Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Hillary Clinton on Korean "historical amnesia"

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Hillary Clinton on Korean "historical amnesia"
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:30 am Post subject:

[quote="aarontendo"]

Quote:

We didn't join in for a long time because they weren't our wars.
If Europe wasn't so full of pu$$ies then they'd have taken care of their own business.

As I understand it Idea

!

-the french were indeed pussies that allowed the nazis in without hardly a shot being fired.
Holland and Belgium had no choice being as small and vulnerable as they were.
Austria saw the germans as blood brothers so there was no defence put up there.
Poland put up some resistance but lacked resources to take them on.
Russia were weak to begin with but would have finished off the nazis single-handedly by the end.
Britain was the hero when it came to stopping Hitler.
The Americans came onto the scene very late in the day, and it was only because their boat/trade routes got attacked-not out of any loyalty.If they hadn't joined in, the nazis would still have been beaten in Europe.

The main value of the Americans in WW2, was in East Asia-not Europe.

ChuckECheese

Joined: 20 Jul 2006

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:39 am Post subject:

[quote="Julius"]

aarontendo wrote:

Quote:

We didn't join in for a long time because they weren't our wars.
If Europe wasn't so full of pu$$ies then they'd have taken care of their own business.

As I understand it Idea

!

-the french were indeed pussies that allowed the nazis in without hardly a shot being fired.
Holland and Belgium had no choice being as small and vulnerable as they were.
Austria saw the germans as blood brothers so there was no defence put up there.
Poland put up some resistance but lacked resources to take them on.
Russia were weak to begin with but would have finished off the nazis single-handedly by the end.
Britain was the hero when it came to stopping Hitler.
The Americans came onto the scene very late in the day, and it was only because their boat/trade routes got attacked-not out of any loyalty.If they hadn't joined in, the nazis would still have been beaten in Europe.The main value of the Americans in WW2, was in East Asia-not Europe.

You got to be kidding right?

If Americans hadn't joined in the fight in Europe during WW2, there would be united continent of "Germany". There wouldn't be Europe, Middle East, and Africa, but only Germany.

Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:47 am Post subject:

ChuckECheese wrote:

Is that the propaganda they teach you at school? haha.

Britain won the war in Europe.The nazis had big time overstretched themselves. The Red army was devastating them on one side and the poms on the other.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:33 am Post subject:

The Russians, in particular the Russian winter, put the Nazis down, just like it did to Napoleon ... See, all kinds of opinons, and we can find historians to back us upif we want. Big deal.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:47 am Post subject:

Quote:

Interestingly, it's the Korean gov't that goes into overdrive trying to assure everyone the Americans are not going to leave them and their special relationship with the Koreans when recently the Americans made some moves to reduce its forces and deploy them away from the DMZ.

Yeah, the Korean government doesn't want the Americans to leave, Uri's nationalist bravado notwithstanding. But that doesn't prove that the Americans want to leave.

The US army has been hurting for soliders for quite some time now. If the Korean peninsula is completely irrelevant to American interests, why weren't the troops here all shipped off to Iraq years ago? I mean, at a time when the military is lowering standards and calling up aging dischargees to fill the ranks, we're expected to believe that they would keep a thousands of soldiers hunkered down in a strategically-irrelevant charity operation? Give me a break.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:53 am Post subject:

Julius wrote:

Quote:

The Americans came onto the scene very late in the day, and it was only because their boat/trade routes got attacked-not out of any loyalty.

Are you referring to World War II? I thought America entered the European war because the Germans declared war on the US, four days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Julius wrote:

The Americans came onto the scene very late in the day, and it was only because their boat/trade routes got attacked-not out of any loyalty.

Are you referring to World War II? I thought America entered the European war because the Germans declared war on the US, four days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.

Yes, you are right. The U.S. had to be forced to fight Germany which happened when the Germans declared war on the 11th of December 1941. Although Roosevelt had recognised the danger of Hitler and the Nazis and he had been trying to get America involved before then, the U.S. Congress had stubbornly refused to join the fight against evil, leaving Europe, the Commonwealth countries and a few others to do all the work.

aarontendo

Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Location: Daegu-ish

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject:

Wasn't our work to do in the first place. But yeah, I don't know a lot about the history of it so I'll be quiet and read up some. This has me a bit interested in reading about America's role in WW2 ~

flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:25 am Post subject:

Julius wrote:

ChuckECheese wrote:

I guess it depends on what you mean by "join the war." The U.S. helped the Allies a great deal before they entered the war through the Lend Lease. Looking at this snippet from Wiki, it appears that the Lend Lease was quite critical to winning the war and Hitler seems to have agreed with this sentiment.

Quote:

Significance

Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States were not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. Although Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War brought the US into the war in December 1941, the task of recruiting, training, equipping US forces and transporting them to war zones could not be completed immediately. Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships.

Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to reach full-strength in 1943�1944, Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining belligerents were largely self-sufficient in front-line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including trucks, jeeps, landing craft and, above all, the Douglas C-47 transport aircraft) were of enormous assistance.
Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy.

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that only about 92 locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge � ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.[4] US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical.

Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US on 11 December 1941.

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:43 am Post subject:

flakfizer wrote:

Julius wrote:

ChuckECheese wrote:

Quote:

...
Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built.

True, true, Lend Lease was vitally important. It was not an altruistic act however as nothing was given, but had to be paid for, with the debt for Lend Lease crippling the British economy and only finally being paid off in 2005.

Your article states that most of the trucks used by the Soviets were U.S. made, however how many people know that U.S. owned companies were apparently responsible for up to half of the German tanks produced at one point during the Second World War, being made by companies owned wholly or in part by GM and Ford? U.S. companies played a vital part in the German war economy, with ITT owning 25% of Focke-Wulf, an aeroplane manufacturer, which produced warplanes which were used to kill Allied soldiers and airmen. Amazingly, ITT were apparently able to win compensation in U.S. courts in 1967 to the tune of $27 million, for war damage to Focke-Wulf plants, claiming that it was American property damaged by Allied bombers. Ford also apprently received approximately $1 million and GM approximately $33 million on the same basis.

How cynical - the U.S. government making its allies pay for every scrap of assistance while refusing to fight alongside them until absolutely forced to do so, American companies growing fat while helping the very people that the American allies were fighting against then claiming compensation for damage to their military weapon-producing factories. Talk about 'historical amnesia'...

ChuckECheese

Joined: 20 Jul 2006

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:01 am Post subject:

And don't forget "the Marshall Plan" which helped to rebuild devasted Europe after the WWII.

AbbeFaria

Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:14 am Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

How cynical - the U.S. government making its allies pay for every scrap of assistance while refusing to fight alongside them until absolutely forced to do so, American companies growing fat while helping the very people that the American allies were fighting against then claiming compensation for damage to their military weapon-producing factories. Talk about 'historical amnesia'...

If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem.

-S-

Otus

Joined: 09 Feb 2006

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Do you mean that the French may have forgotten that the U.S. waited for more than two years to join both wars? Letting other countries do the fighting first, turning up just in time for the final flourish, then telling the world that they 'won' the war? Squeezing maximum advantage out of the war for themselves before being forced to fight? Perhaps the problem is that the French remember exactly what happened.

Ha ha quite something to see a Kiwi (forgive me if I'm wrong) running to the defence of the French over the US. Perhaps it was really American agents who committed the greatest act of terrorism in New Zealand waters ever and blew the hell out of a Greenpeace ship designed for peaceful protests.

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject:

ChuckECheese wrote:

And don't forget "the Marshall Plan" which helped to rebuild devasted Europe after the WWII.

True, true, it did help to rebuild Europe, but don't forget that this also was not altruistic; every cent lent by America had to be repaid, plus interest. The U.S. also had very specific reasons as to why it implemented the Marshall Plan, such as helping to stop the flow of communism and opening Europe up to free trade (meaning more business opportunites for America).

Expecting respect and unquestioning loyalty for acts done for selfish reasons seems a wee bit foolish.

charlieDD

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Location: Seoul, Korea

Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

ChuckECheese wrote:

And don't forget "the Marshall Plan" which helped to rebuild devasted Europe after the WWII.

You may be wrong about it being repaid. I believe I read recently that Germany has a huge slush fund of money they got from the Americans as part of the Marshall Plan but did not end up using or had saved for a rainy day scenario. And they still have it.

I'll do some research on that when I have time. In the meantime, here's a link to an article explaining the reasoning behind GIVING the money, not lending it, in the Marshall Plan. Yeah, not altruistic, but still . . pretty smart thinking I'd say.

http://www.cadtm.org/article.php3?id_article=2162

Now, guys, gals . . could we get this back to the OP's point: Korea's historical amnesia?!

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe