The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Open Thread 72
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

OK! So I finally have a PC again thanks to a scavenging friend.

  • CPU = i5-4670k
  • MoBo = Asus Z87-A
  • GPU = GTX 770
  • 620W PSU and R4 Fractal case

Full upgrade is too costly (around $500 as both the DDR-3 based MoBo and CPU would need to be replaced), and frankly unneeded for another 2-3 years, but I do want to upgrade the GPU and double RAM to 16GB.

Goals: Play any modern game at smooth 60 fps on 1080p screen on Ultra would almost certainly be the main/only constraining factor.

RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR3 DIMM 1600MHz PC3-12800 [16GB] for ~$100. Some of my apps could benefit from this and might come in handy if I need to work on large databases.

Which GPU?

I like MSI GPUs as they tend to be quiet, reliable, have good cooling, and are OC friendly. I assume these are no different and the reviews appear to be ok.

Getting the RTX 2060 seems like a no brainer. Might be worth considering the 1660-Ti if the price differential was $80 (as it seems to be in the US), but in Russia it’s only ~$40.

Does this sound about right? Am I making any mistakes?

Meta-note: I should have never abandoned the PC master race. Thorfinnsson’s “technical” explanations regardless, I strongly believe that the problems with my Lenovo notebook were the result of God punishing me for my treason. I have gotten the message. Laptops are for bringing to work, or for travel – not for the home.

With 20 days worth of warranty remaining, I will soon send it the laptop off to get repaired, hopefully it could at least continue serving in that modest and more appropriate function.

***

@ak

More notable posts since the last Open Thread in case you missed any of them.

  • Kazakh President Nazarbayev Resigns
    • Succeeding Prez Tokayev to rename capital Astana to Nursultan. I thought the Kazakhs might be freer of the Central Asian inclination towards personality cults, but I guess not.
    • Nazarbayev will retain real power. He was made Leader for Life (“elbasy”) in 2010, and he will chair the Security Council, which was made more powerful than the Presidency. I have seen speculations that he will be succeeded by his wife, or one of his two daughters.
  • What If Russia Stood on the Sidelines While Crimea Burned?
    • More Crimea poasts upcoming soon.
  • Some good responses to my Yang post at /r/YangForPresidentHQ

Not many notable posts, as I’m only posting this a few days after the last Open Thread.

*

***

Featured

***

Russia

  • *powerful comment*: E dissects internal Ukrainian discussions on what to do about Crimea on Feb 28, 2014
  • Completion of the first railroad bridge across the Amur linking China and Russia; should be in operation by the end of the year
  • Hyundai/Yandex strike deal on developing self-driving cars
  • *powerful comment*: German_reader on how Merkel took the climate school strikes as Russian “hybrid warfare” until the Greens came out in support.
  • Moscow prepares ‘White Book’ on human rights violations by Western states
  • Mary Ilyushina: “RT apparently makes its employees sign an agreement banning them from criticizing or discussing the inner workings of the channel even 20 YEARS after they quit. Otherwise — 5 mln rub fine (about 77k).

***

World

  • More Zach Goldberg on the rise of millennial Pink Guards
  • Trump ReTweets:
    • William Craddick: “Russiagate was designed in part to help the UK counter Russian influence by baiting the United States into taking a hard line against them. Leaves us all with a more dangerous world as a consequence. Just another episode of the Great Game.
    • He’s not wrong!
  • Andrew Yang not an IQ realist (publicly)
    • Airily dismissing utility of IQ tests is highly characteristic of high IQ people. But there are also purely pragmatic reasons for politicians to steer clear.
  • Barak Ravid: “This is one of the most bizzare election ad you have ever seen: Israel’s Minister of Justice (!!) Ayelet Shaked plays a model, sprays herself with “Fascism” perfume and says: “Smells like democracy to me”. Viktor Orban on steroids
  • Mencius Moldbugman travel thread:
    • I’m a well-travelled guy and I recently got some comments about my travels, especially in light of the Christchurch shooter’s trips to Pakistan and N Korea. I’d like to share some thoughts on why I don’t think these places radicalised him, plus some talk about Bhutan….. Media cries of radicalisation when they see someone visiting NK or Pakistan are groundless and ignorant of reality. I’m very lucky to be extremely well travelled in unusual locales… the only place I ever felt radicalised was Bhutan.

***

Science & Culture

***

Humor & Powerful Takes

***

 
Hide 861 CommentsLeave a Comment
861 Comments to "Open Thread 72"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. *powerful comment*: Thorfinnsson on Luftwaffe vs. modern art

    ‘Powerful’?? Give me a break Anatoly! 🙂

    A photgraph of a bombsight better than Picasso’s Guernica? The ‘alt-right’ gang should stick to planning various interesting anschlusses around the world, not discussions about art (I did notice a fan or two of the Austrian water colorist gain some ‘powerful comments’ too. It’s a shame that you didn’t include them too!). 🙂

    • Replies: @szopen
    Szukalski thought Picasso was Fartist and Pic-ass-hole, and Szukalski was genius, soooo ... :D

    (OTOH, Szukalski was also a complete nut plus he was Russophobe)

  2. The latest from a once time multiple guest on RT: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/21/on-ilhan-omar-assad-fetishism-and-the-danger-of-red-brown-anti-imperialism/

    Harassment? https://www.rt.com/sport/454388-zagitova-doping-control-world-championship/

    Hate mongering journalism: https://www.rferl.org/a/cold-war-on-ice-how-czechoslovakia-hockey-team-beat-soviets/29832512.html

    Highly suspect that the featured Boris Mikhailov wasn’t asked about the claim made (by one of his Czech opponents in the above linked video) that he played dirty. No note on the many modern day Czechs and Slovaks who’ve played in Russia, inclusive of the best Czech player ever – the not so distantly retired Jaromir Jagr, who doesn’t stereotype Russia/Russians, while opposing the 1968 Soviet led intervention of his country. The late Ivan Hlinka, who coached the Olympic gold medal winning men’s Czech ice hockey team in 1998, went on to coach in Russia.

    • Replies: @Anon
    RFE/RL is a Russophobic cesspool paid by the US government.
  3. @Mr. Hack

    *powerful comment*: Thorfinnsson on Luftwaffe vs. modern art
     
    'Powerful'?? Give me a break Anatoly! :-)

    A photgraph of a bombsight better than Picasso's Guernica? The 'alt-right' gang should stick to planning various interesting anschlusses around the world, not discussions about art (I did notice a fan or two of the Austrian water colorist gain some 'powerful comments' too. It's a shame that you didn't include them too!). :-)

    Szukalski thought Picasso was Fartist and Pic-ass-hole, and Szukalski was genius, soooo … 😀

    (OTOH, Szukalski was also a complete nut plus he was Russophobe)

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Szukalski miał pierdnięcie mózgu! :-)
  4. RE: LondonBob’s Civil War post, with which I mostly agree, as far as alternative history goes when it comes to Britain and America, Ron Unz gave us a good starting point from where we can wander into asking what might have been if a bunch of Limey spies and Roosevelt hadn’t attacked our formerly peaceful country

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

    But an even better question is, what if that troll Teddy Roosevelt hadn’t put Wilson into the White House? Would Taft, et al, have stopped the Fed? And it certainly seems a Taft administration, followed presumably by another Republican victory in 1916, would have stopped U.S. intervention in World War 1. Or was it all inevitable?

    America’s “special relationship” with Britain. Pardon me while I vomit in my mouth.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Ron Unz gave us a good starting point from where we can wander into asking what might have been if a bunch of Limey spies and Roosevelt hadn’t attacked our formerly peaceful country
     
    Nazi Germany could have become potentially quite dangerous to the US if it had successfully conquered Eurasia. It did have fairly advanced technology by the standards of the time after all, especially in rocket development. I guess it comes down to the question whether Hitler's ambitions were limited to Europe or global, at least in the long term.
    Another crucial question of course is whether Germany could ever have decisively defeated the Soviet Union and occupied all of European Russia. I doubt it, Operation Barbarossa was total hubris and the German plans had failed even in their modified form by late 1942/early 1943, and that was before America decisively entered the war in North Africa and Europe, and iirc also before most of the Western lend-lease shipments to the Soviet Union. But I suppose there might have been some sort of extended stalemate.
    But in any case, Roosevelt's actions turned the US into the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties of all combatant powers. So the criticism of him by US paleoconservatives always seems rather exaggerated to me.
    , @LondonBob
    The Roosevelt administration was a key driver of WWII, as much so as Hitler. See The Forrestal Diaries and Joe Kennedy relaying Neville Chamberlain's thoughts on the matter. War might have been avoided otherwise.

    Had the Republican vote not been split then there was a good chance the US would have entered WWI a lot earlier and Germany been defeated a lot sooner.

    https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/04/roosevelt-1912/
  5. Intentional confusion in ChristChurch and the ‘conspiracy theory’ smear –

    Every serious analyst reviewing the New Zealand Tarrant mosque shooting video, finds credibility-nullifying elements of hoax and fraud – the ejected rifle brass casings turning into vapour, obvious computer graphics; the lack of damage in walls and windows from rifle fire; the lack of physical reactions & screams in bodies being shot; the barefoot victim shot down, having socks on two minutes later, etc

    But it’s not easy to grok this, as the next logical question is how you can get an entire Muslim community to keep quiet about a ‘fake’ shooting, whilst ‘crisis actors’ give interviews etc

    The logical conclusion is that, as some argue, there was a real mosque massacre by one or two gov-tied killers, and a fake video was made to sow confusion and discredit anyone who notices the fakery.

    With real Muslims dead, all you need to shut up real witnesses, is to have one or two corrupt Muslim leaders, tell their flock they are dishonouring martrys by trying to talk to media, and Allah wills the situation as is, so shut up. The same Muslim leaders who let the interior of the mosque be filmed earlier, as backdrop for the fabricated Tarrant show.

    NZ media would dismiss as ‘crazy’ any wounded or witness Muslim who tried to argue against the video – which they maybe haven’t seen anyway, given NZ censorship.

    The ‘white nationalist boogeyman’ is obviously very long-term useful to prop up as alleged shooter. At the same time, there is meagre ground to argue the gov-mercenary shooter angle, and the ‘truther’ crowd is made to look obsessive and foolish quibbling about obvious video fraud.

    The value of confusion is high to government operations. Consider 9-11, with five widely-spread stories about what took down the New York World Trade Centre towers on 11 September 2001, four stories all deflecting from whatever is the real truth:

    (1) Official story, planes, jet fuel, etc – Denounced as impossible by thousands of architects & engineers
    (2) Conventional pre-set explosives, linked to the ‘Israeli art students’ photographed by the New York Times, with boxes whose industrial codes showed them to be bomb detonator components (my vote)
    (3) Nano-thermite advanced explosives
    (4) Destructive energy rays which the government can use from a distance
    (5) 1950s-60s recycled ‘mini nuclear weapons’ detonated inside the towers

  6. Yandex apparently has one of the best self-driving systems out there, despite only starting working on it in 2016.

    https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/russias-yandex-has-created-what-may-be-most-aggressive-av-tech

    From the start, there was a clear contrast between the Yandex demonstration and a dozen or so other self-driving rides others conducted that week. Others required their human safety drivers to operate the vehicle in private parking lots and engage autonomous mode only when we reached a public road. But the Toyota Prius V used by Yandex was under computer control from the moment we rolled out of a parking stall within the garage at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, though a human safety driver was behind the wheel.

    They almost didn’t get there, thanks to the wonderful relations between US and Russia.

    That Yandex was in Vegas at all is something of a marvel. Several members of the Yandex engineering team had visa delays in the weeks leading into CES. So it was left to a single employee who arrived five weeks before the tech showcase to buy a Prius V from a local dealer, retrofit the vehicle with its sensor stack of Velodyne lidar, cameras and radar, not to mention the computing power in the trunk, and then map routes around the city.

  7. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    RE: LondonBob's Civil War post, with which I mostly agree, as far as alternative history goes when it comes to Britain and America, Ron Unz gave us a good starting point from where we can wander into asking what might have been if a bunch of Limey spies and Roosevelt hadn't attacked our formerly peaceful country

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

    But an even better question is, what if that troll Teddy Roosevelt hadn't put Wilson into the White House? Would Taft, et al, have stopped the Fed? And it certainly seems a Taft administration, followed presumably by another Republican victory in 1916, would have stopped U.S. intervention in World War 1. Or was it all inevitable?

    America's "special relationship" with Britain. Pardon me while I vomit in my mouth.

    Ron Unz gave us a good starting point from where we can wander into asking what might have been if a bunch of Limey spies and Roosevelt hadn’t attacked our formerly peaceful country

    Nazi Germany could have become potentially quite dangerous to the US if it had successfully conquered Eurasia. It did have fairly advanced technology by the standards of the time after all, especially in rocket development. I guess it comes down to the question whether Hitler’s ambitions were limited to Europe or global, at least in the long term.
    Another crucial question of course is whether Germany could ever have decisively defeated the Soviet Union and occupied all of European Russia. I doubt it, Operation Barbarossa was total hubris and the German plans had failed even in their modified form by late 1942/early 1943, and that was before America decisively entered the war in North Africa and Europe, and iirc also before most of the Western lend-lease shipments to the Soviet Union. But I suppose there might have been some sort of extended stalemate.
    But in any case, Roosevelt’s actions turned the US into the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties of all combatant powers. So the criticism of him by US paleoconservatives always seems rather exaggerated to me.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan's point of departure is November, 1940.

    Because he is citing Ron Unz's essay about the 1940 Presidential election, this means he means that an "isolationist" Republican (not Wendell Wilkie) wins the 1940 Presidential election. Senator Robert "Mr. Conservative" Taft of Ohio for instance.

    Hitler decided to invade the USSR after Molotov's disastrous visit to Berlin in October, 1940.

    Owing to the anti-German foreign policy of the Roosevelt administration, including a stated plan to build 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain, relatively few industrial resources in advance of Operation Barbarossa were allocated to strengthening the army. Much more were allocated to capital investments and the other services (who also had access to better personnel).

    It is possible that with an isolationist victory in the 1940 US election that Germany would've invested more into strengthening the army, and that this would've provided the necessary margin of victory during Barbarossa.

    I am personally a believer that a neutral, isolationist US would've resulted in a German victory. People like to claim that most Lend-Lease was shipped in the latter years of the war, but this is because because American production kept skyrocketing. Then there are people who claim that the "tide turned" at the end of 1942, as if the war followed lunar phases.

    Even in the absence of a victory in Barbarossa, the following should be considered:

    • US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)
    • Soviet manpower attrition exceeded German attrition in percentage terms until the middle of 1944
    • The impact of Lend-Lease on the British war effort (generally forgotten, and Britain got more than the USSR)
    • German manpower and materiel diversions to other fronts increased after Stalingrad
    • Lend-Lease providing:


    -58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel
    -33% of their motor vehicles
    -53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)
    -30% of fighters and bombers
    -93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)
    -50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium
    -43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)
    -12% of tanks and SPGs
    -50% of TNT (1942-1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[54]
    -16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports)
     
    Obviously German victory isn't guaranteed in such a scenario. It's well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn't have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain). No decision in 1941 then, and hard to imagine one in 1942. Does the German army, freed of an Italian front and the Atlantic Wall, go on to beat the USSR in 1943 or 1944? Maybe.

    Britain's power, especially that of Bomber Command, is often underappreciated. Bomber Command could've collapsed the German war economy in 1943 had they kept hammering the Ruhr. Instead, they shifted to Berlin. How much weaker is Bomber Command in this scenario? German air defenses are unlikely to be much stronger.
    , @Hyperborean

    Operation Barbarossa was total hubris
     
    Why that name though? I would have chosen to call it something more fortuitous like Operation Arminius.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    I don't believe that our being the dominant world power has made us any better as a nation in the most important metric, which is moral excellence - arete. I drive from Pennsylvania to the Midwest and see a heartbroken place of absurdly unreasonable decay.

    Although some of the paleocons, like Pat Buchanan, really don't have a big problem with American foreign policy until relatively recently. Buchanan is rather quietly a bit of a Russophobe, at least by today's dissident right standards. Guys like that don't seem to mind being less than isolationist, but they do decry the decline in the nation's interior. Maybe this is what Trumpism is really all about.

    , @Konstantin
    It's not widely known as well that Germany had advanced TV network, including broadcasting of 1936 Olympics and even soccer matches for wounded soldiers in hospitals during WWII. Extremely efficient media propagandists like Goebbels would've ensured 3rd Reich media domination in the post-war world.
  8. PC

    You might not need to upgrade for a very long time in light of the end of Moore’s Law.

    The Haswell generation (4th) of Intel Core processors is nearly as powerful as the current 8th generation.

    The disadvantages in your setup compared to the latest technology are in the data buses:

    • DDR3 instead of DDR4
    • No NVMe
    • No Thunderbolt

    DDR4 is a minor improvement and not noticeable for most users.

    NVMe is a substantial improvement, but a SATA3 SSD is still speedy enough for most users. If desperate to improve you can use a PCI-E card SSD or configure a SATA RAID 0 array.

    Thunderbolt is irrelevant for your needs.

    I would not be surprised if this system is satisfactory for your needs a decade from now.

    It appears that a 2.5″ SSD is mounted on top of the cage containing an obsolete Western Digital spinning platter hard drive. If that’s not an SSD, I would advise upgrading to a SSD prior to upgrading RAM. Fortunately flash memory prices are in the tank right now so SSD prices are dirt cheap.

    No opinion on the GPU as I don’t game.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    (4th) of Intel Core processors is nearly as powerful as the current 8th generation.
     
    As diminishing returns, of the software, GPU, etc. (If he doesn't upgrade his GPU too much).

    In terms of raw performance, it would be destroyed by the latest generations.

    I think it will be fine for 60 fps gaming nonetheless, if he does not use other programs, at the same time....

    But, maybe with the RTX 2060 , it will be underpowered though and just bottleneck a new GPU?

    With this processor, I guess it would be more suitable to match with something like a 1070? I'm no expert, but I would assume 1070 would be more suitable to match it with?

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct, that's (my own) SSD.

    @ Dmitry,

    With this processor, I guess it would be more suitable to match with something like a 1070? I’m no expert, but I would assume 1070 would be more suitable to match it with?
     
    1070 has very similar performance to 1660-Ti but is almost three years old and just as expensive. No real point to it.
  9. @szopen
    Szukalski thought Picasso was Fartist and Pic-ass-hole, and Szukalski was genius, soooo ... :D

    (OTOH, Szukalski was also a complete nut plus he was Russophobe)

    Szukalski miał pierdnięcie mózgu! 🙂

  10. It’s a photograph of a bomb site, not a photograph of a bombsight.

    You do raise a good point none the less. Bombsights of the period were also great works of art.

    If found in a ditch with bones and spearheads strewn about, this would have a place of pride in the British Museum. Instead it suffers in obscurity at the Imperial War Museum, a facility whose main purpose is the burnishing of Bernard Law Montgomery’s reputation.

    It’s obviously greater than anything Picasso ever produced.

    • Agree: melanf
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Looks to me like you may have missed your calling in life, Thorfinnsson. Perhaps, you should have gone to thunderbird school right after high school? You could have been a real hero too (notice the shiny, brand new bombsight camera?):

    http://www.twinbeech.com/images/Aircraft/manufacturers/boeing/B-29series/EnolaGay/ThomasFerebee.jpg

    Think of all of the mangled and incinerated bodies. I doubt that many bones would be left for your magnum opus photo, though?....

  11. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    RE: LondonBob's Civil War post, with which I mostly agree, as far as alternative history goes when it comes to Britain and America, Ron Unz gave us a good starting point from where we can wander into asking what might have been if a bunch of Limey spies and Roosevelt hadn't attacked our formerly peaceful country

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

    But an even better question is, what if that troll Teddy Roosevelt hadn't put Wilson into the White House? Would Taft, et al, have stopped the Fed? And it certainly seems a Taft administration, followed presumably by another Republican victory in 1916, would have stopped U.S. intervention in World War 1. Or was it all inevitable?

    America's "special relationship" with Britain. Pardon me while I vomit in my mouth.

    The Roosevelt administration was a key driver of WWII, as much so as Hitler. See The Forrestal Diaries and Joe Kennedy relaying Neville Chamberlain’s thoughts on the matter. War might have been avoided otherwise.

    Had the Republican vote not been split then there was a good chance the US would have entered WWI a lot earlier and Germany been defeated a lot sooner.

    https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/04/roosevelt-1912/

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

    The IHR do some very good work, but obviously they have their own axes to grind.
  12. @LondonBob
    The Roosevelt administration was a key driver of WWII, as much so as Hitler. See The Forrestal Diaries and Joe Kennedy relaying Neville Chamberlain's thoughts on the matter. War might have been avoided otherwise.

    Had the Republican vote not been split then there was a good chance the US would have entered WWI a lot earlier and Germany been defeated a lot sooner.

    https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/04/roosevelt-1912/

    https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

    The IHR do some very good work, but obviously they have their own axes to grind.

  13. @German_reader

    Ron Unz gave us a good starting point from where we can wander into asking what might have been if a bunch of Limey spies and Roosevelt hadn’t attacked our formerly peaceful country
     
    Nazi Germany could have become potentially quite dangerous to the US if it had successfully conquered Eurasia. It did have fairly advanced technology by the standards of the time after all, especially in rocket development. I guess it comes down to the question whether Hitler's ambitions were limited to Europe or global, at least in the long term.
    Another crucial question of course is whether Germany could ever have decisively defeated the Soviet Union and occupied all of European Russia. I doubt it, Operation Barbarossa was total hubris and the German plans had failed even in their modified form by late 1942/early 1943, and that was before America decisively entered the war in North Africa and Europe, and iirc also before most of the Western lend-lease shipments to the Soviet Union. But I suppose there might have been some sort of extended stalemate.
    But in any case, Roosevelt's actions turned the US into the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties of all combatant powers. So the criticism of him by US paleoconservatives always seems rather exaggerated to me.

    John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan’s point of departure is November, 1940.

    Because he is citing Ron Unz’s essay about the 1940 Presidential election, this means he means that an “isolationist” Republican (not Wendell Wilkie) wins the 1940 Presidential election. Senator Robert “Mr. Conservative” Taft of Ohio for instance.

    Hitler decided to invade the USSR after Molotov’s disastrous visit to Berlin in October, 1940.

    Owing to the anti-German foreign policy of the Roosevelt administration, including a stated plan to build 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain, relatively few industrial resources in advance of Operation Barbarossa were allocated to strengthening the army. Much more were allocated to capital investments and the other services (who also had access to better personnel).

    It is possible that with an isolationist victory in the 1940 US election that Germany would’ve invested more into strengthening the army, and that this would’ve provided the necessary margin of victory during Barbarossa.

    I am personally a believer that a neutral, isolationist US would’ve resulted in a German victory. People like to claim that most Lend-Lease was shipped in the latter years of the war, but this is because because American production kept skyrocketing. Then there are people who claim that the “tide turned” at the end of 1942, as if the war followed lunar phases.

    Even in the absence of a victory in Barbarossa, the following should be considered:

    • US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)
    • Soviet manpower attrition exceeded German attrition in percentage terms until the middle of 1944
    • The impact of Lend-Lease on the British war effort (generally forgotten, and Britain got more than the USSR)
    • German manpower and materiel diversions to other fronts increased after Stalingrad
    • Lend-Lease providing:

    -58% of the USSR’s high octane aviation fuel
    -33% of their motor vehicles
    -53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)
    -30% of fighters and bombers
    -93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)
    -50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium
    -43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)
    -12% of tanks and SPGs
    -50% of TNT (1942-1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[54]
    -16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports)

    Obviously German victory isn’t guaranteed in such a scenario. It’s well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn’t have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain). No decision in 1941 then, and hard to imagine one in 1942. Does the German army, freed of an Italian front and the Atlantic Wall, go on to beat the USSR in 1943 or 1944? Maybe.

    Britain’s power, especially that of Bomber Command, is often underappreciated. Bomber Command could’ve collapsed the German war economy in 1943 had they kept hammering the Ruhr. Instead, they shifted to Berlin. How much weaker is Bomber Command in this scenario? German air defenses are unlikely to be much stronger.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @German_reader

    US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)
     
    shifted to what? Submarines would have been necessary anyway for the war against Britain, and the Luftwaffe remained a force used mostly for tactical support of ground troops, with all attempts at creating aircraft capable of strategic bombing unsuccesful and only pursued later in the war (and those weren't just caused by considerations of the war against the western powers, there was also the idea of building an Uralbomber to strike Soviet industry in the Urals region).

    It’s well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn’t have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain).
     
    Given how absurdly confident Hitler and his generals were of victory in June/July 1941 (they really thought the Soviet Union would collapse in a few weeks), this seems likely to me.
    They really had no idea about Soviet capabilities. I'm currently reading a German book about the Wehrmacht, and the picture that emerges of Barbarossa is one of absolute hubris (e.g. the well-known fact that only a fairly small part of the Wehrmacht was motorized, the inferiority of German tanks to some Soviet designs, only compensated in 1941 by better German tactics, use of radio etc., the divisions destined for occupation duties in the rear being grotesquely under-manned and under-equipped, and much more).
    , @LondonBob
    You ignore the high likelihood of Britain agreeing to Hitler's very generous peace offers without the assurance of the US entering the war.

    Anyway the idea Britain was so influential on US politics is just not grounded in reality, wasn't in WWI, even less so in regard to WWII. In both cases the Jewish influence was decisive, and many other lobbies were active too. Akin to those today ranting about Russians but not Israelis.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Because he is citing Ron Unz’s essay about the 1940 Presidential election, this means he means that an “isolationist” Republican (not Wendell Wilkie) wins the 1940 Presidential election. Senator Robert “Mr. Conservative” Taft of Ohio for instance.

     

    There was a great paranoid Jewish perspective about the 1940 election in which Charles Lindbergh somehow gets the GOP nomination and becomes President. The perspective was in a novel by Philip Roth called 'The Plot Against America.' Luckily no characters spend time acting out sexual fantasies with baked goods or plants, as in other Roth novels.

    Since the novel was written by a bizarre person (Roth), obviously the heinous criminal Lindbergh creates an anti-Semitic America, or something.

    Bill Kauffman wrote a very funny and derisive review of this book

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/heil-to-the-chief/

    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    -93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)
     
    !!!

    Good grief!!
  14. @Thorfinnsson
    It's a photograph of a bomb site, not a photograph of a bombsight.

    You do raise a good point none the less. Bombsights of the period were also great works of art.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Norden_bombsight-IMG_6401-gradient.jpg

    If found in a ditch with bones and spearheads strewn about, this would have a place of pride in the British Museum. Instead it suffers in obscurity at the Imperial War Museum, a facility whose main purpose is the burnishing of Bernard Law Montgomery's reputation.

    It's obviously greater than anything Picasso ever produced.

    Looks to me like you may have missed your calling in life, Thorfinnsson. Perhaps, you should have gone to thunderbird school right after high school? You could have been a real hero too (notice the shiny, brand new bombsight camera?):

    Think of all of the mangled and incinerated bodies. I doubt that many bones would be left for your magnum opus photo, though?….

    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @songbird
    I think the utility of bombsights is probably somewhat overtated. They were certainly oversold, but it's questionable whether they really needed a bombsight for Hiroshima. However, I suppose that one could make the argument that it was a political necessity to give the lie to precision bombing in order to spend the vast resources necessary to develop the B-29 and put it into production, that the A-bomb dropped to airburst over Japan is really the penultimate culmination of the bombsight. With the H-bomb being the final product.
  15. @Thorfinnsson
    John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan's point of departure is November, 1940.

    Because he is citing Ron Unz's essay about the 1940 Presidential election, this means he means that an "isolationist" Republican (not Wendell Wilkie) wins the 1940 Presidential election. Senator Robert "Mr. Conservative" Taft of Ohio for instance.

    Hitler decided to invade the USSR after Molotov's disastrous visit to Berlin in October, 1940.

    Owing to the anti-German foreign policy of the Roosevelt administration, including a stated plan to build 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain, relatively few industrial resources in advance of Operation Barbarossa were allocated to strengthening the army. Much more were allocated to capital investments and the other services (who also had access to better personnel).

    It is possible that with an isolationist victory in the 1940 US election that Germany would've invested more into strengthening the army, and that this would've provided the necessary margin of victory during Barbarossa.

    I am personally a believer that a neutral, isolationist US would've resulted in a German victory. People like to claim that most Lend-Lease was shipped in the latter years of the war, but this is because because American production kept skyrocketing. Then there are people who claim that the "tide turned" at the end of 1942, as if the war followed lunar phases.

    Even in the absence of a victory in Barbarossa, the following should be considered:

    • US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)
    • Soviet manpower attrition exceeded German attrition in percentage terms until the middle of 1944
    • The impact of Lend-Lease on the British war effort (generally forgotten, and Britain got more than the USSR)
    • German manpower and materiel diversions to other fronts increased after Stalingrad
    • Lend-Lease providing:


    -58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel
    -33% of their motor vehicles
    -53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)
    -30% of fighters and bombers
    -93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)
    -50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium
    -43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)
    -12% of tanks and SPGs
    -50% of TNT (1942-1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[54]
    -16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports)
     
    Obviously German victory isn't guaranteed in such a scenario. It's well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn't have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain). No decision in 1941 then, and hard to imagine one in 1942. Does the German army, freed of an Italian front and the Atlantic Wall, go on to beat the USSR in 1943 or 1944? Maybe.

    Britain's power, especially that of Bomber Command, is often underappreciated. Bomber Command could've collapsed the German war economy in 1943 had they kept hammering the Ruhr. Instead, they shifted to Berlin. How much weaker is Bomber Command in this scenario? German air defenses are unlikely to be much stronger.

    US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)

    shifted to what? Submarines would have been necessary anyway for the war against Britain, and the Luftwaffe remained a force used mostly for tactical support of ground troops, with all attempts at creating aircraft capable of strategic bombing unsuccesful and only pursued later in the war (and those weren’t just caused by considerations of the war against the western powers, there was also the idea of building an Uralbomber to strike Soviet industry in the Urals region).

    It’s well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn’t have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain).

    Given how absurdly confident Hitler and his generals were of victory in June/July 1941 (they really thought the Soviet Union would collapse in a few weeks), this seems likely to me.
    They really had no idea about Soviet capabilities. I’m currently reading a German book about the Wehrmacht, and the picture that emerges of Barbarossa is one of absolute hubris (e.g. the well-known fact that only a fairly small part of the Wehrmacht was motorized, the inferiority of German tanks to some Soviet designs, only compensated in 1941 by better German tactics, use of radio etc., the divisions destined for occupation duties in the rear being grotesquely under-manned and under-equipped, and much more).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    shifted to what? Submarines would have been necessary anyway for the war against Britain, and the Luftwaffe remained a force used mostly for tactical support of ground troops, with all attempts at creating aircraft capable of strategic bombing unsuccesful and only pursued later in the war (and those weren’t just caused by considerations of the war against the western powers, there was also the idea of building an Uralbomber to strike Soviet industry in the Urals region).
     
    Between the Fall of France and the start of Barbarossa:

    • Massive capital investments--the largest investment boom in German history
    • U-boat production tripled
    • Aircraft production increased 40%
    • Aircraft manufacturing workforce grew 40% (effects of this not seen until 1942)
    • Munitions production was cut from 36% of expenditures to 20% (owing to large stocks--22m 10.5cm howitzer shells were in inventory in September, 1940)
    • Vehicles & weapons production increased 54%
    • Army's steel ration cut by one-third
    • Exports increased 25%

    The basic goal of Ruestungsprogramm B was to prepare for a long war against the Anglo-Americans while still increasing the striking power of the army, which was done by doubling the number of Panzer divisions and increasing the amount of artillery guns in the infantry. This was done on the cheap by restricting the production of munitions as excess stocks had been produced in advance of the invasion of France. The freed resources were allocated to capital investments, the navy, and exports.

    The capital investments should be further explained. Gigantic investments had already begun in 1938, but after the Fall of France the largest investments ever in German history (relative terms) were made. Nothing of the sort occurred in Britain or the USSR (though the USA made gigantic investments). These investments were all made for the global war against the Anglo-Americans.

    Some of the investments made include:

    • Henschel & Sohn added 100,000 square meters of factory floor space in Kassel
    • Nibelungen tank factory constructed in St Valentin, Austria
    • Vomag in Plauen and Maschinenfabrik Niedersachsen works converted to tank production
    • IG Farben commenced construction on fuel plants to raise production from 4.3m tons to 10m by 1945
    • Work began on the Auschwitz factory complex, a 1.3bn Reichsmark investment (13bn Euros today)
    • 2.5bn Reichsmarks on other chemicals projects
    • 400m Reichsmark investment to raise Norwegian aluminum production from 46,000 tons to 200,000 tons by 1944
    • 1.5bn Reichsmark investment to increase Grossraum aluminum production to 1m tons
    • 685m Reichsmark investment to build the Flugmotorenwerk Ost in Austria with a planned output of 1,000 aero engines per month (this turned into a fiasco)
    • 170m Reichsmark investment to increase production of Daimler-Benz inverted V-12 aero engines at Genshagen (major success--actual output reached over 1,200 engines per month in 1944)
    • 5.2bn Reichsmarks into all Luftwaffe industries from 1939-1942 (explains much of the "armaments miracle")

    In the absence of American involvement, perhaps more would've been allocated to current weapons production. Alternatively, Britain and the USSR would've faced a massive flood of German production in 1943 and later without a corresponding flood of American production.

    Figures are from Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction.


    Given how absurdly confident Hitler and his generals were of victory in June/July 1941 (they really thought the Soviet Union would collapse in a few weeks), this seems likely to me.
    They really had no idea about Soviet capabilities. I’m currently reading a German book about the Wehrmacht, and the picture that emerges of Barbarossa is one of absolute hubris (e.g. the well-known fact that only a fairly small part of the Wehrmacht was motorized, the inferiority of German tanks to some Soviet designs, only compensated in 1941 by better German tactics, use of radio etc., the divisions destined for occupation duties in the rear being grotesquely under-manned and under-equipped, and much more).
     
    Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.

    The situation in the fall of 1940 was that the Luftwaffe had failed to defeat Britain, the Kriegsmarine was a tiny force, and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire. At the same time it was falling into dangerous dependence on the Soviet Union.

    Unlike the Luftwaffe, the German Army had seemingly proven itself as an apparently invincible war winning weapon. Conquering Russia would solve Germany's raw materials problem and provide it with all the resources it required to face the Anglo-American onslaught.

    While one shouldn't excuse German hubris and poor intelligence, the fact that the Red Army had assembled more tanks and aircraft than the rest of the world combined was certainly shocking to everyone. So too was the size of the Red Army and the ability of Soviet leadership to rapidly form divisions. The Germans had expected to face 200 divisions, but by the time Barbarossa concluded they had faced something like 700 Soviet divisions.

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.), but fortunately relatively little of it was in service in 1941. The Il-2 also entered service that year but Great Patriotic War mythology aside it was a bad aircraft and should not have entered service.

    Also working in favor of the invading Germans was the continuing presence in the Soviet high command of very big-brained individuals like Artillery Directorate Chief Grigory Kulik, who had the inventor of the automatic grenade launcher executed and considered land mines to be a weapon of cowards. One of the reasons the T-34s encountered in 1941 were not a threat (aside from bad training, bad manufacturing quality, and bad deployment) was that Kulik deliberately sabotaged their anti-tank armament by supply an inferior gun and reducing the allocation of shells to the tanks.

    It's true that the Wehrmacht was not motorized (and in fact progressively demotorized throughout the war), but the Red Army was not either. Obviously the lack of trucks caused enormous problems, but none the less the Germans advanced into the USSR in 1941 as fast as the Americans did into Iraq in 2003.
  16. @Mr. Hack
    Looks to me like you may have missed your calling in life, Thorfinnsson. Perhaps, you should have gone to thunderbird school right after high school? You could have been a real hero too (notice the shiny, brand new bombsight camera?):

    http://www.twinbeech.com/images/Aircraft/manufacturers/boeing/B-29series/EnolaGay/ThomasFerebee.jpg

    Think of all of the mangled and incinerated bodies. I doubt that many bones would be left for your magnum opus photo, though?....

    I think the utility of bombsights is probably somewhat overtated. They were certainly oversold, but it’s questionable whether they really needed a bombsight for Hiroshima. However, I suppose that one could make the argument that it was a political necessity to give the lie to precision bombing in order to spend the vast resources necessary to develop the B-29 and put it into production, that the A-bomb dropped to airburst over Japan is really the penultimate culmination of the bombsight. With the H-bomb being the final product.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Well, not quite. The 'utility' and 'final product' for the whole affair was upwards of 166,000 people killed. Here's the 'work of art' that Thorfinnsonn dreams about:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

  17. @Thorfinnsson
    John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan's point of departure is November, 1940.

    Because he is citing Ron Unz's essay about the 1940 Presidential election, this means he means that an "isolationist" Republican (not Wendell Wilkie) wins the 1940 Presidential election. Senator Robert "Mr. Conservative" Taft of Ohio for instance.

    Hitler decided to invade the USSR after Molotov's disastrous visit to Berlin in October, 1940.

    Owing to the anti-German foreign policy of the Roosevelt administration, including a stated plan to build 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain, relatively few industrial resources in advance of Operation Barbarossa were allocated to strengthening the army. Much more were allocated to capital investments and the other services (who also had access to better personnel).

    It is possible that with an isolationist victory in the 1940 US election that Germany would've invested more into strengthening the army, and that this would've provided the necessary margin of victory during Barbarossa.

    I am personally a believer that a neutral, isolationist US would've resulted in a German victory. People like to claim that most Lend-Lease was shipped in the latter years of the war, but this is because because American production kept skyrocketing. Then there are people who claim that the "tide turned" at the end of 1942, as if the war followed lunar phases.

    Even in the absence of a victory in Barbarossa, the following should be considered:

    • US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)
    • Soviet manpower attrition exceeded German attrition in percentage terms until the middle of 1944
    • The impact of Lend-Lease on the British war effort (generally forgotten, and Britain got more than the USSR)
    • German manpower and materiel diversions to other fronts increased after Stalingrad
    • Lend-Lease providing:


    -58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel
    -33% of their motor vehicles
    -53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)
    -30% of fighters and bombers
    -93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)
    -50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium
    -43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)
    -12% of tanks and SPGs
    -50% of TNT (1942-1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[54]
    -16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports)
     
    Obviously German victory isn't guaranteed in such a scenario. It's well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn't have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain). No decision in 1941 then, and hard to imagine one in 1942. Does the German army, freed of an Italian front and the Atlantic Wall, go on to beat the USSR in 1943 or 1944? Maybe.

    Britain's power, especially that of Bomber Command, is often underappreciated. Bomber Command could've collapsed the German war economy in 1943 had they kept hammering the Ruhr. Instead, they shifted to Berlin. How much weaker is Bomber Command in this scenario? German air defenses are unlikely to be much stronger.

    You ignore the high likelihood of Britain agreeing to Hitler’s very generous peace offers without the assurance of the US entering the war.

    Anyway the idea Britain was so influential on US politics is just not grounded in reality, wasn’t in WWI, even less so in regard to WWII. In both cases the Jewish influence was decisive, and many other lobbies were active too. Akin to those today ranting about Russians but not Israelis.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    A very good point.

    If FDR had been defeated, Churchill might well have been replaced leading to a peace agreement with the Germans.

    Jews were obviously pushing America towards war, but Unz's essay about British influence is interesting and eye-opening:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

    It's also not just a matter of alien influence. Much of America's WASP establishment, still in control at that time, favored intervention. Foreign Policy magazine helpfully has its archives online, and you can read all sorts of dreck from 1940 about the American need to enter the war or at least support Britain.

    Gallup opinion polling in 1939 also asked Americans if they should help their British "blood brothers" which I found interesting.

    American public opinion was largely opposed to intervention, but tellingly almost no one was in favor of joining the Axis whereas a substantial minority favored aiding or joining the Allies. This despite the fact that obviously America stood to gain from dismembering the British Empire and once and for all eliminating the hideous Canuckist Entity from the map.
    , @utu
    From 21 November 1938 report by Ambassador Potocki on conversation with Ambassador Bullitt

    As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’
     

    FDR knew what he wanted.

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….
     

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.
     
    Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War ... edited by George H. Nash
    https://books.google.com/books?id=ugFyjRLHPzcC&pg=PT761&lpg=PT761&dq=Ambassador+Potocki+on+conversation+with+Ambassador+Bullitt&source=bl&ots=D7zhs3vpcP&sig=ACfU3U1Hmz5emuNqS-66TFyApHESMkKS1Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI0ar7x5ThAhVCiOAKHeVpDM4Q6AEwBnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ambassador%20Potocki%20on%20conversation%20with%20Ambassador%20Bullitt&f=false
  18. @songbird
    I think the utility of bombsights is probably somewhat overtated. They were certainly oversold, but it's questionable whether they really needed a bombsight for Hiroshima. However, I suppose that one could make the argument that it was a political necessity to give the lie to precision bombing in order to spend the vast resources necessary to develop the B-29 and put it into production, that the A-bomb dropped to airburst over Japan is really the penultimate culmination of the bombsight. With the H-bomb being the final product.

    Well, not quite. The ‘utility’ and ‘final product’ for the whole affair was upwards of 166,000 people killed. Here’s the ‘work of art’ that Thorfinnsonn dreams about:

    • Replies: @DFH
    Weren't you apologising for a civilisation that ritually slaughtered thousands of people about ten minutes ago?
    , @AP
    Thorfinnson once posted the link to this good essay about that:

    https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS1300MET/v12/undervisningsmateriale/Fussel%20-%20thank%20god%20for%20the%20atom%20bomb.pdf
    , @Adam
    Are you really butthurt? He was just making a joke about Picasso's shitty art.
  19. @Mr. Hack
    Well, not quite. The 'utility' and 'final product' for the whole affair was upwards of 166,000 people killed. Here's the 'work of art' that Thorfinnsonn dreams about:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

    Weren’t you apologising for a civilisation that ritually slaughtered thousands of people about ten minutes ago?

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I still am.
  20. @Mr. Hack
    Well, not quite. The 'utility' and 'final product' for the whole affair was upwards of 166,000 people killed. Here's the 'work of art' that Thorfinnsonn dreams about:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    It's indeed an interesting essay that presents a good, balanced view of the complex motives that precipitated the dropping of two A-bombs over Japan. It frames the question of the morality of the decision, in the eyes of those opposed to it quite accurately:

    that those for whom he use of the A-bomb was “wrong” seem to be implying “that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs.”
     
    Also, throughout the piece the author emphasizes that it's easier to make judgements after the fact , than to be on the ground fighting a ferocious war faced with pragmatic considerations.

    For me, the overriding factor is indeed that so many civilians were wasted. Soldiers are by design created to fight wars, civilians are not. This is one of the reasons, I suppose that you are so adamantly opposed to the wasting of Polish civilians in Volhynia by bloodthirsty UPA troops? The principle is the same, only the scope of casualties is so very much larger. Who had the moral authority to shift the soldier's responsibility over to an unwary civilian population?

  21. @DFH
    Weren't you apologising for a civilisation that ritually slaughtered thousands of people about ten minutes ago?

    I still am.

  22. @Mr. Hack
    Well, not quite. The 'utility' and 'final product' for the whole affair was upwards of 166,000 people killed. Here's the 'work of art' that Thorfinnsonn dreams about:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

    Are you really butthurt? He was just making a joke about Picasso’s shitty art.

  23. @German_reader

    US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)
     
    shifted to what? Submarines would have been necessary anyway for the war against Britain, and the Luftwaffe remained a force used mostly for tactical support of ground troops, with all attempts at creating aircraft capable of strategic bombing unsuccesful and only pursued later in the war (and those weren't just caused by considerations of the war against the western powers, there was also the idea of building an Uralbomber to strike Soviet industry in the Urals region).

    It’s well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn’t have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain).
     
    Given how absurdly confident Hitler and his generals were of victory in June/July 1941 (they really thought the Soviet Union would collapse in a few weeks), this seems likely to me.
    They really had no idea about Soviet capabilities. I'm currently reading a German book about the Wehrmacht, and the picture that emerges of Barbarossa is one of absolute hubris (e.g. the well-known fact that only a fairly small part of the Wehrmacht was motorized, the inferiority of German tanks to some Soviet designs, only compensated in 1941 by better German tactics, use of radio etc., the divisions destined for occupation duties in the rear being grotesquely under-manned and under-equipped, and much more).

    shifted to what? Submarines would have been necessary anyway for the war against Britain, and the Luftwaffe remained a force used mostly for tactical support of ground troops, with all attempts at creating aircraft capable of strategic bombing unsuccesful and only pursued later in the war (and those weren’t just caused by considerations of the war against the western powers, there was also the idea of building an Uralbomber to strike Soviet industry in the Urals region).

    Between the Fall of France and the start of Barbarossa:

    • Massive capital investments–the largest investment boom in German history
    • U-boat production tripled
    • Aircraft production increased 40%
    • Aircraft manufacturing workforce grew 40% (effects of this not seen until 1942)
    • Munitions production was cut from 36% of expenditures to 20% (owing to large stocks–22m 10.5cm howitzer shells were in inventory in September, 1940)
    • Vehicles & weapons production increased 54%
    • Army’s steel ration cut by one-third
    • Exports increased 25%

    The basic goal of Ruestungsprogramm B was to prepare for a long war against the Anglo-Americans while still increasing the striking power of the army, which was done by doubling the number of Panzer divisions and increasing the amount of artillery guns in the infantry. This was done on the cheap by restricting the production of munitions as excess stocks had been produced in advance of the invasion of France. The freed resources were allocated to capital investments, the navy, and exports.

    The capital investments should be further explained. Gigantic investments had already begun in 1938, but after the Fall of France the largest investments ever in German history (relative terms) were made. Nothing of the sort occurred in Britain or the USSR (though the USA made gigantic investments). These investments were all made for the global war against the Anglo-Americans.

    Some of the investments made include:

    • Henschel & Sohn added 100,000 square meters of factory floor space in Kassel
    • Nibelungen tank factory constructed in St Valentin, Austria
    • Vomag in Plauen and Maschinenfabrik Niedersachsen works converted to tank production
    • IG Farben commenced construction on fuel plants to raise production from 4.3m tons to 10m by 1945
    • Work began on the Auschwitz factory complex, a 1.3bn Reichsmark investment (13bn Euros today)
    • 2.5bn Reichsmarks on other chemicals projects
    • 400m Reichsmark investment to raise Norwegian aluminum production from 46,000 tons to 200,000 tons by 1944
    • 1.5bn Reichsmark investment to increase Grossraum aluminum production to 1m tons
    • 685m Reichsmark investment to build the Flugmotorenwerk Ost in Austria with a planned output of 1,000 aero engines per month (this turned into a fiasco)
    • 170m Reichsmark investment to increase production of Daimler-Benz inverted V-12 aero engines at Genshagen (major success–actual output reached over 1,200 engines per month in 1944)
    • 5.2bn Reichsmarks into all Luftwaffe industries from 1939-1942 (explains much of the “armaments miracle”)

    In the absence of American involvement, perhaps more would’ve been allocated to current weapons production. Alternatively, Britain and the USSR would’ve faced a massive flood of German production in 1943 and later without a corresponding flood of American production.

    Figures are from Adam Tooze’s book The Wages of Destruction.

    Given how absurdly confident Hitler and his generals were of victory in June/July 1941 (they really thought the Soviet Union would collapse in a few weeks), this seems likely to me.
    They really had no idea about Soviet capabilities. I’m currently reading a German book about the Wehrmacht, and the picture that emerges of Barbarossa is one of absolute hubris (e.g. the well-known fact that only a fairly small part of the Wehrmacht was motorized, the inferiority of German tanks to some Soviet designs, only compensated in 1941 by better German tactics, use of radio etc., the divisions destined for occupation duties in the rear being grotesquely under-manned and under-equipped, and much more).

    Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.

    The situation in the fall of 1940 was that the Luftwaffe had failed to defeat Britain, the Kriegsmarine was a tiny force, and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire. At the same time it was falling into dangerous dependence on the Soviet Union.

    Unlike the Luftwaffe, the German Army had seemingly proven itself as an apparently invincible war winning weapon. Conquering Russia would solve Germany’s raw materials problem and provide it with all the resources it required to face the Anglo-American onslaught.

    While one shouldn’t excuse German hubris and poor intelligence, the fact that the Red Army had assembled more tanks and aircraft than the rest of the world combined was certainly shocking to everyone. So too was the size of the Red Army and the ability of Soviet leadership to rapidly form divisions. The Germans had expected to face 200 divisions, but by the time Barbarossa concluded they had faced something like 700 Soviet divisions.

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.), but fortunately relatively little of it was in service in 1941. The Il-2 also entered service that year but Great Patriotic War mythology aside it was a bad aircraft and should not have entered service.

    Also working in favor of the invading Germans was the continuing presence in the Soviet high command of very big-brained individuals like Artillery Directorate Chief Grigory Kulik, who had the inventor of the automatic grenade launcher executed and considered land mines to be a weapon of cowards. One of the reasons the T-34s encountered in 1941 were not a threat (aside from bad training, bad manufacturing quality, and bad deployment) was that Kulik deliberately sabotaged their anti-tank armament by supply an inferior gun and reducing the allocation of shells to the tanks.

    It’s true that the Wehrmacht was not motorized (and in fact progressively demotorized throughout the war), but the Red Army was not either. Obviously the lack of trucks caused enormous problems, but none the less the Germans advanced into the USSR in 1941 as fast as the Americans did into Iraq in 2003.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire
     
    imo that exaggerates the situation. There was no immediate prospect of the US directly entering the war, a majority of the US public was against it (and it's not even clear to me Roosevelt wanted direct intervention, maybe he would have been content with lend-lease and US navy patrols in the North Atlantic). And Britain on her own could never have expelled German forces from German-occupied Europe (Anglo-supremacists who claim otherwise usually have to resort to fantasy scenarios involving atomic weapons or mass armies of enthusiastic Indians fighting in Europe), in fact couldn't even do all that much against Germany until 1943 when the bombing offensive escalated.
    tbh I have to wonder a bit what kind of ideological biases are present in Tooze's work, if I understand correctly, he comes close to claiming that Britain and the US were Hitler's main enemy, with the Soviet Union almost an afterthought in Hitler's world view (which would seem very questionable to me).
    , @Gerard2
    ...and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east - particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.
    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact - surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain - that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire's biggest source of oil.



    Let's not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war - very successful in this instance...but one in which if the Nazi's had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that "North Africa - Italy - then France" method creates a series of "fail-safes" in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war
    , @Epigon

    While one shouldn’t excuse German hubris and poor intelligence, the fact that the Red Army had assembled more tanks and aircraft than the rest of the world combined was certainly shocking to everyone.

     

    Those "total numbers" are bogus when one looks at the breakdown by type, vintage and condition in June 1941.
    https://i.imgur.com/PQKCeKt.png
    https://i.imgur.com/TcTCtCl.png
    https://i.imgur.com/2uMWQSr.png
    https://i.imgur.com/rolbqEC.png

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.)
     
    ZiS-2 - discontinued because German tanks similarly powerful to KV-3, KV-4 didn't materialise - instead, thousands of Pz. II, Pz. 35, Pz. 38, Pz. III and Pz. IV with 30 mm frontal armour invaded.
    ZiS-2 had very high MV, high barrel wear, and would go right through them.
    T-34-57 Tank Destroyers were discontinued for the same reason.

    The most dangerous adversary for Allied and Soviet tankers - PaKs, Panzerjaeger detachments (both towed and self-propelled) and StuGs. Tank vs. tank warfare was advised against - Rommel, Guderian and Mainstein being explicit about it. In 1941 whenever Panzers met head-on with Soviet tank brigades, they suffered badly. The key in Barbarossa was being on the strategic offensive, attacking along unsuspected axes, deep-striking with Panzers at vulnerable targets and letting the Infantry mop up the survivors. Soviet mechanized corps would be ordered to counterattack, break encirclement, react to German advances and then go right into prepared German positions. Strategic offensive+high strategic mobility = Tactical defensive = Victory. Arracourt was the exact same thing, Americans reached same conclusions post-war.

    T-34 was actually supposed to be a pre-production/early version to learn the lessons and educate workshops. According to original planning, it was supposed to be replaced by T-34M starting with July 1941, and completely gone from production by November 1941. The L-11 armament you quote had no problems with early German AFVs - they were that thin-skinned.

    Yak-3 was introduced in 1944. Yak-1 was not even the standard fighter in 1941, let alone there being enough frontline pilots traind to use them - most were accustomed to I-153 biplane and I-16 monoplane.


    The Il-2 also entered service that year but Great Patriotic War mythology aside it was a bad aircraft and should not have entered service.
     
    Better CS than Ju-87. All CS aircraft are hopeless in conditions of hostile air superiority - Stuka suffered horribly both in 1940 over Low Countries and France, and in Channel and over Britain.

    One of the reasons the T-34s encountered in 1941 were not a threat (aside from bad training, bad manufacturing quality, and bad deployment) was that Kulik deliberately sabotaged their anti-tank armament by supply an inferior gun and reducing the allocation of shells to the tanks.
     

    Oh, but it was a threat. And a hell of a threat. You see, by far the most numerous AT weapons in the invading army were 3.7 cm PaK and KwK. They were useless against T-34 from all angles and at all combat ranges. The 5cm L/42 of tanks was inadequate as well, while L/60 needed either APCR or lucky side shot.
    More T-34 and KV-1 were destroyed by their own crews and abandoned than were lost in direct combat in 1941 - this being the key of the advantage the side which is on the strategic offensive enjoys - it gets the spoils of battlefield. This will become obvious in 1943, 1944 when German Heavy tank battalions suffer 30-40 tank losses in a single day - their repair shops got overran - and Germans didn't count a tank as a loss until it disintegrated or was captured by enemy.
    So a horse-drawn, dominantly foot infantry army with puny 3000-something Panzers, PzJg, StPz and StuG, with light Panzer divisions with a single tank battalion (your vaunted doubling of number of Panzer divisions in 1940-1941 was achieved by halving the tank component per Pz. division) drastically outperformed the Big Cat, Wunderwaffe army of 1943-1945.
    , @Grahamsno(G64)

    Artillery Directorate Chief Grigory Kulik,
     
    Stalin had Kulik's wife kidnapped and shot, he also had his chief of staff's wife shot and Molotov's wife narrowly escaped being shot and many other high ranking officials wives were shot. None of these guys dared protest Stalin was the boss from hell probably the worst boss in history he used to regularly humiliate Kruschev by emptying his pipe on his bald head!
  24. @Thorfinnsson
    PC

    You might not need to upgrade for a very long time in light of the end of Moore's Law.

    The Haswell generation (4th) of Intel Core processors is nearly as powerful as the current 8th generation.

    The disadvantages in your setup compared to the latest technology are in the data buses:

    • DDR3 instead of DDR4
    • No NVMe
    • No Thunderbolt

    DDR4 is a minor improvement and not noticeable for most users.

    NVMe is a substantial improvement, but a SATA3 SSD is still speedy enough for most users. If desperate to improve you can use a PCI-E card SSD or configure a SATA RAID 0 array.

    Thunderbolt is irrelevant for your needs.

    I would not be surprised if this system is satisfactory for your needs a decade from now.

    It appears that a 2.5" SSD is mounted on top of the cage containing an obsolete Western Digital spinning platter hard drive. If that's not an SSD, I would advise upgrading to a SSD prior to upgrading RAM. Fortunately flash memory prices are in the tank right now so SSD prices are dirt cheap.

    No opinion on the GPU as I don't game.

    (4th) of Intel Core processors is nearly as powerful as the current 8th generation.

    As diminishing returns, of the software, GPU, etc. (If he doesn’t upgrade his GPU too much).

    In terms of raw performance, it would be destroyed by the latest generations.

    I think it will be fine for 60 fps gaming nonetheless, if he does not use other programs, at the same time….

    But, maybe with the RTX 2060 , it will be underpowered though and just bottleneck a new GPU?

    With this processor, I guess it would be more suitable to match with something like a 1070? I’m no expert, but I would assume 1070 would be more suitable to match it with?

  25. @LondonBob
    You ignore the high likelihood of Britain agreeing to Hitler's very generous peace offers without the assurance of the US entering the war.

    Anyway the idea Britain was so influential on US politics is just not grounded in reality, wasn't in WWI, even less so in regard to WWII. In both cases the Jewish influence was decisive, and many other lobbies were active too. Akin to those today ranting about Russians but not Israelis.

    A very good point.

    If FDR had been defeated, Churchill might well have been replaced leading to a peace agreement with the Germans.

    Jews were obviously pushing America towards war, but Unz’s essay about British influence is interesting and eye-opening:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

    It’s also not just a matter of alien influence. Much of America’s WASP establishment, still in control at that time, favored intervention. Foreign Policy magazine helpfully has its archives online, and you can read all sorts of dreck from 1940 about the American need to enter the war or at least support Britain.

    Gallup opinion polling in 1939 also asked Americans if they should help their British “blood brothers” which I found interesting.

    American public opinion was largely opposed to intervention, but tellingly almost no one was in favor of joining the Axis whereas a substantial minority favored aiding or joining the Allies. This despite the fact that obviously America stood to gain from dismembering the British Empire and once and for all eliminating the hideous Canuckist Entity from the map.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Gallup opinion polling in 1939 also asked Americans if they should help their British “blood brothers” which I found interesting.

     

    You're obviously more knowledgeable than I on statistics to do with America, Germany, and Britain in that period of history. With that said, my perception is that Americans of generic "British ancestry" (I mean including people like the Scotch-Irish, who once produced the thoroughly anti-English Andrew Jackson) became more fond of Great Britain as time wore on.

    My ancestry is primarily 18th and 19th century German immigrant stock, so I vaguely perceive a difference between myself and British heritage Americans. Those Americans sure as heck don't seem to have been terribly philo-English in the middle of the 19th century, although (according to Civil War historian William Freehling) there were pockets that favored England, in places like South Carolina. But South Carolina was always something of an anomaly, even in the South. And in general, this concept of "blood brotherhood" seems like a relatively recent conception. And considering that we had a war scare with Britain as late as the 1890s, I wonder if it was all but within the last 20 years or so before World War 1.

    I also wonder if this "blood brotherhood" idea was very much secondary to the main reason Americans accepted the Second World War, which was the "back door" with Japan. The First World War's 1917 entrance seems more likely to have been inspired by some supposed tie of kinship.

    I'm hesitant to make much heavy judgment, though. What do you think?

  26. @Thorfinnsson


    shifted to what? Submarines would have been necessary anyway for the war against Britain, and the Luftwaffe remained a force used mostly for tactical support of ground troops, with all attempts at creating aircraft capable of strategic bombing unsuccesful and only pursued later in the war (and those weren’t just caused by considerations of the war against the western powers, there was also the idea of building an Uralbomber to strike Soviet industry in the Urals region).
     
    Between the Fall of France and the start of Barbarossa:

    • Massive capital investments--the largest investment boom in German history
    • U-boat production tripled
    • Aircraft production increased 40%
    • Aircraft manufacturing workforce grew 40% (effects of this not seen until 1942)
    • Munitions production was cut from 36% of expenditures to 20% (owing to large stocks--22m 10.5cm howitzer shells were in inventory in September, 1940)
    • Vehicles & weapons production increased 54%
    • Army's steel ration cut by one-third
    • Exports increased 25%

    The basic goal of Ruestungsprogramm B was to prepare for a long war against the Anglo-Americans while still increasing the striking power of the army, which was done by doubling the number of Panzer divisions and increasing the amount of artillery guns in the infantry. This was done on the cheap by restricting the production of munitions as excess stocks had been produced in advance of the invasion of France. The freed resources were allocated to capital investments, the navy, and exports.

    The capital investments should be further explained. Gigantic investments had already begun in 1938, but after the Fall of France the largest investments ever in German history (relative terms) were made. Nothing of the sort occurred in Britain or the USSR (though the USA made gigantic investments). These investments were all made for the global war against the Anglo-Americans.

    Some of the investments made include:

    • Henschel & Sohn added 100,000 square meters of factory floor space in Kassel
    • Nibelungen tank factory constructed in St Valentin, Austria
    • Vomag in Plauen and Maschinenfabrik Niedersachsen works converted to tank production
    • IG Farben commenced construction on fuel plants to raise production from 4.3m tons to 10m by 1945
    • Work began on the Auschwitz factory complex, a 1.3bn Reichsmark investment (13bn Euros today)
    • 2.5bn Reichsmarks on other chemicals projects
    • 400m Reichsmark investment to raise Norwegian aluminum production from 46,000 tons to 200,000 tons by 1944
    • 1.5bn Reichsmark investment to increase Grossraum aluminum production to 1m tons
    • 685m Reichsmark investment to build the Flugmotorenwerk Ost in Austria with a planned output of 1,000 aero engines per month (this turned into a fiasco)
    • 170m Reichsmark investment to increase production of Daimler-Benz inverted V-12 aero engines at Genshagen (major success--actual output reached over 1,200 engines per month in 1944)
    • 5.2bn Reichsmarks into all Luftwaffe industries from 1939-1942 (explains much of the "armaments miracle")

    In the absence of American involvement, perhaps more would've been allocated to current weapons production. Alternatively, Britain and the USSR would've faced a massive flood of German production in 1943 and later without a corresponding flood of American production.

    Figures are from Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction.


    Given how absurdly confident Hitler and his generals were of victory in June/July 1941 (they really thought the Soviet Union would collapse in a few weeks), this seems likely to me.
    They really had no idea about Soviet capabilities. I’m currently reading a German book about the Wehrmacht, and the picture that emerges of Barbarossa is one of absolute hubris (e.g. the well-known fact that only a fairly small part of the Wehrmacht was motorized, the inferiority of German tanks to some Soviet designs, only compensated in 1941 by better German tactics, use of radio etc., the divisions destined for occupation duties in the rear being grotesquely under-manned and under-equipped, and much more).
     
    Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.

    The situation in the fall of 1940 was that the Luftwaffe had failed to defeat Britain, the Kriegsmarine was a tiny force, and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire. At the same time it was falling into dangerous dependence on the Soviet Union.

    Unlike the Luftwaffe, the German Army had seemingly proven itself as an apparently invincible war winning weapon. Conquering Russia would solve Germany's raw materials problem and provide it with all the resources it required to face the Anglo-American onslaught.

    While one shouldn't excuse German hubris and poor intelligence, the fact that the Red Army had assembled more tanks and aircraft than the rest of the world combined was certainly shocking to everyone. So too was the size of the Red Army and the ability of Soviet leadership to rapidly form divisions. The Germans had expected to face 200 divisions, but by the time Barbarossa concluded they had faced something like 700 Soviet divisions.

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.), but fortunately relatively little of it was in service in 1941. The Il-2 also entered service that year but Great Patriotic War mythology aside it was a bad aircraft and should not have entered service.

    Also working in favor of the invading Germans was the continuing presence in the Soviet high command of very big-brained individuals like Artillery Directorate Chief Grigory Kulik, who had the inventor of the automatic grenade launcher executed and considered land mines to be a weapon of cowards. One of the reasons the T-34s encountered in 1941 were not a threat (aside from bad training, bad manufacturing quality, and bad deployment) was that Kulik deliberately sabotaged their anti-tank armament by supply an inferior gun and reducing the allocation of shells to the tanks.

    It's true that the Wehrmacht was not motorized (and in fact progressively demotorized throughout the war), but the Red Army was not either. Obviously the lack of trucks caused enormous problems, but none the less the Germans advanced into the USSR in 1941 as fast as the Americans did into Iraq in 2003.

    and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire

    imo that exaggerates the situation. There was no immediate prospect of the US directly entering the war, a majority of the US public was against it (and it’s not even clear to me Roosevelt wanted direct intervention, maybe he would have been content with lend-lease and US navy patrols in the North Atlantic). And Britain on her own could never have expelled German forces from German-occupied Europe (Anglo-supremacists who claim otherwise usually have to resort to fantasy scenarios involving atomic weapons or mass armies of enthusiastic Indians fighting in Europe), in fact couldn’t even do all that much against Germany until 1943 when the bombing offensive escalated.
    tbh I have to wonder a bit what kind of ideological biases are present in Tooze’s work, if I understand correctly, he comes close to claiming that Britain and the US were Hitler’s main enemy, with the Soviet Union almost an afterthought in Hitler’s world view (which would seem very questionable to me).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Roosevelt made the announcement in May, 1940 that the USA intended to construct 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain.

    US rearmament also began in the same year. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed into law on July 19, 1940. The act authorized the procurement of:


    • 18 aircraft carriers
    • 2 Iowa-class battleships
    • 5 Montana-class battleships
    • 6 Alaska-class cruisers
    • 27 cruisers
    • 115 destroyers
    • 43 submarines
    • 15,000 aircraft
    • The conversion of 100,000 tons of auxiliary ships
    • $50 million for patrol, escort and other vessels
    • $150 million for essential equipment and facilities
    • $65 million for the manufacture of ordnance material or munitions
    • $35 million for the expansion of facilities

     

    Also in 1940 (actually in December, 1939) the Army Air Corps issued the formal specification that would lead to the B-29.

    Britain's war plans since 1936 always focused on strategic bombing. Churchill's plans in turn always involved leveraging American production. America did not have to be directly at war with Germany in order for its industry to provide a lethal threat to Germany.

    As for Tooze's ideological biases, he states in another book of his (Crashed) that he is a conventional left-liberal whose loyalties are divided between Britain, Germany, and the "island of Manhattan" (by which he means finance, not NYC).

    Tooze does not make the claim that the USSR was an afterthought in Hitler's worldview and acknowledges Hitler's long-range plans of annexing the USSR for Lebensraum. In fact, he does a good job of explaining the economic rationale for this thinking by explaining the miserable condition of the German peasantry in the period.

    He does make the claim that since 1938 Hitler believed he was facing a very powerful Western coalition. Operation Barbarossa is presented by Tooze as being part of an economic strategy to acquire the resources needed to face the Anglo-American colossus. In this it can seem like an afterthought even though the acquisition of territory in the east and the helotization, Germanization, and/or elimination of the Slavs had long been central to Hitler's thinking.

    There were also other reasons for Barbarossa of course not heavily addressed by Tooze. The Soviet threat to Romanian oil for instance was cited by Hitler himself in his recorded conversation with Mannerheim, and Molotov's demands in October, 1940 were outrageous.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    ... with the Soviet Union almost an afterthought in Hitler’s world view (which would seem very questionable to me).
     
    He is actually highly respectful of Soviet industrial and organizational accomplishments.

    I might try to write a review in the next couple of months. Thankfully Thorfinnsson's poasts have been a good refresher.
  27. @German_reader

    Ron Unz gave us a good starting point from where we can wander into asking what might have been if a bunch of Limey spies and Roosevelt hadn’t attacked our formerly peaceful country
     
    Nazi Germany could have become potentially quite dangerous to the US if it had successfully conquered Eurasia. It did have fairly advanced technology by the standards of the time after all, especially in rocket development. I guess it comes down to the question whether Hitler's ambitions were limited to Europe or global, at least in the long term.
    Another crucial question of course is whether Germany could ever have decisively defeated the Soviet Union and occupied all of European Russia. I doubt it, Operation Barbarossa was total hubris and the German plans had failed even in their modified form by late 1942/early 1943, and that was before America decisively entered the war in North Africa and Europe, and iirc also before most of the Western lend-lease shipments to the Soviet Union. But I suppose there might have been some sort of extended stalemate.
    But in any case, Roosevelt's actions turned the US into the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties of all combatant powers. So the criticism of him by US paleoconservatives always seems rather exaggerated to me.

    Operation Barbarossa was total hubris

    Why that name though? I would have chosen to call it something more fortuitous like Operation Arminius.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    The name is indeed odd, especially so since the Nazi view of the German middle ages wasn't positive; iirc the Italian policy of emperors like Barbarossa was seen as a pointless waste of German blood and resources, preventing the creation of a strong central state in Germany and distracting from Germany's true mission of colonization in Eastern Europe in the fight against the Slavs.
    As far as I know, there's no real explanation for why that name was chosen, maybe it was kind of random and didn't have any deeper significance.
    , @neutral
    They would have used his German name Herman, but it would probably not have been wise to use the name of a man that halted the Roman Empires expansion and ultimately that led it to its doom, the Italian allies would not have been too please with the connotations.
  28. @German_reader

    and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire
     
    imo that exaggerates the situation. There was no immediate prospect of the US directly entering the war, a majority of the US public was against it (and it's not even clear to me Roosevelt wanted direct intervention, maybe he would have been content with lend-lease and US navy patrols in the North Atlantic). And Britain on her own could never have expelled German forces from German-occupied Europe (Anglo-supremacists who claim otherwise usually have to resort to fantasy scenarios involving atomic weapons or mass armies of enthusiastic Indians fighting in Europe), in fact couldn't even do all that much against Germany until 1943 when the bombing offensive escalated.
    tbh I have to wonder a bit what kind of ideological biases are present in Tooze's work, if I understand correctly, he comes close to claiming that Britain and the US were Hitler's main enemy, with the Soviet Union almost an afterthought in Hitler's world view (which would seem very questionable to me).

    Roosevelt made the announcement in May, 1940 that the USA intended to construct 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain.

    US rearmament also began in the same year. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed into law on July 19, 1940. The act authorized the procurement of:

    • 18 aircraft carriers
    • 2 Iowa-class battleships
    • 5 Montana-class battleships
    • 6 Alaska-class cruisers
    • 27 cruisers
    • 115 destroyers
    • 43 submarines
    • 15,000 aircraft
    • The conversion of 100,000 tons of auxiliary ships
    • $50 million for patrol, escort and other vessels
    • $150 million for essential equipment and facilities
    • $65 million for the manufacture of ordnance material or munitions
    • $35 million for the expansion of facilities

    Also in 1940 (actually in December, 1939) the Army Air Corps issued the formal specification that would lead to the B-29.

    Britain’s war plans since 1936 always focused on strategic bombing. Churchill’s plans in turn always involved leveraging American production. America did not have to be directly at war with Germany in order for its industry to provide a lethal threat to Germany.

    As for Tooze’s ideological biases, he states in another book of his (Crashed) that he is a conventional left-liberal whose loyalties are divided between Britain, Germany, and the “island of Manhattan” (by which he means finance, not NYC).

    Tooze does not make the claim that the USSR was an afterthought in Hitler’s worldview and acknowledges Hitler’s long-range plans of annexing the USSR for Lebensraum. In fact, he does a good job of explaining the economic rationale for this thinking by explaining the miserable condition of the German peasantry in the period.

    He does make the claim that since 1938 Hitler believed he was facing a very powerful Western coalition. Operation Barbarossa is presented by Tooze as being part of an economic strategy to acquire the resources needed to face the Anglo-American colossus. In this it can seem like an afterthought even though the acquisition of territory in the east and the helotization, Germanization, and/or elimination of the Slavs had long been central to Hitler’s thinking.

    There were also other reasons for Barbarossa of course not heavily addressed by Tooze. The Soviet threat to Romanian oil for instance was cited by Hitler himself in his recorded conversation with Mannerheim, and Molotov’s demands in October, 1940 were outrageous.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    1940 that the USA intended to construct 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain.
     
    Aircraft are pointless though without aircrew to operate them.
    I haven't personally read Tooze's book (and don't intend to in the near future), so I can't comment in any more detail. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
  29. @Hyperborean

    Operation Barbarossa was total hubris
     
    Why that name though? I would have chosen to call it something more fortuitous like Operation Arminius.

    The name is indeed odd, especially so since the Nazi view of the German middle ages wasn’t positive; iirc the Italian policy of emperors like Barbarossa was seen as a pointless waste of German blood and resources, preventing the creation of a strong central state in Germany and distracting from Germany’s true mission of colonization in Eastern Europe in the fight against the Slavs.
    As far as I know, there’s no real explanation for why that name was chosen, maybe it was kind of random and didn’t have any deeper significance.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    iirc the Italian policy of emperors like Barbarossa was seen as a pointless waste of German blood and resources, preventing the creation of a strong central state in Germany and distracting from Germany’s true mission of colonization in Eastern Europe in the fight against the Slavs.
     
    Yes, I suppose that too. I was thinking more of his ignominious end during the Third Crusade.
    , @neutral
    Barbarossa was to join the crusade. Operation Barbarossa was a crusade against the jew, as the USSR was a jewish construct, the name no doubt came from this line of thought.
  30. @Thorfinnsson
    Roosevelt made the announcement in May, 1940 that the USA intended to construct 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain.

    US rearmament also began in the same year. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed into law on July 19, 1940. The act authorized the procurement of:


    • 18 aircraft carriers
    • 2 Iowa-class battleships
    • 5 Montana-class battleships
    • 6 Alaska-class cruisers
    • 27 cruisers
    • 115 destroyers
    • 43 submarines
    • 15,000 aircraft
    • The conversion of 100,000 tons of auxiliary ships
    • $50 million for patrol, escort and other vessels
    • $150 million for essential equipment and facilities
    • $65 million for the manufacture of ordnance material or munitions
    • $35 million for the expansion of facilities

     

    Also in 1940 (actually in December, 1939) the Army Air Corps issued the formal specification that would lead to the B-29.

    Britain's war plans since 1936 always focused on strategic bombing. Churchill's plans in turn always involved leveraging American production. America did not have to be directly at war with Germany in order for its industry to provide a lethal threat to Germany.

    As for Tooze's ideological biases, he states in another book of his (Crashed) that he is a conventional left-liberal whose loyalties are divided between Britain, Germany, and the "island of Manhattan" (by which he means finance, not NYC).

    Tooze does not make the claim that the USSR was an afterthought in Hitler's worldview and acknowledges Hitler's long-range plans of annexing the USSR for Lebensraum. In fact, he does a good job of explaining the economic rationale for this thinking by explaining the miserable condition of the German peasantry in the period.

    He does make the claim that since 1938 Hitler believed he was facing a very powerful Western coalition. Operation Barbarossa is presented by Tooze as being part of an economic strategy to acquire the resources needed to face the Anglo-American colossus. In this it can seem like an afterthought even though the acquisition of territory in the east and the helotization, Germanization, and/or elimination of the Slavs had long been central to Hitler's thinking.

    There were also other reasons for Barbarossa of course not heavily addressed by Tooze. The Soviet threat to Romanian oil for instance was cited by Hitler himself in his recorded conversation with Mannerheim, and Molotov's demands in October, 1940 were outrageous.

    1940 that the USA intended to construct 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain.

    Aircraft are pointless though without aircrew to operate them.
    I haven’t personally read Tooze’s book (and don’t intend to in the near future), so I can’t comment in any more detail. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    What evidence do you have FDR wasn't completely committed to fighting?
  31. https://vz.ru/news/2019/3/20/969350.html

    LOL…………just when you thought this nutjob country couldn’t get more farcical. Easily deserving of a place on the Open Thread

    As for the thing about RT……. I am fairly sure it is standard practise amount all International News channels across the world, particularly American. Even so that story probably isn’t even true – they have plenty of western , foreign journalists – not much chance they could stop them, or sue them in a western court ( or even try)…and anyway the critical worker could just easily leak that to any of the numerous liberast friends that I am pretty sure align with the minds of most RT journalists anyway.

  32. @German_reader
    The name is indeed odd, especially so since the Nazi view of the German middle ages wasn't positive; iirc the Italian policy of emperors like Barbarossa was seen as a pointless waste of German blood and resources, preventing the creation of a strong central state in Germany and distracting from Germany's true mission of colonization in Eastern Europe in the fight against the Slavs.
    As far as I know, there's no real explanation for why that name was chosen, maybe it was kind of random and didn't have any deeper significance.

    iirc the Italian policy of emperors like Barbarossa was seen as a pointless waste of German blood and resources, preventing the creation of a strong central state in Germany and distracting from Germany’s true mission of colonization in Eastern Europe in the fight against the Slavs.

    Yes, I suppose that too. I was thinking more of his ignominious end during the Third Crusade.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    I was thinking more of his ignominious end during the Third Crusade.
     
    He's not really dead and will return one day:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user#Kyffh%C3%A4user_legend
  33. @Hyperborean

    iirc the Italian policy of emperors like Barbarossa was seen as a pointless waste of German blood and resources, preventing the creation of a strong central state in Germany and distracting from Germany’s true mission of colonization in Eastern Europe in the fight against the Slavs.
     
    Yes, I suppose that too. I was thinking more of his ignominious end during the Third Crusade.

    I was thinking more of his ignominious end during the Third Crusade.

    He’s not really dead and will return one day:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user#Kyffh%C3%A4user_legend

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    He’s not really dead and will return one day:
     
    Interesting, I hadn't heard of Kyffhäuser before.
  34. especially in light of the Christchurch shooter’s trips to Pakistan and N Korea. I’d like to share some thoughts on why I don’t think these places radicalised him

    I don’t know, visiting Pakistan is as a good education about what third world populations achieve as a society.

  35. @German_reader
    The name is indeed odd, especially so since the Nazi view of the German middle ages wasn't positive; iirc the Italian policy of emperors like Barbarossa was seen as a pointless waste of German blood and resources, preventing the creation of a strong central state in Germany and distracting from Germany's true mission of colonization in Eastern Europe in the fight against the Slavs.
    As far as I know, there's no real explanation for why that name was chosen, maybe it was kind of random and didn't have any deeper significance.

    Barbarossa was to join the crusade. Operation Barbarossa was a crusade against the jew, as the USSR was a jewish construct, the name no doubt came from this line of thought.

  36. @German_reader

    I was thinking more of his ignominious end during the Third Crusade.
     
    He's not really dead and will return one day:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyffh%C3%A4user#Kyffh%C3%A4user_legend

    He’s not really dead and will return one day:

    Interesting, I hadn’t heard of Kyffhäuser before.

  37. @Hyperborean

    Operation Barbarossa was total hubris
     
    Why that name though? I would have chosen to call it something more fortuitous like Operation Arminius.

    They would have used his German name Herman, but it would probably not have been wise to use the name of a man that halted the Roman Empires expansion and ultimately that led it to its doom, the Italian allies would not have been too please with the connotations.

  38. Regarding the visual arts in Russia:

    I don’t really like the modern and geometric style, but at least this one is easily comprehensible.

    But what are these supposed to represent? I honestly have no clue. If there is no purpose then what is the point?

    I think the author, a woman, is trying to make some sort of feminist statement by contrasting these pictures, but honestly, seeing the grim, stern proletarian faces next to joyous, relaxed bourgeois women, it has the opposite effect on me.

    • Replies: @WHAT
    Well, the first one is a sensible tactical advice on wedge formations, I kid you not.
    , @Mr. Hack
    The Leokrem add works for me - more Vitamin D please. :-)
  39. @Thorfinnsson
    PC

    You might not need to upgrade for a very long time in light of the end of Moore's Law.

    The Haswell generation (4th) of Intel Core processors is nearly as powerful as the current 8th generation.

    The disadvantages in your setup compared to the latest technology are in the data buses:

    • DDR3 instead of DDR4
    • No NVMe
    • No Thunderbolt

    DDR4 is a minor improvement and not noticeable for most users.

    NVMe is a substantial improvement, but a SATA3 SSD is still speedy enough for most users. If desperate to improve you can use a PCI-E card SSD or configure a SATA RAID 0 array.

    Thunderbolt is irrelevant for your needs.

    I would not be surprised if this system is satisfactory for your needs a decade from now.

    It appears that a 2.5" SSD is mounted on top of the cage containing an obsolete Western Digital spinning platter hard drive. If that's not an SSD, I would advise upgrading to a SSD prior to upgrading RAM. Fortunately flash memory prices are in the tank right now so SSD prices are dirt cheap.

    No opinion on the GPU as I don't game.

    Correct, that’s (my own) SSD.

    @ Dmitry,

    With this processor, I guess it would be more suitable to match with something like a 1070? I’m no expert, but I would assume 1070 would be more suitable to match it with?

    1070 has very similar performance to 1660-Ti but is almost three years old and just as expensive. No real point to it.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Sure if it's the same or similar price,I guess there is no danger to buy newer GPU.

    But nonetheless to say, with a 6 years old mid-range CPU, probably at best it will not attain performance difference of the new GPU over a few years old 1070, and at worse the CPU will bottleneck the new card and stutter (but then you could just set a fps limit at 60, so it will still be ok).

    And I guess you will also try to run the processor at 4.5 or whatever is not too hot for it? and then see how it works with the new GPU. Anyway it will be interesting to read your reports on this.

    , @donnyess
    The 1660 ti seems to be the one you want given the requirements. It's still a pretty expensive board at 280 bucks. The 1660 is about 220 bucks. Maybe monitor the sales figures and go with the best seller...again probably the 1660 ti. If none of these more expensive cards get a large user base...maybe try the Asus rx-570 4gb at 150 bucks or the MSI rx-570 mk2 8gb at 190 bucks....see how it works and wait until you upgrade your system.
  40. @LondonBob
    You ignore the high likelihood of Britain agreeing to Hitler's very generous peace offers without the assurance of the US entering the war.

    Anyway the idea Britain was so influential on US politics is just not grounded in reality, wasn't in WWI, even less so in regard to WWII. In both cases the Jewish influence was decisive, and many other lobbies were active too. Akin to those today ranting about Russians but not Israelis.

    From 21 November 1938 report by Ambassador Potocki on conversation with Ambassador Bullitt

    As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’

    FDR knew what he wanted.

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

    Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War … edited by George H. Nash
    https://books.google.com/books?id=ugFyjRLHPzcC&pg=PT761&lpg=PT761&dq=Ambassador+Potocki+on+conversation+with+Ambassador+Bullitt&source=bl&ots=D7zhs3vpcP&sig=ACfU3U1Hmz5emuNqS-66TFyApHESMkKS1Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI0ar7x5ThAhVCiOAKHeVpDM4Q6AEwBnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ambassador%20Potocki%20on%20conversation%20with%20Ambassador%20Bullitt&f=false

  41. The result of being the puppet of a foreign master:

    The new law states that any person who enters the country legally — and resides in it for a year legally — can get the Iraqi passport.

    […]

    Raja’s Yousef explained the fear from the new law saying: “In the nearest religious visit, if 2 million Iranian came into Iraq, and a million do not return back to Iran, after one year they will be give the Iraqi passport and a social welfare of 500,000 dinars i.e. $400 and they will send to their families back home. This is all is taken from the Iraqi orphans money.”

    […]

    Another Iraqi wrote: “The new nationalisation law aims to change the demographics in Iraq, end the presence of the Iraqi people as a genuine people and replace it with races and ethnicities from Iran, Afghanistan, India and others.”

    […]

    “Kurds are part of this society; they were victims of the sectarian and racist practices of the old regime. At the time of Saddam, they were subjected to the most heinous genocides and forced displacements, as hundreds of thousands of them were dumped in the open, on the Iranian border, and all their possessions were confiscated,” Abu Hussein added “Justice must be done and their rights returned to them”

    https://www.amren.com/news/2019/03/new-iraqi-citizenship-law-stirs-controversy/

    • Replies: @songbird
    A lot of the "real" Arabs seem to have somewhat tenuous demographics. Not exactly collapsing TFR, but just copious amounts of foreign workers, many of them subcon or Indonesian Muslims who can claim being brothers in Islam. Then there are all the "natives" with heavy African ancestry from Zanj days, (in Iraq, 500,000) as well as those recently arrived Africans who are desperate even to cross into Yemen.

    Their political system is mainly constructed from big men writing checks. Perhaps, tribal politics makes it unlikely that they will write those big checks to Africans and Pakis. They don't seem to suffer from one-worldism, as the foreign laborers are generally treated like helots and often sex-segregated.

    BTW, Trump is calling for the Golan Heights to be recognized as part of Israel. No wonder he is on Israeli campaign posters! Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?
  42. @Thorfinnsson


    shifted to what? Submarines would have been necessary anyway for the war against Britain, and the Luftwaffe remained a force used mostly for tactical support of ground troops, with all attempts at creating aircraft capable of strategic bombing unsuccesful and only pursued later in the war (and those weren’t just caused by considerations of the war against the western powers, there was also the idea of building an Uralbomber to strike Soviet industry in the Urals region).
     
    Between the Fall of France and the start of Barbarossa:

    • Massive capital investments--the largest investment boom in German history
    • U-boat production tripled
    • Aircraft production increased 40%
    • Aircraft manufacturing workforce grew 40% (effects of this not seen until 1942)
    • Munitions production was cut from 36% of expenditures to 20% (owing to large stocks--22m 10.5cm howitzer shells were in inventory in September, 1940)
    • Vehicles & weapons production increased 54%
    • Army's steel ration cut by one-third
    • Exports increased 25%

    The basic goal of Ruestungsprogramm B was to prepare for a long war against the Anglo-Americans while still increasing the striking power of the army, which was done by doubling the number of Panzer divisions and increasing the amount of artillery guns in the infantry. This was done on the cheap by restricting the production of munitions as excess stocks had been produced in advance of the invasion of France. The freed resources were allocated to capital investments, the navy, and exports.

    The capital investments should be further explained. Gigantic investments had already begun in 1938, but after the Fall of France the largest investments ever in German history (relative terms) were made. Nothing of the sort occurred in Britain or the USSR (though the USA made gigantic investments). These investments were all made for the global war against the Anglo-Americans.

    Some of the investments made include:

    • Henschel & Sohn added 100,000 square meters of factory floor space in Kassel
    • Nibelungen tank factory constructed in St Valentin, Austria
    • Vomag in Plauen and Maschinenfabrik Niedersachsen works converted to tank production
    • IG Farben commenced construction on fuel plants to raise production from 4.3m tons to 10m by 1945
    • Work began on the Auschwitz factory complex, a 1.3bn Reichsmark investment (13bn Euros today)
    • 2.5bn Reichsmarks on other chemicals projects
    • 400m Reichsmark investment to raise Norwegian aluminum production from 46,000 tons to 200,000 tons by 1944
    • 1.5bn Reichsmark investment to increase Grossraum aluminum production to 1m tons
    • 685m Reichsmark investment to build the Flugmotorenwerk Ost in Austria with a planned output of 1,000 aero engines per month (this turned into a fiasco)
    • 170m Reichsmark investment to increase production of Daimler-Benz inverted V-12 aero engines at Genshagen (major success--actual output reached over 1,200 engines per month in 1944)
    • 5.2bn Reichsmarks into all Luftwaffe industries from 1939-1942 (explains much of the "armaments miracle")

    In the absence of American involvement, perhaps more would've been allocated to current weapons production. Alternatively, Britain and the USSR would've faced a massive flood of German production in 1943 and later without a corresponding flood of American production.

    Figures are from Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction.


    Given how absurdly confident Hitler and his generals were of victory in June/July 1941 (they really thought the Soviet Union would collapse in a few weeks), this seems likely to me.
    They really had no idea about Soviet capabilities. I’m currently reading a German book about the Wehrmacht, and the picture that emerges of Barbarossa is one of absolute hubris (e.g. the well-known fact that only a fairly small part of the Wehrmacht was motorized, the inferiority of German tanks to some Soviet designs, only compensated in 1941 by better German tactics, use of radio etc., the divisions destined for occupation duties in the rear being grotesquely under-manned and under-equipped, and much more).
     
    Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.

    The situation in the fall of 1940 was that the Luftwaffe had failed to defeat Britain, the Kriegsmarine was a tiny force, and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire. At the same time it was falling into dangerous dependence on the Soviet Union.

    Unlike the Luftwaffe, the German Army had seemingly proven itself as an apparently invincible war winning weapon. Conquering Russia would solve Germany's raw materials problem and provide it with all the resources it required to face the Anglo-American onslaught.

    While one shouldn't excuse German hubris and poor intelligence, the fact that the Red Army had assembled more tanks and aircraft than the rest of the world combined was certainly shocking to everyone. So too was the size of the Red Army and the ability of Soviet leadership to rapidly form divisions. The Germans had expected to face 200 divisions, but by the time Barbarossa concluded they had faced something like 700 Soviet divisions.

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.), but fortunately relatively little of it was in service in 1941. The Il-2 also entered service that year but Great Patriotic War mythology aside it was a bad aircraft and should not have entered service.

    Also working in favor of the invading Germans was the continuing presence in the Soviet high command of very big-brained individuals like Artillery Directorate Chief Grigory Kulik, who had the inventor of the automatic grenade launcher executed and considered land mines to be a weapon of cowards. One of the reasons the T-34s encountered in 1941 were not a threat (aside from bad training, bad manufacturing quality, and bad deployment) was that Kulik deliberately sabotaged their anti-tank armament by supply an inferior gun and reducing the allocation of shells to the tanks.

    It's true that the Wehrmacht was not motorized (and in fact progressively demotorized throughout the war), but the Red Army was not either. Obviously the lack of trucks caused enormous problems, but none the less the Germans advanced into the USSR in 1941 as fast as the Americans did into Iraq in 2003.

    …and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east – particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.
    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact – surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain – that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire’s biggest source of oil.

    Let’s not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war – very successful in this instance…but one in which if the Nazi’s had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that “North Africa – Italy – then France” method creates a series of “fail-safes” in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    …and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east – particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.
     

    Logistics are the largest reason. Prior to Operation Sonnenblume, the Germans determined the largest force that could be fielded in North Africa and supplied from Italy was just four divisions (compare to the Eastern Front).

    That is not the sole reason of course, as even this Hitler refused to send. The Italians after the war accused Hitler of having a purely "continental" strategic view. Erich Raeder, commander of the Kriegsmarine, suggested taking Gibraltar (with or without Franco's consent) and expanding into the Mediterranean.

    The German airborne invasion of Crete, while a success, perhaps in a way doomed the small Afrika Korps that Hitler did authorize. Owing to the huge losses at Crete, the Germans chose to cancel the planned invasion of Malta (Operation Hercules). Malta in turn aided the British in interdicting Italian supply convoys to Africa.

    German and Italian troops in Africa always suffered extreme shortages and relied heavily on captured equipment (by the time of 1st El Alamein over 80% of Rommel's truck park was captured British vehicles). The situation was so bad that Axis troops in Africa even suffered from nutritional deficiencies and were jaundiced.

    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact – surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?
     

    Sort of. He simply declared neutrality and refused to expel German railwaymen and other technical specialists. Iran also reduced its trade with Germany at the request of the British.

    His actions were considered insufficient, and given the importance of Iran to Britain and the USSR the hapless country was invaded and occupied.

    In any case owing to the Royal Navy there was no way to ship Iranian oil to Germany. In theory Iranian oil could've been shipped overland through Turkey, but the British could've seized Iran (or just the oilfields) long before any such infrastructure could be built.

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain – that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire’s biggest source of oil.
     

    The Kriegsmarine did not even have the ability to enter the Mediterranean Sea because the British controlled Gibraltar and Suez. They were able to infiltrate some U-boats.

    The Regia Marina was a fairly large force, but it did not have the same high standards as the British. It also suffered from chronic shortages of fuel and thus often was not able to sortie.

    There was no oil in North Africa then (it had not yet been discovered), and since Italy's entry into the war convoys from the east had already been routed around the Cape of Good Hope rather than through the Mediterranean.

    An Axis victory in the Western Desert Campaign was in my view possible, but then what? Britain would be excluded from the Mediterranean...but still undefeated. Presumably Axis forces could've gone onto Iran, which was Britain's major source of oil (British Petroleum was originally known as Anglo-Persian), but Britain could also import oil from the rest of the world.

    Let’s not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war – very successful in this instance…but one in which if the Nazi’s had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that “North Africa – Italy – then France” method creates a series of “fail-safes” in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war
     

    The British did draw up plans to invade Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe in 1945 in order to liberate Poland, but the plan was not carried out for reasons of sanity. The planners clearly had a sense of humor as the plan was named Operation Unthinkable.

    As a seapower on the edge of Europe with limited amounts of manpower Britain traditionally exerted itself on the continent through its navy and commercial power. It did field a respectable army, but it was never large and always fought in coalition. After the 100 Years War the only time Britain ever fielded a massive army in Europe for many years in a row was in WW1.

    British strategy against Germany was fixed in 1936 to focus on strategic bombing. It was in 1936 that the Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36 for a "worldwide bomber". This ultimately led to the Avro Lancaster, superior to the American B-17 and B-24. In order to mollify the French, the Chamberlain government also agreed to send a small expeditionary force (the BEF) to the Continent again as in 1914.

    The Anglo-French plan was to stay on the defensive while strangling Germany with economic warfare. They would then use their superior resources (Britain and France had a GDP 60% larger than Germany and Italy) to eventually overwhelm Germany. This was in effect what had worked in WW1, and the defensive mindset was common to a generation of leaders who had cut their teeth fighting the exceptionally skilled German army and had no desire to repeat the horrors of the Somme and Verdun.

    Yes, obviously this meant that they never intended to lift a finger for Poland. Too bad for the idiot Poles for being duped by the West.

    Unfortunately for their clever plan, the French were unexpectedly completely defeated. In fact, while the Entente expected Poland's defeat, they also thought Poland would hold out for three months rather than three weeks.

    The British were still focused on their strategic bombing plan (which ultimately developed into a terrifying weapon), but were forced to improvise. As German_reader pointed out, obviously the British alone invading Europe (right after losing all their army's heavy equipment) to face the entire German army was suicidal.

    In fact the British never wanted to invade Europe again at all after the Fall of France except in peripheral actions meant to advance postwar British strategic interests. They had to be dragooned into invading Europe by America, which was more eager to fight and had superior resources.

    In fairness to the British their strategic bombing plan was sound as demonstrated by the Battle of the Ruhr.

    , @Gerard2
    Thanks for that.... very interesting.Basic and lazy errors about oil from myself there - my apologies!
  43. @German_reader

    and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire
     
    imo that exaggerates the situation. There was no immediate prospect of the US directly entering the war, a majority of the US public was against it (and it's not even clear to me Roosevelt wanted direct intervention, maybe he would have been content with lend-lease and US navy patrols in the North Atlantic). And Britain on her own could never have expelled German forces from German-occupied Europe (Anglo-supremacists who claim otherwise usually have to resort to fantasy scenarios involving atomic weapons or mass armies of enthusiastic Indians fighting in Europe), in fact couldn't even do all that much against Germany until 1943 when the bombing offensive escalated.
    tbh I have to wonder a bit what kind of ideological biases are present in Tooze's work, if I understand correctly, he comes close to claiming that Britain and the US were Hitler's main enemy, with the Soviet Union almost an afterthought in Hitler's world view (which would seem very questionable to me).

    … with the Soviet Union almost an afterthought in Hitler’s world view (which would seem very questionable to me).

    He is actually highly respectful of Soviet industrial and organizational accomplishments.

    I might try to write a review in the next couple of months. Thankfully Thorfinnsson’s poasts have been a good refresher.

  44. @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct, that's (my own) SSD.

    @ Dmitry,

    With this processor, I guess it would be more suitable to match with something like a 1070? I’m no expert, but I would assume 1070 would be more suitable to match it with?
     
    1070 has very similar performance to 1660-Ti but is almost three years old and just as expensive. No real point to it.

    Sure if it’s the same or similar price,I guess there is no danger to buy newer GPU.

    But nonetheless to say, with a 6 years old mid-range CPU, probably at best it will not attain performance difference of the new GPU over a few years old 1070, and at worse the CPU will bottleneck the new card and stutter (but then you could just set a fps limit at 60, so it will still be ok).

    And I guess you will also try to run the processor at 4.5 or whatever is not too hot for it? and then see how it works with the new GPU. Anyway it will be interesting to read your reports on this.

  45. India might try to collaborate with the UK (BAE Systems) on developing a new fighter plane by 2035.

    Will India and the UK Co-Develop a Sixth-Generation Fighter Aircraft?

    The United Kingdom is slated to invite India this month to jointly develop a sixth-generation fighter jet under the Tempest Future Fighter Aircraft project, according to Indian media reports. British Ministry of Defense (MoD) officials and executives from BAE Systems are expected to brief Indian MoD and Indian Air Force officials on the project during the Aero India 2019 exhibition, which will kick off in Bengaluru in the southern Indian state of Karnataka on February 18.

    “We are looking for international partners to access the best assured capability [for developing the Tempest],” Nik Khanna, the head of BAE Systems India, was quoted as saying by the Business Standard. As to India’s specific role in the Tempest project, Khanna said: “A big cost driver for a futuristic aerospace system is going to be the requirement for more and more software engineers. India has a huge capability in that area.”

    The Tempest Future Fighter Aircraft project aims to design and deploy a sixth-generation stealth fighter for the British Royal Air Force (RAF) by 2035. The project is headed by BAE Systems. Project partners to date include Italian defense contractor Leonardo for the aircraft’s integrated sensors and electronic warfare capabilities, the European consortium MBDA for the aircraft’s weapons systems, and the U.K.’s Rolls-Royce for the aircraft’s engine.

    https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/will-india-and-the-uk-co-develop-a-sixth-generation-fighter-aircraft/

    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    I believe the current plan as to field the much delayed LCA fighter and it's advanced variants in some numbers thereby stabilizing the production line and then build the AMCA with technical assistance from SAAB(The company from a small country most desperate for new orders and thus most likely to transfer technology.)

    SAAB had also been roped in by S Korea for one of their KFX concepts..

    We would have to be Arab/African level stupid to collaborate with a card carrying leading member of the Anglo MIC(BAE) and expect any other outcome other than spending vast amounts of money in exchange for glorified screwdriver assembly rights with no access to source codes and no significant R&D work for Indian companies/organizations...
  46. @Dmitry
    India might try to collaborate with the UK (BAE Systems) on developing a new fighter plane by 2035.

    Will India and the UK Co-Develop a Sixth-Generation Fighter Aircraft?

    The United Kingdom is slated to invite India this month to jointly develop a sixth-generation fighter jet under the Tempest Future Fighter Aircraft project, according to Indian media reports. British Ministry of Defense (MoD) officials and executives from BAE Systems are expected to brief Indian MoD and Indian Air Force officials on the project during the Aero India 2019 exhibition, which will kick off in Bengaluru in the southern Indian state of Karnataka on February 18.

    “We are looking for international partners to access the best assured capability [for developing the Tempest],” Nik Khanna, the head of BAE Systems India, was quoted as saying by the Business Standard. As to India’s specific role in the Tempest project, Khanna said: “A big cost driver for a futuristic aerospace system is going to be the requirement for more and more software engineers. India has a huge capability in that area.”

    The Tempest Future Fighter Aircraft project aims to design and deploy a sixth-generation stealth fighter for the British Royal Air Force (RAF) by 2035. The project is headed by BAE Systems. Project partners to date include Italian defense contractor Leonardo for the aircraft’s integrated sensors and electronic warfare capabilities, the European consortium MBDA for the aircraft’s weapons systems, and the U.K.’s Rolls-Royce for the aircraft’s engine.
     
    https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/will-india-and-the-uk-co-develop-a-sixth-generation-fighter-aircraft/

    I believe the current plan as to field the much delayed LCA fighter and it’s advanced variants in some numbers thereby stabilizing the production line and then build the AMCA with technical assistance from SAAB(The company from a small country most desperate for new orders and thus most likely to transfer technology.)

    SAAB had also been roped in by S Korea for one of their KFX concepts..

    We would have to be Arab/African level stupid to collaborate with a card carrying leading member of the Anglo MIC(BAE) and expect any other outcome other than spending vast amounts of money in exchange for glorified screwdriver assembly rights with no access to source codes and no significant R&D work for Indian companies/organizations…

  47. @Gerard2
    ...and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east - particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.
    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact - surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain - that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire's biggest source of oil.



    Let's not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war - very successful in this instance...but one in which if the Nazi's had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that "North Africa - Italy - then France" method creates a series of "fail-safes" in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war

    …and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east – particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.

    Logistics are the largest reason. Prior to Operation Sonnenblume, the Germans determined the largest force that could be fielded in North Africa and supplied from Italy was just four divisions (compare to the Eastern Front).

    That is not the sole reason of course, as even this Hitler refused to send. The Italians after the war accused Hitler of having a purely “continental” strategic view. Erich Raeder, commander of the Kriegsmarine, suggested taking Gibraltar (with or without Franco’s consent) and expanding into the Mediterranean.

    The German airborne invasion of Crete, while a success, perhaps in a way doomed the small Afrika Korps that Hitler did authorize. Owing to the huge losses at Crete, the Germans chose to cancel the planned invasion of Malta (Operation Hercules). Malta in turn aided the British in interdicting Italian supply convoys to Africa.

    German and Italian troops in Africa always suffered extreme shortages and relied heavily on captured equipment (by the time of 1st El Alamein over 80% of Rommel’s truck park was captured British vehicles). The situation was so bad that Axis troops in Africa even suffered from nutritional deficiencies and were jaundiced.

    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact – surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?

    Sort of. He simply declared neutrality and refused to expel German railwaymen and other technical specialists. Iran also reduced its trade with Germany at the request of the British.

    His actions were considered insufficient, and given the importance of Iran to Britain and the USSR the hapless country was invaded and occupied.

    In any case owing to the Royal Navy there was no way to ship Iranian oil to Germany. In theory Iranian oil could’ve been shipped overland through Turkey, but the British could’ve seized Iran (or just the oilfields) long before any such infrastructure could be built.

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain – that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire’s biggest source of oil.

    The Kriegsmarine did not even have the ability to enter the Mediterranean Sea because the British controlled Gibraltar and Suez. They were able to infiltrate some U-boats.

    The Regia Marina was a fairly large force, but it did not have the same high standards as the British. It also suffered from chronic shortages of fuel and thus often was not able to sortie.

    There was no oil in North Africa then (it had not yet been discovered), and since Italy’s entry into the war convoys from the east had already been routed around the Cape of Good Hope rather than through the Mediterranean.

    An Axis victory in the Western Desert Campaign was in my view possible, but then what? Britain would be excluded from the Mediterranean…but still undefeated. Presumably Axis forces could’ve gone onto Iran, which was Britain’s major source of oil (British Petroleum was originally known as Anglo-Persian), but Britain could also import oil from the rest of the world.

    Let’s not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war – very successful in this instance…but one in which if the Nazi’s had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that “North Africa – Italy – then France” method creates a series of “fail-safes” in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war

    The British did draw up plans to invade Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe in 1945 in order to liberate Poland, but the plan was not carried out for reasons of sanity. The planners clearly had a sense of humor as the plan was named Operation Unthinkable.

    As a seapower on the edge of Europe with limited amounts of manpower Britain traditionally exerted itself on the continent through its navy and commercial power. It did field a respectable army, but it was never large and always fought in coalition. After the 100 Years War the only time Britain ever fielded a massive army in Europe for many years in a row was in WW1.

    British strategy against Germany was fixed in 1936 to focus on strategic bombing. It was in 1936 that the Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36 for a “worldwide bomber”. This ultimately led to the Avro Lancaster, superior to the American B-17 and B-24. In order to mollify the French, the Chamberlain government also agreed to send a small expeditionary force (the BEF) to the Continent again as in 1914.

    The Anglo-French plan was to stay on the defensive while strangling Germany with economic warfare. They would then use their superior resources (Britain and France had a GDP 60% larger than Germany and Italy) to eventually overwhelm Germany. This was in effect what had worked in WW1, and the defensive mindset was common to a generation of leaders who had cut their teeth fighting the exceptionally skilled German army and had no desire to repeat the horrors of the Somme and Verdun.

    Yes, obviously this meant that they never intended to lift a finger for Poland. Too bad for the idiot Poles for being duped by the West.

    Unfortunately for their clever plan, the French were unexpectedly completely defeated. In fact, while the Entente expected Poland’s defeat, they also thought Poland would hold out for three months rather than three weeks.

    The British were still focused on their strategic bombing plan (which ultimately developed into a terrifying weapon), but were forced to improvise. As German_reader pointed out, obviously the British alone invading Europe (right after losing all their army’s heavy equipment) to face the entire German army was suicidal.

    In fact the British never wanted to invade Europe again at all after the Fall of France except in peripheral actions meant to advance postwar British strategic interests. They had to be dragooned into invading Europe by America, which was more eager to fight and had superior resources.

    In fairness to the British their strategic bombing plan was sound as demonstrated by the Battle of the Ruhr.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Note: it seems there was some oil production in Egypt. Here are global oil production figures from 1940:


    USA 182.657 Mt
    USSR 29.700 Mt
    Venezuela 27.443 Mt
    Iran 10.426 Mt
    Indonesia 7.939 Mt
    Mexico 6.721 Mt
    Romania 5.764 Mt
    Columbia 3.636 Mt
    Iraq 3.438 Mt
    Argentina 2.871 Mt
    Trinidad 2.844 Mt
    Peru 1.776 Mt
    Burma 1.088 Mt
    Canada 1.082 Mt
    Egypt 0.929 Mt
     
    Source: https://wayback.archive-it.org/6321/20160901222852/http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0280ah.pdf

    Oil production of Roumania, Iraq, and Iran is about two-thirds the Soviet level. It certainly does suggest an alternative strategy.

    Possible problems with this strategy from Hitler's POV in the fall of 1940:

    • Requires extensive cooperation with other countries (Italy, Spain, Turkey, etc.)
    • German arms "wasted" for the benefit of other countries
    • Little grain and no coal to be had in North Africa and the Near East
    • Transportation difficulties
    • Continued dependence on the USSR
    , @LondonBob
    An invasion of France in '43 would have been disastrous. We had the benefit of experience from Dieppe to know how risky it was. Had the Panzers deployed sooner the actual invasion in '44 might have similarly ended in disaster.
    , @Gerard2
    thanks for that - very interesting. Big and lazy errors from myself about oil production during the war - my apologies!
  48. About a potential monitor upgrade:

    1440 p is very much worth it (4k is only useful if you’re willing to spend a lot of money on monitor and pc upgrades). 120 or more hertz instead of 60 is even more worth it (even if you primarily or only play single player), a real and visible difference.

    • Disagree: WHAT
  49. @Thorfinnsson

    …and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east – particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.
     

    Logistics are the largest reason. Prior to Operation Sonnenblume, the Germans determined the largest force that could be fielded in North Africa and supplied from Italy was just four divisions (compare to the Eastern Front).

    That is not the sole reason of course, as even this Hitler refused to send. The Italians after the war accused Hitler of having a purely "continental" strategic view. Erich Raeder, commander of the Kriegsmarine, suggested taking Gibraltar (with or without Franco's consent) and expanding into the Mediterranean.

    The German airborne invasion of Crete, while a success, perhaps in a way doomed the small Afrika Korps that Hitler did authorize. Owing to the huge losses at Crete, the Germans chose to cancel the planned invasion of Malta (Operation Hercules). Malta in turn aided the British in interdicting Italian supply convoys to Africa.

    German and Italian troops in Africa always suffered extreme shortages and relied heavily on captured equipment (by the time of 1st El Alamein over 80% of Rommel's truck park was captured British vehicles). The situation was so bad that Axis troops in Africa even suffered from nutritional deficiencies and were jaundiced.

    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact – surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?
     

    Sort of. He simply declared neutrality and refused to expel German railwaymen and other technical specialists. Iran also reduced its trade with Germany at the request of the British.

    His actions were considered insufficient, and given the importance of Iran to Britain and the USSR the hapless country was invaded and occupied.

    In any case owing to the Royal Navy there was no way to ship Iranian oil to Germany. In theory Iranian oil could've been shipped overland through Turkey, but the British could've seized Iran (or just the oilfields) long before any such infrastructure could be built.

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain – that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire’s biggest source of oil.
     

    The Kriegsmarine did not even have the ability to enter the Mediterranean Sea because the British controlled Gibraltar and Suez. They were able to infiltrate some U-boats.

    The Regia Marina was a fairly large force, but it did not have the same high standards as the British. It also suffered from chronic shortages of fuel and thus often was not able to sortie.

    There was no oil in North Africa then (it had not yet been discovered), and since Italy's entry into the war convoys from the east had already been routed around the Cape of Good Hope rather than through the Mediterranean.

    An Axis victory in the Western Desert Campaign was in my view possible, but then what? Britain would be excluded from the Mediterranean...but still undefeated. Presumably Axis forces could've gone onto Iran, which was Britain's major source of oil (British Petroleum was originally known as Anglo-Persian), but Britain could also import oil from the rest of the world.

    Let’s not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war – very successful in this instance…but one in which if the Nazi’s had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that “North Africa – Italy – then France” method creates a series of “fail-safes” in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war
     

    The British did draw up plans to invade Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe in 1945 in order to liberate Poland, but the plan was not carried out for reasons of sanity. The planners clearly had a sense of humor as the plan was named Operation Unthinkable.

    As a seapower on the edge of Europe with limited amounts of manpower Britain traditionally exerted itself on the continent through its navy and commercial power. It did field a respectable army, but it was never large and always fought in coalition. After the 100 Years War the only time Britain ever fielded a massive army in Europe for many years in a row was in WW1.

    British strategy against Germany was fixed in 1936 to focus on strategic bombing. It was in 1936 that the Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36 for a "worldwide bomber". This ultimately led to the Avro Lancaster, superior to the American B-17 and B-24. In order to mollify the French, the Chamberlain government also agreed to send a small expeditionary force (the BEF) to the Continent again as in 1914.

    The Anglo-French plan was to stay on the defensive while strangling Germany with economic warfare. They would then use their superior resources (Britain and France had a GDP 60% larger than Germany and Italy) to eventually overwhelm Germany. This was in effect what had worked in WW1, and the defensive mindset was common to a generation of leaders who had cut their teeth fighting the exceptionally skilled German army and had no desire to repeat the horrors of the Somme and Verdun.

    Yes, obviously this meant that they never intended to lift a finger for Poland. Too bad for the idiot Poles for being duped by the West.

    Unfortunately for their clever plan, the French were unexpectedly completely defeated. In fact, while the Entente expected Poland's defeat, they also thought Poland would hold out for three months rather than three weeks.

    The British were still focused on their strategic bombing plan (which ultimately developed into a terrifying weapon), but were forced to improvise. As German_reader pointed out, obviously the British alone invading Europe (right after losing all their army's heavy equipment) to face the entire German army was suicidal.

    In fact the British never wanted to invade Europe again at all after the Fall of France except in peripheral actions meant to advance postwar British strategic interests. They had to be dragooned into invading Europe by America, which was more eager to fight and had superior resources.

    In fairness to the British their strategic bombing plan was sound as demonstrated by the Battle of the Ruhr.

    Note: it seems there was some oil production in Egypt. Here are global oil production figures from 1940:

    USA 182.657 Mt
    USSR 29.700 Mt
    Venezuela 27.443 Mt
    Iran 10.426 Mt
    Indonesia 7.939 Mt
    Mexico 6.721 Mt
    Romania 5.764 Mt
    Columbia 3.636 Mt
    Iraq 3.438 Mt
    Argentina 2.871 Mt
    Trinidad 2.844 Mt
    Peru 1.776 Mt
    Burma 1.088 Mt
    Canada 1.082 Mt
    Egypt 0.929 Mt

    Source: https://wayback.archive-it.org/6321/20160901222852/http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0280ah.pdf

    Oil production of Roumania, Iraq, and Iran is about two-thirds the Soviet level. It certainly does suggest an alternative strategy.

    Possible problems with this strategy from Hitler’s POV in the fall of 1940:

    • Requires extensive cooperation with other countries (Italy, Spain, Turkey, etc.)
    • German arms “wasted” for the benefit of other countries
    • Little grain and no coal to be had in North Africa and the Near East
    • Transportation difficulties
    • Continued dependence on the USSR

  50. @Hyperborean
    The result of being the puppet of a foreign master:

    The new law states that any person who enters the country legally — and resides in it for a year legally — can get the Iraqi passport.

    [...]

    Raja’s Yousef explained the fear from the new law saying: “In the nearest religious visit, if 2 million Iranian came into Iraq, and a million do not return back to Iran, after one year they will be give the Iraqi passport and a social welfare of 500,000 dinars i.e. $400 and they will send to their families back home. This is all is taken from the Iraqi orphans money.”

    [...]

    Another Iraqi wrote: “The new nationalisation law aims to change the demographics in Iraq, end the presence of the Iraqi people as a genuine people and replace it with races and ethnicities from Iran, Afghanistan, India and others.”

    [...]

    “Kurds are part of this society; they were victims of the sectarian and racist practices of the old regime. At the time of Saddam, they were subjected to the most heinous genocides and forced displacements, as hundreds of thousands of them were dumped in the open, on the Iranian border, and all their possessions were confiscated,” Abu Hussein added “Justice must be done and their rights returned to them”

     

    https://www.amren.com/news/2019/03/new-iraqi-citizenship-law-stirs-controversy/

    A lot of the “real” Arabs seem to have somewhat tenuous demographics. Not exactly collapsing TFR, but just copious amounts of foreign workers, many of them subcon or Indonesian Muslims who can claim being brothers in Islam. Then there are all the “natives” with heavy African ancestry from Zanj days, (in Iraq, 500,000) as well as those recently arrived Africans who are desperate even to cross into Yemen.

    Their political system is mainly constructed from big men writing checks. Perhaps, tribal politics makes it unlikely that they will write those big checks to Africans and Pakis. They don’t seem to suffer from one-worldism, as the foreign laborers are generally treated like helots and often sex-segregated.

    BTW, Trump is calling for the Golan Heights to be recognized as part of Israel. No wonder he is on Israeli campaign posters! Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Trump is calling for the Golan Heights

     

    Unless later Democrat presidents will reverse it, Trump is giving - or trying to give - all the most serious possible victories to Israel.

    Probably in order of significance.
    1. Trying to recognize Israel's annexation of Golan Heights, which is rebelling against all previous US governments, and all international consensus. (Golan Heights is perhaps more militarily significant for Israel, than Crimea for Russia).
    2. Leaving Iran nuclear deal (this results in economic sanctions which limit Iran's expansion).
    3. Moving embassy to Jerusalem.

    -

    However, Israel becomes now a partisan topic in American politics, and is associated with Trump.

    This will contribute to future instability in US attitude to Israel, as Republican become more pro-Israel, and Democrats more anti-Israel, every year. Over a century, amount of time America has Republican presidents and Democrat presidents will be approximately equal - so as a partisan topic, Israel will only be supported so strongly, half of the time.

    Nonetheless, a country like Ukraine would be very happy if it would become even noticed enough to be a slightly partisan topic in American politics.


    Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?
     
    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan - he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.
    , @Hyperborean

    Their political system is mainly constructed from big men writing checks. Perhaps, tribal politics makes it unlikely that they will write those big checks to Africans and Pakis. They don’t seem to suffer from one-worldism, as the foreign laborers are generally treated like helots and often sex-segregated.
     
    The many of smaller Gulf states are like 70-90% non-core population, granted some of that will be expats, who while not exactly favourable to the native Arabs won't be hostile.

    I don't think anything serious will happen as long as the KSA has the power to intervene, but if Saudi Arabia gets embroiled in domestic troubles, things might get interesting.

    Even if a gastarbeiter revolt is crushed, given that the Gulf Arabs haven't worked for generations, the small countries would face a lot of economic instability.

    An amusing anecdote about Arab hypocrisy (beyond the anal sex that is): One of my elder brothers, who works for a large corporation, was stationed in Qatar and he told me that in order to access deviant beverages forbidden to natives some Arab men would discard their Bedouin dress and put on suits and then walk into establishments that are allowed to serve alcohol to foreigners.
  51. @songbird
    A lot of the "real" Arabs seem to have somewhat tenuous demographics. Not exactly collapsing TFR, but just copious amounts of foreign workers, many of them subcon or Indonesian Muslims who can claim being brothers in Islam. Then there are all the "natives" with heavy African ancestry from Zanj days, (in Iraq, 500,000) as well as those recently arrived Africans who are desperate even to cross into Yemen.

    Their political system is mainly constructed from big men writing checks. Perhaps, tribal politics makes it unlikely that they will write those big checks to Africans and Pakis. They don't seem to suffer from one-worldism, as the foreign laborers are generally treated like helots and often sex-segregated.

    BTW, Trump is calling for the Golan Heights to be recognized as part of Israel. No wonder he is on Israeli campaign posters! Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?

    Trump is calling for the Golan Heights

    Unless later Democrat presidents will reverse it, Trump is giving – or trying to give – all the most serious possible victories to Israel.

    Probably in order of significance.
    1. Trying to recognize Israel’s annexation of Golan Heights, which is rebelling against all previous US governments, and all international consensus. (Golan Heights is perhaps more militarily significant for Israel, than Crimea for Russia).
    2. Leaving Iran nuclear deal (this results in economic sanctions which limit Iran’s expansion).
    3. Moving embassy to Jerusalem.

    However, Israel becomes now a partisan topic in American politics, and is associated with Trump.

    This will contribute to future instability in US attitude to Israel, as Republican become more pro-Israel, and Democrats more anti-Israel, every year. Over a century, amount of time America has Republican presidents and Democrat presidents will be approximately equal – so as a partisan topic, Israel will only be supported so strongly, half of the time.

    Nonetheless, a country like Ukraine would be very happy if it would become even noticed enough to be a slightly partisan topic in American politics.

    Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?

    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan – he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan – he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

     

    Apparently, it was two times:

    In 1998:
    http://www.danielpipes.org/311/the-road-to-damascus-what-netanyahu-almost-gave-away

    And in 2010:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-prepared-to-hand-back-golan-heights-to-syria-in-return-for-peace-say-reports-8209612.html

    It would have destroyed his popularity - Israel has its only ski resort there.

    , @Anonymous
    I think Trump is playing brilliant politics here, and I am no fanboy of his. Democrats are becoming more critical of Israel, but it is still a wedge issue for them, at this time probably the most salient and divisive one. Probably the majority of Democratic voters have a generally neutral-to-negative view of Israel, and now the more strident anti-Zionists (typically younger voters and non-whites) have a voice in Congress with Reps. Omar and Tlaib. But the Dem establishment (embodied in Pelosi and Schumer) is still strongly pro-Israel, and Jewish donors are still a major (really, the major) source of fundraising for establishment Dems.

    This is combustible on many levels: to criticize Omar and Tlaib as a Dem is to open oneself up to allegations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, which can be lethal to one's career. To support or even tolerate them is to risk alienating Jewish money. All this occurs against the backdrop of Israel taking an increasingly hard line on the settlements and the question of identity, especially if Bibi is re-elected. And Omar and Tlaib, far from being fringe back-benchers, are hip and popular; along with AOC, they have possession of the souls of the young and non-white voters that the Dems are utterly dependent on.

    The Democrats are totally schizophrenic on this issue, and Trump knows it. So he will continually try to up the ante, to push any kind of pro-Israel legislation he can think of, to goad Omar and Tlaib into making more brash statements and to goad the Dems into voting against Israel. He hopes that there will be more intra-party struggle sessions and that they waste time drafting resolutions against each other. And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.

    , @for-the-record
    Over a century, amount of time America has Republican presidents and Democrat presidents will be approximately equal

    Not over the next century, I would hazard to predict. But I think your basic point is valid, as its demographic base changes the Democratic Party will be less pro-Israel in the future.
  52. @Dmitry

    Trump is calling for the Golan Heights

     

    Unless later Democrat presidents will reverse it, Trump is giving - or trying to give - all the most serious possible victories to Israel.

    Probably in order of significance.
    1. Trying to recognize Israel's annexation of Golan Heights, which is rebelling against all previous US governments, and all international consensus. (Golan Heights is perhaps more militarily significant for Israel, than Crimea for Russia).
    2. Leaving Iran nuclear deal (this results in economic sanctions which limit Iran's expansion).
    3. Moving embassy to Jerusalem.

    -

    However, Israel becomes now a partisan topic in American politics, and is associated with Trump.

    This will contribute to future instability in US attitude to Israel, as Republican become more pro-Israel, and Democrats more anti-Israel, every year. Over a century, amount of time America has Republican presidents and Democrat presidents will be approximately equal - so as a partisan topic, Israel will only be supported so strongly, half of the time.

    Nonetheless, a country like Ukraine would be very happy if it would become even noticed enough to be a slightly partisan topic in American politics.


    Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?
     
    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan - he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan – he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

    Apparently, it was two times:

    In 1998:
    http://www.danielpipes.org/311/the-road-to-damascus-what-netanyahu-almost-gave-away

    And in 2010:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-prepared-to-hand-back-golan-heights-to-syria-in-return-for-peace-say-reports-8209612.html

    It would have destroyed his popularity – Israel has its only ski resort there.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Yeah, most people get very tense when they have to ski abroad. I mean, look at the Saudis and Qataris - they have to make artificial snow! And the shithole countries, without any kind of snow, real or artificial, are SO SAD!

    And the lack of ski resorts is even more painful if you are talking about Jews, some of the most sporty characters this planet has spawned.

    Just like the Saudi entity has spread over the last 150 years from nothing, the Jewish entity is spreading its creep in its proximity. Luckily, they are both in a place cursed by nature and inhabited by morons, so almost no one care about the precise border, and the few who don't like it, can't do much. If they would visit us only for ski and snow, the rest of the world would be a better place.
    , @DFH

    Israel has its only ski resort there
     
    It's like another Shoah!
    , @JL

    Israel has its only ski resort there.
     
    Starting this year, there is now a direct flight between Tel Aviv and Sochi. The ski resorts there have been inundated with Israelis, to the extent that Hebrew will be, by far, the language you are most likely to hear after Russian. Sochi is, apparently, a superior substitute to the Alps; closer, cheaper, and Israelis don't need a visa to visit Russia.
  53. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry

    Trump is calling for the Golan Heights

     

    Unless later Democrat presidents will reverse it, Trump is giving - or trying to give - all the most serious possible victories to Israel.

    Probably in order of significance.
    1. Trying to recognize Israel's annexation of Golan Heights, which is rebelling against all previous US governments, and all international consensus. (Golan Heights is perhaps more militarily significant for Israel, than Crimea for Russia).
    2. Leaving Iran nuclear deal (this results in economic sanctions which limit Iran's expansion).
    3. Moving embassy to Jerusalem.

    -

    However, Israel becomes now a partisan topic in American politics, and is associated with Trump.

    This will contribute to future instability in US attitude to Israel, as Republican become more pro-Israel, and Democrats more anti-Israel, every year. Over a century, amount of time America has Republican presidents and Democrat presidents will be approximately equal - so as a partisan topic, Israel will only be supported so strongly, half of the time.

    Nonetheless, a country like Ukraine would be very happy if it would become even noticed enough to be a slightly partisan topic in American politics.


    Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?
     
    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan - he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

    I think Trump is playing brilliant politics here, and I am no fanboy of his. Democrats are becoming more critical of Israel, but it is still a wedge issue for them, at this time probably the most salient and divisive one. Probably the majority of Democratic voters have a generally neutral-to-negative view of Israel, and now the more strident anti-Zionists (typically younger voters and non-whites) have a voice in Congress with Reps. Omar and Tlaib. But the Dem establishment (embodied in Pelosi and Schumer) is still strongly pro-Israel, and Jewish donors are still a major (really, the major) source of fundraising for establishment Dems.

    This is combustible on many levels: to criticize Omar and Tlaib as a Dem is to open oneself up to allegations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, which can be lethal to one’s career. To support or even tolerate them is to risk alienating Jewish money. All this occurs against the backdrop of Israel taking an increasingly hard line on the settlements and the question of identity, especially if Bibi is re-elected. And Omar and Tlaib, far from being fringe back-benchers, are hip and popular; along with AOC, they have possession of the souls of the young and non-white voters that the Dems are utterly dependent on.

    The Democrats are totally schizophrenic on this issue, and Trump knows it. So he will continually try to up the ante, to push any kind of pro-Israel legislation he can think of, to goad Omar and Tlaib into making more brash statements and to goad the Dems into voting against Israel. He hopes that there will be more intra-party struggle sessions and that they waste time drafting resolutions against each other. And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Jewish crypsis means that they always have to adapt ideologies which are not explicitly pro-Jewish, only implicitly so. But the ideologies have lives of their own, and they could always easily turn out ultimately anti-Jewish. For example Bolshevism turned out to be less good for the Jews than originally imagined. Similarly with multiculturalism, it will likely be negative for the Jews, longer term.

    But they never seem to be smart enough. They are not very good at universalistic thinking, and so they don’t really understand the direction of these ideologies even as they already start turning on them. See the numerous Jews supporting Bolshevism still in the early 1950s, long after it ceased being good for the Jews.

    Some Jews might already see it, but they still usually cling to some parts of the old and already useless (in fact, outright dangerous) ideology.
    , @reiner Tor
    Orbán also seems to consider this strategy: trying to get the Israeli Jews on his side. It might work, though as the Israeli tirade against Poland shows, it’s not an easy thing to pull off.
    , @neutral
    He is also supporting and endless stream of non whites entering America (whether they are legal or illegal the end result is the same), which means Democrats win. He lied to his base, he is a fraud and also a moron politically. He cared more about what happens to faraway Israel instead of whites being persecuted in the land he is officially supposed to represent.
    , @Hyperborean

    And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.
     
    Trump's actions are consistent with decades of support for Israel.
    , @Dmitry
    I agree Trump is very clever in marketing (I was sure he was going to be President already when I first saw him talking about it in 2012 in YouTube).

    However, he is not cynical. He believes his policies, like tariffs, Israel and border walls.

    Some of these are consistent for all his life. You can see him discussing trade protectionism in the 1980s on television.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI

    With Israel, the reason everyone knew he was going to be the most pro-Israel American president (before he became president), was because he was personally funding Israeli settlements since 1981.

    His name is in townsquares in two settlements in Israel as a largest donor to their establishment

    https://i.imgur.com/VDEY0Sy.jpg?1

    He wins awards like:


    https://i.imgur.com/4wy3w8n.jpg

    He led "Salute to Israel" parade in 2004 (lol how does this exist?)


    https://i.imgur.com/yGgLMVB.jpg

    In 2006, he spent $44 million to buy land in Israel


    Donald Trump completes $44m purchase of Elite site
     
    https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-1000105798


    Just searching now for this topic, and saw he bought 4 ambulance cycles for Israel in 2014 (there's probably a lot more things like this):


    Beer will be meeting with Trump at his office tomorrow to get the check that will pay for the four new ambucycles.
    Beer commended Trump for his donation, adding “he is a true lover of Israel.”
     
    https://www.vosizneias.com/154841/2014/02/10/new-york-trump-to-donate-rescue-bikes-to-israels-united-hatzalah/
  54. @German_reader

    1940 that the USA intended to construct 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain.
     
    Aircraft are pointless though without aircrew to operate them.
    I haven't personally read Tooze's book (and don't intend to in the near future), so I can't comment in any more detail. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

    What evidence do you have FDR wasn’t completely committed to fighting?

  55. @Anonymous
    I think Trump is playing brilliant politics here, and I am no fanboy of his. Democrats are becoming more critical of Israel, but it is still a wedge issue for them, at this time probably the most salient and divisive one. Probably the majority of Democratic voters have a generally neutral-to-negative view of Israel, and now the more strident anti-Zionists (typically younger voters and non-whites) have a voice in Congress with Reps. Omar and Tlaib. But the Dem establishment (embodied in Pelosi and Schumer) is still strongly pro-Israel, and Jewish donors are still a major (really, the major) source of fundraising for establishment Dems.

    This is combustible on many levels: to criticize Omar and Tlaib as a Dem is to open oneself up to allegations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, which can be lethal to one's career. To support or even tolerate them is to risk alienating Jewish money. All this occurs against the backdrop of Israel taking an increasingly hard line on the settlements and the question of identity, especially if Bibi is re-elected. And Omar and Tlaib, far from being fringe back-benchers, are hip and popular; along with AOC, they have possession of the souls of the young and non-white voters that the Dems are utterly dependent on.

    The Democrats are totally schizophrenic on this issue, and Trump knows it. So he will continually try to up the ante, to push any kind of pro-Israel legislation he can think of, to goad Omar and Tlaib into making more brash statements and to goad the Dems into voting against Israel. He hopes that there will be more intra-party struggle sessions and that they waste time drafting resolutions against each other. And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.

    Jewish crypsis means that they always have to adapt ideologies which are not explicitly pro-Jewish, only implicitly so. But the ideologies have lives of their own, and they could always easily turn out ultimately anti-Jewish. For example Bolshevism turned out to be less good for the Jews than originally imagined. Similarly with multiculturalism, it will likely be negative for the Jews, longer term.

    But they never seem to be smart enough. They are not very good at universalistic thinking, and so they don’t really understand the direction of these ideologies even as they already start turning on them. See the numerous Jews supporting Bolshevism still in the early 1950s, long after it ceased being good for the Jews.

    Some Jews might already see it, but they still usually cling to some parts of the old and already useless (in fact, outright dangerous) ideology.

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    See the numerous Jews supporting Bolshevism still in the early 1950s, long after it ceased being good for the Jews.

     

    It's an autistic theory of mind.

    What you believe is influenced by emotions and this has a racial component particularly when minorities want stronger position in society. Ideologies which favor the latter,may have a more rosy emotional coloration (i.e. seem more attractive).

    But people cannot actually believe or not believe in truth of something, on basis of "racial interest and longterm conspiracies". They believe it because they believe it is the true description of reality.

    Marxism was more religion than political theory, and like Christianity a Jewish-originated religion - (it's structure almost the same as Christianity), whose liberation was universalist. And people who believed it, believed because they thought it was universally true and factual description of reality.

    It was designed for educated people of the era, designed to be easy to believe (supernatural explanations are hidden by Hegelian concepts like "dialectic"), and for Jews it gave opportunity to "completely assimilate" (covert to a kind living Christianity, rather than the formal one which no longer had influence in the world).

    Attraction of Marxism for Jews, precisely is to escape both their external and internal position as Jews, and dissolve into a universal faith and utopia.

    Minus utopia, of course, this is what will have occurred with much of (or most?) Jews believers of Marxism. Their grandchildren today, will usually be 3/4 Slavic, and their great-grandchildren, 7/8 Slavic.

    The "racial interest" to convert to Marxism was to dissolve an unpleasant and dangerous position as Jews, to become important citizens, and this is what happened for a large proportion of them.


    Similarly with multiculturalism, it will likely be negative for the Jews,

     

    Multiculturalism is intrinsically attractive for a large proportion of any population.

    Putin is not Jewish, but he loves multiculturalism almost as his main religion. Merkel is not Jewish, and loves it. Obama not Jewish and loves it.

    It was one of the ideologies which has included both sides of the Cold War. If you think this is only attractive to Jews, and not something intrinsically and universally attractive to a significant proportion of people, then you will soon be confused (unless you extend the conspiracy to include all these people like Putin and Merkel being controlled by Jews).

    Multiculturalism is definitely a "utopian" ideology though, and will soon collapse against reality in most countries.

  56. @Anonymous
    I think Trump is playing brilliant politics here, and I am no fanboy of his. Democrats are becoming more critical of Israel, but it is still a wedge issue for them, at this time probably the most salient and divisive one. Probably the majority of Democratic voters have a generally neutral-to-negative view of Israel, and now the more strident anti-Zionists (typically younger voters and non-whites) have a voice in Congress with Reps. Omar and Tlaib. But the Dem establishment (embodied in Pelosi and Schumer) is still strongly pro-Israel, and Jewish donors are still a major (really, the major) source of fundraising for establishment Dems.

    This is combustible on many levels: to criticize Omar and Tlaib as a Dem is to open oneself up to allegations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, which can be lethal to one's career. To support or even tolerate them is to risk alienating Jewish money. All this occurs against the backdrop of Israel taking an increasingly hard line on the settlements and the question of identity, especially if Bibi is re-elected. And Omar and Tlaib, far from being fringe back-benchers, are hip and popular; along with AOC, they have possession of the souls of the young and non-white voters that the Dems are utterly dependent on.

    The Democrats are totally schizophrenic on this issue, and Trump knows it. So he will continually try to up the ante, to push any kind of pro-Israel legislation he can think of, to goad Omar and Tlaib into making more brash statements and to goad the Dems into voting against Israel. He hopes that there will be more intra-party struggle sessions and that they waste time drafting resolutions against each other. And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.

    Orbán also seems to consider this strategy: trying to get the Israeli Jews on his side. It might work, though as the Israeli tirade against Poland shows, it’s not an easy thing to pull off.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Orbán also seems to consider this strategy: trying to get the Israeli Jews on his side

    On the other hand (hope you have deep pockets):

    DC court says Holocaust survivors can sue Hungary in the US for huge reparations

    The second-highest court in the United States has reinstated a lawsuit brought by a group of Holocaust survivors and their families against the government of Hungary and its national railroad. The class action suit demands restitution for the role Hungary played in the murder of 500,000 Jews and the seizure of their property during World War II.

    Setting the stage for what could be a landmark civil suit running into the tens of billions of dollars, Judge Patricia A. Millett wrote for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 28 that Hungary could not force the plaintiffs to have the case tried in a Hungarian court.

    The decision overturned that of a federal judge who ruled that the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty between Hungary and the Allied powers granted Hungary immunity. . .

    Over the past 20 years, the Hungarian government has made a pretense of allowing Hungarian Holocaust victims to file claims for their losses, said Zell, but he called the payouts “tantamount to a joke.”

    . . . Zell said that the case against the Hungarian government and the national railway, Magyar Allamvasutak, could see a significant financial claim filed on behalf of Jewish Holocaust survivors.

    “We didn’t put a number in this case, but if it goes forward we’ll be asking for tens of billions of dollars of compensation, which is the amount that would be owed based on the value of the property that was taken at the time of the deportations to the camps,” said Zell. . .

    If the case makes it all the way to a final judgment, the plaintiffs would likely seek satisfaction from Hungarian assets in the US or elsewhere, said Zell.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/dc-court-says-holocaust-survivors-can-sue-hungary-in-the-us-for-huge-reparations/
     
    , @Anonymous
    Bari Weiss (American Jewish centre-right columnist and staunch Zionist) did a fawning piece on Israel's Blue and White coalition for the NYT, and one of the main reasons she cited for admiring them is that, unlike Bibi, they won't be friendly with Orban and Bolsonaro.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/netanyahu-israel-yair-lapid.html

    This is unironically the level many American Jews work on with regards to Israel: please reconquer all of Judea and Samaria, but don't you dare be friendly with some guy who said mean stuff about gays! Palestinian blood is unimportant compared to having a designated prayer space for women at the Western Wall.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/opinion/religion/israel-women-western-wall.html
  57. @Hyperborean
    Regarding the visual arts in Russia:

    I don't really like the modern and geometric style, but at least this one is easily comprehensible.

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/t/5c8cf5158165f56352703666/1552741665862/0*Qot-zRE87HYG_jvb..jpeg?format=2500w

    But what are these supposed to represent? I honestly have no clue. If there is no purpose then what is the point?

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f69fa0d605b84e24c4b/5c8d3f6f53450a39cc0bae69/1552760688368/0*-z_3rMXKD-LVFtrx..jpeg?format=2500w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f69fa0d605b84e24c4b/5c8d3f697817f775cf383ed3/1552760682466/0*obsS79k7ggX_yXog..jpeg?format=2500w

    I think the author, a woman, is trying to make some sort of feminist statement by contrasting these pictures, but honestly, seeing the grim, stern proletarian faces next to joyous, relaxed bourgeois women, it has the opposite effect on me.

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f3c4785d35a3b3acfc4/5c8d3f3deb393146785c6d67/1552760638017/0*C2QQJW_IVrvFxog8..jpeg?format=1000w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f3c4785d35a3b3acfc4/5c8d3f3ce5e5f05150047191/1552760637488/0*725fYT8ahLnBZupb..jpeg?format=1000w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f15ee6eb07b49ce6193/5c8d3f15f4e1fca5435edbd2/1552760598755/0*_qTEJFrU-nnbA1nz..jpeg?format=1000w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f15ee6eb07b49ce6193/5c8d3f15ec212d73477feedc/1552760598434/0*-vqZ7t113EGCx_VL..jpeg?format=2500w

    Well, the first one is a sensible tactical advice on wedge formations, I kid you not.

  58. German manufacturing PMI comes in at just 44.7. The global economic slowdown continues, China and the Eurozone bearing the brunt.

    I forecast a no deal Brexit shortly further hitting the Eurozone.

  59. @Thorfinnsson

    …and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east – particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.
     

    Logistics are the largest reason. Prior to Operation Sonnenblume, the Germans determined the largest force that could be fielded in North Africa and supplied from Italy was just four divisions (compare to the Eastern Front).

    That is not the sole reason of course, as even this Hitler refused to send. The Italians after the war accused Hitler of having a purely "continental" strategic view. Erich Raeder, commander of the Kriegsmarine, suggested taking Gibraltar (with or without Franco's consent) and expanding into the Mediterranean.

    The German airborne invasion of Crete, while a success, perhaps in a way doomed the small Afrika Korps that Hitler did authorize. Owing to the huge losses at Crete, the Germans chose to cancel the planned invasion of Malta (Operation Hercules). Malta in turn aided the British in interdicting Italian supply convoys to Africa.

    German and Italian troops in Africa always suffered extreme shortages and relied heavily on captured equipment (by the time of 1st El Alamein over 80% of Rommel's truck park was captured British vehicles). The situation was so bad that Axis troops in Africa even suffered from nutritional deficiencies and were jaundiced.

    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact – surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?
     

    Sort of. He simply declared neutrality and refused to expel German railwaymen and other technical specialists. Iran also reduced its trade with Germany at the request of the British.

    His actions were considered insufficient, and given the importance of Iran to Britain and the USSR the hapless country was invaded and occupied.

    In any case owing to the Royal Navy there was no way to ship Iranian oil to Germany. In theory Iranian oil could've been shipped overland through Turkey, but the British could've seized Iran (or just the oilfields) long before any such infrastructure could be built.

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain – that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire’s biggest source of oil.
     

    The Kriegsmarine did not even have the ability to enter the Mediterranean Sea because the British controlled Gibraltar and Suez. They were able to infiltrate some U-boats.

    The Regia Marina was a fairly large force, but it did not have the same high standards as the British. It also suffered from chronic shortages of fuel and thus often was not able to sortie.

    There was no oil in North Africa then (it had not yet been discovered), and since Italy's entry into the war convoys from the east had already been routed around the Cape of Good Hope rather than through the Mediterranean.

    An Axis victory in the Western Desert Campaign was in my view possible, but then what? Britain would be excluded from the Mediterranean...but still undefeated. Presumably Axis forces could've gone onto Iran, which was Britain's major source of oil (British Petroleum was originally known as Anglo-Persian), but Britain could also import oil from the rest of the world.

    Let’s not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war – very successful in this instance…but one in which if the Nazi’s had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that “North Africa – Italy – then France” method creates a series of “fail-safes” in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war
     

    The British did draw up plans to invade Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe in 1945 in order to liberate Poland, but the plan was not carried out for reasons of sanity. The planners clearly had a sense of humor as the plan was named Operation Unthinkable.

    As a seapower on the edge of Europe with limited amounts of manpower Britain traditionally exerted itself on the continent through its navy and commercial power. It did field a respectable army, but it was never large and always fought in coalition. After the 100 Years War the only time Britain ever fielded a massive army in Europe for many years in a row was in WW1.

    British strategy against Germany was fixed in 1936 to focus on strategic bombing. It was in 1936 that the Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36 for a "worldwide bomber". This ultimately led to the Avro Lancaster, superior to the American B-17 and B-24. In order to mollify the French, the Chamberlain government also agreed to send a small expeditionary force (the BEF) to the Continent again as in 1914.

    The Anglo-French plan was to stay on the defensive while strangling Germany with economic warfare. They would then use their superior resources (Britain and France had a GDP 60% larger than Germany and Italy) to eventually overwhelm Germany. This was in effect what had worked in WW1, and the defensive mindset was common to a generation of leaders who had cut their teeth fighting the exceptionally skilled German army and had no desire to repeat the horrors of the Somme and Verdun.

    Yes, obviously this meant that they never intended to lift a finger for Poland. Too bad for the idiot Poles for being duped by the West.

    Unfortunately for their clever plan, the French were unexpectedly completely defeated. In fact, while the Entente expected Poland's defeat, they also thought Poland would hold out for three months rather than three weeks.

    The British were still focused on their strategic bombing plan (which ultimately developed into a terrifying weapon), but were forced to improvise. As German_reader pointed out, obviously the British alone invading Europe (right after losing all their army's heavy equipment) to face the entire German army was suicidal.

    In fact the British never wanted to invade Europe again at all after the Fall of France except in peripheral actions meant to advance postwar British strategic interests. They had to be dragooned into invading Europe by America, which was more eager to fight and had superior resources.

    In fairness to the British their strategic bombing plan was sound as demonstrated by the Battle of the Ruhr.

    An invasion of France in ’43 would have been disastrous. We had the benefit of experience from Dieppe to know how risky it was. Had the Panzers deployed sooner the actual invasion in ’44 might have similarly ended in disaster.

  60. @Gerard2
    ...and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east - particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.
    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact - surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain - that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire's biggest source of oil.



    Let's not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war - very successful in this instance...but one in which if the Nazi's had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that "North Africa - Italy - then France" method creates a series of "fail-safes" in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war

    Thanks for that…. very interesting.Basic and lazy errors about oil from myself there – my apologies!

  61. @Mikhail
    The latest from a once time multiple guest on RT: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/21/on-ilhan-omar-assad-fetishism-and-the-danger-of-red-brown-anti-imperialism/

    Harassment? https://www.rt.com/sport/454388-zagitova-doping-control-world-championship/

    Hate mongering journalism: https://www.rferl.org/a/cold-war-on-ice-how-czechoslovakia-hockey-team-beat-soviets/29832512.html

    Highly suspect that the featured Boris Mikhailov wasn't asked about the claim made (by one of his Czech opponents in the above linked video) that he played dirty. No note on the many modern day Czechs and Slovaks who've played in Russia, inclusive of the best Czech player ever - the not so distantly retired Jaromir Jagr, who doesn't stereotype Russia/Russians, while opposing the 1968 Soviet led intervention of his country. The late Ivan Hlinka, who coached the Olympic gold medal winning men's Czech ice hockey team in 1998, went on to coach in Russia.

    RFE/RL is a Russophobic cesspool paid by the US government.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Noticeably anti-Serb as well.

    Shifting gears, for you auto buffs:

    https://www.twelfthroundauto.com/best-motor-oil/

    https://www.youtube.com/user/scottykilmer

    Scotty is hilarious.
  62. @Anonymous
    I think Trump is playing brilliant politics here, and I am no fanboy of his. Democrats are becoming more critical of Israel, but it is still a wedge issue for them, at this time probably the most salient and divisive one. Probably the majority of Democratic voters have a generally neutral-to-negative view of Israel, and now the more strident anti-Zionists (typically younger voters and non-whites) have a voice in Congress with Reps. Omar and Tlaib. But the Dem establishment (embodied in Pelosi and Schumer) is still strongly pro-Israel, and Jewish donors are still a major (really, the major) source of fundraising for establishment Dems.

    This is combustible on many levels: to criticize Omar and Tlaib as a Dem is to open oneself up to allegations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, which can be lethal to one's career. To support or even tolerate them is to risk alienating Jewish money. All this occurs against the backdrop of Israel taking an increasingly hard line on the settlements and the question of identity, especially if Bibi is re-elected. And Omar and Tlaib, far from being fringe back-benchers, are hip and popular; along with AOC, they have possession of the souls of the young and non-white voters that the Dems are utterly dependent on.

    The Democrats are totally schizophrenic on this issue, and Trump knows it. So he will continually try to up the ante, to push any kind of pro-Israel legislation he can think of, to goad Omar and Tlaib into making more brash statements and to goad the Dems into voting against Israel. He hopes that there will be more intra-party struggle sessions and that they waste time drafting resolutions against each other. And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.

    He is also supporting and endless stream of non whites entering America (whether they are legal or illegal the end result is the same), which means Democrats win. He lied to his base, he is a fraud and also a moron politically. He cared more about what happens to faraway Israel instead of whites being persecuted in the land he is officially supposed to represent.

  63. @songbird
    A lot of the "real" Arabs seem to have somewhat tenuous demographics. Not exactly collapsing TFR, but just copious amounts of foreign workers, many of them subcon or Indonesian Muslims who can claim being brothers in Islam. Then there are all the "natives" with heavy African ancestry from Zanj days, (in Iraq, 500,000) as well as those recently arrived Africans who are desperate even to cross into Yemen.

    Their political system is mainly constructed from big men writing checks. Perhaps, tribal politics makes it unlikely that they will write those big checks to Africans and Pakis. They don't seem to suffer from one-worldism, as the foreign laborers are generally treated like helots and often sex-segregated.

    BTW, Trump is calling for the Golan Heights to be recognized as part of Israel. No wonder he is on Israeli campaign posters! Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?

    Their political system is mainly constructed from big men writing checks. Perhaps, tribal politics makes it unlikely that they will write those big checks to Africans and Pakis. They don’t seem to suffer from one-worldism, as the foreign laborers are generally treated like helots and often sex-segregated.

    The many of smaller Gulf states are like 70-90% non-core population, granted some of that will be expats, who while not exactly favourable to the native Arabs won’t be hostile.

    I don’t think anything serious will happen as long as the KSA has the power to intervene, but if Saudi Arabia gets embroiled in domestic troubles, things might get interesting.

    Even if a gastarbeiter revolt is crushed, given that the Gulf Arabs haven’t worked for generations, the small countries would face a lot of economic instability.

    An amusing anecdote about Arab hypocrisy (beyond the anal sex that is): One of my elder brothers, who works for a large corporation, was stationed in Qatar and he told me that in order to access deviant beverages forbidden to natives some Arab men would discard their Bedouin dress and put on suits and then walk into establishments that are allowed to serve alcohol to foreigners.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Obesity is the issue to look out for, the ones I see around Knightsbridge are enormous and gorge themselves on cakes whilst avoiding any form of exercise.
  64. @Hyperborean

    Their political system is mainly constructed from big men writing checks. Perhaps, tribal politics makes it unlikely that they will write those big checks to Africans and Pakis. They don’t seem to suffer from one-worldism, as the foreign laborers are generally treated like helots and often sex-segregated.
     
    The many of smaller Gulf states are like 70-90% non-core population, granted some of that will be expats, who while not exactly favourable to the native Arabs won't be hostile.

    I don't think anything serious will happen as long as the KSA has the power to intervene, but if Saudi Arabia gets embroiled in domestic troubles, things might get interesting.

    Even if a gastarbeiter revolt is crushed, given that the Gulf Arabs haven't worked for generations, the small countries would face a lot of economic instability.

    An amusing anecdote about Arab hypocrisy (beyond the anal sex that is): One of my elder brothers, who works for a large corporation, was stationed in Qatar and he told me that in order to access deviant beverages forbidden to natives some Arab men would discard their Bedouin dress and put on suits and then walk into establishments that are allowed to serve alcohol to foreigners.

    Obesity is the issue to look out for, the ones I see around Knightsbridge are enormous and gorge themselves on cakes whilst avoiding any form of exercise.

  65. @Anonymous
    I think Trump is playing brilliant politics here, and I am no fanboy of his. Democrats are becoming more critical of Israel, but it is still a wedge issue for them, at this time probably the most salient and divisive one. Probably the majority of Democratic voters have a generally neutral-to-negative view of Israel, and now the more strident anti-Zionists (typically younger voters and non-whites) have a voice in Congress with Reps. Omar and Tlaib. But the Dem establishment (embodied in Pelosi and Schumer) is still strongly pro-Israel, and Jewish donors are still a major (really, the major) source of fundraising for establishment Dems.

    This is combustible on many levels: to criticize Omar and Tlaib as a Dem is to open oneself up to allegations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, which can be lethal to one's career. To support or even tolerate them is to risk alienating Jewish money. All this occurs against the backdrop of Israel taking an increasingly hard line on the settlements and the question of identity, especially if Bibi is re-elected. And Omar and Tlaib, far from being fringe back-benchers, are hip and popular; along with AOC, they have possession of the souls of the young and non-white voters that the Dems are utterly dependent on.

    The Democrats are totally schizophrenic on this issue, and Trump knows it. So he will continually try to up the ante, to push any kind of pro-Israel legislation he can think of, to goad Omar and Tlaib into making more brash statements and to goad the Dems into voting against Israel. He hopes that there will be more intra-party struggle sessions and that they waste time drafting resolutions against each other. And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.

    And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.

    Trump’s actions are consistent with decades of support for Israel.

  66. @Dmitry

    Trump is calling for the Golan Heights

     

    Unless later Democrat presidents will reverse it, Trump is giving - or trying to give - all the most serious possible victories to Israel.

    Probably in order of significance.
    1. Trying to recognize Israel's annexation of Golan Heights, which is rebelling against all previous US governments, and all international consensus. (Golan Heights is perhaps more militarily significant for Israel, than Crimea for Russia).
    2. Leaving Iran nuclear deal (this results in economic sanctions which limit Iran's expansion).
    3. Moving embassy to Jerusalem.

    -

    However, Israel becomes now a partisan topic in American politics, and is associated with Trump.

    This will contribute to future instability in US attitude to Israel, as Republican become more pro-Israel, and Democrats more anti-Israel, every year. Over a century, amount of time America has Republican presidents and Democrat presidents will be approximately equal - so as a partisan topic, Israel will only be supported so strongly, half of the time.

    Nonetheless, a country like Ukraine would be very happy if it would become even noticed enough to be a slightly partisan topic in American politics.


    Is there any real difference between him and Bibi?
     
    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan - he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

    Over a century, amount of time America has Republican presidents and Democrat presidents will be approximately equal

    Not over the next century, I would hazard to predict. But I think your basic point is valid, as its demographic base changes the Democratic Party will be less pro-Israel in the future.

  67. @reiner Tor
    Orbán also seems to consider this strategy: trying to get the Israeli Jews on his side. It might work, though as the Israeli tirade against Poland shows, it’s not an easy thing to pull off.

    Orbán also seems to consider this strategy: trying to get the Israeli Jews on his side

    On the other hand (hope you have deep pockets):

    DC court says Holocaust survivors can sue Hungary in the US for huge reparations

    The second-highest court in the United States has reinstated a lawsuit brought by a group of Holocaust survivors and their families against the government of Hungary and its national railroad. The class action suit demands restitution for the role Hungary played in the murder of 500,000 Jews and the seizure of their property during World War II.

    Setting the stage for what could be a landmark civil suit running into the tens of billions of dollars, Judge Patricia A. Millett wrote for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 28 that Hungary could not force the plaintiffs to have the case tried in a Hungarian court.

    The decision overturned that of a federal judge who ruled that the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty between Hungary and the Allied powers granted Hungary immunity. . .

    Over the past 20 years, the Hungarian government has made a pretense of allowing Hungarian Holocaust victims to file claims for their losses, said Zell, but he called the payouts “tantamount to a joke.”

    . . . Zell said that the case against the Hungarian government and the national railway, Magyar Allamvasutak, could see a significant financial claim filed on behalf of Jewish Holocaust survivors.

    “We didn’t put a number in this case, but if it goes forward we’ll be asking for tens of billions of dollars of compensation, which is the amount that would be owed based on the value of the property that was taken at the time of the deportations to the camps,” said Zell. . .

    If the case makes it all the way to a final judgment, the plaintiffs would likely seek satisfaction from Hungarian assets in the US or elsewhere, said Zell.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/dc-court-says-holocaust-survivors-can-sue-hungary-in-the-us-for-huge-reparations/

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    This court case has been going on for at least five (or maybe ten?) years now. It has been thrown out of court at least once, though it's probably the furthest it has ever come.

    The case itself seems to be, on the face of it, quite ridiculous: they are suing the Hungarian State Railways for its role in the holocaust. I mean, it's not like the state railways company was in any position to make decisions or anything. Regarding the Hungarian government. It's not like Hungary (whose lawful prime minister had to hide in the Turkish embassy, and then was arrested by the Germans and sent to Mauthausen) was in any position to resist the Germans. Regarding the lost property: all Hungarian citizens lost all or most of their property between 1944 and 1961 (the final collectivization), and they didn't regain any of it. Regarding the amount demanded: sure, it's like present-day Hungarians (the oldest of whom were all very young in 1944) should pay a year of their GDP to a few hundred or thousand survivors, or the descendants of the survivors (who arguably didn't suffer anything - they were born after the thing happened...)

    If the goal was to increase anti-Semitism, then sure, dude.
  68. @AP
    Thorfinnson once posted the link to this good essay about that:

    https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS1300MET/v12/undervisningsmateriale/Fussel%20-%20thank%20god%20for%20the%20atom%20bomb.pdf

    It’s indeed an interesting essay that presents a good, balanced view of the complex motives that precipitated the dropping of two A-bombs over Japan. It frames the question of the morality of the decision, in the eyes of those opposed to it quite accurately:

    that those for whom he use of the A-bomb was “wrong” seem to be implying “that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs.”

    Also, throughout the piece the author emphasizes that it’s easier to make judgements after the fact , than to be on the ground fighting a ferocious war faced with pragmatic considerations.

    For me, the overriding factor is indeed that so many civilians were wasted. Soldiers are by design created to fight wars, civilians are not. This is one of the reasons, I suppose that you are so adamantly opposed to the wasting of Polish civilians in Volhynia by bloodthirsty UPA troops? The principle is the same, only the scope of casualties is so very much larger. Who had the moral authority to shift the soldier’s responsibility over to an unwary civilian population?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    1. The soldier/civilian dichotomy is less than absolute when most of the soldiers are conscripts.

    2. It is very reasonable for states to value the lives of their own citizens over those of foreigners (especially when said foreigners initiated the hostilities against them).
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Civilians fight wars through economic activity which sustains military forces in the field. Their morale also maintains the government which issues orders to said military forces, and the Japanese government in the summer of 1945 was actually quite concerned about this. Hence the Anglo-American strategic bombing doctrine.

    Debates over the morality of the American decision to nuke Japan strike me as extremely silly considering that America (and Britain) had already been carpet bombing Axis civilians (and even non-Axis civilians) for years. The Anglo-Americans also imposed naval blockades on the Axis (and the WW1 Central Powers), including on food and medicine.

    Frankly, dying from an atomic bomb strikes me as greatly preferable from being burned alive by fire bombing. Operation Meetinghouse, the fire bombing of Tokyo, immolated 100,000 people. What the Anglo-Americans did to Dresden is of course well known.

    As such I am forced to conclude that the real motive for decrying the usage of the atomic bombs is atomophobia. These faux humanitarians rarely have issues with incendiary and high explosive bombs.
    , @DFH

    The principle is the same, only the scope of casualties is so very much larger.
     
    It's not similar at all: the atomic bombs were dropped out of military necessity (I realise people dispute this), massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust
  69. @Mr. Hack
    It's indeed an interesting essay that presents a good, balanced view of the complex motives that precipitated the dropping of two A-bombs over Japan. It frames the question of the morality of the decision, in the eyes of those opposed to it quite accurately:

    that those for whom he use of the A-bomb was “wrong” seem to be implying “that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs.”
     
    Also, throughout the piece the author emphasizes that it's easier to make judgements after the fact , than to be on the ground fighting a ferocious war faced with pragmatic considerations.

    For me, the overriding factor is indeed that so many civilians were wasted. Soldiers are by design created to fight wars, civilians are not. This is one of the reasons, I suppose that you are so adamantly opposed to the wasting of Polish civilians in Volhynia by bloodthirsty UPA troops? The principle is the same, only the scope of casualties is so very much larger. Who had the moral authority to shift the soldier's responsibility over to an unwary civilian population?

    1. The soldier/civilian dichotomy is less than absolute when most of the soldiers are conscripts.

    2. It is very reasonable for states to value the lives of their own citizens over those of foreigners (especially when said foreigners initiated the hostilities against them).

  70. @Mr. Hack
    It's indeed an interesting essay that presents a good, balanced view of the complex motives that precipitated the dropping of two A-bombs over Japan. It frames the question of the morality of the decision, in the eyes of those opposed to it quite accurately:

    that those for whom he use of the A-bomb was “wrong” seem to be implying “that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs.”
     
    Also, throughout the piece the author emphasizes that it's easier to make judgements after the fact , than to be on the ground fighting a ferocious war faced with pragmatic considerations.

    For me, the overriding factor is indeed that so many civilians were wasted. Soldiers are by design created to fight wars, civilians are not. This is one of the reasons, I suppose that you are so adamantly opposed to the wasting of Polish civilians in Volhynia by bloodthirsty UPA troops? The principle is the same, only the scope of casualties is so very much larger. Who had the moral authority to shift the soldier's responsibility over to an unwary civilian population?

    Civilians fight wars through economic activity which sustains military forces in the field. Their morale also maintains the government which issues orders to said military forces, and the Japanese government in the summer of 1945 was actually quite concerned about this. Hence the Anglo-American strategic bombing doctrine.

    Debates over the morality of the American decision to nuke Japan strike me as extremely silly considering that America (and Britain) had already been carpet bombing Axis civilians (and even non-Axis civilians) for years. The Anglo-Americans also imposed naval blockades on the Axis (and the WW1 Central Powers), including on food and medicine.

    Frankly, dying from an atomic bomb strikes me as greatly preferable from being burned alive by fire bombing. Operation Meetinghouse, the fire bombing of Tokyo, immolated 100,000 people. What the Anglo-Americans did to Dresden is of course well known.

    As such I am forced to conclude that the real motive for decrying the usage of the atomic bombs is atomophobia. These faux humanitarians rarely have issues with incendiary and high explosive bombs.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Civilians fight wars through economic activity which sustains military forces in the field.
     
    You make a good point here. If I remember correctly from my college history courses, civilians weren't regularly targeted during wartime until the 20th century? I realize that I'm being naive to hope that wartime activities could be curtailed to resemble those of medieval times, when it was almost a 9 -5 job, with weekends and holidays off (without pay?).
  71. @Mr. Hack
    It's indeed an interesting essay that presents a good, balanced view of the complex motives that precipitated the dropping of two A-bombs over Japan. It frames the question of the morality of the decision, in the eyes of those opposed to it quite accurately:

    that those for whom he use of the A-bomb was “wrong” seem to be implying “that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs.”
     
    Also, throughout the piece the author emphasizes that it's easier to make judgements after the fact , than to be on the ground fighting a ferocious war faced with pragmatic considerations.

    For me, the overriding factor is indeed that so many civilians were wasted. Soldiers are by design created to fight wars, civilians are not. This is one of the reasons, I suppose that you are so adamantly opposed to the wasting of Polish civilians in Volhynia by bloodthirsty UPA troops? The principle is the same, only the scope of casualties is so very much larger. Who had the moral authority to shift the soldier's responsibility over to an unwary civilian population?

    The principle is the same, only the scope of casualties is so very much larger.

    It’s not similar at all: the atomic bombs were dropped out of military necessity (I realise people dispute this), massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust

    • Replies: @AP

    massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust
     
    It was an evil crime but its reason was no worse than that of Hiroshima. Poland occupied those lands planned to get them back after the war. It also planned to ethnically cleanse them, of Ukrainians (at least,m the local Polish organization wanted this done). UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance. They did not have bombers and atom weapons, they had peasants with crude weapons. But they were fighting for their lands, on their native soil, not bombing people thousands of miles away from their native lands. I do not justify what they did, but it wasn't any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.
  72. @Thorfinnsson
    Civilians fight wars through economic activity which sustains military forces in the field. Their morale also maintains the government which issues orders to said military forces, and the Japanese government in the summer of 1945 was actually quite concerned about this. Hence the Anglo-American strategic bombing doctrine.

    Debates over the morality of the American decision to nuke Japan strike me as extremely silly considering that America (and Britain) had already been carpet bombing Axis civilians (and even non-Axis civilians) for years. The Anglo-Americans also imposed naval blockades on the Axis (and the WW1 Central Powers), including on food and medicine.

    Frankly, dying from an atomic bomb strikes me as greatly preferable from being burned alive by fire bombing. Operation Meetinghouse, the fire bombing of Tokyo, immolated 100,000 people. What the Anglo-Americans did to Dresden is of course well known.

    As such I am forced to conclude that the real motive for decrying the usage of the atomic bombs is atomophobia. These faux humanitarians rarely have issues with incendiary and high explosive bombs.

    Civilians fight wars through economic activity which sustains military forces in the field.

    You make a good point here. If I remember correctly from my college history courses, civilians weren’t regularly targeted during wartime until the 20th century? I realize that I’m being naive to hope that wartime activities could be curtailed to resemble those of medieval times, when it was almost a 9 -5 job, with weekends and holidays off (without pay?).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Civilians have been routinely targeted in warfare since warfare has existed. The earliest "wars", between tribes of hunter-gatherers, had the aim of killing off the other tribe's men in order to seize all their women and hunting lands. The development of agriculture made the men useful as slaves and spared their lives, at least the younger ones.

    There have been at various times wars and rules of wars which make efforts to spare civilians, and there have been wars in which targeting civilians do not make military sense (owing to rapid military victory in the field).

    Common civilizations historically have developed rules of war and fought many wars over "honor" in which these rules were generally respected. Classical Greece, Medieval Europe, Europe from 1648-1914, etc. The rules tend to crumble in long, bitter conflicts (see the American Civil War). They also aren't observed by outsiders, which was a chronic problem Christians faced when attacked by Vikings (who wouldn't follow rules like allowing enemy forces an unmolested river crossing) or when anyone faced the Mongols.

    What really changed in the 20th century was the development of airpower. You can be sure that someone like General Sherman would've been thrilled to carpet bomb civilians had he possessed an air force.
  73. @Hyperborean
    Regarding the visual arts in Russia:

    I don't really like the modern and geometric style, but at least this one is easily comprehensible.

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/t/5c8cf5158165f56352703666/1552741665862/0*Qot-zRE87HYG_jvb..jpeg?format=2500w

    But what are these supposed to represent? I honestly have no clue. If there is no purpose then what is the point?

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f69fa0d605b84e24c4b/5c8d3f6f53450a39cc0bae69/1552760688368/0*-z_3rMXKD-LVFtrx..jpeg?format=2500w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f69fa0d605b84e24c4b/5c8d3f697817f775cf383ed3/1552760682466/0*obsS79k7ggX_yXog..jpeg?format=2500w

    I think the author, a woman, is trying to make some sort of feminist statement by contrasting these pictures, but honestly, seeing the grim, stern proletarian faces next to joyous, relaxed bourgeois women, it has the opposite effect on me.

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f3c4785d35a3b3acfc4/5c8d3f3deb393146785c6d67/1552760638017/0*C2QQJW_IVrvFxog8..jpeg?format=1000w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f3c4785d35a3b3acfc4/5c8d3f3ce5e5f05150047191/1552760637488/0*725fYT8ahLnBZupb..jpeg?format=1000w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f15ee6eb07b49ce6193/5c8d3f15f4e1fca5435edbd2/1552760598755/0*_qTEJFrU-nnbA1nz..jpeg?format=1000w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/587cf305f7e0ab6a702dfdaa/5c8d3f15ee6eb07b49ce6193/5c8d3f15ec212d73477feedc/1552760598434/0*-vqZ7t113EGCx_VL..jpeg?format=2500w

    The Leokrem add works for me – more Vitamin D please. 🙂

  74. @Mr. Hack

    Civilians fight wars through economic activity which sustains military forces in the field.
     
    You make a good point here. If I remember correctly from my college history courses, civilians weren't regularly targeted during wartime until the 20th century? I realize that I'm being naive to hope that wartime activities could be curtailed to resemble those of medieval times, when it was almost a 9 -5 job, with weekends and holidays off (without pay?).

    Civilians have been routinely targeted in warfare since warfare has existed. The earliest “wars”, between tribes of hunter-gatherers, had the aim of killing off the other tribe’s men in order to seize all their women and hunting lands. The development of agriculture made the men useful as slaves and spared their lives, at least the younger ones.

    There have been at various times wars and rules of wars which make efforts to spare civilians, and there have been wars in which targeting civilians do not make military sense (owing to rapid military victory in the field).

    Common civilizations historically have developed rules of war and fought many wars over “honor” in which these rules were generally respected. Classical Greece, Medieval Europe, Europe from 1648-1914, etc. The rules tend to crumble in long, bitter conflicts (see the American Civil War). They also aren’t observed by outsiders, which was a chronic problem Christians faced when attacked by Vikings (who wouldn’t follow rules like allowing enemy forces an unmolested river crossing) or when anyone faced the Mongols.

    What really changed in the 20th century was the development of airpower. You can be sure that someone like General Sherman would’ve been thrilled to carpet bomb civilians had he possessed an air force.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    You're obviously correct about the inclusion of civilian casualties during ancient times. What I had in mind were the 'rules of war' that you allude to, most likely primarily developed in Europe, which I only half sarcastically describe in my description of war during medieval times.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Sherman's record is a bit ambiguous, in fact. His conception of "hard war" was different from "total war."

    Joseph T. Glatthaar's book 'The March to the Sea and Beyond' is a good one to read. In it, we learn that Joseph Wheeler's Confederate cavalry, who did not draw any rations from the CSA government from early 1864 until the war's end, lived off the Georgia countryside more thoroughly than most of Sherman's troops.

    Most Georgia hamlets that got burned were burned because someone shot at the army from a barn or something. And North Carolina got off fairly easy, due to having been the last state to secede.

    The march's infamous reputation in Georgia was actually merited, probably, only in South Carolina; many of the Union men cursed SC for starting the long war and so let their inhibitions drop.

    In Columbia, SC, Sherman's officers posted guards to protect buildings, but the drunken soldiers simply overwhelmed them with numbers of "firebugs" who threw torches into the homes.

    Even some Southerners, though, admitted that many local civilians - of both races, interestingly! - willingly sold whiskey to the passing soldiers, which exacerbated their rage.

    Of course, even then, all of this has nothing in comparison to the average war in the Balkans.

    Among Union generals, Sheridan and Custer were far harsher in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 than Sherman ever was. Sherman genuinely seems to have liked Southerners, apart from politics; Braxton Bragg was a close friend, and Joseph Johnston was a pall-bearer at Sherman's funeral. But Sheridan (whom I hate) and Custer would have both liked carpet bombing the Southern civilians. Sheridan and Custer's burning of the valley also inspired the totally ruthless Confederate cavalry raid on Chambersburg, PA, which resulted in the burning of the entire town except, oddly enough, the local Masonic temple.

    (By the way, the favorite hobby of Confederates invading Pennsylvania and Maryland was to capture local blacks and sell them into slavery - nice little throwback to the ancient days, eh? When they tried this in Greencastle, PA in 1863, a mob of local farmers attacked the rebels and freed the Union prisoners and 10 or 20 blacks they were driving through town.)

    Know who else would have liked carpet bombing? Stonewall Jackson. Jackson's been called the 'Southern Cromwell' for good reason.

    , @German_reader

    General Sherman would’ve been thrilled to carpet bomb civilians had he possessed an air force.
     
    iirc Sherman's orders during his campaign in the American South were mostly aimed at destroying property like plantations, railway stock etc. The number of civilians killed by his forces wasn't that high.
  75. @German_reader

    Ron Unz gave us a good starting point from where we can wander into asking what might have been if a bunch of Limey spies and Roosevelt hadn’t attacked our formerly peaceful country
     
    Nazi Germany could have become potentially quite dangerous to the US if it had successfully conquered Eurasia. It did have fairly advanced technology by the standards of the time after all, especially in rocket development. I guess it comes down to the question whether Hitler's ambitions were limited to Europe or global, at least in the long term.
    Another crucial question of course is whether Germany could ever have decisively defeated the Soviet Union and occupied all of European Russia. I doubt it, Operation Barbarossa was total hubris and the German plans had failed even in their modified form by late 1942/early 1943, and that was before America decisively entered the war in North Africa and Europe, and iirc also before most of the Western lend-lease shipments to the Soviet Union. But I suppose there might have been some sort of extended stalemate.
    But in any case, Roosevelt's actions turned the US into the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties of all combatant powers. So the criticism of him by US paleoconservatives always seems rather exaggerated to me.

    I don’t believe that our being the dominant world power has made us any better as a nation in the most important metric, which is moral excellence – arete. I drive from Pennsylvania to the Midwest and see a heartbroken place of absurdly unreasonable decay.

    Although some of the paleocons, like Pat Buchanan, really don’t have a big problem with American foreign policy until relatively recently. Buchanan is rather quietly a bit of a Russophobe, at least by today’s dissident right standards. Guys like that don’t seem to mind being less than isolationist, but they do decry the decline in the nation’s interior. Maybe this is what Trumpism is really all about.

  76. @Thorfinnsson
    John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan's point of departure is November, 1940.

    Because he is citing Ron Unz's essay about the 1940 Presidential election, this means he means that an "isolationist" Republican (not Wendell Wilkie) wins the 1940 Presidential election. Senator Robert "Mr. Conservative" Taft of Ohio for instance.

    Hitler decided to invade the USSR after Molotov's disastrous visit to Berlin in October, 1940.

    Owing to the anti-German foreign policy of the Roosevelt administration, including a stated plan to build 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain, relatively few industrial resources in advance of Operation Barbarossa were allocated to strengthening the army. Much more were allocated to capital investments and the other services (who also had access to better personnel).

    It is possible that with an isolationist victory in the 1940 US election that Germany would've invested more into strengthening the army, and that this would've provided the necessary margin of victory during Barbarossa.

    I am personally a believer that a neutral, isolationist US would've resulted in a German victory. People like to claim that most Lend-Lease was shipped in the latter years of the war, but this is because because American production kept skyrocketing. Then there are people who claim that the "tide turned" at the end of 1942, as if the war followed lunar phases.

    Even in the absence of a victory in Barbarossa, the following should be considered:

    • US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)
    • Soviet manpower attrition exceeded German attrition in percentage terms until the middle of 1944
    • The impact of Lend-Lease on the British war effort (generally forgotten, and Britain got more than the USSR)
    • German manpower and materiel diversions to other fronts increased after Stalingrad
    • Lend-Lease providing:


    -58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel
    -33% of their motor vehicles
    -53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)
    -30% of fighters and bombers
    -93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)
    -50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium
    -43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)
    -12% of tanks and SPGs
    -50% of TNT (1942-1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[54]
    -16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports)
     
    Obviously German victory isn't guaranteed in such a scenario. It's well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn't have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain). No decision in 1941 then, and hard to imagine one in 1942. Does the German army, freed of an Italian front and the Atlantic Wall, go on to beat the USSR in 1943 or 1944? Maybe.

    Britain's power, especially that of Bomber Command, is often underappreciated. Bomber Command could've collapsed the German war economy in 1943 had they kept hammering the Ruhr. Instead, they shifted to Berlin. How much weaker is Bomber Command in this scenario? German air defenses are unlikely to be much stronger.

    Because he is citing Ron Unz’s essay about the 1940 Presidential election, this means he means that an “isolationist” Republican (not Wendell Wilkie) wins the 1940 Presidential election. Senator Robert “Mr. Conservative” Taft of Ohio for instance.

    There was a great paranoid Jewish perspective about the 1940 election in which Charles Lindbergh somehow gets the GOP nomination and becomes President. The perspective was in a novel by Philip Roth called ‘The Plot Against America.’ Luckily no characters spend time acting out sexual fantasies with baked goods or plants, as in other Roth novels.

    Since the novel was written by a bizarre person (Roth), obviously the heinous criminal Lindbergh creates an anti-Semitic America, or something.

    Bill Kauffman wrote a very funny and derisive review of this book

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/heil-to-the-chief/

  77. @Thorfinnsson
    Civilians have been routinely targeted in warfare since warfare has existed. The earliest "wars", between tribes of hunter-gatherers, had the aim of killing off the other tribe's men in order to seize all their women and hunting lands. The development of agriculture made the men useful as slaves and spared their lives, at least the younger ones.

    There have been at various times wars and rules of wars which make efforts to spare civilians, and there have been wars in which targeting civilians do not make military sense (owing to rapid military victory in the field).

    Common civilizations historically have developed rules of war and fought many wars over "honor" in which these rules were generally respected. Classical Greece, Medieval Europe, Europe from 1648-1914, etc. The rules tend to crumble in long, bitter conflicts (see the American Civil War). They also aren't observed by outsiders, which was a chronic problem Christians faced when attacked by Vikings (who wouldn't follow rules like allowing enemy forces an unmolested river crossing) or when anyone faced the Mongols.

    What really changed in the 20th century was the development of airpower. You can be sure that someone like General Sherman would've been thrilled to carpet bomb civilians had he possessed an air force.

    You’re obviously correct about the inclusion of civilian casualties during ancient times. What I had in mind were the ‘rules of war’ that you allude to, most likely primarily developed in Europe, which I only half sarcastically describe in my description of war during medieval times.

  78. Random

    If anyone likes sports but hates SJWs, I recommend watching the American NCAA D1 wrestling national championships, currently in progress in Pittsburgh. Most of the remaining action is available on ESPN.

    Most of the wrestlers are macho straight white males, so it’s fairly refreshing and a nice contrast from virtually every other sport now.

    Wrestling is somehow still one of the last frontiers in America for men. Although when I watch youth wrestling, I see an increasing number of matches involving boys wrestling girls. Because the wackos have to ruin everything. I get such a weird feeling in my stomach, an involuntary response, when I see girls wrestling boys. It’s just not right, man.

    The other great countries in wrestling today are Iran and the countries between Iran and Russia. Russia wins lots of medals, but it seems most of their wrestlers are ethnic Chechens, Ingush, Ossetians, whatever. Countries like Japan have a decent tradition too.

  79. @Thorfinnsson
    John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan's point of departure is November, 1940.

    Because he is citing Ron Unz's essay about the 1940 Presidential election, this means he means that an "isolationist" Republican (not Wendell Wilkie) wins the 1940 Presidential election. Senator Robert "Mr. Conservative" Taft of Ohio for instance.

    Hitler decided to invade the USSR after Molotov's disastrous visit to Berlin in October, 1940.

    Owing to the anti-German foreign policy of the Roosevelt administration, including a stated plan to build 50,000 aircraft per year and supply them to Britain, relatively few industrial resources in advance of Operation Barbarossa were allocated to strengthening the army. Much more were allocated to capital investments and the other services (who also had access to better personnel).

    It is possible that with an isolationist victory in the 1940 US election that Germany would've invested more into strengthening the army, and that this would've provided the necessary margin of victory during Barbarossa.

    I am personally a believer that a neutral, isolationist US would've resulted in a German victory. People like to claim that most Lend-Lease was shipped in the latter years of the war, but this is because because American production kept skyrocketing. Then there are people who claim that the "tide turned" at the end of 1942, as if the war followed lunar phases.

    Even in the absence of a victory in Barbarossa, the following should be considered:

    • US production plans causing Germany to shift its production priorities (as noted earlier)
    • Soviet manpower attrition exceeded German attrition in percentage terms until the middle of 1944
    • The impact of Lend-Lease on the British war effort (generally forgotten, and Britain got more than the USSR)
    • German manpower and materiel diversions to other fronts increased after Stalingrad
    • Lend-Lease providing:


    -58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel
    -33% of their motor vehicles
    -53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)
    -30% of fighters and bombers
    -93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)
    -50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium
    -43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)
    -12% of tanks and SPGs
    -50% of TNT (1942-1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[54]
    -16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports)
     
    Obviously German victory isn't guaranteed in such a scenario. It's well known that German intelligence on the USSR was poor and that they (obviously) underestimated the Red Army. So perhaps production plans wouldn't have changed (there was still the need to defeat Britain). No decision in 1941 then, and hard to imagine one in 1942. Does the German army, freed of an Italian front and the Atlantic Wall, go on to beat the USSR in 1943 or 1944? Maybe.

    Britain's power, especially that of Bomber Command, is often underappreciated. Bomber Command could've collapsed the German war economy in 1943 had they kept hammering the Ruhr. Instead, they shifted to Berlin. How much weaker is Bomber Command in this scenario? German air defenses are unlikely to be much stronger.

    -93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)

    !!!

    Good grief!!

  80. @Thorfinnsson
    A very good point.

    If FDR had been defeated, Churchill might well have been replaced leading to a peace agreement with the Germans.

    Jews were obviously pushing America towards war, but Unz's essay about British influence is interesting and eye-opening:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

    It's also not just a matter of alien influence. Much of America's WASP establishment, still in control at that time, favored intervention. Foreign Policy magazine helpfully has its archives online, and you can read all sorts of dreck from 1940 about the American need to enter the war or at least support Britain.

    Gallup opinion polling in 1939 also asked Americans if they should help their British "blood brothers" which I found interesting.

    American public opinion was largely opposed to intervention, but tellingly almost no one was in favor of joining the Axis whereas a substantial minority favored aiding or joining the Allies. This despite the fact that obviously America stood to gain from dismembering the British Empire and once and for all eliminating the hideous Canuckist Entity from the map.

    Gallup opinion polling in 1939 also asked Americans if they should help their British “blood brothers” which I found interesting.

    You’re obviously more knowledgeable than I on statistics to do with America, Germany, and Britain in that period of history. With that said, my perception is that Americans of generic “British ancestry” (I mean including people like the Scotch-Irish, who once produced the thoroughly anti-English Andrew Jackson) became more fond of Great Britain as time wore on.

    My ancestry is primarily 18th and 19th century German immigrant stock, so I vaguely perceive a difference between myself and British heritage Americans. Those Americans sure as heck don’t seem to have been terribly philo-English in the middle of the 19th century, although (according to Civil War historian William Freehling) there were pockets that favored England, in places like South Carolina. But South Carolina was always something of an anomaly, even in the South. And in general, this concept of “blood brotherhood” seems like a relatively recent conception. And considering that we had a war scare with Britain as late as the 1890s, I wonder if it was all but within the last 20 years or so before World War 1.

    I also wonder if this “blood brotherhood” idea was very much secondary to the main reason Americans accepted the Second World War, which was the “back door” with Japan. The First World War’s 1917 entrance seems more likely to have been inspired by some supposed tie of kinship.

    I’m hesitant to make much heavy judgment, though. What do you think?

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I don't have roots in this country, but I don't think the idea of kinship between Britons and heritage Americans is a 20th century invention. This kinship however was not taken to mean that there should be an alignment between America and Britain given the then substantial ideological differences between the two countries (as Tom Paine, himself born in Britain, pointed out).

    An example from the 19th century during the Great Exhibition:


    The lock controversy continues a subject of great interest at the Crystal Palace, and, indeed, is now become of general importance. We believed before the Exhibition opened that we had the best locks in the world, and among us Bramah and Chubb were reckoned quite as impregnable as Gibraltar— more so, indeed, for the key to the Mediterranean was taken by us, but none among us could penetrate into the locks and shoot the bolts of these masters. The mechanical spirit, however, is never at rest, and if it is lulled into a false state of listlessness in one branch of industry, and in one part of the world, elsewhere it springs up suddenly to admonish and reproach us with our supineness. Our descendents on the other side of the water are every now and then administering to the mother country a wholesome filial lesson upon this very text, and recently they have been "rubbing us up" with a severity which perhaps we merited for sneering at their shortcomings in the Exhibition.
     
    There were also many reports of American sailors (up to and including US Navy warships exceeding their orders) in the 19th century risking life and limb to fight Japanese and Chinese on behalf of British sailors with kinship as the stated reason.

    Britain faced a number of challenging strategic decisions as the Fin de siècle approached, and its leaders decided to appease America. That appeasement has continued right to the present day.

    British appeasement satisfied America's leaders, and what was later known as the "Eastern Establishment" in turn had developed deeply co-mingled interests with Britain owing to the financial relationship between Wall Street and the City of London. That Americans and especially their leaders were then largely of British stock made the decision to support Britain in both World Wars that much easier.
  81. The thing holding me back from upgrading my PC is that I have the last AMD process that doesn’t have the hardware backdoor. I just can’t sleep at night knowing there’s a guaranteed backdoor on my system.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Have you tried turning your PC off at night?
  82. @Thorfinnsson
    Civilians have been routinely targeted in warfare since warfare has existed. The earliest "wars", between tribes of hunter-gatherers, had the aim of killing off the other tribe's men in order to seize all their women and hunting lands. The development of agriculture made the men useful as slaves and spared their lives, at least the younger ones.

    There have been at various times wars and rules of wars which make efforts to spare civilians, and there have been wars in which targeting civilians do not make military sense (owing to rapid military victory in the field).

    Common civilizations historically have developed rules of war and fought many wars over "honor" in which these rules were generally respected. Classical Greece, Medieval Europe, Europe from 1648-1914, etc. The rules tend to crumble in long, bitter conflicts (see the American Civil War). They also aren't observed by outsiders, which was a chronic problem Christians faced when attacked by Vikings (who wouldn't follow rules like allowing enemy forces an unmolested river crossing) or when anyone faced the Mongols.

    What really changed in the 20th century was the development of airpower. You can be sure that someone like General Sherman would've been thrilled to carpet bomb civilians had he possessed an air force.

    Sherman’s record is a bit ambiguous, in fact. His conception of “hard war” was different from “total war.”

    Joseph T. Glatthaar’s book ‘The March to the Sea and Beyond’ is a good one to read. In it, we learn that Joseph Wheeler’s Confederate cavalry, who did not draw any rations from the CSA government from early 1864 until the war’s end, lived off the Georgia countryside more thoroughly than most of Sherman’s troops.

    Most Georgia hamlets that got burned were burned because someone shot at the army from a barn or something. And North Carolina got off fairly easy, due to having been the last state to secede.

    The march’s infamous reputation in Georgia was actually merited, probably, only in South Carolina; many of the Union men cursed SC for starting the long war and so let their inhibitions drop.

    In Columbia, SC, Sherman’s officers posted guards to protect buildings, but the drunken soldiers simply overwhelmed them with numbers of “firebugs” who threw torches into the homes.

    Even some Southerners, though, admitted that many local civilians – of both races, interestingly! – willingly sold whiskey to the passing soldiers, which exacerbated their rage.

    Of course, even then, all of this has nothing in comparison to the average war in the Balkans.

    Among Union generals, Sheridan and Custer were far harsher in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 than Sherman ever was. Sherman genuinely seems to have liked Southerners, apart from politics; Braxton Bragg was a close friend, and Joseph Johnston was a pall-bearer at Sherman’s funeral. But Sheridan (whom I hate) and Custer would have both liked carpet bombing the Southern civilians. Sheridan and Custer’s burning of the valley also inspired the totally ruthless Confederate cavalry raid on Chambersburg, PA, which resulted in the burning of the entire town except, oddly enough, the local Masonic temple.

    (By the way, the favorite hobby of Confederates invading Pennsylvania and Maryland was to capture local blacks and sell them into slavery – nice little throwback to the ancient days, eh? When they tried this in Greencastle, PA in 1863, a mob of local farmers attacked the rebels and freed the Union prisoners and 10 or 20 blacks they were driving through town.)

    Know who else would have liked carpet bombing? Stonewall Jackson. Jackson’s been called the ‘Southern Cromwell’ for good reason.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    And just for the record:

    Custer had it coming at Little Big Horn

    Good for you, Cheyenne primitives
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Good points--I should've named Sheridan over Sherman.

    Presumably Winfield Scott, architect of the Anaconda Plan, would've approved of strategic bombing.
    , @reiner Tor
    What is (are) the best book(s) about the American Civil War?
    , @LondonBob
    Cromwell and Jackson strongly encouraged religious devotion in their troops, viewed themselves as instruments of God as well as being the two generals who shone out the most in their respective civil wars. I am not aware that Cromwell committed any atrocities, the only three I am aware of are the massacre of Bolton residents by Royalists, and the massacre at the siege of Basing House where Cromwell was the commander and some womenfolk camp followers who were killed at some battle. Cromwell's conduct was exemplary, despite Irish and Royalist black propaganda otherwise.
  83. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Sherman's record is a bit ambiguous, in fact. His conception of "hard war" was different from "total war."

    Joseph T. Glatthaar's book 'The March to the Sea and Beyond' is a good one to read. In it, we learn that Joseph Wheeler's Confederate cavalry, who did not draw any rations from the CSA government from early 1864 until the war's end, lived off the Georgia countryside more thoroughly than most of Sherman's troops.

    Most Georgia hamlets that got burned were burned because someone shot at the army from a barn or something. And North Carolina got off fairly easy, due to having been the last state to secede.

    The march's infamous reputation in Georgia was actually merited, probably, only in South Carolina; many of the Union men cursed SC for starting the long war and so let their inhibitions drop.

    In Columbia, SC, Sherman's officers posted guards to protect buildings, but the drunken soldiers simply overwhelmed them with numbers of "firebugs" who threw torches into the homes.

    Even some Southerners, though, admitted that many local civilians - of both races, interestingly! - willingly sold whiskey to the passing soldiers, which exacerbated their rage.

    Of course, even then, all of this has nothing in comparison to the average war in the Balkans.

    Among Union generals, Sheridan and Custer were far harsher in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 than Sherman ever was. Sherman genuinely seems to have liked Southerners, apart from politics; Braxton Bragg was a close friend, and Joseph Johnston was a pall-bearer at Sherman's funeral. But Sheridan (whom I hate) and Custer would have both liked carpet bombing the Southern civilians. Sheridan and Custer's burning of the valley also inspired the totally ruthless Confederate cavalry raid on Chambersburg, PA, which resulted in the burning of the entire town except, oddly enough, the local Masonic temple.

    (By the way, the favorite hobby of Confederates invading Pennsylvania and Maryland was to capture local blacks and sell them into slavery - nice little throwback to the ancient days, eh? When they tried this in Greencastle, PA in 1863, a mob of local farmers attacked the rebels and freed the Union prisoners and 10 or 20 blacks they were driving through town.)

    Know who else would have liked carpet bombing? Stonewall Jackson. Jackson's been called the 'Southern Cromwell' for good reason.

    And just for the record:

    Custer had it coming at Little Big Horn

    Good for you, Cheyenne primitives

  84. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    Orbán also seems to consider this strategy: trying to get the Israeli Jews on his side. It might work, though as the Israeli tirade against Poland shows, it’s not an easy thing to pull off.

    Bari Weiss (American Jewish centre-right columnist and staunch Zionist) did a fawning piece on Israel’s Blue and White coalition for the NYT, and one of the main reasons she cited for admiring them is that, unlike Bibi, they won’t be friendly with Orban and Bolsonaro.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/netanyahu-israel-yair-lapid.html

    This is unironically the level many American Jews work on with regards to Israel: please reconquer all of Judea and Samaria, but don’t you dare be friendly with some guy who said mean stuff about gays! Palestinian blood is unimportant compared to having a designated prayer space for women at the Western Wall.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/opinion/religion/israel-women-western-wall.html

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @German_reader

    but don’t you dare be friendly with some guy who said mean stuff about gays!
     
    In regards to Orban (or Polish right-wingers, or really any kind of European nationalist, no matter how moderate) the issue isn't homo stuff or other liberal pieties, but rather insufficient grovelling before the altar of eternal Jewish victimhood. The appointed role for Europeans here is that of descendants of Holocaust perpetrators who have to perpetually abase themselves, accept the multicultural restructuring of their societies (so Jews can feel safe/enact their vengeance), and are somehow exspected at the same time to swallow all the ahistorical myth-making of Zionists and uncritically support Israel (because Jewish nationalism is for some reason apparently the only legitimate nationalism).
  85. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Gallup opinion polling in 1939 also asked Americans if they should help their British “blood brothers” which I found interesting.

     

    You're obviously more knowledgeable than I on statistics to do with America, Germany, and Britain in that period of history. With that said, my perception is that Americans of generic "British ancestry" (I mean including people like the Scotch-Irish, who once produced the thoroughly anti-English Andrew Jackson) became more fond of Great Britain as time wore on.

    My ancestry is primarily 18th and 19th century German immigrant stock, so I vaguely perceive a difference between myself and British heritage Americans. Those Americans sure as heck don't seem to have been terribly philo-English in the middle of the 19th century, although (according to Civil War historian William Freehling) there were pockets that favored England, in places like South Carolina. But South Carolina was always something of an anomaly, even in the South. And in general, this concept of "blood brotherhood" seems like a relatively recent conception. And considering that we had a war scare with Britain as late as the 1890s, I wonder if it was all but within the last 20 years or so before World War 1.

    I also wonder if this "blood brotherhood" idea was very much secondary to the main reason Americans accepted the Second World War, which was the "back door" with Japan. The First World War's 1917 entrance seems more likely to have been inspired by some supposed tie of kinship.

    I'm hesitant to make much heavy judgment, though. What do you think?

    I don’t have roots in this country, but I don’t think the idea of kinship between Britons and heritage Americans is a 20th century invention. This kinship however was not taken to mean that there should be an alignment between America and Britain given the then substantial ideological differences between the two countries (as Tom Paine, himself born in Britain, pointed out).

    An example from the 19th century during the Great Exhibition:

    The lock controversy continues a subject of great interest at the Crystal Palace, and, indeed, is now become of general importance. We believed before the Exhibition opened that we had the best locks in the world, and among us Bramah and Chubb were reckoned quite as impregnable as Gibraltar— more so, indeed, for the key to the Mediterranean was taken by us, but none among us could penetrate into the locks and shoot the bolts of these masters. The mechanical spirit, however, is never at rest, and if it is lulled into a false state of listlessness in one branch of industry, and in one part of the world, elsewhere it springs up suddenly to admonish and reproach us with our supineness. Our descendents on the other side of the water are every now and then administering to the mother country a wholesome filial lesson upon this very text, and recently they have been “rubbing us up” with a severity which perhaps we merited for sneering at their shortcomings in the Exhibition.

    There were also many reports of American sailors (up to and including US Navy warships exceeding their orders) in the 19th century risking life and limb to fight Japanese and Chinese on behalf of British sailors with kinship as the stated reason.

    Britain faced a number of challenging strategic decisions as the Fin de siècle approached, and its leaders decided to appease America. That appeasement has continued right to the present day.

    British appeasement satisfied America’s leaders, and what was later known as the “Eastern Establishment” in turn had developed deeply co-mingled interests with Britain owing to the financial relationship between Wall Street and the City of London. That Americans and especially their leaders were then largely of British stock made the decision to support Britain in both World Wars that much easier.

  86. @B.P Bollocksworth
    The thing holding me back from upgrading my PC is that I have the last AMD process that doesn't have the hardware backdoor. I just can't sleep at night knowing there's a guaranteed backdoor on my system.

    Have you tried turning your PC off at night?

  87. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Sherman's record is a bit ambiguous, in fact. His conception of "hard war" was different from "total war."

    Joseph T. Glatthaar's book 'The March to the Sea and Beyond' is a good one to read. In it, we learn that Joseph Wheeler's Confederate cavalry, who did not draw any rations from the CSA government from early 1864 until the war's end, lived off the Georgia countryside more thoroughly than most of Sherman's troops.

    Most Georgia hamlets that got burned were burned because someone shot at the army from a barn or something. And North Carolina got off fairly easy, due to having been the last state to secede.

    The march's infamous reputation in Georgia was actually merited, probably, only in South Carolina; many of the Union men cursed SC for starting the long war and so let their inhibitions drop.

    In Columbia, SC, Sherman's officers posted guards to protect buildings, but the drunken soldiers simply overwhelmed them with numbers of "firebugs" who threw torches into the homes.

    Even some Southerners, though, admitted that many local civilians - of both races, interestingly! - willingly sold whiskey to the passing soldiers, which exacerbated their rage.

    Of course, even then, all of this has nothing in comparison to the average war in the Balkans.

    Among Union generals, Sheridan and Custer were far harsher in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 than Sherman ever was. Sherman genuinely seems to have liked Southerners, apart from politics; Braxton Bragg was a close friend, and Joseph Johnston was a pall-bearer at Sherman's funeral. But Sheridan (whom I hate) and Custer would have both liked carpet bombing the Southern civilians. Sheridan and Custer's burning of the valley also inspired the totally ruthless Confederate cavalry raid on Chambersburg, PA, which resulted in the burning of the entire town except, oddly enough, the local Masonic temple.

    (By the way, the favorite hobby of Confederates invading Pennsylvania and Maryland was to capture local blacks and sell them into slavery - nice little throwback to the ancient days, eh? When they tried this in Greencastle, PA in 1863, a mob of local farmers attacked the rebels and freed the Union prisoners and 10 or 20 blacks they were driving through town.)

    Know who else would have liked carpet bombing? Stonewall Jackson. Jackson's been called the 'Southern Cromwell' for good reason.

    Good points–I should’ve named Sheridan over Sherman.

    Presumably Winfield Scott, architect of the Anaconda Plan, would’ve approved of strategic bombing.

  88. @Anonymous
    I think Trump is playing brilliant politics here, and I am no fanboy of his. Democrats are becoming more critical of Israel, but it is still a wedge issue for them, at this time probably the most salient and divisive one. Probably the majority of Democratic voters have a generally neutral-to-negative view of Israel, and now the more strident anti-Zionists (typically younger voters and non-whites) have a voice in Congress with Reps. Omar and Tlaib. But the Dem establishment (embodied in Pelosi and Schumer) is still strongly pro-Israel, and Jewish donors are still a major (really, the major) source of fundraising for establishment Dems.

    This is combustible on many levels: to criticize Omar and Tlaib as a Dem is to open oneself up to allegations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, which can be lethal to one's career. To support or even tolerate them is to risk alienating Jewish money. All this occurs against the backdrop of Israel taking an increasingly hard line on the settlements and the question of identity, especially if Bibi is re-elected. And Omar and Tlaib, far from being fringe back-benchers, are hip and popular; along with AOC, they have possession of the souls of the young and non-white voters that the Dems are utterly dependent on.

    The Democrats are totally schizophrenic on this issue, and Trump knows it. So he will continually try to up the ante, to push any kind of pro-Israel legislation he can think of, to goad Omar and Tlaib into making more brash statements and to goad the Dems into voting against Israel. He hopes that there will be more intra-party struggle sessions and that they waste time drafting resolutions against each other. And then, come 2020, he will run ads in Florida marketed towards elderly Jews positioning himself as the greatest Zionist since Ben-Gurion. Trump is a piss-poor legislator but he is brilliant in PR.

    I agree Trump is very clever in marketing (I was sure he was going to be President already when I first saw him talking about it in 2012 in YouTube).

    However, he is not cynical. He believes his policies, like tariffs, Israel and border walls.

    Some of these are consistent for all his life. You can see him discussing trade protectionism in the 1980s on television.

    With Israel, the reason everyone knew he was going to be the most pro-Israel American president (before he became president), was because he was personally funding Israeli settlements since 1981.

    His name is in townsquares in two settlements in Israel as a largest donor to their establishment

    He wins awards like:


    He led “Salute to Israel” parade in 2004 (lol how does this exist?)


    In 2006, he spent $44 million to buy land in Israel

    Donald Trump completes $44m purchase of Elite site

    https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-1000105798

    Just searching now for this topic, and saw he bought 4 ambulance cycles for Israel in 2014 (there’s probably a lot more things like this):

    Beer will be meeting with Trump at his office tomorrow to get the check that will pay for the four new ambucycles.
    Beer commended Trump for his donation, adding “he is a true lover of Israel.”

    https://www.vosizneias.com/154841/2014/02/10/new-york-trump-to-donate-rescue-bikes-to-israels-united-hatzalah/

    • Replies: @Gerard2
    but are you saying that he's so pro-Israel that it accounts for his heavily anti-Russia policy( in that Russia is aligned with Syria and semi-aligned with Iran)? Or that he's forced into this by the rest of American apparatus?

    As for Russia and Israel - I've always viewed the relationship as broadly , positive, but Israel have at times assisted either the state or individuals in Gruzia and Ukraine that are hostile to Russia....and I did note with interest that when practically every western state sent their most important leaders to Shimon Peres's funeral.....not a single one of Russia's big politicians went there - not VVP,Medvedev, Lavrov, Matvienko, Volodin . Obviously the US sent everyone, Fra, Spain, Germany ,UK, Italy all sent their PM/Presidents and constitutional monarchs - but nobody for Russia

    Poroshenko did though, laughably go to that march in Paris in solidarity over the Charlie Hebdo killings .

  89. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Sherman's record is a bit ambiguous, in fact. His conception of "hard war" was different from "total war."

    Joseph T. Glatthaar's book 'The March to the Sea and Beyond' is a good one to read. In it, we learn that Joseph Wheeler's Confederate cavalry, who did not draw any rations from the CSA government from early 1864 until the war's end, lived off the Georgia countryside more thoroughly than most of Sherman's troops.

    Most Georgia hamlets that got burned were burned because someone shot at the army from a barn or something. And North Carolina got off fairly easy, due to having been the last state to secede.

    The march's infamous reputation in Georgia was actually merited, probably, only in South Carolina; many of the Union men cursed SC for starting the long war and so let their inhibitions drop.

    In Columbia, SC, Sherman's officers posted guards to protect buildings, but the drunken soldiers simply overwhelmed them with numbers of "firebugs" who threw torches into the homes.

    Even some Southerners, though, admitted that many local civilians - of both races, interestingly! - willingly sold whiskey to the passing soldiers, which exacerbated their rage.

    Of course, even then, all of this has nothing in comparison to the average war in the Balkans.

    Among Union generals, Sheridan and Custer were far harsher in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 than Sherman ever was. Sherman genuinely seems to have liked Southerners, apart from politics; Braxton Bragg was a close friend, and Joseph Johnston was a pall-bearer at Sherman's funeral. But Sheridan (whom I hate) and Custer would have both liked carpet bombing the Southern civilians. Sheridan and Custer's burning of the valley also inspired the totally ruthless Confederate cavalry raid on Chambersburg, PA, which resulted in the burning of the entire town except, oddly enough, the local Masonic temple.

    (By the way, the favorite hobby of Confederates invading Pennsylvania and Maryland was to capture local blacks and sell them into slavery - nice little throwback to the ancient days, eh? When they tried this in Greencastle, PA in 1863, a mob of local farmers attacked the rebels and freed the Union prisoners and 10 or 20 blacks they were driving through town.)

    Know who else would have liked carpet bombing? Stonewall Jackson. Jackson's been called the 'Southern Cromwell' for good reason.

    What is (are) the best book(s) about the American Civil War?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative.
    James MacPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom for a Northern perspective.
    , @German_reader
    I second LondonBob's recommendation of McPherson's Battle cry of freedom, probably the best single-volume history of the war (and it isn't a purely military history, but devotes a lot of attention to political issues, with the first 300 pages or so dealing with the political crises of the 1850s and the 1860 election).
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    I hesitate to answer that without thinking about it in categorical terms

    I will say for now that the following come to mind as very good books

    For a one volume political summary, that focuses on 1848-1861, I highly recommend 'The Impending Crisis' by historian by David Potter.

    For a longer summary, I quite like William Freehling's two-volume book 'The Road to Disunion.' Freehling focuses on the development of secessionist politics in the South, with enough background info on the North to know what was going on there. He goes into extensive detail and depth on social aspects. You will learn about the many differences between the respective Southern states. Freehling is also rather a fun writer; Potter has lots of good anecdotes, and knows how to write a narrative with pace.

    IIRC, Freehling's main argument, with which I mostly agreed, is that as white men began to become more egalitarian (towards themselves, that is, not towards other races/cultures - Jackson is a good example), the domestic elitism, so to speak, of slavery inevitably clashed with the larger political culture, including, to a surprisingly large degree, within the South itself.

    David Detzer wrote a fine summary of the actual outbreak of the war - the Sumter crisis. It is called 'Allegiance.'

    For a summary of the war itself, 'Battle Cry of Freedom' is, again, pretty good. I have to admit, though, I've mostly read specific topics from the war, and very few summary-type books.

    Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton, again, were the classic popular Civil War writers of the mid 20th century. Being a Northerner (though I have rebels in the family tree), Catton's Michigan style is appealing to me more so than Foote. Foote was arguably a better writer, though.

    There are copious memoirs from the war. Both armies were, in fact, highly literate. And the guys who could write were much better writers than today's average people.

    Whatever you do, don't read Thomas DiLorenzo or Garry Wills. DiLorenzo is a pro-Confederate partisan, while Wills is the kind of guy who tries to interpret Lincoln as belonging to a kind of multicultural liberal tradition. They're both hacks, though DiLorenzo probably commits more sins offensive to the discipline of history.
  90. @reiner Tor
    What is (are) the best book(s) about the American Civil War?

    Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: A Narrative.
    James MacPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom for a Northern perspective.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    McPherson is good, but I prefer good old Bruce Catton for a Northern perspective.
  91. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Sherman's record is a bit ambiguous, in fact. His conception of "hard war" was different from "total war."

    Joseph T. Glatthaar's book 'The March to the Sea and Beyond' is a good one to read. In it, we learn that Joseph Wheeler's Confederate cavalry, who did not draw any rations from the CSA government from early 1864 until the war's end, lived off the Georgia countryside more thoroughly than most of Sherman's troops.

    Most Georgia hamlets that got burned were burned because someone shot at the army from a barn or something. And North Carolina got off fairly easy, due to having been the last state to secede.

    The march's infamous reputation in Georgia was actually merited, probably, only in South Carolina; many of the Union men cursed SC for starting the long war and so let their inhibitions drop.

    In Columbia, SC, Sherman's officers posted guards to protect buildings, but the drunken soldiers simply overwhelmed them with numbers of "firebugs" who threw torches into the homes.

    Even some Southerners, though, admitted that many local civilians - of both races, interestingly! - willingly sold whiskey to the passing soldiers, which exacerbated their rage.

    Of course, even then, all of this has nothing in comparison to the average war in the Balkans.

    Among Union generals, Sheridan and Custer were far harsher in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 than Sherman ever was. Sherman genuinely seems to have liked Southerners, apart from politics; Braxton Bragg was a close friend, and Joseph Johnston was a pall-bearer at Sherman's funeral. But Sheridan (whom I hate) and Custer would have both liked carpet bombing the Southern civilians. Sheridan and Custer's burning of the valley also inspired the totally ruthless Confederate cavalry raid on Chambersburg, PA, which resulted in the burning of the entire town except, oddly enough, the local Masonic temple.

    (By the way, the favorite hobby of Confederates invading Pennsylvania and Maryland was to capture local blacks and sell them into slavery - nice little throwback to the ancient days, eh? When they tried this in Greencastle, PA in 1863, a mob of local farmers attacked the rebels and freed the Union prisoners and 10 or 20 blacks they were driving through town.)

    Know who else would have liked carpet bombing? Stonewall Jackson. Jackson's been called the 'Southern Cromwell' for good reason.

    Cromwell and Jackson strongly encouraged religious devotion in their troops, viewed themselves as instruments of God as well as being the two generals who shone out the most in their respective civil wars. I am not aware that Cromwell committed any atrocities, the only three I am aware of are the massacre of Bolton residents by Royalists, and the massacre at the siege of Basing House where Cromwell was the commander and some womenfolk camp followers who were killed at some battle. Cromwell’s conduct was exemplary, despite Irish and Royalist black propaganda otherwise.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Two things

    First of all, several Civil War generals were better than Jackson. Especially Bedford Forrest.

    as for Cromwell and atrocities, whatever you say, man
    , @DFH

    I am not aware that Cromwell committed any atrocities, the only three I am aware of are the massacre of Bolton residents by Royalists, and the massacre at the siege of Basing House where Cromwell was the commander and some womenfolk camp followers who were killed at some battle.
     
    Ummmmmmmm........ Does the name Drogheda ring a bell?

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Massacre_at_Drogheda.jpeg
    , @Hibernian
    "...despite Irish and Royalist black propaganda otherwise."

    When you're a common enemy of the Irish and the Royalists, you might rethink your position.
  92. @Thorfinnsson
    Civilians have been routinely targeted in warfare since warfare has existed. The earliest "wars", between tribes of hunter-gatherers, had the aim of killing off the other tribe's men in order to seize all their women and hunting lands. The development of agriculture made the men useful as slaves and spared their lives, at least the younger ones.

    There have been at various times wars and rules of wars which make efforts to spare civilians, and there have been wars in which targeting civilians do not make military sense (owing to rapid military victory in the field).

    Common civilizations historically have developed rules of war and fought many wars over "honor" in which these rules were generally respected. Classical Greece, Medieval Europe, Europe from 1648-1914, etc. The rules tend to crumble in long, bitter conflicts (see the American Civil War). They also aren't observed by outsiders, which was a chronic problem Christians faced when attacked by Vikings (who wouldn't follow rules like allowing enemy forces an unmolested river crossing) or when anyone faced the Mongols.

    What really changed in the 20th century was the development of airpower. You can be sure that someone like General Sherman would've been thrilled to carpet bomb civilians had he possessed an air force.

    General Sherman would’ve been thrilled to carpet bomb civilians had he possessed an air force.

    iirc Sherman’s orders during his campaign in the American South were mostly aimed at destroying property like plantations, railway stock etc. The number of civilians killed by his forces wasn’t that high.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan already corrected me on that point, but the correction does not rule out the connection of Sherman's March to the Sea with 20th century strategic bombing.

    It does admittedly rule out morale bombing, which would include the atomic bombings. Most infamously RAF Bomber Command has a doctrine of "dehousing" specifically intended to demoralize German workers. That said even Bomber Command's "area bombing" was often targeted at industrial concentrations.

    American strategic bombing doctrine was specifically focused on industrial targets until Curtis LeMay adopted a modified British approach to Japan.

    Civilian casualties were higher than earlier forms of economic warfare, but that was owed to the inaccuracy of high altitude bombing.
  93. @reiner Tor
    What is (are) the best book(s) about the American Civil War?

    I second LondonBob’s recommendation of McPherson’s Battle cry of freedom, probably the best single-volume history of the war (and it isn’t a purely military history, but devotes a lot of attention to political issues, with the first 300 pages or so dealing with the political crises of the 1850s and the 1860 election).

  94. @Anonymous
    Bari Weiss (American Jewish centre-right columnist and staunch Zionist) did a fawning piece on Israel's Blue and White coalition for the NYT, and one of the main reasons she cited for admiring them is that, unlike Bibi, they won't be friendly with Orban and Bolsonaro.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/netanyahu-israel-yair-lapid.html

    This is unironically the level many American Jews work on with regards to Israel: please reconquer all of Judea and Samaria, but don't you dare be friendly with some guy who said mean stuff about gays! Palestinian blood is unimportant compared to having a designated prayer space for women at the Western Wall.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/opinion/religion/israel-women-western-wall.html

    but don’t you dare be friendly with some guy who said mean stuff about gays!

    In regards to Orban (or Polish right-wingers, or really any kind of European nationalist, no matter how moderate) the issue isn’t homo stuff or other liberal pieties, but rather insufficient grovelling before the altar of eternal Jewish victimhood. The appointed role for Europeans here is that of descendants of Holocaust perpetrators who have to perpetually abase themselves, accept the multicultural restructuring of their societies (so Jews can feel safe/enact their vengeance), and are somehow exspected at the same time to swallow all the ahistorical myth-making of Zionists and uncritically support Israel (because Jewish nationalism is for some reason apparently the only legitimate nationalism).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point--and exceptionally weird.

    If anyone can compete with the Jews in WW2 victimhood it's the Poles.

    But now we learn that Poland shoah'd the SIX MILLION...
    , @Anonymous
    There may be some element of that (and she does invoke it later in the article), but Weiss specifically names Bolsonaro in the same breath as Orban; Brazil had 0 to do with the Holocaust, has historically been friendly to Jews, and on top of that Bolsonaro is a man with avowed pro-Zionist sympathies! And Weiss hates Trump (as do almost all Jewish neocons), and he is probably the most pro-Jewish pro-Israel the US has ever had.

    The Holocaust is a useful rhetorical tool because it is an issue on which Jews occupy an unassailable moral high ground, but it's not something the average Jew/Israeli really cares about as it affects day to day life (Israelis have a warmer regard for Germany than vice versa in every poll I have seen). Orban and the Poles are not demonized because of the Holocaust, they are demonized because they refuse to give their full assent to American-style neoliberalism.
  95. @German_reader

    General Sherman would’ve been thrilled to carpet bomb civilians had he possessed an air force.
     
    iirc Sherman's orders during his campaign in the American South were mostly aimed at destroying property like plantations, railway stock etc. The number of civilians killed by his forces wasn't that high.

    John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan already corrected me on that point, but the correction does not rule out the connection of Sherman’s March to the Sea with 20th century strategic bombing.

    It does admittedly rule out morale bombing, which would include the atomic bombings. Most infamously RAF Bomber Command has a doctrine of “dehousing” specifically intended to demoralize German workers. That said even Bomber Command’s “area bombing” was often targeted at industrial concentrations.

    American strategic bombing doctrine was specifically focused on industrial targets until Curtis LeMay adopted a modified British approach to Japan.

    Civilian casualties were higher than earlier forms of economic warfare, but that was owed to the inaccuracy of high altitude bombing.

  96. @German_reader

    but don’t you dare be friendly with some guy who said mean stuff about gays!
     
    In regards to Orban (or Polish right-wingers, or really any kind of European nationalist, no matter how moderate) the issue isn't homo stuff or other liberal pieties, but rather insufficient grovelling before the altar of eternal Jewish victimhood. The appointed role for Europeans here is that of descendants of Holocaust perpetrators who have to perpetually abase themselves, accept the multicultural restructuring of their societies (so Jews can feel safe/enact their vengeance), and are somehow exspected at the same time to swallow all the ahistorical myth-making of Zionists and uncritically support Israel (because Jewish nationalism is for some reason apparently the only legitimate nationalism).

    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point–and exceptionally weird.

    If anyone can compete with the Jews in WW2 victimhood it’s the Poles.

    But now we learn that Poland shoah’d the SIX MILLION…

    • Replies: @German_reader

    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point–and exceptionally weird.
     
    Much weirder though imo is that there's so much gentile support for Jewish nationalism, even though there's almost zero reciprocity.
    There are tons of gentiles who get very, very emotionally invested in their defense of Israel and Zionism, not least on the so-called right (it's of course especially bad in the US where things are just grotesque, but there are many such people in Europe as well, across the political spectrum). I don't understand the psychology of those people.
    , @utu

    bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland
     
    Big money. Jewish organizations and Israel are hoping to squeeze out of Poland $300 billions for the so called heirless property. The heirless property disposition raises serious legal issues. Who should get it and why Jews? So the argument is being made along the line of Holocaust uniqueness so the traditional and accepted legal norms could be circumvented.

    http://www.codozasady.pl/en/the-issue-of-jewish-heirless-property-demands-extraordinary-measures/

    Applying the general principle of inheritance law that heirless property is acquired by the state to questions of Jewish heirless property in Poland is ill-considered and does not take into account the tragic realities involved.

    Furthermore, moral considerations strongly indicate that alternative solutions to the issue must be found.
     
    For this reason the cases of some Poles participation in killing Jews are being blown out of proportions is to create a moral foundation for the ethical norm that the murderers may not draw material benefits from the death of their victims.

    Poland is first in line. Other countries in Eastern Europe like Ukraine and Belarus will come next. But they unlike Poland are not 'ripe' yet for the racket. Ukraine is too poor and politically precarious, so in the mean time the Banderites, the true Jew killers of Eastern Europe, are being nourished and encouraged to taint Ukraine forever with Nazism and make Ukraine easy picking in the future. Belarus is under Putin's protective umbrella. Jewish claims against Belarus would push it closer to Russia. Perhaps Putin could ask his buddy Netanyahu to make such claims. At some point we will see Slovakia being hit really hard because Slovakia was the most enthusiastic country in Europe with respect to Nazi Jewish policies.

    Poland was drawn (willingly) into the American sphere of influence with no alternatives left. To make it worse Poland was put (put itself) on the course of conflict with Germany and EU. The recent Polish claims about restitutions from Germany are part of it. It is really just a psy-op directed at Polish public opinion to bring them down to the level of the Jewish vindictive ethics to make them more appreciative of Jewish claims leaving a false promise that once Germany pays (which will not happen) paying the Jews will be easier. Compare that with the letter of reconciliation "We forgive and ask for forgiveness" of 1965 by Polish Bishops to their German counterparts which represents the true spirit of Polish Catholicism.

    Some Poles also entertain illusory rationalization that the Jewish claims will be offset by purchases of American (and Israeli) armaments which they want to buy anyway. Poles go through the standard steps of denial. And they are afraid to talk about it because of fear of being accused of antisemitism.

    One may wonder to what extent the prying off V4 countries from EU and creating the illusory vision of the Intermarium and the vilification of Russia are part of the long term strategy to settle the Holocaust financial claims. When you think about it, whatever Israel and the Jewry are doing to these countries is good for Russia in the long term.
  97. @Thorfinnsson

    …and what stopped them from concentrating on defeating the British in North Africa by way of not conducting Barbarossa? Thus saving valuable resources and military power being sent east – particularly with the Italian forces at an early stage in North Africa proving to be not so successful.
     

    Logistics are the largest reason. Prior to Operation Sonnenblume, the Germans determined the largest force that could be fielded in North Africa and supplied from Italy was just four divisions (compare to the Eastern Front).

    That is not the sole reason of course, as even this Hitler refused to send. The Italians after the war accused Hitler of having a purely "continental" strategic view. Erich Raeder, commander of the Kriegsmarine, suggested taking Gibraltar (with or without Franco's consent) and expanding into the Mediterranean.

    The German airborne invasion of Crete, while a success, perhaps in a way doomed the small Afrika Korps that Hitler did authorize. Owing to the huge losses at Crete, the Germans chose to cancel the planned invasion of Malta (Operation Hercules). Malta in turn aided the British in interdicting Italian supply convoys to Africa.

    German and Italian troops in Africa always suffered extreme shortages and relied heavily on captured equipment (by the time of 1st El Alamein over 80% of Rommel's truck park was captured British vehicles). The situation was so bad that Axis troops in Africa even suffered from nutritional deficiencies and were jaundiced.

    The Shah of Iran had come out of support for the Nazis, M-R pact – surely all this secured them a steady oil supply for the short-medium term?
     

    Sort of. He simply declared neutrality and refused to expel German railwaymen and other technical specialists. Iran also reduced its trade with Germany at the request of the British.

    His actions were considered insufficient, and given the importance of Iran to Britain and the USSR the hapless country was invaded and occupied.

    In any case owing to the Royal Navy there was no way to ship Iranian oil to Germany. In theory Iranian oil could've been shipped overland through Turkey, but the British could've seized Iran (or just the oilfields) long before any such infrastructure could be built.

    If you are saying that the Kriegsmarine were so outmatched by the British that they were going to get smashed in the Mediterranean sea ( thus making land /air combat in North Africa redundant) then surely you could argue that Wehrmacht combined could have turned the situation by spoiler tactics- engaging the British to such an extent -hurting their oil infrastructure in North Africa, hitting naval oil routes back to Britain – that some treaty over the oil states would have been reached? North Africa was the British Empire’s biggest source of oil.
     

    The Kriegsmarine did not even have the ability to enter the Mediterranean Sea because the British controlled Gibraltar and Suez. They were able to infiltrate some U-boats.

    The Regia Marina was a fairly large force, but it did not have the same high standards as the British. It also suffered from chronic shortages of fuel and thus often was not able to sortie.

    There was no oil in North Africa then (it had not yet been discovered), and since Italy's entry into the war convoys from the east had already been routed around the Cape of Good Hope rather than through the Mediterranean.

    An Axis victory in the Western Desert Campaign was in my view possible, but then what? Britain would be excluded from the Mediterranean...but still undefeated. Presumably Axis forces could've gone onto Iran, which was Britain's major source of oil (British Petroleum was originally known as Anglo-Persian), but Britain could also import oil from the rest of the world.

    Let’s not forget that Britain never once entered Poland in WW2, defeating an enemy (positioned 30 km away through the Eenglish Channel) by first defeating them in North Africa, then going through Italy via the south, THEN belatedly going through northern France ( as the Soviets start liberating Europe) is practically an unheard of method of victory in war – very successful in this instance…but one in which if the Nazi’s had known this as if psychic- they would probably have thought that “North Africa – Italy – then France” method creates a series of “fail-safes” in strategy for the Nazis from they would have been very confident of not losing the war
     

    The British did draw up plans to invade Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe in 1945 in order to liberate Poland, but the plan was not carried out for reasons of sanity. The planners clearly had a sense of humor as the plan was named Operation Unthinkable.

    As a seapower on the edge of Europe with limited amounts of manpower Britain traditionally exerted itself on the continent through its navy and commercial power. It did field a respectable army, but it was never large and always fought in coalition. After the 100 Years War the only time Britain ever fielded a massive army in Europe for many years in a row was in WW1.

    British strategy against Germany was fixed in 1936 to focus on strategic bombing. It was in 1936 that the Air Ministry issued Specification P.13/36 for a "worldwide bomber". This ultimately led to the Avro Lancaster, superior to the American B-17 and B-24. In order to mollify the French, the Chamberlain government also agreed to send a small expeditionary force (the BEF) to the Continent again as in 1914.

    The Anglo-French plan was to stay on the defensive while strangling Germany with economic warfare. They would then use their superior resources (Britain and France had a GDP 60% larger than Germany and Italy) to eventually overwhelm Germany. This was in effect what had worked in WW1, and the defensive mindset was common to a generation of leaders who had cut their teeth fighting the exceptionally skilled German army and had no desire to repeat the horrors of the Somme and Verdun.

    Yes, obviously this meant that they never intended to lift a finger for Poland. Too bad for the idiot Poles for being duped by the West.

    Unfortunately for their clever plan, the French were unexpectedly completely defeated. In fact, while the Entente expected Poland's defeat, they also thought Poland would hold out for three months rather than three weeks.

    The British were still focused on their strategic bombing plan (which ultimately developed into a terrifying weapon), but were forced to improvise. As German_reader pointed out, obviously the British alone invading Europe (right after losing all their army's heavy equipment) to face the entire German army was suicidal.

    In fact the British never wanted to invade Europe again at all after the Fall of France except in peripheral actions meant to advance postwar British strategic interests. They had to be dragooned into invading Europe by America, which was more eager to fight and had superior resources.

    In fairness to the British their strategic bombing plan was sound as demonstrated by the Battle of the Ruhr.

    thanks for that – very interesting. Big and lazy errors from myself about oil production during the war – my apologies!

  98. @Thorfinnsson
    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point--and exceptionally weird.

    If anyone can compete with the Jews in WW2 victimhood it's the Poles.

    But now we learn that Poland shoah'd the SIX MILLION...

    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point–and exceptionally weird.

    Much weirder though imo is that there’s so much gentile support for Jewish nationalism, even though there’s almost zero reciprocity.
    There are tons of gentiles who get very, very emotionally invested in their defense of Israel and Zionism, not least on the so-called right (it’s of course especially bad in the US where things are just grotesque, but there are many such people in Europe as well, across the political spectrum). I don’t understand the psychology of those people.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The successful "Judeo-Christian" psyop along with the suppression of negative information about the Jews explains this.

    To the ignorant but patriotic Westerner Israel appears to be a kind of fellow Western country struggling against evil Muslims and demented liberals. This sort of person is completely unaware of the fact that Jews (at least diaspora Jews) hate him.

    The situation in America is particularly bad owing to the sheer number of Jews here as well as the weird heresy of Christian Zionism.

    There is admittedly some reciprocity from Israel itself lately. Netanyahu has been cozying up with the Visegrad group, Trump, Bolsonaro, etc. This draws outraged condemnation from the diaspora.
    , @Denis
    It is because they are projecting their nationalist inclinations wrt their own countries onto Israel.

    From the point of view of an uninformed westerner (especially in the Anglosphere), Israeli Jews are a group of white, pseudo-Christian people fighting a bunch of brown Muslims. Throughout the west, it is more-or-less socially unacceptable (for white people) to complain about non-white immigration, or to express any sentiment that could possibly be construed as racism; so, those who hold those sentiments but can't express them properly project them onto Israel, since supporting Israel is perfectly acceptable. In doing so, they use Israel, which they imagine to be a semi-western, semi-Christian country, as a proxy for their own country. This is why they get as emotional as they do; they are (probably subconsciously) mentally substituting Israel and Israelis for their own countries and their own people.

    It's pretty retarded.

    , @Dmitry
    Israel's actual reality is painful, frustrating tolerance and liberalism anyway, where people who hate each other are forced to live together. And it's one of the most multicultural and multi-religious countries, which is exactly what creates nationalist tensions and violence there. It's a multiethnic nightmare - opposite of what voters actually want (homogeneous, conflictless, European countries, like Poland or Hungary).

    To go back to Israel and AfD.

    Israel's main problem in external policy, is that it has very bad relations with most Muslim countries, and moderately bad one with liberal countries.

    Israel's diplomatic priority should be to improve its relationship with Muslim - within limitations of its being in conflict with Muslims.

    That's one of the most important things for Israel's survival - to improve its relations with Muslim countries.

    So Israel should definitely not try to create relationships with anti-Muslim European political parties, unless those parties are going to be influential in the government of their countries, preferably powerful countries.

    As long as anti-Muslim parties are in the opposition, Israel will be idiots to be associated with them.

    -

    As a similar lesson - Russia should not associate with opposition political parties in Europe, anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim, unless they will actually win an election and become powerful. When Russian government officials were associating with political losers like Marine Le Pen, the effect was both bad for Marine Le Pen, and bad for Russian external policy (reducing its influence) in France.
  99. @German_reader

    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point–and exceptionally weird.
     
    Much weirder though imo is that there's so much gentile support for Jewish nationalism, even though there's almost zero reciprocity.
    There are tons of gentiles who get very, very emotionally invested in their defense of Israel and Zionism, not least on the so-called right (it's of course especially bad in the US where things are just grotesque, but there are many such people in Europe as well, across the political spectrum). I don't understand the psychology of those people.

    The successful “Judeo-Christian” psyop along with the suppression of negative information about the Jews explains this.

    To the ignorant but patriotic Westerner Israel appears to be a kind of fellow Western country struggling against evil Muslims and demented liberals. This sort of person is completely unaware of the fact that Jews (at least diaspora Jews) hate him.

    The situation in America is particularly bad owing to the sheer number of Jews here as well as the weird heresy of Christian Zionism.

    There is admittedly some reciprocity from Israel itself lately. Netanyahu has been cozying up with the Visegrad group, Trump, Bolsonaro, etc. This draws outraged condemnation from the diaspora.

  100. @for-the-record
    Orbán also seems to consider this strategy: trying to get the Israeli Jews on his side

    On the other hand (hope you have deep pockets):

    DC court says Holocaust survivors can sue Hungary in the US for huge reparations

    The second-highest court in the United States has reinstated a lawsuit brought by a group of Holocaust survivors and their families against the government of Hungary and its national railroad. The class action suit demands restitution for the role Hungary played in the murder of 500,000 Jews and the seizure of their property during World War II.

    Setting the stage for what could be a landmark civil suit running into the tens of billions of dollars, Judge Patricia A. Millett wrote for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 28 that Hungary could not force the plaintiffs to have the case tried in a Hungarian court.

    The decision overturned that of a federal judge who ruled that the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty between Hungary and the Allied powers granted Hungary immunity. . .

    Over the past 20 years, the Hungarian government has made a pretense of allowing Hungarian Holocaust victims to file claims for their losses, said Zell, but he called the payouts “tantamount to a joke.”

    . . . Zell said that the case against the Hungarian government and the national railway, Magyar Allamvasutak, could see a significant financial claim filed on behalf of Jewish Holocaust survivors.

    “We didn’t put a number in this case, but if it goes forward we’ll be asking for tens of billions of dollars of compensation, which is the amount that would be owed based on the value of the property that was taken at the time of the deportations to the camps,” said Zell. . .

    If the case makes it all the way to a final judgment, the plaintiffs would likely seek satisfaction from Hungarian assets in the US or elsewhere, said Zell.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/dc-court-says-holocaust-survivors-can-sue-hungary-in-the-us-for-huge-reparations/
     

    This court case has been going on for at least five (or maybe ten?) years now. It has been thrown out of court at least once, though it’s probably the furthest it has ever come.

    The case itself seems to be, on the face of it, quite ridiculous: they are suing the Hungarian State Railways for its role in the holocaust. I mean, it’s not like the state railways company was in any position to make decisions or anything. Regarding the Hungarian government. It’s not like Hungary (whose lawful prime minister had to hide in the Turkish embassy, and then was arrested by the Germans and sent to Mauthausen) was in any position to resist the Germans. Regarding the lost property: all Hungarian citizens lost all or most of their property between 1944 and 1961 (the final collectivization), and they didn’t regain any of it. Regarding the amount demanded: sure, it’s like present-day Hungarians (the oldest of whom were all very young in 1944) should pay a year of their GDP to a few hundred or thousand survivors, or the descendants of the survivors (who arguably didn’t suffer anything – they were born after the thing happened…)

    If the goal was to increase anti-Semitism, then sure, dude.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    they are suing the Hungarian State Railways for its role in the holocaust. I mean, it’s not like the state railways company was in any position to make decisions or anything

    Well, French and Dutch national railways accepted to pay reparations (in the case of the SNCF, to Holocaust survivors in the US), and they were defeated countries not allies of Germany. So my guess is that Hungary is going to have to go a very long way to ingratiate itself with the US/Israel to avoid a massive settlement.
  101. @Dmitry
    I agree Trump is very clever in marketing (I was sure he was going to be President already when I first saw him talking about it in 2012 in YouTube).

    However, he is not cynical. He believes his policies, like tariffs, Israel and border walls.

    Some of these are consistent for all his life. You can see him discussing trade protectionism in the 1980s on television.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI

    With Israel, the reason everyone knew he was going to be the most pro-Israel American president (before he became president), was because he was personally funding Israeli settlements since 1981.

    His name is in townsquares in two settlements in Israel as a largest donor to their establishment

    https://i.imgur.com/VDEY0Sy.jpg?1

    He wins awards like:


    https://i.imgur.com/4wy3w8n.jpg

    He led "Salute to Israel" parade in 2004 (lol how does this exist?)


    https://i.imgur.com/yGgLMVB.jpg

    In 2006, he spent $44 million to buy land in Israel


    Donald Trump completes $44m purchase of Elite site
     
    https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-1000105798


    Just searching now for this topic, and saw he bought 4 ambulance cycles for Israel in 2014 (there's probably a lot more things like this):


    Beer will be meeting with Trump at his office tomorrow to get the check that will pay for the four new ambucycles.
    Beer commended Trump for his donation, adding “he is a true lover of Israel.”
     
    https://www.vosizneias.com/154841/2014/02/10/new-york-trump-to-donate-rescue-bikes-to-israels-united-hatzalah/

    but are you saying that he’s so pro-Israel that it accounts for his heavily anti-Russia policy( in that Russia is aligned with Syria and semi-aligned with Iran)? Or that he’s forced into this by the rest of American apparatus?

    As for Russia and Israel – I’ve always viewed the relationship as broadly , positive, but Israel have at times assisted either the state or individuals in Gruzia and Ukraine that are hostile to Russia….and I did note with interest that when practically every western state sent their most important leaders to Shimon Peres’s funeral…..not a single one of Russia’s big politicians went there – not VVP,Medvedev, Lavrov, Matvienko, Volodin . Obviously the US sent everyone, Fra, Spain, Germany ,UK, Italy all sent their PM/Presidents and constitutional monarchs – but nobody for Russia

    Poroshenko did though, laughably go to that march in Paris in solidarity over the Charlie Hebdo killings .

  102. Major General JFC Fuller wrote a few books on the American Civil War, for a strictly military assessment then you can’t beat the analysis of arguably the twentieth century’s preeminent military theorist.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Thanks for the recommendations!
  103. Anon[219] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry

    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan – he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

     

    Apparently, it was two times:

    In 1998:
    http://www.danielpipes.org/311/the-road-to-damascus-what-netanyahu-almost-gave-away

    And in 2010:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-prepared-to-hand-back-golan-heights-to-syria-in-return-for-peace-say-reports-8209612.html

    It would have destroyed his popularity - Israel has its only ski resort there.

    Yeah, most people get very tense when they have to ski abroad. I mean, look at the Saudis and Qataris – they have to make artificial snow! And the shithole countries, without any kind of snow, real or artificial, are SO SAD!

    And the lack of ski resorts is even more painful if you are talking about Jews, some of the most sporty characters this planet has spawned.

    Just like the Saudi entity has spread over the last 150 years from nothing, the Jewish entity is spreading its creep in its proximity. Luckily, they are both in a place cursed by nature and inhabited by morons, so almost no one care about the precise border, and the few who don’t like it, can’t do much. If they would visit us only for ski and snow, the rest of the world would be a better place.

  104. @reiner Tor
    Jewish crypsis means that they always have to adapt ideologies which are not explicitly pro-Jewish, only implicitly so. But the ideologies have lives of their own, and they could always easily turn out ultimately anti-Jewish. For example Bolshevism turned out to be less good for the Jews than originally imagined. Similarly with multiculturalism, it will likely be negative for the Jews, longer term.

    But they never seem to be smart enough. They are not very good at universalistic thinking, and so they don’t really understand the direction of these ideologies even as they already start turning on them. See the numerous Jews supporting Bolshevism still in the early 1950s, long after it ceased being good for the Jews.

    Some Jews might already see it, but they still usually cling to some parts of the old and already useless (in fact, outright dangerous) ideology.

    See the numerous Jews supporting Bolshevism still in the early 1950s, long after it ceased being good for the Jews.

    It’s an autistic theory of mind.

    What you believe is influenced by emotions and this has a racial component particularly when minorities want stronger position in society. Ideologies which favor the latter,may have a more rosy emotional coloration (i.e. seem more attractive).

    But people cannot actually believe or not believe in truth of something, on basis of “racial interest and longterm conspiracies”. They believe it because they believe it is the true description of reality.

    Marxism was more religion than political theory, and like Christianity a Jewish-originated religion – (it’s structure almost the same as Christianity), whose liberation was universalist. And people who believed it, believed because they thought it was universally true and factual description of reality.

    It was designed for educated people of the era, designed to be easy to believe (supernatural explanations are hidden by Hegelian concepts like “dialectic”), and for Jews it gave opportunity to “completely assimilate” (covert to a kind living Christianity, rather than the formal one which no longer had influence in the world).

    Attraction of Marxism for Jews, precisely is to escape both their external and internal position as Jews, and dissolve into a universal faith and utopia.

    Minus utopia, of course, this is what will have occurred with much of (or most?) Jews believers of Marxism. Their grandchildren today, will usually be 3/4 Slavic, and their great-grandchildren, 7/8 Slavic.

    The “racial interest” to convert to Marxism was to dissolve an unpleasant and dangerous position as Jews, to become important citizens, and this is what happened for a large proportion of them.

    Similarly with multiculturalism, it will likely be negative for the Jews,

    Multiculturalism is intrinsically attractive for a large proportion of any population.

    Putin is not Jewish, but he loves multiculturalism almost as his main religion. Merkel is not Jewish, and loves it. Obama not Jewish and loves it.

    It was one of the ideologies which has included both sides of the Cold War. If you think this is only attractive to Jews, and not something intrinsically and universally attractive to a significant proportion of people, then you will soon be confused (unless you extend the conspiracy to include all these people like Putin and Merkel being controlled by Jews).

    Multiculturalism is definitely a “utopian” ideology though, and will soon collapse against reality in most countries.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Multiculturalism is definitely a “utopian” ideology though, and will soon collapse against reality in most countries.

     

    Because it's so utopian and unrealistic, it's going to be always attractive and almost ineliminable with a proportion of the public. Demand for utopian things is eternal.

    The way to solve will probably happen on the supply side - which would be substitution an equally utopian and unrealistic ideology for multiculturalism (as multiculturalism had earlier substituted for Marxism).

    I guess the new gay religion is already partly substituting, although it's too compatible with the multiculturalist religion, to push it out.

    Of course, ideologies cannot be created on this cynical basis. You need to actually believe them to create an effective ones.

    , @German_reader

    Multiculturalism is intrinsically attractive for a large proportion of any population.
     
    It's true that there is significant support for multiculturalism among white gentiles, and the importance of any Jewish influence on the emergence and spread of the concept can certainly be debated (though I believe it's not non-existent, see e.g. Horace Kallen). However imo you miss one important distinction. A white gentile in favour of multiculturalism and lax immigration controls will usually appeal to some abstract universalist ideal, there's no sense that he's in favour of it because it's good for his own group (usually he thinks he doesn't have a own group, the aspiration is that we'll all be merely "human"). By contrast, many Jews explicitly state that they're in favour of multiculturalism and high immigration because they think it's good for them as Jews (e.g. Yascha Mounk explicitly linked his support for mass immigration to his feeling of alienation as a Jew when growing up in Germany, and says things like "A society that is welcoming to Muslims, is also welcoming to Jews" - he's clearly arguing from perceived self-interest, and arguments of that kind are common among spokesmen of Jewish organizations).

    It was one of the ideologies which has included both sides of the Cold War.
     
    Multiculturalism and "antiracism" were around during the Cold war, but only exploded in significance after the Cold war. The 1980s were very different from what came later, a kind of Indian summer for the white world.
    , @reiner Tor

    It’s an autistic theory of mind.
     
    Projection. See:

    But people cannot actually believe or not believe in truth of something, on basis of “racial interest and longterm conspiracies”. They believe it because they believe it is the true description of reality.
     
    In reality, people usually find it easier to believe what is good for them or which is compatible with their other beliefs. In my experience Jews (and, to be honest, other highly committed nationalists - I have noticed similar things with Hungarian nationalists) often cannot imagine that what is good for them can be neutral or even negative for any universalistic metric.

    So Jews will not even notice that there is a difference between a Jew who explicitly argues that multiculturalism is good because it’s good for the Jews and a gentile white who argues that it’s good because it’s morally good. Interestingly, even you didn’t notice it. Contrary to your assertion, those Jews are rarely cynical, because of course they also use universalistic moral arguments. They don’t even notice that the two are not the same, or that at least in theory there could be a contradiction.
  105. @Dmitry

    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan – he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

     

    Apparently, it was two times:

    In 1998:
    http://www.danielpipes.org/311/the-road-to-damascus-what-netanyahu-almost-gave-away

    And in 2010:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-prepared-to-hand-back-golan-heights-to-syria-in-return-for-peace-say-reports-8209612.html

    It would have destroyed his popularity - Israel has its only ski resort there.

    Israel has its only ski resort there

    It’s like another Shoah!

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    They have missiles on them there so

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_dsh1ZBY4Q
  106. @Dmitry

    See the numerous Jews supporting Bolshevism still in the early 1950s, long after it ceased being good for the Jews.

     

    It's an autistic theory of mind.

    What you believe is influenced by emotions and this has a racial component particularly when minorities want stronger position in society. Ideologies which favor the latter,may have a more rosy emotional coloration (i.e. seem more attractive).

    But people cannot actually believe or not believe in truth of something, on basis of "racial interest and longterm conspiracies". They believe it because they believe it is the true description of reality.

    Marxism was more religion than political theory, and like Christianity a Jewish-originated religion - (it's structure almost the same as Christianity), whose liberation was universalist. And people who believed it, believed because they thought it was universally true and factual description of reality.

    It was designed for educated people of the era, designed to be easy to believe (supernatural explanations are hidden by Hegelian concepts like "dialectic"), and for Jews it gave opportunity to "completely assimilate" (covert to a kind living Christianity, rather than the formal one which no longer had influence in the world).

    Attraction of Marxism for Jews, precisely is to escape both their external and internal position as Jews, and dissolve into a universal faith and utopia.

    Minus utopia, of course, this is what will have occurred with much of (or most?) Jews believers of Marxism. Their grandchildren today, will usually be 3/4 Slavic, and their great-grandchildren, 7/8 Slavic.

    The "racial interest" to convert to Marxism was to dissolve an unpleasant and dangerous position as Jews, to become important citizens, and this is what happened for a large proportion of them.


    Similarly with multiculturalism, it will likely be negative for the Jews,

     

    Multiculturalism is intrinsically attractive for a large proportion of any population.

    Putin is not Jewish, but he loves multiculturalism almost as his main religion. Merkel is not Jewish, and loves it. Obama not Jewish and loves it.

    It was one of the ideologies which has included both sides of the Cold War. If you think this is only attractive to Jews, and not something intrinsically and universally attractive to a significant proportion of people, then you will soon be confused (unless you extend the conspiracy to include all these people like Putin and Merkel being controlled by Jews).

    Multiculturalism is definitely a "utopian" ideology though, and will soon collapse against reality in most countries.

    Multiculturalism is definitely a “utopian” ideology though, and will soon collapse against reality in most countries.

    Because it’s so utopian and unrealistic, it’s going to be always attractive and almost ineliminable with a proportion of the public. Demand for utopian things is eternal.

    The way to solve will probably happen on the supply side – which would be substitution an equally utopian and unrealistic ideology for multiculturalism (as multiculturalism had earlier substituted for Marxism).

    I guess the new gay religion is already partly substituting, although it’s too compatible with the multiculturalist religion, to push it out.

    Of course, ideologies cannot be created on this cynical basis. You need to actually believe them to create an effective ones.

  107. @Dmitry

    See the numerous Jews supporting Bolshevism still in the early 1950s, long after it ceased being good for the Jews.

     

    It's an autistic theory of mind.

    What you believe is influenced by emotions and this has a racial component particularly when minorities want stronger position in society. Ideologies which favor the latter,may have a more rosy emotional coloration (i.e. seem more attractive).

    But people cannot actually believe or not believe in truth of something, on basis of "racial interest and longterm conspiracies". They believe it because they believe it is the true description of reality.

    Marxism was more religion than political theory, and like Christianity a Jewish-originated religion - (it's structure almost the same as Christianity), whose liberation was universalist. And people who believed it, believed because they thought it was universally true and factual description of reality.

    It was designed for educated people of the era, designed to be easy to believe (supernatural explanations are hidden by Hegelian concepts like "dialectic"), and for Jews it gave opportunity to "completely assimilate" (covert to a kind living Christianity, rather than the formal one which no longer had influence in the world).

    Attraction of Marxism for Jews, precisely is to escape both their external and internal position as Jews, and dissolve into a universal faith and utopia.

    Minus utopia, of course, this is what will have occurred with much of (or most?) Jews believers of Marxism. Their grandchildren today, will usually be 3/4 Slavic, and their great-grandchildren, 7/8 Slavic.

    The "racial interest" to convert to Marxism was to dissolve an unpleasant and dangerous position as Jews, to become important citizens, and this is what happened for a large proportion of them.


    Similarly with multiculturalism, it will likely be negative for the Jews,

     

    Multiculturalism is intrinsically attractive for a large proportion of any population.

    Putin is not Jewish, but he loves multiculturalism almost as his main religion. Merkel is not Jewish, and loves it. Obama not Jewish and loves it.

    It was one of the ideologies which has included both sides of the Cold War. If you think this is only attractive to Jews, and not something intrinsically and universally attractive to a significant proportion of people, then you will soon be confused (unless you extend the conspiracy to include all these people like Putin and Merkel being controlled by Jews).

    Multiculturalism is definitely a "utopian" ideology though, and will soon collapse against reality in most countries.

    Multiculturalism is intrinsically attractive for a large proportion of any population.

    It’s true that there is significant support for multiculturalism among white gentiles, and the importance of any Jewish influence on the emergence and spread of the concept can certainly be debated (though I believe it’s not non-existent, see e.g. Horace Kallen). However imo you miss one important distinction. A white gentile in favour of multiculturalism and lax immigration controls will usually appeal to some abstract universalist ideal, there’s no sense that he’s in favour of it because it’s good for his own group (usually he thinks he doesn’t have a own group, the aspiration is that we’ll all be merely “human”). By contrast, many Jews explicitly state that they’re in favour of multiculturalism and high immigration because they think it’s good for them as Jews (e.g. Yascha Mounk explicitly linked his support for mass immigration to his feeling of alienation as a Jew when growing up in Germany, and says things like “A society that is welcoming to Muslims, is also welcoming to Jews” – he’s clearly arguing from perceived self-interest, and arguments of that kind are common among spokesmen of Jewish organizations).

    It was one of the ideologies which has included both sides of the Cold War.

    Multiculturalism and “antiracism” were around during the Cold war, but only exploded in significance after the Cold war. The 1980s were very different from what came later, a kind of Indian summer for the white world.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    “A society that is welcoming to Muslims, is also welcoming to Jews” – he’s clearly arguing from perceived self-interest
     
    Jews can be a bit like Alawites in Syria. Assad government always talks about religious tolerance, secular state and multiculturalism of Syria.

    This is less utopian, than self-interest. (Only in secular, multinational, multireligious Syria, can Alawites with 10% of the population, rule over Sunnis with 80%). With Jews, there can be this cynicism as well.

    By far the funniest example of "cynical anti-racist" is Viatcheslav Kantor. He is an ordinary corrupt oligarch, who wants to secure his money by becoming internationally indispensable (like how Abramovich did with football). So renamed himself "Moshe" and suddenly discovered international role as a noble Jew and, anti-racist campaigner.

    However, I don't think most Jewish liberals in rich countries like America, are cynical in this. They are mainly quite utopian people, who had bourgeois families, studied in private schools, and very comfortable lives, where they never saw any wars or violence. All this creates soft, utopian people.

    Someone above says why they angry that Netanyahu is friends with Orban. The reason is because they are utopian and self-angelizing their image. Therefore if Israel is associated with Orban and Jews =Israel, their self-image is destroyed. (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).

  108. @DFH

    Israel has its only ski resort there
     
    It's like another Shoah!

    They have missiles on them there so

  109. @Thorfinnsson


    shifted to what? Submarines would have been necessary anyway for the war against Britain, and the Luftwaffe remained a force used mostly for tactical support of ground troops, with all attempts at creating aircraft capable of strategic bombing unsuccesful and only pursued later in the war (and those weren’t just caused by considerations of the war against the western powers, there was also the idea of building an Uralbomber to strike Soviet industry in the Urals region).
     
    Between the Fall of France and the start of Barbarossa:

    • Massive capital investments--the largest investment boom in German history
    • U-boat production tripled
    • Aircraft production increased 40%
    • Aircraft manufacturing workforce grew 40% (effects of this not seen until 1942)
    • Munitions production was cut from 36% of expenditures to 20% (owing to large stocks--22m 10.5cm howitzer shells were in inventory in September, 1940)
    • Vehicles & weapons production increased 54%
    • Army's steel ration cut by one-third
    • Exports increased 25%

    The basic goal of Ruestungsprogramm B was to prepare for a long war against the Anglo-Americans while still increasing the striking power of the army, which was done by doubling the number of Panzer divisions and increasing the amount of artillery guns in the infantry. This was done on the cheap by restricting the production of munitions as excess stocks had been produced in advance of the invasion of France. The freed resources were allocated to capital investments, the navy, and exports.

    The capital investments should be further explained. Gigantic investments had already begun in 1938, but after the Fall of France the largest investments ever in German history (relative terms) were made. Nothing of the sort occurred in Britain or the USSR (though the USA made gigantic investments). These investments were all made for the global war against the Anglo-Americans.

    Some of the investments made include:

    • Henschel & Sohn added 100,000 square meters of factory floor space in Kassel
    • Nibelungen tank factory constructed in St Valentin, Austria
    • Vomag in Plauen and Maschinenfabrik Niedersachsen works converted to tank production
    • IG Farben commenced construction on fuel plants to raise production from 4.3m tons to 10m by 1945
    • Work began on the Auschwitz factory complex, a 1.3bn Reichsmark investment (13bn Euros today)
    • 2.5bn Reichsmarks on other chemicals projects
    • 400m Reichsmark investment to raise Norwegian aluminum production from 46,000 tons to 200,000 tons by 1944
    • 1.5bn Reichsmark investment to increase Grossraum aluminum production to 1m tons
    • 685m Reichsmark investment to build the Flugmotorenwerk Ost in Austria with a planned output of 1,000 aero engines per month (this turned into a fiasco)
    • 170m Reichsmark investment to increase production of Daimler-Benz inverted V-12 aero engines at Genshagen (major success--actual output reached over 1,200 engines per month in 1944)
    • 5.2bn Reichsmarks into all Luftwaffe industries from 1939-1942 (explains much of the "armaments miracle")

    In the absence of American involvement, perhaps more would've been allocated to current weapons production. Alternatively, Britain and the USSR would've faced a massive flood of German production in 1943 and later without a corresponding flood of American production.

    Figures are from Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction.


    Given how absurdly confident Hitler and his generals were of victory in June/July 1941 (they really thought the Soviet Union would collapse in a few weeks), this seems likely to me.
    They really had no idea about Soviet capabilities. I’m currently reading a German book about the Wehrmacht, and the picture that emerges of Barbarossa is one of absolute hubris (e.g. the well-known fact that only a fairly small part of the Wehrmacht was motorized, the inferiority of German tanks to some Soviet designs, only compensated in 1941 by better German tactics, use of radio etc., the divisions destined for occupation duties in the rear being grotesquely under-manned and under-equipped, and much more).
     
    Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.

    The situation in the fall of 1940 was that the Luftwaffe had failed to defeat Britain, the Kriegsmarine was a tiny force, and Germany was facing a long global war against the vastly superior combined resources of the United States and British Empire. At the same time it was falling into dangerous dependence on the Soviet Union.

    Unlike the Luftwaffe, the German Army had seemingly proven itself as an apparently invincible war winning weapon. Conquering Russia would solve Germany's raw materials problem and provide it with all the resources it required to face the Anglo-American onslaught.

    While one shouldn't excuse German hubris and poor intelligence, the fact that the Red Army had assembled more tanks and aircraft than the rest of the world combined was certainly shocking to everyone. So too was the size of the Red Army and the ability of Soviet leadership to rapidly form divisions. The Germans had expected to face 200 divisions, but by the time Barbarossa concluded they had faced something like 700 Soviet divisions.

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.), but fortunately relatively little of it was in service in 1941. The Il-2 also entered service that year but Great Patriotic War mythology aside it was a bad aircraft and should not have entered service.

    Also working in favor of the invading Germans was the continuing presence in the Soviet high command of very big-brained individuals like Artillery Directorate Chief Grigory Kulik, who had the inventor of the automatic grenade launcher executed and considered land mines to be a weapon of cowards. One of the reasons the T-34s encountered in 1941 were not a threat (aside from bad training, bad manufacturing quality, and bad deployment) was that Kulik deliberately sabotaged their anti-tank armament by supply an inferior gun and reducing the allocation of shells to the tanks.

    It's true that the Wehrmacht was not motorized (and in fact progressively demotorized throughout the war), but the Red Army was not either. Obviously the lack of trucks caused enormous problems, but none the less the Germans advanced into the USSR in 1941 as fast as the Americans did into Iraq in 2003.

    While one shouldn’t excuse German hubris and poor intelligence, the fact that the Red Army had assembled more tanks and aircraft than the rest of the world combined was certainly shocking to everyone.

    Those “total numbers” are bogus when one looks at the breakdown by type, vintage and condition in June 1941.https://i.imgur.com/TcTCtCl.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/rolbqEC.png

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.)

    ZiS-2 – discontinued because German tanks similarly powerful to KV-3, KV-4 didn’t materialise – instead, thousands of Pz. II, Pz. 35, Pz. 38, Pz. III and Pz. IV with 30 mm frontal armour invaded.
    ZiS-2 had very high MV, high barrel wear, and would go right through them.
    T-34-57 Tank Destroyers were discontinued for the same reason.

    The most dangerous adversary for Allied and Soviet tankers – PaKs, Panzerjaeger detachments (both towed and self-propelled) and StuGs. Tank vs. tank warfare was advised against – Rommel, Guderian and Mainstein being explicit about it. In 1941 whenever Panzers met head-on with Soviet tank brigades, they suffered badly. The key in Barbarossa was being on the strategic offensive, attacking along unsuspected axes, deep-striking with Panzers at vulnerable targets and letting the Infantry mop up the survivors. Soviet mechanized corps would be ordered to counterattack, break encirclement, react to German advances and then go right into prepared German positions. Strategic offensive+high strategic mobility = Tactical defensive = Victory. Arracourt was the exact same thing, Americans reached same conclusions post-war.

    T-34 was actually supposed to be a pre-production/early version to learn the lessons and educate workshops. According to original planning, it was supposed to be replaced by T-34M starting with July 1941, and completely gone from production by November 1941. The L-11 armament you quote had no problems with early German AFVs – they were that thin-skinned.

    Yak-3 was introduced in 1944. Yak-1 was not even the standard fighter in 1941, let alone there being enough frontline pilots traind to use them – most were accustomed to I-153 biplane and I-16 monoplane.

    The Il-2 also entered service that year but Great Patriotic War mythology aside it was a bad aircraft and should not have entered service.

    Better CS than Ju-87. All CS aircraft are hopeless in conditions of hostile air superiority – Stuka suffered horribly both in 1940 over Low Countries and France, and in Channel and over Britain.

    One of the reasons the T-34s encountered in 1941 were not a threat (aside from bad training, bad manufacturing quality, and bad deployment) was that Kulik deliberately sabotaged their anti-tank armament by supply an inferior gun and reducing the allocation of shells to the tanks.

    Oh, but it was a threat. And a hell of a threat. You see, by far the most numerous AT weapons in the invading army were 3.7 cm PaK and KwK. They were useless against T-34 from all angles and at all combat ranges. The 5cm L/42 of tanks was inadequate as well, while L/60 needed either APCR or lucky side shot.
    More T-34 and KV-1 were destroyed by their own crews and abandoned than were lost in direct combat in 1941 – this being the key of the advantage the side which is on the strategic offensive enjoys – it gets the spoils of battlefield. This will become obvious in 1943, 1944 when German Heavy tank battalions suffer 30-40 tank losses in a single day – their repair shops got overran – and Germans didn’t count a tank as a loss until it disintegrated or was captured by enemy.
    So a horse-drawn, dominantly foot infantry army with puny 3000-something Panzers, PzJg, StPz and StuG, with light Panzer divisions with a single tank battalion (your vaunted doubling of number of Panzer divisions in 1940-1941 was achieved by halving the tank component per Pz. division) drastically outperformed the Big Cat, Wunderwaffe army of 1943-1945.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Those “total numbers” are bogus when one looks at the breakdown by type, vintage and condition in June 1941.
     
    Stated in my post:


    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.), but fortunately relatively little of it was in service in 1941.
     


    ZiS-2 – discontinued because German tanks similarly powerful to KV-3, KV-4 didn’t materialise – instead, thousands of Pz. II, Pz. 35, Pz. 38, Pz. III and Pz. IV with 30 mm frontal armour invaded.
    ZiS-2 had very high MV, high barrel wear, and would go right through them.
    T-34-57 Tank Destroyers were discontinued for the same reason.
     
    True, but it was still a technically superb weapon and showed the high skill that Soviet weapons designers had achieved.

    The ZiS-2 also reentered service in 1943.


    Yak-3 was introduced in 1944. Yak-1 was not even the standard fighter in 1941, let alone there being enough frontline pilots traind to use them – most were accustomed to I-153 biplane and I-16 monoplane.
     
    First flight was however in 1941. I brought it up as an example of Soviet engineering prowess. The Yak-3 was one of the best designs of the entire war.

    Other modern fighters were in service (or entering) in 1941 such as the Yak-1, MiG-3, LaGG 3, etc.

    And yes, most types in service in 1941 were obsolete (in harmony with my previous point that little of the modern weaponry was in service at this time).


    Better CS than Ju-87. All CS aircraft are hopeless in conditions of hostile air superiority – Stuka suffered horribly both in 1940 over Low Countries and France, and in Channel and over Britain.
     
    Don't agree other than the elementary point of hostile air superiority. The Ju-87 was one of the very few aircraft of the war capable of true dive bombing, which allowed for pinpoint targeting. Rocket attacks by comparison had quite poor accuracy (as did the Il-2's signature anti-tank bomblets)..

    Large caliber airborne cannons had a lot of potential, but no belligerent in the war fielded a satisfactory platform. The Americans designed the excellent Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly, but it was not introduced into service.


    Oh, but it was a threat. And a hell of a threat. You see, by far the most numerous AT weapons in the invading army were 3.7 cm PaK and KwK. They were useless against T-34 from all angles and at all combat ranges. The 5cm L/42 of tanks was inadequate as well, while L/60 needed either APCR or lucky side shot.
     
    Of course, as evidenced by the fact that the Germans ordered the development of new tank and anti-tank weapons in response. The T-34 was one of the most influential tanks of all time.


    So a horse-drawn, dominantly foot infantry army with puny 3000-something Panzers, PzJg, StPz and StuG, with light Panzer divisions with a single tank battalion (your vaunted doubling of number of Panzer divisions in 1940-1941 was achieved by halving the tank component per Pz. division) drastically outperformed the Big Cat, Wunderwaffe army of 1943-1945.
     
    And this ought to be the last word against military tech fanboys.

    Also, while the tank component of each Panzer division declined, the medium tank component did not. Recall that during Fall Gelb the most numerous German tank was the PzKw II.
  110. @German_reader

    Multiculturalism is intrinsically attractive for a large proportion of any population.
     
    It's true that there is significant support for multiculturalism among white gentiles, and the importance of any Jewish influence on the emergence and spread of the concept can certainly be debated (though I believe it's not non-existent, see e.g. Horace Kallen). However imo you miss one important distinction. A white gentile in favour of multiculturalism and lax immigration controls will usually appeal to some abstract universalist ideal, there's no sense that he's in favour of it because it's good for his own group (usually he thinks he doesn't have a own group, the aspiration is that we'll all be merely "human"). By contrast, many Jews explicitly state that they're in favour of multiculturalism and high immigration because they think it's good for them as Jews (e.g. Yascha Mounk explicitly linked his support for mass immigration to his feeling of alienation as a Jew when growing up in Germany, and says things like "A society that is welcoming to Muslims, is also welcoming to Jews" - he's clearly arguing from perceived self-interest, and arguments of that kind are common among spokesmen of Jewish organizations).

    It was one of the ideologies which has included both sides of the Cold War.
     
    Multiculturalism and "antiracism" were around during the Cold war, but only exploded in significance after the Cold war. The 1980s were very different from what came later, a kind of Indian summer for the white world.

    “A society that is welcoming to Muslims, is also welcoming to Jews” – he’s clearly arguing from perceived self-interest

    Jews can be a bit like Alawites in Syria. Assad government always talks about religious tolerance, secular state and multiculturalism of Syria.

    This is less utopian, than self-interest. (Only in secular, multinational, multireligious Syria, can Alawites with 10% of the population, rule over Sunnis with 80%). With Jews, there can be this cynicism as well.

    By far the funniest example of “cynical anti-racist” is Viatcheslav Kantor. He is an ordinary corrupt oligarch, who wants to secure his money by becoming internationally indispensable (like how Abramovich did with football). So renamed himself “Moshe” and suddenly discovered international role as a noble Jew and, anti-racist campaigner.

    However, I don’t think most Jewish liberals in rich countries like America, are cynical in this. They are mainly quite utopian people, who had bourgeois families, studied in private schools, and very comfortable lives, where they never saw any wars or violence. All this creates soft, utopian people.

    Someone above says why they angry that Netanyahu is friends with Orban. The reason is because they are utopian and self-angelizing their image. Therefore if Israel is associated with Orban and Jews =Israel, their self-image is destroyed. (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).

    • Replies: @Epigon

    (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).
     
    For the same reason they memed a Montenegrin atheist Yugocommunist and a former US banker as a Serb Ultranationalist Clerofascist, while presenting Islamists, Croat Ultranationalists and Albanian terrorists as anti-fascists, liberals, freedom-fighters and democrats.

    Ideology serves as a cover for geopolitical interests and "Realpolitik". The dogs barking about racism, fascism, dictators Putin, Assad, Maduro are useful idiots.
    You can't mobilise your nation for war by saying you want the resources, global power, installation of a puppet government - but start speaking about villains murdering babies in incubators, raping 300 000 women, killing 200 000 people in a year (US claim from 1993 on Serbs in Bosnia), gassing - barrel bombing clowns and hospitals and suddenly - the imbeciles start clamouring for intervention.

    , @Hyperborean

    Jews can be a bit like Alawites in Syria. Assad government always talks about religious tolerance, secular state and multiculturalism of Syria.

    This is less utopian, than self-interest. (Only in secular, multinational, multireligious Syria, can Alawites with 10% of the population, rule over Sunnis with 80%). With Jews, there can be this cynicism as well.
     
    The Syrian government is a supporter of secularism and protector of religious minorities, due to self-interest, but they also clearly define Syria as an Arab state.

    Aside from the fact that it is in the formal name of the country (Syrian Arab Republic), before the civil war the government used to stamp out Kurdish identity, like all the neighbouring states, due to fear of separatism and a desire to Arabise the country.

    However, I don’t think most Jewish liberals in rich countries like America, are cynical in this. They are mainly quite utopian people, who had bourgeois families, studied in private schools, and very comfortable lives, where they never saw any wars or violence. All this creates soft, utopian people.
     
    People who are uncomfortable with honestly thinking in terms of pure utilitarian morality (actions decided on whether this benefits me) can also fool themselves into believing something noble that just happens to support their interests.

    (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).
     
    Aside from everything else, they really, really, hate hate hate Putin for things like Pussy Riot and the "law against proselytising homosexual propaganda" to minors.
  111. @LondonBob
    Major General JFC Fuller wrote a few books on the American Civil War, for a strictly military assessment then you can't beat the analysis of arguably the twentieth century's preeminent military theorist.

    Thanks for the recommendations!

  112. Serbs somehow manage to be universally hated and demonised by Diaspora Jews, while having close and friendly relations with Israelites.

    In 1990s, Diaspora Jew dominated media and lobbysts somehow managed to present Serbs as Holocaust perpetrators, Nazis and fascists to general public in USA. This is even more impressive when one is aware of the fact that Serbs fought under Yugocommunist ideology and red star while Croats fought under Ustashe insignia, Ustashe banner, adopted Ustashe currency and Ustashe military units and ranks; Bosniaks happily embraced SS Handschar and Kama, Islamic declaration and Mujahedeen. Even today, when census data is freely available and undisputed, the propagandistic notion of Serb “genociders” and “ethnic cleansers” spread by “Free World” “Liberal Media” persists – 1+ million Serbs were cleansed from their homes from 1991 to 1999.

    At the same time, Israel sent military aid, equipment and intel (Jihadis, Mujahedeen, weapon shipments) to Serbs. The knowledgeable Israelis know that Judah Alkalai was inspired by Serb nationalist resurgence of 19th century, the same phenomena which influenced both the rabbi mentor the secular father of Herzl. Kingdom of Serbia was among the first nations to elevate Jews to equal rights, in addition to becoming the the first nation to support Balfour Declaration in 1917,

  113. @Dmitry

    “A society that is welcoming to Muslims, is also welcoming to Jews” – he’s clearly arguing from perceived self-interest
     
    Jews can be a bit like Alawites in Syria. Assad government always talks about religious tolerance, secular state and multiculturalism of Syria.

    This is less utopian, than self-interest. (Only in secular, multinational, multireligious Syria, can Alawites with 10% of the population, rule over Sunnis with 80%). With Jews, there can be this cynicism as well.

    By far the funniest example of "cynical anti-racist" is Viatcheslav Kantor. He is an ordinary corrupt oligarch, who wants to secure his money by becoming internationally indispensable (like how Abramovich did with football). So renamed himself "Moshe" and suddenly discovered international role as a noble Jew and, anti-racist campaigner.

    However, I don't think most Jewish liberals in rich countries like America, are cynical in this. They are mainly quite utopian people, who had bourgeois families, studied in private schools, and very comfortable lives, where they never saw any wars or violence. All this creates soft, utopian people.

    Someone above says why they angry that Netanyahu is friends with Orban. The reason is because they are utopian and self-angelizing their image. Therefore if Israel is associated with Orban and Jews =Israel, their self-image is destroyed. (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).

    (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).

    For the same reason they memed a Montenegrin atheist Yugocommunist and a former US banker as a Serb Ultranationalist Clerofascist, while presenting Islamists, Croat Ultranationalists and Albanian terrorists as anti-fascists, liberals, freedom-fighters and democrats.

    Ideology serves as a cover for geopolitical interests and “Realpolitik”. The dogs barking about racism, fascism, dictators Putin, Assad, Maduro are useful idiots.
    You can’t mobilise your nation for war by saying you want the resources, global power, installation of a puppet government – but start speaking about villains murdering babies in incubators, raping 300 000 women, killing 200 000 people in a year (US claim from 1993 on Serbs in Bosnia), gassing – barrel bombing clowns and hospitals and suddenly – the imbeciles start clamouring for intervention.

  114. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    but don’t you dare be friendly with some guy who said mean stuff about gays!
     
    In regards to Orban (or Polish right-wingers, or really any kind of European nationalist, no matter how moderate) the issue isn't homo stuff or other liberal pieties, but rather insufficient grovelling before the altar of eternal Jewish victimhood. The appointed role for Europeans here is that of descendants of Holocaust perpetrators who have to perpetually abase themselves, accept the multicultural restructuring of their societies (so Jews can feel safe/enact their vengeance), and are somehow exspected at the same time to swallow all the ahistorical myth-making of Zionists and uncritically support Israel (because Jewish nationalism is for some reason apparently the only legitimate nationalism).

    There may be some element of that (and she does invoke it later in the article), but Weiss specifically names Bolsonaro in the same breath as Orban; Brazil had 0 to do with the Holocaust, has historically been friendly to Jews, and on top of that Bolsonaro is a man with avowed pro-Zionist sympathies! And Weiss hates Trump (as do almost all Jewish neocons), and he is probably the most pro-Jewish pro-Israel the US has ever had.

    The Holocaust is a useful rhetorical tool because it is an issue on which Jews occupy an unassailable moral high ground, but it’s not something the average Jew/Israeli really cares about as it affects day to day life (Israelis have a warmer regard for Germany than vice versa in every poll I have seen). Orban and the Poles are not demonized because of the Holocaust, they are demonized because they refuse to give their full assent to American-style neoliberalism.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    The Holocaust is a useful rhetorical tool because it is an issue on which Jews occupy an unassailable moral high ground, but it’s not something the average Jew/Israeli really cares about as it affects day to day life
     
    I don't think that's true, it's clearly a central element of the identity of many Jews (perhaps the central element for many of the more secular ones), it's not just pretended. And imo it couldn't be otherwise.

    Israelis have a warmer regard for Germany than vice versa in every poll I have seen
     
    They also reject any contact with a party like AfD because of its alleged "Nazi origins" (a party that was founded in 2013, when the youngest of Hitler's voters would have been 100); head of the Jewish World Congress Ronald Lauder has even called for the AfD to be banned. It's clear that any form of even moderate German nationalism is seen as unacceptable.

    Orban and the Poles are not demonized because of the Holocaust
     
    The things many Jews say about Poland are far too visceral to be merely the result of political calculation.
  115. @Epigon

    While one shouldn’t excuse German hubris and poor intelligence, the fact that the Red Army had assembled more tanks and aircraft than the rest of the world combined was certainly shocking to everyone.

     

    Those "total numbers" are bogus when one looks at the breakdown by type, vintage and condition in June 1941.
    https://i.imgur.com/PQKCeKt.png
    https://i.imgur.com/TcTCtCl.png
    https://i.imgur.com/2uMWQSr.png
    https://i.imgur.com/rolbqEC.png

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.)
     
    ZiS-2 - discontinued because German tanks similarly powerful to KV-3, KV-4 didn't materialise - instead, thousands of Pz. II, Pz. 35, Pz. 38, Pz. III and Pz. IV with 30 mm frontal armour invaded.
    ZiS-2 had very high MV, high barrel wear, and would go right through them.
    T-34-57 Tank Destroyers were discontinued for the same reason.

    The most dangerous adversary for Allied and Soviet tankers - PaKs, Panzerjaeger detachments (both towed and self-propelled) and StuGs. Tank vs. tank warfare was advised against - Rommel, Guderian and Mainstein being explicit about it. In 1941 whenever Panzers met head-on with Soviet tank brigades, they suffered badly. The key in Barbarossa was being on the strategic offensive, attacking along unsuspected axes, deep-striking with Panzers at vulnerable targets and letting the Infantry mop up the survivors. Soviet mechanized corps would be ordered to counterattack, break encirclement, react to German advances and then go right into prepared German positions. Strategic offensive+high strategic mobility = Tactical defensive = Victory. Arracourt was the exact same thing, Americans reached same conclusions post-war.

    T-34 was actually supposed to be a pre-production/early version to learn the lessons and educate workshops. According to original planning, it was supposed to be replaced by T-34M starting with July 1941, and completely gone from production by November 1941. The L-11 armament you quote had no problems with early German AFVs - they were that thin-skinned.

    Yak-3 was introduced in 1944. Yak-1 was not even the standard fighter in 1941, let alone there being enough frontline pilots traind to use them - most were accustomed to I-153 biplane and I-16 monoplane.


    The Il-2 also entered service that year but Great Patriotic War mythology aside it was a bad aircraft and should not have entered service.
     
    Better CS than Ju-87. All CS aircraft are hopeless in conditions of hostile air superiority - Stuka suffered horribly both in 1940 over Low Countries and France, and in Channel and over Britain.

    One of the reasons the T-34s encountered in 1941 were not a threat (aside from bad training, bad manufacturing quality, and bad deployment) was that Kulik deliberately sabotaged their anti-tank armament by supply an inferior gun and reducing the allocation of shells to the tanks.
     

    Oh, but it was a threat. And a hell of a threat. You see, by far the most numerous AT weapons in the invading army were 3.7 cm PaK and KwK. They were useless against T-34 from all angles and at all combat ranges. The 5cm L/42 of tanks was inadequate as well, while L/60 needed either APCR or lucky side shot.
    More T-34 and KV-1 were destroyed by their own crews and abandoned than were lost in direct combat in 1941 - this being the key of the advantage the side which is on the strategic offensive enjoys - it gets the spoils of battlefield. This will become obvious in 1943, 1944 when German Heavy tank battalions suffer 30-40 tank losses in a single day - their repair shops got overran - and Germans didn't count a tank as a loss until it disintegrated or was captured by enemy.
    So a horse-drawn, dominantly foot infantry army with puny 3000-something Panzers, PzJg, StPz and StuG, with light Panzer divisions with a single tank battalion (your vaunted doubling of number of Panzer divisions in 1940-1941 was achieved by halving the tank component per Pz. division) drastically outperformed the Big Cat, Wunderwaffe army of 1943-1945.

    Those “total numbers” are bogus when one looks at the breakdown by type, vintage and condition in June 1941.

    Stated in my post:

    A lot of very advanced Soviet weapons did appear in 1940-1941 (not just the T-34 but also the ZiS-2 57mm anti-tank gun, the M1939 85mm flak cannon, the A-19 122mm field gun, the Yak-3, etc.), but fortunately relatively little of it was in service in 1941.

    ZiS-2 – discontinued because German tanks similarly powerful to KV-3, KV-4 didn’t materialise – instead, thousands of Pz. II, Pz. 35, Pz. 38, Pz. III and Pz. IV with 30 mm frontal armour invaded.
    ZiS-2 had very high MV, high barrel wear, and would go right through them.
    T-34-57 Tank Destroyers were discontinued for the same reason.

    True, but it was still a technically superb weapon and showed the high skill that Soviet weapons designers had achieved.

    The ZiS-2 also reentered service in 1943.

    Yak-3 was introduced in 1944. Yak-1 was not even the standard fighter in 1941, let alone there being enough frontline pilots traind to use them – most were accustomed to I-153 biplane and I-16 monoplane.

    First flight was however in 1941. I brought it up as an example of Soviet engineering prowess. The Yak-3 was one of the best designs of the entire war.

    Other modern fighters were in service (or entering) in 1941 such as the Yak-1, MiG-3, LaGG 3, etc.

    And yes, most types in service in 1941 were obsolete (in harmony with my previous point that little of the modern weaponry was in service at this time).

    Better CS than Ju-87. All CS aircraft are hopeless in conditions of hostile air superiority – Stuka suffered horribly both in 1940 over Low Countries and France, and in Channel and over Britain.

    Don’t agree other than the elementary point of hostile air superiority. The Ju-87 was one of the very few aircraft of the war capable of true dive bombing, which allowed for pinpoint targeting. Rocket attacks by comparison had quite poor accuracy (as did the Il-2’s signature anti-tank bomblets)..

    Large caliber airborne cannons had a lot of potential, but no belligerent in the war fielded a satisfactory platform. The Americans designed the excellent Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly, but it was not introduced into service.

    Oh, but it was a threat. And a hell of a threat. You see, by far the most numerous AT weapons in the invading army were 3.7 cm PaK and KwK. They were useless against T-34 from all angles and at all combat ranges. The 5cm L/42 of tanks was inadequate as well, while L/60 needed either APCR or lucky side shot.

    Of course, as evidenced by the fact that the Germans ordered the development of new tank and anti-tank weapons in response. The T-34 was one of the most influential tanks of all time.

    So a horse-drawn, dominantly foot infantry army with puny 3000-something Panzers, PzJg, StPz and StuG, with light Panzer divisions with a single tank battalion (your vaunted doubling of number of Panzer divisions in 1940-1941 was achieved by halving the tank component per Pz. division) drastically outperformed the Big Cat, Wunderwaffe army of 1943-1945.

    And this ought to be the last word against military tech fanboys.

    Also, while the tank component of each Panzer division declined, the medium tank component did not. Recall that during Fall Gelb the most numerous German tank was the PzKw II.

  116. @Anonymous
    There may be some element of that (and she does invoke it later in the article), but Weiss specifically names Bolsonaro in the same breath as Orban; Brazil had 0 to do with the Holocaust, has historically been friendly to Jews, and on top of that Bolsonaro is a man with avowed pro-Zionist sympathies! And Weiss hates Trump (as do almost all Jewish neocons), and he is probably the most pro-Jewish pro-Israel the US has ever had.

    The Holocaust is a useful rhetorical tool because it is an issue on which Jews occupy an unassailable moral high ground, but it's not something the average Jew/Israeli really cares about as it affects day to day life (Israelis have a warmer regard for Germany than vice versa in every poll I have seen). Orban and the Poles are not demonized because of the Holocaust, they are demonized because they refuse to give their full assent to American-style neoliberalism.

    The Holocaust is a useful rhetorical tool because it is an issue on which Jews occupy an unassailable moral high ground, but it’s not something the average Jew/Israeli really cares about as it affects day to day life

    I don’t think that’s true, it’s clearly a central element of the identity of many Jews (perhaps the central element for many of the more secular ones), it’s not just pretended. And imo it couldn’t be otherwise.

    Israelis have a warmer regard for Germany than vice versa in every poll I have seen

    They also reject any contact with a party like AfD because of its alleged “Nazi origins” (a party that was founded in 2013, when the youngest of Hitler’s voters would have been 100); head of the Jewish World Congress Ronald Lauder has even called for the AfD to be banned. It’s clear that any form of even moderate German nationalism is seen as unacceptable.

    Orban and the Poles are not demonized because of the Holocaust

    The things many Jews say about Poland are far too visceral to be merely the result of political calculation.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    In my opinion, at least that is clever - to reject contact with AfD. (Unless AfD seem to be winning an election).

    Putin has been in this stupid decision to have contact with opposition political parties, with government contact with both Marine Le Pen and AfD .

    Le Pen at least, will never be President, so there is no benefit for Russia. The cost of having this contact, was to make Russia and Putin more unpopular with the rulers and journalists of France.

    Merkel is subsidizing construction of Israeli submarines. So if Israeli leadership are not idiots, they should publicly support Merkel 100%, since she is paying for part of their nuclear deterrent.

    Because Israeli leadership* is believing similar things about Muslims, as AfD (you can see Yair Netanyahu's Twitter to imagine what they say in the Netanyahu house) - it probably itself means Israel should even try to avoid association with opposition like AfD or Le Pen even more

    -
    * Israeli television program, seems more or less the same as Fox News on this topic

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amdtD6_JqLE

    , @Hyperborean

    I don’t think that’s true, it’s clearly a central element of the identity of many Jews (perhaps the central element for many of the more secular ones), it’s not just pretended. And imo it couldn’t be otherwise.
     
    For American Jews at least, the Shoah is the core of their identity. How would it change if we separated it into religious and non-religious Jews? I have a suspicion that secular Jews would care a lot more about it, simply because they have nothing else.

    https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/10/jew-overview-9.png

  117. Other modern fighters were in service (or entering) in 1941 such as the Yak-1, MiG-3, LaGG 3

    Of these, only Yak-1 stood any modicum of chance against Bf-109F. MiG-3 and LaGG-3 were turkeys.
    It was not until Yak-3/9 and La-5/7 that Soviets matched contemporary Bf-109 and FW-190 models.
    P-39/63 was not Soviet, of course, but it was another very successful Soviet-employed fighter.

    The Yak-3 was one of the best designs of the entire war.

    In its niche role and altitude band, yes.

    However, if I had to choose which WW2 fighter I would fly to battle, I would narrow it down to P-47 or P-38. P-51 Mustang and its trumpeted superiority are part of Bomber Mafia narrative retouching.

    Don’t agree other than the elementary point of hostile air superiority. The Ju-87 was one of the very few aircraft of the war capable of true dive bombing, which allowed for pinpoint targeting.

    Ju-87, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Aichi D3A were dive bombers and employed successfuly. The key to their success was the air superiority they enjoyed. Once it was gone – Vals went down by the dozens with little to show for.

    Stuka was until G model not a good anti-armour, or CS plane due to light armament and lack of armour protection – it would get to the scene, drop its load and be gone. German analogue to Il-2 would probably be Hs-123.

    Rocket attacks by comparison had quite poor accuracy (as did the Il-2’s signature anti-tank bomblets)..

    Yes, achieving a direct-hit with fin-“stabilized” rockets – needed to destroy an AFV – 2-3% hit rates by post-battle evaluation crews. Soviet answer was practical – you drop dozens of bomblets across the general target area – just one hitting was often enough to disable the AFV.

    Large caliber airborne cannons had a lot of potential, but no belligerent in the war fielded a satisfactory platform. The Americans designed the excellent Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly, but it was not introduced into service.

    Motorkanon solution of Germans, Soviets and P-39/63 was deadly – in my opinion, the German 30 mm already qualifies for large-caliber, and arguably, Soviet 23 mm does as well. In addition, Germans mounted 50 and 75 mm pneumatically and hydraulically operated guns to Hs-123 (semi-automatic, though), while I believe they fitted 50 mm to Me-410 in the Zerstoerer role.
    US 75 mm hand-operated in B-24 and B-25 in the Pacific was improvisation.

    Also, while the tank component of each Panzer division declined, the medium tank component did not. Recall that during Fall Gelb the most numerous German tank was the PzKw II.


    However, there were more Pz.38(t) in total because Slovakia used them as LT-38 in Barbarossa, and 1st Hungarian Tank Division was equipped with them as well – so the single most numerous Axis tank in Barbarossa was – Czech TNHP/Pz.38(t).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Of these, only Yak-1 stood any modicum of chance against Bf-109F. MiG-3 and LaGG-3 were turkeys.
    It was not until Yak-3/9 and La-5/7 that Soviets matched contemporary Bf-109 and FW-190 models.
    P-39/63 was not Soviet, of course, but it was another very successful Soviet-employed fighter.
     
    All true, though in my view the largest problem with the VVS relative to the Luftwaffe was pilot training.

    In reading postwar memoirs of Luftwaffe pilots the assessments of the VVS are generally quite poor compared to the RAF and USAAF with certain exceptions.

    This isn't down to Russophobia either as assessments of the Red Army are generally positive (Tippelskirch and the Soviet zergling myth aside).


    In its niche role and altitude band, yes.

    However, if I had to choose which WW2 fighter I would fly to battle, I would narrow it down to P-47 or P-38. P-51 Mustang and its trumpeted superiority are part of Bomber Mafia narrative retouching.
     
    P-38 and P-47 were limited to Mach 0.68 and Mach 0.71 respectively in maneuvering. P-51 Mustang was Mach 0.78. Bf 109 and Fw 190 were 0.75.

    RAF test pilot Eric Brown on the the matter:


    We had found out that the Bf 109 and the FW 190 could fight up to a Mach of 0.75, three-quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it couldn't fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And the funny thing is that the Americans had great difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East.
     
    It should be added that as a twin-engine aircraft the P-38 was inherently less maneuverable than single-engine fighters. This was irrelevant when it first appeared as it was the fastest airplane in the world, but as the war went on its speed was surpassed by single-engine fighters. Fortunately that was generally not the case in the Pacific.

    The P-47 was simply too heavy. This did at least make it very rugged and a fast diver. Other than the lack of cannons it was well suited for the fighter-bomber role.

    Other than the unloved (by the Americans) P-39/63 and P-38 all American fighters were also inadequately armed.

    Which fighter you wish to take into battle of course depends on the battle. P-51D superiority was real for the 8th Air Force's mission. The Spitfire Mk XIV was arguably better than the P-51D, but it was short ranged and thus useless.

    If the P-51D had been tasked with the same mission as the Luftwaffe's fighters, it would've fared poorly owing to its weak armament. Six .50cal BMGs were fine against fighters, but not four-engine bombers.

    Ju-87, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Aichi D3A were dive bombers and employed successfuly. The key to their success was the air superiority they enjoyed. Once it was gone – Vals went down by the dozens with little to show for.

    Stuka was until G model not a good anti-armour, or CS plane due to light armament and lack of armour protection – it would get to the scene, drop its load and be gone. German analogue to Il-2 would probably be Hs-123.
     
    Types other than the Ju-87 weren't capable of vertical dive bombing, nor did they have the Ju-87's automatic dive recovery capabilities. They also weren't fielded in land warfare, being naval bombers.

    The ideal dive bomber for CS would've been something like the Boeing XF8B.

    Hs-129 was useful as it carried a heavy cannon armament less awkwardly than the Ju-87G and also used engines not in demand elsewhere. That said, hardly an ideal type given its low performance. I wonder if the Me-410 would've been good in this role.


    Yes, achieving a direct-hit with fin-“stabilized” rockets – needed to destroy an AFV – 2-3% hit rates by post-battle evaluation crews. Soviet answer was practical – you drop dozens of bomblets across the general target area – just one hitting was often enough to disable the AFV.
     
    Hit rates from the bomblets was also abysmal.


    Motorkanon solution of Germans, Soviets and P-39/63 was deadly – in my opinion, the German 30 mm already qualifies for large-caliber, and arguably, Soviet 23 mm does as well. In addition, Germans mounted 50 and 75 mm pneumatically and hydraulically operated guns to Hs-123 (semi-automatic, though), while I believe they fitted 50 mm to Me-410 in the Zerstoerer role.
    US 75 mm hand-operated in B-24 and B-25 in the Pacific was improvisation.
     
    Engine-mounted cannon solution was excellent, though it took time to mature. 30mm is I suppose relatively large caliber, but German aircraft with MK 108 cannons were used as fighters and bomber destroyers rather than in the close support role since it was a low velocity gun.

    There was a high velocity 30mm cannon (MK 103), but the Germans were unable to get it to work in the motorkanone role as it was apparently too large for the DB605 engine. The Soviet attempt engine mount a 45mm cannon also failed.

    50mm was indeed fitted to the Me-410 and also to the Me-262. I noted previously that the Me-410 might've done some good in the anti-armor role.

    The Italians, British, and Japanese also all experimented with large caliber cannons in the anti-shipping role.


    However, there were more Pz.38(t) in total because Slovakia used them as LT-38 in Barbarossa, and 1st Hungarian Tank Division was equipped with them as well – so the single most numerous Axis tank in Barbarossa was – Czech TNHP/Pz.38(t).
     
    Pz.38(t) was superior to PzKw II, though of course certainly not a medium tank.
  118. Well that’s to be expected, Yang has said he is friends with Eric Turkheimer, one of the leading obscurantists, who has said that knowing about racial differences in intelligence would be akin to knowing how to make atomic bomb. The sort of “science” one would scrape off one’s boot if one were so unfortunate as to step in it

  119. @German_reader

    The Holocaust is a useful rhetorical tool because it is an issue on which Jews occupy an unassailable moral high ground, but it’s not something the average Jew/Israeli really cares about as it affects day to day life
     
    I don't think that's true, it's clearly a central element of the identity of many Jews (perhaps the central element for many of the more secular ones), it's not just pretended. And imo it couldn't be otherwise.

    Israelis have a warmer regard for Germany than vice versa in every poll I have seen
     
    They also reject any contact with a party like AfD because of its alleged "Nazi origins" (a party that was founded in 2013, when the youngest of Hitler's voters would have been 100); head of the Jewish World Congress Ronald Lauder has even called for the AfD to be banned. It's clear that any form of even moderate German nationalism is seen as unacceptable.

    Orban and the Poles are not demonized because of the Holocaust
     
    The things many Jews say about Poland are far too visceral to be merely the result of political calculation.

    In my opinion, at least that is clever – to reject contact with AfD. (Unless AfD seem to be winning an election).

    Putin has been in this stupid decision to have contact with opposition political parties, with government contact with both Marine Le Pen and AfD .

    Le Pen at least, will never be President, so there is no benefit for Russia. The cost of having this contact, was to make Russia and Putin more unpopular with the rulers and journalists of France.

    Merkel is subsidizing construction of Israeli submarines. So if Israeli leadership are not idiots, they should publicly support Merkel 100%, since she is paying for part of their nuclear deterrent.

    Because Israeli leadership* is believing similar things about Muslims, as AfD (you can see Yair Netanyahu’s Twitter to imagine what they say in the Netanyahu house) – it probably itself means Israel should even try to avoid association with opposition like AfD or Le Pen even more


    * Israeli television program, seems more or less the same as Fox News on this topic

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It’s one thing to avoid association with AfD, it’s another to actively denounce it to the point of actively pressuring Jews who had slightly friendly contacts to it. Israelis do the latter.
  120. A story to warm the heart of many here:

    New Zealand women wear headscarves in solidarity with Muslims after Christchurch shootings

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-22/headscarves-in-solidarity-with-muslim-women-after-mosque-attack/10929734

    Led of course by their Prime Minister:

    • Replies: @German_reader
    It's hard to have much respect for a society that produces pictures like that.
    , @DFH
    White Shariah in action.
    , @songbird
    Reminds me: the Swedish Migration Board has, in theory, opened up Sweden to all Chinese Uyghurs. There are about 11 million.
  121. @reiner Tor
    This court case has been going on for at least five (or maybe ten?) years now. It has been thrown out of court at least once, though it's probably the furthest it has ever come.

    The case itself seems to be, on the face of it, quite ridiculous: they are suing the Hungarian State Railways for its role in the holocaust. I mean, it's not like the state railways company was in any position to make decisions or anything. Regarding the Hungarian government. It's not like Hungary (whose lawful prime minister had to hide in the Turkish embassy, and then was arrested by the Germans and sent to Mauthausen) was in any position to resist the Germans. Regarding the lost property: all Hungarian citizens lost all or most of their property between 1944 and 1961 (the final collectivization), and they didn't regain any of it. Regarding the amount demanded: sure, it's like present-day Hungarians (the oldest of whom were all very young in 1944) should pay a year of their GDP to a few hundred or thousand survivors, or the descendants of the survivors (who arguably didn't suffer anything - they were born after the thing happened...)

    If the goal was to increase anti-Semitism, then sure, dude.

    they are suing the Hungarian State Railways for its role in the holocaust. I mean, it’s not like the state railways company was in any position to make decisions or anything

    Well, French and Dutch national railways accepted to pay reparations (in the case of the SNCF, to Holocaust survivors in the US), and they were defeated countries not allies of Germany. So my guess is that Hungary is going to have to go a very long way to ingratiate itself with the US/Israel to avoid a massive settlement.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I don’t think it’s possible to appease them to the point that they stop the lawsuit. After all, those participating in it probably don’t care enough for Israel to renounce their billion dollar claims. People are rarely fanatical enough about anything that they would be willing to renounce billion dollar claims for it. The lawsuit is just a fact of life like an earthquake.

    Another interesting angle is American judicial overreach. When Belgium started issuing arrest warrants against people like Ariel Sharon, it was ridiculous. But America actually has the strength to make its courts the arbiters of justice about events which happened three quarters of a century ago in countries which the judges never saw (nor do they know particularly much about it from secondary sources), under circumstances unimaginable to them (or American legislators or law enforcement agencies), etc.

    One would think it’s dangerous for Jews to push the holocaust reparations issue any further at this point, but they don’t seem to care. Maybe they think they can pull it off forever. Or at least for several decades into the future. The latter seems certainly likely.
    , @Grahamsno(G64)

    French and Dutch national railways accepted to pay reparations (in the case of the SNCF
     
    It is a very sweet deal in the case of SNCF

    Those who are heirs of survivors or spouses who died shortly after 1948 will get less than those who died in 2014. For instance, heirs of a survivor who died in 2014 will receive about $400,000.
     

    Adele Weltmann, 85, of Aventura, Fla., told The Jewish Week that she has collected from both the Orphans Fund and from the latest French reparation fund. She said that although both of her parents were transported by the French railroad to Nazi concentration camps, only her father was killed; her mother survived and lived until 1982.
     
    No business like the Shoah business

    https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/questions-over-fairness-of-new-french-reparations/
  122. @for-the-record
    A story to warm the heart of many here:

    New Zealand women wear headscarves in solidarity with Muslims after Christchurch shootings

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-22/headscarves-in-solidarity-with-muslim-women-after-mosque-attack/10929734

    Led of course by their Prime Minister:

    https://static.pressfrom.info/upload/images/real/2019/03/22/new-zealand-women-don-headscarves-to-support-muslims-after-shootings__420526_.jpg?content=1

    It’s hard to have much respect for a society that produces pictures like that.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    It's also funny though how that pm shows so much of her hair, defeating the entire purpose of an Islamic headscarf.
  123. @German_reader
    It's hard to have much respect for a society that produces pictures like that.

    It’s also funny though how that pm shows so much of her hair, defeating the entire purpose of an Islamic headscarf.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    She was originally a Mormon, but then she left church because Mormons do not support gay rights.

    What I don't understand about her, is how these relatively young people, who have never had profession or job, and do not even seem to have family connections, become the leaders of their country.

    Sebastian Kurz of Austria was the first one I saw. He has never had a job and has not completed even a university degree. Yet, he became Foreign Minister at age 27, and Chancellor of Austria at age 32.

    He is one of the least qualified people in Austria, and yet he is their leader?

    And this New Zealand woman, is very similar - although she is at least slightly more qualified (unlike Kurz, she was at least able to finish university degree in communications and politics).

    But she also seems not to have any job or profession in her life, but became leader of the country at age 36 years?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern

  124. @Epigon

    Other modern fighters were in service (or entering) in 1941 such as the Yak-1, MiG-3, LaGG 3
     
    Of these, only Yak-1 stood any modicum of chance against Bf-109F. MiG-3 and LaGG-3 were turkeys.
    It was not until Yak-3/9 and La-5/7 that Soviets matched contemporary Bf-109 and FW-190 models.
    P-39/63 was not Soviet, of course, but it was another very successful Soviet-employed fighter.

    The Yak-3 was one of the best designs of the entire war.

     

    In its niche role and altitude band, yes.

    However, if I had to choose which WW2 fighter I would fly to battle, I would narrow it down to P-47 or P-38. P-51 Mustang and its trumpeted superiority are part of Bomber Mafia narrative retouching.


    Don’t agree other than the elementary point of hostile air superiority. The Ju-87 was one of the very few aircraft of the war capable of true dive bombing, which allowed for pinpoint targeting.

     

    Ju-87, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Aichi D3A were dive bombers and employed successfuly. The key to their success was the air superiority they enjoyed. Once it was gone - Vals went down by the dozens with little to show for.

    Stuka was until G model not a good anti-armour, or CS plane due to light armament and lack of armour protection - it would get to the scene, drop its load and be gone. German analogue to Il-2 would probably be Hs-123.


    Rocket attacks by comparison had quite poor accuracy (as did the Il-2’s signature anti-tank bomblets)..
     
    Yes, achieving a direct-hit with fin-"stabilized" rockets - needed to destroy an AFV - 2-3% hit rates by post-battle evaluation crews. Soviet answer was practical - you drop dozens of bomblets across the general target area - just one hitting was often enough to disable the AFV.

    Large caliber airborne cannons had a lot of potential, but no belligerent in the war fielded a satisfactory platform. The Americans designed the excellent Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly, but it was not introduced into service.
     

    Motorkanon solution of Germans, Soviets and P-39/63 was deadly - in my opinion, the German 30 mm already qualifies for large-caliber, and arguably, Soviet 23 mm does as well. In addition, Germans mounted 50 and 75 mm pneumatically and hydraulically operated guns to Hs-123 (semi-automatic, though), while I believe they fitted 50 mm to Me-410 in the Zerstoerer role.
    US 75 mm hand-operated in B-24 and B-25 in the Pacific was improvisation.

    Also, while the tank component of each Panzer division declined, the medium tank component did not. Recall that during Fall Gelb the most numerous German tank was the PzKw II.
     
    https://i.imgur.com/GG3DzFW.png

    However, there were more Pz.38(t) in total because Slovakia used them as LT-38 in Barbarossa, and 1st Hungarian Tank Division was equipped with them as well - so the single most numerous Axis tank in Barbarossa was - Czech TNHP/Pz.38(t).

    Of these, only Yak-1 stood any modicum of chance against Bf-109F. MiG-3 and LaGG-3 were turkeys.
    It was not until Yak-3/9 and La-5/7 that Soviets matched contemporary Bf-109 and FW-190 models.
    P-39/63 was not Soviet, of course, but it was another very successful Soviet-employed fighter.

    All true, though in my view the largest problem with the VVS relative to the Luftwaffe was pilot training.

    In reading postwar memoirs of Luftwaffe pilots the assessments of the VVS are generally quite poor compared to the RAF and USAAF with certain exceptions.

    This isn’t down to Russophobia either as assessments of the Red Army are generally positive (Tippelskirch and the Soviet zergling myth aside).

    In its niche role and altitude band, yes.

    However, if I had to choose which WW2 fighter I would fly to battle, I would narrow it down to P-47 or P-38. P-51 Mustang and its trumpeted superiority are part of Bomber Mafia narrative retouching.

    P-38 and P-47 were limited to Mach 0.68 and Mach 0.71 respectively in maneuvering. P-51 Mustang was Mach 0.78. Bf 109 and Fw 190 were 0.75.

    RAF test pilot Eric Brown on the the matter:

    We had found out that the Bf 109 and the FW 190 could fight up to a Mach of 0.75, three-quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it couldn’t fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And the funny thing is that the Americans had great difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East.

    It should be added that as a twin-engine aircraft the P-38 was inherently less maneuverable than single-engine fighters. This was irrelevant when it first appeared as it was the fastest airplane in the world, but as the war went on its speed was surpassed by single-engine fighters. Fortunately that was generally not the case in the Pacific.

    The P-47 was simply too heavy. This did at least make it very rugged and a fast diver. Other than the lack of cannons it was well suited for the fighter-bomber role.

    Other than the unloved (by the Americans) P-39/63 and P-38 all American fighters were also inadequately armed.

    Which fighter you wish to take into battle of course depends on the battle. P-51D superiority was real for the 8th Air Force’s mission. The Spitfire Mk XIV was arguably better than the P-51D, but it was short ranged and thus useless.

    If the P-51D had been tasked with the same mission as the Luftwaffe’s fighters, it would’ve fared poorly owing to its weak armament. Six .50cal BMGs were fine against fighters, but not four-engine bombers.

    Ju-87, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Aichi D3A were dive bombers and employed successfuly. The key to their success was the air superiority they enjoyed. Once it was gone – Vals went down by the dozens with little to show for.

    Stuka was until G model not a good anti-armour, or CS plane due to light armament and lack of armour protection – it would get to the scene, drop its load and be gone. German analogue to Il-2 would probably be Hs-123.

    Types other than the Ju-87 weren’t capable of vertical dive bombing, nor did they have the Ju-87’s automatic dive recovery capabilities. They also weren’t fielded in land warfare, being naval bombers.

    The ideal dive bomber for CS would’ve been something like the Boeing XF8B.

    Hs-129 was useful as it carried a heavy cannon armament less awkwardly than the Ju-87G and also used engines not in demand elsewhere. That said, hardly an ideal type given its low performance. I wonder if the Me-410 would’ve been good in this role.

    Yes, achieving a direct-hit with fin-“stabilized” rockets – needed to destroy an AFV – 2-3% hit rates by post-battle evaluation crews. Soviet answer was practical – you drop dozens of bomblets across the general target area – just one hitting was often enough to disable the AFV.

    Hit rates from the bomblets was also abysmal.

    Motorkanon solution of Germans, Soviets and P-39/63 was deadly – in my opinion, the German 30 mm already qualifies for large-caliber, and arguably, Soviet 23 mm does as well. In addition, Germans mounted 50 and 75 mm pneumatically and hydraulically operated guns to Hs-123 (semi-automatic, though), while I believe they fitted 50 mm to Me-410 in the Zerstoerer role.
    US 75 mm hand-operated in B-24 and B-25 in the Pacific was improvisation.

    Engine-mounted cannon solution was excellent, though it took time to mature. 30mm is I suppose relatively large caliber, but German aircraft with MK 108 cannons were used as fighters and bomber destroyers rather than in the close support role since it was a low velocity gun.

    There was a high velocity 30mm cannon (MK 103), but the Germans were unable to get it to work in the motorkanone role as it was apparently too large for the DB605 engine. The Soviet attempt engine mount a 45mm cannon also failed.

    50mm was indeed fitted to the Me-410 and also to the Me-262. I noted previously that the Me-410 might’ve done some good in the anti-armor role.

    The Italians, British, and Japanese also all experimented with large caliber cannons in the anti-shipping role.

    However, there were more Pz.38(t) in total because Slovakia used them as LT-38 in Barbarossa, and 1st Hungarian Tank Division was equipped with them as well – so the single most numerous Axis tank in Barbarossa was – Czech TNHP/Pz.38(t).

    Pz.38(t) was superior to PzKw II, though of course certainly not a medium tank.

    • Replies: @Epigon
    Regarding P-38 and P-47, you fell for a post-war propaganda effort.
    P-38 having counter-turning propellers meant it could outturn every single-engine fighter in the right turn.
    In addition, using differential throttle settings, P-38 flown by expert pilots (instructed by travelling advisers like Lindbergh) could outmaneuver even Japanese nimble fighters, the most maneuverable of the fighters employed in WW2 in “common knowledge”.
    No, the Americans knew what they were doing in Pacific - the British pilot was given crappy export P-38 without turbosuperchargers, and suffers from common British illness of Spitfiremania.

    And be certain that no fighter “maneuvered” at 0.75 Mach. This claim is very dubious by itself for P-47 - it was precisely P-47M which could threaten Me-262 via boom-and-zoom and shallow dive speed accumilation.

    Also, P-47 operating as a fighter-bomber was an atrocity. It was designed as a high-altitude, long-range interceptor and escort fighter maximizing energy fighting. The complex and expensive turbosupercharger it carried (engineering achievement and masterpiece) that enabled it to outperform supercharged competition was literally deadweight at low altitudes.

    Its fancy hydraulic control surfaces optimized for high-altitude, high-speed maneuvering was ill-suited for ground-level combat.

    The thing was very expensive (almost twice the price of Mustang), armoured, resistant to damage (air cooled radials vs. liquid cooled inlines) and heavily armed.

    Have a look yourself: https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38801.html

    Comments are goldmine as well.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/54434.html

    Also, Yugoslavia had post-WW2 late Spitfires, Yaks and P-47. P-47 winner in 9/10 situations. It could outclimb opposition post 6000 m altitude, accumulate energy due to higher ceiling and better high-altitude performance, build up speed via shallow dive and then prey upon hapless opposition in mock fights.

  125. @German_reader
    It's also funny though how that pm shows so much of her hair, defeating the entire purpose of an Islamic headscarf.

    She was originally a Mormon, but then she left church because Mormons do not support gay rights.

    What I don’t understand about her, is how these relatively young people, who have never had profession or job, and do not even seem to have family connections, become the leaders of their country.

    Sebastian Kurz of Austria was the first one I saw. He has never had a job and has not completed even a university degree. Yet, he became Foreign Minister at age 27, and Chancellor of Austria at age 32.

    He is one of the least qualified people in Austria, and yet he is their leader?

    And this New Zealand woman, is very similar – although she is at least slightly more qualified (unlike Kurz, she was at least able to finish university degree in communications and politics).

    But she also seems not to have any job or profession in her life, but became leader of the country at age 36 years?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern

    • Replies: @German_reader

    although she is at least slightly more qualified (she has a university degree in communications and politics).
     
    That isn't a qualification, in fact having studied something like "communication studies" or "political science" should count as a big fat minus imo.
    It's not unusual though, many Western politicians today have been professional politicans for their entire lives, it's a very important reason for the degeneration of our societies that our "elites" consist of useless parasites who would be nothing without their party machines and their patronage networks.
    Also very disturbing that this woman has a Mormon background, something needs to be done to check the spread of that cult.
    , @WHAT
    Precisely because she is nothing. ZOG props her up and thus owns her completely, no need for child porn leverage even.
  126. @Dmitry
    She was originally a Mormon, but then she left church because Mormons do not support gay rights.

    What I don't understand about her, is how these relatively young people, who have never had profession or job, and do not even seem to have family connections, become the leaders of their country.

    Sebastian Kurz of Austria was the first one I saw. He has never had a job and has not completed even a university degree. Yet, he became Foreign Minister at age 27, and Chancellor of Austria at age 32.

    He is one of the least qualified people in Austria, and yet he is their leader?

    And this New Zealand woman, is very similar - although she is at least slightly more qualified (unlike Kurz, she was at least able to finish university degree in communications and politics).

    But she also seems not to have any job or profession in her life, but became leader of the country at age 36 years?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern

    although she is at least slightly more qualified (she has a university degree in communications and politics).

    That isn’t a qualification, in fact having studied something like “communication studies” or “political science” should count as a big fat minus imo.
    It’s not unusual though, many Western politicians today have been professional politicans for their entire lives, it’s a very important reason for the degeneration of our societies that our “elites” consist of useless parasites who would be nothing without their party machines and their patronage networks.
    Also very disturbing that this woman has a Mormon background, something needs to be done to check the spread of that cult.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Degrees in politics and communication, may not be intellectually difficult to attain - but she at least completed the course, unlike Sebastian Kurz.

    Both her Sebastian Kurz, have never had a job or profession though. But she has a university qualification, which can be a test of having normal IQ and literacy. She has something on her CV under "Education".

    Her ascension to become the most powerful person in her country at 37 years old, is shocking. And even Sebastian Kurz becoming leader of Austria at 32 years is even more shocking.


    our societies that our “elites” consist of useless parasites who would be nothing without their party machines and their patronage networks.
     
    But neither her nor Kurz, are from any elites, which is how it becomes even more difficult to understand.

    They don't study in prestigious schools, or have any important family. They never had jobs in their life. They have no academic or intellectual ability. They don't have unusual personalities, or charisma, or original policies. And they reach the country's highest position while they are 30s. (Kurz second highest position, while he was 20s). Lol wtf.


    Mormon background, something needs to be done to check the spread of that cult.

     

    Obviously, Mormon beliefs are idiotic even by religious standards. But their external behaviour can be desirable. Salt Lake City, for example, is described as one of the best cities to live in America.
  127. @for-the-record
    A story to warm the heart of many here:

    New Zealand women wear headscarves in solidarity with Muslims after Christchurch shootings

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-22/headscarves-in-solidarity-with-muslim-women-after-mosque-attack/10929734

    Led of course by their Prime Minister:

    https://static.pressfrom.info/upload/images/real/2019/03/22/new-zealand-women-don-headscarves-to-support-muslims-after-shootings__420526_.jpg?content=1

    White Shariah in action.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    More like virtue-signalling gynocracy.
  128. @DFH
    White Shariah in action.

    More like virtue-signalling gynocracy.

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
    She's also raising a bastard. I can't stand women who voluntarily raise bastards. It tells you how degenerate the west is that this fact wasn't even noticed something unthinkable outside the west - a female head of State raising a bastard!
  129. AP says:
    @DFH

    The principle is the same, only the scope of casualties is so very much larger.
     
    It's not similar at all: the atomic bombs were dropped out of military necessity (I realise people dispute this), massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust

    massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust

    It was an evil crime but its reason was no worse than that of Hiroshima. Poland occupied those lands planned to get them back after the war. It also planned to ethnically cleanse them, of Ukrainians (at least,m the local Polish organization wanted this done). UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance. They did not have bombers and atom weapons, they had peasants with crude weapons. But they were fighting for their lands, on their native soil, not bombing people thousands of miles away from their native lands. I do not justify what they did, but it wasn’t any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.

    • Replies: @utu
    "I do not justify what they did" - Yes, you do.
    , @DFH

    I do not justify what they did, but it wasn’t any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.
     
    That's ridiculous. The aim of dropping the atomic bombs was to force the Japanese to surrender, avoiding hundreds of thousands of American soldiers dying in an invasion (or possibly even more Japanese civilians in a blockade), in a war started by Japanese aggression.
    Torturing and murdering tens of thousands of civilians who posed no military threat as part of a campaign to ethnically cleanse people who had been living there for hundreds of years is not the same.
    The reasons are not at all the same.

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).

    , @Matra
    This is a very Diaspora Nationalist post.
    , @Denis

    UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance.
     
    There are a great many instances of ethnic cleansing, and even genocide, that can be "justified" using the same reasoning.
  130. @for-the-record
    A story to warm the heart of many here:

    New Zealand women wear headscarves in solidarity with Muslims after Christchurch shootings

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-22/headscarves-in-solidarity-with-muslim-women-after-mosque-attack/10929734

    Led of course by their Prime Minister:

    https://static.pressfrom.info/upload/images/real/2019/03/22/new-zealand-women-don-headscarves-to-support-muslims-after-shootings__420526_.jpg?content=1

    Reminds me: the Swedish Migration Board has, in theory, opened up Sweden to all Chinese Uyghurs. There are about 11 million.

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)

    Reminds me: the Swedish Migration Board has, in theory, opened up Sweden to all Chinese Uyghurs. There are about 11 million.
     
    The Chinese should just call their bluff and deport all 11 million of them to Sweden, a win, win situation the Chinese get rid of a troublesome minority and Sweden finally gets it chance to become the Islamic Emirate of Sweden. Hypercuckery in action.
  131. @AP

    massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust
     
    It was an evil crime but its reason was no worse than that of Hiroshima. Poland occupied those lands planned to get them back after the war. It also planned to ethnically cleanse them, of Ukrainians (at least,m the local Polish organization wanted this done). UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance. They did not have bombers and atom weapons, they had peasants with crude weapons. But they were fighting for their lands, on their native soil, not bombing people thousands of miles away from their native lands. I do not justify what they did, but it wasn't any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.

    “I do not justify what they did” – Yes, you do.

    • Replies: @AP
    How so? Since UPA and OUN did not have access to internal Polish documents calling for the ethnic cleansing of those lands (and who knows if this wuld even have been attempted - the local Poles wanted to to do it but the government in exile rejected it), they murdered the Polish civilians in order to prevent the return of Polish rule. Although Polish rule was very unpleasant, it was not nearly sufficiently unpleasant to warrant the mass murder of massive numbers of civilians. There was thus no legitimate justification for this crime.

    My main point was not to justify what UPA did but to point out that their "justification" was no worse than that of the Anglo-Americans who were murdering German and Japanese civilians during that time. Sorry if I was not clear.
  132. @LondonBob
    Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative.
    James MacPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom for a Northern perspective.

    McPherson is good, but I prefer good old Bruce Catton for a Northern perspective.

  133. @AP

    massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust
     
    It was an evil crime but its reason was no worse than that of Hiroshima. Poland occupied those lands planned to get them back after the war. It also planned to ethnically cleanse them, of Ukrainians (at least,m the local Polish organization wanted this done). UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance. They did not have bombers and atom weapons, they had peasants with crude weapons. But they were fighting for their lands, on their native soil, not bombing people thousands of miles away from their native lands. I do not justify what they did, but it wasn't any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.

    I do not justify what they did, but it wasn’t any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.

    That’s ridiculous. The aim of dropping the atomic bombs was to force the Japanese to surrender, avoiding hundreds of thousands of American soldiers dying in an invasion (or possibly even more Japanese civilians in a blockade), in a war started by Japanese aggression.
    Torturing and murdering tens of thousands of civilians who posed no military threat as part of a campaign to ethnically cleanse people who had been living there for hundreds of years is not the same.
    The reasons are not at all the same.

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).

    • Replies: @utu

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).
     
    Poland is taking Ukrainian gastarbeiters and immigrants by millions w/o any gestures of contrition and atonements from Ukrainians for the Volhynia genocide. It is really hard to understand it.
    , @AP

    That’s ridiculous. The aim of dropping the atomic bombs was to force the Japanese to surrender, avoiding hundreds of thousands of American soldiers dying in an invasion (or possibly even more Japanese civilians in a blockade)
     
    Sure. UPA wasn't even trying to invade Poland.

    in a war started by Japanese aggression.
     
    The Polish state had been occupying Ukrainian lands. It invaded and conquered them in 1918-1919. So that was how the aggression started.

    Torturing and murdering tens of thousands of civilians who posed no military threat
     
    Incinerating them as was done by Angl0-American bombers to German and Japanese civilians was better?

    The reasons are not at all the same.
     
    Anglo-Americans burned alive 100,000s of civilians hundreds or thousands of miles from their own home territory, to make their invasion of those lands easier. Ukrainian peasants organized by UPA massacred 60,000-100,000 civilians in an attmept to prevent their home territory from being occupied by a foreign state.

    now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists)
     
    Not a Ukrianian nationalist, nor were any of my ancestors OUN or UPA members.

    Let me guess: as an Englishmen you have come to see these Ukrainians as being like the Irish.
  134. @reiner Tor
    What is (are) the best book(s) about the American Civil War?

    I hesitate to answer that without thinking about it in categorical terms

    I will say for now that the following come to mind as very good books

    For a one volume political summary, that focuses on 1848-1861, I highly recommend ‘The Impending Crisis’ by historian by David Potter.

    For a longer summary, I quite like William Freehling’s two-volume book ‘The Road to Disunion.’ Freehling focuses on the development of secessionist politics in the South, with enough background info on the North to know what was going on there. He goes into extensive detail and depth on social aspects. You will learn about the many differences between the respective Southern states. Freehling is also rather a fun writer; Potter has lots of good anecdotes, and knows how to write a narrative with pace.

    IIRC, Freehling’s main argument, with which I mostly agreed, is that as white men began to become more egalitarian (towards themselves, that is, not towards other races/cultures – Jackson is a good example), the domestic elitism, so to speak, of slavery inevitably clashed with the larger political culture, including, to a surprisingly large degree, within the South itself.

    David Detzer wrote a fine summary of the actual outbreak of the war – the Sumter crisis. It is called ‘Allegiance.’

    For a summary of the war itself, ‘Battle Cry of Freedom’ is, again, pretty good. I have to admit, though, I’ve mostly read specific topics from the war, and very few summary-type books.

    Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton, again, were the classic popular Civil War writers of the mid 20th century. Being a Northerner (though I have rebels in the family tree), Catton’s Michigan style is appealing to me more so than Foote. Foote was arguably a better writer, though.

    There are copious memoirs from the war. Both armies were, in fact, highly literate. And the guys who could write were much better writers than today’s average people.

    Whatever you do, don’t read Thomas DiLorenzo or Garry Wills. DiLorenzo is a pro-Confederate partisan, while Wills is the kind of guy who tries to interpret Lincoln as belonging to a kind of multicultural liberal tradition. They’re both hacks, though DiLorenzo probably commits more sins offensive to the discipline of history.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Thanks for the recommendations!
    , @Beckow
    Thanks. I usually pick authors who try to argue against the established view of history - one learns more that way. What is often missing in mainstream is understanding of the others' point of view. We can read them and disagree, but at least we disagree based on what they say, not on what others say they should say, or - most often - based on nothing. A one-sided argument is an oxymoron, but the intellectual elites seem to like it that way.

    My view is that bringing millions of slaves into America was a fatal error. The consequences have not fully played out yet - it might eventually destroy US from within. The never-ending attempts to correct this original error usually make it worse. Opening US to mass migration from the Third World can be traced to guilty feelings among some in the elite, but more directly also to an explicit attempt to dilute the legacy of slavery. It has made it worse, but they will keep on trying.

    When in a hole, what is there to do but to dig some more...
  135. @LondonBob
    Cromwell and Jackson strongly encouraged religious devotion in their troops, viewed themselves as instruments of God as well as being the two generals who shone out the most in their respective civil wars. I am not aware that Cromwell committed any atrocities, the only three I am aware of are the massacre of Bolton residents by Royalists, and the massacre at the siege of Basing House where Cromwell was the commander and some womenfolk camp followers who were killed at some battle. Cromwell's conduct was exemplary, despite Irish and Royalist black propaganda otherwise.

    Two things

    First of all, several Civil War generals were better than Jackson. Especially Bedford Forrest.

    as for Cromwell and atrocities, whatever you say, man

  136. @AP

    massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust
     
    It was an evil crime but its reason was no worse than that of Hiroshima. Poland occupied those lands planned to get them back after the war. It also planned to ethnically cleanse them, of Ukrainians (at least,m the local Polish organization wanted this done). UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance. They did not have bombers and atom weapons, they had peasants with crude weapons. But they were fighting for their lands, on their native soil, not bombing people thousands of miles away from their native lands. I do not justify what they did, but it wasn't any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.

    This is a very Diaspora Nationalist post.

    • Replies: @AP
    No, for diaspora the UPA were heroes and the crimes didn't happen.
  137. @AP

    massacring 100,000 Polish civilians was because of Ukranian nationalist fantasism and bloodlust
     
    It was an evil crime but its reason was no worse than that of Hiroshima. Poland occupied those lands planned to get them back after the war. It also planned to ethnically cleanse them, of Ukrainians (at least,m the local Polish organization wanted this done). UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance. They did not have bombers and atom weapons, they had peasants with crude weapons. But they were fighting for their lands, on their native soil, not bombing people thousands of miles away from their native lands. I do not justify what they did, but it wasn't any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.

    UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance.

    There are a great many instances of ethnic cleansing, and even genocide, that can be “justified” using the same reasoning.

    • Replies: @AP
    Sure. I condemn what UPA did and hope I did not give the opposite impression. I'll repeat what I wrote to utu:

    Since UPA and OUN did not have access to internal Polish documents calling for the ethnic cleansing of those lands (and who knows if this would even have been attempted – the local Poles wanted to to do it but the government in exile rejected it), they murdered the Polish civilians in order to prevent the return of Polish rule. Although Polish rule was very unpleasant, it was not nearly sufficiently unpleasant to warrant the mass murder of massive numbers of civilians. There was thus no legitimate justification for this crime.

    My main point was not to justify what UPA did but to point out that their “justification” was no worse than that of the Anglo-Americans who were murdering German and Japanese civilians during that time. Sorry if I was not clear.
  138. @LondonBob
    Cromwell and Jackson strongly encouraged religious devotion in their troops, viewed themselves as instruments of God as well as being the two generals who shone out the most in their respective civil wars. I am not aware that Cromwell committed any atrocities, the only three I am aware of are the massacre of Bolton residents by Royalists, and the massacre at the siege of Basing House where Cromwell was the commander and some womenfolk camp followers who were killed at some battle. Cromwell's conduct was exemplary, despite Irish and Royalist black propaganda otherwise.

    I am not aware that Cromwell committed any atrocities, the only three I am aware of are the massacre of Bolton residents by Royalists, and the massacre at the siege of Basing House where Cromwell was the commander and some womenfolk camp followers who were killed at some battle.

    Ummmmmmmm…….. Does the name Drogheda ring a bell?

    • Agree: for-the-record
    • Replies: @songbird
    I'm mystified by the recent spate of apologias for Cromwell. It must have something to do with "Wolf Hall", but I suspect there must also be some political undercurrent. I'm not familiar with the book or TV show, but perhaps the hint would be there.
    , @LondonBob
    Obviously you aren't aware of what happened when fortified position were stormed, see Badajoz. Any actual examples where Cromwell committed atrocities or is that it?
  139. @Thorfinnsson
    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point--and exceptionally weird.

    If anyone can compete with the Jews in WW2 victimhood it's the Poles.

    But now we learn that Poland shoah'd the SIX MILLION...

    bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland

    Big money. Jewish organizations and Israel are hoping to squeeze out of Poland $300 billions for the so called heirless property. The heirless property disposition raises serious legal issues. Who should get it and why Jews? So the argument is being made along the line of Holocaust uniqueness so the traditional and accepted legal norms could be circumvented.

    http://www.codozasady.pl/en/the-issue-of-jewish-heirless-property-demands-extraordinary-measures/

    Applying the general principle of inheritance law that heirless property is acquired by the state to questions of Jewish heirless property in Poland is ill-considered and does not take into account the tragic realities involved.

    Furthermore, moral considerations strongly indicate that alternative solutions to the issue must be found.

    For this reason the cases of some Poles participation in killing Jews are being blown out of proportions is to create a moral foundation for the ethical norm that the murderers may not draw material benefits from the death of their victims.

    Poland is first in line. Other countries in Eastern Europe like Ukraine and Belarus will come next. But they unlike Poland are not ‘ripe’ yet for the racket. Ukraine is too poor and politically precarious, so in the mean time the Banderites, the true Jew killers of Eastern Europe, are being nourished and encouraged to taint Ukraine forever with Nazism and make Ukraine easy picking in the future. Belarus is under Putin’s protective umbrella. Jewish claims against Belarus would push it closer to Russia. Perhaps Putin could ask his buddy Netanyahu to make such claims. At some point we will see Slovakia being hit really hard because Slovakia was the most enthusiastic country in Europe with respect to Nazi Jewish policies.

    Poland was drawn (willingly) into the American sphere of influence with no alternatives left. To make it worse Poland was put (put itself) on the course of conflict with Germany and EU. The recent Polish claims about restitutions from Germany are part of it. It is really just a psy-op directed at Polish public opinion to bring them down to the level of the Jewish vindictive ethics to make them more appreciative of Jewish claims leaving a false promise that once Germany pays (which will not happen) paying the Jews will be easier. Compare that with the letter of reconciliation “We forgive and ask for forgiveness” of 1965 by Polish Bishops to their German counterparts which represents the true spirit of Polish Catholicism.

    Some Poles also entertain illusory rationalization that the Jewish claims will be offset by purchases of American (and Israeli) armaments which they want to buy anyway. Poles go through the standard steps of denial. And they are afraid to talk about it because of fear of being accused of antisemitism.

    One may wonder to what extent the prying off V4 countries from EU and creating the illusory vision of the Intermarium and the vilification of Russia are part of the long term strategy to settle the Holocaust financial claims. When you think about it, whatever Israel and the Jewry are doing to these countries is good for Russia in the long term.

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
    From your link;

    In the majority of Jewish heirless property matters there is a lack of documents providing even indirect information about the property and its owners (or their relatives). In some regions, pre-war land and mortgage registers were completely destroyed during the war. Additionally, civil status records for the Jewish community in many cities and regions were completely destroyed. There is also no chance of finding death certificates of Jewish property owners, especially those murdered in concentration camps; such documents were often never issued. Frequently there are no documents or witnesses who could provide even indirect confirmation that a particular individual or family was transported to a concentration camp or other location.
     
    Oh boy conditions for the perfect Scam, this's basically a blank Cheque the Poles are royally screwed. The Germans already payed them for the atrocities committed in Poland and now the Poles who didn't even have a government have to pay them. And the Jews wonder why they are universally reviled.
  140. @Anon
    RFE/RL is a Russophobic cesspool paid by the US government.

    Noticeably anti-Serb as well.

    Shifting gears, for you auto buffs:

    https://www.twelfthroundauto.com/best-motor-oil/

    https://www.youtube.com/user/scottykilmer

    Scotty is hilarious.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    This is just an affiliate marketing site. It's not like he's actually testing or even reviewing the motor oil.

    I've always used Mobil One.
  141. @Dmitry
    She was originally a Mormon, but then she left church because Mormons do not support gay rights.

    What I don't understand about her, is how these relatively young people, who have never had profession or job, and do not even seem to have family connections, become the leaders of their country.

    Sebastian Kurz of Austria was the first one I saw. He has never had a job and has not completed even a university degree. Yet, he became Foreign Minister at age 27, and Chancellor of Austria at age 32.

    He is one of the least qualified people in Austria, and yet he is their leader?

    And this New Zealand woman, is very similar - although she is at least slightly more qualified (unlike Kurz, she was at least able to finish university degree in communications and politics).

    But she also seems not to have any job or profession in her life, but became leader of the country at age 36 years?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern

    Precisely because she is nothing. ZOG props her up and thus owns her completely, no need for child porn leverage even.

  142. @DFH

    I do not justify what they did, but it wasn’t any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.
     
    That's ridiculous. The aim of dropping the atomic bombs was to force the Japanese to surrender, avoiding hundreds of thousands of American soldiers dying in an invasion (or possibly even more Japanese civilians in a blockade), in a war started by Japanese aggression.
    Torturing and murdering tens of thousands of civilians who posed no military threat as part of a campaign to ethnically cleanse people who had been living there for hundreds of years is not the same.
    The reasons are not at all the same.

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).

    Poland is taking Ukrainian gastarbeiters and immigrants by millions w/o any gestures of contrition and atonements from Ukrainians for the Volhynia genocide. It is really hard to understand it.

    • Replies: @WHAT
    Beatings of said gastarbeiters are quite widespread though. Maybe it counts as atonement.
    , @JL
    Perhaps they feel solidarity in their hatred of Russia, something that exists much more in the here-and-now, and this allows them to overcome historical enmities.
    , @AP
    Many Poles realize what their governemnt did in Ukraine in the 1920s and 1930s was also shameful (f not nearly as bad as what UPA did) and thus prefer not to bring up the mid 20th century mess at all.

    There is a Ukrianian (diaspora) national hall not far from where I live where they sometimes host parties where both Ukrainian and Polish off the boaters come. So one can see Poles drinking in a hall with a portrait of Bandera hanging on the wall.
  143. @utu

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).
     
    Poland is taking Ukrainian gastarbeiters and immigrants by millions w/o any gestures of contrition and atonements from Ukrainians for the Volhynia genocide. It is really hard to understand it.

    Beatings of said gastarbeiters are quite widespread though. Maybe it counts as atonement.

    • Replies: @utu
    "Beatings of said gastarbeiters " - not true.
  144. Gammas. LOL.

  145. @WHAT
    Beatings of said gastarbeiters are quite widespread though. Maybe it counts as atonement.

    “Beatings of said gastarbeiters “ – not true.

  146. @Dmitry

    “A society that is welcoming to Muslims, is also welcoming to Jews” – he’s clearly arguing from perceived self-interest
     
    Jews can be a bit like Alawites in Syria. Assad government always talks about religious tolerance, secular state and multiculturalism of Syria.

    This is less utopian, than self-interest. (Only in secular, multinational, multireligious Syria, can Alawites with 10% of the population, rule over Sunnis with 80%). With Jews, there can be this cynicism as well.

    By far the funniest example of "cynical anti-racist" is Viatcheslav Kantor. He is an ordinary corrupt oligarch, who wants to secure his money by becoming internationally indispensable (like how Abramovich did with football). So renamed himself "Moshe" and suddenly discovered international role as a noble Jew and, anti-racist campaigner.

    However, I don't think most Jewish liberals in rich countries like America, are cynical in this. They are mainly quite utopian people, who had bourgeois families, studied in private schools, and very comfortable lives, where they never saw any wars or violence. All this creates soft, utopian people.

    Someone above says why they angry that Netanyahu is friends with Orban. The reason is because they are utopian and self-angelizing their image. Therefore if Israel is associated with Orban and Jews =Israel, their self-image is destroyed. (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).

    Jews can be a bit like Alawites in Syria. Assad government always talks about religious tolerance, secular state and multiculturalism of Syria.

    This is less utopian, than self-interest. (Only in secular, multinational, multireligious Syria, can Alawites with 10% of the population, rule over Sunnis with 80%). With Jews, there can be this cynicism as well.

    The Syrian government is a supporter of secularism and protector of religious minorities, due to self-interest, but they also clearly define Syria as an Arab state.

    Aside from the fact that it is in the formal name of the country (Syrian Arab Republic), before the civil war the government used to stamp out Kurdish identity, like all the neighbouring states, due to fear of separatism and a desire to Arabise the country.

    However, I don’t think most Jewish liberals in rich countries like America, are cynical in this. They are mainly quite utopian people, who had bourgeois families, studied in private schools, and very comfortable lives, where they never saw any wars or violence. All this creates soft, utopian people.

    People who are uncomfortable with honestly thinking in terms of pure utilitarian morality (actions decided on whether this benefits me) can also fool themselves into believing something noble that just happens to support their interests.

    (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).

    Aside from everything else, they really, really, hate hate hate Putin for things like Pussy Riot and the “law against proselytising homosexual propaganda” to minors.

    • Agree: utu, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Aside from everything else, they really, really, hate hate hate Putin for things like Pussy Riot and the “law against proselytising homosexual propaganda” to minors.

     

    1. Pussy Riot - was a stupid repression. But it is not different than what Theresa May, or New Zealand, etc, are doing to politically incorrect people. If anything, Western European governments are all aligned with the Russian government in these topics.

    And Russian government is significantly less repressive, than what e.g. Spain does to Catalan politicians and dissenters. Spain's recent behaviour, is really repressive and anti-democratic, in a way Putin has not yet reached fortunately.

    As for the "hate crime" prosecutions which are in countries like UK. This is very similar to Putin's policies, but in some dimensions it could possibly be more extreme in Western Europe than in Russia.

    In other words, these stupid cases and political prosecutions of people, there is not provided any special distinction between the Russian government and Western European governments. Both are equally bad in these topics.

    The distinction is more between restricted free-speech of most of Europe (including many countries in Western Europe) and the free-speech absolutism of America.

    2. "Law against proselytising homosexual propaganda" - is far less extreme, than the policy of many countries, which Western liberals do not concern with - whether we are talking about the whole of the Muslim world, or countries like India, China, etc, which are probably the same in this topic as Russia, and countries like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, which will be much more repressive.

    Also, Putin's views on these topics are just aligning with typical opinion in the country, so there he is just being a representative politician in this area, not pushing any particular personal views.

    Sexual minorities, of course, live better in the Russian Federation (in terms of sexual minority rights), than in the USSR.

    During the Cold War, I'm not aware that America used the politics of sexual minorities to criticize the USSR, because the policies of the two countries were the same.

    Western media has of course exaggerated the differences even today, in the typical histrionic way of journalists.

  147. @DFH

    I am not aware that Cromwell committed any atrocities, the only three I am aware of are the massacre of Bolton residents by Royalists, and the massacre at the siege of Basing House where Cromwell was the commander and some womenfolk camp followers who were killed at some battle.
     
    Ummmmmmmm........ Does the name Drogheda ring a bell?

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Massacre_at_Drogheda.jpeg

    I’m mystified by the recent spate of apologias for Cromwell. It must have something to do with “Wolf Hall”, but I suspect there must also be some political undercurrent. I’m not familiar with the book or TV show, but perhaps the hint would be there.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    It must have something to do with “Wolf Hall”
     
    That show is about Thomas Cromwell, not Oliver.
  148. @German_reader

    The Holocaust is a useful rhetorical tool because it is an issue on which Jews occupy an unassailable moral high ground, but it’s not something the average Jew/Israeli really cares about as it affects day to day life
     
    I don't think that's true, it's clearly a central element of the identity of many Jews (perhaps the central element for many of the more secular ones), it's not just pretended. And imo it couldn't be otherwise.

    Israelis have a warmer regard for Germany than vice versa in every poll I have seen
     
    They also reject any contact with a party like AfD because of its alleged "Nazi origins" (a party that was founded in 2013, when the youngest of Hitler's voters would have been 100); head of the Jewish World Congress Ronald Lauder has even called for the AfD to be banned. It's clear that any form of even moderate German nationalism is seen as unacceptable.

    Orban and the Poles are not demonized because of the Holocaust
     
    The things many Jews say about Poland are far too visceral to be merely the result of political calculation.

    I don’t think that’s true, it’s clearly a central element of the identity of many Jews (perhaps the central element for many of the more secular ones), it’s not just pretended. And imo it couldn’t be otherwise.

    For American Jews at least, the Shoah is the core of their identity. How would it change if we separated it into religious and non-religious Jews? I have a suspicion that secular Jews would care a lot more about it, simply because they have nothing else.

  149. @German_reader

    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point–and exceptionally weird.
     
    Much weirder though imo is that there's so much gentile support for Jewish nationalism, even though there's almost zero reciprocity.
    There are tons of gentiles who get very, very emotionally invested in their defense of Israel and Zionism, not least on the so-called right (it's of course especially bad in the US where things are just grotesque, but there are many such people in Europe as well, across the political spectrum). I don't understand the psychology of those people.

    It is because they are projecting their nationalist inclinations wrt their own countries onto Israel.

    From the point of view of an uninformed westerner (especially in the Anglosphere), Israeli Jews are a group of white, pseudo-Christian people fighting a bunch of brown Muslims. Throughout the west, it is more-or-less socially unacceptable (for white people) to complain about non-white immigration, or to express any sentiment that could possibly be construed as racism; so, those who hold those sentiments but can’t express them properly project them onto Israel, since supporting Israel is perfectly acceptable. In doing so, they use Israel, which they imagine to be a semi-western, semi-Christian country, as a proxy for their own country. This is why they get as emotional as they do; they are (probably subconsciously) mentally substituting Israel and Israelis for their own countries and their own people.

    It’s pretty retarded.

    • Replies: @Byrresheim
    Retarded it is, it should end asap.
  150. @Mikhail
    Noticeably anti-Serb as well.

    Shifting gears, for you auto buffs:

    https://www.twelfthroundauto.com/best-motor-oil/

    https://www.youtube.com/user/scottykilmer

    Scotty is hilarious.

    This is just an affiliate marketing site. It’s not like he’s actually testing or even reviewing the motor oil.

    I’ve always used Mobil One.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    I'd like to see the specifics behind that rating as well, which varies by different categories for best oil:

    - synthetic
    - conventional
    - 0-20
    - blend
    - high mileage (75, 000 and over) synthetic

    A more detailed venue:

    https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/

    On the subject of engine oil for cars, I'm of the view that as long as you put in the recommended weight and change within a reasoned time, there will be no problems, whatever you use: Amazon, Walmart, Mobil, Royal Purple..... This view excludes driving a car with regular temperatures at single digits and less.

    If the manual calls for full synthetic, then by all means use it.

    More important is the quality of the oil filter. Offhand, the Mobil extended life and Fram full synthetic filters seem like the best options. Royal Purple oil filters are considered as good if not better. Its price is noticeably higher when compared to the aforementioned other two which sell at Walmart for around $10.00.

  151. @Thorfinnsson


    Of these, only Yak-1 stood any modicum of chance against Bf-109F. MiG-3 and LaGG-3 were turkeys.
    It was not until Yak-3/9 and La-5/7 that Soviets matched contemporary Bf-109 and FW-190 models.
    P-39/63 was not Soviet, of course, but it was another very successful Soviet-employed fighter.
     
    All true, though in my view the largest problem with the VVS relative to the Luftwaffe was pilot training.

    In reading postwar memoirs of Luftwaffe pilots the assessments of the VVS are generally quite poor compared to the RAF and USAAF with certain exceptions.

    This isn't down to Russophobia either as assessments of the Red Army are generally positive (Tippelskirch and the Soviet zergling myth aside).


    In its niche role and altitude band, yes.

    However, if I had to choose which WW2 fighter I would fly to battle, I would narrow it down to P-47 or P-38. P-51 Mustang and its trumpeted superiority are part of Bomber Mafia narrative retouching.
     
    P-38 and P-47 were limited to Mach 0.68 and Mach 0.71 respectively in maneuvering. P-51 Mustang was Mach 0.78. Bf 109 and Fw 190 were 0.75.

    RAF test pilot Eric Brown on the the matter:


    We had found out that the Bf 109 and the FW 190 could fight up to a Mach of 0.75, three-quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it couldn't fly in combat faster than 0.68. So it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photo-reconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And the funny thing is that the Americans had great difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East.
     
    It should be added that as a twin-engine aircraft the P-38 was inherently less maneuverable than single-engine fighters. This was irrelevant when it first appeared as it was the fastest airplane in the world, but as the war went on its speed was surpassed by single-engine fighters. Fortunately that was generally not the case in the Pacific.

    The P-47 was simply too heavy. This did at least make it very rugged and a fast diver. Other than the lack of cannons it was well suited for the fighter-bomber role.

    Other than the unloved (by the Americans) P-39/63 and P-38 all American fighters were also inadequately armed.

    Which fighter you wish to take into battle of course depends on the battle. P-51D superiority was real for the 8th Air Force's mission. The Spitfire Mk XIV was arguably better than the P-51D, but it was short ranged and thus useless.

    If the P-51D had been tasked with the same mission as the Luftwaffe's fighters, it would've fared poorly owing to its weak armament. Six .50cal BMGs were fine against fighters, but not four-engine bombers.

    Ju-87, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Aichi D3A were dive bombers and employed successfuly. The key to their success was the air superiority they enjoyed. Once it was gone – Vals went down by the dozens with little to show for.

    Stuka was until G model not a good anti-armour, or CS plane due to light armament and lack of armour protection – it would get to the scene, drop its load and be gone. German analogue to Il-2 would probably be Hs-123.
     
    Types other than the Ju-87 weren't capable of vertical dive bombing, nor did they have the Ju-87's automatic dive recovery capabilities. They also weren't fielded in land warfare, being naval bombers.

    The ideal dive bomber for CS would've been something like the Boeing XF8B.

    Hs-129 was useful as it carried a heavy cannon armament less awkwardly than the Ju-87G and also used engines not in demand elsewhere. That said, hardly an ideal type given its low performance. I wonder if the Me-410 would've been good in this role.


    Yes, achieving a direct-hit with fin-“stabilized” rockets – needed to destroy an AFV – 2-3% hit rates by post-battle evaluation crews. Soviet answer was practical – you drop dozens of bomblets across the general target area – just one hitting was often enough to disable the AFV.
     
    Hit rates from the bomblets was also abysmal.


    Motorkanon solution of Germans, Soviets and P-39/63 was deadly – in my opinion, the German 30 mm already qualifies for large-caliber, and arguably, Soviet 23 mm does as well. In addition, Germans mounted 50 and 75 mm pneumatically and hydraulically operated guns to Hs-123 (semi-automatic, though), while I believe they fitted 50 mm to Me-410 in the Zerstoerer role.
    US 75 mm hand-operated in B-24 and B-25 in the Pacific was improvisation.
     
    Engine-mounted cannon solution was excellent, though it took time to mature. 30mm is I suppose relatively large caliber, but German aircraft with MK 108 cannons were used as fighters and bomber destroyers rather than in the close support role since it was a low velocity gun.

    There was a high velocity 30mm cannon (MK 103), but the Germans were unable to get it to work in the motorkanone role as it was apparently too large for the DB605 engine. The Soviet attempt engine mount a 45mm cannon also failed.

    50mm was indeed fitted to the Me-410 and also to the Me-262. I noted previously that the Me-410 might've done some good in the anti-armor role.

    The Italians, British, and Japanese also all experimented with large caliber cannons in the anti-shipping role.


    However, there were more Pz.38(t) in total because Slovakia used them as LT-38 in Barbarossa, and 1st Hungarian Tank Division was equipped with them as well – so the single most numerous Axis tank in Barbarossa was – Czech TNHP/Pz.38(t).
     
    Pz.38(t) was superior to PzKw II, though of course certainly not a medium tank.

    Regarding P-38 and P-47, you fell for a post-war propaganda effort.
    P-38 having counter-turning propellers meant it could outturn every single-engine fighter in the right turn.
    In addition, using differential throttle settings, P-38 flown by expert pilots (instructed by travelling advisers like Lindbergh) could outmaneuver even Japanese nimble fighters, the most maneuverable of the fighters employed in WW2 in “common knowledge”.
    No, the Americans knew what they were doing in Pacific – the British pilot was given crappy export P-38 without turbosuperchargers, and suffers from common British illness of Spitfiremania.

    And be certain that no fighter “maneuvered” at 0.75 Mach. This claim is very dubious by itself for P-47 – it was precisely P-47M which could threaten Me-262 via boom-and-zoom and shallow dive speed accumilation.

    Also, P-47 operating as a fighter-bomber was an atrocity. It was designed as a high-altitude, long-range interceptor and escort fighter maximizing energy fighting. The complex and expensive turbosupercharger it carried (engineering achievement and masterpiece) that enabled it to outperform supercharged competition was literally deadweight at low altitudes.

    Its fancy hydraulic control surfaces optimized for high-altitude, high-speed maneuvering was ill-suited for ground-level combat.

    The thing was very expensive (almost twice the price of Mustang), armoured, resistant to damage (air cooled radials vs. liquid cooled inlines) and heavily armed.

    Have a look yourself: https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38801.html

    Comments are goldmine as well.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/54434.html

    Also, Yugoslavia had post-WW2 late Spitfires, Yaks and P-47. P-47 winner in 9/10 situations. It could outclimb opposition post 6000 m altitude, accumulate energy due to higher ceiling and better high-altitude performance, build up speed via shallow dive and then prey upon hapless opposition in mock fights.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Those links are a great trip down memory lane and have a lot of excellent material, but I compared the P-51's range to the Spitfire. In fact P-47s were more important than P-51s during the Big Week that broke the Luftwaffe.

    The P-38 having counter-rotating propellers meant that a skilled, properly trained pilot could use differential thrust to escape a single-engine fighter. Useful capability which the Germans sure could've used on their twin-engine fighters. Not the same thing as being a highly maneuverable aircraft, hence why SWPA P-38 pilots in the 5th Air Force mainly exploited their tremendous advantage in speed and diving to use boom and zoom tactics.

    Also, while not a knock on the P-38 itself, poor pilot training meant that differential thrust tactics were rarely used in the ETO.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html

    Eric Brown was the world's best test pilot of that period and not prone to bias. He liked the Spitfire, but he was fair and considered the P-51 to be its equal. And liking Spitfires was not just a British position. Some of the RAF Eagle pilots that converted to the P-47 from the Spitfire initially hated the aircraft until they learned to exploit its virtues. Adolf Galland also famously told Goering during the Battle of Britain that he would like a squadron of Spitfires.

    The Mach numbers in question related to maneuvering limits in a dive (obviously WW2-era fighters couldn't fly that fast in level flight) and were caused by compressibility in the transonic range. Since this relates to wing design and not the engines, it doesn't matter what kind of P-38 Brown was flying.

    Regarding the engines, that was another problem with the P-38 in the ETO. The engines were known in the ETO as the "Allison time bomb". Bill Knudsen vetoed the effort to equip the P-38 with Merlins, and Allison for various reasons refused to improve the engine sufficiently.

    The Spitfire also had a problem with compressibility (don't recall the limit) which is why the British designed the replacement Supermarine Spiteful.

    The good news for the P-47 is that it didn't need to maneuver in a dive because it could dive faster than its opponents thanks to its great weight and R2800 engine.

    The P-47 had a number of features intended for high altitude operation, but these didn't harm it at low altitude operation other than that they cost money. And actually hydraulically boosted flaps at low altitude might save your life. It's not like it had a specialized high altitude wing (e.g. as on the Ta-152).

    You do bring up another reason for P-51 superiority however: it was cheaper and easier to maintain. Admittedly not relevant to the pilot in the cockpit, but certainly relevant to the USAAF.

    I don't believe that a P-47 could outclimb a late mark Spitfire. Griffon-engined Spitfires, by simple physics, would obviously outclimb a P-47. I suppose past a certain altitude the P-47's turbocharger could've provided an edge over the Spitfire's two-speed supercharger. The Yak-3 obviously would've been shredded outside of a low altitude dogfight owing to its inferior engine.
  152. @ Anatoly:

    If the rumours are true, then AMD will annouce their new mainstream/mid-end GPU “Navi” & the new Ryzen 3000 series on the May 1st. Depending on how agressive AMD goes with the price, it will force Intel’s & Nvidia’s hand. Retailers might start sell-off campaigns.

    When you can wait until then, you might get your hand on some better performance/price-matrix.

  153. @songbird
    I'm mystified by the recent spate of apologias for Cromwell. It must have something to do with "Wolf Hall", but I suspect there must also be some political undercurrent. I'm not familiar with the book or TV show, but perhaps the hint would be there.

    It must have something to do with “Wolf Hall”

    That show is about Thomas Cromwell, not Oliver.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    That show is about Thomas Cromwell, not Oliver.

    I am assuming that Songbird knew that, and was implying that the Cromwell "family" name had somehow been rehabilitated by the program.
    , @LondonBob
    Related through Thomas Cromwell's sister who was Oliver's grandmother, or something along those lines. The maternal name was adopted as it was beneficial to be associated with Thomas.
    , @songbird
    I once heard it used as segway.

    I don't know if Oliver Cromwell was really very different from some men of his day or men who had previously invaded Ireland, like Edward the Bruce or Strongbow. Massacres were probably pretty common, like the Siege of Smerwick, during the Second Desmond Rebellion. Part of my family had a farm on top of a big medieval burial ground - seems to have been a village obliterated by Edward the Bruce and never rebuilt, but history is patchy. What is known is only that he passed by that way.

    Still, I find the revisionism strange because it is not really about Cromwell but specifically about the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. One contemporary estimate was that 40% of the population of Ireland was killed from war and induced famine. Whatever the true number, (some say only 20%), I can't help but think that there is some strange political motivation. Either a globalist attack on Irish identity, or else they appreciate his anticlerical activities.

    Where I first heard it was actually on American public radio. Something I really abhor, but someone else was listening to it. On any given day, to hear it you would think it was communists, so it is easy to suspect some political dimension.
  154. @Hyperborean

    Jews can be a bit like Alawites in Syria. Assad government always talks about religious tolerance, secular state and multiculturalism of Syria.

    This is less utopian, than self-interest. (Only in secular, multinational, multireligious Syria, can Alawites with 10% of the population, rule over Sunnis with 80%). With Jews, there can be this cynicism as well.
     
    The Syrian government is a supporter of secularism and protector of religious minorities, due to self-interest, but they also clearly define Syria as an Arab state.

    Aside from the fact that it is in the formal name of the country (Syrian Arab Republic), before the civil war the government used to stamp out Kurdish identity, like all the neighbouring states, due to fear of separatism and a desire to Arabise the country.

    However, I don’t think most Jewish liberals in rich countries like America, are cynical in this. They are mainly quite utopian people, who had bourgeois families, studied in private schools, and very comfortable lives, where they never saw any wars or violence. All this creates soft, utopian people.
     
    People who are uncomfortable with honestly thinking in terms of pure utilitarian morality (actions decided on whether this benefits me) can also fool themselves into believing something noble that just happens to support their interests.

    (I understand why Orban has a bad image with American anti-racists, but why multinationalist Putin has is a mystery).
     
    Aside from everything else, they really, really, hate hate hate Putin for things like Pussy Riot and the "law against proselytising homosexual propaganda" to minors.

    Aside from everything else, they really, really, hate hate hate Putin for things like Pussy Riot and the “law against proselytising homosexual propaganda” to minors.

    1. Pussy Riot – was a stupid repression. But it is not different than what Theresa May, or New Zealand, etc, are doing to politically incorrect people. If anything, Western European governments are all aligned with the Russian government in these topics.

    And Russian government is significantly less repressive, than what e.g. Spain does to Catalan politicians and dissenters. Spain’s recent behaviour, is really repressive and anti-democratic, in a way Putin has not yet reached fortunately.

    As for the “hate crime” prosecutions which are in countries like UK. This is very similar to Putin’s policies, but in some dimensions it could possibly be more extreme in Western Europe than in Russia.

    In other words, these stupid cases and political prosecutions of people, there is not provided any special distinction between the Russian government and Western European governments. Both are equally bad in these topics.

    The distinction is more between restricted free-speech of most of Europe (including many countries in Western Europe) and the free-speech absolutism of America.

    2. “Law against proselytising homosexual propaganda” – is far less extreme, than the policy of many countries, which Western liberals do not concern with – whether we are talking about the whole of the Muslim world, or countries like India, China, etc, which are probably the same in this topic as Russia, and countries like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, which will be much more repressive.

    Also, Putin’s views on these topics are just aligning with typical opinion in the country, so there he is just being a representative politician in this area, not pushing any particular personal views.

    Sexual minorities, of course, live better in the Russian Federation (in terms of sexual minority rights), than in the USSR.

    During the Cold War, I’m not aware that America used the politics of sexual minorities to criticize the USSR, because the policies of the two countries were the same.

    Western media has of course exaggerated the differences even today, in the typical histrionic way of journalists.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    1. Pussy Riot – was a stupid repression. But it is not different than what Theresa May, or New Zealand, etc, are doing to politically incorrect people. If anything, Western European governments are all aligned with the Russian government in these topics.

     

    But there is a difference. Pussy Riot are good people politically speaking while the UK arrests hateful people, so from their perspective there is a fundamental difference.

    Also, Putin’s views on these topics are just aligning with typical opinion in the country, so there he is just being a representative politician in this area, not pushing any particular personal views.
     
    Which simply makes ordinary Russians complicit in Putin’s sins.

    countries like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, which will be much more repressive.
     
    Cuba's government is rather liberal:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/cuba-removes-support-for-gay-marriage-in-new-constitution-after-protests

    >>>>

    You are correct in pointing out the blindspots and hypocrisy, but it is not as if they feel obliged to be consistent.

    It is much easier simply to hate renegade white countries like Russia, Poland, Hungary, Italy or whichever European country is next to go rogue.
  155. @German_reader

    The current, bizarre Jewish campaign against Poland is a case in point–and exceptionally weird.
     
    Much weirder though imo is that there's so much gentile support for Jewish nationalism, even though there's almost zero reciprocity.
    There are tons of gentiles who get very, very emotionally invested in their defense of Israel and Zionism, not least on the so-called right (it's of course especially bad in the US where things are just grotesque, but there are many such people in Europe as well, across the political spectrum). I don't understand the psychology of those people.

    Israel’s actual reality is painful, frustrating tolerance and liberalism anyway, where people who hate each other are forced to live together. And it’s one of the most multicultural and multi-religious countries, which is exactly what creates nationalist tensions and violence there. It’s a multiethnic nightmare – opposite of what voters actually want (homogeneous, conflictless, European countries, like Poland or Hungary).

    To go back to Israel and AfD.

    Israel’s main problem in external policy, is that it has very bad relations with most Muslim countries, and moderately bad one with liberal countries.

    Israel’s diplomatic priority should be to improve its relationship with Muslim – within limitations of its being in conflict with Muslims.

    That’s one of the most important things for Israel’s survival – to improve its relations with Muslim countries.

    So Israel should definitely not try to create relationships with anti-Muslim European political parties, unless those parties are going to be influential in the government of their countries, preferably powerful countries.

    As long as anti-Muslim parties are in the opposition, Israel will be idiots to be associated with them.

    As a similar lesson – Russia should not associate with opposition political parties in Europe, anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim, unless they will actually win an election and become powerful. When Russian government officials were associating with political losers like Marine Le Pen, the effect was both bad for Marine Le Pen, and bad for Russian external policy (reducing its influence) in France.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    So Israel should definitely not try to create relationships
     
    That's not the point (I'd actually agree), the point is that Israeli representatives and spokesmen of Jewish organizations have gone out of their way to validate the view of AfD as an illegitimate party of Nazis that ought to be crushed.
    There was a bizarre incident last year when former Mossad agent Rafi Eitan (one of those who captured Eichmann) met with AfD members in Germany and had friendly words for them - he was strongly condemned by the Israeli ambassador for that and eventually retracted his statements. Admittedly that also shows that Jewish views on those issues aren't monolithic, and to some extent I can even understand Jewish wariness about right-wing movements in Europe (there have been a few cases of explicit antisemites in AfD, though those have been isolated and AfD also has a few Jewish members). But still, on the whole the behaviour of official Jewry is really tiresome.

    That’s one of the most important things for Israel’s survival – to improve its relations with Muslim countries.
     
    It's unfortunate that Israel has picked the very worst Islamic countries, Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states, for that project, it definitely makes a mockery of all those "Israel is a bulwark against Islamism" claims (though the same is of course true on a much larger scale for the US, and also for the dubious ties of European countries to those regimes).
  156. @German_reader

    although she is at least slightly more qualified (she has a university degree in communications and politics).
     
    That isn't a qualification, in fact having studied something like "communication studies" or "political science" should count as a big fat minus imo.
    It's not unusual though, many Western politicians today have been professional politicans for their entire lives, it's a very important reason for the degeneration of our societies that our "elites" consist of useless parasites who would be nothing without their party machines and their patronage networks.
    Also very disturbing that this woman has a Mormon background, something needs to be done to check the spread of that cult.

    Degrees in politics and communication, may not be intellectually difficult to attain – but she at least completed the course, unlike Sebastian Kurz.

    Both her Sebastian Kurz, have never had a job or profession though. But she has a university qualification, which can be a test of having normal IQ and literacy. She has something on her CV under “Education”.

    Her ascension to become the most powerful person in her country at 37 years old, is shocking. And even Sebastian Kurz becoming leader of Austria at 32 years is even more shocking.

    our societies that our “elites” consist of useless parasites who would be nothing without their party machines and their patronage networks.

    But neither her nor Kurz, are from any elites, which is how it becomes even more difficult to understand.

    They don’t study in prestigious schools, or have any important family. They never had jobs in their life. They have no academic or intellectual ability. They don’t have unusual personalities, or charisma, or original policies. And they reach the country’s highest position while they are 30s. (Kurz second highest position, while he was 20s). Lol wtf.

    Mormon background, something needs to be done to check the spread of that cult.

    Obviously, Mormon beliefs are idiotic even by religious standards. But their external behaviour can be desirable. Salt Lake City, for example, is described as one of the best cities to live in America.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    But neither her nor Kurz, are from any elites, which is how it becomes even more difficult to understand.

    They don’t study in prestigious schools, or have any important family. They never had jobs in their life. They have no academic or intellectual ability. They don’t have unusual personalities, or charisma, or original policies. And they reach the country’s highest position while they are 30s. (Kurz second highest position, while he was 20s). Lol wtf.
     
    It is not so surprising for party machines to function like this, the surprising thing to me is their age.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Politics is a job. By that standard Kurz is qualified--he has shown a consistent ability to win elections and has worked in politics for his whole adult life.

    People often wring their hands about "professional politicians" (see German_reader), but professional politicians are not new (Bismarck was a professional politician).

    There is often the expressed desire that political leaders should have other qualifications and job experience. Well, the USA elected Donald Trump. He has actually shown a better ability to deal with the media than traditional politicians, but he has not been good at building effective political coalitions and enacting his agenda. Perhaps the lack of political experience is a hindrance.

    Another thing to remember is that Austria and New Zealand are small countries. Austria is smaller than Moscow and NZ is the size of St. Petersburg. So think of Kurz as the Mayor of Moscow and that kiwi slut as the Mayor of St. Petersburg. Still impressive at a young age (especially Kurz!), but not as impressive as the President of the Russian Federation.

    German_reader, like many Germans, has some sort of problem with Mormonism. Mormonism believes in odd things but Mormons themselves are highly functional. The fact that slut left her religion because she worships homo-sexuals is actually far more alarming.
  157. @Dmitry
    Israel's actual reality is painful, frustrating tolerance and liberalism anyway, where people who hate each other are forced to live together. And it's one of the most multicultural and multi-religious countries, which is exactly what creates nationalist tensions and violence there. It's a multiethnic nightmare - opposite of what voters actually want (homogeneous, conflictless, European countries, like Poland or Hungary).

    To go back to Israel and AfD.

    Israel's main problem in external policy, is that it has very bad relations with most Muslim countries, and moderately bad one with liberal countries.

    Israel's diplomatic priority should be to improve its relationship with Muslim - within limitations of its being in conflict with Muslims.

    That's one of the most important things for Israel's survival - to improve its relations with Muslim countries.

    So Israel should definitely not try to create relationships with anti-Muslim European political parties, unless those parties are going to be influential in the government of their countries, preferably powerful countries.

    As long as anti-Muslim parties are in the opposition, Israel will be idiots to be associated with them.

    -

    As a similar lesson - Russia should not associate with opposition political parties in Europe, anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim, unless they will actually win an election and become powerful. When Russian government officials were associating with political losers like Marine Le Pen, the effect was both bad for Marine Le Pen, and bad for Russian external policy (reducing its influence) in France.

    So Israel should definitely not try to create relationships

    That’s not the point (I’d actually agree), the point is that Israeli representatives and spokesmen of Jewish organizations have gone out of their way to validate the view of AfD as an illegitimate party of Nazis that ought to be crushed.
    There was a bizarre incident last year when former Mossad agent Rafi Eitan (one of those who captured Eichmann) met with AfD members in Germany and had friendly words for them – he was strongly condemned by the Israeli ambassador for that and eventually retracted his statements. Admittedly that also shows that Jewish views on those issues aren’t monolithic, and to some extent I can even understand Jewish wariness about right-wing movements in Europe (there have been a few cases of explicit antisemites in AfD, though those have been isolated and AfD also has a few Jewish members). But still, on the whole the behaviour of official Jewry is really tiresome.

    That’s one of the most important things for Israel’s survival – to improve its relations with Muslim countries.

    It’s unfortunate that Israel has picked the very worst Islamic countries, Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states, for that project, it definitely makes a mockery of all those “Israel is a bulwark against Islamism” claims (though the same is of course true on a much larger scale for the US, and also for the dubious ties of European countries to those regimes).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think a distinction should be made between Israelis and American Jewish Zionists; they share common goals and work together, but their values are often very different (Israelis more pragmatic, conservative and "race realist," American Jews more liberal, dreamy and idealistic). Also the relationship is very asymmetric (Israel depends to a large degree on American goodwill and support but has essentially nothing to offer America in return). Reading about the Blue and White Coalition, it seems to me they are basically offering Bibi's policy but with symbolic and verbal concessions to American Jewish sensibilities (e.g. not palling around with Bolsonaro and Orban). The example you cite with AfD may be a similar dynamic: many Israelis may see AfD as sympathetic, but to associate with a fringe far-right German party is bad optics and may cost you American support, and as Dmitry points out is worthless from a strategic point of view.

    The relationship between Israel and KSA is I think a good example of this dynamic: neither side can formally ally itself with the other, in fact they are still officially hostile (KSA bars not only Israeli passport holders but anybody with evidence of travel to Israel), but they still have similar goals and their respective leaders will work together behind the scenes when necessary.

    I genuinely have no idea what the Israeli position on right-wing parties in Europe is, or even if they have a unified position. On the one hand these parties often have vague pro-Israel sentiments which is certainly better than the overtly pro-BDS position of a lot of the European left, but there is obviously a lot of negative historical baggage as well (has Marine Le Pen really renounced her father?). Is opposition to Muslim immigration to Europe a good thing or a bad thing for Israel? What about opposition to the EU? Whatever position they strike is sure to be one of pure self interest, but the calculation seems ambiguous. I agree with Dmitry that their pose is probably to remain on good terms with whomever is currently in power, and that they will try to avoid alienating the Americans (Chuck Schumer et al)

    Tl; dr I think the Israelis themselves are mostly realpolitik, but their dependence on America forces them to pay lip service to American neoliberalism and utopianism

    , @LondonBob
    Don't Afd have relations with Pamela Geller and the dark zionist money coming from the US to ensure any nationalist movement doesn't go the wrong way? Normally they obsess about Muslims but stay silent on immigration from Africa like Tommy Robinson.
    , @Dmitry

    Israel has picked the very worst Islamic countries, Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states,
     
    Saudi Arabia was paying for suicide bombers in Israel until early 2000s (they transferred $5000 for each Palestinian suicide bomb against Israel).

    Obviously, it is a large improvement in Israel's security, if Saudi Arabia moderates their view to it (Saudi Arabia was also supporting Chechens in the 1990s).

    Payment of Saudi Arabia for suicide bombings in Israel was ended by Bush pressure after 9/11 (but America was complicit for Saudi support of Chechen terrorists).

    In the case of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's still politically impossible, for Saudi Arabia to be actually normal relations with Israel - as their education system will have created a population hostile to Israel.

    Saudi Arabia has friendly relations with America, Russia and UK, where they invest billions of dollars, buy weapons, or even their children to study. The relations with Israel are much more secret and they are more like the relations Israel has with Egypt or Jordan (where publicly they are very unfriendly, but privately friendly with the ruler).

  158. @Dmitry

    Aside from everything else, they really, really, hate hate hate Putin for things like Pussy Riot and the “law against proselytising homosexual propaganda” to minors.

     

    1. Pussy Riot - was a stupid repression. But it is not different than what Theresa May, or New Zealand, etc, are doing to politically incorrect people. If anything, Western European governments are all aligned with the Russian government in these topics.

    And Russian government is significantly less repressive, than what e.g. Spain does to Catalan politicians and dissenters. Spain's recent behaviour, is really repressive and anti-democratic, in a way Putin has not yet reached fortunately.

    As for the "hate crime" prosecutions which are in countries like UK. This is very similar to Putin's policies, but in some dimensions it could possibly be more extreme in Western Europe than in Russia.

    In other words, these stupid cases and political prosecutions of people, there is not provided any special distinction between the Russian government and Western European governments. Both are equally bad in these topics.

    The distinction is more between restricted free-speech of most of Europe (including many countries in Western Europe) and the free-speech absolutism of America.

    2. "Law against proselytising homosexual propaganda" - is far less extreme, than the policy of many countries, which Western liberals do not concern with - whether we are talking about the whole of the Muslim world, or countries like India, China, etc, which are probably the same in this topic as Russia, and countries like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, which will be much more repressive.

    Also, Putin's views on these topics are just aligning with typical opinion in the country, so there he is just being a representative politician in this area, not pushing any particular personal views.

    Sexual minorities, of course, live better in the Russian Federation (in terms of sexual minority rights), than in the USSR.

    During the Cold War, I'm not aware that America used the politics of sexual minorities to criticize the USSR, because the policies of the two countries were the same.

    Western media has of course exaggerated the differences even today, in the typical histrionic way of journalists.

    1. Pussy Riot – was a stupid repression. But it is not different than what Theresa May, or New Zealand, etc, are doing to politically incorrect people. If anything, Western European governments are all aligned with the Russian government in these topics.

    But there is a difference. Pussy Riot are good people politically speaking while the UK arrests hateful people, so from their perspective there is a fundamental difference.

    Also, Putin’s views on these topics are just aligning with typical opinion in the country, so there he is just being a representative politician in this area, not pushing any particular personal views.

    Which simply makes ordinary Russians complicit in Putin’s sins.

    countries like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, which will be much more repressive.

    Cuba’s government is rather liberal:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/cuba-removes-support-for-gay-marriage-in-new-constitution-after-protests

    >>>>

    You are correct in pointing out the blindspots and hypocrisy, but it is not as if they feel obliged to be consistent.

    It is much easier simply to hate renegade white countries like Russia, Poland, Hungary, Italy or whichever European country is next to go rogue.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    But there is a difference. Pussy Riot are good people politically speaking while the UK arrests hateful people, so from their perspective there is a fundamental difference.

     

    Of course they have their subjective views.

    But it's still quite ridiculous and useful to look at. Pussy Riot were making some video in a church. And UK arrests people for vandalism in churches.

    Far-right graffiti church vandal jailed for 6 years

    https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Far-right-graffiti-church-vandal-jailed-for-6-years

     

    Sure one is right politically, and one liberal politically. One has physical damage, while the other is only damage atmosphere.

    But the legal justifications in the courts of the two countries, will be very similar (church is some "holy" place, so it is as a worse than normal hooliganism).

    In the case of Pussy Riot, of course Putin opposed the punishment, or believed it was too much.


    Cuba’s government is rather liberal:

     

    But not when Fidel Castro, was there (and Castro is still "cool" with Western liberals - credit for Daily Beast that they at least challenge this contradiction).

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/fidel-castros-horrific-record-on-gay-rights


    It is much easier simply to hate renegade white countries like Russia, Poland, Hungary, Italy or whichever European country is next to go rogue.

     

    Orban claims to be in conflict with the Western liberal ideology (although this is partly just election campaigning, his actual policies are classical liberal).

    It is understandable for Western anti-racists or liberals to hate Orban.

    But Putin's personal ideology is anti-racist and multinationalist. And then the "repressive laws", are more or less the same as in many Western European countries. Lack of "free speech absolutism" is dividing America from Europe. But not Western Europe from Russia.

    There's a lot lost in translation, when our "centrist" and "moderate" politician is hated by their "centrist" supporting journalists and citizens.

  159. @Dmitry
    Degrees in politics and communication, may not be intellectually difficult to attain - but she at least completed the course, unlike Sebastian Kurz.

    Both her Sebastian Kurz, have never had a job or profession though. But she has a university qualification, which can be a test of having normal IQ and literacy. She has something on her CV under "Education".

    Her ascension to become the most powerful person in her country at 37 years old, is shocking. And even Sebastian Kurz becoming leader of Austria at 32 years is even more shocking.


    our societies that our “elites” consist of useless parasites who would be nothing without their party machines and their patronage networks.
     
    But neither her nor Kurz, are from any elites, which is how it becomes even more difficult to understand.

    They don't study in prestigious schools, or have any important family. They never had jobs in their life. They have no academic or intellectual ability. They don't have unusual personalities, or charisma, or original policies. And they reach the country's highest position while they are 30s. (Kurz second highest position, while he was 20s). Lol wtf.


    Mormon background, something needs to be done to check the spread of that cult.

     

    Obviously, Mormon beliefs are idiotic even by religious standards. But their external behaviour can be desirable. Salt Lake City, for example, is described as one of the best cities to live in America.

    But neither her nor Kurz, are from any elites, which is how it becomes even more difficult to understand.

    They don’t study in prestigious schools, or have any important family. They never had jobs in their life. They have no academic or intellectual ability. They don’t have unusual personalities, or charisma, or original policies. And they reach the country’s highest position while they are 30s. (Kurz second highest position, while he was 20s). Lol wtf.

    It is not so surprising for party machines to function like this, the surprising thing to me is their age.

  160. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    So Israel should definitely not try to create relationships
     
    That's not the point (I'd actually agree), the point is that Israeli representatives and spokesmen of Jewish organizations have gone out of their way to validate the view of AfD as an illegitimate party of Nazis that ought to be crushed.
    There was a bizarre incident last year when former Mossad agent Rafi Eitan (one of those who captured Eichmann) met with AfD members in Germany and had friendly words for them - he was strongly condemned by the Israeli ambassador for that and eventually retracted his statements. Admittedly that also shows that Jewish views on those issues aren't monolithic, and to some extent I can even understand Jewish wariness about right-wing movements in Europe (there have been a few cases of explicit antisemites in AfD, though those have been isolated and AfD also has a few Jewish members). But still, on the whole the behaviour of official Jewry is really tiresome.

    That’s one of the most important things for Israel’s survival – to improve its relations with Muslim countries.
     
    It's unfortunate that Israel has picked the very worst Islamic countries, Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states, for that project, it definitely makes a mockery of all those "Israel is a bulwark against Islamism" claims (though the same is of course true on a much larger scale for the US, and also for the dubious ties of European countries to those regimes).

    I think a distinction should be made between Israelis and American Jewish Zionists; they share common goals and work together, but their values are often very different (Israelis more pragmatic, conservative and “race realist,” American Jews more liberal, dreamy and idealistic). Also the relationship is very asymmetric (Israel depends to a large degree on American goodwill and support but has essentially nothing to offer America in return). Reading about the Blue and White Coalition, it seems to me they are basically offering Bibi’s policy but with symbolic and verbal concessions to American Jewish sensibilities (e.g. not palling around with Bolsonaro and Orban). The example you cite with AfD may be a similar dynamic: many Israelis may see AfD as sympathetic, but to associate with a fringe far-right German party is bad optics and may cost you American support, and as Dmitry points out is worthless from a strategic point of view.

    The relationship between Israel and KSA is I think a good example of this dynamic: neither side can formally ally itself with the other, in fact they are still officially hostile (KSA bars not only Israeli passport holders but anybody with evidence of travel to Israel), but they still have similar goals and their respective leaders will work together behind the scenes when necessary.

    I genuinely have no idea what the Israeli position on right-wing parties in Europe is, or even if they have a unified position. On the one hand these parties often have vague pro-Israel sentiments which is certainly better than the overtly pro-BDS position of a lot of the European left, but there is obviously a lot of negative historical baggage as well (has Marine Le Pen really renounced her father?). Is opposition to Muslim immigration to Europe a good thing or a bad thing for Israel? What about opposition to the EU? Whatever position they strike is sure to be one of pure self interest, but the calculation seems ambiguous. I agree with Dmitry that their pose is probably to remain on good terms with whomever is currently in power, and that they will try to avoid alienating the Americans (Chuck Schumer et al)

    Tl; dr I think the Israelis themselves are mostly realpolitik, but their dependence on America forces them to pay lip service to American neoliberalism and utopianism

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Noteworthy the Israeli relationship with Russia versus the position taken by the likes of Engel and Schumer.
    , @utu
    Supporting the alt-right wing parties in Europe is what Israel wants to do. They can't let the left-wing parties fall in love with Muslims in particular to the point of being against Israel. At the same time Israel will be supporting flooding the Europe with Muslims and the alt-right partie job is to do the fanning of Islamophobia. If there is not enough of it few terrorist attacks can always be arranged. Israel needs a repository of nationalist like Anders Breivik or Brenton Tarrant to prod them to action when some pro-Muslim and anti-Israel politicians have to be called to their senses. This in turn helps the left-wing parties to crack down on racism, anti-Semitism and freedom of speech. It is a win win tactics for Israel. Israel is playing a game of creating conflicts, keeping up the tensions, divide et impera and then offering apparent solutions.
    , @reiner Tor

    Israelis (...) pay lip service to American neoliberalism and utopianism
     
    If it were only lip service, they wouldn’t be so active in denouncing parties like the AfD.

    has Marine Le Pen really renounced her father?
     
    Yes, she has even kicked him out of the party. What else do Israelis want?

    And it’s not like Le Pen was Hitler. He said some bad things about Jews.
  161. @Thorfinnsson
    This is just an affiliate marketing site. It's not like he's actually testing or even reviewing the motor oil.

    I've always used Mobil One.

    I’d like to see the specifics behind that rating as well, which varies by different categories for best oil:

    – synthetic
    – conventional
    – 0-20
    – blend
    – high mileage (75, 000 and over) synthetic

    A more detailed venue:

    https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/

    On the subject of engine oil for cars, I’m of the view that as long as you put in the recommended weight and change within a reasoned time, there will be no problems, whatever you use: Amazon, Walmart, Mobil, Royal Purple….. This view excludes driving a car with regular temperatures at single digits and less.

    If the manual calls for full synthetic, then by all means use it.

    More important is the quality of the oil filter. Offhand, the Mobil extended life and Fram full synthetic filters seem like the best options. Royal Purple oil filters are considered as good if not better. Its price is noticeably higher when compared to the aforementioned other two which sell at Walmart for around $10.00.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I think your view is correct, but given that engine oil is not expensive it gives me peace of mind to purchase the best.
  162. @Anonymous
    I think a distinction should be made between Israelis and American Jewish Zionists; they share common goals and work together, but their values are often very different (Israelis more pragmatic, conservative and "race realist," American Jews more liberal, dreamy and idealistic). Also the relationship is very asymmetric (Israel depends to a large degree on American goodwill and support but has essentially nothing to offer America in return). Reading about the Blue and White Coalition, it seems to me they are basically offering Bibi's policy but with symbolic and verbal concessions to American Jewish sensibilities (e.g. not palling around with Bolsonaro and Orban). The example you cite with AfD may be a similar dynamic: many Israelis may see AfD as sympathetic, but to associate with a fringe far-right German party is bad optics and may cost you American support, and as Dmitry points out is worthless from a strategic point of view.

    The relationship between Israel and KSA is I think a good example of this dynamic: neither side can formally ally itself with the other, in fact they are still officially hostile (KSA bars not only Israeli passport holders but anybody with evidence of travel to Israel), but they still have similar goals and their respective leaders will work together behind the scenes when necessary.

    I genuinely have no idea what the Israeli position on right-wing parties in Europe is, or even if they have a unified position. On the one hand these parties often have vague pro-Israel sentiments which is certainly better than the overtly pro-BDS position of a lot of the European left, but there is obviously a lot of negative historical baggage as well (has Marine Le Pen really renounced her father?). Is opposition to Muslim immigration to Europe a good thing or a bad thing for Israel? What about opposition to the EU? Whatever position they strike is sure to be one of pure self interest, but the calculation seems ambiguous. I agree with Dmitry that their pose is probably to remain on good terms with whomever is currently in power, and that they will try to avoid alienating the Americans (Chuck Schumer et al)

    Tl; dr I think the Israelis themselves are mostly realpolitik, but their dependence on America forces them to pay lip service to American neoliberalism and utopianism

    Noteworthy the Israeli relationship with Russia versus the position taken by the likes of Engel and Schumer.

    • Replies: @utu

    Noteworthy the Israeli relationship with Russia versus the position taken by the likes of Engel and Schumer.
     
    This is a part of bigger game plan. For Putin the only road to Washington goes through Jerusalem and vice versa for Trump.
  163. @Anonymous
    I think a distinction should be made between Israelis and American Jewish Zionists; they share common goals and work together, but their values are often very different (Israelis more pragmatic, conservative and "race realist," American Jews more liberal, dreamy and idealistic). Also the relationship is very asymmetric (Israel depends to a large degree on American goodwill and support but has essentially nothing to offer America in return). Reading about the Blue and White Coalition, it seems to me they are basically offering Bibi's policy but with symbolic and verbal concessions to American Jewish sensibilities (e.g. not palling around with Bolsonaro and Orban). The example you cite with AfD may be a similar dynamic: many Israelis may see AfD as sympathetic, but to associate with a fringe far-right German party is bad optics and may cost you American support, and as Dmitry points out is worthless from a strategic point of view.

    The relationship between Israel and KSA is I think a good example of this dynamic: neither side can formally ally itself with the other, in fact they are still officially hostile (KSA bars not only Israeli passport holders but anybody with evidence of travel to Israel), but they still have similar goals and their respective leaders will work together behind the scenes when necessary.

    I genuinely have no idea what the Israeli position on right-wing parties in Europe is, or even if they have a unified position. On the one hand these parties often have vague pro-Israel sentiments which is certainly better than the overtly pro-BDS position of a lot of the European left, but there is obviously a lot of negative historical baggage as well (has Marine Le Pen really renounced her father?). Is opposition to Muslim immigration to Europe a good thing or a bad thing for Israel? What about opposition to the EU? Whatever position they strike is sure to be one of pure self interest, but the calculation seems ambiguous. I agree with Dmitry that their pose is probably to remain on good terms with whomever is currently in power, and that they will try to avoid alienating the Americans (Chuck Schumer et al)

    Tl; dr I think the Israelis themselves are mostly realpolitik, but their dependence on America forces them to pay lip service to American neoliberalism and utopianism

    Supporting the alt-right wing parties in Europe is what Israel wants to do. They can’t let the left-wing parties fall in love with Muslims in particular to the point of being against Israel. At the same time Israel will be supporting flooding the Europe with Muslims and the alt-right partie job is to do the fanning of Islamophobia. If there is not enough of it few terrorist attacks can always be arranged. Israel needs a repository of nationalist like Anders Breivik or Brenton Tarrant to prod them to action when some pro-Muslim and anti-Israel politicians have to be called to their senses. This in turn helps the left-wing parties to crack down on racism, anti-Semitism and freedom of speech. It is a win win tactics for Israel. Israel is playing a game of creating conflicts, keeping up the tensions, divide et impera and then offering apparent solutions.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Israel is playing a game of creating conflicts, keeping up the tensions, divide et impera and then offering apparent solutions.

    And all the while distracting world attention from what's going on in the "Occupied Territories".

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/IsraeliSettlementGrowthLineGraph.png
  164. @Mikhail
    Noteworthy the Israeli relationship with Russia versus the position taken by the likes of Engel and Schumer.

    Noteworthy the Israeli relationship with Russia versus the position taken by the likes of Engel and Schumer.

    This is a part of bigger game plan. For Putin the only road to Washington goes through Jerusalem and vice versa for Trump.

  165. @utu

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).
     
    Poland is taking Ukrainian gastarbeiters and immigrants by millions w/o any gestures of contrition and atonements from Ukrainians for the Volhynia genocide. It is really hard to understand it.

    Perhaps they feel solidarity in their hatred of Russia, something that exists much more in the here-and-now, and this allows them to overcome historical enmities.

  166. JL says:
    @Dmitry

    Netanyahu is less of an Israel partisan – he tried to return the Golan Heights to Syria more than one time.

     

    Apparently, it was two times:

    In 1998:
    http://www.danielpipes.org/311/the-road-to-damascus-what-netanyahu-almost-gave-away

    And in 2010:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-prepared-to-hand-back-golan-heights-to-syria-in-return-for-peace-say-reports-8209612.html

    It would have destroyed his popularity - Israel has its only ski resort there.

    Israel has its only ski resort there.

    Starting this year, there is now a direct flight between Tel Aviv and Sochi. The ski resorts there have been inundated with Israelis, to the extent that Hebrew will be, by far, the language you are most likely to hear after Russian. Sochi is, apparently, a superior substitute to the Alps; closer, cheaper, and Israelis don’t need a visa to visit Russia.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Israelis don’t need a visa to visit Russia
     
    Really? That's interesting. They need one to visit the US (although the reverse is not true).
    , @Dmitry
    I think there was direct flight between Sochi and Tel Aviv since 2014?

    But the way Israel operates visa-free with Russia (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc), is perhaps more bad than good.

    They have an open visa regime. But then instead they operate "immigration control" in the airport with Russia/Ukraine/Belarus people, and they particularly deport Ukrainians.

    In response, Ukraine started an airport war , and is doing the same to Israelis.
    https://zn.ua/international/unizhennye-i-vozmuschennye-311939_.html
  167. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @JL

    Israel has its only ski resort there.
     
    Starting this year, there is now a direct flight between Tel Aviv and Sochi. The ski resorts there have been inundated with Israelis, to the extent that Hebrew will be, by far, the language you are most likely to hear after Russian. Sochi is, apparently, a superior substitute to the Alps; closer, cheaper, and Israelis don't need a visa to visit Russia.

    Israelis don’t need a visa to visit Russia

    Really? That’s interesting. They need one to visit the US (although the reverse is not true).

  168. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    I hesitate to answer that without thinking about it in categorical terms

    I will say for now that the following come to mind as very good books

    For a one volume political summary, that focuses on 1848-1861, I highly recommend 'The Impending Crisis' by historian by David Potter.

    For a longer summary, I quite like William Freehling's two-volume book 'The Road to Disunion.' Freehling focuses on the development of secessionist politics in the South, with enough background info on the North to know what was going on there. He goes into extensive detail and depth on social aspects. You will learn about the many differences between the respective Southern states. Freehling is also rather a fun writer; Potter has lots of good anecdotes, and knows how to write a narrative with pace.

    IIRC, Freehling's main argument, with which I mostly agreed, is that as white men began to become more egalitarian (towards themselves, that is, not towards other races/cultures - Jackson is a good example), the domestic elitism, so to speak, of slavery inevitably clashed with the larger political culture, including, to a surprisingly large degree, within the South itself.

    David Detzer wrote a fine summary of the actual outbreak of the war - the Sumter crisis. It is called 'Allegiance.'

    For a summary of the war itself, 'Battle Cry of Freedom' is, again, pretty good. I have to admit, though, I've mostly read specific topics from the war, and very few summary-type books.

    Shelby Foote and Bruce Catton, again, were the classic popular Civil War writers of the mid 20th century. Being a Northerner (though I have rebels in the family tree), Catton's Michigan style is appealing to me more so than Foote. Foote was arguably a better writer, though.

    There are copious memoirs from the war. Both armies were, in fact, highly literate. And the guys who could write were much better writers than today's average people.

    Whatever you do, don't read Thomas DiLorenzo or Garry Wills. DiLorenzo is a pro-Confederate partisan, while Wills is the kind of guy who tries to interpret Lincoln as belonging to a kind of multicultural liberal tradition. They're both hacks, though DiLorenzo probably commits more sins offensive to the discipline of history.

    Thanks for the recommendations!

  169. @Anonymous
    I think a distinction should be made between Israelis and American Jewish Zionists; they share common goals and work together, but their values are often very different (Israelis more pragmatic, conservative and "race realist," American Jews more liberal, dreamy and idealistic). Also the relationship is very asymmetric (Israel depends to a large degree on American goodwill and support but has essentially nothing to offer America in return). Reading about the Blue and White Coalition, it seems to me they are basically offering Bibi's policy but with symbolic and verbal concessions to American Jewish sensibilities (e.g. not palling around with Bolsonaro and Orban). The example you cite with AfD may be a similar dynamic: many Israelis may see AfD as sympathetic, but to associate with a fringe far-right German party is bad optics and may cost you American support, and as Dmitry points out is worthless from a strategic point of view.

    The relationship between Israel and KSA is I think a good example of this dynamic: neither side can formally ally itself with the other, in fact they are still officially hostile (KSA bars not only Israeli passport holders but anybody with evidence of travel to Israel), but they still have similar goals and their respective leaders will work together behind the scenes when necessary.

    I genuinely have no idea what the Israeli position on right-wing parties in Europe is, or even if they have a unified position. On the one hand these parties often have vague pro-Israel sentiments which is certainly better than the overtly pro-BDS position of a lot of the European left, but there is obviously a lot of negative historical baggage as well (has Marine Le Pen really renounced her father?). Is opposition to Muslim immigration to Europe a good thing or a bad thing for Israel? What about opposition to the EU? Whatever position they strike is sure to be one of pure self interest, but the calculation seems ambiguous. I agree with Dmitry that their pose is probably to remain on good terms with whomever is currently in power, and that they will try to avoid alienating the Americans (Chuck Schumer et al)

    Tl; dr I think the Israelis themselves are mostly realpolitik, but their dependence on America forces them to pay lip service to American neoliberalism and utopianism

    Israelis (…) pay lip service to American neoliberalism and utopianism

    If it were only lip service, they wouldn’t be so active in denouncing parties like the AfD.

    has Marine Le Pen really renounced her father?

    Yes, she has even kicked him out of the party. What else do Israelis want?

    And it’s not like Le Pen was Hitler. He said some bad things about Jews.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How energetic has Israel really been in denouncing AfD? Google isn't showing me a ton. I see that some wings of Afd are pushing to outlaw male circumcision and kosher slaughterhouses. Even if one supports these positions (and yes I understand that they are primarily directed at Muslims) it's not hard to see why many Jews would take a dim view of a party that seriously entertained them. Regardless I don't think Israel is responsible in any significant way for the failures of the AfD.

    Comments like Le Pen's are just that, comments, not binding decrees with the force of law, but as with e.g. the recent Israeli comments about Poland they are insensitive and ill advised (to say the least).

  170. @Dmitry
    In my opinion, at least that is clever - to reject contact with AfD. (Unless AfD seem to be winning an election).

    Putin has been in this stupid decision to have contact with opposition political parties, with government contact with both Marine Le Pen and AfD .

    Le Pen at least, will never be President, so there is no benefit for Russia. The cost of having this contact, was to make Russia and Putin more unpopular with the rulers and journalists of France.

    Merkel is subsidizing construction of Israeli submarines. So if Israeli leadership are not idiots, they should publicly support Merkel 100%, since she is paying for part of their nuclear deterrent.

    Because Israeli leadership* is believing similar things about Muslims, as AfD (you can see Yair Netanyahu's Twitter to imagine what they say in the Netanyahu house) - it probably itself means Israel should even try to avoid association with opposition like AfD or Le Pen even more

    -
    * Israeli television program, seems more or less the same as Fox News on this topic

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amdtD6_JqLE

    It’s one thing to avoid association with AfD, it’s another to actively denounce it to the point of actively pressuring Jews who had slightly friendly contacts to it. Israelis do the latter.

  171. @for-the-record
    they are suing the Hungarian State Railways for its role in the holocaust. I mean, it’s not like the state railways company was in any position to make decisions or anything

    Well, French and Dutch national railways accepted to pay reparations (in the case of the SNCF, to Holocaust survivors in the US), and they were defeated countries not allies of Germany. So my guess is that Hungary is going to have to go a very long way to ingratiate itself with the US/Israel to avoid a massive settlement.

    I don’t think it’s possible to appease them to the point that they stop the lawsuit. After all, those participating in it probably don’t care enough for Israel to renounce their billion dollar claims. People are rarely fanatical enough about anything that they would be willing to renounce billion dollar claims for it. The lawsuit is just a fact of life like an earthquake.

    Another interesting angle is American judicial overreach. When Belgium started issuing arrest warrants against people like Ariel Sharon, it was ridiculous. But America actually has the strength to make its courts the arbiters of justice about events which happened three quarters of a century ago in countries which the judges never saw (nor do they know particularly much about it from secondary sources), under circumstances unimaginable to them (or American legislators or law enforcement agencies), etc.

    One would think it’s dangerous for Jews to push the holocaust reparations issue any further at this point, but they don’t seem to care. Maybe they think they can pull it off forever. Or at least for several decades into the future. The latter seems certainly likely.

  172. @DFH

    I am not aware that Cromwell committed any atrocities, the only three I am aware of are the massacre of Bolton residents by Royalists, and the massacre at the siege of Basing House where Cromwell was the commander and some womenfolk camp followers who were killed at some battle.
     
    Ummmmmmmm........ Does the name Drogheda ring a bell?

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Massacre_at_Drogheda.jpeg

    Obviously you aren’t aware of what happened when fortified position were stormed, see Badajoz. Any actual examples where Cromwell committed atrocities or is that it?

    • Replies: @DFH
    It's not the same since Cromwell condoned massacres at Drogheda, Wellington did not at Badajoz.
  173. @German_reader

    So Israel should definitely not try to create relationships
     
    That's not the point (I'd actually agree), the point is that Israeli representatives and spokesmen of Jewish organizations have gone out of their way to validate the view of AfD as an illegitimate party of Nazis that ought to be crushed.
    There was a bizarre incident last year when former Mossad agent Rafi Eitan (one of those who captured Eichmann) met with AfD members in Germany and had friendly words for them - he was strongly condemned by the Israeli ambassador for that and eventually retracted his statements. Admittedly that also shows that Jewish views on those issues aren't monolithic, and to some extent I can even understand Jewish wariness about right-wing movements in Europe (there have been a few cases of explicit antisemites in AfD, though those have been isolated and AfD also has a few Jewish members). But still, on the whole the behaviour of official Jewry is really tiresome.

    That’s one of the most important things for Israel’s survival – to improve its relations with Muslim countries.
     
    It's unfortunate that Israel has picked the very worst Islamic countries, Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states, for that project, it definitely makes a mockery of all those "Israel is a bulwark against Islamism" claims (though the same is of course true on a much larger scale for the US, and also for the dubious ties of European countries to those regimes).

    Don’t Afd have relations with Pamela Geller and the dark zionist money coming from the US to ensure any nationalist movement doesn’t go the wrong way? Normally they obsess about Muslims but stay silent on immigration from Africa like Tommy Robinson.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Don’t Afd have relations with Pamela Geller
     
    No idea. My impression is there are several wings in AfD (also true for other matters). You've got people who are basically thinking along the same lines common here (e.g. Assad and Russia are good because they're killing jihadis, Israel and the US are hypocrites who secretly support them).
    On the other hand, you've got people in AfD or AfD's orbit who think it's a good idea to criticise Merkel and other members of her government for not being deferential enough to Trump and the US or supposedly selling out Israel's security to evil Iran.
    The basic problem imo is that even among "alternative" media outlets (which in fact are often critical or hostile to AfD, but are nonetheless read by many AfD voters, because there's not much else) you've got a lot of pro-Zionist pieces which present a rather selective picture of the facts. One of those sites Tichy's Einblick is basically running at least one such piece every week, repeating all the propaganda lines (Iran is building nuclear weapons and threatening peaceful Israel and the good Muslims of the Gulf states). Another site Achse des Guten is strongly influenced by Henryk M. Broder, a son of Holocaust survivors (whose sentiments are predictably anti-German, if you look closely enough, which many people don't do), who was a strong cheerleader of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (basically you were just an unreconstructed Nazi if you didn't agree with the invasion) and is also constantly warning about Iran. Unfortunately many people are unable to shake off their conditioning and uncritically swallow those arguments, attacking Merkel (who in general has been absolutely disastrous) for one of the few issues (the Iran nuclear deal) where her stance is actually defensible imo.
  174. @LondonBob
    Obviously you aren't aware of what happened when fortified position were stormed, see Badajoz. Any actual examples where Cromwell committed atrocities or is that it?

    It’s not the same since Cromwell condoned massacres at Drogheda, Wellington did not at Badajoz.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Well after the appalling massacres of English and Scottish settlers in the Irish uprising there was always likely to be a reaction, an element missing at Badajoz. Still no other examples? Cromwell actually enforced strict punishment for stealing when the New Model Army campaigned in Ireland.
  175. @German_reader

    It must have something to do with “Wolf Hall”
     
    That show is about Thomas Cromwell, not Oliver.

    That show is about Thomas Cromwell, not Oliver.

    I am assuming that Songbird knew that, and was implying that the Cromwell “family” name had somehow been rehabilitated by the program.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    It was already rehabilitated a long time ago, the Cromwell statue was erected around 1900 outside Parliament.
  176. @Dmitry

    See the numerous Jews supporting Bolshevism still in the early 1950s, long after it ceased being good for the Jews.

     

    It's an autistic theory of mind.

    What you believe is influenced by emotions and this has a racial component particularly when minorities want stronger position in society. Ideologies which favor the latter,may have a more rosy emotional coloration (i.e. seem more attractive).

    But people cannot actually believe or not believe in truth of something, on basis of "racial interest and longterm conspiracies". They believe it because they believe it is the true description of reality.

    Marxism was more religion than political theory, and like Christianity a Jewish-originated religion - (it's structure almost the same as Christianity), whose liberation was universalist. And people who believed it, believed because they thought it was universally true and factual description of reality.

    It was designed for educated people of the era, designed to be easy to believe (supernatural explanations are hidden by Hegelian concepts like "dialectic"), and for Jews it gave opportunity to "completely assimilate" (covert to a kind living Christianity, rather than the formal one which no longer had influence in the world).

    Attraction of Marxism for Jews, precisely is to escape both their external and internal position as Jews, and dissolve into a universal faith and utopia.

    Minus utopia, of course, this is what will have occurred with much of (or most?) Jews believers of Marxism. Their grandchildren today, will usually be 3/4 Slavic, and their great-grandchildren, 7/8 Slavic.

    The "racial interest" to convert to Marxism was to dissolve an unpleasant and dangerous position as Jews, to become important citizens, and this is what happened for a large proportion of them.


    Similarly with multiculturalism, it will likely be negative for the Jews,

     

    Multiculturalism is intrinsically attractive for a large proportion of any population.

    Putin is not Jewish, but he loves multiculturalism almost as his main religion. Merkel is not Jewish, and loves it. Obama not Jewish and loves it.

    It was one of the ideologies which has included both sides of the Cold War. If you think this is only attractive to Jews, and not something intrinsically and universally attractive to a significant proportion of people, then you will soon be confused (unless you extend the conspiracy to include all these people like Putin and Merkel being controlled by Jews).

    Multiculturalism is definitely a "utopian" ideology though, and will soon collapse against reality in most countries.

    It’s an autistic theory of mind.

    Projection. See:

    But people cannot actually believe or not believe in truth of something, on basis of “racial interest and longterm conspiracies”. They believe it because they believe it is the true description of reality.

    In reality, people usually find it easier to believe what is good for them or which is compatible with their other beliefs. In my experience Jews (and, to be honest, other highly committed nationalists – I have noticed similar things with Hungarian nationalists) often cannot imagine that what is good for them can be neutral or even negative for any universalistic metric.

    So Jews will not even notice that there is a difference between a Jew who explicitly argues that multiculturalism is good because it’s good for the Jews and a gentile white who argues that it’s good because it’s morally good. Interestingly, even you didn’t notice it. Contrary to your assertion, those Jews are rarely cynical, because of course they also use universalistic moral arguments. They don’t even notice that the two are not the same, or that at least in theory there could be a contradiction.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Exactly - my point is your writings appeared autistic. The text appeared to be written by someone who has no understanding of the people he is assigning motives to (or people in general).

    Therefore, the recent projections you made where you were calling people like myself, who didn't share your political opinions, "autistic normies". It is an interesting contradiction of terms, as "normies" is the term used by people with autistic spectrum disorders to refer to non-autistic people.

    I think part of this is just reading too much "evolutionary psychology" books. But part of it is obviously a theory of mind.

    Here you believe view that peoples' ideologies are based in racial self-interest, and that this racial interest can result in complicated longterm conspiracies.

    But then you are confused that Bolshevik Jews still supporting the USSR in the 1950s, when supporting USSR was not "aligned with Jewish racial interests".

    You then mention confusion that their ideologies go against racial self-interest, and attribute this to their "stupidity" (you can re-read your post) or lack of conspiracy skills.

    I needn't add the obvious fact, that Bolshevik Jews were still supporting the USSR in the 1950s, because and to the extent they were still Bolsheviks.

    Marx, himself wanted Jews to dissolve as a separate nationality, and believed the end of capitalism will make "Jews impossible".
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm

  177. @utu
    Supporting the alt-right wing parties in Europe is what Israel wants to do. They can't let the left-wing parties fall in love with Muslims in particular to the point of being against Israel. At the same time Israel will be supporting flooding the Europe with Muslims and the alt-right partie job is to do the fanning of Islamophobia. If there is not enough of it few terrorist attacks can always be arranged. Israel needs a repository of nationalist like Anders Breivik or Brenton Tarrant to prod them to action when some pro-Muslim and anti-Israel politicians have to be called to their senses. This in turn helps the left-wing parties to crack down on racism, anti-Semitism and freedom of speech. It is a win win tactics for Israel. Israel is playing a game of creating conflicts, keeping up the tensions, divide et impera and then offering apparent solutions.

    Israel is playing a game of creating conflicts, keeping up the tensions, divide et impera and then offering apparent solutions.

    And all the while distracting world attention from what’s going on in the “Occupied Territories”.

  178. @reiner Tor
    I don’t think it’s possible to appease them to the point that they stop the lawsuit. After all, those participating in it probably don’t care enough for Israel to renounce their billion dollar claims. People are rarely fanatical enough about anything that they would be willing to renounce billion dollar claims for it. The lawsuit is just a fact of life like an earthquake.

    Another interesting angle is American judicial overreach. When Belgium started issuing arrest warrants against people like Ariel Sharon, it was ridiculous. But America actually has the strength to make its courts the arbiters of justice about events which happened three quarters of a century ago in countries which the judges never saw (nor do they know particularly much about it from secondary sources), under circumstances unimaginable to them (or American legislators or law enforcement agencies), etc.

    One would think it’s dangerous for Jews to push the holocaust reparations issue any further at this point, but they don’t seem to care. Maybe they think they can pull it off forever. Or at least for several decades into the future. The latter seems certainly likely.

    Hungary should start suing Israel for Communism.

  179. @DFH
    It's not the same since Cromwell condoned massacres at Drogheda, Wellington did not at Badajoz.

    Well after the appalling massacres of English and Scottish settlers in the Irish uprising there was always likely to be a reaction, an element missing at Badajoz. Still no other examples? Cromwell actually enforced strict punishment for stealing when the New Model Army campaigned in Ireland.

  180. @German_reader

    It must have something to do with “Wolf Hall”
     
    That show is about Thomas Cromwell, not Oliver.

    Related through Thomas Cromwell’s sister who was Oliver’s grandmother, or something along those lines. The maternal name was adopted as it was beneficial to be associated with Thomas.

  181. @for-the-record
    That show is about Thomas Cromwell, not Oliver.

    I am assuming that Songbird knew that, and was implying that the Cromwell "family" name had somehow been rehabilitated by the program.

    It was already rehabilitated a long time ago, the Cromwell statue was erected around 1900 outside Parliament.

  182. @reiner Tor
    I don’t think it’s possible to appease them to the point that they stop the lawsuit. After all, those participating in it probably don’t care enough for Israel to renounce their billion dollar claims. People are rarely fanatical enough about anything that they would be willing to renounce billion dollar claims for it. The lawsuit is just a fact of life like an earthquake.

    Another interesting angle is American judicial overreach. When Belgium started issuing arrest warrants against people like Ariel Sharon, it was ridiculous. But America actually has the strength to make its courts the arbiters of justice about events which happened three quarters of a century ago in countries which the judges never saw (nor do they know particularly much about it from secondary sources), under circumstances unimaginable to them (or American legislators or law enforcement agencies), etc.

    One would think it’s dangerous for Jews to push the holocaust reparations issue any further at this point, but they don’t seem to care. Maybe they think they can pull it off forever. Or at least for several decades into the future. The latter seems certainly likely.
    • Agree: reiner Tor
  183. @LondonBob
    Don't Afd have relations with Pamela Geller and the dark zionist money coming from the US to ensure any nationalist movement doesn't go the wrong way? Normally they obsess about Muslims but stay silent on immigration from Africa like Tommy Robinson.

    Don’t Afd have relations with Pamela Geller

    No idea. My impression is there are several wings in AfD (also true for other matters). You’ve got people who are basically thinking along the same lines common here (e.g. Assad and Russia are good because they’re killing jihadis, Israel and the US are hypocrites who secretly support them).
    On the other hand, you’ve got people in AfD or AfD’s orbit who think it’s a good idea to criticise Merkel and other members of her government for not being deferential enough to Trump and the US or supposedly selling out Israel’s security to evil Iran.
    The basic problem imo is that even among “alternative” media outlets (which in fact are often critical or hostile to AfD, but are nonetheless read by many AfD voters, because there’s not much else) you’ve got a lot of pro-Zionist pieces which present a rather selective picture of the facts. One of those sites Tichy’s Einblick is basically running at least one such piece every week, repeating all the propaganda lines (Iran is building nuclear weapons and threatening peaceful Israel and the good Muslims of the Gulf states). Another site Achse des Guten is strongly influenced by Henryk M. Broder, a son of Holocaust survivors (whose sentiments are predictably anti-German, if you look closely enough, which many people don’t do), who was a strong cheerleader of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (basically you were just an unreconstructed Nazi if you didn’t agree with the invasion) and is also constantly warning about Iran. Unfortunately many people are unable to shake off their conditioning and uncritically swallow those arguments, attacking Merkel (who in general has been absolutely disastrous) for one of the few issues (the Iran nuclear deal) where her stance is actually defensible imo.

    • Replies: @utu

    ISLAMOPHOBIC U.S. MEGADONOR FUELS GERMAN FAR-RIGHT PARTY WITH VIRAL FAKE NEWS
    https://theintercept.com/2017/09/22/german-election-afd-gatestone-institute/
    But one of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right party is an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.

    Rosenwald’s site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.
     

    The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate
    https://www.thenation.com/article/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate/
    Philanthropist Nina Rosenwald has used her millions to cement the alliance between the pro-Israel lobby and the Islamophobic fringe.
     
  184. @German_reader

    Don’t Afd have relations with Pamela Geller
     
    No idea. My impression is there are several wings in AfD (also true for other matters). You've got people who are basically thinking along the same lines common here (e.g. Assad and Russia are good because they're killing jihadis, Israel and the US are hypocrites who secretly support them).
    On the other hand, you've got people in AfD or AfD's orbit who think it's a good idea to criticise Merkel and other members of her government for not being deferential enough to Trump and the US or supposedly selling out Israel's security to evil Iran.
    The basic problem imo is that even among "alternative" media outlets (which in fact are often critical or hostile to AfD, but are nonetheless read by many AfD voters, because there's not much else) you've got a lot of pro-Zionist pieces which present a rather selective picture of the facts. One of those sites Tichy's Einblick is basically running at least one such piece every week, repeating all the propaganda lines (Iran is building nuclear weapons and threatening peaceful Israel and the good Muslims of the Gulf states). Another site Achse des Guten is strongly influenced by Henryk M. Broder, a son of Holocaust survivors (whose sentiments are predictably anti-German, if you look closely enough, which many people don't do), who was a strong cheerleader of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (basically you were just an unreconstructed Nazi if you didn't agree with the invasion) and is also constantly warning about Iran. Unfortunately many people are unable to shake off their conditioning and uncritically swallow those arguments, attacking Merkel (who in general has been absolutely disastrous) for one of the few issues (the Iran nuclear deal) where her stance is actually defensible imo.

    ISLAMOPHOBIC U.S. MEGADONOR FUELS GERMAN FAR-RIGHT PARTY WITH VIRAL FAKE NEWS
    https://theintercept.com/2017/09/22/german-election-afd-gatestone-institute/
    But one of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right party is an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.

    Rosenwald’s site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.

    The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate
    https://www.thenation.com/article/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate/
    Philanthropist Nina Rosenwald has used her millions to cement the alliance between the pro-Israel lobby and the Islamophobic fringe.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    I know, I'm wary of those people.
    But tbh, I don't have a problem with Islamophobia in principle. I'm an Islamophobe myself. And Merkel's policy really has been disastrous and will lead to Germany's destruction. She is undoubtedly one of the worst figures in German history.
  185. @utu

    ISLAMOPHOBIC U.S. MEGADONOR FUELS GERMAN FAR-RIGHT PARTY WITH VIRAL FAKE NEWS
    https://theintercept.com/2017/09/22/german-election-afd-gatestone-institute/
    But one of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right party is an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.

    Rosenwald’s site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.
     

    The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate
    https://www.thenation.com/article/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate/
    Philanthropist Nina Rosenwald has used her millions to cement the alliance between the pro-Israel lobby and the Islamophobic fringe.
     

    I know, I’m wary of those people.
    But tbh, I don’t have a problem with Islamophobia in principle. I’m an Islamophobe myself. And Merkel’s policy really has been disastrous and will lead to Germany’s destruction. She is undoubtedly one of the worst figures in German history.

    • Replies: @utu

    I don’t have a problem with Islamophobia in principle
     
    I do but I am willing to accept it if it would be helping to keep Europe Muslim free. So far it does not and the only outcome of Islamophobia is support of Israel.
    , @Grahamsno(G64)
    Long time back when you could comment on all topics in the Guardian I asked a question about the cost/benefit analysis of mass Muslim migration to the west, I pointed out that on the cost side I saw a rapidly growing mound of dead bodies and I said that the benefits would have to be extraordinary to justify the cost could someone just point out the benefit to me as I seemed to have missed it. Complete silence but the comment was allowed to stand.

    Allowing Muslim mass migration to any non Muslim society is literally suicidally stupid.
  186. New evidence, perhaps, that would finally confirm the charge of collusion in the 2016 US Presidential election:

    As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

    Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    The leak of the so-called black ledger files to U.S. media prompted Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.

    Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian’s release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton’s campaign.

    The parliamentarian also secured a court ruling that the leak amounted to “an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign,” Lutsenko told me. Lutsenko said the tape recording is a serious enough allegation to warrant opening a probe, and one of his concerns is that the Ukrainian law enforcement agency involved had frequent contact with the Obama administration’s U.S. Embassy in Kiev at the time . . .

    Lutsenko’s interview with Hill.TV raises another troubling dynamic: The U.S. Embassy and the chief Ukrainian prosecutor, who America entrusts with fighting corruption inside an allied country, currently have a dysfunctional relationship.

    In our interview, Lutsenko accused the Obama-era U.S. Embassy in 2016 of interfering in his ability to prosecute corruption cases, saying the U.S. ambassador gave him a list of defendants that he would not be allowed to pursue and then refused to cooperate in an early investigation into the alleged misappropriation of U.S. aid in Ukraine.

    Lutsenko provided me with a letter from the embassy, supporting part of his story by showing that a U.S. official did in fact ask him to stand down on the misappropriation-of-funds case. “We are gravely concerned about this investigation for which we see no basis,” an embassy official named George Kent wrote to the prosecutor’s office.

    The State Department on Wednesday issued a statement declaring that it no longer financially supports Lutsenko’s office in its anti-corruption mission and considers his allegation about the do-not-prosecute list “an outright fabrication.”

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Related:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/23/in-ukraine-presidential-vote-joker-wild.html

    Excerpt -

    While Washington applauds Poroshenko’s firm anti-Russian line, his performance on corruption lags in the eyes of US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who says efforts have “not yet resulted in the anti-corruption or rule of law reforms that Ukrainians expect or deserve.” As reported by Voice of America,Yovanovitch specifically wants Poroshenko to fire his special anti-corruption prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytsky. “Nobody who has been recorded coaching suspects on how to avoid corruption charges can be trusted to prosecute those very same cases," said Yovanovitch, referring to Kholodnytsky. “Those responsible for corruption should be investigated, prosecuted, and if guilty, go to jail.”

    Yovanovitch may face her own pot/kettle problem when it comes to turning a blind eye to corruption. Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV's John Solomon that in their very first meeting Yovanovitch gave him a “do not prosecute” list. “My response of that is it is inadmissible,” says Lutsenko – who is also is also investigating a claim from a member of the Verkhovna Rada that the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Artem Sytnyk, attempted to assist the 2016 US presidential election of Hillary Clinton. “Nobody in this country, neither our president nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,” continued Lutsenko to Solomon. Yovanovitch has also reportedly badmouthed US President Donald Trump to Ukrainian officials, telling them to ignore him because he’s going to be impeached. Predictably, Secretary Mike Pompeo’s State Department has rushed to the defense – not of Trump, but of Yovanovitch, who has also ruffled conservative moral sensibilities in Ukraine with her showy support for LGBT issues.
     
  187. AP says:
    @DFH

    I do not justify what they did, but it wasn’t any worse than Anglo-American deliberate targeting and bombing of German or Japanese civilians.
     
    That's ridiculous. The aim of dropping the atomic bombs was to force the Japanese to surrender, avoiding hundreds of thousands of American soldiers dying in an invasion (or possibly even more Japanese civilians in a blockade), in a war started by Japanese aggression.
    Torturing and murdering tens of thousands of civilians who posed no military threat as part of a campaign to ethnically cleanse people who had been living there for hundreds of years is not the same.
    The reasons are not at all the same.

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).

    That’s ridiculous. The aim of dropping the atomic bombs was to force the Japanese to surrender, avoiding hundreds of thousands of American soldiers dying in an invasion (or possibly even more Japanese civilians in a blockade)

    Sure. UPA wasn’t even trying to invade Poland.

    in a war started by Japanese aggression.

    The Polish state had been occupying Ukrainian lands. It invaded and conquered them in 1918-1919. So that was how the aggression started.

    Torturing and murdering tens of thousands of civilians who posed no military threat

    Incinerating them as was done by Angl0-American bombers to German and Japanese civilians was better?

    The reasons are not at all the same.

    Anglo-Americans burned alive 100,000s of civilians hundreds or thousands of miles from their own home territory, to make their invasion of those lands easier. Ukrainian peasants organized by UPA massacred 60,000-100,000 civilians in an attmept to prevent their home territory from being occupied by a foreign state.

    now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists)

    Not a Ukrianian nationalist, nor were any of my ancestors OUN or UPA members.

    Let me guess: as an Englishmen you have come to see these Ukrainians as being like the Irish.

    • Replies: @szopen

    It invaded and conquered them in 1918-1919.
     
    Come on. You are claiming that Poles who lived here for hundreds of years INVADED their own homes?

    Also, I'm really dissapointed you are trying to justify thugs who murdered thousands of innocent civilians (including members of my more distant family) - thugs which sometimes sent letters assuring civilians that they are safe and that they do not need to escape, only to attack them later. Somehow, Taras Borowec who founded first UPA had not thought ethnic cleansing was necessary, despite he also wanted to conquer this territories for Ukraine.
  188. AP says:
    @utu
    "I do not justify what they did" - Yes, you do.

    How so? Since UPA and OUN did not have access to internal Polish documents calling for the ethnic cleansing of those lands (and who knows if this wuld even have been attempted – the local Poles wanted to to do it but the government in exile rejected it), they murdered the Polish civilians in order to prevent the return of Polish rule. Although Polish rule was very unpleasant, it was not nearly sufficiently unpleasant to warrant the mass murder of massive numbers of civilians. There was thus no legitimate justification for this crime.

    My main point was not to justify what UPA did but to point out that their “justification” was no worse than that of the Anglo-Americans who were murdering German and Japanese civilians during that time. Sorry if I was not clear.

  189. @Matra
    This is a very Diaspora Nationalist post.

    No, for diaspora the UPA were heroes and the crimes didn’t happen.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    In Ukraine, from official levels, most from Yushchenko, they have been rehabilitating all these people, and for recent generation who were in school, it seems they are unaware of any problems in this history of their glorious heroes.

    Poland's education system probably teaches - more accurately - the opposite.

    So now the stupidly inevitable results

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDMJt99GsM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1VQpslKvU

  190. AP says:
    @Denis

    UPA took the initiative and ethnically cleansed them first, while they had the chance.
     
    There are a great many instances of ethnic cleansing, and even genocide, that can be "justified" using the same reasoning.

    Sure. I condemn what UPA did and hope I did not give the opposite impression. I’ll repeat what I wrote to utu:

    Since UPA and OUN did not have access to internal Polish documents calling for the ethnic cleansing of those lands (and who knows if this would even have been attempted – the local Poles wanted to to do it but the government in exile rejected it), they murdered the Polish civilians in order to prevent the return of Polish rule. Although Polish rule was very unpleasant, it was not nearly sufficiently unpleasant to warrant the mass murder of massive numbers of civilians. There was thus no legitimate justification for this crime.

    My main point was not to justify what UPA did but to point out that their “justification” was no worse than that of the Anglo-Americans who were murdering German and Japanese civilians during that time. Sorry if I was not clear.

    • Replies: @Denis

    My main point was not to justify what UPA did but to point out that their “justification” was no worse than that of the Anglo-Americans who were murdering German and Japanese civilians during that time. Sorry if I was not clear.
     
    Finally, we agree on something! The treatment of the Germans by the allies during and after the second world war was atrocious. Not so sure about the Japanese, though, as they got off relatively light compared to the Germans, despite the terror bombings and the nuclear attacks.
  191. AP says:
    @utu

    Honestly, when the war in Ukraine started I was quite pro-Ukrainian but now I have grown to understand completely why people hate you (Ukrainian nationalists).
     
    Poland is taking Ukrainian gastarbeiters and immigrants by millions w/o any gestures of contrition and atonements from Ukrainians for the Volhynia genocide. It is really hard to understand it.

    Many Poles realize what their governemnt did in Ukraine in the 1920s and 1930s was also shameful (f not nearly as bad as what UPA did) and thus prefer not to bring up the mid 20th century mess at all.

    There is a Ukrianian (diaspora) national hall not far from where I live where they sometimes host parties where both Ukrainian and Polish off the boaters come. So one can see Poles drinking in a hall with a portrait of Bandera hanging on the wall.

    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Ironically, I witnessed similar experiences in AZ where large prominent portraits of Bandera and Shukhevych adorned the local Ukrainian hallway. Finally, after some 30 years the portraits were taken down, as the local Polish community would often rent the hall for their own parties. Now, they have their own hall I am told, but the portraits of the two nationalists remain taken down. The ones of Shevchenko and Franko still remain on the walls. Nobody seems to care much, either way. :-)
  192. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    Israelis (...) pay lip service to American neoliberalism and utopianism
     
    If it were only lip service, they wouldn’t be so active in denouncing parties like the AfD.

    has Marine Le Pen really renounced her father?
     
    Yes, she has even kicked him out of the party. What else do Israelis want?

    And it’s not like Le Pen was Hitler. He said some bad things about Jews.

    How energetic has Israel really been in denouncing AfD? Google isn’t showing me a ton. I see that some wings of Afd are pushing to outlaw male circumcision and kosher slaughterhouses. Even if one supports these positions (and yes I understand that they are primarily directed at Muslims) it’s not hard to see why many Jews would take a dim view of a party that seriously entertained them. Regardless I don’t think Israel is responsible in any significant way for the failures of the AfD.

    Comments like Le Pen’s are just that, comments, not binding decrees with the force of law, but as with e.g. the recent Israeli comments about Poland they are insensitive and ill advised (to say the least).

  193. @JL

    Israel has its only ski resort there.
     
    Starting this year, there is now a direct flight between Tel Aviv and Sochi. The ski resorts there have been inundated with Israelis, to the extent that Hebrew will be, by far, the language you are most likely to hear after Russian. Sochi is, apparently, a superior substitute to the Alps; closer, cheaper, and Israelis don't need a visa to visit Russia.

    I think there was direct flight between Sochi and Tel Aviv since 2014?

    But the way Israel operates visa-free with Russia (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc), is perhaps more bad than good.

    They have an open visa regime. But then instead they operate “immigration control” in the airport with Russia/Ukraine/Belarus people, and they particularly deport Ukrainians.

    In response, Ukraine started an airport war , and is doing the same to Israelis.
    https://zn.ua/international/unizhennye-i-vozmuschennye-311939_.html

  194. @reiner Tor

    It’s an autistic theory of mind.
     
    Projection. See:

    But people cannot actually believe or not believe in truth of something, on basis of “racial interest and longterm conspiracies”. They believe it because they believe it is the true description of reality.
     
    In reality, people usually find it easier to believe what is good for them or which is compatible with their other beliefs. In my experience Jews (and, to be honest, other highly committed nationalists - I have noticed similar things with Hungarian nationalists) often cannot imagine that what is good for them can be neutral or even negative for any universalistic metric.

    So Jews will not even notice that there is a difference between a Jew who explicitly argues that multiculturalism is good because it’s good for the Jews and a gentile white who argues that it’s good because it’s morally good. Interestingly, even you didn’t notice it. Contrary to your assertion, those Jews are rarely cynical, because of course they also use universalistic moral arguments. They don’t even notice that the two are not the same, or that at least in theory there could be a contradiction.

    Exactly – my point is your writings appeared autistic. The text appeared to be written by someone who has no understanding of the people he is assigning motives to (or people in general).

    Therefore, the recent projections you made where you were calling people like myself, who didn’t share your political opinions, “autistic normies”. It is an interesting contradiction of terms, as “normies” is the term used by people with autistic spectrum disorders to refer to non-autistic people.

    I think part of this is just reading too much “evolutionary psychology” books. But part of it is obviously a theory of mind.

    Here you believe view that peoples’ ideologies are based in racial self-interest, and that this racial interest can result in complicated longterm conspiracies.

    But then you are confused that Bolshevik Jews still supporting the USSR in the 1950s, when supporting USSR was not “aligned with Jewish racial interests”.

    You then mention confusion that their ideologies go against racial self-interest, and attribute this to their “stupidity” (you can re-read your post) or lack of conspiracy skills.

    I needn’t add the obvious fact, that Bolshevik Jews were still supporting the USSR in the 1950s, because and to the extent they were still Bolsheviks.

    Marx, himself wanted Jews to dissolve as a separate nationality, and believed the end of capitalism will make “Jews impossible”.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    you were calling people like myself, who didn’t share your political opinions, “autistic normies”
     
    Why the plural? I only called you an autistic normie, did I call anyone else that?

    “normies” is the term used by people with autistic spectrum disorders to refer to non-autistic people.
     
    What?

    Regarding the rest.

    Obviously people tend to believe in things which are good for them. Minorities will believe that granting minority rights is morally superior to encouraging assimilation.

    People will explicitly use such utilitarian arguments, even if they have no relevance to the question at hand. For example religious people will often cite the numerous studies about religious people being happier, with more children, lower suicide rates, etc. Hungarian leftists regularly use arguments that multiculturalism would be good for the Hungarian minorities, who would benefit from minority rights etc.

    That’s not “cynicism.” People are not very self-aware, and they will sincerely believe in their ideologies. So poor people will sincerely believe in redistribution, and as they get richer, they will slowly tend to a belief in the magical powers of low taxes and free markets. There will certainly be a lag: people will keep their beliefs longer than they serve them. But they tend to beliefs which serve them. (More idealistic people less so. It’s a tendency, a stochastic rule.)

    Jews, of course, explicitly use the argument that multiculturalism is good for Jews. They will use it when arguing with non-Jews, which shows that they are not totally aware of the fact that it’s not really an argument, and for a gentile, it’s not even a fallacious pseudo-argument.

    Marx’s comments notwithstanding, Jews (a very large proportion of them) perceived Marxism and then Bolshevism to be good for Jews as an ethnic group. So they tended to move there. And objectively speaking, in the decade after 1917, Bolshevism was indeed beneficial to Soviet Jews. However, things changed. Jews in general still considered Bolshevism to be good for them well into the 1950s, by which time it was no longer the case.

    So, perception lagged reality. Ideologies have staying power. Who would have thought?

    Anyway, Jews tend to move to ideologies which they perceive to be good for them. They perceive ideologies to be good for them if they were objectively good for them in the recent past. There is some delay in perception, and ideologies have some staying power for a long time even beyond that, especially among the more committed adherents.

    I’m not sure it’s productive to continue this.
  195. @for-the-record
    New evidence, perhaps, that would finally confirm the charge of collusion in the 2016 US Presidential election:

    As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

    Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    The leak of the so-called black ledger files to U.S. media prompted Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.

    Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian's release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton's campaign.

    The parliamentarian also secured a court ruling that the leak amounted to “an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign,” Lutsenko told me. Lutsenko said the tape recording is a serious enough allegation to warrant opening a probe, and one of his concerns is that the Ukrainian law enforcement agency involved had frequent contact with the Obama administration’s U.S. Embassy in Kiev at the time . . .

    Lutsenko’s interview with Hill.TV raises another troubling dynamic: The U.S. Embassy and the chief Ukrainian prosecutor, who America entrusts with fighting corruption inside an allied country, currently have a dysfunctional relationship.

    In our interview, Lutsenko accused the Obama-era U.S. Embassy in 2016 of interfering in his ability to prosecute corruption cases, saying the U.S. ambassador gave him a list of defendants that he would not be allowed to pursue and then refused to cooperate in an early investigation into the alleged misappropriation of U.S. aid in Ukraine.

    Lutsenko provided me with a letter from the embassy, supporting part of his story by showing that a U.S. official did in fact ask him to stand down on the misappropriation-of-funds case. “We are gravely concerned about this investigation for which we see no basis,” an embassy official named George Kent wrote to the prosecutor’s office.

    The State Department on Wednesday issued a statement declaring that it no longer financially supports Lutsenko’s office in its anti-corruption mission and considers his allegation about the do-not-prosecute list “an outright fabrication.”

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges
     

    Related:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/23/in-ukraine-presidential-vote-joker-wild.html

    Excerpt –

    While Washington applauds Poroshenko’s firm anti-Russian line, his performance on corruption lags in the eyes of US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who says efforts have “not yet resulted in the anti-corruption or rule of law reforms that Ukrainians expect or deserve.” As reported by Voice of America,Yovanovitch specifically wants Poroshenko to fire his special anti-corruption prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytsky. “Nobody who has been recorded coaching suspects on how to avoid corruption charges can be trusted to prosecute those very same cases,” said Yovanovitch, referring to Kholodnytsky. “Those responsible for corruption should be investigated, prosecuted, and if guilty, go to jail.”

    Yovanovitch may face her own pot/kettle problem when it comes to turning a blind eye to corruption. Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV’s John Solomon that in their very first meeting Yovanovitch gave him a “do not prosecute” list. “My response of that is it is inadmissible,” says Lutsenko – who is also is also investigating a claim from a member of the Verkhovna Rada that the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Artem Sytnyk, attempted to assist the 2016 US presidential election of Hillary Clinton. “Nobody in this country, neither our president nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,” continued Lutsenko to Solomon. Yovanovitch has also reportedly badmouthed US President Donald Trump to Ukrainian officials, telling them to ignore him because he’s going to be impeached. Predictably, Secretary Mike Pompeo’s State Department has rushed to the defense – not of Trump, but of Yovanovitch, who has also ruffled conservative moral sensibilities in Ukraine with her showy support for LGBT issues.

  196. @Hyperborean

    1. Pussy Riot – was a stupid repression. But it is not different than what Theresa May, or New Zealand, etc, are doing to politically incorrect people. If anything, Western European governments are all aligned with the Russian government in these topics.

     

    But there is a difference. Pussy Riot are good people politically speaking while the UK arrests hateful people, so from their perspective there is a fundamental difference.

    Also, Putin’s views on these topics are just aligning with typical opinion in the country, so there he is just being a representative politician in this area, not pushing any particular personal views.
     
    Which simply makes ordinary Russians complicit in Putin’s sins.

    countries like Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, which will be much more repressive.
     
    Cuba's government is rather liberal:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/cuba-removes-support-for-gay-marriage-in-new-constitution-after-protests

    >>>>

    You are correct in pointing out the blindspots and hypocrisy, but it is not as if they feel obliged to be consistent.

    It is much easier simply to hate renegade white countries like Russia, Poland, Hungary, Italy or whichever European country is next to go rogue.

    But there is a difference. Pussy Riot are good people politically speaking while the UK arrests hateful people, so from their perspective there is a fundamental difference.

    Of course they have their subjective views.

    But it’s still quite ridiculous and useful to look at. Pussy Riot were making some video in a church. And UK arrests people for vandalism in churches.

    Far-right graffiti church vandal jailed for 6 years

    https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Far-right-graffiti-church-vandal-jailed-for-6-years

    Sure one is right politically, and one liberal politically. One has physical damage, while the other is only damage atmosphere.

    But the legal justifications in the courts of the two countries, will be very similar (church is some “holy” place, so it is as a worse than normal hooliganism).

    In the case of Pussy Riot, of course Putin opposed the punishment, or believed it was too much.

    Cuba’s government is rather liberal:

    But not when Fidel Castro, was there (and Castro is still “cool” with Western liberals – credit for Daily Beast that they at least challenge this contradiction).

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/fidel-castros-horrific-record-on-gay-rights

    It is much easier simply to hate renegade white countries like Russia, Poland, Hungary, Italy or whichever European country is next to go rogue.

    Orban claims to be in conflict with the Western liberal ideology (although this is partly just election campaigning, his actual policies are classical liberal).

    It is understandable for Western anti-racists or liberals to hate Orban.

    But Putin’s personal ideology is anti-racist and multinationalist. And then the “repressive laws”, are more or less the same as in many Western European countries. Lack of “free speech absolutism” is dividing America from Europe. But not Western Europe from Russia.

    There’s a lot lost in translation, when our “centrist” and “moderate” politician is hated by their “centrist” supporting journalists and citizens.

  197. @German_reader

    So Israel should definitely not try to create relationships
     
    That's not the point (I'd actually agree), the point is that Israeli representatives and spokesmen of Jewish organizations have gone out of their way to validate the view of AfD as an illegitimate party of Nazis that ought to be crushed.
    There was a bizarre incident last year when former Mossad agent Rafi Eitan (one of those who captured Eichmann) met with AfD members in Germany and had friendly words for them - he was strongly condemned by the Israeli ambassador for that and eventually retracted his statements. Admittedly that also shows that Jewish views on those issues aren't monolithic, and to some extent I can even understand Jewish wariness about right-wing movements in Europe (there have been a few cases of explicit antisemites in AfD, though those have been isolated and AfD also has a few Jewish members). But still, on the whole the behaviour of official Jewry is really tiresome.

    That’s one of the most important things for Israel’s survival – to improve its relations with Muslim countries.
     
    It's unfortunate that Israel has picked the very worst Islamic countries, Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states, for that project, it definitely makes a mockery of all those "Israel is a bulwark against Islamism" claims (though the same is of course true on a much larger scale for the US, and also for the dubious ties of European countries to those regimes).

    Israel has picked the very worst Islamic countries, Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states,

    Saudi Arabia was paying for suicide bombers in Israel until early 2000s (they transferred $5000 for each Palestinian suicide bomb against Israel).

    Obviously, it is a large improvement in Israel’s security, if Saudi Arabia moderates their view to it (Saudi Arabia was also supporting Chechens in the 1990s).

    Payment of Saudi Arabia for suicide bombings in Israel was ended by Bush pressure after 9/11 (but America was complicit for Saudi support of Chechen terrorists).

    In the case of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. It’s still politically impossible, for Saudi Arabia to be actually normal relations with Israel – as their education system will have created a population hostile to Israel.

    Saudi Arabia has friendly relations with America, Russia and UK, where they invest billions of dollars, buy weapons, or even their children to study. The relations with Israel are much more secret and they are more like the relations Israel has with Egypt or Jordan (where publicly they are very unfriendly, but privately friendly with the ruler).

  198. @AP
    Many Poles realize what their governemnt did in Ukraine in the 1920s and 1930s was also shameful (f not nearly as bad as what UPA did) and thus prefer not to bring up the mid 20th century mess at all.

    There is a Ukrianian (diaspora) national hall not far from where I live where they sometimes host parties where both Ukrainian and Polish off the boaters come. So one can see Poles drinking in a hall with a portrait of Bandera hanging on the wall.

    Ironically, I witnessed similar experiences in AZ where large prominent portraits of Bandera and Shukhevych adorned the local Ukrainian hallway. Finally, after some 30 years the portraits were taken down, as the local Polish community would often rent the hall for their own parties. Now, they have their own hall I am told, but the portraits of the two nationalists remain taken down. The ones of Shevchenko and Franko still remain on the walls. Nobody seems to care much, either way. 🙂

  199. @Epigon
    Regarding P-38 and P-47, you fell for a post-war propaganda effort.
    P-38 having counter-turning propellers meant it could outturn every single-engine fighter in the right turn.
    In addition, using differential throttle settings, P-38 flown by expert pilots (instructed by travelling advisers like Lindbergh) could outmaneuver even Japanese nimble fighters, the most maneuverable of the fighters employed in WW2 in “common knowledge”.
    No, the Americans knew what they were doing in Pacific - the British pilot was given crappy export P-38 without turbosuperchargers, and suffers from common British illness of Spitfiremania.

    And be certain that no fighter “maneuvered” at 0.75 Mach. This claim is very dubious by itself for P-47 - it was precisely P-47M which could threaten Me-262 via boom-and-zoom and shallow dive speed accumilation.

    Also, P-47 operating as a fighter-bomber was an atrocity. It was designed as a high-altitude, long-range interceptor and escort fighter maximizing energy fighting. The complex and expensive turbosupercharger it carried (engineering achievement and masterpiece) that enabled it to outperform supercharged competition was literally deadweight at low altitudes.

    Its fancy hydraulic control surfaces optimized for high-altitude, high-speed maneuvering was ill-suited for ground-level combat.

    The thing was very expensive (almost twice the price of Mustang), armoured, resistant to damage (air cooled radials vs. liquid cooled inlines) and heavily armed.

    Have a look yourself: https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38801.html

    Comments are goldmine as well.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/54434.html

    Also, Yugoslavia had post-WW2 late Spitfires, Yaks and P-47. P-47 winner in 9/10 situations. It could outclimb opposition post 6000 m altitude, accumulate energy due to higher ceiling and better high-altitude performance, build up speed via shallow dive and then prey upon hapless opposition in mock fights.

    Those links are a great trip down memory lane and have a lot of excellent material, but I compared the P-51’s range to the Spitfire. In fact P-47s were more important than P-51s during the Big Week that broke the Luftwaffe.

    The P-38 having counter-rotating propellers meant that a skilled, properly trained pilot could use differential thrust to escape a single-engine fighter. Useful capability which the Germans sure could’ve used on their twin-engine fighters. Not the same thing as being a highly maneuverable aircraft, hence why SWPA P-38 pilots in the 5th Air Force mainly exploited their tremendous advantage in speed and diving to use boom and zoom tactics.

    Also, while not a knock on the P-38 itself, poor pilot training meant that differential thrust tactics were rarely used in the ETO.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html

    Eric Brown was the world’s best test pilot of that period and not prone to bias. He liked the Spitfire, but he was fair and considered the P-51 to be its equal. And liking Spitfires was not just a British position. Some of the RAF Eagle pilots that converted to the P-47 from the Spitfire initially hated the aircraft until they learned to exploit its virtues. Adolf Galland also famously told Goering during the Battle of Britain that he would like a squadron of Spitfires.

    The Mach numbers in question related to maneuvering limits in a dive (obviously WW2-era fighters couldn’t fly that fast in level flight) and were caused by compressibility in the transonic range. Since this relates to wing design and not the engines, it doesn’t matter what kind of P-38 Brown was flying.

    Regarding the engines, that was another problem with the P-38 in the ETO. The engines were known in the ETO as the “Allison time bomb”. Bill Knudsen vetoed the effort to equip the P-38 with Merlins, and Allison for various reasons refused to improve the engine sufficiently.

    The Spitfire also had a problem with compressibility (don’t recall the limit) which is why the British designed the replacement Supermarine Spiteful.

    The good news for the P-47 is that it didn’t need to maneuver in a dive because it could dive faster than its opponents thanks to its great weight and R2800 engine.

    The P-47 had a number of features intended for