On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:03:38 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> He's making noises like Stalin did about anyone who disagrees with
> him.
>
> The question may then be, have the Russians as a whole learned
> /anything/ from the past?
>
That is a question that naturally occurs at a time like this.

But I don't know how to answer it.

Putin was, after all, Boris Yeltsin's handpicked successor.
In the beginning, he appeared to be rational and pro-Western
and democratic.

By the time he let his true colors show, he also rigged the
elections, using contrived laws to make it impossible for
pro-Western candidates to run against him, like Gary
Kasparov.

So even if the average Russian person has learned from
Russia's tragic history, what is not clear is if the Russian
electorate had ever been in a position to exert control over
Russia's course, and prevent it from heading to disaster.

Instead, I tend to condemn, for failing to learn from the past,
those who have the power to make a difference, but don't. Like
the leaders of the U.S. and Europe, who did not make Ukraine
a full member of NATO immediatelly after the Russian seizure
of Crimea, to prevent any further attacks on Ukraine from taking
place.

And who are not now making Georgia and Finland members of
NATO, quickly, before Putin can mobilize troops to invade them,
making it too late for them as it is for Ukraine.

Obviously, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia's new
democracy would be fragile. And, previously, the democracy
that followed the overthrow of the Tsar fell to the Bolsheviks.

So the United States should have engaged with Russia, and
given it the economic aid it needed, in return for it giving up
its nuclear weapons capability, so that if anything happened
to Russian democracy, there would be no menace to world peace.

The problem with that, though, is that a non-nuclear Russia would
not be able to defend itself on equal terms against China,
which has claims to some of its territory.

During the Clinton administration, a TIME magazine article
claimed that China had only one nuclear submarine, and it was
in dock for repairs. So there was a perfect opportunity for
a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China, followed by regime change.

Then we really would have had the end of history. No threat
of Russia invading Ukraine, no threat of China invading Taiwan.

All the world would be peaceful and orderly, with all the
world's nations following the leadership of the United
States and Western Europe.

That is the way the world should be. Despite the fact that
the West isn't perfect. Look at Leopold II in the Congo, for
example. But with the major threats to an orderly world
in which human rights and even property rights are respected
eliminated, we would have a secure foundation on which to
make continuous technological progress, allowing an improvement
in worldwide living standards.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:ff257ec8-9792-4437-a796-93e49e8e1bcen@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:03:38 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>
>> He's making noises like Stalin did about anyone who disagrees
>> with him.
>>
>> The question may then be, have the Russians as a whole learned
>> /anything/ from the past?
>>
> That is a question that naturally occurs at a time like this.
>
> But I don't know how to answer it.
>
> Putin was, after all, Boris Yeltsin's handpicked successor.
> In the beginning, he appeared to be rational and pro-Western
> and democratic.
>
> By the time he let his true colors show, he also rigged the
> elections, using contrived laws to make it impossible for
> pro-Western candidates to run against him, like Gary
> Kasparov.
>
> So even if the average Russian person has learned from
> Russia's tragic history, what is not clear is if the Russian
> electorate had ever been in a position to exert control over
> Russia's course, and prevent it from heading to disaster.

Russia has a tradition of using . . . other means to get rid of bad
leadership.
>
> Instead, I tend to condemn, for failing to learn from the past,
> those who have the power to make a difference, but don't. Like
> the leaders of the U.S. and Europe, who did not make Ukraine
> a full member of NATO immediatelly after the Russian seizure
> of Crimea, to prevent any further attacks on Ukraine from taking
> place.

There you go again, with your violent, insane fanties about
*forcing* Ukraine into NATO in violation of NATOs own procure for
doing so. I supposed after we nuke Germany or France, the rest will
fall into line.

Seriously, dude, take your meds.
>
> And who are not now making Georgia and Finland members of
> NATO, quickly, before Putin can mobilize troops to invade them,
> making it too late for them as it is for Ukraine.

Has either actually asked to join? Or is this another violent,
insane featasy?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:31:10 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in

> > And who are not now making Georgia and Finland members of
> > NATO, quickly, before Putin can mobilize troops to invade them,
> > making it too late for them as it is for Ukraine.

> Has either actually asked to join? Or is this another violent,
> insane featasy?

The leadership of Finland has indeed said that it would sort
of like to join NATO, but it won't formally ask unless NATO
agrees to start protecting it immediately instead of only doing
so after a lengthy process is completed.

Because Putin could invade before that gets finished.

So the President of Finland is my kind of guy - he understands
clearly what the issue is, and how to deal with it.

The idea is NOT to force anyone into NATO who doesn't want
to be there, the idea is that if they do want the ironclad rock-solid
protection against a Russian invasion that NATO membership
offers - they'll get it immediately, when they need it, instead of
being told *after* Russia invades them, oh, sorry, we can't
start a nuclear World War III like the way it is with Ukraine.

How can something as simple and obvious as this be so hard
to understand?

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:13855408-c6ee-4ce9-b32f-a02b7a9171a4n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 2:31:10 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>
>> > And who are not now making Georgia and Finland members of
>> > NATO, quickly, before Putin can mobilize troops to invade
>> > them, making it too late for them as it is for Ukraine.
>
>> Has either actually asked to join? Or is this another violent,
>> insane featasy?
>
> The leadership of Finland has indeed said that it would sort
> of like to join NATO, but it won't formally ask unless NATO
> agrees to start protecting it immediately instead of only doing
> so after a lengthy process is completed.

Which is to say, to violate its own charter.

Yeah, good luck with that.
>
> Because Putin could invade before that gets finished.
>
> So the President of Finland is my kind of guy - he understands
> clearly what the issue is, and how to deal with it.

The way to deal with it is to let Russian expend itself in Ukraine,
and make a better deal with is replacement.
>
> The idea is NOT to force anyone into NATO who doesn't want
> to be there, the idea is that if they do want the ironclad
> rock-solid protection against a Russian invasion that NATO
> membership offers - they'll get it immediately, when they need
> it, instead of being told *after* Russia invades them, oh,
> sorry, we can't start a nuclear World War III like the way it is
> with Ukraine.
>
> How can something as simple and obvious as this be so hard
> to understand?
>
It has been explained to you multiple times that there is a process
for joining NATO. It is not optional. The charter requires it, and
*all* members must be involved. You ignore this, and demand that US
exert dictatorial powers that would literally be acts of war
against its *allies*.

This is because you are deranged and stupid, and that's why you're
nothing more than a joke.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:13855408-c6ee-4ce9...@googlegroups.com:

> > The idea is NOT to force anyone into NATO who doesn't want
> > to be there, the idea is that if they do want the ironclad
> > rock-solid protection against a Russian invasion that NATO
> > membership offers - they'll get it immediately, when they need
> > it, instead of being told *after* Russia invades them, oh,
> > sorry, we can't start a nuclear World War III like the way it is
> > with Ukraine.

> > How can something as simple and obvious as this be so hard
> > to understand?

> It has been explained to you multiple times that there is a process
> for joining NATO. It is not optional. The charter requires it, and
> *all* members must be involved. You ignore this, and demand that US
> exert dictatorial powers that would literally be acts of war
> against its *allies*.

Where am I saying that the U.S. should force any country to do anything
it doesn't want to, other than Russia?

The U.S. can extend _its_ military protection bilaterally to any country
it wants to. This isn't dictating to NATO.

NATO should definitely consider streamlining or modifying its procedures
in the current situation, since obviously the time between when a country
expresses an interest in joining NATO and when Russia invades it can be
quite short, as events in Ukraine have demonstrated.

John Savard

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> The way to deal with it is to let Russian expend itself in Ukraine,
> and make a better deal with is replacement.

One or more innocent people have died in Ukraine.

This is therefore a failure. A win is when no one dies in any
democratic country due to enemy action.

A win could have been obtained if the United States had troops
protecting Ukraine in cooperation with its government, on all its borders.
This would have given Ukraine a level of protection equivalent to that
enjoyed by America's NATO allies while the process for admitting
Ukraine to NATO ran its course.

In that case, _nothing would have happened_, just as Russia isn't
invading Poland at the moment.

Again.

John Savard

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> The way to deal with it is to let Russian expend itself in Ukraine,
>> and make a better deal with is replacement.
>
>One or more innocent people have died in Ukraine.
>
>This is therefore a failure. A win is when no one dies in any
>democratic country due to enemy action.
>
>A win could have been obtained if the United States had troops
>protecting Ukraine in cooperation with its government, on all its borders.
>This would have given Ukraine a level of protection equivalent to that
>enjoyed by America's NATO allies while the process for admitting
>Ukraine to NATO ran its course.
>
>In that case, _nothing would have happened_, just as Russia isn't
>invading Poland at the moment.
>
>Again.

You are conflating "a win" with "a miracle".

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> You are conflating "a win" with "a miracle".

Absolutely no one died from any Soviet invasions of West Germany
during the Cold War, so I'm not asking for anything requiring a
miracle.

John Savard

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 20:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> You are conflating "a win" with "a miracle".
>
>Absolutely no one died from any Soviet invasions of West Germany
>during the Cold War, so I'm not asking for anything requiring a
>miracle.

So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:f21aa544-edf5-4e9c-9493-3151b40d8530n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> The way to deal with it is to let Russian expend itself in
>> Ukraine, and make a better deal with is replacement.
>
> One or more innocent people have died in Ukraine.
>
> This is therefore a failure. A win is when no one dies in any
> democratic country due to enemy action.

You didn't say "the way to win." You said "the way to deal with it,"
specifically, the way for Finland to deal with it.

Try to pay attention, at least to what *you* post.

Dumbass.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:oeea3h9tk9ks5jub6igv7q2ecrjin5hc95@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>>Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>
>>> The way to deal with it is to let Russian expend itself in
>>> Ukraine, and make a better deal with is replacement.
>>
>>One or more innocent people have died in Ukraine.
>>
>>This is therefore a failure. A win is when no one dies in any
>>democratic country due to enemy action.
>>
>>A win could have been obtained if the United States had troops
>>protecting Ukraine in cooperation with its government, on all
>>its borders. This would have given Ukraine a level of protection
>>equivalent to that enjoyed by America's NATO allies while the
>>process for admitting Ukraine to NATO ran its course.
>>
>>In that case, _nothing would have happened_, just as Russia
>>isn't invading Poland at the moment.
>>
>>Again.
>
> You are conflating "a win" with "a miracle".
>
He's conflating reality with his insane fantasies, too.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:13855408-c6ee-4ce9...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> > The idea is NOT to force anyone into NATO who doesn't want
>> > to be there, the idea is that if they do want the ironclad
>> > rock-solid protection against a Russian invasion that NATO
>> > membership offers - they'll get it immediately, when they need
>> > it, instead of being told *after* Russia invades them, oh,
>> > sorry, we can't start a nuclear World War III like the way it is
>> > with Ukraine.
>
>> > How can something as simple and obvious as this be so hard
>> > to understand?
>
>> It has been explained to you multiple times that there is a process
>> for joining NATO. It is not optional. The charter requires it, and
>> *all* members must be involved. You ignore this, and demand that US
>> exert dictatorial powers that would literally be acts of war
>> against its *allies*.
>
> Where am I saying that the U.S. should force any country to do anything
> it doesn't want to, other than Russia?
>
> The U.S. can extend _its_ military protection bilaterally to any country
> it wants to. This isn't dictating to NATO.

And because transporter technology has finally been perfected in
2003, and the US has built up the 3.1415th transport batallion
using that technology in the 2010s, it is able to put troops and
supplies on the ground everywhere in the world, without needing
nearby bases, ports or overflight rights.

Regarding the transporter technology, I of course cannot reveal my
sources, but I read something like that on the Internet somewhere,
so it is of course true.

Now, regarding the secret lair of giant squirrels at the center
of the Earth, we now know that"%$WRRWBKsüp9u4CARRIER LOST

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 1:40:04 PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> It is not surprising that an author of mil-SF would be an ardent lover of liberty and a patriotic American.
> Thus, when the Soviet Union collapsed, and Russia became a democracy under Boris Yeltsin, for David Weber to show his admiration for this great man by having things named for Yeltsin in his Honor Harrington stories... only makes sense.
>
> And now, as readers familiar with David Weber's Honor Harrington _oeuvre_ are no doubt expecting, for the oopsie.
> One part of the backstory for Honor Harrington's world is that the Earth underwent a limited, but still disastrous, nuclear exchange called the Final War.
> This led to nuclear detonations in several American cities, including Chicago, and thus to a decline in the power of the United States on Earth.
> The cause of this war was the aggressive designs of the dictatorial ruler of the Ukraine, which brought him into conflict both with the United States and with a Russia that was also on the side of freedom.
> Current events, of course, are not of the character that makes Russia look good, and the Ukraine look bad.
> So?
> Lots of science-fiction stories have been made obsolete by events which took place after they were written. This is a natural hazard of writing about the future.
> I cannot really in good conscience urge David Weber to take his Honor Harrington series and retcon it as a show of support for the struggle of the Ukrainian people.
> Instead, one could view this as a lesson in being overly gratuitous in including references to contemporary politics in science fiction about the future.
>
> John Savard
Continuing to think about this, I am reminded of a meme: "Do you want a thoroughly nationalist state that prioritises defense above all else? Because that's how you get such a state."

For me the real oddity was long ago, reading Randall Garrett's Lord D'Arcy stories, and finding out that the big bad continental power was... Poland. I can see why it sort of makes sense, but from this timeline it just looks odd.

In article <e9f46db4-060e-40a5-9309-35b96acc2dd2n@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>
>For me the real oddity was long ago, reading Randall Garrett's Lord D'Arcy
>stories, and finding out that the big bad continental power was... Poland. I
>can see why it sort of makes sense, but from this timeline it just looks odd.

Polish-Lithuana was, uh, an interesting state. I used to wonder why it
tolerated institutions that produced political paralysis clearly not in
the interest of long term survival but I no longer do.

In some other trouser leg of time, the Polish-Ottoman wars went very, very
badly for the Poles and the Turks managed to reach the Baltic.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:08:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Excessive requirements for reparations imposed on Germany at the
>end of WWI was a major contributor to WWII.
>
>I have zero doubt that the US will, if it can, excatly duplicate
>this genocidal mistake.
>
Point 1: reparations were pretty much a component of EVERY peace
treaty between the time of Napoleon and 1914-18 and when you compare
what was assessed the loser in 19th century wars what was imposed at
Versailles was not at all out of the norm. Sure it was couched in
terms of national self-determination etc but if you compare
Brest-Litovsky 1918, the treaties that ended the Franco-Prussian War
and the Crimean war (and a couple more in that era) the Versailles
really WEREN'T outside the normal range.

Point 2: when you say 'genocidal' what exactly do you mean? Versailles
1919 has been called many things but I've never heard it called
genocidal before...

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:04:06 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Very true - and is there any doubt at all that NATO would be in
>> there with bells if Putin didn't have nukes and Ukraine didn't?
>
>Quite a bit of doubt, actually, since many NATO members are notable
>for their cowardice and incompetent leadership.

Well there is that...
>> Fact is there were western promises made to Ukraine when she
>> gave up her nukes - to what extent have these been honored?
>>
>IIRC, Russia made those promised as well.
>
Correct - how's your supply of $3 bills?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:26:32 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> Quite a bit of doubt, actually, since many NATO members are notable
>> for their cowardice and incompetent leadership.
>
>Says the coward hiding behind is killfile.

Actually I myself have a killfile though one does have to be pretty
obnoxious to get into it and unlike some I do NOT (normally) mention
it.

On 2022-03-19 2:29 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:26:32 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> Quite a bit of doubt, actually, since many NATO members are notable
>>> for their cowardice and incompetent leadership.
>>
>> Says the coward hiding behind is killfile.
>
> Actually I myself have a killfile though one does have to be pretty
> obnoxious to get into it and unlike some I do NOT (normally) mention
> it.

The point is that you don't go out of your way to make remarks to or
about people in your killfile...

....or do you?

:-)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 00:43:56 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 20:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> You are conflating "a win" with "a miracle".
>>
>>Absolutely no one died from any Soviet invasions of West Germany
>>during the Cold War, so I'm not asking for anything requiring a
>>miracle.
>
>So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
>that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
>somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.

Pretty much the ONLY incident in science fiction I know of (gotta be
on topic at least a little) was the scene in Asimov's Foundation and
Empire (or was it Second Foundation?) where our heroes meet the former
emperor of Kalgan after he has been mentally adjusted by The Mule.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:33:36 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Which WAS what Wisconsin Joe was alleging back in the day.
>
>"Tail-gunner Joe", if you please.

If you please - in any case you know who I'm discussingn

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:40:51 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>What would you call it if the blackmail was of a politician being told
>>that those pictures of him and the 'honey trap' in his last trip to
>>Moscow would be published? Not everybody is as forthright as that
>>Canadian diplomat in the 1950s who when so confronted asked to order
>>more copies to show his buddies back home.
>
>This is the same logic that says that homosexuality should be outlawed
>because homosexuals present a security risk because they can be
>blakmailed because homosexuality is illegal.

The incident referred to was in fact rather flamboyantly heterosexual.

My understanding (at least concerning Canada) is that foreign service
officers today are ONLY in trouble today if they are "in the closet"
since the official view is that they're vulnerable to foreign
blackmail though if they're "out" that's OK since blackmail is no
longer a risk

It's the 'vulnerable to foreign blackmail' part that is considered
problematic not their sexuality.

That's now - obviously things were different 60 years ago.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:14:01 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>What would you call it if the blackmail was of a politician being told
>>that those pictures of him and the 'honey trap' in his last trip to
>>Moscow would be published? Not everybody is as forthright as that
>>Canadian diplomat in the 1950s who when so confronted asked to order
>>more copies to show his buddies back home.
>
>That's the /only/ way to handle blackmail. Especially State-sponsored
>blackmail, because the guy blackmailing you is only a messenger.

Well I did say 'honey trap' and Moscow so you can reasonably assume it
was State-Sponsored. (Can't remember whether it was GRU or KGB - I
thought the former but could be wrong)

On Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 21:27:34 UTC, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:08:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Excessive requirements for reparations imposed on Germany at the
> >end of WWI was a major contributor to WWII.
> >
> >I have zero doubt that the US will, if it can, excatly duplicate
> >this genocidal mistake.
> >
> Point 1: reparations were pretty much a component of EVERY peace
> treaty between the time of Napoleon and 1914-18 and when you compare
> what was assessed the loser in 19th century wars what was imposed at
> Versailles was not at all out of the norm. Sure it was couched in
> terms of national self-determination etc but if you compare
> Brest-Litovsky 1918, the treaties that ended the Franco-Prussian War
> and the Crimean war (and a couple more in that era) the Versailles
> really WEREN'T outside the normal range.
>
> Point 2: when you say 'genocidal' what exactly do you mean? Versailles
> 1919 has been called many things but I've never heard it called
> genocidal before...

Don't try to make sense of it.

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 5:27:34 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:08:16 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Excessive requirements for reparations imposed on Germany at the
> >end of WWI was a major contributor to WWII.
> >
> >I have zero doubt that the US will, if it can, excatly duplicate
> >this genocidal mistake.
> >
> Point 1: reparations were pretty much a component of EVERY peace
> treaty between the time of Napoleon and 1914-18 and when you compare
> what was assessed the loser in 19th century wars what was imposed at
> Versailles was not at all out of the norm. Sure it was couched in
> terms of national self-determination etc but if you compare
> Brest-Litovsky 1918, the treaties that ended the Franco-Prussian War

Not sure of the others, but reparations were imposed on France for the Franco-Prussian war. As opposed to WWI, where the Germans had devastated much of France and Belgium, French troops did no damage to Germany in 1870 (I think they may have advanced a few hundred yards at some points). Hence you would expect the 1918 reparations to be comparatively heavy, which they were.

As it happens the French put real effort into it and paid off their 1870 reparations without too much suffering, leading some Germans to comment that the reparations hadn't been high enough.

People in high places should watch their words carefully.

Note that Bismark thought the 1870 treaties too tough, and opposed the annexation of (parts of ) Alsace and Lorraine.

> and the Crimean war (and a couple more in that era)

Russia had to return Moldava, and the Black sea was demilitarized, a blow to Russian power in the area. No financial reparations were required.

the Versailles
> really WEREN'T outside the normal range.

Compared to Brest-Litovsk, no. But it was still a terrible set of treaties.

William Hyde

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 3:35:46 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:33:36 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Which WAS what Wisconsin Joe was alleging back in the day.
> >
> >"Tail-gunner Joe", if you please.
>
> If you please - in any case you know who I'm discussingn

Um, maybe Mr. Stemper lives in Wisconsin, and that's why
he would have preferred you to have used another cognomen.

Let Wisconsin be known for its dairy products once again.

John Savard