Article

2009-09-05 International-UN-NGOs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2009-09-05 10:13|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 Can't resist nasty equivalences, can he? At least he recognized that Stalin was a bloody villain.

It was a war begun by the "have-nots" Japan, Italy and Germany but won by the least deserving of the "haves" the Soviet Union, which had begun on the wrong side in 1939, and the United States, which entered the war more than two years later.

Posted by James">James 2009-09-05 10:55|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2009-09-05 10:55|| Front Page Top

#2 Obama Administration History Zsar anyone?

Posted by Besoeker 2009-09-05 11:00|| 2009-09-05 11:00|| Front Page Top

#3 Why is the US a "least deserving" mister retard Ferguson?

Posted by 3dc 2009-09-05 12:31|| 2009-09-05 12:31|| Front Page Top

#4 Because he longs for the days when the sun never set on the British Empire, 3dc? (Of course, it's not politically correct to say that. Besides, America bashing never goes out of style in the Guardian....)

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2009-09-05 12:49|| 2009-09-05 12:49|| Front Page Top

#5 ...because we're the low life product of those thrown out or those who left the 'promised land'. Those same low lifes who had to clean up the mess the Euros of the social and intellectual superiority created twice in the 20th Century. All at the price of placing the US into a MAD strategic scenario, burden its economy to provide hundreds of billions in military welfare, and fundamentally distort the stability of our constitutional structure to give the Executive Branch the means to do so, in order to avoid a third such fratricide of the civilization.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-09-05 12:50|| 2009-09-05 12:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Why is the US a "least deserving" mister retard Ferguson?

Because we were smart enough to let the other dumb sons of bitches die for their countries instead of dying for our own.

And ultimately we were the one player which didn't want to expand our empire.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-09-05 13:17|| 2009-09-05 13:17|| Front Page Top

#7 Ferguson can bash America with all the fervor and righteousness of a true Y'urp-peon.

However, get past that and it's an interesting thesis. We are indeed taught that Hitler started the war, and most of us remember the Hitler and Stalin canoodled to divide Poland and eastern Europe between them. We're also taught about the fecklessness of the Brits and French.

But few are taught about what Japan did to China, and how early that started. Few remember Mussolini's attempts to grab new colonies. Fewer still know that imperialist Japan saw China they same way they thought we Americans saw the American west. And few, especially in Europe, see the sweep of history that made Europe the top dog for three centuries.

So the article has some good points, and that's why I posted it. He's wrong in thinking that Germany, Italy and Japan were "have-nots", however -- all three had considerable power in their regions. The problem was simply that they all wanted more, much more, as did Stalin. Combine that with the crash of ideologies, the thuggery that occurred in many parts of the world, and the yo-yo world economy, and you have a recipe for world war.

It could happen again.

Posted by Steve White 2009-09-05 13:19|| 2009-09-05 13:19|| Front Page Top

#8 To amplify what Steve White wrote:

The war on the Chinese mainland lasted more than twice as long as the other land war during WWII, and yet, very little information is available about that part of WWII.

I don't wanna take away anything from the sacrifices our American fathers and mothers made in this war, but I don't think the sacrifices Chinese people made to tie down 2.5 million Japanese troops in battle for 14 years should be given such little recognition, either.

Posted by badanov 2009-09-05 14:01|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-09-05 14:01|| Front Page Top

#9 The article is a bit like the parsons egg, good in parts.At least he did mention Nomonhan, which probably was the most decisive battle of WWII, even though it finished the day before Hitler invaded Poland. Had Zhukov not won that battle, Germany would have defeated the USSR, Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbor, the British and French Empires would probably still be in existance.

Posted by tipper 2009-09-05 14:59|| 2009-09-05 14:59|| Front Page Top

#10 Nomonhan also known as the Battle of Khalkhin Gol was indeed where the Axis powers lost WWII.

Posted by phil_b 2009-09-05 17:09|| 2009-09-05 17:09|| Front Page Top

#11 And while Hitler is reviled for his racial policies, he was doing what had been the accepted wisdom as the solution to the endless European wars for at least 200 years, ethnically homogenous states.

The rational being, once all the people of one ethnic group were in one state, there would be no reason to invade a neighbouring state because it would only add a bunch of foreigners to your population. And no reason for your neighbour to invade you.

We can see the validity of this arguement in the Balkans over the last 10 years.

Posted by phil_b 2009-09-05 18:24|| 2009-09-05 18:24|| Front Page Top

23:56 gorb
23:47 SteveS
23:39 Pappy
23:23 ed
23:18 ed
22:20 USN, Ret.
22:06 Sluns and Tenille8706
21:55 Sluns and Tenille8706
21:51 notascrename
21:47 trailing wife
21:46 regular joe
21:45 Skunky Glins 5***
20:55 Redneck Jim
20:49 3dc
20:34 badanov
20:27 Barbara Skolaut
20:25 Barbara Skolaut
20:24 DarthVader
20:17 Barbara Skolaut
20:14 Mizzou Mafia
20:07 Barbara Skolaut
20:06 Barbara Skolaut
19:47 SteveS
19:39 Cornsilk Blondie