the uk media should alter it's use of the term "allies" to either (1) replace it with the term "axis" or (2) not use it at all, as it's misleading and imprecise.

with that point in mind, it's instructive to understand the amount of capitalist support that hitler received, with the intent of sending him to fight the soviets. that was the point - the germans were supposed to be a proxy to fight the russians with. by extension, it's important to understand that the reason the americans had to get involved in the first place was to stop the russians from winning. there is good evidence explaining that japan was nuked to keep the russians out.

it follows that the question as to what side the united states actually entered the war on has never been entirely clear. they seem to have been more interested in containing the russians than fighting the axis powers.

one may honestly point out that the allies seemed more like an axis of a few major powers, and the axis seemed more like a lot of allied nations. that observation would be underlying the semantic shift in the colloquial use of the term, but it's still masking the basic point, which is that it looks more like the uk (and canada) lost the war and joined the axis powers than that the allies actually won. what the uk media calls the allies today is the axis powers, plus the uk (and canada) and they are fighting the old allied powers, minus the uk (and canada).

this is a map of the world in 1941, before the united states entered the war:

the blue and the red are the allies. the map doesn't include the united states because they hadn't declared war yet and i'm trying to avoid involving the pile of latin american states that entered the war with the united states. nor does it include the chinese opposition, except for the little dot, because china was in very bad shape at the time. 

the black is the axis. it does not include spain or turkey, who were technically "neutral" but both functionally aligned with germany. the swedes were not able to truly maintain neutrality, either. nor does it include iran, which was invaded by britain to prevent it from aligning with germany, or the various "arab opposition groups", which were all aligned with the nazis. the saudis are best understood as an arab opposition group, in context. technically, saudi arabia was also under british occupation (following world war one). ukraine was aligned with the nazis as well, but that's difficult to describe in a map like this.

i really don't like the uk media's use of the term "allies". 

the way the uk media uses the term "allies" includes spain, germany, italy, finland, ukraine, japan and many countries that were occupied by the axis powers during the second world war, and yet excludes the russians and the chinese, who were by far the two most important members of the allied powers, excluding the united states.

if you want to hold to world war two language, and i'd suggest you should probably drop it altogether, it would be most accurate to decide that the uk (and, with it, canada) has since joined the axis powers and refer to this alliance as the axis and not as the allies.

as it is, the way the uk media uses the term is right out of orwell's darkest fantasies.

the broad direction of canada, which is moving to align itself with a berlin-constantinople axis in order to meddle in the internal affairs of eastern europe, should be extremely concerning to the broader free world. 

the canadian foreign has embarrassingly decided to go to turkey for talks with their nazi thug dictator, who is a disgusting stain on nato.

i would like to call on the people of turkey to rise up and depose their own dictator.

skeptics have been arguing for years that climate change is really just the enso (el nino) and you're being led around by your nose. but a predicted outcome of global warming was increased ocean temperatures and what's been happening over the last ten years or so is that global warming is actually breaking the enso. this is creating repeatably wrong weather forecasts, as much of the meteorological profession bought into the fad, right as it was collapsing itself. the models are way too enso-heavy.

where i am, the increasingly warm atlantic is increasingly affecting the temperature in the east of north america in ways that really are not supposed to happen, as it breaks the direction of the earth's spin. but it's happening. thermodynamics are pretty fundamental. if you needed reminding, there you have it. nobody knows if it's a permanent change or not but, right now, those hot atlantic temperatures are drowning the east in humidity and el nino is almost irrelevant, as it's coming out in the wash of broader sea temperature rises.

there's lots of other things happening, but our climate is becoming dominated by the atlantic, and that's not just climate change. it breaks the way that the climate is supposed to work, which clearly needs some more work to understand right. and the meteorologists are resisting this and doubling down, which is giving us bad forecasts.

it looks like an early spring here in detroit.