Yes, but for the wrong reasons. Or the treaty may have been written in the context of an Allied defeat. You don't seem to account for that very possible outcome.
I don't know why you would think that. And how long is "a while?". Keep in mind that Hitler didn't invent the idea of expansion to the East. He just happened to be the one who tried to force it. German nationalists were generally supportive of it, because they favored unifying ethnic Germans (who were spread all over Europe) into a unified German Reich.
Did it extend the war? I'm not sure how that could be the case unless we're talking about an Allied defeat.
And you are correct that the war was a factor in the Russian Revolution, but Russia's problems were deeper than the war. Had it ended sooner, those problems wouldn't have gone away.
The occupations of Germany and Japan were different for two reasons. First, the underlying wars were different. We inflicted complete and utter destruction on the people both physically and psychologically. They were totally broken as human beings. Second, we had a massive occupation force that criminalized the underlying ideology under penalty of being summarily shot and destroyed all symbols of that ideology. That's why those nations folded and became manageable. We've never done anyone even close to that in the Middle East or really anywhere else.
You do know that's only possible with a naval presence that protects shipping routes, right? We just take it for granted, but the US Navy (and previously the Royal Navy) is the main reason we don't have pirates attacking and robbing trade vessels all over the oceans.
I'm not talking about understanding the nations. I'm talking about understanding how a nation's leaders perceive the United States and its presence in various areas. Those are separate issues.
So where should we start? And what's the contingency plan if the areas we abandon turn out not to be the peace-loving choirboys we assumed they were? Keep in mind that the places where we have a military presence are in regions where there has been trouble. We didn't go there for no reason.
So how often do you think we should patrol those areas?
What's wrong with putting missile defense in Eastern Europe?
With the US becoming a major producer of oil, we'll have less need to be involved in the Middle East. However, we can't protect our citizens from Islamic terrorism if we can't go where they are. And again, their religion dictates that they not leave us alone, so conflict between the Islamic world (as divided and diverse as that world may be) and the rest of the world willl always be a major security issue as has been since the 8th century. The problem existed before we had ships in the Persian Gulf and before we had some troops in the Middle East (and we don't have that many nor do we have a presence in many Islamic countries), and it won't go away if we leave. We'll just be in a far weaker position to stop them if and when they decide they want more converts.
Last edited:
