Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
They weren't. Japan never did declare war on the USSR, although ironically the war between them, which lasted for a month of shooting, is still technically going on as they've never signed a formal peace treaty, relying on this instead:
Binged watched season 2 last week, utterly bonkers, utterly brilliant.
Isn't it fantastic? Superbly amusing
*cough* I did recommend this on PB some time ago...
It is absolutely brilliant.
The having sex with your mother-in-law up against the window and then her falling out of it mid thrust and scene dying had me laughing so much I needed oxygen.
I love the running joke about horses. Everyone keeps giving her a pony
It's genius
I didn't even know they'd done a Season 2. Loved Season 1 though.
Season 2 is even better than Season 1. Amazingly, And I loved Season 1
The only thing wrong with it is the title. "The great". Boring and generic. Shame
Otherwise it is sensationally good. The writing the costumes the plots: everything. The acting is world class: the perfect mix of comedy, farce, hauteur, sexiness, ribaldry, and amusingly random violence. One of the funniest shows I've ever watched
What makes it even "greater" is that if you've read some Russian history of this time you realise that despite the show's lunacy, it is depicting a certain reality. Aristocratic Russia of the 18th century was bonkers. People constantly drinking themselves to death. Peter the Great with his dwarf weddings. This is what it was like
I recommend this brilliant book as a good place to start:
Johnson's special sauce has gone rancid and I don't see any potential replacement being able to keep the current Tory voting coalition together. Truss is my dream replacement. The one I fear the most is Sunak as he is a very rare example of a competent cabinet minister, though it is all relative. The only thing Hunt has going for him is that he is not Johnson.
Really? He ran The Department of Health for longer than anyone ever has IIRC and pretty competently. He didn't clash too much with the vested interests but this was his brief (the Tory detoxification brief re the Holy Cow/NHS). He is highly competent, consistent and honest. Everything the current incumbent is not.
Let's not get carried away. He's better than Johnson but he's also got this on his record:
A fair criticism that doesn't do him credit, but I still think he is one of the few grown ups available. I don't rate Sunak or any of the other possibles, but even so, even the Downing Street cat would be an improvement on Johnson
I agree that he's competent, but I'm not sure that I would rate him as honest as he is competent, at all. On the other hand, Johnson has shown himself to be neither.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
So what's the next step in this saga? Will the letters go in? Will a minister resign? Is there a modern equivalent of the stalking horse who could break cover and publicly campaign for the 54 letters?
One of the leading cabinet members resigning is currently my guess.
Someone who is lagging behind at the half way stage in the next leadership stakes (i.e. now) but also subtly positioning themselves for a run.
Someone like Gove wouldn't surprise me (but Frost resigning did). However he might not be enough on his own.
As an aside, someone on an earlier thread mentioned that Mark Harper doesn't have red wall credentials and so ruled him out as Tory leader. I'd disagree with that: working class lad from a council estate made good, excellent campaigner and a good communicator. A safe pair of hands. Reminds me of John Major at his height.
If I were betting on next leader, it would go something like this:
Possible runners but unlikely to do well:
Fox Davis McVey Shapps Brady Gove Patel Zahawi Javid (so underwhelming)
People who might surprise:
Kwarteng Baker Harper Raab Wallace Barclay Dowden
The favourites for the last two:
Hunt Truss Sunak
Interesting nobody from Scotland. Though that is probably just chance.
Govey is one of yours!
Sorry - should have been clear. As always I meant a MP for a Scottish constituency rather than personally by birth. That is the issue I had in mind, thinking about EVEL. Now edited.
Well, there is only 1 Scottish Tory MP who predates the 2017 election.
SirNorfolk Passmore: you are wrong, they will go hell for leather.
You mean LDs in Erdington? No way. Lost deposit, nailed on.
I think the point has been made by OGH that the Lib Dems at the moment the Lib Dems decide whether to go in hard and win, or not to bother at all. That isn't a random decision - they are looking at the potential of C&A or North Shrophire as fertile areas. The prospect in Birmingham Ergington is utterly negligible.
Also, if they want to encourage the sort of tactical voting that they benefited from in North Shropshire, making a big push in a Labour seat from a base of 3.7% would be insane.
I live in a seat where the Labour vote was 7.9%. I can well imagine some of that going LibDem, if the general trend of focusing on different seats is maintained. That does however require some reciprocal restraint.
Johnson's special sauce has gone rancid and I don't see any potential replacement being able to keep the current Tory voting coalition together. Truss is my dream replacement. The one I fear the most is Sunak as he is a very rare example of a competent cabinet minister, though it is all relative. The only thing Hunt has going for him is that he is not Johnson.
Really? He ran The Department of Health for longer than anyone ever has IIRC and pretty competently. He didn't clash too much with the vested interests but this was his brief (the Tory detoxification brief re the Holy Cow/NHS). He is highly competent, consistent and honest. Everything the current incumbent is not.
Let's not get carried away. He's better than Johnson but he's also got this on his record:
A fair criticism that doesn't do him credit, but I still think he is one of the few grown ups available. I don't rate Sunak or any of the other possibles, but even so, even the Downing Street cat would be an improvement on Johnson
I'd forgotten about that. The fact he's not as bad s Johnson isn't here or there. If Johnson goes for dishonesty whoever takes over has to be whiter than white.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? More like a major naval setback. Eventually the overwhelming industrial power of the USA would have won any war with Japan, unless the Japs (or their Nazi allies) had got nukes first
Japan never had the strength to invade and conquer the USA and without that any war was ultimately doomed to defeat,
Binged watched season 2 last week, utterly bonkers, utterly brilliant.
Isn't it fantastic? Superbly amusing
*cough* I did recommend this on PB some time ago...
It is absolutely brilliant.
The having sex with your mother-in-law up against the window and then her falling out of it mid thrust and scene dying had me laughing so much I needed oxygen.
I love the running joke about horses. Everyone keeps giving her a pony
It's genius
Yup.
I binged season 2 of The Great and season 3 of Succession over Christmas, absolute genius both of them.
That scene at the public company meeting to deal with the rape and sexual revelations and someone decides to play 'Rape Me' by Nirvana on loudspeakers was genius, I felt so guilty for laughing.
Binged watched season 2 last week, utterly bonkers, utterly brilliant.
Isn't it fantastic? Superbly amusing
*cough* I did recommend this on PB some time ago...
It is absolutely brilliant.
The having sex with your mother-in-law up against the window and then her falling out of it mid thrust and scene dying had me laughing so much I needed oxygen.
I love the running joke about horses. Everyone keeps giving her a pony
It's genius
Yup.
I binged season 2 of The Great and season 3 of Succession over Christmas, absolute genius both of them.
That scene at the public company meeting to deal with the rape and sexual revelations and someone decides to play 'Rape Me' by Nirvana on loudspeakers was genius, I felt so guilty for laughing.
It was Kendall!
I know, when I meant someone I meant the writing staff came up with that genius idea.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
Johnson's special sauce has gone rancid and I don't see any potential replacement being able to keep the current Tory voting coalition together. Truss is my dream replacement. The one I fear the most is Sunak as he is a very rare example of a competent cabinet minister, though it is all relative. The only thing Hunt has going for him is that he is not Johnson.
Really? He ran The Department of Health for longer than anyone ever has IIRC and pretty competently. He didn't clash too much with the vested interests but this was his brief (the Tory detoxification brief re the Holy Cow/NHS). He is highly competent, consistent and honest. Everything the current incumbent is not.
Let's not get carried away. He's better than Johnson but he's also got this on his record:
A fair criticism that doesn't do him credit, but I still think he is one of the few grown ups available. I don't rate Sunak or any of the other possibles, but even so, even the Downing Street cat would be an improvement on Johnson
I'd forgotten about that. The fact he's not as bad s Johnson isn't here or there. If Johnson goes for dishonesty whoever takes over has to be whiter than white.
Not necessarily (though I would prefer if that were the case); Johnson has put the bar so low that even Robert Mugabe might be considered a truthful and honest chap by comparison.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
Well indeed, the US reason for not outright defeat was because as you rightly say the four carriers that were by luck not in harbour. Had they been so, history might have looked somewhat different in the Pacific.
Eden is remember for Suez and his rift with the US. Boris will be remembered for getting Brexit done
Eden will be remembered more fondly than BoZo
Eden was quite a good Foreign Secretary for example.
If only he hadn't become PM, he'd have ended his career with a stellar reputation.
The piece I'm hoping to finish this weekend says Boris Johnson wanted to be Churchill but in fact he's Chamberlain, getting Brexit done was his Munich Agreement, something he wished to have changed later.
Did Chamberlain regret Munich? My understanding is that he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew Hitler couldn't be trusted. But he also knew Britain wasn't ready. He sold out Czechoslovakia and his own reputation for a vital extra 18 months preparation time.
IIRC he regretted that it didn't stop war between the UK and Germany, he had hoped Hitler would be happy with what he had and the fact plenty of Brits were going to die.
His reasons for Munich were, IIRC
- Britain wasn't ready. Germany wasn't ready either, but this wasn't known, due to intelligence failures - To create a definite line in the sand with the guarantee for Poland - A last try to avoid a World War.
If anyone else had been leader of Germany, there would have no war. Only Hitler really wanted war - the rest of the Nazis and the Generals were afraid of the outcome.
The big mistake of Munich was sidelining the Soviets, who were the only ones capable of joining the Anglo-French alliance to make it credible. It also rather pushed Stalin who had vigorously opposed Facism into the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
There is a whiff of Chamberlain at Munich over the current US-Russia talks over Ukraine. Deciding the fate of a country that is not allowed to represent itself.
The only slight problem with that was that the Soviets were determined to er... modify the borders of Europe. As they did.
Stalin thought that in Hitler he had finally found someone he could deal with as an equal. Which says quite a bit about Stalin.
Chamberlain wanted to intervene in the Winter War in Finland. Against the Sovs. Like 20 years previously, actually. No wondfer they were a biut twitchy.
That would be the war where a big country decided it wanted a piece of a little country because it.. felt like it.
If Stalin wanted more friends, then a step on that road is playing nice with others.
Would have been interesting fighting the Sovs and the Germans at the same time.
My friend, a history graduate, wrote an alternative history on those lines.
Soviets help Germany in North Africa and take Egypt, we have a German-Soviet invasion of Iran, instead of the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Britain is cut off from the world and oil.
Soviets/Germans land in Ireland and use it as a staging post for the invasion of Britain.
Latter seems pointless - go there, expose your LOCs to the RN, then invade across the Irish Sea. Might as well head straight for SE England and NE England (for the Sovs). But anyway.
Johnson's special sauce has gone rancid and I don't see any potential replacement being able to keep the current Tory voting coalition together. Truss is my dream replacement. The one I fear the most is Sunak as he is a very rare example of a competent cabinet minister, though it is all relative. The only thing Hunt has going for him is that he is not Johnson.
Really? He ran The Department of Health for longer than anyone ever has IIRC and pretty competently. He didn't clash too much with the vested interests but this was his brief (the Tory detoxification brief re the Holy Cow/NHS). He is highly competent, consistent and honest. Everything the current incumbent is not.
Let's not get carried away. He's better than Johnson but he's also got this on his record:
A fair criticism that doesn't do him credit, but I still think he is one of the few grown ups available. I don't rate Sunak or any of the other possibles, but even so, even the Downing Street cat would be an improvement on Johnson
I'd forgotten about that. The fact he's not as bad s Johnson isn't here or there. If Johnson goes for dishonesty whoever takes over has to be whiter than white.
Not necessarily (though I would prefer if that were the case); Johnson has put the bar so low that even Robert Mugabe might be considered a truthful and honest chap by comparison.
Again, let's not get carried away. Johnson's a complete arse, a liar, a fool and a swindler, but he has nothing like the Gukhurahundi Genocide to explain.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
Well indeed, the US reason for not outright defeat was because as you rightly say the four carriers that were by luck not in harbour. Had they been so, history might have looked somewhat different in the Pacific.
And had the Japanese bombed the repair facilities and not the useless capital ships, luck might have been less of an issue.
Johnson's special sauce has gone rancid and I don't see any potential replacement being able to keep the current Tory voting coalition together. Truss is my dream replacement. The one I fear the most is Sunak as he is a very rare example of a competent cabinet minister, though it is all relative. The only thing Hunt has going for him is that he is not Johnson.
Really? He ran The Department of Health for longer than anyone ever has IIRC and pretty competently. He didn't clash too much with the vested interests but this was his brief (the Tory detoxification brief re the Holy Cow/NHS). He is highly competent, consistent and honest. Everything the current incumbent is not.
Let's not get carried away. He's better than Johnson but he's also got this on his record:
A fair criticism that doesn't do him credit, but I still think he is one of the few grown ups available. I don't rate Sunak or any of the other possibles, but even so, even the Downing Street cat would be an improvement on Johnson
I'd forgotten about that. The fact he's not as bad s Johnson isn't here or there. If Johnson goes for dishonesty whoever takes over has to be whiter than white.
Not necessarily (though I would prefer if that were the case); Johnson has put the bar so low that even Robert Mugabe might be considered a truthful and honest chap by comparison.
Again, let's not get carried away. Johnson's a complete arse, a liar, a fool and a swindler, but he has nothing like the Gukhurahundi Genocide to explain.
It was quite deliberate hyperbole of @Leon proportions I must admit!
I'm not convinced there'll be a larger majority numerically but it's more than likely in terms of vote share.
Nationally, Labour were 13 points down in December 2019 and now lead by 5 so that's a 9% swing.
On the Dec 19 turnout that would suggest a majority of just under 10,000 so halve the turnout (down to 26.5%) and that would take the majority to 5,000 so you'd need turnout to be about a third of the last election (about 18%) to see the majority numerically about what it was.
The LDs will put minimum effort into the seat - whether any new left party will try to put up a candidate and contest is another question.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
Well indeed, the US reason for not outright defeat was because as you rightly say the four carriers that were by luck not in harbour. Had they been so, history might have looked somewhat different in the Pacific.
Was it luck? There has long been a claim - though I have no idea how reasonable or possible it might be - that Churchill knew about Pearl Harbour and warned Roosevelt who ensured the carriers were away.
Is that even possible given what we know of the state of Enigma decoding at that time?
Also, if they want to encourage the sort of tactical voting that they benefited from in North Shropshire, making a big push in a Labour seat from a base of 3.7% would be insane.
I live in a seat where the Labour vote was 7.9%. I can well imagine some of that going LibDem, if the general trend of focusing on different seats is maintained. That does however require some reciprocal restraint.
Indeed and the number of seats where the LDs start from second with a realistic prospect of overturning the Conservatives is small. However, one of the effects of the vote share rise in 2019 was to put the party back into second place in more seats albeit often a long way behind the Conservatives.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
The other comic bit was the attempts by the Japanese to co-opt the Soviets into the war. The so called surrender plans/peace feelers - the Soviets (the Japanese thought) would protect them from the vengeful Americans and then the Japanese and Society would join forces to attack the US...
The Americans read all of this, of course, in the Purple traffic....
Johnson's special sauce has gone rancid and I don't see any potential replacement being able to keep the current Tory voting coalition together. Truss is my dream replacement. The one I fear the most is Sunak as he is a very rare example of a competent cabinet minister, though it is all relative. The only thing Hunt has going for him is that he is not Johnson.
Really? He ran The Department of Health for longer than anyone ever has IIRC and pretty competently. He didn't clash too much with the vested interests but this was his brief (the Tory detoxification brief re the Holy Cow/NHS). He is highly competent, consistent and honest. Everything the current incumbent is not.
Let's not get carried away. He's better than Johnson but he's also got this on his record:
A fair criticism that doesn't do him credit, but I still think he is one of the few grown ups available. I don't rate Sunak or any of the other possibles, but even so, even the Downing Street cat would be an improvement on Johnson
I'd forgotten about that. The fact he's not as bad s Johnson isn't here or there. If Johnson goes for dishonesty whoever takes over has to be whiter than white.
Not necessarily (though I would prefer if that were the case); Johnson has put the bar so low that even Robert Mugabe might be considered a truthful and honest chap by comparison.
Again, let's not get carried away. Johnson's a complete arse, a liar, a fool and a swindler, but he has nothing like the Gukhurahundi Genocide to explain.
It was quite deliberate hyperbole of @Leon proportions I must admit!
I'm happy to agree that Larry would be doing a better job though.
Obviously i’m not against Northern Accents as I’m intending to be the first Gen Z PM! But Rayner doesn’t convince me in her delivery either to camera or in commons.
And she needs a hair cut. There’s only two places for hair that long, on someone half her age, or someone in the Victorian Era. At the least she should wear it up not down the front like that.
Laugh if you want, but if people can’t make the right hair decisions (like I do) how do you trust them with affairs of state?
Definitely looking like I'm going to lose my bet with Big Rich on England topping 3k admissions by end of Feb. Currently it looks like hospitalizations are going to peak *earlier* than cases in England, which has really surprised me, but I guess can be explained by the excellent performance of booster doses (and the sudden acceleration before Christmas).
I have wondering about New Zealand, as I have friends there (who are stuck there, currently). Can anyone explain to me their exit strategy? Even with boosters they are going to have to suck up levels of cases orders of magnitude higher than those they are used to, the moment they open their borders, one would think? Will the public wear it?
Currently, they have 34 people in hospital and today they had 14 new cases across the whole country so one might argue for all the sneering on here from a few, they aren't doing too badly.
Very high numbers vaccinated and the boosters rolling out too
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
Well indeed, the US reason for not outright defeat was because as you rightly say the four carriers that were by luck not in harbour. Had they been so, history might have looked somewhat different in the Pacific.
Was it luck? There has long been a claim - though I have no idea how reasonable or possible it might be - that Churchill knew about Pearl Harbour and warned Roosevelt who ensured the carriers were away.
Is that even possible given what we know of the state of Enigma decoding at that time?
No it wasn't.
Wrong code, by the way. JN-25B. This was partially broken - a few percent of messages were being read and mostly incomplete. The Japanese, who weren't stupid about security, never sent a message about attacking Pearl Harbour, anyway. In JN-25B, Purple or any other cipher.
The fleet on the way to Pearl Harbour had all it's radios disabled, and the relevant bits, piled up in the cabins of the various ships security officers.
The *2* American carriers were away delivering planes to the American island holdings in the Pacific.
Obviously i’m not against Northern Accents as I’m intending to be the first Gen Z PM! But Rayner doesn’t convince me in her delivery either to camera or in commons.
And she needs a hair cut. There’s only two places for hair that long, on someone half her age, or someone in the Victorian Era. At the least she should wear it up not down the front like that.
Laugh if you want, but if people can’t make the right hair decisions (like I do) how do you trust them with affairs of state?
What is your view of Boris's hair?
Can't answer for @MoonRabbit but I'd rather not have a view of it, if I'm honest, the less I see of him the better.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? More like a major naval setback. Eventually the overwhelming industrial power of the USA would have won any war with Japan, unless the Japs (or their Nazi allies) had got nukes first
Japan never had the strength to invade and conquer the USA and without that any war was ultimately doomed to defeat,
Japan went to war against the US because that country was partially blockading Japan due to its invasion of China, on my understanding. As it wasn't prepared to withdraw from China it went for a pre-emptive attack. Observers at the time didn't think Japan would likely win against the USA but that was its best chance of doing so.
I have wondering about New Zealand, as I have friends there (who are stuck there, currently). Can anyone explain to me their exit strategy? Even with boosters they are going to have to suck up levels of cases orders of magnitude higher than those they are used to, the moment they open their borders, one would think? Will the public wear it?
Currently, they have 34 people in hospital and today they had 14 new cases across the whole country so one might argue for all the sneering on here from a few, they aren't doing too badly.
Very high numbers vaccinated and the boosters rolling out too
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
Is @Chris sticking with his forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day? Was that what it was?
Certainly on the data I expected this wave to be far worse than it has been, though a forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day is a figment of your imagination, I think. Of course I've pointed out at various times what a given growth rate would lead to in a given time, but only a fool would play Nostradamus in the way you're suggesting.
It was certainly foolish for people to insist in mid-December that everything would be fine, on the basis of the information we had then, because if things had carried on as they were, the NHS would have been overwhelmed very rapidly. I don't believe anyone either predicted the sudden fall in the growth rate or understands why it happened.
Naughty naughty Chris. Here you are making the prediction:
"In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
= prediction.
Does anyone have an estimate for the peak of infections per day (not tests)?
So... Chris was right? Or did I misunderstand something?
I'm assuming the instasilence means yes, he was right, but nobody wants to hold their hands up. Poor form.
I won't not hold my hand up. Need more than some bloke off the internet though. 800k cases/day and pretty soon everyone will have had it. Is that what we're seeing.
So what's the next step in this saga? Will the letters go in? Will a minister resign? Is there a modern equivalent of the stalking horse who could break cover and publicly campaign for the 54 letters?
One of the leading cabinet members resigning is currently my guess.
Someone who is lagging behind at the half way stage in the next leadership stakes (i.e. now) but also subtly positioning themselves for a run.
Someone like Gove wouldn't surprise me (but Frost resigning did). However he might not be enough on his own.
As an aside, someone on an earlier thread mentioned that Mark Harper doesn't have red wall credentials and so ruled him out as Tory leader. I'd disagree with that: working class lad from a council estate made good, excellent campaigner and a good communicator. A safe pair of hands. Reminds me of John Major at his height.
If I were betting on next leader, it would go something like this:
Possible runners but unlikely to do well:
Fox Davis McVey Shapps Brady Gove Patel Zahawi Javid (so underwhelming)
People who might surprise:
Kwarteng Baker Harper Raab Wallace Barclay Dowden
The favourites for the last two:
Hunt Truss Sunak
I'm on Baker. Base will love him and by all accounts (of those who know him) is a super smart character. Does the country want someone like that? Not sure. Does the Cons Party? No idea but they could do a lot worse. Unlike the present incumbent he is a WYSIWYG kind of guy and jeez we need one of those right now.
From his bio I think he'd be quite good at "maths" - which would be refreshing.
I don't get it. @Selebian seems a competent enough maths guy. What are you trying to say.
And Steve Baker is too. This is my point exactly. Maths is an asset and Baker looks to have it. Will it count for much if he stands for Con leader? Sadly I doubt it. I don't think the Tory grassroots care very much about Maths. They'll be wanting other things from him.
If Steve Baker is so good at Maths, he'll have worked out that his days as MP for High Wycombe are numbered at the next GE.
So what's the next step in this saga? Will the letters go in? Will a minister resign? Is there a modern equivalent of the stalking horse who could break cover and publicly campaign for the 54 letters?
One of the leading cabinet members resigning is currently my guess.
Someone who is lagging behind at the half way stage in the next leadership stakes (i.e. now) but also subtly positioning themselves for a run.
Someone like Gove wouldn't surprise me (but Frost resigning did). However he might not be enough on his own.
As an aside, someone on an earlier thread mentioned that Mark Harper doesn't have red wall credentials and so ruled him out as Tory leader. I'd disagree with that: working class lad from a council estate made good, excellent campaigner and a good communicator. A safe pair of hands. Reminds me of John Major at his height.
If I were betting on next leader, it would go something like this:
Possible runners but unlikely to do well:
Fox Davis McVey Shapps Brady Gove Patel Zahawi Javid (so underwhelming)
People who might surprise:
Kwarteng Baker Harper Raab Wallace Barclay Dowden
The favourites for the last two:
Hunt Truss Sunak
Interesting nobody from Scotland. Though that is probably just chance.
Govey is one of yours!
Sorry - should have been clear. As always I meant a MP for a Scottish constituency rather than personally by birth. That is the issue I had in mind, thinking about EVEL. Now edited.
Pretty sure you're just trolling but I'll play. Being born in a barn doesn't make you a horse. Blair was born in Edinburgh.
But that is exactly the point I am making. Being born in Scotland doesn't make you a Scottish MP. It's the constituency that does, and EVEL affects the perception of MPs for Scottish constituencies.
Gove is Scottish not because he was born here but because he grew up here.
If you're trying to make a serious point ; Nobody cares about it.
You're forgetting that one of the key problems with EVEL is that it made it potentially very difficult for a MP not for an English constituency to ever become PM (because of the authority issue as regards English legislation).
This was much discussed back in 2014, but has not been an issue in actual fact because there were so few Tory MPs from Scottish, NIrish or Welsh constituencies. Labour were not in power, and the SNP weren't interested in providing a Unionist PM.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? More like a major naval setback. Eventually the overwhelming industrial power of the USA would have won any war with Japan, unless the Japs (or their Nazi allies) had got nukes first
Japan never had the strength to invade and conquer the USA and without that any war was ultimately doomed to defeat,
Japan went to war against the US because that country was partially blockading Japan due to its invasion of China, on my understanding. As it wasn't prepared to withdraw from China it went for a pre-emptive attack. Observers at the time didn't think Japan would likely win against the USA but that was its best chance of doing so.
Not a blockade - an embargo.
The US and the Western powers refused to sell Japan the oil, steel etc to arm itself to (a) continue to attack the US ally, China and (b) to allow Japan to build a huge navy with the obvious intent of the challenging everyone else in the Pacific.
Is @Chris sticking with his forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day? Was that what it was?
Certainly on the data I expected this wave to be far worse than it has been, though a forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day is a figment of your imagination, I think. Of course I've pointed out at various times what a given growth rate would lead to in a given time, but only a fool would play Nostradamus in the way you're suggesting.
It was certainly foolish for people to insist in mid-December that everything would be fine, on the basis of the information we had then, because if things had carried on as they were, the NHS would have been overwhelmed very rapidly. I don't believe anyone either predicted the sudden fall in the growth rate or understands why it happened.
Naughty naughty Chris. Here you are making the prediction:
"In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
= prediction.
Does anyone have an estimate for the peak of infections per day (not tests)?
So... Chris was right? Or did I misunderstand something?
I'm assuming the instasilence means yes, he was right, but nobody wants to hold their hands up. Poor form.
I won't not hold my hand up. Need more than some bloke off the internet though. 800k cases/day and pretty soon everyone will have had it. Is that what we're seeing.
cases seem to have peaked - *before* the changes in testing methods, incidentally. As have, it seems, admissions.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
And yet for much of the 1930s, it was China that was close to Germany.
I have wondering about New Zealand, as I have friends there (who are stuck there, currently). Can anyone explain to me their exit strategy? Even with boosters they are going to have to suck up levels of cases orders of magnitude higher than those they are used to, the moment they open their borders, one would think? Will the public wear it?
Currently, they have 34 people in hospital and today they had 14 new cases across the whole country so one might argue for all the sneering on here from a few, they aren't doing too badly.
Very high numbers vaccinated and the boosters rolling out too
Surely having everyone get Omicron after they've been double vaccinated will be seen as a win?
Well, this virus is rather unpredictable and waves don't always go as expected. It might fade away and disappear very quickly, having got through the susceptible.
It is rarely a good option yo get deliberately infected.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? More like a major naval setback. Eventually the overwhelming industrial power of the USA would have won any war with Japan, unless the Japs (or their Nazi allies) had got nukes first
Japan never had the strength to invade and conquer the USA and without that any war was ultimately doomed to defeat,
Japan went to war against the US because that country was partially blockading Japan due to its invasion of China, on my understanding. As it wasn't prepared to withdraw from China it went for a pre-emptive attack. Observers at the time didn't think Japan would likely win against the USA but that was its best chance of doing so.
Not a blockade - an embargo.
The US and the Western powers refused to sell Japan the oil, steel etc to arm itself to (a) continue to attack the US ally, China and (b) to allow Japan to build a huge navy with the obvious intent of the challenging everyone else in the Pacific.
Point is, Japan perceived the US as a threat, which was why it tried to head it off by launching a possibly somewhat desperate pre-emptive attack.
So what's the next step in this saga? Will the letters go in? Will a minister resign? Is there a modern equivalent of the stalking horse who could break cover and publicly campaign for the 54 letters?
One of the leading cabinet members resigning is currently my guess.
Someone who is lagging behind at the half way stage in the next leadership stakes (i.e. now) but also subtly positioning themselves for a run.
Someone like Gove wouldn't surprise me (but Frost resigning did). However he might not be enough on his own.
As an aside, someone on an earlier thread mentioned that Mark Harper doesn't have red wall credentials and so ruled him out as Tory leader. I'd disagree with that: working class lad from a council estate made good, excellent campaigner and a good communicator. A safe pair of hands. Reminds me of John Major at his height.
If I were betting on next leader, it would go something like this:
Possible runners but unlikely to do well:
Fox Davis McVey Shapps Brady Gove Patel Zahawi Javid (so underwhelming)
People who might surprise:
Kwarteng Baker Harper Raab Wallace Barclay Dowden
The favourites for the last two:
Hunt Truss Sunak
Interesting nobody from Scotland. Though that is probably just chance.
Govey is one of yours!
Sorry - should have been clear. As always I meant a MP for a Scottish constituency rather than personally by birth. That is the issue I had in mind, thinking about EVEL. Now edited.
Pretty sure you're just trolling but I'll play. Being born in a barn doesn't make you a horse. Blair was born in Edinburgh.
But that is exactly the point I am making. Being born in Scotland doesn't make you a Scottish MP. It's the constituency that does, and EVEL affects the perception of MPs for Scottish constituencies.
Gove is Scottish not because he was born here but because he grew up here.
If you're trying to make a serious point ; Nobody cares about it.
You're forgetting that one of the key problems with EVEL is that it made it potentially very difficult for a MP not for an English constituency to ever become PM (because of the authority issue as regards English legislation).
This was much discussed back in 2014, but has not been an issue in actual fact because there were so few Tory MPs from Scottish, NIrish or Welsh constituencies. Labour were not in power, and the SNP weren't interested in providing a Unionist PM.
20 out of 365, to be exact.
Am I however right in thinking that since 1928 only three Prime Ministers have held seats outside England - Home (Kinross and West Perthshire) Callaghan (Cardiff South East) and Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)?
Who also have in common, intriguingly, that they have no general election wins.
Which would make the last MP for a non-English seat to win a majority - David Lloyd George (Carnarvon Boroughs) in 1918 and the last to win a single-party majority Henry Campbell Bannerman (Stirling Boroughs) in 1906.
So it's hardly unusual for the PM to be based in England. Which isn't that surprising given that's where 80% of seats are.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
As I understand it, Japan's "obsession" was at least grounded in reality. I understand they were being frozen out of Pacific trade. Memory is working at max here, but something to do with the ABCD powers? America Britain China? Germany?? Dunno, but the way I heard it they had "legitimate concerns" to use the modern parlance.
I have wondering about New Zealand, as I have friends there (who are stuck there, currently). Can anyone explain to me their exit strategy? Even with boosters they are going to have to suck up levels of cases orders of magnitude higher than those they are used to, the moment they open their borders, one would think? Will the public wear it?
Currently, they have 34 people in hospital and today they had 14 new cases across the whole country so one might argue for all the sneering on here from a few, they aren't doing too badly.
Very high numbers vaccinated and the boosters rolling out too
Surely having everyone get Omicron after they've been double vaccinated will be seen as a win?
One of the main problems that the New Zealand government has is exactly the same one that most other governments have, in the Western democracies at any rate: no matter how well it does, there's always a faction amongst the medics and scientists that are constantly messing their kecks and howling for more restrictions. In this instance, some of them want the borders sealing up tighter then they already are (thus leaving the New Zealanders stuck abroad, who have been treated as radioactive waste throughout the crisis, in limbo for even longer,) because they're terrified that Omicron will get in before the defences are properly raised and cause a death tsunami. Although the NZ vaccination campaign is now going very well, the panickers still want to buy yet more time to get the whole booster drive finished and to inoculate all primary school children on top of that.
Of course, once that's done the objections will move on to some other topic. Insufficient vaccine coverage amongst the Maori population, the threat of new variants, demands for a second set of boosters, take your pick.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
The Japanese did come away from Versailles with the German concessions in China, and Micronesia. A bit tough on the Chinese, who were rather wanting the German concessions to become Chinese.
Binged watched season 2 last week, utterly bonkers, utterly brilliant.
Isn't it fantastic? Superbly amusing
*cough* I did recommend this on PB some time ago...
It is absolutely brilliant.
The having sex with your mother-in-law up against the window and then her falling out of it mid thrust and scene dying had me laughing so much I needed oxygen.
I love the running joke about horses. Everyone keeps giving her a pony
It's genius
Yup.
I binged season 2 of The Great and season 3 of Succession over Christmas, absolute genius both of them.
That scene at the public company meeting to deal with the rape and sexual revelations and someone decides to play 'Rape Me' by Nirvana on loudspeakers was genius, I felt so guilty for laughing.
So what's the next step in this saga? Will the letters go in? Will a minister resign? Is there a modern equivalent of the stalking horse who could break cover and publicly campaign for the 54 letters?
One of the leading cabinet members resigning is currently my guess.
Someone who is lagging behind at the half way stage in the next leadership stakes (i.e. now) but also subtly positioning themselves for a run.
Someone like Gove wouldn't surprise me (but Frost resigning did). However he might not be enough on his own.
As an aside, someone on an earlier thread mentioned that Mark Harper doesn't have red wall credentials and so ruled him out as Tory leader. I'd disagree with that: working class lad from a council estate made good, excellent campaigner and a good communicator. A safe pair of hands. Reminds me of John Major at his height.
If I were betting on next leader, it would go something like this:
Possible runners but unlikely to do well:
Fox Davis McVey Shapps Brady Gove Patel Zahawi Javid (so underwhelming)
People who might surprise:
Kwarteng Baker Harper Raab Wallace Barclay Dowden
The favourites for the last two:
Hunt Truss Sunak
Interesting nobody from Scotland. Though that is probably just chance.
Govey is one of yours!
Sorry - should have been clear. As always I meant a MP for a Scottish constituency rather than personally by birth. That is the issue I had in mind, thinking about EVEL. Now edited.
Pretty sure you're just trolling but I'll play. Being born in a barn doesn't make you a horse. Blair was born in Edinburgh.
But that is exactly the point I am making. Being born in Scotland doesn't make you a Scottish MP. It's the constituency that does, and EVEL affects the perception of MPs for Scottish constituencies.
Gove is Scottish not because he was born here but because he grew up here.
If you're trying to make a serious point ; Nobody cares about it.
You're forgetting that one of the key problems with EVEL is that it made it potentially very difficult for a MP not for an English constituency to ever become PM (because of the authority issue as regards English legislation).
This was much discussed back in 2014, but has not been an issue in actual fact because there were so few Tory MPs from Scottish, NIrish or Welsh constituencies. Labour were not in power, and the SNP weren't interested in providing a Unionist PM.
20 out of 365, to be exact.
Am I however right in thinking that since 1928 only three Prime Ministers have held seats outside England - Home (Kinross and West Perthshire) Callaghan (Cardiff South East) and Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)?
Who also have in common, intriguingly, that they have no general election wins.
Which would make the last MP for a non-English seat to win a majority - David Lloyd George (Carnarvon Boroughs) in 1918 and the last to win a single-party majority Henry Campbell Bannerman (Stirling Boroughs) in 1906.
So it's hardly unusual for the PM to be based in England. Which isn't that surprising given that's where 80% of seats are.
Ramsay Macdonald in 1929? Or am I missing things?
Quite so re the stats - but I felt sorry that the Scons and Wcons were being potentially deprived of the chance to go to greater glory, ditto Slab and SLDs. It's another anomaly of the Blairite devolution settlement [edit] as modified by Mr Cameron.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
As I understand it, Japan's "obsession" was at least grounded in reality. I understand they were being frozen out of Pacific trade. Memory is working at max here, but something to do with the ABCD powers? America Britain China? Germany?? Dunno, but the way I heard it they had "legitimate concerns" to use the modern parlance.
So what's the next step in this saga? Will the letters go in? Will a minister resign? Is there a modern equivalent of the stalking horse who could break cover and publicly campaign for the 54 letters?
One of the leading cabinet members resigning is currently my guess.
Someone who is lagging behind at the half way stage in the next leadership stakes (i.e. now) but also subtly positioning themselves for a run.
Someone like Gove wouldn't surprise me (but Frost resigning did). However he might not be enough on his own.
As an aside, someone on an earlier thread mentioned that Mark Harper doesn't have red wall credentials and so ruled him out as Tory leader. I'd disagree with that: working class lad from a council estate made good, excellent campaigner and a good communicator. A safe pair of hands. Reminds me of John Major at his height.
If I were betting on next leader, it would go something like this:
Possible runners but unlikely to do well:
Fox Davis McVey Shapps Brady Gove Patel Zahawi Javid (so underwhelming)
People who might surprise:
Kwarteng Baker Harper Raab Wallace Barclay Dowden
The favourites for the last two:
Hunt Truss Sunak
Interesting nobody from Scotland. Though that is probably just chance.
Govey is one of yours!
Sorry - should have been clear. As always I meant a MP for a Scottish constituency rather than personally by birth. That is the issue I had in mind, thinking about EVEL. Now edited.
Pretty sure you're just trolling but I'll play. Being born in a barn doesn't make you a horse. Blair was born in Edinburgh.
But that is exactly the point I am making. Being born in Scotland doesn't make you a Scottish MP. It's the constituency that does, and EVEL affects the perception of MPs for Scottish constituencies.
Gove is Scottish not because he was born here but because he grew up here.
If you're trying to make a serious point ; Nobody cares about it.
You're forgetting that one of the key problems with EVEL is that it made it potentially very difficult for a MP not for an English constituency to ever become PM (because of the authority issue as regards English legislation).
This was much discussed back in 2014, but has not been an issue in actual fact because there were so few Tory MPs from Scottish, NIrish or Welsh constituencies. Labour were not in power, and the SNP weren't interested in providing a Unionist PM.
20 out of 365, to be exact.
Am I however right in thinking that since 1928 only three Prime Ministers have held seats outside England - Home (Kinross and West Perthshire) Callaghan (Cardiff South East) and Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)?
Who also have in common, intriguingly, that they have no general election wins.
Which would make the last MP for a non-English seat to win a majority - David Lloyd George (Carnarvon Boroughs) in 1918 and the last to win a single-party majority Henry Campbell Bannerman (Stirling Boroughs) in 1906.
So it's hardly unusual for the PM to be based in England. Which isn't that surprising given that's where 80% of seats are.
Ramsay Macdonald in 1929? Or am I missing things?
Quite so re the stats - but I felt sorry that the Scons and Wcons were being potentially deprived of the chance to go to greater glory, ditto Slab and SLDs. It's another anomaly of the Blairite devolution settlement.
He moved to Seaham in Durham for 1929. He was MP for Aberavon *until* the election.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
And yet for much of the 1930s, it was China that was close to Germany.
The problem with understanding the Japanese leadership at this time, is that by the late 20s/early thirties, the Japanese leadership was, by many objective standards, nuts.
They simply refused to accept that Japan wasn't as big a power as the US and UK. So the Washington Naval Treaty, which gave them right the second largest navy* on earth, was an insult. They wanted to conquer China and Korea and the whole of South East Asia - and the fact that they didn't have anything like the capability to do it wouldn't stop them.
They regarded Admiral Yamamoto as a generate moderate - he had to be sent away to sea, to avoid him being assassinated.....
To get an understanding of the mindset involved, read the Hagakure. It was written by a fanatic long after the real Samurai age was over - but they saw it as gospel. Thinking and planning for success too much was *bad* - real Samurai (apparently) should just charge like lunatics and die stupidly.
*largely by preventing the US and UK building ships to their capacity. It put the Japanese ahead of both France and Italy, incidentally, which shows the claims of racism in the Washington Treaty were horse manure.
Binged watched season 2 last week, utterly bonkers, utterly brilliant.
Isn't it fantastic? Superbly amusing
*cough* I did recommend this on PB some time ago...
It is absolutely brilliant.
The having sex with your mother-in-law up against the window and then her falling out of it mid thrust and scene dying had me laughing so much I needed oxygen.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
As I understand it, Japan's "obsession" was at least grounded in reality. I understand they were being frozen out of Pacific trade. Memory is working at max here, but something to do with the ABCD powers? America Britain China? Germany?? Dunno, but the way I heard it they had "legitimate concerns" to use the modern parlance.
So, my quick reading on the subject, is that the ABCD line came into effect as a result of Japan's invasion of China and its atrocities against the Chinese population. Strangely the ABD countries didn't want to export to Japan in that circumstance. How unfair of them.
Is @Chris sticking with his forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day? Was that what it was?
Certainly on the data I expected this wave to be far worse than it has been, though a forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day is a figment of your imagination, I think. Of course I've pointed out at various times what a given growth rate would lead to in a given time, but only a fool would play Nostradamus in the way you're suggesting.
It was certainly foolish for people to insist in mid-December that everything would be fine, on the basis of the information we had then, because if things had carried on as they were, the NHS would have been overwhelmed very rapidly. I don't believe anyone either predicted the sudden fall in the growth rate or understands why it happened.
Naughty naughty Chris. Here you are making the prediction:
"In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
= prediction.
Does anyone have an estimate for the peak of infections per day (not tests)?
So... Chris was right? Or did I misunderstand something?
I'm assuming the instasilence means yes, he was right, but nobody wants to hold their hands up. Poor form.
I won't not hold my hand up. Need more than some bloke off the internet though. 800k cases/day and pretty soon everyone will have had it. Is that what we're seeing.
Zoe figures show current infections at around 2.7M. That will be people infected over a range of days, of course, so I don't have a sure answer here.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 6m NEW Strong rumours in Parliament from two Government sources tonight that Boris Johnson will make some sort of statement tomorrow lunchtime about partygate just before Prime Minister's Questions.
It worked the last time round so Boris is going to try it again.
The Speaker should just reject it as it was asked about today..
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
I think I'll meet you Midway on that quote...
I always like the story (apocryphal) of the guy who thought that another world war was coming, so he moved to the most remote spot he could find on the map.... Midway Island....
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
As I understand it, Japan's "obsession" was at least grounded in reality. I understand they were being frozen out of Pacific trade. Memory is working at max here, but something to do with the ABCD powers? America Britain China? Germany?? Dunno, but the way I heard it they had "legitimate concerns" to use the modern parlance.
I have wondering about New Zealand, as I have friends there (who are stuck there, currently). Can anyone explain to me their exit strategy? Even with boosters they are going to have to suck up levels of cases orders of magnitude higher than those they are used to, the moment they open their borders, one would think? Will the public wear it?
Currently, they have 34 people in hospital and today they had 14 new cases across the whole country so one might argue for all the sneering on here from a few, they aren't doing too badly.
Very high numbers vaccinated and the boosters rolling out too
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 6m NEW Strong rumours in Parliament from two Government sources tonight that Boris Johnson will make some sort of statement tomorrow lunchtime about partygate just before Prime Minister's Questions.
It worked the last time round so Boris is going to try it again.
The Speaker should just reject it as it was asked about today..
No doubt there'll be selected questions on Facebook again, too. He really doesn't like any kind of established democratic process or genuine accountability that man, does he.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Possibly another thing you can trace back to Versailles. The Japanese were pushing hard for a racial equality declaration as part of the treaty, and thought they were on a promise from Wilson as it would have aligned with his declared principles for the post-war world. But of course Wilson became constrained by domestic politics - racial equality being a sensitive subject back home - and the Japanese were essentially fobbed off and came away from Versailles with nothing.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
As I understand it, Japan's "obsession" was at least grounded in reality. I understand they were being frozen out of Pacific trade. Memory is working at max here, but something to do with the ABCD powers? America Britain China? Germany?? Dunno, but the way I heard it they had "legitimate concerns" to use the modern parlance.
So, my quick reading on the subject, is that the ABCD line came into effect as a result of Japan's invasion of China and its atrocities against the Chinese population. Strangely the ABD countries didn't want to export to Japan in that circumstance. How unfair of them.
Exactly. With Japanese army officers (senior ones) being quite open about their ambitions to conquer South East Asia.
They were about as sensible as that bloke down the pub. The one with the shaven head, and the misspelt tattoos on his knuckles. The one everyone gives lots of space to. I'm sure he feels picked on....
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
I think I'll meet you Midway on that quote...
I always like the story (apocryphal) of the guy who thought that another world war was coming, so he moved to the most remote spot he could find on the map.... Midway Island....
It isn't entirely apocryphal. You just had the wrong location and the wrong war. William Curtis, a Canadian, moved his family from Mission, BC to the Falkland Islands to be safe from war in 1981.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
I think I'll meet you Midway on that quote...
I always like the story (apocryphal) of the guy who thought that another world war was coming, so he moved to the most remote spot he could find on the map.... Midway Island....
It isn't entirely apocryphal. You just had the wrong location and the wrong war. William Curtis, a Canadian, moved his family from Mission, BC to the Falkland Islands to be safe from war in 1981.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
I think I'll meet you Midway on that quote...
I always like the story (apocryphal) of the guy who thought that another world war was coming, so he moved to the most remote spot he could find on the map.... Midway Island....
Would be nice if true. But I believe it was a restricted naval area in that timeframe.
Is @Chris sticking with his forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day? Was that what it was?
Certainly on the data I expected this wave to be far worse than it has been, though a forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day is a figment of your imagination, I think. Of course I've pointed out at various times what a given growth rate would lead to in a given time, but only a fool would play Nostradamus in the way you're suggesting.
It was certainly foolish for people to insist in mid-December that everything would be fine, on the basis of the information we had then, because if things had carried on as they were, the NHS would have been overwhelmed very rapidly. I don't believe anyone either predicted the sudden fall in the growth rate or understands why it happened.
Naughty naughty Chris. Here you are making the prediction:
"In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
= prediction.
Does anyone have an estimate for the peak of infections per day (not tests)?
So... Chris was right? Or did I misunderstand something?
I'm assuming the instasilence means yes, he was right, but nobody wants to hold their hands up. Poor form.
I won't not hold my hand up. Need more than some bloke off the internet though. 800k cases/day and pretty soon everyone will have had it. Is that what we're seeing.
Zoe figures show current infections at around 2.7M. That will be people infected over a range of days, of course, so I don't have a sure answer here.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
Perhaps the Japanese mistake was less that they thought they could defeat the Americans militarily, but that they thought the Americans wouldn't want to fight. If they believed that the American public could be disheartened and discouraged by early defeats, then they may have believed they would not have the will to continue the fight. After all, France gave up, and there were those in Britain who wanted to do so.
This is one of the crucial questions that Putin and Xi will be asking. How willing are the Americans to fight? Would the American public unite in the face of external aggression, or are the domestic divisions now so great that is not currently possible?
Arguably all of the last three American Presidents have shown an unwillingness to fight. Obama over Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, Trump with the withdrawal from Syria, and Biden with the fall of Kabul.
Is @Chris sticking with his forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day? Was that what it was?
Certainly on the data I expected this wave to be far worse than it has been, though a forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day is a figment of your imagination, I think. Of course I've pointed out at various times what a given growth rate would lead to in a given time, but only a fool would play Nostradamus in the way you're suggesting.
It was certainly foolish for people to insist in mid-December that everything would be fine, on the basis of the information we had then, because if things had carried on as they were, the NHS would have been overwhelmed very rapidly. I don't believe anyone either predicted the sudden fall in the growth rate or understands why it happened.
Naughty naughty Chris. Here you are making the prediction:
"In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
= prediction.
Does anyone have an estimate for the peak of infections per day (not tests)?
Which peace-time by-election holds the record for the lowest turnout?
Manchester Central in 2012, 18.2% turnout.
I was one of the 754 people who voted Conservative in that by election.
You had the chance to vote OMRLP, and you didn't take it?
I was doing my best for Dave and George, it was the height of the omnishambles budget and I wanted to show my support.
Pasties!! God the government would kill a random scientist for a scandal like that now.
The steaks were smaller then.
Was it not the potatoes?
Anyway, it’s a useful reminder that a media getting hysterical about a relatively trivial matter is nothing unusual. Indeed it is the norm. In modern times the government is always on the edge of collapse, at least in some minds.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 6m NEW Strong rumours in Parliament from two Government sources tonight that Boris Johnson will make some sort of statement tomorrow lunchtime about partygate just before Prime Minister's Questions.
It worked the last time round so Boris is going to try it again.
The Speaker should just reject it as it was asked about today..
Unless the statement is "I resign" how does this help?
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 6m NEW Strong rumours in Parliament from two Government sources tonight that Boris Johnson will make some sort of statement tomorrow lunchtime about partygate just before Prime Minister's Questions.
It worked the last time round so Boris is going to try it again.
The Speaker should just reject it as it was asked about today..
He had his chance to fess up or bluster at the UQ today. Reject it Lindsay!
Is @Chris sticking with his forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day? Was that what it was?
Certainly on the data I expected this wave to be far worse than it has been, though a forecast of 800,000 positive tests a day is a figment of your imagination, I think. Of course I've pointed out at various times what a given growth rate would lead to in a given time, but only a fool would play Nostradamus in the way you're suggesting.
It was certainly foolish for people to insist in mid-December that everything would be fine, on the basis of the information we had then, because if things had carried on as they were, the NHS would have been overwhelmed very rapidly. I don't believe anyone either predicted the sudden fall in the growth rate or understands why it happened.
Naughty naughty Chris. Here you are making the prediction:
"In fact it would mean more than 400,000 infections a day, and you can probably double that again because their calculation ignores the differences between positive tests and infections."
= prediction.
Does anyone have an estimate for the peak of infections per day (not tests)?
So... Chris was right? Or did I misunderstand something?
I'm assuming the instasilence means yes, he was right, but nobody wants to hold their hands up. Poor form.
I won't not hold my hand up. Need more than some bloke off the internet though. 800k cases/day and pretty soon everyone will have had it. Is that what we're seeing.
Zoe figures show current infections at around 2.7M. That will be people infected over a range of days, of course, so I don't have a sure answer here.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
Perhaps the Japanese mistake was less that they thought they could defeat the Americans militarily, but that they thought the Americans wouldn't want to fight. If they believed that the American public could be disheartened and discouraged by early defeats, then they may have believed they would not have the will to continue the fight. After all, France gave up, and there were those in Britain who wanted to do so.
This is one of the crucial questions that Putin and Xi will be asking. How willing are the Americans to fight? Would the American public unite in the face of external aggression, or are the domestic divisions now so great that is not currently possible?
Arguably all of the last three American Presidents have shown an unwillingness to fight. Obama over Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, Trump with the withdrawal from Syria, and Biden with the fall of Kabul.
The Japanese leadership, indeed, told themselves that the Americans wouldn't fight. Because if the Americans fought they would lose. And they couldn't lose.
They were pretty much in denial. To a clinical point.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
Perhaps the Japanese mistake was less that they thought they could defeat the Americans militarily, but that they thought the Americans wouldn't want to fight. If they believed that the American public could be disheartened and discouraged by early defeats, then they may have believed they would not have the will to continue the fight. After all, France gave up, and there were those in Britain who wanted to do so.
This is one of the crucial questions that Putin and Xi will be asking. How willing are the Americans to fight? Would the American public unite in the face of external aggression, or are the domestic divisions now so great that is not currently possible?
Arguably all of the last three American Presidents have shown an unwillingness to fight. Obama over Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, Trump with the withdrawal from Syria, and Biden with the fall of Kabul.
In 1942 the US had nearly 50% of the world’s industrial capacity, a figure only matched by the UK at the peak of empire. Only a complete idiot would even contemplate taking that on.
Since it's now the evening, here's an interesting story: A man climbs the highest mountain in Libya, Bikku Bitti, which no-one had climbed before. It takes him three attempts in two years, during one of which he nearly dies. The mountain is on the Libya/Chad border, hundreds of kilometres from the nearest village (and that is in rebel hands). it is very hot and arid, with few oases.
On topic, Erdington is known for 'Six Ways'. Confusingly, the Six Ways roundabout only has five roads joining it. The sixth 'way' joins one of the others just prior to the roundabout.
N.B. Do not mix up Erdington Six Ways with Five Ways, which is in a different part of the city.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
Perhaps the Japanese mistake was less that they thought they could defeat the Americans militarily, but that they thought the Americans wouldn't want to fight. If they believed that the American public could be disheartened and discouraged by early defeats, then they may have believed they would not have the will to continue the fight. After all, France gave up, and there were those in Britain who wanted to do so.
This is one of the crucial questions that Putin and Xi will be asking. How willing are the Americans to fight? Would the American public unite in the face of external aggression, or are the domestic divisions now so great that is not currently possible?
Arguably all of the last three American Presidents have shown an unwillingness to fight. Obama over Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, Trump with the withdrawal from Syria, and Biden with the fall of Kabul.
In 1942 the US had nearly 50% of the world’s industrial capacity, a figure only matched by the UK at the peak of empire. Only a complete idiot would even contemplate taking that on.
Fortunately, leaving aside the Japanese, Hitler was a complete idiot.
Since it's now the evening, here's an interesting story: A man climbs the highest mountain in Libya, Bikku Bitti, which no-one had climbed before. It takes him three attempts in two years, during one of which he nearly dies. The mountain is on the Libya/Chad border, hundreds of kilometres from the nearest village (and that is in rebel hands). it is very hot and arid, with few oases.
Surely the more obvious issue is why the Japanese attacked the United States rather than the Soviet Union? I mean if the axis powers were serious as allies.
Japan wanted control of the Pacific and the US had that control, not Russia. Pearl Harbor almost defeated the Americans. They came very close to naval defeat.
Really? Their four carriers were away and therefore intact. Their submarines were unaffected. The repair facilities were untouched. The ships sunk were mostly battleships that as Prince Of Wales and Repulse proved rather brutally a few days later would have been useless anyway.
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
If the Japanese had sunk the entire American Pacific fleet, down to the last row boat, irretrievably... The Americans would have regained overwhelming naval superiority in 1943.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
Perhaps the Japanese mistake was less that they thought they could defeat the Americans militarily, but that they thought the Americans wouldn't want to fight. If they believed that the American public could be disheartened and discouraged by early defeats, then they may have believed they would not have the will to continue the fight. After all, France gave up, and there were those in Britain who wanted to do so.
This is one of the crucial questions that Putin and Xi will be asking. How willing are the Americans to fight? Would the American public unite in the face of external aggression, or are the domestic divisions now so great that is not currently possible?
Arguably all of the last three American Presidents have shown an unwillingness to fight. Obama over Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, Trump with the withdrawal from Syria, and Biden with the fall of Kabul.
In 1942 the US had nearly 50% of the world’s industrial capacity, a figure only matched by the UK at the peak of empire. Only a complete idiot would even contemplate taking that on.
Hermann Kahn noted that Stalin was more impressed by Detroit than the atomic bomb. He remarked that it was probably fortunate that the US had both.
On topic, Erdington is known for 'Six Ways'. Confusingly, the Six Ways roundabout only has five roads joining it. The sixth 'way' joins one of the others just prior to the roundabout.
N.B. Do not mix up Erdington Six Ways with Five Ways, which is in a different part of the city.
Lol, in Woking we have an actual six crossroads roundabout:
On topic, Erdington is known for 'Six Ways'. Confusingly, the Six Ways roundabout only has five roads joining it. The sixth 'way' joins one of the others just prior to the roundabout.
N.B. Do not mix up Erdington Six Ways with Five Ways, which is in a different part of the city.
Does anyone know why Birmingham constituencies are named after one of the four wards which comprise them? And how do they choose which one? And why isn't it Birmingham Sutton Coldfield? The kind of thing I'm interested in. Sad I know.
Which peace-time by-election holds the record for the lowest turnout?
Manchester Central in 2012, 18.2% turnout.
I was one of the 754 people who voted Conservative in that by election.
You had the chance to vote OMRLP, and you didn't take it?
I was doing my best for Dave and George, it was the height of the omnishambles budget and I wanted to show my support.
Pasties!! God the government would kill a random scientist for a scandal like that now.
The steaks were smaller then.
Was it not the potatoes?
Anyway, it’s a useful reminder that a media getting hysterical about a relatively trivial matter is nothing unusual. Indeed it is the norm. In modern times the government is always on the edge of collapse, at least in some minds.
“Minds” implies that the bods at the Glasgow Herald are capable of thought.
Since it's now the evening, here's an interesting story: A man climbs the highest mountain in Libya, Bikku Bitti, which no-one had climbed before. It takes him three attempts in two years, during one of which he nearly dies. The mountain is on the Libya/Chad border, hundreds of kilometres from the nearest village (and that is in rebel hands). it is very hot and arid, with few oases.
Quebec will introduce a tax on those who won't get vaccinated within weeks. Fee not yet announced. I believe this is a first, but many on here have suggested similar.
BBC Look North, our local TV news station, say they invited ALL Lincolnshire and E. Yorks Tory MPs to appear tonight to comment on Boris Johnson's partying but ALL declined. https://twitter.com/BardneyBoy/status/1480984146843471875
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_Joint_Declaration_of_1956
The only thing wrong with it is the title. "The great". Boring and generic. Shame
Otherwise it is sensationally good. The writing the costumes the plots: everything. The acting is world class: the perfect mix of comedy, farce, hauteur, sexiness, ribaldry, and amusingly random violence. One of the funniest shows I've ever watched
What makes it even "greater" is that if you've read some Russian history of this time you realise that despite the show's lunacy, it is depicting a certain reality. Aristocratic Russia of the 18th century was bonkers. People constantly drinking themselves to death. Peter the Great with his dwarf weddings. This is what it was like
I recommend this brilliant book as a good place to start:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/St-Petersburg-Centuries-Murderous-Desire/dp/0099592797/ref=sr_1_9?crid=8KFJSSC3AXCE&keywords=st+petersburg+history&qid=1641926535&s=books&sprefix=st+petersburg+history,stripbooks,41&sr=1-9
Shortening
Sunak
Gove
Lengthening
Patel
Raab
Badenoch
Lab Maj shortens to 5/1 (was 6/1 this morning)
I live in a seat where the Labour vote was 7.9%. I can well imagine some of that going LibDem, if the general trend of focusing on different seats is maintained. That does however require some reciprocal restraint.
Japan never had the strength to invade and conquer the USA and without that any war was ultimately doomed to defeat,
Sure, the Allied navies suffered horribly but the US Navy wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to be much help.
Japan were the country left viewing Pearl Harbor as a disaster.
I think one of the hardliners of Barclay/Baker/Harper will run, and Patel too.
Best of the dark horses is Penny Morduant.
But don't listen to me. I don't think that I have ever got a leadership tip right for any party in the years that I have been on PB.
I'm not convinced there'll be a larger majority numerically but it's more than likely in terms of vote share.
Nationally, Labour were 13 points down in December 2019 and now lead by 5 so that's a 9% swing.
On the Dec 19 turnout that would suggest a majority of just under 10,000 so halve the turnout (down to 26.5%) and that would take the majority to 5,000 so you'd need turnout to be about a third of the last election (about 18%) to see the majority numerically about what it was.
The LDs will put minimum effort into the seat - whether any new left party will try to put up a candidate and contest is another question.
This was due to their vast naval building program. They were building stuff, like the Alaskas on the basis of "it would be nice to have these kind of ships to keep *that* group of Admirals quiet". In fact, in our world, they started cutting Naval ship building in late 1943, because it was getting ridiculous.
This wasn't a secret. You could read about it in the NY Times...
While Yamamoto didn't say the Sleeping Giant quote, he did say that in the event of a successful surprise attack he could run wild for 6 months, but after that....
Is that even possible given what we know of the state of Enigma decoding at that time?
The Americans read all of this, of course, in the Purple traffic....
Very high numbers vaccinated and the boosters rolling out too
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/127471544/covid19-could-new-zealand-actually-eliminate-delta
At my deepest blue exercise class we advised to pack some wine and cheese into our kit bag in case there was another lockdown. Laughter and applause.
I suggest Tories might like to start to worry.
Wrong code, by the way. JN-25B. This was partially broken - a few percent of messages were being read and mostly incomplete. The Japanese, who weren't stupid about security, never sent a message about attacking Pearl Harbour, anyway. In JN-25B, Purple or any other cipher.
The fleet on the way to Pearl Harbour had all it's radios disabled, and the relevant bits, piled up in the cabins of the various ships security officers.
The *2* American carriers were away delivering planes to the American island holdings in the Pacific.
He has a disturbing quality of wanting to change stuff.
Not ideal in a caretaker.
The Japanese also became obsessed with their lack of access to resources, in an industrialising world, and after Hitler came to power the Germans made a fair bit of effort to court Japan.
This was much discussed back in 2014, but has not been an issue in actual fact because there were so few Tory MPs from Scottish, NIrish or Welsh constituencies. Labour were not in power, and the SNP weren't interested in providing a Unionist PM.
The US and the Western powers refused to sell Japan the oil, steel etc to arm itself to (a) continue to attack the US ally, China and (b) to allow Japan to build a huge navy with the obvious intent of the challenging everyone else in the Pacific.
It is rarely a good option yo get deliberately infected.
Interesting study - could be worth a closer look.
Am I however right in thinking that since 1928 only three Prime Ministers have held seats outside England - Home (Kinross and West Perthshire) Callaghan (Cardiff South East) and Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)?
Who also have in common, intriguingly, that they have no general election wins.
Which would make the last MP for a non-English seat to win a majority - David Lloyd George (Carnarvon Boroughs) in 1918 and the last to win a single-party majority Henry Campbell Bannerman (Stirling Boroughs) in 1906.
So it's hardly unusual for the PM to be based in England. Which isn't that surprising given that's where 80% of seats are.
Of course, once that's done the objections will move on to some other topic. Insufficient vaccine coverage amongst the Maori population, the threat of new variants, demands for a second set of boosters, take your pick.
Huzzah !
Quite so re the stats - but I felt sorry that the Scons and Wcons were being potentially deprived of the chance to go to greater glory, ditto Slab and SLDs. It's another anomaly of the Blairite devolution settlement [edit] as modified by Mr Cameron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-British-Dutch-Australian_Command
They simply refused to accept that Japan wasn't as big a power as the US and UK. So the Washington Naval Treaty, which gave them right the second largest navy* on earth, was an insult. They wanted to conquer China and Korea and the whole of South East Asia - and the fact that they didn't have anything like the capability to do it wouldn't stop them.
They regarded Admiral Yamamoto as a generate moderate - he had to be sent away to sea, to avoid him being assassinated.....
To get an understanding of the mindset involved, read the Hagakure. It was written by a fanatic long after the real Samurai age was over - but they saw it as gospel. Thinking and planning for success too much was *bad* - real Samurai (apparently) should just charge like lunatics and die stupidly.
*largely by preventing the US and UK building ships to their capacity. It put the Japanese ahead of both France and Italy, incidentally, which shows the claims of racism in the Washington Treaty were horse manure.
@christopherhope
·
6m
NEW Strong rumours in Parliament from two Government sources tonight that Boris Johnson will make some sort of statement tomorrow lunchtime about partygate just before Prime Minister's Questions.
It worked the last time round so Boris is going to try it again.
The Speaker should just reject it as it was asked about today..
Part of "living with covid" is going to be use of this sort of knowledge.
They were about as sensible as that bloke down the pub. The one with the shaven head, and the misspelt tattoos on his knuckles. The one everyone gives lots of space to. I'm sure he feels picked on....
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/06/01/William-Curtis-a-Canadian-living-on-the-Falkland-Islands/8334391752000/
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/03/09/falkland_islanders_hold_referendum_on_their_future_31_years_after_argentina_invaded.html?rf
This is one of the crucial questions that Putin and Xi will be asking. How willing are the Americans to fight? Would the American public unite in the face of external aggression, or are the domestic divisions now so great that is not currently possible?
Arguably all of the last three American Presidents have shown an unwillingness to fight. Obama over Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, Trump with the withdrawal from Syria, and Biden with the fall of Kabul.
Anyway, it’s a useful reminder that a media getting hysterical about a relatively trivial matter is nothing unusual. Indeed it is the norm. In modern times the government is always on the edge of collapse, at least in some minds.
Reject it Lindsay!
They were pretty much in denial. To a clinical point.
Guess what he finds at the summit...
https://www.summitpost.org/ginge-fullen/333351#chapter_1
I wonder what "the mood" is in Downing Street tonight, in the famous and proverbial tv anchor phrase.
N.B. Do not mix up Erdington Six Ways with Five Ways, which is in a different part of the city.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Six+Crossroads+Roundabout,+Woking/@51.3343685,-0.5457461,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4875d8119bb907dd:0xa0b868b52fce8a6e
And why isn't it Birmingham Sutton Coldfield?
The kind of thing I'm interested in.
Sad I know.
I believe this is a first, but many on here have suggested similar.
It might not happen this week, this month but I do now think it will happen this year.
After the May locals perhaps.
https://twitter.com/BardneyBoy/status/1480984146843471875