John Larkin wrote:> 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.)Riiight, and because that had to be an attractive investment to attract such totally amoral mercenary folk, the Brits were paying 10% compound interest for 61 years, with some appropriate payment schedule, so the total was inflated by, like, 7x. Don't think so. Plus the US has been subsidizing NATO to the tune of a few percent of the total GDP of all the NATO countries since forever, despite their treaty commitments. To be fair, initially this resulted in the whole bloc being aligned to US interests, but then US interests include a free and prosperous Europe. So shoot us. You could buy a lot of jeeps with that amount of dough. IMO NATO is a relic at this point--the folly of the Europeans in gratuitously putting themselves at Russia's mercy with regards to energy supplies makes the rest of the world shake their heads. There's no Soviet Union anymore, and Germany has finally achieved its goal of dominating continental Europe. You can't fix stupid, and it's stupid to try. (Just think about how much unpleasantness could have been avoided if the Germans had thought of doing that coal-and-steel-union thing back in 1869 or 1933, say.) ;)>> It's a very complex question, and it's unlikely that there is any >> one reason. Many books have been written on the matter. The >> debate continues, likely forever. >> >> I'd hazard that the French would point out that Anglo-Saxons tend >> to stick together. It's not a compliment.From the French? Mon Dieu! I'm totally crestfallen. ;)> The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that > observation. >> >> But the Japanese did their part too. >> >> Joe Gwinn > > Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA and realized that Japan > couldn't compete with our resources in an extended war. He also > remarked on the millions of farm boys who grew up fixing tractors > and shooting guns.The Russians drove from Stalingrad to the Oder in American trucks, not even counting the munitions that got them there. Most of my family are WW1 buffs, so we've visited the Flanders and Artois battlefields several times, especially near Ieper (Ypres) and Arras, where my grandfather served with the 8th Canadian Infantry (Royal Winnipeg Rifles). The Belgians have an enduring and profound gratitude to the many men who died defending their freedom in both wars, especially those whose own freedom was not immediately threatened--British, American, Indian, Nepalese, Canadian, South African, and so on. One time when we were there for Armistice Day at the Menin Gate (November 11, 2015) there were delegations from (iirc) Nepal, India, Algeria, South Africa, and Australia. Cheers Phil Hobbs
cool war book
Started by ●December 29, 2021
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 22.54.12 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:> John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:29:31 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown > >> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> > >>> On 30/12/2021 16:58, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown > >>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 30/12/2021 11:19, Tom Gardner wrote: > >>>>>> On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner > >>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner > >>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, > >>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The Battle of the River Plate by Dudley Pope. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It may have been a "cool" war for the isolated > >>>>>>>>>> Merkins, but it was a very hot war for much of the > >>>>>>>>>> world. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of > >>>>>>>>> centuries of wars, not ours. We saved your lives and > >>>>>>>>> you can't forgive us. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> My apologies if pointing out historical facts has > >>>>>>>> discomforted you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and > >>>>>>> Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember > >>>>>>> the Empire. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started > >>>>>> in 1941. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am confused. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is true that most Americans (at least, the small > >>>>> percentage that actually knows anything at all about WWII) > >>>>> have a hopelessly inaccurate and biased view of WWII. They > >>>>> think they "saved our asses" - in fact, they only joined the > >>>>> war when they realised they could make more profit selling > >>>>> critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than > >>>>> they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew > >>>>> that if either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they'd > >>>>> lose a big market and their place in the world - possibly > >>>>> ending up Russian or German themselves in the long run. And > >>>>> of course it is easier to think of a war as being "cool" > >>>>> when it is happening somewhere else and it is not /your/ > >>>>> country that is being fought over. > >>>> > >>>> It's certainly true that the US came in late. There was a huge > >>>> fight in the US, with a large fraction of the population being > >>>> of the opinion that the US should stay out of WW2, and let > >>>> Europe consume itself, yet again. > >>>> > >>>> There was also an argument that the US should come in on the > >>>> Nazi side, as the Brits were clearly on the way to losing WW2. > >>>> > >>>> Churchill was of the opinion that it was essential that the > >>>> Yanks intervene against Germany, and FDR agreed, but could not > >>>> do much at the time. > >>>> > >>>> The intervene-against-Germany side ultimately won, the issue > >>>> being settled overnight by the Japanese attack on Pearl > >>>> Harbor. > >>>> > >>>> Why does this matter? The UK simply did not have the > >>>> population or economic weight to invade Europe and force the > >>>> German armies back into Germany, or to overrun and conquer > >>>> Germany itself. By the time of Normandy, Germany commanded the > >>>> economic output of the greater part of Europe. > >>>> > >>>> On the eve of WW2 (meaning Pearl Harbor), US steel production > >>>> exceeded the rest of the world combined. Size matters. > >>>> > >>> > >>> That's all true, but there are several other big questions. > >>> Would the UK have held out until Germany ran out of fuel? Would > >>> the Russians have pushed in more from the East (leaving Europe in > >>> a very different state that it is today)? > >> > >> I don't think Churchill thought that Germany would run out soon > >> enough to save Britain, even if Germany ultimately lost. > >> > >> Lasse provided a link showing that US oil production was something > >> like 2/3 of world production. I had not thought of that, but it > >> should have been obvious, given steel statistics. > >> > >> So, both steel and oil. Again, size really matters. > >> > >> Dimeter reports that US material support was important to the > >> Russian war effort as well. > >> > >> > >>> I think most British - both under the war, and afterwards - agree > >>> that the American declaration of war against Germany and its part > >>> in the war afterwards were of enormous help to the UK and Europe > >>> in defeating Germany and also in limiting the expansion of > >>> Russian influence in Europe. > >> > >> Yes, for certain. No other then world power was remotely large > >> enough. > >> > >> > >>> What is much more in doubt, however, is /why/ the Americans > >>> joined. There are many possibilities, and I think only one can > >>> really be ruled out - it was not for altruism or to "save our > >>> asses". Money and power seem much more likely. (Britain > >>> finished paying off its war loans to the USA until 2006.) > Riiight, and because that had to be an attractive investment to attract > such totally amoral mercenary folk, the Brits were paying 10% compound > interest for 61 years, with some appropriate payment schedule, so the > total was inflated by, like, 7x. > > Don't think so. > > Plus the US has been subsidizing NATO to the tune of a few percent of > the total GDP of all the NATO countries since forever, despite their > treaty commitments. To be fair, initially this resulted in the whole > bloc being aligned to US interests, but then US interests include a free > and prosperous Europe. So shoot us. > > You could buy a lot of jeeps with that amount of dough. > > IMO NATO is a relic at this point--the folly of the Europeans in > gratuitously putting themselves at Russia's mercy with regards to energy > supplies makes the rest of the world shake their heads. There's no > Soviet Union anymore, and Germany has finally achieved its goal of > dominating continental Europe. You can't fix stupid, and it's stupid to > try. > > (Just think about how much unpleasantness could have been avoided if > the Germans had thought of doing that coal-and-steel-union thing back in > 1869 or 1933, say.) ;) > >> It's a very complex question, and it's unlikely that there is any > >> one reason. Many books have been written on the matter. The > >> debate continues, likely forever. > >> > >> I'd hazard that the French would point out that Anglo-Saxons tend > >> to stick together. It's not a compliment. > From the French? Mon Dieu! I'm totally crestfallen. ;) > > The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that > > observation. > >> > >> But the Japanese did their part too. > >> > >> Joe Gwinn > > > > Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA and realized that Japan > > couldn't compete with our resources in an extended war. He also > > remarked on the millions of farm boys who grew up fixing tractors > > and shooting guns. > The Russians drove from Stalingrad to the Oder in American trucks, not > even counting the munitions that got them there.afaiu in the end lend-lease provided ~30% of the trucks, ~10% of the planes, ~10% of the tanks and almost 100% of the trains the Russians used during the war so the Russians also build a lot, (with the help of materials, oil and food from the US)
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:> torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 22.54.12 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: >> John Larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:29:31 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown >>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 30/12/2021 16:58, Joe Gwinn wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown >>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 11:19, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>>>> On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, >>>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Battle of the River Plate by Dudley Pope. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It may have been a "cool" war for the isolated >>>>>>>>>>>> Merkins, but it was a very hot war for much of the >>>>>>>>>>>> world. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of >>>>>>>>>>> centuries of wars, not ours. We saved your lives and >>>>>>>>>>> you can't forgive us. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My apologies if pointing out historical facts has >>>>>>>>>> discomforted you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and >>>>>>>>> Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember >>>>>>>>> the Empire. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started >>>>>>>> in 1941. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am confused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is true that most Americans (at least, the small >>>>>>> percentage that actually knows anything at all about WWII) >>>>>>> have a hopelessly inaccurate and biased view of WWII. They >>>>>>> think they "saved our asses" - in fact, they only joined the >>>>>>> war when they realised they could make more profit selling >>>>>>> critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than >>>>>>> they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew >>>>>>> that if either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they'd >>>>>>> lose a big market and their place in the world - possibly >>>>>>> ending up Russian or German themselves in the long run. And >>>>>>> of course it is easier to think of a war as being "cool" >>>>>>> when it is happening somewhere else and it is not /your/ >>>>>>> country that is being fought over. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's certainly true that the US came in late. There was a huge >>>>>> fight in the US, with a large fraction of the population being >>>>>> of the opinion that the US should stay out of WW2, and let >>>>>> Europe consume itself, yet again. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was also an argument that the US should come in on the >>>>>> Nazi side, as the Brits were clearly on the way to losing WW2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Churchill was of the opinion that it was essential that the >>>>>> Yanks intervene against Germany, and FDR agreed, but could not >>>>>> do much at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> The intervene-against-Germany side ultimately won, the issue >>>>>> being settled overnight by the Japanese attack on Pearl >>>>>> Harbor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why does this matter? The UK simply did not have the >>>>>> population or economic weight to invade Europe and force the >>>>>> German armies back into Germany, or to overrun and conquer >>>>>> Germany itself. By the time of Normandy, Germany commanded the >>>>>> economic output of the greater part of Europe. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the eve of WW2 (meaning Pearl Harbor), US steel production >>>>>> exceeded the rest of the world combined. Size matters. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's all true, but there are several other big questions. >>>>> Would the UK have held out until Germany ran out of fuel? Would >>>>> the Russians have pushed in more from the East (leaving Europe in >>>>> a very different state that it is today)? >>>> >>>> I don't think Churchill thought that Germany would run out soon >>>> enough to save Britain, even if Germany ultimately lost. >>>> >>>> Lasse provided a link showing that US oil production was something >>>> like 2/3 of world production. I had not thought of that, but it >>>> should have been obvious, given steel statistics. >>>> >>>> So, both steel and oil. Again, size really matters. >>>> >>>> Dimeter reports that US material support was important to the >>>> Russian war effort as well. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think most British - both under the war, and afterwards - agree >>>>> that the American declaration of war against Germany and its part >>>>> in the war afterwards were of enormous help to the UK and Europe >>>>> in defeating Germany and also in limiting the expansion of >>>>> Russian influence in Europe. >>>> >>>> Yes, for certain. No other then world power was remotely large >>>> enough. >>>> >>>> >>>>> What is much more in doubt, however, is /why/ the Americans >>>>> joined. There are many possibilities, and I think only one can >>>>> really be ruled out - it was not for altruism or to "save our >>>>> asses". Money and power seem much more likely. (Britain >>>>> finished paying off its war loans to the USA until 2006.) >> Riiight, and because that had to be an attractive investment to attract >> such totally amoral mercenary folk, the Brits were paying 10% compound >> interest for 61 years, with some appropriate payment schedule, so the >> total was inflated by, like, 7x. >> >> Don't think so. >> >> Plus the US has been subsidizing NATO to the tune of a few percent of >> the total GDP of all the NATO countries since forever, despite their >> treaty commitments. To be fair, initially this resulted in the whole >> bloc being aligned to US interests, but then US interests include a free >> and prosperous Europe. So shoot us. >> >> You could buy a lot of jeeps with that amount of dough. >> >> IMO NATO is a relic at this point--the folly of the Europeans in >> gratuitously putting themselves at Russia's mercy with regards to energy >> supplies makes the rest of the world shake their heads. There's no >> Soviet Union anymore, and Germany has finally achieved its goal of >> dominating continental Europe. You can't fix stupid, and it's stupid to >> try. >> >> (Just think about how much unpleasantness could have been avoided if >> the Germans had thought of doing that coal-and-steel-union thing back in >> 1869 or 1933, say.) ;) >>>> It's a very complex question, and it's unlikely that there is any >>>> one reason. Many books have been written on the matter. The >>>> debate continues, likely forever. >>>> >>>> I'd hazard that the French would point out that Anglo-Saxons tend >>>> to stick together. It's not a compliment. >> From the French? Mon Dieu! I'm totally crestfallen. ;) >>> The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that >>> observation. >>>> >>>> But the Japanese did their part too. >>>> >>>> Joe Gwinn >>> >>> Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA and realized that Japan >>> couldn't compete with our resources in an extended war. He also >>> remarked on the millions of farm boys who grew up fixing tractors >>> and shooting guns. >> The Russians drove from Stalingrad to the Oder in American trucks, not >> even counting the munitions that got them there. > > afaiu in the end lend-lease provided ~30% of the trucks, ~10% of the planes, > ~10% of the tanks and almost 100% of the trains the Russians used during the war > so the Russians also build a lot, (with the help of materials, oil and food from the US)Link? I'm far from wanting to disparage what it cost the Russian people. Their suffering was very, very great, and their contribution to victory was very great as well. May God reward them. The T34 was probably the best tank of the war, and they made tens of thousands of them. Their government was another matter. First of all, Stalin deliberately starved millions of Ukrainians to death in the early '30s--this in the "breadbasket of Europe"--and then precipitated the whole Eastern adventure by destroying the Red Army's senior leadership, leading Hitler to calculate that the Soviets were very weak. They demonstrated the truth of this estimate in the Winter War of 1940, where they got their asses handed to them by _FINLAND_. (I've got a lot of time for Finns. They're beasts, like the Poles and Hungarians.) Oh, and of course it must be remembered that the Soviets and the Nazis were allies at the beginning--after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact at the end of August 1939, they invaded Poland at nearly the same time (Sept 1 and Sept 17, 1939), and carved it up between them until June 1941. Cheers Phil Hobbs
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
fredag den 31. december 2021 kl. 00.51.16 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > > torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 22.54.12 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: > >> John Larkin wrote: > >>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:29:31 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown > >>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 30/12/2021 16:58, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown > >>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 11:19, Tom Gardner wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner > >>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner > >>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, > >>>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Battle of the River Plate by Dudley Pope. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It may have been a "cool" war for the isolated > >>>>>>>>>>>> Merkins, but it was a very hot war for much of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> world. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of > >>>>>>>>>>> centuries of wars, not ours. We saved your lives and > >>>>>>>>>>> you can't forgive us. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> My apologies if pointing out historical facts has > >>>>>>>>>> discomforted you. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and > >>>>>>>>> Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember > >>>>>>>>> the Empire. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started > >>>>>>>> in 1941. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am confused. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is true that most Americans (at least, the small > >>>>>>> percentage that actually knows anything at all about WWII) > >>>>>>> have a hopelessly inaccurate and biased view of WWII. They > >>>>>>> think they "saved our asses" - in fact, they only joined the > >>>>>>> war when they realised they could make more profit selling > >>>>>>> critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than > >>>>>>> they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew > >>>>>>> that if either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they'd > >>>>>>> lose a big market and their place in the world - possibly > >>>>>>> ending up Russian or German themselves in the long run. And > >>>>>>> of course it is easier to think of a war as being "cool" > >>>>>>> when it is happening somewhere else and it is not /your/ > >>>>>>> country that is being fought over. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's certainly true that the US came in late. There was a huge > >>>>>> fight in the US, with a large fraction of the population being > >>>>>> of the opinion that the US should stay out of WW2, and let > >>>>>> Europe consume itself, yet again. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There was also an argument that the US should come in on the > >>>>>> Nazi side, as the Brits were clearly on the way to losing WW2. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Churchill was of the opinion that it was essential that the > >>>>>> Yanks intervene against Germany, and FDR agreed, but could not > >>>>>> do much at the time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The intervene-against-Germany side ultimately won, the issue > >>>>>> being settled overnight by the Japanese attack on Pearl > >>>>>> Harbor. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why does this matter? The UK simply did not have the > >>>>>> population or economic weight to invade Europe and force the > >>>>>> German armies back into Germany, or to overrun and conquer > >>>>>> Germany itself. By the time of Normandy, Germany commanded the > >>>>>> economic output of the greater part of Europe. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On the eve of WW2 (meaning Pearl Harbor), US steel production > >>>>>> exceeded the rest of the world combined. Size matters. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That's all true, but there are several other big questions. > >>>>> Would the UK have held out until Germany ran out of fuel? Would > >>>>> the Russians have pushed in more from the East (leaving Europe in > >>>>> a very different state that it is today)? > >>>> > >>>> I don't think Churchill thought that Germany would run out soon > >>>> enough to save Britain, even if Germany ultimately lost. > >>>> > >>>> Lasse provided a link showing that US oil production was something > >>>> like 2/3 of world production. I had not thought of that, but it > >>>> should have been obvious, given steel statistics. > >>>> > >>>> So, both steel and oil. Again, size really matters. > >>>> > >>>> Dimeter reports that US material support was important to the > >>>> Russian war effort as well. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I think most British - both under the war, and afterwards - agree > >>>>> that the American declaration of war against Germany and its part > >>>>> in the war afterwards were of enormous help to the UK and Europe > >>>>> in defeating Germany and also in limiting the expansion of > >>>>> Russian influence in Europe. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, for certain. No other then world power was remotely large > >>>> enough. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> What is much more in doubt, however, is /why/ the Americans > >>>>> joined. There are many possibilities, and I think only one can > >>>>> really be ruled out - it was not for altruism or to "save our > >>>>> asses". Money and power seem much more likely. (Britain > >>>>> finished paying off its war loans to the USA until 2006.) > >> Riiight, and because that had to be an attractive investment to attract > >> such totally amoral mercenary folk, the Brits were paying 10% compound > >> interest for 61 years, with some appropriate payment schedule, so the > >> total was inflated by, like, 7x. > >> > >> Don't think so. > >> > >> Plus the US has been subsidizing NATO to the tune of a few percent of > >> the total GDP of all the NATO countries since forever, despite their > >> treaty commitments. To be fair, initially this resulted in the whole > >> bloc being aligned to US interests, but then US interests include a free > >> and prosperous Europe. So shoot us. > >> > >> You could buy a lot of jeeps with that amount of dough. > >> > >> IMO NATO is a relic at this point--the folly of the Europeans in > >> gratuitously putting themselves at Russia's mercy with regards to energy > >> supplies makes the rest of the world shake their heads. There's no > >> Soviet Union anymore, and Germany has finally achieved its goal of > >> dominating continental Europe. You can't fix stupid, and it's stupid to > >> try. > >> > >> (Just think about how much unpleasantness could have been avoided if > >> the Germans had thought of doing that coal-and-steel-union thing back in > >> 1869 or 1933, say.) ;) > >>>> It's a very complex question, and it's unlikely that there is any > >>>> one reason. Many books have been written on the matter. The > >>>> debate continues, likely forever. > >>>> > >>>> I'd hazard that the French would point out that Anglo-Saxons tend > >>>> to stick together. It's not a compliment. > >> From the French? Mon Dieu! I'm totally crestfallen. ;) > >>> The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that > >>> observation. > >>>> > >>>> But the Japanese did their part too. > >>>> > >>>> Joe Gwinn > >>> > >>> Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA and realized that Japan > >>> couldn't compete with our resources in an extended war. He also > >>> remarked on the millions of farm boys who grew up fixing tractors > >>> and shooting guns. > >> The Russians drove from Stalingrad to the Oder in American trucks, not > >> even counting the munitions that got them there. > > > > afaiu in the end lend-lease provided ~30% of the trucks, ~10% of the planes, > > ~10% of the tanks and almost 100% of the trains the Russians used during the war > > so the Russians also build a lot, (with the help of materials, oil and food from the US) > Link? >https://youtu.be/usBKGE4w5NI
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:> fredag den 31. december 2021 kl. 00.51.16 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: >> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>> torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 22.54.12 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: >>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:29:31 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown >>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 16:58, Joe Gwinn wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown >>>>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 11:19, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Battle of the River Plate by Dudley Pope. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may have been a "cool" war for the isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merkins, but it was a very hot war for much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> world. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of >>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries of wars, not ours. We saved your lives and >>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't forgive us. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies if pointing out historical facts has >>>>>>>>>>>> discomforted you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and >>>>>>>>>>> Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember >>>>>>>>>>> the Empire. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started >>>>>>>>>> in 1941. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am confused. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is true that most Americans (at least, the small >>>>>>>>> percentage that actually knows anything at all about WWII) >>>>>>>>> have a hopelessly inaccurate and biased view of WWII. They >>>>>>>>> think they "saved our asses" - in fact, they only joined the >>>>>>>>> war when they realised they could make more profit selling >>>>>>>>> critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than >>>>>>>>> they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew >>>>>>>>> that if either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they'd >>>>>>>>> lose a big market and their place in the world - possibly >>>>>>>>> ending up Russian or German themselves in the long run. And >>>>>>>>> of course it is easier to think of a war as being "cool" >>>>>>>>> when it is happening somewhere else and it is not /your/ >>>>>>>>> country that is being fought over. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's certainly true that the US came in late. There was a huge >>>>>>>> fight in the US, with a large fraction of the population being >>>>>>>> of the opinion that the US should stay out of WW2, and let >>>>>>>> Europe consume itself, yet again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was also an argument that the US should come in on the >>>>>>>> Nazi side, as the Brits were clearly on the way to losing WW2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Churchill was of the opinion that it was essential that the >>>>>>>> Yanks intervene against Germany, and FDR agreed, but could not >>>>>>>> do much at the time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The intervene-against-Germany side ultimately won, the issue >>>>>>>> being settled overnight by the Japanese attack on Pearl >>>>>>>> Harbor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does this matter? The UK simply did not have the >>>>>>>> population or economic weight to invade Europe and force the >>>>>>>> German armies back into Germany, or to overrun and conquer >>>>>>>> Germany itself. By the time of Normandy, Germany commanded the >>>>>>>> economic output of the greater part of Europe. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the eve of WW2 (meaning Pearl Harbor), US steel production >>>>>>>> exceeded the rest of the world combined. Size matters. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's all true, but there are several other big questions. >>>>>>> Would the UK have held out until Germany ran out of fuel? Would >>>>>>> the Russians have pushed in more from the East (leaving Europe in >>>>>>> a very different state that it is today)? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think Churchill thought that Germany would run out soon >>>>>> enough to save Britain, even if Germany ultimately lost. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lasse provided a link showing that US oil production was something >>>>>> like 2/3 of world production. I had not thought of that, but it >>>>>> should have been obvious, given steel statistics. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, both steel and oil. Again, size really matters. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dimeter reports that US material support was important to the >>>>>> Russian war effort as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think most British - both under the war, and afterwards - agree >>>>>>> that the American declaration of war against Germany and its part >>>>>>> in the war afterwards were of enormous help to the UK and Europe >>>>>>> in defeating Germany and also in limiting the expansion of >>>>>>> Russian influence in Europe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, for certain. No other then world power was remotely large >>>>>> enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> What is much more in doubt, however, is /why/ the Americans >>>>>>> joined. There are many possibilities, and I think only one can >>>>>>> really be ruled out - it was not for altruism or to "save our >>>>>>> asses". Money and power seem much more likely. (Britain >>>>>>> finished paying off its war loans to the USA until 2006.) >>>> Riiight, and because that had to be an attractive investment to attract >>>> such totally amoral mercenary folk, the Brits were paying 10% compound >>>> interest for 61 years, with some appropriate payment schedule, so the >>>> total was inflated by, like, 7x. >>>> >>>> Don't think so. >>>> >>>> Plus the US has been subsidizing NATO to the tune of a few percent of >>>> the total GDP of all the NATO countries since forever, despite their >>>> treaty commitments. To be fair, initially this resulted in the whole >>>> bloc being aligned to US interests, but then US interests include a free >>>> and prosperous Europe. So shoot us. >>>> >>>> You could buy a lot of jeeps with that amount of dough. >>>> >>>> IMO NATO is a relic at this point--the folly of the Europeans in >>>> gratuitously putting themselves at Russia's mercy with regards to energy >>>> supplies makes the rest of the world shake their heads. There's no >>>> Soviet Union anymore, and Germany has finally achieved its goal of >>>> dominating continental Europe. You can't fix stupid, and it's stupid to >>>> try. >>>> >>>> (Just think about how much unpleasantness could have been avoided if >>>> the Germans had thought of doing that coal-and-steel-union thing back in >>>> 1869 or 1933, say.) ;) >>>>>> It's a very complex question, and it's unlikely that there is any >>>>>> one reason. Many books have been written on the matter. The >>>>>> debate continues, likely forever. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd hazard that the French would point out that Anglo-Saxons tend >>>>>> to stick together. It's not a compliment. >>>> From the French? Mon Dieu! I'm totally crestfallen. ;) >>>>> The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that >>>>> observation. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the Japanese did their part too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe Gwinn >>>>> >>>>> Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA and realized that Japan >>>>> couldn't compete with our resources in an extended war. He also >>>>> remarked on the millions of farm boys who grew up fixing tractors >>>>> and shooting guns. >>>> The Russians drove from Stalingrad to the Oder in American trucks, not >>>> even counting the munitions that got them there. >>> >>> afaiu in the end lend-lease provided ~30% of the trucks, ~10% of the planes, >>> ~10% of the tanks and almost 100% of the trains the Russians used during the war >>> so the Russians also build a lot, (with the help of materials, oil and food from the US) >> Link? >> > > https://youtu.be/usBKGE4w5NIMentioning almost exclusively unsupported assertions by the post-war Soviet Union, as far as I got before throwing up. Super convincing, for sure. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
On 30/12/21 18:07, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:> 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/q27TzT6Zr6wThat was sufficiently content-dense that I actually listened to it. Thanks.
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
fredag den 31. december 2021 kl. 01.28.43 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > > fredag den 31. december 2021 kl. 00.51.16 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: > >> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > >>> torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 22.54.12 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: > >>>> John Larkin wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:29:31 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown > >>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 16:58, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown > >>>>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 11:19, Tom Gardner wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner > >>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Battle of the River Plate by Dudley Pope. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may have been a "cool" war for the isolated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merkins, but it was a very hot war for much of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> world. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries of wars, not ours. We saved your lives and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't forgive us. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies if pointing out historical facts has > >>>>>>>>>>>> discomforted you. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and > >>>>>>>>>>> Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember > >>>>>>>>>>> the Empire. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started > >>>>>>>>>> in 1941. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I am confused. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is true that most Americans (at least, the small > >>>>>>>>> percentage that actually knows anything at all about WWII) > >>>>>>>>> have a hopelessly inaccurate and biased view of WWII. They > >>>>>>>>> think they "saved our asses" - in fact, they only joined the > >>>>>>>>> war when they realised they could make more profit selling > >>>>>>>>> critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than > >>>>>>>>> they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew > >>>>>>>>> that if either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they'd > >>>>>>>>> lose a big market and their place in the world - possibly > >>>>>>>>> ending up Russian or German themselves in the long run. And > >>>>>>>>> of course it is easier to think of a war as being "cool" > >>>>>>>>> when it is happening somewhere else and it is not /your/ > >>>>>>>>> country that is being fought over. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's certainly true that the US came in late. There was a huge > >>>>>>>> fight in the US, with a large fraction of the population being > >>>>>>>> of the opinion that the US should stay out of WW2, and let > >>>>>>>> Europe consume itself, yet again. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There was also an argument that the US should come in on the > >>>>>>>> Nazi side, as the Brits were clearly on the way to losing WW2. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Churchill was of the opinion that it was essential that the > >>>>>>>> Yanks intervene against Germany, and FDR agreed, but could not > >>>>>>>> do much at the time. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The intervene-against-Germany side ultimately won, the issue > >>>>>>>> being settled overnight by the Japanese attack on Pearl > >>>>>>>> Harbor. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why does this matter? The UK simply did not have the > >>>>>>>> population or economic weight to invade Europe and force the > >>>>>>>> German armies back into Germany, or to overrun and conquer > >>>>>>>> Germany itself. By the time of Normandy, Germany commanded the > >>>>>>>> economic output of the greater part of Europe. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On the eve of WW2 (meaning Pearl Harbor), US steel production > >>>>>>>> exceeded the rest of the world combined. Size matters. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's all true, but there are several other big questions. > >>>>>>> Would the UK have held out until Germany ran out of fuel? Would > >>>>>>> the Russians have pushed in more from the East (leaving Europe in > >>>>>>> a very different state that it is today)? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't think Churchill thought that Germany would run out soon > >>>>>> enough to save Britain, even if Germany ultimately lost. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Lasse provided a link showing that US oil production was something > >>>>>> like 2/3 of world production. I had not thought of that, but it > >>>>>> should have been obvious, given steel statistics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, both steel and oil. Again, size really matters. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dimeter reports that US material support was important to the > >>>>>> Russian war effort as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think most British - both under the war, and afterwards - agree > >>>>>>> that the American declaration of war against Germany and its part > >>>>>>> in the war afterwards were of enormous help to the UK and Europe > >>>>>>> in defeating Germany and also in limiting the expansion of > >>>>>>> Russian influence in Europe. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, for certain. No other then world power was remotely large > >>>>>> enough. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> What is much more in doubt, however, is /why/ the Americans > >>>>>>> joined. There are many possibilities, and I think only one can > >>>>>>> really be ruled out - it was not for altruism or to "save our > >>>>>>> asses". Money and power seem much more likely. (Britain > >>>>>>> finished paying off its war loans to the USA until 2006.) > >>>> Riiight, and because that had to be an attractive investment to attract > >>>> such totally amoral mercenary folk, the Brits were paying 10% compound > >>>> interest for 61 years, with some appropriate payment schedule, so the > >>>> total was inflated by, like, 7x. > >>>> > >>>> Don't think so. > >>>> > >>>> Plus the US has been subsidizing NATO to the tune of a few percent of > >>>> the total GDP of all the NATO countries since forever, despite their > >>>> treaty commitments. To be fair, initially this resulted in the whole > >>>> bloc being aligned to US interests, but then US interests include a free > >>>> and prosperous Europe. So shoot us. > >>>> > >>>> You could buy a lot of jeeps with that amount of dough. > >>>> > >>>> IMO NATO is a relic at this point--the folly of the Europeans in > >>>> gratuitously putting themselves at Russia's mercy with regards to energy > >>>> supplies makes the rest of the world shake their heads. There's no > >>>> Soviet Union anymore, and Germany has finally achieved its goal of > >>>> dominating continental Europe. You can't fix stupid, and it's stupid to > >>>> try. > >>>> > >>>> (Just think about how much unpleasantness could have been avoided if > >>>> the Germans had thought of doing that coal-and-steel-union thing back in > >>>> 1869 or 1933, say.) ;) > >>>>>> It's a very complex question, and it's unlikely that there is any > >>>>>> one reason. Many books have been written on the matter. The > >>>>>> debate continues, likely forever. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd hazard that the French would point out that Anglo-Saxons tend > >>>>>> to stick together. It's not a compliment. > >>>> From the French? Mon Dieu! I'm totally crestfallen. ;) > >>>>> The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that > >>>>> observation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But the Japanese did their part too. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joe Gwinn > >>>>> > >>>>> Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA and realized that Japan > >>>>> couldn't compete with our resources in an extended war. He also > >>>>> remarked on the millions of farm boys who grew up fixing tractors > >>>>> and shooting guns. > >>>> The Russians drove from Stalingrad to the Oder in American trucks, not > >>>> even counting the munitions that got them there. > >>> > >>> afaiu in the end lend-lease provided ~30% of the trucks, ~10% of the planes, > >>> ~10% of the tanks and almost 100% of the trains the Russians used during the war > >>> so the Russians also build a lot, (with the help of materials, oil and food from the US) > >> Link? > >> > > > > https://youtu.be/usBKGE4w5NI > Mentioning almost exclusively unsupported assertions by the post-war > Soviet Union, as far as I got before throwing up. Super convincing, for > sure.as he mentioned some of the numbers are Russian and should taken with a grain of salt but most of the numbers are from a book by a Canadian(?) historian
Reply by ●December 30, 20212021-12-30
Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:> fredag den 31. december 2021 kl. 01.28.43 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: >> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>> fredag den 31. december 2021 kl. 00.51.16 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: >>>> Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>>>> torsdag den 30. december 2021 kl. 22.54.12 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs: >>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:29:31 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:31:35 +0100, David Brown >>>>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 16:58, Joe Gwinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 12:25:28 +0100, David Brown >>>>>>>>>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 30/12/2021 11:19, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/12/21 00:32, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:55:03 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 23:46, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 23:19:23 +0000, Tom Gardner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/21 18:16, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Battle of the River Plate by Dudley Pope. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may have been a "cool" war for the isolated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merkins, but it was a very hot war for much of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerk. It was your war, merely your latest of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries of wars, not ours. We saved your lives and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't forgive us. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies if pointing out historical facts has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discomforted you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Merkin is a stupid gross insult. Jerk. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We should have stayed out of europe. Let the Germans and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Russians carve it up. Let the brits starve and remember >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Empire. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So is making statements to the effect that WW2 only started >>>>>>>>>>>> in 1941. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am confused. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is true that most Americans (at least, the small >>>>>>>>>>> percentage that actually knows anything at all about WWII) >>>>>>>>>>> have a hopelessly inaccurate and biased view of WWII. They >>>>>>>>>>> think they "saved our asses" - in fact, they only joined the >>>>>>>>>>> war when they realised they could make more profit selling >>>>>>>>>>> critical goods at vastly inflated prices to the British than >>>>>>>>>>> they had been making selling to the Germans. And they knew >>>>>>>>>>> that if either Germany or Russia took over Europe, they'd >>>>>>>>>>> lose a big market and their place in the world - possibly >>>>>>>>>>> ending up Russian or German themselves in the long run. And >>>>>>>>>>> of course it is easier to think of a war as being "cool" >>>>>>>>>>> when it is happening somewhere else and it is not /your/ >>>>>>>>>>> country that is being fought over. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's certainly true that the US came in late. There was a huge >>>>>>>>>> fight in the US, with a large fraction of the population being >>>>>>>>>> of the opinion that the US should stay out of WW2, and let >>>>>>>>>> Europe consume itself, yet again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There was also an argument that the US should come in on the >>>>>>>>>> Nazi side, as the Brits were clearly on the way to losing WW2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Churchill was of the opinion that it was essential that the >>>>>>>>>> Yanks intervene against Germany, and FDR agreed, but could not >>>>>>>>>> do much at the time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The intervene-against-Germany side ultimately won, the issue >>>>>>>>>> being settled overnight by the Japanese attack on Pearl >>>>>>>>>> Harbor. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why does this matter? The UK simply did not have the >>>>>>>>>> population or economic weight to invade Europe and force the >>>>>>>>>> German armies back into Germany, or to overrun and conquer >>>>>>>>>> Germany itself. By the time of Normandy, Germany commanded the >>>>>>>>>> economic output of the greater part of Europe. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On the eve of WW2 (meaning Pearl Harbor), US steel production >>>>>>>>>> exceeded the rest of the world combined. Size matters. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's all true, but there are several other big questions. >>>>>>>>> Would the UK have held out until Germany ran out of fuel? Would >>>>>>>>> the Russians have pushed in more from the East (leaving Europe in >>>>>>>>> a very different state that it is today)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think Churchill thought that Germany would run out soon >>>>>>>> enough to save Britain, even if Germany ultimately lost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lasse provided a link showing that US oil production was something >>>>>>>> like 2/3 of world production. I had not thought of that, but it >>>>>>>> should have been obvious, given steel statistics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, both steel and oil. Again, size really matters. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dimeter reports that US material support was important to the >>>>>>>> Russian war effort as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think most British - both under the war, and afterwards - agree >>>>>>>>> that the American declaration of war against Germany and its part >>>>>>>>> in the war afterwards were of enormous help to the UK and Europe >>>>>>>>> in defeating Germany and also in limiting the expansion of >>>>>>>>> Russian influence in Europe. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, for certain. No other then world power was remotely large >>>>>>>> enough. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is much more in doubt, however, is /why/ the Americans >>>>>>>>> joined. There are many possibilities, and I think only one can >>>>>>>>> really be ruled out - it was not for altruism or to "save our >>>>>>>>> asses". Money and power seem much more likely. (Britain >>>>>>>>> finished paying off its war loans to the USA until 2006.) >>>>>> Riiight, and because that had to be an attractive investment to attract >>>>>> such totally amoral mercenary folk, the Brits were paying 10% compound >>>>>> interest for 61 years, with some appropriate payment schedule, so the >>>>>> total was inflated by, like, 7x. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't think so. >>>>>> >>>>>> Plus the US has been subsidizing NATO to the tune of a few percent of >>>>>> the total GDP of all the NATO countries since forever, despite their >>>>>> treaty commitments. To be fair, initially this resulted in the whole >>>>>> bloc being aligned to US interests, but then US interests include a free >>>>>> and prosperous Europe. So shoot us. >>>>>> >>>>>> You could buy a lot of jeeps with that amount of dough. >>>>>> >>>>>> IMO NATO is a relic at this point--the folly of the Europeans in >>>>>> gratuitously putting themselves at Russia's mercy with regards to energy >>>>>> supplies makes the rest of the world shake their heads. There's no >>>>>> Soviet Union anymore, and Germany has finally achieved its goal of >>>>>> dominating continental Europe. You can't fix stupid, and it's stupid to >>>>>> try. >>>>>> >>>>>> (Just think about how much unpleasantness could have been avoided if >>>>>> the Germans had thought of doing that coal-and-steel-union thing back in >>>>>> 1869 or 1933, say.) ;) >>>>>>>> It's a very complex question, and it's unlikely that there is any >>>>>>>> one reason. Many books have been written on the matter. The >>>>>>>> debate continues, likely forever. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd hazard that the French would point out that Anglo-Saxons tend >>>>>>>> to stick together. It's not a compliment. >>>>>> From the French? Mon Dieu! I'm totally crestfallen. ;) >>>>>>> The Allied-side lineup at Normandy certainly supports that >>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But the Japanese did their part too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joe Gwinn >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yamamoto had spent some time in the USA and realized that Japan >>>>>>> couldn't compete with our resources in an extended war. He also >>>>>>> remarked on the millions of farm boys who grew up fixing tractors >>>>>>> and shooting guns. >>>>>> The Russians drove from Stalingrad to the Oder in American trucks, not >>>>>> even counting the munitions that got them there. >>>>> >>>>> afaiu in the end lend-lease provided ~30% of the trucks, ~10% of the planes, >>>>> ~10% of the tanks and almost 100% of the trains the Russians used during the war >>>>> so the Russians also build a lot, (with the help of materials, oil and food from the US) >>>> Link? >>>> >>> >>> https://youtu.be/usBKGE4w5NI >> Mentioning almost exclusively unsupported assertions by the post-war >> Soviet Union, as far as I got before throwing up. Super convincing, for >> sure. > > as he mentioned some of the numbers are Russian and should taken with a grain of salt > but most of the numbers are from a book by a Canadian(?) historian > >A 90-odd minute youtube video isn't a super-accessible source for checking references. Some printed publication would be a lot more persuasive. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●December 31, 20212021-12-31
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 10:07:55 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:>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 > > >Seeded with the obligatory anti-US insults, to which the audience smirks on-que. Inferiority complex for sure. We have a local equivalent, anti-California insults. Same cause. -- 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 31, 20212021-12-31
On 31/12/21 19:28, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 10:07:55 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> > > Seeded with the obligatory anti-US insults, to which the audience > smirks on-que. > > Inferiority complex for sure. > > We have a local equivalent, anti-California insults. Same cause.Those comments reveal quite a lot about you.
