When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Originally posted by Waxy [...]The USSR was once one of two superpowers, every bit as capable as the US. Agreed?[...]
Uh, no. Not agreed. In retrospect, it is clear that Soviet military might was greatly exaggerated, perhaps intentionally; that's OK, better to err on the side of caution. But they were NEVER the equal of the U.S. (and its proxy, NATO.) Among the "experts", there is near universal agreement on this. It worked for us (either intentionally or unintentionally) to have them as our boogeyman. As it turned out, we were able to defeat them by artificially elevating them to equal status militarily. You could say that we defeated them economically, but why do you think they called it "The Cold War"? It was warfare, make no mistake about it. Fortunately, the triggers didn't get pulled, but only by the greatest of good fortune. The war was fought with guns; they just didn't have to be fired in this case.
Originally posted by Waxy [...]The Germans did not have the economic or industrial might to maintain their war machine. They were a far superior military at the beginning of the war. Problem is, they were one country against the world (the Italians were of little use and they were isolated from the Japanese). WWII was a war of attrition on many levels.
The result we can agree on, but we can also realistically speculate that, had Hitler been rational, had Germany consolidated their early gains with a keen eye to securing the resources they needed to sustain their industrial production, our future would have been vastly different from how it turned out. Fortunately, Hitler was mad, and Japan and Germany were never on the same page in the way that the Allied powers were. If they had been, the Japanese would have refrained from their attack on the US in the interest in keeping us out of the war (as combatants) for as long as possible.
Originally posted by Waxy I'm not denying your point about ultimate force. My point is that ultimate force must come from somewhere, it has to be bought or earned. The invention of guns equalized men. It made the smallest man and the largest man equal in conflict. So the question then became, who could amass the most and best guns? It's very difficult to amass guns at the point of a gun, you amass them at the point of a pen.
It can be agrued that Hitler armed the Reich at the point of a gun. Note how his political enemies were disposed of, and how he used his Brownshirts and other fascist elements to gain the political ends he required to amass his arsenal. Also, it's about more than guns, Waxy. It's about toughness and will. Look at the Israeli performance in their past all-out wars with their Arab neighbors. For whatever reason, Arab armies just don't stand up. To go back to WWII, look at the French vs. the Germans. Talk about a laydown. And going back to an earlier point, it's also about gerography. How favored can we be, us North Americans?
Originally posted by Waxy I refuse to get into any discussion of GWB's policies and their "benefit" to the economy.
Not sure where this came from, but I have very mixed feelings on the issue as well. I argue with MYSELF about it.
Originally posted by Waxy P.S. I've still got my guns.
Good for you! I'm a "From my cold, dead hands" guy myself. Are you inadvertently proving my point here? ("Let the scribblers scribble; when they come for my guns, there's going to be a fight.")
Thanks for responding earlier. I thought I had lost you. Your viewpoints are thoughtful and well presented, even if we don't come to a meeting of the minds on everything. I'll try to be a little less ascerbic.
On edit, I guess this completes the hijacking of MTMD's thread. Sorry. I'll try not to in future.
Last edited by mikestjames; Oct 31, 2003 at 12:05 PM.