|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Ukraine
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Patz 07:08If the enemy think they have successfully sold you some misinformation, then let them keep thinking that! Good Intelligence work is keeping secrets to yourself; and if you KNOW that a certain airfield is fake, don't let the enemy know that you know. So long as they think it worked, they will spend more time and effort putting in fake defences for it, etc. or even trying the same thing at another site. Remember, Churchill didn't intercept the Coventry raid even though he had the intercepts warning him, because he didn't want the Germans to guess that he knew it was coming. "In his 1974 book The Ultra Secret, Group Captain F. W. Winterbotham asserted that the British government had advance warning of the attack from Ultra; intercepted German radio messages encrypted with the Enigma cipher machine and decoded by British cryptanalysts at Bletchley Park. He further claimed that Winston Churchill ordered that no defensive measures should be taken to protect Coventry, lest the Germans suspect that their cipher had been broken. Winterbotham was a key figure for Ultra and supervised the "Special Liaison Officers" who delivered Ultra material to field commanders." It's a bit like Napoleon's maxim, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." |
|||||||||
|
bobspringett A valid point but I don’t think propaganda was the aim. Don’t forget these things happened over 80 years ago and modern thinking of acceptable losses for any tangible gains were not part of the overall strategy. In the face of many setbacks the Allies had to be seen to be fighting back. Also Hitler had started his “total war” which meant civilian targets were fair game as far as he was concerned. He tried and failed to break the spirit of London during the Blitz. He also tried with the Baedeker Raids in 1942. The targets that were selected to be bombed, at random, from a German Tourist publication recommending Cities to visit in Great Britain. My City of Bath was one of them. 417 people died.Thousands were injured. A second uncle of mine, serving as an ARP was killed. All because it was in a publication as a popular place to visit for German tourists! Dresden was dreadful as were the results of all Allied raids that inflicted casualties on civilians in Germany. But in the end breaking the heart’s and spirit of the German people and the overwhelming military gains of the allies ended the war. Was the large scale daily bombing necessary and the price of the lives of so many allied airmen lost worth paying? Public opinion post war said No. Churchill and others distanced themselves from Bomber Harris who was head of Bomber Command and was seen as the villain. Only in recent times has he had his reputation restored as doing a job that, though difficult, ultimately had to be done. |
|||||||||
|
Probably Real www.forcesnews.com |
|||||||||
|
Maintaining Ruse |
|||||||||
|
Skagway 15:37 I take your point, too. There might well have been such shenanigans carried out over France by high-spirited fighter pilots, but I can't see anything like that coming from Wing Commander level or higher. I also take your point about Bomber Harris. He was just following orders given by those who decided where the war effort funds were being spent; in other words, by Churchill. But that is not to say that these targets were considered proper military actions at the time. Curtis LeMay, his American equivalent, conceded that had the Allies lost the war both he and Harris would have been considered war criminals. The impetus was (as you say) domestic politics, not military advantage. And it wasn't 'breaking the enemy's heart and spirit' by bombing that won the war. In Europe it was the Red Army taking Berlin and destroying Germany's CAPACITY to fight, whether it had the WILL or not. Similarly in the Pacific War, the Japanese War Cabinet was aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they still expected to force America to come to terms rather than invade the Home Islands. The main issue that drove them to surrender was the Soviet capture of Manchuria. We westerners tend to overlook this, but it was a massive invasion that moved with impressive speed. This destroyed Japan's remaining army and equipment in Manchuria that could be transferred to the Home Islands, and denied it the resources of Manchuria to supply the Home Army. en.wikipedia.org |
|||||||||
|
bobspringett Thanks for the welcome 🙏 it’s much appreciated. 👍 I’m still getting used to the protocols and etiquette (or lack it!) of the the club’s and their forums so please forgive me while I find my feet! My point regarding the bombing campaign was what the western allies could do to hasten the END of the war. Berlin was Stalins prize .. no more. The Wehrmacht were beaten as a serious fighting force long before the Red Army reached Berlin. The outcome of the war was never in doubt , it was how quickly it could be ended that was the issue.Once the USA took on a full belligerent role after Pearl Harbour and perhaps more importantly in the western theatre when Hitler renagued on the non aggression pact made with Stalin when they commenced Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 there was only going to be one outcome. Berlin was the prize that Stalin wanted as a bargaining tool for when Europe was carved up after the surrender. The further West he could establish his influence the better. The so-called Iron Curtain that followed afterwards and the Cold War were the result. If I appear to be off message I don’t think I am. History has a habit of repeating itself. The Ukraine was and still is a major producer of grain. Hitler wanted control of this and so does Putin. |
|||||||||
|
Skags I concede that this isn't a question that can be answered 'yes' or 'no'. It was always a balance of more effective or less effective. Even your term 'western allies' changed in content over time. In September 1940 the 'western allies' consisted of Britain and a few commonwealth countries and there was no eastern ally. In 1939 and 1940, the Western allies (Britain and France, and also Poland) were not defeated by strategic bombing, but by ground forces, close ground support aircraft and good tactics. In 1941 Britain would have been better served by concentrating on U-boat bases rather than area bombing; and to a large extent that better tactic was followed, but not as publicly as satisfying the demands to kill German citizens in their beds. When America entered the war and genuine strategic bombing became a plausible option, the daylight raids on specific targets (such as ball-bearing factories) was an American initiative (and not very effective) while British night bombing was simply terror-bombing and did little to shorten the war. Basically bombing made little difference; Germany didn't take war production seriously until the 'totaler Krieg' speech in 1943. Until then Hitler had expected to cruise to victory, fearing the effect on domestic morale if 'war economy' measures similar to those that caused discontent in 1917-18 were taken. After that speech German war production increased through to the end of 1944 despite heavy bombing. The main cause for the collapse of German production wasn't bombing, but loss of territory, infrastructure and workforce to the advancing allies on both fronts (but mostly the Red Army). <The Wehrmacht were beaten as a serious fighting force long before the Red Army reached Berlin.> Yes. The start was probably Stalingrad, and it became inevitable after the failure of Operation Citadel. Bombing had little influence on either. Even the victory over Japan wasn't due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but to the Soviet invasion and victories in Manchuria. (I will concede that had the Japanese Cabinet realised that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a new TYPE of bombing rather than the old 'thousand plane raid' tactic, they might have taken more notice.) I'm not trying to say that bombing had NO influence; but I suggest that the costs far outweighed the benefits actually gained from it. That might no longer be true now in the days of relatively cheap nuclear city-busters, but let's hope that theory is never tested. |
|||||||||
|
Sadly With the western aid Donald will choke off (he may succeed in dissolving the US partnership in NATO), Ukraine has substantially declawed and detoothed the Russian bear. Losses have been substantial. The real problem will be Putler holding Ukraine. Every failure (successful rebel attack) will result in civilian population reprisals, which he has already been doing. One missile fuselage had “za dety” lovingly inscribed on it, “for the children.” That bombed killed a bunch of people, including many children, taking refuge in a theater with DETU (pronounced dyetē) on its roof. Children. Putin has kidnapped almost as many as he has butchered. I have contemplated fetching the .30-06 I gave a niece to travel to Ukraine’s front to protect my friends from the Russian orcs. I get a warm feeling watching Musk’s X videos of drone attacks n Russian trenches and heavy artillery. I just wish we could keep it up, instead of agreeing Groper should negotiate an Afghanistan style surrender as he did with the Taliban. |
|||||||||
|
Japan So the suggestion atomics were not a primary motivator is groundless. Yes, Manchurian losses were a turning of the tide, as was the defeat of the Nazi/Italian axis three months earlier. The conflict was going to rage on with Tokyo style fire bombing of many other Japanese cities and loss of life on both sides for more months, even years, to come. It is nice to argue against the unilateral use of nukes (or their deployment in any context not involving hostile extraterrestrials), and I favor agreements where the warheads are removed from missile payloads. If we need to roll out city immolators it should require a bit more effort than merely caressing Donald’s swollen, throbbing red button (which he assures us is bigger and redder than Kim Jong Un’s). As I type the news reports Putler’s nasty Xmas day attack on Ukraine’s power grid, and Donald’s promise to unconditionally surrender Ukraine. |
|||||||||
|
Shiva 17:03 I respectfully disagree. Consider the whole context of the times and the options open to thew Japanese. <No surrender was in the works prior to the revelation of the novel weapon.> It is just as accurate to say that no surrender was in the works prior to the Red Army invading Manchuria. For those interested in deciding what events were the more critical.... 6 August 1945 - Hiroshima bombed. No Japanese surrender 9 August 1945 - Nagasaki bombed. No Japanese surrender 9 August 1945 - Invasion of Manchuria commences. 13 August 1945. No more atomic bombs dropped, but word from Manchuria was that the Japanese Kwangtung Army in Manchuria had been routed and was no longer a credible fighting force. There was no effective force able to prevent the Red Army from advancing virtually at will. 15 August, 1945 - Japan announces its surrender, which isn't actually signed until September. In the meantime, 20 August 1945 Red Army captures Harbin and Mukden (now called Shenyang). Except for the Soviet entry into the war against Japan, defending the Home Islands was always on the table. The Japanese Cabinet knew that Americans had no great desire to lose a million casualties on invasion and conquest of Japan, and not much more eagerness to keep laying waste to city after city. Germany was already defeated and Americans just wanted to draw a line under the war and the ongoing costs. Japan was hoping to make a peace short of total surrender. The loss of Chinese territory and Pacific territories was assumed, but they still hoped for the retention of Manchuria, or at least Korea, which the Americans really had no interest in invading anyway. But when the Red Army grabbed Manchuria and looked good to take Korea as well, that removed any hope of retaining any empire at all. There was going to be nothing left to retain by being stubborn. But in the years after 1945, with the Cold War in full flow, Americans didn't want it remembered that the Russians had any part in the defeat of Japan, and minimised the efforts of the Red Army in Eastern Europe while lionising the Normandy landings and other Western Front actions. |
|||||||||
|
bobspringett Britain was NOT defeated at all. It stood alone for over a year against Germany whilst all the other major nations decided whose side it was in their interests to be on. (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were the main exceptions). I agree with your point regarding the way Germany overran The Low countries and France. Indeed if Hitler hadn't interfered and directed Gudarian to settle old first world war scores around Verdun and stalled the momentum who knows what fate Britain faced. The allied evacuation from Dunkirk wouldn't have happened and the BEF would have been destroyed in detail or captured together with any of the French Army still willing to fight As far as the U Boat bases attacks are concerned this was attempted as you say. However the U Boats rarely returned to base. Ports in neutral Spain, both on the mainland and the Mediterranean Islands were used to re-provision and refuel . Britain protested and eventually Spain reduced its assistance. Don`t forget Franco owed Germany a huge debt for its help during the Spanish Civil War so theirs was a pro-Axix neutrality. The current Ukraine situation is heartbreaking but it has been coming, in one form or another, for a good while now. The European Union , not NATO, is the root of the problem. The Russian Bear has been poked with a stick by the EU for years. Witness it`s expansion Eastwards over the years , little by little it has expanded to the very front yard of Mother Russia. Putin`s reaction has been despicable but not altogether surprising. |
|||||||||
|
Manchuria “The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a month-long battle that resulted in the deaths or capture of over one million Japanese soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. The Soviets claimed to have killed, wounded, or captured 674,000 Japanese troops. However, Japan claimed only 21,000 killed, but the true figure was probably closer to 80,000.” The Soviets and Americans both had seas to cross to attack the Japanese mainland. Again, Hitler had not surrendered against conventional warfare against his country. Japan was poised to follow suite. Even atomics might not have been enough to convince them. Interestingly enough, the AI does concur with your analysis: “The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a major factor in Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945. The Soviet invasion, along with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans, contributed to Japan's surrender.” The red army invasion is too often overlooked by Americans. I myself was unaware the death toll was anywhere near that large. Of course, I WAS aware the Japanese had brutally repressed and murdered a vast number of Chinese. The rape of Nanjing resulted in nearly the same number of dead as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. No wonder Truman didn’t seem to suffer guilt or remorse over his nuclear decision. |
|||||||||
|
Skagway This too is history I was ignorant of, though curiously I just watched a movie about an attack on a Spanish U boat port. I wish I could recall the name of it. There was a lot of defying of direct orders to fulfill Churchill’s wishes. Oh, right—I did not realize it was such a recent release: www.imdb.com One of the actors, the big guy, resembles a friend of mine. His acting for some reason is kind of awkward, like he is always aware of the camera, yet strangely compelling. |
|||||||||
|
Donald’s Negotiation I have been to Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Moldova. They all really hate the Russians. The Hills of Crosses in Lithuania testify to the Lithuanian distaste for the Soviets. I had a gang of old farmers agitated enough to threaten to beat the tar out of me in Moldova for the effrontery of speaking Russian. “This is Moldova, we speak Romanian.” I did buy a Romanian/English dictionary afterwards, but still don’t speak a word of it. |
|||||||||
|
Uboats Humm.. It seemed like the A Team, Pulp Fiction and a John Wayne western all rolled into one. I loved all three genres but as a serious cocktail to portray a historic event I’m not so sure. I’m also sure there is an element of “based on a true story” in it. Like there are posh speaking upper class English idiots in charge trying to stop the raid. I really don’t know how we managed to survive for so long with these people at the top. Hey and there’s also a Uboat and lots of nasty German soldiers being killed . There’s even a Groacho Marx joke about his wife not being a lady thrown in for the comedy effect. A factual film based on an actual Ww2 event? Humm….. |
|||||||||
|
Skags 4:33 Specially your comment about Hitler interfering with Guderian's intention to mop up what was left of the BEF. As it was, the British forces left almost all of their gear behind, but at least the trained soldiers got out in sufficient numbers to provide the core of a Home Defence when re-equipped from stores. Had they not escaped, then I wonder what might have come of a paratroop assault on (say) Pevensey or Bexhill. Eben Emael had shown that the German paratroopers were competent and they managed at the later Battle of Crete against much stronger forces than the Brits would have had without the BEF personnel. Once the bridgehead had been gained, reinforcement with infantry, artillery and armour with U-boats, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe providing cover would not have been easy but it would have forced the Home Fleet onto what would have been a killing field. The Royal Air Force wasn't equipped or trained to oppose such an operation, and the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks in those tight waters. It proves that leadership matters! |
|||||||||
|
Gday Mate The German Landser was tough, well led, confident and already trained and experienced in Blitzkrieg fighting from the start of the war. They would have succeeded beyond any small scale raids on Pevensey Bay or Bexhill on Sea make no mistake. However even with the evacuation at Dunkirk and, as you say, the loss of nearly all of the BEF equipment, Hitler still hesitated and didn't’ drive home the advantage. He knew that he would have to have control of the skies over England in particular for a full scale invasion to be a success. The RAF had acquitted itself well in France and proved more than a match for the Luftwaffe. Hitler left Goering to engineer the defeat of fighter command with strategic attacks on airfields in the Home Counties and beyond and gain mastery of the skies before a full scale invasion. Had he succeeded then we were done for. He failed. On the final day of the Battle of Britain the situation was so bad that all serviceable fighter aircraft were in the air. We had nothing left. It was our last throw of the dice. The day was eventually won and Hitler turned his attention elsewhere. North Africa and ultimately the Soviet Union. On a personal note about NATO and Trump, I believe he is right that Members should at least meet their financial obligations as far as Percentage of GDP is concerned. His perceived ambivalence towards the alliance is making the leaders in the EU nervous particularly since Putins invasion of the Ukraine. Security comes at a price and for too long Europe has played fast and loose with American patience and generosity. Rather than trying to woo another Eastern European country to join the failing EU club It’s time they put their hands in their deep pockets and remember which side your bread is buttered. |
|||||||||
|
Skags 14:51 Without the BEF soldiers, a paratroop landing would have been sufficient to take and hold a bridgehead at (say) Bexhill virtually overnight. It would have taken only the following day to set up sufficient AA to keep the RAF out of the way. The Spitfires and Hurricanes (a very much under-rated plane!) were not well suited to a ground-attack role, nor were the pilots trained for it. Remember that in real history the Battle of Britain was fought over ground controlled by Britain, with planes able to land and be repaired if not too badly damaged, and pilots able to eject and be home in time for dinner if not too badly wounded. But if ground AA were defending the bridgehead, the Luftwaffe would have been able to provide Combat Air Patrol over the transport craft in the Channel, where a downed plane would be lost and probably the pilot as well, and some damaged Luftwaffe planes might be able to limp home. The RAF would not have been able to last the distance with the attrition rate adjusted to match these factors. If the Royal Navy came out it would not have been able to dodge the mix of Stukas, submarines and land-based artillery, and if they had stayed out of that killing ground the Kriegsmarine, which had been designed more for close waters than the Royal Navy, would have had a field day providing gunnery support inland to assist the breakout. Hitler, who had served in the trenches in WW1, simply didn't understand Blitzkrieg. As for NATO members putting up more of the money needed... Again, I agree. I think the NATO members are also starting to realise that, as well. Trump has taught them that America is not as reliable as they had once thought. Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to work out well for America. If Germany, France and Britain are going to put more money into defence, and ALSO keep in mind that an American president can hold them to ransom about supplying equipment even if the Europeans are willing to pay, it is likely that the Europeans will think seriously about developing their own defence industries. Not overnight, of course, but perhaps over a decade. There is already a basis for that in their existing aerospace industry such as Airbus and ESA, and the continent as a whole is very sophisticated in terms of IT and ground vehicles. Nor is what we have seen over the last 30 years 'American generosity'. The Americans have typically charged full price for what they have supplied, and in the meantime demanded other non-monetary benefits as well. Meanwhile, a more prosperous Europe has been a great market for American exports. It has been an example of enlightened self-interest, not 'generosity'. So Trump's win on this issue is eventually going to harm America, who won't be able to sell so much of their weaponry to Europe. That will mean that their R & D costs won't be shared by their allies through economies of scale, so the cost of America's own defence will go much higher for a smaller capability. In short, a bit of an own-goal. And of course, with less power comes less influence in 'soft' diplomacy so it will cost them there as well. Yes, Europe will indeed have to remember which side of the bread is buttered, and they'll realise that it's not buttered on the American side NOR the Chinese side NOR the Russian side. Just as the American bread is and always has been buttered on the American side, European bread is buttered on the European side. Thank you, DJT, for that lesson in Realpolitik. |
|||||||||
|
Wonder Bread Israel and Egypt don’t pay that much for US munitions. And every country bordering Russia save Norway meets its 2% GDP commitment. The nations that are lax? Without looking Slovenia, Canada, and Turkey are numbered among them. This was as of a year or two ago. Slovenia, Melania’s home country, is one Donald said he would encourage Putin to destroy. Not by name, just by financial contribution. When you visit, you see they have devoted funds to residential rooftop solar, but must wonder where they could afford to spend more in their military. Slovenia's national budget for 2025 and 2026 is projected to be as follows: Expenditure: €17.1 billion in both years, a record high Revenue: €15.2 billion in 2025 Deficit: 2.6% of GDP in 2025, and 1.6% of GDP in 2026 For the US: deficits equal 7.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024 and 6.5 percent of GDP in 2025. The 2025 projection was made in June, before we elected a president who slashed revenues and enormously magnified the deficit during his last term. I anticipate closer to 8% for 2025 as we defund the IRS to encourage wealthy tax cheats and higher in ensuing years, despite the DOGE promise to gut two trillion out of social security and wherever. Very exciting to see that socialist/communist plot dismantled. All the funds workers paid in to SS rightly belongs in the pockets and offshore vaults of Wallstreet tycoons, MAGA. I’m just deeply disappointed the US has chosen to abandon Ukraine to the wargs. It wasn’t costing us all that much to yank the teeth out of the Russian beast. |
|||||||||
|
Gday mate Please don’t equate continental Europe and the European Union as being the same entity. It’s not. The EU is a corrupt busted flush led by an unelected set of failed politicians who couldn't’ cut the mustard in their native countries. They like a nice cosy existence and the Ukraine crisis has meant they have had to step up to the plate. They have failed miserably. They’ve squealed and prevaricated and only Britain under Boris Johnson stood in the Ukrainian corner at the beginning. When I say American generosity I mean they have accepted the lions share of NATO commitment and this is what has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. Supporters of the EU will tell you that it is THAT organisation that has policed a peaceful Europe. That’s utter rubbish (trash) witness their complete impotence and incompetence when the Balkans became a killing field again. The region is hardly a million miles from Italy, one of the founding members of the Club. Biden has adopted a more isolationist approach for the USA and I wouldn't criticise him for that stance. Twice before America has had to get involved with the squabbles of Europe both covertly and in the case of WW2 overtly. I have seen the beaches of Normandy and military cemeteries further inland which stand testament to the last full measure of sacrifice made. But he has been seen as weak and ineffectual in his handling of foreign policy. Trump however has made the EU sit up and take notice. He is a loose cannon and unpredictable but it is that unpredictability that sets him apart. Allied to that he has that gift that ALL politicians possess … he has a narcissistic ego and is a liar . This breed of character doesn’t see it the way that we see it. He will say , those are my beliefs and principles, if you don’t like them I’ve got plenty more. Before I receive a writ for libel from his attorneys , we have liars in spades over here as well in the shape of recently elected Labour government ! Putin sees the EU as weak and the USA as ambivalent but with Trump now President Putin will have to plough a different furrow. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Skags 12:52 (a) 1. <The German lines of supply (in June 1940) were already over extended.> Extended, but I wouldn't say OVER-extended. Remember that in 1940 the size of the forces in the field were much smaller later in the war. There were over a quarter of a million Brits evacuated eventually, but this was close to the full strength of the British Army at the time. There was bugger-all left in Britian, and most of that was under-prepared. Even a weak bridgehead, rapidly re-inforced, could have been held and equipped for a breakout. So the only question is "Could such a bridgehead have been rapidly reinforced?" I think so. Germany held a largely intact rail and road system all the way from the Reich to the Flanders coast, and access to literally thousands of barges. Not enough for Operation Sea Lion later, but that was after the Brits had time to prepare and make good their losses; in June they could have run an adequate ferry service, and cut to pieces any attempt from sea or air to interdict. Certainly they could have provided greater supply than the Red Ball Express that supplied the American front in 1944, against stronger opposition and over longer and poorer roads. 2. <The RAF still ruled the skies over England and the channel> Over England, yes. Over the Channel, barely, and only because the German fighters had to loiter waiting for the bombers they were meant to escort. The RAF would have suffered much greater losses had it attempted any sort of ground-attack role, as was seen in their operations against targets inland from Dunkirk. Enough extra losses to turn a close-run win in the battle of Britain into a comfortable loss in a hypothetical Battle of Bexhill. 3. <and the Fleet still controlled the mine filled Channel.> Did someone mention the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst? Even in 1942, by which time Bomber Command was up and running and the Home Fleet intact, they couldn't stop the Channel Dash. The 'mine-filled Channel'? The Royal Navy laid plenty of mines, but that was on the sly, at night, to avoid Luftwaffe attention. A bit like saying that a commando raid 'controlled' the coast of France. 4. <Besides Hitler wouldn't have sanctioned such a raid anyway.> I'm not talking about a raid; I'm talking about the feasibility of an invasion on a scale that would threaten a significant seizure of English territory, opening the road to perhaps Portsmouth, perhaps even London given the weakness of the British Army at the time. But you're right; Hitler wouldn't have approved as shown by his hesitancy at Dunkirk. As I said a few posts ago, Hitler the WW1 trench soldier was out of his depth when it came to understanding Blitzkrieg. Politically, he still thought he was dealing with the likes of Chamberlain, not realising that the failures in France had destroyed Chamberlain's government and the new government under Churchill was much more hard-line. But this discussion is about the likely outcome HAD Hitler put his shoulder down and charged. |
|||||||||
|
Skags (b) Who happen to have been ELECTED to the EU Parliament. 'Couldn't cut the mustard'? Let's take von der Leyen as an example. She was ELECTED to the German Bundestag and served in the German federal government between 2005 and 2019, holding positions in Angela Merkel's cabinet including federal minister of defence. Sounds a bit more competent than Boris, whose only 'achievement' was to devastate the British economy by supporting Brexit and the consequential stuff-up. 2. <When I say American generosity I mean they have accepted the lions share of NATO commitment and this is what has kept the peace in Europe since WW2. Supporters of the EU will tell you that it is THAT organisation that has policed a peaceful Europe. That’s utter rubbish (trash) witness their complete impotence and incompetence when the Balkans became a killing field again.> Do I detect moveable goal posts here? While Europe is at peace, it is thanks to NATO. When the Balkans erupt into warfare it is evidence of EU incompetence; despite the fact that the EU is not about defence but about economic co-operation, and the Balkans were not part of the EU at that time anyway! What you call 'American generosity' was indeed that; but it was not charity. It was enlightened self-interest. America benefitted from strong European demand for American exports, so peace was a good idea. This is something that DJT just doesn't get. He is accustomed to playing zero-sum games, where the aim is to 'make a deal' that achieves a personal gain at someone else's expense, and each 'deal' is a separate transaction. Real personal relationships, and also real diplomacy, doesn't work like that; it involves RELATIONAL aspects so as to make a win-win situation. It's not zero-sum! Nor are all deals separate, but form an interlocking network. Trump has turned a win-win relationship into a loss-loss relationship. |
|||||||||
|
Skags (c) Yes, America did get involved in the Squabbles of Europe. Just think how much better life would be in America if America had stayed out! The Red Army would have wiped the continent clean! America also got involved in Asian squabbles, too. It was American demands to Japan that led to Peral Harbor and the Pacific War. Had America stayed out of the way, Japan would be the hegemon of Asia. Isolationism is an attractive short-term policy. But in the long run it surrenders all initiative and influence. But heroic interventionism is not the right answer, either. This was America's policy up to Trump. Both extremes are wrong. Collective security and co-operation is how real humans manage to co-exist, and it's how nations can co-exist in peace, too. <But he has been seen as weak and ineffectual in his handling of foreign policy.> Yes, Biden has been weak. He pulled out of Afghanistan according to the agreement made by TRUMP. He calls for cease-fires knowing that without arm-twisting Bibi won't listen, yetcontinues to support Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories and its illegal bombardment of other nations (e.g., Beirut) and even supplies the weapons for it. He still refuses to provide Ukraine with sufficient support to bring Putin to a just peace, though he is slowly improving in that regard. The problem is, Trump is even weaker. He positively supports Putin. He encourages Putin and Netanyahu. He tears up agreements such as that which limited Iranian work on a Nuke and threatens to tear up NATO. Why? Because he will do whatever it takes to have powerful people say nice things about him, and never forgets a grudge against any failure to do so. THAT is weakness! <Trump however has made the EU sit up and take notice. He is a loose cannon and unpredictable but it is that unpredictability that sets him apart.> Yes. That's how to ensure things go smoothly, eh? THe truth is that Trump goes about his politics in much the same way he goes about his businesses. He throws around threats and ambit claims, he tries all sorts of distracxtions, he changes his demands and even his 'facts' on a whim. That's because in business, there are courts to ensure contracts are honoured; but there is also bankruptcy, which Trump has resorted to in the past. Trump sees his allies not as partners but as adversaries, from whom he wants to wring maximum possible benefit and then screw when it comes his time to deliver. And in Diplomacy, there are no courts. Enforcement depends on the Law of the Jungle, and eventually the other critters in the jungle will make their arrangements so as to minimise their vulnerability to bullying. Trump is burning America's long-term interests so as to gain a temporary personal buzz. <Allied to that he has that gift that ALL politicians possess … he has a narcissistic ego and is a liar> I've known a few politicians in my time. I was NSW State Prez of the third party that held the Federal balance of power for a quarter of a century. All of them had self-confidence, determination and assertiveness; but only two in my personal interactions were narcissists, and only one of those managed to be elected. Liar? No doubt they would present what they wanted presented, often in misleading contexts and making false comparisons. But then there is the 'power lie'. This is a lie that the hearer (a) knows is a lie, and (b) knows that the speaker knows is a lie, and (c) knows that the speaker knows the hearer knows is a lie. So why tell the lie? Answer:- because he can, and there's nothing you can do about it. It is to prove the power of the speaker and the powerlessness of the listener. This is the extreme in narcissism. <we have liars in spades over here as well in the shape of recently elected Labour government!> But none in the Conservatives? Or what about the Brexiteers who said that Brexit would 'set Britain free'? They set Britain free all right; the freedom of a leper who has the leper colony all to himself. <Putin sees the EU as weak and the USA as ambivalent> Perhaps so' but Putin still can't take full advantage of it because Russia is also bleeding badly. Meanwhile, Europe is gaining strength. America is ambivalent primarily because DJT has destroyed the former bipartisan consensus. <but with Trump now President Putin will have to plough a different furrow.> Yes; he now has Trump yoked to his plough. What would Ronnie Reagan have said? |
|||||||||
|
Gday mate But as we’re talking “ what if’s” :… 1. Agree with your points. But barges? In the Channel? It’s hardly a mill pond at the best of times. If you recall the weather wasn’t exactly ideal in June 1944. Also Operation Sea Lion never happened so why there we’re fewer barges available for that I don’t understand your point. 2. Again I agree with all your hypothetical points. 3. I didn’t mention the G or the S? I don’t follow your line of hypothetical thinking. “Mines laid on the sly at night” ?? Again I don’t follow your logic. Are you saying that they should have been laid overtly during daylight hours having given the Germans prior notice of when and where they would be laid? I don’t follow your point about commando’s either. 4. Again I agree on all hypothetical points. Chamberlain’s government wasn’t destroyed. Nor was Chamberlain ditched by Churchill. His experience was valued and he was appointed as part of the initial war cabinet formed when Churchill took over as Prime Minister. He was misguided in his appeasement of Hitler during his time as PM but he served Churchill’s government well until his death in 1940. |
|||||||||
|
My involvement with this thread is ended |
|||||||||
|
Wow Biden is nowhere near the isolationist Donald is, of course. Donald promised to surrender Ukraine to Putin on his first day in office. The reason Ukraine has been losing ground to Russia is because they are low on ammunition. Their fighting spirit wanes only as their ammunition belts run dry. Otherwise, we could hardly have a cheaper, easier way of demolishing Russian military assets ourselves--outside our aid to the Taliban fighters during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We spent half a billion dollars (getting Saudi Arabia to match funds) to down Hind helicopter gunships, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and the like. Before that Afghan civilians were getting slaughtered just the way Russian orcs intend to Ukrainian genocide once Donald is done performing obeisance to Putin. Just watched a broadcast on how horrified Ukrainians are at the US presidential election. The whole world is in dismay. Except Putin. He is delighted, of course. He would likely have had to withdraw from Ukraine, and cede the territory he stole, instead of poising to steal more. |
|||||||||
|
Skags 15:42 That was precisely my point; that in June 1940, fewer barges were needed. <I didn’t mention the G or the S? I don’t follow your line of hypothetical thinking.> Not hypothetical on this point, but historical fact. Even in 1942, the Brits 'control' of the Channel was so poor that they couldn't stop a German flotilla from passing from Brest to Germany. How much weaker was that 'control' in 1940! And what does the weather in 1944 (four years later) have to do with any of that? <Are you saying that they should have been laid overtly during daylight hours having given the Germans prior notice of when and where they would be laid? I don’t follow your point about commando’s either.> Not at all! But I AM saying that laying mines under cover does NOT demonstrate 'control'. It's just another raid, like a commando squad might do. <Chamberlain’s government wasn’t destroyed.> Really? Then what happened to it? Did it just re-name itself 'Churchill Government' but with the same people in the same roles? <He was misguided in his appeasement of Hitler during his time as PM but he served Churchill’s government well until his death in 1940.> Yes. As you say, Chamberlain was misguided. And also as you say, he served CHURCHILL'S government. Not 'Chamberlain's adjusted government'. <What was a good exchange of opinions is now degenerating into something not particularly pleasant.> Where is the unpleasantness? What did I say that was insulting or demeaning to you? If you consider the move into more modern issues other than June 1940, then look back over the posts and see who introduced those additions. The first hint of anything 'unpleasant' was when you posted "The EU is a corrupt busted flush led by an unelected set of failed politicians who couldn't’ cut the mustard in their native countries." My response was to correct your allegation of 'unelected' and provide counter-examples displaying relative competence. But if you consider anything I posted to be 'offensive', then please explain what it was and how it offended you. I'll gladly apologise for any unfair comment or insult to you. |
|||||||||
|
Shiva 16:34 Amen! The idea of 'Make America Great Again' seems to involve making America irrelevant to the rest of the world. Put up tariff barriers, abandon allies and tear up agreements! And don't forget to slam the door on foreign workers, relying only on the output of the American education system! Then, in ten years' time, wonder why the American economy has shrunk back to the size of North Korea's. Well, I exaggerate slightly. But the American economy was built on importing cheap stuff and exporting expensive stuff. In bulk! If America diverted the manpower and resources to an 'import replacement' model, then that would have two immediate effects:- 1. The price of the import replacements would go through the roof. There's a reason why Nike produces its shoes in Bangladesh; because labour there is a tenth the price of American labour and the safety requirements are close to zero. Sure, 5% more Americans would have jobs, but inflation would reduce the bottom 50% of American workers to a Bangladeshi standard of living. 2. American innovation would fall flat and American technology would be overtaken within a couple of years. Research and development, specially in cutting-edge technologies, is extremely expensive and demands the finest brains on the planet. The finest brains can only be attracted by excellent pay and conditions, and those minds are needed in large numbers. That means looking beyond the output of many American universities where most degrees are effectively bought rather than earned. The absolute top minds are few and far between. And the expense of R & D has to be covered by economies of scale, which would not be available without a large export market. Not exactly what a Trade War is likely to provide! So an isolationist, xenophobic culture will stagnate. "But at least we're still Americans, and we still have our Freedom!" Yes, your freedom to either starve or to introduce measures that you would today call 'socialist'. Enjoy it! I would rather have the freedom to choose a centrist government that maintains prosperity for me and my community in the context of the world as a more civilised planet than mutually-antagonistic nationalities. |
|||||||||
|
Wait, what? Donald yields to Putin like a meek and subservient poodle. What did Donald do after Obama expelled Russian spies and seized their consulates? He refused to enforce sanctions and returned the consulates, then he invited Russians into the White House where he fed them sensitive intelligence. And he pardoned his campaign chairman for colluding with Russian agents, and others. Roger Stone who coordinated efforts with the GRU, 30+ of whom Mueller indicted for collusion. NSA advisor Michael Flynn, convicted of perjury over Russian contacts… Yikes! <<Amen! The idea of 'Make America Great Again' seems to involve making America irrelevant to the rest of the world.>> Hey, we remain the world’s number one death merchant exporter. For now. And consider the iron river. We supply Mexican drug cartels the best weapons their US drug money can buy! That won’t stop under a Donald regime. |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
