Axis Backlash

1) Re: Princess...agreed, apologies, although you did support her premise.

2) Again, arguable, but not certain. Hitler had to keep a second troops on the '2nd front' because of the presence of the British alone, and did not greatly shift troops Westward upon America's entry into the war...Indeed, as late as June 6th, 1944, the Germans only had 85 divisions on the Western Front, including the vast majority of it's RRC Divisions ( mostly new recruits or recalled retirees) whereas it had 196 divisions along it's Eastern Front, including most of it's veteran Panzer and Wermacht elite troops. This proportion of over 2-1 , you will note, was after losing all the divisions at Stalingrad, and the ratio had not been very different before U.S entry.

3) To say that the U.S had already chosen sides isn't historically accurate. To say that, by and large, FDR had chosen sides is a lot more supportable, but the last opinion poll taken before Pearl Harbour, in October of that year, showed the vast majority of Americans opposed to U.S. military involvment. The lend-lease agreement was the best Churchill and FDR could manage between them, and was only agreed to by Congress with the U.S. receiving future naval bases as compensation. Additionally, even during the period of tacit U.S support ( lend-lease ) Albert Speer's record show that Germany's greates single trading partner was still the United States, and many American industrial giants who were later castigated for such 'profiteering' made and lost fortunes in conjuction with German military success...

4) No, Britain only fought on it's own soil because it chose to oppose Hitler's conquest of it's allies, seeing the Nazi's as a threat to world peace, at the same time that the U.S. were staying out of the fray...The treaty with Poland was only the line drawn in the sand, as Munich's abandonment of the Czechs showed how 'flexible' the Brits could be with regards to treaties. If anyone saved anyone in a selfless manner, it was the Brits, as they declared against Germany before they were attacked, unlike the U.S or U.S.S.R.,and maintained that stance when they were virtually alone in opposition, and Hitler was offering them peace.

 

Mango, excellent question about my support of the US effort in the Balkans.I was generally supportive of our efforts to prevent genocide in the Balkans. I have some doubts, now in light of some new things I've read. To this point I am still supportive of our efforts in Somalia ala Blackhawk Down. Preventing genocide is a good thing. For many reasons these types of efforts should preferably be done by the UN.

At this time I don't consider myself a total pacifist, though I'm close. Ultimately I've decided that if I were a Jew in the warsaw ghetto or somesuch I would fight back and it would be moral. I don't have great problems with fighting whatever invaders on the beaches of Galveston etc. No big problems with fighting Hitler.

Unfortunately given the blood lust on this BBS and in the Bush adminstration, that has been created by our virtually casualty free war with in Afghanistan, I am rethinking my limited support for that effort. It appears to me that this might lead to continual wars in which we go into country after country without any approval of the world community until we are stopped by some sort of disaster. This disaster might be to our own troops, but more likely an unanaticipated starvation, or genocide of ethnic groups perhaps the Kurds in Iraq. At that point the US might very well go down greatly in international standing.


A guy like Treeman believes in all his little theories blindly, but history has shown itself to be more complicated and unforseen events should not be discounted. As we can see with our role in creating the Taliban and Al Qaeda it is tough to prevent "blowback". To give them the benefit of the doubt guys like Treeman, etc. never anticipated this

I also am wondering if this type of going it alone because we have the military might to do so might not just be illegal under international law. I know most of you could care less about this.

As I've stated before, I analyze these issues as I have done for many years under the Just war Theory as has been expounded for centuries by the Catholic Church. It is essentially a cost benefit analysys of whether the war accomplishes more harm than good. It is a tough standard to justify war and it should be.

 

You could have saved yourself the history lesson if you'd have read my posts, since I said 'the Greece of Alexander,' and only later shortened it to Greece. Thanks chief. And the relevance of your writing is...? My point was that Alexander moved to physically conquer the world that he knew. The US has not.

Well, it should be pretty obvious that the US territorial expansion is over with. Was over with after about the first 100 years of existence. And the difference is precisly that the US is not using the elimination of an aggressive enemy to AQUIRE territory. So no, it doesn't sound familiar or more accurately, similar. Which is my point.

Hmmm, you can correct my if I'm wrong, but in Kuwait we were helping the return of the sovereign government after removing a foreign aggressor? No? Cortez and Pizzarro came and conquered and enslaved. Has that happened in Kuwait or Panama? Isn't the government sitting in Panama elected? Or no? As per Native Americans (Texicans??? What is that?) and the rest: that expansion happened in the first hundred years, which is why I've said the US has not been expansionist since its first hundred years (again are you reading my posts?), nor since its attained its superpower status, which is the OPPOSITE of the other powers I used in comparison (Rome, Spain, England etc).

Cool. History is cool. Arguing over history combines two of my personal favorites, uh, arguing and history.

 

That presupposes that the English could have believed they'd be safe in a treaty with Hitler. A belief they could not possibly have held in the face of his constant treaty breaking. BUT, I believe you and I have been through this dog and pony show before, so I'll pass this time. But I would be interested to hear your reaction to the opinion expressed earlier that Chamberlain was not the person he was made out to be, but rather a Machiavellian character who had a master plan and only gave his 'peace in our time' statement as an elaborate ruse.

 

I agree with most of what you are saying... few thoughts

2. The lack of German defense on the Western front was due in part to the Allies disguising their invasion so well. They actually thought the invasion would take place in the mediterranean somewhere. There was a scheme that took place where a dead soldiers body was dumped off the coast of Spain with fake documents that mislead the Germans into thinking the Allies would invade further South of France.(Saw something on the History channel about this)

4. When was I arguing that the British didn't sacrifice the most in WWII?? I don't ever remember reading anything about Germany offering Britian peace? Something similar to what they offered Russia(non agression pact)? How could Britian agree to that after what Germany did to Russia. The Brits did sacrifice the most, but they also tried to stay out as long as possible, Chamberlain gave in to every demand of Germany to prevent war. I can admire that, the US did the same. Churchill did not give in though and neither did FDR. Both were provoked in one sense or another. The US population was very weary of being involved in another WWI "entangling alliances" so we really didnt have any bindings allies like England did to bring us into the war. We had to be attacked to enter WWII. England and the US should have tried to stop Hitler earlier, it just wasn't acceptable to their citizens though.

 

As a member of a nation the USA is aligned with...all this "if they won't follow us all the way...we'll go alone...we are the USA" BS just makes me, and just about everyone I have spoken to, think "well, f#ck off then...arrogant pr#cks"

Seriously. Your nation called for support after September 11 and it came forward. Britain and Australia stepped right up IMMEDIATELY.

Now Bush and all your right wingers walk around saying "we are america...we don't need anyone".

Fine. P@ss off then.

 

Dimsie, please don't go back to New Zealand. We need you more than they do.

 

Not every American thinks that way. I would much rather fight with Allies than fight alone. I think the reason that the President is talking tough is to pressure some countries (Iran, Iraq, N. Korea) to help us eliminate terrorism. Iran has already started arresting suspected terrorist.

I was VERY honored by Britian's support. They are our truest allies and we will have Britian's back in any fight.

But, if we are forced to, America will defend itself alone. That is the last resort.

Oh and what country are you Allied with? England, France, Germany? If so I want my damn money back!!!

(Marshall Plan)

 

No doubt Britain and Australia stepped up big time and immediately. Saying that we will act unilaterally in the absence of multilateral support is does not have anything to do with the high esteem in which we hold those countries which came so quickly to our defense!

You guys rock so don't take these debates that way!

 

Man, I stopped reading this thread for awhile and came back and I find an argument on my specialty, my Thesis no less: Gorbachev and the fall of the USSR! But, it seems a bit late to jump in now. So, I'll just mention that everyone is wrong! Carry on.

 

Post some info! Why did Russia fall, I was just digging on the net. Do you have any good sites or info?

 

And you learned that from professors you can't name, right?

 

I don't disagree that we could probably expect more backlash. We'll probably get that anyway. I'm just as shocked as you at people who were surprised at what happened. It should be no surprise to anyone. We are lucky to have sustained such an incredibly long period of non-violence inside the borders of the continental US.

I don't want any of the things you mentioned either. I just don't agree with the long-term remedy. I have no doubt that an armed conflict where we obliterate the enemy would solve the immediate problem. However, I just don't agree that it will fix the long-term problem of violence as a whole.

Frankly, I wasn't surprised that 9/11 happened. I was shocked by the actual event but not the fact that we were attacked. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

 

2) Not true...at the time D-Day happened the allies had already invaded in the Med, through Italy, and the almost universally acknowledged German High Command's opinion of where D-Day would happen, including Hitler, was the Pas de Calais, which was the purpose of the plant. Also, the point is irrelevant for 2 additional reasons..1) the divisions I mentioned on the Western Front included those in Italy, southern France, etc...2) The Germans knew the invasion was coming from England, just not which beachhead would be used, thus the number of troops allocated to each front would have nothing to do with disguise, only their distribution within that front...the reason for the discrepancy was the Red Army, and the fact that Hitler's real goals were always to the East...

4) the British were offered peace as late as a week before Sea Lion commenced, and the response was " Hitler himself could come walking up Downing Street himself, cap in hand, and offer any peace he wants to, but so long as he excercises power over the subjected peoples of Europe, the response will be the same...A firm and final rejection." No, he offered them complete peace, and he actually meant it, which was why he delayed attacking Britain for almost a month after he had conquered France, which we now know was fatal to his cause, as most of the Radar stations which thwarted the Lufftwaffe were erected during this period...His memoirs also confirm his genuine desire for peace with Britain, as the only thing he ever wanted from the West was absolution and vindication for Versailles, elimination of threat...in fact, he oft criticised the German strategy in WW1 for wasting too much time and men on the West, when their only real objectives lay to the East..

 

Treeman: I also have to say that your suggestion that we either "stop them before they have a chance to use those weapons, or we die" does sound far more reactionary than, "I don't think they're going to overrun and overwhelm us."

I also don't believe we live in a vacuum and while we may have not created the Taliban or Al Queda, no one could possibly deny that we haven't exactly sewn the seeds of love in the Middle East. If we knew so long ago that they were really that pissed and saw us as some Evil Empire, we should have intervened long before it came to the need for all out war that could be misconstrued as war against Islam.

While we haven't exactly been actively approving the process, we haven't been unwilling bystanders either. We only get involved when it hits us in the face. Otherwise, we use what we need and ignore the rest. If an individual did that to someone else, the someone else would eventually feel sleighted and more than a little pissed. No difference here.