MicroZED

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:41:58 -0400) it happened "Tom Del Rosso"
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote in <l4gntb$lc7$1@dont-email.me>:

>
>krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>>
>> Yep, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>> You will need to have your ass bailed out again.  Dumbass Europeons.
>
>They've even had genocide in the past 20 years and wouldn't do anything 
>about it until we arrived.

IIRC it was the US who wanted war in the balkan.
It is the US who committed genocide in Iraq, used depleted uranium ammo too.
It is the US that use chemical weapons in Vietnam (agent orange etc).

And as to learn from history:
The Roman empire, after the slaves took over, is no more.
Now you have a slave in the white house who thinks he can copy the Dutch health care system.
The man is a anti-competition lower IQ commie elected by a bunch of racists for his 
skin color, clearly not for any capabilities.

It will kill your empire.
I was reading today they now want a new bomber, well I'd say get that F35 flying first.

And then that dollar, it is on an all time low against the Euro, hey, that is what you get for printing tissue paper.
Inflation, devaluation.
I always was a bit not sure about the american term 'billions'
but when I did recently see some numbers after they went bankrupt again the US has
  17 Tera dollar debt.
The population is currently about 311 Mega people. 
That makes for every man, women, and child a debt of 17.10^12 / 3.10^8 = 5.6.10^4 = 56000 dollar.
About time you pay up!
 http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/83785-incredible-much-man-woman-child-owe-united-states/



>And just like in 1939 they had enough military power to do it without us, 
>but didn't.

Do what? US declared war on Hitler, not the other way around.


US declares war on anything and anyone they want.
They spy on anything and anyone they want
That includes using the data for industrial espionage.

But the lesson that history shows, teaches, is that empires come and empires go.
Political bickering... we have seen it again.
It will just fall apart, like Detroit, people will leave, abandon it,
come with little boats to the EU over the Atlantic, UK is already full of muslims and indians
so they cross the north sea to the continent,
Will apply for aid here...
And in Germany.


OK my poly ticks for today.

On 10/26/2013 12:39 PM, David Eather wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:01:28 +1000, Tom Del Rosso
> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> David Eather wrote:
>>>
>>> America's role in WW2 was not insignificant, but it was one of many
>>> and leader in very few aspects. America did not win the victory and
>>> certanily not by itself. IMO The worst part is that narcissistic view
>>> that exults the 1% and dismisses the 99% who in every way gave just
>>> as much and to we all in the free world owe just as much.
>>
>> The main thing is that without us, the Soviet Union would have claimed
>> all
>> of Europe and got the bomb first.  So they wouldn't be speaking German as
>> people sometimes say.
>>
>>
> A retreat from you original position to a hypothetical 'what if' that is
> probably a load of shit. True about (most of) Europe not speaking
> German, but the Soviets were like the Germans and not expending effort
> to develop a bomb. That change a little when they started getting
> information from the Manhattan project  and changed a lot more after the
> first 'practical'. But the biggest increase came after Truman had
> approved development of 100 nuclear weapons (in response to the pentagon
> request for around 1000 of them) which was after 1945.
>
> As it was the Soviet Union was almost spent by the time it reached
> Berlin and Stalin ordered the armies to stop knowing they couldn't be
> supplied and the economy couldn't withstand it. Without the US the
> Germans would have penetrated deeper into Russia and because of that it
> the march to Berlin would have taken much longer and both of them would
> have been bleed each other even more, giving the British and the
> commonwealth the time to build. The Soviets would have taken all of
> Germany but it is unlikely they could have taken any more territory and
> almost certainly not to France.

I'm not an American, but I know a fair amount about WWII and the 
American contribution.  The Russians spilled an enormous amount of blood 
beating Hitler, and nobody can take that away from them.  Russian 
courage and bloody-mindedess was indispensable, but so was American 
finance and materiel.

The Russians had great tanks, but they couldn't have done what they did 
without American trucks and supplies.  After an incredibly foolish and 
cowardly performance between 1934 and 1939, Britain survived the 
Germans' initial onslaught due to the English Channel, their Navy and 
Air Force, Chain Home radar and the Biggin Hill method of plotting and 
vectoring interceptors.

However, they'd never have survived the Battle of the Atlantic without 
the Americans and Canadians.  The Americans provided huge amounts of 
ship construction, Lend-Lease, and a lot of very brave Merchant Marine 
sailors.

It reflects very poorly on us of these latter times to depreciate the 
contributions of those of all lands who sacrificed so much to bring the 
evil of Hitler to an end.

The Russians didn't need to invade in order to take over territory--ask 
the Czechs for a start.  Besides the lessons of their own revolution, 
they'd learned a lot from Hitler's takeovers of Austria and the 
Sudetenland, both of which were achieved without firing a shot.  Besides 
Czechoslovakia, they came very close to engineering Communist takeovers 
of Austria, Italy, West Germany, and even France.  The Marshall plan was 
intended to prevent that.

(Of course I sort of miss the days when the Communists were still overseas.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:44:12 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:49:25 -0400) it happened krw@attt.bizz
>wrote
>nothing

Nothing a leftist Europeon could possibly understand, obviously.  

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:10:20 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:54:06 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:16:25 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>><td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:29:04 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>>> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>> > New York, LA and San Francisco are natural ports too.  But NY has
>>>> > never had a natural disaster like the hurricane of 2012.  Normally
>>>> > they blow out to sea.  It was a very unusual confluence of multiple
>>>> > fronts, low pressure areas, and high tide.
>>>>
>>>> Not so much.  Hurricanes are a fairly normal event in NY.  They insist
>>>> on building closer and closer to the water, though.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes
>>>
>>>
>>>That list is for the State of New York.
>>
>>Irrelevant.  NY is a small target, and that list shows how common NE
>>hurricanes are.  It's been relatively quiet in the last few decades
>>(Global Warming, you know) so the NE has been very lax.  They simply
>>got caught.  It had been predicted or *years*.
>>
>>>Most of them didn't really hit the 
>>>city.
>>
>>Irrelevant.  Most gulf hurricanes didn't hit NOLA, either, but it was
>>only a matter of time until they paid the price for living under
>>water, thanks to the USG.
>
>The problem with New Orleans was the absurdly dangerous, poorly maintained 17th
>Street Canal and the Industrial Canal, both manmade spears pointing into the
>heart of the city. Katrina wasn't even a super severe hurricane.

Yet fifty years of hoping that a hurricane wouldn't hit them didn't
help much.  The NE is no different.

On 2013-10-26, krw@attt.bizz <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2013 00:57:18 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On 2013-10-25, krw@attt.bizz <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:
>>>>Nah, it's the big ones that will be busted up the most
>>>>small ones will survive if proplerly maintained.
>>>>expect some surprises.
>>>
>>> Not so.  The resonant frequency of the large buildings is low enough
>>> that they'll stay together.  At 10-20 stories, they're done.
>>
>>that helps with longitudinal waves, not so much with the vertical waves.
>
> Wrong.  I'm going by what those who research such things have to say. 

Recent research?  I'm only going on what I've seen with my own eyes,
So I could easily be as wrong about this as Jim is about guns in Arizona.

-- 
&#9858;&#9859; 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:11:29 +1000, Phil Hobbs  
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

> On 10/26/2013 12:39 PM, David Eather wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:01:28 +1000, Tom Del Rosso
>> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> David Eather wrote:
>>>>
>>>> America's role in WW2 was not insignificant, but it was one of many
>>>> and leader in very few aspects. America did not win the victory and
>>>> certanily not by itself. IMO The worst part is that narcissistic view
>>>> that exults the 1% and dismisses the 99% who in every way gave just
>>>> as much and to we all in the free world owe just as much.
>>>
>>> The main thing is that without us, the Soviet Union would have claimed
>>> all
>>> of Europe and got the bomb first.  So they wouldn't be speaking German  
>>> as
>>> people sometimes say.
>>>
>>>
>> A retreat from you original position to a hypothetical 'what if' that is
>> probably a load of shit. True about (most of) Europe not speaking
>> German, but the Soviets were like the Germans and not expending effort
>> to develop a bomb. That change a little when they started getting
>> information from the Manhattan project  and changed a lot more after the
>> first 'practical'. But the biggest increase came after Truman had
>> approved development of 100 nuclear weapons (in response to the pentagon
>> request for around 1000 of them) which was after 1945.
>>
>> As it was the Soviet Union was almost spent by the time it reached
>> Berlin and Stalin ordered the armies to stop knowing they couldn't be
>> supplied and the economy couldn't withstand it. Without the US the
>> Germans would have penetrated deeper into Russia and because of that it
>> the march to Berlin would have taken much longer and both of them would
>> have been bleed each other even more, giving the British and the
>> commonwealth the time to build. The Soviets would have taken all of
>> Germany but it is unlikely they could have taken any more territory and
>> almost certainly not to France.
>
> I'm not an American, but I know a fair amount about WWII and the  
> American contribution.  The Russians spilled an enormous amount of blood  
> beating Hitler, and nobody can take that away from them.  Russian  
> courage and bloody-mindedess was indispensable, but so was American  
> finance and materiel.
>
> The Russians had great tanks, but they couldn't have done what they did  
> without American trucks and supplies.  After an incredibly foolish and  
> cowardly performance between 1934 and 1939,

In '39? If that is "peace in out time" then yes that probably applies but  
it was also the only possible thing to do - they didn't have capacity to  
do otherwise. If it was about the speed at which they lost ground and  
failed to do anything meaningful during the 'phoney war' then ineptness is  
more likely the bigger contributer.

  Britain survived the
> Germans' initial onslaught due to the English Channel, their Navy and  
> Air Force, Chain Home radar and the Biggin Hill method of plotting and  
> vectoring interceptors.
>
> However, they'd never have survived the Battle of the Atlantic without  
> the Americans and Canadians.

Canada was part of the British Commonwealth - they would have helped  
without America

The Americans provided huge amounts of
> ship construction, Lend-Lease, and a lot of very brave Merchant Marine  
> sailors.

The greater part of their provisioning was 'sold'

>
> It reflects very poorly on us of these latter times to depreciate the  
> contributions of those of all lands who sacrificed so much to bring the  
> evil of Hitler to an end.
>
> The Russians didn't need to invade in order to take over territory--ask  
> the Czechs for a start.  Besides the lessons of their own revolution,  
> they'd learned a lot from Hitler's takeovers of Austria and the  
> Sudetenland, both of which were achieved without firing a shot.  Besides  
> Czechoslovakia, they came very close to engineering Communist takeovers  
> of Austria, Italy, West Germany, and even France.  The Marshall plan was  
> intended to prevent that.
>
> (Of course I sort of miss the days when the Communists were still  
> overseas.)

I miss the days when the communists were the enemy and the world seemed  
simpler.


>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>

In a scenario "without America" I don't suggest that America would stop  
selling equipment to the allies and Russia - just that America would not  
send manpower to European war . Does anyone remember a year or two ago a  
ww2 wreck was discovered still holding war payments from the Soviet Union  
to America - it  contained 7 billion dollars in platinum? I think America  
would still be suppling weapons trucks, boots and canned meat to the  
Soviets under that arrangement.

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:49:24 +1000, Tom Del Rosso  
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

>
> David Eather wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:41:58 +1000, Tom Del Rosso
>> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Yep, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat
>> > > it. You will need to have your ass bailed out again.  Dumbass
>> > > Europeons.
>> >
>> > They've even had genocide in the past 20 years and wouldn't do
>> > anything about it until we arrived.
>>
>> That's not true. In the breakup and genocide of Yugoslavia the EU were
>> wanting to go but the US as part of NATO refused for domestic
>> political reasons.
>
> So what?  They could have done it without us.  NATO countries are not
> restrained from action just because other NATO countries don't want to  
> go.

No they couldn't. All their command and control went through US dominated  
headquarters who refused to participate

>
> NATO shouldn't even have anything to do with it, because it wasn't an  
> act of
> defense.  We made a big mistake by invoking NATO and discrediting its
> purpose as a defensive alliance.
>

Possibly, but I think they were (and the western European population) was  
more concerned about watching Holocaust 2 happening on their doorstep and  
doing nothing - and this time they did have the equipment to stop it.

But I note your argument. You criticized them because they didn't (but  
actually couldn't) go without the US and you also criticize them for going.

>
>> > And just like in 1939 they had enough military power to do it
>> > without us, but didn't.
>> >
>> In 1939? I assume you mean before 1 September 1939. The Holocaust
>> hadn't even started.
>
> It also hadn't really started before we joined the war, so that's pretty
> irrelevant.

No, you were trying to smear the Brits and French saying they didn't do  
anything to stop it. The fact it hadn't even started shuts you argument  
down totally.

>
> This whole branch of the thread could be chopped off where you said that  
> the
> US wasn't so important because other nations lost more lives.  But that  
> is
> no way to measure the effect they had on the outcome, so it's a useless
> argument.
>

US 'exceptionalism' makes out, as you still are making out, that without  
the US WW2 couldn't have been won. The fact is the US supplied relatively  
little manpower to the European war, would still have been involved in the  
pacific war and SOLD most of the material support they gave in the  
European war. Take away the US manpower in Europe and the equipment  
actually given away and the European war doesn't change much at all.  The  
US had no option but to fight in the Pacific.


>> There were no camps set up for the sole purpose
>> of mechanizing the death of the inmates and no one outside of Germany
>> (and few inside Germany) imagined the coming genocides.
>
> They sure imagined the coming invasions and did nothing.
>
> You're focusing on the timeline of genocide as if that's the only reason
> they should have taken action.  I refered to genocide, but I don't see  
> it as
> the only reason Europe should have acted.
>
>
>> If you are referring to military action, why do you think Germany
>> quickly defeated Poland, France, Ukraine and half of Russia?
>
> Because they did nothing about it when they could have.  If they merely  
> gave
> the appearance of having guts Hitler would have been arrested by the  
> Berlin
> police chief.
>
So Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the low counties are at  
fault because the German police chief didn't act? If you read actual  
history you will find that their was a plot in '39 among Hitlers generals  
to arrest him when he invaded Czechoslovakia, but the invasion went so  
well the German people supported it and Hitler so no coup would have  
succeeded.

Also I don't think you are looking at the world as it then was. The  
members of the Entent and their populations were still traumatized by the  
cost of the last war, the world had faith in the League of Nations and  
diplomacy and in those conditions and the absence of a threat (the treaty  
of Versailles was still mostly being adhered to) they let their military  
atrophy. There was no mood and little ablity to act. Do you think if you  
had been there you would have been much different?

In addition, within Germany, it was widely believed that the treaty of  
Versailles was unfair and it was being promulgated that the German army  
had not been defeated. So they were in the mood to redeem there honor and  
supportive of that idea.

<small snip>

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:34:56 +1000, Tom Del Rosso  
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

>
> David Eather wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:01:28 +1000, Tom Del Rosso
>> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > David Eather wrote:
>> > >
>> > > America's role in WW2 was not insignificant, but it was one of
>> > > many and leader in very few aspects. America did not win the
>> > > victory and certanily not by itself. IMO The worst part is that
>> > > narcissistic view that exults the 1% and dismisses the 99% who in
>> > > every way gave just as much and to we all in the free world owe
>> > > just as much.
>> >
>> > The main thing is that without us, the Soviet Union would have
>> > claimed all
>> > of Europe and got the bomb first.  So they wouldn't be speaking
>> > German as people sometimes say.
>> >
>> >
>> A retreat from you original position to a hypothetical 'what if' that
>
> MY original position?  This is the first thing I said about it.
>
>
>> is probably a load of shit. True about (most of) Europe not speaking
>> German, but the Soviets were like the Germans and not expending
>> effort to develop a bomb. That change a little when they started
>> getting information from the Manhattan project  and changed a lot
>
> It also would have changed a lot when at least some of the scientists in
> Europe went to the Soviets instead of us.

Stalin wasn't interested in what scientists had to say. It would have made  
no or at most little difference
>
>
>> As it was the Soviet Union was almost spent by the time it reached
>> Berlin and Stalin ordered the armies to stop knowing they couldn't be
>> supplied and the economy couldn't withstand it. Without the US the
>> Germans would have penetrated deeper into Russia and because of that
>
> The winter would have stopped them in exactly the same way.
>

You do know that after their first winter the Nazis successfully went on  
the offensive again? The winter stopped them and hurt them but it didn't  
defeat them. With a few less supplies to the Russians the Germans would  
have gone deeper, and may have captured one of the big 3 cities and maybe  
have gotten to some of the oil fields in the Caucasus. In any case it  
would take longer to dig them out.

>
>> it the march to Berlin would have taken much longer and both of them
>> would have been bleed each other even more, giving the British and
>> the commonwealth the time to build. The Soviets would have taken all
>> of Germany but it is unlikely they could have taken any more
>> territory and almost certainly not to France.
>
> There would have been nothing in their way.  The British would never have
> been able to invade Italy much less France.
>

Not so. D Day planing was originally a British idea with an invasion using  
3 divisions and a parachute regiment. When the Americans came on board  
they added 2 divisions and 2 airborne regiments, but it was conceived as a  
British invasion and probably would have worked - albeit more slowly or  
with higher risk.

<snip>
> The Russians had great tanks, but they couldn't have done what they did  
> without American trucks and supplies.
<snip>

A country that makes tanks can make trucks if it has too. Also as said  
before much of the aid to Russia was paid for with hard currency and were  
not 'gifts'.

"David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> wrote in message 
news:op.w5lseoelwei6gd@phenom-pc...
> In addition, within Germany, it was widely believed that the treaty of 
> Versailles was unfair and it was being promulgated that the German army 
> had not been defeated. So they were in the mood to redeem there honor 
> and  supportive of that idea.

The most important thing to keep in mind is, "Hitler was right".  Why did 
Germany go to war [again]?  Because their enemies /were/ "closing in 
around them".  France was ravaging them for reparations, and even siezed 
the Ruhr (heavy manufacturing in west Germany).  The Weimar economy was in 
shambles -- intentionally, because reparations were to be paid in Marks, 
so they inflated the hell out of them.

And Hitler found reasonable success, politically and economically.  Don't 
forget, Nazis are National Socialists: he promised an end to the peoples' 
problems (welfare), and got people back to work (government jobs, building 
the Autobahn, rebuilding the military, stuff like that).  Nothing unusual 
at the time, and it only resulted in greater debt -- the outcome probably 
wasn't much better than FDR or any other leader's actions during the 
Depression, but optimal results don't matter, action matters.

*IIRC on a number of these points; I haven't researched these things in 
great detail for some time.  Standard Usenet disclaimer, take with grain 
of salt.

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs
Electrical Engineering Consultation
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com