What if Bush41 had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

[Ned]

The military channel is running a program about FDR and Churchill. It is amazing the propaganda pumped out by FDR in 1940-41 about why we should go to war against Hitler. Think of Bush magnifying the threat of Saddam to the US. Then multiply that by 10 or 100. It was ludicrous.

The program notes that despite all the rhetoic, the American public still was unconvinced that the US should get involved in another European war as most did not perceive any threat to America whatsoever.

The parallels between Hitler's germany then and Iraq now are striking to the extent of the propaganda of the american president.

[Ecthy]

Well Ned and WHY do you think FDR did all that? To me it is mostly your lack of understanding of the mechanisms of international relations that make you appear so stupid in my eyes.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned


Geronimo, so it is your view, then, that killing tens of millions of innocent people was a fair price to pay to remove Hitler from power?

I assume that you also favor nuclear war?

If you're asking if britain (and the other participating countries) are responsible for deaths resulting from tactics they used which specifically targeted civilians I would say yes they should be faulted for those tactics. I don't think those tactics were justified by the intent to remove hitler from power. OTOH had they never targeted civilians I doubt the death toll would have been much lighter. If you try knocking out war infrastructure with primitive aircraft and "dumb" ordinance you're probably going to kill about as many civilians as if you were intentionally targeting the civilians.


I support nuclear war if it will plausibly lead to fewer deaths. For instance if a nuclear armed regime nuked a neighboring country I would support participation by uninvolved nuclear armed countries in a massive first strike to destroy the nuclear capability of the regime that had attacked it's neighbor.

That's rather irrelevant to this discussion though. It's safe to say that nobody but you believes that millions of lives could possibly have been spared by anything britain would have done or not done in 1939. People could be adamantly opposed to all use and possession of nuclear weapons and still support Britains decision to declare war on Germany with no inconsistency whatsoever.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned


Let me be more blunt.

Your characterization that Jews in the Pale considered themselves to be Russians or Poles or whatever and that the only difference between them and other Russians or Poles is their religion is more than wrong, it is obscene.

http://apolyton.net/forums//newreply...postid=4855181

Jews had been prosecuted since centuries in Europe, and still they often considered themselves to be part of the nations they lived in. What about all the Jews that fought during WW1? Many of them were awarded with medals for their bravery. Do you now that even in the late 1930ies many Jews refused to leave Germany because they considered it to be their home? Heck, some of them even tried to join the NSDAP because they agreed with Hitler about revising the Treaty if Versailles!!

The only thing that is obscene here is your innuendo that Jews were incapable of being part of a European nation.

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned


We agree, to a point. If Briton and France were going to enforce Versailles, they should have done so consistently from the very beginning. Instead, by a variety of acts, they lead Hitler to believe they would do nothing when he invaded Poland.

Appeasement followed by a hard line lead ineluctably to the miscalculation by Hitler.

OK.

But, what of Briton? Did they miscalculate as well? Did they expect their guarantee to stop Hitler cold, or did they expect to find a pretext to DOW on Germany?

Pretext? PRETEXT?????

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

As to whether war was justified over the corridor and Danzig, that applies both to Warsaw and to Berlin. If one does not negotiate, the other side has no recourse but to declare war or give up. I think it is clear that Warsaw expected a war and expected to win because of British and French support.

This is the most crude definition of diplomacy I have ever heard.

In the following example I'm going to use your logic:

IIRC Pennsylvania is inhabited mainly by decendants of German immigrants.

Now then, in the name of the FATHERLAND, I demand that the US cedes Pennsylvania immediately to Germany!


What, you refuse, Ned? How dare you!! But, since I'm a nice guy, I'm willing to negotiate. Unfortunately, I won't change my demand: GIVE US PENNSYLVANIA NOW!!

Your answer is still no? INCREDIBLE!! You're such a warmonger, Ned! I urge you, in the name of peace: let us negotiate! All I want is Pennsylvania.

Still refusing? OK, here's a deal: you can keep Philadelphia. I never liked that city anyway. See, I compromised!! Now it's your turn to compromise.

What, you're not budging?!! THAT MEANS WAR!!!! I herewith declare war on the United States! I wanted to talk about it, three times I offered to negotiate, so CLEARLY this war isn't my fault. I mean, it is obvious that I wanted to avoid war at all costs, right?

Right, Ned?

[Ecthy]

I think Ned underestimates the high ideal value of territory to European nations.

ElTigre - at what uni are you studying if I may ask?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Well Ned and WHY do you think FDR did all that? To me it is mostly your lack of understanding of the mechanisms of international relations that make you appear so stupid in my eyes.

WTF are you talking about? Mechanisms of international relations?

As to FDR, he was trying to get the US into the European war to stop Hitler. This is exactly what the the Neutrality Acts were there to avoid. It was the considered judgment of the United States that our participation in WWI was a mistake. The people remained against joining the war in Europe by substantial majorites right up to Pearl Harbor. They saw no threat to America despite all the heated rhetoric of FDR.

Even after Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't have the votes in Congress to get a DOW on Germany.

Now, I will ask you a question. If Hitler was such an obvious threat to conquer the United States, why were the American people against a war with Hitler?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo


If you're asking if britain (and the other participating countries) are responsible for deaths resulting from tactics they used which specifically targeted civilians I would say yes they should be faulted for those tactics. I don't think those tactics were justified by the intent to remove hitler from power. OTOH had they never targeted civilians I doubt the death toll would have been much lighter. If you try knocking out war infrastructure with primitive aircraft and "dumb" ordinance you're probably going to kill about as many civilians as if you were intentionally targeting the civilians.


I support nuclear war if it will plausibly lead to fewer deaths. For instance if a nuclear armed regime nuked a neighboring country I would support participation by uninvolved nuclear armed countries in a massive first strike to destroy the nuclear capability of the regime that had attacked it's neighbor.

That's rather irrelevant to this discussion though. It's safe to say that nobody but you believes that millions of lives could possibly have been spared by anything britain would have done or not done in 1939. People could be adamantly opposed to all use and possession of nuclear weapons and still support Britains decision to declare war on Germany with no inconsistency whatsoever.

All you have to do is remember the nightmare of WWI. How could anyone not believe that a second European war would be any less bloody?

As to Britain in 1939, what would have happened, per chance, had Britain told Poland that it would not come to its aid over the corridor or Danzig, but would if Hitler violated any such deal and pulled another Czechoslovkia. Would Poland have negotiated a deal with Hitler? I think so. Would war have been avoided? Yes.

But you say, Hitler would not be stopped. He would moved on to his next victim.

Well he just might. But during the entire cold war, we found ourselves in similar situations with Stalin and his succcessors. We avoided war while opposing their aggression as best we could. In the end, we won and saved humanity, which WWIII would have destroyed.

One cannot, I submit, applaud our strategy with Stalin and also applaud Britian's decision to fight rather than negotiate after Czechoslovakia.

On nuclear war, the kind of war I am talking about is the kind of war we waged against Japan, the kind we intended to way against the USSR, the kind that the insane president of Iran wants to wage against Israel.

Do you support the mass slaugter of civilians in wars?

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


Jews had been prosecuted since centuries in Europe, and still they often considered themselves to be part of the nations they lived in. What about all the Jews that fought during WW1? Many of them were awarded with medals for their bravery. Do you now that even in the late 1930ies many Jews refused to leave Germany because they considered it to be their home? Heck, some of them even tried to join the NSDAP because they agreed with Hitler about revising the Treaty if Versailles!!

The only thing that is obscene here is your innuendo that Jews were incapable of being part of a European nation.

The question is not about German Jews, but the Jews of the Pale.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre

Pretext? PRETEXT?????

Either it was a miscalculation or it was not. Which was it?

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Ned
WTF are you talking about? Mechanisms of international relations?

I'm talking about applying some sense in analysing a geopolitical situation. Heard of countries' strategic interest?

Now, I will ask you a question. If Hitler was such an obvious threat to conquer the United States, why were the American people against a war with Hitler?

You fail to acknowlege the difference between an immediate and a potential threat. The menacing emergence of a peer competitor in itself would have been contrary to United States' interest, although (1) at the time there was probably no doctrine around the term "peer competitor" and (2) in 1941 Hitler didn't pose a direct threat to US territory.

However, leaders with sense analyse strategic situations and draw conclusions. Mechanisms, Ned!

[Ecthy]

Why was the US population against entering the war? Because the wide public normally doesn't indulge in strategic thought. Also, neutralism/isolationism in itself is an interesting phenomenon of US foreign policy. Probably stemmed from the ilusion of geographic isolation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


This is the most crude definition of diplomacy I have ever heard.

In the following example I'm going to use your logic:

IIRC Pennsylvania is inhabited mainly by decendants of German immigrants.

Now then, in the name of the FATHERLAND, I demand that the US cedes Pennsylvania immediately to Germany!


What, you refuse, Ned? How dare you!! But, since I'm a nice guy, I'm willing to negotiate. Unfortunately, I won't change my demand: GIVE US PENNSYLVANIA NOW!!

Your answer is still no? INCREDIBLE!! You're such a warmonger, Ned! I urge you, in the name of peace: let us negotiate! All I want is Pennsylvania.

Still refusing? OK, here's a deal: you can keep Philadelphia. I never liked that city anyway. See, I compromised!! Now it's your turn to compromise.

What, you're not budging?!! THAT MEANS WAR!!!! I herewith declare war on the United States! I wanted to talk about it, three times I offered to negotiate, so CLEARLY this war isn't my fault. I mean, it is obvious that I wanted to avoid war at all costs, right?

Right, Ned?

ElTigre, your're analogy is not apt.

Think of the occuppied areas the West Bank. Once Arab, now Jewish.

Palestine wants them back. It also wants a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank.

If Israel says no, there will be war.

Israel has a choice. Agree or risk the high likelyhood of another war with the Arabs that might this time be joined by Iran with its nukes.

The risk to Israel is the same as the risk to Poland. If it agrees, it will be weakened against further aggression by Germany that just occurred in Czechoslovakia. So it has a hard choice to make. War now or concede and get peace with a chance for war in the future from a weakened position.

But, in Poland's case, it had the support of both Britain and France for a hard line. Had that support been of a different nature, Poland might well have negotiated and WWII may well have been avoided.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthy


I'm talking about applying some sense in analysing a geopolitical situation. Heard of countries' strategic interest?

Now, I will ask you a question. If Hitler was such an obvious threat to conquer the United States, why were the American people against a war with Hitler?

You fail to acknowlege the difference between an immediate and a potential threat. The menacing emergence of a peer competitor in itself would have been contrary to United States' interest, although (1) at the time there was probably no doctrine around the term "peer competitor" and (2) in 1941 Hitler didn't pose a direct threat to US territory.

However, leaders with sense analyse strategic situations and draw conclusions. Mechanisms, Ned!

OK, let's start with WWI. Why was Germany a threat to the US then?

Now, lets move on to Stalin. Was he a threat as well? If not, why not?

Britain was the most powerful nation on Earth prior to WWII. Why wasn't Britain a threat?

Japan was engaged in a war of conquest in China. The war was started by China, but it was going to be finished by Japan in the most brutal way. FDR intervenes to stop the war.

How was Japan a threat to the United States?

Now, let's shift our attention to 1990-1. Saddam takes Kuwait to settle border and other disputes, and because historically, Kuwait was part of Iraq. But the US leads a coalition to oust him.

What threat did Saddam of 1990-1 pose to the US?

What threat did Saddam of 2003 pose to the US?

Now let's uptick to the mid-'90s. Clinton attacks the Bosnian Serbs in support of the Bosniam muslims. What threat did the Bosnian Serbs pose to the United States?

Next Kosovo. The Serbs are facing a violent revolution in Kosovo by radical Albanian muslims. The US leads the world to intervene and end Serb dominion and must now stay to assure the violent, radical muslims don't massacre the Serbs.

What threat did the Serbs pose to the US?