On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:16:02 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 9:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 8:54 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but
sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be
looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German.
If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the
summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone
would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be
neutral at the time.
If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa
with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans
pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along
with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would
get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try.



The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related
causes and had 671,801 total injured.

The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000
fatalities with 14,685,593 injured.

That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a
Putin lover.



Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from
about 8 million to 20 million.


What does that have to do with sacrifices made by the USSR in WWII?

Try to pay attention.




Life is considered cheap in Russia and lots of deaths may not be a strong
motivator. Get it?


No. Motivator for what? Kicking an invading army's ass?
I was commenting on sacrifices made in WWII.

I guess it's impossible for me to think like you.



Those sacrfices might not have been a motivator for the Sov’s land snatch.

I am not sure you can call a 4 1/2 year campaign against a very
motivated German army a "snatch".
They were just following a 4000 year tradition. You get to keep what
you take in a war. It was even true after WWI setting into motion
problems that still plague us today in the middle east. I am actually
surprised the French gave up their sector of Germany is easily as they
did. If it wasn't for pressure from the US they may have still been
there. The French, since it was contiguous territory, thought it
should be theirs anyway. They did annex the Saar for a while until we
made them give it back.

On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:47:36 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be
looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German.
If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the
summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone
would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be
neutral at the time.
If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa
with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans
pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along
with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would
get there. I am not even sure we would try.



The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related
causes and had 671,801 total injured.

The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000
fatalities with 14,685,593 injured.

That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a
Putin lover.

Remember that harry is a giant asshole.

wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:03:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 8:54 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but
sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be
looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German.
If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the
summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone
would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be
neutral at the time.
If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa
with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans
pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along
with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would
get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try.



The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related
causes and had 671,801 total injured.

The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000
fatalities with 14,685,593 injured.

That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a
Putin lover.



Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from
about 8 million to 20 million.


What does that have to do with sacrifices made by the USSR in WWII?

Try to pay attention.




Life is considered cheap in Russia and lots of deaths may not be a strong
motivator. Get it?

It's a good thing too. If the Russians had of worried about the
casualties and sued for peace in 1941-42 as Hitler thought they would
and Stalin had pulled back to the territory he could keep, UK would
have been crushed, long before there was anything we could have done
to stop them.


Was mostly the Russian winter that got the Germans. When I was with NCR,
one of the customers data center manager was a German. We were talking
about Mercedes and fine German Engineering. Otto spoke up and said it
sucked. He was on the Russian front as a German artillery man. He said
when winter came, their 88’s froze up. Could not be fired. When they
fired, were extremely accurate. He said during the winter, the Russian
guns only hit in the general area they were aimed. But they were a
fraction bigger than his Weapon and could fire the German shells, but not
the reverse. So, we sat and got the **** shot out of us with our own
ammo. Some movies of the Russian retreating at Stalingrad and the lake
ice is 4�of water on top as they hauled ass. Prevented the Russians from
following.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:25:50 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:05:55 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:18:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/14/2018 12:11 PM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 12:13:42 UTC-3, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:59:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/13/18 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:29:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


Norway is smart about money and resources...from Wiki:

In March 2017, the Government Pension Fund controlled assets were valued
at approximately US$913 billion (equal to US$182,000 per capita), which
is about 178% of Norway's current GDP. It is the largest sovereign
wealth fund in the world. The fund controls about 1.3% of all listed
shares in Europe, and more than 1% of all the publicly traded shares in
the world. The Norwegian Central Bank operates investment offices in
London, New York, and Shanghai. Guidelines implemented in 2007 allow the
fund to invest up to 60% of the capital in shares (maximum of 40%
prior), while the rest may be placed in bonds and real-estate. As the
stock markets tumbled in September 2008, the fund was able to buy more
shares at low prices. In this way, the losses incurred by the market
turmoil was recuperated by November 2009.

Other nations with economies based on natural resources, such as Russia,
are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The
investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical
guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies
that produce parts for nuclear weapons. Norway's highly transparent
investment scheme is lauded by the international community. The future
size of the fund is closely linked to the price of oil and to
developments in international financial markets.

In 2000, the government sold one-third of the state-owned oil company
Statoil in an IPO. The next year, the main telecom supplier, Telenor,
was listed on Oslo Stock Exchange. The state also owns significant
shares of Norway's largest bank, DnB NOR and the airline SAS. Since
2000, economic growth has been rapid, pushing unemployment down to
levels not seen since the early 1980s (unemployment in 2007: 1.3%). The
international financial crisis has primarily affected the industrial
sector, but unemployment has remained low, and was at 3.3% (86,000
people) in August 2011.

Norway contains significant mineral resources, and in 2013, its mineral
production was valued at US$1.5 billion (Norwegian Geological Survey
data). The most valuable minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone),
building stone, nepheline syenite, olivine, iron, titanium, and nickel.

Norway is also the world's second-largest exporter of fish (in value,
after China). Hydroelectric plants generate roughly 98–99% of Norway's
electric power, more than any other country in the world.

Somehow, I think the Norwegians will figure out how to secure their future.

I am sure they will because they "privatized" their old age pension
fund and invested it in real things instead of just spending the money
and putting IOUs in the box. They are not dipping into the general
fund or borrowing money to pay their pensioners.
Their "future" is secure as long as we keep them safe and they should
doing that themselves, not sponging off of us.


And, once again, without our international commitments, there would be
more justification for shrinking our outrageous military budgets.

So why don't we? I would start with Europe.

A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or not.



It would be interesting for historians to speculate on what the
planet would be like today if the USA (and Canada) had completely
followed a "we'll mind are own business" policy since the end of WWII.


How about since prior to WWI?

You mean like the turn of the century when we engineered the taking of
Panama? (no canal) or all of the stuff we got from the Spanish
American war?. You could even go back to the Mexican war.
I think they like to point out the end of WWII because that was when
the world pretty much stopped using wars as an excuse for Europeans
and Americans to take other people's land ... well maybe with one
exception.

No, what would the world be like if we had just stayed home, as donnee suggested, from about 1913
on?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:48:11 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be
looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German.
If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the
summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone
would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be
neutral at the time.
If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa
with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans
pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along
with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would
get there. I am not even sure we would try.

Sounds like you watched WWII in Color!

On 6/14/18 10:08 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 21:16:02 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 9:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 8:54 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/14/18 8:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but
sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be
looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German.
If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the
summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone
would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be
neutral at the time.
If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa
with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans
pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along
with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would
get there.Â* I am not even sure we would try.



The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related
causes and had 671,801 total injured.

The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000
fatalities with 14,685,593 injured.

That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a
Putin lover.



Estimates vary, but the number of Russians killed by Stalin range from
about 8 million to 20 million.


What does that have to do with sacrifices made by the USSR in WWII?

Try to pay attention.




Life is considered cheap in Russia and lots of deaths may not be a strong
motivator. Get it?


No. Motivator for what? Kicking an invading army's ass?
I was commenting on sacrifices made in WWII.

I guess it's impossible for me to think like you.



Those sacrfices might not have been a motivator for the Sov’s land snatch.

I am not sure you can call a 4 1/2 year campaign against a very
motivated German army a "snatch".
They were just following a 4000 year tradition. You get to keep what
you take in a war. It was even true after WWI setting into motion
problems that still plague us today in the middle east. I am actually
surprised the French gave up their sector of Germany is easily as they
did. If it wasn't for pressure from the US they may have still been
there. The French, since it was contiguous territory, thought it
should be theirs anyway. They did annex the Saar for a while until we
made them give it back.



I assume your reference to "problems that still plague us" is just an
oblique way of bringing up your objections to the Balfour Declaration
and the promise of Great Britain to re-establish a Jewish state in the
Middle East.

The John flushes his head...

No, what would the world be like if we had just stayed home, as donnee suggested, from about 1913Â*
on?Â*


Where did I say y'all should have stayed home, Johnny?
Y'all loved being policeman of the world so quit crying about the expenses you incurred.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:47:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/14/2018 7:48 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be
looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German.
If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the
summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone
would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be
neutral at the time.
If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa
with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans
pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along
with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would
get there. I am not even sure we would try.



The United States suffered 419,400 fatalities for all WWII related
causes and had 671,801 total injured.

The Soviet Union suffered somewhere between 20,000,000 to 27,000,000
fatalities with 14,685,593 injured.

That was the only point I was trying to make but now Harry calls me a
Putin lover.


Harry just has to call you something.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:31:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:48:11 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:37:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


The USA did a lot to help beat the Germans and save Europe but sometimes
I think we tend to minimize the contributions and sacrifices made
by Russia.

It the Germans had not screwed up and attacked Russia we might be
looking at a completely different Europe, one that speaks German.
If the Germans had simply concentrated on invading the UK in the
summer of 41, and not instituting operation Barbarosa, I doubt anyone
would have been able to stop them. The US was still pretending to be
neutral at the time.
If we really had to try to take back all of Europe from Western Africa
with no infrastructure to support an invasion force and the Germans
pretty much controlling the Atlantic from Gibraltar to Iceland along
with choking off the Med and owning it, I don't even know how we would
get there. I am not even sure we would try.

Sounds like you watched WWII in Color!

.... or just about any other objective look at the war. The Germans had
the ability to own all of Europe but Hitler let his ego and racism
override his general's advice. He thought the Russians would be easy
to beat and that was the worst mistake of the war.
The Japanese really screwed him tho by attacking Pearl Harbor and
getting the US into the war. Then he doubled down on that by declaring
war on us himself. If he had just stayed quiet about the US and let us
turn our focus west we might have actually backed off the help we were
giving the Brits.
So many of the things that affected major turning points were really
bad decisions or in decisions by Hitler. I am watching Hitler's Inner
Circle now on Netflix. They are talking about all of the infighting
among the higher ups in the reich. It certainly does not look like one
big happy family.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:43:05 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

The John flushes his head...

No, what would the world be like if we had just stayed home, as donnee suggested, from about 1913*
on?*


Where did I say y'all should have stayed home, Johnny?
Y'all loved being policeman of the world so quit crying about the expenses you incurred.

Perhaps I misunderstood. What did you mean by this comment:

"A lot of your military costs are by your own doing...that is sticking your beak into any and every
trouble spot. Viet Nam was a good example. You like to project your power whether it's requested or
not."

What would have happened had we *not* stuck our beak into the trouble spot whether requested or not
- for WWI and WWII?

Perhaps you'd care to honestly answer the question?