*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!). 🙂

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.

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)

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

https://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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Szukalski miał pierdnięcie mózgu! 🙂

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.

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.

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.

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?….

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).

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.

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.

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:

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

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

I still am.

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

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.

(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?

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:

https://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.

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).

Operation Barbarossa was total hubris

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Interesting, I hadn’t heard of Kyffhäuser before.

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.

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.

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

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/

…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

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.

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…

…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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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

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?).

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

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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

!!!

Good grief!!

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?

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.

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

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

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.

Have you tried turning your PC off at night?

Good points–I should’ve named Sheridan over Sherman.

Presumably Winfield Scott, architect of the Anaconda Plan, would’ve approved of strategic bombing.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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…

thanks for that – very interesting. Big and lazy errors from myself about oil production during the war – my apologies!

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

Israel has its only ski resort there

It’s like another Shoah!

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.

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.

They have missiles on them there so

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.

“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).

Thanks for the recommendations!

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,

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

White Shariah in action.

More like virtue-signalling gynocracy.

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.

Reminds me: the Swedish Migration Board has, in theory, opened up Sweden to all Chinese Uyghurs. There are about 11 million.

“I do not justify what they did” – Yes, you do.

McPherson is good, but I prefer good old Bruce Catton for a Northern perspective.

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).

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.

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

This is a very Diaspora Nationalist post.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Precisely because she is nothing. ZOG props her up and thus owns her completely, no need for child porn leverage even.

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.

Gammas. LOL.

“Beatings of said gastarbeiters “ – not true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

It must have something to do with “Wolf Hall”

That show is about Thomas Cromwell, not Oliver.