Top 10 Inventions Of WWII

. Anyway I can’t play today my menstrual cycle has a puncture!

ROFLMAO!

 

ROFLMAO!

Good to see you laughing something off!

 

Anyway I can’t play today my menstrual cycle has a puncture!

the seat came off mine when I went for a can of tartan paint

 

and a can of nail holes with a left handed spanner, no doubt?

 

and a can of nail holes with a left handed spanner, no doubt?

they were in my saddle bags!

 

Can I include two items, the chewing gum and nylon hosiery ?

 

I see this sword on http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/germanswords.htm

Can someone suggest to me as to what was the material that was used originally on the handle. Was it wood or Baccalit??

Most of the people are offering Wooden Painted Grip, with Aluminium Wire going around

Gaurav

 

I see this sword on http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/germanswords.htm

Can someone suggest to me as to what was the material that was used originally on the handle. Was it wood or Baccalit??

Most of the people are offering Wooden Painted Grip, with Aluminium Wire going around

Gaurav

Hi DP. Had a quick read of the info with the sword and it states Ivory. If it was made preWW2 then i would guess it was, or a very good ivorine substitute. Without closer views of the graining i cannot tell. The wire banded about it was for decoration, but also for grip. This was needed if a rough matieral such as sharkskin wasn't used.
Kitty

 

Can I include two items, the chewing gum and nylon hosiery ?

Nylons yes, retailing first in 1940, however chewing gum has been around a long time. In modern manufacture back to the 1880's and bubble gum somewhere in the mid 1920's.

 

they were in my saddle bags!

John McWayne!

 

John McWayne!

The hell I am, Pilgrim!

 

The hell I am, Pilgrim!


Well "Fathers" anyway.

 

Nah, John Wayne was better looking...
Kitty

 

I think plastics were a good invention from WWII especially Nylon.

 

Oby + Nylon. Anybody else thinking stockings here?

 

I thought Nylon was invented in 1937 -by that Wallace Carruthers bloke ?

 

Nylon is fair game for WWII since the Japanese were invading China. Most Historians believe 1939 is the start of WWII, I would dispute that and say it was 1937. Some historians believe that Both World Wars are actually one continuous conflict. Hmmm could be an excellent topic for a thread...anyone is welcome to it.

 

Interesting line of thought World War 1 and World War 2 are convenient markers for placing events. Japan invading China and occupying a sizeable part Manchuquo? and annexing it as it's own was essentially in that theatre alone. If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, I believe America if it came into the war at all would have come in a lot later. I am vague on this part of the history, but didn't Japan sign some agreement before or after Pearl bringing them into the big picture. Manchuria wouldn't, I believe have been the start but saying that I heard somewhere that they had ambitions to form a larger Imperial Japanese Empire.

As far as WW1 and ww2 being one continuous conflict. The armistice is signed at Compiegne 11/11/18. Unless the war is continuing somewhere else and nobody else is aware of it. I can't see their reasoning behind a continuous conflict, what are they basing this on. If fighting is going on it is by some other countries - but these isolated instances aren't global and thus come under the moniker - World War.

 

As far as WW1 and ww2 being one continuous conflict. The armistice is signed at Compiegne 11/11/18. Unless the war is continuing somewhere else and nobody else is aware of it. I can't see their reasoning behind a continuous conflict, what are they basing this on. If fighting is going on it is by some other countries - but these isolated instances aren't global and thus come under the moniker - World War.
Oby, forgive me if I am wrong, but are you saying that the aftereffects of WW1 could be seen as a continuation of the conflict BY OTHER MEANS which then bled into WW2, therefore making a continuous conflict?
Interesting idea. And if i knew enough about the intervening years i would probably agree. Anyone else?

 

Oby, forgive me if I am wrong, but are you saying that the aftereffects of WW1 could be seen as a continuation of the conflict BY OTHER MEANS which then bled into WW2, therefore making a continuous conflict?
Interesting idea. And if i knew enough about the intervening years i would probably agree. Anyone else?

Exactly, The rationalization was that nothing was for the long term settled by the end of WWI. The proof that it wasn't settled besides what papers were signed was that the same beligerents were back at it again latter on in WWII. The credibility of this theory depends on the history occuring during those 20yrs(+-) between and how that history is interpreted.