The Santa Claus Machine -robot taxation -money growing on trees -free riders
Immortalist
hypothetical machine that is capable of creating any required object
or structure out of any given material. It is most often referenced by
futurists and science fiction writers when discussing hypothetical
projects of enormous scale, such as a Dyson sphere. These types of
future constructions would be too large for many civilizations to
build directly, so they would need a series of machines to
intelligently build the machine with little or no direct control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus_machine
Technological innovations of automation, corporate reengineering, lean
production, and computers have replaced the need for workers at an
alarming rate culminating in "The Third Industrial Revolution". Every
sector and industry has experienced significant trends in unemployment
and underemployment. Although virtually every worker has been
affected, technology has undermined the worker and reconceptualized
our notion of the workplace. Technology will replace nearly all labor
in today's rapidly changing globalized economy.
Solutions to global worker displacement include shorter work week to
share the remaining work to all workers. Rifkin also argues for
investment in the third sector of volunteerism and social services to
combat the rise in crime and violence that is inevitable in a society
of large scale employment. In the near future there will be massive
unemployment and we are headed to a society run by machines.
Look forward to the end of private ownership of the means of
production. Hypercompetitiveness will eliminate owners, replacing them
by better robot decision makers. Then enter nano-technology by which
individual atoms are stack in any way that please man or robot, then
fusion whereby abundant elements are combined to create scarce
elements as if by alchemy. Then the robots become a vast "welfare
state" with humans living totally for free. They will shout "tax the
robots more" when they need to alocate more resources from scientific
research the robots complete.
Starting with contemporary robotics research, a likely course for the
next 40 years of robot development, will be the rise of
superintelligent, creative, emotionally complex cyberbeings and the
end of human labor by the middle of the next century. Robot
corporations will take up residence in outer space with rogue cyborgs;
planet-size robots will cruise the solar system looking for smaller
bots to assimilate; and eventually every atom in the entire galaxy
will be transformed into data-storage space, with a full-scale
simulation of human civilization running as a subroutine somewhere.
The end result of the robotic evolution, will be beings with awesome
intelligence that are able to arrange spacetime and energy for
computation. The physics of time travel, conscious robots are indeed
possible in the author's eyes, or at best possible given our current
understanding of it. The robots themselves, with their enhanced
capabilities, will have their own arguments about us, we fight to
merge with them, we (merged with them) become the government.
We live happily ever after in the dreamstate utopia with little
flowers in
out hair....
The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of
the Post-Market Era
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X53813A21
Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O4B720A21
zzbu...@netscape.net
> A Santa Claus Machine, named after the folkloric Santa Claus, is a
> hypothetical machine that is capable of creating any required object
> or structure out of any given material. It is most often referenced by
> futurists and science fiction writers when discussing hypothetical
> projects of enormous scale, such as a Dyson sphere. These types of
> future constructions would be too large for many civilizations to
> build directly, so they would need a series of machines to
> intelligently build the machine with little or no direct control.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus_machine
>
> Technological innovations of automation, corporate reengineering, lean
> production, and computers have replaced the need for workers at an
> alarming rate culminating in "The Third Industrial Revolution".
Well, but since the only thing most of these morons even know
about computers is GE and GM, that's also why the people
with post retarded Newton Engineering have already moved
onto Electronic Books, Blue Ray, Desktop Publishing, Fiber Optics
Signal and
Control Systems, Pv Cell Energy Systems, Home Broadband HDTV,
Holograms,
On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, On-Line Shopping, Cyber
Batteries,
Laser Disks Libraries, C++, USB, Distributed Processing Software,
Compact Flourescent Lighting, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, GPS,
Weather Satellites, Digital Terrain Mapping, Data Fusion, Cruise
Missiles,
Drones, Phalanx, UAVs, AAVs, Gas Turbine Engines, Microwave Ovens,
Microwave Cooling, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Cell Phones,Solar
Energy,
Biodiesel, neo Wind Energy, Self-Replicating Machines, Self-
Assembling Robots,
and other that don't rhyme with RCA.
> the Post-Market Erahttp://makeashorterlink.com/?X53813A21
Uncle Al
>
> A Santa Claus Machine, named after the folkloric Santa Claus,
Not after Mladen Sekulivic? Murphy's law wasn't named after Murphy,
but instead after another guy with the same name.
> is a
> hypothetical machine that is capable of creating any required object
> or structure out of any given material.
Star Trek did it. Ditto social advocacy and Green Fuels. All are
bullshit; the latter two being egregious bullshit. Thermodynamics
cannot be cheated in any macroscopic reduction to practice.
> It is most often referenced by
> futurists and science fiction writers when discussing hypothetical
> projects of enormous scale, such as a Dyson sphere.
or dinner. Or a Harvard Full Professor of Black Studies who drinks
Red Stripe beer. Angela Davis ended her days as a Full Professor of
Black Studies. Did she liberate her sisters? Do you even know who
she was?
> These types of
> future constructions would be too large for many civilizations to
> build directly, so they would need a series of machines to
> intelligently build the machine with little or no direct control.
Ever see a car assembly line, git? How 'bout an elephant?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus_machine
>
> Technological innovations of automation, corporate reengineering, lean
> production, and computers have replaced the need for workers at an
> alarming rate culminating in "The Third Industrial Revolution".
Hey fucking stooopid - Socialism has decried the enslavement of
workers for over a century of sincere and bloody whining. Now said
workers are finally free, free, free at last and you are still
goddamned pissing and moaning. We demand benefits without costs!
Tell Obama you want his healthcare, now almost perfected as costs
without benefits.
HIV is caused by lack of funding. Universal opportunity creates
pandemic poverty because only workers have money to spend. We demand
the right to protect confused angry ignorance against achievement!
> Every
> sector and industry has experienced significant trends in unemployment
> and underemployment.
Winchester, Federal, Remington, Colt, Smith & Wesson... are running
production 24/7 and cannot begin to satisfy sustained demand. So has
it been since November 2008 and without surcease. Everybody knows
what is coming. When everybody votes for the same candidate, he gets
elected (may be void in Illinois, Florida, and Texas).
> Although virtually every worker has been
> affected,
No stooopid - every ex-worker.
> technology has undermined the worker and reconceptualized
> our notion of the workplace. Technology will replace nearly all labor
> in today's rapidly changing globalized economy.
Hey stooopid - do you know why a plumber makes as much as a
physician? If you are stooopid without instrumentality then you are
still stupid with instrumentality. World War II was fought with blood
and guts. Vietnam was fought with Game Theory. The Muslim War is
being fought with Network Theory.
Vietnam was a debacle until Game Theory was leaked to the North
Vietnamese. They then invested a year debating the shape of the
conferenece table at the Paris Peace Conference. The Muslim War is a
debacle. Here is a snippet from a Pentagon evaluation: "Terrorist
network connectivities keep changing."
> Solutions to global worker displacement
1) Socialism, "Das Capital." Free the enslaved working class!
2) idiot
> include shorter work week to
> share the remaining work to all workers. Rifkin
Jeremy Rifkin is funded by the halfling faggot god-on-a-stick. God
wants you sitting on a cold hard bench, in perpetual fear for your
life, dribbling pennies into Church coffers. Buy Carbon Credit
indulgences, directly go to heaven. We don't need to grow if we
conserve. If only everybody lived half as well we would all live
twice as well!
> also argues for
> investment in the third sector of volunteerism and social services to
> combat the rise in crime and violence that is inevitable in a society
> of large scale employment. In the near future there will be massive
> unemployment and we are headed to a society run by machines.
Hey fucking stooopid - criminality is volunteer effort on the largest
possible scales. Who employs criminals, who pays their employer end
of FICA tax? We are neck deep in a society run by officious idiots.
Hey fucking stoopid - Manadatory volunteer labor is laboring without
reimbursement. That is real slavery, not the pixie dust stuff in
Scientific Socialism. Look up barely literate "engineer" Nikita
Khruschev building the Moscow subway system for Stalin. When
Khruschev needed brute labor or skilled technical folk, Beria refilled
inventory. The subsequent pension system was inspired: There were few
survivors.
> Look forward to the end of private ownership of the means of
> production. Hypercompetitiveness will eliminate owners, replacing them
> by better robot decision makers.
Name one centrally managed enterprise that works. The Pentagon was
the model for "Whiz Kid" MacNamara's Detroit. Then, recrusion. How
well did Vietnam and Detroit work out? Has Microcrap ever produced
any decent software under BillGates? You think maybe Past Treasury
Secretary Henry "Bend and Spread" Paulson, current Treasury Secretary
Timothy "Timmy!" Geithner, and Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin
"Bullshit" Bernanke have access to econometric software and hardware
in which to run it?
Hey fucking stooopid - go to any urban courthouse in the land. Is it
surrounded by gentry or by slums? We begin with the Supreme Court and
urban Washington, DC.
> Then enter nano-technology by which
> individual atoms are stack in any way that please man or robot, then
> fusion whereby abundant elements are combined to create scarce
> elements as if by alchemy.
[snip rest of crap]
idiot
The niggers will win, with God up their collective ass gladly offering
a hamburger Tuesday for payment today.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Michael Grosberg
> A Santa Claus Machine, named after the folkloric Spam Claus, is a
> hypothetical spam that is capable of creating any spam spam
> or structure spam of any spam material. It is spam often spam by
> spam and spam fiction spam when spam spam spam spam
> spam spam enormous spam, such spam spam spam spam
> spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam
> spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam
...
>The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of
>the Post-Market Era
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?X53813A21
>
>Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?O4B720A21
What is this, the transhuman version of "Sound of Trumpet"?
Walter Bushell
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> Name one centrally managed enterprise that works.
The Apollo project. The Manhattan project. The Vietnamese resistance to
Western colonialism. The Russian resistance to the German invasion.
Rod Speed
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
>> Name one centrally managed enterprise that works.
> The Apollo project. The Manhattan project. The Vietnamese resistance
> to Western colonialism. The Russian resistance to the German invasion.
WW2 in spades.
Bill Snyder
I understand that the Pharaohs hung around for quite a while.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Walter Bushell
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
In Europe, the Communist power did the heavy lifting. If that isn't
centrally controlled, I don't know what is.
Rod Speed
>> WW2 in spades.
And in the pacific, that was just as centrally managed.
Les Cargill
They didn't do it alone.
--
Les Cargill
Walter Bushell
Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some resources
in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive action raids.
Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on the Western front.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <4a74f53d$0$4981$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> In article <7dk1f5F...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Walter Bushell wrote
>>>>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
>>>>>> Name one centrally managed enterprise that works.
>>>>> The Apollo project. The Manhattan project. The Vietnamese resistance
>>>>> to Western colonialism. The Russian resistance to the German invasion.
>>>> WW2 in spades.
>>> In Europe, the Communist power did the heavy lifting. If that isn't
>>> centrally controlled, I don't know what is.
>>
>> They didn't do it alone.
>>
>
> in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive action raids.
> Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on the Western front.
While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy running so
he could keep fighting.
--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.
Rod Speed
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <4a74f53d$0$4981$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>> Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>>> In article <7dk1f5F...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Walter Bushell wrote
>>>>>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Name one centrally managed enterprise that works.
>>>>>> The Apollo project. The Manhattan project. The Vietnamese
>>>>>> resistance to Western colonialism. The Russian resistance to the
>>>>>> German invasion.
>>>>> WW2 in spades.
>>>> In Europe, the Communist power did the heavy lifting. If that isn't
>>>> centrally controlled, I don't know what is.
>>>
>>> They didn't do it alone.
>>>
>>
>> For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
>> resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
>> action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on
>> the Western front.
>
> While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy running
> so he could keep fighting.
Lend Lease had nothing to do with his economy.
Walter Bushell
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <4a74f53d$0$4981$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Walter Bushell wrote:
> >>> In article <7dk1f5F...@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Walter Bushell wrote
> >>>>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
> >>>>>> Name one centrally managed enterprise that works.
> >>>>> The Apollo project. The Manhattan project. The Vietnamese resistance
> >>>>> to Western colonialism. The Russian resistance to the German invasion.
> >>>> WW2 in spades.
> >>> In Europe, the Communist power did the heavy lifting. If that isn't
> >>> centrally controlled, I don't know what is.
> >>
> >> They didn't do it alone.
> >>
> >
> > For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some resources
> > in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive action raids.
> > Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on the Western front.
>
> While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy running so
> he could keep fighting.
We were sending stuff and they were dying, standing siege and having
their property destroyed. It's clear who was doing the heavy lifting.
I'm sure the US and Britain did a lot to take the pressure off. This was
good from our viewpoint later, because if the Russian army had taken
France, history would have been a lot different.
Sean O'Hara
Traveler declared:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>>>
>> For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
>> resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive action
>> raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on the Western
>> front.
>
> While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy running so
> he could keep fighting.
>
Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive. I suggest
you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays out in
great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.
Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Walter Bushell
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Dimensional
> Traveler declared:
> > Walter Bushell wrote:
> >>>>
> >> For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
> >> resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive action
> >> raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on the Western
> >> front.
> >
> > While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy running so
> > he could keep fighting.
> >
>
> Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive. I suggest
> you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays out in
> great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.
> Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
> repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
The African campaign, as I understand was important, however, IIUC.
And the Western front was very much necessary for the future of Europe.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> The Russian resistance to the German invasion.
*Soviet* resistance. You might as well talk about the English
retreat from Dunkirk, or New York's invasion of Omaha Beach.
aaron
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-0426A7....@news.panix.com...
Are you suggesting that absent a western front and assuming a Soviet
occupation all the way to the Atlantic that Europe would cease to exist?
[insert smiley here]
At least that makes the discussion SFnal.
Walter Bushell
wrote:
It would have been a very different Europe. And a different England. You
doubt that Stalin would have pushed to the ocean, if given the chance?
To spread glorious revolution? "It's our right because we saved you from
the Nazis."
Jim Lovejoy
I'd say that would be very unlikely.
No matter how evil Stalin was, he simply didn't have the resources to
destroy the landmass west of the Urals.
Rod Speed
> Dimensional Traveler wrote
>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
>>> resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
>>> action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on
>>> the Western front.
>> While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy running so he could keep fighting.
> Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive.
That is very arguable. It was such a close thing in the east that its quite
possible that lend lease was in fact crucial and that without it hitler may
well have managed to end up with the oil fields in the balkans etc and
that alone may have allowed him to fuck over the russians.
> I suggest you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays out in great detail the argument that the Western
> Front was a sideshow.
Yes, but that came later, after the russians had managed
to survive the initial attack by hitler. If they had not done
that, the outcome would have been completely different.
> Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
> repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
Sure, but thats a separate matter to whether lend lease was crucial to the
russian survival. Without that, there would have been no stalingrad etc.
Rod Speed
He never bothered about rights.
Les Cargill
The irony is that the "stuff" was differentially more important. Most
participants had the capacity to fight and die; materiel determined
who would win.
And with submarines, providing stuff was really participation
in advance of declaration of war.
> I'm sure the US and Britain did a lot to take the pressure off. This was
> good from our viewpoint later, because if the Russian army had taken
> France, history would have been a lot different.
I'm skeptical of just how much area the Russians could have covered. At
least the present-day story on Stalin at Yalta is that he wasn't denied
all that much that he asked for.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
Essentially because the allies were in no position to deny anything much.
Quadibloc
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Walter Bushell
> declared:
>
> > The Russian resistance to the German invasion.
>
> *Soviet* resistance. You might as well talk about the English
> retreat from Dunkirk, or New York's invasion of Omaha Beach.
The U.S.S.R. was simply the Communist Russian Empire, in the same way
that the People's Republic of China is the Communist Chinese Empire,
ruling over such non-Chinese people as the Tibetans and the Uighurs.
John Savard
Walter Bushell
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well no. But propaganda. It's a talking point.
Rod Speed
>>>>>> Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive. I suggest
>>>>>> you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays out in
>>>>>> great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.
>>>>>> Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
>>>>>> repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
>>>>> The African campaign, as I understand was important, however, IIUC.
>>>>> And the Western front was very much necessary for the future of Europe.
>>>> Are you suggesting that absent a western front and assuming a
>>>> Soviet occupation all the way to the Atlantic that Europe would
>>>> cease to exist?
>>>> [insert smiley here]
>>>> At least that makes the discussion SFnal.
>>> It would have been a very different Europe. And a different
>>> England. You doubt that Stalin would have pushed to the
>>> ocean, if given the chance? To spread glorious revolution?
>>> "It's our right because we saved you from the Nazis."
>> He never bothered about rights.
> Well no. But propaganda. It's a talking point.
He didnt really bother about that either.
And its unlikely that he would have had the resources to do anything about Britain anyway.
Fred Weiss
> In article <4A7480C2.FC953...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > Name one centrally managed enterprise that works.
>
> The Apollo project. The Manhattan project.
The post office? The school system? The Federal Reserve? Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac?
As for farm collectivization in Russia and China, do we even need to
go there? Or how about Cuba and N. Korea anyone?
> ... The Russian resistance to the German invasion.
Gov'ts are great at killing people en masse. I'll concede the point.
Do they give us any choice?
As for the vaunted "Russian resistance", it was totally dependent on
massive American aid...which true was a "centrally managed enterprise"
which however was totally dependent on the vast productive capacity
and creativity of American *private* enterprise.
But I'll also grant you that if it's a focused effort, generously
funded and with a *technical* goal, isolated gov't projects have been
successful. But it's doubtful they could produce a breakfast cereal
anyone would want to eat. It's also doubtful that they would give a
shit.
Fred Weiss
Pat Flannery
Walter Bushell wrote:
> It would have been a very different Europe. And a different England. You
> doubt that Stalin would have pushed to the ocean, if given the chance?
He might not have. That would have smacked of Trotskyite
Internationalism, and that was a no-no under his "Socialism in one
country" credo.
I think what he wanted was a one-country deep buffer zone around the
entire Soviet Union where the countries were either under direct Soviet
control, or at least in the Soviet sphere of influence and unaligned
with the west.
This would mean anyone trying to invade the Soviet Union proper would
have to pass through another country to get there, and that would give
the Soviets time to mobilize their military before the enemy arrived.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Les Cargill wrote:
>
> I'm skeptical of just how much area the Russians could have covered. At
> least the present-day story on Stalin at Yalta is that he wasn't denied
> all that much that he asked for.
As Hungary and Czechoslovakia (and much later Poland) showed, they had
enough trouble just keeping the Warsaw Pact countries under their thumb.
They never were able to exert the amount of control in Yugoslavia they
desired, and China gave them the boot.
There biggest flops were to their south - by failing to gain control
over Iran, Greece, and Turkey...and of course, the slow meat grinder of
armies that is Afghanistan.
Pat
paranormalized
> Sean O'Hara wrote
>
> > Dimensional Traveler wrote
> >> Walter Bushell wrote:
> >>> For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
> >>> resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
> >>> action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on
> >>> the Western front.
> >> While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy running so he could keep fighting.
> > Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive.
>
> That is very arguable. It was such a close thing in the east that its quite
> possible that lend lease was in fact crucial and that without it hitler may
> well have managed to end up with the oil fields in the balkans etc and
> that alone may have allowed him to fuck over the russians.
>
Balkans, think Yugoslavia.
Anyways, ignoring the bad geography, I suggest you either read more
about WW2 or hang out on some grand-strategy game forums. Lend lease
to the Soviets only really had an impact *post-Stalingrad*. The truck
fleets to move supplies and infantry were American made, the Soviets
made their own tanks and planes.
And they only needed the trucks once they moved outside of Soviet-
controlled territory, back into the areas the Germans took. Until
then, they had interior lines of supply with trains and such. The
trucks were offensive, IOW.
Yes, lend lease helped them *win* WW2, but they had already avoided
defeat. The Caucuses were defended successfully before we gave them
the tools for offense.
> > I suggest you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays out in great detail the argument that the Western
> > Front was a sideshow.
>
> Yes, but that came later, after the russians had managed
> to survive the initial attack by hitler. If they had not done
> that, the outcome would have been completely different.
>
Again, lend lease only made an impact *after* the initial attack, and
the soviet survival.
Absent American trucks, what would have happened? Hmmm, I'd be
surprised if Operation Bagration(1944) could be pulled off, and some
other Soviet offensives before then would stall out earlier, but that
mostly adds years to the war, and leaves the Germans with possibly
enough reserves to throw back Normandy.
My guess? Nukes fall on Berlin. If the Allies are still in it,
absent that, I dunno. How many years of production did we give the
Soviets in terms of trucks and such? How much more extermination in
Eastern Europe could Hitler pull off, denying the Soviets the regional
manpower they drafted after each successful offensive? Ugh, this
topic is utterly morbid... :(
> > Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
> > repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
>
> Sure, but thats a separate matter to whether lend lease was crucial to the
> russian survival. Without that, there would have been no stalingrad etc.
The stuff for the victory at Stalingrad(Nov 1942-Jan 1943) was mostly
soviet-made. Tanks were rolling off the factory lines and straight
into battle.
There was a reason the Germans feared the T-34 and made jokes about
the Sherman.
Jonathan Fisher
Pat Flannery
Fred Weiss wrote:
> But it's doubtful they could produce a breakfast cereal
> anyone would want to eat.
>
"Mr. K's Red Breakfast" was a notable failure anywhere other than East
Germany, where it was illegal _not_ to eat it every morning. The later
"Leonid's Sweet Potato Flakes" was no hit either, and the less said
about "Gorbi's Gobs Of Goodies", the better.
On the other hand, "Che'z-it" snack crackers were a big hit in Cuba, and
many in China fondly remember the tasty morning cup of hot tea with some
"MaoMallows" melting in it from their youth.
Pat
Sean O'Hara
That's all well and good, but it still wasn't *Russian* resistance
alone that repelled the Germans. It's insulting to the Kazakhs,
Chechens, and Turkmenistani not to acknowledge that they played a
significant role in the war -- in fact, not acknowledging their
contributions aggrandizes the Russians.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Sean O'Hara wrote
>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote
>>>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>>>> For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
>>>>> resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
>>>>> action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on
>>>>> the Western front.
>>>> While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy
>>>> running so he could keep fighting.
>>> Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive.
>> That is very arguable. It was such a close thing in the east
>> that its quite possible that lend lease was in fact crucial and
>> that without it hitler may well have managed to end up with
>> the oil fields in the balkans etc and that alone may have
>> allowed him to fuck over the russians.
> ??Balkans?? Don't you mean the Caucuses??
Nope, thats no better a description of where the oil was.
Neither are that great, but you know what I meant.
> Hitler already *had* the Balkans, think Yugoslavia.
Fuck all oil there.
> Anyways, ignoring the bad geography, I suggest you either read
> more about WW2 or hang out on some grand-strategy game forums.
No thanks, already did that, likely before you were even born thanks.
> Lend lease to the Soviets only really had an impact *post-Stalingrad*.
That is just plain wrong.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=z3hP33KprskC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
> The truck fleets to move supplies and infantry were American made,
And that made a considerable difference the russians being able to survive hitler.
> the Soviets made their own tanks and planes.
Pity about
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=z3hP33KprskC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#USSR
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:0K9Km1vFLnEJ:lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm+lend-lease+ussr&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
> And they only needed the trucks once they moved outside of
> Soviet-controlled territory, back into the areas the Germans took.
Wrong. And Lend Lease to russia wasnt just trucks anyway.
> Until then, they had interior lines of supply with trains and such.
> The trucks were offensive, IOW.
Utterly mangled.
> Yes, lend lease helped them *win* WW2, but they had already avoided defeat.
Wrong.
> The Caucuses were defended successfully before we gave them the tools for offense.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
>>> I suggest you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays
>>> out in great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.
>> Yes, but that came later, after the russians had managed
>> to survive the initial attack by hitler. If they had not done
>> that, the outcome would have been completely different.
> Again, lend lease only made an impact *after* the initial attack, and the soviet survival.
Wrong.
> Absent American trucks, what would have happened? Hmmm,
> I'd be surprised if Operation Bagration(1944) could be pulled off,
> and some other Soviet offensives before then would stall out
> earlier, but that mostly adds years to the war, and leaves the
> Germans with possibly enough reserves to throw back Normandy.
> My guess? Nukes fall on Berlin. If the Allies are still in it, absent
> that, I dunno. How many years of production did we give the Soviets
> in terms of trucks and such? How much more extermination in
> Eastern Europe could Hitler pull off, denying the Soviets the regional
> manpower they drafted after each successful offensive? Ugh, this
> topic is utterly morbid... :(
>>> Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
>>> repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
>> Sure, but thats a separate matter to whether lend lease was crucial to
>> the russian survival. Without that, there would have been no stalingrad etc.
> The stuff for the victory at Stalingrad(Nov 1942-Jan 1943) was mostly soviet-made.
The point is that stalingrad may well not have happened without Lend-Lease and what preceeded it.
> Tanks were rolling off the factory lines and straight into battle.
> There was a reason the Germans feared the T-34 and made jokes about the Sherman.
Sure, but that all came after what I was talking about, Lend-Lease arguably
allowing russia to survive the initial attack and do that sort of thing later.
In fact if hitler had seized the oil fields first instead of bothering about moscow,
its quite possible that russia would have had no choice but to at least surrender
european russia and would never have been in any position to attack germany again.
Rod Speed
> Walter Bushell wrote
>> It would have been a very different Europe. And a different England.
>> You doubt that Stalin would have pushed to the ocean, if given the chance?
> He might not have. That would have smacked of Trotskyite Internationalism, and that was a no-no under his "Socialism
> in one country" credo.
He was pretty flexibly about ignoring stuff like that when it
suited him tho, most obviously with the division of Poland.
> I think what he wanted was a one-country deep buffer zone around the entire Soviet Union where the countries were
> either under direct Soviet control, or at least in the Soviet sphere of influence and unaligned with the west.
> This would mean anyone trying to invade the Soviet Union proper would
> have to pass through another country to get there, and that would give
> the Soviets time to mobilize their military before the enemy arrived.
Yeah, I dont believe he had the capacity to apply the jackboot to the whole
of europe, even if he didnt bother with britain, let alone the desire to do that,
as you said, it was about ensuring that they could never be attacked again
which is hardly surprising given the immense cost that WW2 involved the USSR.
David DeLaney
ObSF: Brekkfast Brikks.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
paranormalized
> paranormalized wrote
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Sean O'Hara wrote
> >>> Dimensional Traveler wrote
> >>>> Walter Bushell wrote:
> >>>>> For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
> >>>>> resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
> >>>>> action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support on
> >>>>> the Western front.
> >>>> While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy
> >>>> running so he could keep fighting.
> >>> Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive.
> >> That is very arguable. It was such a close thing in the east
> >> that its quite possible that lend lease was in fact crucial and
> >> that without it hitler may well have managed to end up with
> >> the oil fields in the balkans etc and that alone may have
> >> allowed him to fuck over the russians.
> > ??Balkans?? Don't you mean the Caucuses??
>
> Nope, thats no better a description of where the oil was.
> Neither are that great, but you know what I meant.
>
> > Hitler already *had* the Balkans, think Yugoslavia.
>
> Fuck all oil there.
>
Exactly.
> > Anyways, ignoring the bad geography, I suggest you either read
> > more about WW2 or hang out on some grand-strategy game forums.
>
> No thanks, already did that, likely before you were even born thanks.
>
> > Lend lease to the Soviets only really had an impact *post-Stalingrad*.
>
> That is just plain wrong.http://books.google.com.au/books?id=z3hP33KprskC&printsec=frontcover&...
And I can google and link to historians myself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
>
Content-free link, apparently.
> > The truck fleets to move supplies and infantry were American made,
>
> And that made a considerable difference the russians being able to survive hitler.
>
Eventually. But Stalingrad was Winter 42-43, lend lease only got
started.
> > the Soviets made their own tanks and planes.
>
> Pity about http://books.google.com.au/books?id=z3hP33KprskC&printsec=frontcover&...
So one book has a provocative title. Doesn't make the title
absolutely correct, nor does it mean linking twice is decisive.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#USSR
vs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Production_figures
So, 4k shermans vs 57k T-34's?
I'll take the Soviet contribution, thanks.
>http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:0K9Km1vFLnEJ:lend-lease.airforce...
>
And this link says 18% of the airforce. Even at that rate, the Allied
Bombing Campaign ties down more of the Luftwaffe.
Again, the *big* number, even in your link, is the trucks.
> > And they only needed the trucks once they moved outside of
> > Soviet-controlled territory, back into the areas the Germans took.
>
> Wrong. And Lend Lease to russia wasnt just trucks anyway.
>
Canned food, machine tools, locomotives, raw materials, gunpowder,
yes, yes. But the stuff takes a while to percolate through the
system. To defend the oil-producing areas means combat-ready stuff
*now*.
Without the Western Front, maybe Hitler had a chance. But if you only
take away *Soviet* Lend Lease, he's still fighting crippled.
> > Until then, they had interior lines of supply with trains and such.
> > The trucks were offensive, IOW.
>
> Utterly mangled.
>
> > Yes, lend lease helped them *win* WW2, but they had already avoided defeat.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > The Caucuses were defended successfully before we gave them the tools for offense.
>
> Wrong.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
>
You realize that link was utterly devoid of real content, right?
Relevant links and well-formed arguments, please.
*SNIP SNIP*
> >>> Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
> >>> repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
> >> Sure, but thats a separate matter to whether lend lease was crucial to
> >> the russian survival. Without that, there would have been no stalingrad etc.
> > The stuff for the victory at Stalingrad(Nov 1942-Jan 1943) was mostly soviet-made.
>
> The point is that stalingrad may well not have happened without Lend-Lease and what preceeded it.
>
How? Yes, without the Western Front, we have a substantial Airforce
and freed up 88's, but how much was *Lend Lease* necessary?
> > Tanks were rolling off the factory lines and straight into battle.
> > There was a reason the Germans feared the T-34 and made jokes about the Sherman.
>
> Sure, but that all came after what I was talking about, Lend-Lease arguably
> allowing russia to survive the initial attack and do that sort of thing later.
>
T-34 is prototyped by January 1940, running off the production lines
in Stalingrad in '41 and '42.
Check the rest of my T-34 link.
> In fact if hitler had seized the oil fields first instead of bothering about moscow,
> its quite possible that russia would have had no choice but to at least surrender
> european russia and would never have been in any position to attack germany again.
He needed to take Stalingrad to defend his attempt to grab Russian
oil, he failed miserably. And talking about the loss of Lend-Lease
while changing other variables is bad for isolating its effects,
anyways.
Some question whether Moscow was a better objective than mentioned
anyways, all train lines run through it, after all. ^_^ *shrug*
WW2 without the West sounds like a plausible Hitler victory, but WW2
without *Soviet* Lend Lease... sounds like a bad, bloody idea, but not
necessarily a War-loser. Just a reason to nuke Berlin, lose the stuff
to drop on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and have a bloody invasion of Japan.
Lend Lease saved American and Eastern European lives, by shortening
the Nazi occupation there and shortening the overall war in time to
let us use our precious nukes on Japan. But it didn't win the war by
itself. Anything more smacks of American cheerleading and jingoism.
Jonathan Fisher
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> paranormalized wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Sean O'Hara wrote
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote
>>>>>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>>>>>> For a good part of the war they did. OK, Britain absorbed some
>>>>>>> resources in the form of bombs and aircraft, but for aggressive
>>>>>>> action raids. Stalin was complaining about the lack of support
>>>>>>> on the Western front.
>>>>>> While the Lend-Lease he was receiving was keeping his economy
>>>>>> running so he could keep fighting.
>>>>> Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive.
>>>> That is very arguable. It was such a close thing in the east
>>>> that its quite possible that lend lease was in fact crucial and
>>>> that without it hitler may well have managed to end up with
>>>> the oil fields in the balkans etc and that alone may have
>>>> allowed him to fuck over the russians.
>>> ??Balkans?? Don't you mean the Caucuses??
>> Nope, thats no better a description of where the oil was.
>> Neither are that great, but you know what I meant.
> Baku is pretty close to the Caucuses. Good enough for me.
It isnt in fact what is usually used to locate the oil fields in question.
>>> Hitler already *had* the Balkans, think Yugoslavia.
>> Fuck all oil there.
> Exactly.
>>> Anyways, ignoring the bad geography, I suggest you either read
>>> more about WW2 or hang out on some grand-strategy game forums.
>> No thanks, already did that, likely before you were even born thanks.
>>> Lend lease to the Soviets only really had an impact *post-Stalingrad*.
>> That is just plain wrong.
>> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=z3hP33KprskC&printsec=frontcover&...
And in fact Table 1 in the preview completely blows your claim right out of the water.
> And I can google and link to historians myself.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
> Content-free link, apparently.
You're lying now. Its one list of what happened before stalingrad.
>>> The truck fleets to move supplies and infantry were American made,
>> And that made a considerable difference the russians being able to survive hitler.
> Eventually. But Stalingrad was Winter 42-43, lend lease only got started.
You're lying, again. See Table 1 above.
>>> the Soviets made their own tanks and planes.
>> Pity about
>> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=z3hP33KprskC&printsec=frontcover&...
> So one book has a provocative title. Doesn't make the title
> absolutely correct, nor does it mean linking twice is decisive.
It wasnt the title that is relevant, fool.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#USSR
> vs.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Production_figures
> So, 4k shermans vs 57k T-34's?
Still exposes your lie for the lie it always was.
> I'll take the Soviet contribution, thanks.
>> http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:0K9Km1vFLnEJ:lend-lease.airforce...
> And this link says 18% of the airforce. Even at that rate,
> the Allied Bombing Campaign ties down more of the Luftwaffe.
Irrelevant to your lie.
> Again, the *big* number, even in your link, is the trucks.
Pity you lied about being JUST trucks. In fact a hell of a lot
more METAL and food was moved than trucks ever were
and that made a considerable difference pre stalingrad too.
>>> And they only needed the trucks once they moved outside of
>>> Soviet-controlled territory, back into the areas the Germans took.
>> Wrong. And Lend Lease to russia wasnt just trucks anyway.
> Canned food, machine tools, locomotives, raw materials, gunpowder, yes, yes.
So you pig ignorantly lied.
> But the stuff takes a while to percolate through the system.
Like hell the food does.
> To defend the oil-producing areas means combat-ready stuff *now*.
They dont have to be used to defend the oil producing
areas when hitler is concentrating in moscow etc.
> Without the Western Front, maybe Hitler had a chance.
Separate matter entirely to what was being discussed,
whether Lend-Lease made a considerable difference.
> But if you only take away *Soviet* Lend Lease, he's still fighting crippled.
But without it, he may have managed to occupy western russia and the oil fields too.
>>> Until then, they had interior lines of supply with trains and such.
>>> The trucks were offensive, IOW.
>> Utterly mangled.
>>> Yes, lend lease helped them *win* WW2, but they had already avoided defeat.
>> Wrong.
>>> The Caucuses were defended successfully before we gave them the tools for offense.
>> Wrong.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_USSR
> You realize that link was utterly devoid of real content, right?
You're lying, again.
> Relevant links and well-formed arguments, please.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
> *SNIP SNIP*
Reversed.
>>>>> I suggest you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays
>>>>> out in great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.
>>>> Yes, but that came later, after the russians had managed
>>>> to survive the initial attack by hitler. If they had not done
>>>> that, the outcome would have been completely different.
>>> Again, lend lease only made an impact after the initial attack, and the soviet survival.
>> Wrong.
>>> Absent American trucks, what would have happened? Hmmm,
>>> I'd be surprised if Operation Bagration(1944) could be pulled off,
>>> and some other Soviet offensives before then would stall out
>>> earlier, but that mostly adds years to the war, and leaves the
>>> Germans with possibly enough reserves to throw back Normandy.
>>> My guess? Nukes fall on Berlin. If the Allies are still in it, absent
>>> that, I dunno. How many years of production did we give the Soviets
>>> in terms of trucks and such? How much more extermination in
>>> Eastern Europe could Hitler pull off, denying the Soviets the regional
>>> manpower they drafted after each successful offensive? Ugh, this
>>> topic is utterly morbid...
>>>>> Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
>>>>> repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
>>>> Sure, but thats a separate matter to whether lend lease was crucial to
>>>> the russian survival. Without that, there would have been no stalingrad etc.
>>> The stuff for the victory at Stalingrad(Nov 1942-Jan 1943) was mostly soviet-made.
>> The point is that stalingrad may well not have happened
>> without Lend-Lease and what preceeded it.
> How?
Basically without Lend-Lease and what preceeded it, Hitler may well have
taken moscow and moved on to take the oil fields in the south and that
may well have ensured that russia was out of the war forever.
> Yes, without the Western Front, we have a substantial Airforce
> and freed up 88's, but how much was *Lend Lease* necessary?
What is being discussed isnt whether its necessary, its the
original stupid pig ignorant claim that it had a minimal effect.
>>> Tanks were rolling off the factory lines and straight into battle.
>>> There was a reason the Germans feared the T-34 and made jokes about the Sherman.
>> Sure, but that all came after what I was talking about, Lend-Lease arguably
>> allowing russia to survive the initial attack and do that sort of thing later.
> T-34 is prototyped by January 1940, running off the production lines
> in Stalingrad in '41 and '42.
> Check the rest of my T-34 link.
Irrelevant to the rest of what was provided as part of Lend-Lease.
>> In fact if hitler had seized the oil fields first instead of bothering about moscow,
>> its quite possible that russia would have had no choice but to at least surrender
>> european russia and would never have been in any position to attack germany again.
> He needed to take Stalingrad to defend his attempt to grab Russian oil,
Wrong. And it isnt just russian oil either.
> he failed miserably. And talking about the loss of Lend-Lease while
> changing other variables is bad for isolating its effects, anyways.
Pity thats what the stupid original claim was about.
> Some question whether Moscow was a better objective than mentioned
> anyways, all train lines run through it, after all. ^_^ *shrug*
Train lines are irrelevant to taking the oil fields first.
> WW2 without the West sounds like a plausible Hitler victory, but WW2
> without *Soviet* Lend Lease... sounds like a bad, bloody idea, but not
> necessarily a War-loser. Just a reason to nuke Berlin, lose the stuff
> to drop on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and have a bloody invasion of Japan.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed, the original stupid
pig ignorant claim that Lend-Lease had a minimal effect.
> Lend Lease saved American and Eastern European lives, by shortening
> the Nazi occupation there and shortening the overall war in time to
> let us use our precious nukes on Japan. But it didn't win the war by
> itself. Anything more smacks of American cheerleading and jingoism.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
Dimensional Traveler
> On Aug 2, 11:22 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> paranormalized wrote
>>
>>
> You realize that link was utterly devoid of real content, right?
> Relevant links and well-formed arguments, please.
>
http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/documents/index.htm
--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.
Ilya2
Judging by his handle, I would say yes.
Androcles
"Ilya2" <il...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:bc1e6d1c-e083-4789...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> What is this, the transhuman version of "Sound of Trumpet"?
>
> Judging by his handle, I would say yes.
Is he sound of mind and body, besides trumpet?
aaron
> In article <h54gjq$rna$1...@news.datemas.de>, "aaron" <aar...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:proto-0426A7....@news.panix.com...
>> > In article <7dlq0kF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Lend-lease had a minimal effect, nowhere near decisive. I suggest
>> >> you pick up No Simple Victory by Norman Davis, which lays out in
>> >> great detail the argument that the Western Front was a sideshow.
>> >> Davis isn't an apologist for Stalin -- he quotes Robert Conquest
>> >> repeatedly and argues that Stalin and Hitler were equally evil.
>> >
>> > The African campaign, as I understand was important, however, IIUC.
>> >
>> > And the Western front was very much necessary for the future of Europe.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that absent a western front and assuming a Soviet
>> occupation all the way to the Atlantic that Europe would cease to exist?
>>
>> [insert smiley here]
>>
>> At least that makes the discussion SFnal.
>
> It would have been a very different Europe.
Without a doubt. But the two points at issue were intially [1] whether there
were examples of centrally managed enterprises that 'worked' and then [2]
how much of the effort and credit for winning WW2 the USSR could claim for
itself. Now value judgements on whether the outcome would be 'good' or 'bad'
were put forth. It was proffered as an example, hopefully humourous but
apparently a failure on my part.
>And a different England. You
> doubt that Stalin would have pushed to the ocean, if given the chance?
> To spread glorious revolution? "It's our right because we saved you from
> the Nazis."
I don't doubt it would have 'worked' and having succeeded the landmass of
Europe would still exist.
paranormalized
*SNIP SNIP*
>
> They dont have to be used to defend the oil producing
> areas when hitler is concentrating in moscow etc.
>
all the vitriol and assumption of bad-faith arguments?
Anyways, I have better things to do than argue with a person who
impolitely assumes I'm out to get them, and calls me a malicious liar
at every opportunity. I'll read the book you recommended, since I
just checked it out of the library, but I won't read any of your posts
if I can.
Toodles!
Jonathan Fisher
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> They dont have to be used to defend the oil producing
>> areas when hitler is concentrating in moscow etc.
> And with that basic mistake, the soviets win anyways, right?
But they wouldnt necessarily have done so without Lend-Lease,
essentially because the survival of moscow was a VERY narrow
thing and without Lend-Lease it might well not have happened.
If it had not happened, Hitler might well have managed to get the oil fields.
> So why all the vitriol and assumption of bad-faith arguments?
Because you were clearly attempting to bullshit your way out
of your predicament with your lies about content free links.
<reams of you desperate attempt to bullshit your way out of your
predicament that fools absolutely no one at all, flushed where it belongs>