On 30/12/2021 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com 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. >> >> (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.A, the old trick of ignoring what people write and throwing around silly insults instead? Perhaps you missed the bit where I /asked/ about the book? Yes, of course I could have looked things up, but I was interested in whether the other posters in this thread knew something about it that caused their initial reactions.> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Pope > > I thought it was a great book.That is obvious. Perhaps it /is/ a great book (meaning that this is a majority of opinion amongst those who have read it). For every one great book you, I or anyone else reads, there are a thousand more great books that we have neither the time nor interest to read. So why would you think your personal likes and dislikes are of relevance to me or anyone else? If you thought it was important enough to tell us about it, perhaps you might have written something more than "I liked it because it was cool and great!".> > 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.Do you think you learn by having the books on the shelves? Maybe you read the books, but little seems to stick, and less comes out again.> I used to like England until I encountered the > Brits here. >I am not English. Oh, and there is a word for someone who judges an entire country based on their experience with individuals - "racist". And if you have never considered yourself a racist, then think /very/ hard about what you wrote there.> 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. >Amazing.
cool war book
Started by ●December 29, 2021
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:12:00 +0100, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:>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. >Hilarious. You wouldn't dare read it now! -- I yam what I yam - Popeye
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:>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?The Merlin engines used super-high-octane gasoline that was partly developed in Baton Rouge La and brewed in Texas and not sold to the Germans. The Germans didn't know that such gas was possible, so had to limit compression ratios. https://firstaerosquadron.com/2021/03/19/a-texas-wwii-gasoline-story-you-probably-never-heard/ -- I yam what I yam - Popeye
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On 30/12/2021 17:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:12:00 +0100, David Brown > <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Hilarious. You wouldn't dare read it now! >I really don't care. If I had the book easily available, and was bored out my mind, I might perhaps read it. But I have hundreds of books - fiction and non-fiction - that I'd like to read if I had the time (competing with hundreds of other ways to spend my time - just like everyone else). A book about a historic naval battle does not interest me, no matter how "great" some people may think it is. Your posts here - like all your other recommendations for books or other things you thought were "cool" or "great" - are quickly forgotten. If you think I would specifically /not/ read a book because of what you wrote, you flatter yourself more than usual. You really are not that important.
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 18.04.25 UTC+1 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:> 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? > The Merlin engines used super-high-octane gasoline that was partly > developed in Baton Rouge La and brewed in Texas and not sold to the > Germans. The Germans didn't know that such gas was possible, so had to > limit compression ratios. > > https://firstaerosquadron.com/2021/03/19/a-texas-wwii-gasoline-story-you-probably-never-heard/ > --https://youtu.be/kVo5I0xNRhg
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:40:51 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:>torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 18.04.25 UTC+1 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: >> 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? >> The Merlin engines used super-high-octane gasoline that was partly >> developed in Baton Rouge La and brewed in Texas and not sold to the >> Germans. The Germans didn't know that such gas was possible, so had to >> limit compression ratios. >> >> https://firstaerosquadron.com/2021/03/19/a-texas-wwii-gasoline-story-you-probably-never-heard/ >> -- > >https://youtu.be/kVo5I0xNRhgThis is good too: Why the Allies Won Paperback � May 17, 1997 by Richard Overy Electronics really helped. Radar, sonar, TBS, RDF, proximity fuses, nav aids. -- I yam what I yam - Popeye
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 18.55.57 UTC+1 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:40:51 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote: > > >torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 18.04.25 UTC+1 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com: > >> 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? > >> The Merlin engines used super-high-octane gasoline that was partly > >> developed in Baton Rouge La and brewed in Texas and not sold to the > >> Germans. The Germans didn't know that such gas was possible, so had to > >> limit compression ratios. > >> > >> https://firstaerosquadron.com/2021/03/19/a-texas-wwii-gasoline-story-you-probably-never-heard/ > >> -- > > > >https://youtu.be/kVo5I0xNRhg > This is good too: > > Why the Allies Won > Paperback – May 17, 1997 > by Richard Overy > > Electronics really helped. Radar, sonar, TBS, RDF, proximity fuses, > nav aids. > --https://youtu.be/q27TzT6Zr6w
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:>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 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.)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. The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that observation. But the Japanese did their part too. Joe Gwinn
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:29:31 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:>On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown ><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >>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 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.) > >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. The Allied-side lineup at >Normandy certainly supports that observation. > >But the Japanese did their part too. > >Joe GwinnYamamoto 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. -- If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 21.59.15 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:> 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.) > > > >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. 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.I think it was him who, before Pearl harbor, wrote that if the war with the US was not won in something like 6 months he was unsure if it was possible to win
