Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / British History / May 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Unnecessary Wars How Empires Fall By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
. - 15 May 2008 23:51 GMT
In a new book that will infuriate the fake conservatives who inhabit
the Republican Party, Patrick J. Buchanan documents how British self-
righteousness, delusion, and hubris destroyed both the British Empire
and Western ascendancy in two unnecessary wars launched by a small
cabal of morons that ruled Britain

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War shows that the two world
wars that destroyed European civilization began when England declared
war on Germany, thus dragging in the Empire, Commonwealth, and United
States.  This was a strategic blunder unparalleled in history.  Mighty
Britain emerged from World War II as an American dependency.

Buchanan cites such British notables as F.J.P. Veale, B.H. Liddell
Hart, and C.P. Snow to document that it was Winston Churchill who
committed, in Veale’s words, “the first deliberate breach of the
fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be
waged against the enemy combatant forces.”  It was Churchill, not
Hitler, who first targeted civilian populations in World War II and
caused the structure of civilized warfare to collapse in ruins.

The Americans quickly adopted Churchill’s criminal policy of attacking
civilians, culminating in the outrageous use of nuclear weapons
against two Japanese cities, the slaughter of Vietnamese civilians,
and the ongoing slaughter of Afghan and Iraqi civilians.
A popular American myth is that “the greatest generation” saved the
world from Nazi tyranny.  As Buchanan points out, the fact of the
matter is that the Normandy invasion in June 1944 played little, if
any, role in Germany’s defeat.  By the end of 1942 Hitler had lost
World War II at Stalingrad, long before any American troops appeared
on the scene.  What the Normandy invasion achieved 18 months later was
to keep the Red Army from over-running all of Europe.

Although Buchanan’s book is about how the British destroyed
themselves, Buchanan is clearly thinking about America.  In the
closing pages Buchanan shows how the Bush Regime has broken from the
sound policy of President Reagan and is replicating the British folly
of self-destruction.  “There is hardly a blunder of the British Empire
we have not replicated,” laments Buchanan.

The distinct American hubris that we are “the indispensable nation”
and the braggadocio that we are an “omnipower” has us overcommitted in
alliances that we cannot fulfill.  Despite 25 percent of the Iraqi
population killed, injured or displaced, the “world’s only superpower”
cannot even control Baghdad.  To deal with the pointless war we
started in Afghanistan, we have had to sucker our NATO allies into a
conflict that is no concern of theirs.  Militarily overextended and
with a faltering economy and collapsing currency, the cabal of morons
that rules America still hopes to attack Iran, Syria, and to drive
Hezbollah from Lebanon.  American idiots in think tanks are busy at
work drawing up plans about how the US is going to check China and
prevent her emergence as a power beyond US control. The Republican
presidential candidate has boasted that he will challenge Russia and
bring Putin to heel.
Amazing.

The world’s greatest debtor is going to take on the two powerful
countries with the largest trade surpluses.  According to the World
Factbook, an annual publication of the CIA, Russia’s 2007 current
account surplus is $465 billion and China’s is $363 billion.  In
contrast, the US current account deficit is $987 billion--an amount
larger that the total deficits of all other countries in the world
combined.  The out-of-pocket and already incurred future cost of
Bush’s wars of aggression is between $3 and $5 trillion, every dollar
of which must be borrowed.  That comes on top of the unfunded
liabilities of the US government totaling $53 trillion.  By any
account the US is the world’s worst credit risk. The “mighty” US
relies on foreigners to finance its consumption, its wars, and the
daily operations of its government.

When Buchanan looks at the collection of idiots that comprise
America’s ruling class, he despairs.

In truth, American power is already broken, and the country is already
lost.

The country is lost, because the brownshirt Bush Regime has destroyed
the US Constitution with the complicity of the opposition party and
the federal courts.  There is no organized power that can restore the
Constitution or even much concern that it has been overthrown.

The country is broken, because American capitalists have moved
offshore so many US manufacturing, engineering, and research jobs that
US imports now exceed US industrial production.  American dependency
on imported manufactured goods, advanced technology goods, and energy
is astounding.

Moreover, the dependency is escalating dramatically.  In March 2002,
prior to Bush’s decision to impose Israel’s will on the Middle East,
oil was $25 a barrel.  Today oil is $125 a barrel, a five-fold
increase that has seen our oil import bill rise from $145 billion in
2006 to $456 billion presently, a $300 billion addition to a trade
deficit that was already running $700-$800 billion annually.

There is no possibility of the US closing its trade deficit.  The US
is able to survive such enormous deficits only because the US dollar
is the world reserve currency.  This role for the dollar is nearing an
end as the world looks for more stable stores of value.  Although oil
is still nominally priced in dollars, in reality it is being priced in
euros as oil producers raise the dollar price with a view to keeping
their oil revenues at a constant purchasing power in euros.

When the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreign financing for
US trade and budget deficits will evaporate.  US living standards will
collapse, and the indispensable omnipower will be just another washed
up country.

For a world weary of “American exceptionalism,” this can’t happen too
soon.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He
is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:
PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05132008.html
Dan Goodman - 16 May 2008 05:45 GMT
soc.history.what-if is for discussion of history _as it did NOT
happen_.   Only an incompetent crank would post in a newsgroup before
checking to make sure what it's about.

> From: "." <sweep1019@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Unnecessary Wars How Empires Fall By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> In a new book that will infuriate the fake conservatives who inhabit
> the Republican Party, Patrick J. Buchanan documents

If it doesn't infuriate Buchanan, then it doesn't infuriate _all_ the
fake conservatives.

I'll give you one favorable comment:  I'd been wondering how long it
would take for Buchanan to begin saying the US was on the wrong side in
WW II.  You have now given me the answer.

Signature

Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams,  A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1:  http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

soupdragon1967@yahoo.co.uk - 16 May 2008 20:55 GMT
I have not seen such an inaccurate trashy,  Anglophobic diatribe for a
long time.

> In a new book that will infuriate the fake conservatives who inhabit
> the Republican Party, Patrick J. Buchanan documents how British self-
[quoted text clipped - 112 lines]
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05132008.html
Ray O'Hara - 17 May 2008 00:34 GMT
I have not seen such an inaccurate trashy,  Anglophobic diatribe for a
long time.

.
par for pat buchanan
Robert S - 20 May 2008 00:43 GMT
> <soupdragon1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> .
> par for pat buchanan

Great well-argued logical refutations of his points.

Well done both of you.
Ray O'Hara - 21 May 2008 23:03 GMT
> > <soupdragon1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Well done both of you.

i gather you're not familiar with pat.
SolomonW - 17 May 2008 13:03 GMT
In article <e67d0eb9-91f6-419e-90f5-
556002f856ed@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, sweep1019@yahoo.com says...
> Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War shows that the two world
> wars that destroyed European civilization began when England declared
> war on Germany, thus dragging in the Empire, Commonwealth, and United
> States.  This was a strategic blunder unparalleled in history.  Mighty
> Britain emerged from World War II as an American dependency.

The British empire was breaking up before WW1.
Dan - 18 May 2008 19:59 GMT
> In article <e67d0eb9-91f6-419e-90f5-
> 556002f85...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, sweep1...@yahoo.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> The British empire was breaking up before WW1.
It is a diatribe but there is some truth in it and effectively a
massive what if built up with absolute certainty and not accepting
that the further you get away form the POD the less accurate any
possible predictions can be.

There is a legitimate argument that says WW2 came out of the causes of
WW1 and so you can not get rid of WW1 by changing how people react at
Munich in 38 you have to go back and change WW1.

So What If 1914 Britain stays out accepting German assurances that the
violation of Belgian neutrality will be temporary.
France falls a la 1870, Serbia  falls to Austria, italy and ottomans
stay out,

Russia negotiates withdrawal during 1915 and all war over, for
arguments sake with a semi independant german protectorate of Poland
as the major change on the Eastern Front.

Casualties well 1,000,000 Brits stay alive and massive reductions in
the other 10,000,000 casualties.

Flu epidemic of 1918 is less devastating as there are not millions of
soldiers to move around the planet carrying the virus.

So how do the 1920's and 30's develop,

Russia is still at risk of violent revolution, but development of the
Duma to a democracy has a slightly higher possibility.

Austria-Hungary is still an Empire at risk of breakup, the Serbs may
lose but if incorporated into the Empire become a running sore with
terrorist involvement, if they become independent still have ambition
to revenge for loss.

France has now lost a war to Germany 3 times in a century, 1815, 1870,
1914, it feels stabbed in the back by UK, and is it France were
Fascism first develops?

Germany picks up some French overseas colonies any ideas which ones?
How does Germany develop? constitutional Monarchy? Willihiem becomes
even more absoloutist? When did he die in OTL?
Good Habit - 18 May 2008 20:15 GMT
Dan schrieb:

> France has now lost a war to Germany 3 times in a century, 1815, 1870,
> 1914, it feels stabbed in the back by UK, and is it France were
> Fascism first develops?

Or it becomes the first country to go communist...

> Germany picks up some French overseas colonies any ideas which ones?

Central Africa, Madagascar, Indochina, Dahomey - if Italy joined on the
CP side once the fall of France seemed evident, they would claim Tunis.

> How does Germany develop? constitutional Monarchy?

If the SPD can call in the debt for it's support for the war, a reform
towards popular unity (equal vote for the Prussian Diet) seems not
impossible, and with a more democratic Prussia, a real representative
Regime on the national level seems possible
 Willihiem becomes even more absoloutist?

If the victory was won to easy, and he is such a splendid victor, this
might be a possibility...
 When did he die in OTL?

1941... - so still 25 years to go...
Lyn David Thomas - 19 May 2008 07:57 GMT
>> In article <e67d0eb9-91f6-419e-90f5-
>> 556002f85...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, sweep1...@yahoo.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> How does Germany develop? constitutional Monarchy? Willihiem becomes
> even more absoloutist? When did he die in OTL?

I think the outlook for those puppet states created in Eastern Europe,
such as the Baltic Dutchy and Poland would be bleak, with the non German
population reduced to abject poverty, starved and worked to death.  With
a German aristocracy rulling over a settler state as German agricultural
workers move in to the lands vacated by the now displaced slavs and
baltic people.

Signature

\/ Lyn David Thomas

am05@hotmail.com - 19 May 2008 19:18 GMT
> On May 17, 1:03 pm, SolomonW <Solom...@DONTBOTHER.com> wrote:> In article <e67d0eb9-91f6-419e-90f5-
> > 556002f85...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, sweep1...@yahoo.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> arguments sake with a semi independant german protectorate of Poland
> as the major change on the Eastern Front.

It can be much simpler: Nicholas II does not place Russia all the way
behind Serbia based on quite reasonable assumption that _he_ should
not support regicidal activities (his grandfather and his uncle being
assasinated). Crisis comes and goes away and there is business as
usual for quite a while and prehaps forever.
SolomonW - 21 May 2008 14:03 GMT
In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
> It can be much simpler: Nicholas II does not place Russia all the way
> behind Serbia based on quite reasonable assumption that _he_ should
> not support regicidal activities (his grandfather and his uncle being
> assasinated).

To me, this is the mystery of the start of WW1.

Another two possibilty would be if Serbia accepted all three Austrian
demands and the second is if German Kaiser had decided that the Russian
mobilize to help Serbia in a war, he would not have given Austria a
blank cheque.
am05@hotmail.com - 21 May 2008 18:57 GMT
> In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
> 5a08074e9...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, a...@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> To me, this is the mystery of the start of WW1.

Out of all heads of states involved, Nicholas should be the most
sensitive to the issues of regicide.  For most practical purposes
(including self-preservation) an idea of the 'royal security' should
have for him a much higher priority than the vague concepts of the
Slavic solidarity.

> Another two possibilty would be if Serbia accepted all three Austrian
> demands and the second is if German Kaiser had decided that the Russian
> mobilize to help Serbia in a war, he would not have given Austria a
> blank cheque.

Both will amount to the same scenario and perhaps the military would
be still wearing beautiful uniforms with a lot of gold braiding and
feathers. :-)
SolomonW - 22 May 2008 16:29 GMT
In article <23128c44-cf55-4b00-8f1f-81bcbd621608@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
> > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
> > 5a08074e9...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, a...@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> have for him a much higher priority than the vague concepts of the
> Slavic solidarity.

Self-preservation for an autocratic leader whose rule was already under
threat by democracy, joining Britain and France was self destructive.

Are there any decent books you can recommend on why Nicholas did go to
war. I never seen one.

> > Another two possibilty would be if Serbia accepted all three Austrian
> > demands and the second is if German Kaiser had decided that the Russian
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> be still wearing beautiful uniforms with a lot of gold braiding and
> feathers. :-)

I suspect that it might have been a much nicer world. Russia probably
would have kept moving to democracy, so no communist, so no Nazis, so no
cold war etc.
 
Ray O'Hara - 21 May 2008 23:05 GMT
> In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
> 5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> mobilize to help Serbia in a war, he would not have given Austria a
> blank cheque.

it was france mobilizing that flipped the switch.
am05@hotmail.com - 22 May 2008 14:39 GMT
> > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
> > 5a08074e9...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, a...@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> it was france mobilizing that flipped the switch.

If Nicholas did not support Serbia, there would be no switch to flip.
SolomonW - 22 May 2008 16:08 GMT
> > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
> > 5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> it was france mobilizing that flipped the switch.

France came into the conflict later.

July 28 - Austria declared war on Serbia.
July 29 - Russia mobilized.
Aug 1 - Both France and Germany mobilized
Ray O'Hara - 22 May 2008 22:07 GMT
> > > In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
> > > 5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> July 29 - Russia mobilized.
> Aug 1 - Both France and Germany mobilized

germany mobilized because france was.
if the french held back the gewrmans would have too.

no doubt austria was the main culprit  but it could have stayed a local
balkan war of which they'd had several already, {1912 and again in 1913}

the austrians never get any blame. but they started the 30 years war, the
napoleonic wars, WWI and hitler who started WWII was an austrian
i figure it's the lederhosen, nobody thinks folks who wear
suspenders{braces to you brits} and shorts with flowery embroidery would
cause all that trouble.
Robert Savage - 23 May 2008 17:10 GMT
>>>>In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
>>>>5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> suspenders{braces to you brits} and shorts with flowery embroidery would
> cause all that trouble.

No one seems to get the blame except William II, he could have prevented
the World War but any one power could have prevented WWI, the Czar, by
not mobilizing, the Kaiser by telling Austria to accept Serbia's
response and keeping control of his ministers, the French by not
supporting Russia who is supporting Serbia and threatening Germany for
no apparent good reason, and the British who could have spoken plainly.

What's ironic is that both William and Nicholas viewed themselves as
autocrats, and had they acted as autocrats, dealt directly with one
another (as they attempted to do so) and ignored thier respective
advisors and ministers, the whole thing might have worked itself out.

I am ignorant of the state of telecommunications systems from this era,
but WI there was a "red phone" type system in place in July, 1914, so
that instead of communicating by telegram, the heads of state could talk
directly.

Would the advantage of direct timely spoken communication between Berlin
and Petersburg have resulted in anything positive? (Or Berlin and London
for that matter.) The "Willy Nicky" telegrams almost did, except for
Willy's misunderstanding of Nicky believing him to have acted in bad
faith in ordering 'military measures' decided on 'days ago.'

Rob
SolomonW - 24 May 2008 14:54 GMT
> >>>>In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
> >>>>5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
> Rob

It might have worked. During the crisis, William telegraphed the
Austrians to withdraw his blank cheque. This message was ignored. If he
had telephoned, it may not have been ignored.
Ray O'Hara - 27 May 2008 17:45 GMT
> >>>>In article <b0e50d5b-8751-4ec0-ae6a-
> >>>>5a08074e918a@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, am05@hotmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
> Rob

the king ,kaiser and czar were first cousins and they had spent many a
youthful summer at grandma's playing together.
that they couldn't reach a deal is incomprehensible.
the kaiser also took his usual month long baltic summer cruise in july 1914
and he was out of the loop.

the brits are the least guilty they only came in because the germans passed
through belgium. the brits are vart sensitive about the port of ostende, an
invasion of gr brit will stage from there.

a big problem was the efficiency of the schlieffen plan. it had no recall
utton nor did it have a provision to mobilize and not attack.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.