Best Of

@hzeffman

NEW: Who was John Pond?

This August 2009 email exchange which was forwarded to Epstein included Mandelson, the PM's PPS Jeremy Heywood, the minister/adviser Shriti Vadera and... John Pond.

Two sources have told the BBC that John Pond was in fact Gordon Brown, then the PM

https://x.com/hzeffman/status/2018332431976218806?s=20

I am not sure how this news clears Epstein and implicates Brown in the alleged criminal insider trading scam.

It appears to show that Mandy was forwarding emails on government matters, from the PM, to his pal Epstein.

That sounds like the Official Secrets Act has entered the chat.

Only a small subset of emails on government matters would be covered by the Official Secrets Act, wouldn't they?

... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?

I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.

[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]

Two word answer: Bretton Woods.

Edit: your edit hit first.

Or three - World War Two.

To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.

This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006.
...

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.

Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...

If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).

Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.

So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.

There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?

A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.

OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.

IN 45 or 46 the communists would have been in Paris...

Unless Hitler put of Barbarossa until later, and then, and then...

The forecast for Berlin, August 1945 in that scenario - "Very bright, with daytime temperatures reaching 10 million degrees. Wind gusts of up to Mach 2."

Interesting question (well to me) - would they have nuked Berlin? Why didn't they nuke Tokyo?

Opinion was divided - bombing Berlin was thought to be difficult, since the German air force was still a factor. See the losses. While a B29 would be higher and faster than a B17, it would be one of a handful of planes, unless the US 8th Airforce converted to B29s. And that had a whole host of problems.

The alternative was a target like Kiel - something near or on the seacoast.

With Japan, the issue was doing damage - Tokyo was a ruin already (much worse than Berlin would ever be) - and it was thought that killing the Emperor would cause the Japanese to go berserk and literally fight to the death.

@hzeffman

NEW: Who was John Pond?

This August 2009 email exchange which was forwarded to Epstein included Mandelson, the PM's PPS Jeremy Heywood, the minister/adviser Shriti Vadera and... John Pond.

Two sources have told the BBC that John Pond was in fact Gordon Brown, then the PM

https://x.com/hzeffman/status/2018332431976218806?s=20

Right Gordo, we need a back channel to you, so we need you to come up with a nom de guerre...thinks....I'll be Pond, John Pond....its can be anything yopu like Gordon....I want to be John Pond.

That's probably a typo, he meant James Pond, underwater agent.