Oleg Volk ([info]olegvolk) wrote,
@ 2007-07-30 21:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
From Radio Free NJ
Opiate of the People

(Post a new comment)


[info]ratseal
2007-07-31 03:33 am UTC (link)
Say, Oleg. Are you entertaining any plans that would place you at DragonCon 2007? Lots of freelance models are certain to be strolling about.

(Reply to this)

the article .. 1/2
(Anonymous)
2007-07-31 02:37 pm UTC (link)
[quote]
In Europe, the people left behind when the self-reliant went off to the new world immediately began to “up their dosage” of societal morphine by embracing intrusive socialism in every corner of their lives. National health care, cradle to grave pensions, and state mandated employment are all either common place or being vehemently argued for. The people that are left continue to demand that someone somewhere step in and take their responsibilities before they ever consider doing them for themselves. They have even largely abandoned their own national defense, and demand that America protect them with one hand while complaining of American “arrogance” with the other.
[/quote]
I believe the person who wrote that has never lived in Europe. State mandated employment was the norm only in communist countries only. 'Being vehemently argued for' .. maybe some die-hard lefties take it seriously, but no one else.

Demanding that America protect us ? Who exactly does that? Britain? France, country the Americans love to ridicule builds SSBN submarines, manufactures its own military aircraft , and armored vehicles? That doesn't sound like they have given up on defending themselves, does it? Switzerland ? Germany ? Poland, which recently bought 200 modern MBTs ? "Ze Germans" have 1/2 as many tanks as they had in 1939 and 1/5 of the aircraft inventory, but what they have is much more effective. You can't really compare Me-109 or Ju-88 with an EF2000 or Tornado. For their low armaments expenditures, it's quite impressive.
Other countries have small professional armies , nevertheless combined European NATO armies could defend Europe from all possible threats, save a Russo-Chinese invasion.

--part 1 ends

(Reply to this)

the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-07-31 02:43 pm UTC (link)
[quote]
In Europe, the people left behind when the self-reliant went off to the new world immediately began to “up their dosage” of societal morphine by embracing intrusive socialism in every corner of their lives. National health care, cradle to grave pensions, and state mandated employment are all either common place or being vehemently argued for.
[/quote]

Cradle to grave pensions ? What is .. that ? People start recieving retirement benefits at age ~ 60. now 65. If you consider what taxes are paid, it's not that unreasonable.
And those are going to get less generous, since the population growth doesn't allow them to continue at the present rate. Unemployment benefits are nothing much (1/2 of minimum wage, which is a pittance in itself, less if long-term) in post communist countries, and dropping in western Europe.
In some post communist countries, this system is being phased out in favour
of personal savings through licensed funds.
What is vehemently being argued for are actually the reforms. But it's hard to ram down a reform in a democratic country that'll take away some benefits and rights.... (and that's why universal democracy is far worse than a limited one)

[quote]
Even Alexander said of Persia that there are no free men there, only “masters and slaves”, so apparently it’s been this way for a while
[/quote]

Masters aren't free? I believe nobility in feudal societies enjoyed considerable freedom .. even such that is uncommon today. Certainly, people in the US don't have the right of the first night among other things ... or the unrestricted right to carry weapons, which the nobility had too.

[quote]
This kind of life suited the early Americans just fine since the common characteristic of
many of them was the desire to throw off the yoke of someone else’s tyranny
[/quote]
I am quite certain that the majority of migrants from Europe weren't motivated by oppression, by rather the population explosion that happened in Europe in the 19th century, which resulted in overcrowding and poverty in some agricultural regions. The Irish immigration was caused by the potato famine, not British oppression.

Most importantly, the 'corruption of the spirit' that the article so vehemently proclaims is unavoidable and inescapable has already collapsed in some places on its own accord. In Soviet Russia, for example, though it can be successfully argued people did not vote for it, it was rather imposed by force. Soviet Russia enjoyed considerable economic growth when a free approach was tried shortly after the revolution, until Stalin put a stop to it.

Probably the only country that actually voted communists into power (that is, majority government - a position they later abused to perform a coup) in fair elections was Czechoslovakia, and then they only won in Czechia(but had overall majority anyway). 'The corruption' collapsed there 18 years ago, and since then capitalism with the associated need for personal responsibility has been the norm. Curiously, a number of communist party members have taken to like free enterprise, and are now businessmen.
(and, as the author probably doesn't know, 3/4 of educated people here(Czech Republic) are supporters of economically liberal parties (that is, those that advocate less intervention, less taxes, and lower expenses). Major cities are overwhelmingly liberal. In a survey, they weren't able to find one leftist journalist, save for those directly associated with socialist publications in Czechia last year. (Journalists themselves were wonderning whether they can objectively report on politics, if all of them favour 1-2 parties)
Writing that Europe is full of sheeple is a bit like writing that
curtains are unknown in the US. While they may be in some rural places in Texas.. it's still untrue..

Remontoire

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-07-31 05:19 pm UTC (link)
Respectfully I think you miss the point.

I wasn't dumping on Europe when I wrote this, or saying that it's full of sheeple. I was trying to point to a broader sociological trend and speaking in relative terms only. In fact, the walls that were thrown up around eastern Europe after world war 2 to prevent people from leaving basically support my argument. The communists knew they had to fence the self-reliant in or risk losing the very people they relied on to keep their society productive. At the same time, they probably slowed the process of their societal decay by accomplishing what they set out for. So it would make sense to me that since the collapse of communism the eastern European countries actually lean more toward individual liberty than those in the west. Much of the data you mention supports my broader point, but to be fair, I don't think what happened in "the eastern block" is an accurate characterization of a the natural development of a society because the ability to flee was specifically restricted.

As for the military spending issues and the rest of your deconstructive arguments, they seem like they're designed to refute points I wasn't making in the first place. Saying that someone buys or builds a tank is hardly the same thing as saying that they provide for their natinal defense. (Unless of course the country is Liechtenstein, in which case one tank will probably do it) In fact I think the broader trend I have identified can be applied to any group of people at any scale, be it global, regional, or national. Also, the tactic you use is a common one that I've written about in another piece. It's published here:

http://freenj.blogspot.com/2007/07/culture-of-academia-part-2.html (http://freenj.blogspot.com/2007/07/culture-of-academia-part-2.html)

but the salient detail is this:


And this is what I find it’s generally like to discuss things like this with academics. They will run you around using deconstructive logic to address the minutiae of your commentary until they find a tiny crack. Sometimes it can be as small as a spelling error. If they find one, then they’ll claim that it invalidates your entire argument, and if they don’t, then they call you a nazi, and the discussion is over. Either way it’s usually best not to expect a fair fight, or an open debate in the field of ideas.

Maybe you should try to see the bigger picture I'm pointing to and quit looking through the lens of a European who's apparently insulted by a connection that I never made.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-01 07:57 am UTC (link)
[quote]
Saying that someone buys or builds a tank is hardly the same thing as saying that they provide for their natinal defense.
[/quote]

Country that builds (and deploys) fighter jets, MIRved ballistic missiles(4x16x6 = 384 100kt warheads, with 192 lurking somewhere in the sea at any time) with hydrogen bombs on them, about 400 state-of-the art tanks and has a whole unit devoted to dangerous tasks and pre-emptive deployment abroad (Foreign Legion .. which is 1/2 staffed by Frenchmen btw) .. is not providing for its national defense?

That broader sociological term might be valid somewhere*, but in fact is just an observation of one of the fundamental truths about humanity .. that humans are mostly dumb. (as evidenced in popularity of shows like 'Big Brother', popularity of religions, consistent voting patterns in favour of crooks and liars (not specific to the US, that's worldwide), being afraid of things they shouldn't (terrorism? They should run screaming when they see a car) etc.. I could continue in this vein for some time)

*not where I live. Apparently not in China, or India. Or Russia ..
Here, it's in the opposite direction. And, whether they want it or not, government welfare'll lessen in the West. But I'm not sure about Britain. That country's getting really weird. In a few years time, they'll have more CCTV cameras than people.

BTW, why did you bring up academics? I think that I just pointed out that several of your key assertions are kind of shaky.

You made the assertion that everyone who didn't leave for the US were ..
[quote]
When the rebellious and independent fled for the “new world” across all of Europe, all that was left was the fat and lazy masters and their docile slaves.
[/quote]
.. which is not really true, and somewhat insulting to boot.
(fat people are more prevalent on the other side of the Atlantic, last time I checked .. ).

Remontoire

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-01 11:11 am UTC (link)
Actually what you did was use deconstructionist logic to try to invalidate a broader point by attacking the specific minutiae of the way in which it's presented. Said another way, rather than comment on the forest, you complain about the trees. It’s as if I said that Americans are generally taller than Europeans, and you’ve responded by saying how you think that’s silly because your European cousin is the tallest person you’ve ever seen. It simply fails to speak to the same issue that I am.

In point of fact, I had a whole paragraph in the original piece about how there are plenty of people in Europe who are still much more self-reliant than most Americans, but I removed it because I felt it diluted my point and I thought it would be better to give the reader more credit for intelligence than that. Others seem to have gotten there, and I don’t understand why you can’t.

It’s true of Europe of course, but I’m talking about the mean of a very broad population, and that means that there is a ton of diversity in all the groups I’ve mentioned. I think it’s a shame that you can’t set you wounded ego aside and see that. Instead you are giving me nonsense about how there are more fat people in America. That’s a literary point that couldn’t be more irrelevant. You seem to be trying very hard to talk past me, but it’s not lending any credibility to your argument.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-02 07:27 am UTC (link)
I wasn't invalidating your point, that there exist such tendencies that favour increased state involvment. Clearly, Britain and the US now have government-expanding tendencies.

However, societies don't seem to be headed towards tyranny in general. There was hardly any democracy in the world in the early 1800's, and nowadays most countries are at least nominally democratic, while a few can even afford to be democratic, though it's proving to be a bad idea right now.

I was just pointing out errors in your article, things that I think were wrong. If the broader point is supported by unsound arguments, .. it's less credible.

You think I don't see that Europe is diverse ? Look up how much the EU pays for translating all directives and laws to all the various languages.
Why don't they settle on one, either German, English, or at worst French.

The nonsense with fat people was a cheap jab at 'The lazy fat masters and docile slaves' part of the original article. (and obesity is a world-wide problem, though only in the US you can find organizations of people who insist that it's not unhealthy and grumble when they have to buy more
airline tickets for their exceedingly broad arses).

Remontoire

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-02 08:30 am UTC (link)
Small bone to pick, "The Irish immigration was caused by the potato famine, not British oppression."

Oddly enough, the reliance of the Irish people on the potato for the majority of their nutrition during that time period is directly attributable to English oppression. The majority of the crops, other than potatoes, were shipped out of Ireland by the English and Ascendancy landowners. If you need a reference I can grab one for you easily, in fact I have a couple in the other room. In other words, yes the Irish immigration was caused by English oppression.

The other thing is that mob rule democracy is one of the worst political ideas ever conceived. Stating that it is desirable tends to prove the point that you beleive people are sheeple. It's quite a nice political idea if you follow the flock.

-G

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-02 09:38 am UTC (link)
Hmm. Good point. I thought it was just overpopulation and single crop failure.

Did I say mob rule is desirable ?
If it were up to me, cca 9/10th of adults would lose franchise.
Only those with a brain should have a say in political matters.
However, the current status quo is good for almost everyone.
Gives the 'people' the illusion that they matter, all the while
rich, nasty individuals finance the puppets' election campaigns
and exploit the state and thus everyone who pays taxes for their own gains...

R.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-02 11:51 am UTC (link)
If it were up to me, cca 9/10th of adults would lose franchise.


That's the exact opposite of my point. That's a belief that the way from tyranny is to pick only the smart people to be in charge. That is exactly the view being shoved down the throats of Americans by the Democratic party, and Europeans by almost everyone. It was also the view under Stalin and Hitler, and Napoleon, etc, etc, etc. It can only lead to tyranny. There is simply no way for the government to know more about what I want and what I'll give up to get it, than I do. And it doesnt' matter who is running it, or how noble they believe their cause to be.

It looks to me like you have a lot of history to read up on.

You seem to think that tyranny and Democracy are opposites when in fact that's not so. You can have lots of tyranny with or without Democracy... that's just the means of implementation. The vast majority of people ever born on this planet have been raised under some form of tyrannical rule, and the fact that you're European and feel perfectly comfortable with that also supports my broader point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-02 03:04 pm UTC (link)
Only lead to tyranny ? Hitler / Stalin ? You *are* nuts.
There's no way a democratic country that recognizes human rights and rule of law but limits participation in politics to people who are smart enough not to be fooled by demagogues* to totalitarian dictatorships ruled through secret police and fear.

*a comprehensive test could be used to weed out the chaff. Reading comprehension, logic, some law..

Democrats and Republicans are different sides of the same coin, which is corporate interests .. and those are utterly indifferent to things like freedom or liberty, only concerned with their own advancement.

[quote]
It can only lead to tyranny. There is simply no way for the government to know more about what I want and what I'll give up to get it, than I do.
[/quote]
Exactly. That's no business of the gov't. It should be there only to provide the basic framework for humans to interact without fear from violence or coercion. That is rule of law, courts to solve disputes, and national defense.

And a gov't that wouldn't be susceptible to people voting themselves more welfare, or susceptible to scare tactics that are currently so richly utilized by what passes for the Republican party today.

I don't think that democracy and tyranny are opposites. Overly intrusive
examples of both exists, though it's fair to say that tyrannies are far more often corrupt and oppressive than democratic countries.

Me, raised under 'tyrannical rule'? Aren't you confusing 'tyrannical' with 'totalitarian', eh ? I was born in a totalitarian country, but it ceased to exist when I was 4.

Country I live in is a parliamentary democracy, somewhat less mature than those western.. Gov't doesn't care about what people want, as it is staffed almost entirely by people motivated purely by financial gain... Worst 'oppression' we endure is knowing that budget for every state project is cca 5-7% bigger than it should be. All the political nominees need to get their cut for them and their party.
I suppose that's the case in the US. However, from what I hear about Iraq War contracts, it's not 5-7% but more like 20-30%.

However, some 'democratic' countries are getting really nasty...
Britain sent a man to jail for several years for digitally altering photographic images he did not even distribute..

Your own country locks up users of recreational drugs. Way to go.


Remontoire


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-02 06:22 pm UTC (link)
You really need to read a little history.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-03 06:27 am UTC (link)
And you should live in Europe for a year.
For a continent of docile slaves, we have somwehat higher
citizen participation in politics. (for what it's worth)

When was the last time 70% of people bothered to just vote in the US, eh?
1950's ?

Remontoire

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: the article .. 2/2
[info]hebathraid
2007-08-04 08:58 am UTC (link)
I understand why people want to limit the franchise and fear "mob rule"... but... I'll summarize why i think this is, sadly, a bad idea and yes, will lead to tyranny in 3 quotes:

"I believe in democracy not because i see no men fit to be slaves, but because i see no men fit to be masters" - C.S. Lewis, British Literary scholar, Christian apologist and author.

"All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton, British Historian

conclusion from the above...

"Democracy is the least bad form of government the human race has yet invented" - Winston Churchill (attributed)

The solution, surely, is a democracy with absolutely firm constitutional commitments to the rights of individuals and "civic institutions", protected by non-democratic (so not susceptible to short-term public opinion) institutions built into the heart of the political system (in the common law tradition, that mostly means a fully independent Judiciary).

Which is why i at least would be uncomfortable with your statement that "however, societies don't seem to be headed towards tyranny in general". Maybe not straight down the road to tyranny, but an increasingly unacountable executive and the undermining of fundamental rights are big steps on the road towards possible future tyranny. And thats whats been happening for the last 10 years (at least) in both the UK and US - undermining of constitutional rights, abuse of the system to increase the unaccountable power of the executive (president in the US, Prime Minister and Cabinet in the UK), sidelining of the elected body, attacks on the independence of the judiciary. I can't speak with any great authority on continental Europe, but certainly the EU appears to remain as dominated by the unelected Commisioners, bureaucatic and corrupt as ever...

I'm not hopeful for the future of free and truly democratic societies in the Western world...



(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-04 10:14 am UTC (link)
[quote]
"I believe in democracy not because i see no men fit to be slaves, but because i see no men fit to be masters"
[/quote]

In what way would they be 'masters'. They would have the same rights and protections guaranteed to every adult citizen, only they would have the additional privilege (available to everyone who could prove that he\she is smart enough) of voting in national elections.

It would still be democracy, but not a universal one.

What's happening in the UK and US is worrying.
I do hope that if a power-grab really happens in the US, the army'll protect the constitution instead of following orders. We'll see..

The the EU commisioners (or are they Commisars?) are indeed unelected, though I believe they are elected by elected officials, and can be sacked by the EU parliament (which, though being so large and unwieldy has already managed to stave off software patents in the EU (so we won't be patenting double-clicking as is the case in the US).

Remontoire

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
[info]hebathraid
2007-08-04 10:16 pm UTC (link)
[quote]"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”[quote]

Thats the full quote from Acton. The point is that the safest way of preventing tyranny is not only to have guaranteed "rights and privileges" for everyone, but also to spread power out as much as possible. If only 10% of the people have the vote, they possess power over the other 90% - power to influence legislation that affects the other 90%, for better or worse. The temptation to abuse that power will always be there, for instance to slant the "intelligence" test you call for to also discriminate on say, racial or economic grounds. If you want a historical example, just look at the Jim Crow laws of the US South after the Civil War and right till the 1960's: a whole range of conditions were put upon voting rights, many of which if considered purely abstractly could be defensible using arguments like yours (e.g., literacy tests), but which in context were designed solely to exclude one racial group from all meaningful political participation. And such tests can easily be exploited by people with such prejudices... My father met a man in the 70's who remembered walking into a voting booth in the Deep South in the 1940's and being presented with the "literacy test": a newspaper... in Polish. When asked what it said, he replied "Says to me there ain't going to be a whole lot of black folks votin' today" and walked out...Obviously the white voters were presented with whatever the US equivalent of "The Sun" (which apparently requires a vocabulary of less than 400 words...) is.

I'm not saying a "limited democracy" will immediately and inevitably turn into a totalitarian tyranny. But it is a big step closer to one than a democracy with widespread suffrage.

as for the EU... an organisation that sacks the corruption investigators it itself appointed when they (suprise) uncover and publicise evidence of widespread corruption? A "Parliament" that often votes on several hundred laws a day and some of whose members have admitted they frequently have no idea what they are voting for or against?

This is the future of Europe, our great hope?

God help us....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: the article .. 2/2
(Anonymous)
2007-08-05 02:05 am UTC (link)
[quote]
as for the EU... an organisation that sacks the corruption investigators it itself appointed when they (suprise) uncover and publicise evidence of widespread corruption? A "Parliament" that often votes on several hundred laws a day and some of whose members have admitted they frequently have no idea what they are voting for or against?
[/quote]

That's common everywhere. Greeks banned all computer games once(by all, I mean all. Closed down all internet cafes at least ..). In the US, some state legislature passed a law honoring the Boston Strangler .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_electronic_game_ban

I doubt those pricks that grace legislative bodies worldwide bother to read everything they vote on. Probably, 1-2 people from each party read it, and the rest ask how should they vote. In the best case..

[quote]
I'm not saying a "limited democracy" will immediately and inevitably turn into a totalitarian tyranny. But it is a big step closer to one than a democracy with widespread suffrage.
[/quote]
Key difference is, that back then it was pre-determined who could and who couldn't vote on the basis of skin colour. In the system I have in mind, everyone wishing to vote would take a test, a year or two before an election, which would be graded in a different county, by people who won't know whose test they are grading, etc .. and would be able to vote, say, for the next five years.

Anyway, it's pointless debating a theoretical system that won't ever be implemetnted. More likely, people'll get smarter ..

[quote]
as for the EU... an organisation that sacks the corruption investigators it itself appointed when they (suprise) uncover and publicise evidence of widespread corruption?
[/quote]
IS that any different from the 'executive privilege' that's so richly applied today in the US ? Anyway, if you have a link, send it my way.
I did'nt know that. And, afaik, corruption in, say, no-bid US defence contracts is not exactly unknown. I wouldn't say EU is worse in that ..

---
Future of Europe is uncertain, but some say it's distinctly brown in tinge.
Democracy means that the common people'll get goood and hard what they deserve .. and if the future is brown, so be it.

God won't help. People killed him, and he's dead.
In fact, he's always been dead, only people tend to forget the bad things,
so the past always looks better ..

Remontoire


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
EU Corruption
[info]hebathraid
2007-08-05 03:52 am UTC (link)
I think the case i was thinking of was actually this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Andreasen , http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article399380.ece

EU Chief Accountant who was sacked for "disloyalty" after refusing to sign off accounts she felt were fundamentally dubious...

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_van_Buitenen

The EU has a long history of seeing anyone who exposes corruption within any EU institution as a traitor and attempting to silence them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Here's a good Mencken quote
(Anonymous)
2007-08-05 02:17 am UTC (link)
Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.

--H.L.Mencken




R.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hebathraid
2007-08-01 04:41 am UTC (link)
"For their low armaments expenditures, it's quite impressive."

But thats kind of the point, isn't it? For most of the last 60 years, the USA has spent c.25% of its national budget on defence. As far as i know, no Western European country (at least) spent more than 15% even at the height of the Cold War, and most now spend 5 - 10%. And the combined European armies of NATO could almost certainly NOT have stopped a Soviet invasion - which was the major conventional threat to Western Europe for decades. European amrmies could stop anything except "A russo-chinese invasion" - i.e., again, except the only real (however unlikely) external threat to liberal democracy in Western europe in the foreseeable future.

In case you're wondering, i'm NOT American. I'm British. I was mildly offended by the suggestion in the original article that all the "self-reliant" types had left Europe in the 18th-19th Centuries, leaving Europe populated by drones. My grandfather, who was wounded on the Somme in 1916, fought through the rest of WWI and ran an anti-aircraft gun in WWII, might have been offended too.

BUT that doesn't change the fact that in both World Wars, and throughout the Cold War, America poured its resources, in money, materials and lives, into protecting/liberating Europe from threats that Europe would have found hard, if not impossible, to face without that aid. And also that ultimately, America didn't HAVE to. Europeans tend to assume that for the "New World, with all its might and resources... to come to the aid of the Old" (Winston Churchill, 1941) is the obvious, natural and morally correct thing to do. (In Britain we joke about the Americans turning up late for every war...). But a small knowledge of US history will show you how strong the Isolationist stream in US politics was right up till WWII, and unless you believe that every country is always morally obliged to go to the military aid of any other country facing aggression, anywhere in the world, its hard to see how you can say that America was absolutely morally obliged to keep half the world free from Nazi and Communist tyranny...

i'm proud of my country. I'm proud of the part it has played in preserving freedom in Europe and the world in the last century (although i know well its record isn't spotless). I'm proud of its armed forces and those who serve in them, and i believe them to be, in some areas at least, the best in the world. But still, without the USA, most of the world would have been controlled by one tyranny or another for the last 60 years, and the world would be a far worse place. thats not pro-American jingoism, its history (as i read it at least).

God Bless the USA (and thanks awfully, chaps. Jolly nice of you, don'tcher know?;-)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-01 07:21 am UTC (link)
I believe it is quite unsure whether NATO with the US could have stopped a Warsaw pact invasion without resorting to nuclear weaponry. The Pact had overwhelming material superiority, was apparently willing to use chemical weapons.

Anecdotally, I remember a man who said that his tank battalion's first deployment in the planned but never attempted invasion of Europe was securing some Paris suburb.

30% of Soviet GDP was peace-oriented .. similarily in other eastern countries.

They weren't morally obliged to enter WWII. I think it was just about survival(and national pride. Getting a bloody nose from the Japanese and doing nothing?)

It is in doubt whether they would have entered the war if Pearl Harbor didn't. USA back then was pretty isolationist.
If the Axis won WWII, US alone would never have survived for long. Certainly not if the Germans developed both ballistic missiles and the bomb. (in first they had an unquestionable head-start, and they were working on the second)
Remontoire

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
a few nits to pick ...
[info]kbarrett
2007-08-02 08:35 pm UTC (link)
The US entered the war in Europe because Mussolini declared war on the US, and Hitler followed suit later that day. The US then declared war on them on December 11th.

FDR did not have enough votes to declare war on the rest of the Axis powers, so the original declaration of war was only against Japan.


As for Germany winning WWII ... I don't think they could have taken on the Soviet Union and Britain alone. Especially since US industries would still be selling/lending aircraft, tanks, and other munitions to the Allies.

The US would have put twice as much pressure on Japan ... which would also had resulted in Stalin releasing his eastern reserves even sooner than 1942.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: a few nits to pick ...
(Anonymous)
2007-08-03 06:43 am UTC (link)
Would there be so much production ?

I understand that the US gov't financed a lot of the armaments that were built through various bonds. Gov't debt was very high. If the US weren't fighting,
there wouldn't be that much production.

Putting pressure on Japan? The eastern reserves were there
to stop a Japanese land invasion to Siberia.
US/Japan war was primarily naval.

But it's all theoretical, no way of verifiying theories.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: a few nits to pick ...
[info]hebathraid
2007-08-04 08:40 am UTC (link)
"As for Germany winning WWII ... I don't think they could have taken on the Soviet Union and Britain alone."

well, maybe. But the war would have been far longer and bloodier. Also, had the Eastern Front stalemated, its entirely possible Hitler and Stalin would have signed another Nazi-Soviet pact, agreeing to a breathing space at least. Its not as if "Uncle Joe" actually gave a damn about any other nation or cause other than extending and protecting his own power (look what happened after the War).

"Especially since US industries would still be selling/lending aircraft, tanks, and other munitions to the Allies."

I.e., the US was still sacrificing (lending/selling under cost) for Europe. The Lend-Lease Act strained the definition of "neutrality" close to breaking point...

But "what if" history is notoriously inconclusive. What is definite is that the USA did sacrifice money and lives for europe, and that they didn't have to. They could have responded to the German and Italian declarations of War simply by dropping the pretence of "Lend-Lease" and shipping war material. They didn't have to commit a single man. I don't buy that Germany (let alone Italy, LOL...) would have been a serious threat to the US, at least for several years. Yes, they were ahead of everyone in Missile tech, but the Atlantic is considerably bigger than the English Channel... Assuming America still invested in nuclear research to the same degree, they would have still been several years ahead of the Germans (as they were in '45). As long as there was an airbase they could use within range of (Iceland? Russia? Africa somewhere? don't know the range of a B-29...) Germany, they'd have possessed the ultimate deterrent to any German threat.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: a few nits to pick ...
(Anonymous)
2007-08-05 09:30 am UTC (link)
Not really.

Have you heard of Me-262 ? It could shoot down any bomber..

If Germany won the war on the continent, no USAF plane could ever hope
to penetrate that kind of air defense.

Certainly not, if flying long-range from Iceland or that kind of place.

R.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: a few nits to pick ...
[info]hebathraid
2007-08-05 11:38 pm UTC (link)
Point to you. I'd forgotten Germany was a year or two ahead on jet technology, and if they'd dominated Europe would be have had the resources to produce a few thousand 262's. But still, they didn't have the ability to reach the US, and without nuclear weapons would not have been able to inflict serious damage anyway. And the US might have managed to catch up with jet tech before Germany caught up with nuclear tech...

... but fundamentally, its all speculation. I don't think we'll resolve anything by more "what if" (i know, i started it. just think its reached the limit of its usefullness). I still think the US could have protected its own interests in far less costly ways than committing itself to the ground war in Europe, if that was its sole motivation for entering the war.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-01 11:13 am UTC (link)
Always happy to help out our older brother. The "special relationship" is really about family.

Also, damned glad you see the broader point... no insult intended on my part. There are many many Europeans who are far more self-reliant than many Americans. I'm only talking population means here, not individuals.

All the best.

T

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…