There is at least ONE fellow member who ought to read it. He has a tendency to comment on Sweden's role in this issue...
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
There is at least ONE fellow member who ought to read it. He has a tendency to comment on Sweden's role in this issue...
the US, and its allies, did save their lives. Maybe they shouldn't be standing in line claiming that a debt is owed to them. There is no way of knowing how much of their treasure was recovered, and whose it was. It was the confusion of war, and a tremendous expenditure in treasure and lives was made to defeat the axis.
It almost sounds like Jesus' parable about the man who had a great debt forgiven saving him and his family from slavery. He then proceeded to have someone who owed him a few bucks thrown in jail. Jesus condemned the man for his attitude.
The USA severely criticises other countries who kept "profits of war". It is thus hypocritical for the USA to keep same.
BTW, perhaps you are too young to remember. USA decided not to fight in WWI and WWII, but to sit back and enjoy watching the allied countries defend themselves. In both wars, it was the countries the allies were defending themselves against that took the war to the USA, so reluctantly your country decided they had to participate.
Any costs incurred were not for defending and saving the allied countries, they were incurred to save yourselves.
USA citizens have been making untrue claims about their charity in defending the free peoples of the world since the day I started reading personal opinions in ZDNET / CNET.
The result of each war may have been different had the USA not JOINED the allies, but the arrogant view that you saved our arses because we couldn't, and that we are insufficiently grateful for your CHARITY is complete and utter bullshite.
We do understand the importance of the USA's involvement, we are grateful for the assistance, BUT
1) USA must apply its laws and interpretations of those laws affecting international relations equally to itself as it does to others.
Trade is an exact example. USA pushes for free trade zones, has anti-dumping laws, yet provides subsidies to its own farmers. Eg, meat imports from Australia.
2) USA has got to stop claiming it SAVED THE WORLD in WWI and II because it was so kind to all we rejects. USA acted in self defence, having spent years saying "What, Me Worry?".
Don't get me wrong, KP. I fully understand the importance and value of the USA involvement. Its the lie that you did it out of the good of your hearts and we don't appreciate what a wonderful bunch of guys you are that never do wrong that sticks right up my craw. Every country acts from self interest.
Whether Desert Storm II was about oil or not, you didn't do it to defend the Iraqis, you did it to defend USAmericans against terrorism. Self interest.
Ian
Hi, Ian.
We're pretty much guilty as charged re: WWI. But not for WWII. True, there wasn't enough popular support for entering the war before Pearl Harbor; Roosevelt would have been defeated in 1940 had he suggested our entry. But we did provide major logistical support ("lend-lease") to the Allies even before we entered the war, and then forgave the debts later. Churchill freely admitted that without our lend-lease, Britain would have been knocked out of the war, which would have made recapturing the Continent infinitely more difficult. And though Stalin never acknowledged the debt, the same was true for Russia as well.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
But True, there wasn't enough popular support for entering the war before Pearl Harbor; Roosevelt would have been defeated in 1940 had he suggested our entry. still says that USA did not join the war to save us all, as KP says.
Ian
the total lack of gratitude by those whose arses are saved. Who was it who won the war in Europe? who won the war in the Pacific? Who kept the Japanese out of Australia? Who kept England afloat while the political will to intervene was building? The US criticized countries who collaborated with the Nazis for keeping their ill gotten gain. It has not criticized those who fought the Nazis. What did Switzerland do to aid the war effort? Intern allied soldiers?
I take DK's point about financial and material assistance at the beginning of WWII. However
i) It was the British that won the Battle of Britain.
ii) A significant impact on the Japanese was effected from Perth, Western Australia; by allied submarines from Belgium, England, Australia, and USA.
iii) I believe the group on our side that fought the war were called the allies. Contrary to popular movies and TV, the allies consisted of countries other than USA.
iv) There was a very large Australian contingent in New Guinea that fought against the Japanese. Look up the Kokoda Trail.
The reason your comment raised my ire is that you appear to sincerely believe the wars were won by the USA. They were not. They were won by a group of allied nations. Involvement of the USA may well have been, I'm sure it was, essential; but it was not a totally USA affair.
v) Lets not overlooked the 50 million Russians that died defeating the German march into Russia. USA's military materiel was an essential factor, but it was Russians doing the shooting.
vi) The atom bomb and end of WWII. Every documentary I've seen or historical report I've read on the dropping of the bomb doesn't say that the war would not have been won by the allies without the use of nuclear weapons.
Quite the reverse.
The decision to use the bomb was made, as I understand it, to save 4 million lives, that being the official estimate of allied dead which would accrue pursuing the war into Japan using traditional means.
The A bomb didn't win the war in the Pacific, it brought it to a close earlier with lower loss of life on both sides. The war would have been won by the allies either way.
=====
As I said before, what was done by USA as a country and as individuals IS appreciated. Its the claim that you did it all that is unacceptable.
Ian
won the war. In fact, in the original post, I don't think I referred to any specific country as winning the war.
Who said anything about the atom bomb? The war in the pacific was won by:
1. carrier groups who defeated the Japanese navy
2. island to island combat carried on by US Marines who were then backed up by the US Army
The atom bomb simply delivered the final coup-de-grace (sp?)
mea-culpa and (partially) apologise. Who was it who won the war in Europe? who won the war in the Pacific? Who kept the Japanese out of Australia? was what got me going full belt.
Unfortunately, I read the message body.
SHHEEEITT!
carrier groups who defeated the Japanese navy Well, the USA service people who died in submarines, along with the other allied personnel who did the same, are all now turning in their watery graves.
island to island combat carried on by US Marines who were then backed up by the US Army I'm sending the ghosts of my family who died fighting the Japanese in New Guinea nd throughout the Pacific to haunt you.
Ian
the fact remains that submarines and New Guinea did not defeat the Japanese. The destruction of their navy was accomplished most importantly at the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Battle of Midway, and the Battle of the Philipine Sea which were carrier battles. The final blow occured at The Battle for Leyte Gulf which was a battle with combined surface and carrier groups.
http://www.angelfire.com/fm/odyssey/LEYTE_GULF_Summary_of_the_Battle_.htm
As far the island hopping strategy is concerned, I'm sure you know as well as I do that this was a major strategy the allies used. This got them within aircraft striking distance of the Japanese mainland, and then bombed heavily to weaken and demoralize the enemy. While I'm not going to look up every island, here are two. 'On February 19, 1945 about 30,000 United States Marines of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Marine Divisions, under V Amphibious Corps, landed on Iwo Jima and a battle for the island commenced.' Also, 'the US Marines landed 15 June 1944 on the beaches of southwestern side of Saipan, and spent more than three weeks in hard fighting to secure the island.' The Mariana Islands were apparently the first islands which could be used for air strikes on Japan.
I think you are confusing tactical operations with strategic. The importance of carrier groups, and island hopping were strategic. I did pick up one interesting quote re: New Guinea 'The United States had also come to our assistance, destroying Japanese Naval forces, and providing ground troops.'
http://www.lancers.org.au/regthist/bathonrs/new_guinea.htm
Ian the German vs. Russian manpower on the Eastern Front was:
1941 - Soviet 5 Million, German 3.3 Million
1942 - Soviet 5 Million, German 3.1 Million
1943 - Soviet 6.2 Million, German 2.9 Million
1945 - Soviet 6.8 Million. German 3.1 Million
The total WWII death count for the USSR was:
Civilian - 17 Million Military - 12 Million
England was being starved out, the U-boats were quite effective. But the U.S. shipbuilding took off and basically devised a way to build ships faster than the Germans could sink them (Look into "Liberty ships").
This went well beyond cargo ships, look at how many warships the U.S. cranked out (especially aircraft carriers) compared to the Japaneese. Japan could not keep up with a toe-to toe "slugging match".
Aircraft carriers brings to mind the number of aircraft that the U.S. produced. That brings to mind the numbers of other things like tanks, land transport vehicles, the basic munitions, food, and no end of other things.
Ian, wars are won by other things than the number of soldiers.
The issue was that USA won the war, the rest of the people were irrelevant.
and that was wrong.
Ian
Ian, when you are in your "I hate America" mode, it seems to me that you may not understand some basic facts of history. Just a very brief "rude and crude" situation that existed before the U.S. and Japan engaged fully:
Japan had 80 million people who were crowded into the home islands. When you average it out there were 2900 people for each square mile of usable farm land and their population was growing at the rate of a million a year. More than half of the population were peasants and fishermen who earned less than 20% of the national income. When the Deperssion hit hard in the 30's there was already great economic distress. Japan depended on industry and industry needs raw materials. Japan also needed trade and more living room.
The military got into power, and proceeded to get them. They proceeded to form what they called a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". They had already started with China and a brutality that almost defies belief (look into "The Rape of Nanking" and "Unit 571"). But Burma and Malasia had the rubber, tin, tungsten and bauxite and the British were there. The French were in Indochina with their rubber plantations. The Dutch were in the East Indies with its oil.
But let's go back to what historians call "The hidden Holocaust", China, so called because the Japaneese brutally exterminated over 6 million Chineese. On 12 December, 1937, Japaneese planes intentionally bombed the gunboat Panayin the Yangtze River. In January 1938, President Roosevelt asked for and got a 20% increase in naval appropriations for the beginnings of a two-ocean navy. He also called on U.S. manufacturers of planes and munitions to not sell those items to Japan so long as they were used for the slaughter of the Chineese.
In October 1939, Roosevelt ordered the U.S. fleet from its traditional home in San Deigo and said henseforth it would operate out of Pearl Harbor. In 1940 Hitler's Blitzkrieg made the time seem right to the Japaneese to grab the land and raw materials that I mentioned before, as the British, French, and Dutch had other worries at home. But, there was one fly in the ointment of that quick grab of territory, the U.S. fleet was no longer based in California, but in Hawaii. The gamble they took at Pearl Harbor was to disable the U.S. fleet long enough to let them lock-in their possession of the territories and raw materials that they wanted. They took the gamble. They lost.
1) Yes, I knew all that.
2) I am not in hate America mode. I have said over and over again throughout this thread that the involvement of the USA is appreciated.
It is the claim by USA citizens that they were THE ONLY PARTICIPANTS IN THE WINNING OF THE WAR AND THAT ALL OTHER PARTICIPANTS ARE MEANINGLESS ***** BECAUSE THE WAR WAS WON ONLY BY, ONLY ONLY ONLY BY THE USA WHO HAS SAVED THE WORLD'S *** FOR TWO CENTURIES AND ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD'S MILITARY FORCES ARE ***** UNDER YOUR FRICKIN HEEL that gets my goat.
Here ends the tirade of defense.
Ian
Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here, but wouldn't it be more fair to say that both the US and Australia(along with much of the rest of the Commonwealth) were pretty much sucked into a war that should never have been fought?
I've never believed that the US 'saved the world' or anything even remotely like that in WW I. I've always regarded that conflict as an appalling triumph of nationalism over both common sense and humanity.
Hi, Dr. Bill.
Have you read Barbara Tuchmann's "The Guns of August?"
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Twisting a fact here and there and omitting much for its inconvenience to your ideas is entertainment but rather lacking in validity.
Lend-lease, US supply convoys, NRA personal arms loaned (but never returned) for the use of the British Home Guards, etc., etc., etc....
Those with provable claims should indeed be given restitution. Considering that only a portion of the train was captured DURING WAR (as opposed to the many instances of monies deposited with foreign banks with the bankers refusing to release the funds to surviving relatives) it is a little difficult to believe you or anyone else would think that the US has any responsibility for reimbursing those whose valuables were likely NEVER in US custody.
I had a wallet lifted while on R&R in Australia. As an Australian do you feel obligated to reimburse me for my loss? (Maybe you would want some proof that it was an Australian who lifted it and not some foreigner or other GI on R&R before feeling any obligation to reimburse me?)
The article is about the request for the return of things in USA hands, not any other putative goods that may be in any other's hands.
The article, read the link as you always say, may be factual or may be wrong. The articlew is about the USA government stating it doesn't want to reimburse things that came to it through illegal behaviour during the war, supposedly in USA hands after the war.
If the defense is "we didn't have them/it/whatever", cool, but that's not what the article says.
Read the link.
Ian
although you seem to be having trouble.
Only a portion of the train came into the possession of US Military--just a little over 1/2 of the cars as a matter of fact.
Although one person is indicated as having her original receipt there is so far no indication that her properties were in the portion that came under US control.
I already said that "Those with provable claims should indeed be given restitution."
YOU are the one doing the twisting and turning as you try to reinvent history, and that is exactly what I commented on.
By the by, you didn't mention whether or not YOU felt any responsibility for MY loss in YOUR country and also in a period of armed conflict, or whether you would want some PROOF before reimbursement.
You say the US sat back and enjoyed themselves watching. As I recall, Great Britain got involved because of treaty obligations. What other country got involved before it was attacked?
In addition, why was the US attacked? It was supplying the allied nations with crucial supplies and refusing to supply the beligerant powers! Japan attacked because we wouldn't sell them scrap metal to support their aggression.
but I believe Canada joined the war without being attacked.
My understanding is that the USA had been withholding and forcing others to withhold oil and oil products.
What other country got involved before it was attacked? Well, I hope every Indian, Australian, Canadian, Fijian, Kiwi, etc who volunteered to fight in both wars rises from their graves and punish you for that transgression. The spirit of ANZAC is alive and well today.
We also supported USA/Vietnam, for good or ill, without being attacked.
We also supported USA/South Korea without being attacked.
*growl*
Ian
you're ignoring what I've written.
First, scrap metal; sorry I was wrong; aviation gas was in there also - "On September 27, 1940, Japan joined the Triple Alliance with Italy and Germany and began to expand into northern Indochina. The United States, in response, placed an embargo on aviation gasoline, scrap metal, steel, and iron." Then... "After Japan's seizure of the rest of Indochina in July 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping and added oil to the embargo list."
http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/jwb/Collab/PearlHarbor.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_067800_pearlharbora.htm
Now, you said the US was 'forcing' other countries to embargo oil. What other countries were selling oil to Japan after it seized the rest of Indochina?
Further, I said Great Britain got involved because of treaty obligations (without being attacked). Which of the countries you mentioned were NOT part of Great Britain (i.e. the British Empire)?
Finally, you keep expanding the discussion which, you may recall, was WW II. I believe South Korea was a UN operation even though US forces bore the brunt of the fighting. The US was also not attacked in Korea. In Vietnam, the countries involved were responding to treaty obligations; "Because of the ANZUS Treaty (Australia, New Zealand United States Security Treaty) signed in 1951 and the SEATO Treaty (South East Asia Treaty Organisation) signed in 1954, Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, the UK and the US agreed to support each other against any South East Asia threat."
Well, I'll concede all your points about oil etc, and why Japan attacked USA. However, I'd appreciate it if you understood that it was you that expanded the discussion to include WHY USA was attacked by Japan.
Further, I said Great Britain got involved because of treaty obligations (without being attacked). Which of the countries you mentioned were NOT part of Great Britain (i.e. the British Empire)?
I would request you go and watch a movie - 1915, starring Mel Gibson. By all reports in AUS, its a pretty accurate portrayal.
In both WWI and WWII, Australians and others volunteered to fight for Great Britain. Volunteered. For love of the "mother country". It had nothing whatsoever to do with treaty obligations - that came later, as did conscription.
inally, you keep expanding the discussion which, you may recall, was WW II. I believe South Korea was a UN operation Well, that's a matter of interpretation. According to my political studies, USA went to considerable lengths to get the USSR to go home in a huff, so that they were unable to use their veto in the Security Council, and thus USA got UN endorsement to go into Korea.
In Vietnam, the countries involved were responding to treaty obligations; "Because of the ANZUS Treaty (Australia, New Zealand United States Security Treaty) signed in 1951 and the SEATO Treaty (South East Asia Treaty Organisation) signed in 1954, Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, the UK and the US agreed to support each other against any South East Asia threat." CODSWALLOP. The USA President telephoned the Australian Prime Minister and got him out of bed, and explained the political realities:
i) If Australia did not support USA in this venture, then xx yy zz a1 a2 a3 a4 etc economic contracts would be cancelled.
ii) The US President would visit Australia if we would become involved.
Thus, "All the Way with LBJ" was born, and Australians came out in their millions to watch the visit. It was as if ABBA or the Beatles had arrived.
Of course, in Australia, as in USA, as time went on and the benefits of the war became more and more evanescent, the anti-war feelings arose.
Your comment may well be factual as regards SEATO, but its the first time I've ever heard, a) That USA is a participant; and b) that it had anything to do with our involvement in Vietnam. That is not a criticism, it is probably ignorance of that issue on my part. I'd appreciate a link or two.
South East Asian Treaty Organisation just about spews over our membership quite frequently. That it would include a northern hemisphere country is puzzling.
Ian
Facts are always subject to various interpretations. The fact that the US President had to "strong arm" the Australian Prime Minister to obtain military support does not mean that the actions had nothing to do with treaty obligations. Perhaps the Prime Minister was reluctant to fulfill Australia's treaty obligations?
As I understand it the official version of the history is that the US did have treaty obligations that dragged us into Vietnam. Whether those treaty obligations were the real reason or a pretext is another question.
The US was clearly a participant in the SEATO process. See, for example, Australian Treaty Series. That document does not list the signatories to the protocol but it does include the text:
UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States of America is executing the present Treaty does so with the understanding that its recognition of the effect of aggression and armed attack and its agreement with reference thereto in Article IV, paragraph 1, apply only to communist aggression but affirms that in the event of other aggression or armed attack it will consult under the provisions of Article IV, paragraph 2.
This makes it clear that the US was intimately involved in the organization.
Sorry Kiddpeat,
when I posted last night, I confused SEATO with ASEAN: The Association of South East Asian Nations.![]()
Ian
Does the US appreciate the support of its allies? Of course! It does, however, usually wind up carrying the bulk of the load. It would be nice if its allies, like France, would admit this.
When I was in France, I found the individual French people I spoke to did appreciate what had been done for them by Australians and all the other allies. As a nation they hate the British and all countries of British descent. Considering I see comments in this forum within the past month about the "Boston Tea Party" and its effects upon the USA, its laws, its relations with Europe,
and the fact that every Speakeasy member living in USA is not grateful
if it wasn't for the 30 years war, and YOUR SUPPORT BY THE FRENCH TO SELF DETERMINATION, as it split the British forces, you wouldf have lost your war of independence.
So, why do you Yanks not forever express your thanks and debt to France.
Easy.
Because gratefulness beyond the instant becomes discontent.
Ian