Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[KernowCanary 214]

Imagine if during World War Two we had the internet, same MSM and (Anti-)Social Media back then?.

The MSM would be full of their latest cliches and gimmicky compound words in which two are wealded together to make one, constant scaremongering affecting the mental health of others and making people think the whole thing will never end.

Right now Auntie Beeb on their front news page are going on about food poverty again, but worldwide with a Getty Image of two kids dragging shopping bags along.

[Herman 9,787]

There's now enough choices available that it is easy to stop reading or watching media companies that get on your ****. 

[horsefly 4,304]

29 minutes ago, KernowCanary said:

Right now Auntie Beeb on their front news page are going on about food poverty again, but worldwide with a Getty Image of two kids dragging shopping bags along.

We have the worst cost of living crisis since WWII; are you suggesting that they should simply ignore the very real and devastating issue of food poverty? Perhaps they should copy the editorial policy of the Daily Mail who yesterday decided that watching TV in driverless cars was a more important front page issue than a statement from the first PM in our history found to have broken the law.

[Badger 2,407]

On 18/04/2022 at 13:22, ricardo said:

Germany could only ever win a short war.

So how would they have lost if they had not declared war vs the USSR and USA?

[Badger 2,407]

On 20/04/2022 at 14:28, It's Character Forming said:

The point has been mentioned that Germany received more resources from the USSR voluntarily during the period of the ****-Soviet pact than they were able to extract by force after invading, but the problem with this line of thinking is that Hitler did not believe the Soviets would continue to supply Germany indefinitely.

Churchill was very worried even after the **** invasion of USSR that Hitler would make a peace treaty with Stalin. He was so worried that he proposed to the USA in early 1942, that USA/ GB should recognise the borders that the USSR had before Germany invaded. 

When people talk with "certainty" that this could never have happened, they do so with a lack of empathy for the uncertainties that political leaders have. 

What is clear was that Churchill was prepared to abandon British promises and guarantees to Poland long before the USSR was winning the battle against Germany. He was prepared to "trade" eastern Poland to keep USSR in the war. 

Without in anyway defending Putin's actions, I think that we might be wise to take a similarly cautious view over some of the pronouncements of all political leaders during the current crisis. 

[ricardo 7,395]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

So how would they have lost if they had not declared war vs the USSR and USA?

The plan was to go east and after Poland, Russia would have been the next step. Indeed it had to be because he couldn't get the oil and raw materials anywhere else. France and Britain entering to war scuppered that and caused Hitler to deal with the west first so there could never be any scenario where he didn't strike against the USSR.

The trans Atlantic supply route forced his hand on declaring war on the USA. U boats had to sink American ships.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

The plan was to go east and after Poland, Russia would have been the next step. Indeed it had to be because he couldn't get the oil and raw materials anywhere else. France and Britain entering to war scuppered that and caused Hitler to deal with the west first so there could never be any scenario where he didn't strike against the USSR.

The trans Atlantic supply route forced his hand on declaring war on the USA. U boats had to sink American ships.

But the Japanese needed oil as well. They, like Hitler, wanted lebenstraum and needed to keep the occupied countries under control. For that, they need so much oil.

[Badger 2,407]

On 22/04/2022 at 09:02, Badger said:

So how would they have lost if they had not declared war vs the USSR and USA?

 

19 hours ago, ricardo said:

The plan was to go east and after Poland, Russia would have been the next step. Indeed it had to be because he couldn't get the oil and raw materials anywhere else. France and Britain entering to war scuppered that and caused Hitler to deal with the west first so there could never be any scenario where he didn't strike against the USSR.

The trans Atlantic supply route forced his hand on declaring war on the USA. U boats had to sink American ships.

1. Germany was already getting a lot of its raw materials met from the USSR from a trade deal. They produced a large amount of oil (up to half their needs) synthetically, had oil from Romania and a produced a small amount domestically. Hitler received much military advice not to invade USSR for economic reasons. Whilst Lebensraum in the USSR was always going to be the ultimate aim, it did not have to be in 1941. They could for example, diverted more resources to the Middle eastern campaign which they could have won comfortably and gained more supplies from there. 

2. Even given the (always more likely) decision to raid the USSR, the aims of the invasion could have been far more focussed. Instead of the wide-ranging Barbarossa operation, it could have been concentrated upon the Caucuses to gain access to the oil supplies that, I believe you feel is the motivation behind the attack. A more focussed along these lines would have been highly likely to succeed, would have given Hitler all the oil he wanted and at the same time deprived Stalin of the oil he needed

3. Even after the difficulties of the winter of 1941/2, a refocussed attack (Case Blue) on the Caucuses in 1942 looked like being successful until Hitler became obsessed with Stalingrad and drained resources from what should have been his main thrust. 

"At this point, Hitler made a fateful decision that many historians consider the turning point of the war... he ordered the 6th Army to proceed alone to Stalingrad, .... Case BLUE continued, but Hitler’s growing obsession with Stalingrad, namesake of his Soviet nemesis, drained the life out of an otherwise progressive campaign to take the Caucasus."

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Turning-Point%3A-A-History-of-German-Petroleum-in-War-Keller/65fffe0381dd078d3b552a756bba3f4b33494754 (Page 16)

4. Re USA. The war was over 2 years old in December 1941 and there had been no US declaration of war vs Germany up to that point. Had Hitler not declared war on them following Pearly harbour, there is no reason to suppose that the US would have declared war against them. In this case, Japan, rather than Germany would have been the focus of US attention.

[Yellow Fever 3,801]

53 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

1. Germany was already getting a lot of its raw materials met from the USSR from a trade deal. They produced a large amount of oil (up to half their needs) synthetically, had oil from Romania and a produced a small amount domestically. Hitler received much military advice not to invade USSR for economic reasons. Whilst Lebensraum in the USSR was always going to be the ultimate aim, it did not have to be in 1941. They could for example, diverted more resources to the Middle eastern campaign which they could have won comfortably and gained more supplies from there. 

2. Even given the (always more likely) decision to raid the USSR, the aims of the invasion could have been far more focussed. Instead of the wide-ranging Barbarossa operation, it could have been concentrated upon the Caucuses to gain access to the oil supplies that, I believe you feel is the motivation behind the attack. A more focussed along these lines would have been highly likely to succeed, would have given Hitler all the oil he wanted and at the same time deprived Stalin of the oil he needed

3. Even after the difficulties of the winter of 1941/2, a refocussed attack (Case Blue) on the Caucuses in 1942 looked like being successful until Hitler became obsessed with Stalingrad and drained resources from what should have been his main thrust. 

"At this point, Hitler made a fateful decision that many historians consider the turning point of the war... he ordered the 6th Army to proceed alone to Stalingrad, .... Case BLUE continued, but Hitler’s growing obsession with Stalingrad, namesake of his Soviet nemesis, drained the life out of an otherwise progressive campaign to take the Caucasus."

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Turning-Point%3A-A-History-of-German-Petroleum-in-War-Keller/65fffe0381dd078d3b552a756bba3f4b33494754 (Page 16)

4. Re USA. The war was over 2 years old in December 1941 and there had been no US declaration of war vs Germany up to that point. Had Hitler not declared war on them following Pearly harbour, there is no reason to suppose that the US would have declared war against them. In this case, Japan, rather than Germany would have been the focus of US attention.

Broadly agree with this.

As I noted elsewhere it was as much the big mistakes and being over confident (c.f Putin) that cost Hitler the war(s).

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,559]

Some of you may have already come across Peter Zeihan. He actually gives a lot of insight into Russia's motivations that I'd never really appreciated, but he makes a very compelling argument. 

In a nutshell though, the mentality is that Russia needs to occupy its neighbours for its own security, but also that it's running out of young people that can be drafted to invade neighbours so it either goes for it now or just withers and dies. Overall, his view is that Russia is withering and dying either way. 

The big takeaway point is that if NATO gets into direct conventional conflict with NATO forces then Russia's military will simply be annihilated, which could result in Russia breaking out the nuclear weapons in a tantrum, so we need to make sure that Putin fails unequivocally in Ukraine without NATO getting directly involved so we don't get to a point of direct conflict between Russia and NATO in the first place. 

This is also interesting though, where he's talking to an Indian audience. 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[PurpleCanary 5,566]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

 

1. Germany was already getting a lot of its raw materials met from the USSR from a trade deal. They produced a large amount of oil (up to half their needs) synthetically, had oil from Romania and a produced a small amount domestically. Hitler received much military advice not to invade USSR for economic reasons. Whilst Lebensraum in the USSR was always going to be the ultimate aim, it did not have to be in 1941. They could for example, diverted more resources to the Middle eastern campaign which they could have won comfortably and gained more supplies from there. 

2. Even given the (always more likely) decision to raid the USSR, the aims of the invasion could have been far more focussed. Instead of the wide-ranging Barbarossa operation, it could have been concentrated upon the Caucuses to gain access to the oil supplies that, I believe you feel is the motivation behind the attack. A more focussed along these lines would have been highly likely to succeed, would have given Hitler all the oil he wanted and at the same time deprived Stalin of the oil he needed

3. Even after the difficulties of the winter of 1941/2, a refocussed attack (Case Blue) on the Caucuses in 1942 looked like being successful until Hitler became obsessed with Stalingrad and drained resources from what should have been his main thrust. 

"At this point, Hitler made a fateful decision that many historians consider the turning point of the war... he ordered the 6th Army to proceed alone to Stalingrad, .... Case BLUE continued, but Hitler’s growing obsession with Stalingrad, namesake of his Soviet nemesis, drained the life out of an otherwise progressive campaign to take the Caucasus."

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Turning-Point%3A-A-History-of-German-Petroleum-in-War-Keller/65fffe0381dd078d3b552a756bba3f4b33494754 (Page 16)

4. Re USA. The war was over 2 years old in December 1941 and there had been no US declaration of war vs Germany up to that point. Had Hitler not declared war on them following Pearly harbour, there is no reason to suppose that the US would have declared war against them. In this case, Japan, rather than Germany would have been the focus of US attention.

I have read that through intercepts Roosevelt knew Hitler was about to declare war on the US so simply waited for that to happen.

Edited April 23, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[The Real Buh 3,445]

So, Newcastle predictions anyone?

[ricardo 7,395]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

 

1. Germany was already getting a lot of its raw materials met from the USSR from a trade deal. They produced a large amount of oil (up to half their needs) synthetically, had oil from Romania and a produced a small amount domestically. Hitler received much military advice not to invade USSR for economic reasons. Whilst Lebensraum in the USSR was always going to be the ultimate aim, it did not have to be in 1941. They could for example, diverted more resources to the Middle eastern campaign which they could have won comfortably and gained more supplies from there. 

Germany was importing 60% of its oil on the eve of WW2, Most of which came from the USA and Venezuela. This was cut off to the whole of occupied Europe by the British blockade. After Germanys victory over France and the Low countries there was a fuel crisis because Germany now had to supply these with fuel as well and the supplies of synthetic and Rumanian oil could in no way cover this. In effect Germany was now in an even worse position with regard to the need to invade the USSR.

Diverting recourses to North Africa is a red herring. a. The supply lines were even longer and much more open to interdiction. The Whermact could barely supply Rommel with what he needed and he only got as far as he did by capturing British supplies.

b. In any event Middle East production was small and supply routes difficult as even Britain found out in 1941. Most of our oil came from USA and Venezuela. The idea that Hitler could have got his oil elsewhere than Russia is a non starter.

3 hours ago, Badger said:

2. Even given the (always more likely) decision to raid the USSR, the aims of the invasion could have been far more focussed. Instead of the wide-ranging Barbarossa operation, it could have been concentrated upon the Caucuses to gain access to the oil supplies that, I believe you feel is the motivation behind the attack. A more focussed along these lines would have been highly likely to succeed, would have given Hitler all the oil he wanted and at the same time deprived Stalin of the oil he needed

3. Even after the difficulties of the winter of 1941/2, a refocussed attack (Case Blue) on the Caucuses in 1942 looked like being successful until Hitler became obsessed with Stalingrad and drained resources from what should have been his main thrust. 

Hitler was focused but Halder and the General Staff were hypnotised by the prospect of Moscow. Even had they captured it this would not have ended the war. The Baku oilfields were 800 miles from the Barbarossa start line. There was never a prospect of getting there if they couldn't knock out the Red Army. Stalin always had more men.

Case Blau was his last fling but the Russians partially destroyed the oilfields so Hitler didn't get much before the inevitable counter attack destroyed that dream.

4. Re USA. The war was over 2 years old in December 1941 and there had been no US declaration of war vs Germany up to that point. Had Hitler not declared war on them following Pearly harbour, there is no reason to suppose that the US would have declared war against them. In this case, Japan, rather than Germany would have been the focus of US attention.

Facile to think the USA would not have declared war when UBoats started sinking US ships.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,559]

31 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

NATO, by their own actions are already engaged in this war, it is designed to weaken Russia in the long term. Those who think that our problems here can be buried and forgotten, because the lying peacock is strutting his stuff abroad, and then lies some more, are sadly mistaken. Norwich's economy is on its knees, farmers are unable to get fertilizers and basic food stuffs are subjected to spiraling inflation.

https://www.indianarrative.com/world-news/elite-us-uk-forces-in-ukraine-since-beginning-of-conflict-with-russia-says-french-daily-163587.html

All down to sanctions and the lack of diplomatic nous, an agressive NATO expansionary policy to prepare for an economic world hegemony by the US, a country that has killed over 100.million people mostly civilians since WW2.

The prospect of a Silk road and Nordstream 2 really showed the real fascists up for what they are. Who knew that Beiden bought vast areas of agricultural land for a pittance and fat bribes to Zelenski, a once poor comedian, now with a massive offshore fortune.

Today the Asovstal works are being liberated for the Donetzk region and whoever is hiding there will have to face up to having ignored two calls to surrender peacefully. Hopefully Beiden meant what he said ' fighting to the last Ukrainian' is America's policy.

 

NATO isn't engaged in this war; NATO countries are simply handing Ukraine the tools it needs to defend itself from Russia's illegal, expansionist, and genocidal war against a non-NATO country so that, hopefully, Russia's army will be on its knees well before Vladimir Putin gets to the point where he thinks he might have a chance at invading a NATO country.

Putin didn't invade a NATO country because he knows it would be devastating for them; he invaded Ukraine thinking it would be a walkover, but he's being devastated by it. All he will gain out of this is a long list of war crimes charges against him and a broken Russia. 

Also the word you're looking for isn't 'liberated'; it's 'illegally occupied'. 
 

Edited April 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Indy 3,305]

Never mind does have a point, but he’s a little too far for me, but it can’t be argued that the US are making lots of money from this situation, they sold their oil reserves for over $100 a barrel, putting pressure on countries to stop buying Russian oil and are not actively looking to de escalate this situation.

At least the UN is now actively involve in a move to bring down the tension, we shall see if the meeting with mad dog Putin can have some form of change of mind set to the loony leader! Good to see something positive to try and stop more destruction of Ukraine itself! Mental world of global capitalism v outdated communist ideology!

[Herman 9,787]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

Never mind does have a point, but he’s a little too far for me, but it can’t be argued that the US are making lots of money from this situation, they sold their oil reserves for over $100 a barrel, putting pressure on countries to stop buying Russian oil and are not actively looking to de escalate this situation.

At least the UN is now actively involve in a move to bring down the tension, we shall see if the meeting with mad dog Putin can have some form of change of mind set to the loony leader! Good to see something positive to try and stop more destruction of Ukraine itself! Mental world of global capitalism v outdated communist ideology!

He did have a small point which was then consequently flattened by his rabid anti-west, Putin apologism.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,559]

All major oil and gas producers are making more money from the sanctions on Russia. Duh. Sanctions are mostly motivated by the EU's willingness to pursue them, though, which is the biggest loser of having being forced to sanction its biggest supplier of gas as Russia threatens its security by launching a military exansionist project in its direction. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Indy 3,305]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

All major oil and gas producers are making more money from the sanctions on Russia. Duh. Sanctions are mostly motivated by the EU's willingness to pursue them, though, which is the biggest loser of having being forced to sanction its biggest supplier of gas as Russia threatens its security by launching a military exansionist project in its direction. 

Yes but not many have the reserves of the US, I’ve had this conversation with Ricardo, OPEC are heavily influenced by the US and production levels are generally set.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,559]

6 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes but not many have the reserves of the US, I’ve had this conversation with Ricardo, OPEC are heavily influenced by the US and production levels are generally set.

The US is self-sufficient in almost everything. The interesting thing about the Pax Americana is that it was built on America bribing the rest of the world to align with it against the USSR in the compeititon between the two major players in the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the US has gradually got more and more introverted. 

With players like Putin and Xi Jinping around, all of the smaller democracies look to the US for security, and the scariest prospect is the US just losing interest in the rest of the world entirely. 

[Indy 3,305]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The US is self-sufficient in almost everything. The interesting thing about the Pax Americana is that it was built on America bribing the rest of the world to align with it against the USSR in the compeititon between the two major players in the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the US has gradually got more and more introverted. 

With players like Putin and Xi Jinping around, all of the smaller democracies look to the US for security, and the scariest prospect is the US just losing interest in the rest of the world entirely. 

The US is too involved to lose interest, they still need the rest of the world! But the reality we’re all reliant on each other, it’s not a ideology it’s the allowance of normal people to allow such people to lead each nation! Puti, Xi, Putin, Biden / Trump…….really makes me think there’s just something wrong with humans in general that we allow it!

[1902 1,167]

3 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

NATO, by their own actions are already engaged in this war, it is designed to weaken Russia in the long term. Those who think that our problems here can be buried and forgotten, because the lying peacock is strutting his stuff abroad, and then lies some more, are sadly mistaken. Norwich's economy is on its knees, farmers are unable to get fertilizers and basic food stuffs are subjected to spiraling inflation.

https://www.indianarrative.com/world-news/elite-us-uk-forces-in-ukraine-since-beginning-of-conflict-with-russia-says-french-daily-163587.html

All down to sanctions and the lack of diplomatic nous, an agressive NATO expansionary policy to prepare for an economic world hegemony by the US, a country that has killed over 100.million people mostly civilians since WW2.

The prospect of a Silk road and Nordstream 2 really showed the real fascists up for what they are. Who knew that Beiden bought vast areas of agricultural land for a pittance and fat bribes to Zelenski, a once poor comedian, now with a massive offshore fortune.

Today the Asovstal works are being liberated for the Donetzk region and whoever is hiding there will have to face up to having ignored two calls to surrender peacefully. Hopefully Beiden meant what he said ' fighting to the last Ukrainian' is America's policy.

 

Advocating for genocide now.

Edited April 23, 2022 by 1902

[horsefly 4,304]

Removed

Edited April 23, 2022 by horsefly
quote wrongly tagged

[Van wink 2,994]

Germany and to some extent France really need to sort themselves out, very poor record in terms of selling arms to the Russians and financing the regime 

[1902 1,167]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

So if I come to your house, blast it to smithereens and kill you, can I claim to have done it in the noble cause of liberating your children (even though they are likely to die in the attack too)?

I don't think that was meant for me.

[horsefly 4,304]

14 minutes ago, 1902 said:

I don't think that was meant for me.

Sorry 1902, I quoted from your quote of Nevermind and it has come up as your quote even though it was his. Profuse apologies.

Edited April 23, 2022 by horsefly

[1902 1,167]

22 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Sorry 1902, I quoted from your quote of Nevermind and it has come up as your quote even though it was his. Profuse apologies.

No problem!

[Yellow Fever 3,801]

Just a few worrying thoughts on the future direction of this war.

1. Putin is 'all in'. There are now no viable off ramps for him and his clique apart from a rope around his neck or a mine shaft. Furthermore his internal propaganda (and lack of free speech) has led most uneducated Russians believing his mad rhetoric that Russia was itself somehow under attack and this is a 'holy' necessary war. As is clear Putin's ambition knows no ends - I'm sure East Germany again (including this time Berlin) would be part of his dream buffer zone. 

2. I have no doubts that the plucky Ukrainians can withstand this latest storm but at great cost, but more so will then start to roll the Russians back and eventually take Crimea itself. Even Sevastopol will fall. The will be in no mood whatsoever for compromise.

3. As the scale of impending Russian defeat becomes clear (i.e large scale troop surrenders), Putin is likely to get more and more belligerent. Yes sadly I'm expecting at some stage WMD in all its horrors.

The hope is of course that the Russian population (perhaps the Belorussian) population will rise up or the Russian military dispose of Putin and seek an armistice/peace before the full catastrophe for Russia arrives in spades.

As to to NATO and our responses - I think we are doing all the right things in giving the Ukrainians all that they can use  (add in the MiGs and tanks)  - but I would hope we also have our immediate terrible responses in hand to any Russian escalation and what ifs. Putin needs to fully understand his latest ICBM just tested might just as well of been aimed at Moscow for all the good it will do him if used in anger.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[Indy 3,305]

The problem I have is as today, Boris is using this to deflect and to hide behind in his political crisis, he has no desire to actually do anything to try and stop this war, more so to actually verbally denounce the effort of the UN leader trying to find a solution by visiting Moscow and Kyiv to stop this war! Not what is needed, his childlike brain makes me worry, his constant playground analogy references to Putin isn’t something I expect from my countries leader regardless of Putins crimes. Biden and Boris are using this scenario to profit in their ailing political standing by getting their electorate believing they’re standing up to Putin and with Biden having been able to sell the massive oil reserves too, the reality is they’re prolonging the ultimate destruction of South Ukraine by supporting Zelensky with defensive weapons! All very noble in the public eye, yet not really having any impact but prolonging the ongoing war and death of more Ukrainians.

I don’t have the answer, possibly there’s no answer,  certainly Putin and his easily lead followers are dangerous and possibly mad, hard to read! But the reality is the rest of the world will suffer financially and potentially with food shortages as we go on, the US probably very little impact on them, so are we happy to go slipping towards a total EU war or try by some means to get this done with diplomacy, would letting Putin have southern Ukraine be a bad advert to other such as China to go after Taiwan? Or can the UN & Zelensky agree to a Southern Ukraine state and then rebuild the rest of Ukrain? There’s really nothing else to think Ukraine can win this on their own is naive, they would need the whole of the EU nations to join in, that’s a frightening thought!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,559]

10 hours ago, Indy said:

The problem I have is as today, Boris is using this to deflect and to hide behind in his political crisis, he has no desire to actually do anything to try and stop this war, more so to actually verbally denounce the effort of the UN leader trying to find a solution by visiting Moscow and Kyiv to stop this war! Not what is needed, his childlike brain makes me worry, his constant playground analogy references to Putin isn’t something I expect from my countries leader regardless of Putins crimes. Biden and Boris are using this scenario to profit in their ailing political standing by getting their electorate believing they’re standing up to Putin and with Biden having been able to sell the massive oil reserves too, the reality is they’re prolonging the ultimate destruction of South Ukraine by supporting Zelensky with defensive weapons! All very noble in the public eye, yet not really having any impact but prolonging the ongoing war and death of more Ukrainians.

There's a weird egocentricity in making an illegal invasion in eastern Europe that threatens the security of all of Europe simply about a view of the PM's response informed by attitudes over domestic UK politics.

The job of the UN is to promote peace; it can respond no other way. The fact is, though, that Russia has launched an illegal invasion, has betrayed treaty after treaty. There is literally no outcome that can be countenanced other than Russia's failure to achieve any of the goals of its illegal war of aggression, conquest, and genocide. Period.

[Badger 2,407]

On 21/04/2022 at 06:39, KernowCanary said:

Imagine if during World War Two we had the internet, same MSM and (Anti-)Social Media back then?.

1. As most of the MSM would have been foreign owned it is unlikely that we would ever have gone to war as it would have been disruptive on international trade and therefore hitting profits of international capitalists. They certainly would not have permitted any increase in taxation to pay for the war and dismissed as a war we could not afford (which was true actually). They certainly would not have gone a bundle on taking risks to protect Eastern Europeans, and we would have had all the usual cultural stereotypes + thinly-disguised racism.

Vera Lynn would have appeared topless in the Sun under the headline of "We'll meet again, boys" if we had by some remote chance gone to war!

2. There would be bound to be a big far-right social media campaign in support of Hitler. As much of the British establishment was anti-Semitic, it would have been very well-resourced with full use of "bots." 

3. You have the "nutty right libertarians" refusing to close their curtains - "it's not for the state to tell me when I close curtains." It is quite likely that there would have been a mass "switch on" in protest! "Open curtains for an Open Society."

As for conscription, I'd think that would be a non-starter - a matter of freedom of choice. Rationing would be "interference with the free markets" - perversely they would blame any shortages on the fact that the govt ad interfered with the market mechanism.