|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 02 2015 20:47 coverpunch wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Production_overview:_service.2C_power_and_typeAmerica's main contribution to World War II wasn't loss of life, it was production of war materiel. The US produced about as much by itself as the entire Axis combined. Without this contribution, the grim logic of attrition turns highly against the Allied powers. That's not to say the Allies would necessarily lose without the US, since Germany overextended itself horribly in Russia and lacked the punch to actually finish Britain off. Japan faced a similar problem in China where they believed they had checkmated the enemy but couldn't complete a total conquest. But the war would have lasted longer and been much uglier if the Axis were going to lose anyways. In that sense, America helped win the war in a way that reduced the total human cost and is thus good.
I totally agree with that. But nothing in that analysis ever suggests anything close to "If america acted like France we would all be speaking German right now", which is pretty close to what was 4 posts above mine:
On March 02 2015 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:In fariness the whole "If we were like the French we would all be speaking German" line comes out pretty regularly in similar context. From less than a week ago Show nested quote +REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.: You know, many of us are proud of who we are as a nation, what we've done, what we stand for. We recognize that there are things we can do better. But there's a huge difference between being proud of our country and being only proud if our country changes. I'm proud of our country and I want to work for change in a positive direction.
Rudy Giuliani used some words that he regrets, and he really has, but he does have these constant messages coming from the president that he doesn't seem to be proud of the country we now live in, only the one we could become if we became more like Europe.
If we were like France, we would all be speaking German. The fact is America has stood up to tyranny time and time again. This president's challenge is to stand up to the tyranny of Islamic terrorists. And if we don't, then in fact we'll go the way of so many nations who have failed to meet that last challenge. SourcePersonally I think comparing ISIS to Nazi Germany gives them vastly more credit then they are due.
To expand on that: current American public opinion from the Republicans, seems to be that supplying fighting factions in the region with weapons and logistical support is not enough, only boots on the ground matter. And in that vein they draw parallels to WWII as if their fighting on the ground in Europe had even slightly the same impact as the eastern front, which is only possible in totally missunderstanding the war.
|
On March 02 2015 20:59 puerk wrote:
To expand on that: current American public opinion from the Republicans, seems to be that supplying fighting factions in the region with weapons and logistical support is not enough, only boots on the ground matter. And in that vein they draw parallels to WWII as if their fighting on the ground in Europe had even slightly the same impact as the eastern front, which is only possible in totally missunderstanding the war.
There's a difference between saying that the Eastern front had a bigger impact on the German armed forces than the Western front, and saying that the U.S. "came for a victory lap", which is what you initially wrote and which is completely off the mark.
|
On March 02 2015 20:59 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 20:47 coverpunch wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Production_overview:_service.2C_power_and_typeAmerica's main contribution to World War II wasn't loss of life, it was production of war materiel. The US produced about as much by itself as the entire Axis combined. Without this contribution, the grim logic of attrition turns highly against the Allied powers. That's not to say the Allies would necessarily lose without the US, since Germany overextended itself horribly in Russia and lacked the punch to actually finish Britain off. Japan faced a similar problem in China where they believed they had checkmated the enemy but couldn't complete a total conquest. But the war would have lasted longer and been much uglier if the Axis were going to lose anyways. In that sense, America helped win the war in a way that reduced the total human cost and is thus good. I totally agree with that. But nothing in that analysis ever suggests anything close to "If america acted like France we would all be speaking German right now", which is pretty close to what was 4 posts above mine: Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:In fariness the whole "If we were like the French we would all be speaking German" line comes out pretty regularly in similar context. From less than a week ago REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.: You know, many of us are proud of who we are as a nation, what we've done, what we stand for. We recognize that there are things we can do better. But there's a huge difference between being proud of our country and being only proud if our country changes. I'm proud of our country and I want to work for change in a positive direction.
Rudy Giuliani used some words that he regrets, and he really has, but he does have these constant messages coming from the president that he doesn't seem to be proud of the country we now live in, only the one we could become if we became more like Europe.
If we were like France, we would all be speaking German. The fact is America has stood up to tyranny time and time again. This president's challenge is to stand up to the tyranny of Islamic terrorists. And if we don't, then in fact we'll go the way of so many nations who have failed to meet that last challenge. SourcePersonally I think comparing ISIS to Nazi Germany gives them vastly more credit then they are due. To expand on that: current American public opinion from the Republicans, seems to be that supplying fighting factions in the region with weapons and logistical support is not enough, only boots on the ground matter. And in that vein they draw parallels to WWII as if their fighting on the ground in Europe had even slightly the same impact as the eastern front, which is only possible in totally missunderstanding the war.
Ah, I see it, thanks.
Issa made a childish statement that is actually commonly said, but usually meant more as an insult to France than an analysis about the war. To be fair, it is also meant to hype America's role in WWII. And I still find your analysis about as incorrect as his, since you also ignored the fact that America only entered the war because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
I would also point out something really interesting about the AUMF against ISIS debate, which is that Obama is already engaging in military hostilities against ISIS since the US has been bombing targets for months now and there are more than 1000 American soldiers. The Republicans want him to be more aggressive and do more, while the Democrats want nothing to do with escalating the conflict. Anyone talking like there's a simple or easy answer to this is being terribly naive, especially considering the costs of the war in Afghanistan and the last occupation of Iraq, with the relevant questions of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs of whether the United States has accomplished its mission of taking out the Taliban/Al Qaeda or ended whatever threats Iraq posed to American interests (with the answer surely being "no" to both, since Obama is relying on both to justify the current operations against ISIS). The real question is whether the US can best defeat ISIS with a quick and overwhelming show of force or with a medium-term commitment to regional stability, and whether it even wants to do both if that's the necessary answer (which everyone seems to think it is but nobody wants to admit).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you guys can't' be seriously arguing that europe is more responsible/contributes more to nato security than the u.s.
|
On March 02 2015 23:22 oneofthem wrote:
you guys can't' be seriously arguing that europe is more responsible/contributes more to nato security than the u.s.
wrong thread?
i have not seen that claim in this thread for ages... and would't think any of the regular posters would think it to be true
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2015 05:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like the US is the last country that should be criticizing others for not assisting them during a war.
Especially when talking about Europe.
|
he was talking about ww2, lol
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea after like a thousand years of europeans killling half of their population every century i can't possibly imagine why americans were reluctant to intervene in an european war.
|
To suggest American intervention in WWII was dwarfed by combat on the Eastern front, to explicitly degrade American involvement as a "victory lap," is so universally-insulting that even as a liberally and progressively-minded individual with an inherently international approach to world affairs, I take extreme offense to such language and it is quite apparent that you, rather than those you are so strangely trying to incite, are the one grossly misguided by history.
Perhaps you missed the lesson on the Battle of Dunkirk, in which the surrounding of over 300,000 British and French troops brought conditional surrender to the table of the British war room. Perhaps you missed the transformation of American domestic industry into an unparalleled war-machine which funded and armed the European theatre on both fronts. Perhaps you missed the entire Pacific theatre, in which the United States engaged Asia's foremost power almost single-handedly while simultaneously fighting an even mightier foe on foreign soil.
You speak of dishonoring fallen Soviets defending their homeland? You deliberately dishonor hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who abandoned their safe, comfortable American lives to combat genocide a world apart, a war in which they personally had very little at stake, yet a struggle in which all of humanity was entwined. My grandfather left home at age seventeen, without his parents' consent, and enlisted in the United States Navy under a false name and false birthdate not because his life or his family's life was in danger, but because he was drawn by a greater purpose.
You cast judgment from the relative safety of your twenty-first century home, apart of your twenty-first century Western civilization, with absolute disregard for the sacrifice which made it possible. The blanket of freedom you sleep beneath was sewn with the blood of men far greater than yourself. Show some goddamn respect.
Rant aside, there are far more pressing issues than one sheep's opinion of history. There are a myriad of American and, more importantly, human issues which are presently before us and not sixty years behind us. I believe this thread would be far better served if we simply ignore inflammatory behavior.
|
Are we seriously debating WWII here? Does anyone really disagree that:
1. US delayed too much before entering war. Didn't help that last war seemed not to do anything, but they should have entered earlier.
2. US could not land troops at first, due to having insufficient men/materiel in the UK and having not yet done the massive transportation bombing campaign.
3. Most of the actual fighting of the war was done on the Eastern front between the Germans and Soviets.
4. Without US supplies, Soviet forces would have had a notably weaker force.
5. Hitler made terrible mistakes in Russia that resulted in the tide being turned.
6. The Allies would have probably, but not certainly, won in the end without US involvement.
7. Losing, while relatively unlikely, would have meant the completion of the final solution and the deaths of many millions.
8. "Winning" would have looked like Soviet domination over a broken Europe. Stalin would have run Europe as a personal fief until 1953. Purges would have taken place. Europe would be looted by the Soviets and would never have received anything on the order of the Marshall plan. America would have been forced inward and the Soviets would have had the world as their playground.
9. It's a really good thing the US intervened, and that they focused on Europe, not the Pacific.
|
I think pretty much anybody on this continent here is glad the the US intervened, but this doesn't change the fact that the actual war happened on the Eastern front, the death toll alone was just on another level. Given the fact that Russia lost about a fifth of their population and that the war is pretty much a constitutive event for the country, one could see why they get a little pissed from time to time given the fact that so much focus is always being put on the Western side of the conflict.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh just because the eastern front was especially brutal does not mean the u.s. didn't do their part in the conflict. given the success of the american led western world order after the war europeans should be very thankful that the u.s. did as much as it did.
if you think the soviets won the war why don't you want to live in soviet russia now?
if a bunch of babies are killing each other and shitting up the place without wearing diapers, and an adult comes in, puts diapers on them and settles them without suffering as much casualty as the babies because the adult is stronger, you wouldn't say the adult deserved less credit because he got less injuries from the conflict.
|
On March 03 2015 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I think pretty much anybody on this continent here is glad the the US intervened, but this doesn't change the fact that the actual war happened on the Eastern front, the death toll alone was just on another level. Given the fact that Russia lost about a fifth of their population and that the war is pretty much a constitutive event for the country, one could see why they get a little pissed from time to time given the fact that so much focus is always being put on the Western side of the conflict.
Sure, but my point is that we kinda all know and accept that. Any American with any understanding of history is aware that the Soviet part of the fighting (and dying) was a lot more than ours.
The arguments here are both saying things everybody agrees with. We've achieved synthesis. Hurrah! Now let's move on.
|
The arguments here are both saying things everybody agrees with. We've achieved synthesis
The only point here I can generally agree with is 3. There is something missing from everything else.
given the success of the american led western world order after the war europeans should be very thankful that the u.s. did as much as it did.
I prefer Bismarck's European Order to NATO, but even ignoring my own notions about how an independent, Eurocentric order should look, this is merely retrospective bias projected against historical events. The US never meant to lead a "western world order" until well after the lapse of the war, and when they came to embrace that role under Eisenhower/Dulles, they were actively conspiring against the interests of their nominal allies.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2015 02:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +The arguments here are both saying things everybody agrees with. We've achieved synthesis The only point here I can generally agree with is 3. There is something missing from everything else. Show nested quote +given the success of the american led western world order after the war europeans should be very thankful that the u.s. did as much as it did. I prefer Bismarck's European Order to NATO, but even ignoring my own notions about how an independent, Eurocentric order should look, this is merely retrospective bias projected against historical events. The US never meant to lead a "western world order" until well after the lapse of the war, and when they came to embrace that role under Eisenhower/Dulles, they were actively conspiring against the interests of their nominal allies.
beats either soviets or nazis. the u.s. were not going into europe like a state building project, but since great blood and treasure were expended, might as well get a functional europe out of it.
|
What does it mean "If we were like the french" ? lol
And Russia will never attack France. Never.
given the success of the american led western world order after the war europeans should be very thankful that the u.s. did as much as it did.
That is absolutly true.
|
Castlereagh and Metternich were also preferable to Alexander and Napoleon. And yet the 19th century went by without a large Anglo-German army permanently based in Paris.
|
On March 03 2015 02:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Castlereagh and Metternich were also preferable to Alexander and Napoleon. And yet the 19th century went by without a large Anglo-German army permanently based in Paris.
Yeah that's an entirely sound comparaison, if you put aside what happened during the XXth century.
|
On March 03 2015 02:20 oneofthem wrote:
uh just because the eastern front was especially brutal does not mean the u.s. didn't do their part in the conflict. given the success of the american led western world order after the war europeans should be very thankful that the u.s. did as much as it did.
if you think the soviets won the war why don't you want to live in soviet russia now?
if a bunch of babies are killing each other and shitting up the place without wearing diapers, and an adult comes in, puts diapers on them and settles them without suffering as much casualty as the babies because the adult is stronger, you wouldn't say the adult deserved less credit because he got less injuries from the conflict.
From the rest of my posts here I thought it's pretty clear that I'm not very Soviet nostalgic, but still it's not okay to praise the US as the glorious "parent" that kept the "kids apart". The Soviet Union lost 20 million people while the US lost less people than during the civil war. If you think this war was decided by the US and look at history as such then that's definitely not true.
|
On March 03 2015 02:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +The arguments here are both saying things everybody agrees with. We've achieved synthesis The only point here I can generally agree with is 3. There is something missing from everything else. Show nested quote +given the success of the american led western world order after the war europeans should be very thankful that the u.s. did as much as it did. I prefer Bismarck's European Order to NATO, but even ignoring my own notions about how an independent, Eurocentric order should look, this is merely retrospective bias projected against historical events. The US never meant to lead a "western world order" until well after the lapse of the war, and when they came to embrace that role under Eisenhower/Dulles, they were actively conspiring against the interests of their nominal allies.
I was a little curious about how you disagreed with anything else I said (unless by "missing" you refer to the fact that I only said the bare minimum agreed on by pretty much every historian).
But then if you're coming from a position of thinking that pre-WWI thinking in Europe is the right way to go (and sincerely hoping you don't share his ideas of Africa or Imperialism, which was a part of that system), I'm not sure there's much discussion that can be usefully had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
