If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Emmanuel Gustin wrote: "sddso" wrote in message Point 1 has it completely backwards. As George Orwell pointed out circa 1944, the objective result from war protesters is that the totalitarian, non-civilized powers (aka enemies of the United States and Allied nations) are given aid and comfort; By your reasoning, democratic powers should be at a disadvantage in warfare. This runs contrary to the historical evidence. States with democratic, law-abiding governments have a better record in war than dictatorships: They are both less likely to start unwinnable conflicts and more efficient in fighting the war they get involved in. Allowing criticism makes government more efficient, not less. An answerable government can call on the loyalty of the soldiers and citizens, and unaccountable government can expect support only as when it has victories to boast of. Not so certain this is entirely true Emmanuel. I believe you're correct that democratic governments are less likely to get involved in a war to begin with, but once involved, the democratic process can be quite undermining to a war effort. Well it seems to me that democratic governments you refer to are merely the english speaking island nations and being an island or independant continent may have as much to do with it than democracy. Really and empirical analysis is in order here. The theorems of von Clauswitz state that a population must be ready pschologically and poltically for war. I believe the aftermatch of Vietnam brought new credibily to the 19th century Prussian theoretician in US Military and other circles. von Clausiwitz was analysing a Prussian Defeat by the French (who so often fought wars to prevent a rival through the various German states unifying) and asserted that the Prussians were not ready to fight in anyway. Since Gulf war one US populations have been extensively "briefed up" and the press extensively managed. A number of factors seem to have influenced the Western population and US senators into the Gulf War 1 and marginialised the opposition. These include the baby incubator scam in Gulf war one. They Weapons of Mass Destruction "Beleive us they're there somewhere" shows that western public opinon migh be manipulated as well if not better than a dictatorship. Personally I have no problem with invading Iraq for the oil should it be necessary for my interests. Its kind of like those western range wars over cattlement upstream cutting of the water supply to guy downstream. (Only without the romance between the cattlemens son and daughter) Unfortunately hyped atrocities are also a characteristic of western democracies making war. They seem to be every way as bad as the ones circulating in the dictatorships. Enemies of democracies have an added tool in undermining the war effort of their adversaries. They can manipulate public opinion to some degree. Lincoln was saved from defeat by timely victories over Confederates in the fall of 1864, when it seemed to the general public a bloody stalemate had largely been achieved. Pity really. We all know the antiwar movement of the Vietnam period paralyzed the American government politically during the early 70's, to the point funding for it was about to be stopped. Oil, Israel, infleuntial Jewish Population in USA, attidudes against marxism all played a part. Irak may well turn into a Vietnam if the Population can not be won over. If the Baathist insurgents doing their thing in Iraq right now have any political savvy, they should be very energetic about inflicting casualties on American forces in country around fall of this year. They may have a shot at snuffing out the war effort, and replacing a president with their efforts. VietCong commited many atrocities on their own people. They still won. I suppose there won't be any muslim prostitues with razor blades in the vagina to demoralised drug ****ed conscripts. Meanwhile, Stalin and Hitler kept their countries fighting via raw brutality. Difficult to see a democracy standing up to that sort of punishment without an exceptionally skilled leader keeping public opinion "properly" directed. The German populations had plenty of reasons to fight; though ther were very trepidatious. Everyone who is foolish enough to beleive in 'efficient dictatorship' should study the history of WWII more closely. The waste and stupidity of which dictatorial regimes are capable are almost beyond belief. True enough. Probably in a democracy, the incompetents would be weeded out more quickly. There are no democracies in the west apart from switzerland at the local government. They are all 'republics' or commonwelaths' in which officials are elected to represent the peoples interests. Because to the Labyrithn rules, the extreme expense and the need to raised money and borker deals and the development of elites the people will is not democractically enforced. However, there's nothing to prevent a train of incompetents getting important, war effort jobs. Look at the people Lincoln was saddled with in his own administration. The Secretary of War was an outright bandito but due to political reasons, kept his job for a while. Political pressures make democratic leaders do dumb things too! SMH |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... The totalitarian nations started those conflicts at the time of their choosing with their large conscript armies fully mobilised trained, equipped and battle ready while those of the allies were either very small (like the Americans and British) or underfunded, demoralised and ill led like the French and South Koreans. I think that is a too superficial analysis. It is easy to condemn the French Army of 1940 as "underfunded, demoralised, and ill led", because it quickly lost the battle. But that ignores that France had a smaller population than Germany, that the age group fit for military service had been reduced by the slaughter of WWI, and that France in the years before the war had only 1/3 of the industrial strength of Germany -- a production of 20 million tons of steel, for example, as opposed to Germany's 65. Well by 1939 relatively few of those who had been fit for service in 1918 were still young enough to still be of military age and German losses in WW1 were pretty heavy too so that excuse wont wash. As for steel production France had more tanks available for front line service than Germany and although they had some deficiencies so did the Panzer units which had a far higher proportion of PkW 1 and 2's than was desirable. Under these conditions one should not be amazed that the French forces were weaker than the German forces; on the contrary the real amazing fact is that they were almost a match. Numerically they may well have been superior, the problem was that were too static and wedded to the doctrines of defensive warfare. The potential danger of a properly led and motivated French army was shown by the counterattack of DeGaulle's 4th Armored Division on the Meuse bridgehead but it was too little too late. The 'weak' French democracy actually achieved a level of effort that Nazi Germany would probably not match until late in the war. The military mobilisation ratio was 1 in 8. Nor were French politicians inclined to micro-managing the war effort in the style of Hitler; in fact it could be argued that they left too much to the generals. The problem is the doctrine adopted by the generals was for the most part seriously flawed and they found themselves unable to cope with a war of manoeveur Evidently much of the effort was wasted -- too much was spent on the Maginot line and on one of the world's most modern and powerful fleets, and too little on the air force. The policy of 'corporate welfare' towards arms manufacturers in the years between the two wars had the effect of discouraging innovation, and gave the military too much outdated equipment. The large number of reservists called on were too poorly trained and the officers corps failed to train them. ie they were underfunded, demoralised and ill-led. The courage of individual French soldiers is not an issue despite what some of the more rabid posters claim, it was their leadership that was at fault.Well led units like those of LeClerc would prove just what Frenchmen could do. But Germany's level of preparedness should not be overestimated either. When Hitler plunged his country into war, the air force's supply of bombs was tought to be sufficient for only three weeks of war. The most numerous tanks in the army were PzKw.I and II 'tin cans' barely fit for combat. The army still had a large number of 77mm guns dating back to WW1. The fleet was 'under construction', even the U-boat force was barely capable of operating. Besides 43 first-line divisions, the Germans too had 51 newly mobilised second-line divisions. Enthusiasm for war among the people was almost non-existent. Sure but its army was fully mobilised, well trained and led for the most part by able Generals with sound modern doctrines for waging war. Britain may have a small army -- traditionally -- but it had an air force that was a match for the Luftwaffe and was outpacing it, and of course a powerful fleet. Absolutely but much of that fleet was made up of obsolete or obsolescent warships and the army was still for the most part equipped with the same weapons that had been used in 1918. The RAF had (rightly IMHO) been allocated the lions share of waht funds were available and so of course were in the best situation at the outbreak of war. The USA had an extremely small army, but the effects of isolatationist and pacificist voices should not be overrated either: FDR's programs to expand the armed forces on a huge scale were approved by Congress, which certainly was sensitive to popular opinion. And yet when war came to the US on Dec 7 1941 that nation was fundamentally unprepared and the IJN ran rampant for 6 months in the Pacific while German U-boats devastated US shipping within sight of the US coastline. When fully mobilised democracies may well have a better track record but there's little doubt that in the opening phases of the major wars of the 20th century they were unprepared and consequently a great many men died unnecessarily. Keith |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... Well by 1939 relatively few of those who had been fit for service in 1918 were still young enough to still be of military age and German losses in WW1 were pretty heavy too so that excuse wont wash. The frontline soldiers of 1940, to be of age between 18 and 25, would have to be born between 1914 and 1921. The war had caused a major demographic dip. In March 1940 the French army had 415,000 men less than in May 1917, despite a quite high level of mobilisation. Yes, the German population of course also had suffered, but Germany had twice the population of France, and therefore it did not have to mobilise to the same extent. As for steel production France had more tanks available for front line service than Germany and although they had some deficiencies so did the Panzer units which had a far higher proportion of PkW 1 and 2's than was desirable. Yes, but that is exactly my point. That the French had more and better tanks than the Germans, _despite_ having only a third of the industrial base, indicates that they had not neglected to prepare for war as much as it is often averred. I dont believe that follows at all. There is MUCH more to preparation than simply building more tanks. The parlous state of the French Air Forces and the poor state of training of the army speak volumes about lack of preparedness, Numerically they may well have been superior, the problem was that were too static and wedded to the doctrines of defensive warfare. Absolutely -- the French generalship was poor. But you can hardly blame French pacificists for the poor intellectual quality of French generals, most of whom were veterans of WWI. I dont recall blaming French pacifists, rather I pointed to the lack of vision and leadership of the French Generals and their almost mystical belief in the value of fixed fortifications. Sure but its army was fully mobilised, well trained and led for the most part by able Generals with sound modern doctrines for waging war. The German army had combat experience from Poland. German performance in the Polish campaign was not always great, and that in the bloodless occupations of Austria and the Rhineland was sometimes disastrous. Sure but while the Wehrmacht was busy in Poland the French had the opportunity to improve their experience and training and didnt make very good use of that time. And yet when war came to the US on Dec 7 1941 that nation was fundamentally unprepared and the IJN ran rampant for 6 months in the Pacific while German U-boats devastated US shipping within sight of the US coastline. But the US forces available in Dec 1941 were enough, over a longer period, to fight the Japanese to a standstill and shatter the backbone of their fleet. The flood of reinforcements only began to flow _after_ the tide had turned. As for the 'happy time' the U-boats were allowed to have, this was related more by fundamentally flawed thinking and carelessness of the authorities than by flaws in material preparation. No sir, the lack of even the sort of extemporised escorts used by the RN in 1939, trawlers with DC racks and an Oerlikon, were classic signs of flaws in material preparation as was the reverse lend lease in which Britain and Canada supplied US with a number of corvettes. Keith |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
"sddso" wrote in message Point 1 has it completely backwards. As George Orwell pointed out circa 1944, the objective result from war protesters is that the totalitarian, non-civilized powers (aka enemies of the United States and Allied nations) are given aid and comfort; By your reasoning, democratic powers should be at a disadvantage in warfare. This runs contrary to the historical evidence. States with democratic, law-abiding governments have a better record in war than dictatorships: They are both less likely to start unwinnable conflicts and more efficient in fighting the war they get involved in. M. Gustin has neatly neglected to point out that success in armed conflict is composed of two elements: 1. Build a force. 2. Employ it. The Western Allies -- largely through US know-how (not quite the same as deliberate efforts) -- have become talented at Element One's physical logistics aspects, and tolerably proficient at Element Two when one confines the analysis to the operational level and below. At the national/grand strategy level, Western nations are quintessentially unwarlike, willfully unengaged until ire is aroused. Problems of national consensus building and retention have yet to be fully described, let alone analyzed and solved in stable, repeatable fashion. Nations need to have the will to fight in the first place, the fortitude to keep it during the struggle, and the patience to slog through reversals. The very openness of Western governmental structures makes them fertile ground for antiwar groups, who have propagandized themselves into the belief that they are the foremost moral agents now existing. The populace in general is guilty of ever-shortening attention spans, which the antiwar elements exploit to great advantage. Flaccidity of purpose, and self-indulgent infatuation with comforts are also evident. Allowing criticism makes government more efficient, not less. An answerable government can call on the loyalty of the soldiers and citizens, and unaccountable government can expect support only as when it has victories to boast of. Everyone who is foolish enough to beleive in 'efficient dictatorship' should study the history of WWII more closely. The waste and stupidity of which dictatorial regimes are capable are almost beyond belief. Too true. This can engender a sense of inevitability quite contrary to the correlation of forces at the time. Anybody believing that Allied victory in WWII was somehow preordained in an abstract sense has little familiarity with the facts. First, the Red Army did most of the gruntwork of destroying Nazi Germany's armed forces. It's no great chore to argue that if the USSR had not become involved, the Third Reich might still be in existence. Second, the Western Alliance (read: Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with gallant help from a collection of stalwart but tiny contributors, and China absorbing horrific punishment in tying down a great chunk of Imperial Japanese forces) more fully developed and exploited radar, and worked to huge advantage in exploiting cryptanalysis and COMINT breakthroughs. Hardly any doubt remains that that atomic bombs ended the War, but radar won it. It is submitted that all conflicts in which the US has engaged have been less than efficient, uncertain of outcome, in some cases real squeakers (WWI is a notable case). Significant segments of the citizenry were in most cases strongly opposed to the war at hand. This kind of runs counter to the sly assertion that the country has been dashing about the landscape, committing depredations against helpless victims where and when the whim struck. Navel-gazers and perpetually indignant activists who concede that the likes of Saddam Hussein are unsavory, yet leap to condemn the Western powers because the stray mass murderer is punished, or full (read: ever-mounting) funding rarely gets bestowed on their pie-in-the-sky fantasies like free health care, bureaucratically micromanaged child "development," or arts grants for trashy garbage, suffer from the odious, willfully uninformed thickheadedness known as moral equivalizing. At best, they should be ignored; that their existence continues to be suffered at all is a tribute to the forbearance, strength, and patience of the Allied nations. "I have heard a lot of old lunatics rave, but never one like this" -- Hannibal Barcas. Argument by dismissal is the tactic of losers. I invite the group to consider the truth of something David Hackworth (COL, USA, ret) noted in public, about one month after the airliner attacks over two years ago. The terrorists, he said, are unable to go at it toe-to-toe with the armed forces of their enemies, so they choose instead to perpetrate terror attacks against civil populations. Such tactics are aimed directly at morale, at the will to resist. Any effort by antiwar groups in nations targeted by the terrorists are also aimed at the morale of civil populations. Thus, no difference exists between the terrorists and the antiwar groups, so it's quite proper to consider the antiwar groups as treasonous. The absence of action against antiwar groups is in no sense a comment on the righteousness of their cause. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
sddso wrote:
: At the national/grand strategy level, Western nations are : quintessentially unwarlike, willfully unengaged until ire : is aroused. So what is the problem with that? Warfare is inherently extremely costly, uncertain in outcome, and destructive. To be 'quintessentially unwarlike' until it becomes unavoidable to defend you essential interests seems, IMHO, a sound and rational policy. Even the great empires of the past preferred to pick and choose their expansive wars carefully. : First, the Red Army did most of the gruntwork of destroying Nazi : Germany's armed forces. It's no great chore to argue that if the USSR : had not become involved, the Third Reich might still be in existence. It is -- of course it was a serious error to attack the USSR, but the Reich would have lost the war even without it. : a great chunk of Imperial Japanese forces) more fully developed and : exploited radar, and worked to huge advantage in exploiting : cryptanalysis and COMINT breakthroughs. Hardly any doubt remains that : that atomic bombs ended the War, but radar won it. And this, incidentally, illustrates a vital advantage enjoyed by the Western democracies. Both in the USSR and in Germany scientific and technological development was greatly handicapped by stupid decisions and politically inspired doctrines. And the prosecution of politically or racially 'challenged' scientist and engineers. This lead to such aberrations of the mind as 'Aryan Physics' and the communist approval of the non-evolutionary biology of what-was-his-name... German neglect to develop centimetric radars, for example, was in no small part caused by authoritarian bone-headedness. It had been declared on good authority that it would never work, so nobody dared to put out his neck and try it. In sharp contrast to the style of British laboratories, where productive chaos was happily tolerated. : Argument by dismissal is the tactic of losers. Life is too short to waste time on dissecting convoluted semi-lunatic rants. : Any effort by antiwar groups in nations targeted by the terrorists are : also aimed at the morale of civil populations. Thus, no difference : exists between the terrorists and the antiwar groups, so it's quite : proper to consider the antiwar groups as treasonous. Ridiculous. This reaches the intellectual level of 'to save democracy, we have to destroy it first.' Emmanuel Gustin |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote: sddso wrote: : At the national/grand strategy level, Western nations are : quintessentially unwarlike, willfully unengaged until ire : is aroused. So what is the problem with that? Warfare is inherently extremely costly, uncertain in outcome, and destructive. To be 'quintessentially unwarlike' until it becomes unavoidable to defend you essential interests seems, IMHO, a sound and rational policy. Even the great empires of the past preferred to pick and choose their expansive wars carefully. : First, the Red Army did most of the gruntwork of destroying Nazi : Germany's armed forces. It's no great chore to argue that if the USSR : had not become involved, the Third Reich might still be in existence. It is -- of course it was a serious error to attack the USSR, but the Reich would have lost the war even without it. : a great chunk of Imperial Japanese forces) more fully developed and : exploited radar, and worked to huge advantage in exploiting : cryptanalysis and COMINT breakthroughs. Hardly any doubt remains that : that atomic bombs ended the War, but radar won it. And this, incidentally, illustrates a vital advantage enjoyed by the Western democracies. Both in the USSR and in Germany scientific and technological development was greatly handicapped by stupid decisions and politically inspired doctrines. And the prosecution of politically or racially 'challenged' scientist and engineers. This lead to such aberrations of the mind as 'Aryan Physics' and the communist approval of the non-evolutionary biology of what-was-his-name... German neglect to develop centimetric radars, for example, was in no small part caused by authoritarian bone-headedness. It had been declared on good authority that it would never work, so nobody dared to put out his neck and try it. In sharp contrast to the style of British laboratories, where productive chaos was happily tolerated. : Argument by dismissal is the tactic of losers. Life is too short to waste time on dissecting convoluted semi-lunatic rants. : Any effort by antiwar groups in nations targeted by the terrorists are : also aimed at the morale of civil populations. Thus, no difference : exists between the terrorists and the antiwar groups, so it's quite : proper to consider the antiwar groups as treasonous. Ridiculous. This reaches the intellectual level of 'to save democracy, we have to destroy it first.' Emmanuel Gustin The mainstream antiwar groups-i.e those opposed to war on religious or moral grounds are one thing: those who are opposed for political reasons-Ramsey Clark and his WWP crowd come to mind are something else. Clark has been an apologist for some really nasty people-Saddam and Milosevic, Noriega, Khadafy, the Mullahs in Iran, Kim-Il Sung and his wacky son, the Sandinistas, the PRC for Tianamen, even the Taliban after ENDURING FREEDOM got started. Openly supporting the enemy could be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, at best, and at most, treason. I'd toss Clark and his crowd of unreconstructed Stalinists into Federal Prison on multiple charges: giving aid and comfort to the enemy, treason, obstructing the national defense, violating the embargoes against Iraq, Libya, N. Korea, and Cuba, and that's for starters. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in news:bvgshk$s5ein$1@ID-
52877.news.uni-berlin.de: [snip] racially 'challenged' scientist and engineers. This lead to such aberrations of the mind as 'Aryan Physics' and the communist approval of the non-evolutionary biology of what-was-his-name... V. Lysenko ( vice J-B Lamarcke ) IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... I've seen the term "carpet bombing" bandied about for years. I've never seen or heard a definition. Is there one? A generally accepted one? I generally dislike the term since it's often applied to the BUFF and seems to mean to most in the world media; "dropping 6 or more bombs at once". The definition to most of the present and former aviators I know appears to be "bombing a target *area* rather than a target itself". Carpet bombing: Large amounts of munitions dropped over an area to dispense of bad guys and tactical targets.........in other words, opening all the bays at once to achieve maximum use of force...WTF is wrong with that as long as mission accomplished? -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War | RobbelothE | Military Aviation | 248 | February 2nd 04 02:45 AM |
#1 Jet of World War II | Christopher | Military Aviation | 203 | September 1st 03 03:04 AM |