301. colossus - July 6, 1999 - 8:53 AM PT
*Coup de main* as in the Serbs took Djakovica Elementary by coup de main.
302. Wombat - July 6, 1999 - 9:04 AM PT
Coup de main: The Russian seizure of Pristina Airport.
303. Amaxen - July 6, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
cigar,
My grandfather reminiced about the Influenza when it hit his area in central texas. He was about 9 at that time, and was a farmer's son. He told me that, as farmers do, his family bought dry goods in bulk: under his bed he had about five cases of post-tosties (1919's eqiv of Special K cereal) anyway, the flu took everyone down (including him), and he lived off of post-toasties for 2 weeks - said he would have probably starved without 'em. I have read some where (don't remember the source) that the '19 "flu" was the first truly global epidemic since the black death: it was far worse than many of the nightmare scenarios of biological warfare movies like "the Hot Zone", "outbreak", etc.
Also, about the kids nursery rhyme, there are precedents:
"ring around the rosy"(Symptom of the black death - description of the ring rash around the 'buboe')
/"pocket full of posey"/(refers to the prevention methods of the day - it was thought bad smells caused the disease -[posey - a kind of 13th century potpourri]
/"ashes, ashes" (re: Catholic last rites?, burning in the streets to clear the foul air)
/"we all fall down" ( Self explanitory )
304. Wombat - July 6, 1999 - 10:46 AM PT
"Ashes ashes" might have also been "atchoo, atchoo" (sneezing)
305. Amaxen - July 6, 1999 - 10:50 AM PT
Re: League of nations -
Remember tho, that even if the US had committed to become involved in the LoN, it was still an essentially unworkable plan for world peace: For example, under its terms, every member would have had to guarantee all international borders: In practice then, the US would have been bound to commit ground troops to guarantee the borders of, say, abysinnia against eithiopia, or Poland vs. Czechoslovakia, or support the British empire against insurgencies within the empire. There is no way that any country was prepared to do this then. And pretty unlikely that any nation would be willing to do this now. Would we be prepared to send in troops to fight against one side or the other in the indian/pakistan war? I doubt it. If we did, would it have good results? I doubt it. If we had good results, and took casualties, would the populace support any further such police actions? again, I doubt it.
-Just my $.02,
306. Amaxen - July 6, 1999 - 10:54 AM PT
- About the german navy mutiny: As I recall, at the end of the war, well after Germany's defeat was clear, was when the German Navy was ordered out to engage the British navy in order to preserve its honor. The sailors, I think understandably, refused to sacifice themselves for no gain. It is hard for me to see any other result, unless the troops are unusually (read fanatically) ideological.
307. ranheim - July 6, 1999 - 11:18 AM PT
The epidemiology studies I quoted from earlier were from an Alfred Bollet of Yale. He cites only two other world wide epidemics :
1) "The Great Plague of Justinian" It began around 542 A.D. and as can best be found by modern measures killed 100 million in 50 years.
2) "The Black Death" 14th century; Killed approximately 25 million in Europe and another 37 million elsewhere in the world. Took 3+ years.
Bollet believes that the Spanish Flu of 1918 killed more people faster than any previous world wide epidemic. That is why researchers have gone to the grisly process of exhuming bodies - mainly in areas of cold - to try to get a better handle on that particular virus. Early reports that I read earlier this year and late last year said that they were fairly confident of being able to isolate the virus.
The story of your grandfather amaxen is a little unusual. He was somewhat younger than the usual patient; but, that is understandable in that the whole family became ill. It also lasted a little longer than usual. Typically, one got well fast("several" days); or died fast.
308. cmboyce - July 6, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
Message #303
Amaxen, thanks for that amazing analysis of "Ring around the rosy". Where did you get that? I'd love to read more of whatever it is.
And, more relevant to the thread, the mention in Message #273 of the American mission to "fend off the
Japanese in Vladivostok" reminds me that Japan was formally a participant in WWI, as an ally of the West. Can anyone elaborate on their participation?
And why were we concerned to "fend off" our (even putative) ally? Why not let the revolutionaries have as rough a time as possible? My understanding has always been that we were there to support the Whites.
309. Amaxen - July 6, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
boyce,
Hmmmmrmrmrmmrmrm,,,
I think it was in Barbara Tuchman's "A distant Mirror" - Her book about the calamitous century that she felt was closest to our own - the 13th. I may also have picked up a reference to it in Science Fiction???? Don't quite remember now....
I'll try a web search when I'm off the clock.
310. Amaxen - July 6, 1999 - 5:09 PM PT
OK,
Not an authoritative source, but a guy has a page on the history of fairy tales at:
http://www.mother.com/prdesign/mainnoflash.html
The fact that I found this corraboration resolves it to my satisfaction, altho I'm sure you can write to the owner to find his ultimate source if you want to. Btw, he has an additional possible reference for the ashes line posted which I am pasting below - warning, pretty gross stuff.....
Quote:
In the final stages of the plague, just prior to death, the aviolae sacs in the lungs rupture and the lungs begin to be coated with blood, which then clots and dries. Right before the poor victim expires, they will often have a prolonged coughing fit during which they (hang onto your lunch here)... cough up flecks and particles of the dried "black"-appearing blood from their lungs. This was given the name "ashes" by the doctors of the time, who had no idea of how the lungs worked and no way to analyze the "ashes" that seemed to spew from the dying patients' mouths and define them as a blood product.
End Quote:
Charming century, the 13th........
311. colossus - July 6, 1999 - 6:58 PM PT
Amaxen:
The plague first appeared in strength in the 14th century (THAT was a charming century!)
"In October 1347...Genoese trading ships put into the harbour...with dead and dying men at the oars....The diseased sailors showed strange black swellings about the size of an egg or an apple in the armpits and groin. The swellings oozed blood and pus and were follwoed by spreading boils and black blotches on the skin from internal bleeding....In both types (bubonic & pneumonic) everything that issued from the body - breath, sweat, blood from the buboes and the lungs, bloody urine, blood-blackened excrement-smelled foul. Depression and despair accompanied the physical symptoms, and before the end "death is seen seated on the face"
B. Tuchman
"A Distant Mirror"
312. colossus - July 6, 1999 - 7:00 PM PT
And before someone jumps my ass - the Plague of 1347 was NOT the first appearance in Europe. The legend of the Pied Piper from the 12th or 13th Century was derived from the plague as well.
The 14th Century Plague was THE Plague, however, the one that later became known as The Black Death.
313. cmboyce - July 6, 1999 - 8:22 PM PT
Message #310
Amaxen, thanks for the site (thought I'd link it, for those who want to look). It sure as hell is far from an authoratative source, but it's also mighty interesting.
314. ranheim - July 6, 1999 - 8:41 PM PT
for cmboyce #308
The Germans had, in the years preceding WW I, had taken over the Pacific Islands : Carolinas; Marianas; and Marshalls. Early in the war Japanese Navy and troops assisted the Brits and Australians in re-taking these islands. Following Versailles, these 3 island groups became Japanese mandates. (And our Marines had to fight like hell 30 years later to dis-lodge them!) The Aussies were really hacked at the Brits for making this deal with Japan; they wanted to have a Pacific Island Empire. Additionally, the Japanese took control of the Chinese Province : Shantung.
The "Czech Legion" came about as a result of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Dec., 1917). One of its terms was that all Austro-Hungarian POWs were freed. Thus the Czech Legion - formerly the Tsar's prisoners. For whatever reasons, it was decided that they would best exit Russia via Vladivostok. In order to do so, they ended up fighting the Red Army (Bolsheviks). Eventually, this army of 50 - 60,000 men commanded a line from the Urals to Vladisvostok. One of their final acts was to displace the Bolshevik govt of Vladivostok. Now Woodrow Wilson rears his ugly head ; he suggests that a Japanese force be dipatched to Vladivostok to "rescue" the Czech Legion. I know that the Japanese government agreed to WW's proposition; but, could not find out if there was any follow-up.
315. ranheim - July 6, 1999 - 8:57 PM PT
There was a huge attempt in the USA to build ships. Submarine warfare had reduced the number of merchant ships substantially. As the USA's allies were busy with the war, USA shipbuilding facilities were given large orders. Years ago I tried to find out what happened to this effort as our soldiers came home mainly in British bottoms. Where were all the American built ships? I could never definitely find out. There was one fairly spectacular event of sabotage. There was profiteering. But, still there should have beem American merchant ships to return our soldiers to the USA. The USArmy had to cool its heels in Europe for months after the war due to lack of ships : anybody's ships!
The last boatload of American soldiers docked in Sept., 1919. Remember this was the "war to end all wars." And so a conspicuous timing for the Armistice was chosen : 11 AM on the 11th day of the 11th month, 1918. This, then, is almost a year following Armistice.
Upon returning to the USA, the "grunts" received :
their discharge papers
1 uniform
1 pair of shoes
$60.00
Largesse!
316. cmboyce - July 6, 1999 - 9:16 PM PT
Whose ships took the Yanks to Vladivostok and Murmansk? USN?
Anyway, if Japanese in Vladivostok was Wilson's idea, how come we sent troops to "fend them off"? Col. House's idea?
317. ranheim - July 6, 1999 - 10:22 PM PT
#316
I can't answer your first questions; but, I can answer the last.
Remember. Wilson made two trips to Paris. He came home to "mend fences"; he already knew that Cabot Lodge did not like the idea of Versailles - the 'strawman' was the League of Nations. (mostly Lodge did not like the fact that he was not there! {Two overly huge egos butting heads}) Wilson's greatest mistake in a long career of ego induced mistakes was not taking Republicans with him to Versailles. There was only one; and he was a nonentity.)
When he returned to Paris, he found that Col. House had comprimised on a series of issues. As Wilson was a pie-in-the-sky idealist, he was furious. House lost his influence with Wilson as a result of his more practicle nature.
I'm not sure that the purpose of our soldiers in Siberia was to "fend off" the Japanese. This was months after the war was over. The soldiers and the Administration wanted them home! There was only very vague anti-bolshevik sentiment during those early days following the deposing of the Tsar. It was not yet clear that the Bolsheviks were going to end up triumphant. Some elements of the US State Dept. wanted to maintain close relations with the "Whites" as they had a chance to win. The Whites were not as barbarous or bloodthirsty as Lenin! And they lost.
318. RustlerPike - July 7, 1999 - 4:23 AM PT
Mark Twain wrote about the day of the Gettysburg battle in one of his nonfiction books - the name of which eludes me right now. He describes a quasi-mystical experience. From what I remember, there was a vast plain with a cliff overlooking it. It was cloudy, perhaps raining, and then the clouds opened up just a bit and a shaft of sunlight lit up a solitary Stars and Stripes flag that waved atop the cliff. Apparently it was an awesome sight. It later turned out that this happened at the precise moment when word came of the victory of Gettysburg.
>>>
319. Wombat - July 7, 1999 - 6:45 AM PT
US troops were sent to Vladivostok to "defend" American interests (Keep the port open). Japanese troops were more numerous and more actively involved in local politics. There was considerable concern that the Japanese would not leave the area, once hostilities ceased.
As Ranheim notes, Japanese naval forces seized many German island possessions, and captured Tsingtao (the German foothold on the Chinese mainland). Japanese warships also hunted German surface raiders. Japanese involvement in the Pacific allowed the British to reduce their naval units to a minimum, helping them concentrate their naval forces in the North Sea. (The French did the same for the British in the Mediterranean.)
320. colossus - July 7, 1999 - 3:20 PM PT
"For whatever reasons, it was decided that they would best exit Russia via Vladivostok."
The French urged this I think. The Czech troops were AH soldiers imprisoned in Russia. When Russia left the war, they did not want to be repatriated to AH but to fight with France for the liberation of Czechoslovakia. Thus Vladivostok.
WRT the US intervention in Siberia, it was prinicipally to keep an eye on the Nips.
321. colossus - July 7, 1999 - 4:12 PM PT
In 1999, a Serb corporal explains the eternal difference between German and Italian soldiery:
"Milicevic's front-line unit was among the first to meet the "enemy," a convoy of Italian NATO troops advancing toward Pec. The meeting provided one of the lighter moments of the war.
"The Italians were waving their arms and their cameras at us. We couldn't believe our eyes: They wanted to take photos with their arms around us to send back to their mamas. And then they wanted to swap our red berets for their own caps.
"A few days later I was in Urahovac when the German troops moved in with 15 Leopard tanks. There was no fraternizing there. I guess the Germans were more professional. But the Italians were more fun."
322. ranheim - July 7, 1999 - 6:47 PM PT
With the headlines in regard the recent AMA stance and unions, I had best make it clear that I don't belong to that organization. The AMA has never done general practicioners one iota of good.
Now the WW I effects on unions. During the war it was great; wages were high; some attempts were made to make the workplace safer; everything was done to increase the speed of manufacturing. However, after the war the effect was disasterous. The Attorney General (Palmer) and one of his chief henchmen (J. Edgar Hoover) initiated what is usually called the "Red Scare". As has been mentioned here previously, many areas in Europe - especially urban areas - turned to the left. Socialism had great attraction. The Bolsheviks had taken power in Russia; so Communism was now an issue as well. For quite a few months in 1919 and early 1920 Palmer whipped up public opinion against communsm. Two of his favorite targets were the unions (particularly the I.W.W. : Wobblies) and "aliens". Palmer, with Hoover putting the finger on individuals, eventually were mainly responcible for the "Soviet Ark". In Dec., 1919 the USS Buford weighed anchor for Russia with 184 people that Parmer had detained as Communists; in addition, there were 51 "anarchists" - among them the famous Emma Goldman and her lover.
The Red Scare faded out in 1920 and Palmer was never to hold an important office again. Hoover, however, was entrenched! All of us know about his career in the FBI.
Unions had a horrible time of it in the 1920s. These were the years of Harding, Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. All who leaned toward big business. Unions received no relief until FDR took office.
323. ranheim - July 7, 1999 - 7:32 PM PT
Another portion of the US populace was affected greatly : women. After years of battling hopelessly for the right to vote - the war gave women a boost up. They entered the workplace in numbers not seen previously. The war effort could not have been maintained without them and Wilson, in a speech before Congress, suggested that they pass women's suffrage. They did and enough states had ratified the amendment so that women could vote in Nov., 1920.
"How can you keep him down on the farm when he's seen Gay Paree?" was the title of a popular song after the war. Both men and women had more freedoms after the war; arguably women had more because they had a longer way to go. This became know as the flapper era. Cigarettes, booze, dancing, to a lessor extent sex, were certainly more open if not more acceptable by public opinion.
Movement was also much more open; men returning from previous wars had, mostly, gone back to the farm. On this occasion, the auto made it simpler for returning veterans to move on. And too many found their pre-war jobs occupied by another man who had remained at home. In most cases, verterans were not given favorite treatment and they were unable to obtain the former jobs. They had to move on.
The Progressive Era had opened up many areas for discussion. And openly held views, no matter how extreme, were given some attention. WW I put an end to that. Supression of any view that might interfere with the "war effort" was not tolerated. Thousands and tens of thousands were jailed for speech : both written and spoken. I don't believe "Police State" was, as of yet, part of that era's vocabulary. But, that what the USA was during WW I.
William McAdoo, Secy of the Treasury, in Nov., 1920 gave the figure of $9.466 billion as the amount of money loaned by the USA to their Allies. An absolutely staggering sum for those days! These loans, mostly, were never to be paid off.
324. cmboyce - July 7, 1999 - 8:01 PM PT
Fine stuff, Ranheim. Is all this coming out of memory of things learned, or are you working from a book? Or both? If book, what book?
325. colossus - July 7, 1999 - 9:28 PM PT
To me one of the most intriguing aspects of German military doctrine and organization in World War I, indeed since Scharnhorst well before WWI, is the operation of the Great General Staff.
I have some questions which if I had any military background I'd no doubt know the answers to but for which I need help from the various "grognards" and assorted warmongers on this thread.
Heinz Guderian, in his memoirs of the Second World War, "Panzer Leader", has a concluding chapter on the weaknesses, stresses and strains of the German General Staff system during that war. I found his rather rambling commentary most fascinating. In fact, I wish he'd developed his themes more fully.
Of interest to me, his comments about German operations and theory under the Prussian General Staff system prevailing in WWI and before. Here are some relevant excerpts, comment invited:
326. colossus - July 7, 1999 - 9:32 PM PT
"Perhaps the most important aspect of the General Staff Corps lay in the fact that its members were trained to judge events and make appreciations, both operational and tactical, according to a definite and uniform system. From this basic uniformity of reaction it was hoped to create a wide uniformity of decision. The French describe this as "l'unite de doctrine". The Chief of the General Staff, **in whom was vested no command powers by which he could exert his will, hoped by means of this similarity of thought process on the part of all General Staff Corps officers to pervade all formations down to and including divisions with his influence and thus to ensure unity of tactical and operational procedure throughout the whole Army. In order that he might make his ideas known to his officers he created the so-called "Generalstafsdienstweg" (General Staff Channel of Communication)....Until 1938(and during WWI) there existed within the Army as system by which the chiefs of staff, down to and including the chief of staff of an army corps, shared the responsibility for the decisions taken by their respective commanding generals. This system, which involved the forewarding of a report by the Chief of Staff should he disagree with his commander, was discontinued on Hitler's orders. This resulted in a basic change to the positions of the chiefs of staff in general and to that of the Chief of the Army General Staff in particular. The system of joint responsibility by commanders and chiefs of staff was one inherited from the old Prussian Army ...During the First World War, it had often led to chiefs of staff of strong personality dominating their respective commanders...."
On that last point, Col. Hoffman's position at Tannenberg and Ludendorff's relationship with Hindenberg come to mind.
327. colossus - July 7, 1999 - 9:33 PM PT
Q uestions:
- How did this German system operate during WWI?
- Was it as effective as I have often read in stimulating creativity and uniformity in command?
- Where might I gain a clearer understanding of the Prussian System?
- To what extent do armies today attempt to emulate this arrangement?
328. ranheim - July 7, 1999 - 9:59 PM PT
#324 cmboyce
Because my grandfather was personally affected by the home conduct of our government, I have read extensively on WW I. (And I become more angry at our government with every book!) It was all nonsence as the USA did nothing but give away humnan life and monetary treasure in WW I. I am firmly convinced that a typical "kingly" compromize would have been the result had "Johnny" stayed at home; as apposed to come marching home.
Neither my father nor my father-in-law were in WW II. Both were barely too old. Mostly, uncles fit in that same category. I don't have a close relative - neither does my wife - who lost his life in WW II. As I was born in the 30s, I "lived" through the war. I have a child's recollections. And that is enough for me. I have not read one book concerning WW II.
So far as books are concerned, remember I went through medical school! When I find I book that I enjoy, I revert back to former habits : I take notes. So I have some notes available to refresh my memory. Unfortunately, I don't ascribe sources.
I think Slate's computer is trying to tell my that my "subscription" has run out. God knows whether this posting will see the light of day - or not.
329. wexxford1 - July 8, 1999 - 4:47 AM PT
War historian Keegan, who's been given the subject, says WWI and WWII were so bloody stupid that we won't have any more biggies . Just little ones to keep the soldiers occupied e.g. Desert Storm, Kosovo, N. Ireland,India v Pakistan, Afghan,that sort of little thingy . Big question : Will someone demand the return of all the triumphal medals worn by the idiot generals who conducted their soldiers to death in the two 20th century sbloody stupid biggies. heck, Switzerland is giving back some of the dough stashed away . Why not have a public ceremony where all the stupid generals are cashiered ? And how come those who raised voices against big wars were jailed ? The peacelovers should now become bemedalled heroes,if historians like Keegan are correct. Anyway,its time for the noncombatants in Hollywood to have another go at the Patton legend ? PATTON-MADMAN ON THE LOOSE ? By the way, are all military generals mad ? Montgomery sure looks the part of a total looney in clips of him addressing the lads .
330. wexxford1 - July 8, 1999 - 4:50 AM PT
Ranhein baby. Palmer did not whip up anything after WWI. THE PROPAGANDA OUTLETS DID . EVER HEAR OF THE HEARST PRESS?
331. wexxford1 - July 8, 1999 - 4:55 AM PT
ranhein- yOU KNOW NOTHING . The unions were insurance programs for the crafts . Industrial unions did not exist . The Railroad unions had the members , the money, and a lower middle class view .Coalminers were screwed by their leaders, notable John l. Lewis, who was an actor from Central casting . For golly sake , get the facts right . Lewis was told to invest the miner's dues in a Washington bank, which became the source of unsecured loans to favored fellows in the Washington system .
332. wexxford1 - July 8, 1999 - 5:03 AM PT
After WWI, the U.S. used Britain as a model. Take a look at the ads for the Negro porters--bowing and scraping-- on America's railroad system in the 20s and 30s.Just like the Indians in the Empire.After WWI,America's class system became more and more like that of Britain--mistakenly including non-whites as shit carriers. . We had Wogs called Negros . Remember, the Brits said the only way to get Wogs to fight was to set a few of them alight in tar barrels,in front of the regiments . " Those fuckers will fight then" said the mad generals .White Americans did not consider their Negros fit to fight . They were mostly bootlickers in the two big wars .
333. uzmakk - July 8, 1999 - 5:18 AM PT
The book I mentioned somewhere in the past, The Politics of War by Walter Karp, tells the story of how the United States developed a "large foreign policy" at the turn of the century as a means for the political parties that had had control of the country since the civil war, to maintain domestic political control (which they were loosing). It is a story of how our politicians play the inside of the circle against the outside of the circle and walk the thin circumference of political power. Wilson comes off as a megalomaniac dupped because he was a megalomaniac by a clever Churchill. The story told in this book is supported by the posts of Wexxford, Ranheim and others.
Wish I had more time to post.
334. RustlerPike - July 8, 1999 - 6:18 AM PT
>>>
It also turned out that the telegraph operator had received word of the outcome of the battle, but did not inform anyone because it was deemed secret. Twain thinks that was a stupid move - he should have told everyone.
335. ranheim - July 8, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
#330
I believe that Palmer, J. Edgar, and Hearst, himself, would not agree with you.
George Creel with his Committee for Public Information was a MASSIVE propaganda endeavor! It reached down to my grandfather's village of a "couple hundred" people! And down to his "4 miniute men". It took 4 minutes to exchange rolls of film in movie theatres in those days. The duty of each 4 minute man was to give an "uplifting" talk to spur the populace on during this break. Every facet of American life was looked at by Creel; and I doubt that he over-looked too many. Creel, via Postmaster General Burleson, was very active in shutting down dissent as well as "spreading the Wilsonian Gospel". (Burleson would revoke a newspaper's right to mail it a reduced postage rates; which meant death for that newspaper.) Creel, a Progressive, supported FDR and the New Deal in later life.
Possibly the idea was not Creel's but there was no news unless it came from the Government. Very few citizens had short wave radios powerful enough to pick up European transmissions. Washington D.C. controlled the commercial wireless lines to Europe and the Atlantic cable. Radio was in its infant stage and not a factor. In order to inform oneself regarding the war, one read the writings of our foreign correspondents (censored)or read government hand-outs. Hand-outs by the government were not new; but, their scope was certainly magnified many times over by Creel.
Hearst, himself, was against the USA entering the war. He given up day-to-day operation of his many newspapers by the start of the war. I can't tell you whether his underlings supported Wilson - or not. Hearst was also anti-League of Nations.
336. uzmakk - July 8, 1999 - 12:04 PM PT
Part of Mr. Karp's technique is to compare what was said to what actually happened. If one attempts to study history by looking at what politicians and newspaper editors "say" one gets what newspaper editors and politicians say.
337. lazygeorge - July 8, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
colossus,
I recall T. N. Dupuy wrote an excellent book on the History of the General Staff and how he thought it acounted for Prussian and German military superiority. I can't recall the name. I will look it up when I get home.
338. lazygeorge - July 8, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
The book is called A Genius for War. I do not think Dupuy proved his case, but it was an interesting read.
339. Amaxen - July 8, 1999 - 6:21 PM PT
I dont really buy into the "unitary actor" theory of why the US got involved in WWI - Rather, as I recall from some of my Dip Hist classes, the decisions were made like most policy decisions in the US - by the push and pull of different interest groups. In the case of WWI, these were initially ethnic - English vs. Irish and German groups as to which side to tilt towards. Both were pro war, but of course on different sides. Business was pretty overwhelmingly anti-war at the beginning, as was the overall sentiment in the states. But, as the war progressed, different events tended to bring more groups into the pro-war, pro-West camp. One major asset that the Brits possessed was control of the trans-atlantic cable, with which they were able to spin the depiction of the war. The zimmerman telegram, the increasing indebtedness of the western powers to the US, etc. All made more and more interest groups that were disposed towards intervention. Wilson himself was a moralist, and began by believing that both sides were equally guilty. Over time, however (and due in part to the British control over the news) he was influenced more towards the view that the Germans were evil, the allies good. British black propaganda reinforced these views (the Germans resorted to the same, but had much less ability to disseminate it to the US)
Eventually, the US had moved from a country that overwhelmingly did not want to become involved in the war to one that could possibly do so, which is ultimately what happened, but it is important to remember that the Wilson administration itself, or any single interest group, did not really have the ultimate say over the decision to go to war; rather it was the sum of these groups that were able to do so.
340. Amaxen - July 8, 1999 - 6:41 PM PT
Re J Edgar:
The deportation scheme orginially was to deport "aliens"(i.e. Germans & East Europeans who had not yet recieved citizenship) as part of the anti-German feeling that was whipped up by the decison to go to war. It was only after the Bolshevist takeover in 1918 that "reds" were added to the list. Unfortunately for the feds, most of the illegal Germans & Czechs had settled into rural areas at the time, taken up farming, and mostly owned guns. The treasury department did not have enough of a domestic army to find and disarm them, so the focus of the program turned towards the urban, largely unarmed socalists.
341. Amaxen - July 8, 1999 - 6:58 PM PT
Re Where's the Money?
The US also did not become a strictly isolationist country after the war, rather it engaged the Europeans thru "dollar diplomacy". One of the more comical aspects of the policy was the triangular transfer of money. It worked like this: The victorious powers (France & England) were massively in debt to the US. They had decided to get money from the Germans to make their payments to the US as part of the massive war indemnity forced on the Germans by the Versailles treaty. Germany did not have the money to pay F & E. The solution found was through dollar diplomacy: Wall Street, subsidised and encouraged by several administrations, invested massive amounts of money in Germany. The Germans took the bulk of the loans from the US, and transfered it to the French and English, who then paid the money *back* to the US. It was suggested at the time that it would be much simpler&cheaper to simply forgive much of the debt the English & French owned in return for their abrogation of most of the war indemnities they had placed on Germany, but no one really liked this solution for various reasons. Rather, the US chose to continue to expand credit beyond reasonable levels (via what became the Federal Reserve) - - which, arguably, was one of the prime causes of the Depression. Also, the war indemnities led the Weimar republic to destroy the value of its currency, ruining middle class savings and leading to the rise of Fascism there.
342. colossus - July 8, 1999 - 8:46 PM PT
Thanks LG!
Military historians LOVE to throw this General Staff Genius thing about, "sniff, sniff, the Army from Chief of Staff to Second Looey act as one mind etc etc..."
but they never really explain what they are talking about. Makes me think they just want to impress poor slobs like me.
I'll hunt for the book.
343. colossus - July 8, 1999 - 8:49 PM PT
"War historian Keegan, who's been given the subject, says WWI and WWII were so bloody stupid that we won't have any more biggies>"
Historians are like political pundits. The safest bet is on the opposite of what they predict.
344. colossus - July 8, 1999 - 8:53 PM PT
LG,
Straight from the SF Public Library Website:
Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt, 1916-
A genius for war : the German army and general staff, 1807-1945 / T. N. Dupuy. Fairfax, Va : Hero Books, c1984.
MAIN-3rd FL/GENCOLL/CIRC CALL NUMBER: 355.094 D929g 1984 -- HARDBACK -- Check Shelf"
Ain't the internet great!
345. RustlerPike - July 8, 1999 - 11:29 PM PT
I had thought my rather provocative Message #280 would give rise to some outrage from Germanophiles, or PC types. Nada. Everyone agrees with my description of German character?
Good!!!
346. ranheim - July 9, 1999 - 4:33 AM PT
It is rather harsh.
But, I'm Norwegian; 'tis no skin off my back.
And the "other" side was the instigator in both wars.
I have made my position clear on multiple occasions : we should not have been in WW I. Amaxen in #339 gives as good as explanation of how we blundered into it as one can; in a couple of paragraphs.
The sense that I get from modern English language media is that there is a new Germany. Can this be true? As an M.D., I have to ALWAYS be aware of genes. Has the Germanic race suddenly had a gene transplant?
347. lazygeorge - July 9, 1999 - 6:31 AM PT
"...Once Germans were warlike and mean, but we taught them a lesson back in 1918 and they haven't bothered us since then...".
The Dutch and Swedes used to have world class armed forces but they mellowed out. Maybe the Germans have too.
348. Amaxen - July 9, 1999 - 10:46 AM PT
Pike,
Actually, I disagreed with you fairly thoroghly. But, being new to the community, I had assumed from your tone that there was not much point in debating you.
Ok, for fun, I'll respond:
The English already had the world, the Germans wanted it. This naturally made them appear more agressive and pushy, and in our Judeo-Christian culture, that makes them appear to be moral inferiors - but only because they lost. Had they won, theirs would have been the history that had been written, and I suspect that we would be talking about the bestiality and evil of (in WWI) starving children through blockade, and (in WWII) Carpet bombing and burning ancient cities & their civilian residents. The other possibility is that, had the Kaiser decided not to attempt to challenge Britian's high seas fleet, England and Germany would have remained allies, and WWI would have been fought between France, Austria and Russia, on the one side, and GB and Germany, on the other. With the US probably coming in on the side of GB/G. Robert K. Massie's book 'Dreadnought' pretty thoroghly documents how the Kaiser, through his readings of Mahan and his own desire for glory, embarked on a strategically pointless policy of building a world class fleet - and turning Germany's traditional ally, Britain, towards its traditional enemy - France.
I recall reading somewhere that the BEF, even when defending French soil against the Germans, had senior officers who persisted in referring to the French as 'the enemy' out of habit.
Another interesting possiblity had occured to me after reading a biography of Prince Albert (yet another German) - anyway, he was decisive in preventing Britian from intervening in the American Civil war on the southern side. Say he had not done so. The northern states would still have probably won, but the tensions between the two countries had it happened would probably resulted in the US eventually intervening on the German side d
349. Amaxen - July 9, 1999 - 10:48 AM PT
--uring the war. Interesting thought experiment on what the results would be, eh what?
--Hunnishly yours,
350. Wombat - July 9, 1999 - 11:01 AM PT
Another key to the peaceful solution to the "Trent Affair" in the Civil War was the temporary failure of the transatlantic cable. The two weeks it took for meaasges to cross the Atlantic imposed a cooling-off period that allowed wiser heads, including Prince Albert's, to prevail.
The Kaiser and Tirpitz did not read Mahan as much as misread him. In fact they got Mahan backwards. If a country was so located that it depended on the sea for its commerce and protection, it had to have an extensive colonial and naval establishment (unlike the United States at the time Mahan was writing). The Germans appeared to believe that having colonies and a large fleet would make them a sea power, which for some reason,they wanted to be.
351. colossus - July 11, 1999 - 3:14 PM PT
Message #280
I'll disagree with you Rustler at least insofar as you equate German behavior in WWI and WWII.
One was clearly more extreme than the other.
Ludendorff certainly prefigured Hitler in his treatment of Poland and in his notions of perpetual war. Small wonder they were allies in the early days of the Nazi movement.
The German national character is more complex than you allow for obvious reasons its damned hard to get around the Halocaust. FYI I buy into Daniel Goldhagen's analysis for the most part but, as they say... on the other hand....I dunno what to make of Germans.
Maybe my grandfather understood something I can't quite seem to. He spent his last years living in Europe. He'd never fail to curse a German car on the highway.
352. colossus - July 11, 1999 - 3:18 PM PT
"Holocaust"
RP,
The German nation clearly became radicalized BY the war and by its aftermath and through the war, IMO, managed to pick up some rather nasty habits from Russia (pogroms) not seen since the Middle Ages. Jews played an important role fighting for Germany in WWI as you may know.
Like I said, Germans confuse me.
353. ranheim - July 12, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
Was the current "present tense" of the USA a foregone conclusion after 1)Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers, Teddy Roosevelt, and Secy of State John Hay (I believe he was the author of the phrase "A splendid little war")forced McKinley into the Spanish American War?? The USA had annexed Hawaii earlier; but, that was, seemingly, not a factor.
2) The industrial and banking might of the USA reached world class proportions??
Did these two factors operating in a sort of geometric fashion cause our entry into WW I? Once the USA entered WW I, entry into WW II seems, to me, a foregone conclusion.
I may be alone but, I feel, that this is an extremely important set of conclusions! Should those two factors not, by themselves, be the cause of the USA entry into WW I, then what was the cause? For, if USA banking loans to the various Allies pushed Wilson into WW I - for the bankers knew the conditions in Europe at least as well as anyone in government and the bankers knew there was no way anyone in Europe would be able to pay back loans any time in the near future - that is a new meaning of the words "Dollar Diplomacy".
One other factor : Hay was also the author of our "Open Door Policy" in regard China. Hay was influential in the Spanish American War; the Phillipines; and the Open Door Policy. Were these signs of a beginning of a sort of imperialism in the USA's foreign policy?
354. colossus - July 12, 1999 - 8:00 PM PT
ranheim,
US foreign policy was imperialist but the view that some sort of oligarchy (bankers, merchants of death whatever) caused our entry into WWI is too narrow.
The Germans, like the British during the Napoleonic Wars, interfered with our trade. That pissed off the "powers that were" to be sure but equally, if not more important, it offended US nationalist sentiment.
I believe the feeling was widespread that the US was a reluctant warrior but when pressed, most felt it was our "Manifest Destiny" to "correct" the degenerate Europeans.
355. RustlerPike - July 13, 1999 - 12:27 AM PT
Amaxen:
1. Does "Hunnishly yours" mean you're a German?
2. "Had they won, theirs would have been the history that had been written, and I suspect that we would be talking about the bestiality and evil of (in WWI) starving children through blockade, and (in WWII) Carpet bombing and burning ancient cities & their civilian residents".
Had they won, we would not be talking because I would not have been born - but that's not the point. Had they won, I doubt there would have been any form of free speech for anyone. I really do believe that the Nazi regime was evil incarnate, more or less. I do not see it just as a matter of the winner dictating his own subjective morality.
Had they won, I should imagine that the whole world would have become Nazi, with certain populations enslaved and others eradicated. What should have followed then - I don't know. Maybe some kind of underground resistance. But I really don't believe that they *could* have won. I'm too optimistic by nature for that.
>>>
356. RustlerPike - July 13, 1999 - 12:52 AM PT
Colossus:
I don't equate German behavior in WW1 and WW2, but I do see a lot of similarities and view 2 as a continuation of 1. Like you said, Jews were soldiers on both sides in WW1 (but being a veteran of WW1 did not gain you exemption from Auschwitz). As a matter of fact, I have read (in Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace") that it was Germany that put pressure on Turkey not to drive the Jews out of Jerusalem during the war, a step it was apparently about to take.
Amaxen:
"The English already had the world, the Germans wanted it. This naturally made them appear more agressive and pushy, and in our Judeo-Christian culture, that makes them appear to be moral inferiors - but only because they lost".
I see it as a question of nature, of character. The English had the world (or 1/4 of it anyways), true. So? Who says that justifies running amok the way the Germans did? Your character comes into play in how you react to adversity. We Jews have been enduring terrible adversity for generations - still are, actually - but keep telling ourselves that eventually, things will work out. If not in this generation, then in the next.
I mean, I keep thinking about the so-called 'encirclement' that Germans (in both Wars, I believe) used as an excuse for their paranoid aggressiveness. Then I look at Israel. Talk about encirclement!!! We truly are encircled by sworn enemies, with populations and territory hundreds of times larger than our own, who have tried to annihilate us on several occasions. Why don't we just nuke every Arab in sight, then, and blame it on encirclement?
While we're at it, why not pass harsh discriminatory laws against Israel's minority Arab population, seeing as they are potential enemies? Why not brag about our superior genes, seeing as we were able to defeat Arab armies so much larger than our own, bring the desert to bloom, etc.? I think it's a matter of national character.
357. pellenilsson - July 13, 1999 - 11:13 AM PT
Rustler Message #356
"I don't equate German behavior in WW1 and WW2, but I do see a lot of similarities and view 2 as a continuation of 1."
Yes, 2 can be seen as a continuation of 1 but they were completely different from an ideological point of view.
358. Amaxen - July 13, 1999 - 8:34 PM PT
RustlerPike;
1. "Does 'Hunnishly yours' mean you're a German?'
No, I am an American. The 'Hunnishly yours' bit was a joking reference to my taking up the challenge you evidently want to dispute, specifically your contention that WWI and II "were manifestations of German bestiality, arrogance and sadistic autism" I come from a predominately German ethnic background, so a racist might say I am German, but I don't think that is what you're trying to imply. . . . are you?
"I doubt there would have been any form of free speech for anyone. I really do believe that the Nazi regime was evil incarnate, more or less. . ."
So do I, for that matter, Since you are talking about the Nazi regime that fought WWII - not about the racial traits of Germans. For that matter, I also believe that the Russian Communist regime was evil incarnate, for the same reasons as the Nazi, if not more so.
"I do not see it just as a matter of the winner dictating his own subjective morality."
Of course it is not _just_ a matter of the winner dictating his own morality, but it is certainly a part of it.
"Had they won, I should imagine that the whole world would have become Nazi, with certain populations enslaved and others eradicated."
That I doubt. For starters, the US could not possibly have been invaded at the time, and holding Russia would have been much harder than conquering the part that the German army was capable of in the best case scenario (e.g. moving to the Don and holding there). Even before Stalingrad, it becomes obvious even to a casual historian like myself that the Russian political will & economic capacity could have survived the loss of Moscow and a retreat to the Don. It would very probably have survived the downfall of the Communist party, unlikely as that was.
Cont...
359. Amaxen - July 13, 1999 - 8:46 PM PT
. . . Cont:
"Had they won, I should imagine that the whole world would have become Nazi, with certain populations enslaved and others eradicated."
That I doubt. For starters, the US could not possibly have been invaded at the time, and holding Russia would have been much harder than conquering it. In the best case scenario (i.e. in Hitler's dreams) the Wehrmacht was only supposed to move to the Don and hold there. Even before Stalingrad, it becomes obvious even to a casual historian like myself that the Russian political will & economic capacity could have survived the loss of Moscow and a retreat to the Don. It would very probably have survived the downfall of the Communist party, unlikely as that was.
"Maybe some kind of underground resistance."
I doubt that too - in Europe. One has but to look at how few Frenchmen, Dutchmen, etc actually were involved to any degree in the resistance to place much hope in that. In Russia, there might be a case to be made.
"But I really don't believe that they *could* have won. I'm too optimistic by nature for that."
I'm not. It is surprising to read back and see how rare are the times when the good guys have actually won. Of course, that is not to say that I think the Nazi regime could have 'won' in the long term sense of things; I don't think they had a stable enough ideology for one. Even if they could have come to some sort of armistice or redone Brest-Litovsk with the Russians, they would have faced a long cold war with the US, one that they probably would have lost. From the US's perspective, it would have been a long cold war allied with a shrunken Russia against a bloated, Nazi-led Europe, as opposed to a cold war allied with a shrunken Europe against a bloated, Soviet-led Russia/E.Europe.
360. RustlerPike - July 14, 1999 - 11:58 AM PT
Amaxen:
"I come from a predominately German ethnic background, so a racist might say I am German, but I don't think that is what you're trying to imply. . . . are you?"
No - but if you did see yourself as German, or as *a* German (which you seem not to), that would be relevant to the discussion, I imagine. I am an Israeli, and that is certainly a relevant point.
You may be right on the 'what would have happened if' part. I don't know. There are unknowns here, like the effect of Hitler's charisma, for example, or the possibility of Nazi movements gaining strength in the US, Argentina, Britain, etc. You know - nothing succeeds like success.
But like I said - you may be right. I don't tend to do these 'what if's that much. I prefer to think things basically happen the way they more or less had to happen. And anyways, your alternative scenario isn't *that* different from what did happen. Basically, you seem to envision the Germans losing in the end, no matter what.
>>>
361. RustlerPike - July 14, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
>>>
I don't see the regime in Russia - even under Stalin - as being as totally evil as the Nazi regime was. And I do think national character comes into play in the comparison - very much so. I cannot picture, for example, American soldiers creating death camps, and collecting their victims' teeth, hair, and shoes, while calmly gassing and cremating them, under any circumstances. I have seen cruelty on the part of Israeli soldiers, but again - I cannot imagine them behaving like the SS or Einsatzgruppen or whatever they were called did, certainly not for any protracted period of time.
Let me add something else: blaming it all on your leadership is easy, but leaders are created by their subjects. We had a guy called Meir Kahane out here in Israel, who seemed poised to become a Jewish Hitler. He never got more than 2 seats in the Knesset, and the media, together with the government and the judicial system, 'went to war' against him. His party was outlawed and his power faded. (Eventually he was assassinated by an Arab, as you may know).
Even Sharon never managed to take over the Likud (until now - and now it's only a temporary appointment, and he is very old and hardly electable). The Likud grassroot members did not trust him. They saw he was a liar, and a dangerous person, and they shied away from him.
I think that says a lot about Israel.
362. Amaxen - July 14, 1999 - 1:19 PM PT
Rustlerpike;
*Personal Flashback*
I was living in London at the time, and was out pubhopping on a Friday night with one of my flat-mates, name of Gill; a small, quiet guy from New Jersey who was pretty into Israel (you know, had lived for a year in a kubbutz, was a member of the armed forces of Israel, etc.) Anyway, along comes this Arabic guy and sits next to us on the bus. Gil starts up a friendly conversaton with the Arabic guy. All seems to be going pretty well until Gil gets around to asking the Arabic guy where he is from. "I am from the State of Palestine" says the guy.
Gil -- " There is NO SUCH THING as a state of Palestine" Next thing I know I'm rapidly collecting bruises trying to separate my 110lb roomate from his fracas with his 120lb opponent. (I came close to weighing more than both of them put together) I don't really remember how I managed to get my roomie out of there before the bobbies showed up, but I did learn a lesson from it: Avoid any discussion of Israeli issues with Israelities, unless you're prepared to go through some pain.
* End Flashback*
So Rustler, I hope you will forgive me if I do not comment on Israel, but I will talk about a topic that has long been dear to my heart:
I do argue that the Soviet government was at least as evil as the Nazis. They killed more people in a shorter time. They used famine as a tool of political control (Solzenitsyn and Conquest have asserted that they deliberately killed more Ukrainians alone through Famine than were killed during Hitler's Final Solution. Stalin and the Soviets suppressed human rights far more thoroughly than the Nazis ever did, and penetrated much further into society that the Nazis ever dared. Everything that you can point to that the Nazis did, you can find an analogue for under the Communists, frequently carried out on a larger scale and a deeper scope.
363. Amaxen - July 14, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
I don't really know if you can measure evil - at a certain point the difference between 10 million and 16 million is not really comprehensible, but if you could somehow differentiate degrees of evil, I would put Stalin pretty far ahead of Hitler.
364. ranheim - July 14, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
My 2 cents worth
Having lived in our embassy in Moscow for 2+ years very likely gives me an axe to grind. My vote - with no reservations - goes to Stalin! He had no redeeming social features.
This is not the thread for it; but, I have been told the Pol Pot and some of the Chinese honchos fit in with Stalin's atrocities. I know next to nothing about the Orient.
365. RustlerPike - July 15, 1999 - 7:01 AM PT
Amaxen, Ranheim:
I'm perfectly willing to discuss Israel if you want. I promise not to get violent!
As for the comparison between Hitler and Stalin... hmmm. Well - maybe I'm not objective. After all - famine is probably one of the cruelest ways of killing people, worse than gas chambers.
I'll think about it a bit more before I continue.
366. hashke - July 15, 1999 - 7:52 AM PT
Rustler:
Yesh mashehu lekha be-Safah.
367. cmboyce - July 15, 1999 - 9:45 AM PT
Hashke, is there a pun on "safer" there?
(I may have to add a Hebrew-English dictionary to my armory, just for the Fray! (g))
368. cmboyce - July 15, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT
©Ó**Ô°°Ò…ÚæÆ*¸
369. hashke - July 15, 1999 - 10:47 AM PT
cmboyce:
No pun here. Just calling ole Rustler's attention to some translingual puns (Hebrew-English) in the Language (safah) thread. I hope he takes them in the humorous spirit in which I intended them. They are in answer to his excremental punning, which he has dung very well.
Good idea on the dictionary. A person of your acumen would dig it.
Btw, what is the chemical amaxen used for? <g>
370. hashke - July 15, 1999 - 10:48 AM PT
Amaxen you because you have been here quite a bit and must know the answer.
371. hashke - July 15, 1999 - 10:52 AM PT
I forgot that there are a couple of Yiddish-English translingual ones there also.
372. cmboyce - July 15, 1999 - 10:58 AM PT
Sorry about 368. I accidentally discovered the way to get such symbols into posts, and in my excitement, I let a trial get away.
Message #370
Interesting reasoning.
I find that the root "amax-" means "wagon" ("amaxophobia" = "fear of riding in a vehicle"), but beyond that I know not. So....
Amaxen Amaxen, who has been him quite a bit and must know the answer.
Amaxen?
373. colossus - July 15, 1999 - 12:02 PM PT
Message #364
Ranheim,
I'm jealous. In addition to being an amateur warmonger, in fact even more so, I am a Russian history buff.
I've just finished taking the Slate Survey which enters me in a visit to Slate World Hq. I'd much prefer a week or two in Moscow or St. Petersburg.
Like I said, I'm very jealous.
My vote is that Stalin was far worse. His paranoia was unbridled. Unlike, Hitler, so was his power.
374. cmboyce - July 15, 1999 - 12:09 PM PT
"Unlike, Hitler, so was his power."
_That's_ doubtless the key. They were both over the top, with respect to evil.
375. Wombat - July 15, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
I think the characteristic about Nazi genocide that sickens me the most is how the victims were treated like some kind of industrial commodity that was exploited even after death.
376. ranheim - July 15, 1999 - 4:32 PM PT
#373
I was in Moscow from Winter '66/67 until Summer '69. These were some of the worst years in Viet Nam. At least on the diplomatic front. (As an aside : I was in Viet Nam 2 days after the Gulf of Tonkin in my capacity as the commander of a "fly-away" dispensary. Those of you who know the historty of that war know that absolutely nothing happened in the 90 days that I was in residence. I am no war veteran.)
My wife and I were followed on occasion (not a pleasant experience in real life). We were not permitted to speak to the "man on the street" (our embassy's bosses knew that such an approach could/would cause trouble for the Soviet citizen). Shopping was a joke (even in the store set up for diplomats; newsmen; foreign businessmen; the Soviet elite). I bought a Soviet 500 mm camera lens; my wife bought the dolls (one stuffed with another to the nth degree); and very little else was worthwhile. Travel, in country, was a series of check points; bad hotels; worse restaurants.
This was not a happy period in my life. I don't complain too often as the decision to become a general practicioner was made here. The Brits had an M.D. in Moscow as well. We took care of all foreigners; except the Soviet bloc. And this included the occasional pet! This experience was indeed a general practice.
Pardon the personal history. This thread appears to be losing a little steam. I would be interested in knowing what the various contributors feel about the necessity of the USA entering that conflict. I would assume that everyone is well aware that I believe that it was a huge mistake on the part of Wilson and the very few people he listened to. What is the general conclusion?
377. colossus - July 15, 1999 - 6:13 PM PT
Sorry for the digression Ranheim.
From the standpoint of British and French interests, intervention in WWI was a decided plus. They probably would not have won the war without it.
What would life have been like without Versailles? With a crippled Germany, Britain, and France festering on the Continent?
Who knows? Probably no Hitler but Germany would have been radicalized either conservative or Socialist. I suspect that another year or two of war with no victor would have resulted in substantial gains for the Communists who would not have been burdened as long with civil war.
From the US standpoint, the intervention was a definite plus. Even more than in World War II, the US achieved much with a comparatively small expenditure of life.
378. RustlerPike - July 17, 1999 - 3:02 AM PT
Being a Jew I am obviously not objective, but here are some reasons Hitler clinches the gold in the Evilathlon, in my book:
1) Like Wombat says in Message #375, the 'industrial', mechanically exploitative aspect of the Final Solution.
2) The fact that Germany was a, or the, leading Western European power, at the cultural forefront of things in terms of science, the arts, technology, etc.
3) The aesthetic aspect of Nazism: all those brilliantly choreographed parades, impressively tailored uniforms, etc.
4) The German language, and German character, both which I find offensively harsh. The need for rules and regulations on anything and everything. The calculated, meticulously planned and executed, step-by-step humiliation, starvation and annihilation of entire populations.
5) The race theory business. The denigration of people who are not 'pure', the ideological, pseudo-scientific justification of the enslavement and genocide of other nations. The utter arrogance of the term 'master race'.
6) The pseudo-scientific experiments carried out on people. Pure cold-blooded sadism.
7) The use of elite military units against civilians. The close, day to day contact between the killers and their victims. The taking of personal slaves.
I realize that certain regimes in Southeast Asia and South America rate close in terms of sadism, and that Stalin killed more civilians, but in the overall race, I believe, Hitler is definitely the fuehrer.
379. colossus - July 17, 1999 - 9:35 PM PT
Rustler,
Your post just confirms how pointless it is to ask the question of who 's the most evil in the first place.
That Stalin's crimes did not have (but did not lack) an explicit racial focus makes him LESS evil?
Stalin's evil can't be measured in numbers but in the total penetration and destruction of society. He projected the horror of his mental illness on an entire populace.
Ultimately the question suffers from the same defect as any such judgment of human "worth". Its just as impossible to answer as its obverse - who was more saintly, Mother Theresa or Ghandi?
380. Amaxen - July 18, 1999 - 2:43 AM PT
"who was more saintly, Mother Theresa or Ghandi?"
Actually, I have a bone to pick with that as well. Mother Theresa, no problem, but why do we have this cult of personality about Ghandi, fer cryin' out loud? Sure, I know he had good intentions and all that, but when you look at the results of his actions, I tend to question why he has so much good press. The average Indian did much better under the Raj: Living standards rose much more quickly, and the burden of government was much lighter. Not to mention the fact that a direct consequence of Ghandi's rise was the partition of India into Pakistan, Bangledesh, and India, and there was much racial/regligious slaughter as a result. Can anyone out there reconcile Ghandi's results with his reputation?
381. Amaxen - July 18, 1999 - 3:03 AM PT
"From the US standpoint, the intervention was a definite plus. Even more than in World War II, the US achieved much with a comparatively small expenditure of life."
Mmm,
Don't buy it. Maybe you can argue that all the American blood shed got us an opportunity, but if so we blew it. The US did get some very large gains during WWI -- mainly, that was the point when the US went from being a debtor to a creditor nation, and we gained a lot of power from that, but we would have had that even if we had not gotten involved. Whether or not it was a good thing probably depends on what would have happened to the European governments in the event of a tie being declared. One of the reasons that the slaughter went on and on was that none of the belligerent governemnts felt they could not survive anything less than victory. Certainly later events indicated this was a realistic fear. What kind of governments would have risen out of the ashes of a tie are hard to say. I doubt they would have been better than the pre-war govts., for a couple of reasons: One, between the wars there was a large group of men in all countries that had acquired a taste for violence, and we saw a general degeneration of politics during the time in all countries as this violent element began expressing itself. Hitler and Stalin were the most visible evidence of this phenomenon, and I think a contributing factor in the rise of both, and the attractiveness of the solutions the offered, was a function of the general disruption & anarchy that had flowed from the fall of their governments. (my libertarianism is but a thin veneer: Hobbes runs to the bone.) If a tie had been the result of WWI, I think that it is quite possible that the British political system would have fallen: there were more than several tensions between different groups in the society at the time anyway. Certainly France's govt would have fallen, but then the French have done that quite a few times
382. Amaxen - July 18, 1999 - 3:04 AM PT
already before and since. What would have flowed from this? Certainly nothing pleasant. Would it have been worse than Naziism? Harder to say. More militant govts in France and Britian would have not allowed any one power to quickly overrun the others as Hitler did, but on the other hand, that would augur for a longer second conflict, if it came. Too many variables on that road to really look at what might have happened.
383. Amaxen - July 18, 1999 - 3:30 AM PT
Probably one of the best books I've read on the whole Hitler/Stalin thing is in Paul Johnson's _Modern Times_. He had the courage to write and say that Communism and Facism were moral equivilents long before it came to be commonly accepted. His book has quite a bit of info comparing the similarities of the two systems.
The thing I most like about his work is that 1) He is deeply knowledgeable about his subject 2) He is not afraid to take a moral/ethical view of history, 3) His stuff is well written 4) He packs a lot of thought into just about every line - I always end up thinking half the day after reading one of his chapters. Anyway, Try chapter 8, "The Devils" _Modern Times_ should be available at your local library.
384. Amaxen - July 18, 1999 - 3:43 AM PT
To quote from it:
"The camps system was imported by the Nazis from Russia. Himmler set them up with great speed; there were nearly one hundred Nazi camps before the end of 1933. But at all stages, even at the height of the SS extermination programme in 1942-45, there were many more Soviet camps, most of them much larger than the Nazi ones, and containing many more people. Indeed , the Soviet camps, as Slozhenitsyan and others have shown, . . . . Most ... served a definite economic purpose, and it was thir example which inspired Himmler, from 1941 onwards, to seek to create a substantial 'socialized sector' of the Germany economy. . . . The sign in iron letters over the cmaps in Kolyma region, among the very worst, which read 'Labor is a matter of honour, valour and heroism' was as misleading as the Nazi imitation of itm hung over the entrance to Aushwitz: Arbeit macht Frei. . . . Lenin and later Stalin built up the world's second-largest gold industry (after South Africa's) and huge gold reserves, on the backs of men working a sixteen hour day, with no rest days, wearing rags, sleeping often in torn tents, with temperatures down to sixty degrees below zero . . . Witnesses later testified that it took twenty to thirty days to turn a healthy man into a physical wreck in these camps,. . . .
385. ranheim - July 18, 1999 - 7:59 AM PT
We are now assuming that the USA had not entered WW I. Armistice was in Nov.; so a Winter stared the combatants in the face. There would, very probably, been a negotiated peace; and QUICKLY. Remember! all the combatant nations were broke in both financial and fighting men terms. And, even today, war is more than Hell under winter conditions.
I don't do foreign languages at all; so what I have read comes from the UK. Many post war references in Britain to the fact that "we lost the flower of our youth". That condition would have been similar in Austria, France, Germany, and Russia. In the 1910s the Administration in Washington D.C. could not have obtained support for a "Marshall Plan"; and no other country in that world had the means to do so. Conditions in those countries would have been horrible.
I would assume at least one generation of anarchy. You historians would know far better than I : doesn't that condition usually lead to some sort of military dictatorship? Additionally, we need someone's in-put as to how much influence the surrounding nations could have had on the dominant countries of Europe. Pelle - could Scandanavia influenced (for the good) their southern neighbors? Was there the will to do so? Was there the where-with-all to make a difference? My opinion is that the surrounding, less ravished countries could have had - at least - a minor influence on events in post war Europe.
Back in the USA the elite were Anglophiles. Despite unpaid war loans, this would have influenced USA policy in regard Britain. If the USA helped to restore Britain - my guess is that would have been the case - would that have meant another long period of UK hegemony in Europe?
All of this is interesting conjecture.
386. colossus - July 18, 1999 - 9:50 AM PT
Message #380
Ax,
I chose Ghandi, could have chosen any saint from the Church heiography(sp?) or from any religion.
My only point - its not possible for us to make an ultimate judgment on the moral worth or lack of it for any human being.
387. colossus - July 18, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
Message #381
I'll stick to my guns. The US achieved a decisive military outcome at very little cost.
The war, IMO, would have had no conclusive political outcome. Revolution, chaos, devastation would have gripped Europe had the US not intervened. The US emerged, as you point out, economically stronger from the war with allies in the predominant economic and political position in Europe.
The balance of your post seems to indicate you share my view, with the caveat that these "what-if" history games, though fun, hardly yeild the "what-if" clarity or certainty of a spreadsheet excerise.
388. colossus - July 18, 1999 - 10:04 AM PT
Message #348
Finally a point of agreement. (I do so hate being disagreeable).
During the Russo-Nazi detente, Gestapo agents were reported to have been envious of NKVD power. Hitler modeled or thought he modeled his party on Lenin. Pogroms and race hate were a product of late Tsarism.
Stalin's exercise of raw power and terror was vastly more comprehensive and unchecked than Hitler's. Stalin ruthlessly suppressed and murdered whole national groups. The SOB even declared all prisoners of war, even his own son, as traitors.
Thanks for the book. There are 2 others - "Stalin as revolutionary, 1879-1929; Stalin in power : the Revolution from Above, 1928-1941" by a guy named Tucker that are also worthwhile.
389. colossus - July 18, 1999 - 10:12 AM PT
"There would, very probably, been a negotiated peace; and QUICKLY. Remember! all the combatant nations were broke in both financial and fighting men terms. And, even today, war is more than Hell under winter conditions."
With all prior caveats re: the dim view I take of historical what-ifs, this is not likely. The near term situation suggests continuation of the war without end in sight.
As I have pointed out, the only offensive actions undertaken in 1918 on the Western Front were prompted by US intervention (Ludendorff followed by the Final Allied offensive). Neither the Allies nor the Germans undertook any such action in 1917. The Entente did not because they could not. The Germans were in solid defensive positions.
There is no evidence - none whatever - to suggest either side was in the mood to negotiate.
From a techno-tactical point of view, the Brits did have the edge in tank warfare which, if the Germans did not develop countermeasures, may have broken the stalemate but not for at least 2 more years IMO.
390. Amaxen - July 18, 1999 - 4:50 PM PT
Re What if the US had not entered:
Now that I think of it, didn't Keegan assert that the small US detachments already at the front were decisive in blunting the Ludendorf offensives? Don't have the book with me, but I think so..,
Also, in the event of a tie on the Western Front, Germany would have emerged as the real winner, since by the treaty of Brest-Litovsk they had gained all of what is now western Poland and European Russia. Some historians say that it was the growing economic threat of Tsarist Russia that had worried the Germans the most and driven them towards war. The treaty of Versailles essentially took the winnings from the Germans and in the name of self determination created most of the Eastern European countries. Germany would also probably have negotiated back some of her overseas colonies as a result of a tie. Hm, I guess I take back the assertion that all of the countries involved would have seen falling political systems. I suspect that a tie on the western front and a win in the east would have been enough of a victory to keep the German regime in power.
391. Amaxen - July 18, 1999 - 5:12 PM PT
"The US achieved a decisive military outcome at very little cost."
I will concede the US achieved a decisive military outcome, but my view is that military outcomes are worth little unless they serve some political objective. What was ours? I think it was to "make the world safe for democracy". Other objectives were to restore peace to Europe, and to provide the Wilsonian ideals to Europe of (only slightly exaggerating here) Truth, Justice, And The American Way .
I would say our casualties would have been well worth it if just the realist objectives(i.e. a reasonably peaceful Europe) had been achieved. As it was, the results of American intervention seem a grisly joke. The exact opposite of what one presumes Wilson intended was brought about. IMO, this seems to often be the case when Wilsonian ideals are applied in foreign policy. Since the US had so much power over the peace, it also must be given a fairly large share of the responsibility for what came after.
One other nitpick: While US casualties were light by WWI standards, they were pretty heavy all the same. The bloodiest(most combat deaths) battle in American history is the 6 day Argonne Forest operation - it beats out Gettysburg by very large numbers.
392. Amaxen - July 18, 1999 - 6:43 PM PT
"Amaxen Amaxen, who has been him quite a bit and must know the answer."
Er.
Actually I picked the user name Amaxen because I thought it was "cool". In order not to disappoint I suppose I could make up some kind of story about how I picked it. . . Hmmm, since I seem to be posting on the warmonger thread. . . . Hey! How bout this?:
I swiped it from Kipling!:
. . .
But whatever happens/
We have got/
Amaxen gun/
and they have not
:->
P.S. I am afraid I have been rather erratic in posting as of late - Our beta release is coming out soon and I have been kept rather busy.
393. Wombat - July 19, 1999 - 10:43 AM PT
The reason that the US contribution to WWI seems so "inconclusive" and therefore wasteful, is because the United States did not participate in the aftermath of the War.
Thanks in large measure to people and politicians who believed then as Amaxen and Ranheim apparently do now, that the United States should disengage from international committments and return to George Washington's ideal of no entangling alliances, the United States abrogated its chances of affecting Europe's political slide to dictatorship and destruction.
Ironically, had isolationist sentiment not been so strong in the 1930s, US support for Britain and France during the German reoccupation of the Rhineland might have ended Hitler's ambitions early on. Likewise, Britain and to a lesser extent, France took their cues from the United States in attempting to deal with the Czechoslovak crisis. A statement of support, backed by a committment of war materiel, might have stiffened the British and French to resist German blandishments and call Hitler's bluff.
These actions may have led to a short war, or a coup against Hitler. Instead, we had WWII.
394. cmboyce - July 19, 1999 - 11:28 AM PT
Message #380
Actually, Amaxen, I think you both over- and underestimate Gandhi. His place in the Indian independence movement was great, and this precisely because he lent credibility to the average Indian's sense that Indian-ness was not in itself a handicap, which lesson in humanity is a principal ingredient in his perceived saintliness, along with his evident good will, manifest in the non-violent nature of his political campaign—but it was not so great as to have influenced the outcome in any terribly significant way.
The Partition was not his doing, though he let himself be talked into backing it. It was principally the work of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League, with the cooperation of the British, and only at the last, and faux de mieux, the Congress, including Nehru (and Gandhi). The inevitably of Indian independence had been evident since at least the end of WW1 (to revert to topic for an instant). The most important ingredient in speeding up the process (and rush for closure produced the too-hasty division of the country), was WW2, among whose locally salient features were the Quit India movement, its radical cousin the Indian army that allied itself with Japan and invaded (to no military but considerable propaganda effect) and the exhaustion of the British imperium.
In short, Gandhi is regarded as saintly in having promoted non-violence and in having taken seriously, for virtually the first time, the human existence of India's massive poor. All very well, there are certainly a lot of less deserving saints. As a political figure, his greatest influence was in the 30s, and it was to the good, imo (though I also think independence was to the good, which I gather you don't); as the war, and with it the endgame of the independence movement approached, he became more of a figurehead and less influential. His assassins were mistaken if they genuinely believed him the perpetrator of Pakistan (though they probably only re
395. cmboyce - July 19, 1999 - 11:29 AM PT
probably only regarded him as the best target, for their own purposes).
396. labwabbit - July 19, 1999 - 7:31 PM PT
Down...{us}
And out....{them}
With...{we}
Without....{need}
It (couldn't) have been helped, 'cause there's a lot of it about {love}.
And who'll deny it's what (all) fighting is about.
397. labwabbit - July 19, 1999 - 7:36 PM PT
colossus; 387
"I'll stick to my guns. The US achieved a decisive military outcome at very little cost..."
...unless of course it was your dad, brother, son, .....daughter.
Apparently you have definitively found the cost of freedom....
Please, share this with me. I have yet to quantify any parameter to do so.
398. This message either failed to post, has been archived, or (less likely) was deleted by the Fraymaster.
399. Amaxen - July 20, 1999 - 3:34 PM PT
There is little point in arguing what the US "Should have done" in terms of whether or not it was isolationist, but rather what the prevailing sentiment at the time was. I believe that one of the main reasons that the US became isolationist at the time was that Wilson so badly handled the peace process. It was a clearly unworkable scheme from the beginning, and even the progressive interventionst/pacificstic intellectuals, like Keynes, (see "The Economic consequences of the Peace") railed against the unworkability of the system. If the US did become isolationist, (and mind you, I am not conceding that point in the first place) it was because the League of Nations system itself was so clearly unworkable.
400. ranheim - July 20, 1999 - 4:37 PM PT
I have read and skimmed many books regarding WW I (as I was born in 1935 I lived WW II and, consequently, have read nothing about that war). My personal opinion is that for the USA, WW I was far more important for the country as a whole.
Nearly every book/article written in any nation between the wars complains bitterly about the useless loss of life. Even non-political types in every country could see - in just a few years - that none of the problems that supposedly led to WW I were solved by the war or Versailles. If anything, the problems were magnified.
The lack of success of the League of Nations added to the overall despair. 1914 - 1935 were years of political and economic turmoil in Europe. Versailles saw to that.
I think it fair to say that with the exception of the east coast elite and the banking and industrial "captains", the USA became isolationist following 1918. If one looks at newspapers and periodicals of the inter-war years, there was very little on internationalism. These were years in which there were serious investigations in Congress of the "Merchants Of Death". Senators LaFollette; Nye; and Hiram Johnson were all powerful men who opposed the war; the League of Nations; "entangling alliances"; etc. Lindberg's father, known as a malcontent, was also in the equation. Their views received considerable support - possibly majority support - right up until Pearl Harbor.