Test

“Bill Gates is Pirate!”

Gary Kildall was the real master of DOS, a great programmer of CP/M. However what Microsoft stole was QDOS in 1980, which was from David Kildorf and Tim Patterson. Many trace QDOS to Patterson, though if you did a print test on the first IBM computer’s with Mircosoft operating systems, you would have seen David Kildorf’s name. The main problem was that Gates remained vague to SCP for asking for the rights to sell their OS to their unnamed client (IBM), which could’ve change the gravity of the deal.

Although MS-DOS was the dominant operating system being used by IBM, it was not the only one, and certainly never the best (remember, it was a copy of a command-line operating system designed in 1975 for computer hobbyists using 8-bit computers, and it was now the mid-80’s with its 16-bit computers). But Microsoft made sure that their dominance in the OS market for IBM PCs quickly turned into a near-monopoly. They devised a licensing agreement that required any company which desired to use MS-DOS on some of their computers pay Microsoft for each computer they sold, regardless of whether MS-DOS was on that specific computer. Since MS-DOS was already the dominant operating system, the business model of the majority of the IBM clone manufacturers depended on selling it with some of their computers. They were therefore left with no choice but to agree to Microsoft’s licensing plan. But now that they had agreed to it, they were required to pay for two operating systems when they wanted only to put a non-Microsoft operating system on their computer. This, of course, made it rare to find a computer which did not come with MS-DOS, establishing Microsoft’s monopoly in the IBM PC operating system market.

This was shown Microsoft’s abilities were shown in 1985, where they did steal Windows from Apple. At the time, MS were the dominant software provider for IBM clones as well as for the Macintosh. Although Microsoft was putting down the Macintosh by claiming that it was for lazy people and that it was less powerful than MS-DOS, they were at the same time well aware of its superiority in both ease of use and functionality, and seeking to mimic it in their own operating system. Microsoft approached Apple, requesting to license some of the key interface elements from the Macintosh for use in what was to be called Windows. Apple, of course, declined. Microsoft again used its dominance in one market – this time Macintosh software – to force the industry to bend to its wishes. It threatened to discontinue development of Macintosh applications unless Apple licensed portions of the Mac OS. This would have been a major blow to Apple, since Microsoft was the dominant software provider for the Mac. So Apple was strong-armed into licensing parts of their OS to Microsoft. Windows 1.0 was introduced later that year.
In 1990, Microsoft released Windows 3.0. By then, Microsoft had clearly gone far beyond its licensing agreement with Apple, and had stolen patented intellectual property. Apple took Microsoft to court, and many industry experts thought Apple had a very strong argument and was going to nail Microsoft. Apple lost the case.

Windows does not have any better of an interface than OS-2 or MacOS; it merely has more products available for it, because of Bill Gates’ marketing strategy. Microsoft has always targeted developers, trying to make them develop only for Windows, so that the majority of applications would reinforce Microsoft’s monopoly.

Windows95 - stolen from later versions of Mac OS (you think that taskbar came from nowhere?). One of Microsoft’s most common strategies is to be the first one to the market. While other companies are still developing software so that it has some semblance of stability, Microsoft announces their new wonderful line of products. Who cares that the product is less stable than the San Andreas Fault and has more bugs than the Everglades? Which is why Win 95 and 98 are so buggy internal error! :evil:

“Otherwise we might be speaking German now.”

Ahh… you’re giving the Germans too much credit. Europe? Maybe. North America? Yeah, right! Us Confederates from the South will fight them to the death! Then Canada and Mexico will comes in, do their thing, and the Germanys would be too afraid to come back :)

@TG:

Although MS-DOS was the dominant operating system being used by IBM, it was not the only one, and certainly never the best. But Microsoft made sure that their dominance in the OS market for IBM PCs quickly turned into a near-monopoly. They devised a licensing agreement that required any company which desired to use MS-DOS on some of their computers pay Microsoft for each computer they sold, regardless of whether MS-DOS was on that specific computer. Since MS-DOS was already the dominant operating system, the business model of the majority of the IBM clone manufacturers depended on selling it with some of their computers. They were therefore left with no choice but to agree to Microsoft’s licensing plan.

First of all, you always have a choice. You are correct when you say that DOS was not the only OS available on IBM’s line of computers. But Microsoft realized what the other companies were doing wrong. As the other creators of Operating Systems were busy charging $400 and above for software that wasn’t worth it, Microsoft took a risk and charged less than a $100. This now made it very affordable to buy a computer, and thus thrusted Microsoft ahead of the competition.

@TG:

This was shown Microsoft’s abilities were shown in 1985, where they did steal Windows from Apple. At the time, MS were the dominant software provider for IBM clones as well as for the Macintosh. Although Microsoft was putting down the Macintosh by claiming that it was for lazy people and that it was less powerful than MS-DOS, they were at the same time well aware of its superiority in both ease of use and functionality, and seeking to mimic it in their own operating system. Microsoft approached Apple, requesting to license some of the key interface elements from the Macintosh for use in what was to be called Windows. Apple, of course, declined. Microsoft again used its dominance in one market – this time Macintosh software – to force the industry to bend to its wishes. It threatened to discontinue development of Macintosh applications unless Apple licensed portions of the Mac OS. This would have been a major blow to Apple, since Microsoft was the dominant software provider for the Mac. So Apple was strong-armed into licensing parts of their OS to Microsoft. Windows 1.0 was introduced later that year.
In 1990, Microsoft released Windows 3.0. By then, Microsoft had clearly gone far beyond its licensing agreement with Apple, and had stolen patented intellectual property. Apple took Microsoft to court, and many industry experts thought Apple had a very strong argument and was going to nail Microsoft. Apple lost the case.

Ahh, the beauty of our justice system. :wink:

@TG:

Windows does not have any better of an interface than OS-2 or MacOS; it merely has more products available for it, because of Bill Gates’ marketing strategy. Microsoft has always targeted developers, trying to make them develop only for Windows, so that the majority of applications would reinforce Microsoft’s monopoly.

Quite contrary to the wrong path that Apple took. I would go as far as to call Apple a monopoly also. (Although this has yet to be proven by the Justice deparment.) If Apple had the better interface and superior Operating System, why aren’t they in Microsoft’s position today? Let me tell you why. First of all, it has been the policy of Apple throughout the years to do things “by themselves.” Unlike Microsoft, which developed it’s operating system for the popular hardware at that time (x86), Apple chose not to persure that line of hardware, and instead only sold it’s operating system on hardware that Apple had built. This severly choked off the amount of sales Apple was able to gain, and it’s the primary reason that Apple is lagging behind today. When you buy Mac OS, what are you choices for hardware to run that Operating System on? 1 choice. Apple hardware. I rest my case…

@TG:

Who cares that the product is less stable than the San Andreas Fault and has more bugs than the Everglades? Which is why Win 95 and 98 are so buggy internal error! :evil:

Although Windows products tend to be a “little bit” more buggy, I think it’s all ties into the fact that Microsoft’s goal is not to provide realiable software, but rather to please it’s stockholders. Now, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “more bugs” but if you’re relating to hacker attack and such, then that’s really not their fault. It’s is IMPOSSIBLE to write perfect software, and in Apple’s case, it’s pretty much a “security thru obscurity” situation. Apple’s such a little fish in a big sea, who would want to attack them? Why attack the little guy, when you can gain more publicity attacking the richest company in the world?

First of all, you always have a choice. You are correct when you say that DOS was not the only OS available on IBM’s line of computers. But Microsoft realized what the other companies were doing wrong. As the other creators of Operating Systems were busy charging $400 and above for software that wasn’t worth it, Microsoft took a risk and charged less than a $100. This now made it very affordable to buy a computer, and thus thrusted Microsoft ahead of the competition.

Not necessarily. MS did things forced made computer makers to pay for their OS on all computers, according to Microsoft’s licensing plan. Faced with these odds, most IBM clones were forced to use MS OS on all their computers. Lets face it, how many people went out and bought another, different OS to replace the one initally on their computer?

Quite contrary to the wrong path that Apple took. I would go as far as to call Apple a monopoly also. (Although this has yet to be proven by the Justice deparment.) If Apple had the better interface and superior Operating System, why aren’t they in Microsoft’s position today? Let me tell you why. First of all, it has been the policy of Apple throughout the years to do things “by themselves.” Unlike Microsoft, which developed it’s operating system for the popular hardware at that time (x86), Apple chose not to persure that line of hardware, and instead only sold it’s operating system on hardware that Apple had built. This severly choked off the amount of sales Apple was able to gain, and it’s the primary reason that Apple is lagging behind today. When you buy Mac OS, what are you choices for hardware to run that Operating System on? 1 choice. Apple hardware. I rest my case…

Uh, Apple Clones are actually on the rise and beginning to take shape.

Although Windows products tend to be a “little bit” more buggy, I think it’s all ties into the fact that Microsoft’s goal is not to provide realiable software, but rather to please it’s stockholders. Now, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “more bugs” but if you’re relating to hacker attack and such, then that’s really not their fault. It’s is IMPOSSIBLE to write perfect software, and in Apple’s case, it’s pretty much a “security thru obscurity” situation. Apple’s such a little fish in a big sea, who would want to attack them? Why attack the little guy, when you can gain more publicity attacking the richest company in the world?

A little more buggy? Try comparing MS/OS to Lunix and Sun. MS, IE is especially buggy, I get internal errors all the time. You’re right, all Microsoft is trying to do is turn a profit to “please” its stockholders. It’s is impossible to write perfect software (there is no such thing as “perfect” to a code writer [like myself] only what is most efficient). Ask any code writer what he thinks of MS code and you’ll see pretty much the same answer. As for Apple, at least I would consider their products reliable, not perfect but definitely much better than MS.

@TG:

Uh, Apple Clones are actually on the rise and beginning to take shape.

LOL, you make me laugh. :lol:
Anyways, that still doesn’t change that fact that in the early days, Apple f*cked up, and as a result people wouldn’t adopt Apple’s strategy because it required them to invest in completely new equipment, and lose all of their data.

@TG:

A little more buggy? Try comparing MS/OS to Lunix and Sun. MS, IE is especially buggy, I get internal errors all the time. You’re right, all Microsoft is trying to do is turn a profit to “please” its stockholders. It’s is impossible to write perfect software (there is no such thing as “perfect” to a code writer [like myself] only what is most efficient). Ask any code writer what he thinks of MS code and you’ll see pretty much the same answer. As for Apple, at least I would consider their products reliable, not perfect but definitely much better than MS.

I’m assuming you mean “Linux.” But I will agree with you there, many programmers are quick to criticize Microsoft (even though most of them are the hyprocritical type who have multiple Windows OS products.)

In all honesty Moses, if IE is so buggy and Microsoft products are not “up to par” with Apple’s, why are you using them? And don’t tell me cost, becuase you and I both know that switching to a Linux based solution costs to absolutely nothing.

Uhhh… everybody I know with half a programming mind has switched to Linux Operating System (in fact, they even helped write some of it :P). In fact, most of the computers we use are “MS Free,” meaning EVERYTHING our computer runs on is not by Pirate Bill Gate (no outlook express, no IE, no Word, no Excel, ect. Oh yeah, I also own a Mac and plan on getting a Linux OS many colleges have switch too :wink:

Join the Penguin Revolution! 8)

I’m not in disagreement there, there’s a lot of programmers out there who prefer the Linux operating system. There’s even more who run the Windows operating system. (Particularly those concerned with commercial programming, eg. compatibility issues.) But you’re the one who made the comment that IE always crashes on you, that’s why I asked.

I have a Linux box and a Windows XP Professional box, and there’s advantages to both of them. I can clearly see why anyone would prefer Linux if they are a programmer (free, open-source, etc.) But I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would switch to Mac OS X. Yes, I’m sure they’re be some backlash against that comment, but I guess I had it coming :lol:. Even those new Apple advertisements with the fools saying that they “switched over”, doesn’t convince me. Stability is not so much an issue anymore, as much as it was with Windows ME.

Well, I’m not that big of a fan of Apple. Maybe in the old days before Scully took control of Apple, and Apple started to become like IBM. However Apple did do a good job, really ahead of their time (PDAs, laserprinters, graphics, ect). If Jobs and Waz were to stay with Apple, they could’ve even gave MS a run for their money. Just look at what Jobs did for apple when he returned: i-Mac, i-Book, Pixar, flatscreens, and a lot more. However, I’m more of a fan of independent computers (something Apple is lagging behind in) so I’ll stick with whatever was preinstalled before I get Linux.

@Anonymous:

i was mostly being facetious . . . basically its too simple to accuse the US of a crime against humanity for “the Bomb” when there were so many other factors involved - the Japanese atrocities, their “first strike”, the then-Japanese mentality. Further to my point the same things happened in other countries, other cities - i think that to simply point out the American’s bombing is inappropriate, considering that in war-time measure for measure, with every action there was an equal and opposite reaction (well, somewhat equal . . . ). Was it the German’s fault that they got the crap bombed out of them? Maybe. Were the allies guilty of war-crimes? Maybe. The fact is, it happpened everywhere on both sides. The fact is that no other bombing brought such a turning point to the war as those on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not Coventry, no where. As for the English sending colonists to the front in WWI, well, if it helped the allies then win, than thank God that they did. Otherwise we might be speaking German now.

Again - sorry to repost, but you quoted me a little out of context (not your fault - i wasn’t clear originally).
And yes, some Muslim “fundamentalists” might well say “poor American’s . . . that’ll learn 'em”, but not any of the Muslim fundamentalists i know who quote the Koran quite readily in repudiation of 9/11. There is something a little unseemly about a non-war time action like that relative to an occassion when bombings were a part of life . . . “whattaya doin’ today Al? Oh, i may just clean up some of the wreakage from last night’s bombing, hide the glassware in prep for tonight’s bombing”. And so on.

You make Kaiser Wilheim the Second sound like Hitler. He wasn’t evil, but rather a greedy emperor who had no choice but to go to war. He tried to sotp the war, but it was not possible because of pride. If he had not gone to war in the Great War, he would haqve been overthrwon. The same with Austria-Hungary’s emperor, and with Tsar Nicholas 2nd. They would not have been able to face their people if they had backed down.

Aobut it being the Germans’ fault that they were bombed and many cities heavily damaged (almost all of Dresden was wiped out), it was. I don’t mean to stereotype, but 99% of the German people helped hitler mass murder Jews. When they had the choice of leaving the concentration camps, they decided to stay. They deserved each and every bomb that hit them. Had they been a-bombed, I would not be arguing about the cities that were hit.

@EmuGod:

You make Kaiser Wilheim the Second sound like Hitler. He wasn’t evil, but rather a greedy emperor who had no choice but to go to war. He tried to sotp the war, but it was not possible because of pride. If he had not gone to war in the Great War, he would haqve been overthrwon. The same with Austria-Hungary’s emperor, and with Tsar Nicholas 2nd. They would not have been able to face their people if they had backed down.

Aobut it being the Germans’ fault that they were bombed and many cities heavily damaged (almost all of Dresden was wiped out), it was. I don’t mean to stereotype, but 99% of the German people helped hitler mass murder Jews. When they had the choice of leaving the concentration camps, they decided to stay. They deserved each and every bomb that hit them. Had they been a-bombed, I would not be arguing about the cities that were hit.

…EmuGod–what is the difference between complicity in the mass murder of Jews and the same of Chinese/Burmese/Vietnamese etc.? The average Japanese in WWII was inculcated with the belief that they were part of the legendary Yamato race–that is, superior to all others. Racial philosophy had everything to do with their willingness to go to war in 1941–the same as with the Germans in 1939. How can you say the civilians of Dresden somehow “deserved” to be firebombed more than the civilians of Nagasaki “deserved” to be nuked? If you can explain this to me I am all ears…just don’t give me the tired old line of “well the Germans knew what was happening, they just didn’t care”–no s**t! Of course they didn’t care–just like the Japanese wouldn’t have cared had they known what was happening…as many of them did…

And as far as your (for lack of a better word) “point” with the Great Emperors of the turn of the century–NONE of them had “no choice” but to resort to war…NONE! The only one you can make an argument for there being “no choice but for war” would be “Austria-Hungary’s Emperor” (that is, Kaiser Franz Joseph Habsburg if anyone’s taking notes)–and even here the poular misconception of Austria-Hungary’s impending collapse is misleading. Austria was concerned with her international image, not popular discontent, and she had a blank check from Germany to back her up…this is not being “forced” to declare war…

As far as Kaiser Wilhelm Hohenzollern of Germany; he was a sabre-rattler and a wierdo who liked to talk tough, but in crisis after crisis over Africa, repeatedly backed down at the brink of war. In fact, he tried this again after the beginning of WWI–to bring the trains back from their deployment against France along the Western Front in the opening hours of WWI, but acquiesed when his top general flipped out and explained to him there was no going back. Not only that, but his people were educated, well-informed and extremely patriotic and motivated; Kaiser Wilhelm was in no danger in 1914 of losing power. He wasn’t “forced” to begin WWI because of popular opinion–he was just a bully who found himself unable to wimp out when his usual cue came…

And your weakest case is with Czar Nicholas II of Russia. Come on–in spite of its economic & military weakness, Russia was home of the world’s most powerful monarch (perhaps w/ the exception of Japan). Russia’s one chance of AVOIDING revolution in the “teens” was by NOT entering the Great War, but typically for the Russian Empire, the Czar himself was totally ignorant of the domestic situation and saw things only in terms of his “duty” to his Entente allies. There is quite simply no explanation for Russia honoring these “commitments” (such as they were) in 1914, except that she feared loss of her “Great Power” status should she back down (again; international opinion over ‘public opinion’–whatever ‘public opinion’ was in pre-revolution Russia); and the fact that Czar Nicholas II was a profoundly ignorant and dull-witted man…also a fact.

So come on, lets not make excuses–these guys were morons who were too stupid (or maybe too old in the case of Franz Joseph) to understand that they were better off allied WITH one another than against (Bismarck understood that). Was Wilhelm “like Hitler”? Not if you mean in the sense that he rounded up people and had them systematically massacred. But if you mean in the sense that he caused directly or indirectly the deaths of millions in order to serve his own frivolous and egomaniacal ends–I think one can draw a comparison…

Ozone27

I don’t mean to stereotype, but 99% of the German people helped hitler mass murder Jews.

We (Germans) were, in a great proportion, guilty of passivity, but you are going a little far…

ha, lucky you. You managed to break 400 :P

But I bet Emu was just trying to sound a bit hysterical when he made the 99% comment.

Ozone, I like the little history lesson. I tell you what, I wasn’t a big fan of any of the European Monarchs back then. They were all saber rattlers and I guess WWI (and the millions of deaths) sort of show them their place.

The reason, Ozone, that the Germans deserved to be bombed more than the Japanese is that they could have saved the Jews but chose not to. They helped Hitler. When Hitler tried to kill the handicapped, the German people told him not to. They stood in defence for the handicapped and Hitler backed off. They could have done the same for the Jews but they didn’t because of their anti-semitism. The Japanese, on the other hand, couldn’t stop the military from committing the rape of Nanking or other atrocities. They weren’t living among those that were being murdered and couldn’t have saved them like the Germans could have saved the Jews. And it wasn’t just the Germans who hated the Jews and didn’t help them. Almost ALL the nations of Europe allowed Hitler to commit his mass murders except for Denmark and Bulgaria.

As for your World War 1 ideas, the Czar did have no choice but to go to war. He had backed off from fighting Germany twice before and couldn’t back down again. The Kaiser also could not back down from war. You are right by saying that they could have if the leaders has chosen to, but I’m talking in terms of the reality of how countries run - on PRIDE. Every country runs on its pride. That’s the biggest reason for wars. Example, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union and the Unitd States were an hour away from nuclear war because their country’s pride forbade them from standing down. War was only averted when the US agreed to abandon its listening posts in Turkey if Russia would not place its missiles in Cuba. This still kept both country’s pride intact. The US was able to tell its people that it had averted the Russian threat by giving up some worthless bases in Turkey while he USSR was able to tell its people that it had averted war and managed to eliminate some bery important American posts. Both countries were able to keep their pride, something that in World War 1 could not be done.

I agree with you that the emperors were stupid for going to war, but realistically, it could not have been averted without each country’s pride being dented and since pride is what every country works hardest to protect, the war could not have been avoided. World War 1 should not have been fought, but World War 2 should have. Someone had to stop Hitler and luckily he was stopped.

FinsterniS, I don’t mean to offend you, but the Germans were just as responsible for the deaths of the Jews as Hitler was. they could have stopped him like they stopped him from killing the handicapped, but chose not to. Germany has been paying back for what it did in the Holocaust, which is admirable and very important that it continues to help the Holocuast survivors. I only wish that other countries responsible for helping Hitler and have not admitted to it, such as Austria, would also pay the Jews back for what happened. I’m not anti-German, in fact, I believe that today the Germans are a great people. But there is no denying of the fact that the Germans helped Hitler in his massacres. Hopefully, such a disaster wll never happen again.

FinsterniS, I don’t mean to offend you, but the Germans were just as responsible for the deaths of the Jews as Hitler was. they could have stopped him like they stopped him from killing the handicapped, but chose not to. Germany has been paying back for what it did in the Holocaust, which is admirable and very important that it continues to help the Holocuast survivors. I only wish that other countries responsible for helping Hitler and have not admitted to it, such as Austria, would also pay the Jews back for what happened. I’m not anti-German, in fact, I believe that today the Germans are a great people. But there is no denying of the fact that the Germans helped Hitler in his massacres. Hopefully, such a disaster wll never happen again.

First, you don’t offend me. I think it is important to remember our error if we don’t want to repeat them, i am not proud of what Germany was, i am proud of what it is now. Also i want to make clear i don’t want in any way to clean the german people of all our crimes… Still you are making some douptful reasoning, about the Jews, sure we were guilty of passivity and in some case of even more than just plain passivity, but germans were desesperate and most of the people that were not anti-semitic before the war just get the occasion to get a “bouc émissaire”; the jews.

The Germans were anti-semitic. Anti-semitism increases and declines at different time periods. Anti-semitism was present in the Church and in Christian life. It was simply subconscious like after the Holocaust. I wish I could explain it better but it’s very hard to get into.

I’m sorry, Emu, I just don’t agree with anything you said (except that the Germans didn’t care that the Jews were being massacred).

There is absolutely no difference between what was going on in China for the Japanese, and what was happening in Germany (and their conquered countries). I’d like to remind you that many of the Nazi death camps were located in foreign countries (especially Poland), and millions of non-German Jews were murdered. Why are you holding the German people more responsible than the Japanese? They were just as aware of what was going on. Soldiers went on leave. They told their friends & relatives what was happening in China. No one gave enough of a damn to raise a stink–at least not enough people that the government couldn’t arrest them all. The only difference is that the Japanese weren’t gassing them in camps.

As far as WWI/the Cold War you are also wrong. Modern governments do not operate on “pride” as you say, but on cold pragmatism–“pride” is a minor factor. Czar Nicholas and Kaisers Wilhelm & Franz Joseph may have been operating on pride, but they were wrong and idiotic to have been doing so. They (personally) and their countries (who they were supposed to be watching out for) were better off WITHOUT THE WAR and I’m talking from a patriotic perspective as well as a pragmatic one. Before WWI, Wilhelm received a report stating that with every year of peace Germany grew stronger–this is a cold fact, and subsequent world history has borne out that Germany was destined to economically dominate Europe without having to fight 2 destructive wars. Austria-Hungary was certainly on the way to a reorganization into some kind of federal system rather than the ossified “Dual-Monarchy”, but surely her people were better off standing together rather than devolving into a series of tiny, weak countries–which the pressures of war drove her to.
And as far as Russia, as I stated before, Czar Nicholas II was a profoundly ignorant man who indeed thought he was in better control of the situation than he was, but still–having learned from the 1905 revolution, he should’ve known Russia could not stand the hardship of a major European war, and as bad as the implications would be for backing down, it was the right thing to do for 1914.

In other words, these three men FELT that they had to enter WWI because of “pride”. And they were absolutely wrong. So what does that do to your theory that governments are run by “pride”?

Then you bring up Cuba; this is far less of a conspiracy as you seem to believe. Yes, the 2 superpowers went to the brink of nuclear war–but that was part of the game; similar to the gameplay prior to WWI. Yes, Russia got the infamous “Turkish Missiles” removed and USA got the even more infamous Cuban Missiles removed. But has it occured to you at all that the missiles in question were all medium-range theatre-level nukes? Fact is that the US & USSR could easily and reliably blow one another up completely using LONG-RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILES and BOMBERS without the need of these limited-range units!!! Duh!

So what REALLY happened during the Cuban Missile crisis? The Cubans offered to have Russia put the weapons in place to protect Cuba from another expected US attempt to invade. Russia decided it was a good idea. The Americans found out about it early and ordered the Soviets to pull them out. The two superpowers stared each other down for a few days before agreeing that if the US DIDN’T INVADE CUBA the Soviets would withdraw the missiles and let Uncle Sam be the big heroes. The medium-range missiles (on both sides) were just a complete sideshow. And WHOA! Guess what?–we never DID invade Cuba! How about that?

Why did all this happen–cold, pragmatic politics. “Pride” is just a smokescreen…

Ozone27

@F_alk:

Seems like our History books differ there.
As far as i know, the ppl were aware of the concentration camps, thinking they were labor camps (which they were in the first years) and not camps of mass killing. After the war the ppl of some town (close to a camp) were brought to the camp to see what the rgime they followed did. And the ppl were shocked. They didn’t know exactly what happened there, because they didn’t want to know. There was gossip, but the danger of having a black car stop in front of your house and pull you out without any legal reason was real, so real that the ppl kept their mouth shut, and didn’t ask what really happened behind the walls of the camps.

Any time I can bring up the ol’ warhorse, Patton is a good one. I remember near Patton’s campaign across Germany drew to an end, we started showing the German people the horrors of the Nazi Conentration Camps. When the 3rd Army liberated Buchenwald concentration camp, Patton took the Mayor of the nearby town to see what was going on. Afterwards the Mayor and his wife hanged themselves. He instituted the policy, later adopted by other commanders, of forcing local German civilians to tour the camps, witnessing the destruction they had caused.