logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Theophilus  
#1 Posted : Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:41:24 PM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
I’ve been enjoying reading, listening and learning from Yada for better than a dozen years now and realize that much of what I’ve learned has come from being willing to challenge what I thought I knew and being willing to examine evidence rationally. Yada and the other members of the forum and participants of the YY / SM shows have profoundly reshaped my understanding of Yah as revealed in amplification from the earliest sources and changed my perspective on the World for the better. I still find myself questioning and pondering what I hear though and still have areas where I find myself not wholly convinced and hope to discuss a few of these here, without an expectation of convincing other to my understanding, but hope to understand the rational of others as it relates to claims made in this case on certain historical claims. Yada recently discussed the military history of the USA on the show and agree that there is much fault to be found here but question if armed Americans have universally made every situation they took action in worse?

-Did the people of Boston act wrongly by resisting the efforts of their King to cease their means of defense and seek independence form of government they found to be tyrannical and intolerable?

-Did the Americans who took up arms again in 1812-15 act wrongly when their then former king sought to forcibly restore said tyrannical rule?
-Was Jefferson truly wrong for spending American treasure in then new ships like USS Constitution and sending them to oppose Muslim Barbary pirates to protect American merchant ships and sailors rather than continuing to pay them exorbitant ransom payments?

-Did Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation not provide the legal basis to immediately liberate numerous black people held in the South as slaves (until the 13th & 14th amendments could be passed) as the Union army advanced? And was this not also a significant factor in many freed slaves joining the Union army to abolish slavery in the South?

-Was the sinking of the Lusitania truly the principle cause the US entry into the Great War (WW1)? The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 and the US waited nearly two full years to declare war in April 1917. It seems that the greater causes were the Zimmerman Telegram revealed in February 1917 to bring Mexico into war against America, and Germany’s decision in early 1917 to practice unrestricted submarine warfare to sink every ship on the high seas including American merchants were the actual historic causes.

-Was FDR and Congress truly wrong to respond to Japan’s attacks in December of 1941 on Pearl Harbor and Midway and invasions of the Philippines, Guam, Wake among other places with a declaration of war and fight until attaining absolute victory?

-Was FDR and Congress wrong to respond to Hitler’s declaration of war and u-boat attacks on shipping on our East Coast soon after the Pearl Harbor attack, with a reciprocal declaration of war and wage war against the European Axis until the Nazis were comprehensively defeated?

-Was Nimitz / America truly foolish to engage Japan’s / Yamamoto’s four carriers with three American carriers plus the land based air forces on Midway Island, especially when US Intelligence tipped off the US to the Japanese plan?

-Was Eisenhower / the Western Allies foolish for making their main effort against Nazi Germany through Normandy France rather than attempt to interpose themselves between the Germans and Soviets by way of the mountainous northern Balkans? This shows me Yada is unaware of what is logistically possible in terms of projecting massive forces long distances without adequate supporting facilities.

-Did the American Strategic bombing and submarine interdiction campaigns against Japan not severely limit Japan’s industrial and logistical capacity to continue to wage war and substantially contribute to Japan’s leaders decision to surrender rather than continue the most destructive war in history?

-Was it the case that precision “smart” strategic air strikes at long distances from high altitudes was not yet technologically possible in WW-2 so mass bombings was the only feasible means of attacking legitimate military industrial sites in urban areas which would necessarily result in mass collateral losses among surrounding people and property?

-Did Truman act wrongly when Stalin closed land access to West Berlin by sending US Air Force military transport planes to keep the people of that city fed and supplied until the blockade was lifted?

-Did Truman act wrongly by sending the US military to resist the Communist invasion of South Korea, and did ultimately preserving a non-Communist South Korea since truly constitute a failure or should we believe that the people of South Korea would still prefer to live under Kim Jong Un’s DPRK?

-Was the US and our Allies truly wrong for condemning and containing Communism throughout the Cold War or would it have been better for Communism to have expand globally unchecked nor challenged?

I realize that Yada makes numerous sound points on America and its military making bad situations worse, but as mentioned, question whether this is universally the case as suggested on the show or if there are instances where his newer world view / ideology reshapes history to fit his conclusion?
While it is difficult for me to call in during the show and that heard Yada express a desire to no longer respond to emails from other than close confidants, hope that a post in this forum is a useful alternative.

Respectfully,
-Theophilus
Offline James  
#2 Posted : Friday, November 21, 2014 6:29:34 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Theophilus wrote:
-Did the people of Boston act wrongly by resisting the efforts of their King to cease their means of defense and seek independence form of government they found to be tyrannical and intolerable?


I believe, I could be wrong, that the argument was that the use of the US military has made things worse, not armed citizens. Yada has regularly argued for a strict adherence to the 2nd amendment even stating that if we applied the 2nd amendment properly then America would need no standing military and would not have any fear of invasion.

Theophilus wrote:
-Did the Americans who took up arms again in 1812-15 act wrongly when their then former king sought to forcibly restore said tyrannical rule?


I did not hear the show so I do not know Yada’s exact claims, but the War of 1812 seems to me to be one of the only legitimate and legal wars fought by the US. And even here a huge amount if not the majority of those who fought were not military but militia.

Theophilus wrote:
-Was Jefferson truly wrong for spending American treasure in then new ships like USS Constitution and sending them to oppose Muslim Barbary pirates to protect American merchant ships and sailors rather than continuing to pay them exorbitant ransom payments?


Considering in the end we payed them off we probably could have saved money and lives by not building up a navy. But that said the constitution did allow for the US to raise taxes to provide and maintain a navy the reason being we did need to protect our trade ships.

Theophilus wrote:
-Did Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation not provide the legal basis to immediately liberate numerous black people held in the South as slaves (until the 13th & 14th amendments could be passed) as the Union army advanced? And was this not also a significant factor in many freed slaves joining the Union army to abolish slavery in the South?


The emancipation proclamation may have done good short term, but in the long term it has been one of the worst things for the country, as was the whole civil war. I don’t say this because I think the slave trade was good or that getting rid of it hurt the country, but Lincoln did more to expand the power and scope of the federal government than ever before. So much that happened afterwards would never have happened if it were not for Lincoln, we would not have the overarching federal government that we have now if it were not for these actions. It’s hard for anyone alive today to imagine the federal government being limited and the state government having power we have all grown up in a world where this has never been the case.

The question of rather slavery would have ended and how long it would have taken to end if it were not for the civil war is unanswerable, and slavery was and is horrible so it is hard for us to look back and say that the civil was wrong. But from an objective standpoint the civil was illegal, the states joined the union voluntarily and had every right to leave the union. But while slavery was the catalyst the reason for the secession was the federal government overstepping its power and imposing on the states. The states were fighting for their constitutional rights and when the Confederacy lost the war to the Union it was the end of States rights and the rise of Federal power. The Emancipation proclamation was an illegal order, again expanding the power of the president to unheard of heights. Once the government took that power and managed to win a war over it they never gave it up. Look at how the executive order has been used since.

When looking at a historical even like this you can’t just look at the immediate and intended consequences you have to look at the long term and unintended consequences. On whole did the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation do more harm than good?

Theophilus wrote:
-Was the sinking of the Lusitania truly the principle cause the US entry into the Great War (WW1)? The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 and the US waited nearly two full years to declare war in April 1917. It seems that the greater causes were the Zimmerman Telegram revealed in February 1917 to bring Mexico into war against America, and Germany’s decision in early 1917 to practice unrestricted submarine warfare to sink every ship on the high seas including American merchants were the actual historic causes.


I will refrain from comment here since while I love history this is an area where I am fairly ignorant.

Theophilus wrote:
-Was FDR and Congress truly wrong to respond to Japan’s attacks in December of 1941 on Pearl Harbor and Midway and invasions of the Philippines, Guam, Wake among other places with a declaration of war and fight until attaining absolute victory?


This is definitely an area where thinking people can disagree. And since we don’t know the consequences of the US not getting involved beyond pure speculation it’s impossible to say rather the outcome was for the best or not.


Theophilus wrote:
-Was FDR and Congress wrong to respond to Hitler’s declaration of war and u-boat attacks on shipping on our East Coast soon after the Pearl Harbor attack, with a reciprocal declaration of war and wage war against the European Axis until the Nazis were comprehensively defeated?


Again I think since we don’t know the alternative it is hard to say. For what it’s worth I am of the opinion that if we had not intervened then there is every possibility that Hitler would have defeated England and then been able to focus on Russia and if that happened he would have turned on America at a point where we may not have been able to defeat him. So I am not entirely convinced that going to war with Hitler was a bad idea.

And on that I am going to have stop since I have to leave for a bit. I’ll try to reply to the rest of your post latter if time permits.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline syeve  
#3 Posted : Friday, November 21, 2014 7:52:15 PM(UTC)
syeve
Joined: 10/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 11
United States

Thanks: 1 times
Lincolns primary objective for issuing the EoP was to prevent the English from recognising the south as a country/nation. If the south had been recognised by the Europeans as a country, then the Union naval blockade would have been illegal accordng to international maritime law. Nearly all cotton was eventually exported to England. The Union blockade caused very significant unemployment in England as the cotton/textile industry was all but shut down. So, if the Brits were to blow away the Union blockade, (which they could have easily done), this would in effect make them appear to be pro slavery. Although for the most part the brit aristocracy had no problem with the reality of slavery, the average englishman did. It's telling the Linc administration did'nt issue the EoP until after the Battle of Antietam. To do so before would have been construed as the north begging the slaves of the south to aid the north with the war. In other words a slave insurrection. Lincoln did'nt want to appear that weak plus this would have alienated the slave/border states of the north, (Del., Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, as well as D.C.), in which the EoP did'nt apply.
Offline Theophilus  
#4 Posted : Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:38:58 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Greetings James and thank you for taking time to reply to several of my questions

Quote:
I believe, I could be wrong, that the argument was that the use of the US military has made things worse, not armed citizens. Yada has regularly argued for a strict adherence to the 2nd amendment even stating that if we applied the 2nd amendment properly then America would need no standing military and would not have any fear of invasion.

It seems to me that there is a further distinction between on the one hand career full time professional soldiers, and non-combatant civialians defending their persons and personal property possibly as an armed mob or gang. The group between these ends are organized citizen soldiers - people who come out of civilian life to serve in their affiliated military, whether national or state as they are needed to either previal in an active war or serve as a potential deterant. The tradition America historically used at least until the Cold War was to maintain a very tiny professional full time career army, and amore able navy, to serve as a cadre to train up the much larger force of citizen soldiers called upon to become soldiers when the nation was at war even if you call them militia such as in 1812-15, the Civil War, WW-1, WW-2 and so on until recent years. Yada appears to favor a "Red Dawn" model of national defense, where the nation has no organized military so is powerless to oppose armed invasions so would non-military armed civilians to resist via small arms eventually convincing invaders to depart, no?

Quote:
I did not hear the show so I do not know Yada’s exact claims, but the War of 1812 seems to me to be one of the only legitimate and legal wars fought by the US. And even here a huge amount if not the majority of those who fought were not military but militia.

Here again the American militia forces in 1812-15 were citizen soldiers serving in organized military regiments, so were essential State National Guard forces fighting the British in conjunction with the smaller cadre of professional full-time soldiers.

Quote:
Considering in the end we payed them off we probably could have saved money and lives by not building up a navy. But that said the constitution did allow for the US to raise taxes to provide and maintain a navy the reason being we did need to protect our trade ships.

Your comments led me to check the details on wiki and learned that the US was paying a tribute to the Muslims of about $1 million per year before the 1st Barbary War and at its conclusion agreed to pay $60,000 to reclaim the Americans then being held. Jefferson thought the difference between tribute and ransom significant. The USN ships like Constituition where then available to do battle with the Royal Navy in 1812-15 and again in the 2nd Barbary War soon after which did end with the US paying no tribute or ransom - so the US Navy and Marines seem worth the investment espeically when you consider that that $1 million tribute = 1/10 of America's federal revenue - and served as a powerful deterent to piracy.

Quote:
When looking at a historical even like this you can’t just look at the immediate and intended consequences you have to look at the long term and unintended consequences. On whole did the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation do more harm than good?

While I'm truly torn on many contentious aspects of the Civil War, once the Confederates opted to go beyond legal / constituitional arguements by peaceful means and decided instead to wage war on the United States beginning with their bombardment of Fort Sumter the war was on and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation has to be viewed as both a political aim and as Commander-In-Chief as a military tool to depreive the South of their illlegitimate labor force while recruiting many freed slaves to serve in the Union Army completing the liberation of peersw stil held in bondage. Unless I'm grossly misunderstand Yada's comments that Licoln's Emancipation Proclaimation freed no slaves, doesn't square with the histroical record, no?

While I agree that unintended consquences should not be ignored, I think it sound to judge these secondarily and within the context of their primary decision making, espcially when the secondary consequences once recognized can be address subsequently.
Quote:
I will refrain from comment here since while I love history this is an area where I am fairly ignorant.


James, I'm surprised that if you have even a pssing interest in hostory, much less a love of the subject, that you would not take at least a breif time to check into the causes for WW-1 genrally and America's entry specifically. It's easy to at least verify when Lusitania was torpedoed (1915) and when the US decalred war (1917) and ask if this could possibly be the pricinple cause linking the two? That would be the equivilent of FDR waiting until Novmeber 1943 to ask Congrees to declare war on the Japanese Empire due to the dasterdly manner of the sinking of the Arizona, no?

Quote:
This is definitely an area where thinking people can disagree. And since we don’t know the consequences of the US not getting involved beyond pure speculation it’s impossible to say rather the outcome was for the best or not.

Yet we can assess the historic results of the Pacific War however, which was to fight an agressor power with a fanatical politi-religious ideology bent of vast if not global conquest. Japan conquered and cruelly controlled Korea, Manchuria, Taiwain, the Philippines, Guam much of China, South East Asia, the East Indies and numerous Pacific Ocean territories. While I agree with Yada that the Axis Powers were not in a position to invade North America directly, they were in a position to threaten Australia, Hawaii and costal Alaska. Only with the unconditional surrender imposed by the Allied nations Japan attacked did they become the friendly state we've observed the last 70 years. Would the World be better today with Japan still holding their martial views of 1941?

Quote:
Again I think since we don’t know the alternative it is hard to say. For what it’s worth I am of the opinion that if we had not intervened then there is every possibility that Hitler would have defeated England and then been able to focus on Russia and if that happened he would have turned on America at a point where we may not have been able to defeat him. So I am not entirely convinced that going to war with Hitler was a bad idea.

Again we can assess the historic outcome compasred to the alternative evident to the people and decison makers of that time. We can ask if the World is better off with the Germany we actually have compared to the Nazi state numerous American citizen-soldiers and indusrty contributed mightily to comprehensively defeat and discredit? While it's theoritically possible that absent American intervention the Nazis may have been defeated by the Soviets alone or with Britain, it was very likley that the Soviets would then occupy and impose Communism on all of Eurpoe and not just the Eastern half they reached before running into powerful American forces advancing from the West.

Quote:
And on that I am going to have stop since I have to leave for a bit. I’ll try to reply to the rest of your post latter if time permits.

Enjoy the Shabat and know that I look forward to reading and considering your comments when time permits. My hope in posting these questions is not to in any way denounce Yada or his philosophy regarding the benefits of a much redcued standing military and interventionism. It is rather to apply the same approach to assessing militsry history as we have been learning to use regarding Scripture and religous claims. I'm certainly intending to be open to correction or being persuaded to a accurate understanding of events and consequences.

Respctfully,
-Theophilus



Offline James  
#5 Posted : Saturday, November 22, 2014 4:12:03 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Theophilus wrote:
It seems to me that there is a further distinction between on the one hand career full time professional soldiers, and non-combatant civialians defending their persons and personal property possibly as an armed mob or gang. The group between these ends are organized citizen soldiers - people who come out of civilian life to serve in their affiliated military, whether national or state as they are needed to either previal in an active war or serve as a potential deterant. The tradition America historically used at least until the Cold War was to maintain a very tiny professional full time career army, and amore able navy, to serve as a cadre to train up the much larger force of citizen soldiers called upon to become soldiers when the nation was at war even if you call them militia such as in 1812-15, the Civil War, WW-1, WW-2 and so on until recent years. Yada appears to favor a "Red Dawn" model of national defense, where the nation has no organized military so is powerless to oppose armed invasions so would non-military armed civilians to resist via small arms eventually convincing invaders to depart, no?


I don’t know Yada’s position, so I will only speak of my own. I think a small full time military has its benefits, particularly as you point out in being able to lead and train a civilian army, as well as maintain and operate equipment. This by the way seems to me to be all the constitution provides for, most certainly not a military that takes up nearly half of our budget. In the end the Red Dawn model is the best thing America has going. Making it virtually impossible to occupy America. That said ideally stopping an occupation is better. Again I would favor a small full time military and I think this, and not a huge economy crushing military that is stretched around the world acting as police, is the best way to defend our country.

This has the added benefit of us not creating and arming our enemies, as has been America’s habit.

Theophilus wrote:
Your comments led me to check the details on wiki and learned that the US was paying a tribute to the Muslims of about $1 million per year before the 1st Barbary War and at its conclusion agreed to pay $60,000 to reclaim the Americans then being held. Jefferson thought the difference between tribute and ransom significant. The USN ships like Constituition where then available to do battle with the Royal Navy in 1812-15 and again in the 2nd Barbary War soon after which did end with the US paying no tribute or ransom - so the US Navy and Marines seem worth the investment espeically when you consider that that $1 million tribute = 1/10 of America's federal revenue - and served as a powerful deterent to piracy.


And had that military been raised, secured its goal and then shrunk and retired the argument that it was good would be a slam dunk. That is the way such things should be handled, we raise the military, secure the goal, and then slowly decrease the military until such time as it is needed again. That was how it was done largely in the beginning too. The ships built for the Barbary wars were maintained and kept because that made more sense than scraping them, but new ships were not built until needed.

Theophilus wrote:
While I'm truly torn on many contentious aspects of the Civil War, once the Confederates opted to go beyond legal / constituitional arguements by peaceful means and decided instead to wage war on the United States beginning with their bombardment of Fort Sumter the war was on and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation has to be viewed as both a political aim and as Commander-In-Chief as a military tool to depreive the South of their illlegitimate labor force while recruiting many freed slaves to serve in the Union Army completing the liberation of peersw stil held in bondage. Unless I'm grossly misunderstand Yada's comments that Licoln's Emancipation Proclaimation freed no slaves, doesn't square with the histroical record, no?

While I agree that unintended consquences should not be ignored, I think it sound to judge these secondarily and within the context of their primary decision making, espcially when the secondary consequences once recognized can be address subsequently.


I would have disagree with you about the bombardment of Fort Sumter. While the confederates did fire the first shot, the question is where they in the right in doing so.

The events leading up to the bombardment are:
1) Fort Sumter was a Union base located in Confederate territory.
2) The Confederates obviously could not tolerate having another nation’s military outpost in their territory.
3) The Union was sending relief, food and soldiers, to the base.
4) The Confederacy sent two envoys to demand the surrender of the Fort and the evacuation of the soldiers. A reasonable claim the same as the US had made of British soldiers in Forts when it fought the revolutionary war.
5) The Union Major refused to surrender, but unofficially commented that they would be starved out in a few days anyways.
6) The Confederate General was content to let them wait and be starved out, provided the Union agree not to open fire on them, unless they fired first. 'Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree that in the meantime he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this, or its equivalent, be refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides to be most practicable.' –General Beauregard
7) Union Major Anderson indicated that he would evacuate the fort on the 15th, provided he did not in the meantime receive contradictory instructions from his Government, or additional supplies, but he declined to agree not to open his guns upon the Confederate troops.
8) The Confederate General found this unacceptable, and gave an hour notice that he would begin bombardment of the Fort.

The Confederates made every attempt to not open fire, but peacefully remove the Union soldiers.

As for rather the EP freed slaves the argument would be that Lincoln had not authority in the South and so no slaves in the South were freed by it, and since it excluded slaves in the region that he did have authority then no slaves were freed by it. It would be as if Obama today declared that all slaves in Africa are freed, he has freed no one because he had not authority there. Lincoln had absolutely no authority over the South and therefor the EP freed no one at the time it was proclaimed. Furthermore even if Lincoln had authority in the south it was still an illegal order as the constitution gave him no authority to issue it.

So while it may have been an effective military strategy, it was still a usurpation of power and an expansion of the federal government to the greatest extent that we had ever seen. And allowed precedent for future expansions leading us to where we are today.

Quote:
James, I'm surprised that if you have even a pssing interest in hostory, much less a love of the subject, that you would not take at least a breif time to check into the causes for WW-1 genrally and America's entry specifically. It's easy to at least verify when Lusitania was torpedoed (1915) and when the US decalred war (1917) and ask if this could possibly be the pricinple cause linking the two? That would be the equivilent of FDR waiting until Novmeber 1943 to ask Congrees to declare war on the Japanese Empire due to the dasterdly manner of the sinking of the Arizona, no?


I love history, I love reading about it and learning from, not just American history but world history. That said history spans a vast portion of time with many, many intricacies and details, and my time to spend in it is limited so there are many areas where I am ignorant. I have not had a lot of time to invest in an in depth study of WWI and what lead to our involvement. Everything I know comes from cursory study and I do not feel comfortable enough in my knowledge to debate the intricacies of our involvement or the lead up to it.

Speaking of WWII you say that we can address the outcome of it, and this is true. But the outcome is an extremely mixed bag. Yes we stopped Hitler and the Nazi part from spreading, but this lead to the rise of the USSR, thus us creating our next enemy. We stopped Japan from expanding, but then we have the rise of Mao Zedong. If Japan had taken China would the world have been better than if Mao had not risen to power? We created the nuclear bomb which lead to the cold war. The cold war gave us Vietnam and Korea, as well as Afghanistan and the rise of the Mujahidin and Al Qaeda which brings us to where we are today.

It is very hard for me to say that WWII lead to a better world especially since we don’t know the results if America had not gotten involved. What if America had not been threatening involvement? Pearl Harbor was an attempt to keep America from getting involved. If we had not been threatening involvement we may not have been attacked. What if instead of retaliating America built up our navy and just patrolled our boards and didn’t get involved. We have no way of knowing what would have happened. My guess it would have been a mixed bag of bad and good just like the result of us getting involved.

But really this is all we can do is look at the results of our actions and say X was good and Y was bad, we can debate over rather the good outweigh the bad, but that doesn’t change anything. All we can really hope to do is learn from the mistakes and do better in the future. This is really why the America is always right attitude that is taught today is so harmful, it keeps us from looking at the mistakes and learning from them.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Theophilus  
#6 Posted : Saturday, November 22, 2014 4:22:29 PM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Originally Posted by: syeve Go to Quoted Post
Lincolns primary objective for issuing the EoP was to prevent the English from recognising the south as a country/nation. If the south had been recognised by the Europeans as a country, then the Union naval blockade would have been illegal accordng to international maritime law. Nearly all cotton was eventually exported to England. The Union blockade caused very significant unemployment in England as the cotton/textile industry was all but shut down. So, if the Brits were to blow away the Union blockade, (which they could have easily done), this would in effect make them appear to be pro slavery. Although for the most part the brit aristocracy had no problem with the reality of slavery, the average englishman did. It's telling the Linc administration did'nt issue the EoP until after the Battle of Antietam. To do so before would have been construed as the north begging the slaves of the south to aid the north with the war. In other words a slave insurrection. Lincoln did'nt want to appear that weak plus this would have alienated the slave/border states of the north, (Del., Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, as well as D.C.), in which the EoP did'nt apply.


Greetings syve, and welcome to the discussion.

I don't doubt that a significant impact of Lincoln's Emanicpation Proclaimation (EP) was to make recognition of the Confederate States (CSA) unsupportable. I do question if the Royal Navy (RN) was truly in a position to "easily blow away the Union blockade" as the RN had to maintain a global patrol and the United States Navy (USN) was not an insignifcant force, especially once the USN deployed revolutionary iron clads rendering the RN's wooden ships obsolete.

I agree that the common Brit was opposed to slavery, but think their aristrocracy had an alternate source of comperable labor in the form of lower castes in their Indian colony though.

As you mentioned, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation only after a Union victory made sound political sense and avoided a charge that it was a despiration tactic of a failing cause.

To reiterate my original question about it though, was Yada's claim that the EP did not result in the liberation of many slaves and beyond the other aspects regarding the morality of the Civil War, was the EP specifically not a morally good act in an otherwise horrific war?

It seems obvious to me that Lincoln's order deprived the CSA of their illegimate labor force as the US Army advanced South into the terrory the EP aplied to while adding a substantial force of motivated black soldiers to the Union army. Maybe Licoln like or hate him was a shrewd politcian after all?

So are you up to commenting on any of the other historic questions I posed?

Respectfully,
-Theophilus
Offline syeve  
#7 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2014 3:00:08 AM(UTC)
syeve
Joined: 10/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 11
United States

Thanks: 1 times
The war was lost by Germany before the "Allies" invaded Normandy. This was due primarily to blunders made by Hitler who could not control his massive ego as well as a huge blunder by boy Benni, (a major dork and a bonifide albatross around Hitlers neck).
Blunder number one. Before Hitler could invade G.B. he had to take out the Brit air arm and he dern near pulled it off. The German pilots had strict orders not to bomb brit cities. They were to focus on brit airforce facilities, (hangers, runways, planes, pilots, etc.) The brit airforce was actually on it's last leg when German pilots flew off course and dropped some bombs on London. The brits responded and bombed Berlin. Hitler became unglued and ordered reprisal bombings on London and other brit cities instead of staying focused and attacking the remaining brit air facilities. This gave the brit air force just enough respite to regroup and continue the air war thus closing the German window of opportunity.
Blunder number two. B.M., (Benito Mussolini), was miffed at Hitler because Hitler did'nt keep BM informed regarding his plans for Romania. This was not the first time Hitler had refused to inform BM beforehand about major operations and this wounded BM's excessive pride so in a fit of pique BM, (the big baby), invaded Greece without informing Hitler as payback. The invasion had zero chance of success and BM's generals knew it. BM invaded anyway and it was worse than a complete bust as it opened s/e Europe/Balkans as a new theatre when the brits began landing soldiers /aircraft on southern Greece as early as Nov. 1940. This compelled Hitler to sweep the Balkans as he could not afford leaving his rear exposed previous to Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia. Consolidating the Balkans delayed the invasion of Russia which petered out at Stalingrad due largely to this delay and an early, extremely severe Russian winter. However, it must be noted that the Russian soldier was very motivated primarily because they had machine guns at their backs and any soldier that did not carry the attack was executed or assinged to suicide battalions such as clearing mine fields with human wave attacks since the soviets had blown up all the herds of livestock in previous mine clearing assignments.
Hitler insisted Stalingrad be taken because it was named after his nemisis. Hitlers ego wasted his army at Stalingrad and it was all over but the shoutin' when Paulus surrendered.
The Russian man power was virtully inexhuastible. The Germans killed 9 russians for every German killed but Stalins guys were to many and Stalin to ruthless. The Germans basically did'nt have enough bullets (or soldiers).
Blunder number three. The narrow part of the Eng. channel was at Calais. Hitler insisted the invasion would be launched from this point even after the landing at Normandy which he figured was a diversion. Once again his ego trumped the evidence. However with that being said, without the Russian front that sucked up german resources, that is, if the Germans could have used their entire force against the allies and not had to fight a two front war, they would have flat out kicked our butts even with a succesful landing at Normany. The Germans fought us and the brits with one hand tied behind their backs and it still took us until March of '45 to conquer the same ground the Germans conquered in 6-8 weeks with the invasion of France and with a small fraction of the resources the allies used to fight their way across France/Belgium.
The Germans as a fighting force were superior in training and discipline in both wars. Had the U.S stayed out of WWI it's most likely there would not have been a WWII.
Offline cgb2  
#8 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2014 11:17:38 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Offline Theophilus  
#9 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2014 2:31:59 PM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
Quote:
I don’t know Yada’s position, so I will only speak of my own. I think a small full time military has its benefits, particularly as you point out in being able to lead and train a civilian army, as well as maintain and operate equipment. This by the way seems to me to be all the constitution provides for, most certainly not a military that takes up nearly half of our budget. In the end the Red Dawn model is the best thing America has going. Making it virtually impossible to occupy America. That said ideally stopping an occupation is better. Again I would favor a small full time military and I think this, and not a huge economy crushing military that is stretched around the world acting as police, is the best way to defend our country.

This has the added benefit of us not creating and arming our enemies, as has been America’s habit.

James, I appreciate reading your own positions and thank you for expressing them here. As for a small regular military, it appears that we agree in the value of such and in it being the view the Constitution envisioned in times of peace. A challenge to that small force being that of “War is the health (and expansion) of State” and the nation adapting to perpetual war or near war. The massive build-up and draw down of military forces to respond to a true and substantial external threat such as WW-2 seems to conform to the Constitution’s expectation, but the more recent long term interventions appear outside of its intended scope. A “Red Dawn” defense model I hope we agree should be a last not first measure, as the Americans of the founding generation experienced how miserable a many years long occupation of our major population centers can be. It is in large measure to avoid that circumstance that the US justifies spending approximately 20% of the federal budget on national “defense” and another 3.5% on Veterans Affairs and benefits. So “Defense” represents about 4% of our GDP and realize that about 30 cents of every dollar spent in the Federal Budget is borrowed. I think we agree on the military mission being over extended and deployed and is arguably counter-productive – as Yada says “making bad situations worse”.
Quote:
And had that military been raised, secured its goal and then shrunk and retired the argument that it was good would be a slam dunk. That is the way such things should be handled, we raise the military, secure the goal, and then slowly decrease the military until such time as it is needed again. That was how it was done largely in the beginning too. The ships built for the Barbary wars were maintained and kept because that made more sense than scraping them, but new ships were not built until needed.

Agreed on all points.
Quote:
I would have disagree with you about the bombardment of Fort Sumter. While the confederates did fire the first shot, the question is where they in the right in doing so.

I make no claim to expertise on the intricacies of the Confederacy's decision to initiate the Civil war, however your details prompted me to briefly check a wiki article on the subject. Certainly from a Confederate perspective, Federal installations in close proximately to newly seceded States was a problem, but one that I don’t see necessitated starting open war over. As an example the United States continues to maintain a naval base in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, despite the Communists taking power and this has not necessitated a shooting war.

In your list it doesn’t look like point 3 ever successfully occurred, but was attempted and repulsed due to Confederate cannons driving off a resupply efforts. The most significantly tough your 8th point was a choice that did not necessitate your conclusion and its hugely destructive fallout.

In his March 4th inaugural address, Lincoln pointed to non-violent remedies to the crisis, seeking a constitutional means since the document gave no express means for dissolving the nation – via States seceding – that there was no harm in taking time to peacefully resolve the dispute and that Civil War would only be possible if the South choose to be the aggressors. Specifically he said:
Quote:
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action…

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

So again, why was it essential for the South to be the aggressor and start a massively destructive Civil War rather than take time to pursue a Constitutional remedy or to amend the Constitution to establish a clear and peaceful means to end their association with the US?
Quote:
I love history, I love reading about it and learning from, not just American history but world history. That said history spans a vast portion of time with many, many intricacies and details, and my time to spend in it is limited so there are many areas where I am ignorant. I have not had a lot of time to invest in an in depth study of WWI and what lead to our involvement. Everything I know comes from cursory study and I do not feel comfortable enough in my knowledge to debate the intricacies of our involvement or the lead up to it.

James, I’m pleased to see that you also enjoy the study of history and well understand that it’s difficult to acquire in in depth understanding of many areas of it, so reply on a more surface level understanding of how the various events are connected. I am curious though why you feel the need to “invest in an in depth study of WW1” to rationally comment on whether the sinking of the British liner Lusitania in Spring of 1915 could rationally be the principle cause for the Congress declaring war on Germany nearly two years later!?!?
Forgive me, but I don’t see that even remotely makes logical sense. If it was the principle cause, why not cite it as such like FDR did the Pearl Harbor attack the very next day, not two years after the event? Even if otherwise completely ignorant of WW-1, does this remarkable delay and silence of it in the declaration not seem odd to you, enough so that you rationally doubt it as the principle reason for going to war?

Quote:
Speaking of WWII you say that we can address the outcome of it, and this is true. But the outcome is an extremely mixed bag. Yes we stopped Hitler and the Nazi part from spreading, but this lead to the rise of the USSR, thus us creating our next enemy. We stopped Japan from expanding, but then we have the rise of Mao Zedong. If Japan had taken China would the world have been better than if Mao had not risen to power? We created the nuclear bomb which lead to the cold war. The cold war gave us Vietnam and Korea, as well as Afghanistan and the rise of the Mujahidin and Al Qaeda which brings us to where we are today

Actually WW-1 led to the fall of Czarist Russia and the rise of the Soviet Union essentially before US entry as the Czar abdicated on March 15, 1917 and the US declared War on April 6th, so had the US declared soon after Lusitania was sunk, possibly the Allies win before the Soviets take power and avoided the Cold War?

So the Allies defeated the Axis so completely that their member countries remain peaceful, and have avoided further wars with them for the last 70 years. We can argue whether we prefer a world absent the Axis or the Communists, but notice that the Axis gave US little choice as they opted for a huge war with US, while the Soviets restricted their conflicts to much smaller proxy conflicts, so if I must chose to defeat one in war and the other through containment, I’ll reluctantly accept the defeating Hitler and contacting Stalin.

As for Mao, I question why you and Yada attribute America and not the USSR as their principle benefactor? It seems to me the US chiefly supported Nationalist Chinese forces against Japan. While we invented the atom bomb in a race against the Axis to win WW-2, I don’t see why you believe that this invention triggered the Cold War, rather than the global ambition of Soviet Communism to forcefully expand their ideology by war or revolution.

Do you really think that the US support of resistance fighters in Afghanistan, and not Muslims acceptance Muhammad’s violent words and deeds is the principle reason for Islamic violence across the World today? While there is some contribution from the Afghan war, I think the unchallenged ideology (PC) coupled with vast oil wealth has a much bigger roll, no?

Quote:
It is very hard for me to say that WWII lead to a better world especially since we don’t know the results if America had not gotten involved. What if America had not been threatening involvement? Pearl Harbor was an attempt to keep America from getting involved. If we had not been threatening involvement we may not have been attacked. What if instead of retaliating America built up our navy and just patrolled our boards and didn’t get involved. We have no way of knowing what would have happened. My guess it would have been a mixed bag of bad and good just like the result of us getting involved.

But really this is all we can do is look at the results of our actions and say X was good and Y was bad, we can debate over rather the good outweigh the bad, but that doesn’t change anything. All we can really hope to do is learn from the mistakes and do better in the future. This is really why the America is always right attitude that is taught today is so harmful, it keeps us from looking at the mistakes and learning from them.

You lost me on what if America had not been threatening involvement? Do you mean the Flying Tiger volunteers in China and the Eagle Squadron volunteers in England, Lend Lease, trading old destroyers for Western Hemisphere bases or other aspects? It seems to me that the peaceful economic measures America took to pressure Japan to cease their war on China could have been resolved by means other than the war the Axis choose to wage on America. Pearl Harbor was anything but an attempt to keep America from getting involved in a war, but was rather the ensuring of a most ferocious long and bitter war. It was a gamble to swiftly defeat American naval power in the short-term and thus open the way for conquests across Asia and the Pacific. Had Japan sought to not force American involvement into war, they could have: 1) withdrawn their forces from China or 2) limit their expansion to the colonial possessions of the nations conquered by their Nazi ally, such as French Indo-China and Dutch East Indies. Excusing Pearl Harbor appears to be blaming the victim.

James, please know that while I’ve questioned a number of the historical claims from the shows condemning America, I do not endorse an “America is always right” attitude, that I agree is harmful, but to ask if an “America is always wrong” attitude is justified also? It seems to me that both require reshaping history in grossly inaccurate ways to fit either conclusion.

Respectfully,
-Theophilus
Offline Theophilus  
#10 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2014 3:09:45 PM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
syeve, while I agree with many of the blunders you cited the kept the Axis from winning the war, I've found that there was no single simple reason as to why the Axis lost. If you've not come across it before, you may appericiate Richard Overy's book "Why the Allies Won", which makes in indepth study and examines some unexpected reasons. FWIW, I tend to agree with Stalin's assessment post Kursk (mid 1943), that with or without significant Western Allied successes, the Soviets had by then turned the corner and should prevail agianst Hitler. Even this ignores the basic reality that even after Normandy, the while Axis could not (barring extraordinary developments like acquire the atom bomb first), win the war, the Germans were an extremely able military force that required vast resources of men and material to finally defeat as well as the will to see the task completed. Said an other way, Hilter not winning the war outright did not oes not = a sucessful and rapid end of that war, until the hard work of completing the successful end was actually accomplished.

With regards to your points on Normandy, by late 1944, the Germans were deploying roughly 2 divisions on the Eastern front for every 1 on the West, not counting the Italian front and the forces garrioned in places like Norway and the Balkans. While the Red army acounted for roughly 70% oof Wehrmarcht casulties, largely due to the continuous fighting for 4 years between their main forces, rather than the ~1 year the Western Allies faught their main forces for. That said, the Western allies accounted for the vast majority of the destruction of Axis naval and air power. Indeed the Soviets hit the Germans so hard during June of 1944 that the Germans rushed their reserve forces, not west to fight the Allied landings, but east to limit the Soviet advances.

It is also unclear to me how well the Germans would have fared against the Allies post Normandy breakout, had the Russians inexplicably allowed the Germans to redeploy all of their available forces to France. Certainly it would have been a longer fight, but by that time, the USAAF and RAF dominated the air, and had overwhelming industrial advantages. Maybe Manhatten detonating over Berlin would have ended the European war instead?

My original question on Normandy was with respect to Yada's assessment that Eisenhower grossly errored, by choosing Normandy as his principle invasion point rather than Trieste and driving north to interpose between Hitler and Stalin's armies to liberate Poland first, as this was the original aim of the Western Allies prior to Soviet and American entry. While I applaud Yada's intentions, I doubt the plausibility and logistical viabliity of Yada's plan and suspect Ike had a better sense of what was militarily possible and what was not. What say you?

Respectfully,
-Theophilus
Offline syeve  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:46:03 PM(UTC)
syeve
Joined: 10/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 11
United States

Thanks: 1 times
Insofar as the Union blockade, I suspect the brits could have chased it off with their fishing fleet, (I say that kinda tongue in cheek). As for the ironclads, the fight between the Monitor/Merrimac was a standoff with one being scuttlied and the other sinking in a rather moderate chop once on the high seas. Neither was adequately designed for open water/high seas work. The southern blockade runners pretty much ran rings around the U.S navy until the southern harbors were captured by fed troops, especially during the early/mid-points of the war.
Regarding a Trieste vs. Northern France invasion? The allies allready had a strong foothold in Italy. We should have used it as this would have required the Germans to wheel about to face an allied front on the German flank. This shift would have been a major,(and time consuming), pita for the Germans as they were facing west. I think that Hitler should have invaded Russia from the Crimea for the same reason as Stalin was actually gearing up for an invasion of Germany/Europe after having run off the japs in the east.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.