Brexit: Celebrate the science writer as asshat!

No, it's you Splatter, and Seversky, who are wrong. Stalin theatened to make a pact with Germany long after their earlier pact was broken by Barbarossa. The Russian troops bitterly joked about some tinned meat we sent them being the fabled Second Front which Churchill had kept promising, but failing to deliver. There is a master-piece of a popular history of WWII, a trilogy, in fact, (on N Africa, Italy, and the advance on Germany) written by Rick Atkinson, a Pulitzer Prize-winner. For the best description of it, I must quote the blurb of the reviewer of the Wall St Journal' (... they can afford the best): 'Majestic.... Atkinson's achievement is to marry prodigious research with a superbly-organised narrative, and then to overlay the whole with writing as powerful and elegant as any great narrative of war.' It's full of overheard remarks and excerpts from letters to and from wives from privates, generals and statesmen. My favourite snatch of conversation was between Stalin and Zhukov, reported by another general at the interview, who was astonished at Zhukov's abrupt tone. But Stalin could not but admire him, after Zhukov had left him at an earlier interview, grumbling that if he couldn't have something or other, he (Stalin) had better send him to such and such place - which was where, in fact, a particularly dangerous battle was being waged ! Zhukov was indeed sent there, and true to his form throughout, he turned it round for his troops. He was like Blair Mayne ; troops that fought with him felt they were sure to win, and always did. Stalin : 'Shall we stay in Moscow ?' (The Germans were less than 15 miles away). Zhukov : 'We shall !' Which, as we know, they did, and it proved a wise call. Axel

Thanks for your interesting post, Kairosfocus. Denyse, I cannot begin to conceive hw anyone with an IQ above room temperature could fail to see what an utter, total, fascistic, wicked abomination the EU is ; and accordingly, the elementary sanity of Brexit. This article has an immense bearing, both on this matter of the EU (at least as a supranational state - a dream of Oswald Mosley) and on the very rationale behind 'uncommondecent.com'. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/ikes-second-warning-hint-it-is-not-the-military-industrial-complex/ I wonder if you are all familiar with it ? It's owner claims that it is the most highly consulted site in connection with global warming, etc. The louche trillionaires who keep control of all matters scientific.... Axel

PPS: A comparison, UK/ Yugoslavia: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/off-topic/brexit-initial-concerns-and-impacts/#comment-612255 kairosfocus

Splatter, Unfortunately for us, Mackinder & Spykman between them (and yes there is a difference over rimlands and shatterbelts . . . ) easily explain the geostrategic history of C20. Two German and one Russian grab for a continental base to project global power. All broken through Rimland-outer "island" North Atlantic maritime alliances. (Heavy equipment and resources still move by sea -- thus, choke points.) Unfortunately, as that fades, C21 looks even more unstable. Russia is a wild card and is playing dangerous games. Africa is the open continent, targetted by the IslamISTs and on a more commercial basis, China. China is also pushing into the S China sea, worrying the US. (Hence a good slice of talk on Pacific Pivot.) Persia is back on the stage, and is already on the Levant. Hezbollah is their foreign legion. The UK is pivotal to the stabilising alliance. (Formerly, it had the base to be chief guardian of the trade routes but after Jutland and WWI more broadly, that was over.) A rump UK is simply not good news. And no, this is not just armchair speculation; formerly things like this were widely understood. I suggest a read of Brzezinsky's The Grand Chessboard as a primer. (Though note my shift of focus to Africa as open and to the IslamIST global thrust. The Muslim Brotherhood, for one, actually has a 100 year global subjugation plan. Captured by Swiss Financial Police after 9/11. The North America branch civilisational- settlement jihad strategy is also directly relevant. Captured in Virginia, USA.) But geopolitical and geostrategic realism are often viewed with suspicion today, as they cut across the agendas of the globalists. Such are back, bigtime. KF PS: Serious chess games are 3 - 5 moves ahead of the board in the players' heads. No one would seriously hold that such runs counter to free will. kairosfocus

Though disagreeing, no disrespect intended, kf. Better a person looks out at the world and does their best to make sense of it, armchair of otherwise. Who doesnt speculate from their armchair. What is your profession? I would have thought you would have thought the future unpredictable. What I have learned from this is that even given trends it is impossible to predict what will happen in detail. Bookmakers, financiers, polls and politicians all miscalculated the referendum. And the public at large I think. If they can't guess that one day before the referendum, guessing what will happen on a global scale will be an exercise in imagination at best. Do you believe in free will? I also hope that Scotland doesn't leave the UK. Splatter

Splatter, we can wait and see how the events play out, never mind one liner dismissiveness. I am saying that a rump Britain would be destabilising in Europe and beyond, across the world so the Scots should think carefully on where they are going and what it may imply onwards. As to the issue that Africa is full of resources and is poorly governed and garrisoned, that is a truism, one that invites predators. FYI, the IslamISTS have long since declared that the "recovery"/ "reversion" of Africa to Islam is a definite goal. The ME land bridge in the Levant has been pivotally strategic and a problem for millennia. Persia is obviously back on the stage and is plainly at nuke threshold. That the W is in demographic collapse with the fecundity rates that are on the table is notorious. Socio-cultural collapse is even more evident. Economic troubles start with say the US's $100+ trillion unfunded obligations. None of these are particularly hard to confirm. I suggest to the Scots, please think twice. KF kairosfocus

Your second point, News, is entirely correct. Splatter

Severely is correct, kf your eccentric geopolitical revisionism and prognostications are a little off, IMO, and strike me as a bit armchair. Appreciate the sentiment, News, as a Brexiteer. Should be pointed out that thought re Germany is misplaced - would be better to say that Britain and Germany bankrolled EU from purely economic perspective, but its federalist and integrationist drive was French and Belgian. Former Soviet countries have their own viewpoints, the EU is good news for them. Anything the would be, after years of socialism, but some sensible voices in there. The formerly great South-Western nations are broke, having been simultaneously asset stripped, brain-drained, propped up, austerity laden, bailed out and humiliated. I truly feel for them, we have benefitted at their expense. Splatter

Seversky, Stalin did threaten a separate peace with Germany. Indeed, before Kursk, there were some strange negotiations. But note 9 above. KF PS: That the attack in the West was repeatedly postponed was not by German intent -- the Phoney War was not intended. The plan, notoriously, was revised to the von Manstein concept after a plane crashed and the original plans were passed to the Allies. And of course we tend to overlook the attack on Finland and the Scandinavian campaign that cost Germany much of its surface fleet. kairosfocus

Axel @ 4

News, the Russians beat something like 80 % of the German army ; our contribution was was relatively trivial. Of course, our ‘detaining’ the German troops that we did, in N Africa, then France, Belgium and Holland must have helped the Russians in some measure. The Russians broke the back of the German army at Stalingrad, where many more Russians died – as in other Russian cities – than the total Allied losses. Kursk and Pomarevka sealed the victory for the Allies.

True. It was the Russians which absorbed the biggest assault, mounted by the best army in the world at that time, eventually brought it to a halt and threw it back.

Stalin was so livid that Churchill and Roosevelt kept postponing the setting up of a second-front, that he threatened to do a deal with Hitler.

False. Stalin did do a deal with Hitler, the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. When the Nazis invaded Poland in the west in September of 1939, the Soviets marched in from the east. In practice, Britain's futile gesture of a mutual defense pact with Poland did nothing other than provide a cause for declaring war on Germany. Moreover, when Britain was fighting on as best it could on its own, it got sweet FA from the Soviets in the way of military assistance. Yet, when Russia finally was forced into the war, the Brits began sending convoys of weapons and materiel that they could ill afford to the Reds to help keep them afloat. If anyone should have been livid, it was Churchill.

And yes, it was economics. With Britain’s reliance of the parasitism of imperial pillage and plunder, and with the Germans’ discipline and industry (in the generic sense) it was the fact of their having overtaken Britain’s industrial output, which prompted Britain to attack Germany.

No. See above. Germany and Russia invaded Poland. England declared war on Germany based on the military pact with Poland. Poland was defeated and occupied. The Brits sent a small Expeditionary Force to France to support the French army. Nothing much happened after that until Germany invaded France through the Ardennes. The rest, as they say, is history. Seversky

Um, on the “surrender to Germany” thing, BOTH World Wars were CAUSED by England. In BOTH cases, Germany attempted to negotiate an END to the war soon after it started and continued to attempt to negotiate an end to the slaughter for most of each war. In BOTH cases, the wars continued because ENGLAND was fighting to DESTROY Germany as an ECONOMIC competitor–

Complete nonsense. Nobody except Germany wanted another world war after the horrors and prodigious cost of the first. Look up "Neville Chamberlain" and "appeasement". The Brits bent over backwards to avoid a second round. Not least because they knew Germany had a bigger population and economy and was way ahead in terms of rearmament on land and in the air. The Royal Navy was still ahead at sea. After the BEF was kicked out at Dunkirk and France collapsed, the Brits had to face the fact they had no realistic chance of beating Germany on their own. That's why there was talk of an armistice centered around Lord Halifax. Churchill inspired the country to fight on against the odds but even he was pinning his hopes on American support and eventual entry into the war. Without the US, he knew the best he could hope for was a stalemate

So in both World Wars, the ONLY English war aim was the destruction of Germany as a country. No German revolution to replace the Kaiser or the Nazis would have changed that, unless the revolution also destroyed the German economy.

England's aim in both world wars was to defeat its enemies. That's what you do when you get into a war. It was the French that really wanted to cripple Germany after WWI, not least because they had suffered very heavily and the war had been fought mostly on their territory Seversky

I’m not a Brit, but were I one, I’d sure vote Brexit. Several reasons:

Why am I not surprised?

1. If Britain had wanted to be run by Germany, she could have surrendered in either of the two World Wars. But she didn’t. She defeated Germany in both. History matters.

Yes, it does. And that includes post-WW2, where a continent that was largely in ruins turned itself into a successful, prosperous and stable common market in around two decades. How often has that happened before?

2. One person who clearly recognized all that was WWII era French President Charles deGaulle. He vetoed England’s entry into the European Common Market precisely because he had lived in England, knew English, and understood that the culture of the English-speaking peoples is different. For one thing, we have each other, worldwide.

De Gaulle never forgave the US and UK the humiliation of seeing them pull France's chestnuts out of the fire in WWII. No good deed goes unpunished. Seversky

Of possible interest: The English-speaking peoples do get along quite well. There are only two sovereign jurisdictions in North Ameria north of the Rio Grande, neither of which is at all likely to go to war with the other. There are about 62 subordinate jurisdictions, none of which has any right to declare war on any other. There has not been a war in North America since 1865, probably on that account. The United States (50 states) is unilingual anglophone. Canada is technically bilingual but the large majority is anglophone. Quebec is the only officially francophone province. I am not, of course, claiming that the English language as such is a unifier but I suspect that a common language promotes the kinds of ties that may reduce the tendency to violence within the group. News

De Gaulle's point when he vetoed Britain from the European Common Market a half century ago was that Britain was an island power, not a continental one. That was an acute observation. Island powers are more flexible as to their allies. De Gaulle saw that Britain would always have allies in the English-speaking peoples, probably irrespective of where in the world they lived. So Britain's loyalty to Europe would be half-hearted at best. At any rate, both sides were making rational calculations and the weekly Asshat Award goes to science writers who think otherwise. News

Axel, While the Russians (and Poles fighting with them -- by 44/45 10% of the Russian army were Poles, and 10% were women . . . ) did defeat 75% of the German land forces, at horrific exchange rates, the story is more complicated. The need of the Germans to fight a submarine campaign in the longest battle of the war -- the battle of the Atlantic -- and the need to devote huge effort and resources to fight the air war were key constraints in many ways. The 88 mm guns shooting down Harris' bombers [60,000 airmen killed was it . . . at casualty rates worse than the overall one for frontline troops in WW I] and American Bombers were not there to shoot up the Russian tanks. (And yes the British 87.6 mm 25 pounder was also a very good gun-howitzer.) Remember, 4 - 6 of those devastating guns by Krupp or Rheinmetal (it was a family of guns, not a single design) was often all that was needed to stop a tank breakthrough, again and again. Ask the 8th Army's Tankies about that one. The steel that built the subs was not there to build German tanks. The manpower and logistics drains were significant also. And yes, burning city after city to the ground, horrible though it was [to the point many want to simply forget Bomber Harris], helped tell in the end. Then, on the second front, in fact until the German Air Force was broken from Big Week Feb 1944 on -- requiring the Mustang long range fighter with its American airframe married to Pratt & Whitney built Rolls Royce Merlin Engines -- an invasion in France was not feasible. Yes, the Mustang was a project of The English Speaking Peoples. Ordered by the RAF, discovered under-powered but a Merlin could be fitted to transform it. I suspect the common inch measure helped there. The lessons of North Africa were pivotal, and the hard lessons of Italy -- a second front in Europe in 1943 -- told too. In fact, in France two fronts were opened that then unified: Normandy and Southern France. As it was, the long stalemate in the hedgerows and the impact of the Battle of the Bulge showed how near run it was. The logistics crisis in the campaign was also telling. So, the matter was complex. KF kairosfocus

By the way, this discussion got started on account of my observation that a science writer presumed that Brexit was just SO wrong that some "scientific" explanation is required for why people would vote Leave rather than Stay. In fact, both positions were argued on rational grounds. In the long run, Britain does not stand to lose much by leaving the EU. It is laughable to hear some French minister bellow that English will no longer be a third-priority EU language. Excuse me. English is the language of the Internet and aerospace. Change that, will you, and then get back to us. It is sad to see science writers joining what Brendan O'Neill has called the "howl against democracy," but - as Barry says - scratch a progressive and what do you find but a fascist. News

rvb8, it's not so much that the English-speaking peoples won the war as that we all worked together. That's what Britain has that France doesn't. I do not share your noble view of civil servants. They lobby for private control of public goods and for the loss of the freedom of other citizens. They must alway be kept in severe check. News

'Civil servants', may lobby for good science, but they are in no way comparable to business executives. Business pushes for profit (as they should), they are not constrained by ethics, the electorate, or good science. The only thing that constrains business is loss of profit. Recently public opinion has been moving toward 'coorporite responsibility', and environmental protection; business responds, not for any altruistic reasons, but merely to retain customers and enhance profit. For this reason, although I am sceptical of government, I trust it infinately more than business, whose strategy is clear, but tactics always hidden. As for a comparison between WWI and WWII. Well I like to think WWII was fought for reasons slightly more noble than WWI; and yes, it was the Russians crushing Germany, the Chinese (Communist and KMT) crushing the Japanese, the US industrially, and crushing the Japanese in the Pacific, and the British, at first resisting, and then winning the 'U' boat war, that did it. The idea that it was the, 'English Speaking' peoples that won the war is ludicrous. rvb8

All I know for sure is that it isn't clear that the English-speaking peoples need the EU. Thus Brexit was not an irrational decision Maybe wrong but not irrational. Our asshat author assumes that it must be irrational. Why? Admittedly it looks just SO different from Canada. News

News, the Russians beat something like 80 % of the German army ; our contribution was was relatively trivial. Of course, our 'detaining' the German troops that we did, in N Africa, then France, Belgium and Holland must have helped the Russians in some measure. The Russians broke the back of the German army at Stalingrad, where many more Russians died - as in other Russian cities - than the total Allied losses. Kursk and Pomarevka sealed the victory for the Allies. Stalin was so livid that Churchill and Roosevelt kept postponing the setting up of a second-front, that he threatened to do a deal with Hitler. And yes, it was economics. With Britain's reliance of the parasitism of imperial pillage and plunder, and with the Germans' discipline and industry (in the generic sense) it was the fact of their having overtaken Britain's industrial output, which prompted Britain to attack Germany. What bought that war to an end, however, was not the fighting on the battle-fields, but the blockading of German ports by the Royal Navy, leading to starvation of the populace. 800,000 civilians are said to have perished, according to article I read yesterday, though another source had said that few had actually starved to death. Often its infections caused by a weakened immune system that causes such deaths, isn't it ? Axel

mahuna at 2: This is not a politics site but I would respectfully draw attention to the fact that what defeated Germany was the *English-speaking peoples*. What drew together England, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and many African and Caribbean countries against Germany? (= the ability to understand a common language.) Do you really believe it was economics? Have you no idea how wealthy Canada, for example, is? (If we ever get around to inventory.) Clearly not. Economic problems are actually negligible around here. News

Um, on the "surrender to Germany" thing, BOTH World Wars were CAUSED by England. In BOTH cases, Germany attempted to negotiate an END to the war soon after it started and continued to attempt to negotiate an end to the slaughter for most of each war. In BOTH cases, the wars continued because ENGLAND was fighting to DESTROY Germany as an ECONOMIC competitor-- [Churchill explained} "British policy for 400 years has been to oppose the strongest power in Europe by weaving together a combination of other countries strong enough to face the bully [sic]. Sometimes it is Spain, sometimes the French monarchy, sometimes the French Empire, and sometimes Germany. I have no doubt about who it is now [Germany]. But if France set up to claim the over-lordship of Europe, I should equally endeavour to oppose them." ("Churchill, a Life" by Gilbert Martin) So in both World Wars, the ONLY English war aim was the destruction of Germany as a country. No German revolution to replace the Kaiser or the Nazis would have changed that, unless the revolution also destroyed the German economy. And of course no German offer of a negotiated peace that left England (and France) independent and unoccupied would satisfy the English game of preventing a continental economic union lead by Germany ("the engine that drove the European economy"). After 1945, England could no longer afford to play their game, since the continuation of WW2 had made England a client of the USA, and the USA quickly realized it needed the Germans to re-arm to prevent a Russian invasion of Western Europe. mahuna

"Anyway, Happy Brexit, happy Canada Day, and happy Fourth of July." _________ Indeed, happy Independence Day. mw