# What exactly did WW2 in Europe Accomplish?



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

I created this thread as an exercise in the futility of war, even when it's necessary. I also run the risk of offending a great many people which is NOT my intention at all. Please understand that this post in NO way is meant to diminish nor belittle the extraordinary sacrifices far too many people made.
Which brings me to my point. All those people died or were wounded for pretty much nothing. When you stop and think about it, the only thing that got accomplished was, part of Europe was liberated from an evil SOB while the other half was taken over by an even more evil SOB. Millions of people got to trade Hitler for Stalin. Stalin killed way more people than Hitler could dream of, including millions of his own countrymen. The difference between the two, and why Hitler is demonized so much more is, with typical Teutonic thoroughness, Hitler had his atrocities documented, Stalin didn't.
But try and tell the people from Poland and Austria and Czechoslovakia et al that the "good guys" won the war in Europe. 
When this thought first occurred to me several years ago, it saddened me deeply. To think that all that suffering, all that death seems to have been in vain.
And so, we must always remember that, the enemy of our enemy, isn't necessarily our friend.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 22, 2009)

This may sound crazy or even too difficult to achieve, but the Western Allies should have pushed the Soviets back to Russia in 1945. The Eastern Europeans were sacrificed to save the west. The Red Army gave everything it could to sack Berlin and were in a weakened state.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

That's exactly what Patton wanted to do and Churchill too for that matter. They both knew the communists were up to no good before it was even over.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2009)

"...the Red Army gave everything it could to sack Berlin and were in a weakened state..."

AMSTEL, the facts really don't bear that out. Within a few short months the Soviets were able to shift masses of seasoned troops from Poland and East Prussia to the Far East and launch operation August Storm. The troops were moved by train at night, the tanks, big guns and heavy equipment came directly to the east from factories_ in_ the east - leaving all the original equipment in the west - in the west. August Storm was a massive operation that was executed superbly. Not the performance of a nation and economic/political system on the ropes - as you suggest.

MM


----------



## trackend (Jul 22, 2009)

Its easy to say 60 years later they should have pushed on though the soviets, the world had been fighting for 6 years some in China longer still. It was over everyone was worn out Industry shot financially the cofers were empty for most nations, home was calling , A stop point had been reached and a victory achieved it was enough for everyone, except for a few and they had not be doing the fighting and dying rather telling others to do it for them.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2009)

Impossible if you wait until 1945.

History of Soviet and Russian espionage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FDR allowed Soviet agents to infest the American government.

Years of pro Soviet Union propaganda like this rediculous poster have the American public thinking that Stalin and the Soviet Union are ok. Now you want to attack them? The American public would not stand for it during 1945.
This man is your friend: Russian (full page) - WWII Posters at New Hampshire State Library (NHSL)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2009)

DaveBender - agreed! The American public would not have gone along for the ride in 1945. It took the Soviet explosion of an A bomb, the Berlin blockade and the political exposures at home (Rosenbergs, Hess, etc) to swing America into a cold war with Russia mindset.

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2009)

Not just that, but the I think the public of the majority of the allied nations would not have stood for a continued offensive. They were tired of war...


----------



## timshatz (Jul 22, 2009)

Agreed. The American public was tired of war by 1945. It is one of the reasons the bomb was dropped on Japan. Anything we had that would get the war over with faster, with fewer casualties, was going to be used. The last thing the US was going to do was start another war with a former ally just when the worst war in world history had just ended. Everybody wanted to go home and get on with their lives. 

What WW2 accomplished in Europe? Good question. Here's a few I could think of offhand.

Put an end to the expansion of National Socialism (International Socialism took a good deal longer and finally died in the 90s with the collapse of Russia and China going Capitalist). Got rid of any of the kings and queens (as effective heads of state) that WW1 had missed. Initiated the real growth of the EEC (later the EU). Emasculated Europe as the cultural, economic, religious and social center of the world (WW1 helped a great deal in this one), initiated the end of the colonial system throughout the world, established the social democracy as the prevelant European political system with the Parlimentary system as being most common. Established the UN as a body to mediate disputes, solidified borders, Established the illegality of aggressive war, crimes against humanity, ect and established penalties for those acts, made the US the dominant economic, political and financial power for the next 60 years. 

Probably a ton more, but those come to mind in the immediate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Emasculated Europe as the cultural, economic, religious and social center of the world (WW1 helped a great deal in this one)



I don't think this every really changed. Europe still is to an extent the leader in those areas (except for economic). Culturaly, religiously and socialy Europe is still up there.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2009)

WWII also saw the emergence of nationalist movements all across Asia. Even though the Japanese were defeated, their lip service to the idea of "Asia for the Asians" , and the mere fact that an asian nation had been able stand up and roar gave many people in Asia the will the opprtunity and the means to fight for their independance. There have been many unfortunate episodes arising from this....like Vietnam, but the benefits of national liberation, and the breakdown of colonialism far outweigh the problems

Like it or not, I also believe there was a positive outcome arising from the Holocaust. It led to a great deal of sympathy for the Jews, and was a direct factor in the establishment of the state of Israel. Despite the huge problems this has caused, it has been a good thing for the Jews at least. And the Holocaust stands as a mute testament that reminds many of us that it must never happen again

Finally there is the issue of the UN. WWII was the birthplace of this flawed organization, but I happen to believe that we are still better off with it than without it. From the concept of the UN we have made our first attempts at international justice, arms control, freedom from poverty, terrorism, oppression. Despite its obvious and repeated failures, I would prefer it to be there than not there. I wouold have liked it to be more effective than it is, but perhaps after the enext war, we might get the wil and the knowledge to make a world government a reality that works

And for my own country, the postwar oppression has led to a postwar immigration boom and industrial revolution that has left us the 12 ranked nation in the world....we have grown from a small English colony of about 5 million, to a truly multi-cultural and I believe a tolerant society of nearly 30 million. So for Austrlia (and countries like it, the war has fundamentally changed our country, and the way we think and live


----------



## timshatz (Jul 22, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I don't think this every really changed. Europe still is to an extent the leader in those areas (except for economic). Culturaly, religiously and socialy Europe is still up there.



Important, but not the center is was 100 years ago. A lot of parts of the world looked to Europe as the model of culture back in the early 1900s. That changed with the 2 world wars. The WW1 got them questioning the viability of Europe as the moral center. WW2 got a lot of countries going their own way. 

In a sense, Europe never really got over the World Wars. They're still a huge hangover from it. Ideas that surfaced and were the bedrock of movements are illegal. The question of their viability doesn't come up, it is simply illegal. Focusing specifically on Nazism. The illegality of the ideaology gives it a credibility it doesn't deserve. 

Doubtless, after WW2, making Facism illegal was a needed call. World probably would've demanded it. But Europe is always going to be in the shadow of WW2 as long as the idea has to be illegal. Not sure how that is going to go on. Doubtless there are a lot of very, very strong feelings about it. 

In a way, I think Europe is ahead of the rest of the world in some ways. One of them is the realization that regional wars are no longer the solution. The EU is a definite outgrowth of that idea. I'm of the opinion that Asia has not yet gotten to that stage. Flash points like China/Tiawan, the Spratleys and India/China are problematic.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2009)

Momentum for the idea of the State of Israel. The Cold War - which stayed cold despite the massive deployment on both sides. MAD - the idea of detente based on mutual assured destruction. Hegemony for the US aircraft (commercial) industry.

MM


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 22, 2009)

Da Nazi's were beat enough so the Commies could come in.

Japan was beat enough so China was free and the Commies could come in.

Oh well, at least some of the aggressive nations were defeated.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 22, 2009)

It accomplished the enslavement of Eastern Europe by Joseph Stalin.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 22, 2009)

I know that the world was tired and I have stated so in other threads about this same subject. It is a common knowledge and I didn't feel the need to state the obvious. But I have to kindly disagree about the strength of the Red Army in 1945. It was in a weakened state as well and the industrial might and air superiority as well as our harnessing of the "bomb" really made it the best time to free Europe from this murderous, and backwards form of goverment. The Eastern Europeans went from the frying pan right into the fire. WWII weakened the western civilization, and was necessary but not completed.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 22, 2009)

The question was what WW2 achieved in Europe. One could better say what it achieved in the world.
I would say this:
1. make an end to colonial powers
2. The emerge of 2 "new" superpowers (USA and USSR)
3. Jews got their state of their own
4. United western Europe better than ever before


----------



## The Basket (Jul 22, 2009)

For the UK the ending of the war meant

End of superpower status
End of Empire
Economic meltdown

Many see the Britain of 1945 as when we were the victors and the moral winner...

But the truth was we were on the verge of total collapse. Only Uncle Sam bailing us out saved us...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 22, 2009)

I think there was a massive amount of venting over how some countries were affected by WW1.

I also think it helped kick off the UN which might not be perfect, but IMHO is something good.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 22, 2009)

Marcel said:


> The question was what WW2 achieved in Europe. One could better say what it achieved in the world.
> I would say this:
> 1. make an end to colonial powers
> 2. The emerge of 2 "new" superpowers (USA and USSR)
> ...



5. A quantum leap in aeronautical technology, fully transferrable from military aviation to civil aviation.

At the beginning of the war, we were using aircraft that employed fabric, shared jigging with biplane predecessors in some instances, utilised crude, wooden 2-bladed props, flew generally at 20,000ft and with modest effective combat range. 350mph was fast. Coming in to land, it took us a while to get used to the fact that we'd tucked our undercarriage away just after we'd taken off...

By war's end, the propeller was largely consigned to history, with it went the light machine gun. Aircraft could fly generally at 40,000ft across vast tracts of land or ocean, carrying more and/or hitting harder. The jet engine in its infancy was vastly superior to the piston engine at its zenith, the faster a prop went, the more inefficient it became, the faster a jet went, the more efficient it became. Airframe technology mirrored the leap, becoming gigantic by comparison to their forbears. Designers saw the civil potential and over the next two to three decades the world would become progressively smaller.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 22, 2009)

I will have to agree that this was the end of colonialism.

This had a direct impact on many countries and regions of the world.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

Marcel said:


> The question was what WW2 achieved in Europe. One could better say what it achieved in the world.
> I would say this:
> 1. make an end to colonial powers(and helped to strengthen 3 imperialistic powers that replaced them. The difference between colonialism and imperialism is semantic at best. If you want to see what I mean, read up on the history of US/Phillipines relations from the very beginning.)
> 2. The emerge of 2 "new" superpowers (USA and USSR)(I'd hardly call the emergence of two superpowers of opposite polarity, capable of destroying the earth, an achievement.)
> ...


At the expense of the other half of Europe.

And certainly Colin 1, the technological advances that the war fostered are numerous and still benefiting us today, but I would hardly consider the cost of all those millions of lives to be a reasonable price to pay for those advances. 

The UN didn't come about as a result of WW2, it was just a revamped version of the League of Nations that was formed after WW1. And while it's certainly been more effective than the League was, and has been instrumental in the Human Rights movement, it's still a lion that has no teeth and been de-clawed. A relatively recent look at the idea the UN came up with about having a World Court set up in The Hague and Bush's vehement opposition to it shows a fine example of what I mean. Without the support of the US, the UN loses a good portion of its muscle. 

Please don't let my responses discourage you all from giving ideas and suggestions. I've just really been struggling to find some real meaning to the futility of it. I also wasn't trying to pick on you when I quoted you Marcel. It's just you put down in nice concise terms the gist of what people are responding with in this thread.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Jul 22, 2009)

Well, least we got rid of one evil dictator out of two, and that's better than nothing. I can say a lot more, but it looks like everyone else beat me to it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 22, 2009)

carbonlifeform, are you equating the USA with the USSR?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2009)

More to the point, Carbon, you are equating the achievements of capitalism/free market democracy with communism/totalitarianism. These just aren't "words" ... they represent values and the comparison isn't "academic". 

MM


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 22, 2009)

I find it sort of odd that people are talking about the Warsaw Pact nations as if they are still under the control of the Soviet Union. They happen to be thier own soverign nations due to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 90's.

It's too bad that "Uncle Joe" gobbled them up when the Axis fell, but like it's been stated, the Allies just didn't have the will to challenge Stalin at war's end. Fortunately, the U.S. was able to wear down the Soviet system after a protracted "cold war" and that eventually led to the freedom of the former Soviet States.

I think the UN is about as effective as the old League of Nations and should be either restructured, or flushed down the commode to make room for something that would actually work.

As far as two super-powers go, would you have preferred the U.S. to revert to it's pre-war isolationism and leave only one super-power out there? I'm sure "Uncle Joe" would have liked that...

I think the term Imperialism is going to be a flash-point phrase here, because usually, the only people I hear calling the U.S. an Imperialist nation are bleeding-heart liberals and U.S. bashers. The Phillipines are a soverign nation now, they were a crown colony of Spain previously. Let's not forget other nations had colonies...some far more than others... 

And how can the U.S. be accused of Imperialism in the support of Israel?And if the U.S. doesn't support them, who will?


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> carbonlifeform, are you equating the USA with the USSR?



Certainly not, and I thank goodness I lived next door to the former before the 90's hit, and I'm still glad I do. But like it or not, the US practices it's own brand of imperialism.

"More to the point, Carbon, you are equating the achievements of capitalism/free market democracy with communism/totalitarianism. These just aren't "words" ... they represent values and the comparison isn't "academic". 

MM"

I'm not comparing the achievements of the two, never have. What I was getting at was, the ability to destroy the majority of life on Earth can hardly be considered a positive achievement, regardless of one's ideology.

Grau Geist: The reason it may seem I'm referring to Warsaw pact nations as still being under Soviet control may be because I'm trying to get people to understand that there are people who have spent far more of their lives under Soviet control, than they have as free people. For the West, the war was over and they were free. For those in the East, the jack boot of oppression continued for 50 more years.
As far as being a bleeding heart liberal, I'm far from it. I'm certainly not an America basher either. If it hadn't have been for the US, world history would be much, MUCH different today.

"Let's not forget other nations had colonies...some far more than others" 
Yep, and they were more or less forced to give 'em up too. No dispute there.

As for US/Israel. Israel exists only because of the US. Not to take anything away from the Israeli's combat abilities, but the majority of their hardware is American issue. Is that Imperialist? Hmmm having a friendly presence that owes its existence to you, near allll that oil, when yer the largest consumer of it. Nope, nothing imperialistic there.  America just exercises a kindler, gentler brand of imperialism, now

As for the Phillipines, the US kicked Spain out in 1898, then replaced them with with a regime that was just as oppressive. However yes, the Phillipines gained its independence in 1946. Oddly enough it was on July 4th.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 23, 2009)

carbonlifeform said:


> I also wasn't trying to pick on you when I quoted you Marcel. It's just you put down in nice concise terms the gist of what people are responding with in this thread.



No worries, didn't see it that way, lifeform. I was BTW just summing up some results of WWII, not necessary good ones.

I have a different view on imperialism of Europe and that of the USA. I think the European "imperialism" was a lot worse than the US version.

For the futility of the war, you can blame Hitler and the Japanese government. Starting the war was indeed futile. I believe the Allieds couldn't have responded otherwise, hence WWII. For what it's worth: It removed Hitler and his bunch of criminals. Otherwise we would have had the whole of Europe under dictatorship and not just half.

Maybe interesting variant on your question: What would the world look like if WWII hadn't taken place? Any thoughts?


----------



## trackend (Jul 23, 2009)

What did ww2 in europe accomplish? It stopped the killing all the rest by comparison is superfluous, as for eastern europe if Adolf had not been beaten would the cold war have ensued and would the eastern block nations have eventually had a chance of being democratic somehow I doubt it, I also doubt if anyone on this site would be entertaining the current levels of freedom that they are enjoying.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2009)

Amen to that trackend. Freedom is something so etherial that we often discount it, or take it for granted. It wont feed us, or shelter us, or make us rich. Yet without it our lives arent worth living. 

Just because WWII did not eliminate all of the evil in the world does not make it a meaningless effort. It was a job half done, but it was still a job worth doing. Getting rid of the Nazis (and in the Pacific, the Japanese militarists) got rid of the most malevolent regimes in history. People try to compare the Russians to the Nazis, and there is no denying they were bad, but they were not hell bent on genocide in quite the same way as the Nazis were. They would rob you of your freedom, and kill you if you crossed them, or were just plain unlucky, but the Nazis would just kill you, because you were you, no other reason.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 23, 2009)

carbonlifeform said:


> ...the technological advances that the war fostered are numerous and still benefiting us today, but I would hardly consider the cost of all those millions of lives to be a reasonable price to pay for those advances...


Your statement would be valid
if technological advance was the driver for the war. Unfortunately, the same technological advances were only an (albeit positive) by-product of it. The driver(s) for the war can be found elsewhere and are well documented.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 23, 2009)

"... Hmmm having a friendly presence that owes its existence to you, near allll that oil, when yer the largest consumer of it. Nope, nothing imperialistic there..." 

Carbon .. by the same argument the Iraq War(s) were about oil.

I guess it's only a minor _coincidence_ that the birthplace of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all in the_ same_ geographic area.

Imperialism is about EMPIRE .... that's what the word means ... much loved word by marxist economic-determinist historians.

Capitalism is about capital and the free movement of money and markets.

The US is a global advocate of capitalism but that isn't the same as being an Imperialist. The US departs freely from the spots in the world where it goes .... Panama, Iraq, etc. ...when it can. Unlike say France in Indo China, Belgium in Africa or Portugal.

This is a Forum about War, Carbon, why muse over the futility of war on a forum devoted primarily to war?

War is a condition (sadly) of nature. If humans didn't elevate themselves above all other life forms and if humans accepted their place in nature more honestly then we wouldn't be continually involved in territorial struggles over ideas and resources. Wolves don't wage war with wolves ... they fight for territory but _police_ ( ie control) their population ... same for most apex predators. And prey such as rabbits and deer - their populations explode and crash, explode and crash. Humans don't want to accept either restraint. My opinion ... 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2009)

Clausewitz remains the greatest theorest on war in the modern times. He said "war is an extension of policy", which means it is a tool, subservient to the matters of policy. It does not necessarily require the slaughter of ones opponents to win wars. Casualties are a necessary by product of war, not necessarily its object. Usually the object is to bring ones opponent to a relaizaation that allows your own policy and intersts to prevail 

For Clausewitz, one requirement for clear thinking was an unflinching respect for war's physical, psychological, and historical reality. He disdained bold strategizing that took no account of how difficult the simplest action becomes in the ‘resistant medium’ of war. He recognized the impact of fear, danger, confusion, and fatigue on men in battle, and wrote about them with unusual candour. He also rejected the idea that contemporary military methods represented a normative standard against which past practices could be judged. If wars in the past rarely achieved the scale and violence of Napoleon's greatest campaigns, it did not mean that previous generations had somehow failed to grasp a science whose true principles had now been revealed. For Clausewitz, the goal of theory was not to transpose reality into a system of abstractions, but to illuminate it with as little intellectual distortion as possible. No theory could be adequate that did not account for the full range of military experience captured in the historical record. That record suggested that war at all times possessed what Clausewitz called a ‘dual nature’. Few wars were ever intended to overthrow the enemy completely. Most sought limited goals, and were accordingly fought by limited means.

So I see danger when I hear statements like "war is inevitable" or the object of war is to kill ones opponents. That is the object of malevolent regimes like the Nazis, and it is what sets civilized people apart from barbarians like Osama Bin Laden to the US army. The US army is there to win, which probably means they will inflict caulaties on an opponent. The terrorists of this world the object of their war is to inflict murder and death on an opponent. Thats the difference between the terrorists and the US Army (and its allies). If you forsake that difference, and start to engage in war simply to kill your opponent, you have become a criminal and a barbarian just like them.

Finally I dont believe the US went to war in Iraq over oil, so much as to push freedoms fight into the terrorists backyard. Controlling the oil was a by product not the main reason for the US invasion


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,



parsifal said:


> Like it or not, I also believe there was a positive outcome arising from the Holocaust. It led to a great deal of sympathy for the Jews, and was a direct factor in the establishment of the state of Israel. Despite the huge problems this has caused, it has been a good thing for the Jews at least. And the Holocaust stands as a mute testament that reminds many of us that it must never happen again



The formation of a Jewish state was perhaps the most near-sighted, pointless and reckless decision of the 20th century. Why do the Jews need their own state? Why don't we get all the Muslims, take them to the USA and tell the people of the USA that they are going to lose half their country because the Muslims need their own country?

And while we are at it, lets put all the Catholics in the UK... the Lutherians in New Zealand.

No country should be formed at the expense of another country and its inhabitants, and especially for religous purposes. 

The Jewish state, and what has resulted from it, is a tragedy and a festering sore in the Middle East.

While there were technological gains from the war, we, as a species, have learnt nothing from it. All we have learned is we now have nukes that can wipe out our wonderful planet, and that's why there are no major wars, and any fighting is done with conventional weapons.

We are, at times, a stupid species.

river


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,



parsifal said:


> Finally I dont believe the US went to war in Iraq over oil, so much as to push freedoms fight into the terrorists backyard.



I think that if Uganda had oil and was in a suitable geographic position then the US would be there.

Iraq has oil and it gives the US a foot in the door to base itself in the Middle East. I doubt that the only reason to spend so much money and manpower going halfway around the world was more than to slap about some terrorists in their own backyard.

river


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2009)

I would like someone to define US imperialism. I just can not view the US as an imperialist nation. If we are talking the historical view of Imperialism, then the US does not qualify as one. What Empire has the US formed by taking over other nations?

So lets define US Imperialism...



river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then why are we letting the oil fields be destroyed over there. I had a pipeline running right near my camp. I used to watch the oil fires from in front of my tent. Not once did we go out and try and stop them from blowing them up.

Not once did we have a mission that had anything to do with pipelines or oil fields.

Oh and we are pulling out of Iraq, so that kind throws that theory out the door as well.



river said:


> The formation of a Jewish state was perhaps the most near-sighted, pointless and reckless decision of the 20th century. Why do the Jews need their own state? Why don't we get all the Muslims, take them to the USA and tell the people of the USA that they are going to lose half their country because the Muslims need their own country?
> 
> And while we are at it, lets put all the Catholics in the UK... the Lutherians in New Zealand.
> 
> ...



I disagree with that as well. The Jews have as much right to that particular region as the Muslims do. That area includes there holy land. It would be different if the nation of Israel had been formed let say out of a piece of India that has nothing to do with them.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 23, 2009)

river said:


> I think that if Uganda had oil and was in a suitable geographic position then the US would be there.
> 
> Iraq has oil and it gives the US a foot in the door to base itself in the Middle East. I doubt that the only reason to spend so much money and manpower going halfway around the world was more than to slap about some terrorists in their own backyard


Incredibly naive and cynical
you can fight the terrorists in their own back yard
or wait 5 to 10 years and they'll fight you in yours

The former is a proactive stance and give you the initiative, the latter is reactive and you'll find yourself waiting, wondering where they're going to strike next, wondering (almost certainly in vain) if you've covered everything.

Practically the whole civilised world recognises the Middle East for the unstable hotbed of terrorism that it is, bringing peace, stability and democracy to the region will have huge ramifications for the entire world. Some are prepared to make the sacrifices to make sure that happens.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 23, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would like someone to define US imperialism. I just can not view the US as an imperialist nation. If we are talking the historical view of Imperialism, then the US does not qualify as one. What Empire has the US formed by taking over other nations?
> 
> So lets define US Imperialism...



Excellent point and something that has bothered me through the thread. What's the definiition of US imperialism as defined by the posters of the phrase in this thread? 

When answering, keep in mind that economic power is not a good answer to the question. The US is a nation of huge economic power and that is going to affect other nations, intended or not.Even the most benign countries in History (and I am not saying the US is that country, leaving it an open question) will have extensive affects outside it's borders without neccesarily intending it.

An example is the currency. Plenty of countries simply tie their currency to the US Dollar. It gives their currency stability. Some don't even bother printing much of their own and just use the dollar as the defacto currency. Is that US imperialism or parasitic opportunism by the country in question?


----------



## Condora (Jul 23, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The need? In short:

Hebrews always wanted to go back to the place they consider their homeland.
And they did. Although the British - which controled Palestine in the beginning of the XXth century -, didn't provide much protection against arab animosity, it was almost better than nothing.

The concept of creating a united hebrew AND arab Palestine never was considered, because the arabs had acquired a taste for the pogrom form of entertainment. Besides, when the end of the british mandate was near, the arab celebrations included "throwing the jews to the sea".

So, it was decided to split Palestine in two countries, which suited hebrews just fine.
On independence day, the war started, and the arabs had a big surprise: not only did Israel hold, but it also gained some ground.
And Lebanon, Egypt, and first and foremost, Jordania, were stuck with lots of palestinians which they had told to leave the area, because they were going to whipe out everybody to get read of the jews.

Later, palestinians were such a nuisance that Jordania almost had a civil war to get read of them.

The focus on Israel is a false issue. Forget Israel, and look around - everyone is kiling everybody else, or trying to: 
Iraq is a mess;
Lebanon is a bigger mess;
Afghanistan is the biggest mess;
Iran is brewing trouble;
Jordania managed some stability after throwing palestinians out, but it's population is dying to get into trouble;
Egipt tries to keep some stability, but if you go there, there are armed guards everywhere;
If the Syrian regime weakens, all hell will break loose;

Middle East looks like a classroom where everybody is up to no good, but when the teacher asks "who did this", everybody points to the same guy (who also is no angel, but blame him just for HIS mischief)


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2009)

Well the online dictionary defines imperialism as:
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

On that basis US imperialism does exist, but it is a different kind of imperialism to the old empires of the 19th century. The US form of imperialism is not into geographical control, but it does seek mainly economic control. There are numerous examples of this.

Iraq does not fit this mould, which is why I am extremely doubtful that the war in Iraq is being fought for the sake of US Imperialsm. It has a by product that the US may get favourable treatment from the oil states because of what they are doing, but this is not the main reason for their involvement and does not qualify for imperial control anyway. I think the reasons are simple, and noble....they are fighting terrorism in the terrorists own backyard.

The fact that the european nations hate the US so much that they are prepared to prostitute their freedoms and decency in the name of scoring cheap political points over the US should go down in history as one of the most shameful episodes in post war history

Now, that is all I am going to say on this topic. We are off thread and heading into very dangerous territory, so thats it from me.....


----------



## davparlr (Jul 23, 2009)

Fifty years of warless Europe? Sure beats the previous century.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Well the online dictionary defines imperialism as:
> 1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
> 2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.
> 
> ...



I think it as actually pretty well said.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 23, 2009)

Agreed, CrewChief.

Agreed, Parsifal, heading for "dangerous waters" .....

River and Condora ... you're both grinding axes. 

"... Fifty years of warless Europe? Sure beats the previous century..." Well, we'll see how that plays out. Stabbing Dutch film makers to death in the streets of Holland and torching cars in the suburbs of Paris ... in Canada, having one law for Native Canadians and another for non-native ... how long are those peaceful societies going to stay peaceful?

Frankly, with all respect to Clausewitz, war is a component of the sometimes violent natural condition - much the way volcanoes and earthquakes are - self-regulating mechanisms. You don't celebrate these upheavals but recognize that they are expressions of forces larger than humanity.

In the past, empires like Rome and China have _paid off _their enemies or the people who threatened their secure reign ... it always bought a few years or a few ecades of stability but never prevented the inevitable. Today we see Little Kim in NorK trying the same routine ... the more he is appeased the more outrageous he becomes and the bigger the bribe. But nothing changes ... nations with power and influence fight to hang on to it, those without fight to achieve power and influence.

Wars will always need to be fought. Best be prepared and equipped because the worst mistake people can make is to believe that if they resist war strongly enough it won't happen ... it will.

Post WW2, both German and Japanese societies were consciously _remade_ ... to an extreme. The Germans won't fight and the Japanese thought that war was a thing of the past -- until Little Kim started his testing missles.

The Romans had it right (overall). Pray for Peace but Prepare for War.

Nuff said. 

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Fifty years of warless Europe? Sure beats the previous century.



Not really...

The Balkan region is still the powder keg of Europe. It will be a long time until there is stability and peace in that region.


----------



## Condora (Jul 23, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not really...
> 
> The Balkan region is still the powder keg of Europe. It will be a long time until there is stability and peace in that region.



Well, it sure beats the previous, say... dozen of centuries? 
I think FINALLY most of Europe more or less defined it's borders, and will rather cooperate than fight over some square meters of ground. As soon as France and Germany, Netherlands and Belgium, Portugal and Spain, etc. accepted nothing much would be gained by fighting, things got better.

It's a pity that the same does not happen in the Balkans, or Africa - mostly because european powers didn't respect the "tribal" borders, and created countries forcing coexistence of different people.



michaelmaltby said:


> River and Condora ... you're both grinding axes.



No worries mate, just disagreeing. Besides, I favour the bastard sword... 
I believe there's something about paying danegeld and then not getting rid of the dane.
Giving in is always dengerous


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2009)

Condora said:


> Well, it sure beats the previous, say... dozen of centuries?



Not so sure about that. The genocide there has claimed an estimated 136,000+ people (some estimates say as high as 200,000). That is pretty bad as well, especially considering it happened in the 1990s. It would have been much worse if NATO had not gone in and stopped it.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 23, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Fifty years of warless Europe? Sure beats the previous century.



Actually, the 19th century was fairly quiet in Europe after 1815. The treaty of Vienna was arrainged by some pretty hard eyed people who weren't the least interested in freedom of the peoples. While France was a Republic, the rest of Europe wasn't. Hence the odd insurrections/revolutions throughout Europe during that century. About the only war fought in the 19th century, in Europe, that was of any note was the Franco Prussian War of 1870. The others tended to be pretty fast affairs of importance politically but not really militarily (Austro-Prussian War of 1866 comes to mind right away).


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,

I have no axe to grind. I'm just stating what I think.

I agree the Middle East has always been an area of instability, and I also concur with the economic Imperialism of the USA mentioned a few posts above.

I still don't think the Jews deserve their own state, or should of been given one. So we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

I thought we went into Iraq because they "allegedly" had WMD? Not for reasons of terrorism (which is more the reason we went into Afghanistan).

But... if the concept that we have gone over to Iraq to fight terrorism in their own backyard is one that, if that's the case, is a war we have lost. Laws have been passed in USA, UK and Australia that erode peoples civil liberties and rights - all in the name of "keeping us safe" from terrorism. Furthermore, the war is bleeding money and resources, yet there is no end to terrorism. Our entire society has been changed - and not for the better - due to the supposed threat of terrorism. Back in the 50s and 60s we were frightened of the Commies, and now they've sort of gone we need a new bogeyman... the terrorist.

It would be a gravely naive person who thought for one second that the war in Iraq is going to remove the threat of terrorism. If anything it will harden their resolve and make them more cunning and more difficult to find and route out. 

Funnily enough, no WMD have been found in Iraq. Who'd have thought! 

river


----------



## Amsel (Jul 23, 2009)

How do you know that no WMD's were found? You have a highly simplistic look upon the world that can only come from paying too much attention to the mainstream media. I think you would be shocked to find out that WMD's are easy to obtain and are everywhere. I think you would be surprised that even nuclear weapons can be bought on the blackmarket.

The Jews deserve Isreal, and the Palestinians don't.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2009)

There were many unresolved issues that arose from the WWII. Any thinking person must draw that conclusion. But what it did do was to defeat the Nazis, and thereby preserve the western democratic condition. 

If the war had not been fought and won, the world would ba a very different place to what it is now. Democracy would be dead, Europe would be united but under a totalitarian regime. Genocide would be an acceptable and legal solution to settlement issues. Warfare would be the accepted norm for resolving national disputes. There would be no rule of law and no procedural fairness tests applied to the legal system. Gays, Gypsies, jews, Slavs, coloureds the mentally ill, even diabetics and other congenital diseases would be treated by murder. Individual rights and freedoms would be totally subverted. The opinions of the state would be the only rules and opinions tolerated. It is likely thjat vast areas of the earth would be devatated by nuclear weapons and environmental disaster. The only art or literature permitted would be that which the state approved. Even your very thoughts would not be your own. There would be chronic shortages of consumer items as butter was converted to guns

And you people think the war (or winning the war) was not important. Thank god your opinions dont matter, thats all i can say


----------



## river (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi,



Amsel said:


> How do you know that no WMD's were found?


How do you know they were?



> You have a highly simplistic look upon the world that can only come from paying too much attention to the mainstream media.


I was thinking the same about you.



> I think you would be shocked to find out that WMD's are easy to obtain and are everywhere. I think you would be surprised that even nuclear weapons can be bought on the blackmarket.


No, I'm not surprised or shocked.



> The Jews deserve Isreal, and the Palestinians don't.


That's your opinion and I respect it, even though I disagree.

river


----------



## Marcel (Jul 24, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The Jews deserve Isreal, and the Palestinians don't.



This again very much the other way around of what river says and also too much black-and-white. I believe they both deserve to co-exist next to eachother.

BTW, I think we should not let this thread become too political.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jews started moving there in large numbers in the 1920s, they were the majority population of the area now known as Israel by the time the Country was created (it was nearly uninhabited at the turn of the century). If it had been done via plebiscite it would have gone the same way as the British edict.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 24, 2009)

The Isrealis have made the desert blossom. They have made a modern democratic society with good living standards in a area of poverty and indifference. The Palestinians have had numerous chances to coincide peacefully with the Jews but they haved proved literally to want to destroy Isreal more then they want to build a great society. The Isrealis have made many concessions to the Palestinians to no avail.

I will digress, we are getting well outside the acceptable boundries of this thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2009)

river said:


> Funnily enough, no WMD have been found in Iraq. Who'd have thought!



I beg to differ. I was there though, so what do I know?



Marcel said:


> This again very much the other way around of what river says and also too much black-and-white. I believe they both deserve to co-exist next to eachother.



I completely agree, but it will never happen. At least not in my lifetime I think.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 24, 2009)

"..There were many unresolved issues that arose from the WWII. (...) But what it did do was to defeat the Nazis, and thereby preserve the western democratic condition..."

Parsifal is right. The Great War 1914-18 left Europe and the Commonwealth countries exhausted and largely stripped of their Faith. It turned over Turkey and resulted in revolution in Russia (with close calls in Finland and Germany).

Consequently Europe was largely in denial about a follow-up war - with the exceptions of Germany and the USSR - both of whom had something to prove. Germany's appetite for war began with Versailles in 1918-19. And let's remember that the military co-operation that took place between Germany and Russia - and it was extensive, very extensive - ended with the coming to power of Hitler.

So - with the outset of WW2 - Mr. Churchill realized that much as he distrusted Stalin and loathed communism - he needed to make a deal with the Devil to preserve democracy. And he did. He gave Stalin great intelligence which Stalin ignored and he gave the Soviets as much aid as Britain could afford. 

But inevitably deals with the Devil have a price and a home-to-roost-date. And these were the Iron Curtain and the Cold War - trapping millions in tyranny. And that state could not change without the process of time - the rotting and economic collapse from within - that President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher were able to assist in self-destruction.

If World War 2 teaches anything, it teaches that war and empire have very, very long lasting consequences. You can't fight, win and walk away, nor can you fight, lose and walk away. Nor can you hide in the sand.

It teaches that EVERY DAY people have to make MORAL DECISIONS. That the collective result of individual decisions is what makes or breaks a society. And that in the end - in democratic societies (at least) - people get the government they deserve.

So Carbon - I rank this thread as highly useful. I am not cynical about war but I am realistic. In times of war people do the most amazing, courageous, unselfish things - usually for their mates and neighbors. And as long as societies are prepared to remember and honor those deeds than war is a perpetual reminder of the very best as well as the worst very worst of human capability.

Amen 

MM


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 24, 2009)

Youi were in Iraq, Adler?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Youi were in Iraq, Adler?



14 months (okay 2 months of that was in Kuwait though)...


----------



## Condora (Jul 24, 2009)

Well, *I* seem to be out of the axe-grinding controversy! 

I agree that Israelis and Palestinians SHOULD coexist peacefully... but I don't expect good sense coming from that side, as both sides have a lot of bad blood between them. If they managed to stop fighting for... say, 50 years, MAYBE they would solve everything. Fat chance!

About the 19th century, Europe didn't have so much fighting because after the Napoleonic wars, most countries were quite busy carving their empires elsewhere (Africa, Asia...). If they got involved in a war at home, they would risk loosing everything. But still there was a lot of tension, sometimes even between allies, like Britain and Portugal over Africa.
But it was likely that as soon as they would finish their "race for a colony", they would go back to settle old scores back home.
That Bismark managed to form Germany and get rid of Austria with a single war, is a credit to the man. Most of what he achieved, he did it through diplomacy. That avoided a sucession of wars over tiny german states.
As soon as that was settled, what was left was the expansion of the Russian Empire towards the Otoman Empire, and the French-Prussian dispute to see who was best.
Somehow, they managed to always foment resentment and discord to brew into the next century. And each XXth Century war increased the problem. 

Going back on the original question, the Nazis HAD to be stopped.
What they were doing was terrible - I lack stronger uncensurable words -, and although a lot of what they did was not their invention, I would not like to be living under such a regime (and it had the added benefit of some others stopping doing exactly the same things).
Besides, I am not Neville Chamberlain, so I think that if Hitler had managed to control all of Europe, he would move on to Africa, America, Asia...

The only possible exception would be Palestina, as not even he would go there!


----------



## timshatz (Jul 24, 2009)

Condora, while I agree it was true that most of Europe's energy was busy elsewhere in the colony chase (specifically Africa), it is not, to my mind, in and of itself a reason for wars not being fought on the continent. As the expansion west in the United States did not hinder the coming of the American Civil War (if anything, it hastened it), the colonial expansion in Africa had the potential to do that as well in Europe. 

As for the Russians and the Turks, that brawl has been going on for centuries. Old fight, different names. Matter of fact, it is possible to look at WW2 through the lense of tribes or national groups (Huns, Slavs, Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Romans, ect) and do a fairly good job of accounting for all the players. In doing so, it would change the focus of the war from a political one to that of a long and ongoing war of territory between tribes that have existed for over 1000 years. 

Tough thing about doing that is fitting the people of North and South America into the mix.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 24, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The Isrealis have made the desert blossom. They have made a modern democratic society with good living standards in a area of poverty and indifference. The Palestinians have had numerous chances to coincide peacefully with the Jews but they haved proved literally to want to destroy Isreal more then they want to build a great society. The Isrealis have made many concessions to the Palestinians to no avail.
> 
> I will digress, we are getting well outside the acceptable boundries of this thread.



Amsel, I think it could be interesting for you to read up on the subject Palestinia 1945-1948. You will find that the situation is much more complex than that. In fact it's one of the most intriguing histories of the 20th century.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 24, 2009)

Thanks Marcel, and I will brush up on it, especially if you can point me to a good book. It has actually been awhile since I have read much about it. I am familiar with the violence during that period and understand the point you are making. The bottom line is that Isreal is not going away no matter how much people wish it so. It is definantly a situation that is going to drag on for quite some time,and neither side can trust each other. I work for a firm based in Tel Aviv and am sympathetic more towrds the Isrealis then the Palestinians especially now that Hamas is in control of the Gaza. They are a nasty bunch in my opinion.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 24, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Thanks Marcel, and I will brush up on it, especially if you can point me to a good book. It has actually been awhile since I have read much about it. I am familiar with the violence during that period and understand the point you are making. The bottom line is that Isreal is not going away no matter how much people wish it so. It is definantly a situation that is going to drag on for quite some time,and neither side can trust each other. I work for a firm based in Tel Aviv and am sympathetic more towrds the Isrealis then the Palestinians especially now that Hamas is in control of the Gaza. They are a nasty bunch in my opinion.



I think we agree much. I too, think that the Jews deserve their nation. I also think the Palestinians deserve one, as they are victim of political powers from both side. It were the Arabians (Egypthe and Syria) who provoked them against the Jews, and let them down afterwards. I do feel sorry for them (although I make an exception for Hamas and their think-alikes). I believe the murder on Rabin was a great loss for both sides in the conflict as both sides had to gain a lot from him: it was a start of peaceful co-existence.

I do have a few Dutch books on the matter. I will see if one of those came out in English. One was the Biography of Moshe Dayan. One fictional book I can recommend is "Exodus" by Leon Uris. I must say it's very pro-Jewis but I found it a nice start to comprehend the problems in 1948 and it's an enjoyable book to read.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

My thought on the Israel thing is that they had been suffering everything from discrimination to attack for centuries and the holocaust was only the latest and most horrible. The only way to stop it from happening again was to give them a place to live and defend themselves. Even now they are beset on all sides by rocket launching maniacs who chain women and children to their launching sites to demoralize the people shooting back.

Jews had begun settling in Palestine in the early 20s and they existed there in large numbers before the war. Zionism had been a part of the Jewish community since the turn of the century and without consensus, the traditional homeland became the de-facto destination that people moved to when motivated by that idea. When antisemitism started to become severe in Germany and around Europe, many more fled to Palestine during the 1930s (smart move).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 24, 2009)

Amstel - see if you can locate "Bitter Harvest" - by Sami Hadawi (MBE). a remarkable man who grew up in Palestine under Turkish rule, worked for the British mandate gov't from 1918 until 1948, was decorated for his service (MBE) to Britain during WW2 and fled from the Israelis in 1948. First settling in New York at the U.N., then Houston and finally Toronto - where he died. I use to be very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause largely due to his moderate influence but the PLO and Yassir Arafat sickened me of the Palestinian cause and today I generally agree with the Israeli view that the Pals "... have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity". 

Nonetheless - the Arab people in the region were promised am independent homeland for their support of the French and British in 1915 (Sykes Picot agreement) and then betrayed by the British in 1917 (Balfor Declaration) which promised exactly the same property to European Jewry at the urging of bankers like the Rothchilds.

Israel has done some amazing things and achieved much since 1948 but it is simply wrong to suggest that the region was an arid desert until they arrived - the Palestinians were hard working, determined people with green thumbs. 

Hamas and Hezbulla have taken over from the corrupt PLO - you may hate their politics but they bring needed social infrastructure to the Pals and Shias in South Lebanon - and in return - the population supports them.

I see no resolution to this poisonous situation until Iran is taken out of play and even then it will be very difficult to find good will or accommodation.

Tragic.

MM


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Amstel - see if you can locate "Bitter Harvest" - by Sami Hadawi (MBE). a remarkable man who grew up in Palestine under Turkish rule, worked for the British mandate gov't from 1918 until 1948, was decorated for his service (MBE) to Britain during WW2 and fled from the Israelis in 1948. First settling in New York at the U.N., then Houston and finally Toronto - where he died. I use to be very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause largely due to his moderate influence but the PLO and Yassir Arafat sickened me of the Palestinian cause and today I generally agree with the Israeli view that the Pals "... have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
> 
> Nonetheless - the Arab people in the region were promised am independent homeland for their support of the French and British in 1915 (Sykes Picot agreement) and then betrayed by the British in 1917 (Balfor Declaration) which promised exactly the same property to European Jewry at the urging of bankers like the Rothchilds.
> 
> ...


If Lebanon could be rebuilt and rid of Hezbollah, Palestinians in Israel could be encouraged to resettle there.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If Lebanon could be rebuilt and rid of Hezbollah, Palestinians in Israel could be encouraged to resettle there.


I suggest you read some history , Hezbollah is made up of Palestinian refugees , *neither side *is clean in this area .Both sides have no tolerance for the other side. The one major difference is one of the parties is very media savvy .


----------



## river (Jul 24, 2009)

Hi,



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I beg to differ. I was there though, so what do I know?



It depends upon your rank, where you were, what you saw and how compartmentalised the information was.

But more importantly, considering the main thrust of going to Iraq was the alleged WMD they had, and taking into account the loss of life (on both sides) and monetary cost, it confounds me as to why the allies remain silent if they did indeed find WMD?

If WMD were found then surely the main stream and non-main stream media would be shouting this from the roof tops? It would vindicate the war and show to the doubting world that there was merit in the war and it achieved what was expected.

river


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2009)

The media is about the worst source of information you can rely on. I have a friend who was senior in DFAT, and now works in Treasury. He says the media, both the conservative and more Left wing leaning varieties always distort the truth, often tell straight out lies, knowing they are lying by the way, not just making mistakes

The calassic example of that are the reports of a massacre some years ago in one of the Palestinian camps, by the IDF. Despite being reported by the media as an attrocity, it turned out, AFTER an international enquiry, that no such massacre ever occurred, it was in fact yet another case of the Palestinians using their own people as humans shields, and worse deliberately rotating their wounded to make it look like a massive event had taken place. Do you think the international media ever bothered to admit it had been duped. not even a little...

Lesson for the day, do not rely on the media as a source of your information. I would believe the testimaents of the vets that have been there anytime over the lies pedalled in the media anytime. 

Oh, and for the record, Adler was in a position where he could observe well and comment. I dont know Adler, except from this Forum, but I am a vet too (not of Iraq), and you just know, instinctively, when people are full of BS. Adler isnt one of those people 

You are treading on very thin ice here I might advise


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 24, 2009)

A-Fricken-Men parsifal!


----------



## Amsel (Jul 25, 2009)

I agree Parsifal, things are never as clearcut as the media makes them out to be. The world of war, politics,business, and international diplomacy is murky at best and totally unclear most of the time. The real reasons for many things cannot be understood by listening to the evening news or reading a blog. Sometimes you can put two and two together but you cannot always prove that it equals four.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. What does rank have to do with it? I was not a bottom feeder, but what does rank have to do with it?

2. I was all over Iraq, there was not a place in that damn litter box that I did not go to.

3. Compartmentalized? My own eyes and the confirmation of NBC personnel. Is that enough for you?

Again, what do I know? I am not CNN...

Because I am not CNN, this debate is pointless anyhow. You will believe what you wish.


----------



## river (Jul 25, 2009)

Hi,



parsifal said:


> \You are treading on very thin ice here I might advise



LOL, I'm married.. so treading on thin ice is nothing new.

Listen, I'm not questioning or challenging Adler or anyone. If that's what my posts infer, then I apologise as that was not my intent.

I'm basically asking a question and searhcing for knowledge.

If the war in Iraq was over WMD, and WMD were found, then why is this not told to the world? What gain is there in supressing this information?

river


----------



## parsifal (Jul 25, 2009)

Im married too, so you should know like I do that the number one secret about marriage is respect.....you may not have realized it but your comments were bordering on disrespecting someones service record.... 

One of the fundamentals of this place is that peoples experiences and service are never questioned. Your comments are easily interpreted as doing just that. 

Another rule in this place is that we dont talk politics....and I fail to see a close link between Iraq and the subject of this thread, except if you are trying to run a political agenda.

I am not a mod, but Ive been here longer than you....you can take my advice, or not....I said what I said for your sake, not mine.....matter of fact I am risking being cautioned for doing what I am here


----------



## river (Jul 25, 2009)

Hi,




parsifal said:


> Im married too, so you should know like I do that the number one secret about marriage is respect.....you may not have realized it but your comments were bordering on disrespecting someones service record....
> 
> One of the fundamentals of this place is that peoples experiences and service are never questioned. Your comments are easily interpreted as doing just that.


As I said, that was not my intent and I apologise if my posts were taken as disrespectful.



> Another rule in this place is that we dont talk politics....and I fail to see a close link between Iraq and the subject of this thread, except if you are trying to run a political agenda.


I'm not running a political agenda, but your point is taken.



> I am not a mod, but Ive been here longer than you....you can take my advice, or not....I said what I said for your sake, not mine.....matter of fact I am risking being cautioned for doing what I am here


No probs. Thanks for the heads-up.

river


----------



## parsifal (Jul 25, 2009)

Look enougth said. I wasnt intending to bust your chops, but there are just a few ground rules.

Can we get bak to discussing the thread now


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2009)

river said:


> If the war in Iraq was over WMD, and WMD were found, then why is this not told to the world? What gain is there in supressing this information?
> 
> river



Nothing has been hidden. WMD's were found, but not the extent that was thought in the beginning. Other than chem weapons (small amounts), NBC plants and research facilities with documents for the development of weapons dating as late as 2002 were found. I have been to these facilities...

As stated the amount of weapons originally thought has never been found (and possibly never will be found, it is so easy to hide things out in the desert), but the intent to create banned weapons was certainly there and the factories and facilities have been found.



parsifal said:


> Another rule in this place is that we dont talk politics....and I fail to see a close link between Iraq and the subject of this thread, except if you are trying to run a political agenda.



Agreed, this has gotten way off topic...


----------



## The Basket (Jul 25, 2009)

There were two countries who launched aggressive wars in Europe during 1939-1945 era

Germany and the USSR.

The main difference was that Germany lost and was occupied and defeated. 

The USSR was able to expand its borders to consolidate their hold or occupation of even greater land. Some even given willingly by the western powers. It also came out of the war stronger than it started.
Whereas UK, France and other western countries were dirt poor and having to beg to the Americans.

So Stalin won and Hitler dead. One tyrant won and one didn't.

USA is pretty much blameless at this timeframe...it did nothing and only responded to being attacked.

In fact, you could say if America had been as big and powerful in 1939 rather than 1945, then Germany and Japan wouldnt have even bothered as they would have been defeated much much sooner.

So what WW2 achieved was simple...end of old world imperialism to be replaced by the power politics of 2 superpowers.


----------



## Condora (Jul 27, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I agree Parsifal, things are never as clearcut as the media makes them out to be. The world of war, politics,business, and international diplomacy is murky at best and totally unclear most of the time. The real reasons for many things cannot be understood by listening to the evening news or reading a blog. Sometimes you can put two and two together but you cannot always prove that it equals four.



I agree, and it doesn't take being in Iraq - or elsewhere - to notice it, if one keeps one's eyes open.
I usually get news from USA, Canada, from friends in Brasil, from home, and the country where I am or was (Spain, UK...).

It's not only the way the news are chosen, but how they are told, or what they are connected with.
It makes a huge difference...

On WMD, I always thought that Iraq couldn't have something very big - Israel wouldn't take that -, but that UK, France, Germany and USA should have a very good ideia of what Iraq had, and how much, as they had provided it.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 27, 2009)

Before it gets too political, why not turn the table around....? How different would Europe and the world be today if WWII hadn't happened, if Hitler had stopped with Austria and Czechoslovakia? Just curious for some interesting answers...


----------



## timshatz (Jul 27, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Before it gets too political, why not turn the table around....? How different would Europe and the world be today if WWII hadn't happened, if Hitler had stopped with Austria and Czechoslovakia? Just curious for some interesting answers...



It is a good question, Lucky. 

I'm not sure Hitler could stop in 1938. He was broke (rebuilding the Wermacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegmarine is expensive) which accounts for some of the impetus of his actions. However, the question is a good one.

I think National Socialism goes the way of Marxist Socialism and dies in a generation after Hitler's death. If you look at the Totalitarian Socialist regimes that were started around that time, both Right Wing and Left Wing, you see they have a life span of (generally) 20-70 years (without being destroyed by war). That leaves a lot of leeway but most socialist regimes (Spain, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Germany, Italy, Cuba?) don't outlive their creators. In the cases where they do (Russia, China) they either tend to morph into something more effective economically or get caught in a spiral of collapse. 

Don't count the East Block nations as they were more buffer states for the Soviet Union than actual working Socialist entities. 

So. my guess is Hitler dies in the Late 50s/Early 60s and the next ten years for Germany is a continuing struggle for power against various forces ending up in a general govt collapse. The alternative idea is Germany goes to war with France or Poland shortly before the collapse to divert citizenry from problems, much like Argentina did in the 80s with the Falklands. 

Italy? Mussolini tanks it some time around 1945. No particular reason, just the general inefficiency of his realm and the oddball adventures he gets Italy into ground the country down and the Italians dump him. 

Soviet Union is the real question. What is Stalin going to do. He was on a run of expansion up until 1941. Doubt he would stop. The possibility exists that the Soviet Union goes to war against Germany. To do that, the SU is going to have to attack Poland. That is a possibility. They had a pretty brutal war in the 20s, might start up again as Stalin moves West.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Before it gets too political, why not turn the table around....? How different would Europe and the world be today if WWII hadn't happened, if Hitler had stopped with Austria and Czechoslovakia? Just curious for some interesting answers...



Eventually it would have erupted into chaos anyhow. All the different governments were filled with some kind of distrust for one another, and most countries were some form of anti-jewish. There were too many border disputes based off of WW1 and the Germans eventually would have been demanding them back anyhow.

Also just about every country had some form of inner fight with Communism going on.

Eventually WW2 would have broken out, but I believe it would have even more revolved around a struggle with Communism.


----------



## Condora (Jul 27, 2009)

I agree that unfortunately, WW II would have happened anyway.

I tried to think of some alternative development, but the situation was as prone to war as for WW I. Then, if not for "Archie Duke" Ferdinand having been shot, it would have been started over something else. As a matter of fact, I believe the unacceptable ultimatum Austria-Hungary sent to Serbia was accepted, but Austria declared war anyway.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 27, 2009)

This is indeed an interesting twist to carbon's thread. In my view the conflict between Stalin and Hitler was a foregone conclusion. Without expansion east, Germany would go bankrupt ... the resources were needed. Stalin knew this and would have taken his own initiatives at the first opportunity to box his mortal enemy in geographically. You can see that in the moves to take control of Romanian oil fields in '39 -'40 ... a time when Non Agression Pact is in effect and the two nations are supposedly co-operating. 

If Hitler had stopped with Austria no one would have complained .. (he was Austrian after all). If he'd stopped after Munich (buffer on Soviet flank) Stalin would have still been formulating strategy to move against Hitler in due course. Europe and the world just wasn't big enough for those two.

My thoughts ... 

MM


----------



## timshatz (Jul 27, 2009)

While I agree WW1 was going to happen (political, economic and most importantly, social strains were too great), I am not convinced WW2 was any more pre-ordained much as WW3 was the same. A lot of what started WW2 was initiated at Vesailles. Handled better, WW2 might not've happened the way it did. 

If the end of WW2 had happened in 1918-1919, I'm pretty sure WW2 would've been avoided. No Versailles Treaty means no Hitler. No Hitler, means no German military expansion. But the Allies in 1918 would've had to have marched all the way to Berlin in 1919. There were generals in 1918 that saw it this way (Pershing being one of them), but were over ruled and the war ended on French soil. In 1945, there was no way the Allies were going to let Germany have a negotiated peace. There were going to be defeated with boots on the ground, troops in the street. If this had happened in 1919, I'm pretty convinced there is no great war started in Europe by Germany in 1939. 

But others make a good point, with Hitler and Stalin essentially bumping into each other, it was a matter of time before they went head to head. 

Tricky question.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 27, 2009)

If Hitler was shanked in prison and he died... would there have been a WW2?
Perhaps Russia would have invaded the West in the mid 40's and Germany would have been on our side


----------



## parsifal (Jul 27, 2009)

I believe WWII was unavoidable after WWI. Hitler was not that remarkable, he was certainly replaceable. After WWI there were hundreds, if not thousands of political splinter groups that were at work on the disillusioned masses. If Hitler had not fired, someone else would of. Germany was a hotbed of discontent, and any number of people were prepred to exploit that.

"Remove Hitler from the equation and everything will be okay" is a variation of "its all the nazis fault". Both are an absolute myth. Germany was not democratic at that time. The imposition of the weimar republic was bound to fail. With the failure of democracy, coupled with the sheer sense of shame and despair, it was inevitable that someone was going to exploit those conditions. If not Hitler, then someone. And that alsmost certainly meant that Germany was going to bump uglies with her neighbours at some point


----------



## Waynos (Jul 27, 2009)

The Germans in general and Hitler in particular greatly resented the way Versaiiles had treated them, particularly the French moreso than the other allies. As was said if that had all happened differently there might not have been a WW2. However it was never really going to handled too differrently as an embittered France demanded reparations from Germany. Even when the US and UK were in favour of relenting in the 1920's the French would not budge, they even sent troops back into Germany to make sure it met its obligations. This background means that a Germany fighting on our side against the Russians does not work as revenge on France was at the top of the Agenda and would have been without Hitler too.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 27, 2009)

I think even if Germany stopped at Austria, Russia would still have tried to relaim the "land" they lost after WW1.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2009)

timshatz said:


> While I agree WW1 was going to happen (political, economic and most importantly, social strains were too great), I am not convinced WW2 was any more pre-ordained much as WW3 was the same. A lot of what started WW2 was initiated at Vesailles. Handled better, WW2 might not've happened the way it did.



I like to look at it as WW1 and WW2 were the same war with a 21 year cease fire.



timshatz said:


> If the end of WW2 had happened in 1918-1919, I'm pretty sure WW2 would've been avoided. No Versailles Treaty means no Hitler. No Hitler, means no German military expansion. But the Allies in 1918 would've had to have marched all the way to Berlin in 1919. There were generals in 1918 that saw it this way (Pershing being one of them), but were over ruled and the war ended on French soil. In 1945, there was no way the Allies were going to let Germany have a negotiated peace. There were going to be defeated with boots on the ground, troops in the street. If this had happened in 1919, I'm pretty convinced there is no great war started in Europe by Germany in 1939.



Here is the problem with that. The allies handled the end of WW1 very wrong. The Treaty of Versaille was too harsh to put on a country that 1). technically did not start the conflict, was honoring her treaties as everyone else would have, and 2). a country that was not defeated on the battlefield. 

No allied soldier ever set foot in Germany during the War.

The treaty should have been strong, but just. The Treaty in itself is what led to WW2. Without that treaty, WW2 may have never happened.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 27, 2009)

"The Treaty should have ben strong, but just" ... [Adler]

Adler, *with all respect *I suggest you read this brief history of the Franco-Prussian war:

FrancoPrussianwar.com Franco-Prussian war 1870-1871

In 1918 - at Versailles - France was only doing to Germany what Germany had done to France in 1871. And in turn, Hitler returned the favor in the same railway car in 1940.

I could easily write that "if" Preident Wilson and the US Congress had not adopted an isolationist position in 1918 and remained _engaged_, the bitterness between Germany and France "might" have been defused and re-directed.

Harry Truman and George Marshall suceeded in not repeating that mistake in 1945 and the result - while not perfection - broke the cycle of vengence that had started with Napoleon ... while checking a new common enemy, the USSR

Do not tell any Canadian who served in France in The Great War (sadly, all dead now) that Germany was NOT defeated in 1918 when the Kaiser abdicated and the government sued for peace .... google 'Canada's 100 Days' if you want to read a truly outstanding campaign history.  In the same vein, google 'German invaison of Belgium' 1914 if you want to appreciate the character, attitude and behavior of the German troops that invaded Belgium.

History is a great wheel that keeps turning unless politicians find a way to break that wheel and re-invent it -- hence my great admiration for Truman and Marshall. 

Regards,

MM

While you are technically correct, Adler, when you write: "no allied soldier occupied german territory during the war", it is a mute point.

Germany collapsed, government sued for peace: "uncle". And then pretended it hadn't been that way.

USARCENT/CFLCC - History - Crossing the Rhine


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> "The Treaty should have ben strong, but just" ... [Adler]
> 
> Adler, *with all respect *I suggest you read this brief history of the Franco-Prussian war:
> 
> ...



I can agree with that.



michaelmaltby said:


> Do not tell any Canadian who served in France in The Great War (sadly, all dead now) that Germany was NOT defeated in 1918 when the Kaiser abdicated and the government sued for peace .... google 'Canada's 100 Days' if you want to read a truly outstanding campaign history.  In the same vein, google 'German invaison of Belgium' 1914 if you want to appreciate the character, attitude and behavior of the German troops that invaded Belgium.



Don't get butt hurt. You are obviously taking me out of context. Of course Germany lost battles, of course Germany was "defeated", they lost the war didn't they?

Fact remains however that they were not fully militarily defeated. Not a single allied soldier stepped foot on German soil. When German surrendured they were only 65 km from Paris. That is one reason why Hitler and many Germans resented the treaty. 

The treaty in that way led directly to WW2.

So again, do not take me out of context. If you are unsure what I mean, then just ask me and I will explain what I mean...


----------



## Marcel (Jul 27, 2009)

Germany was defeated, because the lost all public support at home in 1918. Fearing a revolution (rightfully so) in their own country, the war could not be won anymore. To say that the German army was defeated is a bit simplistic. It's fair to say that the British and French armies were as much defeated as they were, but the US tipped the scale on the military situation. Still, Germany agreed to the treaty because of their home situation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Germany was defeated, because the lost all public support at home in 1918. Fearing a revolution (rightfully so) in their own country, the war could not be won anymore. To say that the German army was defeated is a bit simplistic. It's fair to say that the British and French armies were as much defeated as they were, but the US tipped the scale on the military situation. Still, Germany agreed to the treaty because of their home situation.



100% correct.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 27, 2009)

"If you are unsure what I mean, then just ask me and I will explain what I mean."

I'm unsure, Crew Chief. I need to understand the "context". Guderian was in the suburbs of Moscow in December '41 and ... well .. we know how that worked out. Napoleon made it right into the city and ... same story 

"No Allied soldier set foot in Germany" - perhaps my geography is weak but the last time I checked, Cologne was a German city.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jul 27, 2009)

The breakdown in Germany was in large measure the result of the crippling blockade that had been imposed in 1914, and maintained throughout the war.

Also, had the war continued into 1919, the Germans would have been driven back into their own territory. The German army on the western front, were not defeated utterly, but they were starting to crumble nevertheless (look at the battles following April 1918 and it becomes obvious-in particular what the germans called "the black week" which occurred in August 1918) . In 1919 they would have been subjected to a ww2 style of armoured warfare as the theories of JFC Fuller were put into effect. In the air they were losing the air war. On the Turkish front the Turks were suing for peace. Austria had all but collapsed. Germany's allies were deserting her in droves. The Allies were winning the war at sea. The British and the French were finally getting some forward movement on the western front.

Its again just not true to try and argue that Germany was not facing defeat. She would have capitulated unconditionally in 1919 or 1920, instead of accepting the conditional terms of 1918. Viewed in those terms Versailles was entirely reasonable. Germany was guilty of waging the first of her aggressive wars, and had inflicted enormous misery on most of her neighbours. This was particulalry true for the French, where the horrors of Verdun were all too real. Germany got the peace terms she deserved, in my opinion, but the myth that she was defeated from within sowed the seeds for Part II of the conflict. The allies were not so silly the second time around. They demanded nothing less than unconditional surrender, to push the point home that Germany was defeated by the allies, in the second war


----------



## river (Jul 27, 2009)

Hi,

Unconditional surrender or not, both Germany and Japan came out of the defeat of WW2 to become strong economies.

Anyway, going back to some previous comments about Germany and Russia butting heads if there was no WW2... I am not sure Stalin would of been ready to wage war against Germany for a number of years... possibly around 44-45. I don't think Russia had the military strength in 41-43 to take on Germany.

Russia ramped up its military production and building armies after they were attacked by Germany. Without the impetus of a German attack I do not think Russia would of ramped itself up for war with the same fervour or gusto. So, if Russia and Germany were to lock horns I'd say it would be later rather than sooner.

river


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 27, 2009)

IMHO the Treaty of Versailles seemed more severe then the Treaty of Frankfurt. France just had to pay the war indemnity within 3 years to Germany. Germany had to reimburse the main victors and then pay for their own occupation of their own country. Then there were the land that they lost.


----------



## renrich (Jul 27, 2009)

WW2, among other things, led directly to the loss of the "colonies" held by European countries in Indo China, Malaya, Dutch East Indies and India as well as a number of others. I don't know if one would call it an accomplishment or not but in the 1930s, the US was a relatively weak militarily, isolationist country which was by 1945 an international economic and miltary colossus.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 27, 2009)

WW2 in Europe essentially reduced Europe to a proxy battleground for the US and USSR until the 1990s.

The point was made way back at the start of this thread that the USSR took over Eastern Europe as a result of WW2 - the US just as surely took over the West, although they didn't use tanks to do it. If I may be blunt, the Marshall Plan was not charity - it was, in it's own way, as imperialistic as anything the British did a century earlier. It opened the door for the American way of life to be exported into Western Europe in the form of American socio-economic-political values and consumer goods. 

I'm not saying that Europe was unwilling to receive these things - the UK fully agreed with the US that Russia was the prime threat post-1945. But I think it is hard to see the US involvement in Europe after WW2 as anything other than imperialistic. The US gained hegemony over Western Europe to the extent that the military and political life of European nations was, through the UN and NATO, klargely subjugated to American needs until quite recently.

This isn't a liberal or anti-American rant - it is just my take on developments in Europe post-1945. One of the forgotten fronts of the Cold War is the social front - it mattered deeply to both sides that their respective socio-economic systems could deliver a better quality of life to the ordinary man than their opponent could. If you don't believe this, read a little on the 'Kitchen Debates'. Nixon and Kruschev wouldn't have stood around having a public debate about the merits of refrigerators if they didn't think that it was an important sign of who was 'winning' the Cold War...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 27, 2009)

Bomb Taxi, Parsafil - thank you. 

"... If I may be blunt, the Marshall Plan was not charity - it was, in it's own way, as imperialistic as anything the British did a century earlier..."

Viking: "...Then there were the land that they lost." Yes - Allsace-Lorraine in 1871 ... the coal producing region of industrial France!

After jousting with Der Crewchief, this afternoon , I've decided that the only honest way to resolve Carbon's original challenge is as follows:

Which country *GAINED *the most from its _participation_ in WW2???

* Britain
* Germany
* France
* Russia
* USA
* Italy
* Japan
* China
* Commonwealth - India, Canada, Australia, S. Africa, New Zealand, Rhodesia, et al
* Other (Brazil, Mexico, etc.) 

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 27, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Viking: "...Then there were the land that they lost." Yes - Allsace-Lorraine in 1871 ... the coal producing region of industrial France!



Allsace-Lorraine had been annexed by Louis XIV in the 1700's and had been German to begin with. But in addition to this, they also lost:


Most of the Prussian provinces of Province of Posen and West Prussia ceded to Poland.

The Hultschin area of Upper Silesia was transferred to Czechoslovakia.

The area of the towns Eupen and Malmedy went to Belgium, as well as the Vennbahn Railway.

The northern part of East Prussia known was placed under the control of France and was later annexed by Lithuania. 

Japan gained Germany’s islands north of the equator (the Marshall Islands, the Carolines, the Marianas, the Palau Islands) and Kiautschou in China.

German Samoa was assigned to New Zealand

German New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago and Nauru to Australia as mandatory.

Britain and France divided German Kamerun and Togoland

Belgium gained Ruanda-Urundi in northwestern German East Africa

Portugal received the Kionga Triangle

German South West Africa was annexed to the Union of South Africa


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Bomb Taxi, Parsafil - thank you.
> 
> 
> Which country *GAINED *the most from its _participation_ in WW2???
> ...


----------



## Condora (Jul 28, 2009)

The USA gained the most: didn't suffer the damages at home other countries did (the war was always someplace else), and it's economy was booming, and bound to get better (an additional 10-20% feminine labour force is not to be despised).

Russia had suffered a lot, but also had an industrial growth, with foreign help as a bonus. Imperial Russia never managed to be an undisputed world power, CCCP did it.

Britain, France, Japan, Italy... all were devastated, gradually lost their empires.

China also was devastated, still had a civil war to fight, which means that had almost reverted to the warlords-period. One can almost say that WW II was just a diversion during the transition period between the end of Imperial China and the confirmation of a new national power.

Other nations didn't play a significant role, or get much from the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> "If you are unsure what I mean, then just ask me and I will explain what I mean."
> 
> I'm unsure, Crew Chief. I need to understand the "context". Guderian was in the suburbs of Moscow in December '41 and ... well .. we know how that worked out. Napoleon made it right into the city and ... same story
> 
> ...



When WW1 ended, no allied soldier was on German soil. That is not hard to understand. 

The point that I was making, is yes Germany was defeated, but they were not defeated on the "Battlefield per say". This does not mean they did not loose battles or were not going to loose. At the time Germany advocated for peace, they controlled allied territory not the other way around.

That is why many Germans beleive the treaty was a farce. I am a believer in this as well. Why? Because the treaty led directly to WW2. Should Germany have been punished? Of course, but certain terms of the treaty were a bit harsh.



parsifal said:


> The breakdown in Germany was in large measure the result of the crippling blockade that had been imposed in 1914, and maintained throughout the war.
> 
> Also, had the war continued into 1919, the Germans would have been driven back into their own territory. The German army on the western front, were not defeated utterly, but they were starting to crumble nevertheless (look at the battles following April 1918 and it becomes obvious-in particular what the germans called "the black week" which occurred in August 1918) . In 1919 they would have been subjected to a ww2 style of armoured warfare as the theories of JFC Fuller were put into effect. In the air they were losing the air war. On the Turkish front the Turks were suing for peace. Austria had all but collapsed. Germany's allies were deserting her in droves. The Allies were winning the war at sea. The British and the French were finally getting some forward movement on the western front.



Absolutely correct. Never tried to argue that.



parisifal said:


> Its again just not true to try and argue that Germany was not facing defeat.



Never tried to argue that either.



parisifal said:


> Viewed in those terms Versailles was entirely reasonable. Germany was guilty of waging the first of her aggressive wars, and had inflicted enormous misery on most of her neighbours. This was particulalry true for the French, where the horrors of Verdun were all too real. Germany got the peace terms she deserved, in my opinion



That is where I do not agree. All sides witnessed the horrors, to give all the blame to Germany for that is wrong in my opinion. German technicaly did not start the war. She honored her treaties however.

I do agree that Germany should have been punished harsh, but I do not agree with all the terms of the treaty.



parisifal said:


> The allies were not so silly the second time around. They demanded nothing less than unconditional surrender, to push the point home that Germany was defeated by the allies, in the second war



That is 100% correct as well.



vikingBerserker said:


> IMHO the Treaty of Versailles seemed more severe then the Treaty of Frankfurt. France just had to pay the war indemnity within 3 years to Germany. Germany had to reimburse the main victors and then pay for their own occupation of their own country. Then there were the land that they lost.



I agree. I believe the treaty could have been handled differently.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 28, 2009)

Alder - your summary of territories lost is an _accurate_ list but - overseas territories aside - is not an honest description of history.

You state: "..Allsace-Lorraine had been annexed by Louis XIV in the 1700's and had been German to begin with..."

Prior to Bismark, no German political state existed - ever - that corresponded to the geo-political entity that signed the Versailles peace treaty.

I believe you are using the same argument that was used to justify the Sudatenland grab - and interchanging freely regions occupied by _German-speaking _people with the reality of a larger unified German _state_. Such a state never existed until after the fall of Napoleon and the revolutions of 1848.

Historians generally accept the idea that MODERN European history begins with Napoleon - they believe this because his regime set in motion the process of unraveling old monarchist Europe. You are free to believe otherwise  naturally but if you do - accepting the idea that wherever in Eastern Europe Germans (and German speaking people) migrated _was_ Germany - than - by the same token why not for the English or Chinese.

From Peter the Great, to Catherine and onwards, German people were encouraged to expand east bringing modernity, productivity and economic benefits to the regions where they settled. This worked well in times of peace and harmony, but in times of oppression - post Revolution Russia and Russia under Stalin during WW2 - it was an excuse for injustice and persecution. That point is off track but cited only to reinforce what I have stated already - the POLITICAL STATE of Germany you describe wasn't yet 100 years old when the Kaiser abdicated in 1918.

And to maintain perspective - _proportionately_, Austro-Hungary lost more, I believe, as aresult of also being on the losing side.

To avoid any misunderstanding here, I believe that the Versailles arrangement provided the opportunities and irritants that contributed directly to WW2 (and you advocate that position fairly). But Britain, France, the Commonwealth did NOT go out of their way to start WW2 to complete the undoing of Germany that WW1 had begun. Only the German people can accept that responsibility. This is import to appreciate because (1) modern Germany (like modern Japan) provides hope that constructive developments can come from war when lessons are learned (Carbon, note, the original premise of your thread); and (2) We increasingly live in an age of victimization. No one is responsible for anything. Everyone is a victim. Sgt. Shultz: "I see nuthing, I know nothing"  And on that path lies utter ruin because people repeat the same mistakes until they LEARN from them and modify their behavior/actions accordingly.

Parsifal - I think your analysis of post WW2 gains and losses is balanced and fair and I thank everyone for their input on this.

I close thus: this is a very dangerous time for the USA. All nations have their good and bad days. Overall, the USA has been an overwhelming force for GOOD not EVIL in this modern world - as has Christianity on whose values its laws and constitution are based. When the President of the United States flies around the world apologizing for sins, slights and omissions not committed, than every bully and tyrant rubs his hands and licks his lips.

MM


----------



## river (Jul 28, 2009)

Hi,



michaelmaltby said:


> I close thus: this is a very dangerous time for the USA. All nations have their good and bad days. Overall, the USA has been an overwhelming force for GOOD not EVIL in this modern world - as has Christianity on whose values its laws and constitution are based. When the President of the United States flies around the world apologizing for sins, slights and omissions not committed, than every bully and tyrant rubs his hands and licks his lips.



Good post, with a very interesting closure.

However, I don't understand what your comment regarding the USA apologising is not good for the USA. If it is beleived to be a "weakness" to apologise, then what is the alternative? I don't assume you mean to be strong and wage military campaigns, so perhaps you mean a more powerful diplomatic USA? Financially it is not a strong country like it was, so what does the USA need to do to pull herself back to her former glory?

To adhere to "christian" values would the USA not apologise for previous sins and transgressions, especially if one's laws and constitution are built upon it?

If apologising is opening the door to tyrannical attack, then what does the USA need to do to get her respect and strength back.

river


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Alder - your summary of territories lost is an _accurate_ list but - overseas territories aside - is not an honest description of history.
> 
> You state: "..Allsace-Lorraine had been annexed by Louis XIV in the 1700's and had been German to begin with..."
> 
> Prior to Bismark, no German political state existed - ever - that corresponded to the geo-political entity that signed the Versailles peace treaty.



I made no such statement and no summary of territories lost...



michaelmaltby said:


> I believe you are using the same argument that was used to justify the Sudatenland grab - and interchanging freely regions occupied by _German-speaking _people with the reality of a larger unified German _state_. Such a state never existed until after the fall of Napoleon and the revolutions of 1848.



I never used any arguement to justify the Sudentland...



michaelmaltby said:


> Historians generally accept the idea that MODERN European history begins with Napoleon - they believe this because his regime set in motion the process of unraveling old monarchist Europe. You are free to believe otherwise  naturally but if you do - accepting the idea that wherever in Eastern Europe Germans (and German speaking people) migrated _was_ Germany - than - by the same token why not for the English or Chinese.



Didn't do that either...



michaelmaltby said:


> From Peter the Great, to Catherine and onwards, German people were encouraged to expand east bringing modernity, productivity and economic benefits to the regions where they settled. This worked well in times of peace and harmony, but in times of oppression - post Revolution Russia and Russia under Stalin during WW2 - it was an excuse for injustice and persecution. That point is off track but cited only to reinforce what I have stated already - the POLITICAL STATE of Germany you describe wasn't yet 100 years old when the Kaiser abdicated in 1918.



What political state did I describe?




michaelmaltby said:


> To avoid any misunderstanding here, I believe that the Versailles arrangement provided the opportunities and irritants that contributed directly to WW2 (and you advocate that position fairly). But Britain, France, the Commonwealth did NOT go out of their way to start WW2 to complete the undoing of Germany that WW1 had begun.



When did I ever say that the allies did? All I stated is the treaty should have been handled differently, because in the way it was created it helped lead to WW2.



michaelmaltby said:


> Only the German people can accept that responsibility. This is import to appreciate because (1) modern Germany (like modern Japan) provides hope that constructive developments can come from war when lessons are learned (Carbon, note, the original premise of your thread); and (2) We increasingly live in an age of victimization. No one is responsible for anything. Everyone is a victim. Sgt. Shultz: "I see nuthing, I know nothing"  And on that path lies utter ruin because people repeat the same mistakes until they LEARN from them and modify their behavior/actions accordingly.



I agree with you, but I don't think that was ever a part of my arguement...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 28, 2009)

MM

I posted the list, not Adler.



> Prior to Bismark, no German political state existed - ever - that corresponded to the geo-political entity that signed the Versailles peace treaty.



I disagree. "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" included most if not all of present day of Germany (known at that time as the "Kingdom of Germany"), as well as some territory around it (1450-1806). The Legislative body was called "The Reichstag". 

The Empire also had two courts: the Reichshofrat (also known in English as the Aulic Council) at the court of the King/Emperor, and the Reichskammergericht (Imperial Chamber Court), established with the Imperial Reform of 1495.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Alsace and much of Lorraine were both originally German-speaking territories when France annexed them.



> Historians generally accept the idea that MODERN European history begins with Napoleon - they believe this because his regime set in motion the process of unraveling old monarchist Europe.


 I'm not sure of the relevance of this, an event that occurred before this time could/did still have an impact on events after this time.




> And to maintain perspective - proportionately, Austro-Hungary lost more, I believe, as a result of also being on the losing side.



I believe the Ottoman Empire lost the most land of the Central Powers, but I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. We were talking about the impact the French land loses of the Franco-Prussian War had on the German losses of land at the end of WW1.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 28, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is where I do not agree. All sides witnessed the horrors, to give all the blame to Germany for that is wrong in my opinion. German technicaly did not start the war. She honored her treaties however.
> 
> I do agree that Germany should have been punished harsh, but I do not agree with all the terms of the treaty.



I agree with you Adler, apart from the last part that Germany should heve been punished harsh. All groups were equally guilty of starting WWI, not just Germany. Especially the UK was guilty of WWI. Therefore I disagree that Germany deserved punishment by their "colleagues in the crime". Germany was just punished because they surrendered and thus were on the loosing side. Nobody gained anything from the treaty and thus the treaty was a farce. It led to much more suffering by WW2, which says it all.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 29, 2009)

Apologies, Adler. I've been out of town. That list was indeed NOT yours.

I stand by my argument in response to that list, however. 

MM


----------



## Waynos (Jul 30, 2009)

Marcel, I'm interested in the comment that the UK was especially to blame for WW1, naturally this is a viewpoint I have never come across before so would you mind fleshing out for me why Britain was more to blame for the outbreak of war? I would say that we were indecently keen once it began, however.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I agree with you Adler, apart from the last part that Germany should heve been punished harsh. All groups were equally guilty of starting WWI, not just Germany. Especially the UK was guilty of WWI. Therefore I disagree that Germany deserved punishment by their "colleagues in the crime". Germany was just punished because they surrendered and thus were on the loosing side. Nobody gained anything from the treaty and thus the treaty was a farce. It led to much more suffering by WW2, which says it all.



I somewhat agree with you there. The politics of the time to include all the national treaties really had a big part into starting the war. I mean if you look at it the assisnation was on 28 June, one month later Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July. The next day Russia mobilized to honor its treaty with Serbia. The next day Germany mobilized to honor her treaty with Austria-Hungary. Then the French mobilized the very next day.

It really was brewing over time, I believe that based off of the treaties and annimosity between nations it was only a matter of time anyhow.

I however do not believe that any one side can take all the blame, certainly not England.

I believe the main instigators would have to be Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and Serbia.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 30, 2009)

Blaming England for what ... having an Empire ...? Being the most successful military and trading organization of her time ..?

Come om Gentlemen, this is revisionist nonesense .... (very much like the USA after WW2 with the USSR) GB invested massive quantities of blood and treasure to contain-then-defeat Napoleon - imagine the cost of maintaining a constant naval blockade from 1793 (aprox) to 1812 (with one very brief lull). Maintained with wooden sailing ships in historically rough waters.

England, France, Portugal, Spain all had colonies. Russia had land, land and more land. Germany was the new kid in the neighborhood and wanted into the Empire and the Mercantile game ... nobody wanted to yield so Germany prepared for war very carefully and then marched ....

Revisionism and 'what if's' may be fun .. but after a while nobody knows reality (truth) any more and people just spin the facts that favor their position .... like ex-Soviet historians today claiming that France and GB caused WW2 by NOT yielding to Stalin's desire to contain Hitler by moving west to Germany's flank.

In 1914, German was looking for an excuse to use the powerful, well-equipped military she had carefully built .. and she found it ... in treaties.

In 1914, Britain wasn't looking for an excuse to send an expeditionary army to France .... for what? Treasure  Right... 

If someone came to your door, my friends, and informed you that they were going to attack your neighbors - but not you, as long as you let them through your house and land without opposition, would you agree? Or would you resist? Belgium resisted and the German army leveled the place and took reprisals against civilians.

I have stated already that Versailles - and especially a vengeful France - were sources of the war that following - but times were different in 1914. The German, British and Russian Royal Families were all cousins for Heaven's sake.

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Blaming England for what ... having an Empire ...? Being the most successful military and trading organization of her time ..?
> 
> Come om Gentlemen, this is revisionist nonesense .... (very much like the USA after WW2 with the USSR) GB invested massive quantities of blood and treasure to contain-then-defeat Napoleon - imagine the cost of maintaining a constant naval blockade from 1793 (aprox) to 1812 (with one very brief lull). Maintained with wooden sailing ships in historically rough waters.
> 
> ...



Please do not use the term "gentlemen (plural for Gentleman)" here. I only see one person who said England was to blame. So I don't see any revisionist nonesense going on here.

The statement that I made is fact, and that was that national treaties and anomosity helped lead to the war. It would have happened at some point anyhow.

So please think about what you say before accusing people of things. I may look at *some* things different than you, but I am certainly not a revisionsist punk.


----------



## Condora (Jul 30, 2009)

The blame on providing the "spark" may be placed on Austria-Hungary, who used Ferdinand's assassination as an excuse to declare war on Serbia, although they had accepted A-H "unacceptable ultimatum".

But the fact is, for a reason or another, they were all dying for a war. 
"Lick the huns and be back in 6 months", or some nonsense like that...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 30, 2009)

Adler, I did not refer to anyone specifically as a "revisionist punk" - least of all you  I said that there is a trend toward revisionist interpretations of history such as the following: [... the UK should not have entered WW1, could have avoided it, and it made the war into a _World _War by entering, therefore the UK bears responsibility for the scope of the conflict]. Ninety years after the war happened it's easy for any academic who wants grant money or attention or tenure to research such a topic write a book, and present the facts - it's not constructive, however, and doesn't advance understanding of the topic because - in the end - its a topic about something that _didn't_ happen. History is about what _did _happen.

I try not to use personal invictive in my threads and responses to others' threads - "punk" is not a word I'd ever reach for, but neither is: "Don't get butt hurt." 

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 30, 2009)

No, that's pretty much what you said. Only one person stated it and nobody agreed with it.

This is the first time I have ever heard anybody claim England caused WW1. Of course I just found out a few months ago that Poland causesd WW2.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2009)

The causes for WWI are far more complex than those for WWII. It was a mixture of politics, alliances, militarism, competition nationalism, and trade. However ultimately it was a battle about who would control Europe.

Prior to the emergence of Germany as the premier European power there was a balance in Europe that was mostly orchestrated by the British, through her navy. Whilst no single nation could claim dominance over Europe, they had to expend large resources on land forces, and could not afford to challenge the power of the Royal Navy. The British were able to control European seaborn trade because of their control of the oceans, and also controlled the imperial grabs for land and resources that were the hallmark of the 19th century. British pre-eminence was essentially benevolent however. It cannot be argued that the British attempted to use their position of power for malevolent reasons. They got rich, and controlled vast amounts of the earth, but they did not attempt to dominate Europe in a direct sense. The British strategy was always to support the second most powerful country in europe, with the obvious aim of maintaining the delicate balance of power in Europe. This explains why, after the rise of germany, Britain allied herself with France.

The Germans upset that balance. The most fundamental issues were her desire to achive naval parity with the British, and the second was her strong desire to gain a large colonial empire. Thirdly, the germans, unlike the British DID want to directly control and dominate Europe. They were not content with benevolent neglect as the british had been. They wanted German jackboots marching down the capitals of nearly every nation in Europe. So too did most of her opponents,, but the Germans just wanted it more than most, and had the power to go for that objective in adangerous way.

Put simply, without Germany in the equation, ther would not have been a major war, with Germany in the equation (with her nationalistic, and imperialistic and militaristic overtones) the war becaomes almost an inevitability

That why the allies turned on Germany at Versailles. She had pursued the dream of european domination more vigorously than anyone, and had destroyed the delicate equilibrium that had balnced ERurope for a century. Versailles was designed to try and restore that balance I think, by removing Germany as a credible threat . More than alittle the trety was also tinged with a thirst for vengeance.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2009)

Plain and simple, WW1 was almost inevitable when Kaiser Bill decided to build a navy to rival Britain's. Britain was a maritime nation that relied on world trade for her existence, just like the US today. Germany was not. The dominoes began to fall with Serbia, Austro Hungary, Russia,Germany and France all falling into line. Germany had a plan in place to take out France and in order to eliminate them before Russia could mobilise, they executed the plan which meant going through neutral Belgium. Britain had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and the fat was in the fire. What a blessing it would have been if, in 1917 before the US got in, an armistice had been arranged. World history would have been substantially different.


----------



## Condora (Jul 30, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> No, that's pretty much what you said. Only one person stated it and nobody agreed with it.
> 
> This is the first time I have ever heard anybody claim England caused WW1. Of course I just found out a few months ago that Poland causesd WW2.



As Archie Bunker would say, "Them pollocks started the war, everybody knows that! If they had allowed the germans to take free dancing, nothing wouldna happened!"



renrich said:


> Plain and simple, WW1 was almost inevitable when Kaiser Bill decided to build a navy to rival Britain's. (...) What a blessing it would have been if, in 1917 before the US got in, an armistice had been arranged. World history would have been substantially different.



Not so simple, the Kaiser was more complex than that: he wanted to have a strong Navy, yes. But did he REALLY want a war? I guess not, the "Willy-Nicky Correspondence" hints that at some point, people in charge just lost control of the situation. When the "powers that be" set the things towards a war, did they really ponder on the consequences of their actions. When they did, it was too late.
Let's take the Spanish-American War, over Cuba - W.R. Hearst told Remington (when he informed everything was peaceful), "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war". After he incited the war, would he have been able to stop it, had he wanted to do it? When everybody was already incensed for a "splendid little war"?

That said, I think would have been different, if an armistice had been settled before the U.S.A. entered the war. Although the States were emerging as an industrial power, and would eventually develop the military industry they had in the beginning of WW II, perhaps they would have had a bit more difficulty in the beginning, and would have had worst material. Patton, MacArthur, Mitchell, and several others served in WW I, and contributed to develop the military between the wars (Mitchell was for me the most important in that period). 
What would happened if the U.S.A. had started the war with someone else having defined concepts, weapons, someone like Crozier? He decided well sometimes, but also let personal animosity get in the way.

An armistice in 1917 would not solve the problems, WW II would have happened just the same... and I think it would have been worse.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 30, 2009)




----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2009)

renrich said:


> What a blessing it would have been if, in 1917 before the US got in, an armistice had been arranged. World history would have been substantially different.



Ren you got me on that....how so?


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 30, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Ren you got me on that....how so?



I think he means that if there had been an armistice then:

1) Germany was in a stronger position, so it wouldn't have had the same demands placed on it as they wouldn't have been "defeated", and it would have been more of a "we're all tired of war, let's say we stop it today" and I think borders would have more or less reverted to the pre-war ones. This may not have been a good thing though.

2) American casualties would have been virtually non-existent.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2009)

Well, I believe that WW2 was essentially a continuation of WW1. I don't really believe that the Kaiser wanted a war and the Great War was sort of stumbled into by the participants. If cooler heads had prevailed in 1917 and with an armistice agreed to where everyone went back to the start line, the Russian Revolution might have been avoided, Germany would not have felt it had been shafted and no reparations would have been extracted. A negotiated peace would have taken place. In August, 1936 Churchill is said to have stated," America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you had not entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we have made peace then there would have no collapse in Russia followed by communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism and Germany would not have signed the Treaty of Versailles, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these isms wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved one million British, French, American and other lives." All conjecture but makes sense.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

renrich said:


> Well, I believe that WW2 was essentially a continuation of WW1. I don't really believe that the Kaiser wanted a war and the Great War was sort of stumbled into by the participants.



I somewhat agree with that, but I believe it would have happened anyhow. There was too much animosity between most of the nations involved.



renrich said:


> If cooler heads had prevailed in 1917 and with an armistice agreed to where everyone went back to the start line, the Russian Revolution might have been avoided, Germany would not have felt it had been shafted and no reparations would have been extracted. A negotiated peace would have taken place. In August, 1936 Churchill is said to have stated," America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you had not entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we have made peace then there would have no collapse in Russia followed by communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism and Germany would not have signed the Treaty of Versailles, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these isms wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved one million British, French, American and other lives." All conjecture but makes sense.



Interesting take. Not sure if any of that would have possible however.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 30, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Blaming England for what ... having an Empire ...? Being the most successful military and trading organization of her time ..?
> 
> Come om Gentlemen, this is revisionist nonesense .... *etc*


Hmmm, maybe a little explanaition is in place here before you calling me a revisionist?



renrich said:


> Plain and simple, WW1 was almost inevitable when Kaiser Bill decided to build a navy to rival Britain's. Britain was a maritime nation that relied on world trade for her existence, just like the US today. Germany was not. The dominoes began to fall with Serbia, Austro Hungary, Russia,Germany and France all falling into line. Germany had a plan in place to take out France and in order to eliminate them before Russia could mobilise, they executed the plan which meant going through neutral Belgium. Britain had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and the fat was in the fire. What a blessing it would have been if, in 1917 before the US got in, an armistice had been arranged. World history would have been substantially different.



Good post ren, partly here you can see that although Britain is usually seen as "the good guys" in WW, they were as much involved in it's coming to be.
Seeing Germany as they major competitor they steered towards a war against the country from about 1900. Don't forget that Grey already announced in 1905 that Germany was their major enemy. He also started secret negotiations with France and Belgium. He also planned against Germany with the aid of Russia (1907). The UK deliberately threw away chances to lessen the tension. For instance, when The Germans started to negotiate with the British in 1912 and Haldane got very positive results, Grey also started to delay these negotiations. So you see, michaelmaltby, Britain was far from innocent they had a fair share of the blame.

Having said this, *of course all other countries had as much to do with the outbreak of the conflict*. France is not free from the blame (far from that), Russia ditto, Austria dito. You see, all countries were responsible for this war. 

The worst part of all is France. They wanted that war badly since their butt was kicked in 1870. They got their war, which they had trying to get for all this years but to their surprise much more then they expected. They then put the blame on Germany, shoving the blame to Germany and demanding for the outrageous Versailles treaty. With their attitude (and a stupid one in my eyes) they helped bring WWII into being.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 30, 2009)

Ahh, Marcel my friend  " ...So you see, michaelmaltby, Britain was far from innocent they had a fair share of the blame..."

Totally agree.

A momentary aside here. Joe Biden said - in a newspaper interview that Russia is " ... on the rocks, banking system won't last 5 years, and that Russia's problem is that it's hard giving up EMPIRE..."

And *Empire* is exactly what this thread is all about. Who's got it. Who wants it. And how they go about gettingand/or defending it.

There is a viceral quality to events prior to August, 1914. What started - was a war _unlike_ any that had been fought before.

There was a _predatory_ quality to the German industrial-military buildup. As early as the American Civil War Bismark and the General Staff knew that the battlefields of America was where the rules of modern industrial warfare were being written - and they observed first hand.

Germany wanted to be a superpower - there wasn't the A bomb to menace your enemies .. or victims ... with, back then BUT A GOOD FLEET .... move over England 

The USA is experiencing 'fluctuations' in its spheres of influences from emerging powers - China - and ideaology/religions - Islam - right now.
Not easy being on top - things keep moving 

So the climate in August 1914 was a tinder box of past grieveances, inter family rivalries, previous 'almosts' - and jealosies. And when it blew no body knew the scale - truly understood the scale of warfare between industrial equals - except the Germans [Colonial expeditions opposing native hords with a handful of cannons requires courage but isn't INDUSTRIAL - only one side has the INDUSTRIAL ]

World War 2 is very different. Everyone knows in their guts that it's coming - and how awfully terrible it can be.

So - Marcel I very much agree with your insights, along with Catch22 and Ren. How different it might have been with an Armistis in 1917.

But history is the study of what happened - and for all the reasons cited pro or con by others earlier - in 1914 Germany was ready for war - ready to go on the attack - brook no interference - respect no civilities. 

All France knew was the bile of revenge.

Germany wanted "in". Maybe England should have said - sure Kaiser Bill - sure cousin - there's room for both of us. 

But that's not like the English .... 

But consider - Germany has won through industry and genius what war failed to provide her. Same with Japan. Progress.

Progress costs blood it seems, Carbonlifeform.

MM


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2009)

> So the climate in August 1914 was a tinder box of past grieveances, inter family rivalries, previous 'almosts' - and jealosies.



I would say you forgot one other factor - pride. That alone can cause numerous problems. And the World's powers at that time had tons of misplaced pride.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 30, 2009)

"I would say you forgot one other factor - pride."

Absolutely - the pride that come only from complete ignorance of what you are wading into. On everyone's part. The German attack in 1914 was as bold and daring as Barbarossa - on a smaller front.

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 30, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> What started - was a war _unlike_ any that had been fought before.
> 
> There was a _predatory_ quality to the German industrial-military buildup. As early as the American Civil War Bismark and the General Staff knew that the battlefields of America was where the rules of modern industrial warfare were being written - and they observed first hand.



I believe that is incorrect. The only thing different about WW1 from other wars in history up to that time was hardware related.

When it comes down to root causes, I'm pretty sure we can find other wars that shared the same reasonings.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 30, 2009)

Viking ... I am sure you can. And in my description of WWI I neglected to give credit to the 1905 Russo-Japan war. A fulcrum. No Asian nation could defeat a Europeam empire .... oh yeah. 

I mean no disrespect when I use the word predatory ... if you're going to wage war (1) take it seriously, (2) do it very well. Germany has always qualified in both respects. As highly logical, creative people, once Germany decided on a course of action that _they_ can justify. Like sinking neutral shipping or invading Belgium ... they told their victim. If the victim didn't co-operate (refused to be intimidated) .. well .. we told you what was going to happen. That strategy actually works ... countries ... fold.

I used the word predatory deliberately because ... in the modern industrial context, united Germany set out to build a military presence that would win glory and carve out an Empire. Under different circumstance, Japan did much the same. First attacking China and then Russia ... always the aggressor .. always with the element of surprise.

The fact that there other examples doesn't negate Germany's intention and Germany's style.

MM


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 30, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> The fact that there other examples doesn't negate Germany's intention and Germany's style.
> 
> MM



No, but it does negate your statement:

"What started - was a war unlike any that had been fought before."


----------



## renrich (Jul 30, 2009)

The point that might be forgotten is that Germany was a continental nation and Britain was a maritime nation. When Germany during Wilhelm's reign began to build a navy to rival Britain's, Britain was threatened. Without command of the seas Britain was relegated to third rate status. Germany could continue to be a power without a dominant navy. Britain could not, just like the US today. If the US and Britain did not have a special relationship today, Britain would be very threatened, as well as all other peaceful maritime nations.


----------



## Condora (Jul 31, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> No, but it does negate your statement:
> 
> "What started - was a war unlike any that had been fought before."



Not exactly: the American civil war and the Russo-Japanese of 1905 did not go as WW I, but they gave a "taste" of what was to come. As WW I did for WW II, on air warfare.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 31, 2009)

"What started - was a war unlike any that had been fought before."

The Civil War and the Russo-Japan war were modern wars - technology-wise. What I meant by the above quote was that it escalated in a way no war before it had ... and that was due to the state of technology, the pent-up animosity, the almost incestuous inter-locking relationships between allies and adversaries etc.

It started off as a conventional war - and ended by toppling the political structures of much of society. Russia-revolution. Turkey-revolution. Germany- almost revolution. Austro-Hungary-toppled. New states carved from old empires. Transformation in the Middle East as England and France try to enlarge influence. Oil becomes a factor - not coaling stations.

All wars are transformational to a degree - we accept that idea. But in August 1914 I don't believe those rattling the sabres had an inking that they were pulling their houses down.

MM


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 31, 2009)

The effects of WWI are still with us today in a way that the after effects of WWII aren't. Here in the UK, where there was no revolution as in other countries, the Great War marks a complete historical break. The values and belliefs of Edwardian society simply ceased to exist after the war ended, and were replaced with entirely new ones. Jingoistic nationalism, militarism, and indeed the whole social structure of the pre-1914 era were largely rejected post-1918. The decline of the British Empire also began post-1918 - WWII merely finished the Empire off. The Great War has come to symbolise all that is wasteful for the British people, and it certainly played a massive role in removing the landed and ennobled elite from the dominant position they had held in British political life since the 18th century. There is certainly no other conflict in which the UK has participated which has ever bought about such radical changes in society.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 31, 2009)

Agreed BT - great summary - though Henry 8th's break with Rome and Cromwell's period as Protector both have profound effects on the Nation and its institutions.

Cheers,

MM


----------



## Amsel (Jul 31, 2009)

Also the rebellion in the 13 American colonies changed the inhabitants from the english system to a new modern democratic system without nobility. Though they ceased to be Englishmen during the Revolution.


----------



## stona (Jul 31, 2009)

What did WW2 achieve.The defeat of Nazism,Facism and Japanese militarism. That will do for me. I am neither a warmonger, nor a pacifist; if ever a war was worth fighting that one was.
Steve


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 31, 2009)

I think the "Seven Years War" (which IMHO was the frst true World War) also had a profound impact on the British Empire as it greatly extended it's realm.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 31, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Also the rebellion in the 13 American colonies changed the inhabitants from the english system to a new modern democratic system without nobility. Though they ceased to be Englishmen during the Revolution.


yep but now you have a new nobility


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> yep but now you have a new nobility



And who is that? the Kennedys or the Jacksons?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 31, 2009)

I would say WWII also brought into sharp understanding the meaning of predjuice and racism. I think there was a moral shift afterwards.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 31, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> yep but now you have a new nobility



Yeah, the self imposed elites of our nation. Usually, with the biggest mouths and the least productiivity.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 31, 2009)

Call me wierd  but I actually believe the 20th Century was _a three-act play:_

WWI - including the Russian revolution, collapse of empires etc. etc - *including the acceptance of Japan as an ally*

WW2 - from non aggression pact through to the A bombs on Japan

Cold War - America (and allies) in nuclear standoff with former WW2 ally (but ideological enemy) the USSR - in th end America's winning weapon is the capitalist Free Market system and the productivity, creativity and motivation that goes with it.

So - in my mind, the whole century has been about the shifting concept and implementation of Empire and Interests - 

Since 9-11 - well, frankly, we have returned to the Middle Ages and the Holy Wars between Islam and Christianity.

In 1962 when I was studying the Middle Ages at university, I wouldn't have believed that events like the Battle of Tours would ever matter in the modern world. I guess I was wrong .... it was always under the surface, waiting to bubble up when the pressure came off.

MM


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 1, 2009)

Since world war I is being discussed. I can't for the life of me understand why the war wasn't ended in 1916 when it became clear that any outcome would be utterly pyrrhic for both sides. If I was the Kaiser I'd have wanted out of that war from the second the disastrous battle of the Marne concluded.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And who is that? the Kennedys or the Jacksons?


Kennedys , Bush family just off the top


----------



## BombTaxi (Aug 1, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Since world war I is being discussed. I can't for the life of me understand why the war wasn't ended in 1916 when it became clear that any outcome would be utterly pyrrhic for both sides. If I was the Kaiser I'd have wanted out of that war from the second the disastrous battle of the Marne concluded.



Neither side was in a position to back down. The French would not see the war ended until they had reclaimed all of thier occupied territory, and it would have been morally indefensible for the UK to throw the towel while Belgium was still occupied - after all, Belgium was the stated cassus belli of the British government. The Germans had large chunks of Europe under thier control - sue for peace and it's all lost. Not what the folks back home want to hear after you've taken 450,000 casualties to hold on to a few miles of the Somme and even more taking Verdun. 

Also, I don't believe that either side saw the war as unwinnable in 1916. The RN could claim to have the war in the North Sea in the bag, as Jutland conclusively demonstrated that Germany could not lift the blockade by battlefleet action. The British believed, even after the Somme, that the 'Big Push' could succeed if yhey had more men, more guns and more shells. The French were also confident about their chances for sucess after the setbacks of 1914-15, and had Verdun not happened, the Somme would have been a mainly French battle. As for the Germans, they realised if they could just hold on to what they had and outlast the Entente in the casualty game, they could probably keep what they had captured. So no-one saw the war as unwinnable, or had a case for withdrawal that they could sell to the public. Too much had been lost by that stage for half-measures to be accepted - after late 1915, I think all sides realised that the matter could only end with one faction being eliminated.


----------



## Amsel (Aug 1, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Kennedys , Bush family just off the top


Nobody gives a dang about the Bush's over here. Is that how the Presidents family are portrayed outside of the country? That is interesting.


----------



## river (Aug 1, 2009)

Hi,



Amsel said:


> Nobody gives a dang about the Bush's over here. Is that how the Presidents family are portrayed outside of the country? That is interesting.



Most people over here have liittle respect or love for most Presidents, and think even less of their fiscal and foreign policies.

river


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 1, 2009)

Sorry River ... "over here". Where's that, please 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Aug 1, 2009)

all the elements for achieving victory were there, it was just that people didnt yet know how to put it all together. 

At sea, the U-Boat would come within an ace of defeating the allies. The most effective defence was the convoy, but it took some time for this to sink in . The battlefeets mostly cancelled each other out, but since the british fleet was better positioned, and was stronger in numbers it was given the defacto control of the seas (this was a strategy never really explored by the Germans after Jutland.....an attempt to wrest control of the seas by way of surface battle)

On land was where the major changes were occurring. The machine gun was the overwhelming firepower of the batlefield. The traditional killer of small arms, was artillery, but in WWI the techniques of how to achieve this were badly misread until the very end of the war. The Allies appear to have lost sight of the fact that the object was not so much to tackle and destroy the front lines so much, as to keep the enemy busy whilst the friendly infantry advanced at night, in small groups, accross no-mans land, to penetrate the enemy line, and then push on through that breach with the aim of exploiting into the enemy rear areas. Each side held pieces of the jigsaw. The Germans developed the idea of short duration rapid fire artillery bombardments, and then slightly after that the formation of special assault Infantry teams (Sturmbattalion or Stosstruppen) that hit the enemy defences at a concentrated point, rather than across a broad front. These tactics were first employed by a German called Von Hutier at Riga in 1917, and were later used in the 1918 offensive.

In an echo of the 2nd war, the German supply system and manpower levels broke down which was their ultimate undoing.

For the allies, the solution incorporated the German ideas (eventually, as men such as John Monash began to have an effect on tactical concepts). However grafted on to that was the use of tanks, to provide cover for the elite Infantry formations as they crossed no mans land. The idea of the tank as an Infantry support weapon had been born, and eventually its was very successful. Grafted onto that, but never really attempted, because of the armistice was the idea of using Tanks and motorized Infantry as break through weapons.

Both of these basic concepts....tanks and renewed tactics were under development. For a host of reasons both sides thought they could win in 1916....not so much because the repective high commands embraced these new concepts, but because each side believed they could break the deadlock....the Germans with their efforts on the eastern front, and in the battle of attrition at Verdun, and the allies with their big pushes at the Somme and the so called "Nivelle Offensive" The Russians too believed that victory was in their grasp under Brusilov.

In short, there was no possibility of an armistice in 1916.


----------



## river (Aug 1, 2009)

Hi,



michaelmaltby said:


> Sorry River ... "over here". Where's that, please



Australia.

However, let me add, that most people I know find the average American to be pleasant, down to earth and quite a nice person. I don't think you can judge the people of a country by their governmental policies.

river


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 1, 2009)

" ... I don't think you can judge the people of a country by their governmental policies." 

In democracies, River, the government represents the general will of the people.... so, if I can't judge people (in democracies) then I guess it isn't true that people get the governments they _deserve_. 

How's your new PM? He seems to be catching on real fast to what Mr. Howard knew 

MM


----------



## river (Aug 1, 2009)

Hi,

We ostensibly have a 2 party government, so it is sort of like watching a perpetual car race between Ford and GM. It gets kind of boring seeing the same two manufacturers going about the track.

You always are picking the lesser of two evils, rather than something that is new and different.

Our new PM is okay, and I prefer him to the previous PM. I find that the longer a party is in power the worse they become and the more out of touch they are, and hubris seeps in.

river


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 2, 2009)

"it is sort of like watching a perpetual car race between Ford and GM.." .

I sorta know what you mean ... but that's starting to change ... just as the auto business has.

Cheers,

MM
Toronto


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Kennedys , Bush family just off the top



40 years ago I'd believe you, in this day and age so called "elite US families who you might want to label as monarchs, have had their power and influence dwindle. I'm not saying that money can't buy power in any country or society, but just look at folks like William Kennedy Smith, Michael C. Skakel (a Kennedy) Joe Nachcho and more recently Jenna Bush - I don't care how much money you have, in the US you could be a member of one of those power elite families, but in these days you are not above the law.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 2, 2009)

Its no different in any country some people are more equal then others


----------



## Amsel (Aug 2, 2009)

Your heart bleeds heavily, but I like that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Its no different in any country some people are more equal then others


Especially if you're a Kennedy and get picked up for DUI. You'll still share a holding cell.


----------



## Condora (Aug 3, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> We ostensibly have a 2 party government, so it is sort of like watching a perpetual car race between Ford and GM. It gets kind of boring seeing the same two manufacturers going about the track.
> 
> ...



On the other side of the world, the scenario is about the same.
The feeling is that the guys in charge are getting less competent, and more interested in stuffing their pockets with all they can grab.
But as the "common people" just looove the show they put for the media, they stay in charge.

A bit like having the Titanic ram full-steam into the iceberg, and instead of thinking it might not be a good ideia, everybody is cheering the pilot who's doing it.
Really sad.


----------



## river (Aug 3, 2009)

Hi,



Condora said:


> But as the "common people" just looove the show they put for the media, they stay in charge..



Hehehehe, maybe it would be more accurate to say "The show the media puts on for the common people?"

river


----------



## Condora (Aug 3, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> Hehehehe, maybe it would be more accurate to say "The show the media puts on for the common people?"
> river



Unfortunately, no: they do, not their best, but some effort to get the local authorities government's lies, but people forget or leet themselves be swindled by the show the politicians put on.

For instance, the PM constantly lies on several subjects, and now the media are simultaniously interviewing/filming the PM AND his assessors/other ministers, because that way they cannot deny what they said, or phone each other to aggree on a common version on the subject they've just been talking.
Almost every week there's something that was found out, and yet... as the elections are right after Summer Break, everyone will have forgotten it all.

A maire was found out with her hands on the money, was warned that she was going to be arrested by someone "up high" (same party as the Gvmnt), escaped by car to Spain, then flew to Brasil, had also brasilian nationality (that was a surprise!), and brasilians do not extradite their people... so she was on the run at Copacabana for 1,5 year, until she returned to be arrested... and released, because she was once more running for maire! When finally she was convicted, she had suspended sentence (I'm not sure that's a correct translation, you are guilty, get 2 years, but do not go in jail, unless you break the law).

She had almost an hour prime-time TV, saying the relief she had that it was over, that she had been set free and got rid of the charges... For someone who did not hear the sentence, she had been acquitted!
She was re-elected once more, and is going to run again, has more charges against her, but manages to escape them all, even when convicted. And the locals love her!

That's just an example, there are several cases more.

In the 30s-70s, people would leave to other countries because Porugal was poor, a dictatorship, and had a useless war going on.
Now, they're leaving because you have a incompetent clique running the country.

Sorry, it got a bit long, political, and personal, but there's a groing feeling that the revolution had too many flowers and too little blood...


----------



## Condora (Aug 19, 2009)

Hey, guys!?

Forget what I said, I don't want to kill the conversation... 
Just geting something off my chest, that's all.


----------

