India, Pakistan, and Kashmir

[05_never_again]

How we were so unprepared for WWII was unacceptable and I hold FDR responsible.The rest of the world was at war for several years and we did not think we would have to get in the fight as a world power. Incompetent thinking just like Mr Progressive himself Woodrow Wilson

It's so easy to make that statement today with hindsight. The United States hasn't always thought of itself as a global fighting force, whose responsibility it is to respond to every conflict wherever it is in the world. In fact, when looked at in terms of the entire history of the country, it's a relatively recent phenomenon.

 

[tvolsfan]

What are you babbling about?

Not sure I understand your confusion.

 

[05_never_again]

What are you babbling about?

He means that this (Balkanization - Wikipedia) is not going to happen in the United States.

If you think that we have internal divisions, read about the divisions those countries/cultures have. They pale in comparison, and we don't have to deal with foreign influence that exacerbated those divisions.

There's a little more to the analysis of this stuff than "Hey, remember those other countries that all split up? That could happen here!"

 

[Orangeburst]

It's so easy to make that statement today with hindsight. The United States hasn't always thought of itself as a global fighting force, whose responsibility it is to respond to every conflict wherever it is in the world. In fact, when looked at in terms of the entire history of the country, it's a relatively recent phenomenon.

So in 39 Russia and Hitler invade Poland, Hitler is running thru Central Europe, Japan is in China, Italy is in Africa, Britain and France declare war on Hitler...so every major power of the world at the time was at war and as the preeminent power we would sit it out...mmmkay

 

[05_never_again]

So in 39 Russia and Hitler invade Poland, Hitler is running thru Central Europe, Japan is in China, Italy is in Africa, Britain and France declare war on Hitler...so every major power of the world at the time was at war and as the preeminent power we would sit it out...mmmkay

We thought we could sit out the war in Europe, yes. We kind of saw that as their problem.

We had taken all sorts of non-military actions against Japan, who we saw as the much greater problem.

 

[tvolsfan]

He means that this (Balkanization - Wikipedia) is not going to happen in the United States.

If you think that we have internal divisions, read about the divisions those countries/cultures have. They pale in comparison, and we don't have to deal with foreign influence that exacerbated those divisions.

There's a little more to the analysis of this stuff than "Hey, remember those other countries that all split up? That could happen here!"

Great post. Countries just do not split up over “we’re conservatives and they’re liberals.”

 

[Orangeburst]

Great post. Countries just do not split up over “we’re conservatives and they’re liberals.”

That is not what I said so why the quotation marks?
And btw Balkanization is a generic term so stop being sanctimonious.


verb (used with object), Bal·kan·ized,Bal·kan·iz·ing.
to divide (a country, territory, etc.) intosmall, quarrelsome, ineffectualstates.

 

[tvolsfan]

That is not what I said so why the quotation marks?
And btw Balkanization is a generic term so stop being sanctimonious.


verb (used with object), Bal·kan·ized,Bal·kan·iz·ing.
to divide (a country, territory, etc.) intosmall, quarrelsome, ineffectualstates.

I wasn't quoting you. That just seems to be the general sentiment by those who think we are heading for a split over partisan bickering.

And the US isn't close to balkanization, regardless of how you choose to define the term.

 

[Burhead]

Russia would have no chance in a conventional war against NATO. That isn't to say they couldn't/wouldn't inflict big losses (they would), but they'd have zero chance of winning a conflict.

They wouldn't have to "win" the conflict in the military sense. The only forces I could see standing up against a Russian assault would be US, French, and to a lesser extent Polish forces. The German military is in such a state of disrepair its not even funny and the budget cuts and downsizing of the British Armed Forces is laughable. The Western Europeans are a lot like us, if they suffer losses the domestic populations of those countries (and our's) would sue for peace quickly ("Why do I have to die for eastern Europeans?"). As others have said I don't see any modern Western country having the stomach for full-scale conventional fight with a power that is in comparable strength.

 

[LouderVol]

They wouldn't have to "win" the conflict in the military sense. The only forces I could see standing up against a Russian assault would be US, French, and to a lesser extent Polish forces. The German military is in such a state of disrepair its not even funny and the budget cuts and downsizing of the British Armed Forces is laughable. The Western Europeans are a lot like us, if they suffer losses the domestic populations of those countries (and our's) would sue for peace quickly ("Why do I have to die for eastern Europeans?"). As others have said I don't see any modern Western country having the stomach for full-scale conventional fight with a power that is in comparable strength.

its why Putin's strategy of microaggressions is effective. we don't care. Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea, 50 years ago would have led to outright violence. now its a fart in the wind

 

[LouderVol]

So in 39 Russia and Hitler invade Poland, Hitler is running thru Central Europe, Japan is in China, Italy is in Africa, Britain and France declare war on Hitler...so every major power of the world at the time was at war and as the preeminent power we would sit it out...mmmkay

France and Britain weren't prepared. Russia wasn't prepared, and they were already fighting the japs. it wasn't just a US issue.

 

[Burhead]

France and Britain weren't prepared. Russia wasn't prepared, and they were already fighting the japs. it wasn't just a US issue.

Its fun to debate but I don't think even if the US had an expeditionary force joining the British and French forces in western Europe 1939/1940 it wouldn't have made much difference (It would have meant another army trying to escape Dunkirk). They would have been pushed off the continent all the same. No country was prepared for what the Wehermact was doing in the early war period.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Its fun to debate but I don't think even if the US had an expeditionary force joining the British and French forces in western Europe 1939/1940 it wouldn't have made much difference (It would have meant another army trying to escape Dunkirk). They would have been pushed off the continent all the same. No country was prepared for what the Wehermact was doing in the early war period.

I have read sources before in some of my dads military stuff that said basically if we hadnt made so many advances in technology like getting p51s and later with the Merlin engines so that our bombers could be escorted all the way to Germany instead of losing half or sometimes nearly all of them to German fighters...that we may have lost the war anyway, or at least been stuck there for years more. Certainly not jist the planes though, our first tanks were garbage compared to their counterparts, even rifles were much better by the end of the war. Our ability to adapt, and then outproduce Germany in our factories back home won the war for us. Well, that and Hitler being dumb enough to attack Russia and fight 2 fronts at the same time in Europe.

Edit: just my opinion based on what i have read. I am not a ww2 buff, and some here know much more about it than i do. Pretty sure that 72vol was around for both WWs...jk

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[Orangeburst]

I have read sources before in some of my dads military stuff that said basically if we hadnt made so many advances in technology like getting p51s and later with the Merlin engines so that our bombers could be escorted all the way to Germany instead of losing half or sometimes nearly all of them to German fighters...that we may have lost the war anyway, or at least been stuck there for years more. Certainly not jist the planes though, our first tanks were garbage compared to their counterparts, even rifles were much better by the end of the war. Our ability to adapt, and then outproduce Germany in our factories back home won the war for us. Well, that and Hitler being dumb enough to attack Russia and fight 2 fronts at the same time in Europe.

Edit: just my opinion based on what i have read. I am not a ww2 buff, and some here know much more about it than i do. Pretty sure that was around for both WWs...jk

Actually did Hitler not have like 4 fronts? Italy and Africa and maybe even other countries like Greece, Norway etc could be considered fronts. They were freakin everywhere.
Hard to believe just Germany Italy and Japan caused so much destruction

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I agree.. he was fightin everybody but his mama at the same time, from a country smaller than some US states. Hard to fathom. Our intelligence had to suck also to not know that they produced all they did before the war. If any country today increased their military by 10x...there would be preemptive strikes.

 

[Grand Vol]

Of course they do. And I have no doubt we'll do it to ourselves. But it isn't happening imminently. And it doesn't have to be a spectacular collapse either. The British Empire, for example, did not spectacularly collapse and they are still a wealthy country today. The biggest reason for that is look at who are "rivals" are at the moment. That's why I keep saying geopolitics is about relative, no absolute, standing. If our current situation means we have the flu, then much of the rest of the world has terminal cancer. If perfection, or near perfection, is the standard, then yes, things don't look very good.

I don't think he suggested it was happening imminently. The British example is certainly a good one to use if such a country slowly declines. However, the most noticeable difference being is they were spread out around the world and let their possessions go one by one until very few remain these days. On the other hand, we're pretty centrally located without major overseas "provinces" of our own. A very distinct difference in what will eventually be our fall from grace.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I fear the cancer that is socialism will be the agent of our demise. Socialism and government bloat destroys countries that are economically healthy and close to self sufficient. We are in debt up to our eyeballs already and many here are pushing to implement these stupid policies and programs that we can never afford. The freeloaders will soon outnumber the hard workers, and that coupled with our societal immorality and movement away from God will seal the fate of the greatest country this world has ever known. What a disgrace to all the young men who gave their lives fighting against the spread of communism in Korea and Viet Nam to see their beloved home country heading to enact those same socialist programs.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Whats the deal there between those arab countries, Ras? Is it a shiite versus sunni muslims thing? Or just rivalry and competition for resources and clout in that region? I can see why Iran doesnt get along with many of their neighbors, they typically arent arabs, and are a different brand of islam...but why are the other arabs infighting?

 

[LouderVol]

Its fun to debate but I don't think even if the US had an expeditionary force joining the British and French forces in western Europe 1939/1940 it wouldn't have made much difference (It would have meant another army trying to escape Dunkirk). They would have been pushed off the continent all the same. No country was prepared for what the Wehermact was doing in the early war period.

exactly.

 

[tennvols77]

Actually did Hitler not have like 4 fronts? Italy and Africa and maybe even other countries like Greece, Norway etc could be considered fronts. They were freakin everywhere.
Hard to believe just Germany Italy and Japan caused so much destruction

Germany, by command of Hitler, especially during '43 on had a sizable force in Norway, sizable enough that talk of the tank fighting in the Ardennes Battle of the bulge '44-'45 might have been different. Hitler would not release the force from up there.

"Norway was the most heavily fortified country during the war: several hundred thousand German soldiers were stationed in Norway."

 

[Orangeburst]

exactly.

Nm

 

[LouderVol]

I have read sources before in some of my dads military stuff that said basically if we hadnt made so many advances in technology like getting p51s and later with the Merlin engines so that our bombers could be escorted all the way to Germany instead of losing half or sometimes nearly all of them to German fighters...that we may have lost the war anyway, or at least been stuck there for years more. Certainly not jist the planes though, our first tanks were garbage compared to their counterparts, even rifles were much better by the end of the war. Our ability to adapt, and then outproduce Germany in our factories back home won the war for us. Well, that and Hitler being dumb enough to attack Russia and fight 2 fronts at the same time in Europe.

Edit: just my opinion based on what i have read. I am not a ww2 buff, and some here know much more about it than i do. Pretty sure that 72vol was around for both WWs...jk

it was mostly design choices Germany made early, that allowed others to react. and while they had the edge there was no drive to push them much further.

Germans had no real strategic bombers.
Germans had no larger caliber man portable weapons like our B.A.R.s
The germans were also crippled by production limitations on rare materials, not just oil. And not just because of our bombers, although they definitely helped.

 

[Grand Vol]

it was mostly design choices Germany made early, that allowed others to react. and while they had the edge there was no drive to push them much further.

Germans had no real strategic bombers.
Germans had no larger caliber man portable weapons like our B.A.R.s
The germans were also crippled by production limitations on rare materials, not just oil. And not just because of our bombers, although they definitely helped.

They had enough bombers, even though they weren't "strategic" bombers. They just decided to stop going after the airfields and industrial complexes during the Battle of Britain and went after the cities instead. Had they continued to go after infrastructure and industry instead of reprisal raids against the civilian population, they very well might have brought the RAF to its knees and been able to invade.

The way the Soviets moved everything east of the Ural Mountains hurt because nobody had a bomber capable of reaching the factories. Not even the B-29 could have reached them.

Two big mistakes, not putting the boot to the UK's throat and invading the Soviet Union.

 

[05_never_again]

I don't think he suggested it was happening imminently. The British example is certainly a good one to use if such a country slowly declines. However, the most noticeable difference being is they were spread out around the world and let their possessions go one by one until very few remain these days. On the other hand, we're pretty centrally located without major overseas "provinces" of our own. A very distinct difference in what will eventually be our fall from grace.

We more or less do have overseas provinces. Our presence is very spread out throughout the world, even more so than the British Empire's was.