Monday, December 09, 2013

Who Learned the Most From WW2

While World War One destroyed the old order, World War Two is when Pax Americana was set into motion. As the final conflict of the messy resolution phase of the old order, World War Two, its causes, its players and its outcomes would be fresh in the minds of any new or established nation. Did America learn from WW2? Not really as it just assumed the British role of global cop and empire controller. The Brits? No, not quite as they still clung to their idea of colonies and were forced to abandon them. The French? The French did understand that nuclear power and weapons would be key, and they tried the triangulation game a bit. The Russians? Jesus Christ no, because they set up a buffer zone to prevent against land invasion despite the reality of nuclear weapons that drained them of resources. The Asian nations did not. There is one country that seems to be picking and choosing pieces from the methods of the World War Two combatants: Israel.

Learning from the American Experience
- Have superior firepower. Israel's military is pretty boffo.
- Have nuclear weapons when your opponents do not. Destroy any chance that opponents will develop them (Syria/Iraq bombing strikes).
- Intertwine technology with the dominant tech power. The US signed agreements that allowed British tech to be stolen shared during WW2. The Israelis do this with intel tech work, the NSA data sharing and ordering weapons that they then modify for their use. They also steal tech secrets outright.
- Invest massively in R&D, sciences and technology.
- Air power is the key to victory.
- The cutting edge of technology can be the difference on the battlefield.
- Like US-UK relations in WW2, it is sometimes hard to tell who is the senior and who is the junior partner.

Learning from the Soviet Experience
- Helps to have American Senators, academics and media pundits as spokesmen for your survival and existence.
- Receive recognition and aid from America.
- Spy on your biggest patron and ally.
- Because your bond is religion (like communism), take advantage of that identity being the superior layer to the national identity so that spies can be pulled from any country and walk freely for years.
- Create an ideological sympathy point for anyone to rally around. Check out Christian TV stations to see ads about donating to homeless Jews in Israel and hear a constant message of Jews being guardians of Christian holy sites.
- Hollywood can help with favorable output. How many Holocaust movies can they make to remind everyone of the horrible, terrible "only ever happened to the Jews" Holocaust to maintain that Jews are the ultimate victims? There have been multiple versions of the story of the Russian Jewish Army soldier who was sent to a concentration camp, and then orchestrated and pushed for an escape. There have been multiple versions of the Israeli Mossad guys going after the Munich hostage terrorists story. I'd even throw in Ben-Hur. World War Z qualifies here as well. With regards to the Holocaust movie market, the movies always center around the Jews in the Holocaust and rarely, if ever, about the other ethnicities that were persecuted, killed and in the case of the gypsies, nearly wiped out. It's nearly always, if not always, just Jewish victims.

Learning from the German Experience
- The idea of religious and ethnic solidarity being tied to the state.
- Conscription to defend against the 'other'.
- Enforcing immigration laws to keep Israel Jewish.
- Use of medical regulations and technology to maintain Jewish genetic purity.
- Using the social system to encourage more Jewish births.
- Pulling in Jews from other nations to boost numbers (refuseniks from Russia).
- Unlike the Germans, they have a basic understanding of America.
- I'm not saying Israel = Nazi Germany, I'm saying that they apply the machinery of their government for their citizens and the Jewish identity that they hold dear.

I'm not saying they are the best run nation on the planet, but they learned quite a few lessons from the different combatants in WW2. I can't name another country that pulls together this many pieces. China comes close, but China's military investments have been a slow buildup as the military was a money making entrepreneurial expedition until recently. Outside of Tom Friedman and occasional guest Ny Times op-eds, China does not inspire the Sinophile devotion that one can see in everyday Americans who are pro-Israel. America watches presidential debates where, regardless of party, the next US president loves Israel!

3 comments:

Whiskey said...

I'd say Israel lately has done fairly poorly in both military matters (they got their asses kicked by Hezbollah) and political ones (they had no plan for US abandonment by the massive change in attitudes by Democrats re: Israel).

As for US military policy, it amounted early on to outright rejection of Britain's role as global hegemon. The Revolt of the Admirals came about because of Truman's desire to disarm to pre WWII levels:


There's no reason for having a Navy and Marine Corps. General Bradley tells me that amphibious operations are a thing of the past. We'll never have any more amphibious operations. That does away with the Marine Corps. And the Air Force can do anything the Navy can do nowadays, so that does away with the Navy.

—Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson, December 1949


Truman being a lifelong member of the corrupt Tom Pendergrast organization in Kansas City, thought the way you dealt with potential enemies was payoffs not military force, his strategy for Stalin was to disarm and offer him money. The near dissolution of the Navy meant that after Inchon, no more amphibious landings were contemplated as it was discovered that any serious opposition would have left the landing troops with no resupply, as the Navy had no spare capacity to deal with sunk or even damaged ships. Thus no amphibious landing rescue for Chosin Reservoir troops.

Ike's strategy was to reduce the military to a shadow and have nuclear armed bombers always on alert circling: Chrome Dome. No "provocative" military conventional strength and hair-trigger nuclear forces. It took JFK and LBJ to rebuild the Navy, and it was Ike's policy to embrace the Third World and hold the First at arms length particularly Israel at Suez in 1956. Again it was JFK onward where the US took up the burden of Global Hegemon as the Ike hair trigger strategy was too risky and the Truman bribery failed.

Whiskey said...

Israel failed to realize demographic changes in the US: rising NAM votes, made Democratic politicians hostile to its interests, reflecting the general hostility towards the West and Western nations that NAMs share. Israel further failed to recognize that White elites had turned on it, worshiping NAMS and the eternal struggle among elite Whites for status-dominance. That PC, Multiculturalism, and "Diversity" were the new religious beliefs of the Western elite and that as such, they had to work extra hard to position themselves as "diverse" and "non-White" to receive continued support. That in a struggle between non-White Arabs who are not Christians or even Westerners, and Western peoples like themselves, the Wests elites would side with their enemy.

Pretty much 75% of the Democratic Party loathes Israel and wants it gone. Failure to recognize this and come up with a plan, was a massive strategic failure by Israel's leadership.

As for military affairs, Israel had a corvette nearly sunk by Hezbollah in the Lebanon War, and around a dozen tanks, nearly irreplaceable for such a tiny country, destroyed with their crews against dug in and well defended Hezbollah positions. Tanks were sent in without infantry support, and the power of anti tank weapons supplied by the Russians were discounted. Hezbollah had a lot of experience fighting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of Iran's foreign legion, and that experience was discounted.

Israel's military is not worthless, but is far overvalued. It is less competent, less well led, and has less of a qualitative edge over its enemies than in the past. It has no real strategic depth, no ability to resupply (Obama is certain to refuse unlike Nixon in the Yom Kippur War), and has a tiny population.

Iran can survive, and would probably welcome (in killing opposition populations in major cities) losing its top five major cities. Israel would cease to exist in such a nuclear exchange.

Israel thus has no real ability to deter attack, while Iran once nuclear has every incentive to do so, i.e. attack first, because as a Shia power with pretensions to ruling the Arab Sunni world, it has to do SOMETHING big to both intimidate the Gulf nations to reduce oil production to meet their stated floor of $150 a barrel, and gain support from Morocco to the Sudan of Arab Sunni populations. Wiping out Israel where Nasser, Sadat, the Saudis, AQ etc all failed is a good start.

For their part Israel surely has noted the repeated Iranian statements they will wipe out Israel, and is likely to play the only card they have: a nuclear first strike aimed at destroying Iranian ability to rebuild nuclear infrastructure and existing weapons.

The dual Soviet-US hegemony had as a flaw, a hair trigger nuclear war risk; but as a positive the restraint of regional wars boiling over into nuclear use. The Russian arsenal is weak and untested, and the US arsenal is aging and has also had more than thirty years of no tests to verify the aging equipment still works. Both lack the will and the means to enforce global dual hegemony.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Thanks for the great comments. You could spin those into posts.

I've written before on the Jewish red state-blue state divide. Israeli's are their red staters, while US Jews are their blue staters. Most Wikileaks released material point to an unspoken alliance between Israel + the Saudis, and the Saudis gave Israel the greenlight to use their airspace for a bombing run on Iran. If Israel feels they need to go after Iran's nuke sites, let them. Just dont drag us into it.

The Iranians claiming it purely is for peaceful means is a joke. They'd use thorium if that was the case. We could offer them thorium tech if we were smart and trying to prevent nuke proliferation, but we dont.

US policy is a complete mess with no overarching cause and amateurs at the helm. Iran is a regime that could topple with continued pressure. Once the regime is toppled, then you grab the nuke material. We most likely will have to do that with Pakistan at some point.