously requested, in view of the swift pace of critical events, an additional 250 million dollars for a Presidential Contingency Fund, to be used only upon a Presidential determination in each case, with regular and complete reports to the Congress in each case, when there is a sudden and extraordinary drain upon our regular funds which we cannot foresee--as illustrated by recent events in Southeast Asia--and it makes necessary the use of this emergency reserve. The total amount requested--now raised to 2..65 billion dollars--is both minimal and crucial. I do not see how anyone who is concerned--as we all are--about the growing threats to freedom around the globe--and who is asking what more we can do as a people--can weaken or oppose the single most important program available for building the frontiers of freedom.

IV.

All that I have said makes it clear that we are engaged in a world-wide struggle in which we bear a heavy burden to preserve and promote the ideals that we share with all mankind, or have alien ideals forced upon them. That struggle has highlighted the role of our Information Agency. It is essential that the funds previously requested for this effort be not only approved in full, but increased by 2 million, 400 thousand dollars, to a total of 121 million dollars.

This new request is for additional radio and television to Latin America and Southeast Asia. These tools are particularly effective and essential in the cities and villages of those great continents as a means of reaching millions of uncertain peoples to tell them of our interest in their fight for freedom. In Latin America, we are proposing to increase our Spanish and Portuguese broadcasts to a total of 154 hours a week, compared to 42 hours today, none of which is in Portuguese, the language of about one-third of the people of South America. The Soviets, Red Chinese and satellites already broadcast into Latin America more than 134 hours a week in Spanish and Portuguese. Communist China alone does more public information broadcasting in our own hemisphere than we do. Moreover, powerful propaganda broadcasts from Havana now are heard throughout Latin America, encouraging new revolutions in several countries.

Similarly, in Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand, we must communicate our determination and support to those upon whom our hopes for resisting the communist tide in that continent ultimately depend. Our interest is in the truth.

V. OUR PARTNERSHIP FOR SELF-DEFENSE

But while we talk of sharing and building and the competition of ideas, others talk of arms and threaten war. So we have learned to keep our defenses strong--and to cooperate with others in a partnership of self-defense. The events of recent weeks have caused us to look anew at these efforts.

The center of freedom's defense is our network of world alliances, extending from NATO, recommended by a Democratic President and approved by a Republican Congress, to SEATO, recommended by a Republican President and approved by a Democratic Congress. These alliances were constructed in the 1940's and 1950's--it is our task and responsibility in the 1960's to strengthen them.

To meet the changing conditions of power--and power relationships have changed--we have endorsed an increased emphasis on NATO's conventional strength. At the same time we are affirming our conviction that the NATO nuclear deterrent must also be kept strong. I have made clear our intention to commit to the NATO command, for this purpose, the 5 Polaris submarines originally suggested by President Eisenhower, with the possibility, if needed, of more to come.

Second, a major part of our partnership for self-defense is the Military Assistance Program. The main burden of local defense against local attack, subversion, insurrection or guerrilla warfare must of necessity rest with local forces. Where these forces have the necessary will and capacity to cope with such threats, our intervention is rarely necessary or helpful. Where the will is present and only capacity is lacking, our Military Assistance Program can be of help.

But this program, like economic assistance, needs a new emphasis. It cannot be extended without regard to the social, political and military reforms essential to internal respect and stability. The equipment and training provided must be tailored to legitimate local needs and to our own foreign and military policies, not to our supply of military stocks or a local leader's desire for military display. And military assistance can, in addition to its military purposes, make a contribution to economic progress, as do our own Army Engineers.

In an earlier message, I requested 1.6 billion dollars for Military Assistance, stating that this would maintain existing force levels, but that I could not foresee how much more might be required. It is now clear that this is not enough. The present crisis in Southeast Asia, on which the Vice President has made a valuable report--the rising threat of communism in Latin America--the increased arms traffic in Africa--and all the new pressures on every nation found on the map by tracing your fingers along the borders of the Communist bloc in Asia and the Middle East--all make clear the dimension of our needs.

I therefore request the Congress to provide a total of 1.885 billion dollars for Military Assistance in the coming fiscal year--an amount less than that requested a year ago--but a minimum which must be assured if we are to help those nations make secure their independence. This must be prudently and wisely spent--and that will be our common endeavor. Military and economic assistance has been a heavy burden on our citizens for a long time, and I recognize the strong pressures against it; but this battle is far from over, it is reaching a crucial stage, and I believe we should participate in it. We cannot merely state our opposition to totalitarian advance without paying the price of helping those now under the greatest pressure.

......

Rising Sun*
06-27-2007, 08:43 AM
VI. OUR OWN MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE SHIELD
In line with these developments, I have directed a further reinforcement of our own capacity to deter or resist non-nuclear aggression. In the conventional field, with one exception, I find no present need for large new levies of men. What is needed is rather a change of position to give us still further increases in flexibility.

Therefore, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to undertake a reorganization and modernization of the Army's divisional structure, to increase its non-nuclear firepower, to improve its tactical mobility in any environment, to insure its flexibility to meet any direct or indirect threat, to facilitate its coordination with our major allies, and to provide more modern mechanized divisions in Europe and bring their equipment up to date, and new airborne brigades in both the Pacific and Europe.

And secondly, I am asking the Congress for an additional 100 million dollars to begin the procurement task necessary to re-equip this new Army structure with the most modern material. New helicopters, new armored personnel carriers, and new howitzers, for example, must be obtained now.

Third, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to expand rapidly and substantially, in cooperation with our Allies, the orientation of existing forces for the conduct of non-nuclear war, paramilitary operations and sub-limited or unconventional wars.

In addition our special forces and unconventional warfare units will be increased and reoriented. Throughout the services new emphasis must be placed on the special skills and languages which are required to work with local populations.

Fourth, the Army is developing plans to make possible a much more rapid deployment of a major portion of its highly trained reserve forces. When these plans are completed and the reserve is strengthened, two combat-equipped divisions, plus their supporting forces, a total of 89,000 men, could be ready in an emergency for operations with but 3 weeks' notice--2 more divisions with but 5 weeks' notice--and six additional divisions and their supporting forces, making a total of 10 divisions, could be deployable with less than 8 weeks' notice. In short, these new plans will allow us to almost double the combat power of the Army in less than two months, compared to the nearly nine months heretofore required.

Fifth, to enhance the already formidable ability of the Marine Corps to respond to limited war emergencies, I am asking the Congress for 60 million dollars to increase the Marine Corps strength to 190,000 men. This will increase the initial impact and staying power of our three Marine divisions and three air wings, and provide a trained nucleus for further expansion, if necessary for self-defense.

Finally, to cite one other area of activities that are both legitimate and necessary as a means of self-defense in an age of hidden perils, our whole intelligence effort must be reviewed, and its coordination with other elements of policy assured. The Congress and the American people are entitled to know that we will institute whatever new organization, policies, and control are necessary.

VII. CIVIL DEFENSE

One major element of the national security program which this nation has never squarely faced up to is civil defense. This problem arises not from present trends but from national inaction in which most of us have participated. In the past decade we have intermittently considered a variety of programs, but we have never adopted a consistent policy. Public considerations have been largely characterized by apathy, indifference and skepticism; while, at the same time, many of the civil defense plans have been so far-reaching and unrealistic that they have not gained essential support.

This Administration has been looking hard at exactly what civil defense can and cannot do. It cannot be obtained cheaply. It cannot give an assurance of blast protection that will be proof against surprise attack or guaranteed against obsolescence or destruction. And it cannot deter a nuclear attack.

We will deter an enemy from making a nuclear attack only if our retaliatory power is so strong and so invulnerable that he knows he would be destroyed by our response. If we have that strength, civil defense is not needed to deter an attack. If we should ever lack it, civil defense would not be an adequate substitute.

But this deterrent concept assumes rational calculations by rational men. And the history of this planet, and particularly the history of the 20th century, is sufficient to remind us of the possibilities of an irrational attack, a miscalculation, an accidental war, [or a war of escalation in which the stakes by each side gradually increase to the point of maximum danger] which cannot be either foreseen or deterred. It is on this basis that civil defense can be readily justifiable--as insurance for the civilian population in case of an enemy miscalculation. It is insurance we trust will never be needed--but insurance which we could never forgive ourselves for foregoing in the event of catastrophe.

Once the validity of this concept is recognized, there is no point in delaying the initiation of a nation-wide long-range program of identifying present fallout shelter capacity and providing shelter in new and existing structures. Such a program would protect millions of people against the hazards of radioactive fallout in the event of large-scale nuclear attack. Effective performance of the entire program not only requires new legislative authority and more funds, but also sound organizational arrangements.

Therefore, under the authority vested in me by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, I am assigning responsibility for this program to the top civilian authority already responsible for continental defense, the Secretary of Defense. It is important that this function remain civilian, in nature and leadership; and this feature will not be changed.

The Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization will be reconstituted as a small staff agency to assist in the coordination of these functions. To more accurately describe its role, its title should be changed to the Office of Emergency Planning.

As soon as those newly charged with these responsibilities have prepared new authorization and appropriation requests, such requests will be transmitted to the Congress for a much strengthened Federal-State civil defense program. Such a program will provide Federal funds for identifying fallout shelter capacity in existing, structures, and it will include, where appropriate, incorporation of shelter in Federal buildings, new requirements for shelter in buildings constructed with Federal assistance, and matching grants and other incentives for constructing shelter in State and local and private buildings.

Federal appropriations for civil defense in fiscal 1962 under this program will in all likelihood be more than triple the pending budget requests; and they will increase sharply in subsequent years. Financial participation will also be required from State and local governments and from private citizens. But no insurance is cost-free; and every American citizen and his community must decide for themselves whether this form of survival insurance justifies the expenditure of effort, time and money. For myself, I am convinced that it does.

VIII. DISARMAMENT

I cannot end this discussion of defense and armaments without emphasizing our strongest hope: the creation of an orderly world where disarmament will be possible. Our aims do not prepare for war--they are efforts to discourage and resist the adventures of others that could end in war.

That is why it is consistent with these efforts that we continue to press for properly safeguarded disarmament measures. At Geneva, in cooperation with the United Kingdom, we have put forward concrete proposals to make clear our wish to meet the Soviets half way in an effective nuclear test ban treaty--the first significant but essential step on the road towards disarmament. Up to now, their response has not been what we hoped, but Mr. Dean returned last night to Geneva, and we intend to go the last mile in patience to secure this gain if we can.

Meanwhile, we are determined to keep disarmament high on our agenda--to make an intensified effort to develop acceptable political and technical alternatives to the present arms race. To this end I shall send to the Congress a measure to establish a strengthened and enlarged Disarmament Agency. .....

Rising Sun*
06-27-2007, 08:45 AM
IX. SPACE
Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.

I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals: .....

Rising Sun*
06-27-2007, 08:46 AM
First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.

Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications.

Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.

Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.

Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.

It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.

I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.

X. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me emphasize one point. It is not a pleasure for any President of the United States, as I am sure it was not a pleasure for my predecessors, to come before the Congress and ask for new appropriations which place burdens on our people. I came to this conclusion with some reluctance. But in my judgment, this is a most serious time in the life of our country and in the life of freedom around the globe, and it is the obligation, I believe, of the President of the United States to at least make his recommendations to the Members of the Congress, so that they can reach their own conclusions with that judgment before them. You must decide yourselves, as I have decided, and I am confident that whether you finally decide in the way that I have decided or not, that your judgment--as my judgment--is reached on what is in the best interests of our country.

In conclusion, let me emphasize one point: that we are determined, as a nation in 1961 that freedom shall survive and succeed--and whatever the peril and set-backs, we have some very large advantages.

The first is the simple fact that we are on the side of liberty--and since the beginning of history, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, liberty has been winning out all over the globe.

A second real asset is that we are not alone. We have friends and allies all over the world who share our devotion to freedom. May I cite as a symbol of traditional and effective friendship the great ally I am about to visit--France. I look forward to my visit to France, and to my discussion with a great Captain of the Western World, President de Gaulle, as a meeting of particular significance, permitting the kind of close and ranging consultation that will strengthen both our countries and serve the common purposes of world-wide peace and liberty. Such serious conversations do not require a pale unanimity--they are rather the instruments of trust and understanding over a long road.

A third asset is our desire for peace. It is sincere, and I believe the world knows it. We are proving it in our patience at the test ban table, and we are proving it in the UN where our efforts have been directed to maintaining that organization's usefulness as a protector of the independence of small nations. In these and other instances, the response of our opponents has not been encouraging.

Yet it is important to know that our patience at the bargaining table is nearly inexhaustible, though our credulity is limited that our hopes for peace are unfailing, while our determination to protect our security is resolute. For these reasons I have long thought it wise to meet with the Soviet Premier for a personal exchange of views. A meeting in Vienna turned out to be convenient for us both; and the Austrian government has kindly made us welcome. No formal agenda is planned and no negotiations will be undertaken; but we will make clear America's enduring concern is for both peace and freedom--that we are anxious to live in harmony with the Russian people--that we seek no conquests, no satellites, no riches--that we seek only the day when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Finally, our greatest asset in this struggle is the American people--their willingness to pay the price for these programs--to understand and accept a long struggle--to share their resources with other less fortunate people--to meet the tax levels and close the tax loopholes I have requested--to exercise self-restraint instead of pushing up wages or prices, or over-producing certain crops, or spreading military secrets, or urging unessential expenditures or improper monopolies or harmful work stoppages--to serve in the Peace Corps or the Armed Services or the Federal Civil Service or the Congress--to strive for excellence in their schools, in their cities and in their physical fitness and that of their children--to take part in Civil Defense--to pay higher postal rates, and higher payroll taxes and higher teachers' salaries, in order to strengthen our society--to show friendship to students and visitors from other lands who visit us and go back in many cases to be the future leaders, with an image of America--and I want that image, and I know you do, to be affirmative and positive--and, finally, to practice democracy at home, in all States, with all races, to respect each other and to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens.

I have not asked for a single program which did not cause one or all Americans some inconvenience, or some hardship, or some sacrifice. But they have responded and you in the Congress have responded to your duty--and I feel confident in asking today for a similar response to these new and larger demands. It is heartening to know, as I journey abroad, that our country is united in its commitment to freedom and is ready to do its duty.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/Urgent+National+Needs+Page+4.htm

Rising Sun*
06-27-2007, 08:50 AM
Is it just me, or does JFK sound a bit like the head of an aggressive military regime, just like the Soviets accused the US of being at the time? And vice versa? And pretty much just what America is under Bush the Stupid, except worse and with no vision for a better world?

How could anyone get such an idea about any of these peace-loving governments and their allies?

Egorka
06-27-2007, 02:18 PM
Is it just me, or does JFK sound a bit like the head of an aggressive military regime, just like the Soviets accused the US of being at the time? And vice versa?

Well there was Cold War raging out there back then. So that is understandable that it sounds tiny bit as an "aggressive military regime".
Plus they really freaked out after the Sputnik 1 and Gagarin. But!

Here comes the interesting part (my first quote question was way too easy).

Who said this about the space exploration:





...otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I am not that interested in space.

Rising Sun*
06-29-2007, 08:42 AM
Well there was Cold War raging out there back then. So that is understandable that it sounds tiny bit as an "aggressive military regime".
Plus they really freaked out after the Sputnik 1 and Gagarin. But!

Here comes the interesting part (my first quote question was way too easy).

Who said this about the space exploration:



...otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I am not that interested in space.



I've been holding off because I thought it was known well enough that it would have had lots of responses.

But that hasn't happened, so here's the answer:

JFK.

21 November 1962 in White House discussions.

Here's the context


Everything that we do ought to really be tied to getting onto the moon ahead of the Russians.

I do think we ought to get it really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top priority program of the agency and one … of the top priorities of the United States government. Otherwise, we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I'm not that interested in space.

Egorka
06-29-2007, 02:29 PM
Right! :) JFK again!

This talk was actually recoreded on a tape and is actually being one of the
documents that can show personal opinions of the US goverment members on the space race in the 1960s.

Rising Sun*
06-30-2007, 08:56 AM
I figure I'm entitled to put up one now.

"I have become the eyes of the world on the moon."

And there's a trick in there.

32Bravo
06-30-2007, 11:37 AM
I figure I'm entitled to put up one now.

"I have become the eyes of the world on the moon."

And there's a trick in there.


Marlon Brando: Last Tango in Paris!

Rising Sun*
07-01-2007, 08:58 AM
Marlon Brando: Last Tango in Paris!

Nah.

That wasn't a moon shot.

He was just trying to butter her up. :D

Egorka
07-01-2007, 02:48 PM
Rising Sun,

You call it a trick?! This one is on the line of being a scam!
Well, it is a good one! I already know the answer. But I will let others to try. The only thing I will do is to reveal the trick:


In the sentence "I" is not "I", but 1 (one). :)

Rising Sun*
07-01-2007, 05:08 PM
Rising Sun,

You call it a trick?! This one is on the line of being a scam!
Well, it is a good one! I already know the answer. But I will let others to try. The only thing I will do is to reveal the trick:


In the sentence "I" is not "I", but 1 (one). :)

You are correct!

Rising Sun*
07-05-2007, 06:49 AM
Time for a clue.

Surveyor I

Egorka
07-05-2007, 02:26 PM
bip bip bip bip bip

Egorka
04-22-2008, 08:39 AM
Hello the almighty history warriors!

Who enriched the world by saying (actually writing) this one in 1941:

Fascism has still not overcome its internal crisis. It is sick in body and mind. To badly eaten away by corruption.

Librarian
04-22-2008, 12:20 PM
Perhaps that ill-fated personality, count Galeazzo Ciano, my dear Mr. Egorka? :)

Egorka
04-22-2008, 03:15 PM
Perhaps that ill-fated personality, count Galeazzo Ciano, my dear Mr. Egorka? :)
Nope... it was not Duce's son in law.
The person in question was five and a half years older... And also lived longer than Mr.Galeazzo. :)

Librarian
04-22-2008, 03:57 PM
Oh, what a pity… Well, never mind – perhaps somebody else will be more successful. See you later! ;)