Just to add my 0.02€:

Keep in mind that many 'isms" lie at the root of American society, among them concepts such as liberalism (meaning Classical liberalism, not the present-day 'liberals'), republicanism and individualism. An 'ism' in itself does not necessarily denote excess or radical... well, ism.
Concerning socialism: The whole idea of socialism can't be separated from the industrial revolution, and it's no coincidence that Marx wrote his major works in the country that set the whole revolution in motion. Though it had a heavy impact on both Europe and North America, it's essential to realize that the circumstances under which that process took place were different in some crucial areas:
While Europe had to deal with the fact that its population grew steadily in an already populated country, the US - despite immigration - were almost virgin soil by comparison. The result was a worker surplus Europe, but a worker shortage in the US. Thus, work in Europe was ridiculously cheap while comparably high wages in the US led to a process of steady rationalization.

All of the major problems socialism sought to adress - the most severe of them being mass poverty - were a direct result of the worker surplus. The root of socialism is, in a sense, humanitarianism. To say that it was simply some clever spin by a lazy bum who sought to increase his personal power (as some have suggested) is missing the point by a couple of leagues (in which he didn't succeed, by the way). As I've said before - good analysis, bad prognosis. And if I might add, some of the most brutal and inhuman regimes implemented by the very people that claimed to bring its goals about. The charming thing about socialism is that it lends itself so wonderfully to abuse in a humanitarian disguise.
I'm not trying to defend socialism or any ideology here. I just want to say: Credit where credit is due.

Just wanted to point it out. (I know it's a simplification and way OT.)

That, and human dignity.

Make no mistake - freedom has always been fragile and delicate, and I would agree that Islamic fundamentalism could well be its largest threat today. But speaking about government and trust in it: I'm uneasy about people who seek to defend "Western civilization as we know it" through questionable means. The moment we are willing to take this bait and stop asking these questions, we have done more for the fundamentalists than they could hope for.

@Lance: By the way, I don't know how long it takes you to write these posts, but I think most of them are really well composed.

Thanks for the clarification!

Ugh... don't get me started on Thatcher. Some of her changes were good/necessary but others had nothing to do with free-market economy. The poll tax for example (which caused riots and was replaced by council tax, which we still have) was/is just a way to rape the proletariat. You say people became "disillusioned" (with capitalism, if I'm not mistaken) but I don't think that's accurate. What they became was hungry. Thatcher didn't break illusions, she broke wallets - but only wallets below a certain size. I think that here in Britain "capitalism" is almost synonymous with "aristocracy", thanks to people like Thatcher. Perhaps that's the disillusion you refer to.

I debated replying to this, as honestly I think you are being somewhat disingenuous and trying to sidestep and avoid what I said. Both my comments to you were generalized observations on your posting methodology overall (of all of the posts I have read of yours on this forum) and not the specific content contained within or of the person behind the posts.

As for applying my criticisms from my second post to my first post. Well let's see. I did not ridicule or insult you or your ideas, though perhaps you feel that I did; if is so that was not my intent and I apologize for any harm done. I do not see any hints or use of cryptic messages in my first post and I feel that my post had plenty of substance behind it. I also do try to foster a positive intellectual environment with my posts, that one included.

Are my posts effective? I think they generally are. I don't expect total agreement with what I say, and I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But I feel that what I say tends to be respected by the other members here, even if they do not agree with a single word of what I said. With a little luck perhaps some of my words have a positive effect on others.

My posts though not entirely on the original topic, did follow the general flow of the thread (the topic in this thread has branched in several different directions). I commented on some of the different branches ongoing in this thread, in each post. Furthermore I did not criticize what was written in the topic by you, or who had written it, but rather how you present your arguments in general. Those criticisms were intended to be constructive, as I do not feel that your current methodology is very positive, constructive, or effective. So I offered a few suggestions that could enable you to have a more satisfying intellectual experience here. Whether you pay attention to my suggestions or not is your problem; I don't foster any emotion towards you in any direction, or any ill will.


Anyhow I am done commenting on your posting methodology.


I think you got me and lance mixed up :DL

:damn:

You're right and I seem to have misspoken myself. I should have said "a variety" rather than "the variety". My own linguistic inadequacies aside, the point stands.


Well said. I don't really see anything to disagree with other than the supposition that Europe had a glut of workers whilst the US had a shortage. That's another debate for another time, perhaps.


I always kind of thought that dignity came with freedom. There's something to be said for making one's own life and accepting the consequences of failure with your head held high.
I suppose it all depends upon how you define "human dignity"

I assume that by "fundamentalists" you mean Islamic Fundamentalists, in which case I tend to agree. One of the main failings of my redneck bretheren, and other groups with individualistic ideals (and myself) is their propensity for overreaction. The moment they percieve a threat to liberty, real or imagined, they are all set to go and kick somebody's arse all over the place, whether that is the best course of action or not.

If the US hadn't been so determined to intervene in the affairs of Europe and the Middle East during and after WW2, there would be no conflict with the jihadists. They would have no reason, even in their bizarre mindset, to target the US, at least for the forseeable future.

But no, we had to go and help the British erase a 2,500 year-old Muslim nation to establish and sustain a homeland for the Jews, the ancestral enemies of the Muslims. No wonder the Muslims are pissed at us.

IMHO, we would have been better served by leaving Europe and the Middle East to their own devices. If they want to fight to establish political hegemonies and screw around, let them. The US can only stand to benefit from their silliness.

Unfortunately, we did get involved and we did incur the wrath of nations by doing so. The question now is how to address the current situation. On the one hand, we have the warhawks who want to deploy more troops with the aim of quelling what amounts to a cultural ideal, which is going to be difficult, if not impossible. On the other, we have peace adovcates who want to reconcile our differences with Islamic nations, which is also difficult, if not impossible, given the strict moral code that defines Islamic law.

As much as I hate many of his domestic policies, I think Obama is on the right track with international diplomacy. He is trying to portray the US as a neutral entity, one that is ready and willing to establish peace with any nation that desires it. I don't entirely agree with his methodology because I think it could be done in a better fashion, but again, I think he is on the right track.

Ideally, I'd like to see him divert Islam's attention away from the US and onto Europe, but that's almost another discussion entirely.

Thanks, Shearwater. That means a lot coming from you.

As for the time it takes to write my posts, I can only say that it varies.

Ok there is a lot that you wrote that I must take issue with Lance

If the US had not entered WW2 (assuming of course Japan had not attacked). I don't want to imagine what would have happened. Germany probably would have won in the end due to many reasons (their manufacturing would have been more intact due to the lack of constant US bombing raids, they probably would have succeed in starving out England, and they would have had far more resources to conquer Russia). If Nazi Germany had won they would have finished the final solution and murdered all the Jews in Europe and the middle east, then moved on to wiping out all the Baltic and other 'inferior' races. They would have also gained the nuclear bomb before anyone else (they were very close at the end of the war, there was even some evidence that they did have an early working prototype).

Second the US got involved in the middle east after the war primarily for its own selfish interests (principally oil). Furthermore the jihadists still would have had plenty of reason to target the US for it's, in their view, corrupt and immoral ways, not to mention being infidels etc. I can cite many examples of attacks by Islamic people, on countries and peoples which have had nothing to do with the middle east or Islam other then to refuse to convert. I could expand further on this but I'll leave it for now

Ok... what 2,500 year old Muslim nation exactly? Islam hasn't been around that long (Islam is about 1600 years old). Second the Jewish people have a much older claim to the land (going back at least 4000 years from archeological evidence), and were there well before the desert tribes (which became Muslim) came to the area. They also never left; there has always been a strong Jewish presence in the region of Israel/Judea, in spite of all the massacres and invasions, and repeated enslavement. Third the US and Britain governments did nothing to create the state of Israel, in fact they did their best to prevent it happening, and tried to stop it when it did. The Jewish people created Israel themselves, which was not very surprising after what was done to them during world war 2 (aside from the rest of history). The US and Britain only very grudgingly recognized Israel as a state after many years of war between the Jewish people and surrounding Muslim countries (which by the way happily increased their own borders from the aftermath). Palestine was never a country, or an identifiable people, Its borders, name, and existence were created by the British when they partitioned off the middle east I believe after WW1. Finally it's the Christians who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims. The crusades, the inquisition, etc, along with the colonization of the middle east by France and Britain, makes it so. It was the crusades that spawned the Muslim concept of Jihad.

I don't ever see this changing unless the US looses its dependence on oil. Oil is the key reason the US involves itself with the middle east. It is also a key reason why the US supports Israel (aside from the Christian and Jewish lobby groups), as they want a solid base from which they can operate from if needed.

No real comment here, other then the US stuck its nose into things (like the first gulf war) mainly for its own interests. The United States rarely gets involved in things unless it (or the power people behind it) has a stake in things, can gain financially from it, or it is forced to.

I don't see why Europe should bear the brunt of it frankly. The US is plenty responsible for its own situation and have done plenty on its own to tick off the Muslim population aside from supporting Israel. 'Radical' Islam would still hate the US even if it did nothing, just as it hates Canada which has done far less then the US.

I really only skimmed the surface with this, as the whole thing is rather large and complicated.


I was going to write something rather long here about Jewish people and Israel: why it should exist, it's right to exist, about Jewish history, the holocaust and other similar events which have happened to them through out time, and anti-semitism. Also about why certain large primarily fundamentalist christian groups particularly in the US support Israel. But I don't have the energy to launch into it right now. Perhaps later on I will.

I think that's rather unlikely. A more likely end result would have been Europe conquered by Russia.

The vast majority of German forces in WW2 were defeated by Russia long before the US took part in the invasion of Normandy, in which the US sent a relatively small force (in comparison to the number that had already fought and died in Europe and Russia) to join other relatively small forces gathered by the Allied nations, resulting in one medium sized force which invaded Normandy and basically mopped up what was left of the German forces there. I'm not saying it was easy for the western allies to do that, but I reckon it was a picnic compared to what the Russians had already gone through. I think it likely that without our mopping up exercise Russia would still have eventually beaten Germany without any assistance from us, and then they would probably have claimed Europe as their own.

As for the point you make about the US getting "dragged in" to foreign affairs by Europe... I suspect you've swallowed the US government's marketing a little too easily, but I lack the knowledge to back up that opinion with facts. What I will say is that most people learn at an early age that pointing a finger at someone else and saying "he made me do it" does not rid a person (or a nation) of responsibility for their actions.

You're forgetting that the US also fought in North Africa, Sicily, Salerno and up the boot of Italy long before the Normandy landings. You're also forgetting the huge air war over Germany and occupied Europe. I don't recall hearing about thousand plane SOVIET bombing missions against the nazi industry.

AND lets not forget that while all this was going on the US was also involved in a titanic struggle in the Pacific against the Japanese.

Speaking of the Japanese. How well do you think Russia would have done if it had to fight them at the same time as Germany? A definite possibility if the US had never entered the war.

Stalingrad, considered by many to be the turning point in the European war, was finally won because the Soviets were able to strip their troops from the east and use them as reinforcements in the west. Without them the 6th Army might well have been victorious.

We can debate levels of contribution all day but bottom line here is that it was an ALLIED victory in WW2. Without any part the Axis just might have won.

If their performance in '45 is anything to go by; they would have
done well.
The Russian army took a slice of Japanese territory larger than
Germany, France and Spain combined in less than a month.
This wasn't a result of chucking huge force in the area either. The
majority of the soviet army remained in Europe.
Neither was it a result of the Japanese not expecting the attack.

The incredible speed of advance may not have been matched before
the fall of Germany, but they certainly would not have been on the
defensive.

Japan and mobile land warfare just wern't compatible.


I think we might have managed without the French.

No I'm not; it all adds up to a tiny fraction of the war between Germany and Russia. Kid yourself if you like but the facts speak for themselves: the US and all other western allies were bit players in the war against Germany.

Fair points, although I think that describing the US vs Japan war as "titanic" might be a bit of an exaggeration from a certain perspective. Germany was the primary threat, and Russia was their primary foil. Those two nations lost each more lives in one battle than the US lost in the entire war. Your struggle against Japan was difficult and valiant but not, I think, the most significant victory. That belongs to Russia.

Ahh, now that's not quite true.

It may appear that way if you look at the UK/US/Commonwealth
contribution compared to the Russian contribution, but I think you get a
better picture if you look at the volume of resources the Germans sent
to each front.
Russia is clearly still the main ingredient in the soup, but the other
fronts are far, far from 'bit parts'.

I think you might be overstating your point a little.

That's news to me. Got a link to anywhere that talks about the "volumes of resources" (bit of a vague term :O:) or did you read it in a book?

You post editor you...

Me? Never.

I read a piece on the spending difference, but I can't remember if it was
in a book or on the net.
I'll have a look for a good source tomorrow.

The casualty split for German was roughly ~80/20% East/West, but it is
arguable that the West was more industrially intensive for the Germans.
things like the air war, submarine campaign and V-weapons don't show
up well on casualty figures.

The casualty rate alone should be enough not to discount the West as
a 'bit player'.


Ed:
Perhaps 35-45% (wild guess) of the force in the west was American.
Would an extra 5-15% have swung things in Germany's favor in the East?

pfft! Dammed if I know!

Bit players.... thats funny.

Without those "bit players" devastating the industrial heart of Germany, ruining its strategic ability to produce war machines, the Soviets would not have had the success they had in the West late in the war.

The air war in Europe, as it played out, tore the warmaking ability out of the Reich's hands. Not something Russia could have done, since it could not reach the industrial regions. Had the peace that Hitler repeatedly offered to those same "bit players" been accepted, Russia would have been facing a foe much larger, much better equipped, and much more fight worthy.

Stalingrad happened because the German army was overextended and unable to press forward properly. The relieving army failed to breakthrough and reopen supply lines. 500 additional fighters and bombers, along with another field army of panzers and infantry added in to the rescue force would have easily done so, and stalingrad would not have been a German defeat. But Germany didn't have those resources, because its industrial might was reduced to rubble.

In the end, the Germans and Russians would have ended up at a standstill, neither able to hit the others industrial heart, and reduced to a more modern version of trench warfare, trading lives for no real gain.

As for a Japanese-Russian conflict, that had happened repeatedly and most of those times the Russians lost. However, in all fairness, it was Khalkhin-Gol that kept Japan from targetting Russia when Germany invaded them. Had Japan done so, Russia would not have been able to concentrate on one front, as they did. They also would not have had the benenfit of Zukov on both front.....

Germany proved that its troops and people were as tough as the Soviets. Had they had the equipment and supplies, the Germanic-Russo conflict would have had a drastic different outcome, and for that you can thank those "bit players".

I have read that 70% of Germany's ground forces were in the east. But by mid 44' the majority of the Luftwaffe fighter force was in the west or Germany proper.

I think that with how close a struggle it was in the East 30% could do allot...but nobody would ever know if it would be enough. There are Historians who debate that Germany could have still won with its forces had it used better planning and the high command had sure war aims instead of constantly changing its goals for example Making Moscow the main goal and then stripping forces then making Moscow the main goal again.