tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post8039430378350907859..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: How Woodrow Wilson Might Have Stopped Hitlerbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10371937127164826652013-07-27T14:12:22.119-07:002013-07-27T14:12:22.119-07:00Text formatting on this website isn't top notc...Text formatting on this website isn't top notch. It's painfully evident now that I read my comment. I will try to restate it as succinctly and straightforwardly as possible. I attempted a different approach but it clearly failed in an epic way.<br /><br />My issue is not with facts or conclusions - it is with your style which I find below certain intellectual and social standards. It is dismissive of huge emotional charge that many people still hold with regards to this issue. While I personally do not take offense I feel obliged to point out to you that in essence you are - even if unknowingly - rude and insensitive because of your apparent pro-Western ethno-centrism. For example just because a white European doesn't know that "nigger" is a racist slur (because of hip-hop culture use of it) doesn't mean that once he uses it he does not deserve criticism for it. So when we go to such length at achieving objectivity, mutual understanding and fairness any comment which his dismissive of those traits deserves the harshest criticism. It might have been unintended - the bias is so prevalent in Western culture and political discourse that even people greater than us stumble. I would not complain if you criticized me for such blunder and I would feel disappointed that you complained - provided you understood my intentions correctly.<br />Your remark about my beliefs about your positions is unwarranted because I cannot know what those are until you state them and therefore any of my criticisms can and does only refer to your statements. If you take issue with how I interpret them I would advise you to either attempt to clarify and correct the mistakes or consider paying more attention to what you actually write. Again if you write about black rappers and you carelessly refer to them as "those niggers"... you might attract some well deserved scolding if the discussion is generally conducted in a civil and respectful way. Right?<br /><br />To quickly point out what I really had an issue with here's another analogy - less confusing than my Holocaust remark. Considering that a discussion attempts at achieving best possible degree of civility and objectivity what do you think is wrong with the following statements?<br /><br />"The US should not go to war in Vietnam.The 50 thousand dead Americans were not worth it"<br /><br />"A recent clash with insurgents in the heart of Ghazani resulted in the deaths of 4 American soldiers"<br /><br /><br />"As President Suharto forces restore government control over rebelling regions Indonesia returns on a track to become a safe and friendly country to Western investors and tourists" (I just watched "the act of killing")<br /><br /><br />Perhaps now you'd realize what was it that I found deserving so much denigration. I admit that it was a misjudged attempt at causing some irritation which I hoped would serve as good example of what an European (non-Western) might feel reading your careless comment. It clearly didn't work out so perhaps this one will.<br /><br />We all should take responsibility for our words after all, shouldn't we? And I never found any field in which too much humility hindered anyone's quest for knowledge. I do not aspire to know anything and my comments are aimed at helping you - sometimes by being deliberately incorrect or provocative. Sometimes those are surprisingly the best tools. Otherwise - no offense intended.Best regards BM.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-32144787119867367282013-07-26T04:03:55.100-07:002013-07-26T04:03:55.100-07:00Anon: Are you in a habit of telling Jews that &quo...Anon: Are you in a habit of telling Jews that "Holocaust was not a big deal".Because that statement actually would be more accurate.<br /><br />BM: I have learned much from this exchange. I also find you to be a very confused individual; your derogatory reply here has nothing to do with my statement. I have never once made a statement that could be interpreted toward such a view.<br /><br />I also do not appreciate your regular degrading comments toward what you believe my understanding or position to be.<br /><br />I could make silly comments toward you, not realizing the work FDR did to move the world to war; I will not. Read Hoover's book, or any one of dozens of free histories available on the internet. The evidence is overwhelming, and not difficult to find.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38877852643191284812013-07-24T16:13:32.247-07:002013-07-24T16:13:32.247-07:00I remember a lecture on history - one of the Mises...I remember a lecture on history - one of the Mises.org series - which mentioned a number of peace initiatives in 1916 and as early as late 1915. Unfortunately they weren't acceptable as from the very beginning Britain and France had plenty of support from America which was only increasing with time. So I believe that the suggestions which consider the likelihood of the war being ended somewhere in 1916 without American involvement as very likely. WWI was unique in the sense that almost from the very beginning it was obvious that there was no real Russian threat to Germany. Austria fared worse but was able to resist with German help. So it boiled down to pure war of attrition in the West - without American help there would be nowhere to look for hope since it was helping the balance of power in the West and pretty much taking care of life support for Russia.<br /><br />Russian army in WWI was a joke. Most people will remember this iconic scene from "Enemy at the Gates"<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXPNtaD6ZY<br /><br /> which is not necessarily correct. However as I understand it was very typical of Russian strategy in WWI. Russian Empire had plenty of people (close to 180 million in 1914 I believe) and little of everything else. I believe that this embarrassment was one of the main reason why the Soviets invested so much in the military and became so creative in this area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84902534214743109712013-07-24T16:03:20.750-07:002013-07-24T16:03:20.750-07:00BM:"I will look into this further; yet it sti...BM:"I will look into this further; yet it still doesn’t change the number of years the Germans fought the Soviets without active US engagement. "<br /><br />I believe I answered that question already sufficiently. <br /><br />"What further strength might Germany have had against the Soviets had Hitler not had to make preparations for a second front involving Britain (and ultimately the US)?"<br /><br />Britain was never considered a serious threat by Germany. The second front and the "allies" were essentially the US with logistical help from Britain.<br />Also you would be surprised how little Germany left for defense from the West. The key here was repealing the invasion. Once the allies would gain a solid foothold it was all gone precisely because of that. <br /><br />"What did Britain (or the US) gain by JOINING the Soviets, as opposed to just leaving the Soviets and Germans to fight it out?"<br /><br />That is the only good point here really. Nothing... As a matter of fact - taking a Central European perspective here - nobody gained absolutely anything. Hitler would welcome ceasefire with Britain and had little interest fighting America (for now...later one when Germany ruled Europe blah blah blah). That would only require leaving Europe to itself and risk a larger share of Soviet influence than in reality. But for Germany and all the countries to the East that happened anyway. So those countries were f*** by the virtue of their geographic location. Even assuming some form of unlikely German victory in the East it would be only temporary as there would be too much left to dispense with Soviet threat. That would most likely tie up Germany for some time and considering that their economy was boldly heading towards the Soviet model sooner or later they would have to fight again. <br /><br />The only country that actually benefited from Western involvement was France. Britain's involvement in WWII cost it the empire (althought that would happen anyway) and the US was saddled with a constant warfare state which is completely unnecessary considering Geography.Whatever went for naval dominance of Britain went ten times as much for America since they did not have to rely on imported resources having the majority of the continent to themselves (since it is unlikely Canada would disagree).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-2823585088635726902013-07-24T15:46:54.318-07:002013-07-24T15:46:54.318-07:00That is provided Hitler attacked first. If the Sov...That is provided Hitler attacked first. If the Soviets attacked first They obviously would not conquer the world - that was a logistical impossibility - but I never said they would. It would be enough to capture Europe as far as Germany - France would fall or surrender or undergo a "spontaneous" revolution which most likely would be aided by the Soviets and form some form of satellite state. That would be enough for a couple of decades after which most likely communism would fall as it had to.Until then however a massive red army would be a constant threat to whatever remained of Western Europe.<br /><br />BM: " In the meantime, the west could sit back and watch – while maintaining a strong defensive posture."<br /><br />The west could only properly defend itself with the help of America. And only with a significant American economic effort could proper defensive measure be prepared. But that would be equivalent to cold war. So what is the point of those deliberations? Once Hitler isn't the only factor in WWII it becomes a series of moot points. The part of fighting that mattered and the share of losses that mattered would not be averted. In the end the situation would be too similar to what actually happened after WWII.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-78996753819445337222013-07-24T15:45:49.422-07:002013-07-24T15:45:49.422-07:00Your points about Germany and Japan giving the Sov...Your points about Germany and Japan giving the Soviets trouble for years is strategically incorrect. First of All the Japanese would have first be able to properly engage the Soviets - if you research the conflict in 1938-39 you'll see just how great the disparity was. Even compared to US forces which in terms of land warfare were far from superior the Japanese could barely hold their own. Add to that the fact that a large portion of land forces had to occupy populous regions in China and South-East Asia which were crucial to the most imporatant weakness of Japanese military machine - the resource pool. The were also severly lacking in Industrial base. Although comparable in terms of population with Germany at the same time they were not nearly in the same league. Those drawbacks in industrial base proved lethal the second the US regained initiative in Battle of Midway. I would bring to your attention the nature of Japanese advance which has many similarities to German advances in Russia in terms of the scale of surprise and lack of basic preparations on the part of the allied forces. Since Midway however the Japanese - despite collosal distances making logistics difficult for Americans are on pretty much constant retreat starting with Salomon Islands campaign. Please notice that it took only 4 aircraft carriers and some 300 planes to stop Japanese advance. At the same time on the Eastern Front Stalingrad wasn't necessarily the end of German offensive. I checked the losses on Salomon Islands where for the first time it became obvious that there is no wasy Japan can even pretend to keep up with US industrial production - Japanese lost 1500 planes knocked them out economically. Japan was not nearly as difficult an opponent as Germany was but they had controlled territory which was much more difficult to reclaim - militarily and logistically. This was the only reason<br />why it took Americans so long (4 years) to deal with them. Now that was going on in terms of naval warfare - something at which the Japanese claimed some skill. How they would do this in terms of land war without the technology and knowledge against THE land war country ? <br /><br />On a separate note - take a look at the map of Russia. Just in case you thought that a second front in the far east is something similar to a second front in Europe :)<br /><br />As for Germany they could defeat the Soviet Union (for a time at least)with proper political plan but that required a different treatment of subjugated population. If Germans gave the Ukrainians, Belarusians and perhaps even Russians a chance for normal life instead of a shot in the head they would be deserting Soviet ranks in millions. Without it - even with a full scale Japanese assault in the far east their advance would have great chances for stumbling somewhere. The Soviets had close to twice the population of Germany in 1939 and their economy was mobilized for war production the second the war started. If the west just sit there the war of attrition would have to sooner or later tilt in Soviets favour simply because of sheer logistics. <br />The only chance the Germans had would be a better preparation for winter warfare and focusing on cutting oil supply from the caucasus. That might force Soviets to stop - don't know for how long because there was still plenty of oil on the other side of Caspian sea.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-49060527188005611952013-07-24T15:13:31.831-07:002013-07-24T15:13:31.831-07:00What most people confuse is the extent of operatio...What most people confuse is the extent of operations and territory involved on both fronts. Often also the ridiculously fast advance in 1941 is assumed to be the norm where it was an uncanny exception. Compare:<br /><br />Soviet advances August 1943 to december 1944 (1.5 years)<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png<br /><br />Western advances June 1944 to May 1945 ( 1year) - notice river Elbe on the map - the map itself does not show troop movement after the winter counter-offensive. Also Soviets were fighting the majority of German forces rather than the remainder as in the West. It is circa 1000 km for Soviet advance and then circa 600km advance in five months in 1945 when the counter offensive in the West failed and Germany started total retreat. It is circa 400-500 km for Allied advances until the battle of the bulge (6 months) and next 500 in 1945. So the numbers do not really show a lot of "trouble" for the Soviets once they regained initiative in the East. At the same time the initiative has been lost for a moment in the west despite an overwhelming force of fresh troops and equipment and total air superiority. This should show the reality of fighting a determined well prepared and well equipped opponent.<br /><br />Not to mention that while Soviets had to subsequently expend some manpower to control lands outside the Soviet Union the Allies did not have to concern themselves with this since they were not forcible overthrow of government and population repressions taking place.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-48707068468956347172013-07-24T15:13:07.733-07:002013-07-24T15:13:07.733-07:00I am not generalizing. Don't take offense but ...I am not generalizing. Don't take offense but you are probably still not entirely aware just how funny to us "easterners" you sound when talking from your historical perspective. Just take my previous post.What you wrote - it was hilarious. And I'm pretty sure you did not even notice it.<br /><br />I did not count Japan fighting Soviets because it was of little relevance and they were fighting no serious military effort. I do agree that West had no real reason to fight - with the exception of France which would probably have been attacked by Hitler anyway (thus drawing Britain and USA probably). The war in Europe was really fought in the East and there was no way to change the outcome. There was talk about opening a second fron in the Balkans ( I believe Churchill's idea) but that was practically impossible in 1943 and therefore all those countries were given up to Stalin. So yes.. I do agree with that. I do have some comments though - regarding the military matters.<br /><br />The reason behind Western reluctance to join the war in Europe through a proper second front was exactly to bleed Stalin a bit more and the fact that they were simply not prepared for effective land warfare.<br />This was the only reason for pointless campaigns in Africa and Italy. What you need to remember is that building an effective military machine does not happen overnight. It requires industrial base, logistics and military training and know-how. The US and Britain were maritime powers just like Japan. Soviet Union on the other hand was a land power that received a humbling lesson in WWI - a lesson which the Communists were determined to learn. Germany was traditionally a land power with an effective and well trained military tradition only nominally broken for a short period of time in the 20's. For America and Britain to develop an equivalent force of arms from scratch? It's not that easy. At the same time they had to invent the whole idea of strategic bombing.<br /><br />Your take on what was happening on the Eastern front is also not entirely correct. Germany attacked the Soviets in mid 1941 and for the next 6 months pushed them back to Moscow. During this offensive they took control of all the infrastructure and materiel gathered for the apparent invasion. It was the equivalent of catching Napoleon with his pants down. The Germans could have won there but they made a colossal blunder - they started exterminating the local population instead of enlisting their help. That would turn the tide. Instead their policy of indiscriminate extermination turned the people against them. The whole of 1942 is Soviets halting German advance without a functioning military while rebuilding the logistical and industrial base. The defense based mostly on constant inflow of new cannon fodder which meant that no proper units could be trained. 1943 is the breakthrough year where the momentum is finally reversed. From mid 1943 to mid 1945 the Soviets (taking a short break for the siege of Warsaw) there is nothing else than constant Soviet advance across all of Eastern Europe. The difference this time is that unlike Soviets in 1941 the Germans were PREPARED for assault and had significant share of veteran forces while Soviets started out more or less from scratch. Also in late 1943 German economy was finally moved to War economy although I believe that total mobilization did not occur until 1944. Way too late.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-43568877162723170562013-07-24T14:31:49.150-07:002013-07-24T14:31:49.150-07:00A very interesting article - I certainly need to f...A very interesting article - I certainly need to find some way to get Hoover's book one day. I have heard a lot about it. The fragments you quoted certainly shift a lot of responsibility for starting up the mess towards FDR. I always blamed Churchill and his gang as the most warlike and warmongering of the lot. Was I wrong I wonder? It is interesting to know how much of it was his own initiative, the influence of Churchill's gang or perhaps a little push from many Stalin's agents in FDR's cabinet. After all a conflict in Europe was just what Stalin needed. <br /><br />Also let me adress this literary crown jewel:<br /><br />BM: "What would happen? I envision, in the end, two spent countries, neither capable of <br />d o i n g a n y s i g n i f i c a n t h a r m t o w e s t e r n s t a t e s <br />- who, in the meantime, armed themselves sufficiently."<br /><br />Take a look here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WwII_casualties<br /><br />Are you in a habit of telling Jews that "Holocaust was not a big deal".Because that statement actually would be more accurate. Where do you think WWII happen? Connecticut? The North Pole? That statement is so out there that here you go: Some relevant WWII jokes for you <br /><br />Q: Do you know what is the title of the chapter on "western front" In Russian textbooks?<br />A: The bombing of civilians.<br /><br />Q: Why did Americans drop the atomic bombs on Japan?<br />A: Because after 3 years of bombing Germany they finally realized they can't hit sh*t with normal bombs.<br /><br />Q: Where are western casualties of WWII listed in the comparison table?<br />A: Under "statistical error".<br /><br />I could go on. Sorry for the burn but you were sooo asking for it :D<br /><br />The funniest thing is that of all the western "powers" France at least has the decency to shut up about WWII. Perhaps to steer people away from the fact that they ended up as a "victorious power" but in all honesty they did probably just as much fighting as Americans let alone Brits.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-12263784422121361742013-07-24T11:33:13.611-07:002013-07-24T11:33:13.611-07:00I am in agreement with your views as expressed in ...I am in agreement with your views as expressed in this comment. While an even-handed application of Wilson’s fourteen points could conceivably have reduced the political and economic tension in inter-war Germany, even more valuable would have been if Wilson never took the US into the Great War in the first place.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31029835871996323482013-07-24T11:25:16.917-07:002013-07-24T11:25:16.917-07:00“Poland has a long history of picking on the worst...“Poland has a long history of picking on the worst possible solution until it's too late regardless of external support.”<br /><br />I will keep this in mind. Your comment earlier about the timing of the guarantee is worthwhile, and I will explore this further as I develop my timeline.<br /><br />“That is an erroneous assumption. Stalin already dealt with Japan before the start of the war in Europe.”<br /><br />I should have read all of your comments before I replied to the earlier ones. Thank you for clarifying.<br /><br />I will look into this further; yet it still doesn’t change the number of years the Germans fought the Soviets without active US engagement. What further strength might Germany have had against the Soviets had Hitler not had to make preparations for a second front involving Britain (and ultimately the US)? How long could Germany and the Soviets fought? What would be the outcome? What did Britain (or the US) gain by JOINING the Soviets, as opposed to just leaving the Soviets and Germans to fight it out?<br /><br />“Most American revisionist point out to Roosevelt as the main actor in pushing Japan into war but in their sensationalist approach often forget to mention that it was mainly as means to get America into war in Europe.”<br /><br />I do not understand what is “sensationalist” about this view. Roosevelt was the main actor, or at least the main public actor. As to forgetting to mention that it was a means to get into the European war, I have read more than one revisionist that states this plainly.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-61901774561360288172013-07-24T09:31:47.266-07:002013-07-24T09:31:47.266-07:00“In all honesty BM can you imagine Europe resistin...“In all honesty BM can you imagine Europe resisting a 15-20 million men army with tanks, airplanes and paratrooper corps larger than the whole British military (which is why they had so many planes... a million paratroopers requires a lot of planes)? You westerners really need your sh*t straightened out regarding the Red Army :D”<br /><br />Please stop with your generalizations about me or westerners….<br /><br />You do not count Japan, which was also fighting the Soviets in the East. <br /><br />What of the fact that the West did not enter the War in any meaningful way (regarding a second front) until 1944? Somehow, Germany kept the Soviet Union occupied for several years despite these numerical statistics you offer. What am I missing?<br /><br />How much more forcefully could Germany and Japan have fought the Soviets if the west stated that they had no intention to get involved against Germany or Japan – signing non-aggression treaties, etc.? <br /><br />And what risk did the west run? They allied with Stalin after all, thus handing over half of Europe to him anyway. In other words, the west lost anyway. Would the Soviets have had more success invading Britain than the Germans did? Would the Soviets militarily have conquered the US?<br /><br />So, what I see is: the Germans (with the Japanese in the east) would have occupied the Soviets for years – and for the most part they did; by the time one side or the other achieved a significant upper hand, the “winner” would have been about as depleted as the loser. In the meantime, the west could sit back and watch – while maintaining a strong defensive posture.<br /><br />The Soviets weren’t going to conquer the world. This was never a risk.<br /><br />What am I missing? <br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-60053367797502645382013-07-24T06:59:35.607-07:002013-07-24T06:59:35.607-07:00FDR pushed Britain to make the guarantee, and Pola...FDR pushed Britain to make the guarantee, and Poland to not make any deal for at least two months before the guarantee was made. I must research further to see if there are earlier dates; what I have so far is here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html <br /><br />As to Poland's delusions of grandeur, this is consistent with the views of the author of this work, and it does seem likely that the guarantees at such a late date would not have made a difference - other than there was no need to turn this conflict over Danzig into a World War - a not-minor issue from the point of view of the West....<br /><br />Why Stalin? My question is why either? Let the Germans and Russians annihilate each other. Would Hitler have had energy to fight the West while fighting Russia? As the West made no significant incursion until 1944, it seems the two would have fought until one or both were reduced to little more than rubble.<br /><br />What would happen? I envision, in the end, two spent countries, neither capable of doing any significant harm to western states - who, in the meantime, armed themselves sufficiently.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-49174328781111520042013-07-24T06:41:35.427-07:002013-07-24T06:41:35.427-07:00First, to your offer of assistance, I welcome any ...First, to your offer of assistance, I welcome any comments and sources you provide. Yours is a valuable perspective.<br /><br />I have started outlining the timeline, and yes, it seems (at least for now) that it will begin with the partitions.<br /><br />I do not know where this timeline will lead. It may be a perpetual project. I am thinking to devote a stand-alone page to it on this blog, and add to it or modify it as I learn more information.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27809385976851784592013-07-23T15:41:46.951-07:002013-07-23T15:41:46.951-07:00"These "isms" would have worn each ..."These "isms" would have worn each other out, it seems to me, with no need for the west to do anything more than state its neutrality, and maintain a strong defense."<br /><br />That is a philosophical question. From the purely military standpoint there was no way for a "good" outcome. Still in WWII it would be justified for America to stay out of war regardless of the situation in Europe. After all it is US of America and not Europe. The British also forget that Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain and would welcome on immediately. But it is the typical British belligerence and imperial mindset that pushed them into war. There are people who suggest that the British bear more ultimate responsibility than the Americans - as with the manipulation of the 1940 election. In any case focusing the debate on that particular conflict without discussion about the interwar period and WWI is pointless. <br />Now if only America stayed truly neutral - including economic sanctions and assistance - in WWI it would probably end in 1916 or 1917 at the latest with a mutually negotiated ceasefire. Kaiser would retain power in Germany, Austria would probably had to devolve into some confederacy and depending on the state of affairs in Russia with little or no outside help the communist revolution would not gain traction for a time. No Hitler, no Stalin. Who knows..perhaps no Mao either.At least not right away.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69405965541331473822013-07-23T15:35:11.378-07:002013-07-23T15:35:11.378-07:00"Yes, the author of this book also makes this..."Yes, the author of this book also makes this point. So, again, why offer a guarantee to Poland, stiffening their willingness to find a solution to their miserable position between Germany and Russia absent western support? I can only conclude it is because the west (or those controlling western politicians) wanted in on the war."<br /><br />Poland has a long history of picking on the worst possible solution until it's too late regardless of external support.<br />I am not sure that the absence of French and British guarantees would cause Poland to act more rationally - the government was just as rational as Hitler's bunch at that point. Also while British support was perhaps a bit forced the alliance with France was - to give you a good comparison - a little bit like America and Israel. Only whithout the weird religious influences. Also when you write that west wanted in it might refer to Britain and the US. France hated Germans since the very beginning so I am guessing they were up for a fight whenever possible. They were just too scared to start I guess.<br /><br />"Obviously, you possess a theory…."<br /><br />What theory? There is no theory necessary. Why do you think former presidents sell thousands if not millions of copies of their nonsense - Clinton, Bush, Obama... Nobody would read that crap before they were elected.<br />Also since it is a dictator taking over with a single party system - every school, every government agency, every politician... if it is not mandated reading you better read it for your own good. <br /><br />"I will add, had the west stayed out of the fight between Germany and Russia, Stalin would also have had to deal with Japan on the back side - a Japan no longer occupied by the US in the Pacific."<br /><br />That is an erroneous assumption. Stalin already dealt with Japan before the start of the war in Europe<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_Border_Wars<br /><br />Japanese have suffered a devastating defeat that forever cured them from ideas about waging a large scale land war in Asia, especially against the Soviets. That was all the more evident since Japan was traditionally a maritime power and had neither proper knowledge of land warfare or proper land forces. Their occupation of China was problematic enough without serious opposition. Most American revisionist point out to Roosevelt as the main actor in pushing Japan into war but in their sensationalist approach often forget to mention that it was mainly as means to get America into war in Europe. The US had no interest in fighting Japan and at the same time Japan was perfectly happy with having USA and Britain as trade partners - regardless of their commitment to Hitler. Japan was part of Anti-Comintern pact and their primary and historical opponent was Russia/Soviet Union. At the same time all the pressure for US entry into war came from Britain and British-related business interests but it was impossible to do so because Hitler and Mussolini refused to declare war and if Japan had secured necessary resources and control in Asia there would be noone to provoke. Only after land war against the Soviets proved untenable were the Japanese forced to rely on the Pacific region for resources and thus became open to American extortion which pushed them into war.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1043357959897184822013-07-23T15:02:42.074-07:002013-07-23T15:02:42.074-07:00BM "They may have had the manpower, but not m...BM "They may have had the manpower, but not much else. "<br /><br />Believe me - if Soviet Union wasn't attacked first - the sort of manpower they would bring into the fight would be all that was necessary. People in the West and in America in particular do not have the proper sense of proportion in this regard. Let me help. Take a look here - specifically the "strength" section in the top right corner table.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_Operation<br /><br />The "frontline" and "total" numbers are misleading - they do not include forces which were stationed in the far east such as the siberian divisions etc. So that 5,5 million refers to total military strength west of Moscow. Just take a look at it.<br /><br />3.9 million Germans vs 5.5 million Soviets<br />4300 German tanks vs 15000 Soviet tanks (lowest estimate an no... Soviet tanks not only weren't worse but very often much better than German)<br />4400 German aircraft vs 35000 Soviet aircraft ( German planes were a bit better but the sheer numbers...)<br /><br />Just judging by the proportion of men and equipment - which army was more mechanized and armed? For Germans it was circa 1000 tanks and 1000 aircraft per 1 million men.<br />If Soviets were to use those proportions they could field <br />... 15 million men? Or perhaps more - which was entirely possible considering that army strength was PEACETIME figures - before the allegedly planned mobilization. The economy was already ready to be mobilized for wartime production which is exactly why Soviet Union was able to overcome German assault despite unbelievable losses of materiel and equipment. I read somewhere a comparison of British army and a Soviet armored division. A singly division had more tanks, artillery and machine guns<br />than the whole of British army. Talk about operational independence and available firepower!<br /><br />In all honesty BM can you imagine Europe resisting a 15-20 million men army with tanks, airplanes and paratrooper corps larger than the whole British military (which is why they had so many planes... a million paratroopers requires a lot of planes)? You westerners really need your sh*t straightened out regarding the Red Army :D. The only hope was that the soviets would get halted by soldiers going crazy looting and raping rather than fighting.<br /><br />BM:"Faced with an exhausted Russia, the West could easily have developed the ability to ensure Stalin went no further."<br /><br />What exactly do you mean "no further". No further than where exactly? France? Italy? Germany and everything east would be long under Soviet control and even exhausted the Soviet were militarily too strong for Britain and America to simply tell them to go back home.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38166995736164800942013-07-23T14:31:35.357-07:002013-07-23T14:31:35.357-07:00I don't recall reading anything about FDR'...I don't recall reading anything about FDR's bullying the west about guarantees for Poland. In the end they were worth less than nothing but I would be curious as to when exactly he did that. The political climate deteriorated rapidly between 1935 and 1939 both in Europe and in Poland and while FDR's action would be of little consequence in 1939 if it happened in 1937 or 1936 it would be absolutely fundamental. One important thing to know is that political regime in Poland in 1939 was far from rational and guarantees or not Poland was very unlikely to meet Hitler's demands. The crucial period here would be 1934-35 while the unofficial head of the state Jozef Pilsudski was still alive. He advocated a joint Polish-French pre-emptive strike at Germany to remove Hitler from power. At the same time Hitler's suggestions were far more modest and included some form of alliance with Poland against the Soviets in hopes of breaking Polish alliance with France. Pilsudski died in 1935 and the country political system started devouring itself. The actions of Polish government at that time were quite similar of what was happening before partitions - delusions of grandeur, detachment from reality etc. Poland took part in annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938! You need to take it into your considerations - the irrational element often plays quite the leading role here.<br /><br />BM: "This makes all the more curious why the west entered, and having entered, why they joined with Stalin instead of opposed to him."<br /> <br />That is a weird question. If Hitler stumbled early in 1941 perhaps Britain and America would never consider an alliance with Stalin and instead just waited for the right opportunity to attack.But he did not until he reached Moscow in late autumn and the West was panicking. If the Soviets were defeated there would be no second front to threaten Germany and virtually no chance for a counter-offensive in Western Europe. Mind you that the allies did their utmost to delay any meaningful military aid to Stalin until it was inevitable in hopes both Germany and USSR would bleed themselves to death. The invasion of Normandy only came when there were no other way as the tide in the west was clearly turned and it became a race to Berlin.<br />While Stalin had infiltrated FDR's administration and Roosevelt himself was perhaps too keen on "Uncle Joe" the majority of American and British command was very skeptic or clearly hostile to the Soviets. That is a fact.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-70885505530516940072013-07-23T14:02:04.573-07:002013-07-23T14:02:04.573-07:00With regards to the history of Poland - if you are...With regards to the history of Poland - if you are mostly interested in modern history and the world wars you really don't have to go much further than 1770's when the first partition occurs. What occurs before the partitions is fascinating and unique in European history but of little actual consequence apart from leading to partition which created immense power vacuum in the region in XVIII century and for the first time in history put Germany (all states) and Russia facing each other - theoretically as enemies but with a common cause that was keeping the rebellious Poles in check. It is difficult... strike that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to properly understand what was going on in Central Europe in XIX century without knowing that little bit of Polish history. The relationship of France and Poland starts as "enemy of my enemy" with both countries facing the same opponents - most importantly Germany. It was reinforced during Napoleonic campaigns and then it continued to XX century. Both countries were the first in Europe to use national identity politically as a result of political revolutions. Also afterwards many Poles emigrated to France but also to America (look up Tadeusz Kosciuszko and Kazimierz Pulaski who both fought in the American Revolution).<br /><br />If you can't afford additional reading Wikipedia should help but you need to know where to look. If you had any questions about the other side's perspective in Central Europe I am glad to help or point you in the right direction for whatever it's worth. If you are interested obviously.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-81336862717924070982013-07-22T09:06:02.493-07:002013-07-22T09:06:02.493-07:00I will add, had the west stayed out of the fight b...I will add, had the west stayed out of the fight between Germany and Russia, Stalin would also have had to deal with Japan on the back side - a Japan no longer occupied by the US in the Pacific. <br /><br />These "isms" would have worn each other out, it seems to me, with no need for the west to do anything more than state its neutrality, and maintain a strong defense. bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84209915593384146102013-07-22T08:18:18.597-07:002013-07-22T08:18:18.597-07:00“I also make a distinction between Wilson and Vers...“I also make a distinction between Wilson and Versailles.” <br /><br />Yes, this is appropriate. I recall reading that the British dropped flyers in Germany with Wilson’s speech and 14 points, as inducement to convince the Germans of the fair treatment they would receive.<br /><br />“In each of them Wilson was used as a dummy to sell the idea and he regretted some of them afterwards quite publicly.”<br /><br />I am always cautious about attributing to individuals who achieve such power the characteristic of being a dupe or dummy. The ability to achieve such a high political office inherently involves the characteristics of a liar and cheat, and one who can survive a very cut-throat game. So my inclination is to always believe they understand the role they are to play, and given their personal characteristics, they find it natural to play the role.<br /><br />As to regretting some of these actions at a later time, it is more appropriate, in my opinion, to attribute such statements of remorse as efforts to clean up legacy. <br /><br />“I also feel it quite necessary to remind you that when including Poland in the timeline you mentioned you definitely must not forget the partition of the country….For example the relationship of France and Poland goes way back to French revolution…”<br /><br />This is one major reason why I dread taking on this project, although I feel I must. As I mentioned before, every history has a pre-history: so what comes before the French Revolution in this relationship? When does the string end?<br /><br />I am going to try to remain focused on the inter-war years. Unfortunately, I already know this will lead me to include the years before the Great War…which will lead to Bismarck…. But I will try to focus on the interwar years initially….<br /><br />“I am not sure about your claim that the West "wanted in on a fight".<br /><br />Roosevelt certainly took many actions indicating he wanted in; he also pushed Britain and France on the guarantee to Poland. One more reason for my timeline.<br /><br />“I think that Stalin was getting ready for a mass assault on all of Western Europe where communist parties in France, Germany, Italy and Spain would serve as footholds for establishing political control.”<br /><br />This makes all the more curious why the west entered, and having entered, why they joined with Stalin instead of opposed to him. <br /><br />“The Soviets certainly had enough manpower to pull off such an invasion unless Europe presented an united front against them.”<br /><br />They may have had the manpower, but not much else. Given the events of the war, it seems Stalin would have had all he could handle with Germany for a very long time – certainly if the West stayed out of the fight, or only maintained a defensive posture. The two (Germany and Russia) would have done a good job of exhausting the other, it seems. Faced with an exhausted Russia, the West could easily have developed the ability to ensure Stalin went no further.<br /><br />“And here is an interesting idea - Hitler supposedly wanted Poland to join his Anti-Comintern Pact before he turned back to his Soviet allies. With Poland as an ally he might be able to get Britain on his side as he wanted until the very end and then the likelihood of war with France would all but disappear.”<br /><br />Yes, the author of this book also makes this point. So, again, why offer a guarantee to Poland, stiffening their willingness to find a solution to their miserable position between Germany and Russia absent western support? I can only conclude it is because the west (or those controlling western politicians) wanted in on the war. <br /><br />“But in 1933 Mein Kampf sold in millions. Wonder why....”<br /><br />Obviously, you possess a theory….<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27713495219123095162013-07-22T06:37:08.922-07:002013-07-22T06:37:08.922-07:00Regarding Stalin - Soviet history is shrouded in s...Regarding Stalin - Soviet history is shrouded in so much secrecy that the best I could do is speculate. I am not sure about your claim that the West "wanted in on a fight". If one thing is self evident here is that the West - that is France and Britain mainly - did NOT want any part in any fight.If they did all it would take to end WWII was for France to invade Germany in 1939. There was not a single soldier left to fight them and Germany used up almost all of their munitions in the Polish campaign as I found out to my surprise quite recently. There was even less understanding regarding Stalin's regime. I think the west was convinced with his "socialism in one country" policy and did not expect any aggression. <br /><br />I also don't think that Stalin would attack just Germany. I think that Stalin was getting ready for a mass assault on all of Western Europe where communist parties in France, Germany, Italy and Spain would serve as footholds for establishing political control. The Soviets certainly had enough manpower to pull off such an invasion unless Europe presented an united front against them. And here is an interesting idea - Hitler supposedly wanted Poland to join his Anti-Comintern Pact before he turned back to his Soviet allies. With Poland as an ally he might be able to get Britain on his side as he wanted until the very end and then the likelihood of war with France would all but disappear. I believe that regardless of his opinions of Poland Hitler considered the Soviet Union to be Germany's primary and most important antagonist and was ready for all kinds of political moves to achieve it. At least this is what he wrote in his second book than unfortunately wasn't published in time because Mein Kampf was barely selling and the publisher feared a further drop in sales should another more extensive book be published.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweites_Buch<br /><br />Another fact that makes you question the "official" narrative of Nazi rise to power. Hitler's ideas were not quite so wildly popular before his ascent began. But in 1933 Mein Kampf sold in millions. Wonder why....<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-60652010826596072112013-07-22T06:08:21.197-07:002013-07-22T06:08:21.197-07:00When I wrote
“What was happening in the 1930'...When I wrote <br /><br />“What was happening in the 1930's is an entirely different scenario but that is after Hitler's takeover of German government so it doesn't really count.”<br /><br />I meant that it didn't count as a factor in Nazis' rise to power since Hitler already was in full control of the government. It does however count in some way as cause for WWII.<br /><br />Also Hitler's coup in 1933 was a consequence of his gains in 1930 German election. I don't think that 1935 Czech election can be considered anything else than a result rather than the cause. <br /><br />I also make a distinction between Wilson and Versailles. In my opinion the fourteen points and Wilson were used as a cover due to their naive nature in pushing through a more insidious agenda. Notice that a similar pattern seems to emerge regarding changes in America - the introduction of Federal Reserve, 17th amendment, re-introduction of income tax etc. In each of them Wilson was used as a dummy to sell the idea and he regretted some of them afterwards quite publicly. <br /><br />I also feel it quite necessary to remind you that when including Poland in the timeline you mentioned you definitely must not forget the partition of the country. It generated a lot of sentiment - to the extent unseen anywhere else in Europe - which might justify or appear to justify a lot of actions on part of the Polish governments. Poland is a very tricky and broad subject so tread carefully here. For example the relationship of France and Poland goes way back to French revolution and there were Polish regiments fighting alongside the French in WWI.It did not just appear after the war. English and American historiography tends to misinterpret a lot of things here but try Norman Davies - he should at least do a decent job of introducing the issues and he is definitely available in English. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-26937205864928674312013-07-21T21:33:46.851-07:002013-07-21T21:33:46.851-07:00I will add - and try to be succinct: I take it fro...I will add - and try to be succinct: I take it from your comments that you view that Stalin would have sooner or later attacked Germany regardless of any action taken or not taken by the victorious allies in Versailles or in the 20 years between the wars, and whether or not Hitler ever came to power.<br /><br />Please correct if otherwise.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50028220857821628572013-07-21T20:59:52.874-07:002013-07-21T20:59:52.874-07:00“There were bilingual schools and German language ...“There were bilingual schools and German language was NOT persecuted.”<br /><br />I will read more carefully about this time period of the 20s…. Regarding Czechoslovak elections through the 20s and 30s, I take your point – and it is correct that the election results in 1935 are quite different than those preceding:<br /><br />“What was happening in the 1930's is an entirely different scenario but that is after Hitler's takeover of German government so it doesn't really count.”<br /><br />However, by results alone one cannot determine the issue of the chicken and the egg. Was Hitler the cause or the result of this upsurge (as the upsurge had to occur at some time before 1935)? The answer, I suspect will be found in subjective determination, not objective election results.<br /><br />Your insistence and obvious understanding of this issue will cause me to be more deliberate in my reading of this time period of the 20s and 30s. I thank you for your persistence. I am reluctantly convincing myself to build a timeline of events, drawn from multiple sources…. <br /><br />“Only with enough economic turmoil that reflected on society in a clear and visible way could the leftist parties be even considered a problem.”<br /><br />But does this then not bring the discussion back to the failings (in the eyes of the German public) of Versailles…and then Wilson? While the extent of the impact of the treaty on the economy can be debated, the turmoil in the German economy was blamed on the treaty. <br /><br />“Nobody would care for either Hitler or Marx if you could buy a new BMW on a single job.”<br /><br />Certainly in the case of communism, it only took root in the most agrarian of societies. A society with a more advanced division of labor did not provide fertile ground for this.<br /><br />“You refer to FDR but I think you did not reach far enough.”<br /><br />I am certain of this. Every point in history also has a pre-history. Only FDR is quite obvious, and is relevant for the time period in question. I have a book on my shelf “Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists.” I have not yet read it and cannot say nothing of its credibility, but the title is explanatory of the contents.<br /><br />And behind each president (and within his counsel) is always a group of string pullers. These often remain unknown, or at least their true influence remains unknown….<br /><br />“Later on I learned that the war itself was to a large degree provoked by the newly created Polish government.”<br /><br />This is one reason I want to put together the timeline I mentioned above. There were many actions taken by Poland in the interwar years that were quite impactful in shaping the second war. And behind Poland was France and to a lesser degree (until 1939), Britain. And behind these two was Roosevelt. <br /><br />“So while it is absolutely crucial to list all those blunders that West had with the USSR we should never kid ourselves that there was any real chance for long-term peace after Bolsheviks won the Civil War.”<br /><br />I do not kid myself on this. I think there was a battle looming between Hitler and Stalin. I also think if the west handled things differently, the battle could have been contained to remain primarily between Hitler and Stalin. The west wanted in on the battle. Fair enough if contained to France and Britain – they were close enough to have some concern (although it still seems to me they could have allowed Hitler and Stalin to consume each other). But certainly there was no call for the US to get involved.<br /><br />“If we are talking about destructive influence from the West the crucial phase was before the october revolution in 1917 and probably no later than the February Revolution…”<br /><br />I have not studied this to any extent, but I understand there to be (and would not be surprised to find) western interests with fingerprints on these events.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.com