Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Conserative Morality]

I think Japan’s defeat in the war would put a brake on their invasions.

Plus a stronger US might stop it.

Defeat? I thought we were discussing a world without WW1 entirely, not one with a Central Powers victory? Also, I doubt that in the case of a Central Powers victory Japan would be much affected. They might have to give back the Chinese concessions and dinky little islands they seized from Germany, but what else did they even do? What kind of force projection could Germany et co really effect?

[Totally Not OEP]

The Civil War-era United States had no real arms industry and what did exist was utterly dependent upon the British Empire.

>> 2 million Springfields
>> quarter of a million Sharps and Shilohs
>> 2000 cannon from West Point Foundry
>> 1000 3-inch Ordinance Rifles alone from Phoenix Iron Works
>> many other lesser cannons and rifles produced in large quantities

Sorry that you feel the need to project the inadequacies of the South onto the Union. Please refrain from such pseudohistorical comments in public.

Sweet summer child, where did you ever get such figures?

Of the 854,000 weapons domestically contracted for at the start of 1862, only 205,000 were delivered by April of 1865. As late as the Battle of Gettysburg, even the Army of Potomac was primarily using either imported rifles (In particular British and Austrian ones) and still had lots of smoothbore muskets. It's only in 1864 that you can really say definitely that the Federal standardized on .577 and .58 rifles such as the Enfield and Springfield. What production existed, especially that in the late war, were utterly dependent on the British:

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel. Abram Hewitt undertook to make gun iron for Springfield at his Trenton Iron Company, on being guaranteed a price no less than that paid for English iron, and succeeded on making useable iron only after a visit to Birmingham and much technical difficulty.

I should also point it's all well and good to have guns, but you actually need powder and lead for them to, yah know, actually work. Let's see how the Federals stack up:

Lead on hand in 1861: 1,302,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1862: 23,057,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1862: 18,920,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1863: 48,720,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1863: 31,139,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1864: 12,740,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1864: 7,624,000 lbs

Lead imports from Britain by year
1861: 1,679,000 lbs
1862: 28,926,000 lbs
1863 5,777,000 lbs
1864 25,929,000 lbs

So lead is pretty obvious. How about powder?

Imports from Britain
7.02 million lbs saltpeter in 1862

Imports from India

18.66 million lbs saltpeter 1860-1
16.36 million lbs saltpeter 1861-2
18.65 million lbs saltpeter 1862-3
13.15 million lbs saltpeter 1863-4
6.88 million lbs saltpeter 1864-5

Converting all powder to saltpeter for comparison, you found the following about purchases:

At war start 4.64 million lbs saltpeter
To 30 June 1862 purchased 10.98 million lbs, issued 5.80 million lbs, remaining 9.83 million lbs
To 30 June 1863 purchased 4.32 million lbs, issued 4 million lbs, remaining 9.25 million lbs (est 0.89 million lbs unaccounted for - lost/stolen? Sent to Navy?)
To 30 June 1864 purchased 6.31 million lbs, issued 5.66 million lbs, remaining 9.87 million lbs
To 30 June 1865 purchased 4.96 million lbs, issued 4.21 million lbs, remaining 10.62 million lbs

[North German Realm]

I think Japan’s defeat in the war would put a brake on their invasions.

Plus a stronger US might stop it.

Defeat? I thought we were discussing a world without WW1 entirely, not one with a Central Powers victory? Also, I doubt that in the case of a Central Powers victory Japan would be much affected. They might have to give back the Chinese concessions and dinky little islands they seized from Germany, but what else did they even do? What kind of force projection could Germany et co really effect?

Is this in the "US Joins the Central Powers" scenario or an AU where the Central Powers win despite the US joining the Entente or is is a KR-esque AU?
Because depending on which scenario we're talking about, the question should be "Would Germany et co be willing to get into another war after something as catastrophic as the Great War over some dinky islands?", rather than "Could a victorious Germany et co wage war against Japan over some dinky islands?"

[Novus America]

I think Japan’s defeat in the war would put a brake on their invasions.

Plus a stronger US might stop it.

Defeat? I thought we were discussing a world without WW1 entirely, not one with a Central Powers victory? Also, I doubt that in the case of a Central Powers victory Japan would be much affected. They might have to give back the Chinese concessions and dinky little islands they seized from Germany, but what else did they even do? What kind of force projection could Germany et co really effect?

Oh, I was talking about US joining the Central Powers in WWI.

The Japanese Navy would be destroyed at least.

The US would probably take the Marianas and Carolines from the Japanese and maybe work out a deal where Germany sells them to the US.

Those “dinky” Islands were critical to Japan in WWII.
And if the US controlled them instead of the Japanese the Japanese could not cut off the Philippines either.

The US would be much better positioned for a future war with Japan if needed.

[Totally Not OEP]

Funnily enough, I've been thinking about a personal take on TL-191 lately.

[Conserative Morality]

Sweet summer child, where did you ever get such figures?

Of the 854,000 weapons domestically contracted for at the start of 1862, only 205,000 were delivered by April of 1865. As late as the Battle of Gettysburg, even the Army of Potomac was primarily using either imported rifles (In particular British and Austrian ones) and still had lots of smoothbore muskets. It's only in 1864 that you can really say definitely that the Federal standardized on .577 and .58 rifles such as the Enfield and Springfield. What production existed, especially that in the late war, were utterly dependent on the British:

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel. Abram Hewitt undertook to make gun iron for Springfield at his Trenton Iron Company, on being guaranteed a price no less than that paid for English iron, and succeeded on making useable iron only after a visit to Birmingham and much technical difficulty.

"Buying raw resources from abroad means you don't have a manufacturing industry"

???

This is stupid even by Lost Causer standards.

Furthermore, from your own source (which doesn't back your original claims regarding delivery or fucking smoothbores, are you kidding me? Even the Lorenz wasn't a fucking smoothbore, mind you):

Harpers Ferry Armory was destroyed early in the war, and Springfield was not operating at fullest capacity when the conflict began. To meet large immediate demands for small arms, the Ordnance Department soon turned to domestic contractors and foreign suppliers. The latter sent about 726,000 shoulder arms of numerous types during the first fifteen months of war, but from that time forward the Armory and the contractors made such purchases unnecessary.

The modified M1855 became first the M1861 and then the M1863, the principal shoulder arm used by Federal troops in the Civil War. The Springfield Armory made about 800,000 of them during the war.

But I suppose it would be too much to ask to have someone provide sources that don't contradict their own claims. This is why I don't bother with you normally unless you start making historical claims you clearly know nothing about.

[Totally Not OEP]

"Buying raw resources from abroad means you don't have a manufacturing industry"

???

This is stupid even by Lost Causer standards.

Furthermore, from your own source (which doesn't back your original claims regarding delivery or fucking smoothbores, are you kidding me? Even the Lorenz wasn't a fucking smoothbore, mind you):

Sweet summer child, it means exactly as I said:

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel. Abram Hewitt undertook to make gun iron for Springfield at his Trenton Iron Company, on being guaranteed a price no less than that paid for English iron, and succeeded on making useable iron only after a visit to Birmingham and much technical difficulty.

The Union was incapable of making the steel needed to even produce guns, it wasn't just a matter of needing steel; they lacked the capability entirely and not only had to order such steel, they had to learn the technical process behind it from the British. As I said, the capacity to make modern weapons didn't really exist an what did had to be taught by the British over the course of years.

But I suppose it would be too much to ask to have someone provide sources that don't contradict their own claims. This is why I don't bother with you normally unless you start making historical claims you clearly know nothing about.

Calm your projecting, CM.

As for what you cited, if you had bothered to actually read on or, much more likely, not cherry pick, you'd find that most of those weapons were imported by said domestic firms and then resold to the Federal Government.

Since you want to play a game of citations, allow me to retort:

In fact, the Ordnance Bureau was left with an additional means of supply beyond the government-owned armoury at Springfield and private firms in the North: imports from Europe. The statistics clearly show the balance of contributions from each of these sources. In the period to July 1862, after sixteen months of war, Springfield Armoury had produced 109,810 rifles.[6] The private sector, from which the government had ordered 854,000 Springfield rifles by the end of 1861, fell lamentably short of matching this performance.[7] By 30 June 1862, they had delivered only 14,267 Springfield rifles: the total of all weapons received by the Federal government from private firms, including ‘common sportsman’s rifles’ and smoothbore muskets, was 30,788.[8] Of the 854,000 weapons contracted for by January 1862, only 205,000 would be delivered before the end of the war in April 1865.[9]

The statistics for 30 June 1862 lay bare the extent to which the Union was dependent on these European arms in the early part of the war.[13] They bought more Enfield rifles (116,740) than they received from the Springfield armoury (109,810); they bought more Austrian rifles of various types (135,755) than Springfield rifles (124,077); they bought more weapons from Europe than weapons produced domestically and in store at the start of the war combined (726,705 versus 578,221). Furthermore, whereas domestic weapons comprised two-thirds smoothbores, foreign smoothbores were less than a quarter of the total purchased. These 540,016 foreign rifles were critical in establishing material superiority over the Confederacy, which had started the war with fewer than 12,000 .54 and .58 rifles and whose foreign purchases were limited to the weapons that trickled through the blockade.[14]

This buying spree tailed off and the Union became more selective after the date of the report. Paradoxically, this increased their dependency on Britain as one of the only sources of weapons the Union Ordnance Department considered first class. Indeed, comparing the number of Enfields delivered by 30 June 1862 (116,740) with the total number delivered before the cessation of foreign purchases in the summer of 1863 (436,000) suggests the severe impact that severance from the European market in general and the British market in particular would have had on the Union’s war effort.[15] In December 1861, one in three of the regiments in the Army of the Potomac carried arms not fit for the field; only substantial imports of European guns in the first months of the year enabled McClellan to mount an offensive.[16] Being thrown back onto its own resources would have jeopardised the Union’s ability to fight the Confederacy, let alone to open a second front against the British.

[6] United States War Department, The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies, Series 3 Vol. 2 (1899), p.858 [link]
[7] Davis, Arming the Union p.75
[8] War of the rebellion, series 3 vol. 2, p. 855 [link]
[9] Davis, Arming the Union p.75
__
[13] War of the rebellion, series 3 vol. 2, p.855 [link]
[14] Davis, Arming the Union p.41. The Confederate central government had purchased 131,129 shoulder arms of all types by 5 December 1862: total purchases were c. 500,000 – 600,000 during the entire war: Jac Weller, ‘Imported Confederate Shoulder Weapons,’ Civil War History, vol. 5, no. 2 (June 1959) p. 158.
[15] Davis, Arming the Union p.64
[16] Lee, ‘Army of the Potomac’ p.45

[Conserative Morality]

Sweet summer child, it means exactly as I said:

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel. Abram Hewitt undertook to make gun iron for Springfield at his Trenton Iron Company, on being guaranteed a price no less than that paid for English iron, and succeeded on making useable iron only after a visit to Birmingham and much technical difficulty.

The Union was incapable of making the steel needed to even produce guns, it wasn't just a matter of needing steel; they lacked the capability entirely and not only had to order such steel, they had to learn the technical process behind it from the British. As I said, the capacity make modern weapons didn't really exist and even then what did had to get taught to do so by the British over the course of years.

The issue of steel is seperate from the issue of iron (which you would know had you actually read your own source); the issue of iron was, as mentioned in the very excerpt you quoted, the issue was resolved.

Abram Hewitt undertook to make gun iron for Springfield at his Trenton Iron Company, on being guaranteed a price no less than that paid for English iron, and succeeded on making useable iron

So what the fuck does not having the raw resources have to do with not having an arms industry? Oh, right, nothing. You got caught spewing nonsense and you're trying to fall back on making citations you hope no one will look too closely at. Sorry I called you out on something so blatantly apparent.

Since you want to play a game of citations, allow me to retort:

The only 'game' of citation I've played is using the one you provided to show that it didn't say what you claimed it did. So why would I play along with your gish galloping now?

[Totally Not OEP]

The issue of steel is seperate from the issue of iron (which you would know had you actually read your own source);

CM, it's adorable when you demonstrate how much of your attitude here is really baseless:

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel.

The issue of steel is not separate from iron: Springfield was dependent on the British for both. You can admit to being wrong now.

the issue of iron was, as mentioned in the very excerpt you quoted, the issue was resolved.

Sure, except you're cherry picking again:

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel. Abram Hewitt undertook to make gun iron for Springfield at his Trenton Iron Company, on being guaranteed a price no less than that paid for English iron, and succeeded on making useable iron only after a visit to Birmingham and much technical difficulty.

As I said, what capacity did exist was entirely dependent on the British teaching them what to do.

The only 'game' of citation I've played is using the one you provided to show that it didn't say what you claimed it did. So why would I play along with your gish galloping now?

Typical CM, once you get taken to class you start your blustering.

[Conserative Morality]

CM, it's adorable when you demonstrate how much of your attitude here is really baseless:

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel.

The issue of steel is not separate from iron: Springfield was dependent on the British for both. You can admit to being wrong now.

The issue of steel is absolutely separate from iron, considering that steel was used in far fewer parts of Springfield-manufactured guns and that steel production in the States took another decade to catch up. What this has to do with raw resources meaning "No arms industry" you've yet to explain, but I doubt you have any explanation. Thanks again for proving that the people who insist that their opponent has lost the loudest are the least likely to know what they're talking about. I'm done correcting you on the source you yourself provided. Next time at least try to dig up something that agrees with you, even if it's pseudohistorical drivel.

[Nova Cyberia]

Ah shit, here we go again.

[Diopolis]

Ah shit, here we go again.

It'd be nice if we could go through just one week without those two going at it.

[Benuty]

Ah shit, here we go again.

It'd be nice if we could go through just one week without those two going at it.

Isn't that what life is for though? The delicate mating rituals of OEP and CM are a staple that provides the right-wing nature preserve the funds to stay open.

[Asherahan]

US Imperialism TM.

But that already exists.

The USA has a cultural and economic Hegemony but does not control all the other nations directly which Novus America jimmies tingle with excitement at the thought.

[Conserative Morality]

Ah shit, here we go again.

It'd be nice if we could go through just one week without those two going at it.

C'mon, the last time was a month ago. And it was about the same topic - the Civil War. I generally try to ignore him but I'm too obsessive to let blatant falsehoods about the Civil War go.

[Benuty]

It'd be nice if we could go through just one week without those two going at it.

C'mon, the last time was a months ago. And it was about the same topic - the Civil War. I generally try to ignore him but I'm too obsessive to let blatant falsehoods about the Civil War go.

I mean I very much doubt its just regular obsession. You are like two yanderes in love with one another but somehow haven't stabbed each other to death in some weird finale yet.

[Conserative Morality]

I mean I very much doubt its just regular obsession. You are like two yanderes in love with one another but somehow haven't stabbed each other to death in some weird finale yet.

You've been watching too much anime, m8.

[Novus America]

It'd be nice if we could go through just one week without those two going at it.

C'mon, the last time was a month ago. And it was about the same topic - the Civil War. I generally try to ignore him but I'm too obsessive to let blatant falsehoods about the Civil War go.

Actually OEP has some good ideas on modern economic policies.
I wish he would just drop the Lost Causer stuff.

[Totally Not OEP]

The issue of steel is absolutely separate from iron, considering that steel was used in far fewer parts of Springfield-manufactured guns and that steel production in the States took another decade to catch up.

Except it's not, as anyone with basic reading abilities can see.

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel. Abram Hewitt undertook to make gun iron for Springfield at his Trenton Iron Company, on being guaranteed a price no less than that paid for English iron, and succeeded on making useable iron only after a visit to Birmingham and much technical difficulty.

They couldn't source steel or iron needed for gun production domestically.

What this has to do with raw resources meaning "No arms industry" you've yet to explain, but I doubt you have any explanation.

Again, anybody with a basic reading ability can tell that's not the case:

The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall's works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders. When the Civil War began in 1861, Springfield was in the awkward position of being entirely dependent on overseas sources for gun iron as well as steel. Abram Hewitt undertook to make gun iron for Springfield at his Trenton Iron Company, on being guaranteed a price no less than that paid for English iron, and succeeded on making useable iron only after a visit to Birmingham and much technical difficulty.

It wasn't a matter of raw materials, it was a complete inability of American manufacturers to perform an industrial process needed to produce modern weapons. They could've had all the steel and iron in the world and it wouldn't have made a difference; they needed the ability to turn it into gun barrels, which was the issue.

Thanks again for proving that the people who insist that their opponent has lost the loudest are the least likely to know what they're talking about. I'm done correcting you on the source you yourself provided. Next time at least try to dig up something that agrees with you, even if it's pseudohistorical drivel.

Except you didn't correct me on anything, you instead showed you either didn't read or are unable to read what was posted. As I originally stated, there was little domestic capacity to produce weapons and what did exist had to be taught to them by the British. You've categorically failed to counter any of my claims, which is why you're now falling back on your old standby of refusing to engage.

[Diopolis]

It'd be nice if we could go through just one week without those two going at it.

Isn't that what life is for though? The delicate mating rituals of OEP and CM are a staple that provides the right-wing nature preserve the funds to stay open.

Does that mean this is panda porn for the dictatorship fetishists who actually live here?

[Diopolis]

C'mon, the last time was a month ago. And it was about the same topic - the Civil War. I generally try to ignore him but I'm too obsessive to let blatant falsehoods about the Civil War go.

Actually OEP has some good ideas on modern economic policies.
I wish he would just drop the Lost Causer stuff.

I wish he would start a discussion that wasn't lost causer stuff.

[Nova Cyberia]

Actually OEP has some good ideas on modern economic policies.
I wish he would just drop the Lost Causer stuff.

I wish he would start a discussion that wasn't lost causer stuff.

He's a Southern boi. You cannot separate him from Virginia.

[Nova Cyberia]

In an ideal world Poland would be a landlocked country and Russia would be exiled from the Baltics.

[Conserative Morality]

In an ideal world Poland would be a landlocked country and Russia would be exiled from the Baltics.

I want Danzig to be a free city just because it sounds cool.

[Proctopeo]

In an ideal world Poland would be a landlocked country and Russia would be exiled from the Baltics.

I want Danzig to be a free city just because it sounds cool.

>not turning the entirety of Europe into free cities