MicroZED

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:06:15 +1000, Tim Williams <tmoranwms@charter.net>  
wrote:

> "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".

You will never get me to say that.

Why did
> Germany go to war [again]?  Because their enemies /were/ "closing in
> around them".

I have never heard that said as one of the reasons they went to war.

> 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.

The French withdrew from the Rurh when they realized the Germans were  
telling the truth about how much production and productivity there was -  
that was before the madman started.

I am having difficulty with the enemies closing in (Hitler might have said  
it but that dosen't mean the population belived it at the time). Not only  
had the French withdrawn from the Ruhr, they built the Maginot line - an  
entirely defensive device . Also Belgium declared neutrality and the low  
countries never built an army to threaten anyone.  But yes the reparations  
were too brutal - most historians agree on that.

>
> And Hitler found reasonable success, politically and economically.  Don't
> forget, Nazis are National Socialists: he promised an end to the peoples'
> problems (welfare)

No welfare, just 'purpose', pride and jobs

, and got people back to work (government jobs,
> building
> the Autobahn

Yes - A great con of the German people - Autobarns made moving armies and  
material easy, it was also a military requirement (I just think 'what a  
prick' - from day 1 he intended to send the world back into carnage. And  
he had been there and seen what that meant. That is just beyond me.

, 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.

I thought FDR did pretty well actually.

>
> *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

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.htmlOn Sun, 27 Oct 2013 04:21:18  
+1000, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.

Crikey No! There was a lot of political opposition supported by  (I am sad  
to say) evangelical Christian groups. Three things coalesced to make it  
possible to go. US public opinion was shifting due to the reports coming  
out from the region. The evangelicals stop their resistance and the  
European forces started making noise about going as a European force  
without US involvement. I read some US commentators who said this was  
unacceptable as the pentagon wouldn't accept the possibility that this  
would happen because it would lead to a downgrading of the importance of  
the US in NATO. Why the US actually went I have no clue Humanitarian? To  
save face at NATO? Or domestic public opinion? (I choose to believe, in  
the absence of other evidence that humanitarian reasons were the greater  
driving force)


> It is the US who committed genocide in Iraq, used depleted uranium ammo  
> too.

I don't support ending of the first Iraq war or the second one at all, but  
their was no genocide by the US. Depleted uranium is relatively safe as  
long as it isn't inhaled and the guys in the tanks that were attacked by  
the A10's were left in no position to inhale anyway.

> 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.

I doubt that, but e has lost my approval for a few reasons.


>
> 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.

That is the intentional consequence of 'monetary easing' - it makes it  
easier for the US to export. In the situation a smart move

> 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.

Serious factual error there! After Perl Harbor FDR was unsure whether to  
declare war on Germany or not. Hitler took it out of his hands by  
declaring war on the US.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-on-the-united-states
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html

>
>
> 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.
>

Yup, and it is a problem.


> 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 Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:10:20 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:54:06 -0400, krw wrote:
> >On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:16:25 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>krw wrote:
> 
> >>> 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.

I used to live right on the 17th Street Canal.  The levee was my running
path, including the point of failure.

Ironically, IIRC, the failure was caused by the corrugated steel
vertical "reinforcements" they were driving into the earthen banks
the last time I visited, as those re-directed the normal, ordinary
seepage into a concentrated flow that undermined and ejected...the
reinforcements. Then, all hell broke loose.

Cheers,

James

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:22:45 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:10:20 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:54:06 -0400, krw wrote:
>> >On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:16:25 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>krw wrote:
>> 
>> >>> 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.
>
>I used to live right on the 17th Street Canal.  The levee was my running
>path, including the point of failure.
>
>Ironically, IIRC, the failure was caused by the corrugated steel
>vertical "reinforcements" they were driving into the earthen banks
>the last time I visited, as those re-directed the normal, ordinary
>seepage into a concentrated flow that undermined and ejected...the
>reinforcements. Then, all hell broke loose.
>
>Cheers,
>
>James

There should have been some sort of locks at the Lake Pointchartrain levee. Or
no canal at all.

Mandatory reading for anyone who lives near the Mississippi is "Rising Tide" by
John Barry. Read while listening to Randy Newman singing "Louisiana 1927"  


-- 

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

Den s=F8ndag den 27. oktober 2013 19.21.22 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 06:22:45 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >On Saturday, October 26, 2013 11:10:20 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>=20
> >> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:54:06 -0400, krw wrote:
>=20
> >> >On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:16:25 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
>=20
> >> >
>=20
> >> >>
>=20
> >> >>krw wrote:
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >> >>> Not so much.  Hurricanes are a fairly normal event in NY.  They in=
sist
>=20
> >> >>> on building closer and closer to the water, though.
>=20
> >> >>>
>=20
> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes
>=20
> >> >>
>=20
> >> >>
>=20
> >> >>That list is for the State of New York.
>=20
> >> >
>=20
> >> >Irrelevant.  NY is a small target, and that list shows how common NE
>=20
> >> >hurricanes are.  It's been relatively quiet in the last few decades
>=20
> >> >(Global Warming, you know) so the NE has been very lax.  They simply
>=20
> >> >got caught.  It had been predicted or *years*.
>=20
> >> >
>=20
> >> >>Most of them didn't really hit the=20
>=20
> >> >>city.
>=20
> >> >
>=20
> >> >Irrelevant.  Most gulf hurricanes didn't hit NOLA, either, but it was
>=20
> >> >only a matter of time until they paid the price for living under
>=20
> >> >water, thanks to the USG.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >> The problem with New Orleans was the absurdly dangerous, poorly mainta=
ined 17th
>=20
> >> Street Canal and the Industrial Canal, both manmade spears pointing in=
to the
>=20
> >> heart of the city. Katrina wasn't even a super severe hurricane.
>=20
> >
>=20
> >I used to live right on the 17th Street Canal.  The levee was my running
>=20
> >path, including the point of failure.
>=20
> >
>=20
> >Ironically, IIRC, the failure was caused by the corrugated steel
>=20
> >vertical "reinforcements" they were driving into the earthen banks
>=20
> >the last time I visited, as those re-directed the normal, ordinary
>=20
> >seepage into a concentrated flow that undermined and ejected...the
>=20
> >reinforcements. Then, all hell broke loose.
>=20
> >
>=20
> >Cheers,
>=20
> >
>=20
> >James
>=20
>=20
>=20
> There should have been some sort of locks at the Lake Pointchartrain leve=
e. Or
>=20
> no canal at all.
>=20
>=20


maybe they should have asked the Dutch to help them, even the Italians have=
 managed to come up with a system of gates to protect Venice

-Lasse

On 10/27/2013 3:29 AM, David Eather wrote:
> 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.

Failing to respond vigorously when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 
violation of the Treaty of Versailles, for a start.  If the British and 
French had gone in, Hitler would have collapsed like a punctured balloon.


>
>   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

Of course they did.  I'm Canadian, and both my father and my 
father-in-law joined up on the first day of the war.

>
> 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'

Not so.
>
>>
>> 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

-- 
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 10/27/2013 4:16 AM, David Eather wrote:
>
> <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'.

Wrong.

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 27 Oct 2013 04:30:10 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

>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? 

The stuff I saw was from about the time of the last major SF quake.
Quite interesting.

>I'm only going on what I've seen with my own eyes,

You've seen 100 story skyscrapers fall during an earthquake?

>So I could easily be as wrong about this as Jim is about guns in Arizona.

What is he wrong about?  No permit is needed in AZ.  What's not to
like?

In article <l4hb5n$5bm$1@dont-email.me>, 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, 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.

Yes.  Datapoint.  On the eve of WW2, US steel production was larger
than the rest of the world combined.

  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II>

In modern industrial warfare, industrial output matters.

Joe Gwinn

On 2013-10-28, krw@attt.bizz <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2013 04:30:10 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>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? 
>
> The stuff I saw was from about the time of the last major SF quake.
> Quite interesting.
>
>>I'm only going on what I've seen with my own eyes,

> You've seen 100 story skyscrapers fall during an earthquake?

We don't have them that big here. To my way of thinking if there's 
structural damage that can't be repaired economically it was effectively 
destroyed. 

There's not much left of central Chirstchurch.  there was only two
major modern buildings collapse in the earthquake , but most of the 
remainder have since been demolished. 

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

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