RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Termyn8or -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 4:34:16 PM)

Of course it is an act of war, but the war is against us.

T



Real0ne -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 4:46:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeachMistress
But then wasnt Japan justified in going to war?  After all, the US was building an ever shrinking embargo against Japan, that would slowly force them into economic capulation.


well my understanding is that japan had 2 choices.  either deal with us or expand. since they have no resources but through imports they could have gotten more by attacking china which if i remember right was their intent.

My guess was that they attacked us to prevent us or at least disable us from intervening with an attack on formosa, the several islands they took etc, long enough to get bases set up and get a foot hold.  Like germany japan needed resources and was determined to get them even at the cost of their country imo.

afgahnastan wouldnt do a deal with bp (british petroleom) so we send obl to base there, obl would go somewhere and we would bomb right behind them luckily hitting the taliban leaders and not our cia operative (obl), only to blow the whole place to hell, and now we have our bp oil line...  Likewise with iraq, hussein pee peed on bush's shoe and sold oil under the table to literally everyone else at a nice discount price while telling the us to peeeez up a rope....  so we took them over too...  Not sure what iran did willhave to research that one more, but i am sure we have a good reason for taking them over (oil) too....



philosophy -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 5:37:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
........Religious war.   these are done because of someone's intrepretation of their religious doctrine and religious abuses caused by someone elses intrepretation of their religious doctrine.
Economic war.   these are done for economic reasons.  Hitler wanted control of all of Europe and all it's economic riches I believe.   The Japanese struck the US because of the need for natural resources which were being blocked.


......i more or less concur with these basic reasons for war...that is, war as usually defined with the tanks and the bombs etc...although i'd add a third reason: domestic politics. The idea that a war abroad is good for a ruling elite has arguably been implicated a few times in history.

quote:

I also believe that each and everyone of us are at war every day.   Call it office politics, homelife, etc.  These small wars over position, right/wrong, economics, etc happen to us each day over and over.   I believe it is inbred into the human psychie (sp).   I'm going to knock your head off because you looked at or spoke to my wife or daughter.   You passed me on the highway, whatever.   I see these daily in the media.  These small, and unjustified wars feed our "need" for war.
Regardless of it's size, impact upon society or us as individuals, I believe that war is and will be continuing as long as man walks the earth.

......this i am not so sure about. The things you speak about here Ken, such as office, politics, homelife; could be defined as war, but if we do we stretch the definition of war and don't leave ourselves a distinctive enough concept or word for the thing with the bombs and tanks. Competition is not necessarily the same as war in my opinion....and homelife, politics and work are basically arenas of competition not theatres of war.



twicehappy -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 6:36:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Where should the line in the sand be drawn? 


At the race track?



KenDckey -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 6:38:24 PM)

Phil

I understand your reluctance.   Look at it this way.   Rules of order (like Roberts Rules of Order or whomever's) is the way that we maintain control in meetings, politics, organizations, hopefully in our family lives (dad and mom's rules) and on and on.   They keep us from making our little wars into huge ones (welll most of the time anyway).  TOS here is the rules of order that we use to fight out battles here on CM.  Road Rage - Vehicle code outlines our rules to follow.  




Sinergy -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 7:46:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

in wwii we essentially were isolationists and in my opinion that is a war we should have entered long before pearl.  i do not understand why the people of this country did not go to war prior.  it seemed inevitable to me.



Real0ne, you know, here I can understand why the US people did not want to enter WW2. Why should they get involved in a war fought by idiotic European imperialists. These countries had been at it for centuries and WW2 was the culmination - it was only ever going to end one way. Why should a person in say the US or Brazil sign up to get involved in sheer lunacy? Look at Britain, two world wars bankrupted this country and we're still paying for it now in more ways than one. Or do you mean the war in the pacific?


Couple of comments on this.

Firstly, Britain was bankrupted by two world wars AND the rebuilding of the Axis powers to contain the perceived Soviet threat from the fallout between the US and the USSR.

The Brits and the French were left to sink or swim rebuilding an economy destroyed in the war, while the US retooled the German and Japanese factories and created two economic powerhouses.

Secondly, I am of the school of historians that believes we had one world war that started around 1914, with 20 or so years to rebuild the economies in between in order to continue it.

Sinergy



JohnWarren -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 7:21:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
This does not explain why the carrier fleet was ordered out of the harbor 2 weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked, leaving the battleships behind.
Sinergy


My understanding they were going out to look for the part of the jap fleet that was running south, which of course may have been a decoy?



Also aircraft carriers with a 200 mile search radius were much better tools than battleships with a 20 mile one. 

The thought was the battleships were safe in Pearl since it was believed to be too shallow for air-dropped torpedos to work.  The Japanese made modifications on their torpedeos (which were already more reliable than American models) that allowed them to operate in shallow waters.



farglebargle -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 7:37:00 AM)

quote:


Also aircraft carriers with a 200 mile search radius were much better tools than battleships with a 20 mile one.


As long as the weather's good enough to conduct air operations.

The BBs ain't obsolete, just neglected.




Sinergy -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 7:42:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The Germans proved no match for the Russians and the Russian winter. The Russians kicked the German's arses.

The Germans suffered their first defeat in 1940, from there it was down hill for them. Bad decisions and defeats all the way apart from a couple of offensives that were beaten back. Only a country with a death wish would have done what the Nazis did. The war lasted so long because the Nazis were happy for Germany to be bombed back to the stoneage.


On a related note, the German's fortunes went straight downhill when the politicians running the show refused to listen to the leaders in the military and ordered them to start invading other countries.

Somebody should send Monkeyboy an email and tell him that people who actually have read a book already know how this movie ends.

Sinergy



NorthernGent -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 9:55:21 AM)

General post:

There were three basic conditions fuelling WW1 and WW2:

1) Imperialism

2) Rapid economic growth or decline and the resulting stress.

3) Ethnic divisions manipulated and distorted through notions of racial hierarchy/struggle.

All of the above 3 conditions were prevalent in the build up to the two wars and proved to be the ingredients for a powder keg. These conditions made the 1st half of the 20th century the most violent in history and also the precusor to armies waging war on civilians.



NorthernGent -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 10:28:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

i think the war in the east and west were one in the same.  It would make sense to me if hitler had a backdoor deal with japan to hit us with the idea that if we were busy in the pacific, opposite side of the planet from him, we would not be willing to take on germany too since we were anti war in the first place.

This is exactly what international relations/politics and treaties were calculated to achieve i.e. play some off against others in order to grab your bit of land somewhere. It makes sense for the Germans to manipulate a situation in order to direct US forces towards the pacific where the Germans had no territorial aims and thus no forces. On the otherhand, the Germans didn't need to manipulate the situation because Japan and the US were on collision course with territorial ambitions in the same sphere of interest/conflict.

Meantime he could cream the european nations and finally britain and russia.  and he nearly did just that.

Open to debate Real0ne. A case could be put forward both ways. In my opinion, based on what I've studied to date, Hitler had no intentions of invading Britain i.e. his bombing campaigns and build up of forces on the French coast were designed to persuade Britain to sue for peace. Without taking The Navy out there was no way they could have invaded and a point always missed is this: if Hitler conquered Britain what was he going to do with her? His forces were already over-stretched and his real ambitions were in the East. He wanted living space for ethnic Germans to fullfil his idea of a Greater Germany and this is why Hitler's best divisions and most of his divisions fought on the Eastern front.

That anti war attitude still rolls strong here.  Whether its european or american imperialists past present or future.

I can imagine, there's a fair few of you over there so must be a large anti-war movement. Law of averages really.

The bottom line is we wind up in these wars regardless if we want to or not.

True.

Maybe i am over simplistic about this but..........

Ok here is the picture....r1 has enourmous resources and has built a huge empire. which in itself implies r1 has a geneality that most likely is somewhere along the line connected to the ruling elite.  The imperialists.

So russia is being a jerk and wont do business with r1... and they have resources that i really want.  So i find a guy with a hunger for power.  call in a few markers. get him into power. give him a loan at a nice low rate for a military buildup or just sell him arms if ithink he will be the loser.  well adolf my ole buddy, you got where you are cuz of me, i really would like to do business in russia.  you will see to that wont you ole friend? So adolf starts taking over his neighbors which pisses britain off and the european nations get dragged into this one by one because hitler now needs ever growing resources to support the ever growing expansion of the war effort.  Meantime russia needs arms so r1 being the great guy that i am cut a arms deal with russia at a nice rate so russia can fight germany.  Same with britain and same with the us and japan.

Hey Real0ne, this is the first time I've come across a theory claiming the US plotted WW2. Fair play to you for originality but there's a huge flaw in the plan. The European powers had been battling it out well before Uncle Sam came on the scene. It was the culmination of centuries of imperialism.

The world is left a shambles in the process, and who is there to save the day?  Why r1 of course as i give everyone loans to rebuild LOL

More consequence than cause, IMO.

So the only way to thwart at least some of this pillaging is to go to war right away before the tyrant gets to far.  because you see all to often the whole thing is a setup in the first place!  Then totally take over the country such that r1 is cut out of the picture and which ever country you just took over you can personally refinance them or r1 will surely help...

I'm with you on Iraq. Bomb the place and then hand out contracts to US multinationals to rebuild the place who do half a job and then leave with their back-pockets swollen with cash.

That is why i said we would have to get in it anyway.  

Fair enough. I take your point. I was meaning your average man on the street (not the US government). Why should some bloke from Ohio line up to kill himself because the duke of northumberland has ran out of cigars and brandy and could do with a few more quid to replenish the stock?

The US government is a different proposition. Now, they had games to play just like the European governments had games to play.








NorthernGent -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 10:57:13 AM)

A general point with regard to Hitler and his reasons for war.

The mistake being made with the arguments/theories put forward is this: Hitler did not think like other world statesmen. He was driven by notions of a racial struggle (with the Slavs and Jews) and he was a supreme opportunist who made things up as he went along. If you attempt to explain Hitler's intentions in the same vein as you would attempt to explain the actions of other world leaders you will reach the wrong conclusion. His basis for war was not primarily for economic gain (which was the driver for other world leaders). For Hitler, the war (in his distorted mind) was fought for racial dominance.

On the racial dominance point, Hitler had one clear goal from day one. It is clear in Mein Kampf and all subsequent speeches. That goal was to subjugate the Jews and the Slavs in order (in his eyes) to safeguard the German bloodline. He cynically manipulated the works of the likes of Darwin and Nietzsche and he truly believed it was "them or us". Hence, from 1933 onwards, the Russians were projected over and over again as "unter-mensch" in Nazi propaganda. By far the most severe Nazi propaganda was aimed at Jews and Slavs in order to indoctrinate the German people into taking no prisoners when the Germans eventually invaded the USSR. For Hitler, it was primarily racial war and one of annihilation. The war on the Western front was an unwanted distraction and a drain on resources. If he could have kept Britain our of the war it he would have been as pleased as punch (he made attempts to keep Britain out of the war with peace overtures on more than one occasion).

The rest of it he made up as he went along i.e. all the pacts, treaties, arms deals etc. As said, he was the supreme opportunist with one over-riding aim and that was to subjugate the Slavs in order to gain land for Germans.

For those interested, have a look at Ian Kershaw's work (regarded as the leading historian in the world on inter-war Germany). You'll see Hitler was a very strange human being who held a desire for a Greater Germany with the majority of Germans living under a feudal system and crucially with a pure German bloodline.



Mercnbeth -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 11:36:35 AM)

quote:

The mistake being made with the arguments/theories put forward is this: Hitler did not think like other world statesmen. He was driven by notions of a racial struggle (with the Slavs and Jews) and he was a supreme opportunist who made things up as he went along. If you attempt to explain Hitler's intentions in the same vein as you would attempt to explain the actions of other world leaders you will reach the wrong conclusion. His basis for war was not primarily for economic gain (which was the driver for other world leaders). For Hitler, the war (in his distorted mind) was fought for racial dominance.


NG,
Your saying that the depiction of the historical Hitler is accurate regarding his beliefs impacting his actions. I asked a question before regarding this and I will look for Ian Kershaw's work.

I'm surprised. I gave more credit to him and his staff and thought the depiction of his to be a caricature of him. Not due to any admiration for him or his deeds, but because I wouldn't think the German people and the other political leaders would sign on to such an obvious self destructive path.

WWI left Germany little choice but to go to war again. Picking Hitler as the standard-bearer only makes sense as a figurehead focal point and not as a leader. I know near the end of the war there was an attempt to over throw him, but why didn't it occur after Poland and Czechoslovakia were made German, the French were conquered, and all pre WWI German power and influence established? Drunk on power?

It's hard to imagine that the entire country bought into the propaganda regarding racial purity and the inferiority of Jews or Slavs? It is difficult to imagine the mindset, but it was a different time and much easier for a government to restrict access to information.

Is it really possible for a psychopath to be organized and act with authority globally over such a long period of time without the people uprising? Not the average citizen but political and military leaders being complicit to their countries demise surprises me.



meatcleaver -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 11:39:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

General post:

There were three basic conditions fuelling WW1 and WW2:

1) Imperialism

2) Rapid economic growth or decline and the resulting stress.

3) Ethnic divisions manipulated and distorted through notions of racial hierarchy/struggle.



I would add there was a balance of power and an arms build up that gathered its own momentum. It was a case of who would blink and attack first. It was the Germans. Wilhelm always knowing what was best when he should have listened, just like Hitler and just like Hitler, he had a lousy taste in art too. Gathered German kitsch about him and rejected the best art. The symptoms of being a young insecure nation.



meatcleaver -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 11:45:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

It's hard to imagine that the entire country bought into the propaganda regarding racial purity and the inferiority of Jews or Slavs? It is difficult to imagine the mindset, but it was a different time and much easier for a government to restrict access to information.



On the BBC world service there was a review today of a book of German jokes from the Nazi error and its surprising just how little the Jews appear and how often the Nazis and Hitler's Aryan beliefs (him being small and dark rather than tall and blond) are subject of jokes. It doesn't give the impression of a people blind to the politics of their time and that is what the writer said is so frightening. People will well aware of what was going on around them, even the camps but there was obviously a sense of impotence.



NorthernGent -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 12:23:10 PM)


The entire country did not buy into the notions of racial superiority by any stretch of the imagination.

The inner circle of the Nazi Party (the decision makers) shared the same views as Hitler. They held core beliefs of a racial struggle. It is well documented they ruled with an iron fist i.e. dissenters within the party were murdered, dissenters outside of the party were murdered. The Nazis operated a regime of terror and everyone knew their place (officials were placed in towns and cities to ensure disobedience was limited). Germans were bombarded with propaganda from 1933 to the outbreak of war - the aim being to impress upon Germans that the Nazi way was the only way for Germany and the Slavs had to be subjugated or it would be the other way around. Hence, you had Hitler Youth who spied on families etc.

The wrong people with too much power can lead a population to believe things aren't what they seem. Hitler and the inner Nazi Party were extremely proficient in this regard. You don't need the population to agree with you, you just need to construct a mechanism to create a docile population fearing for their lives. The mechanism being propaganda, terror and a spy network.



NorthernGent -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 12:36:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Is it really possible for a psychopath to be organized and act with authority globally over such a long period of time without the people uprising? Not the average citizen but political and military leaders being complicit to their countries demise surprises me.


Hitler wasn't a psychopath. He was simply of limited intelligence and desperate for a cause and a scapegoat (upbringing an issue). The Nazis did have some very able proponents of propaganda and were adept at reading the whims of the population and telling them what they wanted to hear (economic development).

It is a very complex scenario and one I find very interesting. In terms of culture, philosophy, literature, technological development etc Germany was one of the most civilised countries on the planet. Also, German Jews were far more assimilated in Germany than Austrian Jews, US Jews (most of the immigrants were from Eastern Europe where Jews tended to marry each other), Russian Jews, British Jews and others in their respective countries. The measurement being Jewish/Gentile marriages. In Munich, one in five Jews were married to a gentile in 1914. Bearing this in mind, it is interesting that the Holocaust happened in Germany.



farglebargle -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 1:11:19 PM)

quote:

It's hard to imagine that the entire country bought into the propaganda regarding racial purity and the inferiority of Jews or Slavs?


Substitute the word Muslim, and it sounds quite a bit like what I've heard even on these message boards.

After all, didn't Bush via fear of Muslim Extremests get The American People to surrender the right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus, as well as the right to privacy, with respect to the total domestic surveillance?

Why yes, they did.








subfever -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 1:37:33 PM)

As long as prejudice and greed are within Man, we will continue to see wars.

And they say Man was created in God's image! 



sleazy -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/9/2007 1:59:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
I'm surprised. I gave more credit to him and his staff and thought the depiction of his to be a caricature of him. Not due to any admiration for him or his deeds, but because I wouldn't think the German people and the other political leaders would sign on to such an obvious self destructive path.

WWI left Germany little choice but to go to war again. Picking Hitler as the standard-bearer only makes sense as a figurehead focal point and not as a leader. I know near the end of the war there was an attempt to over throw him, but why didn't it occur after Poland and Czechoslovakia were made German, the French were conquered, and all pre WWI German power and influence established? Drunk on power?

It's hard to imagine that the entire country bought into the propaganda regarding racial purity and the inferiority of Jews or Slavs? It is difficult to imagine the mindset, but it was a different time and much easier for a government to restrict access to information.

Is it really possible for a psychopath to be organized and act with authority globally over such a long period of time without the people uprising? Not the average citizen but political and military leaders being complicit to their countries demise surprises me.


I am not sure if it is available on DVD, a UK broadcast network did a fantasitc mini-series on Hitlers rise to power.
(Update - http://imdb.com/title/tt0346293/)

Hitler was democratically elected head of state, his policies were things like controlling immigration, german jobs for german people, etc  He offered answers to the average joe who felt that the country was going to the dogs, who were wanting a return to older societal standards, most of all those who felt the need to pick on groups to blame for all the countries problems.


I guess all of that can sound pretty familiar to some folks, no matter their home country. A couple of years ago France started electing some very hard right wing politicians on a national level, here in the UK it happens on a local level as some people lash back against the policies that have in their eyes created so many of todays problems




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02