General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Elfie on September 06, 2022, 08:58:20 PM
Title: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 06, 2022, 08:58:20 PM
I love "what if" scenarios, especially those concerning dubya, dubya too.
So here's my latest "what if"... What if, Uncle Sam hadn't been shipping millions of tons of various supplies, food, raw materials, war material, etc, etc, etc, would Britain have capitulated or would someone else have stepped up to help supply her?
Personally, I think the primary language in Britain would be German now. I believe she would have capitulated sooner rather than later due to an inability to continue producing weapons.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: sparky127 on September 06, 2022, 09:02:17 PM
What did Churchill think of "Lend-Lease"?
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 06, 2022, 09:12:16 PM
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, "what if" Britain hadn't gotten that stuff? What then, how does dubya dubya too turn out then? Do we even get involved in Europe?
Discuss.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Devil 505 on September 06, 2022, 09:44:38 PM
Your "what if" scenario makes little sense.
You either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that Britain was buying supplies with cash before Lend-Lease was passed in March 1941. They would have continued to do so, and could have afforded to maintain this status quo in the short term, probably into 1942.
You either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that Nazi Germany was fully committed to fighting the Soviet Union from June 1941. Germany was no longer a direct threat to England. The US Also began supplying the USSR under Lend-Lease beginning in October 1941. Before this, the USSR was also buying material directly from the US.
We all know that on December 7th, Japan attacked the US. But you either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that Japan also attacked British holdings in the Pacific. This makes the US and Britain allied against Japan by default at this point.
Adolf Hitler declared war on the US on December 8, making the US allied with Britain and the USSR against Nazi Germany by default at this point.
That's it. Game over for the Axis. The war is lost for them and the only question is how long it takes to actually end.
Lend-Lease sped up the process to be sure, but once the US is actively at war with Germany and Japan the die is cast. Even if both Britain and the USSR had to pay up front for supplies, the material needed that was provided for under Lend-Lease, which would not be affordable without it, would have simply been used to field more US forces directly. You would have probably seen a US army or two fielded in Russia fighting Germany.
The only possible difference I see is in North Africa. Maybe the Egyptians would be speaking Italian now.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Oldman731 on September 06, 2022, 09:55:50 PM
Personally, I think the primary language in Britain would be German now. I believe she would have capitulated sooner rather than later due to an inability to continue producing weapons.
Eh. There was no way the Nazis were going to make their way across the Channel. As Devil says, the worst that would have happened was that Mussolini would have had his Mare Nostrum.
- oldman
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: RotBaron on September 06, 2022, 10:03:02 PM
What if the Treaty of Versailles wasn’t so punitive?
Maybe a terrible artist would have remained just that and far from any significant annals of history. 🤔
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 06, 2022, 10:18:47 PM
You either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that Britain was buying supplies with cash before Lend-Lease was passed in March 1941. They would have continued to do so, and could have afforded to maintain this status quo in the short term, probably into 1942.
You either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that Nazi Germany was fully committed to fighting the Soviet Union from June 1941. Germany was no longer a direct threat to England. The US Also began supplying the USSR under Lend-Lease beginning in October 1941. Before this, the USSR was also buying material directly from the US.
We all know that on December 7th, Japan attacked the US. But you either don't understand or are ignoring the fact that Japan also attacked British holdings in the Pacific. This makes the US and Britain allied against Japan by default at this point.
Adolf Hitler declared war on the US on December 8, making the US allied with Britain and the USSR against Nazi Germany by default at this point.
That's it. Game over for the Axis. The war is lost for them and the only question is how long it takes to actually end.
Lend-Lease sped up the process to be sure, but once the US is actively at war with Germany and Japan the die is cast. Even if both Britain and the USSR had to pay up front for supplies, the material needed that was provided for under Lend-Lease, which would not be affordable without it, would have simply been used to field more US forces directly. You would have probably seen a US army or two fielded in Russia fighting Germany.
The only possible difference I see is in North Africa. Maybe the Egyptians would be speaking Italian now.
Britain's coffers weren't bottomless and without outside aide wouldn't likely have survived as a nation.
I do believe you are ignoring one important aspect of the "what if" scenario and that is, we stop shipping millions of tons of supplies across the pond. In this scenario, it doesn't matter that you were paying cash previously because the things you were buying are no longer for sale.
Once you no longer have the needed supplies to sustain a war effort, what then?
If the U.S. isn't shipping supplies across the pond then it's much easier for the Germans to choke off any remaining supply lines because the Brits don't have the help they need.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 06, 2022, 10:20:31 PM
Eh. There was no way the Nazis were going to make their way across the Channel. As Devil says, the worst that would have happened was that Mussolini would have had his Mare Nostrum.
- oldman
If the U.S. wasn't shipping millions of tons of material across the pond the Germans might not have needed to invade. How do you make war without weapons or food to feed your soldiers?
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Devil 505 on September 06, 2022, 10:22:16 PM
Why wouldn't they?
Seem like you're being deliberately obtuse here.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Volron on September 06, 2022, 10:25:06 PM
I doubt Germany would've invaded and if they did, it would have failed. Looking at what they had setup? Mostly barges for landing craft to my understanding, ones that would not have cut it being towed across the channel. And then there is the primary thing to think about, the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy was pretty much still in pristine condition. To my understanding they also had an order out which roughly stated: charge through the mines. I believe the plan was to have their destroyers and light cruisers lead the heavier ships, basically act as "minesweepers". If I also read correctly, the RN had set aside reserves to ensure they could defend the home isles from invasion by Germany.
Regardless, look at what it took to launch Operation Overloard. The Germans didn't have anywhere near that amount of equipment, and definitely not the Naval power, and they barely had the air power.
Here is one "What If":
What if France followed through?
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: MiloMorai on September 06, 2022, 10:43:10 PM
When was Germany going to invade the UK? They failed in 1940 when the UK was far less prepared. The war on the Eastern Front was taking all the resources Germany could produce so what was Germany going to invade with?
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Eagler on September 07, 2022, 07:07:00 AM
Any of you truly think our military complex even back then would pass up the chance to make billions?
They would have found a way to get involved..even if Pearl didn't do it..
The majority of Americans had enough with ww1 and wanted no part of ww2 until it became patriotic to care so..and were then demonized if you were against
Eagler
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Eagler on September 07, 2022, 07:15:43 AM
When was Germany going to invade the UK? They failed in 1940 when the UK was far less prepared. The war on the Eastern Front was taking all the resources Germany could produce so what was Germany going to invade with?
Without taking out their airforce as they stupidity switched to civilian targets - invasion was impossible
Having the fighters stay alongside the bombers instead of wiping out the British fighters was one of drug addicted Goring biggest mistakes
With choices like this I am not sure England would have fallen to the nazis even without Americas help
Eagler
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 07, 2022, 11:44:53 AM
Without taking out their airforce as they stupidity switched to civilian targets - invasion was impossible
Having the fighters stay alongside the bombers instead of wiping out the British fighters was one of drug addicted Goring biggest mistakes
With choices like this I am not sure England would have fallen to the nazis even without Americas help
Eagler
After the war British figher command estimated that they were two weeks from collapsing when the Germans switched to civilian targets. Would British fighter command have lasted even that long w/o supplies from across the pond?
You guys are pretty terrible at "what if" scenarios so I'll explain a bit. A "what if" scenario disregards how the war actually went and explores how it might have gone if something different had occured, like no supplies being shipped across the pond.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: MiloMorai on September 07, 2022, 12:36:36 PM
Seems someone forgets what a drain on resources the Eastern Front was for Germany.
The UK was receiving supplies from the Commonwealth.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Shuffler on September 07, 2022, 02:13:46 PM
What if..... Hitler did get shot and killed by the soldier in WWI.....
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: sparky127 on September 07, 2022, 02:31:08 PM
What if..... Hitler did get shot and killed by the soldier in WWI.....
What if... You had the opportunity to go back in time and murder Hitler as a child? Would you do it and face the consequences of being a child murderer? Personally I think Hitler was just the right maniac in the right place at the right time to fill the power vacuum left by the treaty of Versailles. If not him, that same vacuum could have been filled by any number of other disaffected maniacs...
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Devil 505 on September 07, 2022, 05:03:29 PM
This is a "what if" scenario. You're not very good at this are you?
I'd say you're the one who's not very good at this. You want to discuss what would happen if the individuals involved had made different decisions than what they did in reality. You need to establish why any of them would deviate from reality. That's the "why" you need to account for, and "just because" or "Brits have bad teeth" doesn't cut it.
History was made by real people with real ambitions and apprehensions. We reasonably understand why these people acted how they did in reality and what their motivations for doing so were. You need to establish a strong enough reason for these people to act differently. People don't change just for the hell of it.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: sparky127 on September 07, 2022, 08:04:47 PM
It's almost like he's desperately trying to change the subject because he knows the answer to the question.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Devil 505 on September 07, 2022, 11:34:38 PM
Seems you're getting worked up about something. Calm down man. This is only a game forum.
Coogan
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: mechanic on September 08, 2022, 06:23:29 AM
If you think a successful German invasion of Britain would have resulted in the people speaking German you have no idea of the complexity of European history up until that point. All that would have happened would be a couple of meetings by the ruling classes, a couple of economic and trade deals signed, and things would have basically remained the same.
In fact, looking at the mess we are in now, German administration quite probably would have meant things were better long term.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: knorB on September 08, 2022, 06:34:17 AM
How close was Britain to being starved during the happy time? Now imagine nothing coming from the US.
That's a lot less shipping the Germans have to worry about.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: MiloMorai on September 08, 2022, 06:53:48 AM
Very few North Atlantic convoys left USofA for the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_convoys_during_World_War_II_by_region
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: knorB on September 08, 2022, 06:57:43 AM
Think you better look a bit closer...
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: knorB on September 08, 2022, 07:03:25 AM
without the generocity of the lend lease act ... well?
The critical world situation confronting the United States in the spring of 1941 raised questions that were not answered by drafting long-range war plans. The most pressing of these questions was how to help insure the survival of Great Britain. Britain's weakness in early 1941 stemmed primarily from its increasingly critical shortage of merchant shipping. In March and April the British lost ships to Axis submarine, surface, and air attacks at an annual rate of about 7,300,000 gross tons; with a current British shipbuilding capacity of 1,250,000 tons, continuing losses at that rate would result in a net loss to Britain of about 6,000,000 tons a year, or about one fourth its available merchant fleet.1 The British Isles simply could not long survive continued losses of this magnitude. The shipping crisis had been the basis for Admiral Stark's prediction in December 1940 that Britain might not be able to hold out for more than six months. A month later Secretary Hull, in testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the proposed Lend-Lease Act
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: bj229r on September 08, 2022, 07:08:23 AM
It was easier to get by back then, people didn't eat so much
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: MiloMorai on September 08, 2022, 07:22:02 AM
1939: Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT) Sep39 48/178,621 Oct39 33/156,156 Nov39 27/72,721 Dec39 39/101,823 Tot39 147 (36.75/month)/509,321 (127,330.25/month) British merchant ship construction capacity from 1939-1941 did not exceed 1.2 million GRT per year. US merchant ship construction in 1939 was 0.242 million GRT.
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas) Aug39 19/2 Sep39 3/0 Oct39 13/3 Nov39 10/1/1 Dec39 5/1/1 Tot39 50/7/2 (an average of 10 patrols per month and 14% lost)
Thus for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 21 ships sunk (note that throughout these averages will be slightly inflated since they do not include the minor contribution of the Italian submarine fleet.)
1940: Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT) Jan40 53/163,029 Feb40 50/182,369 Mar40 26/69,826 Apr40 6/30,927 May40 14/61,635 Jun40 66/375,069 Jul40 41/301,975 Aug40 56/288,180 Sep40 60/288,180 Oct40 66/363,267 Nov40 36/181,695 Dec40 46/256,310 Tot40 520 (43.33/month)/2,462,867 (205,238.91/month) US merchant ship construction for 1940 was about 0.5 million GRT.
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas) Jan40 8/2 Feb40 10/3 Mar40 10/2 Apr40 19/3 May40 8/0/2 Jun40 18/3/1 Jul40 4/0 Aug40 16/2/1 Sep40 12/0 Oct40 13/2 Nov40 14/1 Dec40 6/0 Tot40 138/18/3 (an average of 11.5 patrols per month and 13% lost)
Thus for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 28.89 ships sunk.
1941: Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT) Jan41 23/129,711 Feb41 47/254,118 Mar41 41/236,549 Apr41 41/239,719 May41 63/362,268 Jun41 66/325,817 Jul41 26/112,624 Aug41 27/85,603 Sep41 57/212,237 Oct41 28/170,786 Nov41 15/76,056 Dec41 23/93,226 Tot41 457 (38.08/month)/2,298,714 (191,559.5/month) US merchant ship construction 1941 0.804 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas) Jan41 10/0 Feb41 18/3/2 Mar41 15/3/3 Apr41 14/2/2 May41 21/0/2 Jun41 22/2/3 Jul41 24/1/9 Aug41 42/5/9 Sep41 38/0/2 Oct41 37/0/6 Nov 41 27/5/5 Dec41 49/4/6 Tot 41 287/25/49 (an average of 23.9 patrols sailing per month and 8.7% lost)
Thus for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 18.28 ships sunk.
1942: Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT) Jan42 56/310,224 Feb42 72/429,255 Mar42 93/507,514 Apr42 81/418,161 May42 129/616,835 Jun42 136/636,926 Jul42 96/467,051 Aug42 117/587,245 Sep42 96/461,794 Oct42 89/583,690 Nov42 126/802,160 Dec42 64/337,618 Tot42 1,155 (96.25/month)/6,158,473 (513,206.08/month) British and Canadian merchant ship construction 1942 1.8 million GRT US merchant ship construction 1942 5.433 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas) Jan42 50/2/5 Feb42 29/3/2 Mar42 32/2 Apr42 37/2/2 May42 23/3 Jun42 39/9/5 Jul42 45/7/3 Aug42 58/10/4 Sep42 52/8/8 Oct42 62/6/10 Nov42 54/8/6 Dec42 59/8/7 Tot42 540/68/57 (an average of 45 patrols sailing per month and 12.6% lost)
Thus for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 16.99 ships sunk.
1943: Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT) Jan43 44/307,196 Feb43 67/362,081 Mar43 110/633,731 Apr43 50/287,137 May43 46/237,182 Jun43 17/76,090 Jul43 46/237,777 Aug43 20/92,443 Sep43 16/98,852 Oct43 20/91,295 Nov43 9/30,726 Dec43 8/55,794 Tot43 452 (37.67/month)/2,510,304 (209,192/month) US merchant ship construction 1943 13.081 million GRT
Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas) Jan43 61/13/11 Feb43 72/8/9 Mar43 59/16/10 Apr43 95/35/18 May43 55/23/9 Jun43 46/23/9 Jul43 39/27/7 (49 total patrols of all types) Aug43 33/12/6 Sep43 32/11/10 Oct43 62/23/9 Nov43 36/9/4 Dec43 31/10/2 Tot43 621/210/104 (an average of 51.75 patrols sailing per month and 33.8% lost)
Thus for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 2.15 ships sunk.
So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevant to the outcome of the war.
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT) Tot44 125/663,308 Tot45 63/284,476
US merchant ship construction for 1944 was 12.257 million GRT US merchant ship construction for 1945 (through 1 May) was 3.548 million GRT
U-Boat Fleet to 1Sep42 On 19Aug39 there were 57 U-Boats in commission, 20 sea-going U-Boats and 18 ‘ducks’ were fully ready to put to sea Total number U-Boats deployed to 1Sep42 275 Total number lost 94 Total number retired 10 Total number available 171
U-Boat Fleet 1Sep42 to 1May45 Total number deployed 1Sep42 to 1May45 531 Total number lost 1Sep42 to 1May45 568
British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons) 3Sep39 2,999/17,784 30Sep40 3,75721,373 30Sep41 3,608/20,552 31Dec41 3,616/20,693
Thus, despite the ‘success’ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.
Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses) 1939 700/5 (7.1%) 1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%) 1941 5,923/153 (2.6%) 1942 4,798/80 (1.7%) 1943 5,667/87 (1.5%) 1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)
The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender.
At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: nrshida on September 08, 2022, 08:37:35 AM
LMAO at this thread. You have to ask what kind of disturbed personalities would actually find it soothing trying to flame and grief like this. You're trolling your little hearts out in this the fourth thread of this week and this is all you've got in the tank. Bad teeth :rofl Go on, tell us another. Absolutely pathetic.
I also specifically love the way some of you feeble-minded nitwits keep saying 'we' when talking about supply and fighting. You grew up like mollycoddled snowflakes. You'd have been lucky to have been issued a toilet brush in the 40s. Maybe you could have gotten a medal for cleaning a particularly stubborn Mr. Hanky from the Captain's head. Most likely you'd be growing potatoes wearing cowboy hats and talking big about how you defeated Hitler by yourselves.
All I can say is: Zack would've been proud that he caused you so much Brit-hating butt-hurt it drove you to troll like this in a WW2 history-aware forum. Making an absolute fool out of yourselves.
For old time's sake, and directed specifically at the ICOM-trolls: read a book, fatties. \/..
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: sparky127 on September 08, 2022, 09:05:04 AM
Is this the type of behavior one should expect from a loyal subject of the British Empire??
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: bj229r on September 08, 2022, 09:07:30 AM
I miss the arguments with Beetle, he could absolutely not be rattled
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: knorB on September 08, 2022, 09:09:22 AM
I miss the arguments with Beetle, he could absolutely not be rattled
His gardening tips ruined my tomatoes...
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 08, 2022, 10:30:58 AM
Quote
You need to establish why any of them would deviate from reality. That's the "why" you need to account for
That's what the discussion is for and you haven't contributed to the "what if" scenario at all. All you've done is whinge that the what if scenario isn't what actually happened. Well duh! It's a what if scenario.
The bad teeth comment was simply to illustrate that we could have stopped shipping you supplies for any reason we chose. By far the majority of Americans didn't want to send our boys to fight in another of Europe's bs wars.
If you can't participate in the what if scenario then maybe you should leave the thread eh? What if scenarios aren't for everyone and that's fine but there is no need to come into a thread like this and crap all over it like a pigeon.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Shuffler on September 08, 2022, 12:41:27 PM
That's what the discussion is for and you haven't contributed to the "what if" scenario at all. All you've done is whinge that the what if scenario isn't what actually happened. Well duh! It's a what if scenario.
The bad teeth comment was simply to illustrate that we could have stopped shipping you supplies for any reason we chose. By far the majority of Americans didn't want to send our boys to fight in another of Europe's bs wars.
If you can't participate in the what if scenario then maybe you should leave the thread eh? What if scenarios aren't for everyone and that's fine but there is no need to come into a thread like this and crap all over it like a pigeon.
And you missed my point entirely. You can't have a "what if" hinging on alternate decisions of people without establishing a credible reason for these people to behave differently.
If you just want to entertain "what if's" without human interactions, you'd better stick to scenarios such as "what if the asteroid didn't impact Earth 65 million years ago?" or "what if Earth didn't have a moon?"
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 08, 2022, 01:22:25 PM
And you missed my point entirely. You can't have a "what if" hinging on alternate decisions of people without establishing a credible reason for these people to behave differently.
If you just want to entertain "what if's" without human interactions, you'd better stick to scenarios such as "what if the asteroid didn't impact Earth 65 million years ago?" or "what if Earth didn't have a moon?"
You're continued attempts to hijack this thread are childish in the extreme. Either participate in the what if scenario or don't.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Devil 505 on September 08, 2022, 01:34:54 PM
I'm not hijacking you're thread at all. I'm only explaining why your "thought experiment" suffers from a severe lack of logic.
Your accusations of my hijacking it only tell me that you are not actually interested in having a reasonable discussion and are either looking to push your biased perspective or are just trolling.
In either case, I'm out. Enjoy the circle-jerk with your ice cream buddies.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Shuffler on September 08, 2022, 03:33:49 PM
What if... this thread were never started.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 08, 2022, 05:14:14 PM
This thread had the potential to be a good time but then the pigeons flew in and crapped everywhere.
Agreed.
So I'll start another, similar one, and we'll see what happens there.
- oldman
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: nrshida on September 09, 2022, 01:48:34 AM
It isn't possible to have an interesting discussion while the ICOM-troll faction is allowed to operate their forum exploit. Notwithstanding orders to surpress trolling activities while attention is on them - proves nothing.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: guncrasher on September 09, 2022, 02:38:01 AM
It isn't possible to have an interesting discussion while the ICOM-troll faction is allowed to operate their forum exploit. Notwithstanding orders to surpress trolling activities while attention is on them - proves nothing.
come on Gina have suggestions how to make this forum better than ice road.
semp
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: nrshida on September 09, 2022, 02:55:58 AM
It isn't possible to have an interesting discussion while the ICOM-troll faction is allowed to operate their forum exploit. Notwithstanding orders to surpress trolling activities while attention is on them - proves nothing.
There is a forum exlpoit? Who knew...
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: Elfie on September 09, 2022, 11:20:33 AM
And you missed my point entirely. You can't have a "what if" hinging on alternate decisions of people without establishing a credible reason for these people to behave differently.
If you just want to entertain "what if's" without human interactions, you'd better stick to scenarios such as "what if the asteroid didn't impact Earth 65 million years ago?" or "what if Earth didn't have a moon?"
What you're saying isn't/wasn't necessary and the proof of that is the thread Oldmn started. This thread and Oldmn's were started for the sake of discussion and you just couldn't be bothered to do anything other than strut around pooping on everything.
You should check out Oldmn's thread, it's a good time.
Title: Re: Supplies to Britain
Post by: nrshida on September 09, 2022, 12:16:44 PM