Politics

I do not subscribe to current angst with regard to a military industrial complex. Trump's recent comments are typical of the half formed thoughts that periodically erupt from his mouth. And yes I support him - unlike his opponent, he can still at least begin to form one.

However badly our isolationist continental roots may be offended, the United States is a global imperial power - indeed, since the collapse of the British Empire, it is the only global imperial power. It is a rather unique empire characterized by economic rather than military or colonial aspirations. However, that economic power is dependent upon international market stability. The military plays a key role in assuring that stability. That is, by definition, a world-wide mission. The percentage of GDP committed to that military is the smallest since WWII.

In 1945, the United States completed the largest military conquest in human history. To its credit, its post-war effort was directed toward the economic stabilization of both its allies and its former foes - not traditional imperial exploitation. But those policies were well conceived to empower American capital deployment. A powerful military was required to protect the far flung borders of that economic Empire for which Soviet-led Marxist international aspirations represented a existential threat to such a global capitalist system.

US dependence on foreign oil has skewed that mission set all too often over the last several decades, which is why our newly won energy independence is so critical.

Much like Great Britain of the Victorian era, our current quality of life is largely fueled by the global empire. We can no more retreat to our shores than can we revert to a largely agrarian economy. A new challenge is emerging in the Pacific basin. China represents yet another form of imperial power - one we, and I suspect they, are still attempting to define. It is both economic and ideological. Unlike the US, it is a centrally driven effort. It will require both economic and military power to contain or ideally, subvert.
Well written viewpoint, but don't forget the US deliberately set out - through financial attrition of "Lend Lease" - to cripple Britain's 200yr supremacy and achieve their objective of attaining superpower status in 1945. Now that the US has occupied that role since 1945, other nations are now seemingly emerging that have an eye to the top spot.

Indeed, over the past 30yrs China has focussed its' resources to have grown into a pre-eminent contender who, instead of waging open warfare seems increasingly to be doing so through financial and technological means (to harness social media platforms to subversively influence opinions and/or gathering intelligence) for their own geo-political, financial and military requirements/prepardeness. Apart from their continual building of man-made military bases in the China Sea, and if conspiracy theorists have a grain of truth, a number of the viruses which have affected the globe over the past 20yrs have emanated from China - which (again, if proven) may be another of their strategies: time will tell. Another player, with a similar political outlook, who's quietly building up in the background is India.
 
However badly our isolationist continental roots may be offended, the United States is a global imperial power - indeed, since the collapse of the British Empire, it is the only global imperial power. It is a rather unique empire characterized by economic rather than military or colonial aspirations. However, that economic power is dependent upon international market stability. The military plays a key role in assuring that stability. That is, by definition, a world-wide mission. The percentage of GDP committed to that military is the smallest since WWII.

I firmly believe in the "peace through strength" concept, but certainly we can have a strong military presence globally to ensure our own security and economic interests, and yet still refrain from wholesale entanglement in endless conflict with no apparent strategic or economic benefit? Is it not both conceivable and achievable to maintain a strong military presence globally preserving the economics of the industrial military complex without the inclination to be the "world's police" with the US consistently bearing the brunt in both the financial cost and live's lost? I believe that is precisely what this POTUS has been trying to accomplish...


In 1945, the United States completed the largest military conquest in human history. To its credit, its post-war effort was directed toward the economic stabilization of both its allies and its former foes - not traditional imperial exploitation. But those policies were well conceived to empower American capital deployment. A powerful military was required to protect the far flung borders of that economic Empire for which Soviet-led Marxist international aspirations represented a existential threat to such a global capitalist system.

To your very valid point about the USA not seeking imperial exploitation post-WW2, wasn't the purpose of the formation of the UN and NATO provide that the burden of protecting these democracies to be shared among those nations with a common commitment in freedom and capitalism? As we have unfortunately learned the UN, is a completely feckless organization, and NATO would be dismissed by Europe's enemies without the USA. This POTUS is the first to have the balls to say this out loud to the global community and demand that these burdens be shared.
 
Well written viewpoint, but don't forget the US deliberately set out - through financial attrition of "Lend Lease" - to cripple Britain's 200yr supremacy and achieve their objective of attaining superpower status in 1945. Now that the US has occupied that role since 1945, other nations are now seemingly emerging that have an eye to the top spot.

Indeed, over the past 30yrs China has focussed its' resources to have grown into a pre-eminent contender who, instead of waging open warfare seems increasingly to be doing so through financial and technological means (to harness social media platforms to subversively influence opinions and/or gathering intelligence) for their own geo-political, financial and military requirements/prepardeness. Apart from their continual building of man-made military bases in the China Sea, and if conspiracy theorists have a grain of truth, a number of the viruses which have affected the globe over the past 20yrs have emanated from China - which (again, if proven) may be another of their strategies: time will tell. Another player, with a similar political outlook, who's quietly building up in the background is India.
Your Lend Lease assumption is simply wrong. In fact, it almost could not be more wrong. The program was created to relieve Great Britain of the cash and debt burden associated with procuring armaments from the United States. The war did indeed put generational pressure on the fundamental structures of Great Britain's economy, but that was as much a result of the erosion of the empire's economic foundation as the cost of the war itself. Britain further burdened itself with a massive and lastingly expensive effort to create a social welfare state - a bill it still has no idea how to pay.

I would argue that China has a totally unique blend of totalitarianism, central planning, and international aspirations built upon a pseudo-capitalist economic foundation. It is one that, to date, seems to be working - though many economists argue the whole monolith is built on a house of cards
 
FYI, the above statement makes your "opinion" on this topic worthless to those of us who are American citizens.

By the way, using the adjective "cogent" to describe an opinion is an oxymoron. What may seem clear, concise, and logical to you may be perceived as asinine to the rest of us.
"Cogent" to representing to research, learn and form a balanced opinion on a subject or issue is not an oxymoron in that sense of the word: it's only an oxymoron if you simply leap from one to the other without understanding the fuller context of it's usage as I've just described: therefore, in the same context it's neither "asinine" as you seem to believe.

However, some of the remarks aired by members in following the US elections here, have been quite asinine.
 
I firmly believe in the "peace through strength" concept, but certainly we can have a strong military presence globally to ensure our own security and economic interests, and yet still refrain from wholesale entanglement in endless conflict with no apparent strategic or economic benefit? Is it not both conceivable and achievable to maintain a strong military presence globally preserving the economics of the industrial military complex without the inclination to be the "world's police" with the US consistently bearing the brunt in both the financial cost and live's lost? I believe that is precisely what this POTUS has been trying to accomplish...




To your very valid point about the USA not seeking imperial exploitation post-WW2, wasn't the purpose of the formation of the UN and NATO provide that the burden of protecting these democracies to be shared among those nations with a common commitment in freedom and capitalism? As we have unfortunately learned the UN, is a completely feckless organization, and NATO would be dismissed by Europe's enemies without the USA. This POTUS is the first to have the balls to say this out loud to the global community and demand that these burdens be shared.
I am among those who are frustrated with Trump's antagonism toward NATO.

NATO was our creation. I say again - ours. We formed the treaty organization to insure member states were united in a set of evolving objectives which were in our national interests. It is one reason France finally decided that it had had enough of supporting US European and North African objectives and essentially withdrew.

Initially, NATO was critical in thwarting Soviet ambitions in Western Europe and of course, it has grown to be a key player in the war on terror. It remains an organization that is supportive US national interests through shared goals. we therefore have naturally borne the predominant share of its costs.
 
Your Lend Lease assumption is simply wrong. In fact, it almost could not be more wrong. The program was created to relieve Great Britain of the cash and debt burden associated with procuring armaments from the United States. The war did indeed put generational pressure on the fundamental structures of Great Britain's economy, but that was as much a result of the erosion of the empire's economic foundation as the cost of the war itself. Britain further burdened itself with a massive and lastingly expensive effort to create a social welfare state - a bill it still has no idea how to pay.

I would argue that China has a totally unique blend of totalitarianism, central planning, and international aspirations built upon a pseudo-capitalist economic foundation. It is one that, to date, seems to be working - though many economists argue the whole monolith is built on a house of cards

China is an interesting study. I’ve done a lot of business there and oversaw a minority investment in a Chinese company for a number of years. In many ways, as long as you operate within their strictures, they are more capitalist than we are. It is a completely different environment than any of the FSU countries. I believe that their global aspirations are somewhat driven by their fear of their populace. You can see this in their response to protests or treatment of various religions. Hungry Chinese have a history of bloody rebellion.

The jury is out as to whether their adherence to domestic hard line policies will work. There is a good chance that reform will take place, either gradually and peacefully, or quickly in a less than peaceful manner.

Their foreign policies are working. Although dishonorable by our standards, they are not by the standards of their culture.
 
I am among those who are frustrated with Trump's antagonism toward NATO.

Interesting.... To my knowledge, this POTUS never stated that NATO was a worthless folly unlike the UN. I believe his position is the same as the one he campaigned on which is that we are carrying a disproportionate burden of the of the costs in both dollars and lives while others are sharing the same mutual benefits with far less contribution... With the USA being the largest and the richest nation (at least for the time being), I have no issue with the US bearing the brunt of the costs both financially and with the lives of our troops. I believe the argument of this POTUS is that each member is not sharing those costs or sacrifices proportionally... Why is that too big of an ask, or not in our best interest as the nation making the biggest contributions and sacrifices?

Number of Coalition Troops killed in Afghanistan to date:
*95 deaths were from non-NATO nations of Georgia, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Finland, Jordan, South Korea and Albania.


23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png
USA: 2,355*
23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png
UK: 456
23px-Flag_of_Canada_%28Pantone%29.svg.png
Canada: 157*
23px-Flag_of_France.svg.png
France: 88
23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png
Germany: 57
23px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png
Italy: 53
23px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png
Poland: 44[2]
20px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png
Denmark: 43
23px-Flag_of_Australia_%28converted%29.svg.png
Australia: 41
23px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png
Spain: 35*
23px-Flag_of_Georgia.svg.png
Georgia: 32
23px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png
Romania: 26
23px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png
Netherlands: 25
23px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png
Turkey: 15
23px-Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg.png
Czech Republic: 14
23px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png
New Zealand: 10
21px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png
Norway: 10
23px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png
Estonia: 9
23px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png
Hungary: 7
23px-Flag_of_Sweden.svg.png
Sweden: 5
23px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png
Latvia: 4
23px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png
Slovakia: 3
23px-Flag_of_Finland.svg.png
Finland: 2
23px-Flag_of_Jordan.svg.png
Jordan: 2
23px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png
Portugal: 2
23px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png
South Korea: 2
21px-Flag_of_Albania.svg.png
Albania: 1
23px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png
Belgium: 1
23px-Flag_of_Croatia.svg.png
Croatia: 1
23px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png
Lithuania: 1
23px-Flag_of_Montenegro.svg.png
Montenegro: 1

TOTAL: 3,502
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-09-10 at 9.34.48 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-09-10 at 9.34.48 AM.png
    207.2 KB · Views: 80
"Cogent" to representing to research, learn and form a balanced opinion on a subject or issue is not an oxymoron in that sense of the word: it's only an oxymoron if you simply leap from one to the other without understanding the fuller context of it's usage as I've just described: therefore, in the same context it's neither "asinine" as you seem to believe.

However, some of the remarks aired by members in following the US elections here, have been quite asinine.

As I said, all irrelevant rhetoric coming from a non-US citizen...
 
As I said, all irrelevant rhetoric coming from a non-US citizen...
Obviously you're triggered - and fear anyone airing an opinion. So much for a clear demonstration of the US' "freedom of speech!!! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Eisenhower warned of the defense industrial complex. I personally think Trump is right about war for profit. It a shame when we can actually gain the same technology with the space program. Go to Mars harvest astroids. Someday fusion will be developed if they don't already have the technology and oil may go negative again. Great things can be done if we don't destroy ourselves first. Had a older women from Germany tell me one time you have to have a big war now and than to kill off the idiots. She may be right.
 
Your Lend Lease assumption is simply wrong. In fact, it almost could not be more wrong. The program was created to relieve Great Britain of the cash and debt burden associated with procuring armaments from the United States. The war did indeed put generational pressure on the fundamental structures of Great Britain's economy, but that was as much a result of the erosion of the empire's economic foundation as the cost of the war itself. Britain further burdened itself with a massive and lastingly expensive effort to create a social welfare state - a bill it still has no idea how to pay.

I would argue that China has a totally unique blend of totalitarianism, central planning, and international aspirations built upon a pseudo-capitalist economic foundation. It is one that, to date, seems to be working - though many economists argue the whole monolith is built on a house of cards
I'm not getting into a pissing contest, but views about Lend Lease are clearly divided on which side of the pond you hail from. If you're an American, you believe you got screwed by the UK/Commonwealth. Whereas if you belong to UK or Commonwealth, your belief is that you got screwed by the Americans. Examples such as providing aid in the loan of outdated destroyers to the UK did nothing to endear the US to Britain.

But in a wider context, and what many don't realise, is the existence of the US War Dept's “The Red Plan" devised in 1927 (which wasn't declassified until the 1970's). This plan was the upshot of the Washington Naval Treaty, followed by the Geneva Naval Conference. Here the US was fixed in its’ objectives, and did not get it's way which lead to the conference ending in a complete failure and the germination of national anxieties and perceived fears. [Indeed one naval historian (Eric Grove) once said in an interview that international relations were so strained that war could have been possible at this period.] This in turn lead to the US approving their “Red Plan” which outlined the US strategy if it came to open warfare against Britain. The reason for the plan's conception was growing tensions and hostility between what the US perceived as Britain's refusal to reduce its' naval strength (in order to protect its' Empire) as a national threat. Not surprisingly, upon declassification, the plan caused tensions in US-Canadian relations as it called for the US invasion of Canada, and it’s permanent subjugation into becoming a US possession. Conversely, the UK never developed a like plan against the US, because Britain realised it would only trigger another naval arms race which had (in part) triggered the lead up to WWI.

So, I am NOT wrong in this context that Lend Lease can be argued in it was a used as an opportunistic strategy in order to effectively nullify the perceived threat the UK posed towards the US. Also since FDR was a former Assistant Secretary to the Navy, he would certainly have had the nous and experience to understand this background history to form his views on this policy when he became President. So, to not acknowledge or understand the background history, and international relations, to Lend Lease is - respectfully - to simply admit not knowing your history.

Insofar as the UK burdening itself with becoming a massive social welfare state, that only became an issue when it was became government policy in 1948 with the National Insurance Act, which was enforced some years after Lend Lease was suddenly ceased – not because of it.

From my perspective, I see from where you're coming from with your views on China. But yes their whole monolith "built on a house of cards" has credence, especially when considering whole cities built with no-one living in them - purely to keep driving their economy along - is apt.
 
China is an interesting study. I’ve done a lot of business there and oversaw a minority investment in a Chinese company for a number of years. In many ways, as long as you operate within their strictures, they are more capitalist than we are. It is a completely different environment than any of the FSU countries. I believe that their global aspirations are somewhat driven by their fear of their populace. You can see this in their response to protests or treatment of various religions. Hungry Chinese have a history of bloody rebellion.

The jury is out as to whether their adherence to domestic hard line policies will work. There is a good chance that reform will take place, either gradually and peacefully, or quickly in a less than peaceful manner.

Their foreign policies are working. Although dishonorable by our standards, they are not by the standards of their culture.
I think you identified the problem the worldwide community has with China - especially if they become the pre-eminent super-power - that they're "Although dishonourable by our standards, they are not by the standards of their culture".
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
I wasn’t a Trump guy. I didn’t vote for him in the primary but did plug my nose and vote for him in the general election because Hillary was a non-starter.

This time around, in spite of 10,000 things I don’t like about Trump, I will relish voting for him.

The deep state is infested with leftists and Marxists That want to destroy the US system and the west. That’s not conspiracy or tinfoil hat talk, it’s fact. A vote for Biden is a vote in support of the end of the republic.

for example, yesterday I got a memo from the DHS saying“the #1 Risk is domestic white supremacy terrorists”. That’s beyond absurdity: socialist/Marxist Revolutionaries are bombing and burning towns near me whereas the last white supremacy terrorism in this country was in the 1990s when a national socialist, Timothy McVeigh, blew up the federal building.

if that anecdote doesn’t give you pause and have you question the deep state and liberal agenda, nothing will. They want to end the American way and have their agents inside all the federal agencies, trying to undermine Trump and any ideas of personal freedom. Normal majority views are now hate, supporters of terror and violence in their warp twisting of terms. Who is doing the violence? Who is interested in what race you are? Your religion? That’s the left, not Trump.
 
Interesting.... To my knowledge, this POTUS never stated that NATO was a worthless folly unlike the UN. I believe his position is the same as the one he campaigned on which is that we are carrying a disproportionate burden of the of the costs in both dollars and lives while others are sharing the same mutual benefits with far less contribution... With the USA being the largest and the richest nation (at least for the time being), I have no issue with the US bearing the brunt of the costs both financially and with the lives of our troops. I believe the argument of this POTUS is that each member is not sharing those costs or sacrifices proportionally... Why is that too big of an ask, or not in our best interest as the nation making the biggest contributions and sacrifices?

Number of Coalition Troops killed in Afghanistan to date:
*95 deaths were from non-NATO nations of Georgia, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Finland, Jordan, South Korea and Albania.


23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png
USA: 2,355*
23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png
UK: 456
23px-Flag_of_Canada_%28Pantone%29.svg.png
Canada: 157*
23px-Flag_of_France.svg.png
France: 88
23px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png
Germany: 57
23px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png
Italy: 53
23px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png
Poland: 44[2]
20px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png
Denmark: 43
23px-Flag_of_Australia_%28converted%29.svg.png
Australia: 41
23px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png
Spain: 35*
23px-Flag_of_Georgia.svg.png
Georgia: 32
23px-Flag_of_Romania.svg.png
Romania: 26
23px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png
Netherlands: 25
23px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png
Turkey: 15
23px-Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg.png
Czech Republic: 14
23px-Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg.png
New Zealand: 10
21px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png
Norway: 10
23px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png
Estonia: 9
23px-Flag_of_Hungary.svg.png
Hungary: 7
23px-Flag_of_Sweden.svg.png
Sweden: 5
23px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png
Latvia: 4
23px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png
Slovakia: 3
23px-Flag_of_Finland.svg.png
Finland: 2
23px-Flag_of_Jordan.svg.png
Jordan: 2
23px-Flag_of_Portugal.svg.png
Portugal: 2
23px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png
South Korea: 2
21px-Flag_of_Albania.svg.png
Albania: 1
23px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png
Belgium: 1
23px-Flag_of_Croatia.svg.png
Croatia: 1
23px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png
Lithuania: 1
23px-Flag_of_Montenegro.svg.png
Montenegro: 1

TOTAL: 3,502
This list is about as useful as one which compares each country based on total military spending. Not even Trump goes that far - after all, given economic size, there is no country which could realistically match US dollar for dollar. That's why Trump as well as others focus, as they should, I'd argue, on military spending as a percentage of each country's GDP.

For your purposes then, a more useful list might be one which shows numbers of deaths per capita for each country, or as a percentage of that country's armed forces. I think you would find that many countries have in fact sacrificed a great deal, and a great deal more than others, in this nightmarish war.

So while I am not at all happy or proud of Canada's overall military spending, the Canadian forces have nothing to be ashamed of when we look at relative sacrifices of personnel.

Just sayin'.
 
Obviously you're triggered - and fear anyone airing an opinion. So much for a clear demonstration of the US' "freedom of speech!!! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

LMFAO...! Triggered by what exactly? The arrogant opinion of somebody with no skin in the game?
Furthermore, I never stated that you don't have a right to an opinion. I stated very clearly that as a non-US citizen, your opinion on this POTUS or US politics means less than nothing to me. I would worry about your own country's issues of which I'm am sure there are many.
 
This list is about as useful as one which compares each country based on total military spending. Not even Trump goes that far - after all, given economic size, there is no country which could realistically match US dollar for dollar. That's why Trump as well as others focus, as they should, I'd argue, on military spending as a percentage of each country's GDP.

I respectfully disagree with the relevance of number of US lives lost in coalition or NATO backed military interventions. I think you missed what I actually said.. I never implied that the US should expect to be matched dollar for dollar or life for life in their contributions. I said that I believe it is not unreasonable to ask that other countries contribute or risk their soldier's lives proportionally.

When the USA is receiving flag-draped coffins at the rate of 5:1 and 15:1 respectively, of the next 2 nations on the list with the most lives lost, that's is hardly what I would call an irrelevant statistic.

By the way, Trump's "antagonism" toward NATO has resulted in 9 of the 29 nations suddenly deciding to follow through on their 2014 promises to contributed the minimum 2% of their GDP by 2024.
 
a national socialist, Timothy McVeigh, blew up the federal building.


Timothy McVeigh's actions were not motivated by any political ideology. they were exclusively the result of a White House gigolo and a murderous attorney general using the federal law enforcement to subdue and kill a religious group that would not bow to Caesar. If Waco had not occurred, neither would have OKC.
 
I'm not getting into a pissing contest, but views about Lend Lease are clearly divided on which side of the pond you hail from. If you're an American, you believe you got screwed by the UK/Commonwealth. Whereas if you belong to UK or Commonwealth, your belief is that you got screwed by the Americans. Examples such as providing aid in the loan of outdated destroyers to the UK did nothing to endear the US to Britain.

But in a wider context, and what many don't realise, is the existence of the US War Dept's “The Red Plan" devised in 1927 (which wasn't declassified until the 1970's). This plan was the upshot of the Washington Naval Treaty, followed by the Geneva Naval Conference. Here the US was fixed in its’ objectives, and did not get it's way which lead to the conference ending in a complete failure and the germination of national anxieties and perceived fears. [Indeed one naval historian (Eric Grove) once said in an interview that international relations were so strained that war could have been possible at this period.] This in turn lead to the US approving their “Red Plan” which outlined the US strategy if it came to open warfare against Britain. The reason for the plan's conception was growing tensions and hostility between what the US perceived as Britain's refusal to reduce its' naval strength (in order to protect its' Empire) as a national threat. Not surprisingly, upon declassification, the plan caused tensions in US-Canadian relations as it called for the US invasion of Canada, and it’s permanent subjugation into becoming a US possession. Conversely, the UK never developed a like plan against the US, because Britain realised it would only trigger another naval arms race which had (in part) triggered the lead up to WWI.

So, I am NOT wrong in this context that Lend Lease can be argued in it was a used as an opportunistic strategy in order to effectively nullify the perceived threat the UK posed towards the US. Also since FDR was a former Assistant Secretary to the Navy, he would certainly have had the nous and experience to understand this background history to form his views on this policy when he became President. So, to not acknowledge or understand the background history, and international relations, to Lend Lease is - respectfully - to simply admit not knowing your history.

Insofar as the UK burdening itself with becoming a massive social welfare state, that only became an issue when it was became government policy in 1948 with the National Insurance Act, which was enforced some years after Lend Lease was suddenly ceased – not because of it.

From my perspective, I see from where you're coming from with your views on China. But yes their whole monolith "built on a house of cards" has credence, especially when considering whole cities built with no-one living in them - purely to keep driving their economy along - is apt.

I don't know anything about you and you know nothing about me, my education, or my experiences. I suggest you reflect on that before accusing me of not knowing my history. I'll simply say I am comfortable with credentials.

Plan "Red" like the period Plan "Orange" and a host of other contingency plans have been developed as planning exercises since WWI. The Pentagon still does them and reviews and updates pertinent ones on the shelf. It was indeed declassified because it was a no longer a relevant plan. That the Canadians were upset that they would be targeted in the case of such a war plan is I suppose understandable, but should hardly be surprising from a pure planning perspective. I know of no single respected historian who believes that the United States and Great Britain were ever remotely close to hostilities after WWI.

The United States, Great Britain, and Japan were indeed involved in a tense game of high stakes poker with respect to the five interwar naval treaties. Begun with a Euro-focus in 1922, Japan's emerging power changed that emphasis to the Pacific. All three countries were acting absolutely in their own national interests. The US and Great Britain both came out of those negotiations pretty well and both at Japan's expense; so much so that Japan eventually denounced the 5/5/3 construct (note the agreed parity between the US and UK). Germany was a bit player with little real voice in the outcome. Italy and France chose to largely ignore them.

Your unsubstantiated claims about Lend Lease remain curious to me. I repeat, the structure was created to prevent a financial burden to the UK. Roosevelt was certain the US would have to eventually enter the war against Germany, and was willing to provide whatever materiel could be spared from the US's rearmament program. However, he was opposed by a powerful isolationist consensus in the Republican Party and similar wing in his own. "Lend Lease" allowed him to end cash sales to Britain for the temporary "lease" of basing rights - most of which were never meaningfully utilized. In other words, the US essentially gave Britain whatever it had available - there was no expectation the "loaned" materiel would ever be returned. Thus, not only did the US not "nullify" a non-existent threat, it did everything in its power to increase the war fighting potential of Great Britain. With all due respect, this isn't even a debatable point.

I will agree, at the time, some in the UK government saw it as a one-sided deal in the favor of the US. However, by the end of the war, any clear thinking politician and every historian saw the agreement as the first step leading to the great Anglo-American partnership of WWII.

And with respect to the Wickes class and other four-stack destroyers, what other country gave the UK a single hull of any sort? Certainly, the US Navy was beginning a cautious ship construction effort as war loomed, and the older destroyers of the reserve fleet would shortly become obsolete. Also, many of them required extensive repair and overhaul. However, the Navy opposed the provision of these ships due to the needs generated by Pacific and Atlantic war-planning exercises. Indeed, those that remained in the US Navy soldiered on through WWII. "Lend lease" provided a fig-leaf to give 50 ships of that class to the UK and Canada. It is not like any were returned. If anything, FDR acted to aid Britain in spite of his Navy experience. And while you may denigrate that loan or gift, they were certainly more capable than the armed trawlers with which the UK was supplementing convoy escorts at the time.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
53,624
Messages
1,131,383
Members
92,681
Latest member
Charlessdiuse
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Impact shots from the last hunt

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top