Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "There are no Homosexuals in my country.

[Handprints]

HANDPRINTS

You might want to check the historical record for the facts.

You're right. I wrote a knee-jerk post, I'm sorry I wrote it and your reply was a lot more sensible and considered than my comments deserved. Thanks.

But I'm racking my brain to come up with a Western European government (other than West Germany and Austria) that didn't have any two of: a functioning government, a military under its own control or a seat at SHAFE's big table by VE day. Full disclosure: two of my great-grandfathers were part of Western European governments in '45/'46, my wife can say the same thing about two of hers and between us we've got five uncles and grand-uncles who were in those governments armies.

Who do you mean when you say "most European countries?"

Regards,
H

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HANDPRINTS

I think most of them had 'governments,' but they were provisional and impotent, and dominated by the Americans, British, and Russians.

In the American Civil War Lincoln appointed civilian 'governments' for each of the rebellious states, to get around Constitutional restrictions. But once the shooting stopped, the President appointed military governors to manage the defeated states inspite of the fact that each had civilian governments. For most intents and purposes the civilian governments were ignored by everyone. I think the situation was very similar in Europe.

 

[trysail]

As Trysail will no doubt attest, two of the best-functioning old-boy groups in finance are the WPPA (West Point Protective Association) and the Sandhurst Parish Council. Kill enough time with these chaps and you soon find out there are two words which can induce involuntary twitching as awful cadet memories (and later ones from General Staff courses) come flooding back: Fulda Gap.

Ah, yes. The old "Fulda Gap." It made repeated appearances in John le Carré's magnificent novels.

As much as I always enjoy hypothetical historic scenarios and historical "what ifs," there are scenarios that are beyond the limits of even my imagination. The United States reenacting the role of Alexander the so-called Great is one of them. I'm not interested.

 

[Handprints]

HANDPRINTS
For most intents and purposes the civilian governments were ignored by everyone. I think the situation was very similar in Europe.

It wasn't. They had, for the most part, just replaced puppet governments and (outside the UK by late '45) had leadership that was widely (and, often, wildly) popular. The US "dominance" was largely based on goodwill, enough of it that it took almost 30 years to dissipate. Translating that into force of arms, against the kind of local horror that a move against Uncle Joe would have generated, would have made WW2 look like a walk in the park.

If we take Christmas of '45 as the earliest date at which the US could possibly have begun an offensive against the Russians (and I think Patton would have found that ambitious), you're left with Germany and Austria as the only two Western European countries not in control of their own armies, destinies, etc.

H

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HANDPRINTS

Not according to the records I'm looking at. I picked a few European nations as a sample. The Netherlands was in ruins and the political factions were fighting for dominance of the government. Italy had no elections until mid-1946. And France was like the Netherlands. DeGaulle and his crew were fighting with everyone. Plus, in 1946, Russia erected the Iron Curtain across most of Central and East Europe.

There was a lot of political strife following the war. Physical destruction. Economic chaos. Plus Soviet aggression.

 

[Pure]

i haven't read the whole thread, but has it been noted that, the US president Bush could say,

To my knowledge,

There are no homosexuals in the Supreme Court.
There are no male homosexuals among all the Generals (or equiv) in the armed forces.
There are no homosexuals in my cabinet.
There are no homosexuals in the Senate and probably hardly any in the House.
There are no homosexual governors.

---


The above "facts", of course, may simply indicate that the gay persons in these jobs are deeply closeted.

Were anyone in these positions to 'disclose', except for possibly the supreme ct., they would be out of a job.

===

Admittedly the US has extensive civil liberties for straight whites, and approximations for others, but its 'gay record' is nothing to brag about, and reflects conservative Xian's (mainly evangelicals, or 'born again') condemnation of homosexuality. US executions are relatively uncommon outside of Texas and Florida.

However, vigilante murders of gays and transgendered persons for no particular reason [other than orientation], do occur, committed by those who hate them and their lifestyle. From the first article below

When Ronald Gay walked into the Backstreet Cafe, a bar in Roanoke, Va., on September 22, police said he had murder on his mind. The 53-year-old drifter had asked patrons at another bar for directions to the nearest gay bar, saying he wanted to shoot gay people. Staff at the bar called the police after Gay showed them a gun.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2000_Oct_24/ai_66279024

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18plumb.html

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/METRO/702240351/1003

http://edgeboston.com/index.php?ci=...41&PHPSESSID=f7f899b9d091c912d73d33125a5bef13

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2007/06/06/8379

 

[shereads]

So should you. <END>

Og

<and the crowd goes wild!>

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It wasn't. They had, for the most part, just replaced puppet governments and (outside the UK by late '45) had leadership that was widely (and, often, wildly) popular. The US "dominance" was largely based on goodwill, enough of it that it took almost 30 years to dissipate. Translating that into force of arms, against the kind of local horror that a move against Uncle Joe would have generated, would have made WW2 look like a walk in the park.

If we take Christmas of '45 as the earliest date at which the US could possibly have begun an offensive against the Russians (and I think Patton would have found that ambitious), you're left with Germany and Austria as the only two Western European countries not in control of their own armies, destinies, etc.

H

As long as we're off in the la-la land of totally outre' speculation, while they might have had governments, all those countries (except Britain) had militaries that for the most part were totally dependent on Uncle Sam for everything. I think loud assertions of your "get your tanks off my fucking" lawn would have been the extent of resistance, but surely there would not have been any cooperation. The U.S. would have been on its own.

It's fair to say that the armchair strategists who contend that we could have rolled on to Moscow relatively easily are the real la-la land inhabitants.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

It's pretty simple to Google whatever nation you want to examine, to see what its political, military, and economic situation was in 1945-1946. Maybe Switzerland is what you have in mind as your example. Or Sweden. But the rest were in sad shape. And the Soviets took control of most of them without all the fuss you prophesy.

 

[amicus]

I am just going to pick a place and start, it could be earlier or later, but let us begin with the end of world war two, since Ken Burns is pontificating in the background.

Had the powers that be, (Harry Truman), followed the advice of his Generals, Patton among them, and of Winston Churchill, the United States would have liberated the Russian people from the scourge of a dictatorship called Communism and saved Eastern Europe and much of the world from the slavery of socialism.

We will never know what history may have been written if the Soviet Union ceased to exist in about 1947.

There would be no Communist China, no Communist Korea, Vietnam, or Asia, in general.

I cannot rationally place blame or fault; the American people were exhausted and dismayed at the loss of life and suffering during the war years and were not receptive to further losses.

But the Berlin Airlift, the Cold War, the Korean Conflict quickly arrived and we could not disengage from a position in world affairs that we assumed almost by default

~~~

That is an excerpt from post #41 on this thread that apparently keyed much of the following commentary.

"...the United States would have liberated the Russian people..."

No doubt I should have chosen different words, but I often paint with a broad brush (and get chastised on a regular basis for it), nonetheless, those are the words I chose.

I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the era but I think one must set the context and the time frame to get a feel for that period of time.

A political decision had already be made concerning the Partition of Berlin and where Allied troops would stop. Recalling the atrocities of the Germans in their drive into Russia, perhaps it was moral justice that the Russians occupy the areas they did.

There is also the aspect that the United States was still taking heavy casualties in the Pacific on the march to the Japanese home islands and Russia was considered an important Ally for a land invasion of Japan.

VE day, Victory in Europe brought a long sigh of relief to much of the world, from what I read, and a continuation of the conflict in Europe was something no one wanted.

It wasn't until June 16th, 1945 that the US tested the first atomic bomb in the history of the world. (if memory serves) Two of the devices were used in Japan the following August, bringing the war to a conclusion.

I don't wish to engage in speculative history or revisionist history and I cannot imagine the state of mind of people in Eastern Europe, in Poland, and the Baltic nations as the Nazi's were replaced by the Communist's. I sense a dismay from such as the Polish people who had an exile government in London and had men serving in all branches of the military, I imagine that was repeated by others in the region.

I, too, do not fully comprehend the 'low countries', after Nazi occupation, what happened in Norway, Sweden and Holland and Finland at the end of the war.

I read recently that the end of the cold war, the opening of Eastern Europe to the world, the stark comparison between the 'free' west and the totalitarian east brought an end to worldwide command economies in general and that free market experiments began everywhere.

My point was intended to be a theoretical one, of what might have ensued has the Allies used force to keep the Russian Communists within the borders of Russia before the war.

The feasibility of militarily confronting the Soviets in 1945, as we have witnessed by the commentary, is certainly open to differing opinions.

My opinion is that the Soviets could have been contained within their borders without an invasion and a continuation of the war.

It is that scenario, of a free Europe from 1945 onwards, that interested me and of course a blunting of the thrust of International Communism on the rest of the world.

Amicus...

 

[Handprints]

And the Soviets took control of most of them without all the fuss you prophesy.

Unless you count things like mass executions, labour camps, forced emigration to Eastern Russia, and shooting anyone who looked a soldier in the eye as "fuss."

Accounts of Russian "consolidation" techniques in Eastern Europe - especially people like Suslov - give you a good sense of how deeply the tactics of Beria and earlier role models became ingrained.

H

 

[oggbashan]

~~~
...
A political decision had already be made concerning the Partition of Berlin and where Allied troops would stop. Recalling the atrocities of the Germans in their drive into Russia, perhaps it was moral justice that the Russians occupy the areas they did.

There is also the aspect that the United States was still taking heavy casualties in the Pacific on the march to the Japanese home islands and Russia was considered an important Ally for a land invasion of Japan.

VE day, Victory in Europe brought a long sigh of relief to much of the world, from what I read, and a continuation of the conflict in Europe was something no one wanted.

It wasn't until June 16th, 1945 that the US tested the first atomic bomb in the history of the world. (if memory serves) Two of the devices were used in Japan the following August, bringing the war to a conclusion.

I don't wish to engage in speculative history or revisionist history and I cannot imagine the state of mind of people in Eastern Europe, in Poland, and the Baltic nations as the Nazi's were replaced by the Communist's. I sense a dismay from such as the Polish people who had an exile government in London and had men serving in all branches of the military, I imagine that was repeated by others in the region.

I, too, do not fully comprehend the 'low countries', after Nazi occupation, what happened in Norway, Sweden and Holland and Finland at the end of the war.

I read recently that the end of the cold war, the opening of Eastern Europe to the world, the stark comparison between the 'free' west and the totalitarian east brought an end to worldwide command economies in general and that free market experiments began everywhere.

My point was intended to be a theoretical one, of what might have ensued has the Allies used force to keep the Russian Communists within the borders of Russia before the war.

The feasibility of militarily confronting the Soviets in 1945, as we have witnessed by the commentary, is certainly open to differing opinions.

My opinion is that the Soviets could have been contained within their borders without an invasion and a continuation of the war.

It is that scenario, of a free Europe from 1945 onwards, that interested me and of course a blunting of the thrust of International Communism on the rest of the world.

Amicus...

The only way the Soviets could have been contained would have been by the US and Britain reneging on solemn agreements made with the USSR at Yalta and elsewhere. Our word wouldn't have been worth a wooden nickel. The Allies had agreed "Spheres of Influence" and the partition of Germany into zones. The Soviet interpretation of "their" zone didn't become clear until the Berlin airlift.

The USSR occupied Eastern Europe by AGREEMENT of the West. Whether in 1943 or early 1944 we could have got a better deal is unlikely. Until after D-Day the USSR had been facing the bulk of Nazi might alone and had been since 1941. Even after D-Day most of Nazi forces were fighting the Red Army. Without that, the invasion of Europe would have been impossible.

At Yalta Churchill wanted much less to be given to the Soviets but by that time Britain was a junior partner and he was overruled by the US delegation.

Og

 

[amicus]

The only way the Soviets could have been contained would have been by the US and Britain reneging on solemn agreements made with the USSR at Yalta and elsewhere. Our word wouldn't have been worth a wooden nickel. The Allies had agreed "Spheres of Influence" and the partition of Germany into zones. The Soviet interpretation of "their" zone didn't become clear until the Berlin airlift.

The USSR occupied Eastern Europe by AGREEMENT of the West. Whether in 1943 or early 1944 we could have got a better deal is unlikely. Until after D-Day the USSR had been facing the bulk of Nazi might alone and had been since 1941. Even after D-Day most of Nazi forces were fighting the Red Army. Without that, the invasion of Europe would have been impossible.

At Yalta Churchill wanted much less to be given to the Soviets but by that time Britain was a junior partner and he was overruled by the US delegation.

Og

~~~

Thank You Og, very well presented, and pretty much factual as I recall the history and the events. You leave a fellow very little wiggle room as I sift through and try to condense your assertions to motivations.

I have read many opinions on the Potsdam and Yalta conferences and while the factual outcome of both may be incontrovertible, I am left scratching my head as to the motivations of Roosevelt and his administration rather than to acknowledge that FDR seemed sympathetic to the base concept of Socialism and by his actual efforts attempted to implement many command economy imperatives in the United States.

That period of time between the 1917 revolution in Russia and the mid 1930,'s including a world wide depression, Prohibition, Emancipation of women, a feeling that Capitalism had failed and utter dismay as the storm clouds of the second world war approached...I dunno, I have read a lot of that era and I am still left without a firm understanding of underlying imperatives.

Eastern Europe...sighs...annexed and occupied by Germany, I can only speculate that the agreements were pragmatic in nature with little regard to the sovereignty of those nations, especially during the contentious history prior to and during the first world war.

I suppose it is little more than an intellectual exercise to muse over such things, but my motive has to do with comprehending the middle east and what will evolve there in terms of the expansionism of Islam.

A pleasure to read your thoughts.

regards...


amicus...

 

[Pure]

weird.

interest case of far right 'split' thinking.

roxy a while back posted an encomium to the US as flourishing in the last decades, because of its free enterprise, so that it's the envy of the world in prosperity. FDR was not even mentioned.

when debate calls for it, though, a right winger will paint this picture, as in amicus: the US has been a socialist state, suffocating capitalism ever since FDR:

ami I have read many opinions on the Potsdam and Yalta conferences and while the factual outcome of both may be incontrovertible, I am left scratching my head as to the motivations of Roosevelt and his administration rather than to acknowledge that FDR seemed sympathetic to the base concept of Socialism and by his actual efforts attempted to implement many command economy imperatives in the United States.

the right wing treatment of "fact" is a little different from yours or mine.

 

[S-Des]

the right wing treatment of "fact" is a little different from yours or mine.

Trust me, your treatment of "facts" is just as suspect as his. Everyone tilts the facts to suit "the truth" as they believe it to be. True believers do it moreso because they believe the end justifies the means. The beautiful thing about being in the Center is watching both the Right and Left do it constantly, then swear they don't (or that the other guys do it way more).

 

[amicus]

interest case of far right 'split' thinking.

roxy a while back posted an encomium to the US as flourishing in the last decades, because of its free enterprise, so that it's the envy of the world in prosperity. FDR was not even mentioned.

when debate calls for it, though, a right winger will paint this picture, as in amicus: the US has been a socialist state, suffocating capitalism ever since FDR:

ami I have read many opinions on the Potsdam and Yalta conferences and while the factual outcome of both may be incontrovertible, I am left scratching my head as to the motivations of Roosevelt and his administration rather than to acknowledge that FDR seemed sympathetic to the base concept of Socialism and by his actual efforts attempted to implement many command economy imperatives in the United States.

the right wing treatment of "fact" is a little different from yours or mine.

~~~

Beginning somewhere around the turn of the century, when Anti-trust laws began, regulation of oil and railroad companies, the establishment of Federal National Parks, continuing with Prohibition, the the Social Security act, the WPA and a hundred social programs instituted by the Roosevelt administration, many of which were deem unconstitutional, and continuing to the present day, the essence of a free market economy is slowly being weakened by social democratic empowerments by government and the abridgment of individual and property rights.

Those events are factual and you can look em up if you wish and even debate the effect of such legislation and swear it was the will of the people to justify them if you wish, it still remains that the free market system that brought this country to the top of the heap is being whittled away, bit by bit.

Amicus...