Would the killing of Hitler have changed the War

[Urko]

It was said before in this forum: Who is winning a war doesn't like peace...

[ April 06, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Urko ]

[JerseyJohn]

Gurko

Glad to have been of assistance.

In a sense all of this ties in to the original topic because, by stating that they would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender from all the Axis nations, the Allies were demanding a regime change among all their enemies.

J._J_R

Hopefully we'll be able to stay Nationalist and Capitalist without becoming Isolationist. Although at this point I think a little selective isolationism, forcing the U. S. to rebuild the industries it so freely gave away, would be of tremendous benefit to the American workingman and the U. S. economy itself.

Thorkhan, Rambo, Gurko -- my thanks to all for a highly enjoyable afternoon of posting. All good things must come to an end and the wife is dragging me off to visit relatives.

Getting back to the original topic, if Hitler or Stalin came back from the dead I'd be honored if I could send either of them back again, no doubt using a silver bullet or a wooden stake through the heart.

[ April 06, 2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Urko]

It's Urko, not Gurko, Jersey

[Urko]

I hate when I write anything and it appears twice.

I told you I was going to finish crazy, Jersey...

NOW I'M CRAZY :mad:

[ April 06, 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Urko ]

[JerseyJohn]

Urko

Sorry about that -- glad I looked at the Forums a last time before running out the door.

If worse comes to worse, don't be mad about going insane; the rest of the world is crazy, making those lonely few clinging to that lost cause called sanity the ones who are truly deranged. :confused:

-- *

"No longer will he drive me crazy."

"Good, light the fuse Urko!"

"Aw Jersey, you know how sensitive he is. Why'd you have to mess up his name?"

"Guess I forgot my glasses."

[ April 06, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Urko]

After seeing your last post I only can do one thing... Laugh: JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

[JerseyJohn]

That's the spirit.

And now it's finally off with the wife.

Till Next Time,

Jersey.

[Makes The Jelly Judder]

-- Deleted because I am stupid --

[ April 06, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Makes The Jelly Judder ]

[santabear]

What their reasons were in either case is still a mystery to me. We're still suffering from the absurd decisions made in that era of dishonest stupidity

The policy was realistic and logical in the extreme, and it goes back to Roman times (perhaps earlier?): Divide and conquer.

Create opposing groups in the third world who will keep each other perpetually weak by fighting each other. That way, no credible opponent to Western (European/American) domination of the world. It worked.

Until the United Nations becomes the strongest force in the world, it is useless to talk about countries working together. Countries will relentlessly pursue their own ends, if only because the people in the countries always want "more." Politicians get leadership roles because they articulate what "the people" want. As Walt Kelley said: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Independent nation/states will always create wars, the object of which will be to adjust the power hierarchy (sp?) among them.

Don't lose much sleep about quarrels between Europeans and Americans. They will continue until both groups realize they must stick together or face a radical drop in their living standards. Then logic will kick in (I hope!)

[JerseyJohn]

santabear

100% Agreed with every word of it.

Pure Machiavelli, except it predates even the Prince by milennia.

The so original United Nations, those countries waging war against the Axis, expoused much of this same idealism during the Second World War. When that war ended and the one time European Colonies that had worked with the United States to fight the Axis claimed what had been promised them, American backed independence, most received a slammed door in their face. Indo-China being the most blatant case; promised independence by Roosevelt and the OSS, totally ignored by Harry Truman and the post war administration.

The only incentive for change I can see today is rogue nations don't have to be rich to be a menace. It should be to the great nation's advantage to help smaller nations have responsible governments. Then again, they might prefer to continue working with dictators and shammons, selling weapons to them and their warring neighbors while continuing the tried and true politics of divide and conquer.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by santabear:

Politicians get leadership roles because they articulate what "the people" want. As Walt Kelley said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

And sometimes... pretty-petty politicians just... TAKE WHAT THEY WANT. :eek:

(... Walt Kelley KNEW, intuitively, what he was saying... IF everyone could TRULY take a good long look in the mirror and NOT shy away from the strangeness :eek: that they see... ummmm, maybe, just maybe ...)

As for instance, currently in the USA... now lorded over by a SELF-ish Plutocracy... say? whatever happened to noblesse oblige? ... Jeffersonian Democracy long, long, long time in decline and "the people" without sufficient education or resource (... and/or, TOO MUCH "Bread & Circus"... ie, witless Celebrity culture and mindless, mesmerizing T.V.) to re-assert the Common Good... sure, Alphonse! there USED TO BE... such an EARLY-Christian-like thing... from the neighborhood on up.

LOL!!! The Mass Media has BECOME the Government, and occasionally, vice versa. :eek:

You have to look, and look again, to find the avante-garde (... yet another GREAT French word!!) ideas that will... eventually... re-establish little-guy Democracy in America... it better happen soon... personally, I think it will. But, relentless vigilance is ever required...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Create opposing groups ...who will keep each other perpetually weak. That way, no credible opponent to Western (European/American) domination of the world.

Until the United Nations becomes the strongest force in the world, it is useless to talk about countries working together. Countries will relentlessly pursue their own ends...

the object of which will be to adjust the power hierarchy (sp?) among them...

maintain living standards.

You have just summarized the Diplomatic stance and Geopolitical posture of a Great Nation to others. Sadly, due to the finite amount of resources, you've also summarized why the United Nations cannot succeed in its present form. Which is also why there is such a push to form a EU.

[Shaka of Carthage]

re-establish little-guy Democracy in America...

That assumes you believe it ever existed.

[JerseyJohn]

And it never did. There was an illusion of grass roots democracy because those who wanted it badly enough kept moving west, to unclaimed land where they could rule themselves. As soon as the Federal Government caught up with them it was back to the old rules, restrictions and corruption.

I try to be an idealist. But the truth is we're losing more of our rights every day and we won't be getting any of them back. The best we can hope for is a government that does not become oppressive.

There never were any good old days. The Founding Fathers distrusted the masses but realized the best course was to profess Freedom, Liberty and Equality. But it wound up like George Orwell's Animal Farm parody, "All Animals are Created Equal but some are More Equal than Others." That happened not only in the United States, but also evolved from the French and Revolution Revolutions. Nobody has ever taken control of a government and truly given it over to the people.

Getting back to our own Founding Fathers, they were themselves so enlightened they wanted to make George Washington King!

In France, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity turned first into a bloodbath and then into the rule of an Emperor (Napoleon Bonaparte)who made it a decade long bloodbath for all of Europe. Russia's Worker's Unite and cast off you shackles! cry resulted first in Nicolai Lenin, then Joseph Stalin; hardly a triumph for the freedom seeking.

We won't be returning to Jeffersonian Democracy. It never existed beyond President Jefferson's physical presence and a comparable idealist has not held office since.

[santabear]

Immer, Shaka and Jersey,

I KNEW I liked you guys! (I'm assuming you're all guys--I apologize in advance if one of you is a female. And JerseyJohn, if you're a girl you might want to rethink that nickname ) Interesting responses to my posts, and I think I agree will all of them--I have to digest Immer's a bit more.

A few more things (SB's philosophies of power politics and warfare). What do you think?

1. There are reasons that great powers become great powers, the most important being that they realize that power is a "zero sum game." In order for someone to gain power, someone else must lose it. They will never give it up voluntarily. And "sharing" in diplomacy means giving up power. So does becomming "allied"--it's always an interesting calculation for a nation whether they're better off with "x" as an ally or not. Often times, allies cost more than they're worth. (Isn't that right, Signor Mussolini?)

2. Even atomic bombs in suitcases will have a hard time changing the time-tested way of gaining national power: control the seas (now including the air above and the water underneath) and resources of the world.

The reason that terrorism ultimately fails is that it is a political approach, and therefore a "tactical" approach. As many folks have pointed out in this forum, strategic warfare is about economics not politics. And strategic wars are what change the world's power structure. Terrorists may gain concessions from the world's powers, but they will never become powerful themselves--not in a strategic sense.

3. A strong EU could be a good thing, IF it would use its influence to force the US "back into" the United Nations.

4. The more pessamistic scenario: It is more likely, however, that if the EU gains "superpower" status, it will come into military conflict with the US at some point (of course, this might get everyone running back to the UN--Cold War II). The entire history of civilization points in that direction--two powerful nations never ally with each other, they seek allies among smaller nations in order to strenghten their position relative to the other power. Possible lineups for World War III:

US Allies vs. EU: China (yes, China, because Russia will go with the EU), Japan (ditto) and, of course, Britain (it's interesting that they've already chosen sides; they're like the 51st state). Turkey, probably (because their traditional enemies will be w/Europe). Countries currently part of NAFTA. Most of Central/South America, assuming American presidents don't piss them off too much over the next decade or so.

EU Allies vs. US: Woo. A toughie. Iran, Iraq (but that might be in doubt now. They might be the 52nd state, who knows?), Palestine (when it gets created...we're thinking long-term here). Balkans. Algeria (vive la France!)--north Africa. It's tough to envision any allies for Europe that are not geographically contiguous--the EU will not be a naval power, and it's tough to have allies if all you can do is send emails.

If the EU ever gets serious about going the "Jacques Chirac" route they will have to get Britain as a solid (ie "military" member). They will need some folks who can drive boats!

5. Hopefully the next generation of leaders could chart a new course (as opposed to the grim thoughts in #4), but for the reasons I stated before (the desire for "more") it will be very difficult politically to do so.

More democracy, coupled with nation/states with armies is a recipe for more war in the world, not less. The "common people" don't want war, but they do want things (SUVs?) that governments can only provide by becoming rivals with other governments.

6. If there really is to be universal peace in the world it will mean less democracy and the end of independent nations as we know them.

If you have universal peace and leave the current system of nation/states in place, it would be like taking a "snapshot" of the world as it is in terms of power and freezing it that way forever.

If universal peace broke out today, there would never be a Palestine, the Kurds would always be part of Iraq, etc. The only changes that would occur are ones that would be 'neutral' in terms of power and economics (Scotland could maybe leave Britain, for example).

Worse than that, universal ("permanent") peace with the current system of nations would eventually result in "lazy" powerful countries living well, while hard working less powerful countries could never rise to the "top tier" of nations. And so the world as a whole would become less productive. (I know this sounds like an excerpt from Mein Kampf, but Hitler had some of this very right. He also had some of it VERY, VERY wrong!)

There are high costs to war, but sometimes the costs of peace are higher.

Wars can be beneficial IF you can manage to avoid "all-out" war. That's the trick. (Hitler understood this, too. The Germans were the last to go to "total war" He would have been delighted to have a series of small-scale conflicts rather than WWII. Especially in 1945 )

I apologize for the verbiage, but as I mentioned in my first post (way back on page 1, I think), this whole topic really hits a nerve with me. It's fascinated me since I was about 12 years old.

[JerseyJohn]

santabear

If I'm not actually a guy it will come as quite a surprise to the Mrs!

Overall I think your thread makes a lot of sense except for World War III. The United States has been able to conduct it's Wars of the post Vienam era because it learned some very valuable lessons in those steamy jungles. For one thing you don't fight on your enemeies level; if your strong point is range and firepower you don't negate it by fighting in bushes where you can't see more than your enemy. You don't fight with one hand tied behind your back, the politicians don't micromange the war and dictate tactics to the military men. You don't fight a long protracted war and mostly they learned you can't win by backing an unpopular government against one the vast majority of the population is supporting.

Going from there neither EU nor the US would fight each other for the same reason the US and USSR never directly fought each other. It would be a bloodbath. More likely the warfare would take a global econonic form.

Even without warfare various nations would continue to break apart and/or join other nations. There are too many factors in place world wide to keep all of it's populations and nations frozen in a photograph regardless of which super powers or world organizations would like to keep it that way. Suppose North Korea and South Korea suddenly decided they wanted to come together the same way East and West Germany reunited, would the World Organization, or the EU or the United States send an army to keep them separate? I don't think so.

African nations may choose to merge for the simple reason that one country has an abundance of water while it's neighbor is virtually dry; the dry member may be rich in mineral wealth, sooner or later they may decide they're really to halves of a whole.

As these nations redefine themselves they will be constantly realligning themselves with the greater powers. Nothing short of a gunboat mentality would prevent that and I don't believe either the EU or the United States will be adapting that approach. That, despite Afghanistan and Iraq, which I feel are special cases.

I can't help but feel the United States would only gain through the emergence of an EU and yes, I think you're correct about England being the one holdout. It wouldn't be for political reasons, it would be because the British economy has been global, not continental, for five hundred years and will remain that way for centuries to come.

There are also wildcard factors. Nobody really knows which way the Moslem world will ultimately go when all the dust settles. I don't believe it will allign itself with either Europe, America or Asia. I believe it will try to maintain good relations with all three, ever watchful for a new major product as oil diminishes as the primary energy source. It could be the Arab world of the future will be the key broker of world wide power except instead of oil wells their fields will be covered from horizen to horizen with solar panels.

So, that's my view. A Europe that extends from Gibraltar to the Urals. The Moslem world of both Arabs and non-Arabs extending across North Africa, the Middle East and Southern Eurasia. An economically interlocked Asia including Pakistan, India and Indonesia but with Australia tied to the Commonwealth and the United States. And the Western Faction, North and South America alligned with South and Central Africa and Australia.

I don't believe the four major systems will ever resort to open warfare against each other, though I believe there will always be minor wars within the regions.

True, resources are always finite, but technologies constantly evolve. Before much longer what we today consider the challenge of space travel could become a routine and relativly cheap activity. In the not too distant future I believe we'll do such outlandish things as deliberately draw near miss asteroids into near earth orbit so they can be mined.

That day will come when a future generation of space vehicle moves routinely between earth and the heavens, possibly filling routine orders for hundreds of pounds of gold to be extracted from some wayward fragment to be brought back to earth not because the stuff has much monetary value but because it looks so nice fashioned into doornobs.

What I'm saying is we can't make accurate plans for tomorrow with our limited knowledge of today's technologies.

Look back to the year 1903 and think of the plans empire builders would have been making. Coal, we need plenty of coal to be a naval/maritime power -- Kuwait, Persia, all they have in those places is that worthless oil.

In the year 2103 our view will appear to have been even more ludicrous than that.

Meanwhile, getting back to our original topic, I believe Hitler will still be dead and the Second World War will remain finished.

[ April 07, 2003, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Makes The Jelly Judder:

-- Deleted because I am stupid --

Stupidity never stopped the rest of us. Don't be so hard on yourself, jump in and offer some opinions.

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

You got it. "All are created equal but some are more equal than others". For reasons you have stated and others, I truly believe that citizenship should be earned in service to the country.

santabear

Power is a "zero sum game". That is correct.

Gaining national power. Control of resources yes. Control of seas no. Sea control is a limited concept. More appropriate to refer to it as Power Projection.

Terrorism is only conducted by those who cannot perform guerrilla or civil war. Highly unlikely by itself, to force those in power to give it up.

Strong EU will do as you pessamistically said... lead to conflict with the US. It will start off as (if it already isn't) economic warfare. May or may not lead to military conflict... too many variables to say one way or the other.

US "bloc": "Finlandized" Canada (if it had its preference, it would be EU). "Finlandized" Mexico, Central America cause they have no other choices. UK for sure. Turkey is a whole nother discussion. South America is interesting, but depends totally on Brazil (who is trying to gain economic power from the Amazon). Pacific Rim depends on the relationship between China, Japan and Australia. And possibly Russia. But the real issue will be if China can get its hands on Australia (problematic now, since no ability to project its power). Either way, South America, Pac Rim (Turkey?) even if side with US, will always have its own agenda.

EU "bloc": Russia. Most of the rest will be those who are antagonistic to US bloc allies. That includes Turkey.

Universal peace will occur only under the conditions you stated... which are almost impossible to achieve. Hence, there will always be some sort of conflict. Either that, or someone who acts as the policeman and clamps down on it. And that will only last until we start to colonize other planets... then the whole cycle will repeat itself.

[Hubert Cater]

Moving to the General Discussion Forums...