.....This is an email I received this morning. I thought, perhaps, it might be of interest to you, and since you know me, you might know me a trifle better. I was attached to VB 110 in the US Navy Air Wing 7. All 10 of my aircrewmen are gone. But I am prominently mentioned in this Museum.
Dear All
I am sending you all an update on the museum. We are
putting forward to see if anyone would like to help with our appeal by buying a
square foot of land as a donation. We are asking for people to donate $25.00
(includes the exchange rate to pounds ) or £10.00 with this donation you will
get a years membership of the museum (with a newsletter every three months ) and
we are also looking into putting all names of people that buys a piece of land
on a wall in the rebuild building for all visiters to see in years to come. If
you fill you would like to help please use this website http://dmm103105110.btck.co.uk and click on the
Campaigne/Donate page then scroll down the page and use the PayPal link.
I started a Museum (Charity No 1052892
) called Dunkeswell Memorial Museum at the only USAAF and US Navy Anti Submarine
airbase in England and Europe in world war two. This base was the home of the
479th Anti Submarine Group with 2nd,4th,19th and the 22nd Squadrons and VB
103,105,107,110,114 and VB 63 Squadrons of the US Navy Fleet Air Wing 7. There
are many buildings that still exist today from WW2 left standing around
Dunkeswell airfield. One of them is the administation complex. These buildings
were the last buildings that all crews went in before flying their missions and
sadly some never came back to these building and the base. These buildings are
VERY REAR as they were only used by the USAAF 479th and the US Navy Fleet
Air Wing 7 Groups doing Anti Submarine Missions to help to defend the supply
convoys to England from attacks by U-boats and surface vessels which were out in
the Atlantic and the Bay of Biscay. The Administation Buildings are the only
ones left outside the United States of America left standing from WW11. The
Museum is trying to raise £110,000 to buy the administration complex and the
land this will be a permanent Memorial building for the Dunkeswell Memorial
Museum, for all who served at Dunkeswell during WW2,including the 39 Officers
and men of the USAAF who lost there lives in combat and also for the 183
Officers and men of the US Navy who lost there lives in combat and the 49 killed
in non combat. One Officer from the US Navy that was based at Dunkeswell was
Joseph P Kennedy Jr older brother of John F Kennedy. Joseph was at the base
until his death on the 12th August 1944.
The Museum website address is
http://dmm103105110.btck.co.uk . If you
know how we can get this help or if anyone can find it in there hearts to give a
donation to this good cause with a letter of support and send it too the address
on the website or by paypal using the Museum email address of dmmsecretary@btinternet.com. All
I am asking of you is if you would put the word around about our appeal and I
will say that if my email has upset you in anyway then I will say that I am very
sorry for asking.Yours David
Sharland
......August 28th is fast approaching and that is the 50th Anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington. I took a day off from school and went to DC to become a part of it. I will always remember his speech and the electricity of that day. And to my loyal readers and commenters, I will not be writing many posts to this blot until April. I am too busy writing the script for a musical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just to let everyone know that I've been in touch with Mr Sharland and am now involved with this exciting project! (The Baron already knows, we've been in e-contact about it.) Love to all, Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteNow I'm exited. In what way are you involved, dear Cuz Ruthie????
ReplyDeleteWell, I did tell you in my emails, dear Baron, that I was in touch with Mr Sharland by email, and he's replied. I think 5 emails have passed between us (Mr S. and me)in total. And today I put a cheque for £25 in the post to him - omitting the "UK" line of his address, as that seemed unnecessary in my case:) Do we have a linguistic difficulty here? In England, getting in touch with a project's founder and sending him some £££ are enough to constitute "involvement."
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm a bit worried by your comment: whereas I'm involved and excited, you seem to be "exited." Does that mean you're quitting? (Tee-hee!) Cuzzin Ruth
Perhaps it is language. To say "I am involved" with something generally means that your involvement is a proactive, continuing effort, rather than a one-time show of support. When a man is "involved" with a lady, it usually means that they are dating and doing this and that together (I will not paint a picture for you). It does not mean that he kissed her once and then hoped that she prospered.
ReplyDeleteSee? My son is so philosophical and wise. So, pay attention. Just because you donate a check (US spelling)doesn't mean you are suddenly involved. You have to kiss a few times. Kiss once and you are only "acquainted".
ReplyDeleteJoel - give me a chance, please! The project has only just come to my attention!! I intend to keep up with all that it's doing, and it's early days to be alleging that I've sent one cheque and then I'll be outta there!!! Btw, while we're talking - and NOT about Canada - and since, on your father's disinterested testimony, you are so philosophical and wise, please tell me what's going on in Syria, and what we ought to be doing about it. (Baron: some correspondence about Canada has been passing round the family. I reflects little credit on anybody participating in it, so I wouldn't bother to read it if I were you, although I can forward it if you want to waste 5 minutes of your valuable time.) Love to all, Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteThe Baron won't want us to begin a discussion here about Syria. Let's just say: Whom do you want in charge, Hezbollah or al-Qaeda? Not much of a choice.
ReplyDeleteNo, I agree with you. But I don't think people should be dropping poison gas on other people, however disagreeable they are. My reservation is merely to do with how effective we can be. Looking at Iraq, not very. We got rid of Saddam Hussain for them, and they weren't at all grateful, and we gave them their chance at a proper democracy but they weren't interested in it. Bad scene all round. Much love, Cousin Ruth
ReplyDeleteI say let's not send anymore of our boys to war or else we will have to change our laws on polygamy. Let them kill each other. I see where other countries have dropped out of the coalition, including UK and France. Smart people; leave it all to the US. Let's solve our own problems first, i.e. the economy, immigration, Republicans, health care, poverty, racism, gun control, the Marlins, etc.
ReplyDelete...and, oh yes. Ruthie, who's the "we" you refer to in your previous comment?
ReplyDeleteThe "we" means people of civilization and compassion whose first impulse is to intervene when horrible things are being done. I know the UK is a small country but it did go into Iraq with the USA. Any problem with that, Baron? Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteYes, I do have a problem with that "we" went into Iraq with the US. The UK is not a "small" country; it has troops stationed almost all over the world and the RAF is one of the most powerful air forces--as is well known. The UK lost 179 men in Iraq; the US, 4300, a rather significant margin. When it served its purpose the powerful UK Navy was able to protect the UK's purpose in the Falklands, but its Navy disappeared in Iraq and now the UK has no intention of sticking with the UN coalition in Syria, leaving the US alone to destroy their chemical warfare ability. So what is this "we" business? The US came to aid the UK in two wars, but where is this "small"country's powerful, army, navy, and air force now? "We"? I think not. "Intervening" when "horrible things are being done"? I think not. So, yes, dear cuz--I do have a rather large problem with that "we".
ReplyDeleteDear Baron, I understand exactly the points you have raised. I want you to look at it from the general British viewpoint. Let's take the Falklands first. The regime in Argentina had done nothing but terrorize their own civilian population: defeating them militarily was like taking milk from a kitten. And there is some doubt now as to whether or not we could do the same biz over again, as our economic circumstances are causing cuts to be made in our armed forces. Already, the Spanish have taken this point and are having yet another go at getting Gibraltar back. Secondly, Iraq. Our political leaders, in particular Mr Blair, got their fingers badly burnt over Iraq, sending our men into an unwinnable war, ending in results of no proven value either to our country or to world order or even to the benefit of the Iraqis. I will look at the figures for deaths that you have given: I'm not sure that they aren't comparable given the size of our respective populations. That said, a big part of me agrees with you in saying that the wretched Syrians and all other Muslims can be left to kill each other as much as they want. While they're busy doing that, they won't be killing us, will they. Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteI have now looked up the relative populations of our respective countries, Baron. We have about one fifth of yours. This means that you are right on the issue of the number of dead: if we're looking purely at figures, then our losses should have been nearer to 900. Accordingly, I'm not sure why our media railed so heavily against the Iraq war. It might have been an attempt to discredit the Labour administration, from both the Right and the Left. Then again, it might not. Maybe we've really gone soft, in which case, "Don't cry for me, Argentina!" Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteA civilized and responsible response. And so to bed.
ReplyDeleteAnyone still interested in why the UK Parliament voted against intervening in Syria might like to look at today's (1st September) newspaper, the Sunday "Observer," and find Mr Andrew Rawnsley's article. He thinks the vote was lost through the Government's sheer ineptitude. Cuzzin Ruth
ReplyDeleteThe UK Parliament voted down the intervention as a childish response to the last time the U.S. asked the UK to join a party, against Saddam. The UK agreed, as any little brother (no insult intended; I love my little brother)would come to help their older brother get rid of a bully. However, it turns out that the older brother kinda lied and tricked the younger brother into that party, and the younger brother didn't have any fun and wished he hadn't come at all.
ReplyDeleteSo, the next time the older one said something very similar, about joining a new party against someone who's reportedly doing the same things as Saddam -- this time the younger brother said, "hey, you tricked me last time, and I'm not just going to say 'yes' right away. Maybe after everyone sees that I stood up to you, I'll come back to help."
Some people in America are saying "Now the British are the French." I don't think it's meant to compliment their cooking.
I enjoy and require facts in certain situations, JR, and this is one of them. I am curious to know just what was the lie, and what was the "trick" you refer to that brought the UK into the IRAQ war?? I really love little brother UK.
ReplyDeleteIf I can reconcile both parties here, the situation was as follows. There was a "dodgy dossier" about Iraq which said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It WAS a lie: the authors didn't have the evidence, and knew it. And none were found later on. But I don't think that that actually means there weren't any. You know what they say: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!" And we know that Saddam did in fact gas his own people at Halabjah and other locations. It's possible he'd run out of the toxic gloop, I suppose, and that's what the anti-Israeli Robert Fisk thinks. (Keep a careful eye on that creep, btw, if you're not already doing so.) But if you've manufactured WMDs once, you can do it again. But to me, it makes sense to look at the results, in the case of Iraq, the actual results, and in the case of Syria, the possible results. Saddam was deposed, but the Iraqis weren't in the least bit grateful. They now have an Islamic theocracy (with all that that entails for democracy, civil rights, Jews, Christians, rights of women, gays, etc.,) that hates us all and is even more anti-Semitic than Saddam. Was it really worth it? THAT'S the problem with proposing to intervene in Syria.
ReplyDeleteJust two more points:-
1 If the USA wants us to join automatically in EVERY foreign war into which it goes, then maybe we in the UK should have a vote in your elections, or we're just a satrapy. It's academic, actually, because I think most of us would have voted for Obama anyway, and Obama is in power. But the point is worth consideration; and
2 Rely on FRANCE for military support? HAR HAR HAR!!! The wretched country managed to allow itself to be overrun by the Germans THREE TIMES IN 75 YEARS!! (Franco-Prussian War 1870 (I think), WW1 1914-18, WW2 1939-45. They were all, literally, out to lunch :)
The U.S. had "slam-dunk" proof that Saddam had been developing weapons of mass destruction. There was no proof at all. And there were no WMDs. One of the "proofs" was the story of Iraq's having purchased "yellow cake" uranium in Niger. Bush had been advised that the story was a lie, but he publicly presented it as a fact. The info that it was a lie apparently was not passed on to the British until after the invasion had occurred. There were a number of other examples that one can find with a little research.
ReplyDeleteBaron, Joel, Adam: there's all sorts of evidence and all sorts of counter-evidence and all sorts of allegations flying to and fro. We might never get to the bottom of it all. I repeat that I think that the best way to deal with Iraq and Syria is simply to ask these PRACTICAL questions: In Iraq, did we do any good? And in Syria: "CAN we do any good?" Cousin Ruth
ReplyDelete"Adam's" comment is really Joel's. I have no idea how Adam's name got credit for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI have no way to change names. I have resigned from this debate, tho' it's fun. I have to work on my musical. I am a regular Rodgers and Hammerstein.
"There is nothing like a dame,
ReplyDeleteNothing in the world:
There is nothing you can name - that - is
Anything like a dame!"