An article by the 1996 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

War for Peace? It Worked in My Country
By JOSÉ RAMOS-HORTA


ILI, East Timor

I often find myself counting how many of us are left in this world. One recent morning my two surviving brothers and I had coffee together. And I found myself counting again. We were seven brothers and five sisters, another large family in this tiny Catholic country.

One brother died when he was a baby. Antonio, our oldest brother, died in 1992 of lack of medical care. Three other siblings were murdered in our country's long conflict with Indonesia. One, a younger sister, Maria Ortencia, died on Dec. 19, 1978, killed by a rocket fired from a OV-10 Bronco aircraft, which the United States had sold to Indonesia. She was buried on a majestic mountaintop and her grave was tended by the humble people of the area for 20 years.

Early in September of last year, I went through the heart-wrenching process of unearthing the improvised grave of our sister, whom I last saw when she was 18. As her body was exhumed, I noticed that the back of her head and one side of her face had been blown off. She must have died instantly. We reburied our sister in the cemetery in the capital, Dili. Two other siblings who were killed, our brothers Nuno and Guilherme, were executed by Indonesian soldiers in 1977. With little information on the area where they were killed and disposed of, we have no hope of recovering their bodies for a dignified burial.

There is hardly a family in my country that has not lost a loved one. Many families were entirely wiped out during the decades of occupation by Indonesia and the war of resistance against it. The United States and other Western nations contributed to this tragedy. Some bear a direct responsibility because they helped Indonesia by providing military aid. Others were accomplices through indifference and silence. But all redeemed themselves. In 1999, a global peacekeeping force helped East Timor secure its independence and protect its people. It is now a free nation.

But I still acutely remember the suffering and misery brought about by war. It would certainly be a better world if war were not necessary. Yet I also remember the desperation and anger I felt when the rest of the world chose to ignore the tragedy that was drowning my people. We begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary.

So I follow with some consternation the debate on Iraq in the United Nations Security Council and in NATO. I am unimpressed by the grandstanding of certain European leaders. Their actions undermine the only truly effective means of pressure on the Iraqi dictator: the threat of the use of force.

Critics of the United States give no credit to the Bush administration's aggressive strategy, even though it is the real reason that Iraq has allowed weapons inspectors to return and why Baghdad is cooperating a bit more, if it indeed is at all.

The antiwar demonstrations are truly noble. I know that differences of opinion and public debate over issues like war and peace are vital. We enjoy the right to demonstrate and express opinions today because East Timor is an independent democracy — something we didn't have during a 25-year reign of terror. Fortunately for all of us, the age of globalization has meant that citizens have a greater say in almost every major issue.

But if the antiwar movement dissuades the United States and its allies from going to war with Iraq, it will have contributed to the peace of the dead. Saddam Hussein will emerge victorious and ever more defiant. What has been accomplished so far will unravel. Containment is doomed to fail. We cannot forget that despots protected by their own elaborate security apparatus are still able to make decisions.

Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power? To neglect this reality, in favor of simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating the true debate on war and peace.

I agree that the Bush administration must give more time to the weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate. The United States is an unchallenged world power and will survive its enemies. It can afford to be a little more patient. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, has proved himself to be a strong mediator and no friend of dictators. He and a group of world leaders should use this time to persuade Saddam Hussein to resign and go into exile. In turn, Saddam Hussein could be credited with preventing another war and sparing his people. But even this approach will not work without the continued threat of force.

Abandoning such a threat would be perilous. Yes, the antiwar movement would be able to claim its own victory in preventing a war. But it would have to accept that it also helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and explain itself to the tens of thousands of his victims.

History has shown that the use of force is often the necessary price of liberation. A respected Kosovar intellectual once told me how he felt when the world finally interceded in his country: "I am a pacifist. But I was happy, I felt liberated, when I saw NATO bombs falling."

José Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.











http://www.bobbalogh.com/

Yes but it's too bad that the U.S. supported the war against his people.

'On 7 December, Indonesia invades, landing forces at the capital Dili and Baukau, 100 kilometres to the east, and installing a puppet government composed of members of UDT and Apodeti. It is estimated that 60,000 East Timorese or 10% of the population are killed in the first two months of the invasion.

The invasion takes place with the blessing of United States president Gerald Ford and US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who meet with Suharto in Jakarta on 6 December, the day before the Indonesian troops are mobilised. "FRETILIN is infected the same as is the Portuguese army with communism ... We want your understanding if we take rapid or drastic action," Suharto tells the visitors.

Ford replies, "We will not press you on the issue ... We understand the problems you have and the intentions you have."

Kissinger says, "The use of US-made arms could create problems ... It depends on how we construe it; whether it is in self-defence or is a foreign operation ... It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly ... We would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens, happens after we return." '

If it could just be accepted that the US acts in its own interest and not that of any oppressed peoples than I'm sure we would get a better picture, and I for one would feel happier about it. I'm not opposed to any state acting in its own interest, but what sticks in my craw is when they try to dress it up as some moral action. I'm tired of reading here how the US saved Europe from Nazism, and how ungrateful we all are. Actually the US was bombed into WW2, they had little choice, unlike the UK/France and Commonwealth countries who didn't wait to be forced to get involved. If the US hadn't entered than we in Europe would be speaking Russian, and not German as many posters erronously suggest. The only reason that didn't happen was because the US feared Communist expansion (as in Korea and Vietnam and elsewhere), and decided to prevent that happening in Europe.The US wasn't there to 'save' Europe but to halt any communist incursion there. No moral high ground, the US simply acted in what it thought was best for America. I accept that that is the prime duty of government, but please, ditch the 'we saved Europe' as if that was the primary objective. Now we have the touchy-touchy, heartrending propaganda about freeing the Iraqi people from the undoubted evil that is Saddam. Yeah, right, if you believe that you probably still hang up a sock at Christmas. Saddam has never posed any threat to the WEST in the past 12 years or so. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq but all to do with Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. We are going to war with Iraq on a 'maybe' and nothing else. Hey, 'maybe' Cuba could also get WMD on the internet or wherever you get them, or Pakistan or France (they've been acting real unfriendly) or Mexico might get really upset about the border problems, and hey, 'maybe' Canada as well, they've been letting all sorts of nasty people crossover. If the coming war is truly about oil, and I say, 'if', then I can understand any state having a responsibility to safeguard its future and the continued uninterrupted supply of oil, but we don't have to childishly swallow all the hype about freeing the poor oppressed Iraqis, do we?
And regarding terrorist support, what do you think American reaction would be if the Queen was to meet Saddam in London and shake him warmly by the hand and afterwards lay on a reception for him, while at the same time, collecting cans were placed in pubs throughout the UK to help the Iraqis? Does this bring back memories? It should because that was the acceptance the IRA got when it was bombing and killing, despite being in a democracy where their miniscule popular vote made them decide that they would never gain power electorally, and so resorted to terrorism instead. The same people, may I remind you, who train marxist terrorists in Colombia and took part in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Syria and elsewhere. Where was the concern then about terrorism? What it did display was an almost complete lack of awareness about political issues outwith the US, and a simplistic sentimentality, misunderstanding and naivety about Ireland. The same sort of naivety that thinks the US is acting only in the interest of Saddam's oppressed masses, rather than looking out for itself.

Your historical facts are fuzzy to say the least.

President Roosevelt wanted to enter the war in europe from the first shot. A strong isolationist lobby in this country, lead by popular figures like Charles Lindberg, and a divided congress, made entering the war against Hitler frustratingly impossible. Even so, the US provided monetary aid and war supplies to Great Britain, at considerable risk to our merchant ships long before Pearl Harbor provided the excuse to send our troops. Also many Americans joined the British, and Canadian forces to fight side by side.

Your blithe rewriting of history, is a disservice to our nation and yours. Perhaps you would like to tell us how you think the US selfishly benefited from world war II. Beyond spending billions to support the war, and our allies, and the countless lives of our military, most of whom were drafted or volunteer civilians, we spent our national treasure rebuilding, not only the defeated enemy nations, but all of Europe, and Asia, after the war was over. I can still remember the rationing and sacrifices of our citizens to support that war, and the gold stars being hung in window after window to represent sons and husbands who would never return.

Please accept my apology for the selfishness and self interest of my country, in making the continued existence of yours possible.

Shelly

President Roosevelt may well have wanted into the war (as he did), but the fact remains the US had to be coaxed in by Pearl Harbour. The UK or France or the Commonwealth countries didn't need such coaxing, they recognised Nazism for the evil it was. Theirs is the moral high ground.
Shelly, which one country has ever benefited after both world wars? It wasn't any European state. In both instances US trade expanded into new areas at the expense of Europe, after great US pressure for European powers to give up their colonies. Before WW1 America was a backwater. The US looking after the little fella, I think not, it was looking to expand its own interest.
"Perhaps you would like to tell us how you think the US selfishly benefited from world war II." Do you actually believe that the US entered the war to benefit anyone else...they were BOMBED into it, they had NO choice.
Shelly you seem to have a problem following what I thought was a simple argument, I didn't accuse the US of being exclusively selfish, I did say that it was a government's duty to look out for its own self interest, that means any government. Sorry, but I thought that would be obvious. And I suppose no other country suffered rationing and other sacrifices?
The US involvement in Europe after the war was only the precursor for Korea and later Vietnam. It was petrified of communism and wanted it halted at all costs. Fortunately the nuclear balance of power prevented an actual war in Europe taking place, unlike Korea and Vietnam. Occupying Europe during the Cold War was also a strategem for
making sure that any nuclear exchanges that did happen, obliterated Europe and not the US mainland.
Being the historian you are, you will doubtless be aware that Germany never wanted a war with Britain, and desperately tried to come to some agreement whereby Germany would control Europe and Britain her colonies. If that agreement had been reached, then Germany would now be the world's greatest power, but fortunately for the US, Britain did take a moral stance, rejected the overtures and declared war BEFORE waiting to be bombed into it.

I am no historian, I lived through it. Your view of the war is either the prattling of a child or the delusion of a fool and ingrate. I neither know nor care which. It is simply my fervent hope that there are not many like you over there.

Shelly

And you sir are an idiot. You can't even answer my points, easier for someone with your very limited knowlege and abilities to oppose by slanging I suppose. So you lived throught it, big deal, pity you didn't learn anything at the same time, other than slanging that is.
Make sure and hang out your Cristmas stocking, Santa might bring you one of those pop-up history books. Anything would benefit you.

How easily you reveal what you are.

Shelly

Still nothing to say other than another slang. You failed to answer anything and resort to the typical tactics of the ignorant, you abuse. Well bully for you Shelly, what an intellect, what logic, what awe ispiring clarity. You are the one who's shown just how shallow you are, abuse and a few general points just about sums you up.

It seems to be the standard operating procedure for several people around here. Instead of addressing the issues and considering information that may be new and unknown to them, they attack those providing the information with innuendos and claim the information is bogus, then turn right around and accuse those same people of attacking them and of being delusional. It really is quite pompous and shallow isn't it? It can be a fairly effective technique unless your called on it.

Unless they are speaking the truth and you just can't handle it, as usual.

Ed W.

Ed W.

"IN GOD WE still TRUST - ALL OTHERS, WE used to MONITOR"

"How easily you reveal what you are."

Yes, this is the essence of truth! This is just mumbo jumbo masquerading as some sort of wisdom, I doubt Shelly could even explain what he meant by it.

p.s. When do those 99 year leases on the military properties from the lend-lease run out?

>President Roosevelt may well have wanted into the war (as he
>did), but the fact remains the US had to be coaxed in by
>Pearl Harbour. The UK or France or the Commonwealth
>countries didn't need such coaxing, they recognised Nazism
>for the evil it was.

Thats why they allowed Hitler to slowly build up his forces, thats why France didn't do shit when those troops marched into the Rheinland, with specific orders to instantly retreat if they encountered ANY resistance.

Theirs is the moral high ground.

Vichey France, and the Jewish collaboration in France. Yeah, thats some high ground you got there.

>Shelly, which one country has ever benefited after both
>world wars?

France was liberated, the UK was saved from an impending invasion following the Battle of Britain, not to mention the collapse of the Eastern Front and the liberation of the Baltic States.

It wasn't any European state. In both instances
>US trade expanded into new areas at the expense of Europe,
>after great US pressure for European powers to give up their
>colonies.

They gave up their colonies because they couldn't afford the military presence there. Look at India as a prime example.

Before WW1 America was a backwater. The US looking
>after the little fella, I think not, it was looking to
>expand its own interest.

You're joking, right?

Do you actually
>believe that the US entered the war to benefit anyone
>else...they were BOMBED into it, they had NO choice.

Actually, they did have a choice.

>Shelly you seem to have a problem following what I thought
>was a simple argument, I didn't accuse the US of being
>exclusively selfish, I did say that it was a government's
>duty to look out for its own self interest, that means any
>government. Sorry, but I thought that would be obvious. And
>I suppose no other country suffered rationing and other
>sacrifices?
>The US involvement in Europe after the war was only the
>precursor for Korea and later Vietnam. It was petrified of
>communism and wanted it halted at all costs.

And rightly so. Communism has given us great leaders like Stalin, Kim Il Suck (my pet name for him), and a host of others.

Fortunately the
>nuclear balance of power prevented an actual war in Europe
>taking place, unlike Korea and Vietnam. Occupying Europe
>during the Cold War was also a strategem for
>making sure that any nuclear exchanges that did happen,
>obliterated Europe and not the US mainland.

Now thats a joke. They are called ICBM's for a reason.

>Being the historian you are, you will doubtless be aware
>that Germany never wanted a war with Britain, and
>desperately tried to come to some agreement whereby Germany
>would control Europe and Britain her colonies.

Now thats just B.S., I suggest you read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", followed by "Life and Fate".

If that
>agreement had been reached, then Germany would now be the
>world's greatest power, but fortunately for the US, Britain
>did take a moral stance, rejected the overtures and declared
>war BEFORE waiting to be bombed into it.

Britain and France could have easily averted a war is they had bothered to take a moral stance before Hitler started massacreing people in Czechoslovakia, before he marched his troops to the Rhineland, before he demanded that he be allowed to rebuild a German army.

I am a historian, so I will answer your points. Shelly is right, your grasp of the history of the era is rather confused.

>President Roosevelt may well have wanted into the war (as he
>did), but the fact remains the US had to be coaxed in by
>Pearl Harbour.

Pearl Harbor got the US into the war in the Pacific. What was it that required the US to enter the war in Europe? Even with Hitler's declaration of war, there was no threat from the Nazis to the United States. And it does seem that you have completely ignored both Lend-Lease and the use of US Naval vessels to ensure that those supplies reached Britain. In other words, the United States was at war with Germany before December 7th, 1941.

>The UK or France or the Commonwealth
>countries didn't need such coaxing, they recognised Nazism
>for the evil it was. Theirs is the moral high ground.

Really? Explain to me what happened in 1936? How about 1938? Was Neville Chamberlain an American? Oh, no...he was British.

>Shelly, which one country has ever benefited after both
>world wars? It wasn't any European state. In both instances
>US trade expanded into new areas at the expense of Europe,
>after great US pressure for European powers to give up their
>colonies. Before WW1 America was a backwater. The US looking
>after the little fella, I think not, it was looking to
>expand its own interest.

Confused more than slightly, aren't you? Before WWI, the US was steadily expanding as a world wide power. Interests in South and Central America, China, the Philippines all make that fairly clear. If the US benefited by WWI, it was because the European powers had spent so much time and effort killing themselves off. Don't blame us, blame yourselves. And most of the European powers (with the exception of Germany) didn't give up their colonies until post WWII, and then on a very voluntary basis (France and Belgium taking significantly longer than the UK and US). I take it you believe that the UK should still have India, Hong Kong and South Africa as colonies? Again, US economic strength was a result of filling the vacuum as the former colonial powers didn't have the wherewithal to provide the services that they had before the war.

>"Perhaps you would like to tell us how you think the US
>selfishly benefited from world war II." Do you actually
>believe that the US entered the war to benefit anyone
>else...they were BOMBED into it, they had NO choice.

Of course they had a choice. They could have ignored Europe. And you would speak Russian, just as you have suggested. But Communism wasn't so feared in the pre-war environment, not anywhere like it was feared in the post-war environment. Churchill feared Communism, Americans didn't.

>The US involvement in Europe after the war was only the
>precursor for Korea and later Vietnam. It was petrified of
>communism and wanted it halted at all costs. Fortunately the
>nuclear balance of power prevented an actual war in Europe
>taking place, unlike Korea and Vietnam.

You really need to read more history. Your grasp of cause and effect is confused here. The US involvement in Europe had nothing to do with Korea or Vietnam.

>Occupying Europe
>during the Cold War was also a strategem for
>making sure that any nuclear exchanges that did happen,
>obliterated Europe and not the US mainland.

No, occupying Germany (not Europe) and to a lesser extent Italy, were part of the rebuilding of both nations, and in accordance with the peace signed ending the war in Europe. Later those troops became part of the NATO alliance. When Germany was occupied, no one had nuclear weapons, so its pretty darn hard to figure out how that occupation could have been a strategy to force such exchanges to happen in Europe. When the Soviet Union did develop atomic weapons, they also had the delivery systems to use those weapons on the United States. US troops in Europe had no effect on that, at all.

>Being the historian you are, you will doubtless be aware
>that Germany never wanted a war with Britain, and
>desperately tried to come to some agreement whereby Germany
>would control Europe and Britain her colonies. If that
>agreement had been reached, then Germany would now be the
>world's greatest power, but fortunately for the US, Britain
>did take a moral stance, rejected the overtures and declared
>war BEFORE waiting to be bombed into it.

At the same time, Germany was claiming that it was an ally of the Soviet Union and would remain such forever. Believing the claims of Adolf Hitler is what made Chamberlain such a fool. Britain didn't take a moral stance, Chamberlain just refused to be made a fool of again.

In East Timor, the US and Britain were directly responsible for the Indonesian invasion. The British saw Suharto's fascist new order as an investors paradise and were Washington's principal accessories. The US didn't just sell weapons to Suharto, both MI6 and the CIA operated from a spy base near Darwin, Australia, set up by British intelligence. They knew almost everything the Indonesians were planning. The outside world was told nothing. The US and British governments said and did nothing in protest of this invasion. And the US provided continued logistical military support. East Timor was on the verge of being accepted as a new member of the United Nations and there was a chance that the country was going to be either leftist or neutralist and not likely to vote with the US.

There isn't a shred of logic in JOSÉ RAMOS-HORTA's reason to justify a pre-emptive strike in Iraq. He bases his justification by comparing the British and US backed invasion and slaughter of 200,000 Timorese. That's the biggest bunch of bullshit double talk I've heard in a long time.

If the US was so concerned about Saddam gassing his own people, why the hell did the they supply him with the chemicals and military intelligence to do it? And why do they continue to supply Turkey with arms to kill their Kurd population as well? LOL!

It's like JOSÉ RAMOS-HORTA saying, "I know you were responsible for annihilating members of my family and 200,000 of my unarmed countrymen in cold blood. I guess you couldn't intervene in the invasion you helped to create. Why don't you invade Iraq to save the remaining people you and Saddam didn't destroy even though in the process you may kill 500,000 more Iraqis and Millions may roam the streets without food, medical supplies and fresh drinking water."

"directly responsible"?

Oh, really?

What US troops took part?

What US administration ordered the invasion?

HAL, you're an idiot.

Thank you all for your very interesting comments. I'm not going through them one by one, but I will pick out several. First doctormidnight, a good name for someone in the dark BTW, and yes, I have heard of ICBMs, but the whole hope was that any missile exchange would take place within Europe, they would take out West Germany we would knock out Poland or somewhere, then perhaps the UK or France would go and we would respond with a strike on say Hungary. By that time and the evidence of what could happen, the theory was that the US and USSR would come to an agreed halt before resorting to ICBMs. It is well documented. And yes I've read aThe Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Wm S Shirer, so what, do you think that contains all the knowledge and wisdom regarding WW2? It is one of many thousands of books on that topic.You say "Britain and France could have easily averted a war is they had bothered to take a moral stance before Hitler started massacreing people in Czechoslovakia," And the US couldn't? Surely the US wouldn't stand by and watch something as evil as Nazism spread? OK, it did, until it was bombed into changing its mind.
Observer, the 99 year lend -lease on military properties I think is answered by what I said to doctormidnight and the intent to wage war in Europe. I have never criticised that policy, this whole thread has managed to be diverted from my original post which was about nations acting in their own interest, quite rightly, but disguising that intent with moral arguments. I mentioned Iraq because the thread was about that topic and drew examples from history, WW2 and the cold war to show how self interest operated. I never believed that the US acted wrongly, its duty was self interest, as is every nations. I see nothing wrong with the US entering the war late, but I do object to trying to claim some moral high ground for WW2. It was bombed into it, if that hadn't have happened, the US may never have entered the war, and again I can't see anything wrong with that, if it was in America's interest not to enter. Instead of using WW2 and the Cold War I could equally have used the British in India as an example. They were there for two main reasons, to pillage as much as possible and have a political and military presence in the whole area and also importantly to get there before any other european nation did who would then have an edge. Now yes, they did build a fine railway system (still the world's best), educate many Indians (sent them to London) and give them responsible jobs, stopped tribal warfare, fed the population during droughts, converted the heathen, brought medicine, fairer government, BUT the primary objective was to pillage. I recognise that, even though some benefits did amass to the locals. In short, Britain put a moral explanation forward for their real reason for being there. Now if you replace Britain with the US in India, Shelly and many others like him would be arguing angrily that the US was there just to benefit the Indians, that we introduced sound government, hospitals, stopped widows throwing themselves onto their husband's funeral pyres etc. etc. They would completely deny any self interest.
Al, what can I say, your grasp of history is so slight. The US was never at war with Germany before Pearl Harbour, you know as well as I do when war was declared. America was gradually expanding prior to WW1 as a power, but still lagged behind Britain for one. One salient reason for that was the size of the US fleet at that time, without major shipping you remain in effect a backwater. I believe it took until 1926 for an agreement to be reached with France and Britain about what size their respective fleets should be. I too am an historian, with a masters degree, so I'm not easily overwhelmed by your claim. I do think you need to do more research though.
May I again emphasis that i was not attacking the US, I could have used almost any country, but what I was attempting was to reveal the hypocracy which clings to actions governemnts take when they have to dress up their real intent with some kind of moral reasoning, as britain and the US are doing right now over their claim that they are going to war with Iraq to help ease the plight of the oppressed people there.

I'm sorry that you hit your head on the diving board.


quint

quint

But I didn't hit my head on any diving board. Oh wait, I get it, it was an attempt at sarcasism. Very droll, I bet you keep those other chubby six year olds laughing their little heads off. But anyway, thank you for taking time out from your comics to share your humour.

It wasn't sarcasm, truly believed that the reason for your views, beliefs, was due to a head injury.


quint

quint

There you go again not only are you a failed comedian, but you think you can diagnose head injury from about 5,000 miles away. And not only that, you can specify the cause of that injury, in this case ' a diving board' and not a fall or a dropped brick or any multitude of possibilities. Just go back to your comics, but remember when you read them, they're not true.

Truly, I apologize. Never meant to enrage you so.


quint

quint

Quint I'm not enraged, some things do enrage me but I find exchanges like this to be both stimulating and amusing. I don't, or try not to, take things personally. I don't dislike anyone here because of what they say, how can I, I've never met them. I may disagree with what they say, but don't confuse that with personal dislike. I'm sorry if I was smart with you, you're a good sport and I would like to assure you that my head is (almost) perfectly sound. Have a good day.

Backflip,

I also have a Masters.

Was the US effectively at war with Germany prior to December 8, 1941? Yes, it was. US Naval warships were waging war on German U-boats prior to that date. The United States was supplying both the USSR and UK, as well as Chinese, Free French and Free Polish forces with arms and materials prior to that date. To claim that Lend-Lease was in the interests of the United States is to completely ignore what it cost, and what the return was, as well as ignoring the fact that we didn't provide any Lend-Lease aid to Germany, Italy or Japan. A declaration of war is not necessary to be at war...or do you believe that the United States never went to war in Vietnam?

Our fleet was sufficient prior to WWI to defeat the Spanish and acquire the Philippines, to force Japan to open to trade, and to be an integral player in the Chinese market (including being involved in the Boxer Rebellion). We may not have been on par with Great Britain, which was then at the end of being the world's undisputed Empire, but we were sure on par with France, Spain, Germany and Russia. Which means we weren't exactly a "backwater".

I noticed you didn't bother to address any of the issues related to Neville Chamberlain? Maybe that is because they so clearly are in conflict with your original claims?

I also notice that for all your bluster towards Dr. Midnight, you didn't bother to address any of the issues related to the occupation of Germany or the basing of US troops there as part of NATO.

One thing that is clear is that you need to read a bit more, and I suggest you try some original source material regarding the defence plans for war with the Warsaw Pact. The intention of forward based troops as part of NATO was to restrict conventional conflict to the European continent, not nuclear war. There was at best only a brief period when it could have even been considered possible to limit nuclear conflict between the US and USSR, and at that point, US and UK troops had already been in Germany for over 10 years.

For a professed historian, your grasp of time sequence seems lacking.

Al, I've checked dr.midnights post and don't see what you are referring to regarding Nato etc but I think my assertion that an exchange of missiles in Europe was obviously more desireable to the US than ICBM war covers that. All historians bluster, as you know, and no doubt I'm equally guilty, yet I don't seem to have mastered the technique quite as perfectly as you have. I take my hat off to you. The US being 'effectively' at war isn't war though is it? Britain, by that argument was 'effectively' at war with the Viet Cong because we allowed our bases here to be used for military transfer etc. And yes, the US fleet was increasing in size, and was large enough to facilitate those instances you refer to, but at the same time, it was still a lot smaller than the British fleet, and despite what you say, I think the French also. And as you will know, trade depended on shipping. Regarding Neville Chamberlain, I don't understand what you mean when you say he was so obviously at conflict with my original claims. I personally think he was wrong, but as you are aware, not all historians take that view, some cite war weariness, bankruptcy, a general feeling that Germany had been dealt with unfairly after Versailles etc etc, so it is a matter of opinion isn't it? I don't quite see how he is relevant though to the discussion. My sole contention is not that the US was wrong at any time, but that it acted as it saw fit and in its own interest. Something which ALL nations do. I merely used the US as an example because of Balo's original post. I pointed out British rule in India as yet another example and currently I could bring up France and Germany and Russia who are doing the same. They are claiming some moral high ground, but we know that really it is all about trade, don't we? Nations act in their own interest, that is understandable and proper, but my argument was that they camouflage that interest with moral justifications, and that we should be aware that happens. Oh, one more thing, you assess the Nato situation and say "The intention of forward based troops as part of NATO was to restrict conventional conflict to the European continent, not nuclear war." Well, that is certainly one opinion, many would disagree and believe that nuclear exchanges were possible and would provide the breathing space for a peaceful solution to take place before either the US or the USSR was attacked directly. In any case, you do proof my contention that Europe was designated as the battlefield in the event of WW3 when you say" the intention......was to restrict conventional conflict to the European continent." I'm glad you agree that the intent of the US was war in Europe and not the US mainland. Again, I can't fault the US in that, I would prefer a war in the US than here. All this is very interesting and amusing, but has strayed from my original hypothesis. If you had written my original article pointing out the hypocracy governemnts are forced to use to cover their real intent, and cited the British in India as an example of how we plundered, but called it civilising instead, then I would have agreed with you. It is always so difficult arguing with Americans because they instantly take things personally, wrap the stars and stripes around them, and beome highly patriotic. I do thank you for your advice about seeking out source documentation, something which is never a loss. I would suggest in return that you try and be objective, lay aside your patriotic tendancies, and you will be a better historian for it. Oh, and try and follow the argument, it was never about slamming the US, so there was no need for the high dudgeon, it was about hypocracy in government and how we should be on guard against it.

I pointed out British rule in India as yet another example and currently I could bring up France and Germany and Russia who are doing the same. They are claiming some moral high ground, but we know that really it is all about trade, don't we? Nations act in their own interest, that is understandable and proper, but my argument was that they camouflage that interest with moral justifications, and that we should be aware that happens.

This is what it's always been about! The very first colony in Jamestown was funded by English businessmen to grow and sell tobacco to the British for profit and the American Revolution (taxation without representation) had it's roots in furthering colonial capitalistic aims. Anyone who doesn't understand this has chosen to be intentionally stupid, and yes, that includes you Al.

What happened to Jamestown, HAL?

And why was Plymouth founded?

The blanket statement doesn't work. Never has. And you are an idiot for thinking it does.

Well, then I guess you should learn how to outline your argument better, since it was obviously unclear.

I'm sure that there are people who will disagree about almost any point in history. Look at HAL. He couldn't manage to actually understand what had happened at a point in history if he personally was standing there. He'd be too busy reading accounts that were intentionally biased by people who weren't there and with no qualifications in the field at all.

However, when it comes to discussing NATO and the forward deployment of troops, there really is no question that it had nothing to do with nuclear exchanges. The military plans of defense are available sources and are quite clear that it was assumed that any exchange of nuclear weapons would include BOTH the US and Europe in the targets.

And of course Neville Chamberlain applies. You claimed that Britain took the moral high ground when it declared war in 1939. Actually, all Neville did was refuse to be fooled again. No moral high ground there. Now, it seems you are claiming this was part of your argument. If so, you illustrated it poorly.

I'm curious as to what you claim the national self-interests were when the US, Sweden, Pakistan, Canada and others sent forces to Somalia to try to feed starving masses?
The "all actions in their self-interest" philosophy falls flat on its face if you look too closely at it. Unless you take the "conspiracy" approach that HAL prefers.

Oh, and I apologize for not recognizing that any nation at the turn of the 19th Century that didn't have a Navy that measured up to Great Britain's, or at least France's, was a "backwater". Guess the Germans, Russians and Japanese were all "backwaters" as well.

Hmmmm...seems to me that makes the United Kingdom a "backwater" now, doesn't it? After all, your Navy these days is a puny little thing, isn't it?

>The US being 'effectively' at war isn't war though is it?
>Britain, by that argument was 'effectively' at war with the
>Viet Cong because we allowed our bases here to be used for
>military transfer etc.

Curious. When did British units conduct combat operations against the Viet Cong or NVA?

United States Navy ships actively conducted combat operations against German U-boats prior to the Declaration of War. Slight difference, isn't there?

"And yes I've read aThe Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Wm S Shirer, so what, do you think that contains all the knowledge and wisdom regarding WW2? It is one of many thousands of books on that topic..."

LOL! What? It is?

Then I suggest you read it again, because I think there are some points you missed, specifically in the sections between pages 148 and 255.

BTW, I showed your post to 3 Ph.D's from the history department at school today, they all found it very amusing.

All of His posts or some of them? Unless you're willing to share what they found amusing so Backflip can respond, it isn't quite fair to make a post like this.

Mostly post #2, but I showed them the entire thread. For example, the quote "I'm tired of reading here how the US saved Europe from Nazism, and how ungrateful we all are. Actually the US was bombed into WW2, they had little choice, unlike the UK/France and Commonwealth countries who didn't wait to be forced to get involved." was described as "typical Euro-centrism, in that it's argument is based around the notion of proving that the U.S. was not only insignificant, but unnecessary and questionable for its tactics and intentions". I must say I agree with that summarization.

There was also the statement that "If the US hadn't entered than we in Europe would be speaking Russian, and not German as many posters erronously suggest.", which seems to imply that not only is Backflip a mindreader, he is also able to tell the future. Given the circumstances of the war prior to the U.S. joining, it is erroneous to imply that Russia would have succeeded in an all-out battle, especially given the number of troops Stalin had already lost, and the fact that he was relying on U.S. support on the Eastern Front (which, unfortunately, came too little too late). Two people commented on this section specifically.

And from another post "President Roosevelt may well have wanted into the war (as he did), but the fact remains the US had to be coaxed in by Pearl Harbour. The UK or France or the Commonwealth countries didn't need such coaxing, they recognised Nazism for the evil it was." The same response came from all of them "So if they recognized how evil it was, why did they wait so long? Why did they allow Germany to remobilize its army? Why did they do.." and the list goes on and on.

I'm not implying that Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the U.S. increasing its level of involvement in Europe, I'm simply saying that the notion that they had to be coaxed in is highly suspect, and that the U.K./France/etc. occupied ground that was no higher or lower than the U.S. (well, France may be the exception. I still can't forgive them for the huge numbers of people that supported the Nazi's). But that is just my own opinion, I didn't bother to ask anyone else.

I find this very interesting. I'm glad you were able to post some of your teacher's comments. I'm interested in reading Backflips response. I can certainly see how Russia may have eventually emerged as the dominant power in Europe though.

Doc I was just closing when this caught my eye, I basically skipped through your nonsense.
"Mostly post #2, but I showed them the entire thread. For example, the quote "I'm tired of reading here how the US saved Europe from Nazism, and how ungrateful we all are. Actually the US was bombed into WW2, they had little choice, unlike the UK/France and Commonwealth countries who didn't wait to be forced to get involved." was described as "typical Euro-centrism, in that it's argument is based around the notion of proving that the U.S. was not only insignificant, but unnecessary and questionable for its tactics and intentions". I must say I agree with that summarization."
I've said that we in Europe would be speaking Russian (in my opinion), we don't, just in case you didn't realise that, and why, because of US intervention. I never once said that it was not vital or unwelcome or that it didn't turn the war so where is all that crap from your much vaunted PHd students coming from about about 'the US being insignificant' and 'unnecessary.' Your PHds come out with their 'typical Euro-centrism' glib talk and you were impressed.
I argued that the US was late into the war, was bombed into it, then put a gloss on it which suggested it was there to save Europe. That is something totally different hand is fully in keeping with my argument about hypocracy of ALL governments and their resorting to moral justifications. Why can't you see the fuller argument, Hal can manage that easily enough.

What PhD students are you talking about? BTW, if you think my posts are nonsense, don't read them. Its real easy to skip over them.. or backflip over them.

Any PhD'd historian in other than the US will tell you there's a fair degree of glib ethnocentrism in American academia, it wouldn't hurt to consider the truth in that. And persons with PhD's are not guaranteed to be original thinkers. There are some professors today who are unable to see beyond the distortions of the current political ideology floating around in America. The are many myths and distortions in our current political cultural and they're used to legitimate existing social relations. Some of the mythology has been with us for a number of years and much of it has been sufficiently internalized by the public. The corporate media play a crucial role in making sure that no fundamentally critical views of the rationales underlying and justifying U.S. policy gain national exposure. A similar role is played by institutions, policy centers linked to academia and by political leaders themselves.

It's a unique opportunity to exchange political and historical views with a European that's been educated in history and politics. I should think one would be eager to discover and compare the difference in how Europeans view the world and learn why they may have a different view. I'm sure you'll find there's nothing sinister about it.

And don't forget, as Backflip pointed out, there are thousands of books on the second world war. Unless you've made up your mind that the commercial success of The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich makes it a definitive text, you should consider reading other accounts, maybe even the book Backflip reccommended.

And how many PHDs in history do you know, HAL?

Considering you never use them as sources, my guess is ZERO.

Thats funny Hal, because just a few minutes ago I directed a Ph.D. (not in History, though, GenEd) to this thread, and asked him what he thought of it. He completely agrees with Backflip, even went further to say that the U.S. involvement in WWII in its entirety was based on its desire to control North Africa, and to wipe out Islam. Now, I don't necessarily believe this guy has no less than 100 screws loose, but it does show that your knowledge of what goes on at college (at least, my college, which is well known for its "Ultra-Liberal Arts" department) is rooted in more urban myth than reality. I bet you that if I walked through the History Dept. and talked to Raymond Sun (Backflip probably knows his name) or Roger Schlesinger, they would probably have completely opposite viewpoints on a topic such as this, because their fields are so different. There's something to be said for having a well rounded education, thats why I try not to take the same professor more than twice, even if it does conflict with the schedule I would like to keep.

Yeah, that is funny. Were you planning on posting that information for Backflips's consideration or are you just using it so you can characterize me as someone who's rooted in more urban myth than reality. I directed my comment towards American academia as a whole--in general terms not your particular place of study and your post in no way diminishes the fact that academia in America can suffer from ethnocentrism.

If I didn't have a respect for your intelligence and admire your undertakings, I wouldn't have have bothered taking the time to make my post. The intent of my post was simply as a suggestion for you to consider alternative view points. I detect the same overbearing pride and arrogance in your tone that Backflip did, so from now on, I simply won't bother.

HAL,

It's kind of amusing watching you make charges of ethnocentrism while you make charges about Indonesia when it is obvious you have no concept of the cultures of South-East Asia.

I posted it here, so Backflip can read it any time he wants to, its not like the thread is locked for "Hal's eyes only". And if you had bothered to look, you would see that almost 3 hours had passed since I had posted previously. Its not like I can just skip class and work to satisfy my curiosity!

Doc, I wasn't going to reply and this will be positively the last time I even look at this post. I'm glad you found a professor who agreed with my thread, but that doesn't surprise me, any one with knowledge of the subject would. It is just a pity you are so closed minded as to regard him as being screwy. I can see your education will profit you with a mindset like that. I thought at the outset that I was making a pertinent point following on from Balo, that it was apposite with the coming war and that it would be just controversial enough to arouse some interest. My point that The US entered the war in retaliation and since then there seems to be a myth that it was to save Europe I thought was an example of how a moral rationale can be applied to a government's actions. The US and allies did save Europe from the Russian hordes and I for one never denied that or said I was not grateful. Their main aim though was to defeat Hitler and the axis powers. There is obviously a too subtle difference there for most people to recognise. British and other allied troops freed Italy for example, but the primary aim was to defeat the Germans where ever they were.Shelly admitted that Roosevelt had masive problems trying to convince both the public and congress to get involved in the war. He saw the evil of nazism if many others didn't. His wish was eventually fulfilled by Pearl Harbour. I never even claimed the US was wrong in not entering earlier, my point was that nations must act in their own interest, and what interest did the US have in Europe at that time? If I had been an American in 1939 I would have been one of those who opposed Roosevelt. It was the fact that the US was forced to war and then claimed some moral mountain top by claiming they entered to save Europe.

Al, I'm not even going to waste time with you, your knowledge of history is bizarre and simplistic at best, plus you can't resist coming back with utterly childish comments like 'I suppose that makes the Uk a backwater now.' I bet you stuck out your tongue as you typed. Any history book will explain to you that trade and therefor power depended on a shipping fleet. Britain was fortunate at that time because it had the biggest, plus it had its colonies for trade. And yes, Britain is a backwater now. I didn't find that difficult to admit to, just a pity you lack objectivity. Another of your classic was the 'timeline' argument when I mentioned the US in post war Europe being a precursor for Korea and Vietnam. It was in that the US didn't want to see the spread of communism anywhere, hence its presence. You really do have difficulty joining up dots don't you.

Doc a word about Europe and the likelihood that if the US and the allies didn't save it from the USSR advancing once they got to Berlin, then we would all be speaking Russian now. Your PHd friends didn't agree. Well, all I can say is that they stand out in that opinion. I urge you to ask them to do some reading in that area. And BTW when I was at university completing my masters I had the opposrtunity to do a doctorate. I declined because I wanted into the real world. If I had accepted it would have been something like "Calvinistic influences affecting Edinburgh Town Council 1559- 1585' because I'm interested in Calvinist theology, Scottish history and 16th century politics. Now that would have made me an expert on that narrow topic, but not on other hisory. Don't let PHds influence you so much.

I'll briefly explain why your friends are wrong.BTW a good access book for them would be Stalingrad written by Antony Beevor, that is before they tackle the Road to Berlin by Erickson which I mentioned in an earlier post.

Basically... German early success in the war resulted from Blitzkreig which means a) surprise b) Luftwaffe knocking out enemy planes and airports c) panzers punching a hole in enemy defences and d) infantry, many mobilised, pouring through the gap.That was not possible in Russia because it was far too vast. Hitler thought otherwise and expected the operation to last about 40 days.
I'll give you a brief outline and hope that you at least can fill in the dots.
22 June 1941..operation Barbarossa launched. Three pronged attack (north/central/south). German generals not happy because it was late in the year (potential weather problems) and wanted it postponed. Initial success, many Russians captured. By autumn the roads turn into swamp making advance difficult and supplies impossible. Winter arrives and the Germans are bogged down in artic conditions in summer uniforms within site of Moscow (central prong).Huge logistic problems, 1500 mile supply line, plus partisans in the rear and Russian army units which the Germans had initially swept past in their blitzkrieg Remember Russia is VAST. Constant interference by Hitler for example withdrawing panzer units from outside Moscow to divert south to the Russian oilfields. Panzer commanders like Guderian object and want to take Moscow, overruled by Hitler. Winter completely halts German advance. A seige develops, particularly at Stalingrad which became Hitler's priority ( but against his generals advice) mainly because of its name. efforts in other advances allowed to diminish as Stalingrad becomes all important. Luftwaffe ineffective in winter, troops freeze/starve. Spring/summer 1942 situation remains virtually the same, but with the odd minor success..Stalingrad still under seige though. Russians by now have retreated across the Volga set up airports and many factories, by the end of the seige they were producing more tanks and airplanes than the Germans. The war develops into one of attrition, Russia had so many men and women in uniform that Stalin didn't mind loosing 15 or 20 for every German killed. He could do that and know eventually he would win the war. 1943...the German seige of Stalingrad was broken when Russian troops thrust through a Romanian army (part of the German seige) and encircle Paulus and his 6th army and 4th panzer army, about 600,000 men were captured. Hitler again interfered with tactics and overrode his generals advice, especially about backing off from Stalingrad and regrouping because they could see they would be caught in a pincer movement. Stalin left military matters to his generals who were exceptionally brilliant (Chuikov). German army then pushed back to Berlin.
Germany had to suffer defeat because a) blitzkreig was'nt effective over vast distances, b) bad timing c) 1500 mile supply line ....in winter ..even worse d) Hitler's interference e) brilliant but callous Russian generals f) equipment wasn't sitable for russian terrain. The russian T34 was simple and cheap to make and parts could be cannabalised to fit other Rusian tanks if necessary, German tank parts were not interchangeable..plus the supply route problem g) Russian replacements both machinery and men were not a problem ( factory output outstripped that of Germany h) Germany relied largely on slave labour to staff its factories, Hitler would not permit women to work (unlike Churchill) therefore production would always remain a problem (malnourished and inexperienced slaves with no real interest in boosting production compared to russian factory wotrkers who were producing for their homeland) i) population sizes...Germany never had a big enough army to conquer..despite grafting in Italians and Romainians who were not as well trained nor as dedicated to nazism.
That last point is the real key, Germany would loose because of its manpower shortages. The Russian generals could afford to expend the lives of thousands of their troops because their supply was almost limitless and as I said in any war of attrition, then Germany had to loose. As you know by the end of the war, 15 and 16 year old were fighting. The keywords are population/war of attrition/production/weather. Even without the North sea convoys which supplied Russia to a limited extent, Russia would still have defeated Germany. The fact that Hitler had a western front helped but wouldn't have changed the situation, the keywords would still apply. Germany's only hope would have been an early development of an atom bomb.
Al, you've learnt something as well.

I find him a bit screwy because of the way he acts, not because of what he thinks. I do appreciate you taking the time to post this, but I will be honest and say that I don't have time to read and think about it right now. But I will pick up Stalingrad, I believe I have read it before, but I'm not sure.

You're a good man Doc.

You still can't have my Bud Light!

But...I love you man.

No, not unless you tell me what kind of car you drive!

LOL

When Pigs Fly...

Jesus Backflip,

A Brit was the architect of "Blitzkrieg" and you turned it into a slab of ham. Learned something? Yes, I learned that you don't have a clue about military history. Did you have to write a thesis for your Masters? What was the subject?

Btw, there is more to logistics than manpower. Germany could not have conquered the Soviet Union because of logistical reasons, but they might have achieved a stalemate.

Talk about simplifying history.

Did Germany's lack of access to oil have any part to play in their defeat?

In a sense it did. The German army all but took Moscow, they could actually see it, when Hitler withdrew his panzer units to go south towards the Russian oilfields. So in that sense it did have a bearing although I doubt that was what you had in mind. The main oil problem Hitler had in Russia was that the Luftwaffe couldn't re-supply, and it was a 1500 mile trek overland through bandit infested country, going through either mud up to the axles or frozen ground. Oil was normally available from Bulgaria/Romania. Al reckons that logistics needn't always apply, but how you keep several armies supplied when there is no air support and you can't get supplies through overland, especially with a scorched earth policy in force beats me. And all that in artic conditions. All the Russians had to do is keep falling back, the country is so huge, that the German line of supply would always have been over extended.

Confused again, aren't you?

Logistics always apply. And logistics are more than just manpower.

"Amatuers study tactics, professionals study logistics".

Al, Have you ever read anything on Stalingrad, apart maybe from an article in Gun Magazine. I've never come across so much ignorance. What has the fact that a Brit inventing Blitzkrieg to do with anything? I have a row of academic books staring at me and not one would share your opinion. Frankly you know nothing. I'm actually beginning to doubt you have any degree in history. You can't follow an argument, you bring in completely irrelevant details as if to say 'see what I know' and your knowledge of Stalingrad, well, you have none. They MIGHT have achieved a stalemate. Yeah and pigs might fly. I suggest you read Beevor, Erickson and Chuikov for starters regarding a stalemate.There is no way to overcome a war of attrition, especially when you have a leader like Stalin who wantonly sacrificed his men because he knew when push came to shove, he would win. That apart Russian productivity was far outstripping that of Germany, so apart from being willing to see his own men killed in vast numbers, he also had more weapon resources. You do know that the Luftwaffe finally had to admit that they couldn't keep supplying the front line? So, vastly outnumbered, no supplies, more Russian tanks and aircraft and summer uniform, plus having to rely on troops from satellite states (Romanian for example) which the Russians immediately recognised as a weak link. Al, do some reading and when you learn what you are actaully talking about, then come back.

No way to achieve a stalemate?

Suggest you look at 1917. Obviously it was possible to achieve a stalemate with the Russians. Likely? No. Or maybe you think that you can not only analyze what did happen, but all the possibilites that didn't?

And you simplified the concept of blitzkrieg to an advertising slogan, completely failed to discuss the logistical difficulties facing both the Soviets and Germans, and completely ignore the fact that there was a great deal of internal opposition to Stalin. And you accuse others of simplifying history.

I'd be interested in hearing more about that from both of you.

OK Al YOU could have achieved a stalemate, its only Field Marshall Von Rundstedt, Field Marshall Von Bock, General (later Field Marshall)Von Paulus and a recogised tactical genius like General Guderian who didn't have your military skills.
They did have a string of military successes behind them since 1939, but what do they know compared to you.

" And you simplified the concept of blitzkrieg to an advertising slogan."
Well, I did say I was being brief, but there again, I know you have difficulty following an argument. I wouldn't call it an advertising slogan, more extracting the essence of blitzkrieg, thats what being brief means.

Could you please cite sources for the GREAT deal of opposition to Stalin. He got rid of most of his general staff BEFORE the war in one of his many purges, but I can't find any evidence of a GREAT deal of opposition to him once Barbarossa was launched. In fact the opposite is true, Stalin knew he wasn't a military man and ONCE that became apparent to him he handed over responsibility to men like Chuikov. Hitler never came to that realisation and constantly gave direct orders to his general staff.
Further regarding a stalemate, to let you know what a war of attrition means there was an incident early in Barbarossa during the defensive battles west of the Don when three battalions of trainee officers, without weapons or rations, were sent against the 16th panzer division. Russian commanders could afford to be so profligate with the lives of their men because of their overwhelming numerical superiority. These tactics even shocked the Germans.

You say "logistics always apply and logistics are more important than manpower."

One of the keywords I gave in an earlier post was 'production' Russia was far outstripping Germany in that area. Take for instance the summer of 1942 when Germany was producing on average 500 tanks per month, at the same time Russia, from factories hastily assembled behind the Urals, was producing 2,200. If you look at aircraft production the story is the same, at that period Russian aircraft production rose from 9,600 in the first six months to 15,800 for the second. Germany could not compete. But you can't divorce 'manpower' from that, Stalin was able to order whole populations to move behind the Urals and set up a tank factory, for example, and it was done.

I was going to read a book and visit a few web sites regarding this subject matter, in the mean time, I'll just keep following this thread. Very interesting Backflip.

Never was a person who studied history at great length; Al, Backflip, Hal9000, I thank you all for instilling that desire. I have little to add to this debate, but I found this fascinating:

OIL FROM COAL
"One of the prime causes for Germany's defeat in World War I was its lack
of petroleum. German leaders resolved never again to be dependent upon the
outside world for gasoline. Germany may not have had oil deposits within its
territory, but it did have abundant reserves of coal. One of the first goals
of German chemists after the war, therefore, was to find a way to convert
coal into gasoline.
"By 1920, Dr. Bergius had discovered ways to make large quantities of
hydrogen and to force it, under great pressure, at high temperatures, and in
the presence of specific catalysts, into liquid coal products. The final
steps into refined gasoline were then assured. It was only a matter of
perfecting the hydrogenation process. I. G. suddenly was in the oil business"
(pp. 252, 253).
Farben used its vitally important new discovery to open doors that led to
the creation of a worldwide cartel: "Frank Howard of Standard Oil was invited
to visit the great Baldische plant at Ludwigshafen in March of 1926. What he
saw was astounding gasoline from coal! In a near state of shock, he wrote to
Walter Teagle, president of Standard Oil:
"Based upon my observations and discussions today, I think that this matter
is the most important which has ever faced the company.
"-the Baldische can make high-grade motor oil fuel from lignite and other
low quality coals, in amounts up to half the weight of the coal. This means
absolutely the independence of Europe on the matter of gasoline supply.
Straight price competition is all that is left....
"I shall not attempt to cover any details, but I think this will be evidence
of my state of mind" (Richard Sasuly, I. G. Farben, pp. 144-145) (pp. 253,
254)." http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Conspiracy/Misc/wwii.alltxt

Thank you all for the history lesson,


quint

quint

Quint, I'm glad you are enjoying it, and thanks for your post. The Germans were very resourceful throughtout the war and there is something at the back of my memory which recalls they invented some process which overcame their need for chrome, I think it was, but I may be wrong there.
I'll warn you about history though, it can be obsessive, so take care. If you do want to go on and study, then I suggest you pick a topic which appeals and research that exclusively, perhaps in your case the American Civil War. Something like WW2 is too large to really get to grips with, you would have to find an area which appeals to you, such as Stalingrad. My own primary interest is 16th century Scottish history, followed by Stalingrad, and to a lesser extent, the Spanish Civil War. That apart, I only have a hazy knowledge of history and there are whole areas in which I'm completely ignorant.

Advice taken, thank you. An elderly German neighbor of mine, back in the early 1950's, once told me that all the German technology was now (then) stored in the Washington D.C. archives. He often wondered why the Americans didn't utilize it to become more energy efficient, due to their vast coal seams. He was a very wise man, who saw something back then, that might be relevant today. Funny what a person will recall, when they least expect it.


quint

quint

The German technology was not utilized so oil companies could monopolize on profits. After world war II, Europe switched from coal to oil as an energy source. That was not an accident.

Are you saying that the U.S. is "sitting on it", until they can further profit by it?


quint

quint

Well I think it explains why all alternative sources of energy haven't been implemented, like solar and wind.

"...is it really true that the majority of the American people over the last twenty-five years didn't want a major transition in energy to move to efficiency and solar, didn't want universal health care, but wanted pig genes in fish?

Isn't it extraordinary that despite shelves and shelves of books and all kinds of practical experience on all these issues, the dominant view on everything from energy to corporate agriculture is that big technology, chemicals, and the most complex energy systems possible are the best? Where do these ideas come from, and how are they sustained? They're surely not the ideas that people believe are going to make their communities more harmonious, democratic places.

Look, why was it so easy for GM and Firestone in the 1940s to buy up electric trolley systems all over the country? Destroy the tracks, destroy the trains, and basically set the nation's transportation policy as highways and cars and trucks? That was a scandal, too. There were hearings and trials, and in the end they were fined $5,000. But the whole transportation system, the elaborate intercity electric trolley system, that existed in so many places across the country had been literally destroyed. And the policy of the federal government was to put public wealth into highways and trucks and buses and not rapid transit."

Quint,

If and when you get time, try reading this article. There's no need to respond: http://www.geocities.com/hal9000report/hal3.html

Maybe it was because, as one fellow, with some experience with German homemade gas, told me, "The stuff smoked like hell, but it was ok for starting fires."

Pointman

Considering the fact that the Soviets captured more German technology than the Americans, it's a bit difficult to believe that somehow the US is sitting on it. Only HAL could reach that conclusion.

I quite agree Quint, people can be so wise given the time to study and think, but time is a luxury nowadays.I think the energy utilisation you raised has never been an issue in the US because energy is so abundant and cheap. It is only when resources are limited as in Germany during WW2 that inventiveness is necessary.

Quint,

You're amazing. From Fox news to this! What an about face! Not only am I impressed, but gratified that you have taken an interest in reading some alternative views to history. I found this passage from your referenced material very interesting:

"The vast amount of American capital that flooded into Germany under the Dawes Plan after 1924, formed the basis upon which Hitler's war making machine was constructed. As Dr. Antony C. Sutton points out in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, "the contribution made by American capitalism to German war preparations before 1940, can only be described as phenomenal. It was certainly crucial to German military preparations. Evidence... suggests that not only was an influential sector of American business aware of the nature of Naziism, but for its own purposes aided Naziism whenever possible (and profitable) with full knowledge thatthe probable outcome would be war..."

Does nothing escape that piercing red eye?


quint

quint

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

The stalemate in 1917 wasn't gained by military action, it was gained by political action. And there were two purges after Barbarossa started (use Russian documents to do your research, it'll make it significantly more valid).

A political settlement was out of the question. Check up on the Commissar Order and the instructions given by Field Marshall von Brauchitsch on 28th April 1941 to get a feel for what was happening. I supply you with detailed info, you fail to reciprocate. Asking me to check up on Russian documentaion is far to general. Give me the dates and the publications where I can read about these two purges. Also you do not take into account the Rassenkampf aspect which gave the Russian campaign its unprecedented character.

Did you bother to look up 1917?

A political solution doesn't have to be a negotiated settlement.

I won't be drawn from your claim of two purges, deal with that.

There was another, although I don't have the information available to me here. There may actually have been three, since I believe there was also one in '45, but the purge I was recalling was in '42, I think. Matter of fact, I seem to recall that Marshall Chuikov was originally on a list for the purge. That would indicate that the purge occurred prior to the fall of '42.

You could contact Professor Rowney. It was his predecessor that myself and a number of other students did original research in Russian documents on a number of subjects (Professor Alston is the name that pops into my head, but I'm not sure it is correct). You can tell him you are asking about the Professor who was in Russia for the Revolution.

Thanks for that info Al I would be more than interested for the facts. It is really up to you to proof your point. The purges which did take place occurred in 1937 and 1938 when the commander in chief, Marshall Tukhachevskii was shot along with 3 out of 5 marshalls, 14 out of 16 commanders, and about half of the 80,000 officer corps who were also either removed or executed. Following this, all the admirals were also removed or executed. You will no doubt already know, but in case it has slipped your memory Marshall Tukhachevskii was tried in secret as a conspirator almost entirely on a dossier produced by the NKVD, but which originated from the gestapo.
That is a purge, not simply a replacement or shuttling around of responsibilities.

Oh, so hundreds of Officers being shot by the security forces is not a purge?



The Scots must have a strange way of reassigning officers...

You'll have to explain your post. I did say thousands were shot and I did call it a purge. Your vindictiveness is helping you Al, just read what's there.

But the hundreds shot in any given month during the war weren't purges?

What you are saying is the regime was brutal, I can't think many would disagree with that, but you are clutching at straws if you are trying to suggest that these random acts of brutality were a concerted effort. I gave an example earlier where trainee officers were ordered, unarmed, into battle against a panzer attack. That was brutal and shows how the lives of men could so easily and callously be dismissed.

Talking of callousness, do you have no regard at all for the foot soldier or do you only see NKVD actions when OFFICERS (your word) are affected? Are all American officers so uncaring about their men as you? Many ordinary soldiers (and civilians) were disposed off by the NKVD as well you know..... LOL...just trying out your tactics Al...no need to respond to that.

But I would like to know the dates and personnel involved in your two "specific" purges. I had the decency to supply you with info regarding the May 1937 purge, please reciprocate.

Get the GRU records. Sorry, but I didn't bring them to Thailand.

I suggest you broaden your study to the Eastern Front a little wider than just one battle. Yes, the brutality was intentional. Yes it was concerted. Yes, the effects were known and planned. A little research would prove all of that without question.

Or do you think that the policy of having the security forces directly behind any advance or defense was accidental? How do you think the Soviets suffered so many dead? Do you think the Germans and their various volunteers were that good?

Ever taken men into battle? If not, don't bother to talk to me about what that means or how it feels.

But just for consideration:

Mission
Men
Self

In that order.

Ever read a history book? There is a difference between brutality and two "specific" purges as there is between brutality and the May 1937 PURGE. Could you please supply me with the dates and personnel involved in your two "specific" purges. Thank you.