Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> fredag den 31. december 2021 kl. 01.28.43 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:
>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
>>> fredag den 31. december 2021 kl. 00.51.16 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:
>>>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
>>>>> torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 22.54.12 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:
>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:29:31 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown
>>>>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 16:58, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown
>>>>>>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 11:19, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Battle of the River Plate by Dudley Pope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may have been a "cool" war for the isolated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merkins, but it was a very hot war for much of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries of wars, not ours. We saved your lives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't forgive us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies if pointing out historical facts has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discomforted you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Empire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started
>>>>>>>>>>>> in 1941.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is true that most Americans (at least, the small
>>>>>>>>>>> percentage that actually knows anything at all about WWII)
>>>>>>>>>>> have a hopelessly inaccurate and biased view of WWII. They
>>>>>>>>>>> think they "saved our asses" - in fact, they only joined the
>>>>>>>>>>> war when they realised they could make more profit selling
>>>>>>>>>>> critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than
>>>>>>>>>>> they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew
>>>>>>>>>>> that if either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they'd
>>>>>>>>>>> lose a big market and their place in the world - possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> ending up Russian or German themselves in the long run. And
>>>>>>>>>>> of course it is easier to think of a war as being "cool"
>>>>>>>>>>> when it is happening somewhere else and it is not /your/
>>>>>>>>>>> country that is being fought over.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's certainly true that the US came in late. There was a huge
>>>>>>>>>> fight in the US, with a large fraction of the population being
>>>>>>>>>> of the opinion that the US should stay out of WW2, and let
>>>>>>>>>> Europe consume itself, yet again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There was also an argument that the US should come in on the
>>>>>>>>>> Nazi side, as the Brits were clearly on the way to losing WW2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Churchill was of the opinion that it was essential that the
>>>>>>>>>> Yanks intervene against Germany, and FDR agreed, but could not
>>>>>>>>>> do much at the time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The intervene-against-Germany side ultimately won, the issue
>>>>>>>>>> being settled overnight by the Japanese attack on Pearl
>>>>>>>>>> Harbor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why does this matter? The UK simply did not have the
>>>>>>>>>> population or economic weight to invade Europe and force the
>>>>>>>>>> German armies back into Germany, or to overrun and conquer
>>>>>>>>>> Germany itself. By the time of Normandy, Germany commanded the
>>>>>>>>>> economic output of the greater part of Europe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the eve of WW2 (meaning Pearl Harbor), US steel production
>>>>>>>>>> exceeded the rest of the world combined. Size matters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's all true, but there are several other big questions.
>>>>>>>>> Would the UK have held out until Germany ran out of fuel? Would
>>>>>>>>> the Russians have pushed in more from the East (leaving Europe in
>>>>>>>>> a very different state that it is today)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think Churchill thought that Germany would run out soon
>>>>>>>> enough to save Britain, even if Germany ultimately lost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lasse provided a link showing that US oil production was something
>>>>>>>> like 2/3 of world production. I had not thought of that, but it
>>>>>>>> should have been obvious, given steel statistics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, both steel and oil. Again, size really matters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dimeter reports that US material support was important to the
>>>>>>>> Russian war effort as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think most British - both under the war, and afterwards - agree
>>>>>>>>> that the American declaration of war against Germany and its part
>>>>>>>>> in the war afterwards were of enormous help to the UK and Europe
>>>>>>>>> in defeating Germany and also in limiting the expansion of
>>>>>>>>> Russian influence in Europe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, for certain. No other then world power was remotely large
>>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is much more in doubt, however, is /why/ the Americans
>>>>>>>>> joined. There are many possibilities, and I think only one can
>>>>>>>>> really be ruled out - it was not for altruism or to "save our
>>>>>>>>> asses". Money and power seem much more likely. (Britain
>>>>>>>>> finished paying off its war loans to the USA until 2006.)
>>>>>> Riiight, and because that had to be an attractive investment to attract
>>>>>> such totally amoral mercenary folk, the Brits were paying 10% compound
>>>>>> interest for 61 years, with some appropriate payment schedule, so the
>>>>>> total was inflated by, like, 7x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plus the US has been subsidizing NATO to the tune of a few percent of
>>>>>> the total GDP of all the NATO countries since forever, despite their
>>>>>> treaty commitments. To be fair, initially this resulted in the whole
>>>>>> bloc being aligned to US interests, but then US interests include a free
>>>>>> and prosperous Europe. So shoot us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could buy a lot of jeeps with that amount of dough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO NATO is a relic at this point--the folly of the Europeans in
>>>>>> gratuitously putting themselves at Russia's mercy with regards to energy
>>>>>> supplies makes the rest of the world shake their heads. There's no
>>>>>> Soviet Union anymore, and Germany has finally achieved its goal of
>>>>>> dominating continental Europe. You can't fix stupid, and it's stupid to
>>>>>> try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Just think about how much unpleasantness could have been avoided if
>>>>>> the Germans had thought of doing that coal-and-steel-union thing back in
>>>>>> 1869 or 1933, say.) ;)
>>>>>>>> It's a very complex question, and it's unlikely that there is any
>>>>>>>> one reason. Many books have been written on the matter. The
>>>>>>>> debate continues, likely forever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd hazard that the French would point out that Anglo-Saxons tend
>>>>>>>> to stick together. It's not a compliment.
>>>>>> From the French? Mon Dieu! I'm totally crestfallen. ;)
>>>>>>> The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that
>>>>>>> observation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the Japanese did their part too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA and realized that Japan
>>>>>>> couldn't compete with our resources in an extended war. He also
>>>>>>> remarked on the millions of farm boys who grew up fixing tractors
>>>>>>> and shooting guns.
>>>>>> The Russians drove from Stalingrad to the Oder in American trucks, not
>>>>>> even counting the munitions that got them there.
>>>>>
>>>>> afaiu in the end lend-lease provided ~30% of the trucks, ~10% of the planes,
>>>>> ~10% of the tanks and almost 100% of the trains the Russians used during the war
>>>>> so the Russians also build a lot, (with the help of materials, oil and food from the US)
>>>> Link?
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/usBKGE4w5NI
>> Mentioning almost exclusively unsupported assertions by the post-war
>> Soviet Union, as far as I got before throwing up. Super convincing, for
>> sure.
>
> as he mentioned some of the numbers are Russian and should taken with a grain of salt
> but most of the numbers are from a book by a Canadian(?) historian
>
>
A 90-odd minute youtube video isn't a super-accessible source for
checking references. Some printed publication would be a lot more
persuasive.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com