| |
Main
THE COMING DISCUSSION
:
Our "nobody" (with a small n) and Greg Kennedy got it wrong.
The precise discussion between Taylor Kingston and yours
truly is whether the United States ought to have tried to drive
its army into Germany instead of agreeing to an Armistice in
November 1918. Mr. Kingston quoted John Pershing saying,
in effect, it's better to kick arse.
I will be quoting, among others, the famous military historian
John Keegan, who opines that no one would have won the
war of 1914-18 purely in military terms. If true, a drive into
Germany with lengthened allied supply lines might easily
have led to American deaths on the scale of German and
French fatalities at Verdun.
Another historian opines that had the German retreat
been carried out in good order, the 900-km drive to Berlin
would have been sanguinary indeed, given that the French
army had been taken out of the front line following the revolt of
1917.
My view: the Americans probably would eventually
have made it to Berlin after several million casualties in
pursuit of a cause, as in Iraq, that had and has nothing to
do with our country's vital national interests.
The effect of such losses on our constitutional
system may only be imagined.
Yours, Larry Parr
|
|
| |
WHEN ENERGY PERMITS
>Eh, I just got the impression that Parr lost
interest. But at least it prompted me to read
more deeply into the relevant sources I had on
hand, and so learn more about WW I. > -- Taylor Kingston
Taylor,
I have not lost interest, though over the past
two weeks or so I've lost a few pounds and quite a bit
of energy because of a stomach fungus, of all things.
In fact, I have been writing relatively little here on
any subject, except for a longish posting jollying
Greg Kennedy about. (One feels an obligation
to slap the cur around, now and then.)
I will respond when energy permits. Also I'm
preparing a reprint of another book.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 25, 6:42?pm, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Oh well, it would appear the proposed series of exchanges between Parr &
> > TK has arrived @ something of a stalemate & rightly so I suppose as the
> > intervening 'trenchtalk' between the bot & myself has no doubt miffed &
> > stolen thunder from our erstwhile 'generals' safely ensconced as befits
> > their magnificent importance some many miles distant from the pointy-end
> > of things..
>
> Eh, I just got the impression that Parr lost interest. But at least
> it prompted me to read more deeply into the relevant sources I had on
> hand, and so learn more about WW I.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 06:53:43
From:
Subject: Re: O.T. World War I
|
On Jun 25, 6:42=A0pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Oh well, it would appear the proposed series of exchanges between Parr &
> TK has arrived @ something of a stalemate & rightly so I suppose as the
> intervening 'trenchtalk' between the bot & myself has no doubt miffed &
> stolen thunder from our erstwhile 'generals' safely ensconced as befits
> their magnificent importance some many miles distant from the pointy-end
> of things..
Eh, I just got the impression that Parr lost interest. But at least
it prompted me to read more deeply into the relevant sources I had on
hand, and so learn more about WW I.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 08:42:02
From: nobody
Subject: Re: O.T. World War I
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> THE MAIN TOPICS
>
> Taylor,
>
> Well, okay, but did I ever argue that a German
> victory in 1917 was likely or even possible as opposed
> to DESIRABLE? Indeed, ANYONE winning in 1917 would
> have been better than what happened.
>
> I thought that your were attacking my weakest
> link, namely the condition of the German army for
> further meaningful resistance if Pershing had had his
> way and tried to drive to Berlin. John Keegan feels
> that if Ludendorff had not surrendered, then the war
> might have continued for quite some time or ended in
> no military solution. Another historian feels that
> the 900-km drive to Berlin would have been sanguinary
> indeed. My attack was based on what I considered
> your neocon disregard for how militarism and massive
> casualties undermine a constitutional system.
>
> As for how a German or other victory in 1917
> would have affected the rise of the USSR and Nazi
> Germany -- you will correct me if I mistaken, but I
> thought we were not in heavy disagreement and that you
> found my arguments plausible, if not so adamantinely
> evident as I presented them.
=======================================================================================
Oh well, it would appear the proposed series of exchanges between Parr &
TK has arrived @ something of a stalemate & rightly so I suppose as the
intervening 'trenchtalk' between the bot & myself has no doubt miffed &
stolen thunder from our erstwhile 'generals' safely ensconced as befits
their magnificent importance some many miles distant from the pointy-end
of things..
CREATURE FEATURE - OR HOW PARRASAURUS-REX BECAME A FOSSIL..
> GREG'S HISTORICAL IGNORANCE
>
> For several months Greg Kennedy followed our
> wise counsel that he avoid discussions of any events
> more than a few weeks past. (There are always his
> lacunae -- the embarrassing voids, including the
> gaffe that Poland was an independent country during
> World War I.)
>
> Unfortunately, the lad from Indiana has lately reverted
> to bloviating about issues that are beyond his ready ken.
> We never object to what he imagines as witty, as
> opposed to puerile palaver, with a creature such as
> Nobody because the postings define both men. Nor do
> we reprehend, though we ought for Greg's own good, his
> envy of those who read the classics in Latin.
>
> In what follows, we place our added comments in
> multiple brackets.
You really should have trumpets & drums when using the royal 'we' & a
hand waving too, yes! - much better..
> [[[[[EARLIER COMMENT FROM THIS WRITER]]]]]
> The precise discussion between Taylor Kingston and
> yours truly is whether the United States ought to have
> tried to drive its army into Germany instead of
> agreeing to an Armistice in November 1918.
>
> [[[[[GREG KENNEDY'S "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
> These two cannot even seem to agree on what they
> supposedly are "going to" discuss-- but that never
> stopped the arrogant, loony Larry Parr from declaring
> that others must be "wrong" about it. Mr. Parr's
> latest ploy is to find some book he likes, then try
> and fit the discussion to match it's subject matter.
> The earlier discussion made no such qualification,
> leaving open the possibility of numerous ideas.
>
> [[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]
> Greg can never quite get it right -- or at least get
> "it's" right. The possessive is "its"; the form,
> "it's" means "it is."
Thankyou for the lesson Mr. Pedant & here's a nit for you. In the
interests of symmetry it can be clearly seen you've messed up big-time
with your bracketing device (see above) with 5 (['s) to the left & only
4 (]'s) to the right - ugh!..
> Based on the most recent exchange between Taylor
> Kingston and this writer, we appeared to be in
> agreement or possible agreement over many of what Greg
> calls "numerous ideas." The strongest point of
> disagreement between Mr. Kingston and this writer was
> over Germany's prospects for further resistance at the
> time of the country's effective surrender in November 1918.
>
> Greg's reference to "some book" that this writer
> "likes" is unclear. Is he referencing Serge Sazonov's
> The Fateful Years, and if so, perhaps he will explain
> how we have tried to shape discussion around the
> contents of a work that is intellectual terra
> incognita, an innocent historical landscape, for our
> self-described victim of Indiana.]]]]]
>
> [[[[[EARLIER COMMENT FROM THIS WRITER]]]]]
> Mr. Kingston quoted John Pershing saying, in effect,
> it's better to kick arse.
I'm with Mr. Kingston & Mr. Pershing on this one & 'Black-Jack' was even
of hideous 'heine' stock too.. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm
> [[[[[GREG KENNEDY'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]
> See? Old English lives, just as we have been told!
>
> [[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
> John Pershing was an American general.
Yes! - Fossils are not known for thinking outside the square, they _are_
known for riding around on mopeds, horsewhipping the locals, putting the
boot into beggars & listening to Gilbert & Sullivan on their 'trannies'
however. Besides, bot was simply referencing rgc* canon (see: Mr. Innes
frequent recourse to middle, ancient, prehistoric English & elfspeak for
further elucidation)& wittily contrasting UK usage ie "arse" with
Amurican = 'ass'. I'm somewhat surprised that our avid participant
fossil failed to pick up on this but knowing his predelictions, now
suspect him of desperately scratching around in the dirt for something
to pick a fight over. Such is life in the museum (fossil section)..
nobody.
> [[[[[EARLIER COMMENT FROM THIS WRITER]]]]]
> My view: the Americans probably would eventually have
> made it to Berlin after several million casualties in
> pursuit of a cause, as in Iraq, that had and has
> nothing to do with our country's vital national interests.
>
> [[[[[GREG'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
> Blithering idiocy; the control of cheap oil is in fact
> related to /this country's/ interests, in spite of the
> sheer stupidity of opting for war rather than the
> alternative. As for Malaysian interests, I can only
> guess; sell more rubber to the Chinese?
>
> [[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
> Readers will notice the quality of Greg's mind in the
> above. Although we used the phrase, "vital national
> interests," Greg responded by arguing that we were
> denying that oil has to do with our "country's/
> interests." In this instance, we believe that Greg's
> confounding two different ideas -- what is a vital
> national interest as opposed to an interest
> entertained by a nation -- was not deliberateLY
> dishonest. He is innocent of the distinction.
>
> Without realizing it, Greg huffs and puffs and
> actually agrees with the point we made. We wrote that
> no vital national interest was involved in the cause
> pursued in Iraq, and Greg responds that, yes, the war
> in Iraq was stupid (our point) and that we ought to
> have pursued some undefined "alternative." The man
> wishes to disagree without understanding that he was
> agreeing with us.
>
> Greg's comment about "cheap" oil would be ironic
> coming from a trained mind. It is simply an example
> of unawareness when emanating from his keyboard.
>
> Finally, there is the silly business of Malaysia
> selling rubber to China. Pitiful. Malaysia is the
> world's 17th largest trading country, as of a couple
> years back, and its major commerce is oil and
> semi-conductors. Sigh.]]]]]
>
> [[[[[EARLIER COMMENT FROM THIS WRITER]]]]]
> The effect of such losses (((((the reference is to
> Verdun-level casualties))))) on our constitutional
> system may only be imagined.]]]]]
>
> [[[[[GREG'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
> Only the little people lose; if you take a gander at
> the net assets of those in power, war and oil-grabs
> have a very positive effect. Take the Carlyle Group,
> for instance; George Bush Sr. has "made a killing", so
> to speak, off of his "defense" (i.e. offense)
> investments due to the wars for oil launched by the
> two George Bush presidencies.
>
> [[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
> Notice how Greg confounds "those in power" with George
> Bush Sr. making money from defense-related
> investments. This weakminded attempt at Marxoid, if
> not Marxist analysis would be rightly derided by any
> first-rank progressive Marxoid. If one reads
> left-wing economic analysis, there is always a
> discussion about the "contradictions" within the
> ruling haute bourgeoisie. For a Marxoid, "those in
> power" are those who control the means of production
> -- not an individual who happens to be holding a given
> public office at a given moment.
>
> Wars benefit discrete segments of the haute
> bourgeoisie and often injures other segments, which
> usually constitute the large balance of the economy.
> The weight of corporate financial contributions in the
> last and the current political campaigns suggests that
> a solid majority of "those in power," as determined by
> using the same type of analysis that Greg attempted,
> opposed the war in Iraq because it undermined key
> economic interests.
>
> As for Greg's phrase, "Only the little people
> lose," he would be laughed out of any convention
> attended by the former ruling royal families of
> Europe. He would be gawked at with incredulity by the
> British railway and mining magnates who lost their
> position in South America after World War I because
> the British government financed imports by selling
> their securities to Americans. The big-money owners
> of virtually every service industry in the United
> States, who nearly always lose during wars, would
> double over in mirthless guffaws.
>
> When Greg tries to think, one can hear the creaking.]]]]]
>
> [[[[[GREG'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
> The error lies in blindly assuming that the
> country's/ interest is what supposedly drives such
> decisions-- as if there were no conflicts of interest
> in government, only selfless servers of the public interest.
>
> [[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
> Earlier, Greg told us that "such decisions" were
> driven by our national interests. Now, he puffs
> himself up to make a declaration with which virtually
> every person on earth would agree immediately.
> Namely, people follow what serves their interests, and
> one must not "blindly" assume that we have selfless
> public servants.
>
> We know of not a single person on our planet who
> would disagree with the strawman that Greg tries to
> set up. The sad point is that Gregster was unaware of
> how fatuously obvious was a point that he evidently
> regarded as deeply considered.]]]]
>
> [[[[[GREG'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
> As for supposed damages to the system-- our
> Constitution insists that all men are created equal...
> yet under it slavery was widely practiced--Even by
> it's framers themselves.
>
> [[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
> Let us interrupt Greg's, ah, flow. We note that the
> man once again imagines "it's" to be a possessive as
> in "by it's framers themselves."
>
> The essential point, though, is Greg's prattling
> about slavery when the discussion is the damage to our
> constitutional system that might have been incurred if
> America had suffered millions of casualties in World
> War I. Greg imagines that habeas corpus, repeal of
> posse comitatus in the event of widespread social
> unrest, and the destruction of federalism would not
> constitute further such damage.
>
> [[[[[GREG EMPLOYS WHAT HE MUST IMAGINE TO BE WIT]]]]
>
> If only I had been old enough to fly subs back then!
> Instead of the dreaded mustard gas, my NO2 cannisters
> would have gotten those Jerrys under control. Remember
> the big one in Grenada? Of course you don't; that's
> because my flying sub attacks put an end to the
> fighting in short order. The very same strategy could
> have worked in the Great War. Trench warfare is for duffers.
>
> [[[[[OUR REPONSE]]]]]
> The above is representative of Greg's effusions over
> the last several weeks. We believe that he prattles
> as he does in order to compensate for his
> self-acknowledged nullibicity of historical knowledge.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2008 06:26:23
From:
Subject: Re: O.T. World War I
|
On Jun 20, 2:27 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE MAIN TOPICS
>
> Taylor,
>
> Well, okay, but did I ever argue that a German
> victory in 1917 was likely or even possible as opposed
> to DESIRABLE?
Well, it seems to me that in a serious historical discussion, one
should remain within the limits of plausibility. Sure, one can say
that Germany would have won in 1917 if America and Britain had allied
with them against France, or if all their enemies just suddenly
decided to surrender, or if they had jet planes and atomic bombs, or
if the super-heroes of DC and Marvel Comics had joined their cause.
But that's not plausible alternative history, it's pure indulgence in
fantasy.
Anyway, Larry, here is what I wrote a month or two ago. Respond to
whatever parts of it you like:
In another thread, Larry Parr put forth opinions about what effect
different outcomes in World War I might have had on later history.
Some of these struck me as plausible, others less so. They at least
stirred up my interest enough to check what relevant sources I had on
hand. Based on that research, but with no pretension of infallibility,
I comment below on some of Parr=92s posts. Where I question or disagree,
my intent is to advance the discussion in a civil manner, not to
belittle Parr. One hopes that if Parr responds, he will do so in that
spirit.
PARR: If the Great War had ended in German victory in 1917, there
would never have been the accumulated mass horrors of Stalinism,
Maoism and Hitlerism. Stalin would have ended up as a zookeeper in
the Central Caucasus, Trotsky a radical editor in NYC and Lenin a
fairly well-off, if frustrated, French tutor for advantaged children
in Zurich.
TK: Some of this seems rather implausible. It=92s very difficult to
analyze how a different WWI outcome would have affected far-off China,
so I would not feel confident saying anything about Mao.
Clearly a German victory would have precluded Hitler rising to
power, at least in the way the Nazis did, but it=92s hard to see the
same applying to Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.
Firstly, unless we abandon all practical considerations and invoke
some magical means, it=92s almost impossible to conceive of a way for
Germany to win in 1917 without first knocking Russia out of the war.
To this end, they employed the Bolsheviks, financing their activities
and finally shipping Lenin and other exiled revolutionaries back to
Russia in April 1917. This strategy finally bore fruit with the
October Revolution, after which Russia largely ceased fighting
Germany. Even this was too late to have much effect in 1917; it was
not until spring 1918 that Germany was ready to use the forces freed
from the Eastern Front in a major assault in the west. Considering
how compliant Lenin was with German terms at Brest-Litovsk, and how
Lenin later even agreed to *_aid Germany_* in the war (per agreements
of August 1918), it seems unlikely that a victorious Germany would be
in any hurry to remove him. Germany might even have aided Lenin in
repulsing the various counter-revolutionary expeditions sent by
Western nations after the war, or else the defeated Western powers
might well never have sent them to begin with.
And this not-very-alternate scenario has nothing to make any less
likely Stalin=92s rise after Lenin died. Thus it seems likely that
Bolshevism would have been left to evolve its way toward totalitarian
socialism, and we would have had the mass horrors of Stalinism
anyway.
PARR: The crucial year was 1918 because if the Great War had ended
in victory for either side -- most likely, the German side, if Wilson,
contrary to his campaign pledges in 1916, had not led the United
States into that conflagration -- then the Kasier [sic] would not have
had to abdicate, and in Russia, the Whites would eventually have
triumphed in a civil war against the Reds.
TK: Again, I wonder on what basis you reach that last conclusion.
Having in effect brought the Bolsheviks to power to take Russia out of
the war, why would a victorious Germany sit idly by and let them be
overthrown by the Whites? White ranks included many right-wing
military men who had fought against Germany. Whites who might well
start a revanchist campaign to regain what Lenin had so casually given
Ludendorff at Brest-Litovsk. Why would Germany tolerate a counter-
revolution so contrary to its interests?
Even assuming victorious Germany=92s neutrality in a Russian civil
war, it seems rash to claim that =93the Whites would eventually have
triumphed.=94 In the real world, the Reds eventually triumphed even
though many European countries, and America, were aiding the Whites.
The Reds=92 triumph seems even more likely in a world where the defeated
Allies would aiding the Whites less.
PARR: The German army was indeed betrayed. It was no myth. The
other side of the betrayal coin is that it was not Jewish financiers
or a backdoor man such as, say, Walter Rathenau who did the
betraying. The chief betraitor, to employ a neologism, was none other
than Erich von Ludendorff, the de facto leader of the German war
effort by 1917.
TK: Strange, most historians I=92ve read _do_ regard the =93betrayal=94 a=
s
a myth, and they regard Ludendorff as the main propagator of the myth,
through his post-war memoirs. Can you provide references for your
claim?
PARR: Ludendorff suffered a celebrated nervous breakdown in August-
September 1917, urging the Kaiser to sue for an armistice =85
TK: I can find no record of this =93celebrated nervous breakdown in
1917.=94 What is your source for this claim? All my sources seem to
indicate Ludendorff was on the job steadily though that year. There is
mention of him being in =93a completely inert mood=94 in the diary of
German Colonel Mertz von Quirnheim, but this was on August 7 *_1918_*,
not 1917. By then the loss of morale and nerve that was affecting
Ludendorff and the German High Command was a rather rational reaction,
a recognition of the fact that Germany was busted.
PARR: =85 when the German army was certainly capable of withdrawing to
the German border and erecting defenses with crucially shortened
supply lines at numerous rivers and hills that would have cost the
allies millions of men to breach, given the limited mobility of both
sides during WWI.
TK: It=92s hard to imagine _why_ Germany would do this in September
1917, with its strategy in Russia just about to bear fruit. And it=92s
hard to imagine _how_ they would do this in September 1918, by which
time =93limited mobility=94 was becoming much less limited, and the Allies
were making significant advances.
PARR: There would have been no question in that period of crossing
the Rhine.
TK: On a military question, I am more inclined to heed a
professional military man. In this case, the commander of the American
Expeditionary Force in Europe, General John Pershing, who urged the
Allied leaders to take the war onto German soil in 1918. After the
armistice, Pershing remarked ruefully =93[W]hat an enormous difference a
few more days would have made =85 What I dread is that Germany doesn=92t
know that she was licked. Had they given us another week, we=92d have
taught them.=94 Prescient words =96 had they been heeded, I think Hitler=92=
s
rise might have been precluded as effectively as by a German victory.
BTW, Larry, where do you get the idea that a German victory was at
all feasible in 1917? How do you envision it happening? They spent the
early part of 1917 actually withdrawing back to the Hindenburg Line,
not advancing. The abdication of the Tsar did not have the effect the
Germans would have liked, as the provisional Russian government
rejected German armistice offers in mid-1917 and continued their war
effort. About the same time the Russians were rejecting an armistice,
German allies Austria and Bulgaria were talking about asking the
Allies for one. Through most of the latter half of the year, the
Western Front remained in stalemate or saw limited Allied success, and
this without meaningful American involvement yet. And the attitude of
the Western leaders was irrevocably adamant; as Clemenceau said in
November 1917, =93My policy is war, nothing but war.=94 Even had the US
stayed out it was very unlikely Germany could have won in the west
until mid-1918, which you have already described as =93the fatal year.=94
And how can you be so sure that German victory at some point in 1917
would have all the wonderful effects you envision? The war-induced
desensitization and brutalization that later lent itself to
totalitarian movements was already well advanced. Casualties were
already in the millions.
I have an interesting book, =93What If?=94 (Berkeley Books 1999), edited
by Robert Cowley, and featuring essays by such historians as John
Keegan and Stephen Ambrose, discussing alternate scenarios for about
20 major turning points in military history ranging from Salamis in
480 BC to Manchuria in 1946. World War I gets a lot of attention,
but all the German victory scenarios deal with *_1914_* only, not
1917. Had Germany stuck more closely to the Schlieffen Plan in 1914, a
quick victory was indeed possible, and in that case Cowley quite
agrees with you that World War II and the horrors of 20th-century
totalitarianism would never have come to pass; as Dennis Showalter
puts it, it would have resulted in =93a Europe safe for men with
briefcases and potbellies.=94 Cowley writes:
=93Without the events of 1914, we would have skipped a more sinister
legacy, and one that has permanently scarred our lives: the
brutalization that trench warfare, with its mass killings, visited on
an entire generation. What men like Adolf Hitler learned in that first
Holocaust, they would, as John Keegan has written, =91repeat twenty
years later in every corner of Europe.=92=94
But, it seems to me, by 1917 things had gone too far for a return to
pot-bellied tranquility. That brutalization wrought by trench warfare
was by then well advanced, and it was not likely to disappear soon, no
matter who won the war.
|
| |
THE MAIN TOPICS
Taylor,
Well, okay, but did I ever argue that a German
victory in 1917 was likely or even possible as opposed
to DESIRABLE? Indeed, ANYONE winning in 1917 would
have been better than what happened.
I thought that your were attacking my weakest
link, namely the condition of the German army for
further meaningful resistance if Pershing had had his
way and tried to drive to Berlin. John Keegan feels
that if Ludendorff had not surrendered, then the war
might have continued for quite some time or ended in
no military solution. Another historian feels that
the 900-km drive to Berlin would have been sanguinary
indeed. My attack was based on what I considered
your neocon disregard for how militarism and massive
casualties undermine a constitutional system.
As for how a German or other victory in 1917
would have affected the rise of the USSR and Nazi
Germany -- you will correct me if I mistaken, but I
thought we were not in heavy disagreement and that you
found my arguments plausible, if not so adamantinely
evident as I presented them.
GREG'S HISTORICAL IGNORANCE
For several months Greg Kennedy followed our
wise counsel that he avoid discussions of any events
more than a few weeks past. (There are always his
lacunae -- the embarrassing voids, including the
gaffe that Poland was an independent country during
World War I.)
Unfortunately, the lad from Indiana has lately reverted
to bloviating about issues that are beyond his ready ken.
We never object to what he imagines as witty, as
opposed to puerile palaver, with a creature such as
Nobody because the postings define both men. Nor do
we reprehend, though we ought for Greg's own good, his
envy of those who read the classics in Latin.
In what follows, we place our added comments in
multiple brackets.
[[[[[EARLIER COMMENT FROM THIS WRITER]]]]]
The precise discussion between Taylor Kingston and
yours truly is whether the United States ought to have
tried to drive its army into Germany instead of
agreeing to an Armistice in November 1918.
[[[[[GREG KENNEDY'S "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
These two cannot even seem to agree on what they
supposedly are "going to" discuss-- but that never
stopped the arrogant, loony Larry Parr from declaring
that others must be "wrong" about it. Mr. Parr's
latest ploy is to find some book he likes, then try
and fit the discussion to match it's subject matter.
The earlier discussion made no such qualification,
leaving open the possibility of numerous ideas.
[[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]
Greg can never quite get it right -- or at least get
"it's" right. The possessive is "its"; the form,
"it's" means "it is."
Based on the most recent exchange between Taylor
Kingston and this writer, we appeared to be in
agreement or possible agreement over many of what Greg
calls "numerous ideas." The strongest point of
disagreement between Mr. Kingston and this writer was
over Germany's prospects for further resistance at the
time of the country's effective surrender in November 1918.
Greg's reference to "some book" that this writer
"likes" is unclear. Is he referencing Serge Sazonov's
The Fateful Years, and if so, perhaps he will explain
how we have tried to shape discussion around the
contents of a work that is intellectual terra
incognita, an innocent historical landscape, for our
self-described victim of Indiana.]]]]]
[[[[[EARLIER COMMENT FROM THIS WRITER]]]]]
Mr. Kingston quoted John Pershing saying, in effect,
it's better to kick arse.
[[[[[GREG KENNEDY'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]
See? Old English lives, just as we have been told!
[[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
John Pershing was an American general.
[[[[[EARLIER COMMENT FROM THIS WRITER]]]]]
My view: the Americans probably would eventually have
made it to Berlin after several million casualties in
pursuit of a cause, as in Iraq, that had and has
nothing to do with our country's vital national interests.
[[[[[GREG'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
Blithering idiocy; the control of cheap oil is in fact
related to /this country's/ interests, in spite of the
sheer stupidity of opting for war rather than the
alternative. As for Malaysian interests, I can only
guess; sell more rubber to the Chinese?
[[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
Readers will notice the quality of Greg's mind in the
above. Although we used the phrase, "vital national
interests," Greg responded by arguing that we were
denying that oil has to do with our "country's/
interests." In this instance, we believe that Greg's
confounding two different ideas -- what is a vital
national interest as opposed to an interest
entertained by a nation -- was not deliberateLY
dishonest. He is innocent of the distinction.
Without realizing it, Greg huffs and puffs and
actually agrees with the point we made. We wrote that
no vital national interest was involved in the cause
pursued in Iraq, and Greg responds that, yes, the war
in Iraq was stupid (our point) and that we ought to
have pursued some undefined "alternative." The man
wishes to disagree without understanding that he was
agreeing with us.
Greg's comment about "cheap" oil would be ironic
coming from a trained mind. It is simply an example
of unawareness when emanating from his keyboard.
Finally, there is the silly business of Malaysia
selling rubber to China. Pitiful. Malaysia is the
world's 17th largest trading country, as of a couple
years back, and its major commerce is oil and
semi-conductors. Sigh.]]]]]
[[[[[EARLIER COMMENT FROM THIS WRITER]]]]]
The effect of such losses (((((the reference is to
Verdun-level casualties))))) on our constitutional
system may only be imagined.]]]]]
[[[[[GREG'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
Only the little people lose; if you take a gander at
the net assets of those in power, war and oil-grabs
have a very positive effect. Take the Carlyle Group,
for instance; George Bush Sr. has "made a killing", so
to speak, off of his "defense" (i.e. offense)
investments due to the wars for oil launched by the
two George Bush presidencies.
[[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
Notice how Greg confounds "those in power" with George
Bush Sr. making money from defense-related
investments. This weakminded attempt at Marxoid, if
not Marxist analysis would be rightly derided by any
first-rank progressive Marxoid. If one reads
left-wing economic analysis, there is always a
discussion about the "contradictions" within the
ruling haute bourgeoisie. For a Marxoid, "those in
power" are those who control the means of production
-- not an individual who happens to be holding a given
public office at a given moment.
Wars benefit discrete segments of the haute
bourgeoisie and often injures other segments, which
usually constitute the large balance of the economy.
The weight of corporate financial contributions in the
last and the current political campaigns suggests that
a solid majority of "those in power," as determined by
using the same type of analysis that Greg attempted,
opposed the war in Iraq because it undermined key
economic interests.
As for Greg's phrase, "Only the little people
lose," he would be laughed out of any convention
attended by the former ruling royal families of
Europe. He would be gawked at with incredulity by the
British railway and mining magnates who lost their
position in South America after World War I because
the British government financed imports by selling
their securities to Americans. The big-money owners
of virtually every service industry in the United
States, who nearly always lose during wars, would
double over in mirthless guffaws.
When Greg tries to think, one can hear the creaking.]]]]]
[[[[[GREG'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
The error lies in blindly assuming that the
country's/ interest is what supposedly drives such
decisions-- as if there were no conflicts of interest
in government, only selfless servers of the public interest.
[[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
Earlier, Greg told us that "such decisions" were
driven by our national interests. Now, he puffs
himself up to make a declaration with which virtually
every person on earth would agree immediately.
Namely, people follow what serves their interests, and
one must not "blindly" assume that we have selfless
public servants.
We know of not a single person on our planet who
would disagree with the strawman that Greg tries to
set up. The sad point is that Gregster was unaware of
how fatuously obvious was a point that he evidently
regarded as deeply considered.]]]]
[[[[[GREG'S FURTHER "ANALYSIS"]]]]]
As for supposed damages to the system-- our
Constitution insists that all men are created equal...
yet under it slavery was widely practiced--Even by
it's framers themselves.
[[[[[OUR RESPONSE]]]]]
Let us interrupt Greg's, ah, flow. We note that the
man once again imagines "it's" to be a possessive as
in "by it's framers themselves."
The essential point, though, is Greg's prattling
about slavery when the discussion is the damage to our
constitutional system that might have been incurred if
America had suffered millions of casualties in World
War I. Greg imagines that habeas corpus, repeal of
posse comitatus in the event of widespread social
unrest, and the destruction of federalism would not
constitute further such damage.
[[[[[GREG EMPLOYS WHAT HE MUST IMAGINE TO BE WIT]]]]
If only I had been old enough to fly subs back then!
Instead of the dreaded mustard gas, my NO2 cannisters
would have gotten those Jerrys under control. Remember
the big one in Grenada? Of course you don't; that's
because my flying sub attacks put an end to the
fighting in short order. The very same strategy could
have worked in the Great War. Trench warfare is for duffers.
[[[[[OUR REPONSE]]]]]
The above is representative of Greg's effusions over
the last several weeks. We believe that he prattles
as he does in order to compensate for his
self-acknowledged nullibicity of historical knowledge.
help bot wrote:
> On Jun 19, 12:18 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The precise discussion between Taylor Kingston and yours
> > truly is whether the United States ought to have tried to drive
> > its army into Germany instead of agreeing to an Armistice in
> > November 1918.
>
> These two cannot even seem to agree on what
> they supposedly are "going to" discuss-- but that
> never stopped the arrogant, loony Larry Parr from
> declaring that others must be "wrong" about it.
>
> Mr. Parr's latest ploy is to find some book he
> likes, then try and fit the discussion to match it's
> subject matter. The earlier discussion made no
> such qualification, leaving open the possibility of
> numerous ideas.
>
>
> > Mr. Kingston quoted John Pershing saying,
> > in effect, it's better to kick arse.
>
> See? Old English lives, just as we have been
> told!
>
>
> > My view: the Americans probably would eventually
> > have made it to Berlin after several million casualties in
> > pursuit of a cause, as in Iraq, that had and has nothing to
> > do with our country's vital national interests.
>
> Blithering idiocy; the control of cheap oil is in
> fact related to /this country's/ interests, in spite
> of the sheer stupidity of opting for war rather
> than the alternative. As for Malaysian interests,
> I can only guess; sell more rubber to the
> Chinese?
>
>
> > The effect of such losses on our constitutional
> > system may only be imagined.
>
> Only the little people lose; if you take a gander
> at the net assets of those in power, war and oil-
> grabs have a very positive effect. Take the
> Carlyle Group, for instance; George Bush Sr.
> has "made a killing", so to speak, off of his
> "defense" (i.e. offense) investments due to the
> wars for oil launched by the two George Bush
> presidencies.
>
> The error lies in blindly assuming that /the
> country's/ interest is what supposedly drives
> such decisions-- as if there were no conflicts
> of interest in government, only selfless
> servers of the public interest. As for supposed
> damages to the system-- our Constitution
> insists that all men are created equal... yet
> under it slavery was widely practiced-- even
> by it's framers themselves. It's hard to
> imagine how such a system could be placed
> in grave danger by the pointless deaths of a
> million or two men-- largely conscripted into
> service; not truly free men.
>
> If only I had been old enough to fly subs
> back then! Instead of the dreaded mustard
> gas, my NO2 cannisters would have gotten
> those Jerrys under control. Remember the
> big one in Grenada? Of course you don't;
> that's because my flying sub attacks put an
> end to the fighting in short order. The very
> same strategy could have worked in the
> Great War. Trench warfare is for duffers.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 15:45:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: O.T. World War I
|
On Jun 19, 12:18 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The precise discussion between Taylor Kingston and yours
> truly is whether the United States ought to have tried to drive
> its army into Germany instead of agreeing to an Armistice in
> November 1918.
These two cannot even seem to agree on what
they supposedly are "going to" discuss-- but that
never stopped the arrogant, loony Larry Parr from
declaring that others must be "wrong" about it.
Mr. Parr's latest ploy is to find some book he
likes, then try and fit the discussion to match it's
subject matter. The earlier discussion made no
such qualification, leaving open the possibility of
numerous ideas.
> Mr. Kingston quoted John Pershing saying,
> in effect, it's better to kick arse.
See? Old English lives, just as we have been
told!
> My view: the Americans probably would eventually
> have made it to Berlin after several million casualties in
> pursuit of a cause, as in Iraq, that had and has nothing to
> do with our country's vital national interests.
Blithering idiocy; the control of cheap oil is in
fact related to /this country's/ interests, in spite
of the sheer stupidity of opting for war rather
than the alternative. As for Malaysian interests,
I can only guess; sell more rubber to the
Chinese?
> The effect of such losses on our constitutional
> system may only be imagined.
Only the little people lose; if you take a gander
at the net assets of those in power, war and oil-
grabs have a very positive effect. Take the
Carlyle Group, for instance; George Bush Sr.
has "made a killing", so to speak, off of his
"defense" (i.e. offense) investments due to the
wars for oil launched by the two George Bush
presidencies.
The error lies in blindly assuming that /the
country's/ interest is what supposedly drives
such decisions-- as if there were no conflicts
of interest in government, only selfless
servers of the public interest. As for supposed
damages to the system-- our Constitution
insists that all men are created equal... yet
under it slavery was widely practiced-- even
by it's framers themselves. It's hard to
imagine how such a system could be placed
in grave danger by the pointless deaths of a
million or two men-- largely conscripted into
service; not truly free men.
If only I had been old enough to fly subs
back then! Instead of the dreaded mustard
gas, my NO2 cannisters would have gotten
those Jerrys under control. Remember the
big one in Grenada? Of course you don't;
that's because my flying sub attacks put an
end to the fighting in short order. The very
same strategy could have worked in the
Great War. Trench warfare is for duffers.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 07:29:53
From:
Subject: Re: O.T. World War I
|
On Jun 19, 12:18=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE COMING DISCUSSION
> :
> =A0 =A0Our "nobody" (with a small n) and Greg Kennedy got it wrong.
>
> =A0The precise discussion between Taylor Kingston and yours
> =A0truly is whether the United States ought to have tried to drive
> =A0its army into Germany instead of agreeing to an Armistice in
> November 1918. =A0Mr. Kingston quoted John Pershing saying,
> in effect, it's better to kick arse.
>
> =A0I will be quoting, among others, the famous military historian
> John Keegan, who opines that no one would have won the
> war of 1914-18 purely in military terms. =A0If true, a drive into
> Germany with lengthened allied supply lines might easily
> have led to American deaths on the scale of German and
> =A0French fatalities at Verdun.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Another historian opines that had the German retreat
> =A0been carried out in good order, the 900-km drive to Berlin
> =A0would have been sanguinary indeed, given that the French
> =A0army had been taken out of the front line following the revolt of
> 1917.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0My view: =A0the Americans probably would eventually
> have made it to Berlin after several million casualties in
> pursuit of a cause, as in Iraq, that had and has nothing to
> do with our country's vital national interests.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 The effect of such losses on our constitutional
> system may only be imagined.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Larry, I thought the main topic of discussion was to be a
hypothetical German victory in 1917: how this might have been
accomplished (virtually impossible, IMO), and how it might have
prevented (or not) the later rise of totalitarianism in Soviet Russia
and/or Nazi Germany. If you want to throw in the ramifications of the
Allies invading German soil in late 1918, fine, but that was not my
main interest.
|
| |
Date: 19 Jun 2008 09:19:39
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: O.T. World War I
|
How very exciting: The famous military historian Taylor
Kingston and the well-known windbag, Evan's puppet,
Wing Bat Ding Dong's servant Larry Parr, will present
to this captive audience their well-considered views
on the burning issue: What would have happened in
WWI if what did happen had not happened.
Admission is free, but please send donations to
the Sam Sloan defense fund.
<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> THE COMING DISCUSSION
> :
> Our "nobody" (with a small n) and Greg Kennedy got it wrong.
>
> The precise discussion between Taylor Kingston and yours
> truly is whether the United States ought to have tried to drive
> its army into Germany instead of agreeing to an Armistice in
> November 1918. Mr. Kingston quoted John Pershing saying,
> in effect, it's better to kick arse.
>
> I will be quoting, among others, the famous military historian
> John Keegan, who opines that no one would have won the
> war of 1914-18 purely in military terms. If true, a drive into
> Germany with lengthened allied supply lines might easily
> have led to American deaths on the scale of German and
> French fatalities at Verdun.
>
> Another historian opines that had the German retreat
> been carried out in good order, the 900-km drive to Berlin
> would have been sanguinary indeed, given that the French
> army had been taken out of the front line following the revolt of
> 1917.
>
> My view: the Americans probably would eventually
> have made it to Berlin after several million casualties in
> pursuit of a cause, as in Iraq, that had and has nothing to
> do with our country's vital national interests.
>
> The effect of such losses on our constitutional
> system may only be imagined.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
|
|
