Longer cranks = more power; even the arguments against longer cranks say that, but how do you address the issues of reduced ability to spin?

One benefit of spinning is spreading the load over the work cycle so that the peak power on each downstroke is reduced while maintaining a given power output. This is the entire reason behind the Lance Armstrong/Chris Carmichael high-cadence adaptation. You will notice, though, that Jan Ullrich, try as he might in the offseasons to develop the same kind of spin rate for the same reasons (a) could not do it (b) could not be efficient at it, (c) found it uncomfortable, and (d) for the above 3 reasons did not see the benefit of reduced heart rate and lower lactate concentrations at the same power output that Armstrong did.

The reason cited was that it was inefficient to move his legs, which were so much, longer, bigger, and heavier than Armstrongs, around and around at such a high cadence. He was more efficient at a lower cadence, and I have generally found that taller riders, especially heavily muscled ones, tend to be gear mashers (low-cadence riders). Now, with longer cranks, you get ... more.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.