David Kaspar has a translation of an article by Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, published in the German daily Welt.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe - Thy name is Cowardice
- Thread starter HueyCobra8151
- Start date
- Status
Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Someone needs to do a little history homework. Roosevelt was the one who was more accomodating Stalin and his outlook for postwar Europe during WW II . Churchill was the one who rose the red flag (pun intended) about communisim and the 'Iron Curtain' in his famous speech in 1946. What could have Europe done anyways, most of it was in ruins, physically and financially.
Bosnia and Kosovo I will not argue about, Brussels fiddled while the people sufferd and died, inexcusable. Sebrenicia was the worst example, 7000 men and boys massacred after Dutch troops got up and left without firing a shot.
Someone needs to do a little history homework. Roosevelt was the one who was more accomodating Stalin and his outlook for postwar Europe during WW II . Churchill was the one who rose the red flag (pun intended) about communisim and the 'Iron Curtain' in his famous speech in 1946. What could have Europe done anyways, most of it was in ruins, physically and financially.
Bosnia and Kosovo I will not argue about, Brussels fiddled while the people sufferd and died, inexcusable. Sebrenicia was the worst example, 7000 men and boys massacred after Dutch troops got up and left without firing a shot.
I think he is talking mostly about post WWII in the cold war time frame. Although, given the limited context, I can not be fully certain.
Given that, the only two comments I could make to contend with your argument are that:
A) The writer of the text is German, and I assume that his point of view in writing this is German. Therefore, the text in question probably has mostly to do with the allowance of the Soviet Union to absorb countries, like Germany.
B) Churchill is not singularly representative of the entire continent of Europe. Patton also wanted to immediately begin fighting the "red menace" after WWII; he didn't get his wish either.
Given that, the only two comments I could make to contend with your argument are that:
A) The writer of the text is German, and I assume that his point of view in writing this is German. Therefore, the text in question probably has mostly to do with the allowance of the Soviet Union to absorb countries, like Germany.
B) Churchill is not singularly representative of the entire continent of Europe. Patton also wanted to immediately begin fighting the "red menace" after WWII; he didn't get his wish either.
Broadsword2004
Registered User
The only part I would disagree on from my knowledge is that part where he mentions the "two great powers, America and China." China isn't a world power last I checked; maybe in 20+ years, but right now, at least if I am not mistaken, they have a very poorly-trained army and air force, and their navy has no global-projection capability. Their air force and navy also have no real combat experience, and their army hasn't really had any since the Korean War.
Their submarine that surfaced in Japanese waters had to run and hide because the Japanese defense force came threatening to sink it even.
Their submarine that surfaced in Japanese waters had to run and hide because the Japanese defense force came threatening to sink it even.
HueyCobra8151 said:
The policies decided by the allies during WWII are almost all linked to the subsequent events of the Cold War, especially the early ones. To dismiss the European contribution to NATO and the fight against the Commies is an ignorance of the facts.
Good missive though, brings up some valid points.
I think it would be best to not underestimate the power of China's military. If nothing else, they have numbers. Numbers can do an awful lot in the face of superior tech. While i have no doubt we could wipe out their navy and air force, the cost would be high. The cost of taking them on the ground would be increadibly high. They may not yet be able to project their power the way we can or the russians could, but they are going to have that capability very, very soon.
Broadsword2004
Registered User
China has a LOT to learn about naval and aerial warfare still; as for numbers, China is shrinking the size of its military to a smaller, more mobile force in the future; in a full land war, for whatever reason that would ever occur, first off, aerial superiority, which the U.S. has, means a lot, but also, the U.S. has lots of people to. They just aren't in the military at the moment.
I would say a large force with superior tech and training beats a much larger one though; individual men can only do so much. The 1st Marine Dvision alone took on thousands of Chinese troops in the Korean War that charged wave after wave, and just gunned them down.
I am not saying I'd underestimate Chian either, but I don't think they are nearly as capable as everyone tries to make out.
I would say a large force with superior tech and training beats a much larger one though; individual men can only do so much. The 1st Marine Dvision alone took on thousands of Chinese troops in the Korean War that charged wave after wave, and just gunned them down.
I am not saying I'd underestimate Chian either, but I don't think they are nearly as capable as everyone tries to make out.
better to overestimate them and crush them with ease than to underestimate them and face a much greater adversary. The US population is pretty big, about 300mil or so. China is about 1.6 BILLION. We'd need a lot of bullets. I'm sure we'd win, but the mauling we'd take would make WWII look like a cake walk. Also, china has nukes, as may North Korea. I have little doubt they'd use them.
bigmouth
You know I don't speak Spanish!
While appeasement may have been the name of the game in Europe for decades now, that does not mean that Saddam Hussein was being appeased during the build-up to the Iraqi invasion. In fact, the sanctions were so incredibly effective that more Iraqis ended up dying as a result of them, than died at the hands of Hussein (not that he was not to blame for many of those deaths too, of course). Moreover, while history may someday show that attempting to institute democracy in the Middle East was a good idea, as of right now we've surely created thousands upon thousands more terrorists by invading Iraq than there ever were before. Terrorists should not be appeased, but the approach we've taken, while brave, turns Muslims to the dark side at a pace faster than we can cope with. Just look at the anti-American sentiments popping up all over Europe from outspoken Muslim fanatics. Those feelings may have been harboring before, but now they've boiled over, and who knows when those comments will lead to widespread suicide attacks in countries with high Muslim populations. It seems to me that invading Iraq was not the solution to the problem of terrorism.
Flash: I agree with you. Don't take my earlier statement as an argument towards what you said; I was just trying to play "devil's advocate" and think of why the articles writer (a German executive) would list that as an example of Euro appeasment.
I wouldn't discount China. They are in line to be the "next" superpower to pop up, and it is not as if there is a decisive line that seperates "power" from "superpower." Economically, they are industrializing quite rapidly, fueled by an inordinate amount of Middle Eastern Oil Imports.
Politically they are starting to "tug at the reins" set forth by Nixon in the 60's. They way they are treating N. Korea/US relations and their increasingly aggressive stance towards Taiwan, as well as their political policy concerning their imported resources from the middle east and Africa are all becoming increasingly aggressive.
Militarily, it is true that they have drawn their armed forces down by 28%, but they still have the largest standing military with 2.81 million people (over half the size of our military). Currently China expends 55.91 billion USD on their military, second only to the United States (we expend 276.7 billion
) I would not discount their military. (All those stats are on the low side I am sure. I doubt China releases 100% accurate statistics concerning their military). I don't think I need to say they have the world's largest pool of available manpower if the $hit were to hit the fan.
Bigmouth: The problem with your argument is that it is not as if nothing was happening, and we stirred up the hornets nest for no reason. Since 1961 the United States has been the victim of various forms of Terrorism. And we are not alone, the world has suffered collectively, recently, I think Spain would have cause to agree.
With that being said, as the list I linked to above shows, our previous course of action (ie: doing nothing) did not appear to be generating the sort of positive results we would hope for. Fighting and killing terrorists in Iraq is preferable to terrorists killing themselves (and those around them) in the United States.
Put another way, America has been fighting a war on terrorism since 1961, only until 2001 (40 years later) we were not active participants.
I wouldn't discount China. They are in line to be the "next" superpower to pop up, and it is not as if there is a decisive line that seperates "power" from "superpower." Economically, they are industrializing quite rapidly, fueled by an inordinate amount of Middle Eastern Oil Imports.
Politically they are starting to "tug at the reins" set forth by Nixon in the 60's. They way they are treating N. Korea/US relations and their increasingly aggressive stance towards Taiwan, as well as their political policy concerning their imported resources from the middle east and Africa are all becoming increasingly aggressive.
Militarily, it is true that they have drawn their armed forces down by 28%, but they still have the largest standing military with 2.81 million people (over half the size of our military). Currently China expends 55.91 billion USD on their military, second only to the United States (we expend 276.7 billion
) I would not discount their military. (All those stats are on the low side I am sure. I doubt China releases 100% accurate statistics concerning their military). I don't think I need to say they have the world's largest pool of available manpower if the $hit were to hit the fan.Bigmouth: The problem with your argument is that it is not as if nothing was happening, and we stirred up the hornets nest for no reason. Since 1961 the United States has been the victim of various forms of Terrorism. And we are not alone, the world has suffered collectively, recently, I think Spain would have cause to agree.
With that being said, as the list I linked to above shows, our previous course of action (ie: doing nothing) did not appear to be generating the sort of positive results we would hope for. Fighting and killing terrorists in Iraq is preferable to terrorists killing themselves (and those around them) in the United States.
Put another way, America has been fighting a war on terrorism since 1961, only until 2001 (40 years later) we were not active participants.
Broadsword2004
Registered User
China would need to feed all those mouths though in their military; also, remember, aerial superiority. The U.S. could bomb a lot their people.
And also, 1.6 billion people equals a LOT of people who need training. China would have to train all those people and supply and feed them, which is not an easy task. As for their current military, it is mainly made up of rather poorly-trained troops who don't have too much in the way of combat experience.
From what I have read, China is more just a bully that thinks it is a superpower but really doesn't have much of any military capability at the moment. They just act the way they do because people fall for it.
And remember, arms contractors would love to make China appear as a much bigger threat then they are because that equals lots more $$$ for them.
Also, for the above scenarios, I was discounting nukes from the argument on purpose because once they're brought into the equation, nothing else really matters unless you have a missile-defense system that really works.
And also, 1.6 billion people equals a LOT of people who need training. China would have to train all those people and supply and feed them, which is not an easy task. As for their current military, it is mainly made up of rather poorly-trained troops who don't have too much in the way of combat experience.
From what I have read, China is more just a bully that thinks it is a superpower but really doesn't have much of any military capability at the moment. They just act the way they do because people fall for it.
And remember, arms contractors would love to make China appear as a much bigger threat then they are because that equals lots more $$$ for them.
Also, for the above scenarios, I was discounting nukes from the argument on purpose because once they're brought into the equation, nothing else really matters unless you have a missile-defense system that really works.
As for China, would they be foolish enough to attack?? They have a large army and yadda yadda yadda... but without a flinch, we could stop them from importing anything via the sea and then bankrupt their economy.
And in the even of any large conflict, I have bets that their nuclear missiles would disappear rather quick. I'm confident that their missile sub doesn't leave port without an attack sub behind it.
//End Threadjack
And in the even of any large conflict, I have bets that their nuclear missiles would disappear rather quick. I'm confident that their missile sub doesn't leave port without an attack sub behind it.
//End Threadjack
Europe Surrenders
I maintain a website dedicated to military issues at http://www.navlog.org. Several new articles about Europe's surrender to terrorism.
Ken (retired P-3 NFO/mission commander)
I maintain a website dedicated to military issues at http://www.navlog.org. Several new articles about Europe's surrender to terrorism.
Ken (retired P-3 NFO/mission commander)
bigmouth
You know I don't speak Spanish!
HueyCobra8151 said:
HueyCobra, I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, terrorism has been around for a long time (much longer than 60 years), and, yes, it has taken this country until September 11 to FULLY realize its seriousness. After the September 11 attacks, we did not sit around with our thumbs up our a$$es, as you suggest. We sought out Taliban fighters all over the world and blew up half of Afghanistan. It may not have been pretty and we didn't find bin Laden, but it was certainly a step in the right direction. Then our attention shifted towards Iraq, because of their threat of WMD, NOT because they were implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks.
It really bugs me when people confuse the two issues. So many Americans think we're in Iraq because we're still responding to the WTC attacks. We did not go to Iraq to fight terrorism. We went there to get rid of Hussein and all his nonexistent weapons. You say fighting and killing terrorists in Iraq is preferable to allowing them to kill us at home. I say, the majority of the terrorists that we're fighting in Iraq weren't anything but ordinary Iraqis pi$$ed off about their crappy lot in life. Look at the ring-leader in Fallujah, for instance. He was some plumber or something before the invasion.
As a result of going into Iraq, I believe we have instigated a massive terrorist recruitment frenzy in Iraq (and elsewhere), amongst Muslims who believe that we are attacking Islam more than anything else. Yes, terrorism has reached epic proportions, and we have to deal with the consequences, but I feel confident that by invading Iraq we've only made the job harder on ourselves.
- Status