War's vanishing world in Europe

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by 3Jane

That is of course how the two world wars were prevented.

Who had the superior firepower in both wars at the beginning? Germany and ????? Most nations closed their minds to the tell tale signs because it was easier to hope than take preventative action. You have a big barrel sticking in the belligerents face they wouldn't risk it. Nations attack only when they think they can win.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

Didn't see that one coming...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

...Nations attack only when they think they can win.

Very true words my friend.

-S

[FIREWALL]

The guy third from the left looks familiar. :p

[AntEater]

The "effeminate Europe" thing is BS.
First, I feel personally insulted by it.
Second, there are other ways of being manly than constantly talking about killing or preparing to kill or focusing your entire policy on killing people.

The notion that americans are more war like might stem from the fact that nobody (except for some japanese baloons) ever terror-bombed US cities and no one except americans themselves ever fought a land war on american soil, and even that was a long time ago. Most americans know war from TV. Those on this forum might be different, though.
Keep in mind most European countries had the equivalent of two or three 911s every day for six years, and many of those who witnessed that are still around. And at least every german, british, french or italian knows someone who was there when it happened. We all grew up with WW2 stories and most of them didnt deal with glory and medals but with nearly burning to death in air raid shelters, getting strafed by fighter-bombers or nearly getting buried alive by a T-34.
Simply put, for Americans war means going there and winning or at least coming back, while for Europeans war means it comes to you and you've got to survive.
Ok, for most americans war actually didn't mean going there but watching a minority of americans go there and most of them came back.
This different view on war goes back far longer than WW2 or WW1. War has always been in Europe. How many wars were fought in the US? Two? Three if you count 1812..
For most Europeans in the past 600 years, wars were something that everyone experienced at least once in their lifetime. European monarchs made war every few years over reasons mostly totally incomprehensible to today's standards.
Some people in Heidelberg were sacked and looted twice by the Imperials, once by the swedes and three times by the french in their lifetimes.
While the battles themselves were not as bloody as today, wars brought plunderings, mass rapes, disease, stolen or failed harvests and political turmoil.
That sounds far away today, but the grandfathers of the soldiers of WW1 still remembered Napoleon's times and our own great-grandfathers still remembered WW1.

I should devote an entire post to the german military today some time, but given the Afghanistan mess, there has been a renewed interest in military affairs in Germany recently.

Finally, you cannot judge a nation or even a continent by what their media writes or what their politicians say.
Of all europeans I know, I'd judge only two or three to be effeminate peacenicks while of all americans I know (in real life) I've sofar failed to find any war-loving "sons of mars" (or primitive bragging warmongers) even among the active servicemen I knew.



BTW, WTF happened to my Avatar????
Is that because i'm an effeminate european?????

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Who had the superior firepower in both wars at the beginning? Germany and ????? Most nations closed their minds to the tell tale signs because it was easier to hope than take preventative action. You have a big barrel sticking in the belligerents face they wouldn't risk it. Nations attack only when they think they can win.

I do not understand your point and to my poor brain it seems you contradict yourself by saying on the one hand nations only go to war if they think they can win, and on the other hand the possession of superior firepower is the only assurance of peace. Surely if you think you have superior firepower, how can you not also think you can win a fight?

There are hundreds of books detailing the origin of WW1, and many of them will cite the arms race between the great powers as being one of the primary causes. This was coupled with a belief in the power of the offensive and a failure to grasp that at that time the strategic balance had shifted strongly in favour of the defensive. Along with lots of other reasons too..

An arms race being excatly the situation whereby each power tries to attain superiority of firepower without decisive results. Clearly in this case the fact that no one power had superiorty did not lead to peace.

However, on the otherhand, the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was because it did believe it had superiority of firepower. It also believed that noone else would think it worth fighting about becasue the strength of his army would deter others.

The US on the otherhand felt it had ample superiority of firepower to go ahead and fight the Gulf War with reasonable expectations of winning at low cost to themselves in terms of blood.

However look at the second Gulf War. The reason the US attacked Iraq with such blithe disregard for the consequences is precisely because of confidence in the vast superiority of its firepower.

And I put it to you that the reason neither the US nor the USSR attacked each other was because neither power believed it had the superiorty of firepower necessary to win at acceptable loss to themselves.

Thus in conclusion i say that the relationship of superiority of firepower to the incidence of war is not as simple as you stated

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by sonar732

Good article...I'm just waiting for Sky to give his typical page an a half rendition.

yep me too, waiting for the 5 page essay..

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

Thus in conclusion i say that the relationship of superiority of firepower to the incidence of war is not as simple as you stated

Nice post Joe! Well thought out and articulated. As usual as humans we attempt to simplify the complex. War's and their causes are extremely complex and simply stating that this one factor or the other is the root cause is naive in the extreme.

[bradclark1]

I do not understand your point and to my poor brain it seems you contradict yourself by saying on the one hand nations only go to war if they think they can win, and on the other hand the possession of superior firepower is the only assurance of peace. Surely if you think you have superior firepower, how can you not also think you can win a fight?

Let me put it like this. If France had superior firepower Germany would not have attacked. If Germany was better informed and more aware about the Soviet military Germany would not have attacked in WW2.
If I have a knife and you have a 357 magnum I won't attack you. I wouldn't even want to make you mad at me. If that is the case there is no fight. You have superior firepower therefore I won't attack. Turn that around. I have a 357 magnum and all you have is a knife, you are toast my friend. Understand?

There are hundreds of books detailing the origin of WW1, and many of them will cite the arms race between the great powers as being one of the primary causes. This was coupled with a belief in the power of the offensive and a failure to grasp that at that time the strategic balance had shifted strongly in favour of the defensive. Along with lots of other reasons too..

Hate to tell you but you don't know what you are talking about.
The arms race was naval only. Germany wanted to be "the" naval superpower. My take on the reason for the war was ill feelings over the war of 1870 and the lands that France took plus the huge amount of steel and coal mines on that land. Those natural resources had to be brought in by ship because Germany had very small quantities within there borders.
Austria thought they were badder then what they actually were and thought they would teach the Serbs a lesson. Throw in all the treaties that were out there and you have a mess.
From 1870 to 1945 was one big war with breaks in between. It was a lot about anger and payback to put it as simply as possible.

An arms race being excatly the situation whereby each power tries to attain superiority of firepower without decisive results. Clearly in this case the fact that no one power had superiority did not lead to peace.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The only race was naval power. The Kaiser thought GB wouldn't even get involved so this "arms race" wasn't even a factor. I haven't read a book yet that call "arms race" a factor. You talk like it was decided in advance who would be involved. That is a way wrong assumption. If the war had gone according to plan GB and Russia wouldn't have even been in it. The low lands would have just rolled over and let Germany use them as an invasion route to take France from the flank. So before reality set in Germany and Austria thought they had the superiority to win.

However, on the otherhand, the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was because it did believe it had superiority of firepower. It also believed that noone else would think it worth fighting about becasue the strength of his army would deter others.

The US on the otherhand felt it had ample superiority of firepower to go ahead and fight the Gulf War with reasonable expectations of winning at low cost to themselves in terms of blood.

Right about the first part wrong about the second. Iraq took a gamble that the west would not intervene. He lost the gamble. Also it was a coalition led by the U.S. not just the U.S.

However look at the second Gulf War. The reason the US attacked Iraq with such blithe disregard for the consequences is precisely because of confidence in the vast superiority of its firepower.

No. What the U.S. did was think that Iraqis would be so grateful for making them free. They won the war then the Arab reality kicked in.
They didn't have a blithe disregard they totally misunderstood the Arab mind. This is a whole other topic.

And I put it to you that the reason neither the US nor the USSR attacked each other was because neither power believed it had the superiorty of firepower necessary to win at acceptable loss to themselves.

I'd say that was common sense. They each had a 357 magnum pointing at each others head.

Thus in conclusion i say that the relationship of superiority of firepower to the incidence of war is not as simple as you stated

Without writing a volume it is as simply stated as possible. If you want to argue history read up on it a little. Not trying to be smart ass when I say that.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Nice post Joe! Well thought out and articulated. As usual as humans we attempt to simplify the complex. War's and their causes are extremely complex and simply stating that this one factor or the other is the root cause is naive in the extreme.

It also helps to know a little of the history of that time frame. Arms race was maybe eight percent of nothing much. The Kaiser assumed that Great Britain would not get involved so the "arms race" wasn't even a factor.

[CCIP]

America: Priding itself on war-readiness, having fought no wars on home soil for over 140 years and having lost a low single-digit percentage of troops and a miniscule fraction of civilians out of the total WWI and II casualties and as compared to the Europeans.

Seriously, I would love to see what the macho conservative American's attitude to war would be tens of millions of dead sons and daughters later :hmm:

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Let me put it like this. If France had superior firepower Germany would not have attacked. If Germany was better informed and more aware about the Soviet military Germany would not have attacked in WW2.
If I have a knife and you have a 357 magnum I won't attack you. I wouldn't even want to make you mad at me. If that is the case there is no fight. You have superior firepower therefore I won't attack. Turn that around. I have a 357 magnum and all you have is a knife, you are toast my friend. Understand?

Agreed, but what if the person intending to do the attacking IS the one with the gun and his intended victim only has a knife? You seem to imply that such a scenario is implausible. But cases where the very heavily armed attack the far less-well armed are many.

A few additional examples:
Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union attack Poland in 1939
The US attacks and annexes Native American territory
Britain and France absorb almost all of Africa into their respective Empires
Russia expands all the way to the pacific absorbing any number of central asian nations
China invades Tibet.

No. What the U.S. did was think that Iraqis would be so grateful for making them free. They won the war then the Arab reality kicked in.
They didn't have a blithe disregard they totally misunderstood the Arab mind. This is a whole other topic.

I think your response avoids the main point - which is that the fact of US superiorty of firepower did not avert war

I'd say that was common sense. They each had a 357 magnum pointing at each others head.

So neither had superiority of firepower and the result was an uneasy peace.

Clearly I don't know as much of history as you do, but I am of the opinion that cases abound where the stronger attack the weaker. Wars may start because one party perceives their chance of winning as high and the rewards worth the risk. Some wars become nasty and long when the other party turns out to be tougher than the attacker supposed.

Much of the quest for nations to have an adequate defense is because they have long perceived weakness to be an invitation to attack, and not a guarantee that it won't happen.

Once a nation's quest for security develops to such a stage that other nations begin to fear its capabilites they will also try to strengthen themselves, by alliance or by rearmamanent on the grounds that if they appear to be weak they themeselves are liable to be attacked.

Am I missing your point here or what? Please explain more clearly why it is that peace is guaranteed if one side is far stronger than the other. What stops the stronger from attacking?

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

America: Priding itself on war-readiness, having fought no wars on home soil for over 140 years and having lost a low single-digit percentage of troops and a miniscule fraction of civilians out of the total WWI and II casualties and as compared to the Europeans.

Seriously, I would love to see what the macho conservative American's attitude to war would be tens of millions of dead sons and daughters later :hmm:

Probably the same attitude as anyone else who has lost a child but have you ever thought that our attitudes on war might be at least part of why we HAVEN'T had to fight a war on our soil in 140 years (not counting Pearl Harbor, Wake and the Aleutian islands of course)?

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by August

Probably the same attitude as anyone else who has lost a child but have you ever thought that our attitudes on war might be at least part of why we HAVEN'T had to fight a war on our soil in 140 years (not counting Pearl Harbor, Wake and the Aleutian islands of course)?

And do you not think that might have something to do with your geographical situation?

[bradclark1]

Agreed, but what if the person intending to do the attacking IS the one with the gun and his intended victim only has a knife? You seem to imply that such a scenario is implausible. But cases where the very heavily armed attack the far less-well armed are many.

My whole position is if a peacefully nation has superior firepower an aggressor most likely will not attack so it stands to reason that an aggressor with superior firepower will attack the weaker nation. "Nations attack only when they think they can win." I said that on my first post. That covers 90% on the nature of warring nations. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.

I think your response avoids the main point - which is that the fact of US superiority of firepower did not avert war

It's not a point. The U.S. invaded Iraq to remove a regime because this administration thought that Iraq had WMD and supported terrorism. That was supposedly the reason anyway. I think history proved that Saddam was a gambler and bet big. He lost big.

Much of the quest for nations to have an adequate defense is because they have long perceived weakness to be an invitation to attack, and not a guarantee that it won't happen.
Once a nation's quest for security develops to such a stage that other nations begin to fear its capabilities they will also try to strengthen themselves, by alliance or by rearmamanent on the grounds that if they appear to be weak they themeselves are liable to be attacked.
Am I missing your point here or what? Please explain more clearly why it is that peace is guaranteed if one side is far stronger than the other. What stops the stronger from attacking?

You are right on the first two. We have a disconnect somewhere.
"Nations attack only when they think they can win." When they think they are stronger.
Germany had more than quadruple the large caliber artillery as France. What France had was mainly 75mm.
Germany had triple the machine guns.
Germany had a bigger standing army than France. France was mainly reserves.
If France was better armed and had a larger standing army than Germany in all likelyhood they would not have been attacked. You aren't going to attack another nation if you stand a good chance of being defeated.
There are no guarantee's but the odds are it's unlikely that a leopard will attack a tiger.

What stops the stronger from attacking?

Nothing stops the stronger from attacking if it's an aggressor and thinks it would win. If however a nation is peaceful and has a strong military it is unlikely that a weaker nation will attack.