Germany Lost the War... So What?

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...
The US postwar history:


Facts arent your strong point are they ?

Korea: stalemate

South Korea was saved from the invading forces of the DPRK
and now a prosperous democracy and ally. Meanwhile the
DPRK moulders in a prison of its own making.

Cuban Missile Crisis: stalemate

Nope, the Soviet missiles were withdrawn as the US demanded.

And the Jupiters from Turkey as Russia demanded, along with assurances
that US would not invade Cuba. Stalemate.

Older missiles already planned for removal--we had a new program coming
online about that time which you may have heard of...Polaris? We also
removed the Thors from the UK at about the same time, and for the same
reasons--they were liquid fueled and had been made superfluous.

Are you disputing the fact that missiles in turkey were removed on the
insistence of the soviets? Then you are utterly wrong.

If you read the account by Andrei Gromyko you will find that the Kennedy
administration did indeed agree to eventually remove the Jupiters from
Turkey, as a sop to Khrushchev. Interestingly, that subject is not even
mentioned in notes from participants in the closed door Kremlin meetings
regarding how to wiggle out of the dilemma the Soviets found themselves in:
millercenter.virginia.edu/resources/ print/kremlin/kremlin_two_views.pdf

On the other hand, notes from high level US meetings at the same time
indicate: "The President recalled that over a year ago we wanted to get the
Jupiter missiles out of Turkey because they had become obsolete and of
little military value. If the missiles in Cuba added 50% to Soviet nuclear
capability, then to trade these missiles for those in Turkey would be of
great military value." www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/
forrel/cuba/cuba090.htm

So we gave away missiles we had already been planning on removing--big deal.
More interesting is the fact that the Kennedys wanted to keep the Jupiter
removal portion of the deal secret (which is about par for the Kennedy
clan).

So you do agree after all that the Americans missiles were removed on
Soviet insistence. It was merely a happy coincidence that the jupiter
was not worth its keep.

The americans also pledged not to attempt to invade Cuba again (a
pledge I understand still stands) - this was a non-trivial political
concession.



The fact that the removed system was obsolete and due for removal
anyway is immaterial. All you can claim is that the soviets could have
bartered de-nuclearization of Cuba for some more useful concession -
not that there was no concession.

Is it a "concession" when it agrees with your own internal desires and
plans? I think not.

It is a concession because you give the other chaps what they demand -
it is secondary weather the concession happens to be quite agreeable
to you.

I'd call that more in the line of a bargain

yes, I can go with that. The Cuban missile affair ended in a bargain,
with concessions being made by both sides to accomodate the other.
Hence my original contention, a stalemate.

(and be
aware that my views on this have changed over the past year or two, after
this subject was previously discussed and I had reason to peruse Gromyko's
book, followed by a bit of reading on where the Jupiter program was going at
the time). I am not a big Kennedy fan, to put it mildly--but in this case he
gave up what we already wanted to rid ourselves of and in the process
swecured what we *wanted*, namely the removal of those SS-4's from Cuba.



snip

Afghanistan: attack on another unworthy adversary. Taliban and
Osama
escape into Pakistan. International force needed again. Failure.

Success , Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorist groups

Terrorists out, drug lords in. And I suppose all those reports of
Taliban resurgence in the Pashtun areas are all propaganda.

Uhmmm... the key at this point is,as Keith pointed out, it is no longer
serving as an open bazaar and training ground for terrorists--

If Taliban comes, can Osama be far behind?

"If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts..." It appears that the majority of
Afghanis are quite happy to be rid of the Taliban leadership; deposing them
from power was a *good* thing.

As the standard of living there has taken a plunge since the war on
afghanistan and a bad government has been replaced with no government,
religious fundamentalists have been replaced by drug lords, free road
traffic been replaced by tolls to local warloads holding the
cross-roads etc. I am not certain that it was such a "good" thing
after all. Had you mananged to install a government representative of
the people, and which is supportive of *their* interests, built up the
infrastructure bombed in the war, *then* it would indeed have been a
good thing. As things stand it is not.

AQ is not able to use Afghanistan as a
free-movement area and training base--that too is a good thing.

I believe the Taliban is moving quite freely in most parts. Osama
never had a problem moving around in the North West Frontier area of
pakistan. And the terrorists dont need extensive training facilities -
they are typically very small in number and can be quite easily
trained covertly and unobstrusively. US presence in a small fraction
of the country does not inhibit their training in any significant
fashion.



and that a few
other nations took note and became a bit less receptive of other
terrorist
operations.

This is undoubtedly true. And certainly a good achievement.

Considering the fact that the opposing cost, in terms of casualties and even
reconstruction aid/support to Afghanistan, has not been very high, OEF has
been a significant success.

I disagree. The cost has been very high (as it has mostly been afghans
killed and remnants of afghan infrastructure destroyed I dont think it
matters greatly to the US). But I do agree with you that
reconstruction aid to afghanistan has been a pittance.

There have been no significant success other than the general change
in the world wide political climate of lessened overt support to a
*certain* class of terrorist activities. So I'd say that overall the
OEF has been a dismal failure.




snip


Germany had a larger population than any 10 states combined

LOL! Tell us more.

Uhmmm...the total population of Germany in 1940 was some 80 million, the
US
population was about 130 million, with the top four states (NY, PA, TX,
CA)
only accounting for some 34 million--so you can run the numbers further
if
you like, but it appears Keith's statement is in fact correct.

www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/appendix.html


and controlled the combined industries of western europe
and couldnt even beat Britain.

Before the War Germany was a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe. Today it still is a major (but not predominant) power in
Europe.

Thank goodness for the Marshall Plan, huh?

I am not an american so I hope you will understand if I am not as
wildly gleeful as you are about a plan that helped develop and sustain
markets for US industries. But I can quite understand you enthusiasm
for the plan. I am fairly certain that a sizeable fraction of the
western europeans also share your approval for the plan.


Before the war Britain was a major world power with a globe
spanning empire - today it is a mere lackey to the US.

That's not correct. The UK remains an independent nation;

There are degrees of independence. And I never said UK is not
independence, merely a US lackey.

Uhmm..in most peoples minds, the two terms are sort of opposites.

Good thing then that my english is slightly better than that of most
people then.

Lackey: A person who tries to please someone in order to gain a
personal advantage
Independent: Free from external control and constraint

You could be independent as well as a lackey - for instance UK and its
relationship with the US.

The UK
remains capable of determining its own course.

Of course. Its just that the best course its leadership sees is to
ride on US coat-tails. It agrees on the pound and pretends to
vociferously disagree on the penny to maintain an apperance on
independence.

In fact, Blair has reportedly
had some success in steering our own policy in a slightly different
direction at times over the past few years.

'Slightly' is the key word. Necessary to maintain a facade of
independent thought.

Most USians still have a great
deal of respect for the UK,

So do I. Just not for the current political leadership.

and while it cannot any longer muster the level
of economic or military power that the US can wield, it is considered to be
a partner as opposed to a "lackey".

That is very polite on your part and I am sure much appreciated by our
British friends.

Common language (for the most part) and
a lot of common history makes for a pretty strong relationship between the
two nations.

I dont disagree. But that is not the cause for the surprising degree
of synchronization of geo-political objectives and means to achieve
them that we are seeing.



that it has
happened to agree with the US in more cases than it disagrees is as much
a
product of common values than anything else.

ummm. I dare say you could be right. Both seem to value oil over life,

No. That would be your rather infantile characterization. We *do* value
stability in a region that controls such a significant portion of a
commodity vital to most of the rest of the world.

Oh, right! The US is actually doing it for us (the ungrateful unwashed
of the rest of the world)!

Oil production and distribution was not impeded by Saddam, he was
pretty keen to sell oil - plenty of oil. Maybe it is just my bad
memory, but my distinct impression was that the war was all about the
non-existant WMD.

You act as if this is some sort of colonial conquest--

Well the problem is that it is a colonial conquest - you just
acknowledged it in your last sentence. You want to control the oil
(stability was the euphemism used). Colonialism being the use of a
weaker countries resources to enrich the stronger one.

but in fact we are trying to disengage from Iraq
just as quickly as we can, and let the Iraqi people get back to running
their own government and affairs.

The Iraqis will not be able to have an independent foreign policy -
specifically those relating to its immediate neighbours and the State
of Isreal. The Iraqis will not be able to have sovereign control of
its natural resources (specifically oil). Large number of foreign
troops will continue to hold and occupy bases within its territory.
Its armed forces will be critically dependent on one certain nation
for material and training. Other than that Iraq will be a 'completely'
free country.

That would be another one of those "good
things", when compared to what they have had to endure over the past thirty
years or so.

propaganda over facts.

It would appear that you are the one valuing propaganda over facts, since
you have bought into the "US wants the Iraqi oil" whacky conspiracy theory.
You seem to accept the propaganda put out by the former Iraqi regime without
question.

First, ad hominem circumstantial: The argument is false because saddam
said it was true?

Second, Well atleast Saddam told atleast one truth (that he had no
WMD). That was a hell of a lot more truthful then Bush.



Reading anything further into
it merely indicates a degree of paranoia on your part.

Perhaps reading anything less indicateds a degree of myopia on your
part?

No.

Well then neither does it indicate paranoia on my part then.



And why in the world would anyone be afraid of the UK?

I doubt the UK's goal is to be feared. But I can't think of any nation,
other than the US, that could contemplate going toe-to-toe with the UK in a
military confrontation without coming out of it hurting a hell of a lot
worse than when it went into it, and most would outright lose.

Same could be said for half a dozen other nations. So?


Fear of US is
understandable - its rich, powerful

Yep, we are.

snip inane whining

But
why would US+UK be particularly more frightful. It is like arguing
that you are afraid of the gorilla because a chipmunk is backing it
up.

That "chipmunk" has some of the best light infantry troops in the world. It
has an extremely professional and capable (despite its diminished size)
naval force. The RAF is likewise very professional, on a par with the USAF.
During OEF the RAF offered some capabilities that were rather handy to our
CENTCOM folks--additional ISR assets, including the venerable Canberra PR9
and IIRC their SIGINT Nimrods, and a very valuableaerial refueling
contribution that was especially of value to our USN assets. Their SOF are
truly world class. That is one mean little chipmunk you have there.

Its a first class chipmunk - biggest, baddest chipmunk if it pleases
you. It remains a chipmunk backing the gorilla.




Germany might
not have won,

No, there is no doubt--she did not win. Thank goodness for that, huh?

You feel very grateful, perhaps with cause. I dont have any particular
reason to feel happy or unhappy about the German loss.

Really? Very few folks in this world can claim to be ambivalent about the
spectre of Nazism being triumphant in that war; those that do have a serious
morality flaw.

I am not ambivalent. Merely disinterested. Nazism lost. Communism,
which was nearly as bad (if not quite) was trimphant in that war.
Preciously little difference it would have made to me if had happened
the other way around - with one ******* winning instead of the other.


To me it is a
story of distant land in a distant time. Personally it is as
emotionally immediate to me as Napoleans loss in Russia or Roman
razing of Carthage; I dont grit my teeth at massacres of the
assyrians, the golden horde, nazis or the bomber command. It is just
sad but engrossing history to me.

My, it must be nice (or should i just say naive?) to be able to ignore the
gas chambers, the ovens, the Einzatsgruppen, etc., or to consider that the
defeat of the regime that championed those developments during our parents
lifetime (for many of us) was "no big deal", so to speak.

Fallacy here is that you consider being dispassionate is equivalent to
lacking moral fiber or judgement. I was bitterly pained by the apathy
with which the world treated the holocost in Rwanda. I am glad to say
that I have now been cured of such finer sentiments now. That was a
coming of age experiance for me and purged me of such virses like
idealism or belief in truth, justice and equality on the international
scale.

And really, do you weep when you read about the sack of Bagdad by the
mongols? Or the razing of Carthage? Or the hundred thousand killed in
the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not?

What did you (or your government) do about the genocide in East
Pakistan? Or Rwanda? Actively Supported one and precious little in the
other case. Forgive me if I am singularly unimpressed with American
claims of fighting the holocost or the genocide in world war two. They
fought for their own carefully calculated, coldly weighed reasons.



I have seen sufficient bad stuff in my own life time - I dont need to
weep for generations long past. Learning from them is enough.

Despite the untold tragedy and suffering the second world war wrought,
there is atleast one shining bright point about that whole tragic
affair. Thanks in large measure to Hitler and Roosevelt, the British
Empire is now history.

One has to wonder what your nationality and background is to have all of
this pent-up hostility towards the British that you demonstrate.

As with any other person my nationality and background has a lot to do
with my attitudes to views. I did write "To me it is a story of
distant land in a distant time", it should have been fairly obvious to
anyone that from my background the second world war is not exactly a
very emotive issue for me.

I have no hostility to the British - for instance I am quite partial
to its cricket team. I am certainly critical of the current British
government (as is a very sizeable fraction of the British populace
itself). You have a rather unfortunately tendency to jump to
conclusions and generalizations.

Odd that
you are so forgiving, or uncaring, regarding the cause of Nazism,
yet so
willing to cling to your own archaic hatred of the "British Empire".

This utter lack of comprehension on such issues is not an uncommon
problem amongst Americans. I think it can be atleast partially
attributed to the insularity and ignorance of what happens to and what
makes the rest of the world tick.


snip


but Britain sure seems to have lost.

Lost what? Are you sure you are not confusing the UK with *France*?

I am talking about the fortunes of nations on a larger scale, not
battles and wars. Think big (if at all possible).

France was crushed in the first world war. It is yet to recover from
that beating.

UK was smashed in the second world war, not as badly as france, but
smashed non the less.

Odd, in that they were on the winning side.

Yeah, war's a funny business. Just because you win doesnt mean that
you are better off than before. Contact Bush jr for details.

The disintegration of their
former "empire", in the real sense of the word, was well underway before the
war.

Yes, But it would have persisted a lot longer if the WW2 hadnt
happened as and when it did. Hence for a very large fraction of the
world the spat between Germany and Britain and the US/Japan was, while
tragic, ultimately very welcome.

And I note that the Brits did not put a great deal of effort into
retaining control of its old colonial holdings.

The fact is that they were literally too exhausted to hang on to their
possesions. Due credit to them to make a virtue out of necessity.

Time marches on and the
world changes; the UK accepted that and has maintained a rather important
place in the greater scheme of world order.

Oh yes, UK is still important in world affairs - thanks to its large
economy. My argument is that it was a preeminent power before, and is
now a decidedly second/third rung power.

That would be another "good
thing", by the way, especially when you consider the alternative had they
not been on the winning side during WWII.

They would have been worse off if they lost. Your point in reiterating
the obvious?




Now
France *did* lose, just like Germany eventually lost...

Indeed Germany lost. But it seemed to have bounced back pretty much to
the same stature it had before the war. Cant say the same for France
or UK can you?

In the case of the UK, yes I can.

Very well. What was the relative economic/military standing of the UK
in 1913, 1938 and 2000?


Brooks


sorry if that all
upsets you, but them's the facts.

So nice of you to be concerned about my happiness Grofaz. Thanks.


Brooks


Keith