[lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:06:45 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/10/2006 4:23:26 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
As to WWII, the US was very much the quarterback of the victory in both the
European and Asian theaters much to the chagrin of General Montgomery in regard
to the former. Also, The Russians couldn't have defeated the Germans in the
East without US aid. In November 1941 Roosevelt authorized aid to the USSR.
A.A. Doesn't sound like the U.S. did do much fighting, just supplying arms and
quarterbacking, which we're still doing, reshaping the Middle East.
L.H. The battle of Leningrad, for example, which had two phases. The first was
pretty much a stalemate. The Russians weren't able to take taken advantage of
it until they started getting aid shipped to their troops them from
Vladivostok.
A.A. They were blockaded 900 days. That's three years without provisions. The
Germans were vicious. Again, the Americans suffered nothing. Nearly zip by
comparison. If anything, WWII pulled the U.S. out of Depression. No wonder
we're so enamored of it. If the war was fought in NY and Chicago and L.A. and
Pittsburgh and Dallas and they were incinerated to the ground, maybe we'd have
a different picture of it. Regarding your other post, the famine in the SU was
intentionally, deliberately inflicted on the people by Stalin. Stalin
literally, literally Lawrence, waged war on his own people, not the way war
should be waged, that's for sure.
L.H. American aid to the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 18
million tones of material at an overall cost of $10 billion ($120 billion
modern) and 49 percent of it went through Vladivostok. [see Vladivostok News,
an article dated April 13, 2005 entitled ?American aid to Soviet Union, or
unknown lend-lease.? ] Prior to that aid the Soviet army was in very bad
shape. Hitler received reports of the starvation and cannibalism of Soviet
solders on the Eastern front which was part of the reason he persisted in
thinking he could win. [Hitler, 1936-1945, Nemesis by Ian Kershaw, 2000]
A.A. This is war, Lawrence. No doubt it's not the war you had in mind, but
this is war. Death, dying, starvation, being blown to bits, 9/11 throughout
the city in multiple cities. A lot more than sitting back and proudly sending
supplies. But, to the credit of the Russians, they still defeated the Germans.
Do you wonder that they were so caught up in not forgetting WWII? Americans
are clueless. They want war they want war they want war as if it was a video
game, an abstraction, and they get pissed off at the Europeans for not wanting
to play war with them.
Regarding your quoting of the books, I can't comment. I will say, however,
that with all the books you read about the Clash of Civilizations and the like,
you tend to read books that support your position rather than give a balanced
account or view of what's going on. Clearly your books don't tell you the
downside of living through war.
Other related posts:
