That petition does not really seem to know what its asking for, however there are two themes that I think I can pick out from the poorly worded text.

1) China should use restraint.

This is a regime that slaughtered its own population on the streets of its capital in order to retain control and regards national unity as one of the central tenements of its security scenario…………so good luck with that.:rolleyes:

2) There should be some kind of negotiation on Tibets status.

See above.:rolleyes:

Star you are arguing with a guy who thinks carriers are invisible, so you might as well stop.

Jonesy never said carriers are invisible, so stop coming to post lies.

Jonesy’s biases are pretty clear.

Jonesy does not have any biases, unlike you he is only interested in facts and rational analysis based on those facts.

In his little world NATO is unstoppable and perfect, and Russia and any other non-NATO large military power is in terrible shape.

Again he never said that either so please stop posting lies.

Wrong. There were such fortifications, but the bloody Germans decided to crack such nuts at two points only. One time, they outsmarted it by gliders and the other time they cracked it with Stuka’s to get through. The result was, that around 90% of French forces did not see real combat, when defeated already. In a similar way 90% of the French and Belgian fortifications were ignored and the “creators” did even claim that those did fullfill their intended task. Similar thing in June 1944.

No, right. The Maginot line did its job.

Yes.

The surviving family members might have found closure in 1941 if the RAN and Australian government had simply made public the accounts of the German survivors in a timely and truthful manner. Of course, in an atmosphere of wartime propaganda, such an uncomplimentary report might have undermined confidence in the civilian and military leadership – and rightly so. The unnecessary loss of the HMAS Sydney was not an isolated incident, but part of a general pattern of failures in naval leadership and planning, culminating the entirely avoidable destruction of the combined ABDA fleet.

It is entirely certain how Sydney met her fate, much in the same way that it was very well known how the Bismark met her fate. Examination of the wreck might indicate the extent of the damage inflicted by the Kormoran and the final cause of the sinking, whether it was a magazine explosion, flooding of multiple compartments, or whether the ship capsized. It will not alter the fact that the Sydney’s loss was entirely avoidable and the ultimate cause was a failure of leadership.

The cause of the sinking, enemy action by a lone German “Auxilary Cruiser,” is well known – and almost universally accepted outside of Australia.

You just dont get it do you?:mad:

The facts have been known since November 19, 1941. The light cruiser HMAS Sydney was lost in action against HSK Kormoran, having imprudently approached within 1 km of the suspected merchant raider without having taken any manner of defensive precautions. Despite obvious advantages in armament, armor and fire control, and every other conceivable measure of combat effectiveness, the Sydney was was devastated by 150mm – and even 20mm! – gunfire from the Kormoran before even firing a single shot in defense. HMAS Sydney eventually responded, inflicting relatively minor damage to Kormoran, the result of which was an engine room fire that ultimately lead to the loss of the German vessel.

In short, an ably commanded converted merchant ship sank a poorly commanded light cruiser. HKS Kormoran was in a hopeless situation, and despite the title of “auxiliary cruiser,” was in no way suited to engage a light cruiser. The loss of a cruiser to merchant raider was unprecedented, but same can be said of the poor leadership of HMAS Sydney as it closed on Kormoran without apparently even manning action stations, despite the near certainty that the vessel in question was an armed merchant raider. At very least, the officer in command of HMAS Sydney at the start of the engagement, whether it was Captain Joseph Burnett himself or a subordinate, was guilty of dereliction of duty and general incompetence.

Everybody else has been able to come here and express sympathy with the relatives and mourn the dead……………you have only seen it fit to engage in a petty ‘look how much I know’ p***ing contest.

There is an interesting editorial in the new Aviation Week, saying it’s time for Europe to remember its a two way street.
Specifically it takes the governments to task for building the M-400 and its problem prone late engine when there were North American items available.

In that case the editors of Aviation Week need to get an education.:rolleyes:

The good news is the wreck was found by a team led by David Mearns (man who found HMS Hood) so both wrecks will sooner or later be subjected to a forensic examination which will silence old propoganda once and for all.

And i hope the arm chair admirals give it a rest trying to poke blame on the Sydney’s loss until the facts are found.

curlyboy

Excellent post.