I've been mulling over the google.cn story. If you haven't heard about it, the short story is that Google discovered hackers breaching Gmail accounts that are presumably acting from within the Chinese intelligence agencies. As retaliation they are threatening to uncensor their mainland (google.cn) search site and expect that they will have to pull out of China totally as a result. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
The original story is evocative and fascinating enough, complete with protests in mourning link (which should make anyone pause when the realize the history of protests that involve mourning in Beijing).
But what strikes me are the small bits of news that are unsaid between the lines.
Google's business in China is potentially huge, despite harassment on topics relating to censorship, they still command a 30% share of the search market and Google Android is expected to make a big splash.
However, they're threatening to pull out of China in retaliation for hackers striking at accounts of Chinese dissidents. I have my doubts about how much Google actually cares about Chinese dissidents but the bigger issue seems to be that even if they go through with 1) pulling their offices out of China 2) uncensoring their search and 3) aborting mobile businesses in China, none of those three steps really does do anything to protect Gmail accounts. Hackers ignore the firewall, censors, and national boundaries after all.
So a thought occurs after viewing the following tidbits:
quote:Everyone's getting hacked. The big search engine news in China over the last few days hasn't been Google, but number one search engine Baidu. Baidu was just hacked by a group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army.
Why only subject lines? If the attackers could get access to subject lines, why couldn't they access entire e-mails? Apparently because the hackers infiltrated automated systems set up to provide such information to law enforcement in the US and elsewhere. (Getting access to the contents of e-mail messages is harder under US law than getting access to addresses, subject lines, etc, which are considered to be on the "outside of the envelope" and subject to pen register searches).
According to a Macworld source, "Right before Christmas, it was, 'Holy s—, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems].'" Later, Google cofounder Larry Page supervised a Christmas Eve meeting on the security breach.
quote:While Google denies other reports stating that its China employees would effectively stop working today and that business in China is ‘operating as normal’ according to Bloomberg, the IM conversation that we were forwarded reveals that Google China workers no longer have access to company systems.
The fact that Google employees are seemingly unable to log onto internal systems could be a result of the internal security tests and scans, but Google has apparently also asked China employees to ‘relax at home’ for an unspecified time.
quote:Were insiders involved? Sources told CNET that Google is looking into whether there was insider involvement. Companies that are attacked that do business in China will typically investigate, as a matter of course, whether someone in their Chinese office might have ties to the government there or have been involved in some way, either by planting malware inside the company or passing it on to unwitting targets in the company, sources said.
What was stolen from the companies? iDefense says source code was targeted at the companies and that most of the attacks appear to have been successful. Google said some intellectual property was stolen but did not elaborate. The company also said limited account information of two Gmail users was accessed.
After all this, a darker possibility comes to mind. What if the whole censorship thing is just a big smokescreen? It does seem totally unconnected with the real story of hackers.
What if the real story is that Google can no longer trust its employees in China, perhaps being the victim of Chinese intelligence agents infiltrating their hiring (which is why they're being given time off)? What if the colourful accusations of "hackers" are really just another way of referring to the old-fashioned methods of social engineering and relying on insiders?
And what if the real story is not CCP hackers getting information on Chinese dissidents, but them getting access to source code (as in the cnet article), but not just any source code but the source code for the internal intercept systems that Americans use to eavesdrop on other Americans? And what if those intercept systems were turned, not just against dissidents but US government officials and industry?
The US government would hardly want to broadcast that their efforts to intercept email from a rag-tag group of terrorists were hijacked and turned against US citizens, making us more in danger rather than safer. Google would hardly want to broadcast their role in such an event, which would draw questions on privacy on the whole GMail model and about "don't be evil." Even the Chinese government would be hardly inclined to reveal that some of their agents were caught infiltrating Google's offices.
Food for thought maybe.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I'm sure they were hacked, but yes, one hack isn't likely the cause of everything. They've no doubt been developing this strategy as a likely contingency for months, and things have just reached a point where action is necessary.
After all, China's industrial espionage + mandated tech transfer requirements are serious threats to businesses like Google, and it is entirely possible that things have just become too painful to operate (plus there's the huge preference for Chinese companies). Unfortunately for China, that's going to come back and bite them -- they're going to need serious FDI at some point, and they're busy poisoning the well.
Also, I have absolutely no doubt that there are Chinese intelligence agents working for Google. China would be stupid not to make that happen. There are no doubt numerous Chinese corporate agents, too (and the line might frequently be blurry). They might well have become far too blatant disruptive, though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I worked with a guy who got a job at Google working in classified areas. He had top secret clearance, which, when he described it to me, seemed like the ordeal of a lifetime to get. He said there were months of federal agents interviewing his family, his former teachers, people he hadn't seen since he was a kid. I don't know how hard it would be to get a Chinese spy into sensitive areas at Google, but I'm guessing pretty difficult.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While Top Secret is hard, it has been given to people it shouldn't have been given to numerous times. Given the rewards, of course a lot of governments would try. And I'm not sure how you think the vetting process would eliminate someone who has been in tech their whole life, but has been sending information back to the Chinese government (or some other destination)?
However, I suspect most infiltrators don't go for the posts requiring Top Secret clearance. Getting a spy to work for Google China would be trivial, and once there, that person can use their increased access to, for instance, be vectors for attacks like these.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Unfortunately for China, that's going to come back and bite them -- they're going to need serious FDI at some point, and they're busy poisoning the well.
I'm not sure if the Chinese are really that short-sighted, or if they think they can just use their economic/political muscle to force things to happen. Either way, I agree with you. Crap on people long enough, and they will take their money and invest elsewhere. I seriously doubt the Chinese are really ready to deal with the full consequences of this type of behavior.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm going with "short-sighted".
Blayne, I'm making a pre-emptive request for you to please not respond to my posts in this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Easier than you think, Orincoro, given that we had Chinese spies at Los Alamos.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If you're referring to the Wen Ho Lee case, he was actually cleared. Presidential apology and everything
quote:Lee is a 66-year-old Taiwan-born U.S. citizen who now lives near Sacramento, California.
He was indicted in late 1999 on 59 counts of stealing nuclear weapons data from the Los Alamos facility. He was jailed, denied bail, placed in solitary confinement and labeled a national security threat.
Months later, he walked free on time served after the government's case collapsed. All but one count was dismissed, and Lee pleaded guilty to mishandling classified material, a felony.
The federal judge overseeing the case sharply criticized the prosecution's case, in particular "top decision makers in the executive branch ... who have embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen."
Then-President Clinton issued a public apology to Lee over his treatment.
But I think Google China in Beijing proper right next to Tsinghua is a pretty different case than Los Alamos.
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Crap on people long enough, and they will take their money and invest elsewhere.
Arguably, the Canadian experience disproves that. After taking crap from the US for decades, we're still heavily investing in the US. I think you underestimate the human capacity for enduring crap when balanced against making money.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In this case, the crap is such that companies frequently have their ability to make money taken from them. That's what's poisoning the well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Regarding Los Alamos, while it isn't clear if the leak was there, someone leaked details of the W-88 to China.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: In this case, the crap is such that companies frequently have their ability to make money taken from them. That's what's poisoning the well.
Again, not different from the Canadian experience with the US. For example, we're still hashing out 'Buy America' months later.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Regarding Los Alamos, while it isn't clear if the leak was there, someone leaked details of the W-88 to China.
True, but there is no proof that the leak was either at Los Alamos or due to a Chinese spy which was what I was responding to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Again, not different from the Canadian experience with the US.
Does pure Canada give no crap, Mucus, but only take it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If not different, then why this statement?
quote: I think you underestimate the human capacity for enduring crap when balanced against making money.
After all, to be balanced against making money, one has to be, well, making money.
For that matter, I'm aware of very few (I can think of one or two instances, maybe) Canadian businesses that tried to do business in the US, but then had the rug pulled out from under them. That is a common occurrence when western businesses try to do business in China (frequently with their former Chinese business partner that they were required to do tech transfer to then entering the same market).
Much as I'm against the crap the US pulls against Canada (which is greater than the crap going the other way), it isn't really comparable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: a) Ok, so we burned the White House. Have a band-aid on me. b) If Canada does give crap to the US and the US persists in investing here, that merely *supports* my claim rather than hurting it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mucus: as far as nuclear secrets, a spy of Chinese nationality, quite possibly not.
A spy for somebody we don't want to have the W-88, at some link of the chain (and probably a spy for China -- another meaning of "Chinese spy"), almost certainly. And, given the whole point of the example in the first place, that extensive security vetting doesn't prevent China from getting their hands on internal information due to the actions of moles, still a good example.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: In this case, the crap is such that companies frequently have their ability to make money taken from them. That's what's poisoning the well.
Again, not different from the Canadian experience with the US. For example, we're still hashing out 'Buy America' months later.
Really? You're comparing what America's intentions are for the world with Chinese intentions?
Look, my country isn't perfect, I know that. The Abu Ghraib stuff made me hang my head in shame, literally, when I was in another country, and found out about it. Don't even get me started on other stuff. HOWEVER...China is to human rights what hard candy is to teeth. That's not true for the US, in a general sense. The US's intentions are way less shady. Not perfect, not at all...but yes, thanks in large part to the US, we do NOT all speak German now. That counts for something, and I doubt that, if China were in a similar position to the US's position right after WWII, that China would be as generous with its defeated foes.
Look, all I'm saying is, China is a whole heap of a lot closer, in terms of intentions to Darth Vader than the US is. You can trash-talk all you want, but Tibet is a perfect example of China's record on religious freedom. Note that I am not endorsing Tibet's Buddhist culture/religion in a general sense, merely noting that the Chinese are not afraid to come down with the iron boot anytime they feel like it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ... I'm aware of very few (I can think of one or two instances, maybe) Canadian businesses that tried to do business in the US, but then had the rug pulled out from under them.
There are two examples in just this article
quote: A Toronto company that has been exporting pipe to the United States market for 60 years recently landed a contract to supply plastic piping for a new health-care centre at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in California.
But the piping is now being ripped out of the ground. Why? Because the pipes are branded with the words Made in Canada. ... "Camp Pendleton is a perfect example of how an excellent product, a brand new product, is going to be pulled out of the ground and be replaced by an American-made product," said Veso Sobot, spokesperson for IPEX Inc., the Don Mills-based company that sold the pipe to the California Marine installation.
"We've never seen such a wave of protectionism as at this moment," he said, adding that he's also being pressed by project organizers in other states to certify that his pipes are all made in the U.S. – which they aren't.
"Many Canadians believe the issue" of U.S. protectionism "was settled when (Obama) came into Canada back in February and made assurances that all is well. But it's not," Sobot said at a news conference organized by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME).
That article was in 2009. In 2010, the ongoing toll is in the hundreds of businesses affected
quote:The rules, which bar foreign-made steel and other manufactured goods from construction projects financed from the $787 billion fund, have affected hundreds of Canadian firms, according to Ottawa-based Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. Some Canadian companies have decided to move parts of their production south of the border to avoid losing sales.
The Camp Pendleton example is about one business deal being done under, not the entire business being unable to do business profitably. Ditto the other examples in there. The businesses are still able to engage in profitable sales to the US (which isn't even comparable in the first place, as what was being talked about was businesses operating in China).
Many businesses are finding themselves unable to operate in China, after being assured they'd be able to do so and undertaking substantial investment. They aren't just not making as much money as would be ideal, they're being driven out and having their former business operations taken over by people who have taken knowledge of their business operations.
The situations are not comparable.
(And again, I think the situation with US-Canada trade, including with the "Buy American" idiocy, is stupid. It just isn't even remotely the same sort of situation. The US is a font of openness to Canada in comparison to how the Chinese gov't has been treating foreign businesses -- Canadian businesses can own US subsidiaries wholly; they receive equitable tax treatment; they're not required to engage in IP transfers to US partners. None of those things is true in China, and that's just the short list).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Really? You're comparing what America's intentions are for the world with Chinese intentions?
I enjoy your thoughts on things unrelated. But I was speaking about things economical and if I thought that US businesses took things like your ethical concerns about Tibet to heart when doing business in China, that would be awesome (but unfortunately unrealistic).
The point of comparison I was making is that Canada is negotiating and dealing with the US from very much a disadvantageous position far in excess of the disadvantage the US has when dealing with China.
In short: Canada's relationship with the US is more like the relationship between Hong Kong/Singapore/South Korea/Taiwan with China and similarly "crappy." Yet in each of those situations, business investment has hardly stopped and in fact has increased. I find it unlikely that the US would prove an exception and act differently much beyond that point.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I see part of the problem. You think I am predicting something.
On the contrary, I am talking about something that is already happening. China has seen gradually declining FDI since about two years ago, and has seen a large increase in the ratio of FDI companies agree on vs the amount actually happening.
I was remarking on a well-known trend in trade economics, and pointing out a well-known cause: China's policies are so bad that a lot of companies are ceasing operation, and that other companies are no longer entering China.
So, if your argument is that people are going to keep investing heavily in China because they're willing to put up with the level of crap China pulls, you're going to need to deal with the significant evidence to the contrary.
edit: I will note that the evidence is confounded by the recent recession; the trend in Chinese FDI had been slowing before that, though, and dropped more than would have been expected. Also, there are numerous concrete examples of the phenomena I describe happening to US businesses operating in China, but we're awaiting a single example of the phenomena happening to a Canadian business operating in the US.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Really? You're comparing what America's intentions are for the world with Chinese intentions?
I enjoy your thoughts on things unrelated. But I was speaking about things economical and if I thought that US businesses took things like your ethical concerns about Tibet to heart when doing business in China, that would be awesome (but unfortunately unrealistic).
The point of comparison I was making is that Canada is negotiating and dealing with the US from very much a disadvantageous position far in excess of the disadvantage the US has when dealing with China.
In short: Canada's relationship with the US is more like the relationship between Hong Kong/Singapore/South Korea/Taiwan with China and similarly "crappy." Yet in each of those situations, business investment has hardly stopped and in fact has increased. I find it unlikely that the US would prove an exception and act differently much beyond that point.
In any industry where intellectual property is of vital and central importance, the Chinese are very far along the road to 100% discouraging American investment and involvement.
It's just sour grapes. They can't innovate like Americans can. Theft can only get you so far. The rest would have to involve huge cultural and governmental shifts, which are highly unlikely.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: On the contrary, I am talking about something that is already happening. China has seen gradually declining FDI since about two years ago ...
?
quote:China’s Foreign Direct Investment More Than Doubles (Update1)
Foreign direct investment in China more than doubled in December from a year earlier as the effects of the financial crisis fade.
Investment rose 103 percent from a year earlier to $12.1 billion, the Ministry of Commerce said at a briefing in Beijing today. That compared with a 32 percent increase in November. Investment fell 2.6 percent in all of 2009 to $90.03 billion, the government said.
Friction between the Chinese government and overseas companies such as Google Inc. and Rio Tinto Group may not be enough to temper investor enthusiasm for the world’s fastest- growing major economy. Rupert Stadler, CEO of Volkswagen AG’s Audi division, said this month that China is the best answer when seeking growth, after the nation supplanted the U.S. as the world’s No.1 auto market in 2009. ... Foreign direct investment adds to the flood of cash in the financial system from record lending and the trade surplus, increasing the risk of bubbles forming in asset markets and inflation surging back. Property prices rose at the fastest pace in 18 months in December, a report yesterday showed.
If anything, the government is trying to discourage the amount of FDI into China rather than having problems the other way around.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, there will be a rebound, because business in China will do well for a while, now.
Take a look back to my original point, please: when China's economy is in trouble, investors will be reluctant to invest.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Actually, I don't see that anywhere in your original point. I do see it in the part starting with "edit: I will note that the evidence is confounded by the recent recession;" which I believe was posted after my last (or rather after I saw it and quoted it).
quote:Originally posted by steven: It's just sour grapes. They can't innovate like Americans can. Theft can only get you so far. The rest would have to involve huge cultural and governmental shifts, which are highly unlikely.
*shrug* Detroit said that about Japan's innovation, complete with theft (and sour grapes!) right up to the point that they were proved wrong. I gotta say, I can sympathize with you and think it would be *nice* to think that cultural and government shifts are necessary for innovation.
I just don't really believe it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I quote where I brought it up:
quote:Unfortunately for China, that's going to come back and bite them -- they're going to need serious FDI at some point, and they're busy poisoning the well.
I thought "need serious FDI" was a clear allusion to a time of economic problems, but perhaps I needed to be clearer?
Steven's statement about not being able to innovate is ridiculous. I've made no such claims (unsurprising, because I don't believe them).
Interestingly, though, Japan's institutional structures have proven huge barriers to their economic growth. You might be familiar with how they've lost nearly two decades of economic growth? That is one advantage the US has over just about every country; our institutional structures let the US economy reconfigure rapidly, and keep per-worker productivity extremely high.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I thought "need serious FDI" was a clear allusion to a time of economic problems, but perhaps I needed to be clearer?
Oh. No, I didn't follow the allusion. Sorry for the miscommunication.
I mostly agree with the rest of the post.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Actually, I don't see that anywhere in your original point. I do see it in the part starting with "edit: I will note that the evidence is confounded by the recent recession;" which I believe was posted after my last (or rather after I saw it and quoted it).
quote:Originally posted by steven: It's just sour grapes. They can't innovate like Americans can. Theft can only get you so far. The rest would have to involve huge cultural and governmental shifts, which are highly unlikely.
*shrug* Detroit said that about Japan's innovation, complete with theft (and sour grapes!) right up to the point that they were proved wrong. I gotta say, I can sympathize with you and think it would be *nice* to think that cultural and government shifts are necessary for innovation.
I just don't really believe it.
LOL how's fantasy land treating you?
The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc. Microsoft, Apple, Sun Microsystems--these are Chinese companies, right?
Oh wait...they're not.
American culture is practically predicated on change and innovation. Chinese culture...yeah, no. It's a rich culture, but...with that richness comes the inevitable baggage.
You notice how Europeans use Windows and Apple OS? They're smart, right? They have access to investment capital, right? They're technologically advanced, right? Why no European-developed OS?
Yeah. They also have cultural and governmental baggage, just like China.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
steven: you seem to have confused path dependence with inability to innovate. Of course companies that are well-entrenched due to the much earlier start of IT innovation in the US are what Chinese companies use; they'd be stupid to try to develop their own examples of those technologies from the beginning, and it will be decades before Chinese companies can compete with those companies' decades of experience in such complicated and specialized areas.
But China has numerous large, high-tech startups doing very well.
edit: and Japan has plenty of high tech companies that do extremely well (so does Korea, while we're listing Asian countries filled with people capable of innovation).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, but the Japanese eat raw fish, so that's to be expected.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: steven: you seem to have confused path dependence with inability to innovate. Of course companies that are well-entrenched due to the much earlier start of IT innovation in the US are what Chinese companies use; they'd be stupid to try to develop their own examples of those technologies from the beginning, and it will be decades before Chinese companies can compete with those companies' decades of experience in such complicated and specialized areas.
But China has numerous large, high-tech startups doing very well.
edit: and Japan has plenty of high tech companies that do extremely well (so does Korea, while we're listing Asian countries filled with people capable of innovation).
Riiight...I've got a bridge to sell you, while we're discussing East Asian OS.
Besides, I was talking to Mucus, who seems to think that China can abuse American IT companies with impunity, without losing anything at all. Of course, maybe they don't care. Maybe they figure they can make up for it by dominating other industries. Or maybe they're just short-sighted. I really don't know.
Rivka, if you can't say something nice...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: you seem to have confused path dependence with inability to innovate.
Indeed.
Not to mention that high-tech and IT firms aren't particularly good cases that there is something superior about American culture given the rather disproportionate number of South Asian and East Asians that go into and stay in those fields in the West (or America for that matter).
Arguably other industries like financial or automotive would be better representatives if you want to (relatively) strip out Asians and judge American innovation in isolation.
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... I was talking to Mucus, who seems to think that China can abuse American IT companies with impunity, without losing anything at all.
No. I think that China can abuse specific American IT companies to the extent that they will lose companies that they want to lose. Google is a perfect case. You can rest assured that the CCP will rest easy seeing Google's troublesome market-share go to Baidu by default.
But I don't think that a significant number of companies will pull out of China in sympathy for Google or anything (barring a recession as noted by Fugu).
Don't get me wrong, I think that might be an interesting development. I just don't think that it is a likely one.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Riiight...I've got a bridge to sell you, while we're discussing East Asian OS."
You know what would make a country look really innovative? Ignoring all the innovations that were produced elsewhere and starting from the ground up, just to prove that they, too, could come up with the same sort of thing.
Sure, you can buy a hammer for a couple of bucks and use that to build your house...but it really makes you look pathetic compared to the guy who reinvents iron smelting and makes his own hammer. Right? Right?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: you seem to have confused path dependence with inability to innovate.
Indeed.
Not to mention that high-tech and IT firms aren't particularly good cases that there is something superior about American culture given the rather disproportionate number of South Asian and East Asians that go into and stay in those fields in the West (or America for that matter).
Ahh, but you have missed my point. I specifically avoided saying ethnic East Asians are incapable of true innovation, because I don't believe it. East Asian culture, OTOH, was relatively isolated for many centuries, and is still struggling to adapt. That is the reason for the lack of real innovation, versus the tendency to just improve and mass-produce American inventions.
What concerns me for China is that IT continually changes and develops, and, when quantum computing becomes viable and dominant, the base code will be fundamentally different. That will require serious, from-the-ground-up innovation. I hope, for China's sake, they haven't driven away all the companies that will be driving that particular revolution. That will be a big one. Or heck, drive them away...more money for America.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Rivka, if you can't say something nice...
Seriously?
Wasn't it you who just called another poster delusional? And another one gullible?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Unfortunately for China, that's going to come back and bite them -- they're going to need serious FDI at some point, and they're busy poisoning the well.
I'm not sure if the Chinese are really that short-sighted, or if they think they can just use their economic/political muscle to force things to happen. Either way, I agree with you. Crap on people long enough, and they will take their money and invest elsewhere. I seriously doubt the Chinese are really ready to deal with the full consequences of this type of behavior.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm going with "short-sighted".
Blayne, I'm making a pre-emptive request for you to please not respond to my posts in this thread.
And I am pre-emptively going to ignore your request.
The above hypothetical of this somehow actually going to "hurt" China in someway is the same kind of simple minded Tom Clancy view of economics. There may be a short bump or fallout but in the end nothing will come of it, google cannot ignore Chinese markets for long otherwise a Chinese competitor will rise up with government backing to take its place and the easy opportunity will be lost.
And considering the current trend for the Chinese to begin filling up space taken up by foreign firms by indigenous Chinese ones its going to happen sooner or later, this will probably be the moment where we see whose top and whose bottom in the relationship the State or the Corporation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: In this case, the crap is such that companies frequently have their ability to make money taken from them. That's what's poisoning the well.
Again, not different from the Canadian experience with the US. For example, we're still hashing out 'Buy America' months later.
Really? You're comparing what America's intentions are for the world with Chinese intentions?
Look, my country isn't perfect, I know that. The Abu Ghraib stuff made me hang my head in shame, literally, when I was in another country, and found out about it. Don't even get me started on other stuff. HOWEVER...China is to human rights what hard candy is to teeth. That's not true for the US, in a general sense. The US's intentions are way less shady. Not perfect, not at all...but yes, thanks in large part to the US, we do NOT all speak German now. That counts for something, and I doubt that, if China were in a similar position to the US's position right after WWII, that China would be as generous with its defeated foes.
Look, all I'm saying is, China is a whole heap of a lot closer, in terms of intentions to Darth Vader than the US is. You can trash-talk all you want, but Tibet is a perfect example of China's record on religious freedom. Note that I am not endorsing Tibet's Buddhist culture/religion in a general sense, merely noting that the Chinese are not afraid to come down with the iron boot anytime they feel like it.
You have single handedly pushed my Russophile buttons, allow me to kick your ass.
80% of the German Heer casualties were on the Eastern front, by the time the D-Day landings occured the Soviet Union was already pushing into Romania and Operation Bagration which shattered Army Grup Center was to be launched within a week with no time for any significant reployment of German troops from East to West.
I am sick and tired of this revisionist american my country right or wrong jingoism that seeks to rewrite all of recent history as single handed American military victories. The Soviet Union lost 20 million people to grind down to dust the German war machine to exhaust them to the point that the American/Anglo-Canadian forces could relatively effortlessly take France.
I will concede Lend-Lease as a significant contributor to Russian military victory but if you think D-Day somehow magically caused the defeat of German you are clearly wrong.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Actually, I don't see that anywhere in your original point. I do see it in the part starting with "edit: I will note that the evidence is confounded by the recent recession;" which I believe was posted after my last (or rather after I saw it and quoted it).
quote:Originally posted by steven: It's just sour grapes. They can't innovate like Americans can. Theft can only get you so far. The rest would have to involve huge cultural and governmental shifts, which are highly unlikely.
*shrug* Detroit said that about Japan's innovation, complete with theft (and sour grapes!) right up to the point that they were proved wrong. I gotta say, I can sympathize with you and think it would be *nice* to think that cultural and government shifts are necessary for innovation.
I just don't really believe it.
LOL how's fantasy land treating you?
The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc. Microsoft, Apple, Sun Microsystems--these are Chinese companies, right?
Oh wait...they're not.
American culture is practically predicated on change and innovation. Chinese culture...yeah, no. It's a rich culture, but...with that richness comes the inevitable baggage.
You notice how Europeans use Windows and Apple OS? They're smart, right? They have access to investment capital, right? They're technologically advanced, right? Why no European-developed OS?
Yeah. They also have cultural and governmental baggage, just like China.
I would like to direct you to China: Fragile Superpower which if I recall lists China as rapidly catching up with American patents.
The idea that your are suggesting that Japan/Korea/China can't be capable of innovation is sounding like White Supremacy jargon.
Your going to need citations to prove that China somehow isn't capable of innovating.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would, y'know, care more about the not insubstantial Soviet contribution to the Allied victory over Nazi Germany if there hadn't been a massive Soviet contribution to Nazi dominance in Europe in the first place.
I care about the sacrifices the soldiers themselves made, and that it was a terrible time for the Soviet Union...but I don't really see how the Russian nation gets some big credit for suffering greatly to solve a problem they were neck-deep in creating.
Here's what I'm sick of: people just ignoring what the actual Soviet plan was for its involvement with Germany and how that would be reflected on Europe and Asia. They were just fine working with the Nazis to grab territory and power until the Nazis turned on them, specifically. Then they started making these sacrifices to thwart Nazism.
Also, 'relatively effortlessly'? C'mon, Blayne, you're sounding like a partisan hack again. And it's strange to hear you being tired of revisionist history.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Really now last I heard Stalin/Molotov had actually tried repeatedly to get a combined effort to restrain fascist expansionism with both Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the German carving up of central Europe signing the Molotov-Pact was an pragmatic act of survival due to the fact that negotiations with Britain and France were being stonewalled.
I could just as easily extend additional criticism to various US business practices pre Pearl harbor such as IBM designing the tabulation machines eventually used in the Final Solution, or the British Naval agreement with Germany that allowed them to rebuild their navy, or ultimately the Anglo-French appeasement tactics that allowed Germany to get so strong in the first place that joining the bandwagon seemed the preferable alternative then joining a suicidal war that until then the British and French were more then happy to allow Germany to expand towards.
Do not for even a second seek to pin this on the USSR for 'causing' WWII when we could argue it back to US refusal to join the League of Nations or a dozen other factors, but the Molotov Rippentrop Pact? Puhlease, like please actually read up on the diplomatic behind the scenes events that led up to the war before pinning it on them.
And yes, relatively effortlessly as in relative to Soviet victories the Allied effort in Western europe was relatively easy, notice the usage of the world 'relatively' in that sentence as a method of comparison?
I know the Soviets definitely weren't happy with it, in Gabriel Temkin's memoirs (Polish Jew serving in the Red Army since 1941) the Soviet reaction in his divisional HQ was pretty much "meh" too little too late the war was already nearly won.
But all of this aside considering steven pretty much said "If it weren't for America..." Bullshit. That's what I'm calling him out on, if the Sovet Union wasn't in the war it'ld take a massive nuclear bombardment campaign to end the war in Europe and then in only then would the US be able to claim "victory".
[ January 15, 2010, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Signal to noisel ratio exceed yet again.
Good job Blayne.
Without the US Russia would hardly been able to win either, and even if it had it would have taken generations MORE to recover. Germany was in Russia's back yard, and they did nothing until forced to, so I wouldn't try and make a case for them being blameless.
And the US not being in the League of Nations was hardly the cause either.
Without the sacrifices of the French before D-Day, their cooperation ON D-Day, and without the pressure on Germany from the D-Day landings, it is improbable that Russia would have continues to have much success.
Fact is that it was a European problem, primarily, and we entered late, but even before our troops were on the ground we were helping defend England, and lending monies, equipment, and munitions to the Allies while Russia did everything but actively HELP Germany.
I am not saying we won the war. I AM saying that the Allies might not have won it without us. And most of the people who actually KNOW anything about it agree with me on that.
[ January 15, 2010, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
On August 23, 1939, Germany and the USSR signed a secret non-agression pact dividing up Poland. In September, the Soviets invaded eastern Poland.
On November 30, 1939, the Russo-Finnish War began when the USSR invaded Finland. On March 12, 1940, Finland surrendered.
On June 18, 1940, the USSR invaded the Baltic states.
On April 13, 1941, the USSR and Japan signed a neutrality pact.
All of that HELPED Germany, and allowed them to focus on ONE front.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Only after as I said, that the Soviet Union gave up on a military confrontation because of the at the time British and French unwillingness to consider Soviet assistance, its called bandwagoning.
I've already conceded Lend-Lease was significant however it is open to argument whether it was THE decisive factor but god man actually look at the link above and fast forward it to 1943/44 you'll see that Soviet advances against German positions are rapidly accelerating in a rate consistent with their own mechanization.
The Normandy Landings were unnecessary towards the defeat of Germany by the time D-Day occurred the Germans were a week away from being utterly crippled in Operation Bagration.
German troop positions in Italy and France were by 1943/1944 insignificant compared to the troops deployed in the East and the casualties incurred.
Also I can think of at least 3-5 history texts books off the top of my head that pretty much all unanimously agree that the US refusal to ratify the League of Nations destroyed its credibility and effectiveness allowing for Fascist expansion and the turning to appeasement as an alternative policy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Really now last I heard Stalin/Molotov had actually tried repeatedly to get a combined effort to restrain fascist expansionism with both Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the German carving up of central Europe signing the Molotov-Pact was an pragmatic act of survival due to the fact that negotiations with Britain and France were being stonewalled.
Blayne. Listen to yourself. You're defending the good intentions of Stalin. Pragmatic act of survival? The plan was to partition Europe between themselves! That's not pragmatic survival, that's pragmatic expansion.
quote: I could just as easily extend additional criticism to various US business practices pre Pearl harbor such as IBM designing the tabulation machines eventually used in the Final Solution, or the British Naval agreement with Germany that allowed them to rebuild their navy, or ultimately the Anglo-French appeasement tactics that allowed Germany to get so strong in the first place that joining the bandwagon seemed the preferable alternative then joining a suicidal war that until then the British and French were more then happy to allow Germany to expand towards.
So, IBM doing business with the Nazis is equivalent to an entire nation signing agreements with the Nazis to mutually conquer Europe? Blayne: you're going off the reservation again. Slow down, remember that the USSR doesn't need you to defend it, and actually listen to yourself, man!
France and England have a lot of responsibility, it's true. Their appeasement was a very bad thing. But y'know what they didn't do? They didn't say, "We don't want to fight you, so we'll join you and conquer territory while you're doing your own conquering." That's what the USSR did. Blayne, that's a fact. This isn't the PRC where you can say that they had the best of intentions but there were mistakes made. Geeze, why don't you find a Pole and ask `em: what was the Soviet involvement in WWII, exactly?
quote: Do not for even a second seek to pin this on the USSR for 'causing' WWII when we could argue it back to US refusal to join the League of Nations or a dozen other factors, but the Molotov Rippentrop Pact? Puhlease, like please actually read up on the diplomatic behind the scenes events that led up to the war before pinning it on them.
First off, I didn't seek to pin the whole thing on the USSR. I simply correctly recited the facts of the matter which are that, up until the Nazis turned on the Soviets, the Soviets were quite satisfied to be on their own war of aggressive conquest themselves. What's the diplomatic behind-the-scenes on that, exactly?
What diplomatic back channels entitled the Soviet Union to invade Poland?
quote:That's what I'm calling him out on, if the Sovet Union wasn't in the war it'ld take a massive nuclear bombardment campaign to end the war in Europe and then in only then would the US be able to claim "victory".
The problem with this is that the Soviet Union was never simply not going to be in the war. They were going to be on one side or the other. And before they were on our side, they were on theirs. Again, that's a fact.
And really, drop the condescending attitude, would you please? If you're going to defend the 'pragmatism' of Stalin, you've got a helluva lot of ground to cover before you can start sneering at people for disagreeing with you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm a little lost of why this (Rakeesh v. BB) is a controversy. The narrow claim is "thanks in large part to the US, we do NOT all speak German now."
First, "we" is pretty iffy. It is not hard to see that such a result is fairly dubious for someone from Asia. Neither is it particularly guaranteed for the majority of American posters here.
Second, I was under the impression that it was a fairly mainstream idea that a non-American entry into WWII would merely lead to the Soviets conquering Western Europe from the Nazis rather than the Nazis managing to conquer both Europe and Russia with strength leftover to attack North America.
Interestingly, I recently bought What If? which claims to be a survey of the world's foremost military historians (albeit rather Euro/Amero-centric). Two scenarios describe a failure of the US to make a substantial impact due either the British seeking a non-aggression pact with Hitler after initial losses or due to the failure of D-Day. Both scenarios end with Soviet domination of Western Europe.
*shrug*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I specifically avoided saying ethnic East Asians are incapable of true innovation, because I don't believe it. East Asian culture, OTOH, was relatively isolated for many centuries, and is still struggling to adapt. That is the reason for the lack of real innovation...
Technically, what you said was "The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc."
I suppose one could approach this with the view that you meant the Japanese and Chinese "cultural groupings," but I find that fairly unlikely.
That said, this is is still a pretty dubious assertion.
But let's examine actual data:
quote:According to a new report by Boston Consulting Group, though, the center of innovation is not in the U.S. BCG, working with the Manufacturing Institute of the Washington-based National Association of Manufacturers, last week released a survey of 110 countries worldwide looking at the ones with government policies and corporate performance most encouraging to innovation. The U.S. came in No. 8, ahead of Japan (No. 9) and Germany (No. 19) but well behind the two leaders, both of them so-called tiger economies from Asia: Singapore at No. 1 and South Korea at No. 2.
quote:ITIF uses 16 indicators to assess the global innovation-based competitiveness of 36 countries and 4 regions. This report finds that while the U.S. still leads the EU in innovation-based competitiveness, it ranks sixth overall. Moreover, the U.S. ranks last in progress toward the new knowledge-based innovation economy over the last decade.
Both are based in the US, so one would think they'd be relatively free of bias against the States. However, both rank South Korea and Singapore ahead of the States and the one that includes Hong Kong ranks that ahead of the States as well. (For Europeans, a couple of European countries rank ahead as well) Two of those are East Asian while the other has a large Chinese majority.
I think you can find a much more parsimonious explanation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm a little lost of why this (Rakeesh v. BB) is a controversy. The narrow claim is "thanks in large part to the US, we do NOT all speak German now."
Because he's gone far beyond that narrow claim, Mucus.
quote: Second, I was under the impression that it was a fairly mainstream idea that a non-American entry into WWII would merely lead to the Soviets conquering Western Europe from the Nazis rather than the Nazis managing to conquer both Europe and Russia with strength leftover to attack North America.
Really? Without an American entry into the war, where would those hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of German soldiers have gone, exactly? To say nothing of all the supplies.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I specifically avoided saying ethnic East Asians are incapable of true innovation, because I don't believe it. East Asian culture, OTOH, was relatively isolated for many centuries, and is still struggling to adapt. That is the reason for the lack of real innovation...
Technically, what you said was "The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc."
I suppose one could approach this with the view that you meant the Japanese and Chinese "cultural groupings," but I find that fairly unlikely.
I do have to admit that South Korea is kicking some butt in terms of innovation. Honk Kong too, no question. However, there is a tiny little difference, maybe, between the PRC and South Korea.
The only reason Hong Kong keeps being innovative is because the PRC has partially succeeded in being "hands off".
Let's not forget that South Korea and Hong Kong are relatively small. The US is much larger, and has more resources available to focus on large-scale high-tech innovation. That's a big part of the reason why the US is so dominant in that area.
The reason that China lags in high-tech innovation is very clear...it's the cultural and governmental baggage, period. The evidence supports it. They fail for the same reason that there's never been a European OS, and may never be one...cultural and governmental baggage.
I do think it's rather funny that you're accusing me of racism, when, earlier in the thread, I actually mentioned the lack of a European OS as proof that it's cultural and governmental baggage that slows innovation, not race.
Did you not read my posts carefully?
I get the feeling you didn't.
But then, hey, I'm just steven...steven never has valid points.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You might have had a valid point if you had written your point carefully. You didn't. You wrote something overbroad that wasn't true. You've considerably moderated your statement from "The Japanese and Chinese couldn't innovate their way out of a paper sack, when it comes to IT, software, etc." (which you backed up with things that are incredibly irrelevant, like not having a native operating system, making your point seem even more silly) to "China lags in high-tech innovation" (I assume you'd include Japan as well).
That's a considerably weaker statement.
Btw, the insistence on operating systems shows you really don't understand IT innovation at all. OS are one of the areas it makes the least sense to expend effort innovating in, provided the landscape has sufficiently good options available (which it does).
Just to drive the not understanding IT innovation point home, with that whole 'no European OS' thing . . . you do realize Linux was created in Europe, and is still substantially developed by European kernel developers? What's more, the influential educational OS it was based on, Minix, was developed in Europe.
So no, you didn't really have a point, and your current point is at best mildly interesting. Making dramatic statements and then saying "well, I really meant something very minor" is not good discussion, it is bad discussion. If you want people to treat you reasonably, treat them reasonably and make statements that aren't blown out of proportion to your meaning.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
We helped the Soviet's mechanize, we gave them and the other European countries tons of aid and munitions, and we didn't try to parcel up any part of Europe for ourselves.
It is possible, although I doubt likely, that the Russians could have beaten Germany without help from the US, but then what?
The rest of Europe might be speaking Russian now. We didn't do enough to back Russia up after the war, but without our aid, and our armies on European soil, Europe would NOT look the way it does today.
We absolutely torpedoed the League of Nations, Blayne. I never said otherwise. However, that is hardly the main reason WWII happened. There is NO proof how effective the LoN might have been, no proof that it would have mitigated German expansion. It MAY have, but considering the structure of it, and the fact that neither Germany OR Russia would have been allowed in at the inception, it was hardly America's sole fault it failed.
The fact is that Russia didn't just sign a non-aggression pact. They actively participated in advancing the Nazi agenda and war efforts, because it benefited them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Without an American entry into the war, where would those hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of German soldiers have gone, exactly? To say nothing of all the supplies.
Hey don't shoot the messenger.
Anyways, each of the two scenarios are different. However, in short in the D-Day fails scenario, the British and US are only able to continue bombing and the Soviets essentially are able to conquer all the way to the English Channel. The insignificant number of troops shifted away from France are insufficient to make a difference fighting Russia.
In the Great Britain-Germany sues for peace scenario, not only are the Americans taken out of the way but the British are taken out of the war due to a non-Churchhill government suing for peace in order to evacuate the troops at Dunkirk. The Americans and the British refuse to pool anything, not atomic bomb research, nor supplies. The result is just that the Germans do a bit better managing to capture Moscow. However, there is still no doubt that the Soviets would eventually win for many of the reasons that they did in real life and the Soviets continue on to France.
The book has more details of course. There is a scenario where the Germans do beat the Russians, but that decision point predates the decision by Hitler to invade Russia so is not entirely relevant.
(Of course, I think that their literary credentials do lend their arguments some weight. But I use this more just to illustrate that Blayne's opinion doesn't seem particularly off the map) Edit to add: Initial opinion about us "speaking German" anyways
[ January 16, 2010, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: However, there is a tiny little difference, maybe, between the PRC and South Korea.
Governmental, yes. Cultural as your preceding points emphasize, not particularly. Certainly, they both fit the bill for East Asian cultures as you've defined.
(I may also add, I missed your assumption that immigrants from East Asia and South Asia quickly lose their culture when working in IT fields in North America. I find this highly dubious as well, but let's not widen the conversation further)
quote:The only reason Hong Kong keeps being innovative is because the PRC has partially succeeded in being "hands off".
Again, a striking governmental division, but not a striking cultural division.
quote: The US is much larger, and has more resources available to focus on large-scale high-tech innovation.
Which is again, not a cultural reason.
quote:They fail for the same reason that there's never been a European OS, and may never be one...cultural and governmental baggage.
See Fugu.
(Also, I find it curious that you find the differences between South Korea v. China/Japan sufficient to support innovation. Same with Hong Kong v. China/Japan. However, the Europeans are homogenous enough to be characterized as a group distinct from America and are all incapable of innovation. Intriguing but perhaps a different discussion)
quote: I do think it's rather funny that you're accusing me of racism ...
No. Blayne was accusing you of being racist, sounding like a white supremacist specifically. I'm just accusing you of being ignorant.
However, your shift from arguing on cultural grounds to governmental grounds (and others, such as size) is satisfactory.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
France was home to about 1 million troops as of D-Day, Mucus, as well as 2000+ tanks and guns. Now, obviously not every single one of those troops would have been able to be shipped off to the Eastern Front...but a very sizable portion of them would have been able to be drawn off had there been no fear of an American-led invasion from the West.
My question is: how long could even Stalin have kept bleeding his country dry for the war on Germany, if Germany were able to focus its attention almost entirely on the USSR?
[ January 16, 2010, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(before edit) Yes, and both of those authors take that into account. In fact the latter author allows a portion of troops to depart for the Eastern front even earlier, just shortly after the fall of France rather than after D-Day. But still, this is not enough.
(after edit) And as for how far Stalin could have pushed it, looking it up, the latter author is of the opinion that this would have lead to 40 million dead Russians rather than the historical 24 million dead (latter number from Wiki).
The former author (D-Day fails) is of the opinion that the difference would be insignificant. In fact, the breakdown in co-operation between the Soviets and the Allies might even have lead the Soviets to invade northern Japan given the right conditions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I haven't read the book - it sounds like something to put on my list, though - but I was sure they had. I didn't think you'd recommend a book where they failed to take such a basic element into account, after all.
My beef is that with such enormous changes, it's really difficult to predict which way things would have gone is all-and anyone who tries is probably selling something. Be it Americans who want credit for saving the world from the Nazis, or Soviets who want the same.
It's just that the Soviets were helping the Nazis first-that's my beef with Blayne, really.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd include this in an edit, but we're on triple revisions of edits, so I'll start clean, heh.
quote: (after edit) And as for how far Stalin could have pushed it, looking it up, the latter author is of the opinion that this would have lead to 40 million dead Russians rather than the historical 24 million dead (latter number from Wiki).
Perhaps. I certainly 'credit' Stalin with the willingness to push in spite of such casualties, it's true. I'm dubious about his nation's willingness or even ability to endure them is all.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The book would actually be more interesting for an American actually. Published by the American Historical Society, it is a bit American/Eurocentric with multiple essays on the American Civil War, the War of Independence, and many inflection points in Europe. But only two essays on the East really.
In this case, the former author is American, while the latter is British. The latter's motivation, if I had to guess with my "speculation radar" is that he wrote a biography on Halifax which lead him to believe that it was a really good idea that Halifax didn't win over Churchill for leadership of Britain. I can't really guess on the former.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think some of you are still missing the overwhelming fact that in June 1944 the USSR was already in Romania and I'll repeat again a week from launching Operation Bagration, the German positions in France were filled with volkstrum, hitler youth, and maybe 3-5 elite SS divisions, the majority of actual fighting divisions were in France recovering from action on the eastern front had D-Day failed any spare troops transferred from French occupation duty to the eastern front would have simply been swallowed up by the large front that the Germans already couldn't defend or hold onto.
By 1944 the Soviets had already learned every lesson taught to them by the Germans in how to wage mechanized war and we see this in Operation Bagration and then the push to Warsaw and later Operation August Storm in Manchuria.
The question of Soviet aid of Germany before this is irrelevent finger pointing and a tangental redirection away from the question from the original jingoist Pax Americana statement "If it weren't for us we would all be speaking German" bullcrud, if it weren't for the Tsaritsa Poley you would all be speaking German.
D-Day was irrelevant whose only long term benefit was having a Allied presence in Western Europe and ending the war a few months earlier not years.
Americans can be proud of helping the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease which was fairly critical (and something I've never denied) and providing 2/3's of Red Army trucks which allowed Soviet advances to go as far and as fast as they did.
quote: My question is: how long could even Stalin have kept bleeding his country dry for the war on Germany, if Germany were able to focus its attention almost entirely on the USSR?
Check my link, by 1944 they were already winning and about to advance into Germany, assuming DDay never happens.
quote: It's just that the Soviets were helping the Nazis first-that's my beef with Blayne, really.
Ultimately irrelevent and justifiable under realist paradigms, irrelevent because it has nothing to do with the discussion of you or whoever it was claiming America as the sole victor of WWII which discredits the millions of Soviet military deaths and denigrates the military achievements of the Red Army.
And there was certainly not 1 million German troops in France, 1 million allied troops certainly not German.
The 40 Million dead is unlikely as the 24 million dead is principly comprised of civilian dead, by 1944 it would've been military dead and by that time Soviet doctrine and leadership had improved significantly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The question of Soviet aid of Germany before this is irrelevent finger pointing and a tangental redirection away from the question from the original jingoist Pax Americana statement "If it weren't for us we would all be speaking German" bullcrud, if it weren't for the Tsaritsa Poley you would all be speaking German.
It's not irrelevant to me, Blayne, nor to any of the points I'm making, though I can certainly see how it helps your argument to confuse my statements with steven's.
In any event, the idea that the United States would be speaking German were it not for the Soviet Union is at least as stupid as the idea that Europe would be speaking German if not for the Soviets.
quote: Americans can be proud of helping the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease which was fairly critical (and something I've never denied) and providing 2/3's of Red Army trucks which allowed Soviet advances to go as far and as fast as they did.
We shouldn't be proud of helping the Soviet Union, because as it turns out they used their triumph over the Third Reich as an excuse to conquer and tyrannize much of Europe for the next two generations. It was necessary to help the Soviet Union, somewhat, but we shouldn't be proud of it. Instead we should be embarrassed at how incredibly stupid and easily duped we were by the likes of evil scumbags like Stalin.
quote:Ultimately irrelevent and justifiable under realist paradigms, irrelevent because it has nothing to do with the discussion of you or whoever it was claiming America as the sole victor of WWII which discredits the millions of Soviet military deaths and denigrates the military achievements of the Red Army.
OK, for people who aren't Blayne Bradley, 'realist paradigms' means something other than: aggressive military conquest is acceptable if it's a Soviet or a Chinese doing the aggressing and taking the territory. As subsequent European (and Asian! Look at what the USSR tried constantly to do to your beloved China, Blayne, and you're stickin' up for `em!) history illustrates, 'realist paradigms' for Stalin mean 'seize and hold as much territory as I possibly can for as long as I can'.
And that's all. And that's the discussion I'm having, and however much you insist it's irrelevant won't change the fact that it is, because I'm not talking about what steven was talking about, and it's been long enough that you ought to clear the partisanship out of your eyes and take note of who is saying what.
You're defending the power-grabs of Stalin as somehow justified necessities, Blayne. It seems like there really isn't anything a 20th century Communist leader can do that will ever draw criticism from you. You're malanthrop talking politics on this issue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Ultimately irrelevent and justifiable under realist paradigms
This is sort of like when you throw out 'de facto and de jure'
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: The question of Soviet aid of Germany before this is irrelevent finger pointing and a tangental redirection away from the question from the original jingoist Pax Americana statement "If it weren't for us we would all be speaking German" bullcrud, if it weren't for the Tsaritsa Poley you would all be speaking German.
It's not irrelevant to me, Blayne, nor to any of the points I'm making, though I can certainly see how it helps your argument to confuse my statements with steven's.
In any event, the idea that the United States would be speaking German were it not for the Soviet Union is at least as stupid as the idea that Europe would be speaking German if not for the Soviets.
quote: Americans can be proud of helping the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease which was fairly critical (and something I've never denied) and providing 2/3's of Red Army trucks which allowed Soviet advances to go as far and as fast as they did.
We shouldn't be proud of helping the Soviet Union, because as it turns out they used their triumph over the Third Reich as an excuse to conquer and tyrannize much of Europe for the next two generations. It was necessary to help the Soviet Union, somewhat, but we shouldn't be proud of it. Instead we should be embarrassed at how incredibly stupid and easily duped we were by the likes of evil scumbags like Stalin.
quote:Ultimately irrelevent and justifiable under realist paradigms, irrelevent because it has nothing to do with the discussion of you or whoever it was claiming America as the sole victor of WWII which discredits the millions of Soviet military deaths and denigrates the military achievements of the Red Army.
OK, for people who aren't Blayne Bradley, 'realist paradigms' means something other than: aggressive military conquest is acceptable if it's a Soviet or a Chinese doing the aggressing and taking the territory. As subsequent European (and Asian! Look at what the USSR tried constantly to do to your beloved China, Blayne, and you're stickin' up for `em!) history illustrates, 'realist paradigms' for Stalin mean 'seize and hold as much territory as I possibly can for as long as I can'.
And that's all. And that's the discussion I'm having, and however much you insist it's irrelevant won't change the fact that it is, because I'm not talking about what steven was talking about, and it's been long enough that you ought to clear the partisanship out of your eyes and take note of who is saying what.
You're defending the power-grabs of Stalin as somehow justified necessities, Blayne. It seems like there really isn't anything a 20th century Communist leader can do that will ever draw criticism from you. You're malanthrop talking politics on this issue.
Gabriel Temkin disagrees with you.
Look your the one whose broadening the argument and going off kilter, someone probably you as I don't remember said "we'ld all be speaking German if it weren't for the Americans" this in the war it is spoken aka "America Saves the Day" absolutely ignores the hardship and accomplishments of the Tsartitsa Poley.
Its arrogance, and your the one whose trying to distract the issue by somehow making it alright to make the claim because the "USSR started it" as a justifable excuse to slander their very real accomplishments and belittle them, and then you go on saying "we should be disgusted for this and this" uh hello? Things happen, its politics, todays friend is tomorrows enemy.
Saying I'm the malanthrop of this issue is an ad hominem and a logical fallacy, the fact of the matter is we're veering away from historical facts and into that of opinion.
The facts is that the USA did not single handedly win the war, period, ipsu facto whatever, undeniable, if you disagree with me bring up sources and we can debate that, but what your doing is excuse/counter excuse whoring and confusing the argument.
As for the 1 million figure given how many of these are regular whermact units? How many are reserves? Garrison units? Volkstrum? Occupied territory conscripts? What was the make up and the OOB of these units and who were commanding them? Germans? What were their positions? Were they actually commited front line soldiers or does it include logistics or were significant portions of them spread out throughout the occupied area and Vichy france?
Its a given that a certain percentage of these are not easily redeployed or move to the Eastern front nor easily equipped to such a theater and then would take truly desperate situation such as the Soviets breaching past the vistula river for the remainder of these to be moved.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The facts is that the USA did not single handedly win the war, period, ipsu facto whatever,
I can't stress this enough: do not try to use latin terms in your posts.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... going off kilter, someone probably you as I don't remember said "we'ld all be speaking German if it weren't for the Americans" ...
For the record, Steven not Rakeesh on both counts.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Alrighty doesnt really change that its him talking to me about my disagreement.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
When making statements about who is going off kilter, it helps to be precise.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It was awesome when the White House "got it" and refused to get sucked into the Iranian election issue as a bogeyman. But no such luck in this case, I expect that this will simultaneously injure any civilian movement behind Google's decision and tie the hands of any liberal faction within the CCP that might want to be sympathetic towards Google.
Kinda disappointing really.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: When making statements about who is going off kilter, it helps to be precise.
How kind of you, to insult me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, so I shouldn't have started reading this on page 2.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: We helped the Soviet's mechanize, we gave them and the other European countries tons of aid and munitions, and we didn't try to parcel up any part of Europe for ourselves.
Pop quiz for you. Of the two superpowers that emerged from the second war, which one still has garrisons all over Europe?
quote:The rest of Europe might be speaking Russian.
As opposed to speaking English, as they do now? I'm not saying I would have preferred Russian; but the Anglo-Saxon nations have no room to accuse others of imperialism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:Gabriel Temkin disagrees with you.
OK, that's nice.
quote: Look your the one whose broadening the argument and going off kilter, someone probably you as I don't remember said "we'ld all be speaking German if it weren't for the Americans" this in the war it is spoken aka "America Saves the Day" absolutely ignores the hardship and accomplishments of the Tsartitsa Poley.
When memory fails, there's a little known tool that can be used to supplement it: it's called the mouse, and using it with your computer you can scroll up the damn page and see for yourself what exactly I said. Which, for at least the third time now, is not what you think I said.
quote: Its arrogance, and your the one whose trying to distract the issue by somehow making it alright to make the claim because the "USSR started it" as a justifable excuse to slander their very real accomplishments and belittle them, and then you go on saying "we should be disgusted for this and this" uh hello? Things happen, its politics, todays friend is tomorrows enemy.
OK...exactly what issue am I distracting from? I'm saying, let's not heap accolades on the USSR for its vital role in defeating Nazi Germany because, up until the Nazis turned on the USSR, they were helping them. And they weren't getting the Nazis coffee, they were helping conquer Europe and divide it up between them.
I respect the Soviet contribution in helping deal with a problem they were neck-deep in creating - much worse than the United States not joining the League of Nations, by the way, there being a difference between negligence and active involvement - and that's it. And even that respect is mitigated by the fact that the USSR spent all those millions of lives only in order to grab more land and tyrannize Eastern Europe for decades.
quote:Saying I'm the malanthrop of this issue is an ad hominem and a logical fallacy, the fact of the matter is we're veering away from historical facts and into that of opinion.
You're the malanthrop on this issue because repeatedly now you've either outright ignored or completely misstated what others have said (me, specifically), and bulldozed on ahead as though your bogus points were fact.
quote: The facts is that the USA did not single handedly win the war, period, ipsu facto whatever, undeniable, if you disagree with me bring up sources and we can debate that, but what your doing is excuse/counter excuse whoring and confusing the argument.
Did steven even say that? I sure as hell didn't. I don't disagree with the foolish straw man point you've made, Blayne. Move on.
quote:Alrighty doesnt really change that its him talking to me about my disagreement.
You're right. When you're talking to me, it doesn't matter whether or not I said the things you're claiming I said.
Wait a second, that's total nonsense. Which is why you win the malanthrop award for the thread.
--------------
quote:Pop quiz for you. Of the two superpowers that emerged from the second war, which one still has garrisons all over Europe?
Yeah, and European nations are all just clamoring for us to withdraw from those bases, right?
quote:As opposed to speaking English, as they do now? I'm not saying I would have preferred Russian; but the Anglo-Saxon nations have no room to accuse others of imperialism.
But we're in a pretty good position to accuse the Soviet Union, at least, of aggressive tyranny.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As opposed to speaking English, as they do now? I'm not saying I would have preferred Russian; but the Anglo-Saxon nations have no room to accuse others of imperialism.
Luckily, the United States is a Celtic nation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Yeah, and European nations are all just clamouring for us to withdraw from those bases, right?
I think you might find that American troops are rather less popular than they were twenty years ago. But in any case, what of it? Successful imperialists don't go about raping the local women and grinding the faces of the poor. It does not follow that their actions must therefore be put under some other category.
Or to put it differently: Suppose the German government determined that it was no longer in its interest to have those American bases on its soil, and the American government decided that it was in the US interest to keep them where they are. Whose interests do you think would prevail? It is not as though the US keeps troops in Europe from the sheer goodness of its heart, as a sort of economy-stimulating Grand Tour for the troops before they go off on their GI-Bill college educations. They are there because successive American governments have felt that this is in their best interest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think you might find that American troops are rather less popular than they were twenty years ago. But in any case, what of it? Successful imperialists don't go about raping the local women and grinding the faces of the poor. It does not follow that their actions must therefore be put under some other category.
Well, if we're defining imperialist as a nation that does something with the willing consent of another nation, then frankly the term doesn't have much meaning. What control does our military allow us to exert on these nations that is also contrary to the interests of those nations themselves?
quote:Suppose the German government determined that it was no longer in its interest to have those American bases on its soil, and the American government decided that it was in the US interest to keep them where they are. Whose interests do you think would prevail?
I suppose that if the German government asked us, using all the right and proper legal terms and whatnot, to withdraw our military from its territory, we would do so. Do you actually believe we would refuse to do so? We would immediately, before the ink was even dry on the requests, become invaders and occupiers. Dude, there are people in this country right now who think we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. What do you imagine the uproar would be if we were in Germany against German will?
quote:It is not as though the US keeps troops in Europe from the sheer goodness of its heart, as a sort of economy-stimulating Grand Tour for the troops before they go off on their GI-Bill college educations. They are there because successive American governments have felt that this is in their best interest.
Well, among other things they're also there because successive German governments were scared out of their minds at the prospect of living next door unassisted to the USSR. I mean, seriously, you're painting with a very one-sided brush.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Intriguingly, we may not need a hypothetical German situation. The Japanese and Americans are wrangling over whether a relocation of the Okinawa military base within Okinawa will proceed as the Americans want or whether it will be removed from the island as the locals and Japanese want.
quote:Yukio Hatoyama, the new prime minister, personally promised Okinawans during the election campaign that Futenma would be shunted off the island.
That promise swiftly put his government at loggerheads with the Obama administration. As one of her first acts of diplomacy last February, Mrs Clinton signed an agreement under which Japan would contribute $6 billion to relocating Futenma. The other signatory was from the former Liberal Democratic government, which was doomed to suffer an electoral rout in August. But a deal, the Obama administration insisted to the DPJ, was a deal. Some analysts believe that may have been an overly bossy assessment. Even under the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which for much of its 53 years in power was a pliant American ally, the Futenma relocation was often a source of friction.
quote:To make matters worse, most Okinawans seem determined to hold Mr Hatoyama to his word about removing the base altogether. As the painting at the Sakima gallery suggests, Okinawa nurtures an historic grudge against the mother country, piqued by the second world war massacre. Many locals feel that for too long Tokyo has outsourced American bases to the island—it houses 60% of American forces and their families in Japan—and offered only grubby fiscal handouts in return.
It may take till May to find out the final verdict though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It sounds like it will likely take longer than that, using rancorous court battles as a guideline.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blayne,
quote:Gabriel Temkin disagrees with you.
OK, that's nice.
quote: Look your the one whose broadening the argument and going off kilter, someone probably you as I don't remember said "we'ld all be speaking German if it weren't for the Americans" this in the war it is spoken aka "America Saves the Day" absolutely ignores the hardship and accomplishments of the Tsartitsa Poley.
When memory fails, there's a little known tool that can be used to supplement it: it's called the mouse, and using it with your computer you can scroll up the damn page and see for yourself what exactly I said. Which, for at least the third time now, is not what you think I said.
quote: Its arrogance, and your the one whose trying to distract the issue by somehow making it alright to make the claim because the "USSR started it" as a justifable excuse to slander their very real accomplishments and belittle them, and then you go on saying "we should be disgusted for this and this" uh hello? Things happen, its politics, todays friend is tomorrows enemy.
OK...exactly what issue am I distracting from? I'm saying, let's not heap accolades on the USSR for its vital role in defeating Nazi Germany because, up until the Nazis turned on the USSR, they were helping them. And they weren't getting the Nazis coffee, they were helping conquer Europe and divide it up between them.
I respect the Soviet contribution in helping deal with a problem they were neck-deep in creating - much worse than the United States not joining the League of Nations, by the way, there being a difference between negligence and active involvement - and that's it. And even that respect is mitigated by the fact that the USSR spent all those millions of lives only in order to grab more land and tyrannize Eastern Europe for decades.
quote:Saying I'm the malanthrop of this issue is an ad hominem and a logical fallacy, the fact of the matter is we're veering away from historical facts and into that of opinion.
You're the malanthrop on this issue because repeatedly now you've either outright ignored or completely misstated what others have said (me, specifically), and bulldozed on ahead as though your bogus points were fact.
quote: The facts is that the USA did not single handedly win the war, period, ipsu facto whatever, undeniable, if you disagree with me bring up sources and we can debate that, but what your doing is excuse/counter excuse whoring and confusing the argument.
Did steven even say that? I sure as hell didn't. I don't disagree with the foolish straw man point you've made, Blayne. Move on.
quote:Alrighty doesnt really change that its him talking to me about my disagreement.
You're right. When you're talking to me, it doesn't matter whether or not I said the things you're claiming I said.
Wait a second, that's total nonsense. Which is why you win the malanthrop award for the thread.
--------------
quote:Pop quiz for you. Of the two superpowers that emerged from the second war, which one still has garrisons all over Europe?
Yeah, and European nations are all just clamoring for us to withdraw from those bases, right?
quote:As opposed to speaking English, as they do now? I'm not saying I would have preferred Russian; but the Anglo-Saxon nations have no room to accuse others of imperialism.
But we're in a pretty good position to accuse the Soviet Union, at least, of aggressive tyranny.
The point is that you have this whole mindset against the former Soviet Union for their actions or whatever but the fact for the matter is despite having all of this information Jews who fought for the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War felt the Red Army was their last great hope for survival and still look upon it as a necessity even when they left, your descriptions of it being an aggressive tyranny is just more side stepping from you backing away from an argument of facts to moralized grandstanding.
Who cares whose responding to what, your the one who challenged me on who is responsible for who so now your the one in the argument, once more more side stepping.
"Did steven even say that? I sure as hell didn't. I don't disagree with the foolish straw man point you've made, Blayne."
Yes steven did say that and it is an altitude many Americans ignorantly share (including you apparently) and it annoys me, you however decided to be argumentative and trying to belittle the Soviet contributions towards victory through irrelevant finger pointing your the one who should move on.
I notice you backed away hurriedly from the actual argument that was based on facts and went back to white and black moralized grandstanding again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:The point is that you have this whole mindset against the former Soviet Union for their actions or whatever but the fact for the matter is despite having all of this information Jews who fought for the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War felt the Red Army was their last great hope for survival and still look upon it as a necessity even when they left, your descriptions of it being an aggressive tyranny is just more side stepping from you backing away from an argument of facts to moralized grandstanding.
OK, I'm going to try and parse this paragraph into something that makes sense. But keep in mind I'm just guessing, so you may need to, y'know, actually express yourself clearly or whatever if you want to be understood correctly.
Yes, I have this 'whole mindset' against the former USSR for their actions, because those actions were frequently downright awful and led to an increase in suffering and unhappiness for millions of human beings across thousands of miles of the world.
Just because, once upon a time, they fought someone who was just as bad or worse than they were doesn't change that. Especially since they were helping those people first, and only started fighting them after they turned on them.
I know the Russians call it the 'Great Patriotic War', but a more accurate name for it would be the 'Great Holy Crap the Evil Scumbags We Hopped in Bed with Turned on Us War'.
You're bringing in the fact that many Jews sided with the USSR against Nazi Germany as a point in the USSR's favor, and I'm the one sidestepping things? Listen to yourself. What on Earth do Jews have to do with this discussion, Blayne?
quote:Who cares whose responding to what, your the one who challenged me on who is responsible for who so now your the one in the argument, once more more side stepping.
When, exactly, did I challenge you and what exactly do you mean by this, Blayne? Because the kind of discussion you're having, I might as well start arguing against you for supporting the rights of illegal extraterrestrials.
quote: Yes steven did say that and it is an altitude many Americans ignorantly share (including you apparently) and it annoys me, you however decided to be argumentative and trying to belittle the Soviet contributions towards victory through irrelevant finger pointing your the one who should move on.
Dude. I don't believe that. I've said repeatedly now I don't believe that. I have no control over whether or not you're annoyed at me for things I haven't said.
quote:I notice you backed away hurriedly from the actual argument that was based on facts and went back to white and black moralized grandstanding again.
Which argument was that, exactly? The 'factual' argument about a great big hypothetical question? You cited one man who claimed one number, I cited another. But if you're complaining about the fact that I'm not engaging in the argument over whether or not the USSR could have beaten Germany entirely on its own, well, you're right. Because I don't much care about that argument. I care about the Soviet Union getting some big moral credit for defeating the Nazis.
OK, I really, really should have come to this realization sooner, but there's clearly no point in discussing this with you. So now I'ma just stop.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Blayne: Please quote and snip parts of the Rakeesh's post that you're actually responding to. Please do not quote the whole thing. If you are generically responding to the whole thing, quoting the first few lines is sufficient.
(Although, I suggest that the exercise of quoting specific parts of other people's posts might help you parse them more carefully which is a good thing)
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... I know the Russians call it the 'Great Patriotic War', but a more accurate name for it would be the 'Great Holy Crap the Evil Scumbags We Hopped in Bed with Turned on Us War'.
That would be identical to the Iraq War and too similar to the Afghanistan War which is 'Great Holy Crap the Evil Holy Scumbags We Hopped in Bed with Turned on Us War'
[ January 17, 2010, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wholeheartedly agree, Mucus. Though in fairness to us, at least when we sided with them, we were trying to - in addition to furthering our own economic interests - shore up our side against the USSR.
The Soviet motivation for the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact seems to be in the eyes of pretty much everybody except Blayne, "We'd really like to own a bigger chunk of Europe."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I'd hardly agree with that, and I wasn't for the war at all. It's a matter of scope, at the very least.
I don't see us gaining any benefit from this, myself. It's COSTING us money, not making it for us, nor will we want to kill all of them.
If we wanted to do that, it would be over already, and we'd own all the sand (no big woop) and oil (very big woop) we could use in the next 50 years. Or not, and it would REALLY be a holy war against us.
I'd hardly call it the same as WWII though, even if it was not the right thing to do.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)