Ok, not football at all, but it matters, eventually.

[Oranje White]

Yes, seriously. I don't hate Trump, I'm afraid of.him and what he can do with both Senate and House in his pocket and appointing Kennedy to a position for which he.is totally unqualified is a sign of things to come. Kennedy may or may not make.good on his threats to make wholesale withdrawals of vaccines, but if he does and.that includes tetanus then he'll be.killing Americans immediately, if it includes (for example), measles and.polio then maiming will take a little longer but it will happen. Over 100 million adults in the USA and you get these kind of folks las your leaders.😣

You're worried RFK isn't qualified.
Seen the cross dressing, trans, bald, airport baggage thief, who was in charge of nuclear waste disposal under current administration? Or the men dressed as women in charge of some military roles? Ir the border czar who never went to the border? Or the unqualified black lying lesbian press secretary? There's more!

[whitestomper45]

Agreed on the observation regarding how new conflicts might be fought and won, but that statement regarding Nazi Germany having "the best Air Force, Navy and weaponry"???????? Who there fella!!!

A few tidbits regarding what naval assets they had available to them, how "effective" they were at fighting and also "who had what" when it came to air power;

Firstly, I agree with the comment regarding commanders etc. A large part of the allied armies problems at the outbreak of WWII stemmed from the inability to find commanding officers capable of dealing with modern warfare and the development of tactics that were appropriate to that new way of waging war.

Observations on the Naval front;

Graf Spee was scuttled just off Montevideo on evening of Sunday, December 17, 1939 (about 14 weeks after war was declared), in the face of overwhelming British naval forces.

Bismark, the largest and most powerful capital ship in the Kriegsmarine, only sailed once. In May 1941, Bismark took part in an offensive operation codenamed Rheinübung, which resulted in the sinking of HMS Hood (the only vessel to be sunk by Bismark). Bismarcks single major operation lasted just over a week and ended in its destruction by the Royal Navy in the North Atlantic on May 27, 1941.

Tirpitz hid in Norwegian Fjords for almost the whole of its operational life, damaged in an attack by British mini-submarines and large-scale air raids. On 12 November 1944, RAF Lancaster bombers from 617 and 9 squadrons, equipped with 12,000-pound "Tallboy" bombs scored two direct hits and a near miss which caused the ship to capsize rapidly. It never sailed on offensive operations and fired its main armament just once when bombarding Spitzbergen island.

All these ships were in service with that "best navy" at the start of hostilities, but there's not much point having nice shiny toys with big guns if you're too afraid of your opponents to use them?

Where the Kreigsmarine was considerably better off was in the submarine fleet, which very nearly led to the British starving, that I'll give you!

And the air forces?

As the Battle of Britain began in July 1940, RAF Fighter Command had approximately 768 aircraft after the squandering of many during the failed attempt to help the French during the battle for France. Of that number, only 520 were still considered battleworthy. Due to aircraft manufacturers plans for increased production however, particularly distributed production centres making interdiction by German bombers less damaging, this situation improved radically over the next few weeks. By the time the Germans offensive reached its peak in early August, the number of RAF fighters available almost doubled to just over 1,000. British aircraft manufacturers were producing around 500 fighters per month (double the number estimated by German intelligence).

Equipment was not the main concern for Fighter Command, the availability of trained pilots was. The German airforce had had substantial operational experience during the Spanish Civil war, when Hitler assisted the forces under Franco. The experience for both fighter and bomber crews was of great value to the Luftwaffe during the Blitzkreig operations and during the early part of the Battle of Britain (less so as more RAF pilots gained the requisite battle experience and attrition rates fell).

At this time of the war, monthly Luftwaffe fighter production was approximately 300 airframes. However, German production capacity wasn't fully mobilized and failed to produce enough 109s required to overwhelm Fighter Command. By September 7, the Luftwaffe was down to just 533 fighters and temporarily dipped as low as 275. Given these comparative numbers early on the "real war (the "phony war having lasted from September 1939, until May of 1940), the RAF held a significant numerical advantage in both planes available and production capacity.[/B]

The RAF had aircraft broadly equal to those frontline fighters in the Luftwaffe, (Spitfire and Hurricane vs Messerchmitt BF109). The Spitfire had superior climbing speed and turn rates, was slightly slower in level flight and unlike the Bf109 employed a normally aspirated fuel system, meaning inverted flight was very limited. The Hurricane was slower still, and was used during the Battle of Britain as the major bomber attacking force given its superior gun platform performance. The Messerschmitt 110 and Junkers 87 were considerably less of a threat to the RAF, to such an extent that the Ju87 (Stuka) was withdrawn from combat operations after suffering catastrophic losses during attempts to bomb RAF coastal radar stations.

The Luftwaffe was never really that superior, only in numerical terms at the outset of the war and only then for a brief period. What's also worth noting is that the RAF had one crucial technical advantage over the Luftwaffe, radar. Without radar and the associated plotting and fighter control room network, the RAF is unlikely to have been able to maintain a constant airborne presence which would have been required to identify Luftwaffe raids. Without it it's equally unlikely that the RAF would have succeeded in winning the battle.

So yes, the German armed forces had some advantages at the outset of WWII, but the best? Nope.

Just read thru this, as have avoided getting into politics of war on here. I?m sure Spaldy can speak for himself? he never said the Germans were the best
They must have been fairly useful which made their defeat such a great feat!

[WTF11]

Your pension fund would be wise to keep your money in the US. Just sayin. As bad as we are I'd be hard pressed to think of anywhere I'd trust my retirement money more. It's a sad state of affairs. It's also why, even if you don't like the US you should not root against us. It's hard to fathom putting your life savings in China, Russia, Japan or even many of the European countries right now. What's much sadder is the loss of a place to go to when you want more freedoms. The US is not everyone's cup of tea but it was always there when you wanted to go someplace with more freedoms (warts and all). That is now largely gone. Our media are propagandists, our government is corrrupt to the core and largely has total control of schools, healthcare and the economy. Once they get digital currency, electric vehicles, control of the health system and education we'll be little different than china

Pension fund investments have, for decades, been made on a global basis, as that how corporations work nowadays. Whether a stock listing starts in New York or London, the investments will go wherever the investment managers deem "best".

Read back on my posts and you'll not find a single sentiment that could be seen as rooting against America, quite the contrary. It's my concern for a country I have lived in, albeit for only a few months at a time, and the respect for the role her people's have played, that prompts my comments.

You say it yourself;

"Once they get digital currency, electric vehicles, control of the health system and education we'll be little different than china"

"They" will be whoever Trump appoints as Treasury Secretary, Elon Musk, RFK, coupled with the likes of Gabbard and Gaetz as the controllers of the likes of the judicial system and intelligence services.

[ozleeds]

The only reason why the German's were so strong was because the rest of the world was asleep as it was still recovering from WW1 and didn't think it would happen again so early. They had Europe but wanted the world which was there undoing as the allies launched there assaults by destroying them in Africa and controlled the war after that. The rest of the world never had the fire power that they created but they had the smarts which saved the day like the fake drowned soldier with top secret info of the allies attacking then in Greece rather the intend of Sicily where they wiped them out quickly and was the beginning of the end. My only grudge is how did the World after defeating them allow them to once again become a powerhouse so quickly likewise Japan.

[spaldy]

An interesting fact I recall seeing many moons ago. The ME 262 ( the fastest plane in the war by 100mph was fully developed and capable of mass production by 1942. Hitler was obsessed with dive bombers and insisted it be modified to one. It took several more years before he gave up on that. That was also the same reasoning he would not develop a 4 engine bomber. They had one years ahead of us but would not approve it. In the end he ended up using converted passenger planes for recon and patrols.

A plane as advanced as the 262 in 1942 would have changed the war overnight

Madness is capable of some unbelievable things.

[spaldy]

Regarding Trump

I think you will find he is nothing like the media and DC portray him. We do have a 4 year history already and he showed no signs of what they said. It was all fear mongering and lawfare. He?s an unpleasant personality in public life but then most NY real estate barons are.

I worry for his safety. The current DC crowd is not much different than Putin when it comes to holding their power

One last thought. If you look at the presidential election since 1960 the democrat candidate has been between 62-69 million. Even Obama ( a great campaigner) never got more the 70. Biden, an invisible Candidate in his basement got 81 million. Harris got 69
Think about it. Trump got 74 million in 2020

In a 50/50 nation you don?t get 11 million votes more than any other party candidate ever has. He was a poor campaigner

[WTF11]

WS,

you are correct. However, I should have been clearer. The reality was that Nazi Germany was the best prepared, best generals and troops and the most motivated populace in the world at the start of WWII. Only the briliance of Churchhill, will of the UK people and the fact the Yanks broke the blockade (preventing the collapse of the UK) prevented all of Europe from falling. Russia, or for that matter, china have none of those factors.

Agreed, but sadly two full generations who have grown (largely), without the threats that Churchill and others warned of has resulted in the soft, "woke" generation who feel entitled without bearing and sense of responsibility. It may well be that the NATO armed forces are technically and tactically superior, but not numerically and as Ukraine has shown Putin is happy to use ground troops of ANY "quality" as cannon fodder. NATO commanders couldn't and wouldn't.

[Monaco_Totty]

Agreed, but sadly two full generations who have grown (largely), without the threats that Churchill and others warned of has resulted in the soft, "woke" generation who feel entitled without bearing and sense of responsibility.

My degree programme combined the study of Political history, International relations & Sociology with my main modules focusing on Eastern Europe (part of my genealogical line was of the area). A great course but heavy workload at the time but skimming through some books I own I noticed notes of reference I'd written inside one.

On 18 December 1940 Hitler issued F?hrer Directive 21 an order for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler?s June 1941 advance into the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) was the decisive moment of the war - because there after at unspeakable human cost the Red Army did the heavy lifting first to contain the Germans & finally to defeat them.

It may be argued that American supplies of everything from metals, spam, boots, trucks & telephone cable made an important contribution to Soviet victory but in the crucial first 18 months of the Eastern war, western materials reached the USSR in modest quantities, making only a marginal contribution to the Soviet war effort until 1943, by which time the battle of Stalingrad had been fought & won.

Counterfactuals are foolish because once one variable changes then infinite possibilities are opened up. If Hitler instead of launching "Barbarossa" had reinforced Rommel & completed the conquest of the Med & Middle East then Churchill?s government would not have survived, with any future administration thereafter seeking only a compromise peace with Germany.

That was the "common theory" projected onto my course when on it of which I noted below.

After the experience of the First World War, I don?t think the British people (any more than the French) had the stomach for the ghastly struggle of attrition that proved necessary on the Eastern front before the Germans were driven back.
It is unlikely there was ever any easy route to winning WW2 in whatever extensive reading one might undertake - was also the logic I was tutored to concur, rightly or wrongly.

So I had an opinion, more so discovering what actually happened to my ancestors in WW2 which is for me alone to try & comprehend the sheer brutality such a war offered.

But I will offer that I suppose a scenario can be "pondered" wherein the western Allies dallied until an atomic bomb was built & then to use it against Germany but that'll presuppose US entry into the war.

So i'll rest my case that sadly, an enormous amount of killing & dying had to happen before the Nazis were crushed (though it did not seem so to the western Allies & their peoples at the time) as posterity can see that the Soviets did most of it.

[WTF11]

My degree programme combined the study of Political history, International relations & Sociology with my main modules focusing on Eastern Europe (part of my genealogical line was of the area). A great course but heavy workload at the time but skimming through some books I own I noticed notes of reference I'd written inside one.

On 18 December 1940 Hitler issued F?hrer Directive 21 an order for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler?s June 1941 advance into the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) was the decisive moment of the war - because there after at unspeakable human cost the Red Army did the heavy lifting first to contain the Germans & finally to defeat them.

It may be argued that American supplies of everything from metals, spam, boots, trucks & telephone cable made an important contribution to Soviet victory but in the crucial first 18 months of the Eastern war, western materials reached the USSR in modest quantities, making only a marginal contribution to the Soviet war effort until 1943, by which time the battle of Stalingrad had been fought & won.

Counterfactuals are foolish because once one variable changes then infinite possibilities are opened up. If Hitler instead of launching "Barbarossa" had reinforced Rommel & completed the conquest of the Med & Middle East then Churchill?s government would not have survived, with any future administration thereafter seeking only a compromise peace with Germany.

That was the "common theory" projected onto my course when on it of which I noted below.

After the experience of the First World War, I don?t think the British people (any more than the French) had the stomach for the ghastly struggle of attrition that proved necessary on the Eastern front before the Germans were driven back.
It is unlikely there was ever any easy route to winning WW2 in whatever extensive reading one might undertake - was also the logic I was tutored to concur, rightly or wrongly.

So I had an opinion, more so discovering what actually happened to my ancestors in WW2 which is for me alone to try & comprehend the sheer brutality such a war offered.

But I will offer that I suppose a scenario can be "pondered" wherein the western Allies dallied until an atomic bomb was built & then to use it against Germany but that'll presuppose US entry into the war.

So i'll rest my case that sadly, an enormous amount of killing & dying had to happen before the Nazis were crushed (though it did not seem so to the western Allies & their peoples at the time) as posterity can see that the Soviets did most of it.

In terms of the human cost (both armed services and civilian lives lost), no argument. I disagree wholeheartedly with the assertion that supplies from the Allies (NOT exclusively from America, but supplied exclusively by British Royal Navy and merchant marine ships at enormous cost to both) made only “a marginal contribution to the Soviet war effort until 1943, by which time the battle of Stalingrad had been fought & won”. Tell that to the men who fought their way to Murmansk and beyond in the Arctic convoys with no support from any other allied nation, because no others had the wherewithal that the Royal Navy and merchant marine possessed.

“After the experience of the First World War, I don’t think the British people (any more than the French) had the stomach for the ghastly struggle of attrition that proved necessary on the Eastern front before the Germans were driven back”

No “theory” to challenge. Historical fact. Had there been a less erudite and skilled orator than Churchill at the time, persuading both parliamentarians and the British public that resistance was not only possible, it was essential if democracy in any form, anywhere, was to survive, it’s highly likely that the British House of Commons would have voted in favour of Lord Halifax as their choice of Prime Minister after Chamberlains resignation. Appeasement would have been official British policy and we would all (and I mean ALL, this side and the other of the Atlantic) now be speaking some version of german.

Winning wars has never been “easy”. If such a route existed it’s highly likely (but demonstrably not inevitable) the weaker, more exposed and vulnerable side would sue for peace (as Hitler expected us to do in 1939). Perhaps I should become a tutor, if it’s that easy to espouse a theory?

My father in law was what then was called a “conscientious objector” a “conchy”, unwilling to raise arms against an enemy, but not willing to forego service alongside his more combative fellow recruits. I don’t share his views, but before he passed we had numerous conversations about his time in the Royal Army Medical Corps, never carrying a weapon, only his medical kit, landing in the first wave on Gold beach and working as a medic throughout the remainder of the war with his final attachment with an armoured brigade liberating concentration camps
I have never served, although I dearly wanted to, as pilot in the RAF of the mid 70’s.Eyesight failed me, even though at 68 the only time I have to wear glasses is a s now, when reading or typing), but I know from Freds accounts that was is brutal, unforgiving, merciless, without pity of favour, and now as then, is only won by bravery, sacrifice and a healthy dose of sheer bl00dymindeness,

Fortunately (in my view given the potential effect on mainland Europe which is much closer to where I live), the decision to prioritise the European campaign was largely influenced by the Allies knowledge of Germans nuclear development programme. Efforts to disrupt development resulted in sabotage attacks such as that portrayed in the film, The Heroes of Telemark, and hazardous low level bombing raids by the Mosquitos of RAF 633 squadron. One can only imagine, and shudder, at what Hitler would have done with such a weapon atop a ballistic missile developed by the man behind the V2, Werner von Braun, who subsequently became head of the USA missile development programme

And your “the Soviets did most of it” comment?

Stuff and nonsense. They suffered the greatest number of casualties for sure, largely because they were totally unprepared for what the Germans did, had little or no tactical intelligence, and whose military suffered enormous “friendly fire” damage from the numerous pogroms that Stalin implemented due to his conspiracy theories and totally misguided belief that murdering all his senior officers would in some way improve military performance. Stoic resistance, as in the city of Stalingrad, was what defeated the Germans at enormous cost to the Russian people and military, but to assert that the Soviets “did the most” of anything apart from dying, is a gross insult to ALL the other servicemen and women of the vast cohort of allied nations who contributed not only to Germans defeat but that of Japan too

[WTF11]

Regarding Trump

I think you will find he is nothing like the media and DC portray him. We do have a 4 year history already and he showed no signs of what they said. It was all fear mongering and lawfare. He?s an unpleasant personality in public life but then most NY real estate barons are.

I worry for his safety. The current DC crowd is not much different than Putin when it comes to holding their power

One last thought. If you look at the presidential election since 1960 the democrat candidate has been between 62-69 million. Even Obama ( a great campaigner) never got more the 70. Biden, an invisible Candidate in his basement got 81 million. Harris got 69
Think about it. Trump got 74 million in 2020

In a 50/50 nation you don?t get 11 million votes more than any other party candidate ever has. He was a poor campaigner

And another nail in the coffin of anything remwitely akin to recognition of what humankind is doing to the one place we know can (or could!) survive.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/16/p...ump/index.html

What happens when the shale oil, or coal, or any of the other fossil fuels this man seeks to exploit are exhausted? Of course by then all those who have made the key decisions will be dead.