Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘tactics to defeat Nazi Germany can defeat global warming’

From the occasionally used cortex department:

Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Friday at a campaign event that the United States’ blueprint for beating global warming needs to be the same as the blueprint the U.S. used for defeating Nazi Germany in the 1940s.

“So we talk about existential threats, the last time we had a really major existential threat to this country was around World War II,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And so we’ve been here before and we have a blueprint of doing this before.”

“None of these things are new ideas,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “What we had was an existential threat in the context of a war. We had a direct existential threat with another nation, this time it was Nazi Germany, and axis, who explicitly made the United States as an enemy, as an enemy.”

Full story here
What she misses is this inconvenient truth –  a year after President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, the USA is leading the world in reducing CO2 emissions while many of the other nations are breaking their promises to reduce emissions.

316 thoughts on “Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘tactics to defeat Nazi Germany can defeat global warming’

      • Bolton has a plan to stop global warming, it involves invading Russia. This has historically proven to be a reliable way of producing a “coldest winter evah” event in northern Europe. Pulling out of INF will enable use of battlefield nukes in Europe and save the problem of US having to pay for continued political influence there.

        What she misses is this inconvenient truth – a year after President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord,

        What Anthony is missing is the Trump did NOT pull out of the Paris Accord. All he did was to refuse to contribute to the UN “green” slush fund. He could change that tomorrow and any future pres. could chose to pay again.

        I wish people of both sides would stop pretending/misreporting that he has pulled the US out of Paris, it is untrue.

        • While technically true, in effect, Trump has pulled out of Paris. He has given notice that the US will withdraw in Nov 2020.

          “…as of today the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”

        • “I did not pulled out of vegan association, I just like to bring chicken wings at every meeting.”

        • Bonus — Nuclear Winter! Don’t tell me Nuclear Winter wouldn’t stop Global Warming in its tracks. Yeah, that’s the ticket, Nuclear Winter.

        • Occasion-Cortez actually missed a couple of highly important words in the title quote

          Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘tactics to defeat Nazi Germany can defeat global warming’

          Should read
          Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘tactics to defeat Nazi Germany can defeat the global warming’ socialist agenda

    • The Global Warming Movement is very much like the Nazis during their rise to power in the 1930’s.

      The warmist leaders are sociopaths much like Hitler, the imbecilic warmist followers are much like Hitler’s rabid followers. The warmists also have their violent thugs, like Hitler’s Brownshirts, who beat down and intimidate their opponents. The Dems are now moving this violence into the political arena. The left live on falsehoods – blatant lies.

      Competent people who understand the Scientific Method and have seriously studied global warming alarmism, aka wilder weather, aka climate change, recognize that there is NO credible evidence that this is a serious problem.

      Increasing atmospheric CO2 attributed to fossil fuel combustion may result in some slight, beneficial global warming, and hugely beneficial increases in plant and crop yields.

      Global warming hysteria is the greatest fraud, in dollar terms, in the history of humankind.

      • Yes! And the first thing to remember about the Nazis is “the big lie”! We skeptics are already on the front lines by refusing to drink the kool-ade. Just keep rational analysis close at hand and work to discover scientific veracity and get the climate pseudo-scientists off the public grant dole.
        We also need to remember that the media are not the noble warriors they pretend to be, they spew selective info if it is sensational or fits the popular narative and editorial bent. Just like the 30’s we have to be careful what you believe.

        • john – October 20, 2018 at 7:24 pm

          Yes! And the first thing to remember about the Nazis is “the big lie”!

          And don’t overlook or forget about Ocasio-Cortez’s “big lie”, to wit:

          Ocasio-Cortez saidith:

          “None of these things are new ideas,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “What we (USA) had was an existential threat in the context of a war. We (USA) had a direct existential threat with another nation, this time it was Nazi Germany, and axis, who explicitly made the United States as an enemy, as an enemy.”

          “HA”, proof that the young socialist believing liberals were taught to be Politically Correct “lemmings” instead of knowledgeable in American History.

          It t’was Nazi Germany in WWII that suffered a direct existential threat from another nation, the US of A.

          But, the US of A did suffer a direct existential threat from another nation, Japan, when the Japanese launched their “attack” on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

      • * Control the Mass Media
        * Use symbolic Imagery
        * Control the Social Sphere
        * Demonise the Opposition
        * Give only one side of the argument
        * Reinforce anxiety of the consequences of defeat
        * Use people of note to promote your message
        * Use emotive language with distinctive phrases or slogans
        * Phrases and Slogans must be easily learned
        * Continually repeat them
        * Select one particular enemy for special vilification

        Some of the propaganda principles used by Joseph Goebbels.
        (Why Mark Steyn labelled catastrophic human induced climate change Goebbel Warming?)

        • Humans are defined in the animal kingdom by the use of:

          1. Language
          2. Fire
          3. Tools

          The Warmistas have already come for the first two.

          • Robert,

            Other animals make and use tools as well.

            Some can also use human languages, either verbal or sign,, in addition to their own communication systems. Others can understand spoken language.

            Fire I’m pretty sure has only been controlled by our genus, however. Could be wrong.

          • John Tillman – October 21, 2018 at 12:13 pm

            Fire I’m pretty sure has only been controlled by our genus, however.

            Birds can‘t start a fire, …… but it appears they know to use it to their advantage, to wit:

            Gosford started to hear reports of black kites (Milvus migrans) and brown falcons (Falco berigora) picking up sticks burning at one end and dropping them into unburnt territory. The accounts came both from Indigenous people in northern Australia and from non-indigenous firefighters, park rangers and people charged with conducting early dry season burns to prevent the build-up of flammable material.

            The activity makes evolutionary sense, Gosford told IFLScience, because fires provide both species with a major food source. “Reptiles, frogs and insects rush out from the fire, and there are birds that wait in front, right at the foot of the fire, waiting to catch them,”

            Read more @

        • “* Demonise the Opposition”

          Like vaxxers on WUWT? (other items also apply: one side, control of media…)

      • Climate skeptics are not sent to prison or stripped from their licence to practice a profession. (That’s the end goal, just not the immediate threat.)

        Vaccine skeptics are. And conservatives are happy with it. They love kangourou courts when they attack medical doctors who publish studies showing potential link between vaccines and autism.

        That’s why the leftists despise the rightists.

        • simple-touriste

          Medical doctors who spout such nonsense are not fit to practice. My great-nephews got whooping cough after parents refused vaccines. The parents were outraged when said kids were excluded from childcare (after they had infected a couple of other kids one of whom ended up in intensive care because he had am impaired immune system). Tried to get family members including retired ones like us to provide care, after all they could not afford not to be at work. Were told where to go by the more sensible family members. Further outrage. Presently not talking to those of us who refused to put our own and other family health at risk by exposing them to the stupid ones.

          Please take your un-vaccinated children and keep them well away from those of us with usable brains. I am old enough to remember older kids at my school in calipers from polio. When the vaccinations started no more kids in calipers or iron lungs. As for autism, there were always odd children around long before we put labels on kids. Overindulgent parents seem to be more of a factor than vaccinations!

          And for the record, the most famous medical doctor in the UK who linked autism to vaccinations was anti-vaccination who faked his research and was appropriately de-registered. He appears to have found a new audience in the stupid part of the USA. It is not a right or left argument, it is actually about the science.

          • Jacob shows his ignorance. Being vaccinated is no guarantee that you don’t get ill. The purpose of vaccination is to boost the immune system. In practice this means that many vaccinated people will beat the bug when infected, by an unvaccinated carrier for instance, without showing any symptoms. A minority may show some symptoms, but having been vaccinated puts them in a very good postion to beat the infection quickly, and in particular without complications.

          • Please tell us where children are at risk of polio in the US.

            And why polio was redefined following vaccination.

            And why there is an epidemic of polio like disease in India following polio vaccination.

            “the most famous medical doctor in the UK who linked autism to vaccinations was anti-vaccination who faked his research”

            How do you know that? Did you investigate the issue? What there even a real trial? Why would we trust the conclusions?

            BTW would you trust a court that concludes that Big Pharma faked its research? Would you accept a conclusion of a court that says a vaccine is an objectively defective drug?

            What about that researcher that authored a study showing that vaccines are not linked with autism, who is now on the run? Why are you not even mentioning him? What about all the corruption on the medical field?

            What about the constant justifications that conflicts of interest are OK?

            What about the meltdown of the Cochrane?

          • Simple-touriste – if you are not familiar with Andrew Wakefield, then you can’t intelligently discuss the scientific studies on vaccines.

          • Simple.. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Every generation needs a polio vaccination because the virus is endemic in the environment. A small minority of humans, while vaccinated, are still carrying the virus, but are symptomless themselves, but nevertheless a risk for an unvaccinated person, because they shed the virus when they defacate. This situation is different from the one with smallpox, where the vaccination program also comprehensively eradicated the virus. Hence there is no need for vaccination against smallpox anymore, but there is for polio.

          • Vaxxers can never be bothered to provide any evidence for any claim.

            “the virus is endemic in the environment”

            WHERE? Where have you observed polio?

          • “if you are not familiar with Andrew Wakefield”

            What about him?

            What has been proven about his work?

          • simple-touriste – October 22, 2018 at 9:52 am

            “ [quoting E J Zuiderwijk] “the virus is endemic in the environment”

            WHERE? Where have you observed polio?

            simple-touriste, I sure as hell never seen, observed or found the polio virus in my environment …. but ii sure as hell found me in September 1954, ….. which I nearly died from, …… but survived with only the loss-of-use of my left hand and arm.

            So, simpleton-touriste, iffen you ever figger out where the polio virus resides in the environment, ….. PLEADE TELL ME, ….. cause I shur would like to know where it was when it found me.

          • simple-touriste, ….. an anti-vaxxer such as yourself will be mighty happy to know that members of your family, especially young children, ….. cannot be vaccinated to prevent their contracting this “mystery illness”, to wit:

            CDC Says It’s Concerned About Polio-Like ‘Mystery Illness’ That’s Paralyzing Kids

            Mysterious paralyzing illness found among kids in 22 states

            So, send your kids outside to play, …… maybe you will be lucky.

          • What makes you believe that the polio vaccine isn’t the CAUSE of that “mystery illness”?

            BRILLIANT, …simple-touriste, …… simply brilliant thinking on your part.

            “DUH”, after 64 years of being used to prevent being afflicted by polio, you now think that same vaccine has suddenly become the culprit causing extremely random infections of said “mystery disease”.

            Do you give your parent(s) or your teachers the “credit” for your superior knowledge of “disease control and prevention”? Which is obviously CONTRARY to actual facts such as this, to wi:

            Polio does still exist, although polio cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated more than 350 000 cases to 22 reported cases in 2017. This reduction is the result of the global effort to eradicate the disease.

            And simple-touriste, what makes you think those children stricken with said “mystery disease” do not have a parent or guardian with the same nurtured mindset as you do?

          • Could you explain why you trust one of the most corrupt and inane UN agency?

            Do you seriously believe that anyone who is NOT a vaccine worshiper will take the word of a corrupt incompetent UN agency whose primary purpose seems to be vaccine worshiping and Big Pharma shilling?

          • Do you deny the overwhelming evidence of the link between the hep B vaccine and MS?

            Do you deny the fact vaccines are experimental, unvalidated drugs?

            The “right to try” promoted by Donald Trump already existed. But not as an informed choice for the patient. As a right for Big Medicine to force often useless drugs on babies.

          • Simple,

            No such evidence exists.

            You’ve been asked repeatedly to present it, but you haven’t, because you can’t.

          • I deny that there is a shred of evidence linking any vaccine to MS.

            Just because you have convinced yourself to believe in lies, don’t expect everyone else to fall for the same lies.

          • “You’ve been asked repeatedly to present it, but you haven’t, because you can’t.”

            As always, you write the exact opposite of reality, like a climatist.

            You, the vaxxers, have been asked repeatedly to prove that the additional requirement to show RMI evidence to diagnose MS doesn’t automatically decrease the number of MS diagnostics. Or that anyone anywhere got MS diagnostic following RMI that wasn’t intended to confirm a neurological disease in the first place. It would be extremely for Big Pharma to study and confirm. But it just doesn’t happen. The definition of MS got restricted (like polio) after mass vaccination.

            This is the opposite of “breast cancer” which is defined as cancerous tumor, with a mass screening program in place that creates many cases of “cancer” that were simply a tumor (that may have been stimulated by the “screening” process intended to prevent cancer). This is true also for thyroid issues, which are found when they are searched for (as in Fukushima). Nobody searches for neurological issues of people who don’t have symptoms; nobody launches RMI investigation at random.

            The idea that mass use of RMI caused the explosion of MS diagnostic is the ONLY excuse available for vaccine apologists. There is simply no medical or statistical basis for that claim.

            The explosion of MS and other neurological illnesses in France can only be explained by mass vaccination. Vaxxers cannot address that issue and change their tune, claim the opposite of what they previously claimed than claim victory and request those who humiliated them to be censored.

            And you still link to your crackpot website which is as respectable as SkS.

          • “No place for anti-vaxers here.”

            By using the term “anti-vaxers”, you prove that you are another bot repeating Big Medicine talking points. You prove you’re the one without a brain.

            1) Which vaccines are your promoting?
            2) Who needs that protection?
            3) Why do you trust vaccine promoters? Do you trust a medical research community that is provably crooked?
            4) What about the absurd influenza promotion? Where you with Obama’s appointee on that?

          • Simple,

            You keep asserting the lie that there was explosion of MS and other neurological illnesses in France caused by mass vaccination. You can’t produce a shred of evidence supporting this patently false claim, yet keep making it.

            Fervently believing a lie doesn’t make it a fact.

          • it’s clear that simple-t is an anti-vaxxer NPC.

            simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            says it all really.

          • I keep asking for something more evidently true, not radiation related, regarding a statistical effect, than the vaccine-MS link. Smoking causes cancer, perhaps?

            The fact that you can’t even locate the relevant evidence regarding the hep B vaccine from the CDC website proves that it’s a pure crackpot website.

            The fact is that you aren’t willing to discuss the evidence, or explain the explose of MS and neurological disease everywhere.

          • simple-touriste – October 22, 2018 at 9:49 am

            The explosion of MS and other neurological illnesses in France can only be explained by mass vaccination.

            Oh, my, my, ….. such silliness or idiocy …. simpleton-t, ….. given the FACT that you are claiming that there were at least two to three times more women than men being vaccinated in France.

            To wit:

            The cause of MS is still unknown – scientists believe the disease is triggered by an as-yet-unidentified environmental factor in a person who is genetically predisposed to respond.

            The progress, severity and specific symptoms of MS in any one person cannot yet be predicted. Most people with MS are diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 50, with at least two to three times more women than men being diagnosed with the disease.

          • Simple,

            The CDC is not a crackpot Web site.

            Now, please, for the umpteenth time, produce the statistical evidence showing a link between any vaccine and MS.


          • given the FACT that you are claiming that there were at least two to three times more women than men being vaccinated in France.

            OK that made no sense what so ever. But keep trying!

            Vaxxism is a mental disease. That’s a FACT.

        • Your claim that climate sceptics are not stripped of their licence to practice a profession is not true in reality even if on a technicality you might get way with it. I was converted to being a true hardened climate scientist despiser by a group of three denied any grants in spite of being higher qualified than almost all of those they were competing against. The were employed as semiconductor engineers as conforming or leave was an immediate threat carried out when they did not bow to the intimidation.
          My daughter also worked with one who ended up as a senior rail manager.

          • Climate skeptics can still be hired by whoever wants to.

            The “right” protested A LOT about the trivial requirements of an ISP to treat all packets of the same plan at the same priority and quality of service, whether they are lolcats or remote surgery, which is a common sense requirement. But no such protest about the right to healthcare free of mandate.

          • S-T, you are missing the minor little fact that “net neutrality” was a pretext for regulating the internet as a utility by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). I would probably miss the details of policy in France, given the biases of the legacy media.

          • S-T, you are missing the minor little fact that “net neutrality” was a pretext for regulating the internet as a utility by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). I would probably miss the details of policy in France, given the biases of the legacy media.
            For some reason, the “duplicate comment” filter wants to block this post.

          • You keep missing the fact that opponents of net neutrality actually promoted the idea that treating all packets the same was a violation of free speech rights of the ISP. As if routing was “speech”! These ridiculous claims were made by the so-called “libertarians” (the rightists-corporatists).

            Extremely low info “libertarians” promoted that idea that non-neutrality was an essential part of the modern Internet. They also accused proponents of net neutrality (many of which are the most respected experts in the world) to be low info, clueless and not interested in technical details. They made up absurd theories about content farm depending on ISP intercepting and modifying data stream that have no basis in reality what-so-ever. It was extremely shameful. Libertarian websites bathed in nonsense and propaganda like pigs in mud.

            Many people still seems to believe that the role of the ISP is to prioritize data streams that were deemed important by an intelligent middle box, and that encryption is interfering in that prioritization. This garbage is promoted by ISP and some people at the FCC. If everything is encrypted, you can’t tell what is a lolcat and what is vital communication by looking at it on a router; nor should anyone be able to tell what is a lolcat and what is vital communication by looking at it.

            Critics of the ISP who oppose net neutrality also seem to believe that the role of an ISP is to help emergency services. Why can’t emergency services just get the appropriate “plan”?

        • Mods, how many threads will you allow simple-t to hijack with his anti-vaxxer nonsense? Anti-vaxxers are right up there with the chemtrails people – totally delusional. Only the chemtrails people are harmless, anti-vaxxers push a lie that his harmful to people, especially children.

          • They are responsible for the needless deaths of children. They are odious and evil, besides delusional.

          • You are so desperate to prevent me from humiliating you in every single discussion, you need to call a mod?

          • simple-t, the only one you’ve managed to humiliated is yourself. Your OT spamming of thread after thread is unwanted. chemtrails people aren’t allowed to do that, neither should anti-vaxxers. At least the chemtrails idiots don’t advocate ideas that are harmful to others, the same is not true of your nonsense.

            simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.

            says it all really.

          • You are no braindead, you can’t even see the whipping you got. Every. Single. Time.

            And “anti-vaxxer” is a category that only exists in the mind of bot-like vaccine worshipers.

      • National Socialism was incredibly successful at re-industrializing a Germany that had been utterly devastated in the First World War. After the absurdity and disgust of the Wiemar years, Hitler helped to usher in a economic miracle for Germany which made it stronger and more prosperous than it had ever been before. Hitler’s main enemies were the international socialists and progressives of every stripe — Communists, Wilsonian democrats, and banking cartels — who would have carved up and plunder a wounded Germany like a pack of jackals on a lame antelope. The UN and the IPCC, supra-national bodies of ambitious ideologues who arrogate to themselves the right to dispose of whole continents, are closely analogous to the people that Hitler was fighting against. I would think that after 74 cotton picking years, the Anti-Nazi propaganda of WWII would have finally started to dim in the eyes of thinking people. But alas…

        As for miss Occasional-Cortez, I suppose she means to say that Climate Change is to be defeated by a brutal battle with the Red Army before the Americans swooped in for a mop-up operation. Is that the “existential threat” she has in mind?

        Apparently nothing is more misunderstood than this period of history. It serves as an endless font of nonsensical metaphors on every side.

        • There was no reason to fight communist russia. Russia was on the brink of implosion. Most Russians hated the system and greeted the invading Germans as liberators. But when atrocities started by the SS on conquered russian soil the russian population flocked behind its leader. So Hitler’s action gave us the cold war because it saved communism.

          • While I agree with much of your comment, Hitler didn’t save Communism: Churchill and Roosevelt did. When Hitler attacked Russia, Churchill sent vast amounts of supplies to Stalin. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, Roosevelt sent vast amounts of supplies to Stalin.

            Without those supplies, the Soviet Union would have collapsed. Instead, it ended up taking over half of Europe.

          • Adding to what MarkG was saying about Western aid to Stalin.

            One little commented on stat I once found was the amount of tanks the Soviets had left at the end of the war. I am going by memory but the point that stuck out for me was that while it was in the thousands, it was also less than the total amount of tanks supplied under Lend Lease.

            (the other number quoted in this article was the number of tanks available to the Western Allies at the same time, which was several times larger. The point being made at the time being that the Soviet Hordes were just about spent.)

            The other factor to consider in the entire ‘who won the war’ debates is that 70% of German single seat fighters ended up being deployed in the west to combat Allied bombing raids. Add in the large amounts of Flak that I am sure the Germans would have much rather preferred to not being forced to build instead of say, oh I don’t know, high performance anti tank, and you can see a strong argument developing that the West kept German from deploying the army they wanted against the Russians.

            If this ‘army they wanted’ would have been enough to crush the Russians? Well… to take a leaf from the IPCC, Models Have Shown… 😛

        • Hitler & gang in reality we’re running a koeptocracy furled by stealing Jewish assets.
          The economic miracle was fueled in large part by slave labor once the war got going.
          He and his gang were in many ways tun of the mill thugs. His use of popular faux science, like eugenics for example, was a sciencey veneer, similar to “scientific socialism” in the USSR.
          Both were just cover stories for evil beyond what most people could believe possible.

        • Command and control can do miracles. In the short term.
          In the longer term it is always a disaster for everyone except those who control the system.

      • In the absence of science education, many people are defaulting back to a pagan-like superstitious belief that “our bad behavior” influences the weather. We’ve had funny weather here lately, late summer bang into near-winter temps before the trees could turn. You ought to hear the whispers with furtive glances (as though afraid of being overheard–by God?) “Oh, things are very strange. . . ”
        Even about the two hurricanes we had this past quiet tropical season. People have been hardwired since ancient times to believe “God will smite you” via weather. Or something! Of course, this has been exploited endlessly by the AGW true believers.

    • Yep, right.
      Not to mention all the CO2 created to make all those tanks, airplanes, bombs, artillery, ships as well as hydrocarbons to move millions of tons of material, food, munitions, personnel …

    • Burning European cities to the ground
      That is step 1. Destroy all fossil fuel and infrastructure and anything made with concrete as this is the source of co2.

      Step 2. Then rebuild using only co2 free materials and energy. Problem solved. so Simple. Amazed no one else thought about it. Excluding pol pot.

    • +10! That’s another thing she’s missing, along with an intellect: building great big armies, shipping them all over the place, and blowing lots of stuff up is generally bad for the environment.

  1. All that cold war mutually assured destruction, that wasn’t an existential threat? That’s nine years of my life wasted.

    • She would have been rooting for the Reds to win.
      But she still a decade or so before she wore her first diaper.
      (She’s still young and dumb. Most people grow out of it.)

      • Ocasio was born less than a month before the Berlin Wall fell on 9 Nov. 1989. She just turned 29. I’d be surprised if she grows out of socialism, but one can always hope.

          • True, and then, when they run out of OPM, they too are broke. And their currency is devalued, igniting runaway inflation, a la Venezuela.

          • That’s why socialism is not about to get you out of poverty it is about to keep you on food stamps forever and blame capitalism.

          • Beto, in Texas, is a smoother version of Cortez.
            He is starting to show his edges as well.
            Beto recenyly told a bizarre tall tale about a blind squirrel. It seems that instead of the blind squirrel finding the nut, Beto is a nut who finds blind squirrels

        • I had a large energy project in the Former Soviet Union, and have also travelled into Honecker’s East Germany and Fidel Castro’s Cuba. I have never seen such horrific pollution and gross waste of resources as I saw in the SU and the FSU. This is what happens when you allow sociopathic thugs to run a country.


          In July of 1989 I entered East Berlin and East Germany through Checkpoint Charlie. The dreaded communist Honecker regime was still in power then; it was just four months before the Wall fell.

          I wrote the following long ago and I didn’t keep track of dates then – probably about 2010.


          I had the privilege and misfortune of travelling into East Germany in July of 1989, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

          We were on a business mission to West Germany, and somehow our bosses had committed us at the last minute to a brief detour into the East.

          One of our group refused to go, saying it was a despicable totalitarian sh!thole, so we agreed to meet him in Cologne.

          We flew to Tegel airport in West Berlin, and were escorted by a Stasi driver though West Berlin. It was Friday night, and West Berlin looked exciting, electric..

          We travelled though the Berlin Wall at Checkpoint Charlie, and the world changed. I had been sitting in the front seat beside the driver snapping photos, but when I tried to take one of the East German checkpoint, I felt resistance as I tried to lift my camera. The Stasi driver’s hand was on my camera holding it down, even as he looked the other way, talking through his window to the East German border guard.

          We took a sharp left and then a sharp right onto the main street, called Unter den Linden. The majestic Brandenburg Gate was visible just behind us. As we passed the Reichstag, I lifted my camera to snap a picture. The driver stopped quickly to assist my photo, and it was suddenly obvious that there were no other vehicles on the street, and no pedestrians either.

          We stayed at the Metropol Hotel that first night, and went for a walk after dinner. I had asked my dinner hosts if I could go for a jog in the morning, and was cautioned that “We do not jog in East Berlin” I then asked if I could go for a long walk, and was assured, with a telling look, “You can walk anywhere in East Berlin – you will be perfectly safe, not like your London and New York”.

          We soon found out what he meant – every block had eight small kiosks staffed with police, two on each side of the street. At any time we were within easy view of perhaps ten such police posts. Again, we were the only people on the street. The police talked quietly with each other on their telephones, and seemed to know that we were no cause for alarm. Their primary job to prevent any attempts by East Germans to defect to the Western embassies located on Unter den Linden.

          In our brief stay, we visited a mine to view some equipment, had interminable meetings in a very hot room, learned that the local cola beverage was called Prik Cola, and found that our business colleagues in East Germany were pretty human, much like ourselves.

          I also had sufficient liberty to get away from our group, and was able to observe that East German infrastructure was crumbling, the roads, buildings, sewage systems, cars, trains, heavy equipment, electrics, electronics, etc. etc. etc. were fifty years out-of-date and falling apart. Environmental degradation by industry was severe and disgusting.

          More significantly, the East German people were a fearful lot – frightened to death of me, lest someone think they were communicating with me and report them to the dreaded Stasi. Those condemned to the Stasi, and there were many, would lose their jobs and could wind up in prison – their lives would be ruined.

          My friend was right – East Germany was a vicious totalitarian state, and worse. We all decided that we had seen enough, and agreed to leave a day early.

          We took a taxi to the Wall, and negotiated our way through Checkpoint Charlie again, this time without the assistance of our Stasi driver, and spent the extra day walking around West Berlin.

          We saw a memorial to those who had been killed trying to escape through the Wall. The last death took place a few months earlier in February 1989, when Chris Gueffroy died trying to escape into West Berlin. Gueffroy was hit in the chest by ten shots and died in the border strip. He was 20 years old.

          Several months later the Wall fell, and I stayed up all night watching the celebrations on CNN.

          Now that was a good day!


          I recall our Canadian NDP leaders extolling the virtues of East Germany to the Canadian public, and their stories being dutifully reported by the Canadian press – how East Germany was the “Economic Engine of the Soviet Union”, “The Workers’ Paradise”, and all that other BS. I shall never forgive the Canadian left for these self-serving lies, and I will never believe a word they say.

          A few years later, I was back in Berlin on another business trip. Although I no longer jogged, I walked to the Brandenburg Gate. Then, I broke into a slow jog, and ambled my way through the Brandenburg Gate and down Unter den Linden.

          You see, now, we do jog in East Berlin.

          • I walked into East Berlin a couple of years after the wall fell.

            The first thing I saw was a huge golden statue of a Russian soldier, great coat, machine gun and all; clearly meant to remind the East Berliners who they should thank for their existence.

            The next thing I saw was the ramshackle buildings still riddled with bullet holes from the WWII fighting. Ramshackle means missing things like walls.

            It was a museum experience, walking through a living diorama of Communism.

          • The stench of untreated sewage in East Berlin, and the air foul from Trabant exhaust, said it all to me.

          • Pat Frank;

            I noticed that too, the first night we were there. The East Berlin storm sewers street grates stank of raw sewage – that meant they did not separate sanitary sewers from storm sewers, and that meant that everything including the raw sewage went untreated into the rivers. [Kind of like the City of Victoria BC – that bastion of phony green virtue / hypocrisy.]

            The Trabant automobile (I use the term loosely) was a 24HP 2-stroke model with a plastic body – you could reportedly slide a textbook through cracks in the closed doors. The exhaust was so thick that when you approached one on the old autobahns (the ones built by Hitler) you could not see anything but the smoke until you started to pass the Trabbie.

            If you really made it in East German society, you could buy a Wartburg. Now you had arrived – the Wartburg was a 4-stoke much like the ~1965 Fiat. This was the ultimate East German chick-magnet, unless you were a big-wig.

            The big-wigs rode in a Zil limousine, and then you had no trouble picking up girls. The Stasi had a stable of beautiful prostitutes to service foreign dignitaries, local leaders and of course the Stasi themselves.

            Our VIP hotel in East Berlin, the Metropol, had a number of these beautiful ladies in the downstairs bar, and it was pretty obvious that they were there to compromise us if we were dumb enough to participate. I understand that one of Canada’s heavy-drinking NDP leaders was compromised in this way, and became a huge and vocal proponent of the East German economic model. I actually think it was other East German models that he really admired.

    • Late 70s, early 80s was quite interesting. Good times, music and happy times — with the background shadow of MAD and the Atomic clock ticking within one minute of midnight.

    • In Cortez-land that was not a real threat (or in fancy speak and “existential threat”) … it was a lost opportunity for a bright new beginning.

        • In Dumb-Ass-land that was not a real threat (or in fancy speak and “existential threat”) … it was a lost opportunity for a bright new beginning.

    • Come to think about it, if she got the same public education my 30 year old child got, she might not know much about WW2.

      • She doesn’t even realize that the threat was a global political coup, just like her socialist heros are attempting using quasi-science and fear mongering.

    • I feel existentially threatened by those crazy zealot eyes burning into my brain with flames of self righteous indignation. Look away! Look away! Noooooo.

    • Well the threat isn’t to her it’s to her childrens, children and there offspring. Slightly different to the war situation but beyond her reasoning.

  2. Well, Ms Ocasio Cortez, “renewable energy” works abut as well in practice as socialism, so favoring both is consistent.

    • Oh my, Climate Barbie gets a friend. And such a cute, stupid little bimbo she is.

      Tell you what Alexadra, if you promise to move to Venezuela for 10 years, I promise to consider voting for you when you get back, if you can truthfully report to my satisfaction on how the economy of that once proud and successful nation went to shit.

      • DD,

        Good point. But the obvious solution to imagined “climate change”, ie nuclear power, isn’t an option for the Screaming Green Meanies. Clearly, CACA is only a means to an end.

  3. In 17 days, Ocasio-Cortez may well drop off the radar screen, never to be heard from again.

    Or she may become a pundit for CNN, which is pretty much the same thing.

    • All Ms Ocasio-Cortez are about is being on the radar, on TV, on social(ist) media, front and centre. Their ‘activism’ is about their own narcissism, nothing more and nothing less. Issues are at best just a passing bandwagon to be hopped aboard or just a blow up balloon in a parade of attention seeking possibilities, bright and bold, afluttering in the air.

      • she will capture the selfie generation.
        the other bloc they are cultivating is the latino baby factories.
        they will also rely on voter fraud
        pelosi and feinstein are old hands at that.
        jim jones stole the election for moscone while they were there.

    • In her district, she’s a shoo-in.

      She’s liable to be the new, fresh face of the Democrat Party for years to come. It gets worse.

      On 13 Oct 2024, she becomes old enough to be president.’

        • Sadly for the Democratic (sic) Socialist Party, young master Hogg will still be underage, unless, as is always likely, they succeed in voiding the Constitution, as anathema, since its signers were all white males, some of whom owned slaves at a time in which bound labor was the norm everywhere on Earth. But they also recognized that slavery was wrong, and those who could, freed their slaves upon their deaths. Jefferson tried to, but his estate had too many debts to pay. Washington was wealthy, hence able to liberate the people whom he had held as property.

      • I dunno. She’s running against Crowley, the Democratic incumbent who she defeated in the primary. Given some of her inane comments, there may be buyer’s remorse among the primary voters. And Republicans might support Crowley in the belief that keeping her out of office is the first priority.

          • House Democrats already have a surplus, to include Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nita Lowey, the ever popular Hank Johnson and a cast of less well known clowns, miscreants and unindicted coconspirators, present and past, including those whose sexual harassment complaint settlements are being paid for by taxpayers from other states.

          • The Democrats are already talking about repealing the Trump tax cuts and using the money for more welfare payments.

  4. She is promising everyone free $hit. What about free toilet paper? She should spend a year in Venezuela to understand the ramifications of what she is proposing.
    BTW. Nazi Germany – Nazi = national socialist workers party = Marxism.

    • Maybe not Marxism, but definitely socialism. Communism is ostensibly international socialism, while fascism is national socialism. But Stalin went fascist during his “socialism in one country” phase, and of course also persecuted ethnic and religious minorities, despite himself being Georgian.

      • And by Engels, the formerly Pietist Protestant, turned atheist, who supported Marx. At least neither German Communist was originally an Austrian Catholic, like young Adolf, before he too turned against his ancestral faith.

    • The actual labels are effectively window dressing.

      The common factor is that they all controlled the entire state because ‘they knew best’ for everyone and that most of these groups rose to power by manipulating the emotions of the working class… and then keeping them as working class because someone still had to run the factories.

      The degree of ‘wealth distribution’ is up for debate. The easiest one to prove is a lot of the wealth seemed to have been re-distributed upwards, but then again if you are working hard to support the workers in their struggle against oppression you probably deserve a few comforts from time to time.

      (what was that line about the British coal union boss? Started with a small home and a massive union, ended with a massive home and a small union?)

      There are of course variations, and claiming each are equal over simplifies the problem, but the core linking factor is that all groups believed that the State (read ‘them and their friends’) should control everything and that there was nothing that could not be made better by the addition of a few more regulations… provided it was them doing the regulation.

      Paradoxically as it may sound, the controlling force in Germany and Italy as compared to Soviet Russia was that the German and Italian leaders never fully controlled the military. Stalin of course purged his armed forces by killing off any general that looked sideways at him. In Germany and Italy they formed the SS and Blackshirts as parallel militaries with the intent of eventually replacing the more traditional armed forces.

      Within Germany there still existed a sort of professional bitterness at having lost the Great War, which, to use the term loosely, probably helped to explain the willingness to support a campaign to restore Germany to their rightful military greatness, but in Italy – a Great War victor – you struggle to find any real sort of excitement from the Italian military about being involved in the war.

      Needs to be remembered that professional career military often operate on completely different moral compasses to politicals. Had the German or Italian leaders pushed too hard too fast for ‘reform’ I do strongly feel the military elite may have stepped up and removed them – at least in the peace time years.

      Or something 🙂 Open to discussion and not backing my career on all this.

  5. But the threat this time is from an unproven hypothesis. It hasn’t been shown to exist as a threat just a possibility. Substantially different from tanks and bombers and reasonably requiring a different approach. I would suggest an impartial, unbiased analysis of the problem as a good first step. By this I do mean to imply that the UN report does not qualify for the required beginning point.

    • And the threat doesn’t occur till long after your dead. However your children will suffer because the old “call to parent feelings” is always a good argument we see it all the time in advertising.

  6. The comparison of the very real WWII to the fictictious “war on climate change” is frankly, retarded. And where the former was fought in the name of freedom and democracy, the latter would do precisely the opposite.

    • There is also the slight problem that Russia defeated Nazi Germany, not the USA (which did defeat Japan).

      • There’s also the problem that they were allies right up to 22nd June 1941. Stalin made deals with all the participants (on both sides) and broke them all.

      • The USSR could not have defeated Germany without the USA.

        It would have run out of food, tanks, trucks and just about everything else. The tanks which captured Vienna were Shermans. Besides which, without the Western Allies air and ground campaigns, Stalin would have had to fight Hitler alone. The 88mm guns and advanced fighter aircraft kept over Germany to defend the Reich would have stopped the Red Army dead in its tracks.

        • I have agree with you John.
          Most importantly it was the timing of the first aid shipments in Oct-Nov of 1941. Having these tanks at the time allowed the winter counter offense.
          below is a good link for some of the numbers

          Oh yeah and the points on West Wall German forces , the 352 Mot Div had been a late addition to the beach forces. It had been “mauled” in Russia but was refitted.
          One of the problems Rommel faced was the self superiority of the east front veterans They had no clue as to american firepower and coordination.

          surprise surprise,,,

      • Could Russia have defeated Germany had the US, Britain, Canada, etc not kept much of Hitler’s troops busy on the Western and African fronts?

  7. No, no, no, no no. Instead of mobilizing people to do stuff, we need to de-mobilize people to stop doing stuff.

  8. Why do liberals always have to draw these ridiculous parallels?

    Even if you swallow the ridiculous climate change propaganda, comparisons to WW-II are off-the-wall crazy.

    • cuz reason is anathema
      they don’t debate; they preach fire and brimstone sermons.
      they run an inquisition and 24/7 auto da fe.
      it’s a cult.

      • Here is how modern politics works:

        The far-left is winning, especially in the developing world, where over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela… and North Korea, and many more…

        The left gains political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants.

        It is really no different in the developed world. Get elected by lazy greedy imbeciles, destroy the economy with fake green energy and other crazy policies, and live like kings on top of a ruined economy, looking down on all the peasants.

  9. It’s a sound approach.
    Nazi Germany was defeated by Russia. With significant support from the UK and the USA too.

    If you can forge an alliance with Russia to confront the use of fossil fuels then we have a chance.

    Otherwise, adaptation is the only viable policy.

    • I wouldn’t say that. The USSR couldn’t have defeated the Axis without Allied help. Khrushchev admitted as much to Ike. In addition to the Allied strategic air campaign, landings in Western Europe and all the other Lend Lease aid, American trucks were essential in moving the Red Army from Stalingrad to Berlin. Couldn’t have been done without them. We sent so many to the Eastern Front, that it slowed the Western Allies’ advance on Germany. Hitler had to call off the Kursk Offensive in 1943 when the UK and US invaded Sicily.

      The US, however, could have beaten Nazi Germany and its allies without the Red Army, thanks to its atomic bombs and B-29s. Besides which, Stalin began the war allied with Hitler.

      Assuming for some reason that you want to limit future use of fossil fuels, you should expect no assistance from Russia. Its economy requires selling oil and gas.

        • Michael,

          True, but for Hitler, that was always one of the two main goals, ie to destroy Communism and exterminate Jews. In his twisted mind, Communism was an excrudescence of Judaism. Putin has practically seconded Hitler’s view.

          Lebensraum and the enslavement of Slavs was less important to him than ridding the world of Jews.

        • The result would have been slower.

          The German invasion of the USSR started on June 22, 1941. By that time it was already evident that Rommel was overextended in North Africa.

          The German campaign to rule the world was doomed at the outset by logistics and economics.

          Invading the Soviet Union meant that on D-Day, there were no German nationals younger than 50 years old on the western front. (I can’t quickly find the link for that) There were young soldiers but they were foreign, for example the Free Indian Legion

          Italy would probably have collapsed any way and that just opened up another front the Germans had to defend.

          Why did Germany attack the USSR? There were several reasons not the least of which was a desperate need for oil.

          I also note that oil was also Japan’s undoing. America wasn’t willing to supply Japan with the oil that it needed and made it clear that it would not stand for Japan’s invasion of countries from which it could extract oil.

          Now, it cannot be stated too forcefully, American oil, which amounted in all to 6 billion barrels, out of a total of 7 billion barrels consumed by the Allies for the period of World War Two, brought victory! link

          • Bill,

            My PNW neighbo(u)r, your sense of history is all out of whack.

            Japan did indeed occupy French Indochina in 1940, but they didn’t need US oil to do that. Vichy France had no choice but to let Germany’s allies in.

            The Japanese Empire didn’t rape the rest of SE Asia until after Pearl Harbor.


            Indeed, it was the US’ cutting them off from American oil which motivated their invasion of the oil-rich Dutch East Indies.

            Japan would have been wiser to have attacked the USSR, as advocated by Minister of Foreign Affairs Matsuoka, a former Oregonian, and taken the oil fields of Sakhalin Island.

          • While there might be oil fields off Sakhalin, were they in production in 1941? Actual producing areas were the issue during WWII, so the fact that there is considerable oil in Algeria and Libya did not enter into the logistic constraints on the Afrika Korps.

          • Tom,

            Oil was known on Sakhalin and in Manchukuo, the Japanese puppet state in Machuria, in the 1930s, but not yet exploited to any great degree.

            Japan depended on British, American and Dutch petroleum in the 1930s, which made its militarist leaders’ calculations difficult. Just as Hitler bet and lost on declaring war on the US in order to sink our navy in the Atlantic, Japan bet and lost that they could knock us back on our feet long enough to seize the Anglo-Dutch resources of Malaya and the East Indies.

            They lost one of their carriers because it was burning unrefined Dutch East Indies crude.

            The wisest choice for Japan would have been to attack the USSR, as advocated by Matsuoka, in concert with Germany and Italy. Stalin then wouldn’t have been able to move his Siberian divisions west for the defense of Moscow in 1941.

            But Zhukov’s victory at Khalkin Gol had put Japan off fighting the Red Army. And the overconfident Hitler thought he didn’t need Japan’s help to bump off Stalin’s purge-weakened army, given its sorry performance in the Winter War against the Finns.

          • I must stand corrected. There was active production on Sakhalin from the 1930s.

            In 1928 a joint Russian–Japanese venture discovered oil onshore. The local oil company Sakhalinmorneftegaz (SMNG) has produced onshore since the 1930s.

            Not enough to meet Japanese military expansionist needs, of course, but how much better would it have been to expand that production over time rather than take on the combined might of the US, UK and eventually the liberated France and Netherlands?

          • Dear PNW neighbor John, your sense of objectivity is out of whack. The Japanese were brutalizing Manchuria and China pior to 1941. Admittedly not SE Asia but they were in Korea, Taiwan, Cambodia and Laos prior to 1941.
            They certainly wouldn’t have been “let into” Indochina if they did not have the resources to sustain a substantial military threat to the region. So l am sceptical of your argument.

          • Bill,

            Of course Japan was raping, pillaging and plundering China before 1941, and Korea and Taiwan before that, as the most casual student of history knows. But I responded to your statement about SE Asia, which is the relevant region for oil sources.

            If you imagine that Japan entered Indochina against significant Vichy French opposition, then I must regretfully be more than skeptical of your familiarity with WWII history in Asia. The fact is that French opposition lasted from 22 to 26 September 1940.


            Not exactly “walking in”, but the next thing to it.

          • John Tillman October 20, 2018 at 6:33 pm

            … There were lots and lots of very young German nationals on the Western Front on D-Day.

            The soldiers manning the fixed defenses were rather low grade. The more mobile much better forces were farther back.

            The more numerous ‘static’ coast divisions were much less effective. These had little in the way of transport, and were merely expected to man fixed defences and hold their ground. They contained older troops, the medically unfit, and men recovering from wounds. Some also had contingents of Osttruppen, conscripts or volunteers from the Soviet Union and other eastern territories occupied by Germany. Many were former Soviet POWs and were generally regarded as having little value. link

            The thing that interests me was the absolutely pivotal role of oil in WW2. Germany had synthetic oil made from coal but it was very expensive. link The technology also existed to use ammonia as a motor fuel. link

            Given the amazing technological achievements of WW2, it is worthy of note that the Germans and Japanese could not innovate their way out of needing petroleum. That should give pause to those like Ocasio-Cortez who think it will be easy to replace fossil fuels in our economy.

          • Bob,

            Yes, naturally, the elite mobile and armored forces were held back for counterattack, but some of the coastal defense divisions were nonetheless capable of more than purely static defense.

            But the salient fact is that the Atlantic Wall wasn’t held only by non-Germans and old German men. It had its share of young Germans, to include teenagers like Franz Gockel, nevertheless capable of manning a machine gun against the sitting duck US Army amphibious landing troops of the previously unbloodied 29th Infantry Division on Omaha.

            There were limits to what German ingenuity could do to overcome the oil shortage. Once the US strategic bombing offensive concentrated on transportation and oil, the Nazis were doomed. We didn’t even need the A-bombs to defeat Hitler. Conventional bombing would have worked, thanks in part to Hitler’s idiotic decisions as to jet fighters and missile technology.

          • cBob, not sure I can agree with your all your statements.

            Your claim that there were no German nationals under 50 on the western front is at best poorly worded and at worse utterly wrong. Even if you allow the claim that the reserve divisions not literally on the beachheads at dawn do not count, the claim that all of the static divisions (716 inf, et al… going by memory) were all 50 and above is a very very bold claim.

            Also Rommel in June 41 proves very little. Rommel was over extended because Rommel couldn’t obey orders. He was ordered to wait until 15th Pz had arrived and then advance. Instead he took 5th Light and raced boldly off east across the desert, actually running the vast majority of his tanks into the ground. (Ever wondered why there were so few German tanks during the Easter Battles at Tobruk? Rommel broke the rest driving them too hard.)

            By the time Rommel was able to rebuild his strength so had the CW forces.

            The point being was that from Germany’s military point of view the entire point of Rommel was to stop the Italians from politically collapsing after the destruction of the Italian 10th Army. Germany were concentrating on Russia and Africa was a very minor side show. (A side show that used up 2 of their Panzer Divisions that could have been used in Russia but at the time they didn’t think that too many). Once Rommel had over extended himself the general opinion was ‘you made your bed, sweet dreams.’ Paulus (later of Stalingrad fame) was actually sent to Africa to pull Rommel into line and only let him launch his full (unsuccessful) assault on Tobruk because the plans were advanced and they didn’t seem that they would suck in too many more outside resources.

            Germany never really had a proper plan for North Africa until 1942 when the bold idea of a massive two prong attack combined with Army Group South to meet up somewhere in the Russian oil fields.

            So… would Italy have collapsed without Russia? Maybe not. Italy successfully deployed a rather large force to Russia. Germany also gave Russia priority over the Med, so FlierKorps X (sp?) went from dominating the Med to being used in Russia. With undivided air power Germany could have probably suppressed Malta… maybe… probably… if they rolled a six… the IPCC models show…

            Look, without getting into the My Grand Strat WW2 wargame is better than your Grand Strat WW2 wargame, having Germany in Russia gave the West someone to for the Germans to bleed against. The West kept Russia fed with weapons. Without the West, both in keeping Germans fighting elsewhere and supplying weapons) the Russians would have more than likely been defeated. Without Russia, the West would have faced an Atlantic Wall twice as thick.

            Or something. Alt history is an alien and ultimately hostile place. It is exciting to visit, but you don’t want to raise your kids there.

          • John, we didn’t use the A-bomb on Germany, we used it on Japan.
            I’ve read lots of debates as to whether strategic bombing hurt Germany more than it cost the Allies. At least in the early years of the war.
            By the middle of the war, once the Allies had control of air over Germany, the balance did shift in our favor.

          • Much of the benefits of the bombing campaign were in making Germany defend against it, at least early on. The aircraft and anti-aircraft guns (notably the dual purpose 88mm) used for air defense could not be in Russia.

          • Mark,

            The A-bomb program was intended against Germany, but the war in Europe ended before any bombs were ready. So we used them to end the war against Japan.

            Had the war in Europe lasted into August, we would have A-bombed Germany.


            Correct. Indeed the strategic bombing campaign won the war. Had the 10,000 dual purpose 88mm guns held back for the air defense of the Reich been deployed to the Ost Front, the Red Army would have been stopped dead in its tracks. To say nothing of all the day fighters based in Germany instead of Russia in order to combat the US Eighth Air Force.

            On average, an antitank gun knocked out one enemy tank before being destroyed itself. The figure would be higher for 88s. At the end of the war, the Red Army had 10,000 tanks, so the 88s used as AAA in the Fatherland, if used as AT guns in the East, would have left the Red Army without armor. As it was, the USSR needed 10,000 diesel Shermans in order to stay ahead of German antitank defenses.

          • The Allies could have A-bombed Germany with Lancasters rather than B-29s. Lancs could have delivered both types of A-bomb, unlike B-17 and B-24.

            commieBob October 20, 2018 at 10:37 pm

            Rommel, having experienced Allies airpower, wanted to base 21st Panzer Division even closer to the Normandy beaches. But Hitler and higher echelons wanted the mobile forces farther back.

            It’s Commie propaganda that there were only old men on the West Front. Elite divisions were common in NW Europe and Italy in 1944, both heavy, such as SS armored, and light divisions, such as airborne.

      • You have a very Euro-centric view of WWII:

        Undoubtedly allies (finally) invading Northern Europe and continued bombing of Germany helped achieve the goal of driving Germany to unconditional surrender. Also, undoubtedly, allied (read: USA) support of USSR with food & raw materials helped in the defeat.

        On D-Day in Northern Europe, allies faced 58+ Nazi divisions, while the USSR was fighting 250+ Nazi divisions since Barbarossa started in Jun, 1941. If you consider that to be a trivial “side bar” to WWII, if you trivialize the deaths of 8.7M Russian military and another 20M Russian civilians in defense of their country, you have seriously misread history.

        Had Russia stayed neutral in WWII, it’s unclear how the European war would have proceeded. Remember, no Barbarossa, no UK in 1941.

        • Javert,

          I don’t trivialize anything. But the massive Soviet suffering was as much, if not more, due to Stalin than to Hitler. Stalin had deployed his divisions in attack positions, planning to invade Germany in 1942. That’s why the Red Army was so easily defeated in 1941, by an invasion which Stalin didn’t expect, despite being warned by Sorge.

          You’re also incorrect that Barbarossa meant that Germany wouldn’t have invaded the UK. Hitler didn’t invade because he couldn’t. Sea Lion would have been a disaster, as long as the Royal Navy controlled the Channel. It wasn’t just because of the air Battle of Britain that Hitler called the invasion off.

          Staying neutral wasn’t an option for Stalin. He wanted to retake at least the nations lost during and after the Great War. But had he done so, the US and UK could have and would have defeated the Nazis, as long as America joined the war. Which we might not have done had Japan not attacked us, followed by Hitler’s declaration of war against us.

          Without American food, fuel, planes, tanks, trucks, metals, boot leather, you name it, there was no way in which the Red Army could have reached Berlin. The Allied strategic bombing campaign kept not only German fighters but 10,000 anti-aircraft guns in the Fatherland, off the Eastern Front. Each 88mm gun, in the antitank role, would have knocked out at least one Soviet tank. The Red Army had only 10,000 tanks left in May 1945. The US sent them that many Sherman tanks, which the Russians liked because they had radios.

          In every way, Lend Lease and the fronts opened up by the Allies in the West made victory possible. But had the USSR not been in the war on the Allied side, we would have won anyway.

          • Stalin had executed much of his professional military staff in the Great Purge, just prior to WW2. Koba was vicious but not very bright. I believe that pretty much every single major initiative he undertook failed, except WW2. The Soviets were key to Hitler’s defeat but Stalin certainly couldn’t have orchestrated the victory without considerable assistance

          • Bill,

            The Soviets were important as to how the defeat of Hitler actually occurred, but the Nazis would have lost even had Stalin stayed on their side, as in 1939-41, or gone neutral after 1941.

            Once the US entered the war on Britain’s side, the deal was done, with or without the USSR.

          • Tillman

            Your statements that USSR alone could not have defeated Nazis in WWII without lend-lease is probably accurate; your statement that US (essentially alone) could have defeated Germany without USSR is an open question. After defeating Japan, it’s uncertain US (almost alone) would have liberated Europe.

            1) In 1940-41, Russian strategy was defense. Stalin repositioned primitive Red army units on the boarders agreed in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The poorly led & supplied Red army was easily butchered in 1941-2 by a more modern German army. Lend-lease & the Red army (aided by German fatigue) learned & improved impressively in late 1942-45. In any event, Zhukov got a hell of a lot more effective in late 1942-43.

            2) soviets definitely suffered under Stalin – before, during & after WWI; however, Hitler killed many more Russians than Stalin during WWII.

            3) Hitler didn’t necessarily have to invade UK to defeat it; U-boats were on the verge of strangling Britain for food and war materials.

            4) After Kursk, whatever the USSR tank count was (I’ll accept 11K+), the Germans had only half that many. I’ll also accept US->USSR lend-lease of about 11K tanks; however, USSR built an additional 98,000 T-34s during the war.

            5) WWII doctrine generally required invaders to have 3 to 1 advantage over defenders; 1941-4 German army numbered 4.5M-5.5M; US never had more than 2M military in Europe. As I said unclear if US (acting essentially alone) would have liberated Europe.

          • John, l wouldn’t try to guess how alternate realities might unfold. By the end of WW2 Canada had the third largest Navy and fourth largest airforce. We were supplying aluminum, aircraft and vehicles to the allies. We had the most mechanized army in the world, so if the war had gone another way, anything might have happened. But it didn’t and trying to downplay the Soviet contribution by spinning untestable speculation is about as useful as climate modelling.

          • Javert,

            The Red Army in 1941 was most definitely not deployed for defense. It left behind the prepared positions of the Stalin Line along the old border and moved forward into the recently conquered portion of eastern Poland. Farther south, it deployed formations designed for offensive operations in the Carpathians and against Romania.

            The German invasion was so devastating, with so many Red Army troops captured and killed, precisely because Stalin had deployed his forces forward, into attack positions.


            Canada’s navy and the Royal Navy were powerful because of Lend Lease. Likewise Canada’s mechanized army.

            If apologists for Stalin want to claim that the Red Army defeated Hitler, then it’s perfectly valid to point out that, in any alternative scenario, the US alone, even without Britain, Canada, the Commonwealth or Free France would have and could have defeated the Nazis all on our own. Some British scientists did help with the Bomb, but they also brought Soviet spy Klaus Fuchs in their wake.

            In alternative history, the US might have beaten Japan before Germany, although probably not, since FDR engineered Pearl Harbor in order to get us into the war against Germany by the back door. His administration was riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers. But whether in 1945, 1946 or 1947, the Nazis stood no chance against America.

            I recognize the great sacrifices of the subject peoples of the USSR. But the Nazis were bound to lose with or without those horrific and totally unnecessary losses. Had Hitler not treated the Ukrainians almost as badly as had Stalin, he might well have beaten the Red Army before the US got the Bomb.

            Anticommunist guerrillas fought the Soviet regime until 1955, when Ukrainian Russian Khrushchev started de-Stalinizing.

          • Javert,

            “3) Hitler didn’t necessarily have to invade UK to defeat it; U-boats were on the verge of strangling Britain for food and war materials.”

            That would only have worked without the US in the war. Or actively “neutral”.

            Once US escort carriers closed the Greenland gap, the U boats were doomed, aided by British centimetric radar on patrol aircraft provided by the US.

          • And of course, the Royal Canadian Navy was relatively large only because the US Navy had sunk the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Allies had destroyed the German, Italian, and yes, French navies during the course of the war.

          • …“3) Hitler didn’t necessarily have to invade UK to defeat it; U-boats were on the verge of strangling Britain for food and war materials.”
            That would only have worked without the US in the war. Or actively “neutral”.
            Once US escort carriers closed the Greenland gap, the U boats were doomed, aided by British centimetric radar on patrol aircraft provided by the US…

            A very odd view of the Battle of the Atlantic. The British could have bought long-range Liberators/Catalinas whether the US was in the war or not – as indeed they did, and RAF Coastal Command had great success with them in the closing stages of the war. Mainly over the Bay of Biscay with Leigh Lights. But they could equally well have developed their own long-range marine patrol aircraft – as they did later with the Shackleton, for instance.

            The mid-Atlantic gap where U-boats could intercept was closed by weapons like CAM Hurricanes and the use of Ultra code-breaking. And, of course, centimetric radar on corvettes, the hunter/killer groups developed by Johnny Walker, Huff/Duff, ASDIC and weapons like the Hedgehog – all copied later by the US Navy.

            In fact, the danger that the U-boat weapon posed, though it concerned Churchill, never brought Britain close to collapse as is sometimes claimed. At no time during the campaign were supply lines to Britain interrupted. In all, during the Atlantic Campaign only 10% of transatlantic convoys that sailed were attacked, and of those attacked only 10% on average of the ships were lost. Overall, more than 99% of all ships sailing to and from the British Isles during World War II did so successfully.

            To win the Battle of the Atlantic, the U-boat arm had to sink 300,000 GRT per month in order to overwhelm Britain’s shipbuilding capacity. In only four out of the first 27 months of the war did Germany achieve this target, while after December 1941, when Britain was joined by the US merchant marine and ship yards the target effectively doubled.

            It was a war of attrition, which Britain was well on the way to winning on its own. Where the US really provided material assistance was in the building of ‘Liberty Ships’, which made the Kreigsmarine aim completely impossible to achieve.

          • Dodgy,

            Not odd, but the standard interpretation. As you note, Churchill, who was in a position to know, considered more US involvement vital.

            Long-range patrol aircraft could not defend convoys continuously. Only escort carriers could do that. Without the 50 old US destroyers in September 1940, before we entered the war, the UK would have been starved of food and war materiel. It still could have been without our full participation after Dec 1941.

            Besides Liberty Ships, we built many RN escort vessels and repaired many others, even before the war.


            This says that the RCN at the end of the war was the fifth largest navy:


            In any case, it was mainly a convoy escort force, based in the NW Atlantic.


            As you can see, it had very limited offensive capability, with just two little escort carriers, two light cruisers and three armed merchant cruisers. It lacked light and fast fleet carriers, submarines, battleships and heavy cruisers, so by tonnage, its rank would be even lower. Yet its convoy escorts, ie destroyers, frigates, corvettes, minesweepers and other escort ships, played a vital role in the Battle of the Atlantic.

        • Here’s how the European war would have ended.

          In his 30 July 1945 memorandum on use of atomic weaponry, MG Groves stated that the production rate of three bombs per month in August was expected to rise to five bombs per month in November, and seven bombs per month in December. In 1946, it could rise much higher.

          Even with jet and rocket-powered interceptors and radar-guided SAMs, Germany could not have withstood atomic bombardment by dozens, then hundreds of weapons. Hitler and the whole Nazi hierarchy would have been shot dead by Wehrmacht and naval officers, possibly to include the more Nazi Luftwaffe, did they not surrender.

          A D-Day in the summer of 1945 would have been preceded by three atomic bombs. In 1946, by dozens. Resistance is useless.

        • But that makes no sense. No Barbarossa, no Hitler, because Hitler’s concerns were with defeating international socialism and living space in the East.

          You can’t just reprogramme Hitler and still have him invading the UK.

          • The fact that Hitler invaded the USSR without first having defeated the UK shows where his priorities lay.

            Without the US in the war, he probably would have been able to starve Britain into making peace, if not surrendering, and he could have achieved a stalemate in the East. Or won, had Japan also attacked the Soviet Union instead of the US.

            Tokyo’s best move however might have been to seize the Dutch East Indies, as it had French Indochina, without attacking the US in HI, the PI and AK, and the UK in Malaya and Singapore, nor New Guinea, the Solomons and Oz. The Netherlands, after all, were under German control, and Dutch forces in the East were limited.

  10. Given that natural forces are still the likely primary (and maybe only) drivers of climate, it is interesting to hear Ms. Ocasio-Cortez announce she wants to mobilize the country to fight nature as we mobilized for WWII. Announcing that she wants to do it with so-called “renewables” (i.e. solar, wind, hydroelectric), makes her little speech down right spectacular. Does supporting renewables mean she favors the damming of more rivers for hydroelectricity?

    What is disturbing though is knowing she is likely to win a seat in Congress anyway (from what I’v read). The blind leading the blind.

  11. LOL. Can she identify which cities she would like to bomb, ships to sink, armies to destroy? Perhaps where to drop a couple of nukes?

    What I’m really confused about is who signs the surrender agreement on behalf of the climate.

    • She means the US should dresden the White House with allied (Russia?) forces…

      By the way, Americans have a weird way of seeing Hitler more evil than Stalin, who was ‘allied’.

      Truly these two were equal and far far ahead of, say, Churchill.

    • Daryl:
      Fountain? More like a volcano !
      She is a victim of the educational system, purposely designed to indoctrinate rather than to educate.

      At least she is smart enough to realize that the current Democrat and Republican political parties have nothing to offer 99.99% of the electorate and that running Hilliary Goldman Sachs in 2020 would be a continuation of the unacceptable status quo.

  12. Somebody should give her some education on climate change — as defined by IPCC & UNFCCC. Unfortunately, people with little or no knoldge on what is climate change become big voice and media gives importance to such people. We must stop giving importance to such people.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  13. Really we are at war. The forces of evil are determined to bring in a world government. They will not stop at just words. This not trivial. The threat to reduce the population is real. You only have to look to history to see what devastation can result from false ideology. Climates change is the replacement for world war three to achieve their aims.

  14. Hank Johnson, a little prettier but just as willing to believe Guam will capsize. To all who think she will not win, I present the honorable Hank Johnson D. Georgia

  15. So this is the Dems answer to the foundering of their party! The new right which pushed Dems and Rhino elites out will be running the country for several generations. There is something Darwinian going on here.

    • It’s like Labour turning to Corbyn. If you can’t win with “moderate” candidates, you might as well go the whole hog and support those who advocate what you truly believe deep down. No more pretense. It’s liberating for the socialist majority in today’s Democrat Party.

      Who knows? They might even retake the House, although they’ll lose seats in the Senate. The only hope in that case is that two more years of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker will scare the electorate into regaining its sanity.

  16. Make no mistake, NY Dems are after big money to repair the subways and whatever else they need at your expense. It’s super scam Sandy 100x.

  17. Seems she can’t afford to employ any speech writers, or even people who might caution her when it is better to STFU and say nothing at all.

  18. I wonder what country Putin will seize next with socialists running the US. The same goes for China.

    • The three most obvious targets in Putin’s push to reestablish the Russian Empire are the Baltic States. The only thing keeping out of them for the nonce are the NATO ground troops there.

      A blatant target for China is Brunei, followed by bits of Indonesia, en route to Australia.

      • Taiwan will be before any of that if you know your history you will understand why being annexed in 1683 and they still claim sovereignty.

        • Could be, but Taiwan is a much tougher nut to crack than Brunei. Even with its huge build up, China still lacks the amphibious capability to land on Taiwan.

          Despite the history.

        • Funny Guy!

          Well, Putin’s ultimate targets are the large Western democracies, so-called now that they are ruled by unelected EU bureaucrats.

          And Oz is definitely a target of China, if not Russia. It needs at least Western Oz and the northern half of the rest of the country, in order to further its designs on the Indian Ocean. Also, most resources lie, and fewer people live, north of the Tropic of Capricorn.

          Brisbane and the rest of Southern Queensland wouldn’t be worth the trouble of conquering. South Oz also has some resources, but again, probably not enough to be worth the added occupation force. Better just to turn the SE part of the country into a puppet regime.

        • Yeah funny guy both countries have alliances with USA, that is a straight out declaration of world war I am sure China is itching for that :-).

          Given that China is now a totalitarian state or “Jinping land” and he has stated China is not going to be expansionist then Taiwan will be the first and only target because it belongs to them.

  19. So she doesn’t know science, nor does she know history. What does she know?

    “…the last time we had a really major existential threat to this country was around World War II…”

    The Cold War must have been eliminated from her educational curriculum. How clueless is she?

      • “So I got me a pencil and a moleskin book
        when I heard Bertha Franklin shot and killed Sam Cooke
        wrote down December 11, 1964
        ain’t gonna be twisting the night away no more
        it took 15 minutes for the jury to decide
        cause of death’s justified homicide
        Liza Boyer wasn’t called by the prosecution
        later on she’s arrested for prostitution
        La hacienda motel had a busted down door
        Sam’s wallet and his money was never accounted for”

        Ray Wylie Hubbard – Count My Blessings

  20. The reality is that based upon the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing has been caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The Earth’s climate has been changing for eons and mankind does not have the power to stop it. So carpet bombing cities and invading Western Europe will have no effect upon how Mother Nature is gradually changing the Earth’s climate. Mankind has not had the power to change a single weather event let alone change global climate.

  21. Ocasio-Cortez has fallen into the trap taught in most liberal arts colleges today. They teach that if you say something is true, then it will be true.
    ie: those that were born white are racist
    If you want to be a different sex (your choice of a dozen options) they you will be simply by saying so
    If you are white, you can choose to be black – aka Rachel Dolezal [and vice versa – Michael Jackson] but be careful about claiming indian ancestry!
    If you say CO2 causes global warming, then it does.
    If Climate Change can be defeated by using the same things we used in WWII then if you say so it will work.
    If the news media decided OJ Simpson was guilty of murder then it didn’t matter what the jury found.
    If a woman decides she was assaulted then the fundamental principal ‘innocent until proven guilty’ doesn’t matter.
    Someday, somehow Ocasio-Cortez might grow up, but maybe not.

  22. Ocasio-Cortez has fallen into the trap taught in most liberal arts colleges today. They teach that if you say something is true, then it will be true.
    ie: those that were born white are racist
    If you want to be a different sex (your choice of a dozen options) then you will be simply by saying so
    If you are white, you can choose to be black – aka Rachel Dolezal [and vice versa – Michael Jackson] but be careful about claiming indian ancestry!
    If you say CO2 causes global warming, then it does.
    If Climate Change can be defeated by using the same things we used in WWII then if you say so it will work.
    If the news media decided OJ Simpson was guilty of murder then it didn’t matter what the jury found.
    If a woman decides she was assaulted then the fundamental principal ‘innocent until proven guilty’ doesn’t matter.
    Someday, somehow Ocasio-Cortez might grow up, but maybe not.

        • Gunga,

          We really don’t want to get into modern pronoun Nazism and neologism. It would sicken you.

          • The answer is to fight back, on campuses, in the streets, at the ballot box, if not yet on the beaches.

            Rage, rage against the dying of the light which was the apparently sadly brief life of classical liberalism, of republican virtue, of civil society, of freedom of speech, of private property, of family, of faith, of liberty.

      • Here’s Catharine MacKinnon in her 1983 paper, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence.”

        She says, “The feminist theory knowledge is inextricable from the feminist critique of power because the male point of view forces itself upon the world as its way of apprehending it. … Objectivity, as the epistemological stance of which objectification the social process, creates the reality it apprehends by defining as knowledge the reality it creates through its way of apprehending.

        Got that? Reality itself is a construct of the choice of perception. This idiocy is taught as canon throughout academic cultural studies, and is fervently believed by the student acolytes.

        MacKinnon’s entire paper is nonsensical gibberish like that. And she is the top doggette of 3rd wave feminism and the doyen of revealed truth in cultural studies.

        So, David Middleton, when your colleagues find oil, it’s there because they all first apprehended it to be there. And, of course, pace MacKinnon, petroleum wouldn’t burn if you didn’t impose your male hegemonic apprehension that it burns.

        This is real, “The Stupid, it burns!

  23. ” … Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez … ”

    Shouldn’t she have an education and some life of experience first before declaring herself a master-mind and all round global genius? Too much positive-reinforcement as a child?

  24. She wants to fight global warming by having Bomber Command the USAAF bomb Germany into the stone age while the Soviet Army storms through Eastern Europe? Wouldn’t that create, I don’t know, a LOT of greenhouse gases? Particularly all the methane generated by fifty million decaying corpses?

    (On the other hand, there’s something to be said about standing back and watching socialists butcher each other…)

  25. “And what we did was that we chose to mobilize our entire economy and industrialized our entire economy and we put hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to work in defending our shores and defending this country,” she stated. “We have to do the same thing in order to get us to 100% renewable energy, and that’s just the truth of it.”

    Does she realize what exactly she has said? The Left should throw her out on her ear – she advocates the ‘mobilization of an entire economy’ and ‘industrialization’.

    I thought the Globull Warmers were all about ‘de-industrialization’? The renewable energy sources that she advocates for, can only exist as supplements to base load nuclear, hydro-electric, and other carbon dioxide intensive energy sources. As a lone source for energy for a nation, renewables would not be able to support any such ‘industrialization’. This human being knows not of what she speaks. But as others have said above, it appears she has scant capabilities as an orator. Could this shortcoming actually be a positive for her opposition in the coming mid-term election?

    One can only hope….



    • This “child” has absolutely no idea of what she is suggesting.

      ‘mobilization of an entire economy’ and ‘industrialization’.
      (Just close your eyes and wish REAL hard and the Rich and the Corporations will stop being selfish and solve the problem for us.)

      We did not just “put people to work”
      (And if I understand Alexandria, her idea is to put OTHER people to work.)

      I don’t see current millennials sacrificing what our parents and grandparents did in WWII:
      – separation of families for years
      – many volunteering for service who were killed or wounded
      – giving up what we today take for granted by rationing (meat, butter, gasoline etc) or just plain unavailable (automobiles)
      – mothers volunteering to replace husbands in jobs in heavy industry.

      God help us if many with this intellect end up in Congress.

    • I thought the Globull Warmers were all about ‘de-industrialization’?

      No, only de industrialization of the US, maybe the West. Chinese and Indian industrialization is just fine. As is Russian.

  26. She says the WWII experience gives us a “blueprint” on how to fight global warming. So let’s see, during WWII we had Nazi German and Imperial Japan, both of whom are nations that featured populations of people. So we attacked these nations with naval engagements and military invasions, defeating their armed forces with ours.

    So, who do we attack to stop global warming? Where is this Evil Axis of Global Warmers? Where are their ships, where are their legions?

    • Hey! It’s YOU! You and your SUV and your warm lifestyle with enough to eat! Don’t you know there are children starving in -er -er -er – I’ll remember the place later!

  27. “blueprint for beating global warming needs to be the same as the blueprint the U.S. used for defeating Nazi Germany in the 1940s.”

    That would mean bombing major cities to atoms as this WW2 footage show

  28. We need to send Ocasio-Cortez to the Eastern Front to fight that existential threat.
    She would fit right in with Stalin’s Red Army.

    I also find it curious she didn’t mention Japan and how we won that war by avoiding a direct invasion of Japan to bring about their unconditional surrender.

  29. The Nazis (aka National Socialist Party) was an existential threat because, and, like all Socialist governments, was based upon the immoral philosophy tht government’s have the “right” to INITIATE force against individuals against their will.

    CAGW is just another Socialist fantasy based on the immoral practice of the initiation of force, and, like NAZI Germany, must be defeated.

    The idiotic CAGW sc@m wishes to steal $122 TRILLION (latest October 2018 IPCC projection) from taxpayers from around the world to “fix” an imaginary problem concocted by Socialists…

    No thank you…

    Yes, Socialism has always been, and always will be, an immoral existential threat to humanity, and it must be defeated by voting the Socialist bums out of office, and educating people about the true immoral nature and history of Socialism, which lead to the deaths of 100+ million citizens of Socialist regimes in the 20th century…

  30. The only reason to put this in “Nazi” context is put those who are skeptical in the role of Nazi’s. The strategy is to make her opponents “Nazis.” Don’t even bother to intellectualize it by analyzing differences. It needs to be condemned and dismissed as the ad hominem attack that it is.

  31. I’d say “Democratic Socialists” like her are a very significant existential threat to our Constitutional Republic.

  32. She is actually correct. The war was won by nuclear power. So if you believe in human caused global warming then nuclear is the way to go.

    • Sorry, just finished watching Purdue knock off Ohio State (yeah!), it is late and I had a long day so I really didn’t comprehend she wasn’t referring to the war in the Pacific.

      • From this Buckeye fan’s perspective, the only good thing about it was Tyler got to see see his team upset the #2 team in the country.

        (For those who don’t know, Tyler is a huge Purdue fan … in hospice. Terminal cancer. )

    • Democrat side of the aisle in the US House of Representatives is close enough for government work.

    • So that she can drive the insane incurably crazy? Think of the poor wardens – and the innocent children!

  33. So she believes the National Socialists in Germany were an existential threat but not the International Socialists of the Soviet Union with thousands of missiles with nuclear weapons pointed at the United States?
    The Soviet Union invaded countries and waged proxy wars in order to defeat and destroy the United States. I’m sure, as a good Socialist, she in in favor of this.

  34. The US is not leading the world in emission reductions. By some measures the US lead the world in emissions reductions in 2017.

    Data for the US, the EU-28 and China are shown below. Climate changes depends only on the amount of CO2 emitted, but – in the real world – changes in emissions per capita and economic value (GDP) obtained from use of fossil fuels are important metrics. I didn’t find emissions/capital or emissions/GDP for 2017.

    Idiotically, the starting year traditionally is 1990, when the US and the EU-28 were on very different tracks. Germany was already shutting down inefficient East German operations. Britain was switching from domestic coal to North Sea gas. Given the large number of years needed to change, 2000 is a more sensible starting year, given the time needed to respond to late 1990s international negotiations. The tradition is to sum the 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to present changes. US emissions peaked in 2005. China is typical of the path 4 billion people in the developing world are likely to follow.

    The rate of recent changes in emissions/GDP are remarkably similar!

    Total Emissions (billion tons CO2/yr):
    1990: US, 4.95. EU, 4.34. China, 2.31.
    2000: US, 5.73. EU, 4.08. China, 3.35. (US +15.8%, EU -6.0%, Ch +45% vs 1990)
    2014: US, 5.36. EU, 3.45. China, 9.21. (US -6.5%, EU -15.4%, Ch +175% vs 2000)
    2017: US, 5.09. EU, 3.54. China, 9.23. (US -11.2%, EU -13.2%, Ch +176% vs 2000)

    Emissions per capita (tons CO2/person/year):
    1990: US, 19.6. EU, 9.2. Ch, 2.1.
    2000: US, 20.6. EU, 8.4. Ch, 2.9. (US +5.1%, EU -8.7%, Ch +38% vs 1990)
    2014: US, 16.5. EU, 6.7. Ch, 7.6. (US -19.9%, EU -20.2%, Ch +162% vs 2000)

    Emissions per $GDP (kg CO2/$1000 (US$(2010)):
    1990: US, 544. EU, 367. Ch 1500.
    2000: US, 455. EU, 278. Ch 800. (US -16.4%, EU -24.3%, Ch -47% vs 1990)
    2014: US, 333. EU, 200. Ch 630. (US -26.8%, EU -28.1%, Ch -21% vs 2000)

      • Gnomish: The credibility of “the world most widely read climate website” is damaged by such false statements. Andy claims that the comments of readers will prevent the distribution of false information through WUWT. Do you care whether the information you read here is correct or not? Or do you simply want to hear things that agree with your current opinion?

        Unfortunately, there wasn’t a simple way to describe which country is leading the world in emissions reduction.

  35. “Democracy, like religion, is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual stupidity.”

    The election of dangerously stupid people is an unfortunate consequence of the democratic process.
    Candidates for election to public office should be screened to exclude those that do not possess a modicum of common sense!

  36. As Margaret Thatcher may have once almost said: “the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of convenient places to put the concentration camps”. Given that Nazis were socialists, and outcomes under non-Nazi socialism are indistinguishable from outcomes under Nazi-socialism (and, we may now safely say after Venezuela, Democratic Socialism), how is she under the impression that she has any moral right to judge others for their positions on climate change? As many from Clemenceau to Churchill have also almost said “if you are a socialist when you are young, you may be a sociopath; if you are still a socialist when you are older, it removes all doubt”. What her comments show is that climate science is not about science, it is about politics and ideology. But we’ve all known that since DC air conditioner-gate in 1988.

  37. ‘tactics to defeat Nazi Germany can defeat global warming’

    Congrats, Comrade! Victory was won because of fossil fuel, namely oil. Coal was the backbone of industrial production at home.

    • And once the Allies figured that one out (in spring 1944) and concentrated bombing on German oil installations the Luftwaffe and german Panzers were quickly immobilized.

      • One side had plentiful and with these resources managed to shorten the supplies of the opponent. Result:
        Those who make good use of fossil fuels win.
        BTW: how many batteries on how many trailers would it take to move a M1 Abrams across a desolate desert and how many wind turbines will have to be set up to recharge?

  38. She is not too hot on history is she?

    “we put hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to work in defending our shores and defending this country”

    The Army Air Force alone numbered well over two millions by 1943 and had 170,000 personnel just on the Marianas by V-J day.

    By the way “Democratic Socialist” is rather similar to boiling ice. You can say it but it doesn’t exist.

    • Want the same blueprint the U.S. used for defeating Nazi Germany in the 1940s?
      It cost the US nearly 36% of GDP in 1945, or $4.1 trillion.

  39. When has nice weather become an existential threat`?

    400 ppm CO2 – global greening, more trees, more food, disappearing deserts.
    +1,5 C from little ice age, most, if not all, of it is already done. Less extreme weather, warmer winter nights in the Northern hemisphere.

    War against GW is an existential threat to the economy and well-fare in Western World. Why should we swear allegiance to the donor class billionaires?

  40. A RAF analyst who had worked in aerial photography during WW2 told me some time ago that the only really effective uses of bombing were bombing the rail network on D-Day to stop German tank reinforcements being brought up to resist the invasion, and bombing the oil plants which restricted the ability of the Luftwaffe.
    The rest of the bombing just caused a lot of misery.
    The effect of bombing on civilian morale was not as great as expected, similar to UK experience in the Blitz.
    Industrial production in Germany was dispersed, and after the war he inspected factories where new roofing had been built under the existing shattered roofs so that aerial photography just showed an apparently bombed out factory.

    • Do you expect the alarmists to bomb refineries, coal mines and bridges? Well, a bit far fetched, but not improbable.

    • Precision military targeting worked – It took out the Tirpitz, the V2 factory and the V3 guns – using really large Barnes-Wallis earthquake bombs.

      City bombing was very effective in the Spanish Civil war and the early months of WW2 – it worked when the bomber stream was unopposed and could bomb in daylight in good conditions. Consequently, predictions were made on both sides that the war could be ended quickly by city bombing – Goering promised Hitler that he would obtain Britain’s surrender in a matter of a few weeks. ‘Bomber’ Harris said that Bomber Command would do the same to Germany.

      It turned out that Britain could oppose a daylight bomber stream effectively, even at short notice, because it had invented an Integrated Air Defence solution. And Germany could oppose one later because there were such great distances to travel that daylight air interception was fairly easy. Consequently, both sides had to attack by night, and they were lucky to get their bombs in the right country. The US initially tried attacking by day in heavily armed bombers and still got shot out of the sky.

      Eventually, these problems were solved. The British used OBOE to navigate and centimetric ground-mapping H2S radar to hit invisible targets at night, and Pathfinding techniques – the US used long-range Mustang escort fighters to engage the Luftwaffe during the day. But neither side managed to bomb cities as effectively as the Germans had at the beginning of the war – not until right at the end, when the Allies hit targets like Cologne, Hamburg and Dresden. If that had been managed at the start of the war, then the bomber’s predictions might have been true – as it was it was too little, too late…

      • The modern day history of bombing cities tells us it is to destroy “civilian moral”. There was a much more pragmatic reason. Cities held the workforce that produced the weapons of war. Raw materials were turned into the ships, guns, tanks, aircraft, and most other manufactured items, in cities.
        Destroy the ability of the workforce to produce replacement items that the fighting forces needed to wage war, and you destroy the ability of the military to win against an enemy that can provide those war fighting manufactured goods.
        When you run out of bullets, or tanks, or ships, or aircraft, or even fuel before your enemy does, you are limited to a defensive posture and the end is certain, unless the situation changes.

  41. Churchill said that the one thing that caused him most worry was the U-boat menace.
    If Doenitz had been given the 300 submarines he wanted at the start of WW2 he could have strangled the supply routes to the UK, but Hitler was fixated on building large capital ships like the Graf ẞpee and Bismarck.

  42. I guess she doesn’t support nuclear fission technology nor hydraulic fracturing…

    But how “pure” is she?

    Does she support the mass production of batteries made with minerals mined in Africa with unspeakable work conditions?

  43. It was never about emissions, that was the smokescreen, aided by the Üsful idiots”as Stalin correctly called them.

    The burning of the books by th Natzis in the late 1930 tees hás its parellel in th attack on the real science of today.

    When we see the opposition to Hydro, the Greenest source of electricity, usually by some said to be rare animal, then its obvious what the Greens stand for. Its world government aided by the UN, with its two thirds black and brown composition.


    • “Bücherverbrennung” burning of books, took place already on May 10, 1933, three and a half months after the “Machtergreifung”.

  44. I hate to say this, but boy is she dumb. War production put millions into work. A Green economy will put millions out of work. You simply cannot make things less efficient and preserve our current levels of wealth. Less efficient means less produced means less wealth.

    She, like so many Lefties, misunderstands the (pretty bogus) Stern Report. That didn’t say there were not costs if acting, it simply claimed the costs were lower than the costs of not acting.

    By all means campaign for what you believe in, but she is just delusional about the consequences of what she wants.

  45. Great, now words mean what you want them to mean! I cringe every time I here that stupid cliche – “existential threat”!

    She managed to completely abuse the word “existential” despite misusing it four times. Ok, I’ll give her the first usage because it makes sense in the context, even though it doesn’t mean what she thinks it does

    Essentially, existential means “real” or “exists” and even if used in the philosophical sense, actually weakens the “threat” because it implies that it is only in her own head.

    The cliche – which I won’t repeat – doesn’t mean mortal threat or threat to existence, it may have come to mean “deadly threat” but it actually means ‘threat that exists’ full stop period.

    • ‘Existential threat’ now means ‘threat to our existence’, which is an absurd an abuse of a word as the phrase ‘Climate Change’.

      • Existential threat means what the person hearing it wants it to mean. Some one needs step up and ask miss dumb-ass, in public, what SHE means when she says it.

        “Miss Ocasio-Cortez, could you please explain what you mean when you use the term, “existential threat”? Do you believe that human existence in threatened? Do you mean that current society is threatened? Do you simply mean that there is a “real threat” and you are using what you consider sciencey sounding language to enhance your show?

  46. With Bernie “in crisis mode” about CO2, no wonder new candidates flip. Cortez should know better – after all she campaigned on Glasss-Steagall, the FDR 1934 banking law that made the US recovery possible after 1929-1932 which Clinton repealed in 1999. By 1936 FDR knew war was coming. By 1940 the recovery had unleashed the economy. The crash program was the Manhattan Project which gave us nuclear power (and weapons).
    A national fusion crash program is now acutely needed. “Market forces” are a foisted farce compared to the neutron strong force and science driven programs.
    The greenie and banking party pressure must be overwhelming.

  47. ‘The United States’ blueprint for beating global warming needs to be the same as the blueprint the U.S. used for defeating Nazi Germany in the 1940s.’

    Yeah, hold up at the Elbe and let the Soviets do the dirty work.

  48. The usual classic fatal failure to be specific.

    ‘The same tactics’.

    Yes, by who?

    Directed at what?

    Usually these vague appeals to drastic action envisage the US reducing its emissions dramatically, while the rest of the world increases, for a net increase in emissions.

    Or is the lady, in this unusual case, proposing an alliance which shall include China and India, in which all parties make dramatic reductions in their emissions?

    No, thought not. Its a case of lets do something unilaterally which we know to be ineffective and useless when done unilaterally.

    Because, Nazis.

  49. It follows the war-like rethoric many greens use. We must fight climate change we have to win the battle and so on.

    • The problem is that the “greens” are at war with the nuclear power technology, only technology that enables huge decrease in “carbon” moving around and ending as CO2.

      They would probably bomb fission plants if allowed to.

  50. What we have here is a very pretty dumb girl who is even dumber than she is pretty. Running against an entire gaggle of dimocrats she was able to garner 16%, I believe, of the vote which was the top of a very poor heap. Hopefully the other 84% of her party are not stupid enough to actually put her in office. But then I’ll be surprised if that seat does not go to a dimwit of some kind or another.

    • Sorry, different primary. She ran in two at the same time! Won as a write in in the second. Go figure. New York politics.

  51. Simple: Air power was the key element to a victory in WW2. Alexandria should build a fleet of a million aircraft, and bomb the global warming to smithereens.

    I’ll apply for a position of a scientific advisor for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And a military advisor. She is not hiring a common sense advisor.

    • As a proxy for climate change, maybe she wants to bomb/invade all ME countries that export “carbon”?

      That would be a change, in continuity.

  52. WWII was an existential threat?


    It has become quite clear to me that the young masses have become so mindless that they actually want to be ruled and told what to think and do.

    They think they know it all so well that they don’t need any lessons from the past.

    I’m waiting for square wheels to be “invented”. Wait, what? They have?

    Well, he is “tinkering with new wheel designs”, so maybe he’ll get there soon!

  53. I wonder whom should we bomb first? China or ourselves?

    The complete vapidness and lack of cognitive abilities in our younger generation should be sobering to us all. Here’s another young, photogenic leftist with no accomplishments and no noticeable abilities. The media loves her because they think she can be another Obama. But Obama won in no small part by pretending to not be who he really was (especially in 2008). Ocasio-Cortez already doomed herself by publicly touting her actual views and policy positions.

  54. She’s right! To win the second world war the democracies were willing to do anything. Nothing was off the table including making an alliance with another reprehensible ideology and developing,then using atomic weapons. In Vietnam and Korea certain actions and strategies were not allowed and those wars were never won in the same way that WWII was won. To truly win the war on global warming we will need to consider all options. I’m not willing to consider all options nor is Alexandria. I am willing to consider nuclear power though something that she is not.

  55. Her enemy does not exist. It is a war against the windmills of her mind. No real scientist can help her, but perhaps a psychologist could.

  56. This child is not to be taken seriously in her ignorance. Let her run her course to it logical conclusion: gagging for breath in the deepest end of the swamp!

    • Here in Texas, we have the same phenomenon with Beto. Neither are serious or substantive candidates. Neither has any known accomplishments to run on. Their agendas are based upon not truth, not facts but perception. Most of what they believe simply isn’t true.

  57. Unlimited governments are an existential threat to both their own citizens, and the citizens of other countries. That is why the only governments that are stable are those that are “limited” in their power by a Constitution that allows control of the government by the public, and by fundamental rights granted to the public by that Constitution.
    The most recent existential threat was the Soviet Union targeting the free world with thousands of nuclear warheads, and a leadership that was unstable enough to use them if they could gain a substantial advantage and survive the exchange. She doesn’t want to mention that, because it is the end result of unlimited government power. The end game for her philosophy. She also does not want to mention the USSR, because it was such an economic mess, they imploded due to distorted economic incentives that ALWAYS eventually destroy socialist economies. The level of government ownership over the means to production, determines the rate of collapse.
    The socialist agenda is to make up “existential threats”, and then use government power to remove power from the public. Thereby creating and advancing the existential threat, while claiming to remedy it.

  58. As a British citizen I’m embarrassed by the fact that it seems to be English speaking countries that are at the forefront of the Luddite movement to use global warming as a pretext to destroy the world’s industrial-technological economy. Australia, UK’s ecofasc1st Guardian and academia, Canada, the US powerful left complete with its new occasional cortex figurehead, etc. They should be careful what they wish for.

    Economies are not just numbers for academics. People live and die by them. Typically if economies run more or less OK people generally are subdued and content but once the economy start going seriously downhill, people get agitated and politics get interesting in a bad way.

    Contemplate the following sentence:
    “Anglo Saxon is the new Cosmopolitan.”

    If you follow European politics you will be aware of rumblings on the German far right about a “rootless global class”. They’re not talking about Jews. They refer to people who “speak fluent English, are equally at home in Berlin or Singapore, and have no connection with where they live”.

    If IPCC 1.5 degree madness takes hold in government policy of major economies, the result is an inevitable disastrous economic crash / depression. When this happens folks will cast about for a class of people to blame. The Anglophone community of CAGW fanatics are doing their utmost best to make sure that when this time comes, they are the ones who will be in the spotlight.

    But this is not the spotlight that even the most ardent narcissist really wants. It’s more like a concentration camp searchlight.

  59. Damned that climate change and it’s ball bearing factories!!

    She has about the same grasp on history as she does economics and international relations.

  60. There’s no denying she really is a perfect fit for the new face of the Democrat party. Utterly ignorant drain-dead over-emotional over-confident privileged schoolgirl.

  61. Watch the video of when Cortez sees she won the election. Just watch it, she never intended to win, she has no clue what she is on about, that’s why she says the insane idiotic things she does. She’s way out of her depth.

    Here it is, watch, she never wanted to win. You can see the fear and realization dawn on her as she sees the results.

  62. A socialist dreaming of a world in which the government controls everything, even to the point of telling individuals how much and what they are permitted to buy.

    Not a surprise.

  63. the last time we had a really major existential threat to this country was around World War II,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And so we’ve been here before and we have a blueprint of doing this before.”

    How will carpet bombing European cities help anything? Or maybe going atomic (IE nuclear) is what she meant? Ah who am I kidding, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

    • Maybe she only wants to bomb “carbon”:

      – open coal mines
      – mountaintop removal mines
      – oil fields
      – supertankers
      – offshore platforms
      – and of course forests

Comments are closed.