Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, I think that most of us “go to the Konica to make a xerox”Even though many years ago Dr. Partin beat Britain v. Great Britain v. UK into our heads I've still been guilty of frequently using them interchangeably. Likewise, one could say the same thing about "America" v. "United States" -- are not Canadians, Mexicans, and Brazilians also technically "Americans"?
Hypothetical question – with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight – would it have been appropriate to take measure of this disaster in the first 10 days and declare it a matter of national security, told BP to “step aside” and launched the full might of the US contain the leak? Or would that have just shown the lack of national capability? By not taking decisive action, the President has, by definition, avioded coming to an ultimate decision – by not taking a strong and decisive action, he has made it much more difficult to be seen as failing. Of course, that means that failure belongs to BP and any successes can be, uh, shared.Leaders lead and act in a decisive manner.Politicians equivocate and obfuscate
I read somewhere that Cain was the greatest mass murderer in history, as he slew fully one quarter of the earth's population
Britain = England and WalesGreat Britain = England, Wales, and ScotlandUnited Kingdom = England, Wales, Scotland and Northern IrelandOf course, I took about 18 credits of British history in my undergrad life - but that was, shall we say, a long time ago.
This item did make it into our current pop-culture, as Jay Leno referenced it the other night. Of course, he claimed that the 5500 year old piece of shoe leather wasn't found in a dig, but on a plate at the Sizzler steak house!
I will finish my archives visit tomorrow morning. It has been a very productive trip. I found a few items that bolster my thesis and exploded some claims made in another history of the battle I am writing about.
Most cool - remember to always recharge your "healthy dose of skepticism" when dealing with primary documents.
I think it ran deeper than Potsdam.The Soviets (more than just Stalin) had a deep suspicion of the West and their motives. Stalin ignored warnings from various sources of the impending Barbarossa invasion largely because he feared that it was a Western (Churchillian) plot to goad the Soviet Union into launching a war against Germany. Once German-Soviet hostilities were launched, up through late 1943 Stalin and a large part of the Soviet rank and file believed that they were largely alone in fighting the Nazis in Europe. Allied actions in North Africa were seen largely as a diversion and that Soviet calls for the Western Allies to open a second front in Western / Northwestern Europe were largely going unheeded. Put that in the mind of a paranoid megolomaniac like Stalin and the environment around him that he created, and it is easy to see how he could build the belief that the Soviet Union stood alone against the fascist Nazis. True or not (and there is room for debate), Stalin and his Communist Party used the belief that "Russia Stands Alone" as a rallying cry.There is some validity to the argument that part of Churchill's strategy to attack the "Soft Underbelly of Europe" was to allow the Nazis and the Soviets to bleed each other white on the Eastern Front -- expending the majority of their combat power against each other -- letting the Nazis break their back against the masses of Soviet soldiers -- before the cross-channel invasion took place.Factoring all of this together and I think you could make a case that this engendered some pretty serious resentment amongst the Soviets against the Western Allies. Soviet casualty figures in the immediate aftermath of the war ranged from 20 million to 60+ million (how much fact and how much Soviet propaganda? In 1945-46 it was no doubt largely propaganda because I believe that the Soviets largely did not know the actual number) -- collective hardship and suffering was used to bond the Soviet people together, and much of the Soviet Union was held together in common opposition to the enemy of Nazi Germany. Without a common, monolithic enemy to rally around, could Stalin hold the Soviet Union together?Remember too, that much of the Soviet propaganda around the war was that it was a war of survival between two competing ideologies -- Soviet Communism vs. Fascist Nazism, and Soviet Communism won the day. Now, with the war over, democracy also triumphed over Nazism and Fascism -- so, which system, which ideology was superior? Perhaps the only way to decide that was to continue the war.Just some food for thought to consider in guiding your research.
Interesting concept and responses so far ? especially since we get to define ?top? ;D.Here are some thoughts:How about David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau as the primary architects of the Treaty of Versailles? How would the future of Europe in the 20th Century have been different if the Treaty of Versailles had been a little more tempered instead of punitive?I would argue that there is a case that Leopold von Bethmann Hollweg should replace Kaiser Wilhelm II on Scout?s list. How much of the political and diplomatic maneuvering from 1911 to the start of the First World War was active/proactive on the part of the Kaiser and how much was led by the policies, personality, and gambling nature of Bethmann Hollweg (and Foreign Minister Jagow)?Is there a case to be made for Nikita Khrushchev? Would Glasnost have a foundation without Khrushchev?s de-Stalinization programs?I have to echo Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill? as well as Konrad Adenauer and Jean MonnetOkay, the final slot in my top ten may be a little controversial?Two choices ? Otto von Bismarck - Although Bismarck acted in the 19th Century, his influence on the early 20th Century (and thus the remainder of the 20th Century) was significant. Obviously the argument can be (and has been) made that there is a definite continuity between the foreign policies and ambitions of Bismarckian-Wilhelmine Germany and Hiter?s Third Reich. Without Bismarck, would there have even been a Hitler? Of course, we could carry this to the extreme and include many other influential figures from European history.George C. Marshall ? I know, I know, Marshall was an American? but without the Marshall Plan, what would the Europe of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s have looked like? Maybe he doesn?t qualify as a ?European Political Figure? but I thought I?d throw him into the mix for discussion?s sake.
That assumes you think the EC is a good thing. I know plenty of Germans and some others that do not think it is. Personally, I am of two minds on it. It has good points and bad points.
I don't think it really does (depend on whether or not the EC is a good thing) - that standard doesn't apply to other top European influencers such as Hitler or Stalin -- I don't think the argument is that Nazism or Soviet Communision was a good thing -- good or bad, I think that there is a case to be made that the architects of the EC were amongst the top political influencers in Europe. The only argument that I might have, is that although these people acted on unification in the 20th Century, perhaps they should be seen as the most influential individuals in 21st Century Europe, since that may well be where the biggest impact of their efforts and actions will be felt.
Ironically, the army has dusted off some of their old horse and mule manuals because pack animals have been and are being used in Afghanistan. I have heard a rumor that the army has even bought some pack frames built according to WWII specs for use in Afghanistan, I do not know if that is true though.Interesting manual. Especially for a modern cavalryman like myself.
An eduring legacy in the Marine Corps is the "Small Wars Manual" published back in the 1930s. This book is such a treasure trove of accumulated knowledge that it was "highly recommended" reading even back in the 1980s and experienced a resurgence of sorts when we went into Afghanistan. This book has everything from lessons learned in packing mules and horses to jungle patrolling and working with the local gendarmerie.Concerning robots versus biologicals -- it's always easier to find fodder in the countryside than it is to find batteries or power for recharging.(Scout - is that a Wallace and Grommit sheep in your profile picture?)
Anyone got annoyed ?I know that some of my posts can be quite "sarcastic" or "out of the point" but do you think I should keep posting here ? I mean do I really bring something interesting to you or to the forum ? :-[
If we all agreed with each other... it'd be pretty boring, wouldn't it!Seriously, what would be the point if there wasn't a divergent point of view?
