Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RE: The Falkland Situation  
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 61):
General Wellesley, later Lord Wellington

I'm no expert on British peerages, etc., MD11Engineer. I live in Australia nowadays partly because of what I'd call 'the Bob Hope principle' - Hope once said, "I left England at the age of four. I could see by that time that there wasn't much chance of me being King....."

But your post caused me to look things up a bit - and Wellington sure earned his distinctions. He was a soldier from 1787 until 1815, fighting in India and all over Europe. Initially (in 1804) he was knighted for service in India, and later (in 1814) he was made a lord (for defeating Napoleon at Vitoria in Spain, and forcing him to abdicate). So his full official title at the time of Waterloo was "Field-Marshal Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington". Wellington is a town in Somerset in the West of England with which his family had links.

As a matter of interest, in the course of the 'looking up,' I found out that he was also the source of quite a few well-known catch-phrases, including 'Publish and be damned,' 'Up Guards and at 'em" (at Waterloo); and, most memorably in my view, "All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don't know by what you do; that's what I called "guessing what was at the other side of the hill."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 61):
the Spanish peasants, fed up with being plundered and robbed by Napoleon´s troops, who were not supplied with food to keep logistics simple, but instead ordered to steal and live of the land, disrupted the French supply and communications lines by waging a very violent guerilla war against the French occupiers.

Couldn't agree more about the 'guerrilleros' in Spain - indeed, way back then, they invented the whole principle of what we nowadays call guerilla warfare. And there were Spanish and Portuguese troops at Vitoria, and many Prussians and some Belgians at Waterloo. But the majority of the troops at both battles were British; and, led by Wellington, they and their allies proved to be able to beat Napoleon not once, but twice - in 1814, and then again in 1815.

I think, too, that one has to bear in mind the contribution of the British Royal Navy. The vital first step in defeating Napoleon and his allies was the destruction of the French and Spanish battle fleets at Trafalgar (heck, we're back to talking about Gibraltar again  ). Napoleon could have supplied most of his forces in Spain relatively easily by ship - it was the RN that reduced him to having to do most of the job using wagons on the roads, which were at the mercy of the guerrilleros........

Anyway, please don't think I'm pushing some sort of 'Britain did everything' line. The marvellous thing about Europe is that contributions flow in from all sorts of different countries, quite often from the most unlikely ones. But I DO tend to think that, all in all - given the efforts of people like Napoleon, the Kaiser, and Hitler to subjugate the place and send it back to what Churchill called 'a new Dark Age' - Europe as a whole can consider itself pretty lucky that Britain (and later the Commonwealth) were around on the various occasions over the last two centuries when 'push came to shove'..........  

[Edited 2012-06-02 00:34:34]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 55):
The US stole Hawaii from the Hawaiians, they never wanted to be part of the US. There is also significant support amongst native Hawaiians for independence, so would you give it back?

Yup, the US overthrew the monarchy to get the land.

Later after WWII and significant military and US nationals had moved to the islands was statehood voted on. This negated the effect of the local inhabitants.

Similar story in AK.

Except the US bought the land from Russia, and then only in the late 1950's did the statehood pact pass, after it had failed three times in previous attempts. Natives where allowed to vote in the first three tries, it passed when they prohibited. Also temporary military personell where allowed to vote on the last ballot.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 63):
Yup, the US overthrew the monarchy to get the land.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 63):
Similar story in AK.

Except the US bought the land from Russia

All true.......... but I still think we should try to 'take the larger view' whenever possible.  

I suppose I'm somewhat 'prejudiced' by the fact that, literally, my earliest memories are of being bombed by Hitler's Luftwaffe.......

No bitterness on my part, though - not only did the bombs miss (almost literally by a mile), but any effect they might have had was more than counter-balanced by the fact that we had a prison camp just outside the village; and, as they mended the roads and trimmed the hedgerows, the German POWs gave us little wooden toys they'd carved, and the Italians shared their (scanty) chocolate rations with us.   I guess I was in at the beginning of progress towards 'European union'..........

Seems to me that, if the United States had not 'purchased' Alaska (same as they did Louisiana) Alaska would have remained a Russian state. Personally, I'd have preferred to have ended up as a US one. There appears to have been no reasonable prospect at all of the place ever becoming 'independent' - we should bear in mind that both the 'Americas' were comprehensively colonised by Europeans from the 17th. century on.

Similarly, had the United States not 'annexed' Hawaii, primarily for the purpose of establishing a naval base, and Hawaii had still been 'independent' in 1941, it would have found itself occupied by the Japanese. A 'side-effect' of that eventuality being that the Japanese, Germans, and Italians would probably have won WW2 - and Stalin might well have 'done a deal' with Hitler and maybe even got Alaska back as part of a peace deal with the USA......

So that not just Britain and Europe, but places like Hawaii, Alaska, Australia, New Zealand etc. could very possibly have found themselves in the hands of a worldwide fascist dictatorship. And everyone in ALL those places (including the 'native populations') would be a damn sight worse off than they are today.

All that could have happened within living memory. And I don't think I'm exaggerating, it all looked only too possible in the early 1940s...........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7312 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 64):
Similarly, had the United States not 'annexed' Hawaii, primarily for the purpose of establishing a naval base, and Hawaii had still been 'independent' in 1941, it would have found itself occupied by the Japanese.

You could also argue that without the US steeling Hawaii there would never have been a Pearl Harbour naval base to bomb the crap out of, the Japs probably wouldn't have bothered invading as it would have stretched their lines of supply too far, ditto for NZ, it would have been a step to far, Australia is also vast the Japs weren't mechanised it would have been a long slow march or bike ride from the top down to the major populated areas of Aussie.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 65):
You could also argue that without the US steeling Hawaii there would never have been a Pearl Harbour naval base to bomb the crap out of, the Japs probably wouldn't have bothered invading as it would have stretched their lines of supply too far,


The IJN studied the possibility of of invading and occupying the Hawaiian Islands. The major sticking point was the is was heavily fortified by the US and would have been a tough nut to crack requiring more resources than the Japanese had. They were already stretched thin because of China and would have been even more so with the invasion of the Dutch East Indies, Philippines, Singapore etc.

However if there had been no US forces there the Japanese might have found it to tempting a target to resist. It would have required only a fraction of the forces to take and they could have reinforced it over time. The Japanese would have also known that in event of war the US Navy would have needed a forward operating base. What better place than Oahu with it's natural harbor and easily defensible. By taking it the Japanese would have denied the USA this asset.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 64):
Similarly, had the United States not 'annexed' Hawaii, primarily for the purpose of establishing a naval base, and Hawaii had still been 'independent' in 1941, it would have found itself occupied by the Japanese


It would have made attacking the US fleet a whole lot harder. Sneaking up on the Hawaiian Islands via the empty Northern Pacific is one thing. Sneaking up on San Diego is an entirely different matter.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 65):
You could also argue that without the US steeling Hawaii there would never have been a Pearl Harbour naval base to bomb the crap out of, the Japs probably wouldn't have bothered invading as it would have stretched their lines of supply too far, ditto for NZ, it would have been a step to far, Australia is also vast the Japs weren't mechanised it would have been a long slow march or bike ride from the top down to the major populated areas of Aussie.

China was a far bigger nut to crack and they did not shy away from it. Australia was part of Japan's plans for an East Asian Prosperity Sphere. It was known as the Southern Resource Area. If war with the US had not completely derailed their plans and diverted resources, Japan would have had a beachhead on Australian soil by 1945.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Quoting speedbird217 (Reply 45):
I can't think of any EU states that would support Argentina in this conflict.

I would tend to concur. Especially since Argentina and the EU (including the UK) are in the initial stages of a trade war that has even affected the other Mercosur members' negotiations with Europe; they desire a trade deal with Europe, something which Argentina vehemently opposes (for good reasons I would argue).

Argentina should leave the Falklanders to their devices, however.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1824 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 68):
I would tend to concur. Especially since Argentina and the EU (including the UK) are in the initial stages of a trade war that has even affected the other Mercosur members' negotiations with Europe

Argentina is in the initial stages of a trade war with Brazil as well.

I guess there must be good reasons for those, too.


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

With Brazil the issues are more sector by sector.

Argentina's issues with Europe are much more fundamental. Europe wants to send us their cars, fine cheese, liquors, perfumes, and designer clothes (things where they have a competitive advantage). But the French want to ban our wines and wheat, the Spanish our fruits, the Italians our furniture, the Germans our stitchless steel-tubes, the British our vegetable-based industrial oils.

The EU want one-way trade, we buy and you block (through subsidies and other red tape) and Argentina is smartly saying "no thank you".

Also, there is speculation Argentina is the only Mercosur country against a deal with the EU because inside the government they are betting EU subsdies on all the above products may collapse shortly, thus setting the table for far better negotating conditions.

There is no doubt Argentina is precluding products from all over the world... but what is disengenuous is that all the other countries which are upset at us pretend they don't do the same, with other mechanisms.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1824 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 70):
Argentina's issues with Europe are much more fundamental. Europe wants to send us their cars, fine cheese, liquors, perfumes, and designer clothes (things where they have a competitive advantage). But the French want to ban our wines and wheat, the Spanish our fruits, the Italians our furniture, the Germans our stitchless steel-tubes, the British our vegetable-based industrial oils.

Europe seems to have no problem bringing Chilean wine, Moroccan fruits, US wheat, Turkish furniture, Indian oils or Korean steel tubes.

As your own José Luis Espert puts it, Argentina is practicing industrial populism.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1476362-basta-de-populismo-industrial


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
You could also argue that without the US steeling Hawaii there would never have been a Pearl Harbour naval base to bomb the crap out of, the Japs probably wouldn't have bothered invading as it would have stretched their lines of supply too far, ditto for NZ, it would have been a step to far, Australia is also vast the Japs weren't mechanised it would have been a long slow march or bike ride from the top down to the major populated areas of Aussie.

You're right in one sense, KiwiRob - the Japanese did in fact plan for a 'Greater South-East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' which would initially have excluded Australia and New Zealand. And they made the mistake of assuming that the United States would have little option but largely to stay out of it (as they had, up to that point, stayed out of WW2 altogether) for many months. As far as one can tell, Japan planned on occupying literally most of the western Pacific, plus Malaya, Burma and maybe even India, and then declaring a 'fait accompli'; thinking that Britain and the Commonwealth had their hands more than full with Germany and Italy and would have had no option but to 'accept' the Japanese conquests.

I think it's fair to say, too, that all the signs up to that point were that Germany and Italy would just plain win (i.e. beat the Commonwealth, who were the only people opposing them at the time); taking control of Egypt and the Suez Canal in the process. So, by 'backing the winners,' Japan could hope to acquire an 'instant empire' at relatively little cost.

It didn't work out that way, mainly because of a chain of events that stretched all the way back to an 'incident' in 1898 - the blowing up of the US battleship 'Maine' in the harbour at Havana, Cuba ( part of the Spanish Empire at the time). Oddly enough, historical opinion nowadays has more or less concluded that the explosion was an accident; but US opinion at the time was that it was an early example of 'terrorism' on the part of Spain, and it led to the Spanish-American War.

That war led to the Americans being the ones to end up with an 'instant empire,' which included the whole of the Philippines and a chain of ex-Spanish naval bases whose names were destined to become famous between 1942 and 1945 - among them Midway, Guam, Wake Island, Leyte etc. The USA had had a 'repair base and coaling station' at Pearl Harbor since the 1840s, initially acquired 'by agreement' and later 'consolidated by treaty' in 1898.

I tend to disagree with today's widely-held historical view that Japan should have 'ignored' the United States and just occupied non-US territories. A glance at this map (showing how the Japanese conquered almost the whole of the Western Pacific) proves, to my mind, that they couldn't possibly have afforded to leave all those US bases alone, still less the whole of the Philippines:-

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/japadvance/map_japadv.html

So my guess is that they gambled on the USA being so unprepared for war that, by destroying the US Pacific Fleet and capturing all those bases (which they pretty well succeeded in doing), they'd win themselves a couple of years during which the USA would have been powerless to intervene on any scale; and that (given a German/Italian victory in Europe and North Africa, knocking Britain and the Commonweath out of the War) they'd have had an excellent opportunity to negotiate a peace deal which would have been very favourable to them and the rest of the Axis.

In the event, of course, the Germans and Italians lost anyway - and the USA and the British, plus the Australians and New Zealanders, had enough ships left firstly to hold off the Japanese in the Pacific and then (starting with the Australians in New Guinea) to defeat and drive back their land forces.

Reverting to the Falklands, they were (and maybe remain) basically a 'strategic holding' as well. The British Royal Navy having a worldwide role at the time, Britain annexed them in 1834 (the islands up to then having been largely unoccupied) because it could, if necessary, have 'dominated' Cape Horn from there. It has to be remembered that the Panama Canal wasn't completed until 1914 - lots of ships (including any bound for the Western United States) had little option but to round Cape Horn. It's also not commonly known that the Falklands enjoyed quite a 'boom' soon after that - because the Californian Gold Rush began in 1849. During that long-lost time, Port Stanley was briefly one of the busiest seaports in the world!

And, after that time, in December 1914, the 'naval role' of the Falklands was fully justified by a guy named Admiral Sturdee, who sank Admiral Graf Von Spee's commerce-raiding squadron (including the first 'Scharnhorst' and the first 'Gneisenau' - off the islands. Thus pretty well extinguishing Imperial Germany's taste for (and capacity for) 'commerce-raiding' for the rest of WW1. Just as the US naval presence at Pearl Harbour provided the basis for the eventual defeat of the Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

I suppose my point is that, regardless of the fact that all the 'Great Powers' undoubtedly 'cut corners' in establishing colonies and military bases all over the world, history amply shows that, in the end, that propensity quite often turned out to be what, for want of a better phrase, was 'a good thing' in many ways........  

[Edited 2012-06-04 23:36:53]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1251 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 71):
Europe seems to have no problem bringing Chilean wine, Moroccan fruits, US wheat, Turkish furniture, Indian oils or Korean steel tubes.

As your own José Luis Espert puts it, Argentina is practicing industrial populism


I would not disagree. However, it still does not detract from the fact that the EU (and the United States as well; let's not even bring Japan and China into the discussion), engage in consummate duplicity in trade policy. If Europe wishes to call out Argentina, and refuses to self-instrospect even a scintilla about their distorsive practices, then Argentina has the right to dismiss the WTO complaint as an ad hominem.

I admit the brouhaha may have partly as a source the various jabs Argentina has launched against all the major EU countries (from trade, to bonds, to territorial disputes, to expropriation). So I don't go as far as state the EU is arrantly hypocritical, we have done some things to earn the ire.

But the points Argentina makes are nontheless valid.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1824 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1217 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 73):
If Europe wishes to call out Argentina, and refuses to self-instrospect even a scintilla about their distorsive practices, then Argentina has the right to dismiss the WTO complaint as an ad hominem.

Argentina's protectionism is off the charts. I don't think we have spoken here about the requirement for a company to export anything before they're granted an import license. You see car dealers trying to push olive oil or beef so that they can get spares.

No civilized country in the world does anything remotely similar.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Is The Situation In Lebanon? posted Sun Jul 8 2007 20:25:44 by Windshear
Colombo, How Is The Situation? posted Tue May 8 2007 15:14:28 by LaPaige
The Situation Room posted Thu Sep 29 2005 23:35:49 by Blackbird1331
The Real Solution To The Mid East Situation posted Wed Sep 7 2005 20:42:50 by Jetjack74
"Stinky" Situation At The Gym...What Would You Do? posted Wed Jul 10 2002 16:01:55 by Ilyushin96M
The Life Of A FA? posted Mon May 21 2012 10:37:27 by einsteinboricua
Is Anyone Watching The Solar Eclipse? posted Sun May 20 2012 17:38:05 by 2707200X
Robin Gibb Of The BeeGees Dies posted Sun May 20 2012 15:45:12 by david_itl
A Question About The Commander In Chief posted Sun May 20 2012 09:43:10 by N8911E
Who Make The Best Jet Skies? posted Sun May 20 2012 06:33:20 by 747400sp
Colombo, How Is The Situation? posted Tue May 8 2007 15:14:28 by LaPaige
The Situation Room posted Thu Sep 29 2005 23:35:49 by Blackbird1331
The Real Solution To The Mid East Situation posted Wed Sep 7 2005 20:42:50 by Jetjack74
"Stinky" Situation At The Gym...What Would You Do? posted Wed Jul 10 2002 16:01:55 by Ilyushin96M
Spacex To Resupply The ISS posted Wed May 23 2012 08:20:05 by casinterest
Inventor Of The Remote Control Dies At 96 posted Wed May 23 2012 08:02:21 by bjorn14
The Life Of A FA? posted Mon May 21 2012 10:37:27 by einsteinboricua
Is Anyone Watching The Solar Eclipse? posted Sun May 20 2012 17:38:05 by 2707200X
Robin Gibb Of The BeeGees Dies posted Sun May 20 2012 15:45:12 by david_itl