Fire with Fire

[Ken White]

Ken you want to do a little research into the Feb 2010 visit to the US by the Dalai Lama...

What happened was quite obvious to all. OTOH, how some happen to wish to take it:

...The concessions made by the White House ... were not lost on the rest of the world to be sure.

is only slightly less obvious.

What is of course interesting is that China obviously believes it "owns" enough of the US to dictate which world leaders the US should invite to the White House. Should be a source of major concern.

I'm not at all sure that conclusion is correct. The Dalai Lama for example is NOT a world leader, though he may have slightly more moral stature than does the Archbishop of Canterbury -- also not a world leader -- or Jean-Claude Duvalier -- also a former but deposed national leader. The Lama's 'constituency' is larger than that of the latter but is far smaller than that of the former. The Pope OTOH is a world leader and even if the Vatican is tiny, he's still in charge of it for now...

As for the "own," yep, they do own a lot of paper -- and they have a very strong interest in that paper being worth something. They also really like the US import market a bunch. Thus, they'll express their opinions and feelings but they won't push too hard. At the risk of stereotyping, Orientals are quite correctly noted for shrewd bargaining. So, come to think of it are Persians.

The amount of accord those Chinese opinions are given will vary. That's partly dependent on which US domestic lobby is ascendant in Washington at the time (pro or anti China) and partly on the collegiality quotient of the Administration in office. In the case of the Dalai Lama, both those aspects were in congruence for a minor, almost cost free kow-tow in China's favor.

Sort of like the bow to Hu -- or Abdullah. Don't read to much into bowing. Or kow-towing. Or into apparent economic demise; we've been there before. Disappointed all the wishful thinkers before, likely will this time and a few more times. Implosion will certainly eventually occur but not in my lifetime. I strongly doubt it will occur in your lifetime and probably not that of your children if any.

The recipient of the bow below is the Mayor of Tampa, Florida, a mid size city not in China. She also is not a world leader. She does lead a city whose MSA population is about on par with that of all Tibet...

[William F. Owen]

Example: A large army is a cost, not an achievement in my opinion

.
It's a cost if you cannot use it. Large armies are instruments of strategy. If you wish to the strategically relevant, you need a large army - and Navy.

Being part of a powerful nation or a well-armed nation has yet to be proved to be a positive factor in average quality of life. In fact, both can very well be considered to be detrimental to material consumption and in some examples even to security and health.

All of which is why I defer to Strategic history and not social history, but Strategic history does encompass cost. Having a big/capable Army and being able to fund it, is a requirement of being strategically relevant.

Besides, Wilf; the Germans and Japanese did not benefit from rebuilding from scratch at all. That's a myth.

It's not a myth. Yes both Germany and Japan were industrially capable nations prior to 1939, but there was massive benefits to zeroing the economy and having the vast majority of the infrastructure rebuilt. Yes, it did take a lot of hard work and privation, but at the material level it also had substantial benefits. Just look at the differences in power plants between German and the UK in the 1960's.
Worth the cost in the human life? Not in my opinion. As I said, it wasn't part of a plan.

[SJPONeill]

Really? 8-10 million military dead. Probably 10-12 million civilian dead. 10-15% of the population, dead, wounded or starved to death. In comparison, the UK lost less than 1% of its population. The massive expansion in defence commitment meant the USSR was never able to match US prosperity and growth, and it eventually imploded.

Those figures are only relevant if the government in questioned cared - history before and after WW2 would suggest that the Soviet Government couldn't have given a fat rat's about its people so long as it had enough of them to soak up German momentum.

Further , one might argue that had the Soviet Government not played so fast and loose with its people i.e. not purged out anyone who could think for themselves, then it very much might have kept pace in the Cold War and the Reagan Doctrine would not have had much to get a foothold in...

Think you might be on a bit of a hiding to nothing on this one, Wilf...

[William F. Owen]

Further , one might argue that had the Soviet Government not played so fast and loose with its people i.e. not purged out anyone who could think for themselves, then it very much might have kept pace in the Cold War and the Reagan Doctrine would not have had much to get a foothold in...

So when do the playing the fast and loose stop and start? So how does that make the Soviet Union the main beneficiary of WW2??

Think you might be on a bit of a hiding to nothing on this one, Wilf...

So you seriously wish to suggest that:
a.) The Soviet Union was not severely harmed by WW2?
b.) It strategically benefited from having fought it more than the US?

I fully concur the Soviet Union had no choice but to fight - because of its massive strategic errors, but to stop the clock in June 45, and state that the USSR was "better off," than say the US, is very far fetched. - especially as for the US it was a "discretionary war."

The US went from being an almost strategically irrelevant, barely post industrially depressed nation, to a world super power in 5 years. As a "beneficiary" of WW2, the USSR cannot make that claim.

[JMA]

By 1960, the UK had the world's 2nd/3rd largest Navy, nuclear Weapons, the 2nd/3rd most powerful Army in NATO, a growing population, and was a G5 nation. - not bad of a country facing a solitary existential battle a mere 20 years early.

Out of all that stuff being a G5 nation maybe counts for something.

[JMA]

So when do the playing the fast and loose stop and start? So how does that make the Soviet Union the main beneficiary of WW2??

So you seriously wish to suggest that:
a.) The Soviet Union was not severely harmed by WW2?
b.) It strategically benefited from having fought it more than the US?

I fully concur the Soviet Union had no choice but to fight - because of its massive strategic errors, but to stop the clock in June 45, and state that the USSR was "better off," than say the US, is very far fetched. - especially as for the US it was a "discretionary war."

The US went from being an almost strategically irrelevant, barely post industrially depressed nation, to a world super power in 5 years. As a "beneficiary" of WW2, the USSR cannot make that claim.

The Soviets picked up half of Europe as a gift from the Roosevelt and Churchill. That was really significant given where they were in 1939. That they made less of the opportunity than the US did through the Marshall Plan is another issue.

The US set about making money and the Soviets set about spreading their ideology. The US made zillions and the Soviets caused millions of deaths. Yalta was a disaster.

[kaur]

JMA said:

Yalta was a disaster.

If you watch this video 00:38, then there is 1 piece of art behind the shoulder of Russian president Medvedev.

http://www.1tv.ru/news/polit/156873

Does it remind this episode? Or am I too paranoid

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/images/1...Conference.jpg

[William F. Owen]

The Soviets picked up half of Europe as a gift from the Roosevelt and Churchill. That was really significant given where they were in 1939. That they made less of the opportunity than the US did through the Marshall Plan is another issue.

They didn't "pick up half of Europe as a gift from the Roosevelt and Churchill." They got themselves a buffer zone that they had to maintain at great cost. Actually disproportionate cost, and they gained it disproportionate cost. You probably have to go back to the Gran Chaco find a war of greater national cost.

Soviets set about spreading their ideology.

A plan that ultimately failed and not one best enabled by WW2. Compare and contrast the world's most successful Communist Regime, - China!

Yalta was a disaster.

It was a disaster when and for who?
The idea that the USSR benefited more from WW2 than the US is a very hard case to make.
The idea that the UK somehow "lost WW2" is even less convincing, especially when compared to the possible outcome of actually losing in 1940.

[Fuchs]

.
It's a cost if you cannot use it. Large armies are instruments of strategy. If you wish to the strategically relevant, you need a large army - and Navy.

It's not a myth. Yes both Germany and Japan were industrially capable nations prior to 1939, but there was massive benefits to zeroing the economy and having the vast majority of the infrastructure rebuilt. Yes, it did take a lot of hard work and privation, but at the material level it also had substantial benefits. Just look at the differences in power plants between German and the UK in the 1960's.

a) You misunderstood "cost" and "net cost". A use of a tool cannot delete its costs.

b) Actually, power plant infrastructure did not take much damage in WW2 - the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey Europe clearly understood this mistake in '45. We had a powerplant of 1912 running in Eastern Germany in 1990...it hadn't been modernised once.

Any modernity advantage of the German economy and infrastructure in the 1960's was the result of low consumption (and correspondingly high investment), not of the war itself.
Look at Spain, Eastern Europe, France - those countries took much damage and did not modernise as much as Germany, Italy (even higher growth rates than germany) and Japan did.
The Americans used the still extraordinary situation of 1945 to follow a low consumption path in the late 40's in order to reduce the extremely high New Deal+WW2 debt.

The British never seemed to recognise the necessity of such drastic saving for macroeconomic problem solving - neither when they lost industrial leadership around 1900 nor to pay off WW1 debt, nor to fend off the 29-33 crisis nor to pay back WW2 debt. And I assume they won't do it now even though the present economic and fiscal imbalances call for it.

[JMA]

JMA said:



If you watch this video 00:38, then there is 1 piece of art behind the shoulder of Russian president Medvedev.

http://www.1tv.ru/news/polit/156873

Does it remind this episode? Or am I too paranoid

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/images/1...Conference.jpg

You are probably correct. Anyway Yalta was probably the Soviet's greatest diplomatic victory, so from their perspective certainly worth remembering.

[JMA]

The Dalai Lama for example is NOT a world leader, though he may have slightly more moral stature than does the Archbishop of Canterbury -- also not a world leader -- or Jean-Claude Duvalier -- also a former but deposed national leader.

The Dalai Lama has magnificent moral stature... probably more that the combined total of all national leaders put together. The problem is when coming from a western culture where "everything is negotiable" we tend to elect slime-balls like us as presidents and prime ministers rather than men of moral stature and integrity. Britain has an excuse as the cream of Britain were killed off in the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars. Some countries don't have this excuse.

[Rex Brynen]

The Dalai Lama has magnificent moral stature...

This certainly isn't meant to refer negatively upon the current (very impressive) Dalai Lama, but it is perhaps somewhat easier to maintain your moral stature when you don't govern and have very few actual decisions to make.

Even the Dalai Lama, I suspect, sees the logic in the USG meeting with him quietly rather than poking China in the eye with a stick by doing so in a high-profile way (which would have no discernable effect on Chinese policy in Tibet).

[JMA]

This certainly isn't meant to refer negatively upon the current (very impressive) Dalai Lama, but it is perhaps somewhat easier to maintain your moral stature when you don't govern and have very few actual decisions to make.

Even the Dalai Lama, I suspect, sees the logic in the USG meeting with him quietly rather than poking China in the eye with a stick by doing so in a high-profile way (which would have no discernable effect on Chinese policy in Tibet).

Why would the US be worried about what China thought about the US president meeting with the Dalai Lama?

Boy how things are changing.

How did China get to control Tibet? To sell out the Tibetans is too easy.

North Korea commits and act of war by torpedoing a ROK navy ship. For heavens sake don't say or do anything that will upset China.

etc etc

[Ken White]

North Korea commits and act of war by torpedoing a ROK navy ship. For heavens sake don't say or do anything that will upset China.

Is it China or North Korea that is getting the softly softly treatment? Some would say the latter at the specific behest of South Korea who have some interest in how silly the North might become if their paranoia is aroused.

Easy for me or most Americans to say we think that's not a major problem but then we don't live there and our Capital is not 35 miles from the border with the north -- and in Artillery range of those Northeners.

[Rex Brynen]

Easy for me or most Americans to say we think that's not a major problem but then we don't live there and our Capital is not 35 miles from the border with the north -- and in Artillery range of those Northeners.

What's more, Ken isn't going back there to save them again this time. (As for Chuck Norris... well, let's face it, he's just not Ken...)

[SJPONeill]

By 1960, the UK had the world's 2nd/3rd largest Navy, nuclear Weapons, the 2nd/3rd most powerful Army in NATO, a growing population, and was a G5 nation. - not bad of a country facing a solitary existential battle a mere 20 years early.

A solitary battle? Oh, please...!! Solitary except for the support it got from the Dominions...you know...Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, plus India, and all the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Occupied Europe and the support that was already starting to trickle across the Atlantic...poor little England standing alone? Yeah, right...that's gratitude for you...

And if you take samples at every twenty years from 1940 i.e. 1960, 1980 and 2000, all you see is a steady decline to a nation with no (real) carriers, the shadow of an air force and an army that struggles to keep a brigade deployed on operations...

[William F. Owen]

A solitary battle? Oh, please...!! Solitary except for the support it got from the Dominions...you know...Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, plus India, and all the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Occupied Europe and the support that was already starting to trickle across the Atlantic...poor little England standing alone? Yeah, right...that's gratitude for you...

Read what I wrote. "IF". So if Britain had been invaded and surrendered in 1940/41, the dominions would have fought on?
Didn't happen in France. Troops not in the UK would have been operationally irrelevant.
The dominions would have become de-facto independent nations with no interest in liberating the UK, and struggling for their own existence. Canada is the possible exception, but it lacked the means and manpower to do much.

And if you take samples at every twenty years from 1940 i.e. 1960, 1980 and 2000, all you see is a steady decline to a nation with no (real) carriers, the shadow of an air force and an army that struggles to keep a brigade deployed on operations...

Not arguing with that. Actually, you see a sharp rise and then a sharp decline, after about 1956. Yes the UK became less strategically relevant, relative to those in it's league (US,UK, USSR, France, and China).
WW2 substantially altered the world strategic map, but I fall of my chair open mouthed, if someone tries to convince me that the main benefactor of WW2 was the Soviet Union.

[William F. Owen]

North Korea commits and act of war by torpedoing a ROK navy ship. For heavens sake don't say or do anything that will upset China.

Not an act of War. NK merely breached the cease fire. It is at War with the South. You may want to bring yourself up to speed on North Korean Chinese relationships.

In a wider strategic context look at how US actions in Vietnam were shaped by issues concerned with Chinese intervention. China is strategically relevant. What is so hard to understand about that?

[JMA]

A solitary battle? Oh, please...!! Solitary except for the support it got from the Dominions...you know...Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, plus India, and all the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Occupied Europe and the support that was already starting to trickle across the Atlantic...poor little England standing alone? Yeah, right...that's gratitude for you...

Yea, out here in the colonies we were taken somewhat for granted.

I see they have given a proper burial to some Brit and Digger bodies found recently in a mass grave in France. RIP brothers. See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10679715

[JMA]

Not an act of War. NK merely breached the cease fire. It is at War with the South. You may want to bring yourself up to speed on North Korean Chinese relationships.

Exactly, they are still at war therefore sinking a naval ship of the other side with a torpedo is an act of that ongoing war.

In a wider strategic context look at how US actions in Vietnam were shaped by issues concerned with Chinese intervention. China is strategically relevant. What is so hard to understand about that?

Its a proximity issue. China certainly does not want the US navy (carriers and all) hovering around close to its territorial waters on navy maneuvers or patrols. Who can blame them (certainly after the US had the Monroe doctrine).

The question is to what extent the US will kowtow to China on this matter.