Established Member
Becoming Addicted to E-I
We are part of Europe both in fact and in aspiration. There was no logical alternative but to vote "yes". Every dog in the street knows that the only reason that Lisbon was voted down the first time around was that so many people were frightened into voting "no". The reason that there was such a sizeable majority in favour this time is because so many were angry at being duped into voting "no" before. "Thanks be to God, at least 67% have seen the light"is all I can say even if I am an Atheist
What you say about wars being started for scarce resources is of course correct........apart from wars based on theology/ideology, all wars are resource wars. However, Russia is probably the greatest untapped resource on the planet...though given the vastness of the place and the remoteness of many of the resources, it's a costly task to bring them on stream and also time consuming. Russia needs partners to develop it's resources and economy, it needs funding and it needs markets for those resources. The EU will be it's primary market because a) it can best afford to pay the prices the Russians will want for their gas and oil, and b) because as you say, Northsea reserves have peeked or will peek and even given alternative energy sources, such as wind, wave and nuclear, oil and gas will still be required for certain things. The other major export markets for Russian resources will probably be China, Japan and India. The countries which pose the greatest threat to the status quo are those with burgeoning populations which lack the space and/or resources to meet the needs of their own populations or countries who are diametrically opposed to what one could call the current world order. These include a number of "rogue" states, some of which have or are developing nuclear capabilities. These states pose a bigger threat to Russia than they do to either the EU or the US, as many of them are bordering Russia, and unlike Russia, which has a dwindling population, their's are on the increase. The divide now is the north/south divide, and apart from the UN, which is toothless in many respects and often fails to agree courses of action, the main economic decision making is gradually moving from the G7/G8 to the G20. Most of the economies of the developed world are too bound up together, to make a serious military conflict between them imaginable. (Even during the height of the cold war, the superpowers only really ever competed militarily via their surrogates.) In addition, the developed West and those states that are rapidly joining them are best placed to develop new technologies to adapt to changing circumstances and a reduction in traditional resources, such as fossil fuels. The big imponderable, is the extent and pace of climate change and how this will play out on the different continents.....but as many climatologists have already suggested, it will probably have the greatest impact in the poorer regions of the planet.Originally Posted by Smarty
So, for the above reasons, I view Russia as a partner and not as a rival. Russia's traditional historical enemies lay to the south and the east and I think that in the case of the south at least, the average Russian would still see it like that.
Carlos, thats a very good post and well thought out.
I agree with your general thrust that Russia will need help to tap and sell its resouces.
But as history can tell us all it takes is a spark to start a war.
No one seen WWI approaching until the Arch Duke got the bullet in the head.
No one seen WWII approaching a year months before British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement in September 1938, Chamberlain said "We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."
Even the Americans did'nt forsee Pearl Harbour.
All it will take is some head banger in Russia or the New Superstate EU to start that spark.
I think that you're both right and wrong regarding the conflicts that you mentioned. Many people chose not to read the signs of impending war....maybe they did not want to frighten their own people or the markets. In the case of democracies, the process of preparing a people and engaging an economy for a war (usually a defensive war) takes much longer, because you need to try and bring public opinion with you in order to gain the maximum support for the war effort. It is very difficult to convince a civilian population, years in advance of a conflict, that a higher proportion of GDP needs to be diverted to the military. In all the cases stated, siren voices, such as Churchill in the UK, warned of the necessity to upgrade military capabilities. The same happened in the US, though given the isolationist stance of the US regime and an economy that had still not fully recovered from the Depression, a minimalist approach was adopted.
The roots of WW I go back to the 19th century.....the naval rivalry between Britain and Germany based on defending their sea routes (resources), various military alliances and the struggle for supremacy in the Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Russia. The murders in Sarajevo lit the spark, but each of the great powers has it's military strategies well worked out down to the train timetabling for troop movements. At least a decade had been spent preparing for a major conflict between the upper echelons within these powers and once the spark was lit, things moves inexorably along their preordained course. Somebody could have shouted stop and many socialist politicians in different countries did, but fear won the day......the fear that if one did not act first and gain the advantage of whatever surprise existed, that one would have lost before the thing even started.
WW II in Europe was inevitable once Hitler came to power in Germany and the allies adopted a strategy of appeasement. The French placed their faith in their defensive Maginot line and the British in the Channel. Churchill had warned about the need to rearm, but given the state of their respective economies, they relied on appeasement and allowed Germany gain a large head start in developing it's military capability. Hitler's ambitious plans were published in Mein Kampf about 15 years before the war.....more people should have read the book and taken him seriously when he came to power.
Had the other major powers in Europe mobilized and called his bluff at any point up to the 1938 Munich Agreement, Hitler would have been forced to capitulate and would have suffered a loss of face at home. After Chamberlain said those words following the Munich Agreement, British rearmament started in earnest. (Chamberlain was simply trying to reassure and settle the British public......much like Bertie and Cowan talking about soft landings and the economy being sound.....bullshit only works for so long) German military intelligence indicated that after the summer of 1939, the British and French rearmament programs would gradually erode the military advantage that Germany enjoyed and as Stalin needed a breathing space to recover from the damage that his own paranoia had inflicted on the higher echelons of the Red Army, we again have a military strategy and timetable in place for war.
The roots of the Pacific conflict stretch back to the Japanese invasion of China in 1931 and the economic sanctions against Japan which followed. As these gradually started to impact more severly on Japan, a clash between Japan and the US became inevitable there too. Even though Pearl Harbour was a lightning strike out of the blue, a lot of diplomatic activity had preceded it and the US War Department was aware that the Japanese Imperial Fleet had put to sea.
So I dont believe that there were any surprises for those in the know.....only for those who were intentionally kept in the dark......and maybe for their own good in many cases. If for example, a rumour gained credence that some foreign army were about to invade us, watch what would happen on the stock exchange and at banks and supermarkets.
The surprised factor is even more difficult to achieve nowadays, given satellite technology, the greater abilities of intelligence gathering agencies and high-tech world media. The Iranians learned this fact when they were informed that the US and others were aware of their secret Uranium enrichment facilities recently. The best deterrent to war is to bind countries closer together in terms of business and trade, and economically and politically in the case of the EU. Failing that, you have to rely on the old military deterrent, which worked quite well in Europe during the cold war.....because at the end of the day, global superpower conflict is a guaranteed loose-loose situation and everything that has been created would be destroyed....so, no war aims could possibly be achieved in such a conflict....and if you cant achieve your aims through war, that only leaves diplomacy.
Make love, not war..............I never killed a Russian, but I did shag one once.
Established Member
Certified E-I Addict
Great post Carlos.I think that you're both right and wrong regarding the conflicts that you mentioned. Many people chose not to read the signs of impending war....maybe they did not want to frighten their own people or the markets. In the case of democracies, the process of preparing a people and engaging an economy for a war (usually a defensive war) takes much longer, because you need to try and bring public opinion with you in order to gain the maximum support for the war effort. It is very difficult to convince a civilian population, years in advance of a conflict, that a higher proportion of GDP needs to be diverted to the military. In all the cases stated, siren voices, such as Churchill in the UK, warned of the necessity to upgrade military capabilities. The same happened in the US, though given the isolationist stance of the US regime and an economy that had still not fully recovered from the Depression, a minimalist approach was adopted.
The roots of WW I go back to the 19th century.....the naval rivalry between Britain and Germany based on defending their sea routes (resources), various military alliances and the struggle for supremacy in the Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Russia. The murders in Sarajevo lit the spark, but each of the great powers has it's military strategies well worked out down to the train timetabling for troop movements. At least a decade had been spent preparing for a major conflict between the upper echelons within these powers and once the spark was lit, things moves inexorably along their preordained course. Somebody could have shouted stop and many socialist politicians in different countries did, but fear won the day......the fear that if one did not act first and gain the advantage of whatever surprise existed, that one would have lost before the thing even started.
WW II in Europe was inevitable once Hitler came to power in Germany and the allies adopted a strategy of appeasement. The French placed their faith in their defensive Maginot line and the British in the Channel. Churchill had warned about the need to rearm, but given the state of their respective economies, they relied on appeasement and allowed Germany gain a large head start in developing it's military capability. Hitler's ambitious plans were published in Mein Kampf about 15 years before the war.....more people should have read the book and taken him seriously when he came to power.
Had the other major powers in Europe mobilized and called his bluff at any point up to the 1938 Munich Agreement, Hitler would have been forced to capitulate and would have suffered a loss of face at home. After Chamberlain said those words following the Munich Agreement, British rearmament started in earnest. (Chamberlain was simply trying to reassure and settle the British public......much like Bertie and Cowan talking about soft landings and the economy being sound.....bullshit only works for so long) German military intelligence indicated that after the summer of 1939, the British and French rearmament programs would gradually erode the military advantage that Germany enjoyed and as Stalin needed a breathing space to recover from the damage that his own paranoia had inflicted on the higher echelons of the Red Army, we again have a military strategy and timetable in place for war.
The roots of the Pacific conflict stretch back to the Japanese invasion of China in 1931 and the economic sanctions against Japan which followed. As these gradually started to impact more severly on Japan, a clash between Japan and the US became inevitable there too. Even though Pearl Harbour was a lightning strike out of the blue, a lot of diplomatic activity had preceded it and the US War Department was aware that the Japanese Imperial Fleet had put to sea.
So I dont believe that there were any surprises for those in the know.....only for those who were intentionally kept in the dark......and maybe for their own good in many cases. If for example, a rumour gained credence that some foreign army were about to invade us, watch what would happen on the stock exchange and at banks and supermarkets.
The surprised factor is even more difficult to achieve nowadays, given satellite technology, the greater abilities of intelligence gathering agencies and high-tech world media. The Iranians learned this fact when they were informed that the US and others were aware of their secret Uranium enrichment facilities recently. The best deterrent to war is to bind countries closer together in terms of business and trade, and economically and politically in the case of the EU. Failing that, you have to rely on the old military deterrent, which worked quite well in Europe during the cold war.....because at the end of the day, global superpower conflict is a guaranteed loose-loose situation and everything that has been created would be destroyed....so, no war aims could possibly be achieved in such a conflict....and if you cant achieve your aims through war, that only leaves diplomacy.
Make love, not war..............I never killed a Russian, but I did shag one once.
By the way the Russian that you shagged was not this one by any chance?
The Truth is out there.
Your missing one thing with the EU
The difference in nationalities.No other union had such a multitude of differing nationalities.The EU will eventually descend into war due to the differing nationalities and a power struggle.I think that you're both right and wrong regarding the conflicts that you mentioned. Many people chose not to read the signs of impending war....maybe they did not want to frighten their own people or the markets. In the case of democracies, the process of preparing a people and engaging an economy for a war (usually a defensive war) takes much longer, because you need to try and bring public opinion with you in order to gain the maximum support for the war effort. It is very difficult to convince a civilian population, years in advance of a conflict, that a higher proportion of GDP needs to be diverted to the military. In all the cases stated, siren voices, such as Churchill in the UK, warned of the necessity to upgrade military capabilities. The same happened in the US, though given the isolationist stance of the US regime and an economy that had still not fully recovered from the Depression, a minimalist approach was adopted.
The roots of WW I go back to the 19th century.....the naval rivalry between Britain and Germany based on defending their sea routes (resources), various military alliances and the struggle for supremacy in the Balkans between Austria-Hungary and Russia. The murders in Sarajevo lit the spark, but each of the great powers has it's military strategies well worked out down to the train timetabling for troop movements. At least a decade had been spent preparing for a major conflict between the upper echelons within these powers and once the spark was lit, things moves inexorably along their preordained course. Somebody could have shouted stop and many socialist politicians in different countries did, but fear won the day......the fear that if one did not act first and gain the advantage of whatever surprise existed, that one would have lost before the thing even started.
WW II in Europe was inevitable once Hitler came to power in Germany and the allies adopted a strategy of appeasement. The French placed their faith in their defensive Maginot line and the British in the Channel. Churchill had warned about the need to rearm, but given the state of their respective economies, they relied on appeasement and allowed Germany gain a large head start in developing it's military capability. Hitler's ambitious plans were published in Mein Kampf about 15 years before the war.....more people should have read the book and taken him seriously when he came to power.
Had the other major powers in Europe mobilized and called his bluff at any point up to the 1938 Munich Agreement, Hitler would have been forced to capitulate and would have suffered a loss of face at home. After Chamberlain said those words following the Munich Agreement, British rearmament started in earnest. (Chamberlain was simply trying to reassure and settle the British public......much like Bertie and Cowan talking about soft landings and the economy being sound.....bullshit only works for so long) German military intelligence indicated that after the summer of 1939, the British and French rearmament programs would gradually erode the military advantage that Germany enjoyed and as Stalin needed a breathing space to recover from the damage that his own paranoia had inflicted on the higher echelons of the Red Army, we again have a military strategy and timetable in place for war.
The roots of the Pacific conflict stretch back to the Japanese invasion of China in 1931 and the economic sanctions against Japan which followed. As these gradually started to impact more severly on Japan, a clash between Japan and the US became inevitable there too. Even though Pearl Harbour was a lightning strike out of the blue, a lot of diplomatic activity had preceded it and the US War Department was aware that the Japanese Imperial Fleet had put to sea.
So I dont believe that there were any surprises for those in the know.....only for those who were intentionally kept in the dark......and maybe for their own good in many cases. If for example, a rumour gained credence that some foreign army were about to invade us, watch what would happen on the stock exchange and at banks and supermarkets.
The surprised factor is even more difficult to achieve nowadays, given satellite technology, the greater abilities of intelligence gathering agencies and high-tech world media. The Iranians learned this fact when they were informed that the US and others were aware of their secret Uranium enrichment facilities recently. The best deterrent to war is to bind countries closer together in terms of business and trade, and economically and politically in the case of the EU. Failing that, you have to rely on the old military deterrent, which worked quite well in Europe during the cold war.....because at the end of the day, global superpower conflict is a guaranteed loose-loose situation and everything that has been created would be destroyed....so, no war aims could possibly be achieved in such a conflict....and if you cant achieve your aims through war, that only leaves diplomacy.
Make love, not war..............I never killed a Russian, but I did shag one once.
Too much of a difference,
Westside.
Banned User
Australian navy actually spotted the Japan navy heading towards pearl harbour Roosevelt ordered his most important ships to sea aircraft carriers. Roosevelt wanted needed war America had dragged ten years through hell depression was never ending. War was the best method to put everyone back to work for a recovery Roosevelt really was one worst presidents in American history terrible president. In life what hold u up is your word before he became elected he gave his word he would not seize gold of the people the only real money. The first thing he did was to seize the gold of the people horrible decision. One great problems u see was in the middle of the depression was the DUST BOWL destroyed farms made it impossible for farmers to make a living what caused it poor farming technique over generations. Reap what u sow. Roosevelt needed an excuse to go to war there was a huge neutral movement in the states left over from experience of world war one. However his actions prior to declaring war were anything but neutral he gave hundreds of destroyers to britian in exchange for use of military bases on some islands for 50 year lease.
Times were complex much was engineered okay when France and britian declared war on Germany why did they not declare war on Russia as well both Russia and Germany craved up poland. Britian had a geopolitical objecive to get the two titians fighting each other Winston churchill gave germany Britian invasion plans off handedly he also seized an ship in norweign waters forwarded he goal was complex he forced his rival to take command of invasion and when britians invasion failed as winston churchhill made sure it did no winter clothing was sent to british solders on campaign Neville Chamberlain fell on his sword after hearing Oliver Cromwell famous words said to him.
Roosvelt now had his war with Japan however he had a problem no one was willing to go to war with Germany there attitude was we fight east u fight west Germany. Hitler solved this little dilema by declaring war on America what a fool he was really Germany should destroyed them all peace meal. Why u ask okay hitler had a great ally in Franco spain britian has had Gibraltar if franco seized this territory mediterian then would be closed to britian no supplys from empire britian would starve especially of oil. Another mistake was letting France keep its fleet which was on par with britian a bit smaller not by much if hitler pooled all fleets of germany france sapin holland norway denmark beligium good bye british navy.Other mistakes why let the british army escape at dunkirk why seriously u could have knocked britian out the war secured u rear Fool he was but he had some brillant men around him the officers core were excellent brillant if hiliter was removed completely from commmand structure u would see a different Europe.
What started world war 2 money germany had to repay the allies ruined the ecomony of germany so fringe elements came to power. World war one was started over a railway from berlin to were anyone know challenge route cause of the war was a railway seriously
Railway was a route cause true but the real reason for both world war one and two was the fall of the british empie winston churchill was given instructions to make the best deal he could with the United states who became mighty power due to the destruction of every rival it stood alone . Russia was destroyed they wanted a buffer zone in case of invasion from europe was all millions dead britian bankrupt . Japan destroyed , China in pieces heading into a civil war nationalists became taiwan after losing the war comminists became china. Now they are more nationalist than the nationalists of that area.
World war 111 anyone ????? i think never happen
There are quite a few countries composed of different national groupings and despite some having internal problems of one nature or other they hold together.....Switzerland, India, Russia. In addition, some of the English speaking countries have become the greatest melting pots on earth....US, Canada, Australia. Differing nationalities and nationalism is not the problem........xenophobia could be a problem though, but with more people moving between the EU states and learning about each other's cultures and being able to communicate in a common language, the peddlers of xenophobic nationalism will have a smaller and smaller constituency over time. As for power, what power does Rhode Island have, or what influence does Arkansas wield on the world stage.....their power lies in being part of the United States of America.....and they have'nt fought each other in over 140 years despite massive differences between the individual states.
i sick of this neutrality anyway.....
A war be the job , i have loads of weapons i need to try out .
nbt
Established Member
Certified E-I Addict
So your gun is loaded and ready for action then?i sick of this neutrality anyway.....
A war be the job , i have loads of weapons i need to try out .
nbt
The Truth is out there.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
