The Juggernaut Keeps Rolling (Toyota)

[RichardJensen]

Tisk tisk tisk tisk, Thats what you get for relying on the official reports. What about supplies for the Soviets?

Iran has no ports on the Caspian Sea, therefore, there was no Iranian oil being shipped up the Volga.

 

Operation Barbarossa was driven by Hitler's desire for LAND and INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. If you believe otherwise, you find me some supporting documentation.

 

...

[foxrun]

Iran has no ports on the Caspian Sea, therefore, there was no Iranian oil being shipped up the Volga.

 

Operation Barbarossa was driven by Hitler's desire for LAND and INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. If you believe otherwise, you find me some supporting documentation.

 

...

Are you getting angry?

[foxrun]

you know even Ford isn't dumb enough to write down every detail of operations, what makes you think someone at war would.

 

Think about the war for democracy in Iraq.

[RichardJensen]

Are you getting angry?

No, I was stressing the reason for occupying miles and miles of miliarily useless farmland, and losing over 200,000 men to hold a city of no strategic value: LAND and INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.

 

Oil had nothing to do with it. Iranian oil is inaccessible via the Caspian.

 

...

[one2gamble]

you know even Ford isn't dumb enough to write down every detail of operations, what makes you think someone at war would.

 

 

I bet you they are in fact written down

[foxrun]

No, I was stressing the reason for occupying miles and miles of miliarily useless farmland, and losing over 200,000 men to hold a city of no strategic value: LAND and INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.

 

Oil had nothing to do with it. Iranian oil is inaccessible via the Caspian.

 

...

You are just simply wrong on that act im sorry, as you are wrong on what you think is happening in Iraq. I know you have great resource on official statements and you likely even defer to others on your behalf but just because the great machine that is called the United States of Americas says democracy is the point in Iraq doesn't make it so, It is oil, any man with a grain of common sense knows it.

[one2gamble]

oil?

 

It would have been easier and cheaper to lift the embargo

[foxrun]

oil?

 

It would have been easier and cheaper to lift the embargo

 

or become a U.N. official right

[RichardJensen]

You are just simply wrong on that act im sorry, as you are wrong on what you think is happening in Iraq. I know you have great resource on official statements and you likely even defer to others on your behalf but just because the great machine that is called the United States of Americas says democracy is the point in Iraq doesn't make it so, It is oil, any man with a grain of common sense knows it.

Which act am I wrong about?

 

1) The easily verified absence of Iranian seaports on the Caspian?

 

or

 

2) The Nazis invaded the USSR in order to seize land and industrial facilities?

 

You say I'm wrong? Well, in the first case countless maps and satellite imagery say I'm right, and in the second case, countless historians (military as well as political) say I'm right. You prove me wrong.

 

As far as "you are wrong on what you think is happening in Iraq", well I'm sorry, I'm not going to broaden this debate even more. You don't know what I think is going on in Iraq, and I'm not going to tell you.

 

Either you address those two points or the discussion's over.

 

...

Edited January 30, 2006 by RichardJensen

[one2gamble]

or become a U.N. official right

 

 

you wouldnt have to be an official, just a good friend or family member of one

[foxrun]

No, I was stressing the reason for occupying miles and miles of miliarily useless farmland, and losing over 200,000 men to hold a city of no strategic value: LAND and INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.

 

Oil had nothing to do with it. Iranian oil is inaccessible via the Caspian.

 

...

 

Excuse me how dare you presume to think your line of thinking and this discussion is synonymous. What makes you think you soley should DIRECT this discussion. This thing went off course a will ago when it started with Countries and thier foriegn policies. I am happy for you if you want to think the allies saved the world but I don't happen to agree. I told you over and over again the why's and how's of the battle at Stalingrad and even gave you a write up that agreed with me but you all you could do is muster up how I would get a failing grade at one of the great western educational institutions :lol: .

 

Richard it is obvious you have had some affinity with the heroic stories you heard as a child and I'm sorry if I hurt your prescious feelings about them but the truth is the west was and is first and formost opportunist. The history of ww2 is shamefully passing through the western institutional scholarly class without much counter wieght, but the history that is being written in our presence you CANNOT deny.

 

So please try to be an adult and answer my line of questioning regarding the present issue of scarcity of natural resources and consequent effects on froiegn policies or is that too much for you. B)

[RichardJensen]

So please try to be an adult and answer my line of questioning regarding the present issue of scarcity of natural resources and consequent effects on froiegn policies or is that too much for you. B)

Oh, now YOU'RE going to "control" the discussion?

 

Sorry. I'm taking my ball home. I'm not playing anymore.

 

...

[Bluecon]

Most intellectuals know how to spell "intellectuals". :lol:

 

You give yourself too much credit.

 

I've got more intellect in my left asscheek than you've got in your whole body.

 

Oh, no. Ive done it again.

Pass the tissues.

 

This is like having a political discussion with an underachieving 16 year old with a bad attitude.(maybe off his meds)

[foxrun]

Oh, now YOU'RE going to "control" the discussion?

 

Sorry. I'm taking my ball home. I'm not playing anymore.

 

...

 

 

Ya I thought examining the current situation around the world would be too much for you. Its one thing to discuss revionist history with years of historians backed up by years of money and another to get into the undeniable present.

 

I asked you to answer a question and you harp. Sad very sad. Well at least you can see the light when it comes to yoda, but I'll bet that if Ford stops cutting you a cheque even that could change.

[RichardJensen]

Ya I thought examining the current situation around the world would be too much for you. Its one thing to discuss revionist history with years of historians backed up by years of money and another to get into the undeniable present.

Feel free to assign to me whatever thoughts and motivations you want; you'll come about as close to reality as you did with that "Oil from the Caspian Sea" theory.

 

...

[foxrun]

You ignore that China and the U.S. will come into conflict over resources. You say nothing of trade with China and how that has had no effect on opening thier society and still think of it as good, for whom Richard? You think American indebtness is not a problem yet I show you how the Economist disagrees.

 

Oh and you say no connection with oil and the Caspain and fascists?

read

or

[RichardJensen]

You ignore that China and the U.S. will come into conflict over resources. You say nothing of trade with China and how that has had no effect on opening thier society and still think of it as good, for whom Richard? You think American indebtness is not a problem yet I show you how the Economist disagrees.

 

Oh and you say no connection with oil and the Caspain and fascists?

read

or

This is a heck of a lot better article on Baku, a bit too full of insupportable adjectives, but on the whole a very interesting account of how the Caucasian oil production survived WW2:

http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magaz...es/32_ww22.html

 

Another problem inseparably tied to fuel production was its transportation. By the summer of 1942, the enemy had blocked the main railways through which oil and its derivative products were transported. Thus, alternate means of transport had to be found via the Caspian and Volga water way. When the Germans also succeeding in blocking this route, transportation was routed through Central Asia.

 

But the front couldn't wait. Aircraft, armored carriers, trucks, and tanks all needed fuel. Then the naval experts of the Baku oil-tanker fleet performed an incredible feat. For the first time in the world's history, they began towing a floating railway of oil tankers (wagons) from Baku to Krasnovodsk (Turkmenistan) as well as several thousands tons of oil reservoirs from Makhachkala (Dagestan) to Krasnovodsk.

 

The fleets were extremely overloaded. For example, the amount of oil transport in July 1941 exceeded 10 million barrels of crude oil and fuel. This amount was beyond the technical capabilities of the tanker fleet in Baku. But the demands from Moscow did not take into account the physical limitations. It was then that Baku naval experts hit upon the idea of attaching whole tanks and cisterns to each other by steel ropes and lowering them into the sea by cranes and towing them by steam tugs. This had never been done before in any place in the world and it enabled them to tow up to 35 cisterns together or 3 huge oil tanks (5 ton capacity) with a single tugboat.

 

The Caspian/Volga waterway was a last-ditch means for transporting oil, not a system that was already in place, and the Nazis halted the use of this waterway without taking Stalingrad. The Soviets towed oil across the Caspian, and put it on trains on the opposite side, thence N., and back to Moscow and the front.

 

Oh, and I do have to correct one assertion I've made repeatedly. There is a small Iranian port on the Caspian Sea, Bandar Shah. By the time WW2 came, what traffic there was between the Soviet Union and Iran moved largely by rail, not via the Caspian Sea.

 

 

Interestingly, Nazi interest in oil had nothing to do with Stalingrad.

 

Before reading that article, and a few others, I had not been informed about Hitler's grandiose scheme of having Rommel tak North Africa, the Suez, the N. Arabian peninsula, and Iraqi and Iranian oil fields (I had been under the impression that Hitler only wanted the Suez--silly me, Hitler never wanted "only" anything--he wanted it all--he even dreamed of meeting the Japanese in India). The article above quoted (I think that was the one) talks about Hitler's plan that armies crossing the Caucasus would meet Rommel's Afrika korps in the Iraqi/Iranian oilfields (IIRC, oil had just been discovered in Kirkuk in '38).

 

So, yeah, Hitler's invasion of the USSR had something to do with oil, which I had not known the extent of before reading up on the Caucasus campaigns, Baku, etc. But Stalingrad was of no use in seizing oil production or transportation assets, and the Caucasian campaigns were directed at Soviet, not Iranian oil fields.

 

BTW, here's a starter on some very interesting reading about Iran, the allies, and WW2 and its aftermath:

 

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/ww2Timeline/iran.html

 

Of course, you should do more research on that. Fascinating stuff. The Iranians were afraid of Soviet infiltration (some speculate that the USSR intended to annex Iran or install a puppet government in order to have better ports and more oil).

 

You want me to prognosticate on a future battle for natural resources between China and the U.S.? I won't in any detail. There already is a conflict going on. It is being fought (largely) with U.S. dollars. That tends to favor the U.S.; future events may develop any of a thousand different ways. I won't speculate--in the past, these growing economies have collapsed, those that are geared for rapid growth tend to stay in a "funk" because laws that stabilize an economy tend to cap its growth as well (you saw this in the U.S. in the depression, in Japan in the 90s, and to a certain extent you have seen it in France and Germany). What China will do to stave off economic collapse could be interesting. Economic collapse that destabilizes the central government could be disastrous to regional stability. Chinese belligerency toward Indochina and the oil assets there seems the most likely form of aggression (China may move to seize oil producing and refining assets, leaving the rest of the country untouched). Chinese belligerency could occur if economic collapse renders China unable to continue to pay for oil it has contracted to purchase, oil that it needs. But I'm not going to say what I think is most likely simply because there's no profit in it.

 

...

[foxrun]

Richard I don't want you to prognosticate the thousand different ways China might come into conflict with the U.S. over resources I've been just simplely asking you to acknowledge that conflict is unavoidable and mainly because of the way China is being engaged. Democracy or at least some semblence of it must come first, and I'm not talking about staged elections or anything else you have seen in Iraq resently.

 

In my humble experience of democracy it comes about very slowly, usually internally or in the rare occasion after complete destruction and domination like in Germany and Japan. Lets not chance the second route with 1.3 billion people.

[Bluecon]

Torbruk--the turning point of WWII in the European theater. After this battle the British and their western allies rarely lost a battle. Of course the battle of Britain was also critical as was the Allied bombing of Germany and the control of the Atlantic thru the eventual utter decimation of the U-boats. And of course the Russians would not have survived without the arms and supplies they received from the USA and Britain.

 

The Ukraine, Poland, Russians and whoever else became caught up in the in the battle between Germany and Russia sustained incredible losses. Losses for the western allies in no way approached those of the Russians and would not have been tolerated by the democracies in the west. The Soviet approach of attacking in what basically amounted to a suicide mission and the loss of millions of soldiers in this manner could only be carried out in a dictatorship.

 

And since the USA was the only country to have developed the nuclear bomb they could have used this powerful weapon to force the capitulation of the Soviets.

 

And lets not forget that the mighty Soviet war machine had attempted to attack tiny Finland and received a major black eye in the operation. If the Finns had not run out of ammunition they would have soundly defeated the mighty Soviets.

 

Torbruk--the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany

http://www.topedge.com/panels/ww2/na/chron.html

[foxrun]

Torbruk--the turning point of WWII in the European theater. After this battle the British and their western allies rarely lost a battle. Of course the battle of Britain was also critical as was the Allied bombing of Germany and the control of the Atlantic thru the eventual utter decimation of the U-boats. And of course the Russians would not have survived without the arms and supplies they received from the USA and Britain.

 

The Ukraine, Poland, Russians and whoever else became caught up in the in the battle between Germany and Russia sustained incredible losses. Losses for the western allies in no way approached those of the Russians and would not have been tolerated by the democracies in the west. The Soviet approach of attacking in what basically amounted to a suicide mission and the loss of millions of soldiers in this manner could only be carried out in a dictatorship.

 

And since the USA was the only country to have developed the nuclear bomb they could have used this powerful weapon to force the capitulation of the Soviets.

 

And lets not forget that the mighty Soviet war machine had attempted to attack tiny Finland and received a major black eye in the operation. If the Finns had not run out of ammunition they would have soundly defeated the mighty Soviets.

 

Torbruk--the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany

http://www.topedge.com/panels/ww2/na/chron.html

 

 

Wasn't it you that asked Richard why he bothers? and here you are :blink:

[OAC_Sparky]

Wasn't it you that asked Richard why he bothers? and here you are :blink:

Must be unstable. :lol:

[RichardJensen]

Richard I don't want you to prognosticate the thousand different ways China might come into conflict with the U.S. over resources I've been just simplely asking you to acknowledge that conflict is unavoidable and mainly because of the way China is being engaged.

What coming conflict? There already is conflict. Just as there would be conflict between competing democratic countries with similar appetites for raw materials.

 

...

[Bluecon]

Wasn't it you that asked Richard why he bothers? and here you are :blink:

I know--what am I thinking. I am quite bored with befuddling you.

 

 

Must be unstable. :lol:

 

Another intellectually stimulating post from OAC_Sparky.

 

So, Foxrun and OAC_Sparky--Are you brothers? There is an unmistakable common thread of intelligence(or lack thereof) with your posts.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Bluecon

[Bluecon]

I know--what am I thinking. I am quite bored with befuddling you.

Another intellectually stimulating post from OAC_Sparky.

 

So, Foxrun and OAC_Sparky--Are you brothers? There is an unmistakable common thread of intelligence(or lack thereof) with your posts.

Foxrun I must apologize. That was a low blow comparing your intelligience to OAC_Sparky.

[OAC_Sparky]

Another intellectually stimulating post from OAC_Sparky.

Well, at least you spelled "intellectual" correctly this time, you don't have to thank me for teaching you something. :rolleyes:

 

Hopefully someday you can return the favour. I doubt it, but anything is possible. :lol:

 

Foxrun I must apologize. That was a low blow comparing your intelligience to OAC_Sparky.

That's OK. Low blowing is your specialty, so I've heard.