| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 70 years on Barbarossa
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


70 years on Barbarossa

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 07:26
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The US was busy at this time playing the role of salesman, and hoping the fire wouldn't reach their house, or at least not until some money was made, and further time to prepare was had.

The United States funded the major portion of the allied effort in WW2. When it was over with there was the Marshall Plan.  Since then the American taxpayer has been paying more per head to fund NATO than any European country. Post WW2 the British squandered what was given to them under the Marshall Plan. They paid back a portion of what they received under lend lease, at 2% interest over 50 plus years. It never came close to what they were given. So those salesmen got fat from their own government.


Edited by Buckskins - 27 Feb 2012 at 03:57
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 07:34
It was only one country attacking the UK. That was Germany. To say that Britain "stood alone" can be said for Germany also. If the Germans had the Japanese, Italians ECT, then Britain had the Commonwealth. You can't have it one way and not the other..
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 23:05
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Actually, it had an effect and distracted substantial German forces from the front. At certain times, the entire logistical network of the Germans particularly railroads was severly damaged especially in its central part - around Belorussia by the partisans. The center of the partisan movement was Belorussia. The German occupation of the land was extremely brutal around 1/4 of the population was killed and that ignited the resistance. Also, a substantial part of Belorussia was covered by thick woods that provided a good cover for partisan units.


You seem to be well schooled in this area, could you recommend a book about the partisan units in the east during WWII? I'm currently brushing up on my Russian history (Making my way through Service's trilogy of biographies on Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin)
 
Unfortunately, I don't know many English language sources on the subject, cause my knowledge primarily comes from the Russian sources. Unhappy I know David Glanz has a number of good books on the Eastern Front, but I don't think he really focused on the partisan aspect.
 
Here is an episode from the 1970th documentary "The Unknown War" that was a "sensation" for Britain of that time.
 
Of course, it's in a way product of the Soviet propaganda, but still there is some good WWII footage and facts presented that are not really well known in the West.
 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 23:54
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The US was busy at this time playing the role of salesman, and hoping the fire wouldn't reach their house, or at least not until some money was made, and further time to prepare was had.

The United States funded the major portion of the allied effort in WW2. When it was over with there was the Marshall Plan.  Since then the American taxpayer has been paying more per head to fund NATO than any European country. Post WW2 the British squandered what was given to them under the Marshall Plan. They payed back a portion of what they received under lend lease, at 2% interest over 50 plus years. It never came close to what they were given. So those salesmen got fat from their own government.
Did you ever stop to ask where all the money that Britain laid out especially in the first years of the war[1] went to? Or what the debt in question was used to buy and from whom? Guess who ended the war richer and who ended it poorer.
 
What 2% interest was paid on was the US loan of 1946, not lend-lease. Part of the proceeds of the 1946 loan (last instalment paid off in 2006) was used to pay for remaining items acquired under lend-lease.
 
[1] Under the US 'cash and carry' program which required the UK to pay cash for arms and supplies up front, as long as they were carried in British vessels. Theoretically the Germans could have done the same, since the US was still neutral, but, as I've pointed out before, Germany  had no money and indeed no merchant fleet to carry anything in.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 03:06
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The US was busy at this time playing the role of salesman, and hoping the fire wouldn't reach their house, or at least not until some money was made, and further time to prepare was had.

The United States funded the major portion of the allied effort in WW2. When it was over with there was the Marshall Plan.  Since then the American taxpayer has been paying more per head to fund NATO than any European country. Post WW2 the British squandered what was given to them under the Marshall Plan. They payed back a portion of what they received under lend lease, at 2% interest over 50 plus years. It never came close to what they were given. So those salesmen got fat from their own government.
 
Your reply suggests a high degree of selfless altruism on the part of the US, which is a far from complete picture. In the first years of the war, the American administration looked less like a friendly rich uncle, and more like a seedy pawnbroker, contemplating his rumpled, down on his luck client, and wondering, how much? Squeeze him too far, and the trade could fall apart althogether. Don't squeeze enough, and recriminate later on how a killing could have been made. At first, it was cash on the barrel, no excuses; commercialism trumpted geopolitics, and certainly fraternal feelings. By '41 our pawnbroker is loosing his focus on business matters, and nervously looking out the window, as the flames of conflict are coming ever closer. The US rearmed, and also came to the conclusion that each month Britain and the Commonwealth took on Germany, it would likely mean one less month of spilling American blood and treasure. Time to encourage the lads with some favorable terms. And, this may have had the double benefit of extracting terms on peripheral issues later, like more favorable trade arrangements after the war, bases in Commonwealth states, ect.
 
The Marshall Plan was a good idea, and not entirely devoid of altruism, but here again, our astute pawnbroker still wanted, if not a pound, at least an ounce of flesh. European countries used their funds with American companies, thereby boosting the US economy, which intiatally profited from, and then later escaped the bombing and destruction of the war. All grist for the mill, and the US mill was looking pretty good in comparison at the end of the war, a fact attributable not just to the US war effort, but also to geography, astute financial dealing, and plain good luck.
 
US contribution to NATO has been greater than European states, but again we need some context. The US economy expanded vastly during the war, and came out in very good shape in comparison to Europe, hence much greater ability to pay. More importantly, the US was as fearful of Soviet moves in Europe, and the world, as Europeans, probably more so. American philosophy was completely at odds with the Soviets, and communism was a shocking and provocative idea to Americans. Much less so Europeans, who had a much wider view of political arrangements and differing social organization. It was the same problem for the US as with Hitler. A hostile power in control of both Europe and Russia would be a major threat, perhaps a terminal one. Much, much better to retain a portion of that continent, at least. And for that matter, let's look at things from the Russian point of view. They had been invaded by the west four times in 150 years, the last time causing a near armaggedon. Their response? Draw a line in the sand a few hundred miles west of their border, occupy the countries there (all of whom except Poland and Czechoslovakia had invaded them in '41), and take a hard line on Germany's future development. What do you think the US response would be to countries that invaded it, laid it waste, and killed 15-20 million people? I'm not trying to make excuses here, but just pointing out there was a larger context to the idea that the Russians were coming, and they were held off only by US resources, and selfless vigilance.
 
As for Britain squandering or not squandering money, that's moving into another thread altogether. I'll only offer the comment that today, Britain has a society cohesive enough that many police do not carry guns as a matter of course, all have civil rights guaranteed, and a social safety net that includes medical care for all (at less than the cost per capita than Americans pay), and a history and culture that, for the most part, has been preserved, rather than paved over.


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 27 Feb 2012 at 03:12
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 04:11
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The US was busy at this time playing the role of salesman, and hoping the fire wouldn't reach their house, or at least not until some money was made, and further time to prepare was had.

The United States funded the major portion of the allied effort in WW2. When it was over with there was the Marshall Plan.  Since then the American taxpayer has been paying more per head to fund NATO than any European country. Post WW2 the British squandered what was given to them under the Marshall Plan. They payed back a portion of what they received under lend lease, at 2% interest over 50 plus years. It never came close to what they were given. So those salesmen got fat from their own government.
Did you ever stop to ask where all the money that Britain laid out especially in the first years of the war[1] went to? Or what the debt in question was used to buy and from whom? Guess who ended the war richer and who ended it poorer.

The money went to us. That's what happens when you buy and sell arms, or anything else. Did you think you had them coming for free? The money came from in part from the same commerce you had with France, not to mention the money you were looting from poor countries around the world in the name of Empire.
 
What 2% interest was paid on was the US loan of 1946, not lend-lease. Part of the proceeds of the 1946 loan (last instalment paid off in 2006) was used to pay for remaining items acquired under lend-lease.
 

That's 2% over 50 inflated years.


[1] Under the US 'cash and carry' program which required the UK to pay cash for arms and supplies up front, as long as they were carried in British vessels. Theoretically the Germans could have done the same, since the US was still neutral, but, as I've pointed out before, Germany  had no money and indeed no merchant fleet to carry anything in.

Are you saying Germany built it's armed forces from thin air? I admit they were poor, but not as poor as England, but then again they never had quite the "Empire" to loot that the English did. Do you intend paying any of that back, or is there not enough money in the world ? 2% would be better than nothing.
 
 
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 04:34
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The US was busy at this time playing the role of salesman, and hoping the fire wouldn't reach their house, or at least not until some money was made, and further time to prepare was had.

The United States funded the major portion of the allied effort in WW2. When it was over with there was the Marshall Plan.  Since then the American taxpayer has been paying more per head to fund NATO than any European country. Post WW2 the British squandered what was given to them under the Marshall Plan. They payed back a portion of what they received under lend lease, at 2% interest over 50 plus years. It never came close to what they were given. So those salesmen got fat from their own government.
 
Your reply suggests a high degree of selfless altruism on the part of the US, which is a far from complete picture. In the first years of the war, the American administration looked less like a friendly rich uncle, and more like a seedy pawnbroker, contemplating his rumpled, down on his luck client, and wondering, how much? Squeeze him too far, and the trade could fall apart althogether. Don't squeeze enough, and recriminate later on how a killing could have been made. At first, it was cash on the barrel, no excuses; commercialism trumpted geopolitics, and certainly fraternal feelings. By '41 our pawnbroker is loosing his focus on business matters, and nervously looking out the window, as the flames of conflict are coming ever closer. The US rearmed, and also came to the conclusion that each month Britain and the Commonwealth took on Germany, it would likely mean one less month of spilling American blood and treasure. Time to encourage the lads with some favorable terms. And, this may have had the double benefit of extracting terms on peripheral issues later, like more favorable trade arrangements after the war, bases in Commonwealth states, ect.

What is it about British people that makes them think, British wars are Also American wars? Where is this sense of entitlement coming from. ? We owed the English nothing. Americans are not your big bother ready to show up every time you get into a street fight. No one forced Churchill to whip out his begging bowl every time he wanted something. Let me tell you about the "Pawnbroker"  The "Pawnbroker" had not been stealing assets for centuries, from one third of the worlds poor that it had all but been enslaved in the name of Empire.
 
The Marshall Plan was a good idea, and not entirely devoid of altruism, but here again, our astute pawnbroker still wanted, if not a pound, at least an ounce of flesh. European countries used their funds with American companies, thereby boosting the US economy, which intiatally profited from, and then later escaped the bombing and destruction of the war. All grist for the mill, and the US mill was looking pretty good in comparison at the end of the war, a fact attributable not just to the US war effort, but also to geography, astute financial dealing, and plain good luck.

If I understand you correctly in part. It should have been British shipping that was getting paid for shipping American goods to England?
 
US contribution to NATO has been greater than European states, but again we need some context. The US economy expanded vastly during the war, and came out in very good shape in comparison to Europe, hence much greater ability to pay. More importantly, the US was as fearful of Soviet moves in Europe, and the world, as Europeans, probably more so. American philosophy was completely at odds with the Soviets, and communism was a shocking and provocative idea to Americans. Much less so Europeans, who had a much wider view of political arrangements and differing social organization. It was the same problem for the US as with Hitler. A hostile power in control of both Europe and Russia would be a major threat, perhaps a terminal one. Much, much better to retain a portion of that continent, at least. And for that matter, let's look at things from the Russian point of view. They had been invaded by the west four times in 150 years, the last time causing a near armaggedon. Their response? Draw a line in the sand a few hundred miles west of their border, occupy the countries there (all of whom except Poland and Czechoslovakia had invaded them in '41), and take a hard line on Germany's future development. What do you think the US response would be to countries that invaded it, laid it waste, and killed 15-20 million people? I'm not trying to make excuses here, but just pointing out there was a larger context to the idea that the Russians were coming, and they were held off only by US resources, and selfless vigilance.

You can spin it and blow smoke all you want to. We are to this day paying more per head than any European on your defense.
 
As for Britain squandering or not squandering money, that's moving into another thread altogether. I'll only offer the comment that today, Britain has a society cohesive enough that many police do not carry guns as a matter of course, all have civil rights guaranteed, and a social safety net that includes medical care for all (at less than the cost per capita than Americans pay), and a history and culture that, for the most part, has been preserved, rather than paved over.

Is that a fact. Let me know when you can vote for your country's leader. When the Queen can't withhold Royal Assent from any bill passed in Parliament. When all your upper house has been elected by the people. Your NHS is a basket case and is about to be cut again, along with whats left of your military. Your elite come to The United States for their health care. I guess waiting a year for surgery does not appeal to them. Your history is the worst and most paved over of any country in history.


Edited by Buckskins - 27 Feb 2012 at 04:36
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 05:03
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

  The US was busy at this time playing the role of salesman, and hoping the fire wouldn't reach their house, or at least not until some money was made, and further time to prepare was had.

The United States funded the major portion of the allied effort in WW2. When it was over with there was the Marshall Plan.  Since then the American taxpayer has been paying more per head to fund NATO than any European country. Post WW2 the British squandered what was given to them under the Marshall Plan. They payed back a portion of what they received under lend lease, at 2% interest over 50 plus years. It never came close to what they were given. So those salesmen got fat from their own government.
 
Your reply suggests a high degree of selfless altruism on the part of the US, which is a far from complete picture. In the first years of the war, the American administration looked less like a friendly rich uncle, and more like a seedy pawnbroker, contemplating his rumpled, down on his luck client, and wondering, how much? Squeeze him too far, and the trade could fall apart althogether. Don't squeeze enough, and recriminate later on how a killing could have been made. At first, it was cash on the barrel, no excuses; commercialism trumpted geopolitics, and certainly fraternal feelings. By '41 our pawnbroker is loosing his focus on business matters, and nervously looking out the window, as the flames of conflict are coming ever closer. The US rearmed, and also came to the conclusion that each month Britain and the Commonwealth took on Germany, it would likely mean one less month of spilling American blood and treasure. Time to encourage the lads with some favorable terms. And, this may have had the double benefit of extracting terms on peripheral issues later, like more favorable trade arrangements after the war, bases in Commonwealth states, ect.

What is it about British people that makes them think, British wars are Also American wars? Where is this sense of entitlement coming from. ? We owed the English nothing. Americans are not your big bother ready to show up every time you get into a street fight. No one forced Churchill to whip out his begging bowl every time he wanted something. Let me tell you about the "Pawnbroker"  The "Pawnbroker" had not been stealing assets for centuries, from one third of the worlds poor that it had all but been enslaved in the name of Empire.
 
 
Why the nationalistic diatrabe?
 
Britain basically financed the bankrupt American economy and built it from scratch for almost all the 19th century into the 20th.  The British also could have easily broken the US into tiny little states back in 1812 and 1861 but they chose to finance and support the union instead.
 
If anything, the American's owe the Brits big time on these two points alone.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
 
US contribution to NATO has been greater than European states, but again we need some context. The US economy expanded vastly during the war, and came out in very good shape in comparison to Europe, hence much greater ability to pay. More importantly, the US was as fearful of Soviet moves in Europe, and the world, as Europeans, probably more so. American philosophy was completely at odds with the Soviets, and communism was a shocking and provocative idea to Americans. Much less so Europeans, who had a much wider view of political arrangements and differing social organization. It was the same problem for the US as with Hitler. A hostile power in control of both Europe and Russia would be a major threat, perhaps a terminal one. Much, much better to retain a portion of that continent, at least. And for that matter, let's look at things from the Russian point of view. They had been invaded by the west four times in 150 years, the last time causing a near armaggedon. Their response? Draw a line in the sand a few hundred miles west of their border, occupy the countries there (all of whom except Poland and Czechoslovakia had invaded them in '41), and take a hard line on Germany's future development. What do you think the US response would be to countries that invaded it, laid it waste, and killed 15-20 million people? I'm not trying to make excuses here, but just pointing out there was a larger context to the idea that the Russians were coming, and they were held off only by US resources, and selfless vigilance.

You can spin it and blow smoke all you want to. We are to this day paying more per head than any European on your defense.
 
Proof please.
 
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

As for Britain squandering or not squandering money, that's moving into another thread altogether. I'll only offer the comment that today, Britain has a society cohesive enough that many police do not carry guns as a matter of course, all have civil rights guaranteed, and a social safety net that includes medical care for all (at less than the cost per capita than Americans pay), and a history and culture that, for the most part, has been preserved, rather than paved over.

Is that a fact. Let me know when you can vote for your country's leader. When the Queen can't withhold Royal Assent from any bill passed in Parliament. When all your upper house has been elected by the people. Your NHS is a basket case and is about to be cut again, along with whats left of your military. Your elite come to The United States for their health care. I guess waiting a year for surgery does not appeal to them. Your history is the worst and most paved over of any country in history.
 
And having a Queen is a problem because?
 
Having a House of Lords is a problem because?
 
Your "elected" presidents kills American citizens on a whim and has the right not to tell you why. Your "elected" Senate guts the 1st, 4th, 5th and God knows how many amendments and no one can challange it.
 
Your "elected" supreme court justices have the right to legalise whatever they want or ban whatever they want (rightfully or not) with only one way to stop them. Stuff the court with your own appointees because no one retires from the court.
 
And finally about health care, what elites are you talking about?
 
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 27 Feb 2012 at 05:04
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 05:28
Jas, I'm not your intern my friend. Do your own research.

Cheers.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 05:47
I never said you were.
 
You claimed a certain fact so you need to prove it. If you don't then its your choice.
 
I can refer you to a dozen books about my own facts I listed above, you only need to ask.
 
Plus you should cool down man, agressiveness is not good. You are not running for office you know.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 06:20

@Buckskins- All I am seeing here is a rather knee-jerk reaction that contains some inaccuracies, but no real counter-arguements. You seem to maintain that whatever happened in the world was of no consequence to the US, come what may. But few in present or past US administrations would agree with you, not based on their actions or their writings.

You have made the point that the US only got involved because they were attacked by Japan. Let's go with this for a minute or so. Let's say they weren't attacked. Japan seizes the European colonies just as they actually did, but omits Pearl Harbour, and the US colonies. Fine, you might say, let them kill each other; nothing to do with us. In ten years or so, Japan develops (as the Japanese tend to do) into a much more modern economy, now with the backing and resources of all SE Asia. A Pacific war might now be 20 years, not 4. By not getting to the point in '41, the power balance will have changed. The US may then have had to accept trade relations very detrimental to it's economy, or even lost bases or colonies at a later date. Or, Japan may simply be able to negociate control of the Philipines, Guam, and maybe one or two other spots. Twenty years of war, perhaps, or let them go? The US was going to let them go anyway, so....the balance shifts, the world changes.
 
My point is that these kind of considerations all go into the mix; the US is not an island, aloof to the world, but has to participate in the various power plays, like it or not. That's why war would have come anyway in the '40s. That's why the US pumped money into NATO and the Marshall Plan. There were many, no doubt, including I suspect FDR, that were glad they were doing some good, but it was US interests that overrode all in these sorts of decisions.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 07:26
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
 
 
Britain basically financed the bankrupt American economy and built it from scratch for almost all the 19th century into the 20th. 
 
Sorry, but that is nonsense. British were more a competitor to the US all the 19th century and up until the end of WWII
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The British also could have easily broken the US into tiny little states back in 1812 and 1861 but they chose to finance and support the union instead.
 
This is totally groundless assertion. British were defeated in 18th century by the Americans. They definitely couldn't do anything about that in 1812 when they were overstretched by the war effort against Napoleon and even less so in 1861, when the US was coming into its full force. Direct military support of Confederacy would mean a disaster for Britain.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Your "elected" presidents kills American citizens on a whim and has the right not to tell you why.
 
What exactly do you mean by that?
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Your "elected" Senate guts the 1st, 4th, 5th and God knows how many amendments and no one can challange it.
 
Please clarify
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Your "elected" supreme court justices have the right to legalise whatever they want or ban whatever they want (rightfully or not) with only one way to stop them. Stuff the court with your own appointees because no one retires from the court.
 
Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president, they are not elected in order to maintain the "checks and balances" system of the American government. There is a purpose behind that and it has been working quite well for the last 200 years. The justices also dont have "the right to legalise or ban whatever they want."
 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 14:12
Gentlemen, let's please keep this on topic about the Barbarossa anniversary. Thanks.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 00:11
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
 
 
Britain basically financed the bankrupt American economy and built it from scratch for almost all the 19th century into the 20th. 
 
Sorry, but that is nonsense. British were more a competitor to the US all the 19th century and up until the end of WWII
 
Not nonsense at all. The House of Morgan for instance came into power through the provision of finance from London (J.P.Morgan in New York being a collaborator with J.S.Morgan of London)[1] for US railroad and other development. The cotton trade on which both the South and the New York shippers depended was pretty completely financed frorm London. Virtually the whole of Wyoming once belonged to British investors. Credit lines from London, negotiated by Morgan, helped save the US in the panic of 1907. And so pretty well ad infinitum.
 
Actually the US and the UK didn't compete very much at all in the 19th century, at least after the Napoleonic wars and the agreement of both countries to the Monroe Doctrine.
 
Both the triangular slave trade and the triangular cotton trade were collaborations rather then competitione.
[1] J.P. himself started work in his father's London bank.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 02:49
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
 
 
Britain basically financed the bankrupt American economy and built it from scratch for almost all the 19th century into the 20th. 
 
Sorry, but that is nonsense. British were more a competitor to the US all the 19th century and up until the end of WWII
 
No sir. Not only the British financed the great American projects that built their country from railroads as Graham mentioned to Canals, industrialisation and of course saving America during its multiple financial crises of the 19th century. British capital financed the civil war, expansion to the west and South and of course various American wars.
 
Plus the American economy only became a competitor in the late 1870s outstripping the British economy around 1890 largely due to British stagnation coming from the fact that Britain was back then the only country in the world following a free trade policy leading to a massive 30 year stagnation from around 1870 onward.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The British also could have easily broken the US into tiny little states back in 1812 and 1861 but they chose to finance and support the union instead.
 
This is totally groundless assertion. British were defeated in 18th century by the Americans. They definitely couldn't do anything about that in 1812 when they were overstretched by the war effort against Napoleon and even less so in 1861, when the US was coming into its full force. Direct military support of Confederacy would mean a disaster for Britain.
 
Britain wasn't defeated in the American war of independence by Americans, it was defeated by the French who had more soldiers alone than any other combatants whether in Yorktown or elsewhere (actually the last significant victory of the Americans was Ticonderoga in 77).
 
Plus by 1783 Britain actually controlled more land in American than in 81 or even before. It was bankruptcy, the fact that Spain joined the fight and the deep unpopularity of the war well before it even began that made them chose to stop fighting.
 
In the war of 1812, the British despite being preoccupied with Napoleon annihilated the American navy, occupied the capital and large swathes of its territory and forced the Northern states to assemble in Hartford to discuss actual breakup. Had the British any interest (they knew about the convention) or brains they would have supported such measure. They didn't.
 
In the civil war the British refused to recognise the confederacy and gave much more support to the union than propagandist historians give them credit for.
 
Plus what military disaster would befall Britain had they supported the confederacy? The American navy nor its army nor its "generals" were even comperable to a middle european powers of the day like Austria let alone Britain or France (which had eyes on America too).
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Your "elected" presidents kills American citizens on a whim and has the right not to tell you why.
 
What exactly do you mean by that?
 
 
I mean the cold blooded murder of Al-Awlaki in Yemen without due process nor an active engagement in a declared combat zone. The president still refuse to give any legitimisation for the decision to execute the man and thus he can basically declare any American citizen a "terrorist" without any kind of due process liable to death if he/she lives outside the US or even inside it.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Your "elected" Senate guts the 1st, 4th, 5th and God knows how many amendments and no one can challange it.
 
Please clarify
 
Just look at the congressional record since the "war on terror" began. Both this and the previous presidents literally shredded the bill of rights to pieces (except of the course the very important 2nd amendment) with full congressional approval not impeachment as te law says. The Partriot act and now the new defense authorisation bill give presidents more power than they ever had when the US had an actual existential threat in the form of the USSR not some cavement isolated in Afghanistan.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Your "elected" supreme court justices have the right to legalise whatever they want or ban whatever they want (rightfully or not) with only one way to stop them. Stuff the court with your own appointees because no one retires from the court.
 
Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president, they are not elected in order to maintain the "checks and balances" system of the American government. There is a purpose behind that and it has been working quite well for the last 200 years. The justices also dont have "the right to legalise or ban whatever they want."
 
 
I know that the justices are appointees and I mentioned that. It was a pun on Buckskins assertions that eveything in the US is up for a vote and the US is all about "Freedom!". Well its not and for good reason to. The South voted for segregation and only SCOTUS had the power to declare it unconstitutional since politicians didn't want to.
 
The House of Lords has a similar role in Britain but it seems than our friend doesn't know.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 05:38
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
 
Plus you should cool down man, agressiveness is not good. You are not running for office you know.
 
Al-Jassas

Jas, I will not tolerate snide remarks about my country. They usually come from the very generation that benefited from American kindness. I hope you understand.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 05:58
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

@Buckskins- All I am seeing here is a rather knee-jerk reaction that contains some inaccuracies, but no real counter-arguements. You seem to maintain that whatever happened in the world was of no consequence to the US, come what may. But few in present or past US administrations would agree with you, not based on their actions or their writings.

You have made the point that the US only got involved because they were attacked by Japan. Let's go with this for a minute or so. Let's say they weren't attacked. Japan seizes the European colonies just as they actually did, but omits Pearl Harbour, and the US colonies. Fine, you might say, let them kill each other; nothing to do with us. In ten years or so, Japan develops (as the Japanese tend to do) into a much more modern economy, now with the backing and resources of all SE Asia. A Pacific war might now be 20 years, not 4. By not getting to the point in '41, the power balance will have changed. The US may then have had to accept trade relations very detrimental to it's economy, or even lost bases or colonies at a later date. Or, Japan may simply be able to negociate control of the Philipines, Guam, and maybe one or two other spots. Twenty years of war, perhaps, or let them go? The US was going to let them go anyway, so....the balance shifts, the world changes.
 
My point is that these kind of considerations all go into the mix; the US is not an island, aloof to the world, but has to participate in the various power plays, like it or not. That's why war would have come anyway in the '40s. That's why the US pumped money into NATO and the Marshall Plan. There were many, no doubt, including I suspect FDR, that were glad they were doing some good, but it was US interests that overrode all in these sorts of decisions.

Japan had no alternative but to attack us. We had an embargo on them, because of their behavior in Manchuria among other things. The League of Nations was a joke. When the Japanese attacked us it was exactly what FDR wanted. Had Hitler not done so, he was the one President in fifty that would have declared war on Germany simultaneously. 

 Of course a free and prosperous western Europe was to our advantage, as it was to theirs, but the overriding factor was humanitarian. We even offered the Communist countries the same but were rejected. Many countries never paid a dime for their lend lease. The Marshall Plan was not a loan. It was gifted by the American people.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 06:08
Sorry Panther, I had posted prior to reading yours. Mea culpa.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 06:52
Buckskins your knowledge of history is so completely non-existent and your continuing mistake after mistake so overwhelming it becomes impossiible to comment.
 
Just for one though Britain did not 'put out the begging bowl' in 1939 (and if it had it wouldn't have been Churchill who did so. It's not what First Lords of the Admiralty do). For the material, including mostly aircraft, since the US army was so poorly equipped anyway, Britain paid cash up front, and also shipped them home in British ships. America didn't ship any till it joined the war.
 
One day you might even come up with a correct fact, but until then it's not worth trying to comment. My sympathies to the Captain and al Jassas for tying to cope.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 07:13
[QUOTE=gcle2003]Buckskins your knowledge of history is so completely non-existent and your continuing mistake after mistake so overwhelming it becomes impossiible to comment.


Good, your attempt at a patronizing attitude is equally tiresome. I find you the most ill informed Moderator I have ever come across. As you find it impossible to comment, don't. I find your posts of little value.
 
 
Just for one though Britain did not 'put out the begging bowl' in 1939 (and if it had it wouldn't have been Churchill who did so. It's not what First Lords of the Admiralty do).

Who mentioned 1939?

 For the material, including mostly aircraft, since the US army was so poorly equipped anyway, Britain paid cash up front, and also shipped them home in British ships. America didn't ship any till it joined the war.

No kidding Sherlock. So you paid up front. Have I not already told you that we took your money until there was next to nothing left, or have I strained that memory of yours a little. Does," We did to you what you did to France" ring a bell in that ole cranium of yours?
 
One day you might even come up with a correct fact, but until then it's not worth trying to comment. My sympathies to the Captain and al Jassas for tying to cope.

Unlike yourself, the Capt. generally knows what he's talking about. It's his tone I find disagreeable. Your feeble attempt to garner support for your silly assertions is really more than a little sad.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Act of Oblivion View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Act of Oblivion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 09:13
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

the overriding factor was humanitarian. We even offered the Communist countries the same but were rejected
 
Hello Buckskins...need to reply to your above comment..
 
....there was no humanitarian factor in offering the Soviet controlled countries access to Marshall Aid...yes, it was offered but there were a number of conditions attached including the not insignificant matter that each country who applied for aid had to first open up its books for intimate inspection by the US...the Soviet Union and its Eastern European puppet nations would have to hand over detailed accounts of each nations financial affairs (military budgets and spending for a starters!!)....do you really think the Soviet Union would agree to such terms? or indeed, do you really think the US believed they would? because if you do, you must accept an almost ridiculous amount of naivety on the part of the American Administration, so naive it would be beyond belief.......
 
...and here's the thing they were most certainly not naive...offering aid to Soviet controlled Europe was one aspect in a Cold War strategy already articulated by George Kennan in his February 1946 'long telegram' ..for example and in simplistic terms (my underline) 

 
..according to George, the Kremlin  believed the USSR still lived in an "antagonistic capitalist encirclement with which in the long run there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence."...“we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with the US there can be no permanent modus vivendi that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken, if Soviet power is to be secure.”....
 
...Kennan's view and suggestions on how to deal with the Soviet Union became the model adopted by the US to counter the spread of Soviet Communism, and in the case of Marshall Aid, the principle of economic 'containment'...do you really think the US would aid a country whose aggressive intentions were outlined by Kennan in the above comments??...the US had nothing to lose by offering the Communists aid as they expected them to turn it down anyway, which did not matter to the Americans because US-Soviet Union relations were already, in the minds of the Americans, in a state of disrepair...the Cold War was now on remember..but if by some bizarre miracle the Soviets accepted aid, the US gained invaluable access to details on how the country was managed...it was not going to happen and Washington knew very well that it would not happen...tactics in a grand strategy to contain Communism, that's all...nothing to with humanitarian motivations....
 
...all the best....AoO...


Edited by Act of Oblivion - 28 Feb 2012 at 09:15


Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 09:18
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
No sir. Not only the British financed the great American projects that built their country from railroads as Graham mentioned to Canals, industrialisation and of course saving America during its multiple financial crises of the 19th century. British capital financed the civil war, expansion to the west and South and of course various American wars.
 
Of course, they financed it, but not because they were altruistic fans of the U.S. and not because they wanted to build a strong American economy because they had nothing to do, but because they made money out of it. If they didn't finance it, someone else would occupy this lucrative niche, like French bankers, so I am not bying that argument at all.
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 Britain wasn't defeated in the American war of independence by Americans, it was defeated by the French who had more soldiers alone than any other combatants whether in Yorktown or elsewhere (actually the last significant victory of the Americans was Ticonderoga in 77).
 
It was a defeat and French were American allies. So, it was a victory for Americans and it doesn't really change the final result for the British.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

In the war of 1812, the British despite being preoccupied with Napoleon annihilated the American navy, occupied the capital and large swathes of its territory and forced the Northern states to assemble in Hartford to discuss actual breakup. Had the British any interest (they knew about the convention) or brains they would have supported such measure. They didn't.
 
Yeah, likewise I could say that the Americans soundly defeated the cream of the British army in the battle of New Orleans... Random British successes didn't add much again to the final result. They were defeated by an inferior force, how a bigger success might have been possible?
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

In the civil war the British refused to recognise the confederacy and gave much more support to the union than propagandist historians give them credit for. 
 
So, what? They didn't recognize it also in a large part because they feared the war with the Union. 
 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Plus what military disaster would befall Britain had they supported the confederacy? The American navy nor its army nor its "generals" were even comperable to a middle european powers of the day like Austria let alone Britain or France (which had eyes on America too).
 
The best European army of that time i.e. French couldn't do anything in Mexico and even suffered an embarrasing defeat at the hands of Mexicans in the battle of Puebla in 1962. The U.S. a much more industrially developed nation with a massive population would smash a much weaker (compared to the French) British army.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
I mean the cold blooded murder of Al-Awlaki in Yemen without due process nor an active engagement in a declared combat zone. The president still refuse to give any legitimisation for the decision to execute the man and thus he can basically declare any American citizen a "terrorist" without any kind of due process liable to death if he/she lives outside the US or even inside it.
 
Thus... is a great overgeneralization and you can hardly make overall conclusions like that based on one very exceptional case.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Just look at the congressional record since the "war on terror" began. Both this and the previous presidents literally shredded the bill of rights to pieces (except of the course the very important 2nd amendment) with full congressional approval not impeachment as te law says. The Partriot act and now the new defense authorisation bill give presidents more power than they ever had when the US had an actual existential threat in the form of the USSR not some cavement isolated in Afghanistan.
 
 
As long as there is a congressional aproval there is no problem in the they system of the governance, as about the constitutional rights in general, you can harldy find other country with such a huge respect for the basic consitutional rights, especially the right to privacy as the U.S. is.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 09:40
@ Buckskins- Japan did have alternatives, and they chose the wrong one. If they were smart, they would have stretched out negociations with the US, yielding  on a small issue here and there, just enough to make the US feel there is a chance of progress. They would have seized the European colonies, got it over with as quickly as possible, and made a big show of the humanitarian treatment of colonists. They would have promised the Asians in question independence- a ways down the line, of course. They would have used every minute to come up to speed on industrial production. The US would have been faced with a difficult choice- re-arm fast and intervene in a war that arguabley (you have been making similar arguements yourself) wasn't about them, or, pursue the easier course of negociations, which seemed to hold some promise. Colonialism at this time was considered quite ok in general, so no problem in general with a country wanting more, it was just that racial attitudes at the time made Japanese efforts in this area seem impertinent. Good management of PR and the subject peoples would have deflected this somewhat.
 
But, they chose the ham-handed approach; hit the big ships, and then brutalize whoever made eye-contact. Even some Japanese military leaders at the time expressed misgivings.
 
As for US humanitarianism, history has indicated that most US administrations probably preferred this approach, but only if it was in line with strategic US interests, and if not, a good dose of brutality was not amiss. There are many examples of this, particularly in Latin America and the Arab world. If Europe was deemed as non-essential to US interests, they would withdraw faster than you could shout: Ron Paul! The US supported the Soviets, when it was expedient to do so, and oppossed them later. They have supported democracys at times, and crushed democratic movements at others. These kind of actions have not been limited to the US of course, all have played the game at one time or another. A key point is however, that most former players have now 'fessed up, and admitted they were naughty, whereas a troubling number of Americans will not hear a discouraging word. 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 23:01
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
No sir. Not only the British financed the great American projects that built their country from railroads as Graham mentioned to Canals, industrialisation and of course saving America during its multiple financial crises of the 19th century. British capital financed the civil war, expansion to the west and South and of course various American wars.
 
Of course, they financed it, but not because they were altruistic fans of the U.S. and not because they wanted to build a strong American economy because they had nothing to do, but because they made money out of it. If they didn't finance it, someone else would occupy this lucrative niche, like French bankers, so I am not bying that argument at all.
I don't know what argument you're referring to. Neither I nor al Jassas has suggested that the London bankers and brokers were acting out of anything but self-interest. The fact is that US 19th century development was largely financed from British sources, and mostly of course because close financial and cultural ties - and similar legal systems - between the two countries made it easier to do business. And of course Britain had way more money than anyone else.
 
Of course there was competition between companies in the same industries - Cutty Sark and Themopylae competed over which was faster home with the tea - but no more competitive between US and UK than in was between internal operators in each country, or indeed between one Anglo-American combine like the Morgans against another Anglo-American combine.
 
Quote
 Yeah, likewise I could say that the Americans soundly defeated the cream of the British army in the battle of New Orleans...
You could but you'd be wrong. The Americans at New Orelans repulsed the first British attack, leading them to await reinforcements. Before the British could organise a new attack, news arrived of the end of the war, so no decisive battle ever took place. Anyway neither the Guards nor the Life Guards were at New Orleans, so I don't know where you get 'cream' from.
 
Quote
Random British successes didn't add much again to the final result. They were defeated by an inferior force, how a bigger success might have been possible?
I don't know where you're getting this 'inferior force' from. De Grasse's fleet wasn't 'inferior' to the British fleet at the key batle of Chesapeake Bay. At Yorktown, which followed, the French and the Americans outnumbered the British by 2 to 1 at least, 4 to 1 if you count militiamen and sailors. At 2nd Saratoga Americans outnumbered British again at least 2 to 1.
Quote
 
The best European army of that time i.e. French couldn't do anything in Mexico and even suffered an embarrasing defeat at the hands of Mexicans in the battle of Puebla in 1962.
The French army wasn't fighting at Puebla. They had less than a division there.
Quote
The U.S. a much more industrially developed nation with a massive population would smash a much weaker (compared to the French) British army.
The US and UK populations weren't too different, though the US by 1860 was slightly bigger. However, the UK population plus the South would have been considerably greater than that of the North.
 
And as usual, the army has damn all to do with it really. The US North would have had no way to attack the UK. What would have been at stake was control of Atlantic trade.
 
War would have been stupid and bad for business. At bottom that's essentially why the British stayed out.


Edited by gcle2003 - 28 Feb 2012 at 23:08
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 02:01
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
No sir. Not only the British financed the great American projects that built their country from railroads as Graham mentioned to Canals, industrialisation and of course saving America during its multiple financial crises of the 19th century. British capital financed the civil war, expansion to the west and South and of course various American wars.
 
Of course, they financed it, but not because they were altruistic fans of the U.S. and not because they wanted to build a strong American economy because they had nothing to do, but because they made money out of it. If they didn't finance it, someone else would occupy this lucrative niche, like French bankers, so I am not bying that argument at all.
 
So if Americans financed British war effort it was out of the goodness of their heart but if the British did it was for profit?
 
I echo Graham's points here.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

 Britain wasn't defeated in the American war of independence by Americans, it was defeated by the French who had more soldiers alone than any other combatants whether in Yorktown or elsewhere (actually the last significant victory of the Americans was Ticonderoga in 77).
 
It was a defeat and French were American allies. So, it was a victory for Americans and it doesn't really change the final result for the British.
 
 
Ever hear of tactical victory but strategic defeat?
 
Britain (just like the USSR in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam) won tactically but lost strategically. The British even though they lost a third of their army in Yorktown they still compensated for the loss, added new allies from the natives and former patriots and occupied more land.
 
They basically choked the rebellion but the war was damn to expensive (Britain was technically bankrupt well before Yorktown), too large (belive it or not the theatre of operation was larger than the eastern front of WWII) not to mention deeply unpopular in Britain who saw it as the state attacking fellow Englishmen. The Whigs (who supported the Americans) were the majority in the commons because of the war.
 
And finally if the French won it it was the French who won it not the Americans. The French weren't allies, they were cobelligerants. 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

In the war of 1812, the British despite being preoccupied with Napoleon annihilated the American navy, occupied the capital and large swathes of its territory and forced the Northern states to assemble in Hartford to discuss actual breakup. Had the British any interest (they knew about the convention) or brains they would have supported such measure. They didn't.
 
Yeah, likewise I could say that the Americans soundly defeated the cream of the British army in the battle of New Orleans... Random British successes didn't add much again to the final result. They were defeated by an inferior force, how a bigger success might have been possible?
 
 
Again I echo Graham, what cream exactly? The Royal navy annihilated the USN, Britain was still occupying large swathes of American territory in Michigan and Ohio not to mention New York not to mention the fact that the last battle of the war was a British victory when they took Ft. Bowyer, controlled the mouth of the Miss. river and were preparing for an offensive on Biloxi. When they learned of the peace they left.
 
Plus the units of the battle of New Orleans were largely colonial with little or no experience contrary to veteran American units. 
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

In the civil war the British refused to recognise the confederacy and gave much more support to the union than propagandist historians give them credit for. 
 
So, what? They didn't recognize it also in a large part because they feared the war with the Union.
 
 
The union barely saved itself from catastrophe against ill armed, ill equiped half trained rag tag militias, how on earth they would declare war against Britain let alone win it?
 
And by which means?
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al J assas Al J assas wrote:

Plus what military disaster would befall Britain had they supported the confederacy? The American navy nor its army nor its "generals" were even comperable to a middle european powers of the day like Austria let alone Britain or France (which had eyes on America too).
 
The best European army of that time i.e. French couldn't do anything in Mexico and even suffered an embarrasing defeat at the hands of Mexicans in the battle of Puebla in 1962. The U.S. a much more industrially developed nation with a massive population would smash a much weaker (compared to the French) British army.
 
 
I echo Graham hear.
 
Plus the French won the war also tactically occupying the entire country in a period much shorter than the Americans 20 years before, against a much fiercer opposition and with less number of troops.
 
Also the French army wasn't the best. Their performance in Crimea, Italy and the Franco-Prussian war was abysmal however much much better than anything the union would ever be able to throw at them.
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
I mean the cold blooded murder of Al-Awlaki in Yemen without due process nor an active engagement in a declared combat zone. The president still refuse to give any legitimisation for the decision to execute the man and thus he can basically declare any American citizen a "terrorist" without any kind of due process liable to death if he/she lives outside the US or even inside it.
 
Thus... is a great overgeneralization and you can hardly make overall conclusions like that based on one very exceptional case.
 
 
No its not, once a precedent is done who says others won't follow?
 
 
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Just look at the congressional record since the "war on terror" began. Both this and the previous presidents literally shredded the bill of rights to pieces (except of the course the very important 2nd amendment) with full congressional approval not impeachment as te law says. The Partriot act and now the new defense authorisation bill give presidents more power than they ever had when the US had an actual existential threat in the form of the USSR not some cavement isolated in Afghanistan.
 
 
As long as there is a congressional aproval there is no problem in the they system of the governance, as about the constitutional rights in general, you can harldy find other country with such a huge respect for the basic consitutional rights, especially the right to privacy as the U.S. is.
 
No there is. Congress can say whatever it wants as long as it is constitutional. Once it past that then nothing legitimises their rules.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 02:33
Hi AoB.
           I found your post very interesting. I do admit to not having read Keenan's findings. I find the whole thing a bit of a stretch. What would it have taken for the Soviets to cook the books a little. I realize the first thought could be, then why did the Americans want to see them. It's all a bit shallow. Soviet war production was no secret. They refused the Marshall Plan because it would involve too much loss of face and prestige. Stalin was always thinking ahead. The American government probably knew more about the Soviet economy than the Soviets.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 02:42
Hi Jas.

"Al Jassas wrote:

 
I mean the cold blooded murder of Al-Awlaki in Yemen without due process nor an active engagement in a declared combat zone. The president still refuse to give any legitimisation for the decision to execute the man and thus he can basically declare any American citizen a "terrorist" without any kind of due process liable to death if he/she lives outside the US or even inside it."

The war on terror is just that, a war. The due process to our enemies is exactly what that traitor
got. There is no place to hide. Our technology will find them and kill them without mercy, in conjunction with our armed forces. 
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 03:06
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

@ Buckskins- Japan did have alternatives, and they chose the wrong one. If they were smart, they would have stretched out negociations with the US, yielding  on a small issue here and there, just enough to make the US feel there is a chance of progress. They would have seized the European colonies, got it over with as quickly as possible, and made a big show of the humanitarian treatment of colonists. They would have promised the Asians in question independence- a ways down the line, of course. They would have used every minute to come up to speed on industrial production. The US would have been faced with a difficult choice- re-arm fast and intervene in a war that arguabley (you have been making similar arguements yourself) wasn't about them, or, pursue the easier course of negociations, which seemed to hold some promise. Colonialism at this time was considered quite ok in general, so no problem in general with a country wanting more, it was just that racial attitudes at the time made Japanese efforts in this area seem impertinent. Good management of PR and the subject peoples would have deflected this somewhat.

Hi Capt. 

What they had done to Manchuria was a done deal to be continued. It was nothing new. Japan was waging war long before 1939. With our embargo on Japan they were hurting for petroleum and other basic necessities.  We would not have tolerated an invasion of Dutch colonies. This would be affecting our interests. They made the only long term choice that made sense. Much better a sneak attack on the USN than give us a chance to get it together for the oncoming fight.
 
But, they chose the ham-handed approach; hit the big ships, and then brutalize whoever made eye-contact. Even some Japanese military leaders at the time expressed misgivings.

 I agree with what you say about some of the senior Japanese military. Yamamoto comes to mind right off.  He had seen our factories and their production. He knew what we were capable of.
 
 
As for US humanitarianism, history has indicated that most US administrations probably preferred this approach, but only if it was in line with strategic US interests, and if not, a good dose of brutality was not amiss. There are many examples of this, particularly in Latin America and the Arab world. If Europe was deemed as non-essential to US interests, they would withdraw faster than you could shout: Ron Paul!

It's the only reason I would vote for him.

 The US supported the Soviets, when it was expedient to do so, and oppossed them later. They have supported democracys at times, and crushed democratic movements at others. These kind of actions have not been limited to the US of course, all have played the game at one time or another.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 A key point is however, that most former players have now 'fessed up, and admitted they were naughty, whereas a troubling number of Americans will not hear a discouraging word. 

Capt. I know you are not describing what England did in the name of Empire "naughty"  As recently as the 1950's they were torturing hundreds of Kenyans to death, but this is another thread I guess.

Cheers.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 03:17
Hi Sarmat,

 There was a lot of British financing going on. In fact the Marmalade barons from Dundee Scotland had ranches that can only be described as massive. They were not alone. There was plenty of Brit money going around because they were raking it in from their colonies.

Cheers.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Feb 2012 at 04:08
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Hi Jas.

"Al Jassas wrote:

 
I mean the cold blooded murder of Al-Awlaki in Yemen without due process nor an active engagement in a declared combat zone. The president still refuse to give any legitimisation for the decision to execute the man and thus he can basically declare any American citizen a "terrorist" without any kind of due process liable to death if he/she lives outside the US or even inside it."

The war on terror is just that, a war. The due process to our enemies is exactly what that traitor
got. There is no place to hide. Our technology will find them and kill them without mercy, in conjunction with our armed forces. 
 
Where in the constitution does it say you can kill an American (traitor or not) without due process and not in a declared combat zone?
 
Plus suppose a president X took office and decided that our dear buckskin is a threat because he attended a Texas indepndence rally (some home grown groups are registered terrorists groups unlike Awlaki) and the President said "screw due process, we are in a war!". Are you going to accept the outcome?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.