 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / March 2004WW II: Time to right a few wrongs?
Sometimes I wonder if the dust of World War II is ever going to settle enough to allow people to look at that terrible conflict sensibly and perhaps right a few wrongs. Now, what I am going to say might strike some people as bit controversial, so I will say right at the beginning that I am one of those people who consider the Russian Communists and the German Nazis twin evils--along with their terrifying "triplet,"--Japanese warlordism. For instance, consider that other current WW II thread where people are arguing whether Russia or Germany initiated the conflict that raged between them and resulted in so many millions of deaths on both sides, not to mention the millions of deaths of those unlucky persons caught in the middle. It really does not matter if Red Russia would have swallowed up all Western Europe, which it plainly would have liked to do, or whether the Germans would have been successful in overrunning Russia as they wanted. Either result would have likely been the death knell for democracy. Somebody asked me a while back how I can "believe in my country." There are many reasons for that, but one of them certainly is that were it not for the U. S. getting into WW II, then America would have been confronted with a planet ruled by Japanese warlords and Stalinist commies and/or Nazis. We could not have lasted--in no way would they let us perk along as a happy little democracy among tolitarian monsters. Probably they would connived to harrass us to the point where they had destroyed normal U. S. life and there was a military takeover and the flame of democracy would have been extinguished on this planet. If--as has been alleged at times, and which I personally doubt--Roosevelt manipulated the U. S. into that war, he should be given great credit for his democratic vision. He knew who were up against, and he could see where it all was heading. Having said that, it should be clean to all readers that I believe that democracy, though imperfect, is far superior to any tolitarian form of government, No one should be confused about where I am coming from when I get into my next point, which some may perhaps disagree with. That point being, Is it not time to give credit where due, and salute some of the bravest and ablest military figures of World War II, whose heroism and capabilities have been obscured for political reasons, even those who were our bitterest enemies at the time of the war? Take, for instance, Josef "Sepp" Dietrich. This outstanding German tank commander was arguably one of the most capable and courageous military figures of the war. Yet, he has never been given fair credit for his actions. His trial after the war may very well have been based on his Nazi membership more than the actual facts involving the killing of Americans--the full story behind those charges has never really come out. Dietrich was in an odd position because he was really an outsider to the German military establishment, a very class-conscious and exclusive club, in many ways, prior to World War II. . Were it not for Dietrich's Nazi party membership, he never would have achieved his key military position, and many old school officers belittled and even villified him for that. Yet, Dietrich proved himself to be far more capable than many or most of those old school officers who continually blustered that his party affiliation had resulted in his being promoted far beyond his tactical capabilites.. It is very likely that is why General Dietrich was--after the war--singled out for harsh punishment not meted out to other German officers--many of them arguably more guilty of killing Americans than Dietrich. The German officer corp's old resentments against the "upstart" may have led to a tacit agreement that Dietrich made a good scapegoat, with many of Allied politicians howling for German military blood. It seems to me that the time is approaching that military roles in WW II should be revaluated simply out of respect for history. In a way, there was a similar situation after the Civil War. After all, that war had touched so many lives in the North in so many painful ways that it was years before people in the North really wanted to look at the conflict and those military leaders on the other side with anything approaching objectivity . Eventually, the time arrived for deserving Southern officers to be be saluted in the North--and no one doubted that they were being saluted for their bravery, leadership, and often brilliant tactics--and not at all for fighting for a despised system of slavery. (An interesting contrast might be made between Sepp Dietrich and Southern Civil War General Buford Forrest. Forrest's brilliant cavelry leadership in the Civil War was, even up to this day, obscured by his--absolutely deplorable, in my view--role in forming the Ku Klux Klan AFTER the Civil War. By contrast, in the case of Dietrich, his Nazi party activities before World War II have resulted in his military role being unfairly denigrated by many historians, German as well as Allied.) Mr. Palmer Room 314 > Somebody asked me a while back how I can > "believe in my country." There are many reasons [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > military takeover and the flame of democracy > would have been extinguished on this planet. "THEY" would have had to cross one or another of very BIG oceans to be a direct threat to the Americas. Had America really decided to "go alone" the American Navy could easily have caused Japan to literally starve! Our primary weapon would have been submaries. Without the need to support europe, the US would have not been threatened much by Nazi (or Russian) subs. South American might have become a battleground. But, likewise, so could Africa and India. Likely, the Russians/Germans would have divided up South America, Africa, and South Asia between American and Russia/Germany. > > Somebody asked me a while back how I can > > "believe in my country." There are many reasons [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Likely, the Russians/Germans would have divided up South America, Africa, > and South Asia between American and Russia/Germany. Right on the submarines, since Japan didn't view them as important offensive weapons. A blunder of roughly equal significance to our own intelligence & communications failures around the time of Pearl Harbor. Let's remember too, though, that it was Japan who made the decision to strike *us*, so our staying neutral as far as they were concerned would be no more than an academic exercise anyway. Had Yamamoto been successful at pushing for the 3rd strike that he knew would be necessary to effectively stagger the US Pacific forces, the outcome of that theater (as well as the CBI) would have taken a much different turn. On the Nazis, though, I'm not certain. They had bombers nearly to the production stage that could have traversed the Atlantic (though how far they would have been able to make it inland is a ? at best). [The F-W Condor was more than capable of the trip, as shown in 1938. However its fragile backbone & the by-definition limited bomb capacity for long range flights made it unsuitable.] There were also the V-3 & other weapons that could have been used against North America (albeit dependent in some cases on launching platforms located further west or north than continental Europe). Von Braun had the V-3 for Project America fully designed by 1943 as it was; in the absence of US intervention that date could very likely have been a year, or even 2, earlier. Bill > > > Somebody asked me a while back how I can > > > "believe in my country." There are many reasons [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > "THEY" would have had to cross one or another of very BIG oceans to be a > > direct threat to the Americas. You really miss the point of what I was saying. Tactically, you may be right, considering the time and the U. S. military capabilities. But my point was that in no way would a democracy be allowed to exist in a world that had become almost totally, well, totalitarian. Whether the Stalinist Russians or the German Nazis or the Japanese warlords--or some combination of them--was running the rest of the world, the fact that a democracy existed at all would have been an affront to them. In fact, they would not even have to attack the U. S. militarily at all, at least at first. There are all sorts of ways they could harass the U. S., sap the strength of the nation. The could close ports all over the planet to U. S. shipping. Forbid all countries to trade with the U. S., stir up dozens or hundreds of small conflicts wherever Americans went to carry on their commerce. [Remember, I am referring to a situation wherein Hitler had taken over England, Japan had taken Australia and New Zealand, etc.] Sooner or later, the pressure and war fear would be too great, and the U. S.would probably have some sort of military takeover, until we had a totalitarian government which was acceptable to the other totalitarian rulers of the planet. Of course, this almost gets into the "alternative future" sub-genre of science fiction, but I can't imagine that anyone would be naive enough to think that if in fact Stalin, Hitler and Tojo--or people who thought like them--ruled the planet, the U. S. would have been let alone to go about its business as a happy little democratic island on a totalitarian planet. > > Had America really decided to "go alone" the American Navy could easily have > > caused Japan to literally starve! Our primary weapon would have been > > submaries. [...] > You really miss the point of what I was saying. > Tactically, you may be right, considering the > time and the U. S. military capabilities. But > my point was that in no way would a democracy > be allowed to exist in a world that had become > almost totally, well, totalitarian. Its not crystal clear that Hitler hated England (a democracy) more than he hated Russia. > Whether the Stalinist Russians or the German > Nazis or the Japanese warlords--or some > combination of them--was running the rest of > the world, the fact that a democracy existed > at all would have been an affront to them. No more an "affront" than they were to each others. >In > fact, they would not even have to attack the > U. S. militarily at all, at least at first. There > are all sorts of ways they could harass the U. S., > sap the strength of the nation. Yeah, and there are all sorts of ways the US could harass germany or japan. > The could close > ports all over the planet to U. S. shipping. They would have no more ability to do this than would the US. > Forbid all countries to trade with the U. S., > stir up dozens or hundreds of small conflicts > wherever Americans went to carry on their > commerce. And the US can do the same. Unless you are a rabit anti-US type, you would have to admit that the US has continuously had a democrat republican form of government. Yet the US was quite able to fight in two world wars and so all other kinds of things to harass the Russians. > [Remember, I am referring to a situation > wherein Hitler had taken over England, > Japan had taken Australia and New > Zealand, etc.] Well, you ASSume too much. In the "alternative universe" England could well have maintain an armed truce with Germany. Sweden and Switzerland did this. The British Navy could have protected Australia and NZ from the Japs and the Japs would have had a hard time keeping control over long distances with the US subs sinking their shipping. > Sooner or later, the pressure and war fear > would be too great, and the U. S.would > probably have some sort of military takeover, > until we had a totalitarian government which > was acceptable to the other totalitarian rulers > of the planet. The US has been on a low keyed war footing since about 1939 with no worries about a nazi taking charge. Likewise, in the 19th century, the US military defeated the Indians while maintaining a republican form of government. Hell, we even had elections in the middle of the Civil War. >Of course, this almost gets > into the "alternative future" sub-genre of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to go about its business as a happy little > democratic island on a totalitarian planet. The dictators would just as likely attack each other as a democracy. Again, the Germans didn't attack the Swiss. > > You really miss the point of what I was saying. > > Tactically, you may be right, considering the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Its not crystal clear that Hitler hated England (a democracy) more than he > hated Russia. I don't think Hitler would have preferred to destroy England if he could have put in a Nazi regime. And, after all, there is no question but that there were plenty of Nazi sympathizers in England who would have been delighted to run the show. Also, it was not simply that Hitler hated Russia because of Stalin, he harboured a lot of nutty racial theories about Eastern European peoples, as expounded by Jules Striecher. who was not exactly Watson and Crick when it came to science. I guess the Poles, Russians, etc. weren't lily white enough for Mr. Hitler! > > Whether the Stalinist Russians or the German > > Nazis or the Japanese warlords--or some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No more an "affront" than they were to each others. Well, with each other, they could always tell the people, "Aren't you glad you have Stalin for your leader? Just imagine if you had to live under Hitler." (and vice- versa). Whereas a lone democratic hold- out on the planet would always be the example the totalitarians feared and detested. > >In > > fact, they would not even have to attack the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yeah, and there are all sorts of ways the US could harass germany or japan. Not so easily if the all the planet apart from North America was ruled by totalitarian powers who were in agreement about how they would contain and destroy the U. S. > > The could close > > ports all over the planet to U. S. shipping. > > They would have no more ability to do this than would the US. They would if they had devided up the planet already. Maybe the Russians would be running the Turkish ports and the Germans would be controlling the Greek ports, etc. > > Forbid all countries to trade with the U. S., > > stir up dozens or hundreds of small conflicts > > wherever Americans went to carry on their > > commerce. > > And the US can do the same. No, because staying with the "what if" scenario, the U. S. is now contained in North America. > Unless you are a rabit anti-US type, you would have to admit that the US > has continuously had a democrat republican form of government. Yet the US [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and the Japs would have had a hard time keeping control over long distances > with the US subs sinking their shipping. Okay, fine. But now we have split into another "future history" scenario. Mine was based upon, "What would happen if Roosevelt did not let the U. S. go into World War !! and the rest of the planet ended up being controlled by Russia, Germany, and Japan?" You are certainly welcome to come up with your own "future histories." There is no point in arguing, because from what you say above, in your scenario the rest of the planet is plainly NOT controlled by Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo, so we are each talking about a different hypothetical situation facing the U. S.. > > Sooner or later, the pressure and war fear > > would be too great, and the U. S.would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The US has been on a low keyed war footing since about 1939 with no worries > about a nazi taking charge. True. But, thanks to our getting into World War II, we have NOT faced the situation which I suggested in my future history which would be the outcome had we NOT entered World War II. Likewise, in the 19th century, the US military > defeated the Indians while maintaining a republican form of government. > Hell, we even had elections in the middle of the Civil War. For one thing the South was isolated. Almost no countries on the planet related to the Confederate government, though a few nations gave it a show of support simply because they' did not like America. But since most of the world regarded the North as the legitimate U. S. governent, the U. S. did not feel threatened in the same way it would if the entire planet was divided up among Stalin, Hitler and Tojo. > >Of course, this almost gets > > into the "alternative future" sub-genre of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The dictators would just as likely attack each other as a democracy. > Again, the Germans didn't attack the Swiss. I always felt Hitler let the Swiss have their goverment of choice because, after all, much of the world was still democratic, and Switzerland was good place for the Germans to carry on covert but necessary quasi-diplomatic relations with countries which had cut official ties with the Nazis. Were it not for that, I suspect that Hitler would have installed a Quisling-type figurehead in Switzerland. Further, the Swiss knew that and were very careful not to antagonize Hitler. This thread is an absolutely classic example of what granddaddy used to refer to as "thinking off"... >> > You really miss the point of what I was saying. >> > Tactically, you may be right, considering the [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] >the Swiss knew that and were very careful >not to antagonize Hitler. > This thread is an absolutely classic example of what > granddaddy used to refer to as "thinking off"... Agreed. Not to mention this guy has no idea what hes talking about. Its almost painful. Rob > > This thread is an absolutely classic example of what > > granddaddy used to refer to as "thinking off"... > > Agreed. Not to mention this guy has no idea what hes talking about. Its > almost painful. Well, siince I am the person who started the thread you may be taking your sideswipe at me. It is funny, because your cheapshot only makes YOU look stupid, boorish and ill-motivated. Of course I feel I know what I am talking about--both in regard to my theory on World War II which was challenged in a thoughtful way by the other main poster, and in my theory on General Josef "Sepp" Dietrich, which no one apparently either disagreed with or wanted to tackle if they did not agree. If did not believe I knew what I was talking about, I would not have posted. Anyway, YOU certainly don't impress anyone but yourself by popping off on a thread--not to add anything intelligent--but to hit yourself in your own mug with your cheap and entirely unwarranted sideswipe! Mr. Palmer Room 314 > Rob > > > This thread is an absolutely classic example of what > > > granddaddy used to refer to as "thinking off"... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Mr. Palmer > Room 314 Theres no scenario where the US would have stayed out of WWII. Therefore, your speculations pointless. But, lets go there. Lets say we did stay out. Later on the US would have still conquered whomever we went up against. Our wartime capabilities were, and will always be, unmatched. Rob > Theres no scenario where the US would have stayed out of WWII. Therefore, > your speculations pointless. But, lets go there. Lets say we did stay out. > Later on the US would have still conquered whomever we went up against. Our > wartime capabilities were, and will always be, unmatched. > > Rob Vietnam. > > Theres no scenario where the US would have stayed out of WWII. Therefore, > > your speculations pointless. But, lets go there. Lets say we did stay out. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Vietnam. Yes. And how, pray tell, were the US wartime capabilities matched in VN? EMWTK > > "Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message > news:<H-adnbHC_qg6fqrdRVn-sQ@gbronline.com>... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > EMWTK They spent nearly a decade in the place, eventually retreated. If their wartime capabilities were less than matched, then surely they could have wrapped it up sooner. How is this not obvious? EMWTK > They spent nearly a decade in the place, eventually retreated. If > their wartime capabilities were less than matched, then surely they > could have wrapped it up sooner. > > How is this not obvious? Un huh. And (specifics,please): "And how, pray tell, were the US wartime capabilities matched in VN?" Any try to not confuse political decisions from military victory or defeat. > EMWTK > > They spent nearly a decade in the place, eventually retreated. If > > their wartime capabilities were less than matched, then surely they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Any try to not confuse political decisions from military victory or defeat. You know what? I have a better idea. Why don't you give ONE good reason to believe that the United States WON the war in Vietnam. > > And (specifics,please): "And how, pray tell, were the US wartime > > capabilities matched in VN?" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You know what? I have a better idea. Why don't you give ONE good > reason to believe that the United States WON the war in Vietnam. I guess it all depends on your definition of "win". The US decisively defeated the enemy in every major battle of the war. Indeed, the North Vietnamese themselves admit to suffering some 1 million KIA among their troops, versus around 50,000 US KIA, a ratio of about 20-1. Hard to characterize a kill ratio of 20-1 as a "defeat" in my opinion. When the last major US forces left South Vietnam in 1973, it was an independent nation, so I don't think that the war could be characterized as a US defeat at that point. A few years later in 1975, North Vietnam breached the peace agreement and launched a conventional attack on South Vietnam. The US, distracted by Watergate, did not send military forces to help its one-time ally. The result was the military conquest of South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese. No US forces were defeated in that battle either. So I'm a little perplexed at the idea that we somehow "lost" that war. At worst, we simply decided that the cost of the war outweighed the benefits. <shrug> Of course, I don't think that Vietnam was a very wise war for the US to engage in. But I do not think that we lost that war, either. We simply made a political decision that South Vietnam would have to stand on its own (though we provided lavish material aid) and South Vietnam failed to do so. IMHO, the real "losers" in Vietnam were: 1. The South Vietnamese people who got to find how how murderous and brutal life is under a worker's paradise. 2. The hypocritical US antiwar left, who generally said *nothing* about the fact that North Vietnam broke a peace agreement and launched an aggressive war. Some of the same people, by the way, who now complain about the US purportedly doing so in Iraq. Apparently, aggressive war is okay for a murderous communist regime, but not for anyone else. And who remained silent about the carnage in South Vietnam after the war. --Ty --Ty > When the last major US forces left South Vietnam in 1973, it was an > independent nation, so I don't think that the war could be characterized as > a US defeat at that point. Now, now. Don't go about confusing an anti-American liberal with the FACTS. His head might explode! > > "John Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote in message > news:<403945a4$0$2205@dingus.crosslink.net>... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > worst, we simply decided that the cost of the war outweighed the benefits. > <shrug> We didn't lose the war, even though Ho Chi Minh acheived his objective of unifying all of Viet Nam under his rule, an outcome we had spent many lives, much treasure and numerous years to prevent? Is that your argumant? I disagree. We conceded that he had beaten us when we gave up the fight as too costly. > Of course, I don't think that Vietnam was a very wise war for the US to > engage in. But I do not think that we lost that war, either. We simply made > a political decision that South Vietnam would have to stand on its own > (though we provided lavish material aid) and South Vietnam failed to do so. Weasle words. We fought for as long as we could, then conceded defeat to the other side. Ho Chi Minh then won what he had been fighting for, and what we had been fighting to prevent. By the way, I am retired military, and quite proud of the way the Army and the US military in general held up in the Viet Nam war. You are quite right to point out that we never lost militarily. Go read the book "We were Soldiers, and Young" or see the movie. It makes the point very clearly. What Viet Nam clear did was prove that in a lengthy war, the decisive factors in winning and losing become factors other than military. Since the Civil War and WW I we have understood that total war involves the entire nation, not just the military. That is why your use of the statistics proving that we won militarily are really irrelevant to who won the war. Ho Chi Minh won the Viet Nam war, to the extent that anyone did. America lost by concession. 58,000 of my comrades lost the war decisively. A whole lot more lost through having their lives totally disrupted. I have no idea how many South and North Vietnamese lost the war. A lot. The Viet Cong lost the war by being destroyed. The Cambodian people rather clearly lost the Viet Nam war. The list is, in fact, endless. The truth is that no one really wins a war. Some just lose it a little less badly than others, which is what you can say for North Viet Nam. > IMHO, the real "losers" in Vietnam were: > > 1. The South Vietnamese people who got to find how how murderous and brutal > life is under a worker's paradise. You really need to be careful when you use ideological hogwash like this. Sure life under the North Vietnamese was pretty bad, but was it any worse than living in a country that was being fought over by powers that had nothing to do with you? There are documented instances when a village headman failed to pay a bribe to a South Vietnamese officer, resulting in his village being declared a free fire zone and destroyed by Americans who never directly saw what they were bombing. For most South Vietnamese people the fact that the North Vietnamese government finally brought Peace was more valuable than the costs to some of losing the war. By the way, the war was probably lost when Westmoreland decided to use American troops to fight a war of attrition against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese while allowing the enemy safe havens to operate from. The real problem was that the conduct of the war at that point became the responsibility of the Americans, not the South Vietnamese leadership. Since Westmoreland and the then Ambassador to RVN did not trust the RVN government and failed to pass off responsibilty to them, their only function came to be to steal as much as they could before the wheels came off as they inevitably would, and did. In a war of attrition, by definition the winner is the last man standing. If one side is fighting for the existance of their own nation, and the other is there for ideological or distant strategic reasons, the side fighting for immediate home-and-hearth ~will~ win unless it is completely wiped out. We ~could~ quit and go home. The North Vietnamese could not. We were not going to wipe out the North Vietnamese population. Under those circumstnces the ultimate winner in Viet Nam was obvious when it became a war of attrition fought by American troops. > 2. The hypocritical US antiwar left, who generally said *nothing* about the > fact that North Vietnam broke a peace agreement and launched an aggressive > war. Again, an ideological and entirely useless statement. What US antiwar left organization was still in existence to decry the North Vietnamese invasion of the South? If you want to use rhetoric like that to score debate points, feel free. If you want to look at the reality of the situation, there was no one left in organized groups to actually make such statements. They had long before disbanded and gone home. Although I do recall that Joan Baez spoke against the Northern invasion and the atrocities commited by the North Vietnamese afterwards. What you are really showing is the lack of value of anthropomorphizing organizations. An organization cannot be hypocritical. Only people can have that characteristic. >Some of the same people, by the way, who now complain about the US > purportedly doing so in Iraq. Apparently, As I believe that I have demonstrated above, almost nothing you have alleged here is anything close to apparent. >aggressive war is okay for a > murderous communist regime, but not for anyone else. And who remained silent > about the carnage in South Vietnam after the war. The blogosphere will correct that problem of the silence of the majority of feeling, thinking people in the future given similar situations. "Roger R." <jayray21remove@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9Or%b.25150 > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message > > I guess it all depends on your definition of "win". > > The US decisively defeated the enemy in every major battle of the war. > > Indeed, the North Vietnamese themselves admit to suffering some 1 million [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > unifying all of Viet Nam under his rule, an outcome we had spent many lives, > much treasure and numerous years to prevent? Is that your argumant? My argument is just that the US was not defeated. We simply concluded that we had better things to do than prop the South Vietnamese regime up in 1975. Had we decided to intervene, I have no doubt that the NVA would have fared no better than it did in any other standup fight with the Americans. > > Of course, I don't think that Vietnam was a very wise war for the US to > > engage in. But I do not think that we lost that war, either. We simply [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Weasle words. Nah, I think I made an accurate assessment. The fact of the matter is that South Vietnam was an independent nation when we pulled out. I just don't see a defeat there. Note that there is a difference between saying that we were not defeated and saying that we won. I said the former; not the latter. > By the way, I am retired military, and quite proud of the way the Army and > the US military in general held up in the Viet Nam war. You are quite right > to point out that we never lost militarily. Go read the book "We were > Soldiers, and Young" or see the movie. It makes the point very clearly. Read it and seen it. > What Viet Nam clear did was prove that in a lengthy war, the decisive > factors in winning and losing become factors other than military. Since the > Civil War and WW I we have understood that total war involves the entire > nation, not just the military. That is why your use of the statistics > proving that we won militarily are really irrelevant to who won the war. Ho > Chi Minh won the Viet Nam war, to the extent that anyone did. As I stated at the beginning of my post, it all depends on how you define "won". > > IMHO, the real "losers" in Vietnam were: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You really need to be careful when you use ideological hogwash like this. Oh, I think that the murderous record of the assorted worker's paradises stands for itself. > By the way, the war was probably lost when Westmoreland decided to use > American troops to fight a war of attrition against the Viet Cong and North > Vietnamese while allowing the enemy safe havens to operate from. Oh I agree. I don't think that you can win a guerilla war when the enemy has untouchable sanctuaries and supply lines. > The real > problem was that the conduct of the war at that point became the > responsibility of the Americans, not the South Vietnamese leadership. I disagree. I think your first point articulates the fundamental problem with the war -- our willingness to allow North Vietnam to exist while it poured men and materiel into South Vietnam. It would be like trying to fight the Germans in WWII while ruling out any conventional invasion of Germany. > > 2. The hypocritical US antiwar left, who generally said *nothing* about > the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > organization was still in existence to decry the North Vietnamese invasion > of the South? Hmmn. I've searched high and low and can't seem to find many criticisms of North Vietnam from the likes of (say) Jane Fonda, Noam Chomsky, etc. > If you want to use rhetoric like that to score debate points, Nah, just noting the hypocrisy of so many who claimed to be antiwar when their behavior indicates they weren't troubled by wars launched by Communist dictatorships... > What you are really showing is the lack of value of anthropomorphizing > organizations. An organization cannot be hypocritical. Only people can have > that characteristic. <yawn> > >Some of the same people, by the way, who now complain about the US > > purportedly doing so in Iraq. Apparently, > > As I believe that I have demonstrated above, almost nothing you have alleged > here is anything close to apparent. <double yawn> Your pissy condescension is wearing thin. I grow increasingly pessimistic about the prospects of continuing this discussion with you. --Ty > My argument is just that the US was not defeated. We simply concluded that > we had better things to do than prop the South Vietnamese regime up in 1975. > Had we decided to intervene, I have no doubt that the NVA would have fared > no better than it did in any other standup fight with the Americans. Germany didn't really lose WWII. They just kind of got bored and died and stuff. Hitler decided that his time would be better spent poisoning and burning himself. You know. > Nah, I think I made an accurate assessment. The fact of the matter is that > South Vietnam was an independent nation when we pulled out. I just don't see > a defeat there. sh.t, man, think of all the wars we can "not lose"! I declare war on Spain. I declare peace with Spain. Japan is still independent! Chalk up another "not loss" to the Belanger armed forces. > Oh, I think that the murderous record of the assorted worker's paradises > stands for itself. Perhaps you should examine the murderous record of the CIA and the various regimes that it propped up as an alternative to Communism. Hmmm... > > The real > > problem was that the conduct of the war at that point became the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > poured men and materiel into South Vietnam. It would be like trying to fight > the Germans in WWII while ruling out any conventional invasion of Germany. Germany was not invaded until it had already been pushed out of the rest of the world. > > > 2. The hypocritical US antiwar left, who generally said *nothing* about > the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hmmn. I've searched high and low and can't seem to find many criticisms of > North Vietnam from the likes of (say) Jane Fonda, Noam Chomsky, etc. While there were certainly atrocities happening there, there were other things that drew the attention of the former protesters. The U.S. was no longer involved, and a protest in Chicago would do little to dissuade the Vietnamese armies. Why do the most horrible atrocities happening today get the back page of the paper, while Bush's piddling cash-grab gets the rest? What's going on in Sierra Leone these days? Or la Cote d'ivoire? I sure as hell don't know. Americans don't care. > Nah, just noting the hypocrisy of so many who claimed to be antiwar when > their behavior indicates they weren't troubled by wars launched by Communist > dictatorships... You don't seem to understand that the first step to stopping _all_ war is by stopping the wars over which you hold any sway. Jane Fonda could not vote out Ho Chi Minh. She could not even pee on his stoop -- the wind would totally skew the trajectory. > > What you are really showing is the lack of value of anthropomorphizing > > organizations. An organization cannot be hypocritical. Only people can > have > > that characteristic. > > <yawn> I can't answer that so I'll try to make light of it. > > As I believe that I have demonstrated above, almost nothing you have > alleged > > here is anything close to apparent. > > <double yawn> And again. > Your pissy condescension is wearing thin. I grow increasingly pessimistic > about the prospects of continuing this discussion with you. Better cut your losses. > > My argument is just that the US was not defeated. We simply concluded that > > we had better things to do than prop the South Vietnamese regime up in 1975. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and stuff. Hitler decided that his time would be better spent > poisoning and burning himself. You know. Now do you really consider that an apt comparison? I mean, I don't recall the NVA marching in triumph through New York (unless you count the antiwar protests :-) ). Nor do I recall them conquering South Vietnam until some two years after our forces pulled out. > > Oh, I think that the murderous record of the assorted worker's paradises > > stands for itself. > > Perhaps you should examine the murderous record of the CIA and the > various regimes that it propped up as an alternative to Communism. > Hmmm... Even the most laughable and outlandish claims of deaths under non-communist regimes pale by comparison to the human carnage inflicted by almost *every* worker's paradise on its people. I don't think that dog will hunt... > > I disagree. I think your first point articulates the fundamental problem > > with the war -- our willingness to allow North Vietnam to exist while it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Germany was not invaded until it had already been pushed out of the > rest of the world. But it was invaded. > > > Again, an ideological and entirely useless statement. What US antiwar left > > > organization was still in existence to decry the North Vietnamese invasion [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > While there were certainly atrocities happening there, there were > other things that drew the attention of the former protesters. Yeah -- like *anything* that the US was alleged to have done, no matter how ridiculous the charges and biased the accuser. I find your defense of their hypocrisy unconvincing. > > Nah, just noting the hypocrisy of so many who claimed to be antiwar when > > their behavior indicates they weren't troubled by wars launched by Communist [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could not vote out Ho Chi Minh. She could not even pee on his stoop > -- the wind would totally skew the trajectory. Nah, not convinced. She was a sanctimonious hypocrite who willingly refused to consider the overwhelming evidence that the nation she supported (aka North Vietnam) was *far* worse than the nation she hated. > > <yawn> > > I can't answer that so I'll try to make light of it. Your attempts so far do not encourage. I wouldn't quit my day job if I were you. > > > As I believe that I have demonstrated above, almost nothing you have > > > alleged [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Better cut your losses. Okay. *plonk* >The US decisively defeated the enemy in every major battle of the war. >Indeed, the North Vietnamese themselves admit to suffering some 1 million >KIA among their troops, versus around 50,000 US KIA, a ratio of about 20-1. >Hard to characterize a kill ratio of 20-1 as a "defeat" in my opinion. The US certainly did kill a lot of VC and NVA troops. I think everyone in the US military considered the 68 Tet battle a major US loss. It changed almost everything about US participation in VN. And the battle of Khesan where the Marines were surrounded by high ground almost exactly like Dien Bien Phu. The Marines fought bravely but in the end had to give up the ground. What about the Cambodian Incursion. Killed a lot of empty tunnels and had to give up the ground. Another battle was for Hamburger Hill where of the 600 US troops that assaulted it, 476 were killed or wounded and they gave up the hill the next day. (LTC Weldon Honeycutt who led the charge had a $10,000 bounty put on his head by the troops but he survived unlike 83 other officers that were killed by their own troops) They sure as hell did win the bombing of Hanoi however. The results were that the American public were left with the illusion that the North Vietnamese had been bombed into submission whereas the terms of the treaty which left the NLF in control of all their positions in the south did not change. I have all these memories of evacuation as the US turned tail and ran from a non-winable war. I see pictures of helicopters on the roof of the US embassy taking people out to an aircraft carrier and the helicopters being pushed over the side to made room for more to land. I remember a independent South Vietnam where the president of the country fled before the US ambassador left. I remember the pictures of total panic in the streets of Saigon as the US troops fled. When God is on your side, you don't have to count your dead. The US may have won the war in number of combatants killed or even the number of suspected NLF that they murdered under the Phoenix operation ( 40,000). The US did certainly win the war in money spent but it all comes down to how the US exited VN. In total panic, looking exactly like the French. > >The US decisively defeated the enemy in every major battle of the war. > >Indeed, the North Vietnamese themselves admit to suffering some 1 million [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The US certainly did kill a lot of VC and NVA troops. I think everyone > in the US military considered the 68 Tet battle a major US loss. My understanding is that the North Vietnamese and the US military both considered Tet to be a devastating defeat for the North. In objective terms, no other interpretation is reasonable in my opinion. Vast numbers of well trained (and irreplaceable) NVA and VC troops were slaughtered and the Viet Cong were effectively destroyed as a fighting force. American casualties, as usual, were only a small fraction of the VC and NVA casualties. What turned it into an American defeat was the perception among the American people that the war was *not* nearly won as the administration had led them to believe. This perception was arguably created and at minimum greatly reinforced by biased reporting and widespread misrepresentation by antiwar folks. > And the battle of Khesan where the Marines were surrounded by high > ground almost exactly > like Dien Bien Phu. The Marines fought bravely but in the end had to > give up the ground. Uh, you'd better check your facts. While Khe San was intended by the bad guys to be an American Dien Bien Phu, it didn't quite work out that way. > When God is on your side, you don't have to count your dead. ?? Americans are *always* frugal with their troops lives. In a democracy, how could it be otherwise? > ...all comes down > to how the US exited VN. In total panic, looking exactly like the French. No reason to get nasty. In any case, I think you need to review the facts. When South Vietnam, American combat troops had been gone for ~2 years. --Ty >My understanding is that the North Vietnamese and the US military both >considered Tet to be a devastating defeat for the North. In objective terms, >no other interpretation is reasonable in my opinion. Vast numbers of well >trained (and irreplaceable) NVA and VC troops were slaughtered and the Viet >Cong were effectively destroyed as a fighting force. American casualties, as >usual, were only a small fraction of the VC and NVA casualties. The US was trying to fight the war in with little or no disruption to domestic culture. They were running out of volunteers and were starting a draft. The NV hoped that the Tet Offensive would humiliate the US and drive them to the bargaining table. Three things went wrong for the NV; 1)they lost too many troops. 2)the massacre at Hue lost them world wide support. 3)the NLF and NV leadership were no longer unified. But what they did achieve was; 1)they woke up America and it was no longer the cold blooded limited war over there - it changed our culture. 2) it did disgrace Johnson when the American public began to see the truth of what was going on and one month later he announced he would not run again. 3) from that point on, getting out of the war became the primary concern of most of the politicians - indeed Nixon won the election on his unstated plan to get us out of the war. The news coverage of Tet changed every American's view of what was going on "over there". NV did not get us to the bargaining table but they certainly changed America. >>And the battle of Khesan where the Marines were surrounded by high >>ground almost exactly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Uh, you'd better check your facts. While Khe San was intended by the bad >guys to be an American Dien Bien Phu, it didn't quite work out that way. My facts on Khesan (or Khe San or Khe sand) all say the attack started on 21 Jan 68 and lasted for 77 days during which at least 1600 NVA were killed. In June the Marines abandoned the base because Westmoreland decided "it was no longer needed". I said they had to give up the ground previously and I think that is still correct. I said it was like Dien Bien Phu in that the enemy was able to pound the hell out of them with mortars and other artillery from the high ground. >The US was trying to fight the war in with little or no disruption to >domestic culture. They were running >out of volunteers and were starting a draft. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG Boy... You Have Just PUSHED the BUTTON. The whole domestic antiwar issue didn't EXIST because there had ALWAYS BEEN A DRAFT. What mattered in the end was when the US government started eliminating college deferments. When It was no longer a war that was fought by the poor and uneducated, THEN it was an issue. There were no campus protests until that happened. AND, once you got drafted, if you were poor, you went to Canada. If you were rich or connected, you went to the Rich Boy's Canada (also known as the National Guard, which because of legislation had zero chance of being put into action overseas). And yes, Dubya, amongst others (like Loydd Bentsen's son and Dan Quayle) hid out in there. It was ONLY after VietNam, that public sentiment over the unfairness of the draft and deferments that the US decided to do away with it. Sidebar: incidentally, the US almost lost it's NCO corps in VN, too many promotions of inexperienced troops to replace depleted NCO ranks. But also came away as the foremost authority on heliborne warfare. Just a little military history aside from the political (which I have a true distaste for). Ralph > >The US was trying to fight the war in with little or no disruption to > >domestic culture. They were running [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > started eliminating college deferments. When It was no longer a war > that was fought by the poor and uneducated, THEN it was an issue. Sorry, sport, but back then (before imports completely destroyed domestic manufacturing and steel making) most of the folks who were drafted were just "plain folks." The smarter draftees and the ones with some college were offered admission to OCS. The ones with four year degrees were often offered direct commissions. Student deferments were easy to get up to the end of the draft. (I worked for a guy who only went to college because he didn't want to go into the Army.) The "problem" for those who didn't want to enter the Army was a deferment after four years of college. Some guys couldn't convince their draft boards that they needed grad school and were drafted. Others didn't have occupations that kept them out of the draft. But most men when drafted simply reported where and when ordered and served with honor. > There were no campus protests until that happened. AND, once you got > drafted, if you were poor, you went to Canada. Oh, there were all kinds of things the draft dodgers did. Some 2.5 million served at some time in VN. Some 30 thousand (at the most) went to Canader. Likely a similar number did stuff like claiming to be homosexuals or deliberately creating health problems. BUT there was no shortage of educated (and not poor) folks who were drafted and were serving in 1970. The protests started within a year of the war turning hot and heavy (c. 1965/66). LBJ ran in '64 as a "peace" candidate and accused his GOP opponent of being a war monger. Within a month or two of starting his (LBJ's) own term, he started sending troops to VN by the DIVISION. The BIG protests didn't start until RMN was president and were stimulated by the invasion of Cambodia. (I was stationed 20 miles outside of DC for most of 1970 and my unit provided troops for anti-riot service in DC). But, funny thing, after Kent State the BIG protests stopped. >If you were rich or > connected, you went to the Rich Boy's Canada (also known as the > National Guard, which because of legislation had zero chance of being > put into action overseas). What legislation was that? The NG then and now could have been called up by the president. >And yes, Dubya, amongst others (like Loydd > Bentsen's son and Dan Quayle) hid out in there. "Hid out?" Maybe the VERY WELL connected had certain knowledge that they would not be call up to active duty but that never was certain. Most just didn't want to serve in the military and if they did they didn't want to serve for two years. (Then, as now, a reserve/NG unit would have been called up for only a year or so. In theory, it could have been for up to 6 years and by the same theory draftees could have been forced to serve up to six years but in practice it didn't happen.) Another thing that happened in that era that changed the NG/reserve picture was that JFK in '62 decided to build up the active duty military by requiring folks > It was ONLY after VietNam, that public sentiment over the unfairness > of the draft and deferments that the US decided to do away with it. Actually, RMN got rid of the draft while there were still LOTS of troops in VN. Of course, during that time, he was cutting the size of the military and reduced the length of VN tours for reserve types to only 10 months. > Sidebar: incidentally, the US almost lost it's NCO corps in VN, too > many promotions of inexperienced troops to replace depleted NCO ranks. Nonsense. There were plenty of good NCOs in VN and the military in general. The qualify of the lower enlisted ranks suffered and more of them were using drugs than at the start of the war but there were always good NCOs. The men who were promoted deserved their promotions. Of course then as now, few NCOs choose to serve beyond 20 years. And those with service in the Korean War were finishing their 20 at around the same time as VN was slowing down. >In any case, I think you need to review the facts. When South Vietnam, >American combat troops had been gone for ~2 years. > >--Ty Oh, so those films of desparate Viet parents tossing their babies over the embassy walls during that retrograde movement were just antiwar folks' spin? Get real. We ran with the tail tucked firmly betwixt the cheeks, puckered up all the way. Ralph > Get real. We ran with the tail tucked firmly betwixt the cheeks, > puckered up all the way. Get real yourself, "Ralph." You just are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! >> Get real. We ran with the tail tucked firmly betwixt the cheeks, >> puckered up all the way. > >Get real yourself, "Ralph." > >You just are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! So that's why everyone is so happy about VN. We won, right? We just got smart enough to cut our losses. There was not one iota of support anymore for the effort, and the way that the military treated vets at the time was shameful. Ralph > We just got smart enough to cut our losses. There was not one iota of > support anymore for the effort, and the way that the military treated > vets at the time was shameful. Nonsense. But you knew that. There was still a lot of support. RMN pulled the American military out of VN but his plan was to continue to support the RVN government and its military. The RVN had established effective militia type forces to pin down the NVA until reaction forces could come to the rescue. The war was converted to a situation whereby it was become less expensive for the US/RVN side to operate and more expensive for the NVA. Because of WaterGate, however, congress pulled the financial plug and South VietNam went down the toilet. Also, it is very silly to claim that the military didn't treat the VN vets well. By the end of the war just about every officer above O-3 and every EM above E-4 had served their. The top leadership of the first Gulf War were field grade officers in VN. >Nonsense. But you knew that. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >The top leadership of the first Gulf War were field grade officers in VN. No, what I meant by "how the gov" treated the vets was that many returned home with no period of transition back into US civil society. One day a guy could be in the boonies, and the next, he could be downtown (well maybe not THAT quick, but you get the drift). Loads of emotional, drug abuse, marital problems left many vets into bottles or more drugs. And the way that American society at large back then treated soldiers in uniform was shameful too. The current philosophy now is that even if you don't agree with the war in Iraq, you're not going to blame the returning home serviceman, who above all, served his nation when asked. If anything you render your anger in the voting booth or in letters to editors or congressman. None of that was available then, leaving many serviceman, once home, disillusioned and angry with themselves over things that they could never have controlled anyway. Ralph > No, what I meant by "how the gov" treated the vets was that many > returned home with no period of transition back into US civil society. Actually, most GIs didn't want or need a "period of transition." By 1971 lots of guys with some of their 2 year obligation left were given the opportunity to leave the Army a few months early. Few turned it down. > One day a guy could be in the boonies, and the next, he could be > downtown (well maybe not THAT quick, but you get the drift). Loads of > emotional, drug abuse, marital problems left many vets into bottles or > more drugs. I can't speak to the "emotional" or "marital" problems. BUT the Army had 100% drug testing (all ranks including officers) for guys going back to CONUS by mid 1971. Folks who failed the drug test would sweat it out in VN. (Slight OT: strong heroin was readily availble in VN. On some bases, places where GIs could stand around without attracting attention - usually base bus stops - were litered with little plastic vials. Each vial originally was partly filled with heroin. It was consumed by dipping a cigarette in the vial and then taking a drag. Few became adicted. Yet among the civilians back home, a fairly high portion of those "experimenting" with hard drugs became adicted. IOW: The GIs were tougher, emotionally speaking, that the draft dodgers back home.) >And the way that American society at large back then > treated soldiers in uniform was shameful too. In most places most Americans respected men in uniform and their uniforms. >The current philosophy > now is that even if you don't agree with the war in Iraq, you're not > going to blame the returning home serviceman, who above all, served > his nation when asked. If anything you render your anger in the voting > booth or in letters to editors or congressman. So? No one (except a few left wing idiots) "blamed" returning GI's from VN. > None of that was available then, leaving many serviceman, once home, > disillusioned and angry with themselves over things that they could > never have controlled anyway. Most returning GIs just didn't have problems. A few did but most didn't. > >In any case, I think you need to review the facts. When South Vietnam, > >American combat troops had been gone for ~2 years. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the embassy walls during that retrograde movement were just antiwar > folks' spin? > Get real. We ran with the tail tucked firmly betwixt the cheeks, > puckered up all the way. Again, American combat troops were gone for ~2 years when South Vietnam fell. You might as well characterize the Fall of France in 1940 as an American defeat. --Ty >>Get real. We ran with the tail tucked firmly betwixt the cheeks, >>puckered up all the way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >fell. You might as well characterize the Fall of France in 1940 as an >American defeat. In the Paris Peace Talks, the US was insistent that the NLF retreat to the positions that they held pre 1968. They would not agree. Nixon bombed them into submission or so the American people thought. The North Vietnamese never did agree to leave the south so when the US troops left, the NLF held positions all over South Vietnam. McNamarra and Westmoreland were clearly on a planet different from the rest of the American people during the war but McNamarra is really beginning to get a clear insight these many years later. There is a fairly new documentary movie called the "Fog of War" based on his writings. >The US certainly did kill a lot of VC and NVA troops. I think everyone >in the US military considered [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >spent but it all comes down >to how the US exited VN. In total panic, looking exactly like the French. You're absolutely right Bill. A total side bar... number of people killed on American Highways during the 1960's. About 50,000 each year. Inotherwords, all the US soldiers that got killed in VN the whole war was roughly the equivalent to the number of folks that died on US highways in one year. That info was contained in DOT white paper on highway safety. That was what prompted the creation of Trauma centers. DaNang Lung, Shock Lung, now called Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, first elucidated in VN field hospitals. MAST (military antishock trousers) suits, now referred to a medical antishock trousers, first developed in VN field hospitals. Greater than 98 percent of military wounded that made it into a field hospital in VN left VN alive. The point is, that an absolute silver lining of wars is that medical science advances tremendously. One of the intangibles that the average Joe hardly sees. Not pro or con anything, but wanted to illuminate that fact. Ralph >The point is, that an absolute silver lining of wars is that medical >science advances tremendously. One of the intangibles that the average >Joe hardly sees. Not pro or con anything, but wanted to illuminate >that fact. I agree with your facts. It seems obvious that it would be more productive to engage in constant wars rather than have a space program so we could advance our science. But we will need to bring the draft back. > The US certainly did kill a lot of VC and NVA troops. I think everyone > in the US military considered > the 68 Tet battle a major US loss. Within a few months of Tet 68 it became clear that the battle was a MAJOR loss by the VC. In fact, it destroyed the VC. The VC was replaced by NVA types after that. In FACT most folks in the military came to realize that the VC lost BIG in Tet 68. The incidents of sabotage and of grenade or rifle attacks on GIs in towns dropped to near zero. The risk to our forces from civilians was more from the drugs they sold which were cheap and potent than from armed attacks. >Within a few months of Tet 68 it became clear that the battle was a MAJOR >loss by the VC. In fact, it destroyed the VC. The VC was replaced by NVA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >from the drugs they sold which were cheap and potent than from armed >attacks. Like always asking for your beer in an unopened can Ralph > Like always asking for your beer in an unopened can That's standard third world SOP. Hardly unique to VN. > > Theres no scenario where the US would have stayed out of WWII. Therefore, > > your speculations pointless. But, lets go there. Lets say we did stay out. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Vietnam. We could have turned Vietnam into a wasteland had we chosen to do so. Stop using comic books to learn history. Rob > > > > This thread is an absolutely classic example of what > > > > granddaddy used to refer to as "thinking off"... > > > > > > Agreed. Not to mention this guy has no idea what hes talking about. > Its > > > almost painful. [...] > Theres no scenario where the US would have stayed out of WWII. Therefore, > your speculations pointless. You are talking through your hat! If you knew a bit about 20th Century American history, you would know that there was a very strong movement to keep the U. S. out of World War ll. Naturally, the anti-war movement faded out fast after Pearl Harbor. But my "future history" scenario was based on the hypothesis that Japan did NOT attack us. If Pearl Harbor did not happen, then in fact we might not have gotten into the war at all. Then, it is very likely we would, in a few years, find ourselves as one of the few democracies in a world dominated by Nazis, Communists, and Japanese warlords, or at least some combination of them. Further, we might not even have the A Bomb before they did, since of course our rapid development of the A bomb resulted from our being at war already. . > But, lets go there. It is simple enough to do, because all we have to do is imagine that Pearl Harbor did not happen. > Lets say we did stay out. > Later on the US would have still conquered whomever we went up against. Are you seriously suggesting that if Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Warlordist Japan teamed up and attacked the U. S. we could have beaten them all? That's just crazy, especially considering they probably would not bother to attack us until the 1950's, when they had A bombs too.. We had our hands full helping England and some other nations with Germany and Japan in World War II, and Russia was on our side then, in case you have forgotten. What if all those millions of Russians and Germans who killed one another would have been coming after us? Be sensible. Once we geared up for war, we fielded a formidable fighting force. But noboby in his right mind can look at the great battles between the Russians and the Germans and conclude these guys were a bunch of pushovers. We did not have a population large enough to field armies to defeat such a vast combined force. Anyway, I did not suggest this hypothetical combined force of totalitarian powers would attack us right away. They likely would have created a climate of hostility on the planet that would make the Cold War look like a love fest. They would interfere with our trade, they might initiate dozens of small conflicts in South America or elsewhere. Common sense says people like that just would not like having a democracy around. Sooner or later, after years of attrition, we would probably have a military coup ourselves, and then the entire planet would be totalitarian. My basic point: If in reality Roosevelt DID get us into World War II, so much better for his place in history--and for all who believe in democracy. Our > wartime capabilities were, and will always be, unmatched. > > Rob > Are you seriously suggesting that if Stalinist Russia, > Nazi Germany, and Warlordist Japan teamed up [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and Russia was on our side then, in case you have > forgotten. How do you figure that Hitler and Stalin could've coexisted? Or are you postulating that they could've for the sake of argument? After all, it is clear from Hitler's own words that lebensraum was to be found in the east. Slainte, Fletch > > Are you seriously suggesting that if Stalinist Russia, > > Nazi Germany, and Warlordist Japan teamed up [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > How do you figure that Hitler and Stalin could've coexisted? Or are you > postulating that they could've for the sake of argument? It was for the sake of argument. Even so, it was not totally far-fetched, because they DID sign that notorious non-agression pact, and they both had their own reasons for hating the United States. After all, it is > clear from Hitler's own words that lebensraum was to be found in the east. True, and there was too much distrust and enmity between them for them to ally. My "future history" was meant to be hypothetical. > Slainte, > Fletch > > > > > This thread is an absolutely classic example of what > > > > > granddaddy used to refer to as "thinking off"... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "future history" scenario was based on the > hypothesis that Japan did NOT attack us. We would have kept pressing until Japan attacked us. > If Pearl Harbor did not happen, then in fact > we might not have gotten into the war at all. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It is simple enough to do, because all we have > to do is imagine that Pearl Harbor did not happen. Our actions were to make war with Japan inevitable. > > Lets say we did stay out. > > Later on the US would have still conquered whomever we went up against. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and attacked the U. S. we could have beaten them > all? Russia and Germanys war was a certainty. Germany had much more to gain by going to war against the USSR than it did by going to war with the US. They wouldnt have "teamed up" in anything. > That's just crazy, especially considering they > probably would not bother to attack us until the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and Russia was on our side then, in case you have > forgotten. Nobody would have had the A-bomb were it not for the US. > What if all those millions of Russians and Germans > who killed one another would have been coming [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Germans and conclude these guys were a > bunch of pushovers. Without American help the Soviets would have fallen to the NAZI's. > We did not have a population large enough to > field armies to defeat such a vast combined > force. Of course we did. > Anyway, I did not suggest this hypothetical > combined force of totalitarian powers would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > in history--and for all who believe in > democracy. You have a weird and ignorant view of what went on... or what might have occured. Rob > Nobody would have had the A-bomb were it not for the US. snip Among the multiple rewritings of history in your post, this one is possibly the most obviously blatently incorrect. > > Nobody would have had the A-bomb were it not for the US. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > post, this one is possibly the most obviously > blatently incorrect. Well, he's all mixed up. I DOUBT very much that he has ever read one reputable book on World War II. He's so all over the place here that am beginning to suspect him of being a troll. Actually, Hitler could have fairly easily have had the atomic bomb, but he made some key mistakes, such as getting rid of key Jewish scientists and removing funding from his atomic project to put the funds in areas he--wrongly-- considered more practical regarding his war effort. But anyone who think that the Germans did not have the brain power to make their own a-bomb if Hitler had really pushed the project is just mistaken. > > > Nobody would have had the A-bomb were it not for the US. > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > pushed the project is just > mistaken. All the atomic/nuclear weapons in the world have been a result of American research. Bar none. Rob >> > > Nobody would have had the A-bomb were it not for the US. >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Rob Are you telling us that Anatoly Schransky (SP?) used American research for his project? Watch more Nova. Later, Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan  SignaturePT Barnum was right ! > >> > > Nobody would have had the A-bomb were it not for the US. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Are you telling us that Anatoly Schransky (SP?) used > American research for his project? Klaus Fuchs handed the main body of the results of the Manhattan Project to KGB handlers, but it did not cause all that much perturbation of the approach used by Dr. Schransky ( sp :) Layer cake, yadda yadda. > Watch more Nova. I did! :) > Later, > Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan > -- > PT Barnum was right ! -- Les Cargill .. >> Are you telling us that Anatoly Schransky (SP?) used >> American research for his project? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Les Cargill Hmmmmm, Familiar family name there. You wouldn't happen to be related to the large agribusiness/transport company, would you? Later, Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan SignaturePT Barnum was right ! > .. > >> Are you telling us that Anatoly Schransky (SP?) used [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Familiar family name there. You wouldn't happen to be related > to the large agribusiness/transport company, would you? Nope. I can only wish I was. My people have never been to Minnesota. The Cargills all came from the same Scottish fishing villiage. SFAIK, all clan Campbell. I am of a lesser branch of a lesser branch. I am of carpenters and tradesmen, dried on the winds of the American plain. But the Cargills I have known at least seem to be a cut above. I'm certain this is identity bias and nothing more. But I could be wrong. > Later, > Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan > > -- > PT Barnum was right ! -- Les Cargill > All the atomic/nuclear weapons in the world have been a result of American > research. Bar none. That is not the point. The U.S. team did make the breakthrough first; but most major powers of the 30's and 40's had their own projects. Someone else would have got it soon enough, had the American scientists dropped off the face of the Earth. > > All the atomic/nuclear weapons in the world have been a result of American > > research. Bar none. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Someone else would have got it soon enough, had the American > scientists dropped off the face of the Earth. And anyway, to characterize the 'US Team' as wholly American is a little nuts. Slainte, Fletch >That is not the point. The U.S. team did make the breakthrough first; >but most major powers of the 30's and 40's had their own projects. >Someone else would have got it soon enough, had the American >scientists dropped off the face of the Earth. The US spent a great portion of our gross national product solving the problems of building a bomb. It is totally unclear that any other country in the world would have the money or motivation to spend the money solving the problems. Clearly, the Soviets did not waste any time solving problems that would lead to a unique solution, they just built upon the work that had been done in the US. > > > All the atomic/nuclear weapons in the world have been a result of American > > research. Bar none. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Someone else would have got it soon enough, had the American > scientists dropped off the face of the Earth. Why do you bother replying at all? Youre full of nothing but "ifs". Rob > > "Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message > news:<4v-dnRepmpAqraDdRVn-uA@gbronline.com>... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rob <chuckle> Sounds like to me that he caught you in a basic error & you got irked about itr. <eg> b >> > All the atomic/nuclear weapons in the world have been a result of >American >> > research. Bar none. Well, you're right. The US did develop nukes, using German scientists. Maybe you've heard of one of them? Albert Einstien? Ring a bell? Watch out while you're waving that flag that it doesn't poke you in the eye :) Ralph >>> > All the atomic/nuclear weapons in the world have been a result of >>American >>> > research. Bar none. > >Well, you're right. The US did develop nukes, using German scientists. >Maybe you've heard of one of them? Albert Einstien? Ring a bell? Sorry, Einstein wasn't a scientist. Perhaps you're thinking of Enrico Fermi, or Robert Oppenheimer? http://www.histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/ww2/air/pac/atom/ab-man.html Horvath@Horvath.net This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe >Sorry, Einstein wasn't a scientist. Perhaps you're thinking of Enrico >Fermi, or Robert Oppenheimer? >http://www.histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/ww2/air/pac/atom/ab-man.html Ho ho... semantics perhaps, but they built on his mathematical theories. There's no denying that he was, of course, German. He was of the Jewish faith, but a German national before emigrating to the US. Er... anyone for an unsolvable theorum? :) Ralph > >> > All the atomic/nuclear weapons in the world have been a result of > >American [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ralph Youre the one bringing up American scientists background, not I. Its your point. Not mine. And again, were it not for American research there would have been no A-bomb. There wasnt any foreigners working on American nukes as far as I know. Care to document otherwise? Einstein was an American, as were all the rest. Rob >>>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:25:56 -0800, "Rob Duncan" > <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote: >>>>>All the atomic/nuclear weapons in the world have been a result of >>>>>American research. Bar none. Well, you're right. The US did >>>>>develop nukes, using German scientists. Maybe you've heard of >>>>>one of them? Albert Einstien? Ring a bell? >>Watch out while you're waving that flag that it doesn't poke you in >>the eye :) >>Ralph > Youre the one bringing up American scientists background, not I. Its your > point. Not mine. And again, were it not for American research there would > have been no A-bomb. Rutherford and Szilard drove the idea. Neither was a US citizen at the time, and only Szilard eventually became a US citizen. > There wasnt any foreigners working on American nukes > as far as I know. Care to document otherwise? Nils Bohr was one. >Einstein was an American, as were all the rest. "For his accomplishments, Einstein began receiving international attention. He returned to Germany in 1914 to accept a research position at the Prussian Academy of Sciences and a chair position at the University of Berlin. He also began traveling to the United States and on his third visit in 1932, he was offered and accepted a job at Princeton University. He became a US citizen in 1940." http://www.nuclearfiles.org/rebios/einsteinalbet.html Joseph Rotblat http://www.nuclearfiles.org/rebios/bio-joseph-rotblat.html "L.Szilard opposed by L.Groves for a security clearance because he is a foreign citizen. Finally Szilard, because of his earlier brilliant works, was treated like E. Fermi and E. Wigner." http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np5y.htm One could investigate the entire list rather than make meaningless pronouncements like this. In future please check your facts before posting nonsense to usenet. Bill, I was interested in your links, but they didnt prove your point. As well, the las |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message