| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On March 03 2015 02:40 WhiteDog wrote: Yeah that's an entirely sound comparaison, if you put aside what happened during the XXth century. It's as sound a comparison as the notion that the only alternative to Soviet or Nazi domination of Europe was American domination. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 03 2015 02:45 MoltkeWarding wrote: It's as sound a comparison as the notion that the only alternative to Soviet or Nazi domination of Europe was American domination. American domination for whom ? In my book, the US did not take over europe. Explain me. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
Better to just not get into this stuff here lol. The US played an important and influential role in the outcome of WW2. Let's leave it at that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 03 2015 02:56 oneofthem wrote: it is just hilarious that europeans are complaining about how the u.s. isnt doing enough or they are the ones carrying the security issue. We're not, don't take those comments for what the "europens" believe. On March 03 2015 02:54 farvacola wrote: Complex dynamics like war are never "decided" in a singular sense by any actor, and any argument pointed towards qualifying the role of a nation in the outcome of WW2, particularly concerning major actors, needs way more legwork than this forums space allows. Better to just not get into this stuff here lol. The US played an important and influential role in the outcome of WW2. Let's leave it at that. Yeah but I think we can agree that the US influence was mostly positive as it prevented the soviet from taking over europe (something stalin said he wanted when he allied with the nazis). And that comes from someone who believe the 1917 revolution was a beautiful event. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday ruled Nebraska's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional in a decision that could allow same-sex couples to marry in the state within a week. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon issued a preliminary injunction in the case brought by seven same-sex couples in the state, calling Nebraska's ban an "unabashedly gender-specific infringement of the equal rights of its citizens." Bataillon denied a state request to stay his decision but said his injunction would take effect on March 9 to assuage Nebraska officials' concerns of possible administrative turmoil. Nebraska state officials quickly appealed the ruling to the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. "The definition of marriage is an issue for the people of Nebraska, and an activist judge should not substitute his personal political preferences for the will of the people," Governor Pete Ricketts said in a statement. Nebraska voters in 2000 adopted a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman and does not recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships or similar relationships for same-sex couples. The plaintiffs include Sally Waters, who has stage four breast cancer that has spread and wants Nebraska to recognize her 2008 marriage to Susan Waters in California in part to provide critical financial protections for their children. "Today is a day for celebration. The love and commitment our clients share will finally be entitled to equality and respect in the eyes of the law," said Danielle Conrad, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska. The ACLU and other attorneys brought the challenge against the ban in November. Source | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
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). Very briefly: 1. The US is not a homogenous actor, so before we take this position as a given, we have to consider: On what basis would the US have entered the war? What were her war aims? What were her goals in the postwar order? How could she have rallied her allies and a divided public to embrace her vision? With what means would she have enforced it? The reality is, that by the 1930s, the revisionist narrative of the First World War became dominant in the US, and American participation in that war was repudiated by large swaths of the population. American national sentiments ran contrary to participation in the war. The problem of American policy is therefore an organic historical problem, and not simply a strategic-military one. 2. Contrary to insinuations in this thread, it was the American General Staff and George Marshall who pushed for an early landing in France in Autumn 1942 (Sledgehammer/Roundup) against British objections. There were severe strategic disagreements between the Americans and British over the conduct of the war, and partially this was due to various political prejudices, in which Americans generally sought to keep their war aims independent of British interference. In military terms, British timidity probably saved the Western allies from a large-scale military disaster. 3. No general disagreement. 4. Somewhat agreed, with the caveat that although lend-lease (of which the British Commonwealth supplied a large quantity, apart from the US) accounted for probably 5-7% of total Soviet war production, its usefulness in military terms was uneven. Heavy equipment such as tanks and aircraft had negligible effect on the war, whereas the large-scale provision of lorries and jeeps contributed significantly to Soviet offensive mobility in the later phases of the war. 5. It was not only Hitler who made mistakes in Russia, and some of the mistakes generally attributed to him in pop history are questionable. 6. Difficult to say, because without American (and presumably, Japanese) involvement, the entire political calculus would have been changed. War goals would have been different and perhaps a Soviet-German armistice would have been possible after prolonged stalemate. 7. Questionable, since the expansion of the war had a decisive influence on the escalation of Germany’s Jewish policies. 8. Improbable, since Stalin had no appetite for domination of Europe, and British diplomacy would have had a better chance at coming to a postwar condominium with Stalin on terms of realpolitik, without American interference. 9. The general question depends on what precisely is meant by it, and from whose perspective. American prestige in 1945 however was very high, and played a decisive role in Germany’s Western orientation during the Cold War. Whether that itself was a good thing for the world I am not so certain about. how did america dominate u guys that would get compared to nazis or soviets? the u. s. didnt exploit europe or japan after the war unlike nationalist minded states or coalitions in european history. The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 03 2015 02:56 oneofthem wrote: it is just hilarious that europeans are complaining about how the u.s. isnt doing enough or they are the ones carrying the security issue. Well, the initial talk was about helping allied nations that you have a signed treaty with, followed by some poll about how Americans wouldn't want to aid certain European nations if they were invaded. Followed by Jonny making a "rebuttal" about how France and Britain hemmed-and-hawed over Afghanistan and wouldn't march to war with you in Iraq. I don't think anyone said that the US isn't doing enough, or claimed that Europe is doing all the work. But it's quite silly for the argument to be brought down to squabbling about who didn't help who in some war, and even worse to say "we wouldn't defend you from armed invasion because you wouldn't help us invade another nation". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 02 2015 20:59 puerk wrote: 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 Spoiler + 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 Source Personally 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. It's pretty difficulty to envision Britain surviving WW2 without outside support. Britain needed to import food, fuel and raw materials to survive and keep fighting, which is what made the u-boat campaigns so critical. Indeed, these supplies were so critical that before lend-lease, Britain was short on cash to buy goods with. If Britain falls, that means Germany can send more men and material to the Eastern Front. The same can be said for D-Day, allied bombing campaigns out of Britain, the North Africa campaigns and the invasion of Italy. Until around 1942 80% of German forces were in the Eastern Front, by 1943 that fell to about 60% (source). That extra 20% could have made a big difference for the Germans. And on the Eastern Front the US played an important role supplying the USSR with resources and logistics support, along with a few tanks and guns for good measure. The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. ... by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. ... Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. ... Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war." Source The importance of logistics in WW2 shouldn't be downplayed either. It was very much an industrial war and if you couldn't get gas and ammo to your tank, it was nothing more than an expensive piece of scrap. The US helped keep the USSR supplied, and took supplies away from the Germans by diverting resources and destroying production with bombing campaigns. German land forces had a pretty large technological edge over the allies. German tanks outclassed allied tanks until the USSR eventually reached a sort of parity. Jet aircraft like the ME 262 were really good, but came into production too late and with Germany already short of resources. Yet had the war dragged on a bit, or if allied bombers didn't destroy German fuel production, it could have made a big contribution. So yeah there's some American bias in saying that the US won the war, but it's not really inaccurate either. I'm sure the Russians think they made the biggest contribution and that the British are very proud of holding off the Germans. As for taking cheap shots at the French, that's been common for at least hundreds of years in the English speaking world. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On March 03 2015 03:22 oneofthem wrote: given the good results national sovereignty and militarism has achieved for europe yea it is a regrettable loss. In the days of national sovereignty, not all the mud of the Balkans was worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier. Today the Pomeranians are not in the Balkans, but Afghanistan. Therefore yes, it is not only regrettable, but it has permitted our present "international" consensus to emerge, which is believed by none, and adhered to by all. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On March 03 2015 03:19 WolfintheSheep wrote: Well, the initial talk was about helping allied nations that you have a signed treaty with, followed by some poll about how Americans wouldn't want to aid certain European nations if they were invaded. Followed by Jonny making a "rebuttal" about how France and Britain hemmed-and-hawed over Afghanistan and wouldn't march to war with you in Iraq. I don't think anyone said that the US isn't doing enough, or claimed that Europe is doing all the work. But it's quite silly for the argument to be brought down to squabbling about who didn't help who in some war, and even worse to say "we wouldn't defend you from armed invasion because you wouldn't help us invade another nation". You're misquoting me as I never mentioned Iraq. I also don't see why it isn't a fine rebuttal. A minority in the US don't support defending France with military support from a Russian attack, no details given. That contrasts with a majority in France (and most other European nations) not supporting military action in Afghanistan. Oh, but Europeans have 'reasons'. Maybe Americans have reasons too? No, we're not allowed... | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2015 03:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: In the days of national sovereignty, not all the mud of the Balkans was worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier. Today the Pomeranians are not in the Balkans, but Afghanistan. Therefore yes, it is not only regrettable, but it has permitted our present "international" consensus to emerge, which is believed by none, and adhered to by all. if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans | ||
|
always_winter
United States195 Posts
The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades. Your conclusion is based on an irrational assumption: state actors are forced to renounce sovereignty upon adhering to an international system. This is categorically false and has been disproven throughout the annals of history. There's a reason the Iraq War was fought by a "coalition of the willing" and not "America and the Superfriends." How's Quebec this time of year? | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 03 2015 03:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It's pretty difficulty to envision Britain surviving WW2 without outside support. Britain needed to import food, fuel and raw materials to survive and keep fighting, which is what made the u-boat campaigns so critical. Indeed, these supplies were so critical that before lend-lease, Britain was short on cash to buy goods with. If Britain falls, that means Germany can send more men and material to the Eastern Front. The same can be said for D-Day, allied bombing campaigns out of Britain, the North Africa campaigns and the invasion of Italy. Until around 1942 80% of German forces were in the Eastern Front, by 1943 that fell to about 60% (source). That extra 20% could have made a big difference for the Germans. And on the Eastern Front the US played an important role supplying the USSR with resources and logistics support, along with a few tanks and guns for good measure. Source The importance of logistics in WW2 shouldn't be downplayed either. It was very much an industrial war and if you couldn't get gas and ammo to your tank, it was nothing more than an expensive piece of scrap. The US helped keep the USSR supplied, and took supplies away from the Germans by diverting resources and destroying production with bombing campaigns. German land forces had a pretty large technological edge over the allies. German tanks outclassed allied tanks until the USSR eventually reached a sort of parity. Jet aircraft like the ME 262 were really good, but came into production too late and with Germany already short of resources. Yet had the war dragged on a bit, or if allied bombers didn't destroy German fuel production, it could have made a big contribution. So yeah there's some American bias in saying that the US won the war, but it's not really inaccurate either. I'm sure the Russians think they made the biggest contribution and that the British are very proud of holding off the Germans. As for taking cheap shots at the French, that's been common for at least hundreds of years in the English speaking world. I dispute nothing you said there. Especially with the last paragraph we can leave this topic behind. + Show Spoiler + Except maybe the german technological supremacy, their designs were to complicated and expensive. It is worthless to look at the technical reports from a training site, when the tanks have less then 50% availability in front situations, because the technology is to expensive to maintain. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 03 2015 03:14 MoltkeWarding wrote: Very briefly: 1. The US is not a homogenous actor, so before we take this position as a given, we have to consider: On what basis would the US have entered the war? What were her war aims? What were her goals in the postwar order? How could she have rallied her allies and a divided public to embrace her vision? With what means would she have enforced it? The reality is, that by the 1930s, the revisionist narrative of the First World War became dominant in the US, and American participation in that war was repudiated by large swaths of the population. American national sentiments ran contrary to participation in the war. The problem of American policy is therefore an organic historical problem, and not simply a strategic-military one. 2. Contrary to insinuations in this thread, it was the American General Staff and George Marshall who pushed for an early landing in France in Autumn 1942 (Sledgehammer/Roundup) against British objections. There were severe strategic disagreements between the Americans and British over the conduct of the war, and partially this was due to various political prejudices, in which Americans generally sought to keep their war aims independent of British interference. In military terms, British timidity probably saved the Western allies from a large-scale military disaster. 3. No general disagreement. 4. Somewhat agreed, with the caveat that although lend-lease (of which the British Commonwealth supplied a large quantity, apart from the US) accounted for probably 5-7% of total Soviet war production, its usefulness in military terms was uneven. Heavy equipment such as tanks and aircraft had negligible effect on the war, whereas the large-scale provision of lorries and jeeps contributed significantly to Soviet offensive mobility in the later phases of the war. 5. It was not only Hitler who made mistakes in Russia, and some of the mistakes generally attributed to him in pop history are questionable. 6. Difficult to say, because without American (and presumably, Japanese) involvement, the entire political calculus would have been changed. War goals would have been different and perhaps a Soviet-German armistice would have been possible after prolonged stalemate. 7. Questionable, since the expansion of the war had a decisive influence on the escalation of Germany’s Jewish policies. 8. Improbable, since Stalin had no appetite for domination of Europe, and British diplomacy would have had a better chance at coming to a postwar condominium with Stalin on terms of realpolitik, without American interference. 9. The general question depends on what precisely is meant by it, and from whose perspective. American prestige in 1945 however was very high, and played a decisive role in Germany’s Western orientation during the Cold War. Whether that itself was a good thing for the world I am not so certain about. The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades. You're making it seem like the kind of domination the US exerced on Europe is comparable to the kind of domination the german (and Stalin) wanted to impose on the world. Improbable, since Stalin had no appetite for domination of Europe, and British diplomacy would have had a better chance at coming to a postwar condominium with Stalin on terms of realpolitik, without American interference. Seriously, some of your comments are closer to blind anti americanism than historical analysis. Do you have any proof that Stalin did not wanted to invade ? | ||
|
always_winter
United States195 Posts
The outcome? Let's just say the Germans were only scaling one side of the wall. Icht bin ein Berliner. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
You're making it seem like the kind of domination the US exerced on Europe is comparable to the kind of domination the german wanted to impose on the world. Germany did not have global ambitions, so that point is moot. Nor was there a uniform kind of "domination" which uniformly directed German foreign policy 1933-1945. American objectives too, differed significantly over time. However, with oneofthem, one cannot be too picky about nailing down subtleties like that. What he is interested in is the model of how the global order appears to be, not how it emerged or why it exists in its present form. This is absolutly wrong. I just lead you to Stalin 1939 Speech of Politburo where Stalin expain how it is "essential that the war continue for as long as possible" for his goal was that "Germany should carry the war as long as possible so that England and France grow weary and become exhausted to such degree that they are no longer in a position to put down a Sovetized Germany". Seriously, some of your comments are closer to blind anti americanism than historical analysis. The speech you refer to is of dubious authenticity, although the cadence of Stalin's tone corresponds with the Kremlin's foreign communications at the time. This is largely due to the need for an internal ideological justification in terms of Soviet doctrine for the sudden and unexpected diplomatic maneouvre from United Front tactics to the Soviet-German pact. If you recall, in August 1939 the Communist parties over Europe were suddenly directed to reverse their propaganda lines to adhere to the new line. It was not the German-Soviet pact which was the camouflage for ideology; it was the official ideological line which was the camouflage for Soviet state interests. By1939, Stalin was a Russian statesman, and not a revolutionary. I would like you to explain this matter about blind anti-Americanism. | ||
| ||
|
|
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Cure vs SHIN
herO vs Solar
Percival vs Classic
ByuN vs Rogue
OSC
Replay Cast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Replay Cast
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
