The Best And The Worst Of Your Countries History.

[Roland]

Klar! Wie konnt' ich das nur vergessen ?

Bugs has some good points in there. Need to dig into the chunky pieces of austrian history when I have the time....

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Roland
Klar! Wie konnt' ich das nur vergessen ?

Weil die Amerikaner halten, Ihnen zu erklären?

[Roland]

Halten ? Was halten ? Wen halten ? Wo halten ? Wie halten ?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Et l'objet de toute cette foutaise?
Kinda difficult for those of us who don't know German.

[Ecthy]

Ich glaube er meint "Weil sie es nicht für nötig halten, euch das zu erklären. Sie betonen nur immer und immer wieder dass es ganz einfach mal so wäre und bauen darauf die Rechtfertigung ihrer Außenpolitik als eigentliche Fortsetzung der Britischen Kolonialpolitik im 19. Jahrhundert im Sinne Chomskys auf."

[Buck Birdseed]

Surely AH's "Liberation of East Timor" is one of his nicest trolls so far. The fact that Australia helped maintain the occupation for decades, both through training indonesian forces and through signing agreements to turn a blind eye to atrocities for economic gain seems to have escaped him. East Timor is Australia's Haiti, as someone said.

[Ecthy]

Anyone interested in a translation?

What happened in Haiti? US colony? one of the places they invaded during the 80s and 90s?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Yeah, and invaded in the 1910's as well.
You know the US govt - condemns imperialism and colonialism, yet does the next best thing -"preventative measures", "police action" and in some cases, "peacekeeping".

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Sikander
Do you have a source for this?

The source for this is the historical section, US Army, West point, where I was attached for six months before I retired.
The actual numbers are staggering, and are not widely known to historians, as much of this is not codified or availible to the general public.

I find it hard to believe these figures for the USSR for the war (perhaps for part of 1942?) as a whole, considering the fact that so few (crappy) allied tanks and planes show up in Russian TO & E s during WWII. Also consider that goods shipped to the USSR were limited to one decent port, and were forced to use a tiny rail spur to Archangel. This doesn't pass the smell test.

It seems that 80% of the goods were passed through Iran (where there were Rails built by USA and Britain) and Vladivostok (Russian frieghters throughout the Pacific war were visiting the US west coast, Japan allowed this in the hopes of keeping Russia neutral).
Our Soviet Friends had numerous Churchill and Sherman brigades in action, that they "neglect" to mention, probaly part of Stalin's anti-west mania.
It is also not widely understood that many Soviel designed Aircraft had western (British and US) designed and manufactured engines, so we are not just talking about a few Airacobras and Hurricanes here, but standard soviet designs, so I'm affraid it does past the test, depending on whether you believe US Army sources, which I do, mainly because they aern't publicized, and they explain the fantastic numbers the Soviets had in the field by 45. It is also true that the soviet training organization used almost all western equipment from 43 foward.
Also, it is two ports in the Artic, not one, Murmansk and Archanglesk, and after 43 the German ability to interdict this route is extremly limited, so most convoys were delivering 90% or more of the goods sent.

In Britain there were many available ports, and the rail traffic was dispersed, making the figures above more believable. Your statement about the possibility of Soviet collapse is impossible to prove either way (they did go on the offensive in 1942), but I certainly believe that the Soviets were heartened by U.S. entry into the war, especially as the timely Japanese attack freed them from worries in Siberia of Japanese attack.

I was talking about the whole war, not seperate parts, but by 44 the USA and Britain had taken on the task of feeding and clothing the entire Soviet military, you don't seriously believe the Soviets found an alternate food source in country to replace Ukrane, do you?

I also think you underestimate Soviet military capabilities in 1945. While they were certainly war weary, they were also very experienced, and much of there equipment was as good as or better than anglo-allied stuff. They were also numerous, and still quite capable on the defensive. Dictating to them would not have been as easy as you make it out to be. Though I am no huge fan of Truman, he doesn't deserve the blame for upholding the agreements made by his predecessor, nor for not wielding power which it is doubtful he really had.

This is a bone on contention, but the fact remains the Soviets needed to move the bulk of their armor east to attack Japan shows their weakness.
Having better tanks is meaningless if their crews can't eat, aern't getting fuel, are being shelled constantly and have no air cover (make no mistake here, the Soviet Yak and Lavochkins were no match for Mustangs and Tempests, several times over the balkans US air mixed it up with the Soviets, and shot down several Soviet machines without loss, and shot up Soviet colums as well. Also, the US had begun to deliver the Pershing, which was more then a match for the IS-2, and Britain was preparing to deploy the excellent Centurion, so the quality gap was rapidily closing. Add to it, the US would be fighting the same kind of war, against an enemy with better tactical equipment, feeling the logistical pinch (all those B-17s, B-24s, and the new B-29s would be put to good use, as would Lancasters and Halifaxis, add to it that the allied bread line would be cut, plus the USA had nukes and the will to us them), and it becomes clear that the parity you claim is not so apparent, if fact, the western allies had advantages in 45 that they would never see again, advantages that kept Stalin in check a few years later, during the Berlin airlift, where Stalin realized that if he attacked the transports the allied airforce would rip his forces up, so he backed off.
I stand by what I said, the Soviets got away with murder in 45, and Truman was the #1 man reponsible for it.

In another nit pick, while you may be no fan of Andrew Johnston personally, I can't agree with your analysis of this period of American History being a low for the same reasons that you do. For one thing, Congress undid a lot of the damage he did by passing both civil rights legislation and the 14th amendment. The real Jim Crow damage was done after the (second) withdrawl of U.S. troops by (Harrison?) a decade later.

Well, it's interesting to look at Johnson, a rabid supporter of Lincoln, when he became president, was easily the victim of of flattery and was easily manipulated. The ground work was layed by his administration, without them allowing our southern friends back in power, all of that would never have gotten off the ground.
No, the blame most directly falls on the head of this feckless man.
This seems to be a horrid era for US presidents, soon US Grant, who had the most corrupt government in US history will arrive on the scence.
Of course, this is all one man's opinion, it is interesting to note how few other critical assesments of US history have been made by others so far.
The fact is, I wasn't there for all of this and could be completly wrong, or 100% right, there will never be a way to say for certain.

[Chris 62]

Re: Minor quibles

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's easy to be that brave when you have a world wide naval power enforcing your doctrine for you.

For shame, Dino, the USN was a tiny navy when Monroe put forth the doctrone, it doesn't reach great power status untill 1898, and world class untill 1917.

Was this really such a good thing? What really would have changed from a US perspective had the US stayed out of what was until then largely a European conflict?

I said I was proud of our effort, not whither or not it was justifed. In fact, the euros were back at it withen 20 years.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Minor quibles

Originally posted by Chris 62
For shame, Dino, the USN was a tiny navy when Monroe put forth the doctrone, it doesn't reach great power status untill 1898, and world class untill 1917.

I was refering to the English navy not the USN, Chris. IIRC, they had approached Monroe about issuing a joint declaration on that very same point.

I said I was proud of our effort, not whither or not it was justifed.

My mistake.

[Dr. Nick]

*points to own post in page 3*

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually Imran, several New England MERCHANTS refused, and if you knew what you were talking about, you would understand that invading canada from New England in 1812 was geograpically almost impossible. You can take that foot from your mouth any time, and keep in mind the serious effort was made on the NY front, where NY Militia under Renselaar refused to cross the border, only regular US forces crossed.

No need to act all arrogant. It wasn't simply several New England Merchants, it was a majority of the population. The militias of Massachusettes, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut were not raised for war and did not want it!

Ever hear of the Hartford Convention? That is where the big wigs of the North East came together to discuss succession because of the declaration of war on England against their wishes. This is because the North East was always pro-British since the end of the war (Federalist dominated area).

And yes, you've basically almost backed my point with the Renselaar comment, the NY militia REFUSED to cross.

The foot can be removed from your mouth now.

--

Furthermore, I'm with Sikander in that invading in '45 would have been a massive mistake. Let madmen like Patton dream of marching into Moscow, because the US forces would have been turned back not far over the Oder. Remember it was the Soviets who broke the backs of Nazi Germany, not us.

And, yes, China would have been a major problem if we backed Chiang. I seem to remember a similar situation, where we did prop up a dictator... he was the Shah of Iran. No one 'lost' China, the Chinese took it back for themselves.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No need to act all arrogant. It wasn't simply several New England Merchants, it was a majority of the population. The militias of Massachusettes, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut were not raised for war and did not want it!

Who said anything about militia? NE wanted no war for maritime concerns, but did want Canada for domestic security concerns.

Ever hear of the Hartford Convention? That is where the big wigs of the North East came together to discuss succession because of the declaration of war on England against their wishes. This is because the North East was always pro-British since the end of the war (Federalist dominated area).

Doesn't change anything I posted.
NE was far from proBritish, it was the Merchants who wanted uninteruped trade that were against the war, not the people.

And yes, you've basically almost backed my point with the Renselaar comment, the NY militia REFUSED to cross.

New York ISN'T a part of New England.

The foot can be removed from your mouth now.

Never was there, and with you, never will be.

Furthermore, I'm with Sikander in that invading in '45 would have been a massive mistake. Let madmen like Patton dream of marching into Moscow, because the US forces would have been turned back not far over the Oder. Remember it was the Soviets who broke the backs of Nazi Germany, not us.

I love myth taking, I guess the USA wasn't even involved.
And it has nothing to do with "marching on Moscow"
If you had paid attention to my last post (and it's obvious you didn't), US military doctrone is based on firepower, then and now, something our Soviet friends couldn't match on their best day.
As for combat effectivness, US forces took on, in Normandy, the cream of the SS and ripped it up, through firepower.
When the Soviets fought the same formations, they would suffer massive losses and succeed only through numbers, and the fact that they controlled the air.
That wasn't happening in the west.
I'm amazed that you, like so many others, failed to see just how effective the allied armies and airforces were.
Without the west, Russia was doomed, but the inverse only meant prolonging the war.
When you finally understand this, you will accept the truth, that revisionist histories dimminishing the west's contributions in WW II are useless tripe and should be dismissed out of hand.
By their own admission, the Soviets were on their last legs in 45, the west, especially the US, was still mobilizing forces.
Calling Patton a madman is assinine, he recognized the Soviets for what they were, and had the courage to say so, unlike many more political generals.
44 years of oppresion in the east would prove him dead right.

And, yes, China would have been a major problem if we backed Chiang. I seem to remember a similar situation, where we did prop up a dictator... he was the Shah of Iran. No one 'lost' China, the Chinese took it back for themselves.

The Shah equates to China?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you serious with that statement?!!?

Are you claiming that Mao wasn't a dictator?
Is it your postion that a tiny communist Army would smash a larger force in the face of massive airpower? (tread carefully here, Mao's popularity came through battlefield victory, not through ideology)
Took it from whom?
Last time I checked, Chang was Chinese.

[Garth Vader]

Without the west, Russia was doomed, but the inverse only meant prolonging the war.


That does make an interesting what if. Say Germany does not attack the Soviet Union, but still stupidly declares war on the US.

Germany would be able to clear the Brits from North Africa and the Mid East and solve some of it's resource woes.

Their avation advances were impressive considering all the resources they blew in Russia. With all the East Front planes, crew and flak available I don't see the west clearing the skies. Especially considering the additional resources that wouldn't need to be spent on transport through Russia and thousands of tanks and artillery lost there.

How long do you think the west would want to continue the fight?

As for Patton and the Soviets, from a realpolitik standpoint it probably would have made sense to attack. But from a military honor standpoint I expect the west was cutting the Soviets some slack considering the appalling losses and devastation they suffered. It would be dishonorable to support an ally one day, and turn on them and attack the next.