Wars/Battles Over The Last 1000 years.

[Bruno@MT]

First, we were providing monstrous amounts of material to the Allies so they could prosecute the war. Second, we were doing then what we're often told to do now - which is to mind our own business.

The US government was sympathetic to and was actively trying to find ways to get the US public convinced to enter the war. The typical citizen on the street, up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, didn't want to do so.

We used to like to mind our own business. We were castigated for doing so. Now we don't mind our own business enough - we're castigated for doing so.

SO WHICH IS IT?

First of all, I am not complaining that you came late. I could even understand the reluctance of the US population. Going to war is not to be done lightly.
I am just saying that the involvment of the US was not because of the 'benevolence' of the US population or a selfless desire to help. You entered the war because you got attacked. And fwiw, I never said that we didn't appreciate your help.

However, as for not minding your own business enough, I suppose that is in relation to the current wars. I am not talking about Afghanistan because there was cause to go there. With Iraq, the US invaded another country without solid reasons. You invaded another country based on propaganda. Iraq was no threat.

I'm not suggesting the USA deserves all the kudos. But the facts remain - we don't start World Wars, Europe does. We do end them, though.

If we are going to argue about that... the wars ended because of the combined allied efforts. The US alone couldn't have done it either.

 

[CoryKS]

After WW2, Western Europe is experiencing a 65 year peace.
That is pretty much unprecedented. We've had 100 year wars, not 100 years peace.

*facepalm*

 

[dancingalone]

After WW2, Western Europe is experiencing a 65 year peace.
That is pretty much unprecedented. We've had 100 year wars, not 100 years peace.

Never mind the fact that western European peace was bought by the vigilance of NATO forces for decades. Or that the United States is THE primary member of NATO providing the bulk of the muscle in the alliance.

 

[Bruno@MT]

True, that.
However, none of us started fighting with the other.
Before that, spain, the uk, Germany, portugal, the netherlands, etc all took their turns at declaring war on any of the others. France and the UK especially had it in for each other.
That all changed after WW2. That is what I meant.

Btw, the American revolution succeeded in part because the French involvment.
So if we are going to argue about who has to thank whom for what, you'll see that what goes around turns around

 

[Bill Mattocks]

After WW2, Western Europe is experiencing a 65 year peace.
That is pretty much unprecedented. We've had 100 year wars, not 100 years peace.

Oh, we're parsing now. "We" is Western Europe. Because if we just say 'Europe' then we're talking about Yugoslavia; how inconveniently war-like they seem to remain.

Of course, we still have our little peccadilloes in Western Europe and their possessions/protectorates. Vietnam, anyone? Last I heard, that started with France, not the USA. Falklands, Northern Ireland, shall we mention the Basque ETA or the various insurrections in Italy, France, and so on? The Mau Maus, the Suez Crisis, the war in Palestine, and so on?

I don't think that Europe (or if you prefer, Western Europe) is any more devoted to peace than any other so-called 'civilized' nation, ourselves included. 65-year-peace. Go on, pull the other leg.

 

[dancingalone]

Btw, the American revolution succeeded in part because the French involvment.
So if we are going to argue about who has to thank whom for what, you'll see that what goes around turns around

Weigh it in dollars. I bet I know which comes on top even allowing for inflation.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

True, that.
However, none of us started fighting with the other.
Before that, spain, the uk, Germany, portugal, the netherlands, etc all took their turns at declaring war on any of the others. France and the UK especially had it in for each other.
That all changed after WW2. That is what I meant.

Except that the battles got smaller and the wars were by proxy instead of directly with each other. And of course, all the local insurrections by separatist movements.

Btw, the American revolution succeeded in part because the French involvment.
So if we are going to argue about who has to thank whom for what, you'll see that what goes around turns around

Not really a question of who owes what to whom. More a simple statement of facts: that Europe has started all two of the World Wars, that the USA has remained uninvolved until heavily pressured to come in, and that once having done so, our side won each time. And remaining unanswered, my statement of irony; that when we remain aloof, we're castigated. When we get involved, we're castigated. It doesn't really matter what the USA does; we're the bad guy regardless.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Interesting how it seems that proportionally the U.S. Civil War, Korea, Vietnam and a number of others were barely just specks in the time frames given.

Thoughts, comments please.

Very cool...but it is missing one...in the early 90s… my and divorce from my first wife :uhyeah:

 

[Bruno@MT]

And remaining unanswered, my statement of irony; that when we remain aloof, we're castigated. When we get involved, we're castigated. It doesn't really matter what the USA does; we're the bad guy regardless.

Why are you saying this to me? I already said it wasn't true imo. I answered that in post. See post 21

And fwiw, I never said that we didn't appreciate your help.
<snip>
I am not talking about Afghanistan because there was cause to go there. With Iraq, the US invaded

We are thankful for the US involvement in WW1 and 2.
We backed you up with support when you went to Afghanistan.
And I already said this several times.
No?

That does not mean that the war in Iraq was not a wrong decision. And it also doesn't mean that pointing that out means that we somehow blame the US for everything and the kitchen sink.

 

[Sukerkin]

First, we were providing monstrous amounts of material to the Allies so they could prosecute the war. Second, we were doing then what we're often told to do now - which is to mind our own business.

The US government was sympathetic to and was actively trying to find ways to get the US public convinced to enter the war. The typical citizen on the street, up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, didn't want to do so.

We used to like to mind our own business. We were castigated for doing so. Now we don't mind our own business enough - we're castigated for doing so.

SO WHICH IS IT?



The UK would absolutely have faced a German invasion. What would have happened after that is anyone's guess, but in my humble opinion, the UK would be the smallest province in the German Empire and you'd all be singing Uber Alles today.

I'm not suggesting the USA deserves all the kudos. But the facts remain - we don't start World Wars, Europe does. We do end them, though.

Leaving aside the grumpy bits {}, which I am not getting involved in, there are a couple of tangential details to elaborate on here that show how different history can be depending on who you read, where you were born and what retro-propaganda you are fed.

As far as we are concerned, America did not provide war materials out of the goodness of it's heart, it sold them and got very wealthy indeed on the back of the Second World War. I do not mean to imply that to do so was wrong, for we (and the French) have also done very nicely at times out of selling arms to both sides of a fight. Business is business and those raking in the cash don't much care where it comes from or how much it costs their customers in 'assets' that aren't measured in gold.

Lend-Lease, however, wasn't a gift, it was a contract. It can be argued that the terms of that contract were generous but it still took us fifty years to pay it off, crippling our post-war economy to do so. Further, we handed over all our scientific and military advances; stuff that was radically advanced for it's time. An implicit part of the deal was also that we, the British Empire, ceded our sphere's of influence in the Great Game to America once hostlities ended.

As to the postulated invasion of the UK, it is generally concluded that that was prevented by the RAF - a little affray called the Battle of Britain. It is true that the supplies coming across the Atlantic were important in keeping us up and running up to that juncture as things hung on a knife edge. But again, those supplies were not a 'freebie' and it is likely that if it were not for the close ties between Churchill and Roosevelt then even that mercantile trade would not have occurred. After Operation Sea Lion was called off, Hitler's attention swung East and never really re-focussed our way.

It cannot be overstated that without American material involvement in the Second World War (and man-power in the First) the course of things would have been very different. From our, British, perspective whether they went better or worse for us is a matter of conjecture, odd as that might sound to American ears.

The same can be said for our having had Churchill as PM at this crucial juncture. Tho' he is lauded as a Collosus-like hero of the C20th, there is a definite case for arguing that we would have been better off without him in the long run, for he destroyed the Empire he professed to love. It was only his implacable resistance that prevented Britains coming to terms with Germany and forced Hitler's hand into considering invasion in the first place, for the Fuhrer was actually something of a fan-boy of our Empire and would have much preferred to have us on his side! What an alternative history novel that would make .

As to peace in Europe since then, well, aye, other than the Balkans (which have always been aflame to one extent or another), things have been quiet. I don't believe that that is entirely because our governments have learned the true futility of war. The fact that centuries of increasingly bloody conflict has drained the coffers dry of gold and blood has a lot to do with that I feel - that and the Cold War ... and MAD of course .

 

[Tez3]

I say, Sukerkin, damn fine post that! Every word a true un!

Well done, sir!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It was only his implacable resistance that prevented Britains coming to terms with Germany and forced Hitler's hand into considering invasion in the first place, for the Fuhrer was actually something of a fan-boy of our Empire and would have much preferred to have us on his side! What an alternative history novel that would make

Check out the works of Harry Turtledove. Excellent alternate sci-fi writer.

 

[Tez3]

Did it have the War of Jenkin's Ear in there?

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswars16011800/p/jenkinsear.htm

Or the two wars in Oman, my other half was in the second one, RAF Regiment and the SASsnt out to fight.

How about the three wars we've already had with Afghanistan, it makes us 1-1-1 so far.

The Icelandic Cod War?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'll have to check, though I think I bought it in the late 90's so won't have more recent confrontations.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As far as we are concerned, America did not provide war materials out of the goodness of it's heart, it sold them and got very wealthy indeed on the back of the Second World War.

As you say, much depends upon one's perspective. The various manufacturers did indeed make money. The US government, on the other hand, was the guiding force in assisting in this trade. From March of 1941, before the US entry into the war in December, the US government was actually paying the bill (meaning US taxpayers) to 'lend-lease' material to the Allies. It was this move away from official neutrality which caused Germany to begin to attack US merchant vessels, which they had previously shied away from. The idea was that the Allies would repay the US, which paid the manufacturers. However, the debt, over 5 Billion US dollars, was negotiated down to 1/5 of that, and most country's debts were completely forgiven (not the UK or USSR). That still means that the US taxpayer paid the majority of the cost to the US government to purchase and ship war material to the Allies prior to the entrance of the USA into WWII. All equipment that the UK decided to keep after WWII was sold for 10% of the initial cost to the US government.

So yes, the manufacturers got wealthy. But not on the backs of the citizens of the UK and other Allies. On the backs of the US taxpayer, as a matter of US policy changes. So one can indeed argue that it was 'out of the goodness of our hearts'.

I do not mean to imply that to do so was wrong, for we (and the French) have also done very nicely at times out of selling arms to both sides of a fight. Business is business and those raking in the cash don't much care where it comes from or how much it costs their customers in 'assets' that aren't measured in gold.

Lend-Lease, however, wasn't a gift, it was a contract. It can be argued that the terms of that contract were generous but it still took us fifty years to pay it off, crippling our post-war economy to do so. Further, we handed over all our scientific and military advances; stuff that was radically advanced for it's time. An implicit part of the deal was also that we, the British Empire, ceded our sphere's of influence in the Great Game to America once hostlities ended.

Indeed. And was this not desired at the time by both the UK and the USA? We were left as the 'Arsenal of Democracy' and seen (rightly or wrongly) as the world's policeman. We were, along with the Soviet Union, the first two 'super powers'.

As to the postulated invasion of the UK, it is generally concluded that that was prevented by the RAF - a little affray called the Battle of Britain. It is true that the supplies coming across the Atlantic were important in keeping us up and running up to that juncture as things hung on a knife edge. But again, those supplies were not a 'freebie' and it is likely that if it were not for the close ties between Churchill and Roosevelt then even that mercantile trade would not have occurred. After Operation Sea Lion was called off, Hitler's attention swung East and never really re-focussed our way.

You may be right, I concede you have a valid point there. On the other hand, there is no way the UK could ever have mounted an invasion of Europe from the UK without the USA's massive manpower as well as material, so the best that could have been achieved would have been what; detente with Hitler? And Hitler showed such a propensity to respect declarations of neutrality; over time, he abrogated every single agreement with respect to non-hostilities and non-invasion pacts that he ever made, with the exception of the Soviet Union, who broke the agreement first, as I recall.

What I'm saying is that if WWII had ended with German hegemony in Europe, sooner or later Hitler would have turned his eyes to the UK. He did not have a strong sense of restraint.

It cannot be overstated that without American material involvement in the Second World War (and man-power in the First) the course of things would have been very different. From our, British, perspective whether they went better or worse for us is a matter of conjecture, odd as that might sound to American ears.

The same can be said for our having had Churchill as PM at this crucial juncture. Tho' he is lauded as a Collosus-like hero of the C20th, there is a definite case for arguing that we would have been better off without him in the long run, for he destroyed the Empire he professed to love. It was only his implacable resistance that prevented Britains coming to terms with Germany and forced Hitler's hand into considering invasion in the first place, for the Fuhrer was actually something of a fan-boy of our Empire and would have much preferred to have us on his side! What an alternative history novel that would make .

My reading of history has caused me to seriously re-evaluate Chamberlain's despised status within it, but I am not yet ready to concede that Churchill was the wrong man at the wrong time for the UK. As I mentioned above, I suspect that a separate peace with Germany would have lasted only until the rest of Europe was pacified and hostilities at least on a low boil with the Soviets. I do not believe Hitler would have let the UK alone, under any ideal circumstances, for any period of time.

As to peace in Europe since then, well, aye, other than the Balkans (which have always been aflame to one extent or another), things have been quiet. I don't believe that that is entirely because our governments have learned the true futility of war. The fact that centuries of increasingly bloody conflict has drained the coffers dry of gold and blood has a lot to do with that I feel - that and the Cold War ... and MAD of course .

We, the USA, are painted as the war-mongers, and Europe is a peaceful place. So Kosovo is in Kansas, right?

I still must return to my thesis, then. There have been precisely two World Wars. Both started in Europe and by Europeans. No US machinations have been complicit in the beginnings of either one (although the Japanese war on the USA, which devolved into the general World War, was based on US and other Western powers' imperialistic land-grabs in the Pacific).

We are not the starters of World Wars.

We have also had a historical tendency to be militarily non-interventionist if not exactly neutral in our dealings with the world. Our populace has preferred to stand alone for the majority of our existence. We are castigated when we step out of that role; we are castigated when we cleave to it. Yet we're not the ones who start the big wars. I conclude that there is something not logical about this picture.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sukerkin

Very nice post by the way and History can be very interesting from different perspectives, see the original US 7th cavalry view of Custer&#8217;s last stand and compare it to the Lakota and the Cheyenne view. And I get a different perspective every time I discuss history with my wife, who is from China. By the way look at the news in the US and compare it to teh same story on teh news in China and from the BBC...now that is interesting... for the record.. I tend to go with the BBC

As to peace in Europe since then, well, aye, other than the Balkans (which have always been aflame to one extent or another), things have been quiet. I don't believe that that is entirely because our governments have learned the true futility of war. The fact that centuries of increasingly bloody conflict has drained the coffers dry of gold and blood has a lot to do with that I feel - that and the Cold War ... and MAD of course .

There has been a bit of Historical discussion (as you mentioned "the Cold War) as to why there was peace in Europe after WW II. It has been out forth that much of that had to do with Russia taking over so much territory and bringing it under their control. Not a good thing necessarily but it stopped a lot of fighting, basically it gave the combatants a n enemy they both hated and of course if they tried to fight itt they got crushed by the USSR military. And as soon as Russia (USSR) gave up much of it territory some went right back to fighting. Just a bit of Historical speculation I was reading a while back

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There has been a bit of Historical discussion (as you mentioned "the Cold War) as to why there was peace in Europe after WW II. It has been out forth that much of that had to do with Russia taking over so much territory and bringing it under their control. Not a good thing necessarily but it stopped a lot of fighting, basically it gave the combatants a n enemy they both hated and of course if they tried to fight itt they got crushed by the USSR military. And as soon as Russia (USSR) gave up much of it territory some went right back to fighting. Just a bit of Historical speculation I was reading a while back

I completely agree with that, and not just with regard to Europe. We can look to Tito, we can also look to Saddam Hussein. There are, in fact, numerous examples of strong dictators who put an end to internecine squabbling within their realms. This would seem to be a good thing until the strongman is no longer present; then the traditional hatreds and rivalries return, usually with a vengeance.

Here in the Detroit area, we are presented with this every day; we have a significant Chaldean presence here (Iraqi Christians). They may not have enjoyed life under Saddam Hussein, but he did not let them be slaughtered (Tariq Aziz, recently sentenced to death in Iraq for war crimes, was Deputy Prime Minister under Hussein, and a Chaldean Christian). Now, even with US military occupation ending in 'victory', we have Christian churches being attacked in Iraq (58 dead last weekend in a bloodbath, did anyone in the West notice, by the way?).

We're the bad guys here in the USA, but here in Detroit, the Chaldeans and the Muslims don't blow each other up, and we don't have a dictator enforcing a fragile peace. So why is that?

 

[Sukerkin]

Some interesting points, gentlemen.

I didn't know about that Chaldean community in Detroit, Bill and it is indeed significant that the overriding victory of legitimiate democracy is that groups that may have antagonistic stances towards each other can generally rub along without giving in to the temptation of slaughtering each other.

Perhaps that's another iron we can add to the fire of pondering the 'peace' in Europe since WWII? Is it because the Imperial nations gradually became more openly democratic that the urge to wars of avarice and possession dwindled?

 

[MA-Caver]

Some interesting points, gentlemen.

I didn't know about that Chaldean community in Detroit, Bill and it is indeed significant that the overriding victory of legitimiate democracy is that groups that may have antagonistic stances towards each other can generally rub along without giving in to the temptation of slaughtering each other.

Perhaps that's another iron we can add to the fire of pondering the 'peace' in Europe since WWII? Is it because the Imperial nations gradually became more openly democratic that the urge to wars of avarice and possession dwindled?

That or what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the (Pacific) war along with the blinding growth of nuclear arms was an effective deterrent. U.S. newspapers and (Life) magazines had shown the terrible power of these bombs, I would imagine that the European versions were much more graphic and so that imagery sticks out, the resultant studies of what would happen if we went all out in an exchange and so forth. It's easy by comparison to recover from traditional weapons destruction, not quite so from a nuclear exchange... when a majority of the population will die from fall out even if they survive the blasts. Starvation, disease, radiation poisoning. A lot more to a nuke than just a big bang.
It's the loaded gun pressed against the back of your head that you worry about the most and it's the strongest influence to cause as little trouble as possible.

With that note... to say that the U.S. couldn't have done it (won WWII) without the allies... is true to an extent... until Oppenheimer and the boys at Oak Ridge came up with that new toy. Besides even without the bombs we still had the resources (read: oil, fuel, man-power, intact manufacturing and a resolve to win) that Hitler and Tojo were starving for. It probably would've taken longer true, but I'm confident that we would've won out.
I mean Hitler tried fighting on two fronts and lost... we fought on a wider expanse of two fronts and came out ahead... what does that say?
Yeah, because of the Manhattan project.

 

[Tez3]

MA-Caver, who are you saying invented the atom bomb?