Friday, March 12, 2021

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist Part 9. Democrats Leap Left, McConaughey for Governor?, Stats of the Wyoming Electorate, Carbon Engineering, Why not Nuclear?, Pop Tarts and Superficial Politicians, Time Travelers, Mopey Monarchy, Bed Bugs On Board.

No organized party

Will Rogers famously quipped that because he belonged to the Democratic Party, he didn't belong to an "organized party".

The entire staff of the Democratic Party in Nevada resigned.  All of them.

That's because the state organization in Nevada is the mirror image of the Republican GOP organization in Wyoming, if you recall that mirror images are right/left reversed.  That is, "Progressive" Democrats, and indeed candidates backed by the Democratic Socialist of America, took over the party.

Which is why, in spite of what we've been noting about the mess in the GOP, the Democrats will ultimately fail and are now well on their way to doing so.  

The Democratic Party tends to creep up on liberal positions and then, as soon as it has its toes in the water, it dives fully into the deep side of the pool, and drowns.

The American public really isn't liberal, or as the press and liberals now like to term it, "progressive".  It's really pretty conservative.  Indeed, something that the Democrats don't get, and the press very much doesn't get, is that a lot of the concerns that Trump gave voice to really do reflect the concerns of common Americans, and not in the way that the press imagines.

The press has repeatedly suggested since January 6 that Trump supporters are "racists".  Some probably are, and frankly the Democrats have some pretty racist members as well, with their racism just directed in a different direction.  But most aren't.  And they resent having their concerns framed in that fashion, which is actually hardening their opposition to the Democrats.

It isn't racist to be worried about the massive immigration rate into the country and to be concerned that its out of control.  Worrying about what seems to be an assault on traditional culture and even basic human nature in favor of newly defined and hyper evolving woke definitions doesn't make a person a bigot either.  A concern over traditional values and even traditional activities isn't an improper concern.

The left wing of the Democratic Party, looking at Donald Trump's loss in the last election, and the disarray in the party right now, is drawing the wrong conclusion.  The country hasn't leapt to the left.  Indeed, the overall vote would suggest its crept a bit to the right.  People just didn't like Donald Trump, who in more than one way seemed to be an assault on democracy and even an example of the personal opposite of what conservatives and populist stand for.  Lots of principled conservatives and populists have left the GOP. . . for now, but that doesn't mean that they're digging out their posters of Trotsky and Lenin. Far from it.

But the Democrats will think so. By 2024 they'll be running a Kamala Harris that they've pushed even further to the left of her natural left, which is pretty far left, and flame out.

Indeed, lots of people, myself included, have wondered how the Republicans are going to get their act together following the late stage disaster of the 2020 election.  The Democrats are providing the answer.

The Democrats just passed, but only barely, a massive COVID relief bill.  More money will not be spent, in real terms on relief for the pandemic than was spent on the New Deal.  Indeed, twice as much money is being flooded into the economy through the pandemic bills than was spent on the entire New Deal.  There's absolutely no way on earth that this isn't going to be damaging to the economy, none.  For retirees and near retirees, this may be the death knell of their retirements because if it isn't inflationary it will be simply stunning.  And if it turns out to be inflationary, the fact that the GOP had abandoned fiscal responsibility under Trump will be rapidly, and deservedly, for gotten.

Moreover, the Democrats have already flooded the legislative machinery with bills that leap to the left.  New gun control bills are being introduced and while the press routinely claims that the populace is for them, the voting populace never seems to be.  Democrats are dragging out the Equal Rights Amendment, a vestige from the 1970s that now would have little meaning, in part because the 1970s were the golden era of Democratic liberalism and the failure to pass the ERA was a failure.  They're also advancing bills regarding gender issues when the American public only recently came to accommodating itself to the Supreme Court's actions in the era, and if state legislatures are any clue, the legislative tide may be flowing in the opposite direction at the local level.

All of this is going to anger conservative and middle of the road voters.  If the GOP can get Donald Trump out of the way, and the simple operation of time may accomplish that, they're going to come roaring back and the Democrats will have themselves largely to blame.

A sane Democratic Party would concentrate on a few issues that have wide backing, and there are some, and push them through now, while, as Pentangli would have it, they have the muscle.

They won't.

Well, Reagan ran


Matthew McConaughey is considering running for Governor of Texas.  He is a Texan.  It's not clear what party his a member of.

The Texas gubernatorial race, like Wyoming's, is up next year.  He'd be running against the incumbent, Greg Abbott.

And why the heck not?  Abbott and McConaughey are both native Texans.  Abbott is a lawyer, and nobody like lawyers, and McConaughey is an actor who exudes authenticity.  Who knows if he's authentic or not, after all he's an actor, but the same could have been said about Reagan when he started off in politics.

And McConaughey is a good decade younger than Abbott, and therefore out of the Baby Boom generation.  He's married, moreover, to a hot Brazilian model who is a Latina Catholic, where as McConaughey is an Evangelical Christian, and they have three children, so he probably fits the rank and file younger Texan profile somewhat.

Grasping Statistics 


Regarding races, and this one the Wyoming House Race, a letter in the editor last weekend demonstrated a grasp of statistics beyond that commonly understood which those reporting on the alleged discontent with Liz Cheney should consider.

Indeed, as I've already noted, letters to the editor seems to show that more people support Cheney, by a huge margin, than oppose her. What the letter writer noted is that around 40% of Republicans are reported being really miffed at Cheney for her vote to impeach Donald Trump. That might be right, but the letter writer also noted that only about 1/3d of eligible voters casted votes.

I thought that must be wrong, but in actuality, it's worse than that.  About 50% of those eligible to vote registered to do so, and of those, only 1/3s showed up to vote.  That's horrifically bad.  But what that also means is that the cry that "Wyomingites" are mad at Cheney is probably pretty far off the mark.  That "40%" actually reflects less than 1/6th of the state's eligible voters.  When other factors are considered, Cheney probably has lost next to none of her support.

What that also means is this.  The hard right of the GOP is incredibly vulnerable to being turned out if average Republicans show up at the polls in 2022.  No wonder that the current party is trying to restrict voting.  The more people that actually vote, the less chance that the hard right keeps on keeping on.

It also means that the Democrats in the state have a lot more in the way of opportunity than the common evidence might suggest.  Wyoming is a "Republican state", but only half of Wyomingites are registering to vote which actually means that, as far as we can tell, less than half of Wyomingites are actually declared Republicans. That disinterested and disaffected remaining 50% is almost certainly outside of the diehard GOP camp.  They're not all Democrats, but probably a lot of them would have Democratic sympathies.

Finally, if the electorate gets really owly or just motivated, Cheney could swamp the hard right candidates next year.  It just depends on people showing up.

Shopify and CO2

Shopify has contracted with Carbon Engineering in Canada to contract for the latter's direct CO2 from the air removal process.

I've long wondered about this and strongly suspected it will become a viable technology.  Lots of places have been working on it and I've long thought it a viable technological pursuit.  Carbon Engineering is running a plant in Canada that does this right now, and Spotify may be pointing the way to the future on this.  But entering into a contract with Carbon Engineering, what Spotify is doing is contracting to remove its carbon footprint through directly removing the equivalency of what they re putting into the atmosphere.

As this technology develops, it will become more viable.  And at some point that's going to work its way into public policy as well as private effort.  Indeed, that day seems to have arrived.

This is, by the way, one of those industries Wyoming should look at.  So far the state's solutions to the rapid decline of the coal industry and the feared decline of the petroleum industry has been to try to require the operators of coal fired refineries to keep them in operation no matter what, and to invest in clean coal technology that has so far failed to yield results.  This technology is yielding results.  It'd make more sense to invest in this to offset the state's carbon footprint than to try to keep power plants generation that their operators wish to close.

Why not nuclear?


I have a separate post I'm doing on this, but with the Wyoming legislature working on bills to force coal fired plants to keep on keeping on, why isn't any thought given to the state building nuclear power plants?

I know, this will be "socialism", but it isn't exactly free market to force power companies to keep power plants into operation that they'd otherwise retire.

Wyoming once had a really viable uranium mining industry.  There are three still in operation.  There could be more.

Again, more on that coming up.

The House Judiciary Committee and Pop Tarts

Donny Osmond. . . um Matt Gaetz.  Superficial Gadfly.

Two Republican House Judiciary Affairs Committee members, Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordon, want the committee to hold hearings on Brittney Spears conservatorship.

Jim Jordon, right before he lost his sports coat, or started trying to look like the coach in The White Shadow. . . it isn't clear.

Wyomingites will recall Gaetz as the Donny Osmond second who came to the state to protest against Liz Cheney.  Cheney's record was actually more pro Trump that Floridian gadfly Gaetz up until she voted to impeach Trump for the January 6 insurrection.  Jim Jordon was the former coach who appeared consistently in hearings sans jacket, as if he was on the floor of an overheated basketball court.

This is really stupid.  It's been pointed out by Spears' father that she can file a motion to remove him as conservator or to terminate the conservatorship, but hasn't.  And no matter what the virtues of Spears may be, the fact of the matter that the national legislature wasting time on a state issue of this type is really absurd.

Supporters of Gaetz and Jordon, and they do have them, really ought to consider this. When Wyoming gets Gaetz flying in here to lambast Cheney, and then he next goes back to D.C. and declares that the former teen chanteuse's conservatorship is a matter of national importance, the state ought to brand him with the mark of superficiality.

How did Florida elect that guy?

Time Travelers


A group of U.S. Senators, a bipartisan group no less, has introduced a bill to make daylight savings time permanent.

Here's an idea. . . why not just ban daylight savings time and go back to the idea that time is connected to nature?

Superficiality tour de force

Æthelstan, King of the Anglo Saxons from 924 to 927, and King of the English from 927 to 939, the first English monarch to claim that broad of sovereignty and is widely regarded as the first King of England.  He never married and he had no children.  He's probably displeased over the current silliness in his kingdom.

There appears to be a serious flap involving the British Royal Family that stems from Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan's interview with Oprah.

If nothing else reveals the complete superficiality of the English speaking world at the moment, this certainly does.

I wonder to what degree that absurd fascination with the British Royal Family is an American deal.  I know that it happens in the UK too, but the American fascination is freakin' bizarre.  They aren't our Royal Family and they haven't been since we gave the King the middle finger salute in 1776.  Indeed, when we put the government together a few years later, we turned our back on all monarchs, a trend that we seemingly don't get much credit for launching as we didn't do what the French did and cut the head off of our former monarch. But then, he was right  there for the French. King George III was a long ways away.

Cutting off your king's head is a line of demarcation that, even if you bring kings back later, your society never gets over, so by and large the French don't get all atwitter wondering what the Bourbons are up to, and they're still around.  Some Bourbons would like the French to be fascinated with them but the French pretty much yawn and ignore them.  Probably more Reddit Rubes who are Americans or other English speakers care what is going on with the Bourbons than the French do.  Indeed, of all the English speaking peoples we seem to have the greatest fascination with the English monarchy.  You don't see Canadians or Australians lining up to interview Prince Harry.

Apparently we sure care what the Windsor's are up to for some reason, although I have no idea what it is.

We also care what Oprah has to say even though she's a superficial pop tartian.  Just having an opinion on everything and being able to write about it doesn't mean that your opinion is worth listening to or it has value.  Nonetheless, Oprah has come to virtually define the American Civil Religion in some ways.  You know. . all religions are valid . . you can get money just by thinking about it, and that sort of stuff.  

I didn't listen to interview of the Harry and Meghan so I'm ill equipped to comment on it.  I was amused, however, by the recent entry on James Proclaims, linked in on the right as a blog we follow, as he didn't either but still commented.  Apparently the ex pat royals have accused the Royal Family of being racist and went after the English press.

The English press is nasty, but it has been for some time. That's nothing new.  Being a Royal puts you in the crosshairs of the British press. That's just the way that is.  Indeed, even before the English press was that, the English themselves delighted on dissing the Royals, who have traditionally given people plenty of stuff to diss them on. Prince Harry surely knew that all along.  If Duchess Meghan didn't, well she should have.

On racism and the Royal Family, I don't know if individual members of the family harbor racist ideas but  would note that the King and Prince Consort are crowding 100 years old.  People will instantly say "that shouldn't matter" but frankly when somebody is approaching the centennial mark you have to cut them some slack if for no other reasons you can't expect people on death's door to be changing whatever attitude they've held for 10% of a millennium.  Both the Queen and the Prince Consort were born into an era when people still pretended that the British Empire mattered, even though it was fading.  Fading thought it was, however, all sorts of people all over the globe still took the view that the English had the right to rule all sorts of other people as they were English.  And at that time, and indeed up until fairly recently, nobility took all the rules pertaining to marriage, or should we say intermarriage, very seriously, which would also be bound to give you an odd view of the world.  People who were expected to marry only their cousins, the prime consideration in their marital choices, and one of the primary reasons for the social and physical ills that they suffer, on the basis that their interrelated blood lines were "special", can't be expected to shed themselves of some retained concept of that now that it isn't, particularly as the fact that it now isn't demonstrates how weird monarchy really is in the first place.

That's all faded but, if anything, the European Royals have all proven themselves to be amazingly adaptable.  Frequently the titular heads of state churches, they switch religions quickly for marital convenience and have long intermarried in spite of national allegiance.  If anything, the oddity of the most recently Royal marriages is that they're tending to go British, with Markle being an exception.  The Prince Consort, Prince Phillip, is from the deposed Greek royal family and grew up in the Greek Orthodox Church before becoming an Anglican for marital purposes, something that would make very little sense for anyone who took Orthodoxy seriously.  One of the Queen's great grandfathers was an Austrian.  This all fits into the common pattern of royals in which a Lutheran princess ends up the Russian Orthodox Czarina.  You get the picture.  For a class of people that Monarchist hold stand for the traditions of their countries, Royals really don't..  They just adopt them.  In recent years that's meant adopting the concept that average folks can be royals too, and that's been the pattern everywhere from England to Japan, but that's a fairly recent concept.  Earlier, they could abandon countries and faiths, but abandoning the royal bloodlines was an anathema.  Now it isn't.

That's actually return to monarchical origin, in which the King was kin and just head of the family, but expecting that to be picked up overnight by centenarians is asking for a lot, particularly when at least the Queen is next to uneducated.

And the whiny approach of Harry is really a bit much.  Harry has always been a whiner, seemingly, although he seemed to have found a home in the British Army.  Meghan, however, made him a whiner again and he gave up at least one of his more many pursuits, although its one engaged in by women as well, that being hunting.  That sort of behavior used to be defined by a crude term I'd hear a lot when younger which was something not admired at all when men were still allowed to be that in common culture but which is now something of an anathema itself.

Biological Attack

USS Connecticut

The USS Connecticut, an American submarine, has a bed bug infestation. 

That's gross.

It's also a serious problem.  Bug infestations have always been a problem that submariners  have tried to guard against.  Once you got one rolling, it'd be hard to address it.

A more serious infestation problem was recently gamed by the Navy.

The U.S. Navy recently ran a war game in which the US is the subject of a surprise Chinese military biological strike on Naval and air installations.  In the game, the U.S. rapidly lost and the Red Chinese invaded Taiwan.

The American public may not be paying that much attention to it, but the Department of the Navy is seriously concerned that the U.S. is going to get attacked by China.  Indeed, in historical terms, the Navy is essentially where it was at in the 1920s and 1930s when it was studying an oncoming war with Japan that it was convinced was coming.  

In that case it was right, and there's real reason to be concerned that its right again.

China isn't analogous so much to Imperial Japan of the 1930s as it is to Imperial Germany of the 1890s-1910s, or even the 1930s-1940s, and that's the problem.  Its a massive country with resources and its occupying other cultures against their will.  It's flexing its muscles and in the same way that Germans in the first half of the 20th Century dreamed of an Anschluss of the German speaking peoples, and in particular Austria, China dreams of the same with all the  Chinese speaking peoples.  It's pretty much crushed the special status that Hong Kong once had and it seems to be seriously aiming to drag Taiwan back into Peking governance.  It's been building a navy.

Our Navy is gaming the future war.  The Marine Corps under President Trump determined to adopt a plan to re invent itself, the same way it did after World War One with Japan in mind, with China now in mind, and that's an extremely serious development.  The Army doesn't seem focused on it, but it would have no real reason to be until that time came. The Air Force has quietly been building some forces with China as an anticipated enemy.

Something to be concerned about.

March 12, 1921. The Map Makers.

 

Participants in the Cairo and Jerusalem conference, plus two lion clubs.  Those photographed include Winston Churchill and T. E. Lawrence.

A convention commenced in Cairo on this day in 1921 to discuss the future of the Middle East, now occupied by French and British forces, but with strong regional forces seeking immediate independence.  The conference would run through the end of the month and issue a report of its findings.  Sessions were held in Cairo and Jerusalem, and numerous contending entities including forces in rebellion against European parties were interviewed.

Criticized in later years (the photo above has been captioned as being of "the forty thieves"), T. E. Lawrence, a great friend of the Arabs, declared that it fully fulfilled British promises to the Arabs and that Winston Churchill had "made straight" the tangle of post war interests in the region.

March 12, 1921, Saturday Evening Post.

Skeptics would have been entitled to doubt a rosy future.

Blog Mirror: The Chaos of Agriculture

 Interesting student point of view on agriculture, non agriculture, and chaos.

The Chaos of Agriculture

I'm curious what readers here may think of the author's points.


Friday Farming: Two Sisters Ensure Family Farming Legacy Thrives

Two Sisters Ensure Family Farming Legacy Thrives



Thursday, March 11, 2021

March 10, 1941 Lend Lease, War Production, and Long Lived Actresses.

An already weary looking FDR signs the Lend Lease Bill on March 11, 1941.

President Roosevelt signed the Lend Lease Bill, which we've written about previously, and it became law.

More on that here:

Today in World War II History—March 11, 1941

The law stated:

AN ACT 
Further to promote the defense of the United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate add House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as "An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States".
SEC. 2. As used in this Act -
(a) The term "defense article" means -
(1) Any weapon, munition. aircraft, vessel, or boat; (2) Any machinery, facility, tool, material, or supply necessary for the manufacture, production, processing, repair, servicing, or operation of any article described in this subsection; (3) Any component material or part of or equipment for any article described in this subsection; (4) Any agricultural, industrial or other commodity or article for defense.
Such term "defense article" includes any article described in this subsection: Manufactured or procured pursuant to section 3, or to which the United States or any foreign government has or hereafter acquires title, possession, or control.
(b) The term "defense information" means any plan, specification, design, prototype, or information pertaining to any defense article.
SEC. 3. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the President may, from time to time. when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary Of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the bead of any other department or agency of the Government -
(1) To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, to the extent to which funds are made available therefor, or contracts are authorized from time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States. (2) To sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article, but no defense article not manufactured or procured under paragraph (1) shall in any way be disposed of under this paragraph, except after consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army or the Chief of Naval Operations of the Navy, or both. The value of defense articles disposed of in any way under authority of this paragraph, and procured from funds heretofore appropriated, shall not exceed $1,300,000,000. The value of such defense articles shall be determined by the head of the department or agency concerned or such other department, agency or officer as shall be designated in the manner provided in the rules and regulations issued hereunder. Defense articles procured from funds hereafter appropriated to any department or agency of the Government, other than from funds authorized to he appropriated under this Act. shall not be disposed of in any way under authority of this paragraph except to the extent hereafter authorized by the Congress in the Acts appropriating such funds or otherwise. (4) To communicate to any such government any defense information pertaining to any defense article furnished to such government under paragraph (2) of this subsection. (5) To release for export any defense article disposed of in any way under this subsection to any such government.
(b) The terms and conditions upon which any such foreign government receives any aid authorized under subsection (a) shall be those which the President deems satisfactory, and the benefit to the United States may he payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.
(c) After June 30, 1943, or after the passage of a concurrent resolution by the two Houses before June 30, 1943, which declares that the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) are no longer necessary to promote the defense of the United States, neither the President nor the head of any department or agency shall exercise any of the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) except that until July 1, 1946, any of such powers may be exercised to the extent necessary to carry out a contract or agreement with such a foreign government made before July 1,1943, or before the passage of such concurrent resolution, whichever is the earlier.
(d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or to permit the authorization of convoying vessels by naval vessels of the United States.
(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or to permit the authorization of the entry of any American vessel into a combat area in violation of section 3 of the neutrality Act of 1939.
SEC. 4 All contracts or agreements made for the disposition of any defense article or defense information pursuant to section 3 shall contain a clause by which the foreign government undertakes that it will not, without the consent of the President, transfer title to or possession of such defense article or defense information by gift, sale, or otherwise, or permit its use by anyone not an officer, employee, or agent of such foreign government.
SEC. 5. (a) The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the Government involved shall when any such defense article or defense information is exported, immediately inform the department or agency designated by the President to administer section 6 of the Act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat. 714). of the quantities, character, value, terms of disposition and destination of the article and information so exported.
(b) The President from time to time, but not less frequently than once every ninety days, shall transmit to the Congress a report of operations under this Act except such information as he deems incompatible with the public interest to disclose. Reports provided for under this subsection shall be transmitted to the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of representatives, as the case may be, if the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, is not in session.
SEC. 6. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated from time to time, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and accomplish the purposes of this Act.
(b) All money and all property which is converted into money received under section 3 from any government shall, with the approval of the Director of the Budget. revert to the respective appropriation or appropriations out of which funds were expended with respect to the defense article or defense information for which such consideration is received, and shall be available for expenditure for the purpose for which such expended funds were appropriated by law, during the fiscal year in which such funds are received and the ensuing fiscal year; but in no event shall any funds so received be available for expenditure after June 30, 1946.
SEC. 7. The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the head of the department or agency shall in all contracts or agreements for the disposition of any defense article or defense information fully protect the rights of all citizens of the United States who have patent rights in and to any such article or information which is hereby authorized to he disposed of and the payments collected for royalties on such patents shall be paid to the owners and holders of such patents.
SEC. 8. The Secretaries of War and of the Navy are hereby authorized to purchase or otherwise acquire arms, ammunition, and implements of war produced within the jurisdiction of any country to which section 3 is applicable, whenever the President deems such purchase or acquisition to be necessary in the interests of the defense of the United States.
SEC. 9. The President may, from time to time, promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out any of the provisions of this Act; and he may exercise any power or authority conferred on him by this Act through such department, agency, or officer as be shall direct.
SEC. 10. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to change existing law relating to the use of the land and naval forces of the United States, except insofar as such use relates to the manufacture, procurement, and repair of defense articles, the communication of information and other noncombatant purposes enumerated in this Act.
SEC 11. If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any circumstance shall be held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and the applicability of such provision to other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Approved, March 11, 1941.

We've gone into this before, so we won't dwell on it here, but the amount of material supplied to Allied nations, starting before the US was an official Ally, was massive, and included everything from shoes and food to heavy weapons.

P40s being assembled in Iran for delivery to the Soviet Union.

Indeed, some of the equipment supplied became more associated, to some degree, with our Allies, than it did with the US, while other items were used, but not really liked.

P-39 in late war Italian service, after Italy had switched sides in the war.  Large numbers of P39s were supplied to the Soviet Union, which loved them.

And some items went on to such universal Allied use, that hardly any thought is given now to the items being supplied in this fashion.

Early British M4 Sherman (note the extra front firing machineguns.  The Sherman came to be one of the most common tanks in British service.

Soviet Sherman's in Brno, Czechoslovakia.

On the same day, something that didn't require U.S. aid  in any fashion, the Halifax bomber, went on its first combat mission.

Halifax bomber.

You can read more about that here:

First Halifax bomber mission

It was a short mission to Le Havre.

This is significant, however, in that it demonstrates that while the American role in supplying materials through Lend Lease was hugely significant, it was never the case that the other major Allies were without significant manufacturing capacity themselves, which always leads to the debate on whether the Allies could have won the war without Lend Lease.  It certainly is questionable that they could have, but even the UK, which is often portrayed as down and nearly out at this point in the war, was producing more aircraft than Germany and those of types which the Germans were not and never really would. And the UK and the USSR certainly produced their own armor and small arms as well.

Indeed, it's worth noting that massive amounts of arms were supplied by other means and by other countries. The British supplied significant amounts of armor to the USSR and all of the Commonwealth countries supplied material to the United States.


Stearman N2S-3 parked on the ramp, 11 March 1941.  This photo has nothing to do with Lend Lease, the plane simply happened to be photographed on this day in 1941.

On this day in 1941 Lotte Koch, Belgian-German film actress appeared on the cover of Die Junge Dame (The Young Woman). Born in Brussels in 1913, the then 27 year old actress' career had just taken off.  It's interesting in that we don't tend to think of daily life in wartime Germany in this fashion.  Germany may have been at war, but some Germans were buying magazines about young women.

Lotte Koch publicity photo.

Koch had not starred in any films with a Nazi theme, but would soon star in Attack on Baku, which was an anti British film.  Her big film would come in 1944, The Black Robe, in which she stared as a female prosecutor whose career puts in her in conflict with her neglected husband.  Indeed, a drama of that type is also something we wouldn't expect for Nazi Germany, but it had been found that Germans really weren't very interested in the late stage of the war in watching films that were disguised propaganda.  Indeed, a struggle over the issue had occurred within the German government with, surprisingly, Goebbels coming down on the side of escapist dramas, knowing that the German public was unlikely to go to see or to appreciate propaganda films by that point in the war.

Following the war she appeared in several "rubble films", a post war genera that emphasized the physical destruction of European cities for dramatic effect.  Often photographed with sort of a sad appearance, she may have been ideal for those sorts of films.  This is interesting as well as there would be sort of an assumption that having been in the film industry in Nazi Germany would have been a career ender, but it did not prove to be.

Married twice, to brothers, her first husband was a well known German film personality who had multiple wives during his life, Hollywood style.  Her second husband was a German army officer whose career was completed in the West German Army.  She lived to be 100 years old and was survived by her husband, but her career ended in 1953 which she gave up acting.  Given her very long life, only a small faction of it was devoted to that career.

March 11, 1921. Armenian Evacuation.

Ernest Renan

The French cruiser Ernest Renan took the Armenian government gold reserves and the reserves of the Armenian Orthodox Church out of the country as it was set to fall to the invading Soviet Red Army.