WWII-Era Bomb Scare

@gamerman01

Agreed.

@Private:

Here is a different take that resonates for me:

I have seen it argued that both Germany and Japan* were strategically weak. Both lacked natural resources and needed access to those from elsewhere to maintain their war machines.

In the case of Japan that required secure supply lines from the East Indies, which their naval losses and strategic myopia denied them.

Germany needed to conquer territories that would secure those resources.

By contrast the allies were resource rich. Command of the seas gave access to resources from across the globe. Japan challenged US command of the Pacific for only a very short time frame. German U Boats did cause the Allies difficulties in the Atlantic for a longer period of course, but denying global resources to the UK is not the same as denying them to the USA, let alone gaining them for Germany.

Axis supremacy needed victory after victory in the face superior Allied production and manpower. The Allies only needed to deny them a sufficient proportion of those victories.

Of course, those that faced the Axis onslaught did not perceive any such “inevitable” Allied victory. And for a time those victories did keep coming …

*I include Japan in this answer because one of the reasons why Germany lost WW2 is that Japan never diverted enough allied resources away from the European theatre.

I agree with this, but that may not even fully capture all the reasons Germany lost.  In terms of just pure industrial production capacity Germany could not compete against the US, especially with the latter protected by its isolation from bombing.  I recently read an interesting book, Death Ride, that made much of Germany’s failure to develop long-range bombers, and with much of the USSR’s industry moved well East of Moscow Germany could not bomb it.  Göring apparently preferred lots of little short-range bombers to fewer and larger long-range bombers.  It also made much of the Germans’ decision to divert part of its Eastern Front ground forces to Italy leaving them under-supplied and outnumbered in Operation Citadel.  The near-impossibility of maintaining distant supply lines, despite Göring’s assurances that he could make up for it, have been discussed to death.

All-in-all, I think the reasons are so many that in retrospect it would have taken a near-miraculous perfect storm of events for Gemany to have emerged victorious.

@variance:

@axis_roll:

We shall drive a bullet into the forehead
Of the rotten fascist filth,
We shall build a solid coffin
For the scum of humanity!

This is why they won the war.  Best leave them Russians alone.

Another text along these lines is the oath shown from 11:20 to 12:20 in this video of Frank Capra’s Why We Fight: The Battle of Russia - Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKgciQ0FRNY.  I’m not sure if that particular bit of footage (which looks rather staged) originated in either Russia or Hollywood, but my understanding is that The Battle of Russia was presented in Russia during the war and was very favourably received.

Nice story.

I always thought it was a dude in a suit named Jamal?

@Cow:

I consider AA50 to be old.  I am not sure why we making comparisons to two older boards, revised and aa50.

I am talking about global, 1942, and 1941. Have you seen the allies in those boards? They are boring.

Good thing I haven’t taken the bait and bought those games  :evil:

Guys,

––Thanks for sharing the vid.

----Along the same lines, longest bombing mission, I believe the current title holder would be the B-52 bombers that took of from Barksdale AFB, Bossier City, La (NW La.) and flew to Afghanistan to “kick-off” that conflict. I might be remembering their destination incorrectly, but I’m TIRED.

“Tall Paul”

@Yanny:

The earth is warming up, I think theres pretty good evidence of that. Underground temperatures have risen a few degrees, polar ice caps are melting, all small signs. The cause is also probably a combination of greenhouse gases, the shifting equilibrium of the earth, and other small things. However it is a dangerous trend and we need to take steps to prevent it. Should it be our top priority, no.

The evidence is not as good as many people think. In the 1970s the trend was that temperatures were falling. It all depends on where you start counting from. An experiment with double the amount of carbon dioxide proved that plants with the increased carbon dioxide levels grew to double their normal size and could produce double the amount of oxygen, therefore sustaining a larger population. Even the satellite proof fails to take clouds into account, which lower he temperature a great deal.