Re: Negotiating with North Korea

[Keith W]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> It sounds like North Korea is reducing the war rhetoric and may be
> willing to negotiate. Kim Jong Un will need to show some sort of
> victory. Since I want the place nice and stable I suggest using the
> old Roman technique of "Bread and circuses". Transferred to modern
> Asia
> that become "Rice and Television".
>
> A proposal for a solar powered TV and microwave cooking system is
> attached.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Posting attachments is a nono outside the binary groups and
I for one will not open it.

In any case you are missing the point. Microwaves are no
good if there is no food available and having a TV when the
only channel available is the Kim Jong Un show is simply
torture.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

Food - one problem at a time.

Satellite TV - hopefully there will be at least 3 channels. The
Japanese and Chinese are likely to have their own channels on the satellite.

Andrew Swallow

[Keith W]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 19/04/2013 09:47, Keith W wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> It sounds like North Korea is reducing the war rhetoric and may be
>>> willing to negotiate. Kim Jong Un will need to show some sort of
>>> victory. Since I want the place nice and stable I suggest using the
>>> old Roman technique of "Bread and circuses". Transferred to modern
>>> Asia
>>> that become "Rice and Television".
>>>
>>> A proposal for a solar powered TV and microwave cooking system is
>>> attached.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> Posting attachments is a nono outside the binary groups and
>> I for one will not open it.
>>
>> In any case you are missing the point. Microwaves are no
>> good if there is no food available and having a TV when the
>> only channel available is the Kim Jong Un show is simply
>> torture.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
> Food - one problem at a time.
>

No its THE problem if you are starving.

> Satellite TV - hopefully there will be at least 3 channels. The
> Japanese and Chinese are likely to have their own channels on the
> satellite.
> Andrew Swallow

Putting up a satellite dish would get you a one way trip to one
of Kim Jong Un's 'reeducation' camps. You have no clue about
how life works in a totalitarian society.

In the old Soviet bloc and China in Mao's day radios were
delivered with only push button selectors to tune in to
state approved frequencies. Fax machines and photocopiers
were heavily controlled and certainly not available to private
citizens.

The system encourages your neighbours and family to spy on you.
Report someone and you are rewarded as a class hero, fail to
do so and you are a traitor.

Keith

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 19/04/2013 10:47, Keith W ha scritto:

> In any case you are missing the point. Microwaves are no
> good if there is no food available and having a TV when the
> only channel available is the Kim Jong Un show is simply
> torture.

Actually the usage of bread and circus it's about a very fine
balancing... the serious issues in the very country where the political
concept borne are rooted in an extremely serious imbalance toward circus.

and seriously, what circus can be good for people brainwashed by 60+
years of juche ? In the early '90 Italy has issues with just-free
Albania stemming from Italian TV media and wrong ideas on what free
world actually means...

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[tutall]

On Apr 19, 5:19 am, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:

> and seriously, what circus can be good for people brainwashed by 60+
> years of juche ? In the early '90 Italy has issues with just-free
> Albania stemming from Italian TV media and wrong ideas on what free
> world actually means...
>

Can you provide some examples? Am sure a few a more than slightly
amusing.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 19/04/2013 12:52, Keith W wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 19/04/2013 09:47, Keith W wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> It sounds like North Korea is reducing the war rhetoric and may be
>>>> willing to negotiate. Kim Jong Un will need to show some sort of
>>>> victory. Since I want the place nice and stable I suggest using the
>>>> old Roman technique of "Bread and circuses". Transferred to modern
>>>> Asia
>>>> that become "Rice and Television".
>>>>
>>>> A proposal for a solar powered TV and microwave cooking system is
>>>> attached.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>
>>> Posting attachments is a nono outside the binary groups and
>>> I for one will not open it.
>>>
>>> In any case you are missing the point. Microwaves are no
>>> good if there is no food available and having a TV when the
>>> only channel available is the Kim Jong Un show is simply
>>> torture.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>> Food - one problem at a time.
>>
>
> No its THE problem if you are starving.
>

Kim Jong-Un is not starving. his people are.

>> Satellite TV - hopefully there will be at least 3 channels. The
>> Japanese and Chinese are likely to have their own channels on the
>> satellite.
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Putting up a satellite dish would get you a one way trip to one
> of Kim Jong Un's 'reeducation' camps. You have no clue about
> how life works in a totalitarian society.
>

That is why the government has to put them up.

[Keith W]

Oh look - there goes a flying pig.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

When selling pig launchers remember that there are plenty of satellite
TVs in China.

Andrew Swallow

[Daryl]

Didn't the WWII Germans invent the pig Launcher and all others are just
copies?

daryl

[Andrew Swallow]

On 20/04/2013 01:07, Daryl wrote:
{snip}

>
> Didn't the WWII Germans invent the pig Launcher and all others are just
> copies?
>
> daryl
>
>

Well the fat piglet is using grandsons of the V2 as his launchers. ;)

Andrew Swallow

[dott.Piergiorgio]

well, in late 1980s-early 90s italian TV wasn't so worst as today, but
the glitter style of the dwarf was already there... I'm not into
nostalgia TV clips (and I have serious priorities these days) but I hope
that later I will try to provide some samples of 1988-90 .it TV productions.

[Keith W]

Indeed but China is now much more open than the DPRK

Back in the Maoist days the Chinese government rigidly
controlled ALL communication and you could be denounced
just as readily as happens today in the DPRK. In fact the
ideal solution would be for the DPRK to gradually open
up to outside world as did the PRC. The aim of South Korea
for years has been to encourage such a tendency via joint
ventures with the DPRK.

You have to stop thinking of North Korea as a communist
society, what we really have is mediaeval style feudalistic
structure with a hereditary king propped up by a miltary
caste.

It has in fact reverted to the state it held between the 17th and
19th centuries when ruled by the Joseon dynasty when it
was known as the Hermit kingdom.

All contact with outside influences was forbidden except
through China. Around 1/3 of the population were slaves
and the hereditary ruler was propped up by a powerful military.

One reason the North Koreans are so paranoid is that this
status was first disrupted by a US punitive expedition in
1871 following a disastrous attempt by an armed American
trading vessel (named the General Sherman) to force its
way up river to Pyongyang.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

I am assuming what you said.

Andrew Swallow

[Ben]

Negotiation with communists? Remember the Geneva accord 1954? The
Geneva 1962 that create a neutral Laos? The Paris Peace Accord 1973?
Remember that the US gave billions of dollars to N. Korea in the1990s
to stop the development of nuclear weapons?
For communists the only negotiation is a total victory. If the US
can't win the war, don't enter and don't negotiate.
In 1950, Gen. McCarthur told president Truman that the only way to
solve the Korean war is a total nuke of China and North Korea. Truman
did not listen and agreed for an armistice. This is why US troops had
to die in vain in Vietnam.
President Roosevelt did not want the US to enter WW II, but when he
let the US enter WW II, he is very serious. He set intern camps to
isolate the Germans, and the Japanese, and the anti-war. There is no
off-limit place for US bombers and troops. Berlin, Desden, Tokyo
bombed to rubles. Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked to the ground. This is
how the US won the war. No negotiations. Period. The US should say to
N Korea, "leave me alone, if you attack me I will nuke you to
extinction."

[Bill]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Ben <pb5...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In 1950, Gen. McCarthur told president Truman that the only way to
>solve the Korean war is a total nuke of China and North Korea. Truman
>did not listen and agreed for an armistice. This is why US troops had
>to die in vain in Vietnam.

I'll have some of what ever he's smoking, only nowhere near as
much...

>President Roosevelt did not want the US to enter WW II, but when he
>let the US enter WW II, he is very serious. He set intern camps to
>isolate the Germans, and the Japanese, and the anti-war.

Germans?

The 'anti war'?

There is no
>off-limit place for US bombers and troops. Berlin, Desden, Tokyo
>bombed to rubles. Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked to the ground. This is
>how the US won the war.

Don't you just love the idea that the USAAF did all that bombing.

Don't tell Fred, he thinks the evil Brits did all of it...

[Arved Sandstrom]

Well, you've got a finely nuanced grasp of history. I'd crack a joke
about you being in junior high but the worrisome thing is that you're
probably able to vote.

Yeah, MacArthur was just bang on on so many things in WW2 and Korea.

US troops died in Vietnam entirely because of the same general mentality
that MacArthur had. An inability to distinguish between different
communist camps for starters, an irrational attachment to the corrupt
and incompetent Chinese Nationalists as another factor, and a very black
and white view of post-colonial nationalism.

> President Roosevelt did not want the US to enter WW II, but when he
> let the US enter WW II, he is very serious. He set intern camps to
> isolate the Germans, and the Japanese, and the anti-war.

So he put tens of millions of isolationist citizens into camps, did he?

There is no
> off-limit place for US bombers and troops. Berlin, Desden, Tokyo
> bombed to rubles.

Bombed to rubles?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked to the ground. This is
> how the US won the war. No negotiations. Period. The US should say to
> N Korea, "leave me alone, if you attack me I will nuke you to
> extinction."
>

Japan and South Korea would just love that, I'm sure.

AHS

[Ben]

On Apr 20, 10:24 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Ben <pb5...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In 1950, Gen. McCarthur told president Truman that the only way to
> >solve the Korean war is a total nuke of China and North Korea. Truman
> >did not listen and agreed for an armistice. This is why US troops had
> >to die in vain in Vietnam.
>
> I'll have some of what ever he's smoking,  only nowhere near as
> much...
>
> >President Roosevelt did not want the US to enter WW II, but when he
> >let the US enter WW II, he is  very serious. He set intern camps to
> >isolate the Germans, and the Japanese, and the anti-war.
>
> Germans?
>

Here is the facts about American Germans internment during WW II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American_internment

"German American Internment refers to the detention of German and
German-American citizens in the United States during World War I and
World War II. Unlike the Japanese Americans who were interned during
World War II, these internees have never received an apology or
reparations.[1]"
<cut>
"At the start of World War II, under the authority of the Alien
Enemies Act of 1798, the United States government detained and
interned over 11,000 German enemy aliens, as well as a small number of
German-American citizens, either naturalized or native-born. Their
ranks included immigrants to the U.S. as well as visitors stranded in
the U.S. by hostilities. In many cases, the families of the internees
were allowed to remain together at internment camps in the U.S. In
other cases, families were separated. Limited due process was allowed
for those arrested and detained."

[Keith W]

Ben wrote:
> On Apr 19, 3:47 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> It sounds like North Korea is reducing the war rhetoric and may be
>>> willing to negotiate. Kim Jong Un will need to show some sort of
>>> victory. Since I want the place nice and stable I suggest using the
>>> old Roman technique of "Bread and circuses". Transferred to modern
>>> Asia
>>> that become "Rice and Television".
>>
>>> A proposal for a solar powered TV and microwave cooking system is
>>> attached.
>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> Posting attachments is a nono outside the binary groups and
>> I for one will not open it.
>>
>> In any case you are missing the point. Microwaves are no
>> good if there is no food available and having a TV when the
>> only channel available is the Kim Jong Un show is simply
>> torture.
>>
>> Keith
>
> Negotiation with communists? Remember the Geneva accord 1954? The
> Geneva 1962 that create a neutral Laos? The Paris Peace Accord 1973?
> Remember that the US gave billions of dollars to N. Korea in the1990s
> to stop the development of nuclear weapons?

Let me quote Winston Spencer Churchill here

'Jaw Jaw is better than War War'

Are you planning on enlisting for the invasion force ?

> For communists the only negotiation is a total victory. If the US
> can't win the war, don't enter and don't negotiate.
> In 1950, Gen. McCarthur told president Truman that the only way to
> solve the Korean war is a total nuke of China and North Korea. Truman
> did not listen and agreed for an armistice. This is why US troops had
> to die in vain in Vietnam.

Well no. American troops died in vain because they were propping
up a deeply popular Francophone neo-colonial government that was
hated by a majority of the population North and South.

> President Roosevelt did not want the US to enter WW II,

Actually he did but Japan was not top of the List

> but when he let the US enter WW II, he is very serious.

Where does this 'let' business come from ?

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the USA !

> He set intern camps to
> isolate the Germans, and the Japanese, and the anti-war.

There was no mass internment of German Americans, that would
have turned half the mid West in a camp nor were antiwar
protesters interned en masse.

> There is no
> off-limit place for US bombers and troops.

I didn't see too many invading the USSR or PRC

> Berlin, Desden, Tokyo all those thousand bombed to rubles.

Ah only the USAAF huh, the thousands of RAF bombers and
the British bases the USAAF operated from were unimportant huh/

> Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked to the ground. This is
> how the US won the war. No negotiations. Period. The US should say to
> N Korea, "leave me alone, if you attack me I will nuke you to
> extinction."

Which is more less what they have said, but facts dont seem to be your
strong point.

Keith

[Keith W]

All countries interned enemy aliens, but 110,000 Japanese Americans,
most citizens of the USA were interned. For the record there were
millions of German American citizens in the USA.

Keith

[Richard]

On 4/20/2013 1:09 PM, Keith W wrote:

>> Negotiation with communists? Remember the Geneva accord 1954? The
>> Geneva 1962 that create a neutral Laos? The Paris Peace Accord 1973?
>> Remember that the US gave billions of dollars to N. Korea in the1990s
>> to stop the development of nuclear weapons?
>
> Let me quote Winston Spencer Churchill here
>
> 'Jaw Jaw is better than War War'
>

No, Keith, it's not.

As argument I'll offer Neville Chamberlain.

(quoted from Wiki)

Chamberlain's reputation remains controversial among historians, with
the initial high regard for him being entirely eroded by books such as
Guilty Men, published in July 1940, which blamed Chamberlain and his
associates for the Munich accord and for allegedly failing to prepare
the country for war. Most historians in the generation following
Chamberlain's death held similar views.


To have peace we must be prepared for war.


Richard

[Bill]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Ben <pb5...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 20, 10:24�am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Here is the facts about American Germans internment during WW II:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American_internment
>
>"German American Internment refers to the detention of German and
>German-American citizens in the United States during World War I and
>World War II. Unlike the Japanese Americans who were interned during
>World War II, these internees have never received an apology or
>reparations.[1]"
><cut>
>"At the start of World War II, under the authority of the Alien
>Enemies Act of 1798, the United States government detained and
>interned over 11,000 German enemy aliens, as well as a small number of
>German-American citizens, either naturalized or native-born. Their
>ranks included immigrants to the U.S. as well as visitors stranded in
>the U.S. by hostilities. In many cases, the families of the internees
>were allowed to remain together at internment camps in the U.S. In
>other cases, families were separated. Limited due process was allowed
>for those arrested and detained."
>

In fact less than 3,000 were detained for longer than a couple of
weeks.

None of them US citizens.

[Bill]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:02:37 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

And in recent years he has been rehabilitated yet again.

The major problem is that Chamberlain's government spearheaded
rearmament.

[peter skelton]

"Richard" wrote in message
news:1IKdnYXTc7cOe-_M...@earthlink.com...

Your quote is remarkably devoid of anything that remotely
supports your point of view. Negotiating from a position of
strength remains negotiating, and it remains better than
killing.

Seeing as we're quoting:

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not
supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking
the enemy's resistance without fighting"

If you don't know where that came from, you are seriously
underequipped to take Keith on

[Keith W]

Richard wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 1:09 PM, Keith W wrote:
>
>>> Negotiation with communists? Remember the Geneva accord 1954? The
>>> Geneva 1962 that create a neutral Laos? The Paris Peace Accord 1973?
>>> Remember that the US gave billions of dollars to N. Korea in
>>> the1990s to stop the development of nuclear weapons?
>>
>> Let me quote Winston Spencer Churchill here
>>
>> 'Jaw Jaw is better than War War'
>>
>
> No, Keith, it's not.
>
> As argument I'll offer Neville Chamberlain.
>
> (quoted from Wiki)
>
> Chamberlain's reputation remains controversial among historians, with
> the initial high regard for him being entirely eroded by books such as
> Guilty Men, published in July 1940,

Here's a clue, negotiation is not the same as appeasement and
Winston was no appeaser.

> which blamed Chamberlain and his
> associates for the Munich accord and for allegedly failing to prepare
> the country for war. Most historians in the generation following
> Chamberlain's death held similar views.
>
>
> To have peace we must be prepared for war.
>

You might at least quote it in the original Latin

'Si vis pacem, para bellum.' or the rather less pithy
'Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.'

And you might wish to note that good old
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus did NOT say
if you would have peace then declare war. He was
in fact expounding the doctrine of deterrence

Keith

[Richard]

I was just sticking my toe in the water, see how warm it is.


Sun Tsu, from whom all military wisdom flows.
(I said "wisdom", not knowledge)

Chamberlain was not negotiating from a position of strength.

I wonder how different world history might be if he had been...

[Richard]

On 4/20/2013 4:01 PM, Keith W wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>> On 4/20/2013 1:09 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>
>>>> Negotiation with communists? Remember the Geneva accord 1954? The
>>>> Geneva 1962 that create a neutral Laos? The Paris Peace Accord 1973?
>>>> Remember that the US gave billions of dollars to N. Korea in
>>>> the1990s to stop the development of nuclear weapons?
>>>
>>> Let me quote Winston Spencer Churchill here
>>>
>>> 'Jaw Jaw is better than War War'
>>>
>>
>> No, Keith, it's not.
>>
>> As argument I'll offer Neville Chamberlain.
>>
>> (quoted from Wiki)
>>
>> Chamberlain's reputation remains controversial among historians, with
>> the initial high regard for him being entirely eroded by books such as
>> Guilty Men, published in July 1940,
>
> Here's a clue, negotiation is not the same as appeasement and
> Winston was no appeaser.

Very true. Very true.

So which are we doing vis a vis North Korea these days?
What did our billions of dollars buy us?

>> which blamed Chamberlain and his
>> associates for the Munich accord and for allegedly failing to prepare
>> the country for war. Most historians in the generation following
>> Chamberlain's death held similar views.
>>
>>
>> To have peace we must be prepared for war.
>>
>
> You might at least quote it in the original Latin
>
> 'Si vis pacem, para bellum.' or the rather less pithy
> 'Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.'

I always wanted to learn Latin.
But I never did.

> And you might wish to note that good old
> Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus did NOT say
> if you would have peace then declare war. He was
> in fact expounding the doctrine of deterrence

Uhm, yes. So I've heard.

But I wasn't suggestion _declaring_ war.
Just being prepared.

>
> Keith
>
>

[Ben]

This is what Ronald Reagan did during his presidency. And peace came
after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991.

[Bill]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 04:49:24 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>So which are we doing vis a vis North Korea these days?
>What did our billions of dollars buy us?

When did the USA ever give the North Koreans billions of dollars?

As far as I can see the last payment was less than $100 million and
was a decade ago and a direct payment for the decommissioning of a
nuclear facility.

[Paul F Austin]

According to the Congressional Research Service
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf), USian "aid" to North Korea
from 1995 to 2008 totaled $1.5B. Food aid of about 150,000 tons of grain
was shipped in 2008 and 2009.

Paul

[Bill]

It's still not an awful lot of money for almost two decades though.

[Daryl]

One dollar is too much. Didn't we learn from the Soviet union where we
sold them grain at below cost because they in the middle of a huge grain
blite where they sold it on the open market to gain currency? I imagine
that the grains didn't get to the little people in NK and the leaders
ate like pigs.

daryl

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

The bombings...oh yeah...the winning of the war...No, that was strictly the
good old US of A, don'tchaknow.
You'd best add in WW1 while you're at it, too...William...Fred's kinda picky
about that one as well.

cheers....Jeff

[dott.Piergiorgio]

what "not negotiating from a position of strength" ? O_o

Last time I checked, there was the position of strenght of a thing
called Royal Navy, consisting of twelwe battleships, three BC's, 15 CAs
and dozens of CL, a hundred or so of DDs, all definitively placed
squarely astride Germany's access to Ocean...

Italy until 1937 has exactly ZERO battleships (Doria and Duilio was used
as TS since 1933, because was originally planned to be stricken in 1938
to give tonnage for the third 35.000, Washington Treaty's final
allocation being three Venetos and two Cavours) so, Chamberlain knew
that Italy will support peace efforts.

and on "lacking preparation for war", well, aside that if one care to
notice subtly, there will be a *sixth* KGV, that was, HMS Hood
modernized, and after Repulse's mod (1942-44 timeframe) the distinction
between BB and BC became moot, and I don't call a lack of preparation
working about a 1943-44 RN centered around a BCS of fast BB, a BS of
Lions, a BS of KGV's and a BS of QE mod.. and those nifty armoured carrier.

[Bill]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:30:48 -0600, Daryl
<dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote:

>On 4/20/2013 6:15 PM, Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:58:19 -0400, Paul F Austin
>> <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2013 7:06 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 04:49:24 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So which are we doing vis a vis North Korea these days?
>>>>> What did our billions of dollars buy us?
>>>>
>>>> When did the USA ever give the North Koreans billions of dollars?
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can see the last payment was less than $100 million and
>>>> was a decade ago and a direct payment for the decommissioning of a
>>>> nuclear facility.
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to the Congressional Research Service
>>> (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf), USian "aid" to North Korea
>>>from 1995 to 2008 totaled $1.5B. Food aid of about 150,000 tons of grain
>>> was shipped in 2008 and 2009.
>>
>> It's still not an awful lot of money for almost two decades though.
>>
>
>One dollar is too much.

So how do you imagine the US will influence them?

Didn't we learn from the Soviet union where we
>sold them grain at below cost because they in the middle of a huge grain
>blite where they sold it on the open market to gain currency? I imagine
>that the grains didn't get to the little people in NK and the leaders
>ate like pigs.

There's a limit to how much bread you cane eat.

150,000 tonnes of grain is a loaf of bread for 300 million people...

Even the North Korean leadership can't get through that lot...

On the other hand, I imagine they could turn a profit on it, but
that's them becoming good little capitalists...

[Andrew Swallow]

The war ships would not have intimidated Hitler, he was planning a land
war against France and Russia.

Andrew Swallow

[Keith W]

Trouble is the German had 95 divisions as against 5 in
the British army and the RAF was still largely equipped
with biplanes while the Luftwaffe had the Do-17, Me-109
and He-111

Keith

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 21/04/2013 17:45, Keith W ha scritto:

>>> Chamberlain was not negotiating from a position of strength.
>>
>> what "not negotiating from a position of strength" ? O_o
>>
>> Last time I checked, there was the position of strenght of a thing
>> called Royal Navy, consisting of twelwe battleships, three BC's, 15
>> CAs and dozens of CL, a hundred or so of DDs, all definitively placed
>> squarely astride Germany's access to Ocean...
>>
>
> Trouble is the German had 95 divisions as against 5 in
> the British army and the RAF was still largely equipped
> with biplanes while the Luftwaffe had the Do-17, Me-109
> and He-111

Germany had 95 divisions on the eve of the war, and this after a
prolonged rearming effort whose destroy German economy, and with
panzerdivisions's best equipment being prizes.

Against it was the armies of France, a magnificent war tool but
seriously weakened by lack of tactical modernization and mobility (to
put it mildly...) and having excellent equipment (the SOMUA and B1 bis
was the best 1939-40 tanks whose in 1940 was in the direct hands of the
very best French general (that de Gaulle bloke....), notwhistanding that
their "rearmement" can be more correctly called "squandering of money
and resources" but was always superior or (after circa 1938) on par
(save a mobility inferior even to Italians...) with Germany. On paper,
UK and France complements one other against Germany, so a
five-division-strong BA was enough, without hindsight, knowing that RN
guarantees more than the time needed for activating not few british
mobilization divisions.

IMHO WWII's responsibility lies on Daladier and France on a level more
nearby 666 and nazi germany than Chamberlain and UK: even a very slow
advance (considering the serious limits of French mobility) into germany
during sept. 1939 will have greatly downisized WWII into the
Franco-German war for Poland of 1939.....

[Daryl]

That's pretty much my read on things as well. Had the French moved into
Germany while the Germans were busy in Poland WWII would have been very
much shorter. The Germans didn't have the war machine quite yet to
maintain a two front war inside of Poland and their own western borders.
The fact that the French sat that one out pretty much doomed them to
defeat later on.

daryl

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Agreed. That and allowing Belgium to anchor their flank, once again.

cheers....Jeff

> daryl

[Keith W]

Trouble is France didnt have the force structure or logistics to move
into Germany. After the disastrous losses of WW1 they had decided
to fight any future war on the defensive. The armour they had was
parcelled out among the infantry regiments which relied on rail transport
to reach the front and horse drawn vehicles from the rail heads

In WW1 the USA with a population of 92 million suffered 116,000
killed and 205,000 wounded and retreated into isolationism.

France with a population of 40 milion had 1.4 million men killed
and 4.2 million wounded. There was not a family in the land that
hadn't lost one or more of its sons or fathers.

Keith

[Daryl]

After this for France, all the more reason for them to push deep into
Germany. France would have all but been unopposed. And how many
millions did they lose after that not just in population?

daryl

[Keith W]

It simply is not the case that they would have been unopposed.
The Germans retained 23 divisions in the West to guard their
frontier and they had plenty of time to build fortified defensive
positions. A standard German division in 1939 was FAR better
equipped than a French division having a normal inventory of
442 machine guns, 135 mortars, 72 antitank guns, and 24 howitzers.

The French commander in chief, General Maurice-Gustave Gamelin
did in fact propose an attack on Germany through Holland
and Belgium but this was vetoed on political grounds.

On the German frontier French forces DID in fact invade Germany
but by the time they had mobilised and deployed their superior numbers
the Germans had completed their conquest of Poland and rushed their
most powerful units back West. The French forces in fact never even
reached the Siegfried Line. The war plan called for an all out offensive
to be launched 15 days after mobilisation (17th Sept) but logistical
problems forced its postponement to the 20th at the earliest.

As a result the Germans were able to rush troops back to the
western frontier and the French withdrew to the maginot line.

The basic problem for the French military in 1939 and 1940 was
that their command and control system was antiquated, they
were never in a position to react quickly enough as a result
either in 1939 or in 1940

Yes that lack of preparation was a mistake just as isolationism
was a mistake for the USA and delaying rearmament was a
mistake in Britain. Fortunately both Britain and the USA had
time to rectify their problems, France did not.


Keith