From my new Taki's Magazine article:
William Goldman’s fantasy tale The Princess Bride made famous the saying “never get involved in a land war in Asia” (it was purportedly advice General Douglas MacArthur gave to President John F. Kennedy regarding Vietnam). But historically the costs of a land war in Europe have been even more horrifying, which is why it’s important to comprehend the various psychological processes that have been driving us toward World War G.
One force is the general tendency of triumphalist powers to press onward until they’ve backed their rivals into a corner. It’s hard for winners to declare victory and go home. It’s more fun to keep the game going, even if the conceivable gains are rapidly diminishing.
... Among the more vivid examples of pushing too hard in foreign affairs are the events of 1950, a year in which experienced men who had been tested in the great trials of the 1940s made almost uniformly catastrophic strategic choices. Almost every major outside decision maker in the Korean conflict, such as Stalin, MacArthur, and Mao, had emerged from the previous decade a winner. Yet despite their successful track records—or perhaps because of them—most pressed their luck too far on that divided peninsula, refusing to settle for half a loaf. The result was a drawn-out war that killed more than a million people over three years—without moving the border at all.
Read the whole thing there. At the end, I toss out a suggestion for a diplomatic process that might conceivably make things a little better.
Posts
115 comments:
China emerged as the winner in the Korean War. They defeated US forces in many battles and pushed back from their border to the halfway point. And their military fought well and gained respect after having been pummeled by Japan until the end of the war.
They have already got the only payment they will ever receive. It was all the loans and discounts they got from agreements, solemn promises, assurances of love etc. that Ukrainian governments and politicians made Russia and then welshed on.
I bet each generation considers the borders that we grew up with as unchangeable. Despite whatever international understandings we have and notwithstanding Francis Fukuyama, my guess is that the world map is going to keep changing over the course of centuries.
As I head over there to RTWT, I find myself wondering; will a connection be drawn between Putin's Polite Armed Men in Green and the hundreds of thousands of Chinese volunteers who, although perhaps connected to the Chinese military, were really on vacation and fulfilling their socialist internationalist duty?
There's a line in William Cruz Smith's novel "Gorky Park" where the American industrialist/furrier/villain recounts advice he received.
"I was told to stay away from intelligent men, beautiful women, and Jews---or, in other words, Jews."
I was reminded of this by our host's sentence: Thus we’ve seen emerge a bizarre alliance of homosexual radicals, banksters, media figures, and old Cold Warriors united by the impulse to bait the ominous Russian bear.
(Yes, yes, MacFaul is goy.)
In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Good Will.
Eh, sounds good in theory.
You mentioned McFaul there. From the Wikipedia:
"He earned a B.A. in international relations and Slavic languages and an M.A. in Slavic and East European Studies from Stanford University in 1986, and spent time in the Soviet Union as a student, first the summer of 1983 studying Russian at the Leningrad State University, now Saint Petersburg State University, and then a semester in 1985 at Moscow State University.[3] As a Rhodes Scholar, he earned a DPhil in international relations from Oxford University in 1991."
I've seen him try to use Russian on Twitter. He makes at least one mistake per word and is difficult for native speakers to understand. It's mee canning to talking Russia, how does your does? kind of stuff.
Granted, the US paid Spain roughly ten cents on the dollar for the Philippines...
Spain got the better of that deal.
Good article, Steve. We need to keep throwing cold water on this relentless elitist push to resurrect the Russians as Public Enemy Number One, and, you know RACIST! Therefore World War G! I also liked your short hat-tip to Matthew Ridgway, one of our more under-appreciated warfighting generals. I don’t know much about his personality, but all I’ve read about him indicates he was a modest, yet quite competent combat leader who made it a point to get where the action is (he believed commanders needed to maintain situational awareness of the enemy at all times). Anyway, he was the first commander of the 82nd Airborne Division and led them through combat operations from Sicily through Normandy, before taking command of the XVIII Airborne Corps in time for Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge. He was a Soldier’s General, like Omar Bradley, kind of the anti-MacArthur. He’s under-appreciated now because he believed in modesty, which runs counter to the current zeitgeist to sell and promote oneself unendingly.
I noticed that the leaders of the tightening militias that enabled the Kiev Coup are now being shot out of hand.
Olek Bily, a football hooligan was shot
"While resisting arrest".
Howzzat! Ukrianians? Regretting getting into bed with The Masters of The Universe already?
I don't understand what the "G" in "World War G" stands for -- even after clicking its link. "World War T" is perfectly clear and a great way of contrasting the hype with the inconsequentiality, so maybe you should stick with that one.
(also posted on Takis Mag.) I believe that Mao got a great deal out of the Korean War. First, it was a wonderful meatgrinder into which he sent hundreds of thousands of Kuomintang soldiers and officers. Thus ridding himself at no cost of many potential troublemakers. Those "human wave" attacks were no myth. But they were as much a way of eliminating unwanted cannon fodder as they were of over-running UN positions. Secondly he established a permanent buffer state, wedded at the hip to his regime, in an area that has always been a concern to China.
As regards the Crimea: People seem to forget that it was given to Ukraine as a present by Khruschev in 1954. Prior to then and since its conquest by the Tsars, it had always been regarded as part of Russia and later the Russian Soviet Republic. During WW II copious Russian blood was shed in the heroic defense Sebastapol. I've always thought that Khruschev, who played the same role for Stalin in the Ukraine genocide as Heydrich and his successors played for Hitler during the Holocaust, made the gesture largely to assuage his own conscience.
This is a last golden opportunity for the US and the EU to make nice with Russia, establish reasonable spheres of influence whose borders are well to the west of Urals and realistically probably west of the old borders of the Soviet Union. We did perfectly well when Austria and Finland were in the USSR's sphere of influence and the Finns and Austrians didn't suffer to any significant degree either. We can certainly settle for something considerably better than that now.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fewer-kids-are-playing-football-but-mark-cuban-might-be-wrong-about-why/
After seeing the USA slowly become a communist nation, seeing tons of socialist professors and intellectual leaders, and seeing stuff from Yuri Bezmenov (Soviet defector), I'm not sure if we won the Cold War after all. It seems like we won the economic war but are now losing the ideological war.
'I don't understand what the "G" in "World War G" stands for -- even after clicking its link'
Oh, okay. Your tard.
Thanks for sharing!
"I believe that Mao got a great deal out of the Korean War. First, it was a wonderful meatgrinder into which he sent hundreds of thousands of Kuomintang soldiers and officers. Thus ridding himself at no cost of many potential troublemakers."
????
Not true.
"People seem to forget that it was given to Ukraine as a present by Khruschev in 1954."
Since Khrushchev was Ukrainian, wasn't it theft?
Suppose a Canadian-American becomes president of US and gives Montana to Canada.
"China emerged as the winner in the Korean War."
In a symbolic sense, that China fought US to a standstill was a matter of pride for China.
But it was very costly in manpower and material for a regime that just came to power. If any nation fared well, it was USSR. Stalin had given the green light and supplied the means for North to attack the South, but when things got hot, he remained aloof and made China pay the price of defending North Korea.
He knew that if USSR got involved, it might lead to WWIII with US with nukes. It gave him nightmares.
Had he allowed US to take North Korea, he would lost face who did nothing for a comrade nation. So, he was relieved when China entered the war, and China did it not so much because it needed a buffer but because it feared North Korea as a bridge. If US had made it clear to China that it only wanted unification of Korea, Mao might have given it more thought and not entered the war. But McCarthur, so full of himself, implied rather obviously in interviews and speeches that after North Korea, it would be China itself with the participation of Chiang in Taiwan. That is what freaked Mao out. Communists had just barely come to power in 1949. And China was fully unified only by late 1950 in reality as pockets of resistance had remained. And Chinese Communist rule over China had yet to be fully consolidated and implemented. So, Mao felt very vulnerable when US advanced into North Korea and made noise about recruiting Taiwanese troops to free China as well.
The gains from the Korean War for China were essentially twofold: symbolic(yellow man stood up to white man) and grudging respect from USSR. Stalin, who distrusted and disliked Mao, came to respect Mao a bit more.
Even so, the war between China and US made it difficult for two nations to come to terms for a long time. That didn't hurt the US(except in Vietnam War where China was the main aid supplier to the North), but it hurt China which grew more isolated, especially with the break with USSR in the late 50s/early 60s.
Thus isolated, Chinese policies, domestic and foreign, got crazier and crazier, leading to wasteful aid to foreign communists, the wreckage of radical policies, and tensions with USSR.. which finally pushed China toward US.
Anyway, if FDR hadn't allowed Stalin to take a huge chunk of North Asia, none of this might have happened.
Socialist USA won the Cold War over comunist USSR, only to turn communist itself 20 years after the fact. A pyrrhic victory, if you ask me.
China co-existed right next to hostile USSR and India(allied with USSR and to some extent with US) during the Cold War. Mongolia was a USSR-satellite state. There were skirmishes but no major wars.
I think China could have tolerated a united Korea under Southern regime if America has assured that Korea would not be used as launching pad against China.
McCarthur was not the man for the job. As conqueror of Japan, he wanted to play Napoleon and play savior of China from godless communism as well.
Thus, Moscow looked askance upon the violent overthrow of an elected friend in Kiev
Yanukovych was not a friend to Moscow, that's the ironic part of the story. Yanukovych was trying very hard to play Russia against the EU, and enhance Ukraine's own independent role in the world. He has failed disastrously, and now Ukraine will probably end up divided between West and East, it's independence completely gone. Future generations of Ukrainians will probably have a far more generous assessment of Yanukovych than the current because over the long term we tend to judge intentions more than results, and Yanukovych, despite his many flaws, really was trying to create a united independent Ukraine (even if for his own personal benefit), and was probably one of the few Ukrainian politicans who really had an inclusive vision that saw both West and East as valid parts of the same state.
What both hawks and Putin fans fail to see is that Putin has also failed disastrously. First he tried too hard to box Yanukovych in a corner, and made Yanukovych look weak to the Ukrainian opposition and oligarchs. That opened the door wide open for the US and EU to stir up trouble. Then, instead of trying to gain a pro-Russian voice in the Maidan revolt - which two months ago would have been quite possible since blind hatred of Yanukovych became a much bigger factor by the end than Ukrainian nationalism - Putin immediately had a temper tantrum, seized Crimea, and managed to finally unite most of Ukraine against Russia. No matter what happens now Putin has driven at least half of Ukraine out of Russian influence forever, something even Yeltsin didn't manage.
OT,
http://tinyurl.com/q78c5x2
I can't believe this passed the editing process:
"That DNA would have been diluted with every generation of humans but its persistence into the present day suggests that some of the Neanderthal gene variants have provided modern humans in Europe and Asia with enhanced adaptive capabilities over their African Homo sapiens forebears."
Perhaps also its persistence to the present suggests that the modern human descendents of the Neanderthal-admixed hybrids who now live in Europe and Asia have enhanced adaptive capabilities over modern African Homo sapiens without the Neanderthal DNA? In what ways?
"This new era crept up on us, because we did not fully win the Cold War." - Its important to understand who "we" refers to in this sentence.
Anonydroid at 5:32 AM said:
I've seen him try to use Russian on Twitter. He makes at least one mistake per word and is difficult for native speakers to understand. It's mee canning to talking Russia, how does your does? kind of stuff.
Hunsdon said: Oh, so he speaks Russian like Condi Rice speaks Russian, then?
Almost every major outside decision maker in the Korean conflict, such as Stalin, MacArthur, and Mao, had emerged from the previous decade a winner. Yet despite their successful track records—or perhaps because of them—most pressed their luck too far on that divided peninsula, refusing to settle for half a loaf.
This might only apply to Stalin, since apparently he gave the go-ahead to North Korea to invade South. MacArthur's Incheon landing in the middle of the peninsula near where the country had been divided was executed after North Korea had taken almost all of the peninsula save one port city in the far south. It would not have been very practical to try to fight back north towards the middle from this besieged port city position. Hence the Incheon landing, which was a resounding success. Because the landing was such a success, MacArthur ran with it north, which was relatively open since the North Koreans had been overextended in their dash southwards. And Mao only intervened after the US had advanced close to China's border.
”I was reminded of this by our host's sentence: Thus we’ve seen emerge a bizarre alliance of homosexual radicals, banksters, media figures, and old Cold Warriors united by the impulse to bait the ominous Russian bear.”
Again, why would anyone omit, you know, Ukrainians from the above list? Or whatever term you prefer which allows their existence to be trivialized away – be it Ruthyns, or Gallicians or Ruthenians? Why is it that Russian chauvinists can never see the actual human beings that lie in between them and the only other people worthy of their attention, whether those be Nazis, or Jews and "banksters", or homosexuals? For them, the Ukrainians (and for that matter, anyone else between Moscow and Berlin) are just nameless millions of nonentities whose deaths would be just another statistic.
Steve, as long as you’re keeping track of Gessen’s Foucaltian bloviations, you might want to read or re-read de Custine, whose memoirs are perhaps the original volley in the Russian campaign of World War G (though his homosexuality is tangential to his writing). The preface to the edition I’m familiar with claims that it was once required reading for governmental Cold Warriors in Kennan’s day, but it remains insightful even after two centuries. In particular, through however many ideological contortions Russia undergoes, what apparently remains unchanged is the Russian trait of keeping your eye fixed only on whatever the despot/czar/President is looking at, so that even allowing for the existence of anything outside that tunnel amounts to treason. As the above comment indicates, the resultant blind spot is at least half a continent wide.
"After seeing the USA slowly become a communist nation, seeing tons of socialist professors and intellectual leaders, and seeing stuff from Yuri Bezmenov (Soviet defector), I'm not sure if we won the Cold War after all. It seems like we won the economic war but are now losing the ideological war."
It is funny how Russia is now to the right of the USA.
That said I don't think Swedish-style socialism is quite so bad. Collaborating with Communist parties when you have a nuclear-armed rival, that's another thing, but now that there's no Soviet Union, what's wrong with a little socialism? National healthcare saves money if anything, and the economy is going to employ fewer and fewer people as time goes on.
"It's mee canning to talking Russia, how does your does? kind of stuff"
It's my impression that McFaul's Russian is about as good as Condi Rice's, i.e. clumsy and bad enough to cause international damage if not carefully monitored. Rice was also associated with Stanford. I guess they don't speakum the Rooskie real good at Stanford.
It's not a miscalculation by either side. Russia can't back down and the West can't allow them to get away with it. There is going to be no winner because the the West and Russia are equally matched (in Russia's backyard). An enervating stalemate is inevitable, except on the coming attack on Iran which is held too important by neocons.
The gains are all China's
You don't have to settle for half a loaf. MacArthur could have stopped a 100 miles or so north of the demarcation line and dug in. Across this wasp-waist area (say roughly Wonsan to Nampho) he would have been impossible to dislodge and would have left enough of a rump North Korea state to provide a sufficient buffer to assauge the Chinese. What China couldn't tolerate was American troops on their very border. MacArthur didn't get this. He could have stopped with say, two-thirds of a loaf. What would have been left was a diminished North Korea, punished for its agression while avoiding a wider war with China.
OT, White people celebrating being an eunuch while watching diversity run around.
http://grantland.com/features/ncaa-tournament-vasectomy-trend-oregon-march-madness/
I know this is an anecdotal situation but, still the decadence just keeps growing.
What do you think about the theory that Stalin was not feeling his oats about his alliance with Mao, but terrified that Red China would side with America, just as soon as Taiwan disappeared, and that he arranged to get these potential allies to fight to prevent them considering alliance for a generation?
Observer said: It's my impression that McFaul's Russian is about as good as Condi Rice's, i.e. clumsy and bad enough to cause international damage if not carefully monitored.
Hunsdon said: Great minds, me boy, great minds . . . .
The cold war wasn't just a victory for the US, it was a rout.
We got everything the cold warriors wanted plus more than they ever dreamed.
The West peeled off the Warsaw Pact countries. Plus everything in between.
And .... Russia dumped communism.
And Russia integrated itself to a remarkable degree with the European and Global economy. Which validates Putin's assertion that economic sanctions will blow back on the EU.
When the deal was made, the USSR had two concerns. One was the unification of Germany. Another idea I approve of -- splitting Germany and making it ground zero in the cold war was pretty damn effective.
They were also assured that NATO wouldn't scarf up countries to the East.
So ... what did Clinton do 2 years later? Everything we said we wouldn't do.
I don't know if Putin or Russia care about the EU. It is barely able to keep its many looser states bailed out.
Surrounding Russia with NATO makes zero sense. A buffer works both ways.
None of the bordering countries has any strategic value to the US. Plus, Russia can deal with any ethnic issues on their side of the border. Why would Russia want to swallow up a buffer? It would put them right back where they claim they don't want to be. Toe to toe with NATO.
The idea that NATO would hoover up weak, vulnerable, and poor countries bordering on Russia is beyond stupid.
Russia is a natural ally for the US. We need to quit hectoring them over meaningless bullshit. Pussy riot preforming without permission in a major church? It's not like they can't write a book or do a youtube video. It isn't clear to me that gays are treated worse in Russia than in America pre Stonewall. So what if they are a few decades behind the US regarding some progressive enlightenment. They aren't sending either group to Siberia. Like their leading intellectuals 30 years ago.
Regarding your comments on Russia simply buying Crimea -- I had to laugh when a mindless newscaster said, after Russian troops now have de facto control of Crimea.
The minute they allowed the Russian Black Sea fleet in Crimea, they lost de facto control. Maybe not today or maybe not next year, but I can easily imagine trading formal recognition of the Russian anex for their utility bills.
In fact, Ukraine already has a big balance. Is the EU going to pay a few billion to the Russians? Rough justice
"You don't have to settle for half a loaf. MacArthur could have stopped a 100 miles or so north of the demarcation line and dug in"
I don't know why this isn't discussed more frequently.
McArthur was a clear loser. His landing at Inchon -- a gutsy and brilliant maneuver -- Was forever tarnished.
As far as China being a winner. Truman was willing to throw in the towel on Taiwan, but it became an important objective as the cold war heated up.
I vaguely remember reading that neither the USSR nor China wanted this war, but got sucked into it.
On the other hand, if Russia and China got into a war over Siberia, wouldn't it weaken both?
HA asked: Again, why would anyone omit, you know, Ukrainians from the above list? Or whatever term you prefer which allows their existence to be trivialized away – be it Ruthyns, or Gallicians or Ruthenians?
Hunsdon said: There are two answers. The first is the answer I give as a cold blooded American, mostly intent on avoiding a nuclear war. That answer is, "Because in the long run those other people don't matter to me, they don't have nuclear weapons pointed my way."
Then there's the second answer. HA, believe it or not, those people really do matter to me. Do you think the Ukrainians are happier now than they were on 21 February? More secure? Facing a brighter future? Less likely to be beaten up in the street, or gunned down? Civil wars suck, and it sure looks like Ukraine's headed for one.
Unlike Stalin, I'd think those millions of deaths would be millions of tragedies. I wish the US hadn't pushed this thing. I wish that they'd waited for the regularly scheduled elections in, what, 2014, or 2015?
It must be fun to sit there and pretend we're all amoral psychopaths who don't care about the people who are suffering.
Anonydroid at 3:36 PM said: The cold war wasn't just a victory for the US, it was a rout.
Hunsdon said: I pretty much agree with every word you used in that post.
When the deal was made, …
What deal, exactly? All the iterations of the SALT talks required an endless amount of negotiation down to the last jot and tittle. And yet, we are now supposed to believe that Clinton and some Russians shook hands and made a deal which the West then proceeded to renege on. Who exactly negotiated this deal, and who signed it and/or ratified it? Was it published anywhere? Why would the Russians (or, for that matter, the Americans and Germans) be so stupid, after all they had been through with the Russians, to stake so much on some secret handshake deal?
The West peeled off the Warsaw Pact countries. Plus everything in between.
When I see American or German tanks rolling in to crush uprisings in Prague or Budapest, or read about how Poles and Slovakians were forced under threat of imprisonment to sign themselves over to NATO's clutches, I will take that kind of moral equivalence seriously. As of now, equating Russia’s control of Eastern Europe with whatever NATO has in place is simply insane.
And .... Russia dumped communism.
Now you’re implying that giving up Communism, that paradise of prosperity and harmony, was some kind of sacrifice that Russia made as a concession to the West, that they now need to be compensated for. Can you even appreciate how crazy you seem? I’m not saying that the shock measures used to dismantle that system (to the extent it was in fact dismantled, or to the extent that had not the Russians put that system in place it never would have required dismantling) were wisely implemented, or that selling off Russia’s collective patrimony to a bunch of oligarchs was a good idea, but did they have to do all that exactly in the way they did? Was all that also part of this mystery agreement?
"When I see American or German tanks rolling in to crush uprisings in Prague or Budapest, or read about how Poles and Slovakians were forced under threat of imprisonment to sign themselves over to NATO's clutches.."
If they rebel against race replacement (which is coming), then yes, of course NATO will send tanks to crush them. And you, being a neocon, will cheer on those tanks.
The Cold War was a conjuring trick.
The drying up of western migration by Slavs was the starting point of the multiracial swamping of Western Europe. No low wage workers from The east, so let's bring in the Windrush Empire. No one will notice the sleight of hand... Hey presto, 40 years later London is a brown out.
The first is the answer I give as a cold blooded American, mostly intent on avoiding a nuclear war. That answer is, "Because in the long run those other people don't matter to me, they don't have nuclear weapons pointed my way."
Believe it or not, that is an argument I can appreciate. That kind of candor and honesty is refreshing, and commendable. I, for one, likewise have no interest in seeing the US bend over backwards to take on even more foreign obligations that it is unwilling to follow up. And don't get me started on the Nulands and Gessens of the world (or the Western half of it, as the case may be). All that, however, is not the same as cheering for Putin. I don’t mind people following through with the former approach. I do strongly condemn the latter.
It must be fun to sit there and pretend we're all amoral psychopaths who don't care about the people who are suffering.
No, but see your previous statement, and then you tell me who is pretending. You had me going there for a paragraph or two, but maybe I need to take back what I said about your honesty.
""People seem to forget that it was given to Ukraine as a present by Khruschev in 1954."
Since Khrushchev was Ukrainian, wasn't it theft?
Suppose a Canadian-American becomes president of US and gives Montana to Canada. " - Crimea wasn't peopled by Russians then, it was peopled by the Tartars, who got shipped out due to their support of the Nazis. So yeah, "theft" was involved, though that tends to be the case throughout history.
(to the extent it was in fact dismantled, or to the extent that had not the Russians put that system in place it never would have required dismantling)
That's rich. As if the 'Russians' put that system in place.
...or that selling off Russia’s collective patrimony to a bunch of oligarchs
See my response above.
When I see American or German tanks rolling in to crush uprisings in Prague or Budapest, or read about how Poles and Slovakians were forced under threat of imprisonment to sign themselves over to NATO's clutches, I will take that kind of moral equivalence seriously. As of now, equating Russia’s control of Eastern Europe with whatever NATO has in place is simply insane.
What about NATO jets bombing Belgrade and NATO troops helping to seize Serb territory?
"On the other hand, if Russia and China got into a war over Siberia, wouldn't it weaken both?" - Siberia is kind of valuable, Russia would certainly be weakened by the conflict, but China would only be weakened if they lost. then again, the chinese communists might feel that they have reserves.
" MacArthur didn't get this. He could have stopped with say, two-thirds of a loaf."
Americans in general do not get this.
If they rebel against race replacement (which is coming), then yes, of course NATO will send tanks to crush them.
Yeah, Angela Merkel’s recent reconsideration of multikulti, and the continuing rise of Wilders and LePen and Jobbik, etc. -- all that indicates to you that race replacement is coming, right on schedule? Or is that just something you tell yourself to feel better about toadying up to Putin and his oligarchs?
HA is a neocon.
Nope. Try again. Not a Jew, either, if that was your next bogus claim (or if that was what you meant to say the first time around).
The Crimea is "Krim" in Russian. Earlier today I saw the following joke from a Twitter user named Russian Market:
Q: How does Putin call Alaska?
A: Ice-Krim
Your sincere concern for European sovereignty is noted Mr Neocon.
Spot on.
The actual nationalists in Ukraine were used as muscle.
Olek Bily just got shot recently for "resisting arrest".
Reparations from Russia for grabbing the Ukraine! Steve's best idea ever!
Seriously, anything that would cool down the retards would be great. If Russia offers free natural gas to the Ukraine for five years, Ukraineans who want the fuss to die down (civil wars are bad) will have a carrot. And if the fuss doesn't die down by next winter, next winter will be a C*O*L*D winter to be poor in Germany. You know, when Russia shuts off natural gas supplies to Germany to retaliate for whatever Kagantards hit Russia with by then. Or some Ukraine Nazi blows the pipeline to memorialize Adolf.
HA said: No, but see your previous statement, and then you tell me who is pretending. You had me going there for a paragraph or two, but maybe I need to take back what I said about your honesty.
Hunsdon said: So then, it's not possible to have some "cognitive dissonance" going on? I have to be all one thing, or all the other?
In the end, I'm here in America, and my main concern is not having me, my wife and my daughters die in nuclear fire. Continually prodding the bear seems to increase that risk, and to avoid that risk . . . well, I don't know what I'd do.
To use one of our host's old formulations, if God Himself said, "Hunsdon, you can avert nuclear war by pushing a fat man in front of a trolley," the next fat man I saw would be in trouble.
But, as long as we're not talking about the world ending in nuclear fire? Damn right I care about the Ukrainians---probably more about the Ukrainians than about, say, Hungarians, because I'm a sucker for the Cossack story, because in the right light Bogdan Khmelnitsky pretty much was Taras Bulba, because Ukraine, like Texas, was a big wide open place full of scamps and runaways who were trying to live free. On horseback.
Doesn't mean I hate the Hungarians, either, for that matter.
Please don't doubt my honesty. I am engaging in good faith, and if I'm looking to score points, it's because I think they're honest points.
re: Sashko Bily
Captain Renault: I am making out the report now. We haven't quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape.
"Yeah, Angela Merkel’s recent reconsideration of multikulti, and the continuing rise of Wilders and LePen and Jobbik, etc. -- all that indicates to you that race replacement is coming, right on schedule?"
It's already come to Western Europe. I meant that it's inevitably coming to Eastern Europe. And what reconsideration? You're so paranoid about the danger (from your point of view) of a European revival that you can even see signs of it in Merkel's speeches? Wow. That's delusional. Unfortunately.
Our host said: At the end, I toss out a suggestion for a diplomatic process that might conceivably make things a little better.
Hunsdon said: I'd be all for that. In my heart of hearts, however, I doubt that the Gessen-Nuland crowd would be "appeased" in any way. I think they've got a grudge. "Russia delenda est."
"Nope. Try again."
This will be funny. So what specific disagreements do you have with the neocon ideology in general and with its most prominent exponents in particular?
you can even see signs of it in Merkel's speeches? Wow. That's delusional.
I'm not sure what part of "Multikulti ist absolut gescheitert" I need to translate for you, but there's an app for that. And I didn't mention only Merkel, did I? I also mentioned Le Pen and Jobbik and Wilders, and there's also UKIP and a bunch of other movements I could note. Not everyone in Europe gives up on its ideals so cravenly, else all those centuries of war against the Ottomans would have ended much differently.
In any case, despite all those anti-EU, anti-immigration movements, the only troops I see amassing are, yet again, on the Russian side of the border. Funny how things keep turning out that way.
. So what specific disagreements do you have with the neocon ideology in general and with its most prominent exponents in particular?
Seriously? You make a statement without any basis in fact and then expect me to refute it? I have a paper trail. Why not try doing your own research? Just spewing some combination of neo-Zio-con/bankster at whomever happens to disagree with Putin may work for those on his payroll, but it’s wearing thin as a debate tactic.
"The actual nationalists in Ukraine were used as muscle. "
Before he shed his crocodile tears about Ukrainians in this thread, HA had called actual Ukrainian nationalists Putin's puppets and extremists.
And to answer another point, claiming that Putin is infiltrating the Right Sector is not the same as denying that they have also taken assistance from elsewhere, or that they are not for the most part sincere about their extremism....
Given the fact that Right Sector are just Putin’s agents provocateur, some kind of crackdown by the Ukrainians was inevitable.
I love how he calls the Yatsenyuk-led oligarch-appointing Kiev government "the Ukrainians". While calling Right Sector guys (of all people) Russian stooges!
The psychology behind this particular inversion of reality is easy to understand. Right Sector guys are white, Christian and highly nationalist, so to someone like HA they're bad. Putin is somewhat nationalist too, so in HA's mind he gets filed into the same folder.
Yes, it WOULD make sense for nationalists across Europe to cooperate. And if Soros, Nuland et al. hadn't spent all that money and effort on pitting these two particular nationalisms against each other, maybe they would have. But at this point they don't.
. So then, it's not possible to have some "cognitive dissonance" going on?
And if you read up on your history, Mr. cold-blooded American, you’ll see that the kind of cognitive dissonance is exactly what gets Americans in trouble. (At least, that’s my reading.) It is possible to oppose Washington’s manipulation of Ukrainians and also realize that Putin is no solution to what ails the West either, and to do that without any cognitive dissonance whatsoever.
For example, if I read Steve correctly, he's no fan of Nuland or the absurd notion that Russia is somehow more homophobic than, say, Nigeria or Egypt, but he's not exactly fawning over Putin, either. So it can be done.
"Seriously?"
OK, it turned out to be boring, not funny. No attempt to answer. Whiskey would have come up with SOMETHING.
HA said: For example, if I read Steve correctly, he's no fan of Nuland or the absurd notion that Russia is somehow more homophobic than, say, Nigeria or Egypt, but he's not exactly fawning over Putin, either. So it can be done.
Hunsdon said: You referenced your own paper trail. Turnabout is the very essence of fair play. Can you show me anything I've written that qualifies as fawning over Putin? (OK, I compared him with Bibi a couple of times, but no one thinks I fawn over Bibi.)
"he only troops I see amassing are, yet again, on the Russian side of the border."
Putin is a very WYSIWYG person. He has said that if the Kiev junta violently cracks down on Russians in southeastern Ukraine, Russia will intervene to protect them. And it will. That's the only thing that's prevented a massacre there so far. Ms. Tymoshenko, a former prime minister of Ukraine, was recorded saying that she wanted 8 million Russians in Ukraine wiped out "with nuclear weapons".
You shed crocodile tears about Ukrainian and Western European patriots, and then demonize a patriotic leader for wanting to protect his own.
"I'm not sure what part of "Multikulti ist absolut gescheitert" I need to translate for you"
She hadn't done anything to fight multiculti. Treating such statements as if they mean anything is extremely disingenuous. I remember a British PM (was it Cameron?) saying something similar. Such statements have the weight of "click here, you're already a winner". I refuse to believe that anyone anywhere has ever taken them seriously. That you would pretend to says things about you.
For example, if I read Steve correctly, he's no fan of Nuland or the absurd notion that Russia is somehow more homophobic than, say, Nigeria or Egypt, but he's not exactly fawning over Putin, either. So it can be done.
And to follow up on that point, Steve, unlike some of his detractors here, has actually thought far enough ahead to consider whether the next time Abramovitch or one of his successors takes the Battlestar Galactica (or whatever he calls that thing) out for a pleasure cruise on the Mediterranean, he might decide to park it next to Tel Aviv, invite a few old friends over, and see what the future holds for them. That’s admittedly a very rough paraphrase of his argument, but I think I got the gist of it.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that eventuality, but I am endlessly amused by the Putin-boosters who have ridiculed Steve for making that observation, while also insisting that the oligarchs are (and presumably ever will be) "under Putin’s control", even as they regale us with horror stories of what happens to Russia (and America) when Jews (and neo-Zio-bankster-cons) are allowed to run things, which they inevitably seem to wind up doing. I’m guessing none of them ever bothers to realize that even in their own convoluted world-view, all is not well regarding Russia’s future.
Again, it’s all about keeping that tunnel vision on whatever Fearless Leader is telling you to look at, and ignoring everything else.
She hadn't done anything to fight multiculti...I refuse to believe ...That you would pretend to says things about you.
Read my full post. There was plenty more than Angela there. Deal with it.
You don't have to settle for half a loaf. MacArthur could have stopped a 100 miles or so north of the demarcation line and dug in. Across this wasp-waist area (say roughly Wonsan to Nampho) he would have been impossible to dislodge and would have left enough of a rump North Korea state to provide a sufficient buffer to assauge the Chinese. What China couldn't tolerate was American troops on their very border. MacArthur didn't get this. He could have stopped with say, two-thirds of a loaf. What would have been left was a diminished North Korea, punished for its agression while avoiding a wider war with China.
I believe this was Kissinger's conclusion, back in the days before he was famous. He thought the US had forfeited a chance to eke out a victory against Communism, rather than a stalemate.
Can you show me anything I've written that qualifies as fawning over Putin?
Au contraire, I consider you an honorable opponent, however much we may disagree and I was not thinking of anything in particular that you wrote when I made that statement, but sometimes you have to conflate a few answers into one. If you read over some of the other recent posts here, and you'll see evidence of what I'm getting at.
I love how he calls the Yatsenyuk-led oligarch-appointing Kiev government "the Ukrainians". While calling Right Sector guys (of all people) Russian stooges!
Wrong again, Putin-stooge (and just to be clear: I don't mean you, Hundson). I believe Putin has moles and infiltrators in Right Sector's leadership. That's not to say that the movement is entirely his creation or that all the mistakes that the new Ukrainian government (so to speak) has made are solely attributable to him. And yes, I will use Ukrainian to mean different things in different contexts. Sue me. At least I acknowledge their existence, which is more than can be said of some of you.
OT, Looks like right sector were useful idiots to create a diversion and overturn the government. Now they are being executed in broad daylight by the "new" government:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/oleksander-muzychko-dead_n_5026408.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
"No matter what happens now Putin has driven at least half of Ukraine out of Russian influence forever, something even Yeltsin didn't manage."
The Ukrainian speaking, Roman Catholic, western provinces of the Ukraine (who have at times been part of The Kingdom of Lithuania and Poland respectively) and who mustered a Waffen SS Division during WWII, have never considered themselves, at heart, part of Orthodox Russia or the Soviet Union.
>Merkle<
Even Obama publicly acknowledged (in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin affair) the higher criminality rate of American blacks; but one would have to be quite foolish (or, alternatively, paranoid) to interpret that as the beginning of the end of "disparate impact" doctrines, much less policies.
>Ukrainians<
Don't reflexively assume that embracing the West is better for them than sticking with Russia is. Or that the US and EU are a priori good, so that anyone who opposes their will must be evil and even has the onus of proving he isn't. And don't again run that "spontaneous democratic uprising" nonsense past anyone with a mental age higher than 6.
As a Brit I should apologise for the existence of N. Korea.
In 1946 the Labour govt. gave an advanced jet engine to the USSR for reasons which have never sounded entirely plausible to my mind.
That later gave the the communists the MiG-15 which denied allied air forces air superiority in the Korean war. With air superiority allied forces could have driven the communists back to the Chinese border.
What about NATO jets bombing Belgrade and NATO troops helping to seize Serb territory?
Wasn’t a fan of that, myself. That being said, if nationalist Serb leaders did not themselves have a paper trail with titles like, and I kid you not, "Expulsion of the Albanians", and a history of war crimes pursuant to such, maybe NATO would not have felt compelled to step in. (Note to Chetniks: next time, when planning genocide, keep it under wraps, guys, or at least retitle your memoranda into something not quite so on-the-nose.)
"National Rifle Administration"?
Your tears are salty my Crocodilian friend.
Cameron was recently in the sodding Knesset talking about his ancestor Elijah Levita writing the first Jiddish Novel. A week or two before that he was in a Sikh temple wearing a turban.
A few years ago he declared the multicult dead.
He is like Zelig.
Remember how Kohl said, "Now what belongs together is growing together?" Well, the miseries of Ukrainian citizens will continue until what belongs apart (the west and the south/east of the country) can be split apart for good. When exactly that will happen I don't know.
"China emerged as the winner in the Korean War."
Well, that's one argument. I think if you look you will find that China originally thought the war would be over in months after they entered, which is one reason they entered with limited cold weather gear and paid dearly for it.
The Chinese had been planning to invade Taiwan and used the army that was being assembled for that invasion instead to invade Korea. So if nothing else the Korean war may have saved Taiwan, so that makes Taiwan a winner.
The lesson that technology could compensate for manpower was driven home on the Chinese, maybe one reason for the technology "catch-up" mentality of China still today.
BTW, with the end of the Cold War an open secret has come to light, Soviet pilots did most of the combat flying (all those Migs over "Mig-alley"); a couple of air regiments.
Another note--one reason why the war is still not legally over is that the UN had a lot of Chinese prisoners and many did not want to return to China, a situation China found unacceptable. (Some where ex-Nationalist soldiers, who the Communists drafted en-masse if they hadn't fought directly against communists. The split them all up, so that one ex-Nationalist would be one member of a 3-man fire team.)
Japan won big from the Korean war. Some incredible amount of its GDP doing the war years was from supporting the war, greatly contributing to the Japanse economic miracle.
The US military-industrial complex won big, as the Korean War put the US on a permanent Cold War military footing.
The Korean War really was the Cold War's hot war. Many know of the Turkish troops, even 3rd-way India had medical troops on the UN (US) side.
Merkle…Even Obama publicly acknowledged …
See my 6:51 post.
Don't reflexively assume that embracing the West is better for them than sticking with Russia is. Or that the US and EU are a priori good, so that anyone who opposes their will must be evil...
Seriously, who thinks that? What about those who think that the EU is, in a variety of ways, though not exclusively, the lesser of two evils? Or at least, an option that one should be allowed to consider in peace and without the rumble of advancing Russian troops? Perhaps your straw man tactics would be more appropriate were they directed to so-called conservatives who think that Putin must be worth cheering simply by virtue of the fact that Obama and the gays dislike him, QED.
And don't again run that "spontaneous democratic uprising" nonsense past anyone with a mental age higher than 6.
Again? Help me out: when exactly did I run it the first time? Or any time? Or is this another cheap straw man tactic? In any case, Putin is clearly not taking your advice, else he would have found a less ridiculous of the Crimean 'revolt'.
That's rich. As if the 'Russians' put that system in place.
Yeah, well, it’s not the Jews (or quarter-Jews or Georgians) propping up all those Lenin statues.
BTW, did that huge one in Crimea ever get toppled? Sevastopol, wasn’t it? Google says no, in which case, I can see why the locals might have felt so out of place. Ah yes, faith, family values, and Lenin statues -- verily, an unbeatable combination.
That being said, if nationalist Serb leaders did not themselves have a paper trail with titles like, and I kid you not, "Expulsion of the Albanians", and a history of war crimes pursuant to such, maybe NATO would not have felt compelled to step in.
The Kosovo situation was totally and deliberately spun to suggest a massive crime was occurring to justify our intervention. The reality was their was a civil war taking place between the remaining Serbs and the Albanian majority, which had become the majority through massive border crossing from Albania proper. Estimates put the death toll in the 12 months prior to our bombing at 2,000 which included both Serb and Albanian victims. The so called Racak massacre, which caused us to want to bomb, was possibly a staged event according to Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie.
The real ethnic cleansing occurred after the bombing when NATO was on the ground supposedly in control of Kosovo. Right under their noses over 100K Serbs were cleansed from Kosovo and NATO did nothing. So don't give me that line that we were doing it to prevent ethnic cleansing.
Just like we did not do anything to the Croatians who cleansed almost 200K Serbs from Croatia in 1995. No, we had ulterior motives for getting involved in Kosovo, and used ethnic cleansing as an excuse to carry it out.
still don't agree with your take on this stuff, steve.
Yeah, well, it’s not the Jews (or quarter-Jews or Georgians) propping up all those Lenin statues.
I don't know why you bring up Jews or Georgians, but propping up statues really has nothing to do with who put that system in place. Chalk that up to brainwashing enacted by that evil system on its subjects. Even in America many so-called conservatives, who supposedly don't support the multicult, behave like submissive dogs, lest they run afoul of their PC commissars.
The people who put that system into place were the intellectuals and outside financial backers who rode on the coattails of the grunts who rebelled. Kind of like what is happening in Ukraine. The street toughs who did the heavy lifting are now being eliminated so that the intellectuals and their outside backers can run the show.
I don't blame the Russian people for communism any more than I'd blame my next door neighbor for the immivasion of America.
"And .... Russia dumped communism. "
I suppose it is safe to say that by 1990 Communism was ready for the dustbin of history.
But the Cultural Revolution dragged on until 1976 and Pol Pot until 1978. So, it wasn't that long since it had its true believers.
It is hard to imagine just how frightened the US was of the Godless Communist Menace.
It was almost axiomatic after WW II that totalitarian governments and especially their central planning was much more efficient than a much more decentralized capitalistic democracy.
Their was at least a fear if not a belief that Communism was much more attractive to the developing world than capitalism. If recently decolonized Asia got even a whiff of Communism, they couldn't resist its siren calls. And once the dominos start falling.
Plus .....
They had better spies.
They lied and played dirty
They were Godless
Their economic system was more efficient and rational
When fighting in Russia, they were always smart enough to wear winter coats.
Once they got their hooks on you, it was like a bad case of clap.
There Generals were willing to sacrifice another division or two to win a side bet.
They stole our atom bomb
They put a man in space
They held all the jobs in our State Department
They were good at chess and cheated at the olympics.
In other words, in a mixed martial arts fight, they might just kick our ass.
The point being that you can't have a new cold war without a clash of civilizations component.
A real cold war -- when we are all living in the same global economy. Why bother?
The so called Racak massacre, which caused us to want to bomb, was possibly a staged event according to Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie.
The document I linked to on expelling "Arnauts" was not a staged event. The Carnegie Endowment report on the Balkan wars was not a staged event. After a couple of generations of that, it’s a little hard to take Serb apologists’ claims seriously, though they had the world going for quite a while. In particular, those ethnically cleansed Croatian Serbs you speak of (who had spent the last 4-5 shelling nearby Croatians to oblivion), managed to wreak that carnage without much in the way of international opposition. They should have stuck with killing Catholics. No NATO official is going to care about that. But no, they had to go after the Muslims. Again, I’m not agreeing with what NATO did, but that whole "poor Serbs, why does this always keep happening to them?" spiel became stale long ago.
Why are you guys responding to this obvious troll?
"Expulsion of the Albanians"
Didn't the great powers support the expulsion of the Palestinians?
"The so called Racak massacre, which caused us to want to bomb, was possibly a staged event..."
The document I linked to is not a staged event. Nor is the Carnegie Endowment for Peace report on the Balkan Wars. After a few decades of that, people start looking askance at Chetnik propaganda, and they start seeing a dark side to Rebecca West that somehow never made it to print, but you gotta hand it to them, they had a good run. You mention those ethnically cleansed Serbs without noting that they had spent the half-decade prior to their exodus bombing nearby Croatians into rubble. If they had only stuck with murdering Catholics, or gone back to warring with Bulgaria, maybe NATO and the rest of the world would not have cared all that much. But no, they just had to go after the Muslims at a time when Clinton was trying to placate Arabs and lefties angered by Iraq and Israel.
When you overplay your hand, and just keep doubling down, you’re eventually going to lose. If people want to keep drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea, they should keep that in mind. Again, I’m no fan of what NATO did to Belgrade, and would have preferred a peaceful Kosovo under Serbian control, but the "why is everyone so mean to us?" line from the Chetnik lobby became stale long ago.
"A real cold war -- when we are all living in the same global economy. Why bother?"
That's what they all were saying in 1910.
When fighting in Russia, they [Russian soldiers] were always smart enough to wear winter coats.
But they took them off in Finland.
Steve, you are great on everything but military and foreign affairs.
First, John Kerry and Obama have renounced the Monroe Doctrine so that is in fact, wrong. America has tolerated Iran putting missiles in Venezuela, so we don't have a buffer hemisphere.
Second, the Korean War was almost won at several points. The Pusan Perimeter was almost broken. Almost. The North Koreans ran out food, fuel, ammo, etc. and the US carrier fleet destroyed their reinforcements and supplies, a Western tactic since the Allies on the Western Front, Spring 1918-Nov.
Its not foolhardy for almost winning.
Next, MacArthur's amphibious expedition was not the decisive factor. Rather, it was the breakout from Pusan and the race northwards, the routed the North Korean Army. The amphibious landing was unopposed, serious fighting in and around the beach head would have destroyed US forces, not the least of which was heavy tides meant basically 12 hours where reinforcements could not land; and the island / lagoon layout of Inchon meant that any serious artillery placements could have decimated US naval forces.
On MacArthur's hubris you are correct, he was warned repeatedly that China would enter the War to preserve North Korea ... BUT ...
What kind of a war is fought for ... stalemate?
How can a nation ask its young and not so young men to die for ... stalemate?
This is a unique feature of the Cold War and Mutual Assured Destruction meaning that no victory or defeat could be contemplated, and men had to be sent to die to show each side in deeds not words and lots of blood that the resolve was real. That nuclear fire would be answered by nuclear fire because blood was repaid by blood.
Nevertheless the Korean War was basically the child of the Kim grandfather. He thought he could win and almost did -- against a weak and disarmed US that under Truman had massively demobilized.
Had the US kept its massive carrier fleet and armaments from WWII, upgraded its air fleet, Kim likely would have been deterred.
This is the key point Machiavelli makes that Libertarians forget -- war deterred by strength and will is better than a war fought for survival or key objectives.
Let me add, you are also wrong Steve on two key points:
1. The NRA in the 1990's was not triumphant but reeling under Clinton's gun bans and measures to keep "assault rifles" (basically anything that was semi-automatic) and handguns out of ... White middle class people so that they could not fight back against Black crime.
The NRA was and is bashful about the racial angle, as Paul Kersey of SBDL points out. But nevertheless, Bill and Hillary Clinton enacted the assault weapons ban, the "high capacity" (more than ten rounds) magazine ban, and the "Hillary Hole" mandated gunlocks (making the revolvers inoperable randomly during firing) on all Smith and Wesson Revolvers.
This was a massive defeat by the NRA at the hands of the Clintons.
Nor is there any prospect of "war" save a giant hissy fit by Obama "Russia is a regional power that is weak."
Obama is canceling the Hellfire and Tomahawk missile programs, no replacements until 2030. Meanwhile the Navy is down to fewer ships than WWI! and has only one more carrier (active) than the beginning of WWII -- nine vs. WWII 1941's 8. Two carrier groups are mothballed because Obama is spending the money on welfare and Obamaphones.
The Army is at pre-WWII strength levels, and while military spending is high, nearly all of that is accounted for far higher retirement and health benefits, not men and missiles and guns and ships and tanks and planes. China and Russia pay their men nothing and have no pensions or health benefits. So their spending is more efficient that way. Our military spending is not really military, (though it is certainly justified for service).
Obama and his people really believe his magical "Blackness" will create a lightworker effect on Putin and make him crawl for forgiveness. Because it has worked on weak, media driven, White female voter Western leaders.
If you want to talk hubris, talk Obama. He's won victory after victory over White guys because he's Black, and White women love him like a double dose of Oprah. But Putin -- he's a genuine tough guy and does not care.
"Had the US kept its massive carrier fleet and armaments from WWII, upgraded its air fleet, Kim likely would have been deterred."
Not worth it. Who cares if the Commies took over South Korea? Not I. We need to concentrate on North American continental defense not land wars in Asia that we never (and can never) win.
You monger war for no rational reason whatsoever.
Whiskey, Putin looks like Gandalf the house elf beside Obama. Have you seen that video of Putin publicly lifting the shirt of a little boy and slobbering all over his nether regions?
And did you hear what happened to the man who showed it to the media in London?
"Cameron was recently in the sodding Knesset talking about his ancestor Elijah Levita writing the first Jiddish Novel. A week or two before that he was in a Sikh temple wearing a turban."
Whatever his foreign audience want to hear, Cameron will tell them. Very Tony Blair in that regard.
"Here is another man with whom I cannot get angry, because I despise him."
Again, I’m no fan of what NATO did to Belgrade, and would have preferred a peaceful Kosovo under Serbian control, but the "why is everyone so mean to us?" line from the Chetnik lobby became stale long ago.
Another thing to add is that only 50 years prior, the Croatians and Albanians had actively helped the Nazis and even assisted in rounding up Serbs for the concentration camps. Over 300K Serbs died in camps and hundreds of thousands of others were attacked by SS Albanian division and Croatian military units.
I find it ironic that the Serbs were treated so badly given their history. The Yugoslav dissolution basically came down to every member of Yugoslavia getting self-determination except for the Serbs. If the Serbs wanted self-determination they had to return to the borders of the current state of Serbia, minus Kosovo of course, which then was severed. There was no severing of Serb lands in Croatia or Serb lands in Bosnia. And Albanians in Serbian Kosovo were actively assisted in breaking away. Any remaining Serbs in Kosovo who wanted self-determination were told to move farther north into the remaining jurisdiction of Serbia. Even allowing a tiny sliver, North Kosovo, to remain with Serbia was out of the question.
It seems quite unfair.
Whiskey said: First, John Kerry and Obama have renounced the Monroe Doctrine so that is in fact, wrong.
Hunsdon said: And JFK letting Russian forces remain on Cuba after pulling the missiles wasn't a repudiation of the Monroe Doctrine?
Anonydroid at 3:31 PM said: Another thing to add is that only 50 years prior, the Croatians and Albanians had actively helped the Nazis and even assisted in rounding up Serbs for the concentration camps. Over 300K Serbs died in camps and hundreds of thousands of others were attacked by SS Albanian division and Croatian military units.
Hunsdon said: Didn't the Serbs also rescue and exfiltrate a whole bunch of US airmen shot down over Yugoslavian territory in WW2?
As long as we're talking about Serbs, I've always kind of wondered what the Steve Sailer take on Nikola Tesla would be like. Even leaving aside the death rays, the feud with Edison would make fine fodder for a Taki piece.
"China emerged as the winner in the Korean War."
It probably didn't seem like that to them by the end of the war. For instance the last battle of the war was the 4th Battle of the Hook (24-26 July 1953):
"... the Chinese did not give up... attacked the US Marines... and Australian Regiment on the Hook... estimated between two and three thousand bodies... were to be seen lying on the western slopes of the Hook. Only 43 Marines and two Australians were killed in two nights of bombardment. At no time did the enemy get into the... trenches." ("The Korean War: The West Confronts Communism", Michael Hickey, 2000.)
Chinese wounded was estimated at 10,000. After the truce (on 27 July) it took the Chinese 5 days to clear the bodies. This was just one incident on the line that became the border.
(See also "Samichon River "The Hook" 24-26 July 1953" and some WWI-like (or LOR-like) pics here.)
US sources don't even record this as a battle. By the end of the war this had become a pattern. For instance, in the Third Battle of the Hook: 20 British KIA and 24 MIA; Chinese KIA somewhere over 1000.
USMC, Canadians, Australians, and British all had various Korean Battles of the Hook.
The Chinese tried to compensate for lack of technology with numbers and tactics based on stealth "assembly on the objective" with massed troops armed with short-range submachine guns (the Soviet PPsh) and grenades. It didn't work. The Chinese were relearning the lessons of WWI. (The movie Seven Years in Tibet sort of shows the Chinese tactics in a setting roughly contemporary with the Korean War where they did work.) Also, at the very start of the war it was the US troops, straight from easy occupation duty in Japan, who lacked technology to stand up to the North Koreans, well stocked by the Soviets.
no replacements until 2030 ..
That's incorrect.
Also, the US Navy needs to diversify away from 100,000 ton aircraft carriers. In my opinion, the big carriers are becoming the dreadnought battleships of the 21st century. That is not a compliment.
Soldier’s General, like Omar Bradley ..
Sez who? And "Soldier's General" -- define that.
Bradley has a poor reputation among military historians.
Bradley was also Army Chief of Staff in the Truman admin. Omar failed to keep MacArthur under control. Your "Soldier's General" shares a lot of responsibility for the Yalu River rout.
Another few winners and losers of the Korean war.
World communism lost big. Not only was it physically stopped in a setting where it had bet on going all-out, the Korean War started the Sino-Soviet split, with the Chinese saying they were doing all the fighting and dying and the Soviets saying they were supplying all the money and weapons. In under two decades they'd fight a border dispute.
The USMC, which hadn't drawn down as much as the other (larger) services after WWII, was a winner. The USAF, for instance, had drawn down and didn't have enough pilots to fly the F-86s (Sabres), so Marine pilots like John Glenn flew as "exchange pilots" for the USAF (experienced Royal Canadian Air Force pilots did also.)
All-African-American army units (and segregation) was a loser, with the African-American 24th Infantry Regiment, originally a "Buffalo Soldiers" unit, doing particularly poorly and being dissolved. (To be scrupulously fair, it may have simply been a rotten unit that had gotten used to easy occupation duty in Japan.) But in any case the concept of segregated units lost favour in the US military and the Pentagon decided that integration was more effective.
Another thing to add is that only 50 years prior, the Croatians and Albanians had actively helped the Nazis and even assisted in rounding up Serbs for the concentration camps.
The Serbs certainly suffered tragically during WWII. But surprisingly enough, having a grandfather who fought on the Alied side (or claimed as much – some of those Chetnik factions were more than happy to collaborate with the fascists) still doesn’t give you a free pass when it comes to setting fire to Dubrovnik, shelling cities like Sarajevo and Zadar and Vukovar, and bumping off Kosovars. Who would’ve guessed?
Maybe wallowing in half-century old WWII glory days and electing a tough-talking ex-Communist apparatchik as your president is not the recipe to prosperity and security that some on this site might claim. Food for thought.
Also, the US Navy needs to diversify away from 100,000 ton aircraft carriers.
How about 200,000-ton AC's? Or 500,000 tons? Or a million?
Another thing to add is that only 50 years prior, the Croatians and Albanians had actively helped the Nazis
By the way, there’s a good deal of Chetnik propaganda in that sentence that deserves to be called out. Namely, the trick or conflating "Croatians" with the Nazi-puppet Ustashe. In fact, the only side in WWII that legitimately could be called Croatian (at least when the war started) was the Peasant Party, and their leader was the only member of the Yugoslav government who refused to sign the Tripartite Pact and join the fascists. The rest of the Royalist government did sign the Pact (before and after the previous king was deposed).
The Mihailovich faction of the Chetniks did fight the Germans for a while, but after bloody reprisals, they soon turned their attention to killing other locals and gave up (or collaborated with) the Axis, which is why the Allies eventually shifted their support to Tito (who didn’t care as much how many of his followers got turned into hamburger in order to advance his cause). The other Chetnik factions never really seemed all that bothered by Nazis to begin with, helping to round up Jews, etc., and they funneled arms and supplies to Mihailovich’s faction as well. Eventually, a lot of these Chetniks joined up with the Partisans once they saw which way the wind was blowing.
The Ustashe, whom the Nazis installed after they were repeatedly rebuffed by the Peasant Party leadership, were indeed a bloodthirsty lot, but that was because they took a page from the Chetnik playbook and started doing to Serbs what Chetniks had been doing to their opponents for years. (E.g., forcing a group of prisoners to convert to your faith, then mowing them down anyway. Read through the abovementioned Carnegie report on the Balkan wars if you’ve got the stomach for it.) I’ve spoken with more Croatians than Albanians, but I suspect the Albanian side of that story is also a bit more complicated than your statement implies.
Again, I’m not sure of the value of rehashing WWII, but some Serbian apologists think it matters a lot, even though a closer reading of the facts muddy the propaganda they like to present. And for what it’s worth, the parallels with Ukraine should be evident. If you ever get tired of pretending that your opponents are non-entities, you instead try to smear them as fascists, even though being treated as non-entities was the primary reason some of these opponents accepted Nazi support in the first place.
It’s a nifty trick, but it seems that it sometimes gets you into trouble, once enough people see through it. How long before Putin’s luck runs out?
"How long before Putin’s luck runs out?"
100,000 Russian troops readying for action on the Ukraine's borders isn't luck, it's force majeure.
Also, the US Navy needs to diversify away from 100,000 ton aircraft carriers.
How about 200,000-ton AC's? Or 500,000 tons? Or a million?
Smaller, not larger. Maybe eight instead of ten active 100,000 ton aircraft carriers, plus six or so 45,000 ton USS America class amphibious assault ships.
The new USS America is officially an amphibious assault ship, not an aircraft carrier. An onion with another name would still smell as sweet.
100,000 Russian troops readying for action on the Ukraine's borders isn't luck, it's force majeure.
Not sure if you actually read the (admittedly lengthy) post, but I was referring to the paid Putin-propagandists who alternate between assuring us that Ukrainians don’t really exist as such, or else are just Nazis. That strategy works fine -- until it doesn’t. And 100,000 troops is not going to be nearly enough cannon fodder if he starts acting like Milosevic did, so if he wants to learn a lesson from Serbia, that should be top of the list.
That being said, if he ever turns those troops towards something more useful – e.g. slamming down child-massacring theatre-bombing Chechen terrorists, he will have my support.
"if he ever turns those troops towards something more useful – e.g. slamming down child-massacring theatre-bombing Chechen terrorists, he will have my support."
Putin doesn't want or need your support and he already has slammed down the Chechens. He also isn't Milosevic and the Ukraine isn't Serbia. In fact it isn't even a real country. Russia will have the same success if they annex the rest of the primarily Russian speaking and Orthodox oblasts of the eastern Ukraine as they did in the Crimea. I think he is just waiting for some excuse to do so.
There will be no resistance from the native population. Supposedly public opinion in Crimea was 40% for and 40% against further Russian control. Any opposition (if it really existed in the first place) melted away when further troops arrived.
He is now primed to take over the eastern half. If we follow through on the threats to supply missiles and tanks and aircraft to the Kiev government he will take over the entire Ukraine immediately in the name of Russian national security and there won't be anything we can or will do to stop it.
We just lost another two wars. Chaos reigns in Iraq and Syria and after a decade we haven't managed to pacify the goat-herding Muslim bandit Pashtuns (who ever has?) Karzai has even been in recent talks with the Russians!!! The American people won't stand for another war especially one with a country that can incinerate our major cities or supply Iran with enough state of the art anti-ship missiles to turn the entire Persian Gulf into a burning oil slick with supertankers and American warships lining its bottom.
What amazes me is that the typical Beltway warmongers by and large had no trouble with Moscow asserting its power in Berlin in '61, Budapest in '56, and Prague in '68 but somehow think that Russians do not feel an existential threat to themselves as we continue to stir up trouble in the Ukraine.
and he already has slammed down the Chechens.
It’s pointless to take anything you write seriously if it starts off with something like that. Did he also give a rousing speech afterwards in which he got to say "Mission accomplished"?
"It’s pointless to take anything you write seriously if it starts off with something like that."
You obviously don't stay abreast of the news much. The Russians killed over 50,000 Chechens in the Second War and Ramzan Kadyrov the current pro-Moscow strongman there is keeping a tight lid on militant activity.
pro-Moscow strongman there is keeping a tight lid on militant activity
You've got credulity, that's for sure. Would that you had the credibility to match it. Putin has, what 300K troops now? How lid-dified will the Chechens stay once Putin's forces stretched? With the Chechens, hat's not a matter of 'if', just a matter of 'when'.
Post a Comment