In Memory Of The Men And Women Of The Military
Trance Gemini
and for protecting us and defending our freedom.
And Recognition And Thanks To Our Many Atheists In Foxholes, Past,
Present and Future.
Atheists in Foxholes
Atheists in foxholes, some say they are myths,
Creations of the mind who just don't exist.
Yet, they answered the call to defend, with great pride.
With reason their watchword, they bled and they died.
They took Saratoga from the British crown,
Secured America's freedom at the Battle of Yorktown.
From Sumter to Appomattox, fields flowed with their blood.
When the cannons grew silent, the flag proudly stood.
From the Marne to the Argonne, in trenches and tanks,
They defeated the Germans -- the whole world gave thanks.
They were bombed at Pearl Harbor, fought on to Berlin.
Many freethinking women served along with the men.
Still war keeps erupting -- Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
Where is the peace that eludes people so?
It is broken by tyrants who bear crosses and creeds,
That overshadow reason with hate and cruel deeds.
So atheists prevail until your work is complete.
Mothers mourn, children cry, and bigots plan your defeat.
By air, land, and sea, you answer freedom's call.
Without god or faith, you seek liberty for all.
Trance Gemini
Mike Jones
Er, nice sentiment, but meanwhile, back on planet reality...
http://www.panarchy.org/butler/war.html
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
Trance Gemini
> Responding to Trance Gemini:
<snipped>
> > Still war keeps erupting -- Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Where is the peace
> > that eludes people so?
>
> > It is broken by tyrants who bear crosses and creeds, That overshadow
> > reason with hate and cruel deeds.
>
> > So atheists prevail until your work is complete. Mothers mourn, children
> > cry, and bigots plan your defeat.
>
> > By air, land, and sea, you answer freedom's call. Without god or faith,
> > you seek liberty for all.
>
> Er, nice sentiment, but meanwhile, back on planet reality...
>
> http://www.panarchy.org/butler/war.html
Sure but it's not the soldiers who fight and die that make the
decisions about whether to go to war or not. So IMO they still deserve
our respect.
In addition, some wars are legitimate (WWII against Fascism).
As the poem also indicates when reason takes over wars can end.
Mike Jones
/All/ wars are planned in advance.
/All/ wars are business plans in action.
/No/ wars could happen if people refused to kill to order.
Remember this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Soldier_(1967_Donovan_album)
Trance Gemini
> Responding to Trance Gemini:
<snipped>
> > Sure but it's not the soldiers who fight and die that make the decisions
> > about whether to go to war or not. So IMO they still deserve our
> > respect.
>
> > In addition, some wars are legitimate (WWII against Fascism).
>
> > As the poem also indicates when reason takes over wars can end.
>
> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
part of the plan.
eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
>
> /All/ wars are business plans in action.
>
> /No/ wars could happen if people refused to kill to order.
If WWII wasn't fought the Nazis would have taken Europe and were would
we be now?
Some wars particularly defensive one's need to be fought and in some
cases aggressive ones.
Other examples, the American and French Revolutions, the Indian
Freedom Fighters Movement.
These civil wars signaled the end of Monarchies and the establishment
of democracies and republics.
>
> Remember this?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Soldier_(1967_Donovan_album)
Love Donovan and love that song but I'm a pragmatist.
If Reason ruled we'd have very few if any wars because we'd be able to
negotiate and settle our differences that way (or convince the war
interests that there are better ways to make lots of money).
That's the ideal but in today's world it doesn't work.
On the other hand, even reason can't eliminate the profit motive and I
agree there are very wealthy and powerful interests for whom war is a
money-making proposition and they may not listen to reason.
However, there are also plenty of lunatics (mostly religious) out
there threatening us and we do have to be prepared to defend ourselves
because they also aren't interested in listening to reason.
Both may or may not work hand-in-glove to force a war but in the end
we have no choice but deal with the situation once it's created in
many cases and in many cases it can and should be ignored.
It's pretty complicated IMO.
Christopher A. Lee
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 12, 6:00�am, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
><snipped>
>
>> > Sure but it's not the soldiers who fight and die that make the decisions
>> > about whether to go to war or not. So IMO they still deserve our
>> > respect.
>>
>> > In addition, some wars are legitimate (WWII against Fascism).
>>
>> > As the poem also indicates when reason takes over wars can end.
>>
>> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
>
>True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
>part of the plan.
>
>eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
Actually a third of the way through. For the rest of the world it
started in 1939 with Hitler's invasion if Poland. Britain and France
had a mutual defence pact with Poland. The US didn't join until two
years later. Initially they only declared war on Japan after the
disgraceful attack on Pearl Harbour. Germany and Italy had a mutual
defence treaty with Japan so they declared war on the US, and the rest
is history.
Trance Gemini
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:42:53 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
> >On Nov 12, 6:00 am, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
> >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
<snipped>
> >> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
>
> >True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
> >part of the plan.
>
> >eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
>
> Actually a third of the way through.
Thanks for the correction Christopher, I didn't recall the exact
timing. I just knew they didn't join in at the beginning.
> For the rest of the world it
> started in 1939 with Hitler's invasion if Poland. Britain and France
> had a mutual defence pact with Poland. The US didn't join until two
> years later. Initially they only declared war on Japan after the
> disgraceful attack on Pearl Harbour. Germany and Italy had a mutual
> defence treaty with Japan so they declared war on the US, and the rest
> is history.
Ah. That was going to be my question. I also didn't know exactly why
they joined in when they did.
That explains it.
<snipped>
haiku jones
Trance Gemini wrote:
> On Nov 12, 3:07 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:42:53 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
> >
> > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 12, 6:00 am, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
> > >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > >> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
> >
> > >True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
> > >part of the plan.
> >
> > >eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
> >
> > Actually a third of the way through.
>
> Thanks for the correction Christopher, I didn't recall the exact
> timing. I just knew they didn't join in at the beginning.
Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
thinking of World War One? We came into that one
quite near the end. You guys had been in it much
longer -- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
and had suffered considerable losses.
Haiku Jones
Trance Gemini
> Trance Gemini wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 3:07 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:42:53 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
> > > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Nov 12, 6:00 am, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
> > > >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > > >> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
>
> > > >True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
> > > >part of the plan.
>
> > > >eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
>
> > > Actually a third of the way through.
>
> > Thanks for the correction Christopher, I didn't recall the exact
> > timing. I just knew they didn't join in at the beginning.
>
> Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
> thinking of World War One?
No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
far as I know.
I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
> We came into that one
> quite near the end. You guys had been in it much
> longer -- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
> and had suffered considerable losses.
WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
fought.
Les Hellawell
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 12, 4:01�pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Trance Gemini wrote:
>> > On Nov 12, 3:07�pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:42:53 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>>
>> > > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >On Nov 12, 6:00�am, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> > > >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>>
>> > <snipped>
>>
>> > > >> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
>>
>> > > >True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
>> > > >part of the plan.
>>
>> > > >eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
>>
>> > > Actually a third of the way through.
>>
>> > Thanks for the correction Christopher, I didn't recall the exact
>> > timing. I just knew they didn't join in at the beginning.
>>
>> Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
>> thinking of World War One? �
>
>No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
>far as I know.
German invaded France and Beligium , we helped France and Belgium
defend themselves.
This war is known as the war of timetables. Mlitary doctrine
was that the force which gets its mass of troops to the battlefield
first is likely to win. Elaborate plans were drawn up by both sides
to cover all aspects of mobilisation to make it as fast as
possible. Plans and timetables were drawn up so troops
could be assembled and transported by rail to the front as quickly as
possible. (a complex task)
The moment the first shot was fired it was essential to set
mobilisation in motion as quickly as possible. If one side
mobilises then the other side must act too. Thus was set
in motion a unstoppable mass movement before ever war was
declared. Minds were concentrated on completing the
plan not throwing it ino chaos by stopping it.
>
>I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
>probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
IIRC Canada was quite annoyed when war was declared for them
by the UK government as if they were still a colony - which they were
technically. They did not gain total independance until after WW2 when
they finally created their own supreme court. The UK was happy to
accept this as they were already self-governing.
The Germans were demoralised by the US entering the war. They had
been involved in a war of atttrition with both sides equally exhaused.
Both sides had lost almost a generation of its young men That fresh
young men in large numbers were on the way was a severe blow
to morale whch contributed to their defeat
In the end the actual involvement of the USA was minimal and
had little effect as we had already devises the means to defeat the
Germans. The tank and new tactics first tried at paschendale.
Though it was a costly battle we learned much from it.
>
>> We came into that one
>> quite near the end. �You guys had been in it much
>> longer �-- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
>> and had suffered considerable losses.
>
>WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
>fought.
>
Absolutely
>>
>> Haiku Jones
>>
>>
>>
>> > > For the rest of the world it
>> > > started in 1939 with Hitler's invasion if Poland.
It actually started in 1937 with the second Sino-Japanese war
which ended in 1945. We got involved the following year when we
started supplying the Chinese over the Burma trail. After the US
entered the war they joined this effort when the started flying
supplies 'over the hump'. Russian attacked Finland in 1939.
The Burma campaign against the Japs , which we eventually won, was a
major campaig without US involvement (maybe a handful only). The
troops involved called themselves 'The forgotten army'
>>>>Britain and France
>> > > had a mutual defence pact with Poland. The US didn't join until two
>> > > years later. Initially they only declared war on Japan after the
>> > > disgraceful attack on Pearl Harbour. Germany and Italy had a mutual
>> > > defence treaty with Japan so they declared war on the US, and the rest
>> > > is history.
>>
>> > Ah. That was going to be my question. I also didn't know exactly why
>> > they joined in when they did.
>>
>> > That explains it.
>>
>> > <snipped>
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Mike Jones
> On Nov 12, 6:00 am, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> > Sure but it's not the soldiers who fight and die that make the
>> > decisions about whether to go to war or not. So IMO they still
>> > deserve our respect.
>>
>> > In addition, some wars are legitimate (WWII against Fascism).
>>
>> > As the poem also indicates when reason takes over wars can end.
>>
>> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
>
> True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
> part of the plan.
>
> eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
Go look up Prescott Bush and Standard Oil.
>
>> /All/ wars are business plans in action.
>>
>> /No/ wars could happen if people refused to kill to order.
>
> If WWII wasn't fought the Nazis would have taken Europe and were would
> we be now?
If so many germans hadn't been willing to carry guns against others...
> Some wars particularly defensive one's need to be fought and in some
> cases aggressive ones.
Thats a definition of "failure".
> Other examples, the American and French Revolutions, the Indian Freedom
> Fighters Movement.
Again, business plans in action.
> These civil wars signaled the end of Monarchies and the establishment of
> democracies and republics.
Inevitable change, resisted by those willing to use weapons agains their
fellows on behalf of a leader. Same old thing.
>
>> Remember this?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Soldier_(1967_Donovan_album)
>
> Love Donovan and love that song but I'm a pragmatist.
>
> If Reason ruled we'd have very few if any wars because we'd be able to
> negotiate and settle our differences that way (or convince the war
> interests that there are better ways to make lots of money).
>
> That's the ideal but in today's world it doesn't work.
It doesn't work with humans because we're little more than an insane bald
chimp with a freak brain that manages to survive because of it.
All those still live instincts, and the capacity for abstract thought.
Not typically a good combination.
> On the other hand, even reason can't eliminate the profit motive and I
> agree there are very wealthy and powerful interests for whom war is a
> money-making proposition and they may not listen to reason.
Except war /is/ "reason" to them, and as long as there are universal
soldiers, there will be war.
> However, there are also plenty of lunatics (mostly religious) out there
> threatening us and we do have to be prepared to defend ourselves because
> they also aren't interested in listening to reason.
They presented no threat until they were enabled by those who stand to
gain enormous power "defending us" from their new game.
Look up "Harry Seldon".
> Both may or may not work hand-in-glove to force a war but in the end we
> have no choice but deal with the situation once it's created in many
> cases and in many cases it can and should be ignored.
>
> It's pretty complicated IMO.
Its pretty simple actually. Greedy psychopaths plus idiots with guns.
"War is over, if you want it." Guess what they did to the guy who sang
that one? Guess what they've been doing since they had him killed?
Welcome to Planet Duh.
And so, let us not forget that many in the military knew damn well what
they were signing up for, and that they would be killing people on behalf
of the business plans of psychopaths, and might die doing that.
There will indeed be some who join up for what they perceive as "moral"
reasons, but those will be far fewer on the ground than propaganda would
have you think.
Beware emotionally-driven media-fueled jingoism.
Don Martin
>>No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
>>far as I know.
>
>German invaded France and Beligium , we helped France and Belgium
>defend themselves.
>
>This war is known as the war of timetables. Mlitary doctrine
>was that the force which gets its mass of troops to the battlefield
>first is likely to win. Elaborate plans were drawn up by both sides
>to cover all aspects of mobilisation to make it as fast as
>possible. Plans and timetables were drawn up so troops
>could be assembled and transported by rail to the front as quickly as
>possible. (a complex task)
Well before the war, the Germans had built mile-long platforms on the RR
stations in border towns. This allowed them to offload mile-long trains of men,
horses, supplies, etc. all at once for the attack. I think I found this in
Keegan, _The First World War_, but cannot now spot the page.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Les Hellawell
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:38:54 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>>No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
>>>far as I know.
>>
>>German invaded France and Beligium , we helped France and Belgium
>>defend themselves.
>>
>>This war is known as the war of timetables. Mlitary doctrine
>>was that the force which gets its mass of troops to the battlefield
>>first is likely to win. Elaborate plans were drawn up by both sides
>>to cover all aspects of mobilisation to make it as fast as
>>possible. Plans and timetables were drawn up so troops
>>could be assembled and transported by rail to the front as quickly as
>>possible. (a complex task)
>
>Well before the war, the Germans had built mile-long platforms on the RR
>stations in border towns. This allowed them to offload mile-long trains of men,
>horses, supplies, etc. all at once for the attack. I think I found this in
>Keegan, _The First World War_, but cannot now spot the page.
The whole of the German Railway system was designed so they could
quickly move troops between fronts. Germany became a military nation
because they were sandwiched between powerful foes, France, Poland
(as was) and Russia and what they feared the most was a two front war.
Trance Gemini
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:12:06 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
>
>
And given that it may very well have given rise to the conditions that
led to WWII this confirms my belief that it's one that shouldn't have
happened.
>
>
>
> >I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
> >probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
>
> IIRC Canada was quite annoyed when war was declared for them
> by the UK government as if they were still a colony - which they were
> technically. They did not gain total independance until after WW2 when
> they finally created their own supreme court. The UK was happy to
> accept this as they were already self-governing.
>
> The Germans were demoralised by the US entering the war. They had
> been involved in a war of atttrition with both sides equally exhaused.
> Both sides had lost almost a generation of its young men That fresh
> young men in large numbers were on the way was a severe blow
> to morale whch contributed to their defeat
>
> In the end the actual involvement of the USA was minimal and
> had little effect as we had already devises the means to defeat the
> Germans. The tank and new tactics first tried at paschendale.
> Though it was a costly battle we learned much from it.
Just a bit of nit-picking here, and no big deal given the discussion,
but since Germany declared war on the US and the US was simply
responding Germany must not have been demoralized at that point.
I believe that occurred later.
Les Hellawell
I don't recall what the motivation for that declaration was but it
was the leadership that made the declaration not the demoralised
men on the ground. They were the ones who had realised their
defeat had become inevitable. IIRC correctly (and I am from from sure)
it was something to do with US involvement their side of the
Atlantic in aiding the necessary supply route. They did in WW2
before officially joining. The US was far from beig neutral.
US troops did valuable work behind the lines BTW taking over a section
of the narrow gauge network that took supplies from the railheads
to the front front lines, a contribution by railroad men that is
little recognised.
Trance Gemini
I think what this boils down to Mike is the ideal versus the reality.
Or, the idealist view versus the pragmatic view.
And as usual I don't really think we're disagreeing, just clarifying
our different approaches.
You will get no argument from me that ideally if every individual
refused to pick up guns there would be no war.
You also will get no argument from me that it's Psychopaths
(Sociopaths) who cause wars.
A Sociopath who is both wealthy and connected is dangerous and can and
will do serious damage because they are amoral beings.
Technically speaking we can't even say that they're sick because
they're not.
They are Sociopaths because they are missing the qualities that it
takes to be human.
I sometimes wonder if we should even call them human because
everything that defines what it is to be human is missing from the
Sociopath.
And what they do, is often not even about money, but narcissism,
attention, vicarious thrills, and/or the simple knowledge that they
are powerful enough to bring the world to the edge of destruction.
This is their insanity.
They do these extreme and bizarre things, applying all sorts of
legitimate sounding justifications to them after the fact, but they
basically do them simply because they can and they get their thrills
vicariously this way.
So, the real problem doesn't lie in what you or I are saying or the
different approaches that we are taking to it (yours being idealistic
and mine being pragmatic).
The problem lies in the fact that the reality is that Sociopaths exist
and they are very good at manipulating us, whether they do it through
the dogma of political correctness (liberalism) or they do it through
the dogma of authoritarianism or some other dogma.
Therein lies the problem and this is the reality that you and I and
the rest of the normal people have to deal with.
I don't buy the dogma or the lie, but I do understand the many sincere
and honest people who make up our military, intelligence, police
forces, etc. who are willing to sacrifice their lives for what they
believe is the common good and I respect them.
However, there are circumstances (created by Sociopaths (WWI and II)
which we are stuck dealing with and as a pragmatist I'm grateful that
we have the resources (military, etc.) to do it and feel safer for it.
That's not to say, that Sociopaths don't also exist in the military,
intelligence, police forces, etc.
They not only do but they are specifically attracted to those
professions because it gives them power and it makes it easier from
them to engage in the standard criminal activity that they engage and
the power plays that they like to engage in without getting caught.
It's because of them that we need maintain governmental controls on
these agencies and protections for the population which at the best of
times are weak and still leave us vulnerable to their abuse. (And I
know that from direct personal experience).
For the most part, in today's world, they are Religious Sociopaths but
I believe that is simply because it's so easy to use religion to lead
the sheep to slaughter, or any other dogma (like Communism).
Now that our world is aware that Sociopaths exist, what they are, and
how they operate, we can start to try to figure out how to manage them
and if we genuinely want to have a peaceful world we're going to have
to do that real fast because they're going to destroy this world if we
don't.
It's a question of the survival of our species now and we need to wake
up to that fact.
So, as I said before, I don't really think you and I are disagreeing,
just exploring different approaches to a problem which we both have
identified.
Trance Gemini
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:38:54 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> >>No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
> >>far as I know.
>
> >German invaded France and Beligium , we helped France and Belgium
> >defend themselves.
>
> >This war is known as the war of timetables. Mlitary doctrine
> >was that the force which gets its mass of troops to the battlefield
> >first is likely to win. Elaborate plans were drawn up by both sides
> >to cover all aspects of mobilisation to make it as fast as
> >possible. Plans and timetables were drawn up so troops
> >could be assembled and transported by rail to the front as quickly as
> >possible. (a complex task)
>
> Well before the war, the Germans had built mile-long platforms on the RR
> stations in border towns. This allowed them to offload mile-long trains of men,
> horses, supplies, etc. all at once for the attack. I think I found this in
> Keegan, _The First World War_, but cannot now spot the page.
>
Just curious but did they do this before WWI started?
Trance Gemini
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:03:54 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
> <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 13, 5:38 am, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> >> In the end the actual involvement of the USA was minimal and
> >> had little effect as we had already devises the means to defeat the
> >> Germans. The tank and new tactics first tried at paschendale.
> >> Though it was a costly battle we learned much from it.
>
> >Just a bit of nit-picking here, and no big deal given the discussion,
> >but since Germany declared war on the US and the US was simply
> >responding Germany must not have been demoralized at that point.
>
> I don't recall what the motivation for that declaration was but it
> was the leadership that made the declaration not the demoralised
> men on the ground.
Ah. Okay. I see your point.
> They were the ones who had realised their
> defeat had become inevitable. IIRC correctly (and I am from from sure)
> it was something to do with US involvement their side of the
> Atlantic in aiding the necessary supply route. They did in WW2
> before officially joining. The US was far from beig neutral.
True. It's my understanding the US was an Ally and did provide support
all along.
They just refused to participate actively in the war until Germany
declared war on them.
>
> US troops did valuable work behind the lines BTW taking over a section
> of the narrow gauge network that took supplies from the railheads
> to the front front lines, a contribution by railroad men that is
> little recognised.
Interesting stuff. I should do more reading on this topic.
<snipped>
Les Hellawell
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 13, 8:28�am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:38:54 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>> >>No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
>> >>far as I know.
>>
>> >German invaded France and Beligium , we helped France and Belgium
>> >defend themselves.
>>
>> >This war is known as the war of timetables. Mlitary doctrine
>> >was that the force which gets its mass of troops to the battlefield
>> >first is likely to win. Elaborate plans were drawn up by both sides
>> >to cover all aspects of mobilisation to make it as fast as
>> >possible. Plans and timetables were drawn up so troops
>> >could be assembled and transported by rail to the front as quickly as
>> >possible. (a complex task)
>>
>> Well before the war, the Germans had built mile-long platforms on the RR
>> stations in border towns. �This allowed them to offload mile-long trains of men,
>> horses, supplies, etc. all at once for the attack. �I think I found this in
>> Keegan, _The First World War_, but cannot now spot the page.
>>
>
>Just curious but did they do this before WWI started?
Yes. Unlike the UK, where the railways were built speculatively in
an unplanned way the Prussian leadership saw the strategic value of
ralways from the start and directed they were built with troop
movements in mind especially between their western and Eastern
frontiers. Their biggest fear was a two-front war.
Bismark saw the advantage of rail access to the Medtteranean Sea
as a supply route and was instrumental in building the still
strategically inmportant Gotthard Railway through the Alps before
WW1. They furnished one third of the cost in exchange for right to use
the railway. This is how they managed to get troops and supplies
through neutral Switzerland in WW2. It was the threat by the
Swiss to destroy the line that stopped the Grermans invading.
Of course the French knew the value of railways too.
Trance Gemini
Yes it's my understanding that the railway system was quite critical.
Canada's railway system spans the entire country but whether it was
built for troop movement I have no idea.
The Indian Freedom Fighter movement also knew the value of railways to
the British which is probably why they focused a lot of energy on
blowing them up ;-).
Andre Lieven
> On Nov 12, 4:01 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Trance Gemini wrote:
> > > On Nov 12, 3:07 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:42:53 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
> > > > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Nov 12, 6:00 am, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
> > > > >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > > >> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
>
> > > > >True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
> > > > >part of the plan.
>
> > > > >eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
>
> > > > Actually a third of the way through.
>
> > > Thanks for the correction Christopher, I didn't recall the exact
> > > timing. I just knew they didn't join in at the beginning.
>
> > Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
> > thinking of World War One?
>
> No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
> far as I know.
It depends on from where you view it; Certainly a Belgian or a
northern
Frenchman would have seen fighting an invasion of their lands as being
quite properly defensive...
> I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
> probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
The war, from it's start, was quite irrational, I'll agree. But, that
issue
leaves the field well before 1917. By then, issues such as US ships
on the high seas being sunk and US citizens being killed as a result,
come to the fore as a casus belli.
> > We came into that one
> > quite near the end. You guys had been in it much
> > longer -- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
> > and had suffered considerable losses.
>
> WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
> fought.
In the case of the US, it's not like they had a choice: As Japan
attacked them, so the US declaration of war was a response, and
then, Germany declared war on the US four days later, so how
could the US have not replied with a declaration of their own ?
The point being, yes, most wars are "planned" by SOMEONE,
but that in no way means nor suggests that the recipients of said
war had planned or desired it.
Beyond that, many wars, such as the two Big Wars of the 20th
century, happened due to BAD planning resulting in a war that
even the erstwhile instigators hadn't intended nor wanted to be the
result.
Example: Germany wanted to *conquer* the USSR before the end
of 1941. They didn't want to have to be still fighting the Soviets as
of 1 Jan 1942, never mind 1 Jan 1945...
Oops.
> > Haiku Jones
>
> > > > For the rest of the world it
> > > > started in 1939 with Hitler's invasion if Poland. Britain and France
> > > > had a mutual defence pact with Poland. The US didn't join until two
> > > > years later. Initially they only declared war on Japan after the
> > > > disgraceful attack on Pearl Harbour. Germany and Italy had a mutual
> > > > defence treaty with Japan so they declared war on the US, and the rest
> > > > is history.
>
> > > Ah. That was going to be my question. I also didn't know exactly why
> > > they joined in when they did.
>
> > > That explains it.
>
> > > <snipped>
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:12:06 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
While that was a part of it, you missed several prior major points.
Yes, the UK declared war for Canada in 1914. But, Canada had it's
own seat at the 1919 Paris peace table. Then, the 1931 Statute of
Westminister defined the legislative independence of the Dominions:
"The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom (22 & 23 Geo. V c. 4, 11 December 1931) which
established a status of legislative equality between the self-
governing
dominions of the British Empire and the United Kingdom, with a few
residual exceptions. The Statute remains domestic law within each
of the other Commonwealth realms, to the extent that it was not
rendered obsolete by the process of constitutional patriation.
The Statute is of historical importance because it marked the
effective
legislative independence of these countries, either immediately or
upon
ratification. The residual constitutional powers retained by the
Westminster parliament have now largely been superseded by
subsequent legislation. Its current relevance is that it sets the
basis
for the continuing relationship between the Commonwealth realms and
the Crown."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931
Thus, Canada did not declare, or have war declared for it, on 3 Sept
1939.
The Canadian Parliament declared war on Germany after a vote by it on
10 Sept 1939.
> The UK was happy to
> accept this as they were already self-governing.
>
> The Germans were demoralised by the US entering the war. They had
> been involved in a war of atttrition with both sides equally exhaused.
> Both sides had lost almost a generation of its young men That fresh
> young men in large numbers were on the way was a severe blow
> to morale whch contributed to their defeat
Well, the Germans were more "demoralised" by their spring 1918
offensive having failed to defeat the Allies before the US troops
could
mass for their own attacks.
> In the end the actual involvement of the USA was minimal and
> had little effect as we had already devises the means to defeat the
> Germans. The tank and new tactics first tried at paschendale.
> Though it was a costly battle we learned much from it.
But, then forgot most of it until Guderian and Rommel taught them
to you again... <g>
> >> We came into that one
> >> quite near the end. You guys had been in it much
> >> longer -- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
> >> and had suffered considerable losses.
>
> >WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
> >fought.
>
> Absolutely
>
> >> Haiku Jones
>
> >> > > For the rest of the world it
> >> > > started in 1939 with Hitler's invasion if Poland.
>
> It actually started in 1937 with the second Sino-Japanese war
> which ended in 1945.
Manchuria, 1931.
> We got involved the following year when we
> started supplying the Chinese over the Burma trail. After the US
> entered the war they joined this effort when the started flying
> supplies 'over the hump'. Russian attacked Finland in 1939.
But, later than 1 Sept. For that matter, while it was without any
declarations of war, consider the USSR-Japan battles in Mongolia
in the late summer of 1939, which occured before 1 Sept 1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol
Notice that Zhukov also got the armoured force ops right, far better
than any UK unit was to match for another several years...
> The Burma campaign against the Japs, which we eventually won, was a
> major campaign without US involvement (maybe a handful only). The
> troops involved called themselves 'The forgotten army'
It was a lot like WW1 done over; pure attrition.
> >> > > Britain and France
> >> > > had a mutual defence pact with Poland. The US didn't join until two
> >> > > years later. Initially they only declared war on Japan after the
> >> > > disgraceful attack on Pearl Harbour. Germany and Italy had a mutual
> >> > > defence treaty with Japan so they declared war on the US, and the rest
> >> > > is history.
>
> >> > Ah. That was going to be my question. I also didn't know exactly why
> >> > they joined in when they did.
>
> >> > That explains it.
>
> >> > <snipped>
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Nov 15, 9:42 am, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:03:54 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
> > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 13, 5:38 am, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > >> In the end the actual involvement of the USA was minimal and
> > >> had little effect as we had already devises the means to defeat the
> > >> Germans. The tank and new tactics first tried at paschendale.
> > >> Though it was a costly battle we learned much from it.
>
> > >Just a bit of nit-picking here, and no big deal given the discussion,
> > >but since Germany declared war on the US and the US was simply
> > >responding Germany must not have been demoralized at that point.
>
> > I don't recall what the motivation for that declaration was but it
> > was the leadership that made the declaration not the demoralised
> > men on the ground.
>
> Ah. Okay. I see your point.
>
> > They were the ones who had realised their
> > defeat had become inevitable. IIRC correctly (and I am from from sure)
> > it was something to do with US involvement their side of the
> > Atlantic in aiding the necessary supply route. They did in WW2
> > before officially joining. The US was far from beig neutral.
>
> True. It's my understanding the US was an Ally and did provide support
> all along.
Not really, no. Most of the resources that came from the US before
they
declared war on Germany was done on a cash and carry basis.
Given that the UK and it's Royal Navy was in an excellent position to
block German attempts to send it's own merchant ships to the US,
it is logical that only Allied shipping was able to sail to US ports.
But, Germany did try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_Deutschland
Note that, even in 1916, the US allowed this German cargo sub to
do business in the US. Would an "Ally" have done that ? Note,a s
well, that the US did not seize any German ships in US ports
until the US declared war in 1917.
> They just refused to participate actively in the war until Germany
> declared war on them.
"After submarines sank seven U.S. merchant ships and the
publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on
Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917.[76]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
> > US troops did valuable work behind the lines BTW taking over a section
> > of the narrow gauge network that took supplies from the railheads
> > to the front front lines, a contribution by railroad men that is
> > little recognised.
>
> Interesting stuff. I should do more reading on this topic.
Quite.
> <snipped>
Andre
Mike Painter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9coPzDx6tA
http://australianpoems.tripod.com/mothersdaughterswives.html
(I can't find this as sung by Margaret Crystl but if you can, wow)
Andre Lieven
I do, and it wasn't. As any troop movemnts would most likely have
needed
to be more north-south (As the most likely foe for Canada in the 19th
century would have been the US, who we fought in 1775-6, and
1812-14.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_(1775)
Canada's transcontinental railways were build for commerce.
> The Indian Freedom Fighter movement also knew the value of railways
> to the British which is probably why they focused a lot of energy on
> blowing them up ;-).
Andre
Trance Gemini
> On Nov 12, 5:12 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 4:01 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> > > Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
> > > thinking of World War One?
>
> > No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
> > far as I know.
>
> It depends on from where you view it; Certainly a Belgian or a
> northern
> Frenchman would have seen fighting an invasion of their lands as being
> quite properly defensive...
True. And it would have been for them after it started but it
shouldn't have started in the first place.
I'm not even very clear on what the justifications were other than
someone was assassinated.
And it wasn't a defensive war for Canada. There was no reason for our
involvement other than Britain told us to.
>
> > I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
> > probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
>
> The war, from it's start, was quite irrational, I'll agree. But, that
> issue
> leaves the field well before 1917. By then, issues such as US ships
> on the high seas being sunk and US citizens being killed as a result,
> come to the fore as a casus belli.
Yes this is the point I made earlier. Once you're caught up in
situations like these then you really have no choice at some point to
fight.
I don't know enough about the details of WWI to comment on the
specifics so I'm just talking in generalities. Although the specifics
that you and others are providing are quite interesting.
>
> > > We came into that one
> > > quite near the end. You guys had been in it much
> > > longer -- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
> > > and had suffered considerable losses.
>
> > WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
> > fought.
>
> In the case of the US, it's not like they had a choice: As Japan
> attacked them, so the US declaration of war was a response, and
> then, Germany declared war on the US four days later, so how
> could the US have not replied with a declaration of their own ?
I don't think it would have been wrong if they had gone in earlier,
even without this declaration, given what the Nazis were doing and the
fact that they were British allies.
>
> The point being, yes, most wars are "planned" by SOMEONE,
> but that in no way means nor suggests that the recipients of said
> war had planned or desired it.
Yes. Exactly the point I made in one of my earlier posts.
Trance Gemini
I was talking about WW II when I was making those comments.
Trance Gemini
Thanks. I'd heard that story in the vid before. It's a lot harder to
kill when the enemy is humanized.
When I was doing a Canadian history research project in College, I saw
the newspaper lists of the dead from WW1.
They were pages long.
Andre Lieven
> On Nov 15, 12:43 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 5:12 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 4:01 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > > Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
> > > > thinking of World War One?
>
> > > No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
> > > far as I know.
>
> > It depends on from where you view it; Certainly a Belgian or a
> > northern
> > Frenchman would have seen fighting an invasion of their lands as being
> > quite properly defensive...
>
> True. And it would have been for them after it started but it
> shouldn't have started in the first place.
There is the view that WW1 was an "accidental" war, and, while that
view has some basis in the notion that no one on either side wanted
to make happen what actually did come of it (4 years of bloodsoaked
and stalemated trench warfare, coupled with maritime blockades and
the resulting privations.), the point remains that there WERE nations
in 1914 that DID want *a* war, for their specific objectives.
Why else would Austria have turned down Serbia's agreement to
the Austrian demands ? Austria wanted to crush the movements that
threatened to bring nationalism to the fragmented empire that Austria
was.
Germany's responsibility starts at their having agreed to the
aggressor
Austria's position, and their full backing of it.
> I'm not even very clear on what the justifications were other than
> someone was assassinated.
Then, you need to read up on the topic. It is one that I have studied
for over 30 years...
> And it wasn't a defensive war for Canada. There was no reason for our
> involvement other than Britain told us to.
Which, at that time, the UK was legally entitled to do. Moreover, the
UK
didn't decalre until after Germany invaded neutral Belgium.
Kinda like the US didn't declare a reason to iniatiate military action
against Iraq in 1991, until AFTER Iraq invaded Kuwait.
> > > I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
> > > probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
>
> > The war, from it's start, was quite irrational, I'll agree. But, that
> > issue
> > leaves the field well before 1917. By then, issues such as US ships
> > on the high seas being sunk and US citizens being killed as a result,
> > come to the fore as a casus belli.
>
> Yes this is the point I made earlier. Once you're caught up in
> situations like these then you really have no choice at some point to
> fight.
Sure.
> I don't know enough about the details of WWI to comment on the
> specifics so I'm just talking in generalities. Although the specifics
> that you and others are providing are quite interesting.
A British newspaper after WW2 had a contest for the funniest
headline created by the public. The winner was "Archduke Franz
Ferdinand alive and well, WW1 fought in error.".
> > > > We came into that one
> > > > quite near the end. You guys had been in it much
> > > > longer -- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
> > > > and had suffered considerable losses.
>
> > > WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
> > > fought.
>
> > In the case of the US, it's not like they had a choice: As Japan
> > attacked them, so the US declaration of war was a response, and
> > then, Germany declared war on the US four days later, so how
> > could the US have not replied with a declaration of their own ?
>
> I don't think it would have been wrong if they had gone in earlier,
> even without this declaration, given what the Nazis were doing and the
> fact that they were British allies.
Well, in point of fact, the US was not an ally of the UK in any way
that that word means, until the very late fall of 1941. While the two
nations consulted and made What If plans beforehand, until the US
declared on Japan, and Germany delared on the US, there was no
actual alliance. Rather, the US, at that time, entered into the
existing alliance of the nations that were already at war. Such as
the UK, the Commonwealth, the USSR, et al.
> > The point being, yes, most wars are "planned" by SOMEONE,
> > but that in no way means nor suggests that the recipients of said
> > war had planned or desired it.
>
> Yes. Exactly the point I made in one of my earlier posts.
It was worth making clearer. As no nation in 1914 desired what the
war from that year onwards turned out to be.
Andre Lieven
The point about US troops doing railroad work behind the lines was
about
WW1. No US troops entered continental Europe in WW2 until 6 June
1944.
Andre
Christopher A. Lee
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 12:43�ｿｽpm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 5:12�ｿｽpm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 12, 4:01�ｿｽpm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>> > > Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
>> > > thinking of World War One? �ｿｽ
>>
>> > No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
>> > far as I know.
>>
>> It depends on from where you view it; Certainly a Belgian or a
>> northern
>> Frenchman would have seen fighting an invasion of their lands as being
>> quite properly defensive...
>
>True. And it would have been for them after it started but it
>shouldn't have started in the first place.
Germany declared war on France. Going via Belgium to get there.
>I'm not even very clear on what the justifications were other than
>someone was assassinated.
Things had been simmering for a while over colonial and other issues.
It didn't help that the Kaiser, the Tsar and thr Austro-Hungarian
Emperor were all borderline insane and out of touch with domestic and
international reality. They were absolute monarchs whose advisers told
them what they wanted to hear.
There was a BBC drama series called Fall OF Eagles 25 years ago which
was about the decline and fall of the Hapsburg (Austro-Hungarian),
Romanov (Russian), and Hohenzollern (German) dynasties all of which
were ancient, noble and inbred. Germany itself only became a unified
country in 1871, and Duke of Prussia became its ruler.
But don't forget that these dynasties had provided the Royal families
of most European countries at one time or another so the Hohenzollerns
had been kings and princes elsewhere. The King, the Kaiser and The
Tsar were all first cousins.
There was a BBC series called Fall Of Eagles which described the
decline and fall of the four of the five ruling dynasties of Europe.
While WW1 was a major event it shows it in terms of other major events
surrounding these royal houses.
It's thoroughly recommemded and historically accurate if rather
simplified. It's a Who's Who of British TV and other actors most of
whom were already well known or went on to become well known. Eg
Patrick Stewart playing the young Lenin with hair and later with the
familiar bald pate we all know,
I don't know whether King George V had the same problems that the
Kaiser and the Tsar had, but it didn't really matter because while he
had all the pomp of royalty he was more of a symbolic monarch than an
actual one. The actual power rested in parliament.
>And it wasn't a defensive war for Canada. There was no reason for our
>involvement other than Britain told us to.
>
>>
>> > I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
>> > probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
>>
>> The war, from it's start, was quite irrational, I'll agree. But, that
>> issue
>> leaves the field well before 1917. By then, issues such as US ships
>> on the high seas being sunk and US citizens being killed as a result,
>> come to the fore as a casus belli.
>
>Yes this is the point I made earlier. Once you're caught up in
>situations like these then you really have no choice at some point to
>fight.
>
>I don't know enough about the details of WWI to comment on the
>specifics so I'm just talking in generalities. Although the specifics
>that you and others are providing are quite interesting.
>
>>
>> > > We came into that one
>> > > quite near the end. �ｿｽYou guys had been in it much
>> > > longer �ｿｽ-- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
Don Martin
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 13, 8:28�am, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:38:54 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>> >>No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
>> >>far as I know.
>>
>> >German invaded France and Beligium , we helped France and Belgium
>> >defend themselves.
>>
>> >This war is known as the war of timetables. Mlitary doctrine
>> >was that the force which gets its mass of troops to the battlefield
>> >first is likely to win. Elaborate plans were drawn up by both sides
>> >to cover all aspects of mobilisation to make it as fast as
>> >possible. Plans and timetables were drawn up so troops
>> >could be assembled and transported by rail to the front as quickly as
>> >possible. (a complex task)
>>
>> Well before the war, the Germans had built mile-long platforms on the RR
>> stations in border towns. �This allowed them to offload mile-long trains of men,
>> horses, supplies, etc. all at once for the attack. �I think I found this in
>> Keegan, _The First World War_, but cannot now spot the page.
>>
>
>Just curious but did they do this before WWI started?
Yes. An interesting anecdote about Kaiser Wilhelm: on the ever of WWI, one
person asked him why the whole thing could not be called off. He responded by
saying it was impossible, because too much work had gone into working out the
train schedules. Too many precious man-hours would be wasted. Les Hellawell
talked about the importance of train schedules in WWI in a recent post, and has
more on this topic today, I see.
Les Hellawell
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:31:01 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
><trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 15, 12:43�pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> On Nov 12, 5:12�pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Nov 12, 4:01�pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><snipped>
>>
>>> > > Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
>>> > > thinking of World War One? �
>>>
I do not remember that one.
I did a course on War and Society for my degree and part of the
course was concerned with the origins of WW1, the situation in
Russia before the revolution, and the major revolution that
ocuured in the UK during and after the war.
I later studied the chaotic government under Hitler. It was
no super efficient machine far from it.
Now I have forgotten most of it :-(
It was a momentus event and it would take at least a book to
explain the origin of WW1 and that would only be in outline.
We have to realise that the entire mentality of people was
totally different to what it is today making it difficult to
understand them. We should not judge them by how we think
today.
What I do not understand is why, after say a year when the
conditions at the front were known, they did not try to stop it. The
German leaders were not meglomaniacs like Hitler and his
crew and could have engaged in meaningful dialogue if they
had the mindset to do it. They needed badly to talk to one
another but it just never seemed to occur to them to try. Just
too much hurt on both sides and no trust maybe. I think this aspect
of the war needs further study.
Well it happened and we cannot change that. We can
influence the future though which is why we need to know
what went wrong.
>
>I don't know whether King George V had the same problems that the
>Kaiser and the Tsar had, but it didn't really matter because while he
>had all the pomp of royalty he was more of a symbolic monarch than an
>actual one. The actual power rested in parliament.
>
>>And it wasn't a defensive war for Canada. There was no reason for our
>>involvement other than Britain told us to.
>>
>>>
>>> > I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
>>> > probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
>>>
>>> The war, from it's start, was quite irrational, I'll agree. But, that
>>> issue
>>> leaves the field well before 1917. By then, issues such as US ships
>>> on the high seas being sunk and US citizens being killed as a result,
>>> come to the fore as a casus belli.
>>
>>Yes this is the point I made earlier. Once you're caught up in
>>situations like these then you really have no choice at some point to
>>fight.
>>
>>I don't know enough about the details of WWI to comment on the
>>specifics so I'm just talking in generalities. Although the specifics
>>that you and others are providing are quite interesting.
>>
>>>
>>> > > We came into that one
>>> > > quite near the end. �You guys had been in it much
>>> > > longer �-- loyalty to the mother country, and all that --
Don Martin
wrote:
>> WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
>> fought.
>
>In the case of the US, it's not like they had a choice: As Japan
>attacked them, so the US declaration of war was a response, and
>then, Germany declared war on the US four days later, so how
>could the US have not replied with a declaration of their own ?
Our choice was made during the late 30s, when we acted to interfere with Japan's
access to oil and otherwise treated them with the sort of disrespect reserved
for "lesser breeds without the law." For some reason, this seems to have pissed
them off a bit.
The US was not entirely innocent in the matter. Hitler's declaration was pretty
much dictated by the Tripartite Pact and his own grandiosity.
Andre Lieven
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:46:16 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:31:01 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
> ><trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Nov 15, 12:43 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 12, 5:12 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > On Nov 12, 4:01 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >><snipped>
>
> >>> > > Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
> >>> > > thinking of World War One?
>
> >>> > No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
> >>> > far as I know.
>
> >>> It depends on from where you view it; Certainly a Belgian or a
> >>> northern Frenchman would have seen fighting an invasion of their
> >>> lands as being quite properly defensive...
>
> >>True. And it would have been for them after it started but it
> >>shouldn't have started in the first place.
>
> >Germany declared war on France. Going via Belgium to get there.
>
> >>I'm not even very clear on what the justifications were other than
> >>someone was assassinated.
>
> >Things had been simmering for a while over colonial and other issues.
> >It didn't help that the Kaiser, the Tsar and thr Austro-Hungarian
> >Emperor were all borderline insane
Clinically, I doubt this. Certainly, their worldviews were hugely
different
than any of ours are, but that is well explained by their times being
quite different, and their stations being even more so.
Indeed. While the Allies, and especially the US, managed to
build masses of essentially the same gear (Think Sherman
tanks, and so on.), the Germans fussed over multiples of
almost everything. From competing jet fighter programs, to
competing tank types (Panther V. Tiger Family), with the results
that few German production programs ever produced enough to
achieve mass economies of scale.
> Now I have forgotten most of it :-(
>
> It was a momentus event and it would take at least a book to
> explain the origin of WW1 and that would only be in outline.
Sure.
> We have to realise that the entire mentality of people was
> totally different to what it is today making it difficult to
> understand them. We should not judge them by how we think
> today.
This is a point that, IMHO, cannot be repeated too much.
> What I do not understand is why, after say a year when the
> conditions at the front were known, they did not try to stop it. The
> German leaders were not meglomaniacs like Hitler and his
> crew and could have engaged in meaningful dialogue if they
> had the mindset to do it. They needed badly to talk to one
> another but it just never seemed to occur to them to try. Just
> too much hurt on both sides and no trust maybe. I think this aspect
> of the war needs further study.
Sure, however, one must consider the notions of "in for a penny...",
coupled with the generated hyper-nationalism that made any
concessions effectively impossible. Was France going to settle
for less than victory after having so much of it's lands ripped
apart ?
And, so on.
The only times in WW1 that such concessions happened, was when
those serving decided that they needed to be made. So, the Russian
Army went home, the French one tried to rebel, and when a death
ride for the German High Seas Fleet was planned for November of
1918, the sailors said, in effect, "Hell, no.".
> Well it happened and we cannot change that. We can
> influence the future though which is why we need to know
> what went wrong.
Agreed. Because we live in a world made by the 1910s far more than
many people consider. A book that I found to be most enlightening on
this point, is Niall Frguson's The War of the World, Twentieth-Century
Conflict and the Descent of the West.
> >I don't know whether King George V had the same problems that the
> >Kaiser and the Tsar had, but it didn't really matter because while he
> >had all the pomp of royalty he was more of a symbolic monarch than an
> >actual one. The actual power rested in parliament.
>
> >>> > > > <snipped>
Andre
Trance Gemini
<snipped>
> There was a BBC series called Fall Of Eagles which described the
> decline and fall of the four of the five ruling dynasties of Europe.
>
> While WW1 was a major event it shows it in terms of other major events
> surrounding these royal houses.
>
> It's thoroughly recommemded and historically accurate if rather
> simplified. It's a Who's Who of British TV and other actors most of
> whom were already well known or went on to become well known. Eg
> Patrick Stewart playing the young Lenin with hair and later with the
> familiar bald pate we all know,
>
> I don't know whether King George V had the same problems that the
> Kaiser and the Tsar had, but it didn't really matter because while he
> had all the pomp of royalty he was more of a symbolic monarch than an
> actual one. The actual power rested in parliament.
I think that's been shown here in Canada (title sounds familiar). I'll
try to catch it next time it's own or check PPV to see if it's there.
It sounds interesting.
<snipped>
Trance Gemini
All those people died in that war and it apparently laid the
groundwork for WWII and all because they'd done too much preparation
not to fight it?
Are you kidding me?
Anyway, while that's an interesting anecdote and he probably did say
that, I suspect there was a lot more underlying politics and power
plays going on.
I have just never done any serious research on it other than that one
school project which was more encompassing than that so I didn't spend
a lot of time on the war section. It was also a very long time ago so
I don't recall all the details anyway.
I know with WWII that there was some serious International Financing
of Hitler from very wealthy people in various countries including the
US.
There was a book published about it in the 1960s which went out of
print quite quickly and became impossible to get particularly in North
America.
Speculation was that this was the case because it tied some very
wealthy and influential American families to Hitler.
I don't recall the name off the top of my head, unfortunately, nor do
I recall which families.
I had a copy and passed it on to a friend who passed it on so it's no
longer in my possession.
I've never analyzed the significance of that and what role it may have
played in Hitler's expansionist policies if any so I can't comment
further on it.
Trance Gemini
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:43:32 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >> WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
> >> fought.
>
> >In the case of the US, it's not like they had a choice: As Japan
> >attacked them, so the US declaration of war was a response, and
> >then, Germany declared war on the US four days later, so how
> >could the US have not replied with a declaration of their own ?
>
> Our choice was made during the late 30s, when we acted to interfere with Japan's
> access to oil and otherwise treated them with the sort of disrespect reserved
> for "lesser breeds without the law." For some reason, this seems to have pissed
> them off a bit.
>
> The US was not entirely innocent in the matter. Hitler's declaration was pretty
> much dictated by the Tripartite Pact and his own grandiosity.
It's my understanding that the US intervened with Japan at the request
of the British because the Japanese were interfering with their
colonies.
Is this not correct?
Mike Jones
Er, probably. ;)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
Trance Gemini
Lol. Okay. Feel free to tell me if my rant is off-base.
According to research studies, Sociopaths are quite different from the
rest of us and I do believe that they are the source of violence.
Our ability to reason and empathize give us a lot of other options for
making megabucks quickly if that's the only aim.
War isn't the only one. Why is it the preferred one?
For most of us it isn't. For some it is.
>
> --
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Andre Lieven
> On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:43:32 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
> > >> fought.
>
> > >In the case of the US, it's not like they had a choice: As Japan
> > >attacked them, so the US declaration of war was a response, and
> > >then, Germany declared war on the US four days later, so how
> > >could the US have not replied with a declaration of their own ?
>
> > Our choice was made during the late 30s, when we acted to interfere with Japan's
> > access to oil and otherwise treated them with the sort of disrespect reserved
> > for "lesser breeds without the law." For some reason, this seems to have pissed
> > them off a bit.
>
> > The US was not entirely innocent in the matter. Hitler's declaration was pretty
> > much dictated by the Tripartite Pact and his own grandiosity.
>
> It's my understanding that the US intervened with Japan at the request
> of the British because the Japanese were interfering with their
> colonies.
>
> Is this not correct?
It is VERY not correct. The US saw Japan as a possible foe as early as
the 1910s, due to aggressive Japanese expansionist policies, which
well
predated the 1930s. Look at what Japan wanted out of the Paris 1919
peace conference, while it started with ex German colonies, it also
included parts of China, which was NOT on the losing side in WW1.
So, early 1920s naval competition between the US and Japan culminated
in an international naval limitation treaty, The Washington Treaty of
1922,
which capped some of the competition for a while, but Japan's
aggressions
in China starting in 1931, and their repudiation of the Treaty in
1936, all
showed the US that Japan was going to be trouble, if not properly
deterred
by US power.
Briatain's only serious role in all that was their own naval plans to
send a
fleet in a time of war with Japan, to their main Imperial possession
out
there, Singapore. 1940 put final paid to that idea, as the UK had no
spare
ships to send out.
Japan, further, had a problem: Much of the raw materials that
supported
their aggression of the 30s came from the US. From oil, steel, and
other
commodities, they needed them, and, when the US cut them off in 1940,
when Japan occupied French Indochina, Japan got the daft idea that
they
could 1) Conquer what they needed, while 2) Keeping the US and it's
formidable and rapidly growing naval power, at bay.
Oops...
There is a reasonable argument that Japan lost WW2 on 7 Dec, 1941.
Because, they had zero chance to prevail in what they had chosen to
start.
Germany winning the war was not impossible. For all practical
purposes,
Japan winning against the US was impossible. That's a key difference
that
needs to be understood between the two main arenas of WW2.
Andre
Don Martin
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 4:08�pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:43:32 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
>> >> fought.
>>
>> >In the case of the US, it's not like they had a choice: As Japan
>> >attacked them, so the US declaration of war was a response, and
>> >then, Germany declared war on the US four days later, so how
>> >could the US have not replied with a declaration of their own ?
>>
>> Our choice was made during the late 30s, when we acted to interfere with Japan's
>> access to oil and otherwise treated them with the sort of disrespect reserved
>> for "lesser breeds without the law." �For some reason, this seems to have pissed
>> them off a bit.
>>
>> The US was not entirely innocent in the matter. �Hitler's declaration was pretty
>> much dictated by the Tripartite Pact and his own grandiosity.
>
>It's my understanding that the US intervened with Japan at the request
>of the British because the Japanese were interfering with their
>colonies.
>
>Is this not correct?
Could be, but it would remain a matter of white folks keeping yellow folks in
their place.
Alex W.
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:03:54 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
> <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 13, 5:38�am, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:12:06 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Nov 12, 4:01�pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Trance Gemini wrote:
>>> >> > On Nov 12, 3:07�pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> >> > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:42:53 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>>>
>>> >> > > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > >On Nov 12, 6:00�am, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>>> >> > > >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>>>
>>> >> > <snipped>
>>>
>>> >> > > >> /All/ wars are planned in advance.
>>>
>>> >> > > >True, the war may be planned but not all participants are necessarily
>>> >> > > >part of the plan.
>>>
>>> >> > > >eg. US in WWII. They didn't get involved until near the end.
>>>
>>> >> > > Actually a third of the way through.
>>>
>>> >> > Thanks for the correction Christopher, I didn't recall the exact
>>> >> > timing. I just knew they didn't join in at the beginning.
>>>
>>> >> Are you sure that you, as a Canadian, aren't actually
>>> >> thinking of World War One? �
>>>
>>> >No. We were involved in WW1 but that wasn't really a defensive war as
>>> >far as I know.
>>>
>>> German invaded France and Beligium , we helped France and Belgium
>>> defend themselves.
>>>
>>> This war is known as the war of timetables. Mlitary doctrine
>>> was that the force which gets its mass of troops to the battlefield
>>> first is likely to win. Elaborate plans were drawn up by both sides
>>> to cover all aspects of mobilisation to make it as fast as
>>> possible. Plans and timetables were drawn up so troops
>>> could be assembled and transported by rail to the front as quickly as
>>> possible. (a complex task)
>>>
>>> The moment the first shot was fired it was essential to set
>>> mobilisation in motion as quickly as possible. If one side
>>> mobilises then the other side must act too. Thus was set
>>> in motion a unstoppable mass movement before ever war was
>>> declared. Minds were concentrated on completing the
>>> plan not throwing it ino chaos by stopping it. �
>>
>>And given that it may very well have given rise to the conditions that
>>led to WWII this confirms my belief that it's one that shouldn't have
>>happened.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >I think our involvement was basically because of Britain and it's
>>> >probably a good example of a war that shouldn't have happened.
>>>
>>> IIRC Canada was quite annoyed when war was declared for them
>>> by the UK government as if they were still a colony - which they were
>>> technically. They did not gain total independance until after WW2 when
>>> they finally created their own supreme court. �The UK was happy to
>>> accept this as they were already self-governing.
>>>
>>> The Germans were demoralised by the US entering the war. They had
>>> been involved in a war of atttrition with both sides equally exhaused.
>>> Both sides had lost almost a generation of its young men That fresh
>>> young men in large numbers were on the way was a severe blow
>>> to morale whch contributed to their defeat
>>>
>>> In the end the actual involvement of the USA was minimal and
>>> had little effect as we had already devises the means to defeat the
>>> Germans. The tank and new tactics first tried �at paschendale.
>>> Though it was a costly battle we learned much from it.
>>
>>Just a bit of nit-picking here, and no big deal given the discussion,
>>but since Germany declared war on the US and the US was simply
>>responding Germany must not have been demoralized at that point.
>
> I don't recall what the motivation for that declaration was but it
> was the leadership that made the declaration not the demoralised
> men on the ground. They were the ones who had realised their
> defeat had become inevitable. IIRC correctly (and I am from from sure)
> it was something to do with US involvement their side of the
> Atlantic in aiding the necessary supply route. They did in WW2
> before officially joining. The US was far from beig neutral.
If memory serves, the Germans declared war because they were
obligated to do so under the terms of their military pact with
Japan.
FWIW, in 1941 military defeat was far from certain for the
Germans. In fact, the picture was quite rosy. The Western front
was pacified, and the Russians were taking extremely heavy
casualties. The disastrous Russian winter (Stalingrad) hadn't
yet hit German morale or materiel. The Battle of Britain was
still in full swing and British air superiority had yet to be
established. The North African campaign was proceeding
reasonably well for Rommel.
You should also bear in mind that the German leadership was not
as independent as we are used to from our own generals. Their
generals were largely brought up with a very old-fashioned sense
of duty and a firm belief in the chain of command at any cost --
and this meant obeying the mad little corporal. All the more so
since Hitler had no compunction about purging his High Command
and their families.
In this context, there is a German notion that is worth
contemplating: "Nibelungentreue". This is an ideal derived
straight from the German national epic, the Nibelungen Saga, and
describes an unswerving and unquestioning loyalty even unto utter
damnation and catastrophe. So even if the generals knew that
declaring war on the US while they were still fighting a hard
campaign against Stalin was doomed to failure, their culture and
ethos would not permit them to question or disobey their leader.
As for US involvement in the war prior to the declaration of war,
that was largely a hard-nosed commercial enterprise. Britain
paid for every bullet, every drop of oil and every grain of wheat
with the wealth of its empire. We opened up our domestic
imperial markets to US trade in order to secure supplies, knowing
that it would mean the end of the Empire. In fact, the last
tranche of our war debt was paid in December 2006.
Mike Jones
Well, we do seem to have drifted somewhat, but WTH, why not? ;)
I find myself pretty much in agreement with your perspectives on
sociapaths here BTW.
There does indeed seem to be a "fatal flaw" in human affairs where the
masses are only too happy for someone to "take charge", and that someone
is typically going to be a collective of power-grabbing sociopaths,
capable of and willing to do the kinds of things you and me couldn't even
consider, to gain and maintain their addiction to power.
Dawkins writes about this as "hawks and doves" in "The Selfish Gene".
The problem with the (western) world today (as I see\experience it) is
that the "hawks" discovered that the larger mass of "Do it for me" doves
could be quite devastating if faced with an Orwellian "nightmare-
reality", and so have opted for a Huxleyan "virtual-reality" instead,
something the average dumbed-down massed are sucking up like its going
out of fashion (which it clearly isn't).
Welcome to "Planet MontyBurns".
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Jones
[...]
> You should also bear in mind that the German leadership was not as
> independent as we are used to from our own generals. Their generals
> were largely brought up with a very old-fashioned sense of duty and a
> firm belief in the chain of command at any cost -- and this meant
> obeying the mad little corporal. All the more so since Hitler had no
> compunction about purging his High Command and their families.
Unlike America following Chimpzilla for 8 disasterous years, despite the
blatent evidence of an illegal coup?
The US military have a sworn oath to protect America againt "enemies
domestic", but failed to even investigate a coup in 2000.
Looks like the same old stuff we read about with Germany in the 1930s.
So, about that "chain of command" thing again...? :\
Trance Gemini
> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
<snipped>
> > Lol. Okay. Feel free to tell me if my rant is off-base.
>
> > According to research studies, Sociopaths are quite different from the
> > rest of us and I do believe that they are the source of violence.
>
> > Our ability to reason and empathize give us a lot of other options for
> > making megabucks quickly if that's the only aim.
>
> > War isn't the only one. Why is it the preferred one?
>
> > For most of us it isn't. For some it is.
>
> Well, we do seem to have drifted somewhat, but WTH, why not? ;)
It's all connected in my mind (but I won't argue if you claim that my
mind works in mysterious ways Lol)
>
> I find myself pretty much in agreement with your perspectives on
> sociapaths here BTW.
That's good to know.
It's not a common approach but from the reading I've been doing lately
on Sociopaths it makes a lot of sense to me and answers questions for
me that I've wondered about in the past.
>
> There does indeed seem to be a "fatal flaw" in human affairs where the
> masses are only too happy for someone to "take charge", and that someone
> is typically going to be a collective of power-grabbing sociopaths,
> capable of and willing to do the kinds of things you and me couldn't even
> consider, to gain and maintain their addiction to power.
Exactly. It's worked for us up until now but I really think that given
today's world, we can't afford to continue in this way.
>
> Dawkins writes about this as "hawks and doves" in "The Selfish Gene".
>
> The problem with the (western) world today (as I see\experience it) is
> that the "hawks" discovered that the larger mass of "Do it for me" doves
> could be quite devastating if faced with an Orwellian "nightmare-
> reality", and so have opted for a Huxleyan "virtual-reality" instead,
> something the average dumbed-down massed are sucking up like its going
> out of fashion (which it clearly isn't).
>
> Welcome to "Planet MontyBurns".
>
Interesting point. You may be onto something there given our
propensity to elect the wrong people and/or passivity when they get
into positions of power.
<snipped>
Trance Gemini
Okay but China and Britain were at war early on so there may still
have been a relationship (First Opium Wars).
>
> So, early 1920s naval competition between the US and Japan culminated
> in an international naval limitation treaty, The Washington Treaty of
> 1922,
> which capped some of the competition for a while, but Japan's
> aggressions
> in China starting in 1931, and their repudiation of the Treaty in
> 1936, all
> showed the US that Japan was going to be trouble, if not properly
> deterred
> by US power.
>
> Briatain's only serious role in all that was their own naval plans to
> send a
> fleet in a time of war with Japan, to their main Imperial possession
> out
> there, Singapore. 1940 put final paid to that idea, as the UK had no
> spare
> ships to send out.
Isn't that why the US got involved?
>
> Japan, further, had a problem: Much of the raw materials that
> supported
> their aggression of the 30s came from the US. From oil, steel, and
> other
> commodities, they needed them, and, when the US cut them off in 1940,
> when Japan occupied French Indochina, Japan got the daft idea that
> they
> could 1) Conquer what they needed, while 2) Keeping the US and it's
> formidable and rapidly growing naval power, at bay.
>
> Oops...
>
> There is a reasonable argument that Japan lost WW2 on 7 Dec, 1941.
> Because, they had zero chance to prevail in what they had chosen to
> start.
>
> Germany winning the war was not impossible. For all practical
> purposes,
> Japan winning against the US was impossible. That's a key difference
> that
> needs to be understood between the two main arenas of WW2.
Isn't that why Germany declared war on the US? To support Japan?
<snipped>
Trance Gemini
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:05:57 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
>
>
> <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:43:32 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> WWII was against Fascism and for that reason I think it had to be
> >> >> fought.
>
> >> >In the case of the US, it's not like they had a choice: As Japan
> >> >attacked them, so the US declaration of war was a response, and
> >> >then, Germany declared war on the US four days later, so how
> >> >could the US have not replied with a declaration of their own ?
>
> >> Our choice was made during the late 30s, when we acted to interfere with Japan's
> >> access to oil and otherwise treated them with the sort of disrespect reserved
> >> for "lesser breeds without the law." For some reason, this seems to have pissed
> >> them off a bit.
>
> >> The US was not entirely innocent in the matter. Hitler's declaration was pretty
> >> much dictated by the Tripartite Pact and his own grandiosity.
>
> >It's my understanding that the US intervened with Japan at the request
> >of the British because the Japanese were interfering with their
> >colonies.
>
> >Is this not correct?
>
> Could be, but it would remain a matter of white folks keeping yellow folks in
> their place.
I'm still not really getting how racism would have been a source of
the issue?
Whenever a war occurs there's usually racism as a by-product. It's a
tool to dehumanize the enemy and make it easier to fight them.
<snipped>
Les Hellawell
wrote:
I was talking WW1. (apart from the WW2 aside)
>
>FWIW, in 1941 military defeat was far from certain for the
>Germans. In fact, the picture was quite rosy. The Western front
>was pacified, and the Russians were taking extremely heavy
>casualties. The disastrous Russian winter (Stalingrad) hadn't
>yet hit German morale or materiel. The Battle of Britain was
>still in full swing and British air superiority had yet to be
>established. The North African campaign was proceeding
>reasonably well for Rommel.
The Battle of Britain - an attempt to destroy our airforce -
offcially ended when Germany transferred the bulk of its fighter
forces east in preparation for the invasion of Russia.
Thereafter attacks concentrated on our cities by night.
>You should also bear in mind that the German leadership was not
>as independent as we are used to from our own generals. Their
>generals were largely brought up with a very old-fashioned sense
>of duty and a firm belief in the chain of command at any cost --
>and this meant obeying the mad little corporal. All the more so
>since Hitler had no compunction about purging his High Command
>and their families.
>
>In this context, there is a German notion that is worth
>contemplating: "Nibelungentreue". This is an ideal derived
>straight from the German national epic, the Nibelungen Saga, and
>describes an unswerving and unquestioning loyalty even unto utter
>damnation and catastrophe. So even if the generals knew that
>declaring war on the US while they were still fighting a hard
>campaign against Stalin was doomed to failure, their culture and
>ethos would not permit them to question or disobey their leader.
>
>As for US involvement in the war prior to the declaration of war,
>that was largely a hard-nosed commercial enterprise. Britain
>paid for every bullet, every drop of oil and every grain of wheat
>with the wealth of its empire. We opened up our domestic
>imperial markets to US trade in order to secure supplies, knowing
>that it would mean the end of the Empire. In fact, the last
>tranche of our war debt was paid in December 2006.
You summary is essentially correct, about WW2
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Andre Lieven
Um, no. The UK and China were never "at war", rather, the UK, along
with many other large powers, intervened in China, for their own
purposes
and interests. But, unlike the other powers, post WW1, Japan still
tried
to grab actual Chinese territory for itself.
> > So, early 1920s naval competition between the US and Japan culminated
> > in an international naval limitation treaty, The Washington Treaty of
> > 1922, which capped some of the competition for a while, but Japan's
> > aggressions
> > in China starting in 1931, and their repudiation of the Treaty in
> > 1936, all showed the US that Japan was going to be trouble, if not
> > properly deterred by US power.
>
> > Briatain's only serious role in all that was their own naval plans to
> > send a fleet
> > in a time of war with Japan, to their main Imperial possession out
> > there, Singapore. 1940 put final paid to that idea, as the UK had no
> > spare ships to send out.
>
> Isn't that why the US got involved?
No, not even close. The US had no interest in supporting the UK's
empire, rather, the US had it's own legitimate interest in preventing
Japan from conquering an empire, one that would be in opposition
to the US, and one whose creation would include the invasion of
various US territories and protectorates, such as the Philippines.
Had the US the wish to intervene for the UK, the US would have
entered the against Germany in 1940.
> > Japan, further, had a problem: Much of the raw materials that
> > supported
> > their aggression of the 30s came from the US. From oil, steel, and
> > other
> > commodities, they needed them, and, when the US cut them off in 1940,
> > when Japan occupied French Indochina, Japan got the daft idea that
> > they
> > could 1) Conquer what they needed, while 2) Keeping the US and it's
> > formidable and rapidly growing naval power, at bay.
>
> > Oops...
>
> > There is a reasonable argument that Japan lost WW2 on 7 Dec, 1941.
> > Because, they had zero chance to prevail in what they had chosen to
> > start.
>
> > Germany winning the war was not impossible. For all practical
> > purposes,
> > Japan winning against the US was impossible. That's a key difference
> > that needs to be understood between the two main arenas of WW2.
>
> Isn't that why Germany declared war on the US? To support Japan?
More because Hitler felt that a US already fighting (And, crippled at
PH.)
Japan would be easy to defend against, plus, by declaring against the
US, it would be no longer possible for the US to convoy ships while
using
the protected status of a neutral power.
> <snipped>
Andre
Andre Lieven
No, Germany's alliance with Japan in no way obligated either of those
powers to go to war with anyone the other was fighting. Note that
Germany's attack on the USSR did not obligate Japan to fight or
declare war on the USSR at any point.
> I was talking WW1. (apart from the WW2 aside)
>
> >FWIW, in 1941 military defeat was far from certain for the
> >Germans. In fact, the picture was quite rosy.
Far from it, though to German eyes, they didn't see the problems
cropping up that would all but doom their effort.
The problem for Germany was basic; Their whole military, and much
of the equipment that they used, was designed around SHORT wars.
By the late fall of 1941, the attack into the USSR had outstripped
their logistics, and so, the attack was losing steam and spluttered
to a halt in front of Moscow, just before Zhukov's counter-offensive
pushed the front back quite a ways.
Winter didn't win that battle for the Red Army, rather, the Red Army's
logistics *took into account that there would be winters to fight in*,
the German Army's logistics, not being able to support long campaigns,
did not.
> >The Western front
> >was pacified, and the Russians were taking extremely heavy
> >casualties. The disastrous Russian winter (Stalingrad) hadn't
> >yet hit German morale or materiel.
Once again, it was not winter itself that defeated German forces
there (By the way, Germany failed to take either Moscow or Leningrad
in 1941, so those failures were 1941 events, not 1942 events.), it
was that German forces were 1) Over-extended, 2) Not logistically
equipped to fight long wars, so one aspect of that lack of capability
included a lack of winter capable gear, and 3) Soviet counter-attacks
that used the same tactics that the German Army had already shown
the world worked quite well, armoured envelopments.
> >The Battle of Britain was
> >still in full swing and British air superiority had yet to be
> >established.
No, that the UK managed to keep air superiority over it's own
territory was a German defeat. And, that was a matter of record as
of the end of 1940, never mind 1941.
> >The North African campaign was proceeding
> >reasonably well for Rommel.
Um, in the late fall of 1941, British forces pushed Rommel back
from the Egyptian-Libyan frontier, about half way back through
Libya. That was also a significant defeat for Germany.
Lets also not forget that mid 1941 also saw a major German defeat
in the form of the Bismarck. Add to that the Royal Navy having
rolled up the bulk of the German surface naval support system that
helped support both German surface and submarine raiders.
> The Battle of Britain - an attempt to destroy our airforce -
> offcially ended when Germany transferred the bulk of its fighter
> forces east in preparation for the invasion of Russia.
And, that German defeat was the beginning of the rot...
> Thereafter attacks concentrated on our cities by night.
>
> >You should also bear in mind that the German leadership was not
> >as independent as we are used to from our own generals. Their
> >generals were largely brought up with a very old-fashioned sense
> >of duty and a firm belief in the chain of command at any cost --
> >and this meant obeying the mad little corporal. All the more so
> >since Hitler had no compunction about purging his High Command
> >and their families.
>
> >In this context, there is a German notion that is worth
> >contemplating: "Nibelungentreue". This is an ideal derived
> >straight from the German national epic, the Nibelungen Saga, and
> >describes an unswerving and unquestioning loyalty even unto utter
> >damnation and catastrophe. So even if the generals knew that
> >declaring war on the US while they were still fighting a hard
> >campaign against Stalin was doomed to failure, their culture and
> >ethos would not permit them to question or disobey their leader.
>
> >As for US involvement in the war prior to the declaration of war,
> >that was largely a hard-nosed commercial enterprise. Britain
> >paid for every bullet, every drop of oil and every grain of wheat
> >with the wealth of its empire. We opened up our domestic
> >imperial markets to US trade in order to secure supplies, knowing
> >that it would mean the end of the Empire. In fact, the last
> >tranche of our war debt was paid in December 2006.
>
> You summary is essentially correct, about WW2
Um, not really, no, as I showed.
Andre
Mike Jones
Regarding "It's all connected in my mind", don't lose that! Its your live
and vital perspective on things, and seems to me to be quite an active
process for you, unlike some who seem to want theirs to be static and
free of the urge to think for themselves.
In the seething mass of "whats connected in /my/ mind" it seems quite a
simple matter that psychopaths amongst us will tend to rise to the top of
any power-chain, and the masses, too busy getting on with their daily
grinds, will tend to risk letting any charmer with a quik-fix solution
take charge of that power.
The rest is already history, and we can indeed see how ALL wars are
little more than an extension of an everlasting conflict between the
"governed masses" and those who would seek power over them. Its a "deal
with the devil™" that is part of the natural state (if humans can claim
to have such a thing) of human social structures, and conflict is not
only inevitable, its guaranteed as its a component part of how humanity
both causes and solves its problems with itself.
Gilliam's "Baron Munchhausen" got this one pretty well nailed down IMO.
Humanity is just past the developmental stage of a baby knocking play-
bricks over, and into the early stages of a "Lord of the Flies"
interaction with itself. If it learns to stop crapping where it stands,
it might yet survive and develop into something with collective
intelligence.
Maybe.
Trance Gemini
Thanks for that. It's nice to see that at least one person in the
world actually gets it.
It is a very dynamic process for me. I'm neither a linear nor a static
thinker.
Nothing is sacred, everything should be challenged and if it can't
hold up to constant scrutiny it needs to be changed.
However, many people (in RL) have decided that I'm "scattered" or "all
over the place" or whatever.
I guess I need to be better at demonstrating the connections that are
patently obvious to me but apparently not to others.
>
> In the seething mass of "whats connected in /my/ mind" it seems quite a
> simple matter that psychopaths amongst us will tend to rise to the top of
> any power-chain, and the masses, too busy getting on with their daily
> grinds, will tend to risk letting any charmer with a quik-fix solution
> take charge of that power.
This is exactly what happens and it seriously needs to stop now that
we understand what's going on.
Unfortunately I don't think people take this seriously.
I guess it's just easier to let them play Russian Roulette with our
lives?
I genuinely don't get that.
>
> The rest is already history, and we can indeed see how ALL wars are
> little more than an extension of an everlasting conflict between the
> "governed masses" and those who would seek power over them.
Almost all (if not all) of the major social evils committed by
humanity can be boiled down to that statement.
> Its a "deal
> with the devil™" that is part of the natural state (if humans can claim
> to have such a thing) of human social structures, and conflict is not
> only inevitable, its guaranteed as its a component part of how humanity
> both causes and solves its problems with itself.
Only because we allow it. Psychopaths are a very small minority. We
don't need to give them power over us and our society.
And when the Psychopath is wealthy and well connected they are in a
position to not only wield that power very effectively but cover up
the crimes they commit when exercising that power.
It's a sick game and it doesn't speak well for humanity.
>
> Gilliam's "Baron Munchhausen" got this one pretty well nailed down IMO.
>
> Humanity is just past the developmental stage of a baby knocking play-
> bricks over, and into the early stages of a "Lord of the Flies"
> interaction with itself. If it learns to stop crapping where it stands,
> it might yet survive and develop into something with collective
> intelligence.
>
> Maybe.
Agreed. Unfortunately....
<snipped>
Mike Jones
Again, some good points well made.
Many have attempted to do something positive in the face of the tides and
currents of collective human behaviour. Most of them never got to collect
a pension.
If it were just down to psychopaths, the problem would solve itself, as
they need a critical mass to comply _with\accept them and what they
become as a result of that acceptance.
The key problem is the "critical mass" factor itself. Too many people are
willing to accept psychopathic influence and disassociate themselves from
the knock-on effects, often, if only by implication (which is the killer
cop-out) blaming the victims of their decisions for the effects. (Note
the crowds of "believers" seeking a glance from the HRCC token godlette
in Rome each year, for example.) Though only little insignificant
"tolerations", when multiplied, they all add up to a huge effect at the
levels the psychopaths work at.
Look up "delphi method" for how this works, and read Sebastian Haffner's
stuff on Hitler ("Defying Hitler" highly recommended here) on how the
Nazis gained so much power so quickly. Its not cheery stuff, but that
"seething mass" of yours will doubtless see bigger pictures as a result.
P.S. There are more like you than you think. ;)
Trance Gemini
Thanks. Will do. You are giving me many hours of interesting reading
with the suggestions you've made over the past few months.
I have read something on the Delphi method (your previous suggestion
and will explore it more).
>
> P.S. There are more like you than you think. ;)
Nice to know :-). I've been wondering if I was the only one....
>
> --
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Jones
[...]
>> P.S. There are more like you than you think. ;)
>
> Nice to know :-). I've been wondering if I was the only one....
Millions of active minds, all thinking the same thing.
Just do yer thang, and let life do it's thang. ;)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Trance Gemini
> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> [...]
>
> >> P.S. There are more like you than you think. ;)
>
> > Nice to know :-). I've been wondering if I was the only one....
>
> Millions of active minds, all thinking the same thing.
>
> Just do yer thang, and let life do it's thang. ;)
Yup. I hear ya :-)
<snipped>
Mike Jones
You do realise that by now we should both be wearing flared pants and
sporting an afro hairdo? ;)
Trance Gemini
> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 8:02 pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
> >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> >> P.S. There are more like you than you think. ;)
>
> >> > Nice to know :-). I've been wondering if I was the only one....
>
> >> Millions of active minds, all thinking the same thing.
>
> >> Just do yer thang, and let life do it's thang. ;)
>
> > Yup. I hear ya :-)
>
> > <snipped>
>
> You do realise that by now we should both be wearing flared pants and
> sporting an afro hairdo? ;)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ye8w63c
Cool! Don't forget the Dashiki though. lol.
http://www.vintage70sclothing.com/Separates/Tops/12165d.htm
>
> --
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Jones
> On Nov 20, 12:52 pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 19, 8:02 pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >> P.S. There are more like you than you think. ;)
>>
>> >> > Nice to know :-). I've been wondering if I was the only one....
>>
>> >> Millions of active minds, all thinking the same thing.
>>
>> >> Just do yer thang, and let life do it's thang. ;)
>>
>> > Yup. I hear ya :-)
>>
>> > <snipped>
>>
>> You do realise that by now we should both be wearing flared pants and
>> sporting an afro hairdo? ;)
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ye8w63c
>
> Cool! Don't forget the Dashiki though. lol.
>
> http://www.vintage70sclothing.com/Separates/Tops/12165d.htm
>
Heh! Weren't the 70s fun! :)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Trance Gemini
> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 12:52 pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
> >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> >> > On Nov 19, 8:02 pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
> >> >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> >> P.S. There are more like you than you think. ;)
>
> >> >> > Nice to know :-). I've been wondering if I was the only one....
>
> >> >> Millions of active minds, all thinking the same thing.
>
> >> >> Just do yer thang, and let life do it's thang. ;)
>
> >> > Yup. I hear ya :-)
>
> >> > <snipped>
>
> >> You do realise that by now we should both be wearing flared pants and
> >> sporting an afro hairdo? ;)
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/ye8w63c
>
> > Cool! Don't forget the Dashiki though. lol.
>
> >http://www.vintage70sclothing.com/Separates/Tops/12165d.htm
>
> Heh! Weren't the 70s fun! :)
And the 60s ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmIy7Ch4M84
>
> --
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Jones
> On Nov 20, 6:30 pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 20, 12:52 pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 19, 8:02 pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> >> >> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>>
>> >> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >> >> P.S. There are more like you than you think. ;)
>>
>> >> >> > Nice to know :-). I've been wondering if I was the only one....
>>
>> >> >> Millions of active minds, all thinking the same thing.
>>
>> >> >> Just do yer thang, and let life do it's thang. ;)
>>
>> >> > Yup. I hear ya :-)
>>
>> >> > <snipped>
>>
>> >> You do realise that by now we should both be wearing flared pants
>> >> and sporting an afro hairdo? ;)
>>
>> >>http://tinyurl.com/ye8w63c
>>
>> > Cool! Don't forget the Dashiki though. lol.
>>
>> >http://www.vintage70sclothing.com/Separates/Tops/12165d.htm
>>
>> Heh! Weren't the 70s fun! :)
>
> And the 60s ;-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmIy7Ch4M84
There were three "golden decades", the 50s, the 60s, and the 70s.
I've seen 'em all, and have more than enough material to bore grandkids.
"And I wore an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time..."
etc. ;)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Trance Gemini
Me too. Just a little kid in the 50s though. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJdxJ5llh5A&feature=PlayList&p=9223FFF1DA21FB19&index=17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux1O39MHWuc