Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


but wait a minute. the build up in 1940 isnt naval forces - Hitler is building up his ground and tactical air forces - even though he cant take britain, and britain cant land in europe. And stalin just watches, and keeps selling him resources. This happens cause, er, Stalin, well, er, cause Stalin really, really wants GePap to win this argument? Cause stalin is stupid?

Of course not. If Germany begins a massive ground force buildup in june 1940, Stalin takes not and responds. Either launches a premptive strike, or at least cuts off raw materials.

Read up on Stalins actions towards the coming German INvasion of the USSR. The Soviets were repeated warned of German preparations. Stalin refused to listen. Why do you think he collapses from sight at the beginning of operation Barbarossa? Because he as trully NOT expecting a German attack. The Soviets were sending trains fo resources to the Germans the moring of the very day the German's invaded.

So no, Stalin had NO plans for a pre-emptive strike at the Germans- in fact, the Sovioet leadership was utterly and completely uprepared for the German assault, which is why the red army did so miserably.

Another point in which just reading up on the facts works wonders.

[Velociryx]

I think what GePap is trying furiously to say is that German dominance of Europe and the world was.....wait for it.....

Inevitable.

(never mind that it didn't wind up happening....just don't tell him that part, 'k?)

-=Vel=-

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think what GePap is trying furiously to say is that German dominance of Europe and the world was.....wait for it.....

Inevitable.

(never mind that it didn't wind up happening....just don't tell him that part, 'k?)

-=Vel=-

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Have you read Walzer, "Revolution of the Saints"? Though he focuses heavily on left offshoots, like levelers, etc.

Yes they believed they were the elect, but there were democratic tendencies within that elect - certainly hostility to aristocracy, though IIUC there were tensions in terms of how democratic church governance should be. On the kirk, im recalling Trevelyan I think, who Im sure is considered out of date now.

WRT rule of law - did they ever propose disposing of the common law? - Puritan Massachusetts, even at its most oppressive, usually acted according to legal procedures, IIUC.

The Salem witch trials give a good indication as to how religious fervour could undermine common law and replace centuries of legal tradition with verdicts founded on unsupported accusation and hysteria.

An analysis of the land distribution after the executions and imprisonments shows a marked tendency amongst some of the 'godly' elect to profit from (if not actually to encourage) the religious hysteria and persecution.

I do not think it possible to have a 'rule of saints' and a rule of law founded on pagan traditions- still today we see those who claim erroneously that common law comes from Biblical not pagan roots. The rule of saints, by its very essence, is susceptible to undermining by claims of revelation and superior knowledge and therefore undemocratic privilege.

Was it not also Massachusetts which saw the first Dissenting martyrs executed by Protestants ? On Boston common, if I recall.

I'm not by any means confusing modern ideas of democracy and 'democracy' per se; the idea of the chain of being, of people being in their 'right' station and not upsetting 'natural' or 'divine' order, was a given in the 16th and 17th Centuries, frequently finding expression in Elizabethan and Jacobean dramas, and in Metaphysical poetry. The wars in the British Isles and Ireland did much to disrupt this notion of social fixity (had it not already been in the process of being assailed and upturned by bricklayer's sons becoming Poet Laureate and middle class mercantile London supplanting the role of 'the barons').

The Levellers and other millennial sects were the exceptions, not the rule, in either the American colonies or Cromwellian England. If you read the Putney Debates, for instance, you'll find that Cromwell and his son-in-law are firmly set against the ideas of equality as espoused by radical democratic sects amongst the army, who had seriously proposed that all who had fought against the king should be enfranchised, including women.


Interestingly enough, Charles Carrollton, who signed the Declaration of Independence was disenfranchised in his home state by virtue of being Catholic- and anti-Catholic laws were kept on in some states until the early to mid-19th Century as I recall.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Have you read Walzer, "Revolution of the Saints"? Though he focuses heavily on left offshoots, like levelers, etc.

Yes they believed they were the elect, but there were democratic tendencies within that elect - certainly hostility to aristocracy, though IIUC there were tensions in terms of how democratic church governance should be. On the kirk, im recalling Trevelyan I think, who Im sure is considered out of date now.

WRT rule of law - did they ever propose disposing of the common law? - Puritan Massachusetts, even at its most oppressive, usually acted according to legal procedures, IIUC.

The Salem witch trials give a good indication as to how religious fervour could undermine common law and replace centuries of legal tradition with verdicts founded on unsupported accusation and hysteria.

An analysis of the land distribution after the executions and imprisonments shows a marked tendency amongst some of the 'godly' elect to profit from (if not actually to encourage) the religious hysteria and persecution.

I do not think it possible to have a 'rule of saints' and a rule of law founded on pagan traditions- still today we see those who claim erroneously that common law comes from Biblical not pagan roots. The rule of saints, by its very essence, is susceptible to undermining by claims of revelation and superior knowledge and therefore undemocratic privilege.

Was it not also Massachusetts which saw the first Dissenting martyrs executed by Protestants ? On Boston common, if I recall.

I'm not by any means confusing modern ideas of democracy and 'democracy' per se; the idea of the chain of being, of people being in their 'right' station and not upsetting 'natural' or 'divine' order, was a given in the 16th and 17th Centuries, frequently finding expression in Elizabethan and Jacobean dramas, and in Metaphysical poetry. The wars in the British Isles and Ireland did much to disrupt this notion of social fixity (had it not already been in the process of being assailed and upturned by bricklayer's sons becoming Poet Laureate and middle class mercantile London supplanting the role of 'the barons').

The Levellers and other millennial sects were the exceptions, not the rule, in either the American colonies or Cromwellian England. If you read the Putney Debates, for instance, you'll find that Cromwell and his son-in-law are firmly set against the ideas of equality as espoused by radical democratic sects amongst the army, who had seriously proposed that all who had fought against the king should be enfranchised, including women.


Interestingly enough, Charles Carrollton, who signed the Declaration of Independence was disenfranchised in his home state by virtue of being Catholic- and anti-Catholic laws were kept on in some states until the early to mid-19th Century as I recall.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think what GePap is trying furiously to say is that German dominance of Europe and the world was.....wait for it.....

Inevitable.

(never mind that it didn't wind up happening....just don't tell him that part, 'k?)

-=Vel=-

So this is what you are reduced to?

And yet, Germany IS the largest economy in Europe, and remains so, and this has been true since it surpassed the UK long ago,even after losing 2 world wars, hyperinflation, and being split in two with one half communist.

You know, the more I look at it, the more it is a perfect example of you being wrong...Thanks Vel, for pointing out such an obvious example

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


How would cutting growth enhance the security of any Chinese regime? ...

Strong eocnomic growth is the foundation of negating BOTH those fundamental threats...blablabla

The danger is not that they will specifically decide to "cut growth", but that they will take actions to maintain their grip on power that will ****** growth incidentally. Are you still struggling? (insert ad hominem, that Ming will look the other way on...)

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

The Salem witch trials give a good indication as to how religious fervour could undermine common law and replace centuries of legal tradition with verdicts founded on unsupported accusation and hysteria.

An analysis of the land distribution after the executions and imprisonments shows a marked tendency amongst some of the 'godly' elect to profit from (if not actually to encourage) the religious hysteria and persecution.

The salem trials were exceptional. A local community under particular stress (i have a book analyzing that, but not handy) (edit:Salem Possessed; The Social Origins of Witchcraft ) in a Puritan polity under stress from growing trade and secularization, and pressure from outside. Not the norm of Massachusetts society, either before or after.

I do not think it possible to have a 'rule of saints' and a rule of law founded on pagan traditions- still today we see those who claim erroneously that common law comes from Biblical not pagan roots. The rule of saints, by its very essence, is susceptible to undermining by claims of revelation and superior knowledge and therefore undemocratic privilege.

no, because revelation was complete. To appeal to new revelation, a al quakers or mormons, was heresy. In fact these types of claims were unknown in New England, AFAIK.

Was it not also Massachusetts which saw the first Dissenting martyrs executed by Protestants ? On Boston common, if I recall.

yup - i didnt say they were tolerant. I said they followed rule of law, and had democratic tendencies. AFAIK the prosecution of the quakers was all done according to law - no common law right to religious freedom, afaik. BTW, the quakers DID believe in further revelation, and so were particularly a threat.

not by any means confusing modern ideas of democracy and 'democracy' per se; the idea of the chain of being, of people being in their 'right' station and not upsetting 'natural' or 'divine' order, was a given in the 16th and 17th Centuries, frequently finding expression in Elizabethan and Jacobean dramas, and in Metaphysical poetry. The wars in the British Isles and Ireland did much to disrupt this notion of social fixity (had it not already been in the process of being assailed and upturned by bricklayer's sons becoming Poet Laureate and middle class mercantile London supplanting the role of 'the barons').

The Levellers and other millennial sects were the exceptions, not the rule, in either the American colonies or Cromwellian England. If you read the Putney Debates, for instance, you'll find that Cromwell and his son-in-law are firmly set against the ideas of equality as espoused by radical democratic sects amongst the army, who had seriously proposed that all who had fought against the king should be enfranchised, including women.

which is to argue that Cromwell didnt see the full implications of what he had unleashed. In any case, IIUC that was in reference to civil govt. Wasnt church governance among the independents, and in different fashion among the Presbyterians, fairly democratic?
My point was that they had familiarity with democratic notions, not that they had reformed the House of Commons.

Interestingly enough, Charles Carrollton, who signed the Declaration of Independence was disenfranchised in his home state by virtue of being Catholic- and anti-Catholic laws were kept on in some states until the early to mid-19th Century as I recall.

IIRC, the disenfranchisement of Catholics in Maryland was carried out by that colonys Anglicans, NOT by the dissenters. Again, by 1776, IIUC, the New England colonies, including notably Massachusetts, were more tolerant and had lighter establishments, than the southern Anglican colonies. In Mass you paid a church tax that went to the church of YOUR choice - this was a problem only for secularists (!!) and Baptists, whose commitment to seperation from the state forbade them from registering as a church. Indeed the notion of absolute seperation of church and state was principally advocated by Baptists at the time, IIUC.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

The UK was NOT strong enough by iself to overcome the German armies in the west-and both the UK and the Soviets were heavily dependent on US material support, the Brits for war fighting equipment and shipping, the Soviets for logistical support (food and trucks).

so in this TL not only does the US not declare war, it provides no lendlease. In fact it doesnt even sell the Brits material. go to google groups SHWI and google on "Concrete slab USA"
The UK had nothing to build up- it alone could not beat the Germans in France, even with the Germans occupied in Soviet Russia.

This is what you are missing: Germany, once it beat France and became dominant on the Continent, was capable of keeping the Brits out, while focusing on the USSR, and against the USSR it had a fair chance, one that was certainly weakened by the inability of the Germans to fully mobilize their war machine, their ihumanity towards the populations of the East, and thier desire to waste resources on the Holocaust. Again, a more competent German leadership not as bent on beings as evil as possible to the "untermenschen" while still at war would have probably being ablt to create a New Europe to its liking, because they would have ben able to recruit the peoples of the east in thier anti-bolshevik campaign, while safetly isolating the UK to the side.

But you said these were sill Nazis. Now all of a sudden theyre not. If they didnt think the slavs were untermenschen they probably wouldnt have invaded the USSR in the first place.

Ok, now we've kept the US out of the war. AND we've given Germany an earlier buildup, AND we've given them non-racist policies in the East. yup, you add enoug PODs you can make almost anything possible.

look, gepap, if you really like historical what ifs, and you really want to match your wits and knowledge against very smart, very well read people, you need to lurk and post at Soc.history.what-if. You will learn a tremendous amount there (and theres a WIDE ideological span there - dont think im pointint you to some neocon place) If youre better than me, you might even remember it all.

[lord of the mark]

Concrete Slab USA. Have fun


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...bdaaad9a4cc7a5

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Read up on Stalins actions towards the coming German INvasion of the USSR. The Soviets were repeated warned of German preparations. Stalin refused to listen. Why do you think he collapses from sight at the beginning of operation Barbarossa? Because he as trully NOT expecting a German attack. The Soviets were sending trains fo resources to the Germans the moring of the very day the German's invaded.

So no, Stalin had NO plans for a pre-emptive strike at the Germans- in fact, the Sovioet leadership was utterly and completely uprepared for the German assault, which is why the red army did so miserably.

Another point in which just reading up on the facts works wonders.

all true in OTL, in which germany did NOT massively build up its forces between 1940 and June 1941. You however have posited an ATL in which Germany IS building up ground and tactical air massively in that period. Even Stalin will realize that something is going on. See, thats the thing about alt history, you cant propose a change that drives history in one direction, while assuming there are no counterbalancing reactions to that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Wasnt church governance among the independents, and in different fashion among the Presbyterians, fairly democratic?

My point was that they had familiarity with democratic notions, not that they had reformed the House of Commons.

The idea of church governance (and ultimately, state governance) differed greatly between the various Independent groups and the Presbyterians.

The Presbyterians were much more inclined towards the 'rule of visible saints' and restriction of governance to those deemed as such- the radically more democratic sects, such as the Levellers, Ranters, Diggers, et cetera, were opposed to this restrictive idea of Christianity, going as far as to declare that god was in all men and women not just in an elect, and that religious 'rule' and even property should be by, and for, all.


As regards to heresy, the Protestant dissenters, by basing their rule not on hereditary principles or the rule of law, but on readings of the Bible, sowed the seeds of future dissent, the growth of which was strengthened by increased access to the Bible- The Presbyterians who later argued against regicide were undermined by Milton using their own earlier arguments against them, as well as by radical dissenters using biblical exemplars such as Jael.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



The idea of church governance (and ultimately, state governance) differed greatly between the various Independent groups and the Presbyterians.

The Presbyterians were much more inclined towards the 'rule of visible saints' and restriction of governance to those deemed as such- the radically more democratic sects, such as the Levellers, Ranters, Diggers, et cetera, were opposed to this restrictive idea of Christianity, going as far as to declare that god was in all men and women not just in an elect, and that religious 'rule' and even property should be by, and for, all.


As regards to heresy, the Protestant dissenters, by basing their rule not on hereditary principles or the rule of law, but on readings of the Bible, sowed the seeds of future dissent, the growth of which was strengthened by increased access to the Bible- The Presbyterians who later argued against regicide were undermined by Milton using their own earlier arguments against them, as well as by radical dissenters using biblical exemplars such as Jael.

have you read Trevelyan? Im not sure i remember his charecterization of the Kirk well enough to repeat it here.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



all true in OTL, in which germany did NOT massively build up its forces between 1940 and June 1941. You however have posited an ATL in which Germany IS building up ground and tactical air massively in that period. Even Stalin will realize that something is going on. See, thats the thing about alt history, you cant propose a change that drives history in one direction, while assuming there are no counterbalancing reactions to that.

What are you talking about? IN real life and in the "theoretical" you seems to want to posit BOTH the Germans are buildin up forces for an eastern attack. Do you think an attack along a multi-thousand mile front with over 3 million men does not necessitate a massive build up of troops? Care to explain how Army Group Center magically teleported to the front on June 21, 1941, to be ready to strike the next day?

The Soviet leadership had plenty of warning that 3 million men were being ammased in their borders IN REAL LIFE and Stalin did nothing susbtantial about it.

BUt furthermore, your notion of the "theoretical" you are talking about seems very strange.

This is a discussion of capabilities-your whole statement about how Britian was a greater power than Germany was based on the notion that Brisith imperial GDP plus dominions was higher than Germany's and that thus the UK was a greater power than Germany.

My arguement is that this is incorrect- that Imperial GDP is not a particularly useufl measurement.

You then rbought forth the arguement that the UK's superirority was seen by the fact it outproduced the Germans. I then pointed out low German production was based on the particulars of the German regime, and NOT on some notion that Germany was economically inferior to the UK.

You keep thinking about some alternate hypothetical- hypotheticals serve only to illustrate my point- that Germany had greater power than the UK- German industrial and manpower potentials were higher than those of the UK, and such that the Germans were a more powerful state certainly than the UK, but also perhaps strong enough to take on both the UK and the Soviets and have a chance of winning (which is why I did not say the Germans would invariably beat the USSR, simply said they had a chance, one thrown away by the particulars of the Nazi regime).

And this relates back to the point of this thread by saying that, given we are discussing only economic and not the endlessly more particular notion of military sucess on battlefields, that China's vast potential means it will overtake the US now that China has began the road of development.

Which comes then back to the UK-Germany comaprison. Once Germany began the road to development, its surpassing of the UK economically was inevitable. And today, in 2005, Germany is a bigger economy than the UK even with a lower PCI, and even after losing two world wars, the hyperinflation and chaos of the inter-war period, and the split of Germany and subsequent re-unification.

Short of getting nuked I don;t see China suffering as much as Germany did in the 20th century, and even with all the Germany suffered, here it is nice and rich, and the largest economy in Europe, as its largest population would indicate.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

What are This is a discussion of capabilities-your whole statement about how Britian was a greater power than Germany was based on the notion that Brisith imperial GDP plus dominions was higher than Germany's and that thus the UK was a greater power than Germany.

Somehow you missed the point upthread where i admitted i misremembered the GDP data from Paul Kennedy. In fact Germany and early conquests did have a higher GDP than the Commonwealth. Thats why Britain couldnt win alone, not cause the commonwealth didnt matter.

And this relates back to the point of this thread by saying that, given we are discussing only economic and not the endlessly more particular notion of military sucess on battlefields, that China's vast potential means it will overtake the US now that China has began the road of development.

Which comes then back to the UK-Germany comaprison. Once Germany began the road to development, its surpassing of the UK economically was inevitable. And today, in 2005, Germany is a bigger economy than the UK even with a lower PCI, and even after losing two world wars, the hyperinflation and chaos of the inter-war period, and the split of Germany and subsequent re-unification.

Short of getting nuked I don;t see China suffering as much as Germany did in the 20th century, and even with all the Germany suffered, here it is nice and rich, and the largest economy in Europe, as its largest population would indicate.

I cant wait for the Chinese to be reunited with the assistance of an alliance in which the US is a key participant. Or for China to be prostrate, and for a US ally to propose keeping them deindustrialized forever, and this being thrown out cause of ANOTHER and more dangerous rising power.

Did you predict the peaceful reunification of Germany back in say, 1981? I took a course in Soviet politics that year, and the best and brightest made it clear that this was almost certainly NOT gonna happen.