Sir Niall Fergusson (currently completing the second volume of Kissinger's biography) said this of the relationship with and similarities between Trump and Nixon.

'It seems to me far more plausible to compare Trump to the president he actually sought to cultivate [] Richard Nixon.'

"I think that you are one of this country's great men and that it was an honour to spend an evening with you" wrote Trump to Nixon after they'd dined together in June 1982.

'You can see why there's a sense of kinship with Nixon today'.

'Like Nixon, Trump has been an outsider all his career. Looked down on by the Harvard, Manhatten and Aspen types.

'Like Nixon. Trump's political ascent occurred despite a state of permanent war with the mainstream media, especially the New York Times and the Washington Post'

'Like Nixon, Trump's political adversaries were not content to challenge him at the ballot box. They had to impeach him, using the resources of the Justice Department even after his election defeat'

'The difference is that Watergate destroyed Nixon irrevocably'.

'Russiagate did not destroy Trump'.

'As Trump put it 3 years ago, "He left. I don't leave" '.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocYvwiSYDTA

Nixon called Whitlam a peacenik.
Kissinger agreed: "hardly a heavy wight".
Both were right.



In any case, Ferguson (one s) is always worth hearing.

Frank wrote on Nov 25^th, 2024 at 10:32pm:

Nixon called Whitlam a peacenik. Kissinger agreed: "hardly a heavy wight". Both were right.

Whitlam was right about Vietnam, as the US was forced to accept.

For someone who was "hardly a heavyweight" (with an e !), Whitlam's legacy has survived his administration by 50 years, and his death, and never lived in fear of being indicted for war crimes as Kissinger did, and whose legacy will be tainted by that for all time.

Like Nixon, Trump is consumed by the paranoia of not appearing to be a man's man, despite his obsession with the song 'YMCA' and Air Force One pilots! God forbid you'd ever see Nixon speaking or acting fruity.

Unlike Nixon, who was capable of feeling a deep sense of shame over his many failings resulting in his reprehensible acts, Trump is impervious to regret and remorse.

To be fair, Nixon was afflicted with a predisposition towards immense self-pity, something you won't find with Trump.

As Sir Niall Ferguson (one s !), in his comparing Trump with Nixon, warned that the Nixon Administration was contemplating how to deal to Australia for daring to have a public contrary opinion to the US as he believes Trump will do with Australia.

Luckily for Australia. Nixon's Administration was terminated and a more contrite Ford, then Carter, Administration followed.

Trump may shake us down even further to pay for US security guarantees - a Nixon policy with US allies...

As if hundreds of billions to be paid in advance for submarines that won't be handed to Australia for at least 20 years, if at all... isn't enough already.

He augmented his warning to Australia with a quip, after what Trump has been through over the last four years, comparing his second administration to his first, that "This time, there'll be no more Mr Nice Guy"!

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 8:43am:

As Sir Niall Ferguson (one s !), in his comparing Trump with Nixon, warned that the Nixon Administration was contemplating how to deal to Australia for daring to have a public contrary opinion to the US as he believes Trump will do with Australia. Luckily for Australia. Nixon's Administration was terminated and a more contrite Ford, then Carter, Administration followed.

And the Whitlam Administration was also terminated.
Important detail, that.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 8:43am:

Trump may shake us down even further to pay for US security guarantees - a Nixon policy with US allies... As if hundreds of billions to be paid in advance for submarines that won't be handed to Australia for at least 20 years, if at all... isn't enough already. He augmented his warning to Australia with a quip, after what Trump has been through over the last four years, comparing his second administration to his first, that "This time, there'll be no more Mr Nice Guy"!

Well, free-riding on the US may be over for Australia and Europe.
A GOOD thing.

To characterise that as a "shake down" is stupid.
Being stupid is a BAD thing.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 8:51am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 8:43am: As Sir Niall Ferguson (one s !), in his comparing Trump with Nixon, warned that the Nixon Administration was contemplating how to deal to Australia for daring to have a public contrary opinion to the US as he believes Trump will do with Australia. Luckily for Australia. Nixon's Administration was terminated and a more contrite Ford, then Carter, Administration followed. And the Whitlam Administration was also terminated. Important detail, that.

But not before Nixon's natural paranoia was prevented from being fully unleashed on the Australian people.

The question now is: will Australian administrations get down on all fours to our 'overlords', as is our culture's natural predisposition - a shiver looking for a spine to run up - and cough up more cash to a Trump Administration, if and when demanded of us, or will we grow a Whitlam pair?

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 8:57am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 8:43am: Trump may shake us down even further to pay for US security guarantees - a Nixon policy with US allies... As if hundreds of billions to be paid in advance for submarines that won't be handed to Australia for at least 20 years, if at all... isn't enough already. He augmented his warning to Australia with a quip, after what Trump has been through over the last four years, comparing his second administration to his first, that "This time, there'll be no more Mr Nice Guy"! Well, free-riding on the US may be over for Australia and Europe. A GOOD thing. To characterise that as a "shake down" is stupid. Being stupid is a BAD thing.

A 400+ billion dollar shakedown not enough, then?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 25^th, 2024 at 10:14pm:

Sir Niall Fergusson (currently completing the second volume of Kissinger's biography) said this of the relationship with and similarities between Trump and Nixon. 'It seems to me far more plausible to compare Trump to the president he actually sought to cultivate [] Richard Nixon.' "I think that you are one of this country's great men and that it was an honour to spend an evening with you" wrote Trump to Nixon after they'd dined together in June 1982. 'You can see why there's a sense of kinship with Nixon today'. 'Like Nixon, Trump has been an outsider all his career. Looked down on by the Harvard, Manhatten and Aspen types. 'Like Nixon. Trump's political ascent occurred despite a state of permanent war with the mainstream media, especially the New York Times and the Washington Post' 'Like Nixon, Trump's political adversaries were not content to challenge him at the ballot box. They had to impeach him, using the resources of the Justice Department even after his election defeat' 'The difference is that Watergate destroyed Nixon irrevocably'. 'Russiagate did not destroy Trump'. 'As Trump put it 3 years ago, "He left. I don't leave" '. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocYvwiSYDTA

Ferguson’s analysis was particularly striking because it systematically dismantled a narrative that has gained considerable traction in some western policy circles. Indeed, last year’s Consilium conference featured one of that other narrative’s leading proponents, John Mearsheimer. The University of Chicago political scientist argues that Nato expansion provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.


Mearsheimer’s thesis, which aligns eerily with the Kremlin’s own propaganda, has found receptive audiences among those seeking to rationalise western disengagement. Yet as Ferguson demonstrated, it was not Nato enlargement that led to war in 2022 – that is just Putin’s line. Instead, as Ferguson made clear, it was the ongoing appeasement of Russia that paved the way for Putin’s war against Ukraine.

As western support for Ukraine wavers, Ferguson sees parallels between Donald Trump and Richard Nixon that should alarm allies. Like Nixon, Trump sees allies as freeloaders who must pay their way. Like Nixon, he sees the limits of American power and the importance of negotiating with adversaries.

But there is a crucial difference. Watergate destroyed Nixon. Meanwhile, Trump survived impeachment twice. As Trump himself noted: “He left. I do not leave.”

A second Trump presidency would likely reassess relationships with allies seen as not pulling their weight. That means foremost Europe. But it could also include Australia and certainly New Zealand.

We now face what Ferguson terms a new axis – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – actively supporting each other’s aggressive ambitions.

However, as Ferguson laid out, this is not a repeat of the Cold War, and that is mainly because modern technology has changed the game entirely.

The Cold War limited choices for the big powers: either nuclear Armageddon or proxy conflicts. In contrast, today’s confrontation is more complex. Cyber warfare, psychological operations and economic coercion blur the lines between war and peace.

China’s actions around Taiwan illustrate this perfectly. No shots have yet been fired, but China’s constant pressure through military exercises, cyber-attacks and economic threats make this a new form of war.

The west’s response to the new geopolitical threats hardly inspires confidence. Germany’s regular defence budget amounts to just 1.2 percent of GDP – comparable to Weimar-era defence spending levels when the Treaty of Versailles deliberately constrained German rearmament. Though Germany claims it will meet Nato’s 2 percent target this year, this is achieved only through a temporary special fund (Sondervermögen) and some creative accounting.
https://www.niallferguson.com/journalism

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 9:11am:

A second Trump presidency would likely reassess relationships with allies seen as not pulling their weight. That means foremost Europe. But it could also include Australia and certainly New Zealand. We now face what Ferguson terms a new axis – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – actively supporting each other’s aggressive ambitions.

There is only one contender - China.

NK is in effect a vassal state of China.

Russia is a threat in name only - NATO could end its ambition to get out of bed in the morning - except for its appeasement by the West which could be seen as a green light for China over Taiwan.

Iran? Every Sunni state in the region would give its treasure to Israel to end Iran's capacity to fire a popgun and nevermind the US weighing in.

Australia not paying enough? How much is enough? $400 billion committed? Or will the Trump Administration see that and raise it to one trillion?

NZ? ... Please.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 9:24am:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 9:11am: A second Trump presidency would likely reassess relationships with allies seen as not pulling their weight. That means foremost Europe. But it could also include Australia and certainly New Zealand. We now face what Ferguson terms a new axis – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – actively supporting each other’s aggressive ambitions. There is only one contender - China. NK is in effect a vassal state of China. Russia is a threat in name only - NATO could end its ambition to get out of bed in the morning - except for its appeasement by the West which could be seen as a green light for China over Taiwan. Iran? Every Sunni state in the region would give its treasure to Israel to end Iran's capacity to fire a popgun and nevermind the US weighing in. Australia not paying enough? How much is enough? $400 billion committed? Or will the Trump Administration see that and raise it to one trillion? NZ? ... Please.

Why it’s dangerously misguided to ignore threat of new axis

As the new axis relentlessly adds to its combined nuclear arsenal, western leaders seem more concerned by more conventional policy questions than the prospect of World War III.

To Ferguson, this is a dangerous misreading of priorities. Authoritarian regimes study western responses carefully. They coordinate more than we might realise. They share technology, intelligence and strategic insights.

And so, according to Ferguson, Putin’s invasion was not prompted by Nato’s expansion. Quite on the contrary, it was encouraged because of Nato’s apparent weaknesses, for example the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such signs of weakness convinced Russia that western resolve had crumbled. That same signal of weakness encouraged Hamas to attack Israel and likely shapes Chinese calculations about Taiwan.

When deterrence fails, war often follows. And so, the big question is whether the west still has the power and the will to create a credible threat against potential aggressors – and whether it can demonstrate this resolve early enough to the new axis.

https://www.niallferguson.com/journalism

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 9:43am:

And so, according to Ferguson, Putin’s invasion was not prompted by Nato’s expansion. Quite on the contrary, it was encouraged because of Nato’s apparent weaknesses, for example the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such signs of weakness convinced Russia that western resolve had crumbled. That same signal of weakness encouraged Hamas to attack Israel and likely shapes Chinese calculations about Taiwan.

The same miscalculation that emboldened Hitler to preemptively declare war on the US after Japan had done the same.

The US, with a military capacity equal to that of Portugal prior to WW2, ended just 6 years later with a military capacity larger than the entire world combined.

So, miscalculate away, Putin and Xi... Hopefully, you won't get to wander through the ashes of Beijing, Shanghai, Moscow and St Petersburg because 'history didn't warn you' such that you didn't see it coming.

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after Pearl Harbour.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 9:54am:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 9:43am: And so, according to Ferguson, Putin’s invasion was not prompted by Nato’s expansion. Quite on the contrary, it was encouraged because of Nato’s apparent weaknesses, for example the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such signs of weakness convinced Russia that western resolve had crumbled. That same signal of weakness encouraged Hamas to attack Israel and likely shapes Chinese calculations about Taiwan. The same miscalculation that emboldened Hitler to preemptively declare war on the US after Japan had done the same. The US, with a military capacity equal to that of Portugal prior to WW2, ended just 6 years later with a military capacity larger than the entire world combined. So, miscalculate away, Putin and Xi... Hopefully, you won't get to wander through the ashes of Beijing, Shanghai, Moscow and St Petersburg because 'history didn't warn you' such that you didn't see it coming. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after Pearl Harbour.

There has been a huge demographic and cultural shift in the West - US, Europe, Australia - since 1945.

Self-belief and resolve have largely vanished. NATO deterred nobody. The only war won by NATO was against a European country, Serbia.  Everything else - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - ended in slinking off.

Even WWII would have been a probable compromise with Hitler and Japan without Russia.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 10:15am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 9:54am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 9:43am: And so, according to Ferguson, Putin’s invasion was not prompted by Nato’s expansion. Quite on the contrary, it was encouraged because of Nato’s apparent weaknesses, for example the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such signs of weakness convinced Russia that western resolve had crumbled. That same signal of weakness encouraged Hamas to attack Israel and likely shapes Chinese calculations about Taiwan. The same miscalculation that emboldened Hitler to preemptively declare war on the US after Japan had done the same. The US, with a military capacity equal to that of Portugal prior to WW2, ended just 6 years later with a military capacity larger than the entire world combined. So, miscalculate away, Putin and Xi... Hopefully, you won't get to wander through the ashes of Beijing, Shanghai, Moscow and St Petersburg because 'history didn't warn you' such that you didn't see it coming. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after Pearl Harbour. There has been a huge demographic and cultural shift in the West - US, Europe, Australia - since 1945. Self-belief and resolve have largely vanished. NATO deterred nobody. The only war won by NATO was against a European country, Serbia.  Everything else - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - ended in slinking off. Even WWII would have been a probable compromise with Hitler and Japan without Russia.

Do you think Europe and the West were filled with resolve in the 1930s?

Churchill was spat on as a warmonger during that period. All of Europe was baying for peace at all costs and the US wasn't touching it... Roosevelt was even toying with the ideals of National Socialism.

In 1940, Denmark capitulated almost without firing a shot.

Can you imagine Europe not striking killer blows if Russia attempted an invasion of the Baltics or Poland?

Even Denmark might be a bit miffed.

I'd bet the Poles have wet dreams over doing to the Russians what the Russians did to them for 50 years last century.

I'd bet they can't wait for Russia to try it on.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 10:26am:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 10:15am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 9:54am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 9:43am: And so, according to Ferguson, Putin’s invasion was not prompted by Nato’s expansion. Quite on the contrary, it was encouraged because of Nato’s apparent weaknesses, for example the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such signs of weakness convinced Russia that western resolve had crumbled. That same signal of weakness encouraged Hamas to attack Israel and likely shapes Chinese calculations about Taiwan. The same miscalculation that emboldened Hitler to preemptively declare war on the US after Japan had done the same. The US, with a military capacity equal to that of Portugal prior to WW2, ended just 6 years later with a military capacity larger than the entire world combined. So, miscalculate away, Putin and Xi... Hopefully, you won't get to wander through the ashes of Beijing, Shanghai, Moscow and St Petersburg because 'history didn't warn you' such that you didn't see it coming. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" - attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after Pearl Harbour. There has been a huge demographic and cultural shift in the West - US, Europe, Australia - since 1945. Self-belief and resolve have largely vanished. NATO deterred nobody. The only war won by NATO was against a European country, Serbia.  Everything else - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - ended in slinking off. Even WWII would have been a probable compromise with Hitler and Japan without Russia. Do you think Europe and the West were filled with resolve in the 1930s? Churchill was spat on as a warmonger during that period. All of Europe was baying for peace at all costs and the US wasn't touching it... Roosevelt was even toying with the ideals of National Socialism. In 1940, Denmark capitulated almost without firing a shot. Can you imagine Europe not striking killer blows if Russia attempted an invasion of the Baltics or Poland? Even Denmark might be a bit miffed.

I think the West had much greater self belief 80 years ago than today, even though the madness of WWI was a crushing blow to it.

Denmark was a country of less than 4 million. Re-militarised Germany was over 70 million.
Even France, the main continental power, was easily overrun by Germany (again). Holland and Belgium weren't in a position to halt the Wermacht and Luftwaffe, either.

Britain did. Russia did. The US entered the European war only when it was pretty clear that Hitler had overreacted and was irreversibly burnt by the Russians.

So no, I don't think the West has as much self belief and resolve it did then, however small it may have been.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 10:40am:

I think the West had much greater self belief 80 years ago than today, even though the madness of WWI was a crushing blow to it. Britain did. Russia did. The US entered the European war only when it was pretty clear that Hitler had overreacted and was irreversibly burnt by the Russians.

You can't be serious.

Hitler retook the Rhineland by deception... All good with the Allies... Then a series of red lines crossed: the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Austria's annexation... All acceptable prices to pay for 'peace (at all costs) in our time'. Churchill's name having been traduced as a warmonger for warning what it all meant... Expressions of Western confidence and self-belief, you're thinking?

The US entered the war when Germany was barrelling towards the gates of Moscow, and only after Hitler had first declared war on the US.

Even Stalin was soon contemplating exile or his execution ordered by the Supreme Soviet as he hid out in his dacha.

German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 11:18am:

German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941.

German over-reach was obvious when it's Armies were defeated at the gates of Moscow.  They lacked  proper winter clothing to withstand the cold.  Their vehicles froze to the ground because of the mud.  They weren't going anywhere. All in 1941.  General Winter had defeated them, just as it had Napoleon over 150 years before and he had captured Moscow, something the Germans never did.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 11:18am: German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941. German over-reach was obvious when it's Armies were defeated at the gates of Moscow.  They lacked  proper winter clothing to withstand the cold.  Their vehicles froze to the ground because of the mud.  They weren't going anywhere. All in 1941.  General Winter had defeated them, just as it had Napoleon over 150 years before and he had captured Moscow, something the Germans never did.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

OK with Stalin's believing he'd be overthrown, then?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 11:18am: German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941. German over-reach was obvious when it's Armies were defeated at the gates of Moscow.

Was it? One defeat does an overreach make?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 11:18am:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 10:40am: I think the West had much greater self belief 80 years ago than today, even though the madness of WWI was a crushing blow to it. Britain did. Russia did. The US entered the European war only when it was pretty clear that Hitler had overreacted and was irreversibly burnt by the Russians. You can't be serious. Hitler retook the Rhineland by deception... All good with the Allies... Then a series of red lines crossed: the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Austria's annexation... All acceptable prices to pay for 'peace (at all costs) in our time'. Churchill's name having been traduced as a warmonger for warning what it all meant... Expressions of Western confidence and self-belief, you're thinking? The US entered the war when Germany was barrelling towards the gates of Moscow, and only after Hitler had first declared war on the US. Even Stalin was soon contemplating exile or his execution ordered by the Supreme Soviet as he hid out in his dacha. German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941.

US troops first landed in Europe in July 1943. Not in December 1941.

By then the Germans had been halted at Stalingrad, and were about to lose at Kursk. They made no furthef advances. The Allies have been bombing Germany for over a year.  The writing was on the ruins of Germany.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 2:55pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 11:18am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 10:40am: I think the West had much greater self belief 80 years ago than today, even though the madness of WWI was a crushing blow to it. Britain did. Russia did. The US entered the European war only when it was pretty clear that Hitler had overreacted and was irreversibly burnt by the Russians. You can't be serious. Hitler retook the Rhineland by deception... All good with the Allies... Then a series of red lines crossed: the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Austria's annexation... All acceptable prices to pay for 'peace (at all costs) in our time'. Churchill's name having been traduced as a warmonger for warning what it all meant... Expressions of Western confidence and self-belief, you're thinking? The US entered the war when Germany was barrelling towards the gates of Moscow, and only after Hitler had first declared war on the US. Even Stalin was soon contemplating exile or his execution ordered by the Supreme Soviet as he hid out in his dacha. German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941. US troops first landed in Europe in July 1943. Not in December 1941.

Did any Allied troops land in Europe before 1943?

Did US troops land in North Africa in 1942?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 3:13pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 2:55pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 11:18am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 10:40am: I think the West had much greater self belief 80 years ago than today, even though the madness of WWI was a crushing blow to it. Britain did. Russia did. The US entered the European war only when it was pretty clear that Hitler had overreacted and was irreversibly burnt by the Russians. You can't be serious. Hitler retook the Rhineland by deception... All good with the Allies... Then a series of red lines crossed: the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Austria's annexation... All acceptable prices to pay for 'peace (at all costs) in our time'. Churchill's name having been traduced as a warmonger for warning what it all meant... Expressions of Western confidence and self-belief, you're thinking? The US entered the war when Germany was barrelling towards the gates of Moscow, and only after Hitler had first declared war on the US. Even Stalin was soon contemplating exile or his execution ordered by the Supreme Soviet as he hid out in his dacha. German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941. US troops first landed in Europe in July 1943. Not in December 1941. Did any Allied troops land in Europe before 1943? Did US troops land in North Africa in 1942?

On November 8, 1942, American and British troops landed in French North Africa (Morocco and Algeria).  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 4:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 3:13pm: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 2:55pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 11:18am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 10:40am: I think the West had much greater self belief 80 years ago than today, even though the madness of WWI was a crushing blow to it. Britain did. Russia did. The US entered the European war only when it was pretty clear that Hitler had overreacted and was irreversibly burnt by the Russians. You can't be serious. Hitler retook the Rhineland by deception... All good with the Allies... Then a series of red lines crossed: the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Austria's annexation... All acceptable prices to pay for 'peace (at all costs) in our time'. Churchill's name having been traduced as a warmonger for warning what it all meant... Expressions of Western confidence and self-belief, you're thinking? The US entered the war when Germany was barrelling towards the gates of Moscow, and only after Hitler had first declared war on the US. Even Stalin was soon contemplating exile or his execution ordered by the Supreme Soviet as he hid out in his dacha. German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941. US troops first landed in Europe in July 1943. Not in December 1941. Did any Allied troops land in Europe before 1943? Did US troops land in North Africa in 1942? On November 8, 1942, American and British troops landed in French North Africa (Morocco and Algeria).  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Correct tsk, tsk, tsk!

So no Allied troops landed in Europe before 1943, then.

Did US troops begin arriving in Northern Ireland and the British mainland early in 1942?

Brits and Aussies were sent to Greece:


Quote:

The British landed in Greece during World War II on multiple occasions, including: March 7, 1941

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1125136.shtml#:~:text=In%20late%20September%201944%2C%20Scobie's,Force%20140%20landed%20soon%20afterwards.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 3:13pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 2:55pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 11:18am: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2024 at 10:40am: I think the West had much greater self belief 80 years ago than today, even though the madness of WWI was a crushing blow to it. Britain did. Russia did. The US entered the European war only when it was pretty clear that Hitler had overreacted and was irreversibly burnt by the Russians. You can't be serious. Hitler retook the Rhineland by deception... All good with the Allies... Then a series of red lines crossed: the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Austria's annexation... All acceptable prices to pay for 'peace (at all costs) in our time'. Churchill's name having been traduced as a warmonger for warning what it all meant... Expressions of Western confidence and self-belief, you're thinking? The US entered the war when Germany was barrelling towards the gates of Moscow, and only after Hitler had first declared war on the US. Even Stalin was soon contemplating exile or his execution ordered by the Supreme Soviet as he hid out in his dacha. German overreach wasn't clear until the winter of 42-43, not in December 1941. US troops first landed in Europe in July 1943. Not in December 1941. Did any Allied troops land in Europe before 1943? Did US troops land in North Africa in 1942?

I thought we were making distinctions between the US and Britain and the Russians.

Until 1943 Britain and Russia were the only European powers that that halted German advances, with significant US materiall help but no troops until mid-43 - by which time German defeat was conceivable by all sides.

To my mind the Germans would have folded much sooner but for the fanaticism of the Nazi ideology. And the Russians wouldn't have stopped at Berlin if there had been no US troops in Europe.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 5:21pm:

To my mind the Germans would have folded much sooner but for the fanaticism of the Nazi ideology. And the Russians wouldn't have stopped at Berlin if there had been no US troops in Europe.

Not much doubt about that. The idea that a soldier of Rommel's stature would have countenanced commanding thousands of children as young as 12 (even younger in some cases), dressed by the SS as soldiers and ordered to halt the Allied advance through German cities, towns and villages with their lives.

The US separated them from the men as prisoners of war into 'baby camps' or 'baby cages' and tried to deprogram them from Nazi ideology. It was not very successful.

Stalin would have stopped at Calais without the US and may have allowed British troops to return home.

Unlike Nixon, who conceded the 1960 election 'for the sake of the presidency and the good of the country', despite evidence that the Kennedy clan had rigged it in some states, Trump refused to concede the 2016 election results.

Nixon who, when finally pressed by David Frost about his involvement in Watergate said, 'I let down my friends. I let down the country. I let down our system of government and the dreams of all those who ought to get into government but people think it's all too corrupt and the rest... And I have to carry that burden with me for the rest of my life'...

The only burden Trump will ever admit to having to carry is his gut.