Insular Americanism

[True_Avery]

If they don't know what's going on in my head then they cannot claim that I act due to self-interest when I do something altruistic. A model of self-interest or rational choice may be able to predict what I do, but they can't make a qualified statement about my motivations.

Ok, name one action you've ever done where you never got something back in return. Not even a slightly, tiny feeling of happiness, self fulfillment, etc.

 

You wouldn't give money to the bum unless you felt some form of self payback, even if its a fleeting emotion. If you got 0 out of it, not even a feeling of self accomplishment, you wouldn't do it.

 

We do things out of some degree of self interest. Is that a bad thing? Hell no. Is being selfish a bad thing? Hell no.

 

Doing nothing is a bad thing. If you get a feeling of accomplishment by helping orphans, or giving to the poor, then power to you. Just don't deny that every time you do it you are expecting some form of payback for your actions. Whether that be a feeling, knowledge of kharma points, looking good to your god, looking good to others, looking good to yourself, maybe that the guy owes you money later, etc.

[Jae Onasi]

Well I'm fresh from yet another ridiculous forum attitude at some military website, where the Japanese were technologically inferior to Americans and thus lost the pacific war.

If you're asking if Japanese are inferior to Americans, no. If you're asking if Americans had technological warfare superiority to Japanese in 1945, technically yes--US had nukes, Japanese did not.

 

Another recent site levelled it was America which saved Europe from the Nazis.

The Germans were winning until the US got involved. Without US involvement the rest of Europe may very well have fallen. I don't think the UK would have been able to hold off the Germans very much longer if we hadn't gotten involved. Obviously the US couldn't have won WWII without UK and USSR, however, but without the US all of Europe might indeed have fallen.

 

I mean seriously, what is this idiotic attitude that firstly Americans are any different to anybody else in terms of human potential, benevolence or righteous influence? And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?

I think you've confused American military superiority in WWII with overall American superiority.

 

In some ways the US is superior--in terms of military advances, medical advances, many scientific and technology advances, business/monetary, etc. In other ways the US is not superior. We don't have universal healthcare, we don't have decent access financially to college, our work ethic that makes us so successful in business also drives us to insane levels of workhours which has had an impact on family life in my view, our divorce rate is quite high, and we have serious anxiety/depression issues on average because of the type of lifestyle we're trying to live. Rampant consumerism has lead in part to the financial meltdown this year--people spending on average more than they could afford, and the financial chickens have come home to roost.

 

This isn't intended as a bash America thread, many Americans are tremendously objective, balanced individuals however I did want to discuss this insular attitude I keep encountering. Do the more balanced yanks get as annoyed about it as I do? I mean this sort of thing really just chases me off website forums.

There is some idea that we Americans do it 'the right way' and everyone else does it 'the wrong way', yes, but that attitude is not exclusive to Americans. I saw that attitude in France, as well--any country that has a gov't agency intended to 'keep the language pure' probably has some thoughts on what language they think is superior, no?

[jonathan7]

The Germans were winning until the US got involved. Without US involvement the rest of Europe may very well have fallen. I don't think the UK would have been able to hold off the Germans very much longer if we hadn't gotten involved. Obviously the US couldn't have won WWII without UK and USSR, however, but without the US all of Europe might indeed have fallen.

 

Actually, all the military data run by historians shows that any Nazi invasion of Britain would of failed; once they got on the mainland, the analysis and computer programmes show the Royal Navy would have regained control of the channel - and the Nazi, war machine in Britain would of been forced to surrender due to running out of Petrol before reaching London. Though the UK could never of hoped to win the war without the US - and further more just because the US didn't enter the war militarily doesn't mean they weren't doing all they could to help the UK in other areas. The Battle of Britain was the key moment in if the Nazi's would take the UK, and they got their bottoms kicked

[Darth333]

I I saw that attitude in France, as well--any country that has a gov't agency intended to 'keep the language pure' probably has some thoughts on what language they think is superior, no?

How does promoting or protecting a language in a given territory (such as French in France) does equal to such a concept of "superiority"? I see it more as a way of ensuring that the majority of the inhabitants of a territory (or the "first occupants" in some cases) can continue to use their language in their everyday activities on a given territory.

 

I also don't see how trying to keep a certain language standard means that someone thinks himself superior to another nation (English words are in fact taking more and more space in the French language...it was the contrary back in the 17-18th centuries - due to communications today, those changes are more obvious and not reserved to a certain 'elite"- but now, French sentences such as "Je vais acheter du fastfood avant d'aller prendre ma voiture au parking pour le weekend" - I will buy some fastfood before getting my car from the parking lot for the weekend - are part of every day life). It's not about being against something but simply keeping some quality to what you already have and ensuring that people on a given territory can understand each other...English countries certainly feel that this kind of "attitude" is less relevant since English has become today's business language and no "protection" measures" are needed.

 

(I won't go any further on the issue here as I still want to stay on topic).

 

Anyway, I see the issue more as when someone goes to another country and try to impose their own rules or judge the local customs/culture traits based on what is going on in their own country (on the individual as well as a corporate or national level...)

[Web Rider]

How does promoting or protecting a language in a given territory (such as French in France) does equal to such a concept of "superiority"? I see it more as a way of ensuring that the majority of the inhabitants of a territory (or the "first occupants" in some cases) can continue to use their language in their everyday activities on a given territory.

You misunderstand. France does not promote the use of traditional languages. In fact it is only recently(due to EU legislation) that France even recognized that there are other dialects of French in their country. For the last couple hundred years, France has run a campaign of squashing every language except the "official" version of French.

 

I also don't see how trying to keep a certain language standard

Keeping the language standardized wasn't the problem, it was the nationalistic destruction of other languages and cultures in order to preserve "Frenchness".

[vanir]

If you're asking if Japanese are inferior to Americans, no. If you're asking if Americans had technological warfare superiority to Japanese in 1945, technically yes--US had nukes, Japanese did not.

The sentence you refer to was a relation, not a question. If it was a question I would've placed it within a context, for clarity sake. The context it refers to is not related to your response

The Germans were winning until the US got involved.

WW1? This is completely innacurate as a statement about WW2. It is widely recognised the German war was lost by 1943 (including at the time, by Chiefs of Staff on all sides), most speculators suggest it was lost by December 1941, and it was most assuredly lost on the Eastern Front. American involvement in invading nothern France was wholly motivated by concerns about Soviet control in post war western Europe. Had they not been involved another war may very well have immediately started between the UK and USSR. Keep in mind also the US did not have any stockpile of nuclear weapons, they had two. Were there more available during 1945 it is arguably likely they would have used them against Japan also. As it was the incendiary bombing campaign was resumed until the final Japanese surrender was received. So in 1945 the US did not have any nuclear weapons available for use against the Soviets, raising the stakes of an existing conventional force presence (in western Germany as it turns out).

American military superiority in WWII

The United States had military superiority in the Pacific Theatre. The Allied Expeditionary Force held military superiority in Europe until 1941 (technically the Battle of France was won against the odds, with an inferior force). Germany held military superiority in Europe for a short period between mid 1941 and late 1942, the Soviet Union held military superiority in Europe from 1942 until about 1958. The United States has arguably held military superiority in Europe since that time, though never with conventional weaponry until fairly recently. It should be mentioned that due to Normandy, the US could put up a good show in Europe from 1944 onwards, but the USSR was King.

 

At the height of the early Cold War, in the late 'fifties it was politically recognised the United States could not stand up to a drive by Soviet forces further into western Europe from the Balkans. It was simple arithmatic: Soviet nuclear bombers had proven faster speeds and greater defence penetration capabilities than the majority available US interceptors could match (Backfires versus Supersabres). Soviet interceptors were breaking world absolute speed records it was taking the entire concentrated US economy to achieve, and they were equipping front line units with them which the US could never have done for the sheer, ridiculous expense (MiG-25 versus YF-12A proposed interceptor derivative of the top secret, titanium-alloy A-12 Blackbird). In fact at this time the United States erroneously assumed the Soviets had developed some unknown aerospace technology, perhaps captured from Germany. US ballistic missile development was directly a product of German/Nazi scientists like von Braun and the development of the A4/V2 German wartime ballistic missile, for example.

 

The US could not hope to match Soviet tank numbers, who had constantly updated the highly successful T-34/85 and IS-2/3 models. Worst of all the Soviet military was entirely geared for operations in a nuclear/chemical/biological environment due to assumptions made about the US (that it was use these types of weapons in a first strike against the USSR). As a sidenote this has always remained the standard doctrine of Soviet forces, all AFV's are fully sealed, all front line soldiers equipped with protective gear, etc.

 

The US and USSR were approximately equal in nuclear technologies, both free fall bombs and medium range missles being used (MRBM), plus some tactical nukes such as nuclear torpedos (USSR) and nuclear tipped air-to-air missiles (US).

 

Finally, during the late 'fifties the USSR moved approximately two-thirds their entire tank and tactical strike capabilities to a tremendous build up in the Balkan states whilst communist East Germany attempted to become accepted as a satellite state, to push western occupation out of western Berlin and West Germany. Western Germany was where of course many US bases were, and the independence of western Berlin was guaranteed by NATO, which was formed due to this conflaguration.

 

At this point the US used its wartime contacts and Allied wartime political influence to place MRBM's in Turkey (ie. political pressure), from which the nuclear warheads could reach Russian cities They were the first of the superpowers to gain the capability of launching a direct first strike from home bases (previously free fall bombs flown there by aircraft had to be used if each others' countries were to be attacked directly).

 

An ultimatum was received by the Soviet cabinet. Any move into East Germany will be immediately followed by a nuclear first strike by the United States, due to Soviet conventional military superiority in Europe (a state which had definitively existed since 1945 and arguably since 1943).

 

The Soviets responded by trying to put MRBM's in Cuba. This was blocked by the apparent preparedness of JFK to go to full scale nuclear war whilst the United States were still the only of the pair capable of a ballistic nuclear first strike (ie. an attack by a weapon type which cannot be intercepted by defensive aircraft). Until the Soviets had nukes in Cuba, they had to use bombers and free fall nukes, which can be intercepted by Air National Guard units (Delta Daggers and Delta Darts) using nuclear tipped missiles capable of taking out entire formations.

 

The gamble worked, the Soviets backed down, Bay of Pigs got cancelled midway, JFK got murdered, and the US had military superiority in Europe for the first time since 1917. Due to the nukes in Turkey. Soon enough though, ICBM's appeared and changed the game again to an all out anybody's guess.

In some ways the US is superior--in terms of military advances, medical advances, many scientific and technology advances, business/monetary, etc. In other ways the US is not superior.

I do not agree with this attitude. In the words of Peter Darman, "Colonialism, the subjugation of a people by a foreign state was fuelled by Nationalism, the belief that one race is superior to another."

Due to the universal recognition there are no subdivisions or "races" within Homo Sapiens Sapiens (as much variation exists within any regional or cultural group as outside the group), therefore one can safely substitute the term "race" in the above quote as being "national culture," a term which would most accurately address the point being made by its author.

 

See the whole point is and this is a massive point, the lesson that was supposed to have been learned from WW2 was changing our (ie. democratic) political attitudes (from foreign policy to domestic culture) to not go around creating Nazis (and Stalins) elsewhere. And yet here we are, an Idi Amin and Mugabe later, a Pol Pot and Al Qeda and all the others.

 

And if you ask those people/groups they'll all tell it is the US/UN/NATO/League of Nations/UK/French fault, whom did indeed perform sanctions/policing actions/invade and colonise/dictate policy/etc.

 

Hitler blamed the League of Nations and if you research enough, there is so much foundation for the claim that W.Wilson took the United States and withdrew from League formation on moral grounds (and left the continent on medical grounds cited as being caused by the negotiations and assertions placed forth at Versailles and elsewhere). Hitler was created, that's what is meant when learned historians say, "we must never let it happen again." They sure as hell don't mean, "let's start hunting for Hitlers among the kids."

 

Similarly if you investigate colonialism you'll find those very same attitudes behind policing the Middle East and they're all about racial (ie. cultural/political and ultimately intellectual) superiority. I mean we get the modernised version in school, "yeah our grandaddies were a bit racist, oh well let's keep the gold and heal the world," but if you do the research you'll find out actually, we're still using the same legal system and much of the same legislation, more to the point we're still using precisely the same arguments.

Grandaddy thought he was healing the world, he thought the Aborigines and Amerindians and whoever were being dominated by "evil empires" and unsavoury individuals or cultural practises. The military got involved because there was money in it, and the aristocrats (whether economic or hereditary) control the military in lieu of an absolutist monarch or a dictator. There's no difference between Bismarck and Grant. And ultimately their designs are strategic and economic. And there's no differnce between shooting blackfellers and redskins to shooting towelheads. It was for gold, now it's for oil. You say, "No, there's political reasons," yeah sure, so were there then, hence the legislation and gold ownership still stands now. It's about the oil. And the funny part is that is the true definition of racism (hence many Arabs and many, many others call Euro-Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc. racist, regardless of our tremendous efforts to make using racial slurs a serious offence...because children and criminal governments ~just don't get it~).

 

Of course it's not an American phenomenon (I've already mentioned in a previous post), and many Americans are objective, clear individuals. I do certainly hope they prevail. In every nation I always hope the well educated, the benevolently intelligent, the smartly objective, prevail in all things. But the American government and its policies, or world history are not arguments this is the case, at all.

 

Don't even get me started on US and British culpability on starting the Pacific war too. Look up Treaty Ports and Manchuria prior to any Japanese involvement. Research the Ming and Qing dynasties, the Boxer Rebellion and the Kuomintang. Paints a very different overall picture than a mean, nasty bunch of wonton imperialists waving their fists and surprise attacking anybody.

 

And as far as Japanese war technology goes, it was ahead of the United States at the start of the war, lagged at the end primarily for industrial reasons and overall must be considered like virtually every contemporary nation at the time, to be precisely equal. Germany was not really ahead overall, the UK wasn't, actually nobody was. I can back that argument up, but that would require its own thread as it would get quite detailed. And it has nothing to do with the discussion topic, it was never a question placed before this forum.

 

 

To all browsers:

This is not a bash America thread, btw.

I will not enter into a heated and unintelligable argument. America has some things/policies I actually quite very much like, but one shouldn't have to go around begging to have a point of view.

 

The subject was only those individuals who seem to use being American as some kind of superiority towards academia (ie. consider obvious patriotism an academic argument and any challenge as excuse for a competitive debate).

This whole thread has actually helped me personally already, you know. The poorly informed and impressively ignorant bother me very much less again.

 

Cheers to all intelligent yanks for making the world a better place, not because you're American, but because you're smart

[jonathan7]

The sentence you refer to was a relation, not a question. If it was a question I would've placed it within a context, for clarity sake. The context it refers to is not related to your response

 

WW1? This is completely innacurate as a statement about WW2. It is widely recognised the German war was lost by 1943 (including at the time, by Chiefs of Staff on all sides), most speculators suggest it was lost by December 1941, and it was most assuredly lost on the Eastern Front. American involvement in invading nothern France was wholly motivated by concerns about Soviet control in post war western Europe. Had they not been involved another war may very well have immediately started between the UK and USSR. Keep in mind also the US did not have any stockpile of nuclear weapons, they had two. Were there more available during 1945 it is arguably likely they would have used them against Japan also. As it was the incendiary bombing campaign was resumed until the final Japanese surrender was received. So in 1945 the US did not have any nuclear weapons available for use against the Soviets, raising the stakes of an existing conventional force presence (in western Germany as it turns out).

 

I'd dispute this for the following reason; had the States not provided massive logistical help to both the UK and the Soviet Union, in the form of materials etc, even the Soviet Union might of collapsed in the wake of the massive Nazi onslaught. The Nazi's did run themselves aground in the USSR, and the war was turning when the Americans officially got involved, but they still played an instrumental role in the war in Europe - and pretty much won the pacific all on their own. As for WW1, I think the British Empire (even on its own) would eventually have beaten the Germans, it just would of taken a very long time.

[Q]

Actually, all the military data run by historians shows that any Nazi invasion of Britain would of failed; once they got on the mainland, the analysis and computer programmes show the Royal Navy would have regained control of the channel - and the Nazi, war machine in Britain would of been forced to surrender due to running out of Petrol before reaching London. Though the UK could never of hoped to win the war without the US - and further more just because the US didn't enter the war militarily doesn't mean they weren't doing all they could to help the UK in other areas. The Battle of Britain was the key moment in if the Nazi's would take the UK, and they got their bottoms kicked

I agree with this assessment. Had the Luftwaffe been able to destroy RAF Fighter Command, the case could then be made that it would have been able to clear the Royal Navy from the Channel in support of a cross-Channel invasion flotilla, but that is a moot point since it ultimately failed to do so.

 

I believe that the u-boat menace was a far bigger threat to the UK's war effort and it is notable that Churchill himself admitted that it was the only enemy activity that truly frightened him.

As for WW1, I think the British Empire (even on its own) would eventually have beaten the Germans, it just would of taken a very long time.

This is open to debate, however, as the Germans came much, much closer to winning World War I than they ever did World War II, IMO.

To all browsers:

This is not a bash America thread, btw.

I have not viewed it as such, and I find it rather curious that some have (erroneously, IMO) chosen to do so.

The subject was only those individuals who seem to use being American as some kind of superiority towards academia

I can't imagine why, because this thread would seem to reveal some serious shortfalls in our education system (imagine that, America!).

Cheers to all intelligent yanks for making the world a better place, not because you're American, but because you're smart

I'd like to think that, in spite of our mistakes, we've done our part, but I'm not about to belittle the contributions of other nations who have done the same.

 

And, no, I don't view your use of the word "yank" as derogatory because I don't believe that it was meant as such, and I fail to understand why anyone else would, either.

[Web Rider]

Don't even get me started on US and British culpability on starting the Pacific war too. Look up Treaty Ports and Manchuria prior to any Japanese involvement. Research the Ming and Qing dynasties, the Boxer Rebellion and the Kuomintang. Paints a very different overall picture than a mean, nasty bunch of wonton imperialists waving their fists and surprise attacking anybody.

 

If you're talking about China, that's the Ming dynasty, the Boxer Rebellion, and the KMT. Japan, because it established itsself as a military power in the Pacific before it was overrun with Western guys trying to eat it alive, was well involved in the taking of China for everything it's worth.

[Palpatine_dc]

Keep in mind also the US did not have any stockpile of nuclear weapons, they had two. Were there more available during 1945 it is arguably likely they would have used them against Japan also. As it was the incendiary bombing campaign was resumed until the final Japanese surrender was received. So in 1945 the US did not have any nuclear weapons available for use against the Soviets, raising the stakes of an existing conventional force presence (in western Germany as it turns out).

 

Untrue, at the time of the Japanese surrender a 3rd bomb was on the way to Tinian, and was expected to be used around august 24/25, with a 4th about 2 weeks later. Those last 2 were used in the Bikini island tests in 1946. Atomic bomb production continued at lower peace-time peace but that still meaned that when the Soviets detonated their first A-bomb, the US had about 4-5 Little Boy type and about 100 Fat Man type weapons in stockpile. Those are NARA figures btw.

Japan only surrendered because of the 2 A-bombs. The firebombings had been going on for 4 months and and because of the naval blockade imports had been reduced to around 10% of the 1941 level. And still the only reason the military leadership surrendered was the second bomb. In fact they were arguing it was a one of a kind bomb the US could not massproduce and that Japan should continue the war when news was brought in of Nagasaki.

 

 

The United States had military superiority in the Pacific Theatre. The Allied Expeditionary Force held military superiority in Europe until 1941 (technically the Battle of France was won against the odds, with an inferior force). Germany held military superiority in Europe for a short period between mid 1941 and late 1942, the Soviet Union held military superiority in Europe from 1942 until about 1958.

 

If you mean numerical superiority you're close, but stil not on the mark. If you mean with military superiority "the ability to wage war and probably win" you are very wrong. Germany had military superiority from the begining up until late 1941. Better operational concepts, better trained and battle-hardend soldiers and air superiority were direct causes of the falls of Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, and the initial succes against the USSR. Germany startet losing their military superiority when Hitler sacked Von Braunchitsch and became Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And on 12 december 1941 ole' Adolf made his worst mistake; he declared war on the US. From there on it only went downhill for Germany.

 

(Backfires versus Supersabres). Soviet interceptors were breaking world absolute speed records it was taking the entire concentrated US economy to achieve, and they were equipping front line units with them which the US could never have done for the sheer, ridiculous expense (MiG-25 versus YF-12A proposed interceptor derivative of the top secret, titanium-alloy A-12 Blackbird). In fact at this time the United States erroneously assumed the Soviets had developed some unknown aerospace technology, perhaps captured from Germany. US ballistic missile development was directly a product of German/Nazi scientists like von Braun and the development of the A4/V2 German wartime ballistic missile, for example.

 

Several things wring with that

Tu 22M Backfires were and SuperSabres were hardly the same generation. The former started entering Soviet front-line service in '71 while the latter served only in the ANG from '71.

As for Soviet bombers superior? Their first nuclear capable bomber they had was a inferior copy of the B 29. US bombers have always been superior in numbers and capabilities compared to the Soviets. Strategic Air Command had about 1500 intercontinental bombers at peak strength, Soviet Long-range Aviation never reached those numbers.

When Lt Belenko defected to the West in his MiG 25 in 1976, its shortcomings were painfully revealed. Inferior radar and electronics, undurable engines and little manoeuvrebility. About the only thing it had was speed.

 

Actually, all the military data run by historians shows that any Nazi invasion of Britain would of failed; once they got on the mainland, the analysis and computer programmes show the Royal Navy would have regained control of the channel - and the Nazi, war machine in Britain would of been forced to surrender due to running out of Petrol before reaching London. Though the UK could never of hoped to win the war without the US - and further more just because the US didn't enter the war militarily doesn't mean they weren't doing all they could to help the UK in other areas. The Battle of Britain was the key moment in if the Nazi's would take the UK, and they got their bottoms kicked

 

Concur entirely. Germany never had the naval means for crossing the Channel, let alone establish a steady supply route. The Seelöwe plan was a nice piece of fiction anyway: the invasion force consisted of 15 divisions. Initial landing would have consisted of a battalion of each division to be landed at 15 different places along a 200km front using converted Reine arks over the course of 2 days. Another week would have been necessary to transfer the rest of the divisions to UK shores. If they had tried they would have been shredded.

[jonathan7]

If you mean numerical superiority you're close, but stil not on the mark. If you mean with military superiority "the ability to wage war and probably win" you are very wrong. Germany had military superiority from the begining up until late 1941. Better operational concepts, better trained and battle-hardend soldiers and air superiority were direct causes of the falls of Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, and the initial succes against the USSR.

 

QFT

 

Germany startet losing their military superiority when Hitler sacked Von Braunchitsch and became Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And on 12 december 1941 ole' Adolf made his worst mistake; he declared war on the US. From there on it only went downhill for Germany.

 

I actually think Hitlers worst mistake (and there are a few howlers) was still not having learned from Napleon some 100 years previously, and opening up that second front against the Soviet Union - though in the end it was the weather (and the much more complicated machinery of the Nazi war machine think - Panzer's (and the supply (or lack of) spare parts)) more than anything else that led to the Nazi invasion of Russia failing. Had he not started war with the Soviets, the Nazi's would have had a time of consolidating their power in pretty much all of Europe.

 

<sniped>

 

I concur, and generally would note that perhaps with the exception of the space race, the U.S. always had technological superiority over the Soviet Union. (*prepares for gross generalisation to be criticised*)

[ForeverNight]

(*prepares for gross generalisation to be criticised*)[/Quote]

 

Why? When you look at the technologies that both sides had, it looks like -note I have not done any in-depth research on this subject- the US has usually had the Tech-edge. The Soviet Planes built were built to be able to take off from their crappy airstrips (The only area I think the USSR was better than the US) but didn't have the raw industrial power to build hordes of them.

 

Whereas the US was able to build tons of stuff in-house with no off-shoring involved, it really wasn't until the trailing edge of the Cold War that the US starting off-shoring a lot. So, in terms of out-put, the US was king.

 

We could just out-spend them. For every ICBM the USSR was able to build, we built 2,3, who knows off the top of their head? I sure don't.

[Q]

When you look at the technologies that both sides had, it looks like -note I have not done any in-depth research on this subject- the US has usually had the Tech-edge.

Electronically speaking: definitely.

Metallurgically: maybe.

Aerodynamically: no.

The Soviet Planes built were built to be able to take off from their crappy airstrips (The only area I think the USSR was better than the US) but didn't have the raw industrial power to build hordes of them.

Huh? Their industrial base was huge. If they had put some of it to work producing cheap, high-quality consumer goods for export (like China did), the USSR might still be in existence today. They had thousands more combat aircraft than we did, but because electronics became more and more important, they began to fall behind in combat effectiveness per aircraft. By the '70s they realized that they couldn't continue to compete the way they had in the previous decades so they designed the MiG-29 and Su-27 in order to have more of a technical parity with the US and to a large degree they succeeded.

[vanir]

Tu 22M Backfires were and SuperSabres were hardly the same generation.

Oops, sorry my bad. I was talking about the Tu-22 Blinder. It was in service a couple of years before being publicly revealed to the west in 1961, and had been picked up intruding NATO airspace doing supersonic dash at 1.4 Mach when the major US interceptor of the day was the 1.1 Mach Supersabre, and it was clearly a strategic nuclear delivery system (the blatant purpose of the airspace intrusions, to rattle a sabre).

During the entire early 60's period it was believed by NATO that the USSR had nuclear bomber superiority such that interceptor development at present could not stand up to a full scale nuclear war, though it was still believed NATO held tactical nuclear superiority. The problem was that if the US used tactical nukes to answer a Soviet conventional movement, the Soviets would respond with strategic bombers and probably win. Several tremendous expensive interceptor projects were underway in the US to meet this challenge, certainly it was not one which would be tolerated, but it was one which historically existed.

In any case the situation was changed by ballistic missiles and improving AA missile defence systems. For those few years however, things were very dicey indeed.

 

I'll have to come back to address other points, just passing through with things to do.

 

--------------------

 

back for a minute or two

 

As for Soviet bombers superior? Their first nuclear capable bomber they had was a inferior copy of the B 29. US bombers have always been superior in numbers and capabilities compared to the Soviets. Strategic Air Command had about 1500 intercontinental bombers at peak strength, Soviet Long-range Aviation never reached those numbers.

From around 1960 to around 1968 the Soviet strategic nuclear bomber force was believed by NATO (including the US) to be superior. Whether or not this was actually true (we could argue endlessly about our own speculations in hindsight), it was believed to be superior and these guys at least thought they knew what they were talking about. Look it up, read statements and transcripts.

When Lt Belenko defected to the West in his MiG 25 in 1976, its shortcomings were painfully revealed. Inferior radar and electronics, undurable engines and little manoeuvrebility. About the only thing it had was speed.

Once again, similar reasoning. The Ye-155P Foxbat prototype began development in 1959 and the CIA were aware of its development proposal since probably 1958 (first flight in 1964). Both nations were presently in a race to develop Mach 3 warplanes, both strategic bombers and interceptor/reconnaissance models, flying at near space altitudes. SAMs at this stage had not yet reached a guidence technology capable of intercepting such a thing, and there was nothing remotely portable for frontal defences which could fly that high or fast anyway. Both nations had a Mach 2 fighter/interceptor force entering mass production (F-104 and F-102/106, and MiG-21), but both nations wanted to take it to the limit so to speak.

 

The Cold War was obviously, already such a concern that Congress had passed a secretive funding project of literally hundreds of billions of US dollars to develop and produce small numbers of the all-titanium A-12 Mach 3 reconnaissance vehicle, which had a cruising altitude of 80,000 feet and was impervious to interception in 1963. Due to knowledge of the impending MiG-25 and another project, the Sukhoi Mach 3 strategic bomber (which never got beyond the prototype stage and that never made it past 1.8 Mach in any case), the US decided to develop the A-12, now called the Blackbird due to a new, radar absorption paintjob, into an interceptor derivative and what later became the Tomcat's Pheonix missile system was developed for it. Unfortunately the cost of a single aircraft to be produced and a single mission flown by it was exactly equivalent to a NASA space launch. In fact NASA ground control systems were requisitioned to control Blackbird missions, due to the complexity and high performance of these exceptional craft. It was impossible to conceive this warplane as a front line military aircraft of any kind. It would break the economy.

 

In the meantime a YF-12A prototype set the world speed record at 3.134 Mach during a high speed supersonic dash, in May 1965.

So a MiG-25 set the world absolute speed record over 1000km (ie. a high speed cruise) at 2.806 Mach in 1967 and had already entered front line service, both in reconnaissance and interceptor variants. In 1969 the engines were further upgraded and a precision supersonic bombing capability added, the aircraft rated at 2.8 Mach with a two-ton external bomb load. It also broke the world altitude record for an airbreathing craft without rocket assistance which stands to this day, at 118,898 feet.

Even the absolute speed record stood until 1976 in fact, when the SR-71 finally took it back at 3.204 Mach over 1000km. And the cost of doing this can only be described as astronomical.

 

At the time US defence Chiefs simply didn't understand it. How could the Soviets have this kind of performance in mass production, without some unknown, new aerospace technology?

In 1973 an Israeli ground station clocked a MiG-25 sold to Egyptians doing 3.2 Mach evading interception, and passed this information on to Americans. US. Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans declared the MiG-25, "Probably the best interceptor in production in the world today."

 

In 1976 sure enough, when Belyenko defected it was discovered for the first time the shortcomings of the Foxbat. It was a human-guided strategic defence system, literally a missile with a man in it, designed to carry two large warheads to 80,000 feet or four to 70,000 feet and fire them up to 90,000 feet in as short a time as possible, a few minutes from a cold runway start. It wasn't even supersonic at sea level, its engines were terrifically prone to overspeeding and would experience "runaway rpm" if pressed beyond 2.5 Mach during normal flight operations. It had analogue instruments and no new technologies save for an immensely powerful radar set (it used to cook rabbits to death on the runway, and was so powerful it is still said it is perfectly capable of literally burning through any ECM attempt...but cannot determine targets at lower altitudes due to ground clutter and poor electronic translation). It was a one-shot, one-use defence system designed to counter a nuclear attack and not fight a conventional war.

However Belyenko at the same time, warned the US of a new derivative under current development, the MiG-31 Foxhound which entered service around 1990, with MiG-25 high performance and F-15 low altitude performance, and the weapons system of the Tomcat. It was coined the SuperMiG and remains the highest performing warplane throughout the envelope to enter front line service in history. It is also the most expensive, though nothing like the cost of a Blackbird and not significantly higher performing than an F-15 for the money, in an overall sense.

 

If you mean numerical superiority you're close, but stil not on the mark. If you mean with military superiority "the ability to wage war and probably win" you are very wrong. Germany had military superiority from the begining up until late 1941. Better operational concepts, better trained and battle-hardend soldiers and air superiority were direct causes of the falls of Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, and the initial succes against the USSR. Germany startet losing their military superiority when Hitler sacked Von Braunchitsch and became Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And on 12 december 1941 ole' Adolf made his worst mistake; he declared war on the US. From there on it only went downhill for Germany.

Actually I'm quite right, and you're very wrong (you seem to have the commercial media version, uncomplicated popularity before primary sourced). This one is going to be a seriously long conversation, so I'll come back to it. I assume we'll be using references, and it's going to get very extensive. Unfortunately at worst we'll arrive at the conclusion of an impasse, at best a begrudging acceptance of an impasse with clear reservations, but I'm utterly confident having just completed two years of research for my current publication, I've a subject library of things like diary transcripts (Gen Halder, etc.) that stacks as tall as me and have been all over every related site on the web...that being said, I've reached plenty of impasses on these sites before, sometimes due to ignorance but sometimes due to an equally qualified, however completely differing series of contentions. I do not deny that history can often back a variety of arguments. This then, I'll come back to, but tonight I'm already a little tired.

[Tommycat]

In the meantime a YF-12A prototype set the world speed record at 3.134 Mach during a high speed supersonic dash, in May 1965.

So a MiG-25 set the world absolute speed record over 1000km (ie. a high speed cruise) at 2.806 Mach in 1967 and had already entered front line service, both in reconnaissance and interceptor variants. In 1969 the engines were further upgraded and a precision supersonic bombing capability added, the aircraft rated at 2.8 Mach with a two-ton external bomb load. It also broke the world altitude record for an airbreathing craft without rocket assistance which stands to this day, at 118,898 feet.

Even the absolute speed record stood until 1976 in fact, when the SR-71 finally took it back at 3.204 Mach over 1000km. And the cost of doing this can only be described as astronomical.

 

Just so you know the top speed of the SR-71 is still classified(most likely TS SCI). Her top cruising altitude is also classified(also likely SCI). Any numbers you get are officially accepted numbers, but so far the maximum capabilities will be classified probably until I'm dead. A couple of very important things to note: It takes time to declassify the speed of an aircraft... Especially a high speed reconnaisance plane. Note that the speed record was beaten by just enough to hold the record.

 

Not saying she was a perfect aircraft. Heck it took a buick engine just to get the thing started. She'd drip fuel on the tarmac and had no ability to have guns(it was tried and the thing shot herself down) or external armaments(again tried, but made her too unstable). She had a turn radius larger than the Sea of Japan at cruising speed. But she wasn't designed as a fighter. She was designed as a high altitude recon plane. Which sadly(or maybe not so sadly) that job has been taken over by UAV's and Satelites.

[Jae Onasi]

How does promoting or protecting a language in a given territory (such as French in France) does equal to such a concept of "superiority"? I see it more as a way of ensuring that the majority of the inhabitants of a territory (or the "first occupants" in some cases) can continue to use their language in their everyday activities on a given territory.

I'm not saying it isn't that, because uniformity does have its advantages. However, it's the attitude of 'keeping out the foreign words because it might corrupt our language' that comes through. The French are very proud of France and their 'French-ness', and that came through loud and clear when I visited there for a month. That does, at times, translate over as an air of superiority.

 

I also don't see how trying to keep a certain language standard means that someone thinks himself superior to another nation (English words are in fact taking more and more space in the French language...

How long did it take for the language agency to finally accept 'le weekend' as part of the language when it finally realized that it's a lot easier to say 'weekend' instead of 'fin de semaine'? A number of years.

 

English countries certainly feel that this kind of "attitude" is less relevant since English has become today's business language and no "protection" measures" are needed.

One of my friends who does a lot of international business says a lot of business is conducted in English because he feels it's a more efficient than the Romance languages or even German. He knows a number of people who are fluent in multiple languages, but they invariably conduct business in English because it takes them twice as long or more to say the equivalent in Italian, French, or German.

 

Anyway, I see the issue more as when someone goes to another country and try to impose their own rules or judge the local customs/culture traits based on what is going on in their own country (on the individual as well as a corporate or national level...)

That is problematic for Americans. I'll be the first to admit that Americans can be rude (or perceived as such) when traveling or doing business in other countries. We're loud, expect everyone to speak English, and are very direct, which comes across as rude. When I went to France I tried to speak French as much as I could, and I was treated with a great deal more respect and politeness than my American counterparts who didn't even _try_ to speak French but instead expected everyone to cater to them. Even I found that offensive.

 

@j7--I agree with you--attacking Russia in winter was foolish for both Napoleon and Hitler, and one of, if not the, single biggest contributors to Germany's loss. I don't think they would have been able to beat USSR at any time anyway--while Germany clearly had better-trained troops, better equipment, and better quality supplies, at some point they would just have run out of people. Stalin had no problem throwing millions upon millions of troops at Hitler, and eventually sheer numbers would have won the day.

[Tommycat]

The Germans never fully capitalized on their air superiority. They never invested in long range bombers and that is part of the reason that the push into Russia failed(dead people don't fight much). Granted a good amount of the reason Germany couldn't capitalize on the air superiority was the allies dropping metric craploads of bombs on the factories and depots. Germany had the best designed tanks, but they took too long to build. The Allies (primarily)used the Sherman which was outclassed by the german tanks but could be mass produced to insane numbers. I heard somewhere that our tanks outnumbered the german tanks something like 1000 to 1. I could be wrong(and probably am), but the advanced tank was too difficult to produce in vast numbers.

 

Germany also gave new equipment and supplies to the new recruits rather than the experienced soldiers. They were flat out silly in many areas. Germany was really doing it's best to lose the war.

 

Don't get me wrong I know how much our long range bomber force really helped to make sure that they couldn't capitalize on their strengths. Combine that with all the allies efforts, and the war in Europe was really won by all of us. Working together. The US was in the war long before war was declared. Mostly in shipping supplies. As for the battle of Britain. I have two words for ya: Eagle Squadrons.

[CommanderQ]

Well, Jae, you are very right about the Russians and their hordes of inexperienced conscripts. But the problem with the Nazis goes farther than troops and equipment.

 

 

Nazi ideology practically dedicated itself to the destruction of the Russian people for their inhuman mongrel attitudes as Hitler's Mein Kampf put it. The Russian people, at first, greeted the Nazis as liberators because the Soviet Government was actually, in a way, worse than the Nazis.

 

Now Russians have never been good about invading people due to their disloyalty and sometimes utter hatred of their own Soviet Government. However, after the Nazis began to execute Russian men, women, and children, the Russian people became dedicated to defend their land, lives, and people. The fight was about patriotism for them, not for their "Glorious Leader, STALIN!" In fact, they were acting on revenge when the hordes of Russia decended on the German people and waged a war far worse than something Hitler had dreamed of. Now, if the Nazis had somehow won the Russian peoples hearts by acting as liberators{something impossible, for if the Nazis had that attitude, that war would never had occured}, the Russian people would've turned against their own government, provided they were encouraged. I'm glad, though, that the Russian people did rise in patriotism, otherwise, WW2 would've been a different, darker, story, the future would've been bad.

[jonathan7]

Stay on-topic nudge If you would like me to split all this air-craft chat into a separate thread please let me know Otherwise the discussion was about "Insular America", Thanks. -- j7

 

EDIT: Split topic off, please continue discussion of "Top Secret Aircraft" etc here; http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2565093#post2565093 - Thanks -- j7

[vanir]

In that case I'd like to advise browsers to at least pop into the split topic. It is illustrative of US military evolution, and the forces which were driving its tremendous funding and almost subcultural industry. A penultimate point is the genuinely frightening nature of the Soviet military at the time, hardly a case of sheer US military superiority...but certainly a continuing commitment in trying to achieve military superiority (arguably achieved at some instances and under certain circumstances).

[Tommycat]

Well we could just make mention that quite a bit was spent on both sides to achieve military superiority. At times the US held an advantage. At other times the USSR had the advantage. From both sides it was a matter of national pride to beat the other. It fueled the space race, the arms race, and of course drove us to develop tech. And of course the now infamous Star Wars project.

 

Speaking of which.... Our movies are better

[vanir]

Well then getting back to the first pointed discussion of the topic posting, US military superiority in the WW2 European environment. In fact anything other than the summary I described of the Allied Expeditionary Force, a very limited German superiority, followed by Soviet military superiority in Europe during this period until such time as US strategic superiority was funded by the MRBM and ICBM nuclear projects (encompassing the domestic space program and local defence industry).

 

I think it might be most illustrative if we take specific moments and examine European military superiority at those times.

 

Let us start with say, beginning 1938. The European continent. Let's open the board for discussion.

I say, loosely:

No. 1: France.

No. 2: Soviet Union.

No. 3: Great Britain.

No. 4: Germany, close tie with Czechoslovakia and Italy.

No. 4.5: Poland

No. 5: Belgium, Rumania, the Baltics, Finland and the Balkans

 

Meanwhile world military powers at this time, again loosely:

No. 1: Great Britain

No. 2: USA

No. 3: Japan

No. 4: Soviet Union

No. 5: France closely tied with Italy

 

I'm going to consider world colonial powers irrelevent where this did not directly contribute to world military status.

[Tommycat]

I dunno, Force Projection is a pretty big thing, but the sheer manufacturing capabilities of the US in 1938 combined with their large naval fleet really should have put it ahead of GB. We also had long range bombers. Namely the B17.

 

Also I'm surprised you put GB ahead of Germany in the European military superiority. I mean at the time GB was really unprepared for war where as Germany had been in full war production long before. VERY surprised by you placing the Soviet Union ahead of anyone considering how few suplies they had at the time. I have no problem with France being listed at the top, but I would suggest

 

1) France

2) Germany

3) Italy

4) Great Britan

5) Soviet Union

 

My reasoning: France had a large military, and lots of equipment and of course air support. Germany, well they had been building up for it a long time, technical superiority. Italy almost the same thing as Germany(minus the technical superiority). Great Britain, more troops trained, large Naval Force, but lacked the equipment and manufacturing capability. Soviet Union had LOTS and LOTS of people, but that's about it(well that and the T-26:D).

[GarfieldJL]

Well I'm fresh from yet another ridiculous forum attitude at some military website, where the Japanese were technologically inferior to Americans and thus lost the pacific war.

 

What forum?

 

Another recent site levelled it was America which saved Europe from the Nazis.

 

This is actually something that can be successfully argued. Britain lacked the resources needed to actually challenge the Nazis for control of Europe. They needed the United States to provide the strength necessary to turn it into a two-front war.

 

I mean seriously, what is this idiotic attitude that firstly Americans are any different to anybody else in terms of human potential, benevolence or righteous influence? And what the hell are your schools teaching you guys, don't listen to anybody because they're not us?

 

Depends on the school, many schools teach Americans are the cause of every problem in the world.

 

I'm going to say statistically the United States donates more money to charity than any other country in the world.

 

This isn't intended as a bash America thread, many Americans are tremendously objective, balanced individuals however I did want to discuss this insular attitude I keep encountering. Do the more balanced yanks get as annoyed about it as I do? I mean this sort of thing really just chases me off website forums.

 

Well based on your statements, I'd say very few of the Americans you consider to be objective to even be remotely objective.

 

Does America have its faults, yes it does, but it is hardly the monster that a lot of people both within the United States and outside the country constantly try to portray it as.

 

President Bush isn't the monster that people try to paint him as either.

[jonathan7]

Moved WW2 - discussion here; http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=194547 -- j7