On 30/12/2021 14:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:> On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+11, David Brown > wrote:>> So I really don't see why you are getting at Larkin here in this >> thread. Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of >> historical knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that >> the thread will turn into another display of ignorance? > > "We should have stayed out of Europe. Let the Germans and Russians > carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember the Empire" is > absolutely standard Larkin rhetoric. He has posted the same > isolationist nonsense here repeatedly, and it's just one more > episode in his long history of ignorant assertions about WW2.I know Larkin's history of historical ignorance. It goes along with a whole range of topics of which he is ignorant or completely mistaken, but regularly discusses, and posts he makes that are irrelevant to everyone outside his back yard. (But to be fair on him, he is also one of the most consistent on-topic posters discussing electronics here.) This group sees an absurd level of repetition. I typically subscribe to the group for a while, then unsubscribe for a long period, and subscribe again. I come back, wondering if there is anything new going on here - and there isn't. Most of the posts are /exactly/ the same shit. There are still the same bigots who think the world is coming to an end because there is someone born with a willie who feels more comfortable in a skirt. There are still the same feeble-minded brats that can't distinguish between a keyboard and toilet paper. There are still the same morons who think the way to stop people getting shot is to give everyone more guns. How about having a break? Perhaps /not/ forcing everything into the same pointless threads? Let's be clear here - John Larkin did /not/ start another "The US saved Europe" thread. He posted about a book he liked that covers a part of the war that had nothing to do with the USA. It was /Tom/ that pushed his buttons and got the reaction he must have expected. John was right to call him a jerk. If you really wanted to comment on John's first post in this thread, you could have asked what sort of a narcissist thinks anyone cares what book he has read, and why he felt this was worthy of telling the world.
cool war book
Started by ●December 29, 2021
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On 30/12/2021 13:48, Tom Gardner wrote:> On 30/12/21 11:25, David Brown wrote:>> So I really don't see why you are getting at Larkin here in this thread. >> Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of historical >> knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that the thread will >> turn into another display of ignorance? Or is that particular book one >> of these absurd American fictional re-writes of history, like the U-571 >> film? > > The last paragraph sums it up. > > Strictly speaking I'm not making comments about Larkin, merely > about the attitudes and ignorance. That distinction is not entirely > clear, of course.Tom, you are usually one of the sane, rational and polite people in this group. Your first post in this thread - responding to Larkin's pointless "look what I had for breakfast - I'm such a wonderful person that everyone will want to know" post - was deliberately and unnecessarily provocative and simply goading him into saying something stupid so that you could insult him more. It is one thing to correct him when he says something wrong, but another thing entirely to push him into repeating his ignorance.
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On 12/30/2021 16:12, David Brown wrote:> On 30/12/2021 14:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >> On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+11, David Brown >> wrote: > >>> So I really don't see why you are getting at Larkin here in this >>> thread. Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of >>> historical knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that >>> the thread will turn into another display of ignorance? >> >> "We should have stayed out of Europe. Let the Germans and Russians >> carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember the Empire" is >> absolutely standard Larkin rhetoric. He has posted the same >> isolationist nonsense here repeatedly, and it's just one more >> episode in his long history of ignorant assertions about WW2. > > I know Larkin's history of historical ignorance. It goes along with a > whole range of topics of which he is ignorant or completely mistaken, > but regularly discusses, and posts he makes that are irrelevant to > everyone outside his back yard. (But to be fair on him, he is also one > of the most consistent on-topic posters discussing electronics here.) > > This group sees an absurd level of repetition. I typically subscribe to > the group for a while, then unsubscribe for a long period, and subscribe > again. I come back, wondering if there is anything new going on here - > and there isn't. Most of the posts are /exactly/ the same shit. There > are still the same bigots who think the world is coming to an end > because there is someone born with a willie who feels more comfortable > in a skirt. There are still the same feeble-minded brats that can't > distinguish between a keyboard and toilet paper. There are still the > same morons who think the way to stop people getting shot is to give > everyone more guns. > > How about having a break? Perhaps /not/ forcing everything into the > same pointless threads? Let's be clear here - John Larkin did /not/ > start another "The US saved Europe" thread. He posted about a book he > liked that covers a part of the war that had nothing to do with the USA. > It was /Tom/ that pushed his buttons and got the reaction he must have > expected. John was right to call him a jerk. > > If you really wanted to comment on John's first post in this thread, you > could have asked what sort of a narcissist thinks anyone cares what book > he has read, and why he felt this was worthy of telling the world. >David, repetition to the absurd level you refer to is part of what is keeping the group alive I suppose. Look at us at CAE, we are so quite mostly because we don't want to go into that much repetition, most of use being still alive and active. But John did quite well with his post - he just posted a title, no suspicious links, nothing he can be blamed for. Yet he ignited a WWII discussion, it does not get much better than that. And who am I to miss a party like this :). I am not so sure the Russians could have stopped the Germans on their own. The Americans were sending these ships on which the Russian effort depended a lot; not just economically, they got the first planes (Air Cobras and probably others) to not only begin to mount some effort in the air but also to see how these were made and start making their own (no www back then you know :). They started making planes like their La-5, Mig-3 (I think) etc., prior to these they had some Polikarpovs which were just lame sitting ducks for the Messerschmitts, completely useless. The Brits helped a lot as well, that effort at Bletchley park must have contributed significantly to the US shipments not being sunk. Of course the Russians did the bulk of the job, in terms of human loss which they suffered, they made their T34 tank which was good enough against the German tigers etc. The harsh winter (harsher than usual, though winters there are invariably harsh) made the German tanks freeze etc. (I suppose winter counts as part of the Russian effort, they had to endure it, too). But I think it is impossible to say what the outcome would have been for the Russians had there not been the US supplies. Overall the Nazis could not possibly have held Europe for a long time, but things could have looked very very different without the US intervention. Dimiter
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 10:19:27 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:>On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, jlarkin@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.The Battle of the River Plate happened in December of 1939. The book says so. I thought it was a great book about three old outclassed British steam-powered cruisers sinking a new German diesel battleship with some dinky 6-inch guns and a lot of guts and guile. You altered the concept to propose that Brits are now mainly rude assholes who probably don't read. OK, we get it. Times have changed. -- I yam what I yam - Popeye
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown <david.brown@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 >>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, jlarkin@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. Joe Gwinn
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown <david.brown@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 >>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, jlarkin@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. > >(Equally, the British tend to think WWII started in September 1939 when >/they/ joined it - Austria and Czechoslovakia might say it started in >1938, and China might say 1937.) > > >However, the Battle Of the River Plate was from the very early war >(December 1939), between Germany and the UK and New Zealand. The US was >not involved. > >So I really don't see why you are getting at Larkin here in this thread. > Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of historical >knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that the thread will >turn into another display of ignorance? Or is that particular book one >of these absurd American fictional re-writes of history, like the U-571 >film? >Ignorant illiterate idiot. The author was a British veteran, historian, and novelist. You might have looked that up, but inventing stupid insults is less work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Pope I thought it was a great book. My renowned lack of historical knowledge can be blamed on my shortage of bookshelf space. I have about 200 books on naval history and the two World Wars and am running out of space for many more. I used to own sailboats and design marine automation and go out on ships so this stuff interests me. I used to like England until I encountered the Brits here. I have separate shelves for books about radio, radar, sonar, prox fuses, and nuclear weapons. I keep the Austen, Wodehouse, Sayers, Christie, Doyle, and other brit fiction writers in separate shelves upstairs. -- I yam what I yam - Popeye
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:18:12 +0100, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:>On 30/12/2021 13:48, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 30/12/21 11:25, David Brown wrote: > >>> So I really don't see why you are getting at Larkin here in this thread. >>> � Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of historical >>> knowledge?� A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that the thread will >>> turn into another display of ignorance?� Or is that particular book one >>> of these absurd American fictional re-writes of history, like the U-571 >>> film? >> >> The last paragraph sums it up. >> >> Strictly speaking I'm not making comments about Larkin, merely >> about the attitudes and ignorance. That distinction is not entirely >> clear, of course. > >Tom, you are usually one of the sane, rational and polite people in this >group. Your first post in this thread - responding to Larkin's >pointless "look what I had for breakfast - I'm such a wonderful person >that everyone will want to know" post - was deliberately and >unnecessarily provocative and simply goading him into saying something >stupid so that you could insult him more. It is one thing to correct >him when he says something wrong, but another thing entirely to push him >into repeating his ignorance.It's a good book. Don't read it. -- I yam what I yam - Popeye
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On 30/12/2021 17:06, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:18:12 +0100, David Brown > <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 30/12/2021 13:48, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 30/12/21 11:25, David Brown wrote: >> >>>> So I really don't see why you are getting at Larkin here in this thread. >>>> Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of historical >>>> knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that the thread will >>>> turn into another display of ignorance? Or is that particular book one >>>> of these absurd American fictional re-writes of history, like the U-571 >>>> film? >>> >>> The last paragraph sums it up. >>> >>> Strictly speaking I'm not making comments about Larkin, merely >>> about the attitudes and ignorance. That distinction is not entirely >>> clear, of course. >> >> Tom, you are usually one of the sane, rational and polite people in this >> group. Your first post in this thread - responding to Larkin's >> pointless "look what I had for breakfast - I'm such a wonderful person >> that everyone will want to know" post - was deliberately and >> unnecessarily provocative and simply goading him into saying something >> stupid so that you could insult him more. It is one thing to correct >> him when he says something wrong, but another thing entirely to push him >> into repeating his ignorance. > > It's a good book. Don't read it. >It may or may not be a good book - I place very little value on your judgement, and even less on your contradictory advice.
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On 30/12/2021 16:39, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:> On 12/30/2021 16:12, David Brown wrote: >> On 30/12/2021 14:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 10:25:35 PM UTC+11, David Brown >>> wrote: >> >>>> So I really don't see why you are getting at Larkin here in this >>>> thread. Is it just a general attack on his renowned lack of >>>> historical knowledge? A pre-emptive strike on the assumption that >>>> the thread will turn into another display of ignorance? >>> >>> "We should have stayed out of Europe. Let the Germans and Russians >>> carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember the Empire" is >>> absolutely standard Larkin rhetoric. He has posted the same >>> isolationist nonsense here repeatedly, and it's just one more >>> episode in his long history of ignorant assertions about WW2. >> >> I know Larkin's history of historical ignorance. It goes along with a >> whole range of topics of which he is ignorant or completely mistaken, >> but regularly discusses, and posts he makes that are irrelevant to >> everyone outside his back yard. (But to be fair on him, he is also one >> of the most consistent on-topic posters discussing electronics here.) >> >> This group sees an absurd level of repetition. I typically subscribe to >> the group for a while, then unsubscribe for a long period, and subscribe >> again. I come back, wondering if there is anything new going on here - >> and there isn't. Most of the posts are /exactly/ the same shit. There >> are still the same bigots who think the world is coming to an end >> because there is someone born with a willie who feels more comfortable >> in a skirt. There are still the same feeble-minded brats that can't >> distinguish between a keyboard and toilet paper. There are still the >> same morons who think the way to stop people getting shot is to give >> everyone more guns. >> >> How about having a break? Perhaps /not/ forcing everything into the >> same pointless threads? Let's be clear here - John Larkin did /not/ >> start another "The US saved Europe" thread. He posted about a book he >> liked that covers a part of the war that had nothing to do with the USA. >> It was /Tom/ that pushed his buttons and got the reaction he must have >> expected. John was right to call him a jerk. >> >> If you really wanted to comment on John's first post in this thread, you >> could have asked what sort of a narcissist thinks anyone cares what book >> he has read, and why he felt this was worthy of telling the world. >> > > David, > repetition to the absurd level you refer to is part of what is keeping > the group alive I suppose. Look at us at CAE, we are so quite mostly > because we don't want to go into that much repetition, most of use being > still alive and active. > But John did quite well with his post - he just posted a title, no > suspicious links, nothing he can be blamed for. Yet he ignited a WWII > discussion, it does not get much better than that. > > And who am I to miss a party like this :). > > I am not so sure the Russians could have stopped the Germans on their > own. The Americans were sending these ships on which the Russian effort > depended a lot; not just economically, they got the first planes (Air > Cobras and probably others) to not only begin to mount some effort in > the air but also to see how these were made and start making their own > (no www back then you know :). They started making planes like their > La-5, Mig-3 (I think) etc., prior to these they had some Polikarpovs > which were just lame sitting ducks for the Messerschmitts, completely > useless. The Brits helped a lot as well, that effort at Bletchley park > must have contributed significantly to the US shipments not being sunk. > Of course the Russians did the bulk of the job, in terms of human loss > which they suffered, they made their T34 tank which was good enough > against the German tigers etc. The harsh winter (harsher than usual, > though winters there are invariably harsh) made the German tanks freeze > etc. (I suppose winter counts as part of the Russian effort, they had > to endure it, too). > But I think it is impossible to say what the outcome would have been > for the Russians had there not been the US supplies. Overall the Nazis > could not possibly have held Europe for a long time, but things could > have looked very very different without the US intervention. >It really is impossible to guess what might have happened. It was a complicated war, with many factors. What might have happened if Hitler had been assassinated or otherwise replaced by someone who was not a rapid drug addict with barely the most tenuous grasp of reality? (The British had a plan to assassinate him for a while - they dropped it when they realised Hitler was doing half their job.) It is probably fair to say the war would have gone on longer, and done more damage, if the Americans hadn't contributed with their usual quantity, enthusiasm, and total confidence in their own abilities despite all evidence to the contrary. (There was a popular saying amongst the allies in WWII - "When the British shoot, the Germans duck. When the Germans shoot, the British duck. When the Americans shoot, everyone ducks!".)
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On 30/12/2021 16:58, Joe Gwinn wrote:> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown > <david.brown@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 >>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, jlarkin@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 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. 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.)
