FRED WEST - " ... Possibly because of the inter-marrying that went on amongst European royalty there was a degree of madness in some sectors."
Still is.
L.W.
FRED WEST - " ... Possibly because of the inter-marrying that went on amongst European royalty there was a degree of madness in some sectors."
Keep in mind that Korea was the first war ostensibly led by the "United Nations." It was really a "U.N." war.
Wilhelm II was pining for a war with, basically, anybody. He had been building up to it for years.
I don't like to call him evil. Yes he was a power hungry ruthless egomaniac but not more than say Nicholas II. By today's standards we would call that evil but in the context of his time he wasn't so extraordinary. Back then heads of state simply didn't see much wrong with slaughtering some soldiers for a piece of land and some more power.He was one of the truly evil men of the 20th century
This is funny because it reminds me of my 9th grade American History class...
...The pistols, all FN Model 1910’s, show the wear of years now, even though they would have been near new at the time of the killings.
☺Cee Zee said:The US was the first to call for military intervention in Korea based on the idea that appeasement had failed miserably with Hitler and it shouldn't be tried again with Stalin. The Soviets weren't directly involved of course but they both armed the North Korean army and encouraged them to attack across the 38th parallel. The Russians also encouraged China to be ready to supply backup troops if they became needed. Truman was fearful that US intervention would drive a wedge between the US and the NATO countries in Europe. The Soviets were also boycotting the UN at the time (because of Taiwan having the security council veto instead of the Chinese mainland) so the UN was able to vote to enter the war to support the US. But there is no doubt that the US instigated the UN involvement, they led the way, and they set the rules of engagement with the UN rubberstamping the US methods because of not wanting Soviet aggression in Europe. Just as an example of how things went in Korea for the UN allies the US lost 29,500 soldiers. The second most deaths from a UN country was GB which had just over 1,000 dead. Most UN countries had deaths numbering under 400 per country. It was a US effort. It was a Truman effort really and he called the shots.
I think the U.N. involved itself enough in the war to prevent us from fighting it the way we fought WW2. Just my 2¢.
Truman had to consider how to prevent the USSR from taking Berlin and how to hold off the army of he People's Republic of China in Asia;
I don't doubt the European nations were scared of a war with the country that thrashed the Germans. Yes we all fought too but the Russians carried the bulk of the war in Europe. I'm not taking anything away from our soldiers there. It's just true that Russia did the bulk of the German killing. ......
Early on, the Germans were often welcomed as "liberators" by the Russian people, putting flowers down the barrels of the German soldiers' rifles.
It really doesn't matter what non-ideal war strategy Hitler was pushing, history quite clearly shows that Russia was the rock onto which the German wave crashed. That Hitler could have beaten them with some better choices (not to mention the Russians could have done much better with some different choices of their own) does not detract from the historical record showing that the Eastern front was the factor that finally used up Germany's operating military capital, and started forcing them to use reserves ever faster (obviously Africa and resistance from remaining Euro holdouts on the defensive helped, but Germany was firmly in a position to solidify their gains ahead of the Americans until they got distracted chasing bears). History also shows this was a primary factor for how rapidly our friendly relations with Russia soured; it was mostly due to the fact that our influences were butting up with each other in Europe, but was also promoted by justifiable feelings of betrayal by Russian leadership under the impression our assistance was coming sooner than it ultimately did (IIRC, at least one of the Yalta conferences was centered around exactly this, but it has been a while since I read up on that )It's hard to really believe that anyone in europe would consider that the Soviets had "thrashed" the Nazi war machine.
The difference being a wave is propelled by inertia and has no choice when or where to crash upon the rock, armies are led by humans who do have that choice, and theoretically ought to take into account various conditions and factors .... for it's when they don't it's when they become the clueless wave crashing down upon the rock ....Barnbwt said:...history quite clearly shows that Russia was the rock onto which the German wave crashed.
Well, Barnbwt, yes, that is true .... I was just saying however the Russkies did it it wasn't by dint of their supergenius military leadership, is all.
Barnbwt said:We still have that island thorn on our southern flank for example. It very nearly became the staging ground for our demise. Only key moves by (previously bungling) Kennedy administration prevented the almost instant attack on our major cities that would have come from Cuba. I remember that day all too well. I was sitting on the school bus waiting for the order to take us home. I had a lot of company that understood what was going on far more than me with my first grade level of thinking. Still I could sense the terror in the eyes of the older kids and the adults. It was something I've never seen since even after 9/11. Truman's limited war policy very nearly ended the USA that day and I have to give Jack Kennedy the credit for making the Russians crack. Maybe that ordeal we all went through gives you an idea why I have big problems with limited war. I never quite got over that day. I don't think anyone should actually.
looking back at his administration I am not sure I'd have thought him able to handle such a thing after the idiotic Bay of Pigs fiasco