The "Wars of the Past" Thread

[Pink Ranger]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Presumably America will remain the dominant power until at least the middle of the 21st century. China may become a superpower, but like the Soviet Union, it wasn't built on a stable foundation. It has some major obstacles in its way.

Things will get interesting in the next ten years. The Chinese plan to put a red flag on the moon. That might rile America. A second Cold War may be on the horizon.

A second cold war won't happen, mainly due to global trade. China is a participant in the global economy in a way that the Soviet Union never was, and could never hope to be. That factor alone will stop global tensions from boiling past a certain point.

The only major risk to China is how it handles its internal politics when it experiences its inevitable recession. Maybe the veneer of stability that comes when people are drinking champagne will fall away, and how China deals with that will define it as much as the past 10 years of economic expansion has.

[DoomsdayApex]

As a former history major, World War II is unarguably the most significant and influential war in America's history. This war singlehandedly changed everything we know about America's politics and we, as citizens, still live in those 'remnants' till this very day.

If I could make a book recommendation for those interested in pursuing a similar field, I'd recommend reading a book by my former professor (who was featured on The History Channel) regarding the events of Pearl Harbor, FDR's and Hitler's Declaration of War and World War II.

It's a highly controversial book considering the material, and rejection by a large portion of historians but, to me, the author makes a stellar and well-organized argument.

[Kahran Ramsus]

World War I is actually one of the more popular subjects for war films. It isn't as big as World War II for sure, but the conflict competes with Vietnam for the #2 slot. Actually, I think the history of cinema has more to do with it than anything else. World War II and Vietnam occurred during two of the biggest stages in the history of film, the Hollywood Golden Age of the late 30s and 40s and the New Hollywood movement of the late 60s/early 70s. Meanwhile World War I occurred when Hollywood was in its infancy. Even then there are plenty of classic World War I films, including probably the best war movie ever made, Lawrence of Arabia.

As a former history major, World War II is unarguably the most significant and influential war in America's history. This war singlehandedly changed everything we know about America's politics and we, as citizens, still live in those 'remnants' till this very day.

I would dispute that. World War II didn't transform the nation like the Civil War did. With the Civil War, the United States was a completely different country coming out of it, not only due to the influx of millions of new freed citizens and the destruction of half the country, but it forever transferred the power in the country from the individual states to the federal government in Washington. The Civil War is the pivot around which all of American history revolves.

[chamber-music]

Henry Tandey was the British soldier who let Hitler live. Tadey was also the most decorated British private in WW1.

Originally Posted by JJJ's Ulcer

I love military history. I have a book on the greatest battles of the past five thousand years, including famous battles, causes, technology at the time and strategies, soldier statistics and casualties and how the aftermath changed the countries involved.

World War 2 was epic, but it's focused on so much that other conflicts get overlooked. I've been on a real World War One kick the last year or so. Read some great history books on it and some good novels like 'All Quiet on the Western Front', 'A Long, Long Way' and Birdsong' and some of Wilfred Owen's and Sassoon's poetry. The stuff about the Christmas truce, conditions in the trenches, the madness resulting from using 20th century killing machines in tandem with dated 19th century strategies, the gas attacks, the primitive dog-fights, Battle of the Somme, some fascinating stuff.

An Tv adaptaion of Birdsong was on the BBC recently.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

As a former history major, World War II is unarguably the most significant and influential war in America's history. This war singlehandedly changed everything we know about America's politics and we, as citizens, still live in those 'remnants' till this very day.

If I could make a book recommendation for those interested in pursuing a similar field, I'd recommend reading a book by my former professor (who was featured on The History Channel) regarding the events of Pearl Harbor, FDR's and Hitler's Declaration of War and World War II.

It's a highly controversial book considering the material, and rejection by a large portion of historians but, to me, the author makes a stellar and well-organized argument.

That's an interesting view. I'd say WWII is inarguably one of the most important wars in world history and it defined the course of the 20th century. However, if the Union had lost the Civil War there would likely be no US. So, it's hard to say one is more important than the other for Americans.

The three wars that defined the US:

-The Revolutionary War created the nation.

-The Civil War saved the nation and redefined its unity and the relation between citizens and their government.

-World War II made the nation the world's preeminent superpower. One who took a "lesson" from that war about being hands-on and "preventive" in other nation's affairs.

Each of them had a profound impact and effect us to this day.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by 8wid

^America's military supremacy of the world is over after the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is our reputation and respect diminished/damaged? Yes. Does that mean our "supremacy" is over? Not when we spend more on defense than the next eight militaristic nations in the world combined. Case in point how nothing gets done in terms of military efforts by our allies unless the US is leading the way (Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya). Even if Europe is appalled by what's happening in Syria, they're not going to do anything without US support.

Never had a military occupation lasted so long and produced so little except debt and death.

Vietnam (both France and then the US) and the Soviets in Afghanistan. As awful and wasteful as our wars have been this decade, they aren't on the scale of those tragedies. Tragic for the Afghans in the Russians' case in those years.

[Hobgoblin]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

That's an interesting view. I'd say WWII is inarguably one of the most important wars in world history and it defined the course of the 20th century. However, if the Union had lost the Civil War there would likely be no US. So, it's hard to say one is more important than the other for Americans.

The three wars that defined the US:

-The Revolutionary War created the nation.

-The Civil War saved the nation and redefined its unity and the relation between citizens and their government.

-World War II made the nation the world's preeminent superpower. One who took a "lesson" from that war about being hands-on and "preventive" in other nation's affairs.

Each of them had a profound impact and effect us to this day.

I agree and disagree, Crowe. Everything you said is true but it isnt the whole picture. Since the end of WW2, we have lost a lot of confidence in our leadership and have gotten confused as to the "goodness" of our missions.

1. Korean War. Millions of lives lost and no real gains acquired. Yes South Korea was preserved but it wasn't the knock out to Communism in northeast Asia that we wanted.
2. Vietnam War. Like Korea, but even more so. Not in terms of lives lost, but in the difference in views between the military and the civilian population. Even a difference between people in the civilian population. Vietnam has left such a bad taste in our mouths that every war (except the Gulf War) has been called "this presidents Vietnam."
3. Iraq War. More of the same.

These three wars were wars of ideology, not necessarily of national security. Maybe that is another (unintended) consequence of the Second World War: the belief that we are the good guys and are out to save the day.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Axl Van Sixx

This is debatable. You could argue it ended in a way that ensured the Cold War, because American imperialism and Russian Stalinism represented contradictory political-economic systems with a lot of suspicion on both sides.

Plus, if the Cold War at any point had gone hot (what if the Cuban Missile Crisis turned out differently?), we would look at the Second World War in the same way we look at the First - as setting up an even bigger conflict.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

- Albert Einstein

With the CMC that's a fair point. However, the only way to have prevented the Cold War was to go along with Churchill or Patton's asinine logic and just go from Berlin into Soviet territory (Churchill even wanted to arm German forces to help in the war).

I see the logic in this, but it ended rather in a stalemate of two superpowers, one already having the other in check by firing of nuclear weapons--something that scared Stalin so bad, he gave up plans of invading and conquering SE Asia--Sure, the Cold War could have turned into WWIII but for that I'm still thankful the CMC had Kennedy and Kruschev in power instead of Nixon or Stalin.

Still, fair point.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by 8wid

^America's military supremacy of the world is over after the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never had a military occupation lasted so long and produced so little except debt and death. America's debt maxing out it's GDP next year ensures that the reductions of the number of troops and bases around the world is going to slowly retreat to nothing probably in the next quarter century. The United States will remain an economic power though as the third or fourth largest economy in the world behind China, Japan, and Brazil. China has only been an defensive power of its own territory and has never been an unprovoked invader in its history.

You sell America short. People were saying that during Vietnam, which was much deadlier. America has a few tricks up its sleeve, including the most advanced military technology in the world. Japan will never outperform America economically. They have an aging population. China may eventually outpace America, but it is fundamentally an unstable country. Brazil is a more interesting case. Hard to say how that will develop.

Though I think the people of Tibet would disagree with your views of China not being an unprovoked invader. As will many other neighboring countries in the near future. The fact that Vietnam is flirting with the US is a good indication. As China's might grows, it will get bolder.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Hobgoblin

I agree and disagree, Crowe. Everything you said is true but it isnt the whole picture. Since the end of WW2, we have lost a lot of confidence in our leadership and have gotten confused as to the "goodness" of our missions.

1. Korean War. Millions of lives lost and no real gains acquired. Yes South Korea was preserved but it wasn't the knock out to Communism in northeast Asia that we wanted.
2. Vietnam War. Like Korea, but even more so. Not in terms of lives lost, but in the difference in views between the military and the civilian population. Even a difference between people in the civilian population. Vietnam has left such a bad taste in our mouths that every war (except the Gulf War) has been called "this presidents Vietnam."
3. Iraq War. More of the same.

These three wars were wars of ideology, not necessarily of national security. Maybe that is another (unintended) consequence of the Second World War: the belief that we are the good guys and are out to save the day.

But all of our wars since WWII have stemmed from how the US has viewed its role in the geopolitical theater as a superpower. One of the prevailing notions after WWII ended is that if we had stopped the megalomaniacs when their causes were smaller, the generation-crushing wars could be avoided. Frank Capra's propaganda piece Prelude to War drilled into Americans' heads that we should have stopped Japan during their conquest of Manchuria and Italy's invasion of Ethiopia. If they had been stopped then, it may not have become a clash of civilizations in Europe and the Pacific.

That's why the US viewed stopping the spread of communism, like fascism's spread during the lead up to WWII, in Korea and later Vietnam as stopping a domino effect that would supposedly lead to nuclear/world war between East and West. The US, always convinced they're the good guys, also fights these wars not as imperialistically and bloodthirsty as other superpowers and empires (see: the Soviets in Afghanistan vs. the COIN-strategy the US pursues there and in Iraq).

But all this goes back to us viewing ourselves as a superpower post-WWII and using that power to enhance our interests both actual and perceived. That includes "preventing" another massive war by waging smaller ones. The national psychological damage Vietnam did (and Bush's wars are revisiting) is a country grappling with the use of its imperialistic power and a sense of waste and abuse in the value of lives.

[Hobgoblin]

But you are ignoring what I said. After WW2, it was clear that we were "the good guys." We stopped the Nazis and the Japanese, built the bomb, were standing up to the Soviets, helped the Germans during the Berlin Airlift, etc. Since then our moral certainty is diminished. Its not to degrade the significance of WW2 but a think a footnote needs to be added to your case.

[DACrowe]

I understand that. But our moral certainty has diminished because the US post-WWII has become embroiled in foreign interests they view as potentially dangerous or disadvantageous to us. Truman getting involved in Korea, the first you mentioned, is a direct reaction of the WWII generation at the prospect of communism spreading over free people in SE Asia. Many thought Korea joining by force the communist states of Soviet Russia and China was comparable to Japan's invasion of Manchuria.

So, in a reaction to our experience from WWII, the newly emboldened world superpower of the US intervened in Korea on the side of the south and democracy. It was our first military intervention as a superpower and it was only five years after WWII ended. The mindset WWII's conclusion left in the US was one of the superpower being thrust with a great responsibility to maintain stability in the world through any means (and also pursue our interests).

This is the mindset that led to us turning Cuba into the perpetual crisis it was in the 1960s after it became communist. It is why we became tangled in Vietnam and started a secret war in Cambodia. It's why we propped up strongmen in the Middle East and funneled weapons and money to anti-communist elements in South America as well as anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Our entire foreign policy right through the neoconservatives who whispered in Bush's ears (at least his first four years) were all informed by the "lessons" of WWII. We only had the power to do all these things because of WWII destroying our industrial competition in Europe while giving us militaristic supremacy with nuclear weapons.

Our actions became less morally clear because instead of reacting to existential threats after they have amassed great power and danger like the Nazis and the Empire of Japan, we began trying to prevent any semblance of a threat we (thought we) saw. So, even though Vietnam having a civil war was really not our business or getting involved in our interest, the fear of a "domino effect" that could duplicate a situation similar to WWII pushed three separate Administrations to escalate our presence there until it was a full-blown war.

I guess I'm saying that all these actions were only possible because of our gains from WWII and the logic we used to get involved in each is still informed, in some degree, by WWII. At least pre-9/11.

[Venom75]

I've always believed that Adolf Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Russia. Of course,it's easy to look back now and point to mistakes,but Russia was viewed as very poor back then,especially the military who had suffered under Stalin's purges in the 30's and also had a hard time against a "weaker" opponent in Finland. Hell,everyone thought a German victory was a given.
Also it does rather bother me that Stalin and his regime were not held accountable for helping to start WW2 in the first place. Not to mention their treatment of the Poles and other countries under their rule,such as Finland and the Balkan states. Roosevelt and Churchill were both very naive in dealing with Stalin.

[Schlosser85]

FDR was naive at best, willfully turning a blind eye at worst. Churchill knew exactly who and what Stalin was, and pushed for FDR's support in the later conferences of the war to twist Stalin's arm into granting independence to Soviet-occupied territories post-war. He also didn't get as much support from FDR as he wanted.

FDR was friendlier to Stalin than Truman, probably more than he should have been.

[Venom75]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

FDR was naive at best, willfully turning a blind eye at worst. Churchill knew exactly who and what Stalin was, and pushed for FDR's support in the later conferences of the war to twist Stalin's arm into granting independence to Soviet-occupied territories post-war. He also didn't get as much support from FDR as he wanted.

FDR was friendlier to Stalin than Truman, probably more than he should have been.

I've always wondered if England's best play was to ally with Hitler and Germany. Although they would've played second fiddle to the Reich,their Empire would've remained powerful and their cities intact. Adolf Hitler respected the British and wanted no conflict with them. England may have won the war,but they were no longer a world power and their country was in ruins. Plus,despite their effort to defeat Nazism and "save" Europe,once the war ended most of Europe was under a Stalinist dictatorship any how. So,they help save the continent from one tyranny,only to have it ruled by another.

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Originally Posted by Venom75

I've always wondered if England's best play was to ally with Hitler and Germany. Although they would've played second fiddle to the Reich,their Empire would've remained powerful and their cities intact. Adolf Hitler respected the British and wanted no conflict with them. England may have won the war,but they were no longer a world power and their country was in ruins. Plus,despite their effort to defeat Nazism and "save" Europe,once the war ended most of Europe was under a Stalinist dictatorship any how. So,they help save the continent from one tyranny,only to have it ruled by another.

Seems to me, England came out of the war pretty well off compared to Japan and Germany which were completely decimated. The Blitz was bad, but it had nothing on the Dresden firebombing, Tokyo firebombing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki a-bombing or the complete raping and pillaging that Berlin endured. As well as completely compromising its ideals and moral authority in the world (don't start with the "tell that to India" line, yes I know they were colonial, but their atrocities don't compare to the Third Reich's atrocities), America might have nuked London, the Soviets might have rampaged through the British countryside raping everything in sight and Buckingham Palace would have been draped in giant swastika flags, until a Soviet soldier climbed to the top and hoisted a Soviet flag over it at the conclusion of the war. Call me crazy, but I think the Brits made the right choice. Most of Europe being under Stalinist control is an exaggeration. The East was under Soviet rule. And the "Stalinist dictatorship" seems to have sorted itself out on its own. What countries are Stalinist now? North Korea? I can't believe anyone would seriously make the argument that England would be better off if it had joined up with the genocidal, holocaust machine of the Third Reich.

[Schlosser85]

I think Venom was coming from a pragmatic viewpoint as opposed to a moral one, which is sometimes necessary in an objective analysis of warfare.

You don't win in war by being the nice guy, after all.

Nonetheless, I do think (morally) Britain made the right decision.

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

I think Venom was coming from a pragmatic viewpoint as opposed to a moral one, which is sometimes necessary in an objective analysis of warfare.

You don't win in war by being the nice guy, after all.

Nonetheless, I do think (morally) Britain made the right decision.

Fair enough, but pragmatically it would have been a terrible decision as well for the scenarios I mentioned, possible nuking, firebombings, invasions. Plus, all the trade that would have been lost with the US and other allies. And they would have allied themselves with, moral implications aside, a very unsound, fatally flawed regime that would have self-destructed under its own weight with or without the UK.

[Schlosser85]

Also valid points.

However, Britain siding with the Reich would have made an American invasion of occupied continental Europe much more difficult without British ports to set out from.

The Americans would have had to either conquer Britain first, or stick to defeating the Germans and Italians in North Africa and invade up through Sicily and Italy and eventually into Austria and Germany the way they did, only this time without the other landings in the West drawing German forces away. The stiff resistance encountered in Sicily and Italy likely would have been all the more stiff if the Germans could commit more forces that, in reality, were committed in France.

The most obvious strategy to knock a Nazi-allied Britain out of the war would be a blockade, but German U-Boats would have made that difficult.

I think Britain would eventually have fallen into American hands, and then things may have proceeded much as they did in reality, but it would have prolonged the war, possibly significantly.

[8wid]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

You sell America short. People were saying that during Vietnam, which was much deadlier. America has a few tricks up its sleeve, including the most advanced military technology in the world. Japan will never outperform America economically. They have an aging population. China may eventually outpace America, but it is fundamentally an unstable country. Brazil is a more interesting case. Hard to say how that will develop.

Though I think the people of Tibet would disagree with your views of China not being an unprovoked invader. As will many other neighboring countries in the near future. The fact that Vietnam is flirting with the US is a good indication. As China's might grows, it will get bolder.

I know what Vietnam Syndrome did. That was just an emotional attitude at the time where Americans felt the negativity of having killed so many innocent civilians, lost so many of their own boys, spent so much time and money and lost the war and the country to communists. That war hardly made a dent in the US economy compared to others except in the recession that followed in the late 1970s.

America's debt is the highest it's ever been in it's history even more than World War II and will tap out its GDP by 2013, it's locked in the longest and most expensive wars in its history, and is enduring the second or third largest economic crises in its history while trying to compete with the larger growing economics of Asia all at the same time. It's a perfect storm waiting to send America into hyperinflation with no room to cut except government services and military spending. A debt collapse in western Europe or an even greater recession in China could easily collapse the US and global economy quickly because they are all linked.

After the US recovers from the depression it will likely go through, then it will be the third largest economy in the world.

China doesn't want the Dali Lama to form a US backed theocratic dictatorship next to their borders because if he was in power, he would be another President of Iran. China has only acted militarily when they feel their borders or territory are compromised. They had this issue with Vietnam, India, the Soviet Union over Siberia, and especially Taiwan which they consider part of their territory. The reason they intervened in the Korean War when the British and US forces pushed the northern communists to their borders was more to prevent entry by the West and not to save the Koreans.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

I think Venom was coming from a pragmatic viewpoint as opposed to a moral one, which is sometimes necessary in an objective analysis of warfare.

You don't win in war by being the nice guy, after all.

Nonetheless, I do think (morally) Britain made the right decision.

So you don't believe in the modern view of Just War Theory? I don't think war should be waged by a philosophical formula, but it is the right idea of having some sense of humanity in such a human-less machine. It may be what keeps one from becoming as cynical and awful as the most awful regimes people are debating about in this thread.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Venom75

I've always believed that Adolf Hitler's biggest mistake was invading Russia. Of course,it's easy to look back now and point to mistakes,but Russia was viewed as very poor back then,especially the military who had suffered under Stalin's purges in the 30's and also had a hard time against a "weaker" opponent in Finland. Hell,everyone thought a German victory was a given.
Also it does rather bother me that Stalin and his regime were not held accountable for helping to start WW2 in the first place. Not to mention their treatment of the Poles and other countries under their rule,such as Finland and the Balkan states. Roosevelt and Churchill were both very naive in dealing with Stalin.

Hitler didn't really have a choice. The Germans and Soviets signed the Non-Aggression Pact to buy time, so they could build up their arms, to attack each other. The Germans just beat the Soviets to it.

Though I agree, the Soviets were little better than the Germans. They were however more pragmatic. Germany was obsessed with vengeance and exterminating people. The Soviets just wanted to rule the world. Ultimately settling grudgingly for East Europe, and parts of East Asia (until the Cold War anyway).

[Schlosser85]

You're right about the Soviets being more pragmatic. The Nazis were so bent on their mission of "cleansing" the world of Jews that they devoted enormous resources, trains, manpower, money, etc. to the Holocaust, and continued with it even as the war effort became more and more desperate.

In fact, the worse the war went, the more they went all-out with the Holocaust, determined to see it completed before they were defeated.

The Holocaust was a vast drain on resources to the war effort.

[DACrowe]

The most mind boggling of human tragedies with the wholesale slaughter. But one of the reasons they escalated as the war became more desperate for them was they thought if they could kill and burn all the victims before the Allies got there (pretty much impossible) that they'd be able to hide the evidence of the mind blowing atrocities they committed.

[JJJ's Ulcer]

They basically made genocide into an assembly-line industry complete with quotas and business calculations. Nightmarish stuff.