A tale of two cities...
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
Jim, Had Detroit been under a Republican administration for the last fifty years, I don't have any doubt who you would be blaming for the state of the city. An administration has a lot to do with attracting business, rebuilding and rejuvenating run down areas and promoting growth, but it's only been 50 years. Time will tell I guess.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Detroit is like that old T shirt at the the beach:
"I may not be perfect, but parts of me are excellent..."
Some parts still look good. You could probably find equally decrepit parts of Baltimore, NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, or Tulsa, for that matter. I don't think this proves much of anything, except that the Japanese had a choice to either rebuild the cities that were leveled by the nuclear bombs, or to leave them as they were. I think they made the right choice. Does anyone disagree?
"I may not be perfect, but parts of me are excellent..."
Some parts still look good. You could probably find equally decrepit parts of Baltimore, NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, or Tulsa, for that matter. I don't think this proves much of anything, except that the Japanese had a choice to either rebuild the cities that were leveled by the nuclear bombs, or to leave them as they were. I think they made the right choice. Does anyone disagree?
The point I was originally going to make (before the train wreck) was that the principle "aggressors" of WWII, Germany & Japan came out of it rather well thanks to schemes like the Marshall Plan.
The UK really came out (financially) badly, not only through lend/lease but the decimation of industry & the cargo ship fleet - even France came out better and she was occupied. The US had the industrial muscle to recover quickly and received the lions share of war reparations, which was kind of just as they put in the most resources.
Was it "the will and nature of the people" or the shrewdness of the financiers that got Germany and Japan back up and running so quickly and subsequently becoming the industrial powerhouses that they still are?
The UK really came out (financially) badly, not only through lend/lease but the decimation of industry & the cargo ship fleet - even France came out better and she was occupied. The US had the industrial muscle to recover quickly and received the lions share of war reparations, which was kind of just as they put in the most resources.
Was it "the will and nature of the people" or the shrewdness of the financiers that got Germany and Japan back up and running so quickly and subsequently becoming the industrial powerhouses that they still are?
I like to think that I expected that was to be your original question Keith. I have often wondered how we ended up with the shitty end of the stick. My Grandfather used to say that it was because the 'nice' guy always feels guilty for beating up the bully and therefore we couldn't do enough to help rebuild all we had knocked down. Did Germany pay toward the rebuilding of Coventry, London, Birmingham or everywhere else in Europe and beyond? I am asking, as I don't know.
Thank you Mark.
It was all part of "war reparations" I suppose. Don't forget we had also fought a devastating war not 20 or so years before the outbreak of WWII. The point here is that the USA had the big muscle to recover quickly whereas as others never did.
The War Damage Commission eventually came to fix our house in 1954 with the roof replaced, the props holding us up finally removed and the walls pulled back to the vertical.
War, despite the unfortunate analogy, is also a "business" is it not?
Who were (are) the REAL winners?
It just seems completely ironic that the 2 perpetrators of WWII came to dominate world trade in a way that they had shown few signs of before the conflict. Was this the result of American (and in a much smaller way) British enterprise or the will of the "defeated" nations to recover quickly?
In a democratic world, where it is Good to share knowledge, sustain and educate the less fortunate, does that very sustenance and education in some way contribute to your own eventual demise?
I am trying to get my head around the prospect that democracy as we understand it today, potentially undermines our continued existence if practised and wielded as an 'economic and political influence' beyond our own borders.
The one single act that appears to have stemmed the outbreak of world conflicts of the like of WWI & II, is the development of nuclear weapons, but now we are left with these nasty little local conflicts which are unwinnable.
By the way, I also wholeheartedly subscribe to the view that the only thing worse than losing a war, is actually winning it.
It was all part of "war reparations" I suppose. Don't forget we had also fought a devastating war not 20 or so years before the outbreak of WWII. The point here is that the USA had the big muscle to recover quickly whereas as others never did.
The War Damage Commission eventually came to fix our house in 1954 with the roof replaced, the props holding us up finally removed and the walls pulled back to the vertical.
War, despite the unfortunate analogy, is also a "business" is it not?
Who were (are) the REAL winners?
It just seems completely ironic that the 2 perpetrators of WWII came to dominate world trade in a way that they had shown few signs of before the conflict. Was this the result of American (and in a much smaller way) British enterprise or the will of the "defeated" nations to recover quickly?
In a democratic world, where it is Good to share knowledge, sustain and educate the less fortunate, does that very sustenance and education in some way contribute to your own eventual demise?
I am trying to get my head around the prospect that democracy as we understand it today, potentially undermines our continued existence if practised and wielded as an 'economic and political influence' beyond our own borders.
The one single act that appears to have stemmed the outbreak of world conflicts of the like of WWI & II, is the development of nuclear weapons, but now we are left with these nasty little local conflicts which are unwinnable.
By the way, I also wholeheartedly subscribe to the view that the only thing worse than losing a war, is actually winning it.
The Mouse That Roared - YouTube
But seriously, the terms of armistice after WWI so crippled Germany that it opened the door for the radicals to pursue WWII. The winning forces , I believe, went overboard in the other direction to avoid the mistakes of the past.
But seriously, the terms of armistice after WWI so crippled Germany that it opened the door for the radicals to pursue WWII. The winning forces , I believe, went overboard in the other direction to avoid the mistakes of the past.
A contributing factor to the Recovery and prosperity of Japan and Germany, must surely be that they they were banned from having an arms industry/ HUGE defence budget.....Just a thought........
Yeah, you'd think it would be easy being a socialist, in Germany's case, when you are defended by the most powerful country in the world.
Howard Jones
Supporter
Who won? really? We did, we speak english still don't we. Both of those countries teach english in school don't they. We emposed freedom on them didn't we? We made them like us after we hung their leaders, not the other way around. They didn't empose Buchenvald and Nanking on us did they?
Who won?, you gotta be friggin kidding me.
Who won?, you gotta be friggin kidding me.
,,,,,,,,,and, we still occupy them.
Well, that seems to be a compelling argument, and very eloquently expressed I must say
No, it's a fair point. GB was bound to honour a defence treaty with Poland plus I think there may have been some red faces over the Czech debacle. It was subsequently agreed at a summit between the three major powers, oh bloody hell, you know all this, that Poland should be allowed to hold free elections which Stalin agreed to and then reneged on at the war's end. There is a school of thought that thinks that Britain should have reneged on their treaty with Poland and kept their totally inadequate (equipment wise) army at home, and that Hitler probably would not have attacked at least for a couple of years.
Hitler blew it all of course by attacking Russia. It was totally his ideology plus he had seen a small Finnish Army of around 100,000 destroy a vastly superior Russian army and thought the Russians completely inferior.
There is also no way Stalin would have lifted a finger to help the West if Hitler had not have attacked. He would have just stood back and watched the "Europeans" knock seven kinds of shit out of each other and picked up the pieces afterwards bless him.
Important point, Poland was already 50% occupied by Russia before September 1939 as a direct result of the Russian/Nazi non agression pact which carved up Poland between them. I don't think a European invasion would have been possible for years without 4 million German troops tied up on the Eastern Front. It was touch and go in any event even with 3rd rate foreign conscripts making up the bulk of the Normandy defences.
So it kind of paid to keep the Russians sweet. Russia had bugs inside the US/UK delegation during this summit (Teheran?) so Stalin pretty much knew that Churchill hated his guts and didn't trust him an inch.
Not only that Stalin knew about the Big Secret too as he had eyes and ears inside Los Palamos, so when Roosevelt kind of bragged to Stalin he had a massive seceret weapon up his sleeve, old Joe must have been chuckling.
Dangerous character old Joe and it's fair to say, a bigger mass murderer than Hitler.
Hitler blew it all of course by attacking Russia. It was totally his ideology plus he had seen a small Finnish Army of around 100,000 destroy a vastly superior Russian army and thought the Russians completely inferior.
There is also no way Stalin would have lifted a finger to help the West if Hitler had not have attacked. He would have just stood back and watched the "Europeans" knock seven kinds of shit out of each other and picked up the pieces afterwards bless him.
Important point, Poland was already 50% occupied by Russia before September 1939 as a direct result of the Russian/Nazi non agression pact which carved up Poland between them. I don't think a European invasion would have been possible for years without 4 million German troops tied up on the Eastern Front. It was touch and go in any event even with 3rd rate foreign conscripts making up the bulk of the Normandy defences.
So it kind of paid to keep the Russians sweet. Russia had bugs inside the US/UK delegation during this summit (Teheran?) so Stalin pretty much knew that Churchill hated his guts and didn't trust him an inch.
Not only that Stalin knew about the Big Secret too as he had eyes and ears inside Los Palamos, so when Roosevelt kind of bragged to Stalin he had a massive seceret weapon up his sleeve, old Joe must have been chuckling.
Dangerous character old Joe and it's fair to say, a bigger mass murderer than Hitler.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
It's definitely accurate to say that Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler. Churchill was right about that, and Roosevelt too soft on Stalin.
Not sure it is fair to say the defense treaty with Poland caused WWII. It was certainly coming, Hitler had his eyes on France and Western Europe and the UK knew it could not stay out of a Franco-German conflict. I don't think declaring war in 1940 instead of 1939 would have changed anything. AFter all, the war until the invasion of the low Countries was called the Phony War.
But to get back to your point, I'm not sure it is accurate to call Japan and Germany the winners of the post war period. To begin, Japan has been in a funk since the 1980s and really hasn't recovered. Germany is admittedly probably the strongest economy in Europe.
But is that a bad thing? It was crushing war reparations after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles that crippled the German economy and lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Japan on the other hand never was able to modernize its economy or social systems to keep up with a modernized military industrial complex. If there had been a strong middle class in Japan, would the militarism of the 20s been prevented?
I'd argue that the winners of WWII are just as they appear: the "West" and in particular the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and NZ. Putting commonality of language aside, those countries have the robust economies, and protections for individual liberties that are most attractive to folks like me (and I think the folks on this board).
We have our squabbles here on this board, but at the end of the day, we -- Yank, Aussie, Brit, Kiwi, Canuck -- are far more allike than any other group of countries that derive from the same cultural source. Hell, look at South and Central America, or China/Japan/Korea for an interesting contrast.
Not sure it is fair to say the defense treaty with Poland caused WWII. It was certainly coming, Hitler had his eyes on France and Western Europe and the UK knew it could not stay out of a Franco-German conflict. I don't think declaring war in 1940 instead of 1939 would have changed anything. AFter all, the war until the invasion of the low Countries was called the Phony War.
But to get back to your point, I'm not sure it is accurate to call Japan and Germany the winners of the post war period. To begin, Japan has been in a funk since the 1980s and really hasn't recovered. Germany is admittedly probably the strongest economy in Europe.
But is that a bad thing? It was crushing war reparations after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles that crippled the German economy and lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Japan on the other hand never was able to modernize its economy or social systems to keep up with a modernized military industrial complex. If there had been a strong middle class in Japan, would the militarism of the 20s been prevented?
I'd argue that the winners of WWII are just as they appear: the "West" and in particular the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and NZ. Putting commonality of language aside, those countries have the robust economies, and protections for individual liberties that are most attractive to folks like me (and I think the folks on this board).
We have our squabbles here on this board, but at the end of the day, we -- Yank, Aussie, Brit, Kiwi, Canuck -- are far more allike than any other group of countries that derive from the same cultural source. Hell, look at South and Central America, or China/Japan/Korea for an interesting contrast.
After Alan Watkins laid down his law of posting etiquette ( a short while ago) I am a bit hesitant to expand or drift away from the original thread topic.
Any how , I am not a historian and was not personally in the WW2 conflict but find it all very interesting and intriguing. Now I am just going to speculate. This Poland treaty might have been used just as an excuse to get the ball going. GB as the world dominant figure where the sun never sets on the Empire found it a bit of a threat that there is a new bigger player on the world stage.
Another "happening" that I don't understand is, was when Germany used it's last reserve forces to attack the allies thru the Ardennes in December 1944. If they were so concerned and afraid of Stalin WHY was these last reserves not used on the Eastern Front???
Once more, if this is too far off topic please ignore.
Z.C.
Any how , I am not a historian and was not personally in the WW2 conflict but find it all very interesting and intriguing. Now I am just going to speculate. This Poland treaty might have been used just as an excuse to get the ball going. GB as the world dominant figure where the sun never sets on the Empire found it a bit of a threat that there is a new bigger player on the world stage.
Another "happening" that I don't understand is, was when Germany used it's last reserve forces to attack the allies thru the Ardennes in December 1944. If they were so concerned and afraid of Stalin WHY was these last reserves not used on the Eastern Front???
Once more, if this is too far off topic please ignore.
Z.C.
