US Politics

[silvertop]

True, I love the World at War and it was fascinating to me when it came out. I've always been interested in WW2. All my family were in it.
However, some of the history in the World at War has moved on.
However, I'd take issue with some of the new stuff. I'm a self appointed expert! I am an historian but not of that period. I guess it's an interest/ hobby of mine. Rather than work.

Any examples?

 

[ASCPFC]

Any examples?

I just wrote two pages and then deleted them. It's not really the time and place.

 

[Badger11]

Any examples?

My neighbours son is an Holocaust expert and a published author. Apparently there is still lots of new information coming out about WW2.

His claim to fame was around the regular German police force of the time. It had previously been voiced (mainly by them) that they had little or nothing to do with the Final Solution and that it was the SS and other Nazi units.

He was able to prove this was a lie and that they were up to their armpits in it. This may not be a surprise to some but there is a big difference in assuming and proving.

Oddly enough must of his work involved the massacres in the Ukraine.

 

[ASCPFC]

My neighbours son is an Holocaust expert and a published author. Apparently there is still lots of new information coming out about WW2.

His claim to fame was around the regular German police force of the time. It had previously been voiced (mainly by them) that they had little or nothing to do with the Final Solution and that it was the SS and other Nazi units.

He was able to prove this was a lie and that they were up to their armpits in it. This may not be a surprise to some but there is a big difference in assuming and proving.

Oddly enough must of his work involved the massacres in the Ukraine.

One of the best documentaries I've seen is the two part Das Reich one. A lot of stuff is covered well. It shows a lot of that.

 

[silvertop]

I just wrote two pages and then deleted them. It's not really the time and place.

I wasn't expecting a treatise, more (e.g. made up) new evidence on atrocities committed by allied soldiers, the real reason Tobruk fell etc.

 

[silvertop]

My neighbours son is an Holocaust expert and a published author. Apparently there is still lots of new information coming out about WW2.

His claim to fame was around the regular German police force of the time. It had previously been voiced (mainly by them) that they had little or nothing to do with the Final Solution and that it was the SS and other Nazi units.

He was able to prove this was a lie and that they were up to their armpits in it. This may not be a surprise to some but there is a big difference in assuming and proving.

Oddly enough must of his work involved the massacres in the Ukraine.

Ironic you mention Ukraine given the sheer number who happily donned militia armbands to round up jews and other "undesirables" for the death camps.

Plenty of such collaboration from every country the Germans occupied.

 

[ASCPFC]

I wasn't expecting a treatise, more (e.g. made up) new evidence on atrocities committed by allied soldiers, the real reason Tobruk fell etc.

One of the first things I wrote was about high command incompetence. Always skirted around. Dysfunctional and even worse when you consider the intelligence they had. Britain did suicide missions for political reasons a few times.

 

[ASCPFC]

Ironic you mention Ukraine given the sheer number who happily donned militia armbands to round up jews and other "undesirables" for the death camps.

Plenty of such collaboration from every country the Germans occupied.

The one not mentioned much would be French collusion. Another would be Ireland and the Jewish refugees. Nobody knows about that here. Look into that.

 

[silvertop]

The one not mentioned much would be French collusion. Another would be Ireland and the Jewish refugees. Nobody knows about that here. Look into that.

I don't know about the refugees (I will check) but I am pretty sure the IRA offered the Germans a back door into the British Isles. Don't know how complicit the young Republic government was in that.

 

[silvertop]

The one not mentioned much would be French collusion. Another would be Ireland and the Jewish refugees. Nobody knows about that here. Look into that.

French collusion is mentioned a lot.

There were French SS units and a French Gestapo.

Their people cheerfully handed over Jews and others for no greater reward than seeing them handed over.

Oh and half the country was a neo Nazi protectorate.

 

[ASCPFC]

I don't know about the refugees (I will check) but I am pretty sure the IRA offered the Germans a back door into the British Isles. Don't know how complicit the young Republic government was in that.

There wasn't actually much support for the Nazis except for the most radical. Skorzeny's soldiers portrayed in the crap film of the Battle of the Bulge would have included some Irish.
However, the Germans went around recruiting, in particular, Irish, Scottish for their army after capturing thousands in France. In some ways would you fully blame people for that?
But yet got told where to go in the vast majority of cases.
Off the top of my head, not even one hundred Irish fought for the Nazis. But tens of thousands for the Allies. Again, not spoken about much. Kind of unsuitable for future history. Although that is being redressed somewhat.
A very famous one was a Battle of Britain hero who flew with a Shamrock on his Spitfire. Off the top of my head I think it's Paddy Finucane. Died during the war in France. Pretty sure it was an Irishman who ended up commanding the Indian RAF too.
Plus, obviously, something like 10,000 casualties in the merchant Navy.

 

[silvertop]

There wasn't actually much support for the Nazis except for the most radical. Skorzeny's soldiers portrayed in the crap film of the Battle of the Bulge would have included some Irish.
However, the Germans went around recruiting, in particular, Irish, Scottish for their army after capturing thousands in France. In some ways would you fully blame people for that?
But yet got told where to go in the vast majority of cases.
Off the top of my head, not even one hundred Irish fought for the Nazis. But tens of thousands for the Allies. Again, not spoken about much. Kind of unsuitable for future history. Although that is being redressed somewhat.
A very famous one was a Battle of Britain hero who flew with a Shamrock on his Spitfire. Off the top of my head I think it's Paddy Finucane. Died during the war in France. Pretty sure it was an Irishman who ended up commanding the Indian RAF too.
Plus, obviously, something like 10,000 casualties in the merchant Navy.

I thought we were talking about collaboration.

Yes loads of folk who did not need to be there but turned up anyway such as a sizeable number of "Canadians" with accents distinctly south of the 49th parallel. And from a nation allegedly screaming for independence 2.5 million Indian VOLUNTEERS.

 

[ASCPFC]

I thought we were talking about collaboration.

Yes loads of folk who did not need to be there but turned up anyway such as a sizeable number of "Canadians" with accents distinctly south of the 49th parallel. And from a nation allegedly screaming for independence 2.5 million Indian VOLUNTEERS.

Collaboration in an Irish context is more likely for money with high ranking Nazis passing through post war.
But during the war German pilots were interred whilst British pilots were secretly driven up north to fight again. Although I'm not sure they would have all been grateful about that when you consider it. Probably outwardly grateful.

 

[Mark B]

Did any President from Ike to Biden withdraw net military resources from Europe? There was nothing stopping them. They could have done so at any time. However, to my knowledge, the only country the US did leave was France because (having been enriched by the Marshall Plan the ungrateful fecker) de Gaule kicked you out.

You are applying a revisionism to fit current Republican rhetoric.

We have been called the UK for quite some time.

Starting with Bush Sr, absolutely. The US in Europe topped out at 400,000 in the 1950s, down to 300,000 in 1990 and today sits around 68,064. in the last thirty years the US has drown down a force larger then the current UK armed forces (181,890).

You aren't revisionist, you are just wrong on the topic. I've attached two pictures and excel to support my point of view on the drawdown.

But for most discussions on this site it is England, as in the English National Team, not the UK National Team where the Scottish would likely have a mental breakdown if they couldn't have their own team. So if you want to be called the UK, cool, just don't be surprised if England is used as the Scottish don't always agree with you.

 

[Mark B]

It absolutely is true and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

America wanted an Empire and worked to take over from the British. From the Monroe doctrine in the 1820s to support for anti-British nationalism to finally destroying the empire via the WW2 deals, where the US traded 50 old destroyers for 99-year leases on British bases in the Caribbean and Newfoundland and with land lease deal where aid was tied to Britain opening colonial markets to US trade, which was the final death blow to the empire.

What Lord Ismay said doesn't even relate to it.



Hang on, that doesn't help your previous claim does it......besides it wasn't per capita until the 1910s.

However, I was talking about Empire, which is power projection around the world, not purely the size of an economy.



Enoch Powell wasn't a fantasist and as he was one of the most decorated academics the UK ever produced I'll pretty confident in his analysis on this particular point.

The USA wasn't a direct enemy but it wasn't a friend to the British Empire.....it wanted to take over and that's what happened.



Yes, in its own interest.



The power of a nation is in its people. The Soviets would have been taking over a continent of highly educated people....the control of which would have been a direct threat to the US. It would have taken the Soviets much longer to rebuild it along with the countries themselves, than the US due to economics, but it would have happened.....Britain built itself don't you know, America came from us, so the idea that we wouldn't have rebuilt along with other powerful nations like Germany is not realistic.

The US, were very aware of this, it's why the Marshall plan happened and why they made sure the Soviets didn't take their place.



You can't be serious, those are rookie numbers and nothing to do with reducing control in Europe.

Bases all over Europe.

Don't talk about it, just leave, you guys only have contempt for us.....but all I hear are threats and no actual leaving.

We will have the cheap Russia gas and source our own weaponry.



We will pay for our own defence if you leave won't we.

So leave....but you won't....and exactly for the reasons I stated.



You are making a different point.....of course America going isolationist would mean they would get replaced in Europe.....China and Russia would take larger roles both in energy and trade.

You moved onto slagging off today's nationalism.....Well yeah, you aren't wrong. However, have you taken a look at your own military? Aside from your elite regiments it's a bit of a joke.....DEI hires who are only there for the paycheck.



You are fooling yourself.....You are in huge debt and your military can't even beat Iran....mainly because you are too scared to take the losses from a land invasion.
You can have a large military but if it loses wars it's not exactly something to brag about.

The US is an anglo saxon country or was anyway....good luck in Asia and South America....you're gonna need it.

But please, stop the threats and pull out of Europe.

But like I say....You won't, it's all just jingoism for the gullible.



Sorry mate, but you are very much delusional on a lot of this.
Very one eyed.



We can both agree that the US needs to leave Europe.

Unfortunately it won't......and we have to hear this endless crap about how you're apparently doing us a favour.

Yeah, tell that to Greenland.

I get it, you don’t care what the facts are because they get in the way of your delusions.

If the US wanted an Empire, why didn’t it keep any of what it conquered? Has that always been a tendency of Empires? Or is the US a special friendly one?

The US already had forces stationed overseas in Asia, so your global bit doesn’t hold water because the US didn’t keep anything in Europe.

Enoch Powell was a hack who hated the US who thought the CIA had murdered Mountbatten in 1979. Which is actually fascinating since Lord Mountbatten and General Slim are still part of the American Military Professional Development. This is like me using Alex Jones as a reference, I would lose credibility doing it like you down with Enoch.

Empire is defined as a large group of territories and diverse peoples ruled by a single supreme authority. Force Projection has nothing to do with being an empire as the current UK military has more force projection capability then then British military did in its zenith as the systems make up for the lack of numbers with capability.

So the Soviets would have been magically taken over by someone other then who took over? Who? You are creating fictional people who didn’t exist. And Germany and the UK wouldn’t have rebuilt if under Soviet control, you would have headed for Canada or Australia and the Germans would be revolting against the Soviets every other Tuesday. The Soviets took decades to rebuild their own country, and it would have been even longer for them to release the funds to rebuild any other nations.

I’m sorry you don’t like facts and figures, would you prefer that the US had over 200,000 leave in the last three decades?

The US has been trying to leave for decades but the rest of NATO won’t let them. This was literally in the news weeks ago when they begged the US to keep an additional brigade combat team beyond its NATO commitment in Europe.

You had the cheap gas and you (primarily Germany to be fair) paid for the Russian rearmament so they could invade Ukraine. You caused this.

You mean the same nation that cannot pay to maintain its submarines in a deployable shape and has to share aircraft between the RAF and Royal Navy because they couldn’t afford to buy enough? LOL, good luck with that. \

China is a net energy importer, not an exporter. The Russians absolutely are an exporter, at least for now.

I spent decades in the US military, it doesn’t function on the have and have nots like the British Army does. The US keeps all of its units at a certain level of manning and equipment so that they can be deployable. The reality is that the US Army National Guard units could are drastically better trained and brigade and above level operations then most NATO armies are because most NATO armies aren’t resources for actual warfighting. (Note: I disagree with Trump on his views on the bravery and utility of some NATO partners, I found that most UK personnel did their best with what they had which was often decades behind what the US was using but they showed up and did their best. Other nations just ate chow and bitched).

The issue with Iran is that Trump doesn’t want to invade and that is the only way to get rid of the IRGC. The IRGC don’t care what happens to the rest of Iran, as long as they get to stay in power.

The US needs to focus on the coming war with China, and if the US is too committed to Europe then China gets a huge advantage. If NATO with minimal assistance can prevent Russia from attacking then the focus can remain on China.

I wish I was making any of this up, but I’m grounded by the reality of what is, and not the fantasies that you seem to enjoy.

You mean the Greenland that the US secured from Nazi Denmark in 1941 and has been providing the majority of forces to secure it since? That Greenland?

 

[ASCPFC]

I get it, you don’t care what the facts are because they get in the way of your delusions.

If the US wanted an Empire, why didn’t it keep any of what it conquered? Has that always been a tendency of Empires? Or is the US a special friendly one?

The US already had forces stationed overseas in Asia, so your global bit doesn’t hold water because the US didn’t keep anything in Europe.

Enoch Powell was a hack who hated the US who thought the CIA had murdered Mountbatten in 1979. Which is actually fascinating since Lord Mountbatten and General Slim are still part of the American Military Professional Development. This is like me using Alex Jones as a reference, I would lose credibility doing it like you down with Enoch.

Empire is defined as a large group of territories and diverse peoples ruled by a single supreme authority. Force Projection has nothing to do with being an empire as the current UK military has more force projection capability then then British military did in its zenith as the systems make up for the lack of numbers with capability.

So the Soviets would have been magically taken over by someone other then who took over? Who? You are creating fictional people who didn’t exist. And Germany and the UK wouldn’t have rebuilt if under Soviet control, you would have headed for Canada or Australia and the Germans would be revolting against the Soviets every other Tuesday. The Soviets took decades to rebuild their own country, and it would have been even longer for them to release the funds to rebuild any other nations.

I’m sorry you don’t like facts and figures, would you prefer that the US had over 200,000 leave in the last three decades?

The US has been trying to leave for decades but the rest of NATO won’t let them. This was literally in the news weeks ago when they begged the US to keep an additional brigade combat team beyond its NATO commitment in Europe.

You had the cheap gas and you (primarily Germany to be fair) paid for the Russian rearmament so they could invade Ukraine. You caused this.

You mean the same nation that cannot pay to maintain its submarines in a deployable shape and has to share aircraft between the RAF and Royal Navy because they couldn’t afford to buy enough? LOL, good luck with that. \

China is a net energy importer, not an exporter. The Russians absolutely are an exporter, at least for now.

I spent decades in the US military, it doesn’t function on the have and have nots like the British Army does. The US keeps all of its units at a certain level of manning and equipment so that they can be deployable. The reality is that the US Army National Guard units could are drastically better trained and brigade and above level operations then most NATO armies are because most NATO armies aren’t resources for actual warfighting. (Note: I disagree with Trump on his views on the bravery and utility of some NATO partners, I found that most UK personnel did their best with what they had which was often decades behind what the US was using but they showed up and did their best. Other nations just ate chow and bitched).

The issue with Iran is that Trump doesn’t want to invade and that is the only way to get rid of the IRGC. The IRGC don’t care what happens to the rest of Iran, as long as they get to stay in power.

The US needs to focus on the coming war with China, and if the US is too committed to Europe then China gets a huge advantage. If NATO with minimal assistance can prevent Russia from attacking then the focus can remain on China.

I wish I was making any of this up, but I’m grounded by the reality of what is, and not the fantasies that you seem to enjoy.

You mean the Greenland that the US secured from Nazi Denmark in 1941 and has been providing the majority of forces to secure it since? That Greenland?

Honestly, consider history for even one moment. You think the USA would beat China? You think they'd do that alone? Or win any war alone? Not even sure they beat Mexico alone. They sure didn't invade it much either.
We're all products of our school system and I understand the mindset but it's highly doubtful when you consider basic reality.
I wonder how many boots on the ground China have? It'd be the same as everyone invading Russia in the past. Endless territory, endless canon fodder, endless resources. Logistics win wars and what do you think of China v everyone on that? Soldiers and equipment win the odd battle but the most productive wins every time. Hence the two super powers and no more workshop Britain.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I get it, you don’t care what the facts are because they get in the way of your delusions.

If the US wanted an Empire, why didn’t it keep any of what it conquered? Has that always been a tendency of Empires? Or is the US a special friendly one?

It did want an empire and it built one and it did keep much of what it conquered.

From Grok:

Lands Conquered (or Won in War) and Kept (or Largely Retained)These are the clearest examples of territorial gains secured through military victory:

• Mexican-American War (1846–1848): The US decisively defeated Mexico and kept vast territories via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (plus the later Gadsden Purchase). This included present-day California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona and New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming—roughly the Mexican Cession, about 500,000+ square miles. These became integral parts of the US and were admitted as states.
  
  en.wikipedia.org

• Spanish-American War (1898): The US gained Puerto Rico and Guam, which remain US territories today (unincorporated, with residents as citizens or nationals). The Philippines were also acquired but later lost (see below). Cuba was occupied briefly but not kept as a territory.
  
  
  Lands Lost, Given Up, or Where Expansion Attempts Stopped
• The US has relinquished or failed to hold some territories, often for strategic, economic, or political reasons rather than outright military defeat:
  • Philippines (1898–1946): Acquired from Spain, but the US fought a brutal Philippine-American War against independence forces. Granted independence on July 4, 1946, after WWII (per earlier pledges). Largest territory relinquished.
    
    history.com
  • Panama Canal Zone (1903–1979/1999): Controlled a 10-mile-wide strip for the canal. Returned to Panama via treaties (full control in 1999), amid local opposition and shifting priorities.
    
    history.com
  • Cuba: Occupied post-1898 but independence recognized in 1902 (with ongoing influence via Platt Amendment until later).
  • Post-WWII Pacific Trust Territories: Administered islands (e.g., Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau) under UN mandate; became independent nations in the late 20th/early 21st century (while retaining some US ties). Northern Marianas became a US commonwealth.
    
    en.wikipedia.org
  • Minor losses/exchanges: Post-War of 1812 treaty adjustments returned some small islands. Various Guano Islands claims were abandoned due to competing claims. The US returned or adjusted tiny border areas (e.g., bancos along the Rio Grande with Mexico).
    
    en.wikipedia.org

I'll answer the rest of the stuff as and when I can be bothered.

 

[silvertop]

One of the first things I wrote was about high command incompetence. Always skirted around. Dysfunctional and even worse when you consider the intelligence they had. Britain did suicide missions for political reasons a few times.

Dieppe?

Not that big an issue as the dead were mainly Canadian! Colonials for cannon fodder.

 

[Mark B]

Honestly, consider history for even one moment. You think the USA would beat China? You think they'd do that alone? Or win any war alone? Not even sure they beat Mexico alone. They sure didn't invade it much either.
We're all products of our school system and I understand the mindset but it's highly doubtful when you consider basic reality.
I wonder how many boots on the ground China have? It'd be the same as everyone invading Russia in the past. Endless territory, endless canon fodder, endless resources. Logistics win wars and what do you think of China v everyone on that? Soldiers and equipment win the odd battle but the most productive wins every time. Hence the two super powers and no more workshop Britain.

It really depends on what the goals and objectives for each side are. Is the war just over who controls Taiwan? Is it over who controls the Philippines? Japan? South China Sea? Is it both nations trying to take over the other one? The context matters. For example, if the only Chinese goal is taking Kinmen, then they can probably take it. If it is all of Taiwan, then the US will eventually get it back and the entire island will be destroyed in the process. The reality is that the US has chosen to fight restricted since Korea, against China we would like see most of those restrictions come off and the US stop pulling its punches like it has.

The US has already invaded Mexico before and taken over the entire country.

I’ve studied bias and understand it very well. We also happen to be talking about topics that a I’m a subject matter expert in so this really isn’t fair as I've heard and read from senior leaders on most of these topics from most of the major players.

Invading Taiwan for China is drastically more complicated then it was for Russia going into Ukraine. While Kinmen Island is easy to grab, going 130 kilometers across the Taiwan Strait makes logistically resupply challenging. A surprise attack can get personnel on to the island but then it becomes the challenge of resupply.

I do agree that China is an absolute production powerhouse, but China does have a geographic challenge of being easy to isolate by sea as well as lacking in resources. And despite what Westerners like to believe, Russia and China are not as buddy-buddy as we like to believe. The Chinese have been taking advantage of the Russians limited options and the Russians would love to return the favor. The US on the other hand has its own problem of an ocean in the way and resupplying that it would need to combat. Not an easy war for anyone.

And yes, I think it eventually comes. Not because of anything the US necessarily does, I hold the belief that all decisions in China are internally focused. And when the Chinese cannot hide their economic issues anymore and the people are frustrated that they no longer have the retirement income or the job that they gave up a large family for, the CCP is going to grasp at straws to distract them and that is when we’ll see China reach out. If they want it to be small, they take some land from India, if there is no way out then they take on the US and use that as the blame for all Chinese problems.

 

[Mark B]

It did want an empire and it built one and it did keep much of what it conquered.

From Grok:

Lands Conquered (or Won in War) and Kept (or Largely Retained)These are the clearest examples of territorial gains secured through military victory:

• Mexican-American War (1846–1848): The US decisively defeated Mexico and kept vast territories via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (plus the later Gadsden Purchase). This included present-day California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona and New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming—roughly the Mexican Cession, about 500,000+ square miles. These became integral parts of the US and were admitted as states.
  
  en.wikipedia.org

• Spanish-American War (1898): The US gained Puerto Rico and Guam, which remain US territories today (unincorporated, with residents as citizens or nationals). The Philippines were also acquired but later lost (see below). Cuba was occupied briefly but not kept as a territory.
  
  
  Lands Lost, Given Up, or Where Expansion Attempts Stopped
• The US has relinquished or failed to hold some territories, often for strategic, economic, or political reasons rather than outright military defeat:
  • Philippines (1898–1946): Acquired from Spain, but the US fought a brutal Philippine-American War against independence forces. Granted independence on July 4, 1946, after WWII (per earlier pledges). Largest territory relinquished.
    
    history.com
  • Panama Canal Zone (1903–1979/1999): Controlled a 10-mile-wide strip for the canal. Returned to Panama via treaties (full control in 1999), amid local opposition and shifting priorities.
    
    history.com
  • Cuba: Occupied post-1898 but independence recognized in 1902 (with ongoing influence via Platt Amendment until later).
  • Post-WWII Pacific Trust Territories: Administered islands (e.g., Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau) under UN mandate; became independent nations in the late 20th/early 21st century (while retaining some US ties). Northern Marianas became a US commonwealth.
    
    en.wikipedia.org
  • Minor losses/exchanges: Post-War of 1812 treaty adjustments returned some small islands. Various Guano Islands claims were abandoned due to competing claims. The US returned or adjusted tiny border areas (e.g., bancos along the Rio Grande with Mexico).
    
    en.wikipedia.org

I'll answer the rest of the stuff as and when I can be bothered.

Grok is a starting point, but it often has issues. For example, it says the Philippines was “lost” when it reality the US gave the Philippines the same option that it has given Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico, they can leave, they can stay as territories or they can become a state. They get to choose. Philippines is actually a fascinating place to study as the US kept a recuring station open in Manila until 1990 for the US Navy. Filipinos actually have a higher opinion of the US then Americans do.

I’m also entertained that you said the US was building a post WWII empire and yet all of your examples are pre-1900. Strange that despite the US controlling Japan, parts of Germany, Republic of Korea and even Greenland since WWII, they didn’t keep any of it.