Anti-Colonialism and American foreign policy

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

CaptainBeowulf,

You are here by awarded an honorary Seegar. Made of the finest Virginia tobacco. Or perhaps a Sherman cigarette. I would offer you other smoking material if it was to your taste but that stuff is illegal.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

Russia had no air force or navy to speak of, it was entirely doable.
It did have an air force - a tactically oriented air force, as opposed to the RAF and USAAF which were strategically oriented. They didn't do big strategic bombing raids, but they certainly had a lot of fighters, fighter-bombers and medium bombers. It would have been enough to tie up our air forces for a while.

Their tanks were also better and they had more of them than we did, and they had more heavy artillery. We could have worn them down, but it would have taken a while. They were probably running low on manpower, having suffered 30-35 million casualties in WWII (I'm not kidding - check sources like Glantz - although how many of those were permanent losses - dead or maimed - is unknown). However, they still had around 6.5 million under arms, and at least a million more recovering from wounds. It would have been a bloodbath.

The pivotal point is what MSimon points out - turning an ally into an enemy on a dime. Democracies are resistant to this. The electorate gets suspicious that the government is manipulating them for world conquest. In addition, democracies don't like long, drawn-out wars with lots of casualties. WWII was over fairly fast (six years, and America was only really in for four). Compare Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq: the electorate loses heart when things drag on for more than four or five years and there isn't a clear resolution. It would probably not have been possible to convince the electorates of the U.S./U.K./Canada to immediately transition into a war against the Soviets.

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

Thanks Simon. Maybe I'll take some good old Virginia grown chew and spitoon :D

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Anti-Colonialism and American foreign policy

Post by Diogenes »

bcglorf wrote:chrismb:

You're right, the middle east wasn't a problem of yours..... but you sure as heck made it one!

The Middle East was a problem for everyone (and most especially the people IN the Middle East.) The USA is the only country that had the guts to step in and do something about it.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: What did he do?

Post by Diogenes »

chrismb wrote:
bcglorf wrote:I can tell you for certain he deserved what he got and so very much more. That sits better with me than discussing if it was in America's best interests anyway.
Ah! yes, the law of the 'lynch mob'. As if the taming of the wild west never happened and was a rather redundant adjunct to American history.

All those little wind-swept towns on the high planes, with little slatted swing-doors into the bar [only one in town]. Those darn' outlaws, we gotta one 'ere, boss, let's stringemup on the ol' tree.
Mockery. Ha!


chrismb wrote: What about due legal process?

Like assuming the commission of a tort before the fact?

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: What did he do?

Post by Diogenes »

chrismb wrote:
MSimon wrote:You Brits will be stinging them up soon without due process if your direction doesn't change - soon. And that goes double for Euros.
The UK Government already is! Remember that red-light incident I reported on a few months back - I won the case but I am still hammering back; to the police, the court services and the crown prosecution service because they are all bl**dy useless and were all happy to see me strung up for their own failings.

But remember - nowadays (if it were ever any different) the British people are NOT the Government. I think in US the people feel much closer and more 'responsible' for their Government. In UK they are a different breed (ever since the Russians infiltrated the hierarchy of the country's leadership several decades ago). The average Brit feels no association with their Government, and the political "representatives" are no such thing. This country has had it.
Funny. We have the same problem here. There once was a guy who tried to direct everyone's attention to the problem, but he was ostracized and blackballed. Turns out he was pretty much right about everything. His name was Joseph McCarthy. :)

Them Wascally Wussians did a wot of baad tings!

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I don't know about arming them. When lend-lease with Russia started it was desperate times. No one was sure about Russia's ability to hold. Stalin at one point was ready to high tail it from Moscow.

And with the defeat of the Germans, America still had to finish Japan and the bomb was no sure thing and if it did work we had only three available for tactical use with more several months away.
All true, but Germany would have found Russia a difficult land to fully subdue. (We, otoh, would have just written a constitution, held elections and gone home.) It's a very big and rough country, and would have kept a large number of German forces busy. And it's not clear the Communists were much better than the Nazis in the end anyway (the Ukraine had its own Holocaust, as did Cambodia, Laos, China, Vietnam, Korea...).

As for Japan, they were never remotely a match for us with our 43% of world industrial capacity. As Victor Hanson details, America's relative productive capacity was astounding; by war's end we were producing something like the equivalent of the entire Japanese navy, at its peak, every eleven months. We were lucky at Midway but it really just hastened the inevitable.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote: Like Europe at the end of WWII. We did our best to shore it up, but at the same time knew the best way to beat the Soviets was to wait them out. Finishing the fight then would have set Europe back 100 years or more. The US could have finished it and won, at the expense of Europe.
I'll have to point out that Curtis LeMay thought the best way to deal with the Soviets was a preemptive Nuclear attack in the early 50s. He held firm to this strategy as late as the Cuban Missile crises. I am not convinced his method might not have worked better.



ladajo wrote: Our mistake during Kuwait, was not to finish the job, like Viet nam, we left. Sure we ran Southern Watch out of Saudi, and Northern Watch out of Turkey, but we left Iraq in-situ. We all knew then that we would have to go back. We also knew that all the UN Sanctions were going to do were bleed us dry over time, not the regime. Taking out Saddam was not a personal vendetta. It was not about Saddam making american's angry. It was the realization that the game needed to end. Because if it did not, he was going to do something stupid again. And, he sure put in a lot of effort trying to convince folks that he was going to. He even admitted in prison that he was ambiguous and postered on purpose. In fact, he did not understand just how well it worked, to his final detriment.
You are overlooking what I consider to be the most major point of this issue. The belief that Saddam was trying to make a nuclear weapon, and the possibility that if he succeeded, the device would be used on Israel, starting a Nuclear Exchange and possibly World War III.

If there are any other points to this issue, they pale into insignificance compared to this one.

While i'm on the subject, Saddam and Iran, are both the resulting consequences of having that Idiot, Jimmy Carter, as President.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

They didn't do big strategic bombing raids, but they certainly had a lot of fighters, fighter-bombers and medium bombers. It would have been enough to tie up our air forces for a while.
The Luftwaffe ate them up. So did the Finns (!). Russia was a very poor country, relative to the Western powers. Stalin himself complained about this a lot.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

TallDave wrote:
Like Europe at the end of WWII. We did our best to shore it up, but at the same time knew the best way to beat the Soviets was to wait them out. Finishing the fight then would have set Europe back 100 years or more.
No, in fact not letting Patton go to Prague and eventually Moscow was probably the biggest mistake of the 20th Century. We could have avoided the entire Cold War. Russia had no air force or navy to speak of, it was entirely doable. And we certainly never should have armed them via Lend-Lease; 2/3 of their six-wheeled trucks were made in the U.S. It was an alliance that benefitted them far more than us.
Oooooohhhh, I'm not even a big history buff, but I have to jump in here. From MY reading of history, had we NOT armed and supplied the Russians, the Germans would have won. It was a near thing anyway. If I remember correctly, the Battle of Stalingrad was very nearly lost. Had the Germans won it, they would have had unencumbered access to Russian Oil Fields, and would have been able to fuel their war machine from beyond our bombers range.

As it was, Had the Germans just a little more force to throw at Stalingrad , the Wehrmacht would have won. If I remember correctly, we have the Italians to thank for the Russian Victory in Stalingrad.

Why the Italians? They invaded Greece and proceeded to get their asses handed to them. Hitler had to divert an entire division from the Battle of Stalingrad to go down to Greece and save their butts. Because that division wasn't available at the crucial time, the Russians Won the Battle of Stalingrad, and thus the war.

Anyway, As much as I dislike the fact, we pretty much HAD to supply the Russians.

TallDave wrote: Just imagine if China and the rest of SE Asia had never gone Communist. Human civilization might be decades ahead.
ANOTHER POINT! I've pointed out before, but probably no one remembers. President Harry Truman (Democrat) denied a request by Chiang Kai Sheik for the United States to supply his Nationalist Chinese Forces with troop transport aircraft with which he intended to pursue and wipe out Mao Tse Tung on his Long March.

Had Truman assented to the gift or loan of US Transport Aircraft, We might never have had a Communist China, and as a result, no Korea, No Vietnam, No Killing Fields, and millions of people need not have died.

I keep making this point. Democrat Presidents are LETHAL. But the Cause and Effects are so far separated in time, that most people are completely unaware of the connection.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

CaptainBeowulf wrote:
Russia had no air force or navy to speak of, it was entirely doable.
It did have an air force - a tactically oriented air force, as opposed to the RAF and USAAF which were strategically oriented. They didn't do big strategic bombing raids, but they certainly had a lot of fighters, fighter-bombers and medium bombers. It would have been enough to tie up our air forces for a while.

Their tanks were also better and they had more of them than we did, and they had more heavy artillery. We could have worn them down, but it would have taken a while. They were probably running low on manpower, having suffered 30-35 million casualties in WWII (I'm not kidding - check sources like Glantz - although how many of those were permanent losses - dead or maimed - is unknown). However, they still had around 6.5 million under arms, and at least a million more recovering from wounds. It would have been a bloodbath.
The tanks would have been wiped out by the allied Air Force. At the end of the war, there was no tank that could survive an attack by a P-51. We would also have made short work of their air force. They couldn't make our Radar sets, and they couldn't make our Proximity fuses.

Their advantage was in Numbers of men, Artillery Pieces, and Tanks. All of which would have been quickly neutralized by Allied Air Power. They would have folded up had we attacked them.

That being said, it would have been a dastardly thing to do, but make no mistake. We would have won.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

TallDave wrote:
They didn't do big strategic bombing raids, but they certainly had a lot of fighters, fighter-bombers and medium bombers. It would have been enough to tie up our air forces for a while.
The Luftwaffe ate them up. So did the Finns (!). Russia was a very poor country, relative to the Western powers. Stalin himself complained about this a lot.
Read "The German Generals" by B.H.L. Hart. Their take was that the Russian Army and Armament was greatly improved by war's end. And the Germans thought the Russians had the best tank of any Army by War's end.

The Russians were willing to take HUGE losses to reach their objective. And their logistic tail was near zero during an advance.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: What did he do?

Post by djolds1 »

chrismb wrote:Ah! yes, the law of the 'lynch mob'. As if the taming of the wild west never happened and was a rather redundant adjunct to American history.
Some people are in need of killing. The Hussein family of Tikrit are a case in point. To the last man and woman.

The strategic implications of the conquest of Iraq have been negative. The Shii/Sunni balance of power in the Persian Gulf has been shattered, leaving Shii Iran as the inevitable regional hegemon. There were neocon theory "democracy" gains immediately after 2003 (Libya dropping its nuke program, the Ceder Revolution in Lebanon) but the deer in the headlights incompetence of 2005-2007 repealed them all.
chrismb wrote:All those little wind-swept towns on the high planes, with little slatted swing-doors into the bar [only one in town]. Those darn' outlaws, we gotta one 'ere, boss, let's stringemup on the ol' tree. What about due legal process? Nah! Look at 'im! Eee's got "wrongun" written all over 'is face! Ee's gotta be guilty of summut!!! String-em-up!

You Americans! How quaint!
There is no "law" in international relations. There is no government, no police to enforce its dictates, no court system to apply its statutes. There is only raw power and an eternal 194 sided Mexican stand off where the biggest guy with the biggest guns decides what the rules are.

The US is the current 800 kilo grizzly bear, and 800 kilo grizzlies sit, and sh*t, wherever they d*mn well please.
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

ladajo wrote:Chris,
Was Wild West Justice something like British due process in India? Africa? The South Pacific? Ireland? Scotland? China?
Sir Charles Napier. Great man with a gallows and a sterling example of how to handle multiculturalism (i.e., frappe it).
ladajo wrote:In Saddam's case, it was nothing personal. He was an a-hole, and he needed to go. A-holes like him get what they deserve, a lynch mob of their own peers acting out a court decision made by themselves.
Oh, it was personal. The little turd had stuck his finger in the American eye for a decade, after we spanked him but let him live in '91. Payback's a female canid.
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: What did he do?

Post by djolds1 »

chrismb wrote:The average Brit feels no association with their Government, and the political "representatives" are no such thing. This country has had it.
Two implications:

1) Time to leave (British courage has emigrated to Australia), or

2) Time for a revolution.
Vae Victis

Post Reply