Militarization of US

[Athena]

Christibe wrote.... In one of my history classes in college, my professor was amazingly awesome. He played Bob Dylan, talked about protesting Vietnam, and our texts were Howard Zinn's History of the United States series, among other things. Our exams were all oral and required we know everything, even though we would only be asked one question. It was in that class that my eyes were opened to the fact that the 'education' I had received was nothing other than politicized political history for the purpose of, among other things, creating a patriot, because the only truly loyal masses are ignorant. He taught through social history, or, history told by the people of the times in the traditional way that we used to learn about the past. It was truly fascinating, and also very horrifying, especially the journals of American soldiers WWI and WWII... I hope mankind never again uses warfare like that... But, in that class, it was told that the US did know that Japan would attack. We did still trust the oceans to a great extent, but we also knew that Germany was using submarine warfare and since we were trying to figure out how to spot them still as we waited for GB to develop sonar, nod to the British for always keeping at par with German technological developments, otherwise the Allies would have lost WWII. But, because of that, and because Japan was somewhat allied with Germany, we had no reason to trust that they didn't have subs... we didn't know how they would attack. We knew that Germany was working on nuclear tech, as some of those physicists expatriated and came to us and told us so, and so we were worried about Russia also working on it. We worried about everyone, because we didn't really stand anywhere or fit in, because we were helping everyone out from the beginning. It's late right now and so I'm not going to search for backup... But, I do know that Russia was a deciding factor in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, Prussia is the kingdom of sorts that led to modern-day Germany, before the 19th Century, modern Germany was a collection of small 'statelets' of tribes, if you will, connected by a common language and geography, mostly. The end of the Enlightenment and the rise of Romanticism which led to the situation where the French and the Americans revolted sort of made the Prussians aware that they wanted to combine the communities, and they started searching for their true identity as a people. They formed the idea of modern Nationalism, since they had no common history but only language. Some argue that it is because of this method of unification that German nationalism has proven so severe in history. The idea that Germans are better stems from a feeling that they didn't hold up to the rest of Europe... since the rest of Europe had spent the 18th century finishing their nations, as it was. It's interesting to me how all of this 'newness' helped England realize that following tradition was the way to go, and when they could have followed the rest of the Western world, they stuck with what they had. They knew it wasn't perfect, but that the best kind of change happens through careful consideration. Evolution. The rest of us spontaneously mutated, and are still figuring out what everything means... And I don't blame GWB for anything. He is a symptom of the problem. He is the skin legion one gets from leprosy, not the bacterial infection beneath.

What you have said is interesting enough for its own thread.

[Praxius]

I agree in the manner of historical education.... history is written by the victors.... while true history is written by those who lived through it.

Most of my historical background is similar in comparison to this..... it's good that you had a teacher who taught this way, as they seem to be rare these days. My history teacher taught this way.... my father who was best friend with the history teacher, who was also a teacher in the same school and knew a lot of WWII and such also taught me similarly.

If you're reading from just a text book, you're not gonna learn as much as you would if you had a human factor added into the topic..... emotional effect on them, 1st hand encounters and human interpretation, rather then inert statistics and dry layouts of what basically transpired.

A perfect example of this is just going and asking a WWII vet or someone who lived through what you want to learn and listening to their 1st hand experiences..... like Band of Brothers as an example.... are you more interested in their stories from their mouths, or a text book describing the basic overall battle and who won?

It's really good to catch articles or documentaries where they interview or ask people from both sides, like some German and British sailors on the Atlantic describing both views of a battle.... it just sinks in better, you can actually visualize what they went through, etc.

Hell we're humans not computers, and we're even trying to make computers more human, so why explain history like a computer?

History will repeat itself until we learn from our past mistakes, and if those past mistakes are clouded by some country's biased view and to make history promote them in the end, then you won't learn the whole truth, and history will repeat, much as it is now.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: christibe But, in that class, it was told that the US did know that Japan would attack.

Well there will always be the debate of what was known and when it was known.

Japan, however, did the allies the biggest favor they could have. But for the deaths of Americans, Pearl Harbor was the first step towards American domination of the world by forcing us to modernize our navy, since a good part of the old one was sitting on the harbor basin.

We did still trust the oceans to a great extent, but we also knew that Germany was using submarine warfare and since we were trying to figure out how to spot them still as we waited for GB to develop sonar, nod to the British for always keeping at par with German technological developments, otherwise the Allies would have lost WWII.

Huh? British? Yeah, good thing they developed the P-51 and the B-17, the modern aircraft carrier, the atomic bomb, the Battle of Midway, the Russian winters, Germany's lack of natural resources, Eisenhower, Patton, Nimitz, MacArthur, and the fortitude of the American military and people... :rolleyes:

[Athena]

Okay, what you wrote of Prussia and Germany got kind of blurry. The Germans were fascinating and unusal people, so I was very interested in studying them. The Prussians are a whole different ball game.

Germans were friendly, dreamy, unusally intellectual people, coming from a barbaric past of fighting to be respected. These guys ruled the barbaric realm because they were such good warriors. While the Romans walked over what was to become France and England, the Germans not only prevented the Romans from conquering them, but also played a strong role in bringing Rome down. Many of them learned Roman warfare by becoming Roman warriors for pay. They didn't exactly mean to over throw Rome but wanted a piece of the power Rome had, and when Rome fell, these people became the Holy Roman Empire, separate from the weak church power in Rome. When the church in Rome regained its power, the Germans lead the Protestant Reformation, once again creating a kind of empire separate from Rome.

Note the Germans attempted to dominate more through the church, than military might. Paradoxically, they were fascinated by science and technology, but ignored Roman culture. This is complex and confusing.
They took the religion but not the culture, so we get Nietzsche without the influence of Socrates. The culture Rome had came from the Greeks. Roman statesmen such as Cicero studied in Athens. Militarization of a country depends to some degree on following Nietzsche and ignoring Socrates. And nothing is better for war than religion! People believing they are protected by God and doing the will of God, are the best warriors.

Now the Prussians, invaded many times by Mongols, and lacking the natural resources and forrests of Germany, lived for military might. They developed very efficeint bureaucracy, and this is what is needed to unite a country and to provide social services like Social Security. Following the 30 Years War thata devastated Germany, the Germans felt volunerable to ther emperialistic neighbors, and at the same time they wanted nothing to do with war, nor with the difficult task of uniting people who fought with each other for 30 years. Judging themselves unfit for the challenge of unification, government and national defense, they turned these responsibilities over to the Prussians.

Understanding all this is necessary, because it is also the recent history of the US. Look at what you wrote. The US was pretty clueless when it came to war such as Europeans had developed warring. Yes, the US enraged in wars, but these were not the same rivalries as in Europe, because the US did not develop with strong neighbors who could march an army across boarders and conquer them. The reality of war, did to the US want the 30 Years War did to Germany. The US became determined to never engage in such wars again, and it did so by becoming the most powerful military might on earth.

This discussion belongs in politics, because it means having the bureaucratic organization of Prussian, and this is what the US stood against. It is this bureaucratic organization that makes such great military might possible, and also things like Worker's Compensation and Social Security. The US is what it stood against, because like Germany it wanted to end war. This includes destroying the soveriegnity of the states, and uniting them under a strong federal government in a way that would have never been tolerated when the Constitution was radified by soveriegn colonies. It includes replacing liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, and everyone knowing of Nietzsche, but not the philosophy of Socrates. It includes destroying the national heroes who were role models for strong, individual leadership, and praising efficiency and submission to state power. It is law without consdieration of personal differences and personal power, and a whole lot things the US stood against. The US has forgotten that for which it stood, and is the strongest military might on earth. That is the history of Germany too.

[Nono]

tivo, you ol' jingo you, y'all never let me down.

Good thing the British developed the Spitfire, without which they surely wouldn't have won the Battle of Britain, without which all them P-51s and B-17s would have lacked bases with which to perform their wonders.

Good thing, too, that the Brits cracked the Enigma code, having managed to get their hands on one of the deciphering machines.
This was indispensable to winning the war, US or no US. (It was also a key to beating the Japanese.)

There will always be the debate of what was known and when it was known.

You wish. I think no serious student of history today doubts that Roosevelt knew an attack was coming and probably took measures to facilitate it.

Which isn't an excuse for Japanese militarism, aggression and general dastardliness. Without Pearl Harbor, Hitler -- and the Japanese -- would probably have won the war.

[Nono]

Otherwise I have to say that I found Christibe's 'analysis' rambling in the extreme.

[Praxius]

Huh? British? Yeah, good thing they developed the P-51 and the B-17, the modern aircraft carrier, the atomic bomb, the Battle of Midway, the Russian winters, Germany's lack of natural resources, Eisenhower, Patton, Nimitz, MacArthur, and the fortitude of the American military and people...

Before you get on your high horse and believing your hollywood movies like U-571, learn some history and realize what was only said.....

He was giving nods for a few things the British did... is there something wrong with doing that without having to throw in something the US did to stop the crying? He didn't say the British did it all.... much like Canada didn't do it all.... and you guys sure as F*ck didn't do it all by yourselves.... hell the A-Bomb wasn't even originally your idea to begin with and the only reason why you developed it first is because you guys brought in others from around the world who knew how to design it.... Just because you guys used it first, doesn't mean you made it.

You must be very proud of all those innocent Japs you microwaved from those two bombs.

"American domination of the world?" ~ Pssh.... you guys can't even finish the wars you start..... however this is all irrelevent to the topic at hand. From my understanding this topic is in regards to how one learns their history and is taught..... not a pissing contest between countries.... we got plenty of other threads for that.

[Athena]

Quote by: Nono tivo, you ol' jingo you, y'all never let me down. Good thing the British developed the Spitfire, without which they surely wouldn't have won the Battle of Britain, without which all them P-51s and B-17s would have lacked bases with which to perform their wonders. Good thing, too, that the Brits cracked the Enigma code, having managed to get their hands on one of the deciphering machines. This was indispensable to winning the war, US or no US. (It was also a key to beating the Japanese.) You wish. I think no serious student of history today doubts that Roosevelt knew an attack was coming and probably took measures to facilitate it. Which isn't an excuse for Japanese militarism, aggression and general dastardliness. Without Pearl Harbor, Hitler -- and the Japanese -- would probably have won the war.

Japan's entrance into the war and what Roosevelt did or did not know is off the topic of the militarization for the US. As was said in another thread, a submarine attack might have been expected. Japan did have subs. But the air strike was unexpected, as the technology for this was unknown to the US. If you are all are interested I will gladly quote from a book explaining how dramatically the attack on Pearl Harbor changed our understanding of warfare and the ground, around the world, the US should control for the purpose of air warfare.

What is on subject is, the technological advances that are essential to modern warfare. A Prussian general realized the importance of this technology before WWI and that is why Germany had education for technology for military and industrial purpose. The US had liberal education that did almost nothing to advancing military technology. Liberal education encouraged everyone to be industrail and civic leaders, the resources and attimouspher of learned democracy, encourage inventions and individuals learning science and developing technology. However, until 1958, the US did not have the education for technology for military and industrial puspose that it has had since 1958. The US did not have institutionized military industry and daily government involvement with the develpment of the greatest military might on earth.

Before WWII, most people thought they would never earn enough money to pay income taxes and government spending was so restricted it didn't need the tax money it consumes today. The discussion of fascism should begin with Hoover's and Roosevelt's reorganization of government, and the hugh increase in bureaucracies, giving goverment hugh amounts of power it never had before, and then discussion of how the second war influeneced the increase of bureaucracies and the power they hold.

We were not socialized by the poor demanding more from government, but by the necessity of war in the minds of men who believe only military might can prevent war and is essential to their survival and good for the economy. What war does to mass consciousness, how it makes people agressive and paranoid, and twist the meanings of their words, was recorded by an ancient Greek historian. If we maintian literacy in the Greek and Roman classics (classical or liberal education) we would be much wiser today.

[Nono]

Hence your screen name "Athena".

Before WWII, most people thought they would never earn enough money to pay income taxes and government spending was so restricted it didn't need the tax money it consumes today. The discussion of fascism should begin with Hoover's and Roosevelt's reorganization of government, and the hugh increase in bureaucracies, giving goverment hugh amounts of power it never had before, and then discussion of how the second war influeneced the increase of bureaucracies and the power they hold.

You're entirely neglecting (as the obvious key motivation) the Great Depression, which impoverished and traumatized an entire generation, well before Hitler even came to power.

If you had been Roosevelt, what would you have done?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Huh? British? Yeah, good thing they developed the P-51 and the B-17, the modern aircraft carrier, the atomic bomb, the Battle of Midway, the Russian winters, Germany's lack of natural resources, Eisenhower, Patton, Nimitz, MacArthur, and the fortitude of the American military and people... :rolleyes:

I believe that the original post made reference to technological developments. I think that if you look into the matter, you'll find that probably the single most important technological achievement leading to the victory in WW2 was the British contribution of the cavity magnetron, which gave the allies radar.

Amazon.com: The INVENTION THAT CHANGED THE WORLD: HOW A SMALL GROUP OF RADAR PIONEERS WON THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND LAUNCHED A TECH: Books: Robert Buderi

[Chris the Chees]

tivo, you ol' jingo you, y'all never let me down. Good thing the British developed the Spitfire, without which they surely wouldn't have won the Battle of Britain, without which all them P-51s and B-17s would have lacked bases with which to perform their wonders. Good thing, too, that the Brits cracked the Enigma code, having managed to get their hands on one of the deciphering machines. This was indispensable to winning the war, US or no US. (It was also a key to beating the Japanese.)

And radar, it was a mix between the Spitfire, radar and the work of British and Polish Cryptanalysis which broke the German encoded messages mere hours after they were made which won the Battle of Britain. And lets not forget the Colossus Computer which was used to break the Lorenz machines cyphers.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Athena Germans were friendly, dreamy, unusally intellectual people, coming from a barbaric past of fighting to be respected. These guys ruled the barbaric realm because they were such good warriors. Now the Prussians, invaded many times by Mongols, and lacking the natural resources and forrests of Germany, lived for military might.

Mongols invaded Prussians ? When ?
Germans were friendly ?
What times amd/or world are you refering to ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Christibe It was in that class that my eyes were opened to the fact that the 'education' I had received was nothing other than politicized political history for the purpose of, among other things, creating a patriot, because the only truly loyal masses are ignorant. He taught through social history, or, history told by the people of the times in the traditional way that we used to learn about the past. It was truly fascinating, and also very horrifying

Congratulations.
You have finally realized what politics seems to be all about, and that applies to all the fields within a particular system.
It is better late than never.

[christibe]

Quote by: Nono Otherwise I have to say that I found Christibe's 'analysis' rambling in the extreme.

Yeah... I am quite the rambler, I think I usually kill threads, though I'm still brand new... and not really knowing much about Prussian/German history until really post-Revolutions I did my best to just vaguely state something. :) And I don't doubt that Roosevelt knew an attack was coming, Athena stated to the contrary though, as do many other people. So, debate is there.

Thank you Athena, I appreciate that you found what I said deserving of its own thread. thanks!

[christibe]

Quote by: Praxius Before you get on your high horse and believing your hollywood movies like U-571, learn some history and realize what was only said..... He was giving nods for a few things the British did... is there something wrong with doing that without having to throw in something the US did to stop the crying? He didn't say the British did it all.... much like Canada didn't do it all.... and you guys sure as F*ck didn't do it all by yourselves.... hell the A-Bomb wasn't even originally your idea to begin with and the only reason why you developed it first is because you guys brought in others from around the world who knew how to design it.... Just because you guys used it first, doesn't mean you made it. You must be very proud of all those innocent Japs you microwaved from those two bombs. "American domination of the world?" ~ Pssh.... you guys can't even finish the wars you start..... however this is all irrelevent to the topic at hand. From my understanding this topic is in regards to how one learns their history and is taught..... not a pissing contest between countries.... we got plenty of other threads for that.

I am a she, but that isn't really relevant.... sexist. Thank you though for pointing out my meaning. Tivodan always argues with me.

[christibe]

Quote by: Rainbow Congratulations. You have finally realized what politics seems to be all about, and that applies to all the fields within a particular system. It is better late than never.

Yep, well it was about ok, how old am i now? About 7 years ago, luckily for me, just in time to have a clear head going into the Bush Years.

And I can't tell if you were being hostile in your words? Sorry... perpetual war does make me paranoid...

All in all, it is an easy thing to grasp but a nearly impossible thing to understand. Politics and the development of nations is a system with perhaps nearly infinite variables. And political history is so much different from even military history, which has nothing at all to do with intellectual history which leads to an easier understanding of social history.

With the facts of political and military, you have a foundation for understanding the thoughts of the people who lived during the time by understanding the ideologies that were present. Which then sub-categorizes into the legal history created by the ideologies and precedents from the traditional past, as stated by political. and so on.

Gah!! Anyway, in my rambling way, I'm just saying that the only way to meet the present is to know our past... but there is so much information that it is sometimes difficult to interpret it all. I think it might be why some people don't even try? Or, they think, in America at least as that's my only real reference, that History is just the dry bullsh#t they were taught in high school, aka, the class that was the easiest to sleep through. It's very, very sad that the government decided to teach it this way, but also very practical to their purpose.

[Praxius]

Quote by: christibe I am a she, but that isn't really relevant.... sexist. Thank you though for pointing out my meaning. Tivodan always argues with me.

My bad.... it's hard to determine gender in here.... unless your username has a patch of receeding hair on the top.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: christibe Politics and the development of nations is a system with perhaps nearly infinite variables. And political history is so much different from even military history, which has nothing at all to do with intellectual history which leads to an easier understanding of social history. With the facts of political and military, you have a foundation for understanding the thoughts of the people who lived during the time by understanding the ideologies that were present. Which then sub-categorizes into the legal history created by the ideologies and precedents from the traditional past, as stated by political. and so on.

I agree.
Therefore, sometimes you may find yourself in a position some guys do not understand your expression(s) at all.
The best way to find the "truth" is to extract all the data from all the available sources in an attempt to re-create the real one. However, it does not come easy, especially since an access to some sources may not be available.

[Athena]

Quote by: Nono Hence your screen name "Athena". You're entirely neglecting (as the obvious key motivation) the Great Depression, which impoverished and traumatized an entire generation, well before Hitler even came to power. If you had been Roosevelt, what would you have done?

Good question. I don't know what I would have done and would love to discuss the details that were done, so I could get everyone's ideas. I approve of many things Roosevelt did, however, perhaps there should have been time limits on somethings or we should undo them?

What I want done today is for at least a few cities to pass a law that only industry using the democratic model would be allowed in city limits, and return education to education for democracy. What Roosevelt did was in response to autocratic industry that refused Deming's model of democratic industrial management. If instead industry had picked up Deming's democratic industrial model, history would be rewritten and the US would be very different from what it is today.

However, Roosevelt's response to the economic collapse, may not be the same topic as the response to two world wars? It is and it isn't. Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens in industry and then through the federal government, can become a very powerful war machine, but it doesn't have to be this way. If we had retained education for democracy, I think we could safely make government more efficient and include social programs. The greatest problem at the moment is a large population prepared to serve the Military Industrial Complex who do not understand democracy, nor have the education to make wise decisions. They are technological smart but unwise, and the changes to our country are pretty devastating.

[Athena]

Quote by: Rainbow Mongols invaded Prussians ? When ? Germans were friendly ? What times amd/or world are you refering to ?

I am so pleased you are interested. This history stuff is really exciting to me.

TheHistoryNet | Military History | Mongol Invasions: Battle of Liegnitz In February 1241, the Mongol army left its base in southern Russia and crossed the frozen rivers into central Europe. The force consisted of about 70,000 men, two-thirds of whom were light cavalry and the rest heavy cavalry, though all were equipped with bows. They were nominally commanded by Batu, but once again he was guided by Subotai. Even while campaigning in Russia, Subotai had been sending spies westward into central Europe to determine the political, economic and social conditions, as well as the military capabilities, of the kingdoms and duchies in that adjacent region. The results rewarded his efforts. Prior to embarking on the Hungarian campaign, the Mongols had defeated every major Russian principality that threatened their presence in that region, then spent a year resting and regrouping in what is now the Ukraine before crossing into central Europe. Although Batu and Subotai were aware of the divisive rivalries between the European kings and nobles, they also understood that the European rulers were closely related by blood and marriage, and would likely support each other if they thought an outside threat was serious enough. Therefore, the Mongol army was divided into two unequal forces. The smaller force, 20,000 men jointly commanded by Baidar and Kaidu, the grandson of Ogadei, started off first at the beginning of March 1241 and went north into Poland to draw off any support for Hungary that might be found there. The principal invasion force of about 50,000 men, commanded by Batu and Subotai, advanced a few days later and was itself broken into two contingents--the main body passed through the Carpathians into Hungary on March 12, while a small force to screen its southern flank, commanded by Kadan, son of Ogadei, passed through the Carpathians about 150 miles to the southeast and entered Transylvania.

If you google "Mongols and Prussians" you will get several sites. Do you know Genghis Khan had a Chinese man write his history as he was making it? We have a written record of his thoughts and commandments to his his people, but this is getting off topic. The point was, the Prussians were motivated to learn the military arts.