Protests In Hong Kong

[rmgill]

I'm not sure but if the US sent 14 Billion to mostly the UK, France, Italy and West Germany, how does that NOT make NATO possible insofar as allowing them more money to be allocated to defense spending than say rebuilding infrastructure itself? 

How are you going to rebuild a military from scratch in say West Germany when you have had the country bombed down around your ears? The same goes for all of the major players in NATO really. More so, how much Military Material was left by the US for those nations to use? I think it could be argued that the UK and Canada could afford to grant Military Equipment (Like CMPs and Humber Armoured Cars) to Denmark and Holland given that the US was shifting $$$ to them for rebuilding. 

[rmgill]

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As usual, it's a masterly misrepresentation of history in Glenn's part. Friction didn't start immediately, Nuremburg went fairly well. Persia was resolved peacefully. In fact even the British joint intelligence committee concluded they thought the Soviets could be worked with as late as 1947. 

Then what was Churchill talking about in 1946? One could agree that there was not that much friction because the Soviet Demands (like for Poles and Czech's to be repatriated for later punishment) were acceded to. 

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/cold-war-on-file/iron-curtain-speech/

Looking at things along a deeper view, I think it's clear that friction was there all along. One need only look at the handling of B-29s 'acquired' by the USSR for an example.

[rmgill]

We can also look at NATO spending from 1949 forwards. 

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_1963_12/20100830_1963-002.pdf

in 1949
North American Spending (US and Canada) was $13,952,000,000 USD (Canada's share of this in '49 was $372,000,000 Can). 
European Spending was $4,825,000,000 USD. 

Without that US providing of ~74% of the budget...how well would the alliance have fared with the USSR becoming more bold? 

 

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

As usual you are wrong, did the US get a zone of occupation in Germany and Austria? yes, and just as soon reduced its armed forces to a constabulary, and left the rest of Europe. There was no comitment from the US to Europe beyond the occupation forces, and no gaurantee these forces would do anything if the Soviets decided to occupy Norway or Denmark, for example.

US Troop levels in Germany by year here,

untitled (silverchair.com)

Low point was about 100,000 Army and Air Force combined in Germany.   Combat capability was low, but they were there.  And there was never any intention that number would be 0.  

WRT Norway, the Soviets did liberate a portion of it, here.  Doesn't seem anything was in the cards except to turn it over from the Soviets to the Norwegians, which apparently the British and Americans helped with,

Liberation of Finnmark - Wikipedia

Denmark would be entirely speculative, but the Iran Crisis of 1946,

Iran crisis of 1946 - Wikipedia

The U.S. response for Soviet failure to withdraw was intense pressure and U.N. Resolution to the same end.   Given that this was being done in Iran, (pressure there had the implicit threat of force, and only the US had the A-bomb), it seems highly unlikely l that the US would tolerate the Soviets invading Denmark after WW2, or that Stalin would have undertaken anything so incredibly rash.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, I did despise Trump, because I despise stupidity. Any man who thinks Churchills greatest words were 'Keep Calm and Carry On' is an idiot, pure and simple. I don't hate the American right, I admire Reagan and Bush the elder, I even admire Nixon. Once again you reinvent reality to have something to bleat about,  as if the world isn't screwed up enough.

I've talked to no end of Trump haters in Canada these past 4 years.  The worst of them could go ape shit even just talking about him.  All they despised not just Trump, but also Trump voters.  They think they're white trash, trailer park idiots.  They think 75 million Trump voters are white racists.   I can't recall talking to a single person that despises Trump who has anything good thing to say about the US Right or Trump voters.  

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Then what was Churchill talking about in 1946? One could agree that there was not that much friction because the Soviet Demands (like for Poles and Czech's to be repatriated for later punishment) were acceded to. 
 

What they're talking about is that after the war the US demobilized at a furious pace in Europe.   But there was never any intention to leave Germany or Europe or allow the Soviets to increase their sphere of influence in Europe.  Where ever the Soviets broke their wartime agreements, friction followed.   The US had the A-bomb and the B-29 and the Soviets had jack shit to stop them, so just because troop levels fell to 100,000 in 1949 in Germany did not mean that the Soviets were in any position to press forward.  

[Simon Tan]

It is much like hating the Jew in another time. A feeling of belonging. Of inclusion in a greater movement. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, glenn239 said:

US Troop levels in Germany by year here,

untitled (silverchair.com)

Low point was about 100,000 Army and Air Force combined in Germany.   Combat capability was low, but they were there.  And there was never any intention that number would be 0.  

WRT Norway, the Soviets did liberate a portion of it, here.  Doesn't seem anything was in the cards except to turn it over from the Soviets to the Norwegians, which apparently the British and Americans helped with,

Liberation of Finnmark - Wikipedia

Denmark would be entirely speculative, but the Iran Crisis of 1946,

Iran crisis of 1946 - Wikipedia

The U.S. response for Soviet failure to withdraw was intense pressure and U.N. Resolution to the same end.   Given that this was being done in Iran, (pressure there had the implicit threat of force, and only the US had the A-bomb), it seems highly unlikely l that the US would tolerate the Soviets invading Denmark after WW2, or that Stalin would have undertaken anything so incredibly rash.

If the intent of the US military was to stay in Germany, then why did it continue to demobilize through 1946? And in fact, didnt reverse the culling of the US Army until Korea? They even dropped the draft in 1947, and didnt restart it till 1948.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demobilization_of_United_States_armed_forces_after_World_War_II#:~:text=The Demobilization of United States armed forces after,and soldiers protested the slowness of the process.

Ok, so you have the atomic bomb, which needed less forces. And you have the US State Department legendary muddleheadedness which is seemingly able to pursue 2 different policies, completely contradictory, at the same time. But if it was Soviet intransigence that made the US stay in Central Europe, that only emerged rather later in the 1940's. It was Roosevelts aim to defeat Germany and go home, and im not detecting anything that committed to remaining in Germany under Truman until comparatively late in the day.

Churchill wasnt listened to at Fulton. Most US politicians wrote him off as trying to get the US into another war. It was only afterwards, probably after Berlin, certainly after Czechoslovakia, that everyone fell into line and said how far sighted he had been. Pretty much like Churchill in the 1930's really. Nobody wants to hear pending bad news until after its already happened.

10 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I've talked to no end of Trump haters in Canada these past 4 years.  The worst of them could go ape shit even just talking about him.  All they despised not just Trump, but also Trump voters.  They think they're white trash, trailer park idiots.  They think 75 million Trump voters are white racists.   I can't recall talking to a single person that despises Trump who has anything good thing to say about the US Right or Trump voters.  

 

Nope. Ive been very clear, im fully respectful of Trump voters, they wanted someone who wasnt a typical politician who would listen to them. I feel precisely the same way myself. It wasnt their fault the only option on offer other than more of the same was a snakeoil salesmen.  Same as in the UK, we had a choice between a Communist and a Lunatic, so people entirely understandably chose the lunatic.

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[RETAC21]

14 hours ago, rmgill said:

I'm not sure but if the US sent 14 Billion to mostly the UK, France, Italy and West Germany, how does that NOT make NATO possible insofar as allowing them more money to be allocated to defense spending than say rebuilding infrastructure itself? 

How are you going to rebuild a military from scratch in say West Germany when you have had the country bombed down around your ears? The same goes for all of the major players in NATO really. More so, how much Military Material was left by the US for those nations to use? I think it could be argued that the UK and Canada could afford to grant Military Equipment (Like CMPs and Humber Armoured Cars) to Denmark and Holland given that the US was shifting $$$ to them for rebuilding. 

First of all, the equipment was already built and paid for in 1945-1950 from WW2 stocks (and paid with $$$ from lend lease which were only repaid in 2006).

Second, the Marshall plan had run its course (ended by 1952) before rearmament kicked in (West German army set up in 1955) and the Soviet Union could have received aid if they had wished to.

[RETAC21]

12 hours ago, glenn239 said:

US Troop levels in Germany by year here,

untitled (silverchair.com)

Low point was about 100,000 Army and Air Force combined in Germany.   Combat capability was low, but they were there.  And there was never any intention that number would be 0.  

WRT Norway, the Soviets did liberate a portion of it, here.  Doesn't seem anything was in the cards except to turn it over from the Soviets to the Norwegians, which apparently the British and Americans helped with,

Liberation of Finnmark - Wikipedia

Denmark would be entirely speculative, but the Iran Crisis of 1946,

Iran crisis of 1946 - Wikipedia

The U.S. response for Soviet failure to withdraw was intense pressure and U.N. Resolution to the same end.   Given that this was being done in Iran, (pressure there had the implicit threat of force, and only the US had the A-bomb), it seems highly unlikely l that the US would tolerate the Soviets invading Denmark after WW2, or that Stalin would have undertaken anything so incredibly rash.

Yet another misrepresentation. US troops occupied a part of Germany and Austria, that didn't translate into an open commitment to defend Western Europe by any means. As for what Stalin did before and after having an atomic bomb, see the Korean War, the Czech coup, the Greek civil war or the Turkish strait crisis of 1946.

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Yet another misrepresentation. US troops occupied a part of Germany and Austria, that didn't translate into an open commitment to defend Western Europe by any means. As for what Stalin did before and after having an atomic bomb, see the Korean War, the Czech coup, the Greek civil war or the Turkish strait crisis of 1946.

My take on the US in the immediate post-war period is that it was three big forces.  Demobilization - how to get about 10 million men from overseas to America tomorrow.  Managing the Axis - that Germany and Japan were just enemies so in the future they too would be the enemy.  That the Soviet Union was not an enemy and need not be thought of as one, and insofar as any caution there was about Stalin, the A-bomb should be enough to make him play it safe.  But the idea that the United States intended to abandon Europe, or allow the Soviet Union to invade Denmark or other places?   No.   The origin of the post-war US commitment to Europe was the American occupation zones, not the NATO treaty.  The origin was anti-Nazi no doubt, but the commitment to Europe was inherent. 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by glenn239

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If the intent of the US military was to stay in Germany, then why did it continue to demobilize through 1946? And in fact, didnt reverse the culling of the US Army until Korea? They even dropped the draft in 1947, and didn't restart it till 1948.

I don't think the idea that Stalin would invade Western Germany was on the radar in 1946, so troop level fell to around 100,000.  You're imposing the dynamics of a later date onto a timeframe where it didn't yet exist.  Where the British I think probably did take charge was getting the Americans to switch their attention from a non-existent German threat to the real Soviet one.

 

Quote

Nope. Ive been very clear, im fully respectful of Trump voters, they wanted someone who wasnt a typical politician who would listen to them. I feel precisely the same way myself. It wasnt their fault the only option on offer other than more of the same was a snakeoil salesmen.  Same as in the UK, we had a choice between a Communist and a Lunatic, so people entirely understandably chose the lunatic.

Right, but what I'm saying is that in my experience up here in Canada I've not met anyone who despised Trump that also did not despise Trump voters.  They think of Trump voters as white trailer trash racists.   

 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by glenn239

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Yet another misrepresentation. US troops occupied a part of Germany and Austria, that didn't translate into an open commitment to defend Western Europe by any means. As for what Stalin did before and after having an atomic bomb, see the Korean War, the Czech coup, the Greek civil war or the Turkish strait crisis of 1946.

US Troops in Japan that became Taskforce Smith weren't originally committed to defending South Korea, but they did. 

[RETAC21]

22 minutes ago, rmgill said:

US Troops in Japan that became Taskforce Smith weren't originally committed to defending South Korea, but they did. 

So? US troops in Germany weren't committed to Czechoslovakia, Greece or Turkey

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ask yourself this important question. If the US was already dedicated from 1946 onwards to protecting the west or its allies globally from Communist subversion, then how did it lose China? There were certainly plenty of Americans in China, not least General Chennault.  What difference did it make?

 

 

 

 

[RETAC21]

47 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

My take on the US in the immediate post-war period is that it was three big forces.  Demobilization - how to get about 10 million men from overseas to America tomorrow.  Managing the Axis - that Germany and Japan were just enemies so in the future they too would be the enemy.  That the Soviet Union was not an enemy and need not be thought of as one, and insofar as any caution there was about Stalin, the A-bomb should be enough to make him play it safe.  But the idea that the United States intended to abandon Europe, or allow the Soviet Union to invade Denmark or other places?   No.   The origin of the post-war US commitment to Europe was the American occupation zones, not the NATO treaty.  The origin was anti-Nazi no doubt, but the commitment to Europe was inherent. 

 

You seem to be wrong again. In 1949 Nationalist China fell to the Communists, one of the big powers of 1945, where they abandoned by the US? you bet. 1948, Communist coup in Czechoslovakia, not a peep from the US

[seahawk]

47 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

So? US troops in Germany weren't committed to Czechoslovakia, Greece or Turkey

Neither of those asked for US troops.

[RETAC21]

17 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Neither of those asked for US troops.

The Greeks certainly did

[seahawk]

But only after the UK cut their aid and then the US provided material and leadership to the Greek.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its a circular argument though, isnt it? The UK wouldnt have to cut their aid, unless they were broke. They were broke because WW2 cost so much. And the US demanded it paid back all those wartime loans. At the same time as we were also trying to cope with the worst winter in recent memory, we were busy selling coal stocks to the US to start making inroads into those loans. Makes you think, doesnt it?

Its the same old story of the US Government persuing two different and contradictory policies at the same time. At the same time as they want to apparently be a bulwark against International Communism, they were busy tearing down Imperialism. Completely overlooking that they were greasing the rails for Communist insurgents they were supposedly set against, and it was those silly old misguided Empires that were the best bulwark against them. Look at Malaya and you will see my point.

Its even more apparent in Indochina, where they were prefering to bulldoze kit the French would have found useful to fight the Communists off a cliff in Vanuatu in the South Pacific, rather than take anything less than the market price.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/million-dollar-point

 

[seahawk]

You mean 6 cents to the dollar was market price?

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

US Troops in Japan that became Taskforce Smith weren't originally committed to defending South Korea, but they did. 

They're trying to say that the US wanted to abandon Europe and that the Europeans argued until the US finally saw sense.  IMO, that ain't the way it happened.

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

US Troops in Japan that became Taskforce Smith weren't originally committed to defending South Korea, but they did. 

Good example.  The US entered Korea in 1945 with no plans on forming NATO in Korea, yet in 1950 their troops were still there and the US defended Korea.  There was no NATO in Korea, so why didn't the Americans just let the Norks have the whole penninsula?

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

You seem to be wrong again. In 1949 Nationalist China fell to the Communists, one of the big powers of 1945, where they abandoned by the US? you bet. 1948, Communist coup in Czechoslovakia, not a peep from the US

Why the US lost China is a very good question indeed.  My impression is that the Americans never cared a whit about China either before, during, or after the war except as a stalking horse for war against Japan.  Once Japan was defeated, China was about as relevant to Washington as Sumatra or Ceylon.

[rmgill]

 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its a circular argument though, isnt it? The UK wouldnt have to cut their aid, unless they were broke. They were broke because WW2 cost so much. And the US demanded it paid back all those wartime loans.

Which brings us back to the larger point. The US was instrumental in forming NATO. What ever direction there was from your favorite post war Socialist, the US taxpayer contribution to NATO and European security is not to be undersold, ignored, minimized or forgotten. 

It's not like we were the Iron Bank and sent a fleet of ships to take over your country because you had a hard time paying your loans. 
 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its the same old story of the US Government persuing two different and contradictory policies at the same time. At the same time as they want to apparently be a bulwark against International Communism, they were busy tearing down Imperialism.

To a large degree, Imperial excesses weren't exactly helping you in Places like India before the US got out of it's chair. The winds of change were already afoot, Empire as it was was at an expected end.