It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The American Grand Strategy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I don't want to write a huge volume just yet - but merely give a few ideas that we can expound upon.

Grand Strategy refers to a nation's military strategy involving all a nation's assets. But it is very much in tie with a nation's foreign policy - it is typically the nation's foreign policy which is designed to win wars either by war or peace.

As Bruce Lee said he is the master of "fighting with out fighting".

In a way - the US is that true champion.

The US has been at war almost every day of its existence, from the Indian wars to wars in the Carribean to the world wars we all know about.

The reason? The US Grand Strategy has been to preserve the "American way of life" which is a civilian-based free market society.

To do so the US has had to destroy tyrannies that were command economies (such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union) and position itself to threaten potential aggressors (such as it has done in Iraq positioning itself as close as possible to China's oil supply without destroying it. As well as countering Russian actions in Iran).

This Grand Strategy is sometimes a failure (Vietnam) where the US has to make the best of it (forming strong economic ties to Vietnam) but in general it has been successful as anyone can see, the US reigns supreme.




posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Not for long I'm afraid.
We're running out of resources and we are already out of money.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   


posted by Stratrf_Rus

I want to give a few ideas that we can expound upon. Grand Strategy refers to a nation's military strategy involving all of a nation's assets. it is typically the nation's foreign policy which is designed to win wars either by war or peace. As Bruce Lee said he is the master of "fighting with out fighting” . . In a way - the US is that true champion.

The US has been at war almost every day of its existence . . The reason? The US Grand Strategy has been to preserve the "American way of life" which is a civilian-based free market society. [Edited by Don W]



Indeed. In 1586, the Roanoke colony had angered the indigenous people so much they were attacked. Only the Croatoans remained friendly, but when Raleigh came back in 1588 only to find the site abandoned and the people gone without a trace, other than the carvings, “Croatoa.”



To do so the US has had to destroy tyrannies that were command economies such as Nazi Germany . .



Being in the Lost Generation, that one following the Greatest Generation, and ahead of the Baby Boomers, I want to be hypercritical of any assertion the war on Nazism was related to preserving the Free Market. “Free market” is purely Reagan-esque. “Free market” is a tony name for what is really anti-New Deal. Nazism was much more than a command economy. In fact, I’d argue it was not a command economy at all, but a capitalist economy. Through and through.



” . . or the Soviet Union and position itself to threaten potential aggressors such as it has done in Iraq positioning itself as close as possible to China's oil supply without destroying it . .



Iraq aside, China is increasing its need for fossil fuels rapidly. I believe it is up to around 5-6 mbd. Million barrels per day. China’s domestic production is around 2 mbd. Like the US, which uses around 20 mbd and produces about 7-8 mbd. Surely the US would not engage in a poker game with China over oil? Co-operation will be safer than competition at the super-giant level. .



As well as countering Russian actions in Iran.



Russia has had designs on Iran (Persia) since Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584) as it constantly seeks a warm water port. Kaliningrad is the closest Russia has gotten in 500 years of effort. It opens onto the Baltic Sea which can be closed at the Denmark Straits by a 40 foot fishing boat. My point is both Russia and Iran have accommodated to each other for half a millennia.



This Grand Strategy is sometimes a failure (Vietnam) where the US has to make the best of it by forming strong economic ties to Vietnam but in general it has been successful as anyone can see, the US reigns supreme. [Edited by Don W]



But you are dead-on in this case. We have been at war ceasely since we hit the shores in NC, then VA and MA. We also got the best 3 million square miles on the planet. That helped immeasurably. The people who came here were unwilling to adapt to the closed system of 17th and 18th century Europe. Those people self-selected as ambitious, resourceful and courageous. Risk takers. And the one thing that lured them? L A N D. More land than all of Europe and all for the taking! According to our version of the truth. Good God A’mighty! What a place!



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
First - we're not running out of resources, there are plenty - especially where energy is concerned.

Donwhite:

Beginning with reasons for going to war against Nazi Germany.

I don't have the resource right in front of me - so I can't name the man - but one of Roosevelt's administration (probably his economist or something) said roughly:

"America's way of life is threatend - here-to-fore we had been a civilian freemarket society. If the world should fall to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union whose economic policies are directed from their governments then to do business with them would force our government to intervene. This would ruin our free market system. Because of their aggression we would have to garrisson ourselves always being on the defense - just as our founding fathers did not want. (Referring to the fact that European powers had to garrisson themselves from eachother and become military societies instead of civilian societies.)"

Essentially the reason we went to war in 1941 was because those in power in the United States knew that the time of isolation had ended - if the entire world became Fascist and Communist then the United States would be unable to defend itself or do business with the rest of the world. Basically - we'd be the ones contained, not the ones containing.

Nazi Germany was a Command economy - their businesses needed state approval to do business outside of the country and in most cases - well all actually - those same businesses were only operating by contract of the government. The Industrial sector was entirely under the control of the State - it differed from Communist Russia only in that the ownership was by Private investors, the operations though still had to pass Nazi approval.

Your ideas that cooperation would be better doesn't fit US Strategy I'm afraid.

The US is interested in preventing other "emerging powers" from becomming on par or ahead of the US. To do this, the main way is to continue to exert pressure in the right places without too much aggression.

Not only have we surrounded China's principal oil exporter but we've surrounded China by building bases all around it.

We now have bases in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines (as an ally we have sold our base there at the present) there are bases in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan all on the eastern border of China (until now virtually unapproachable).

Basically if China were to "start something" we could hit them from the far west - Manchuria to the North, the guongzhou I think it is? in the South east.

Everything in the last few years has given the US access to parts of Russia and China that were previously inaccessable.

Russia knows this - they matched us base for base in most of the places we've put new bases.

Putin's foreign policy was aggressive on the Near Abroad (which included all former Soviet Republics and Iran) and our moves have definately set his plans back - but their focus still is the Ukraine and we aren't doing the best on preventing Russian take over of the Ukraine.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


The US Grand Strategy has been to preserve the "American way of life" which is a civilian-based free market society.


Actually the "American way of life" is a corporate oligarchy and has nothing even remotely resembling a civilian-based free market society.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   


posted by Stratrf_Rus

First - we're not running out of resources, there are plenty - especially where energy is concerned . . [Edited by Don W]



I myself have begun to wonder about the “peak oil” prophets. Admittedly it is in the interest of the oil producers to make us consumers think there is a scarify and maybe even an end in sight. OTOH, we have not found a mega oil field since the 1970s. In any case, I am now more concerned over fresh water than I am over oil.



“ . . going to war against Nazi Germany . . one of Roosevelt's administration said roughly: "America's way of life is threatened - here-to-fore we had been a civilian free market society . . “



John Kenneth Galbraith was one of FDR’s primary economic advisors. He was a Keynesian. I would say the first clause - way of life - sounds like him but the second clause - have been free market - does not ring true. Keynes and Galbraith both espoused governmental intervention in the economy in what they called “pump priming” best exemplified by the WPA and PWA programs of the New Deal. Works Progress Administration. Public Works Administration. FDR was always a capitalist, never a socialist, but he had a vision how the government could raise the standard of living of everyone. An interventionist. There was not much - if any - talk of the US being a Free Market. Those words were not used then. Maybe you and I are saying the same thing using different words? “Free Market” is nasty speak to me, that’s all. I don’t like what it means today. It's not Free. It’s killing us.



“ . . If the world should fall to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union whose economic policies are directed from their governments then to do business with them would force our government to intervene . .



The USSR was a pipsqueak in the 1930s. You were lucky to get from Moscow to Vladivostok via the Trans-Siberian RR in 15 days. We probably had more miles of paved roads and streets in NYC than in all of Russia east of the Urals. As for Germany, it was bankrupt in the late 1920s on into the time after Hitler took over in 1933. Who do you think financed the German economic rebuild under the Nazis? It was Krupp, it was I G Farben, it was Messerschmitt, it was Daimler Benz and so on. Even Hitler could not create real money.



The reason we went to war in 1941 was those in power in the United States knew that the time of isolation had ended - if the world became Fascist and Communist then the United States would be unable to defend itself or do business with the rest of the world. Nazi Germany was a Command economy - it differed from Communist Russia only in that the ownership was by Private investors, the operations though still had to pass Nazi approval.



Remind. The US had its own War Production Board. My father could not change jobs unless he had prior approval by the War Labor Board. He could not buy a tire for his car without a certificate from the Ration Board. Name brand cigarettes were unseen at home, those along with Hershey bars went to the soldiers. We smoked Wings, Marvels, Spuds, and other war brands. Chewing gum was rare. Sugar was rationed. If you did not work in the war industry, you got an - A - sticker for your car good for 3 gallons a month. If you did war work, you got a - C - sticker but you and the Ration Board calculated your monthly gas allotment and you had to haul at least 2 others. Car pooling was mandatory.

That close control did not make the US a command economy. A term by the way, we invented after 1989-91 to explain the downfall of the USSR. Germany was not a command economy as was the case of the Soviet Union. Giving orders does not make a command economy.



The US is interested in preventing other "emerging powers" from becoming on par or ahead of the US. To do this, the main way is to continue to exert pressure in the right places without too much aggression.



Emerging powers? Hmm? China. India. Brazil. Indonesia. Your grand children will be dead before any of those threaten the status of the US. This resembles - to me - the “perpetual” war on terrorism. Fahrenheit 451. Ray Bradbury. As for thinking we are smart enough to “exert pressure in the right places” I give you Operation Iraqi Freedom. Case closed.



Not only have we surrounded China's principal oil exporter but we've surrounded China by building bases all around it. We now have bases in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines . . bases in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan all on the eastern border of China (until now virtually unapproachable).



Sweet Jesus! China has not aggressed outside its territory since the Han Dynasty fell in 300 CE. It is not in the Chinese culture to wage wars on foreign shores. It was the Mongol invasion in 1274 CE that gave Japan the Kamikaze winds. The Mongols were not Chinese. Tibet has been part of China for a 1000 years. Manchuria also. As the border with Russia was disputed, so also was the border with Vietnam. China warned us not to approach the Yalu River or they would repulse us. We did and they did. We are conjuring an enemy to justify $500 billion a year ad nauseam to our war industry.



Basically if China were to "start something" we could hit them from the far west - Manchuria to the North, the guongzhou I think it is? in the South east.



And my friend, it's just that capability to "hit them" is why NK's Kim Jong Il wants his own nukes and why Ahmadinejad's Iran wants its nukes. To contain, to deter the United States of America. Yes, China will likely “start something” one day, when it determines to re-take Taiwan. Then we will have to choose, trade Los Angeles for Shanghai? If that question is put to a vote you know how that will turn out. I don’t think this will happen in my lifetime but I’d bet it will in yours. Good Luck! And beware of leaders with hubris.



Putin's foreign policy was aggressive on the Near Abroad (which included all former Soviet Republics and Iran)



Why is Iran included in "Near Abroad?" There is nothing about Iran that resembles Belarus or Moldova or Georgia. And etc.



“ . . and our moves have definitely set his plans back - but their focus still is the Ukraine and we aren't doing the best on preventing Russian take over of the Ukraine.



Russia is Proximus Maximus. The US is Proximus Minimus. Ukraine, you are on your own. But what’s new?


[edit on 11/21/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


The US Grand Strategy has been to preserve the "American way of life" which is a civilian-based free market society.


Actually the "American way of life" is a corporate oligarchy and has nothing even remotely resembling a civilian-based free market society.


So long as you keep thinking that you'll be a dillusional fool. The Federalist Papers argue how to best preserve the Amerian Way of Life and so there you can best read what that way of life truly is.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
in my opinion, the grand strategy is to perpetuate the terrorist threat as larger than it actually is. so much so, that people will be afraid to do anything or go anywhere. they will slowly remove our freedoms, since we wont be taking advantage of them any more.

the nation will then fall into a state similar to martial law, where everyone, no matter what race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious belief, gender, sex, or political orientation, must adhere to strict rules.

to them, this will finally be true equality, since minority ethnicities will not have an advantage (aka "more equal") over the single white male. everyone will be the same, and treated the same. identity, individuality, and privacy will be non existent.

[edit on 11/21/2006 by prototism]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   


posted by Stratrf_Rus



posted by whaaa

Actually the "American way of life" is a corporate oligarchy and has nothing even remotely resembling a civilian-based free market society.


So long as you keep thinking that you'll be a delusional fool. The Federalist Papers argue how to best preserve the American Way of Life and so there you can best read what that way of life truly is.


Good advice for US History 301, but not of much real value in 2006. 3 million people on 500,000 square miles in 1789, versus 300 million on 3.6 million square miles today. It took two weeks to travel from Boston to Charleston. The “West” was just over the Appalachians. The Northwest Territory was Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. It would be 15 years before Lewis and Clark made their momentous trek to the Pacific. No, too much has changed for us to rely much on the Federalist Papers for guiding us today.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
To Donwhite

Ok - with my resources by my side, I'll correct, the man I was paraphrasing was Douglas Miller the us Diplomat in Berlin who wrote a book You can't do business with Hitler. His argument is essentially what I wrote - but much better written. As he put it "left alone in a frinedless totalitarian world, forced to adjust its [the United States] democratic economy under pressure from across both oceans...."

His argument why a totalitarian nation would be detrimental to the economy is very strong - outlaying the purpose of such economies and the only way our government was forced to respond with Germany during that time - applied to the world should totalitarianism win.

But, by free market I mean the ability of a people or corporation to make deals with another corporation or people without first gaining government approvals or oversight. Now naturally a totally free market economy can be rather chaotic - but the US and Britain and today's Europe has found a decent medium, Germany at the time would have disapproved of anyone trying to buy something from Germany.

Germany was in the market to buy only - they bought raw material or finished products and sold only finished products usually to eastern Europe. The goal was to maximize their resources for war so the most business done with them from the US were steel and oil companies.

In the 1930s the Soviet Union sailed through the depression unphased - their economic growth still higher than that of the US's.

The reasons now are obvious - not so much so then. The war did not make the Soviet Union however, Stalin began preparing for war in the early 1930s and developed a good strategy for taking over most of the known world. For a brief time - he did (until China's relations with Russia failed and faltered).

I'm glad you ask who financed the German economic build-up it actually was creating money out of thin air.

The method was the German government either purchased directly or through various sponsored companies - the raw materials of eastern europe. Germany then built finished materials - the extras went to eastern europe. The finished materials being tractors, motor cars, and machines of war of course (those only being exported to Spain for their civil war).

The use of money by Germany was very little in fact - most of their economic growth was in a barter system that rivaled tributary systems of ancient kingdoms.

And during WW2 the US was a command economy - we had to sacrifice a lot of our freedoms in order to produce enough to wage a world war, but by the end we were producing 50,000 planes a year.

You described a perfect command economy - the differences between us and say Nazi Germany is we as a people didn't want that economy and we didn't want the war and when it was done we divised a strategy to contain the Soviet Union without keeping a huge war-time economy.

Two things concerning China - first Tibet was not a part of China - not even culturally they don't speak Chinese.

Second - the Chinese proved they are willing to intervene in foreign affairs when they invaded South Korea, technically when they came to the aid of North Korea.

They are willling - but they are not as brazen - about acting abroad.

Russia's reasons for including Iran in their "Near Abroad" strategy goes hand in hand with Russia's neo-Imperialism which was observed in 2003-2004 when Putin declared that Russia has the right to defend any of the nations of the former Soviet Union (whether they wanted it or not).

Russia simply wants to expand in all ways, economically and territorially.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   


posted by Stratrf_Rus

To Donwhite . . Ok - with my resources by my side, I'll correct, the man I was paraphrasing was Douglas Miller the US diplomat in Berlin who wrote a book “You can't do business with Hitler.” His argument is essentially what I wrote - but better written. As he put it "left alone in a friendless totalitarian world, forced to adjust its [the United States] democratic economy under pressure from across both oceans . . " [Edited by Don W]



I am unfamiliar with Mr. Miller which shows only my limitations. Democracy is a political system. As is also totalitarianism. Capitalism is an economic system. As is also fascism. One system does not necessarily imply the other. To be more specific, I would never use the phrase, “democratic economy.” I don’t know what that means. I’m not being cute, but only to point out that as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” so also may be a democratic economy. The two words used together do not add to the sum of my knowledge. (The problem with “fascism” is how to define it without describing America.)

Isolationism was not unrealistic in the 1930s America. I would not have been an “America First” person nor a “Fortress America” type had I been an adult then instead of the child I was. It was 4,000 miles from Berlin to New York City. 6,000 miles from Tokyo to San Francisco. Our brand new B17, the world’s longest range plane, could barely fly to Hawaii from the Seattle plant without a bomb load. When carrying its rated 4,000 pounds of bombs, its range was further reduced. Many people felt secure behind the two oceans.

At the risk of repeating what you already know, World War Two had been running more than 2 years when our 1940 presidential election was held. Germany had conquered all of western Europe to the Pyrenees and had established 2 fascist dictators in Spain and Portugal. The Nazis first divided Poland then invaded the Soviet Union. England stood alone! The 1940 Republican nominee, Wendell Wilkie, a decent and moderate man, chose to run his campaign on “No Third Term” rather than on the life and death issues facing America. The electorate already knew FDR and saw no reason to change horses in mid-stream. FDR had implemented the nation’s first peacetime draft in September, 1940. We were losing ships in the Atlantic to U-boats almost every day. Everyone knew or feared the war was coming. And to our shores, too. I’ve said all that to try to show the circumstances existing between Germany, Italy and America in the mid 1930s.



His argument why a totalitarian nation would be detrimental to the economy is very strong - laying out the purpose of such economies and the only way our government was forced to respond with Germany during that time - applied to the world should totalitarianism win.



I’m on soft ground here, admittedly. I do know the Curtis Wright Company was sharply criticized for aiding BMW in the development of air cooled radial engines. After the fact. BMW supplied the engine for the FW 190, Germany’s best air superiority fighter. I know Ford made cars and trucks in Germany, as it did in England. I know Opel - GM - also made motor vehicles in Germany. As did Vauxhall - GM - in England. The largest truck plant in the world (then) was built in the USSR by Ford in the early 1930s. Bayer aspirin is of course, German. IBM sold early computing systems - punch cards - to the Germans who then used the system to complied a list of where Jewish people lived and banked. Thomas Watson, founder of IBM, was sharply criticized after War 2 for his role in that necessary precursor to the Holocaust.

I am not being hypercritical when I say capitalists and capitalism goes anywhere there is money to be made and has no visible morals or ethics! I give you Dole Pineapple in Hawaii, United Fruit in Nicaragua, Phelps Dodge in Chile and American Sugar Refining in Cuba. I think it would be hard to impossible to argue that “democratic” capitalism did not get along famously with the harshest of dictators and the cruelest practitioners of totalitarianism around the world. There is nothing mutually exclusive about any economic system and any political system.


[edit on 11/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
...The reasons now are obvious - not so much so then. The war did not make the Soviet Union however, Stalin began preparing for war in the early 1930s and developed a good strategy for taking over most of the known world. For a brief time - he did (until China's relations with Russia failed and faltered).
...


Ahhh... so that's why he purged his officer corps and reduced his army efficiency dramatically... Russia was not prepared for war, and the pre-war with Finland showed just that , as the year of 1941 again proved. To say that Stalin had a good strategy to take the world is ludricous, he even failed in what would be basic moves , as sending strong (and promissed) support for Spain in 1936/37 that would allow him to control the country...


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I'm glad you ask who financed the German economic build-up it actually was creating money out of thin air.


Check the nationality of some of the backers of IG Faber and you'll be surprised...


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The method was the German government either purchased directly or through various sponsored companies - the raw materials of eastern europe. Germany then built finished materials - the extras went to eastern europe. The finished materials being tractors, motor cars, and machines of war of course (those only being exported to Spain for their civil war)..


Oh my, where to start. What about all the ore from Sweden for example?

Now, what machines of war did Germany give to their Axis allies during the war? Surplus stuff. Just look at what the Romanians and Italians were fighting with in their crucial positions in Stalingrad for instance and that theory that Germany was capitalizaing on war machines exports crumbles.

How do you justify that a very significant part of the tanks available for Barbarossa were French and Czech designed and built?



[edit on 24-11-2006 by jmlima]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
i would like to correct one single point, democracy is NOT a form of government, it's sort of an idea that you apply to a form of government. for instance socialism is a government system, that is democratic in essence, but you can take away all the freedoms of democracy in it and it will turn to Communism, because you cannot take away democracy without taking away free enterprise, etc. however communism is not truly a government system, it's an economic system that has some governmental elements due to the nature of how the economy always interwines with government. now once we go into capitalism, it gets a little more complicated, capitalism is much more of an economic system than a government system, but of course has to have relations to government just like communism, except it is built on free enterprise and market economies rather than the government directing everything. now due to my limitations in resources and knowledge of capitalism, i cannot comment further on it, but what i want to say is that democracy is not a government system, it's an idea, where the people decide what's best for the government to do, which is something lost these days, not the other way around. some systems of government are democratic in essence, some are not and cannot be changed, like facism for instance, you can't have democracy with facism, but you can have democracy with socialism and even communism, i made a mistake really, communism can be sort of democratic but to a lesser degree. i don't know if all that makes sens really, but oh well that's my 2 cents worth lol...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   


posted by Stratrf_Rus

In the 1930s the Soviet Union sailed through the depression unfazed - their economic growth still higher than that of the US. [Edited by Don W]



I do not mean to nit-pick. So let me. Nit-pick. Russia’s 1917 October Revolution, now celebrated in November because the Russians were the last to adopt the Gregorian calender, 15 days off, started behind every other European power. Russia lost 5 million men in WW1. It is my opinion without knowing the numbers for either, that Czechoslovakia would have had more industrial production during the 1920s than the USSR. I say that only to say the if rate of growth is based on your starting point, then the USSR might have had high rates, but not in absolute terms. The USSR’s steel production might have grown from 10 million tons to 15 million, a growth rate of 50%, all the while the US might have grown from 80 million tons to 90 million, barely a 12% growth rate but twice as much growth in absolute terms. Rates can be tricky.

And too, don’t forget the very large number of people who starved in the USSR during the 1930s, perhaps as many as 15 million, mostly in the Ukraine region. Bad crops exacerbated by the ideologically driven collectivization of the farms. Not to speak of the various purges that killed 2/3rds of the Army officer corps almost assuring the Germans of victory in what the Russians came to call the Great Patriotic War.



By free market I mean the ability of a people or corporation to make deals with another corporation or people without first gaining government approvals or oversight.



Wrong! The national interest and security of the state make it impossible to let private citizens deal with foreigners, citizens or governments, outside the control and regulation of the state. To do this is called globalization and it has wrecked the United States of America’s industrial base. Capital has profited immeasurably but industry is gone. That works ok for the capitalist, but not very well for the industrial worker.

Democrats once supported “free trade.” We got snookered. It was proved once again there is no free lunch. We did not realize the hazards that accompanied capitalism run amok. Now we have to figure how to dig ourselves out of a hole all the while Wal-Mart is telling us they have found the Holy Grail - lower prices! It took us 40 years of laissez fare to get here and it will take many years to restore a balanced economy. The real politick of Free Market ideology has kilt us!



The reasons are obvious. The war did not make the Soviet Union however . . Stalin began preparing for war in the early 1930s and developed a good strategy for taking over most of the known world. For a brief time he did until China's relations with Russia failed and faltered.



The USSR had the only Command Economy I am familiar with. For reasons not related to its philosophy but due to its ineffective execution, it failed. I am unconvinced that the USSR ever came close to taking over most of the known world. I am not sure if the USSR would have been rated “one of the world’s industrialized powers” in the early 1930s. The USSR and China together were not the equal to California and New York. IMO.



I'm glad you ask who financed the German economic build-up; it actually was creating money out of thin air. The method was the German government either purchased directly or through various sponsored companies - the raw materials of eastern Europe. Germany then built finished materials - the extras went to eastern Europe. The finished materials being tractors, motor cars, and machines of war of course those only being exported to Spain for their civil war. The use of money by Germany was very little in fact - most of their economic growth was in a barter system that rivaled tributary systems of ancient kingdoms.



I am again walking on soft ground. The German economy had collapsed under the Weimar Republic. German inflation was the worst of any country in the world. That economic disaster destroyed the life’s savings of a frugal and energetic German people! Desperate people do desperate things. The same economic disaster befell all the world’s industrialized powers. By luck of the draw in 1933, we got FDR while Germany got Adolph Hitler.

To empower our government to fight the Great Depression, we had to abandon the gold standard. Precious metal specie out, fiat money in. Democrat William Jennings Bryan proved to be 36 years ahead of his time! Governments must have control over money. The ability to borrow for long term goals. But even that with restraint and with a plan. Build infrastructure during hard times, repay the borrowed money in good times. Keynesian economics.

Hitler had enough money to put Germans to work! Building infrastructures, and war materials as well, but that required money. Hard currency. Not fiat money. I do not hear a good explanation where Nazi funding came from. From 1933 until the mid 1940s, Germany was one powerful success story in terms of production of goods and in full employment. I cannot accept that barter and farm implement sales to Poland funded the Nazi success story in Germany. Which economic success is why Germans tolerated Hitler. To eat is better than not to eat.

Germany and Italy fought a proxy war against the USSR and a few Americans in the Lincoln Brigade. The Great Depression had wrecked the economy of Spain and discredited the old system epitomized by the monarchy. Spanish patriots meaning to establish a democratic republican Spain had nearly won the war. General Francisco Franco, an opportunist, led an Army coup which was supported by the same bankers and industrialists that had brought Mussolini and Hitler to power. Fascists. With German help Franco defeated both the Monarchists and Republicans. Zieg Heil!


[edit on 11/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   


posted by INc2006

I would like to correct one single point, democracy is NOT a form of government, it's sort of an idea that you apply to a form of government. For instance socialism is a government system that is democratic in essence, but you can take away the freedoms of democracy . . in some systems governments are democratic in essence, some are not . . fascism for instance, you can't have democracy with fascism, but you can have democracy with socialism . . I don't know if all that makes sens really, but oh well that's my 2 cents worth. [Edited by Don W]



This makes good sense to me, Mr I6. Thanks for correcting my earlier posts.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
It seems some people have detracted from the overall or even underlying statements.

First remember this is ultimately about US Strategy to keep itself a "free society" (not fall victim to militarism etc) ... it should not focus solely on symmantics of WW2.

However, to address a few things briefly.

In particular - where did Germany's "money" come from.

Several sources - either the confiscation of valued materials such as property (Castles) paintings and jewelry.

Or, the barter of raw and finished materiel with mostly Eastern Europe.

Donwhite your list of US contractors doing business with Germany is good but notice what that business was. American Steel plants and foundaries were unable to buy German Iron ore, it was reserved for Germany. All that was allowed to do business were those businesses that directly helped Germany whether that was that company's intention or not.

As for Stalin's military build-up, his most notable success was moving almost all of Russia's industry from the surrounding nations and European Russia to the Urals and Siberia.

Yes he purged his officer corps - for his own psychotic reasons, but he still saved the Soviet Union from invasion by having foresight of how to engage in a war with Germany.

And finally - the Soviet Union's growth was remarkable, not "pittance" through the number games you played donwhite, though those are valid.

Lenin I believe it was stated that Russia must go from where the Western European nations were in 1800 to present day in a matter of a few decades.

The completion came around 1938. After which their growth was then on par with most industrialized nations. It did come at the expense of agriculture and many other things - which Stalin's purges remedied.

But it did happen.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   

...
Germany and Italy fought a proxy war against the USSR and a few Americans in the Lincoln Brigade. The Great Depression had wrecked the economy of Spain and discredited the old system epitomized by the monarchy. Spanish patriots meaning to establish a democratic republican Spain had nearly won the war. ...


Hardly patriots. You had the anarchists , the communists and all the regional independence movements. They were not patriots. At best you can consider as patriots Franco and his gang.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
It seems some people have detracted from the overall or even underlying statements.

First remember this is ultimately about US Strategy to keep itself a "free society" (not fall victim to militarism etc) ... it should not focus solely on symmantics of WW2.

However, to address a few things briefly.

In particular - where did Germany's "money" come from.

Several sources - either the confiscation of valued materials such as property (Castles) paintings and jewelry.

Or, the barter of raw and finished materiel with mostly Eastern Europe.
...


Well if the US aim is to never be a militaristic society , that objective has already failed since the US economy is completely dependant of the military industry. And that , is a form of militarism whether you like or not.

Re the German confiscation money, you are again going the wrong way. Germany's growth was done BEFORE the war. And since it is now a popular claim that German confiscations were done on a vast majority on the occupied countries that money could never have served the purpose of supporting Germany's growth, at best they helped to support the private bank accounts of some individuals during the war.

And again you say 'Or, the barter of raw and finished materiel with mostly Eastern Europe.', can you prove that claim? I would like very much to see any economical that proved that claim, otherwise history has already proven you wrong.

I'll give you an hand though, your target when you speak of 'The American Grand Strategy' is correct but you are aiming at hit wih the wrong weapon, and mostly with the wrong assumptions.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
American Grand Stratagy is the decendant of England's, that is, to prevent any single power from establishing hegemeny over Eurasia.

All discussion of stratagy after that is detail.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Stratrf_Rus. You and I seem to differ on 3 points. 1) What is and who had/has a Command Economy. 2) What is and is there any advantage to a Free Market? And 3) How did Hitler’s Nazis fund the German state?

1) By command economy, I mean an economy dictated at the center. I am under the impression the Soviet Central Committee promulgated a plan, often a Five Year Plan, in which certain goals were not just to be worked towards, but were expected to be attained. Because the feed-back was either limited or non-existent, people in the field - outside Moscow - soon learned that favorable reports of reaching goals, however misstated, were acclaimed in Moscow and rewarded with vacation to the Black Sea and promotions. One example I recall was the case of shoes. Moscow ordered the doubling of production in the coming 5 years. One fellow far away in the foothills of the Urals where no auditor would come, was made Hero of the Soviet Union for sending back high production records he had invented out of whole cloth. No one ever - prior to 1991 - bothered to wonder why the stores in Moscow were bereft of shoes. That is a command economy.

2) Free Market is psycho-drama at its worst. It sounds so good but its result is so bad. Whether there ever was one or ever could be another is a subject best suited for college juniors. But not for people who have to live and make a living in the real world. Even self-proclaimed Libertarians admit there have to be rules respecting public health. Clean drinking water. That there have to be places to put dangerous non-conformists. Murderers. And now, the bane of society, child molesters. And terrorists.

But where is the free market? Archer Daniels Midland takes corn and soy needed to feed the hungry in Africa, and instead, converts it into ethanol. Ethanol produces 20,000 btu per gallon, gasoline 35,000. It takes as much as 40,000 btu to grow, harvest, process and produce one gallon of ethanol. You cannot run a car on ethanol alone. You can mix it. Th usual mix is 90/10 in favor of gasoline. Allegedly, it reduces harmful emissions.

Ethanol is useful only in race cars. Ethanol does not pre-ignite. In other words, it does not “knock.” Mixed with nitroglycerine, it is a hellish blend used in Indy type racing cars and fuel dragsters. It is dangerous because when it does burn, it has no visible flames. So why do we add it to our gasoline in some states? Senator Robert Dole, more than any other person, “earmarked” ADM many times and managed to get an amendment on an important bill to force states to used the 90/10 or 85/15 mix to meet some clean air standard. I believe the US government not only created the market for ethanol for special interests, but continues to funnel $30 million a year to ADM for “research.” In a truly “free” market, there would be no ethanol added to your gasoline, and 10s of 1000s of people in Africa could be eating corn and soy products, and would still be alive. Thank you ADM and the Free Market.

3) Here’s from my memory. In the 1930s, England and France had 40 million people. Italy 30 million. Germany, 50 million. The US, 130 million. Bismark, who united Germany in 1869, soon thereafter established the fist social security program in the world. It is still in existence and one of the very best. But, in 1933, Germany was bankrupt. 40% of industrial workers were not at work. German agriculture was highly productive, but if city people have no money, then you cannot sell goods to them. So farmers were no better off than laborers. Hitler came to power on promises to change that situation and to change it quickly. So where did Hitler get the money to pay the workers he put to building the autobahns? The answer is obvious, Hitler got the money from those who had it, we call them the bankers and industrialists. The movers and shakers. The R&Fs. Rich and Famous. You don’t have to look under a Jew’s bed, or in a secret Swiss bank account to know whence cometh the money to fund the Nazis. It came from those who had it, the bankers and industrialists. The capitalists of Germany, by 1933 in league with the Fascists Nazis. That’s where money always comes from.



[edit on 11/25/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join