Anglo-American 'Special Relationship'.

[Christo]

I foresee a second Burning of Washington in the making - the remaining Trump clan (two interns courageously led by Stephen Miller) fleeing to Brookeville, Maryland, restoring it once again as the United States Capital:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington 

[Christo]

It was a big mistake for the PM to arrange a full State visit - can't see that happening now. There would be too many demonstrations.

O, but he will be very happy to see these "big, big crowds, really BIG" all coming out in admiration for his genius. 

[Que]

[The new erato]

Looking in all respects as the Putian agent he may in fact be.

[vandermolen]

Yes, no more 'Special Relationship' if one ever existed.

[Gurn Blanston]

Let me tell all you Brits something which is merely a repetition of something you likely already know: every single word that comes out of that man's mouth is a lie. I know The Mail lies a lot anyway, so you have pre-filtered it for that, but if he actually spoke to them, and that's what he said there in the headlines? It's a fucking lie, he said nothing of the sort to Teresa May except in some fantasy wet dream world he occupied during his sleep last night. BoJo indeed...

[drogulus]

Yes, no more 'Special Relationship' if one ever existed.

     Many American feel a deep kinship with Brits that goes beyond present circumstances.

     Trump makes claims about European NATO expenditures being owed to the U.S., a bizarre notion, but note he can't be appeased by increases in those expenditures, and his attempts to destroy the alliance actually run contrary to the idea that he has a practical goal at all. In this he is acting exactly as he does on policy generally, as each issue is used for the purpose of exacerbating divisions and not at all for arriving at a consensus on any of them.

[vandermolen]

     Many American feel a deep kinship with Brits that goes beyond present circumstances.

   

Nice to hear - thanks.

[Florestan]

    Trump makes claims about European NATO expenditures being owed to the U.S., a bizarre notion

Bizarre???

Who saved Western Europe from Hitler? The USA. (any notion that the USSR could have done it alone is insane; leaving aside they could not have done it alone militarily, if the USSR had had their way the regime they would have imposed on WE countries would not have been any better than the Nazis, not even for the Jews).

Who rebuilt the economy of the WE countries from scratch, starting with Germany and Italy? The USA through the Marshall Plan.

Who contained the USSR threatening of, and expansion into, WE countries? The USA through NATO (any notion that the Red Army would not have victoriously marched as far as Lisbon absent the USA firmly establishing a red line more or less west of Vienna --- Prague is actually west of Vienna --- is idiotic).

So yes, in this respect Trump is absolutely right: Western Europe has a human, moral and material debt to the USA --- and simply spending 2% of their GDP on NATO is actually not even the beginning of repayment.

[vandermolen]

Bizarre???

Who saved Western Europe from Hitler? The USA. (any notion that the USSR could have done it alone is insane; leaving aside they could not have done it alone militarily, if the USSR had had their way the regime they would have imposed on WE countries would not have been any better than the Nazis, not even for the Jews).

Who rebuilt the economy of the WE countries from scratch, starting with Germany and Italy? The USA through the Marshall Plan.

Who contained the USSR threatening of, and expansion into, WE countries? The USA through NATO (any notion that the Red Army would not have victoriously marched as far as Lisbon absent the USA firmly establishing a red line more or less west of Vienna --- Prague is actually west of Vienna --- is idiotic).

So yes, in this respect Trump is absolutely right: Western Europe has a human, moral and material debt to the USA --- and simply spending 2% of their GDP on NATO is actually not even the beginning of repayment.

Agree with you about the Marshall Plan and the debt to the USA but don't agree that the Jews would not have been better off under a soviet regime. Stalin was an anti-Semite but there was no plan of mass extermination as far as I can see. There were leading Jewish communists but not Nazis of course. Also I'm not sure that Stalin would have pushed further west although he did say (at Yalta I think) 'Tsar Alexander got to Paris' when congratulated by one of the western allies on the achievement of the Red Army! Also, Finland, who had assisted the Germans in invading Russia, were not occupied by Stalin and nor was Greece which had a strong communist presence. My own view is that Stalin was only really interested in countries with a border with the USSR. I agree of course that one form of totalitarian tyranny was replaced by another in these countries and about the western debt to the USA and USSR at this time. Obviously there are many different views on Stalin's motives here. Also, of course the USA remained neutral until attacked by the Japanese and then Hitler declared war on the USA. The USSR remained allies of Hitler until attacked. Without wishing to overstate Britains's contribution it was the only country to fight against the Nazis from September 1939 until 1945 along with their Dominion allies.

[Florestan]

Agree with you about the Marshall Plan and the debt to the USA but don't agree that the Jews would not have been better off under a soviet regime. Stalin was an anti-Semite but there was no plan of mass extermination as far as I can see. There were leading Jewish communists but not Nazis of course.

Fair enough.

Finland, who had assisted the Germans in invading Russia, were not occupied by Stalin

Finland is a special case in that they are the only country that defeated the Red Army in one war and succesfully resisted it in another. A tough nut to crack and Stalin got his lesson.

and nor was Greece which had a strong communist presence.

Greece was actually exchanged for Romania by Churchill and Stalin who agreed on 90% Western influence in Greece against 90% Soviet influence in Romania --- which in practice meant 100% in both cases. An immoral but completely understandable bargain: Greece was strategically much more important than Romania. Also, the communists were crushed in a bloody civil war.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement

My own view is that Stalin was only really interested in countries with a border with the USSR.

Hungary or Czechoslovakia had only very tiny borders with USSR and Yugoslavia and Bulgaria had none.

Stalin was actually interested in whatever he could grab without much trouble.

[Florestan]

Without wishing to overstate Britains's contribution it was the only country to fight against the Nazis from September 1939 until 1945 along with their Dominion allies.

The Yugoslavian and Greek partisans deserve to be mentioned too in this respect.

[vandermolen]

Fair enough.

Finland is a special case in that they are the only country that defeated the Red Army in one war and succesfully resisted it in another. A tough nut to crack and Stalin got his lesson.

Greece was actually exchanged for Romania by Churchill and Stalin who agreed on 90% Western influence in Greece against 90% Soviet influence in Romania --- which in practice meant 100% in both cases. An immoral but completely understandable bargain: Greece was strategically much more important than Romania. Also, the communists were crushed in a bloody civil war.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement

Hungary or Czechoslovakia had only very tiny borders with USSR.

Stalin was actually interested in whatever he could grab without much trouble.

I do agree about Finland being a special case. My understanding was that Czechoslovakia went communist in 1948 following an internal communist coup, although I suspect the soviets played their part ('suicide' of Jan Masaryk for example). I take your point about Churchill and Greece/Romania - no excuse for him dividing up British and Soviet 'interests' with a pencil at Yalta.

[vandermolen]

The Yugoslavian and Greek partisans deserve to be mentioned too in this respect.

Of course, not to mention French/Polish/Dutch/Czech/Danish resistance etc.

[Christo]

Bizarre???

Agree with everything Jeffrey wrote, including the Marshall aide and indebtedness of Western Europe - not only moral, but also in many other respects.

Yet that doesn't make Trump - who has no clue about all this - less bizarre. NATO is a treaty, not an intergovernmental organization like the EU. There's no contribution, there are only commitments being made - as indeed the 29 members did again, last week. European military spending is actually higher than the American. And Eurooea money is often spent in the American military industry - which has always been one of the main beneficials from NATO. That the US invest more of their GNP in the military has more to do with a) the interests of this military complex and b) the unjustified wars it choose to fight against Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (the latter with some European support), So far, NATO did perhaps serve American interests more than European. Though I agree NATO is absolutely important in areas like the Baltics, the Balkans and the Aegean.

[Que]

Countries never act out of altruistic motives, I'm afraid... 

Britain took the lead in WWII because German domination was a direct thread to its interest as a major global and European power. But it looked the other way when Germany violated the Versailles Treaties by rearming, and again when Germany overtook Austria, and sacrificed the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia in Munich.

The US, as mentioned, looked the other way untill it was attacked.
Stalin knew Hitler was a thread but struck a deal to buy time by carving up Poland.

The post war Marshall aid that was so benificial to Western European countries, was part of the US policy to resist Soviet domination in Europe - for its own benefit. Did British resistance and US intervention and subsequent support save Europe and Western democracy? Yes of course it did. But both the US and the UK acted to safeguard their own empires, their gobal power.
Freedom in Europe, including the later expansion of NATO and the EU to Eastern Europe, is "just" a byproduct of a global powerstrugle.

As post war history has demonstrated, the US and other Western powers had no problem whatsoever to undermine democracy in certain countries and violate the rule of (international) law when it suited them.

Of course nobody told that to the soldiers dying in the battle field of WW II. They died for freedom and democracy,  and my personal gratitude goes out to them instead of the politicians that send them - and contributed to the mess in the first place.

Q

[Florestan]

My understanding was that Czechoslovakia went communist in 1948 following an internal communist coup, although I suspect the soviets played their part

Of course they did, just like in Romania where the (in)famous Andrey Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky (nicknamed Jaguaryevich  ) pounded the table in front of King Michael and forced him to dismiss the prime-minister in order to install a puppet of the Soviets (March 6, 1945). After 2 years of hopeless resistance (the King went so far as to declare strike, refusing to sign into law the governmental decrees and the legislation passed by the Parliament resulted from the 17 November, 1946 rigged elections) he was forced to abdicate at the point of a gun and Romania went fully communist (December 30, 1947).

[zamyrabyrd]

So yes, in this respect Trump is absolutely right: Western Europe has a human, moral and material debt to the USA --- and simply spending 2% of their GDP on NATO is actually not even the beginning of repayment.

I usually stay away from this thread, the other is too exhausting.
However, sure, all of Europe would have been divided into who was speaking German and who, Russian.
(My Romanian informant tells me that Russian was a favored language to learn in the 60's or so.)
Instead, in the near future Europeans will be speaking Arabic, or at least that will become an official language in quite a few countries.

[Florestan]

European military spending is actually higher than the American.

False. As per 2017:



US expenditures: 685,957 million US $

All European countries together: 233,081 million US $, i.e. three times less.

[Florestan]

Countries never act out of altruistic motives, I'm afraid... 

Britain took the lead in WWII because German domination was a direct thread to its interest as a major global and European power. But it looked the other way when Germany violated the Versailles Treaties by rearming, and again when Germany overtook Austria, and sacrificed the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia in Munich.

The US, as mentioned, looked the other way untill it was attacked.
Stalin knew Hitler was a thread but struck a deal to buy time by carving up Poland.

The post war Marshall aid that was so benificial to Western European countries, was part of the US policy to resist Soviet domination in Europe - for its own benefit. Did British resistance and US intervention and subsequent support save Europe and Western democracy? Yes of course it did. But both the US and the UK acted to safeguard their own empires, their gobal power.
Freedom in Europe, including the later expansion of NATO and the EU to Eastern Europe, is "just" a byproduct of a global powerstrugle.

As post war history has demonstrated, the US and other Western powers had no problem whatsoever to undermine democracy in certain countries and violate the rule of (international) law when it suited them.

Of course nobody told that to the soldiers dying in the battle field of WW II. They died for freedom and democracy,  and my personal gratitude goes out to them instead of the politicians that send them - and contributed to the mess in the first place.

Q

Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I wrote. I focused on actions, you focused on the motives behind them.