Iowa caucus

gcomeau wrote: critically needed wartime aid[/b]

Critically? As far as I know, there are no large-scale actions on Donetsk frontlines.

Yeah, the aid was more critical than the Soviet Union was willing to admit after the war. While Russia was able to ramp up war production fairly quickly behind the Urals, British and American weapons from lend lease swelled the available weapons, hastening the moment when Russia could meet the Germanss on level ground and eventually swamp the Germans with its own production.

But perhaps the food imports were more important early. After Russia lost its food basket in the Ukraine, Russia was experiencing severe starvation which lend lease helped ease if not entirely eliminate.

Do you know what else we provided that was crucial? Trucks. Plain old trucks. By the end of the war, Russia was producing most of its own weapons. But it was transporting its armies around on Dodges and Studebakers. Perhaps it might be said that we put the Red Army on wheels.

Don

-

We seem to have suddenly switched topics somehow...

gcomeau wrote:We seem to have suddenly switched topics somehow...

Yeah, that happens. In the years that I have been on the forums, almost all threads get hijacked, usually after the subject has been exhausted. Then the subject gets changed. This thread is a good example. How much more is there to say about the Iowa caucus.


Don

-

n7axw wrote:

gcomeau wrote:We seem to have suddenly switched topics somehow...

Yeah, that happens. In the years that I have been on the forums, almost all threads get hijacked, usually after the subject has been exhausted. Then the subject gets changed. This thread is a good example. How much more is there to say about the Iowa caucus.


Don

-

Lol... true but I was talking about how we went from current day Ukraine aid to WW2 in one post.

That I think was my bad. I had lend lease on the brain and took Dilandu's comment to refer to refer to that where he was responding to the discussion on Ukraine.

Bet Dilandu got whiplash wondering how I got from point a to point b...

Don

-

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote: critically needed wartime aid[/b]

Critically? As far as I know, there are no large-scale actions on Donetsk frontlines.

There are large scale military operations occuring on their home planets.

In other fantasy land, Joe Biden is actually a political threat to Trump.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/02/09 ... ign-event/

n7axw wrote:That I think was my bad. I had lend lease on the brain and took Dilandu's comment to refer to refer to that where he was responding to the discussion on Ukraine.

Bet Dilandu got whiplash wondering how I got from point a to point b...

Don

-

Well, not exactly, because I saw this your post first But it was really funny)

And I would be the last person to dismiss the value of lend-lease, seriously. It was enormous help, especially in chemicals, explosives and such metals as copper, zink and aluminum. It is possible, that USSR may be able to win even without it (after all, Nazi self-destructing idiocy already started to bite them back), but the cost would be... dreadful to even imagine.

But we were talking about Ukrainean conflict) And frankly, I do not see US military help to Ukraine as any "critical". The conflict is low-grade now; mostly it is sporadic firefights on border, and shelling of civilian targets by most-definitely-not-nazies-because-nazi-is-only-the-one-who-are-against-America-and-those-who-against-Russia-are-freedom-fighters from volunteer battlions (Ukrainean military, by the way, really despise those "patriotic volunteers"). Neither actually required much of high-tech weapon or ammunition.

And I think even gcomeau did not doubt the fact, that if Kiev managed to make Ruissia REALLY angry, no ammount of US military help would gave Ukraine a snowball in hell chance to survive.

Dilandu wrote:

n7axw wrote:That I think was my bad. I had lend lease on the brain and took Dilandu's comment to refer to refer to that where he was responding to the discussion on Ukraine.

Bet Dilandu got whiplash wondering how I got from point a to point b...

Don

-

Well, not exactly, because I saw this your post first But it was really funny)

And I would be the last person to dismiss the value of lend-lease, seriously. It was enormous help, especially in chemicals, explosives and such metals as copper, zink and aluminum. It is possible, that USSR may be able to win even without it (after all, Nazi self-destructing idiocy already started to bite them back), but the cost would be... dreadful to even imagine.

But we were talking about Ukrainean conflict) And frankly, I do not see US military help to Ukraine as any "critical". The conflict is low-grade now; mostly it is sporadic firefights on border, and shelling of civilian targets by most-definitely-not-nazies-because-nazi-is-only-the-one-who-are-against-America-and-those-who-against-Russia-are-freedom-fighters from volunteer battlions (Ukrainean military, by the way, really despise those "patriotic volunteers"). Neither actually required much of high-tech weapon or ammunition.

And I think even gcomeau did not doubt the fact, that if Kiev managed to make Ruissia REALLY angry, no ammount of US military help would gave Ukraine a snowball in hell chance to survive.

On your last point, I agree. But the point really is that Mr. Trump was sabotaging a policy which was judged as important to national security for his personal gain contrary to both law and custom. That is not the same thing as saying that said policy is good or wise which, I am sure, can be argued both ways, depending on one's perspective.

One other thing from this post:The Germans constantly overplayed their hand in that war. I try to get my head around that and the only thing that makes sense is their innate sense of superiority over everybody else. There is no way they were going to win an attritional battle in the east. It was either a knockout punch or lose. But instead of focusing on the knockout punch, they spread themselves over hell's half acre and as the result was inevitable.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:
On your last point, I agree. But the point really is that Mr. Trump was sabotaging a policy which was judged as important to national security for his personal gain contrary to both law and custom. That is not the same thing as saying that said policy is good or wise which, I am sure, can be argued both ways, depending on one's perspective.

I strongly suspect, that Trump simply realize, that Ukraine have very little real value for US national security. The whole "support" thing is essentially one big denial of reality; USA gain exactly nothing out of here with the exception of worsening relations with Russia (which is, frankly, hardly a worthy goal). It have only symbolic meaning, and Trump seems to not consider the symbolic support as anything significant.

Essentially it boil down on "letter against spirit". Did Trump really broke the letter? Quite probably. Did he broke the spirit? Hardly, considering that the whole thing was spirit-less from the very beginning.

One other thing from this post:The Germans constantly overplayed their hand in that war. I try to get my head around that and the only thing that makes sense is their innate sense of superiority over everybody else. There is no way they were going to win an attritional battle in the east. It was either a knockout punch or lose. But instead of focusing on the knockout punch, they spread themselves over hell's half acre and as the result was inevitable.

Essentially yes. Nazi Germany was an awful mess where everybody have only a very vague idea what exactly are they doing. Hitler himself simply hated to give direct orders, instead preferring to demand that subordinates "feel the intent". It alone caused endless confusion. Considering the constant bickering and rivalry between Nazi bosses and their departments, and the anti-intellectual propaganda, the Germany was essentially falling apart from the very beginning.