I haven't checked any of this for historical accuracy, but the read is interesting.
Quote:
SOME OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II . MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD, NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2007.
This is an EXCELLENT essay . Well thought out and presented.
Historical Significance
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat . The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials .
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war .
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 , and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us . It was a dicey thing . We had few allies .
France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers . Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe . Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia .
Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe .
America 's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland , Canada , Australia , and Russia . That was about it All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel .
The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).
Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could .
Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.
Ironically, Russia saved America 's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany .
Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war .
All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world .
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated . They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel , and purge the world of Jews . This is their mantra . (goal)
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies.
The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i . e . , the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . . . . in Iraq . Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or Berlin , but in Iraq , where we are doing two important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein . Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians .
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq . We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed .
WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor . It began with the Japanese invasion of China . It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . . a 27 year war.
WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States ) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .
The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism .
This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay . The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be .
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it .
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East . The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.
The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless some body prevents them from getting them.
We have four options:
1 . We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2 . We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3 . We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America .
OR
4 . We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe . It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win . The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them .
Remember, perspective is every thing, and America 's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989; forty-two years!
Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany !
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan . World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq . The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944 , the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.
In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far .
The stakes are at least as high . . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law) .
It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc . , but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion
__________________
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. ~ Benjamin Franklin
This is an EXCELLENT essay . Well thought out and presented.
This is a terrible mix of uninformed statements, infested with inaccuracies and falsehoods.
Quote:
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat.
That would be 68 to 66 years ago.
Quote:
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war .
Nobody wanted to do anything with any war. But there was a lot of money in it. So when saying "Americans didn't want..." it would be prudent to define which Americans. Big business certainly had a lot to gain, and the US as a whole a lot to lose if they let Germany dominate a large trading area. WW2 was an economic boom to the US economy.
Quote:
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 , and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us .
As a matter of fact, Germany declared war on the US on Dec 11, before the US declared war on Germany.
Quote:
Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe .
Never heard that. Even Hitler was not as stupid as to conceive such an idea.
Quote:
America 's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland , Canada , Australia , and Russia .
The list is incomplete, even though the statement suggests it is.
Quote:
That was about it All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel .
Incorrect. There were some European countries which were not under German occupation.
Quote:
The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
And yet Americans supplied England and the USSR with weapons? Very altruistic indeed. Oh, and what was it that the Japanese destroyed in Pearl Harbor? Weren't those warships?
Quote:
Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could .
Rubble? If Brussels bombed into rubble in 1940 then how come it was most heavily destroyed in 1944/45?
Quote:
Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.
In fact, England was a minor threat. Their land army was about the size of that which was available to Czechoslovakia in 1938, i.e. insignificant. England had other things going for it: geography, American help, colonial resources (men and funds), foreign soldiers.
Quote:
Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers
Even the most nationalistic Soviet Army Propaganda officers woul not offer such crap. As a mater of fact, total Soviet losses during WW2 are estimated at 23.2 million. Civilian population of Stalingrad and Moscow combined was around 5 milion people. Were the missing 19 million conceived and born during the sieges, and then every single one of them killed?
Quote:
All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.
All this is a bunch of an statements by someone who not only is uneducated in the matters he writes about, but silly enough to sign the garbage with his name.
I didn't address things such as "what wudda if something shudda". These would be just speculations. Sometimes speculations are interesting exercise, but certainly not from this guy. He is strikingly ignorant.
The 1st part of the essay is not worth the keyboard used to type it. The second has some gaping holes too. I may address in the next day or three.
Hitler almost achieved air supremacy but the problem was that his plan was not going as well a planned as his commanders had put aside a few weeks to gain air supremacy and this plan had failed.
The British naval fleet equalled the German one in quantity and quality and so they could not risk sending this over until they owned the skies.
The British air fleet was on the verge of collapse and it was a bad tactical decision on his part.
btw - Hitler may have not been stupid in the begining but over time he became extremely stupid as he was replacing proper German, Vermacht generals with youngsters trained via the Hitler youth system. - Thank god the guy was such an idiot.
This is a terrible mix of uninformed statements, infested with inaccuracies and falsehoods.
That would be 68 to 66 years ago.
Nobody wanted to do anything with any war. But there was a lot of money in it. So when saying "Americans didn't want..." it would be prudent to define which Americans. Big business certainly had a lot to gain, and the US as a whole a lot to lose if they let Germany dominate a large trading area. WW2 was an economic boom to the US economy.
As a matter of fact, Germany declared war on the US on Dec 11, before the US declared war on Germany.
Never heard that. Even Hitler was not as stupid as to conceive such an idea.
The list is incomplete, even though the statement suggests it is.
Incorrect. There were some European countries which were not under German occupation.
And yet Americans supplied England and the USSR with weapons? Very altruistic indeed. Oh, and what was it that the Japanese destroyed in Pearl Harbor? Weren't those warships?
Rubble? If Brussels bombed into rubble in 1940 then how come it was most heavily destroyed in 1944/45?
In fact, England was a minor threat. Their land army was about the size of that which was available to Czechoslovakia in 1938, i.e. insignificant. England had other things going for it: geography, American help, colonial resources (men and funds), foreign soldiers.
Even the most nationalistic Soviet Army Propaganda officers woul not offer such crap. As a mater of fact, total Soviet losses during WW2 are estimated at 23.2 million. Civilian population of Stalingrad and Moscow combined was around 5 milion people. Were the missing 19 million conceived and born during the sieges, and then every single one of them killed?
All this is a bunch of an statements by someone who not only is uneducated in the matters he writes about, but silly enough to sign the garbage with his name.
I didn't address things such as "what wudda if something shudda". These would be just speculations. Sometimes speculations are interesting exercise, but certainly not from this guy. He is strikingly ignorant.
The 1st part of the essay is not worth the keyboard used to type it. The second has some gaping holes too. I may address in the next day or three.
Right. Like I said, I didn't check out all the historical particulars because to me exact accuracy isn't really the point here (yeah, it adds to the credibility of the source if they do their homework, but that's not what I mean.) I usually would never post this type of thing without checking accuracy first, except that in this case the idea and spirit behind it is so correct and right that it doesn't matter if the recollection of exact dates and alliance numbers is there.
__________________
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. ~ Benjamin Franklin
Though the historical facts aren't the point, they do play a significant role in making connections between WWII and the current "war on terror." And if those facts aren't straight, the analogy the article presents falls apart.
I personally see a tenuous connection at best between WWII and the current war on terror. The analogy is based on some large assumptions that may or may not have evidence backing them up. One major difference here is the role of the United States. In the war on terror our pre-emptive war strategy arguably represents aggression. We played a part, not the only part of course, in instigating this whole mess. And we still don't seem to have a clear picture of who exactly was behind the 911 attacks. In WWII we had clear enemies. In the war on terror the "enemy" is nebulous, scattered, diffuse. Does Osama Bin Laden lead them? He seems to lead some of them, but he doesn't clearly lead all of them. The scariest thing about this new war (and is it a war?) is that no one really knows what needs to happen to "win." And what does winning mean in this situation? WWII had some pretty clear objectives: dethrone the axis powers, make them surrender. We knew who they were, we knew their leaders. They declared war against one another. Who do we need to dethrone or defeat for the war on terror to end? Various opinions seem to exist.
Thats a good article Ferre, and one that I believe holds a lot of water.
In my opinion, America needs Iran to defy them and carry on with their program otherwise they wouldn't be able to try to step in and Iran does have some decent resources of liquid black gold that also looks pretty tasty to the Western countries.
Things in red are what are in the post, as usual.
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat . The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials .
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war .
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 , and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us . It was a dicey thing . We had few allies .
France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers . Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe . Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia .
Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe .
America 's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland , Canada , Australia , and Russia . That was about it All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel.
True, but I doubt those countries that were "under the Nazi heel" would have just laid low and let it slide. No. Some, at least some, people were planning and trying to fight it. [/color]
The US was certainly not prepared for war.
Yes, but the only people that are truly prepared for war are the ones that initiate it.
That's really all I have to say because as a fellow Conservative, I agree with most of the rest of your statements.
This is a terrible mix of uninformed statements, infested with inaccuracies and falsehoods.
You say that, but you don't prove it. Where's your base?
Quote:
That would be 68 to 66 years ago.
Ever considered the fact that the years go UP? And we're not here for a god damn history lesson, thank you.
Quote:
Nobody wanted to do anything with any war. But there was a lot of money in it. So when saying "Americans didn't want..." it would be prudent to define which Americans. Big business certainly had a lot to gain, and the US as a whole a lot to lose if they let Germany dominate a large trading area. WW2 was an economic boom to the US economy.
?
What?
Big business in the US gains a lot for the US...the US has...what? You're confusing me. That made no sense at all...
Quote:
As a matter of fact, Germany declared war on the US on Dec 11, before the US declared war on Germany.
He never said that Germany declared war after us. You're arguing with a statement that isn't there (henceforth, you're not arguing).
Quote:
Never heard that. Even Hitler was not as stupid as to conceive such an idea.
So the fact that you haven't heard about it makes it a falsehood? That holds the same political fallacy as this: I've never heard your name before (littleFella). That makes you nonexistent.
Quote:
The list is incomplete, even though the statement suggests it is.
Note he says "America's only allies THEN were..."
You get my point there?
Quote:
Incorrect. There were some European countries which were not under German occupation.
Do you know what a hyperbole is?
Quote:
And yet Americans supplied England and the USSR with weapons? Very altruistic indeed. Oh, and what was it that the Japanese destroyed in Pearl Harbor? Weren't those warships?
Yes, they were warships. But just because you cut down on military funding doesn't mean that it disappears.
Quote:
Rubble? If Brussels bombed into rubble in 1940 then how come it was most heavily destroyed in 1944/45?
He's right there.
Quote:
In fact, England was a minor threat. Their land army was about the size of that which was available to Czechoslovakia in 1938, i.e. insignificant. England had other things going for it: geography, American help, colonial resources (men and funds), foreign soldiers.
Please explain.
Quote:
All this is a bunch of an statements by someone who not only is uneducated in the matters he writes about, but silly enough to sign the garbage with his name.
I didn't address things such as "what wudda if something shudda". These would be just speculations. Sometimes speculations are interesting exercise, but certainly not from this guy. He is strikingly ignorant.
The 1st part of the essay is not worth the keyboard used to type it. The second has some gaping holes too. I may address in the next day or three.
1.) So I'm guessing you've never pretended to know what you or other people are talking about when you really don't? Face it, we've all done it before.
2.) And you are strikingly ignorant in the fact that you are strikingly ignorant.
Article has several good points. It was the pacifists who are to blame for 6 million Jews being killed; the war mongers would have put a stop to that.
Same in Iraq, or anywhere mass murder by government is being allowed to continue in the name of "peace".
Quote:
The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq . The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944 , the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.
The Liberals in the US of A have made it very clear to enemies of the US: If you want to defeat the US, just kill over 3,000 soldiers, and the pussies in the US will wave their white flags like crazy and beg for the chance to kiss ass. Alternatively, just keep the fight up for over 5 years. Liberals in America have no stomach for 5 years of fighting. We'll put our tails between our legs and go home, and we may even convert to Islam to appease those who killed our soldiers.
Well said John Scott .................................................. .................................................. .................................................
It is true, however, that the Soviet Union lost over twenty-sex million people during the war (about half of all WW II casualties). The Battle for Stalingrad was considered the turning point of the war (the first time Germany suffered a defeat) and their subsequent victories at Moscow and Ukraine eventually starved the Nazi regime of badly needed food and oil. The tremendous losses suffered by the Soviet Union at the hands of Germany, helps account for their post-war attitudes toward Europe and the U.S.
This is a very good example of the folly of invading countries and attempting to suppress the native population. The population tends to fight like the dickens when invaded.
Article has several good points. It was the pacifists who are to blame for 6 million Jews being killed; the war mongers would have put a stop to that.
Same in Iraq, or anywhere mass murder by government is being allowed to continue in the name of "peace".
The Liberals in the US of A have made it very clear to enemies of the US: If you want to defeat the US, just kill over 3,000 soldiers, and the pussies in the US will wave their white flags like crazy and beg for the chance to kiss ass. Alternatively, just keep the fight up for over 5 years. Liberals in America have no stomach for 5 years of fighting. We'll put our tails between our legs and go home, and we may even convert to Islam to appease those who killed our soldiers.
I think that if all of the brave neo-cons, who are all well within military age, such as Ann Coulter, Bush's daughters, etc., (unforuntately, Limbaugh, Cheney, and the rest were able to dodge military service), volunteered for military service, there would be more than enough recruits to fight this war for another ten years. It is all a matter of going to the front lines. I would pay their airfare.
