Posted on 03/18/2014 11:16:19 AM PDT by opentalk
Former Rep. Ron Paul says that America’s reaction to Crimea’s vote to secede from Ukraine should be,“so what?”
“Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?” the Texas Republican and libertarian icon wrote in a USA Today op-ed Monday.
...Over the weekend, Crimeans voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia,which the Russian government has moved to approve. American politicians have called the vote a sham and the administration has said it does not recognize the results of the vote,placing sanctions on some Russian officials in response.
Ron Paul said at least three other regions, Catalonia, Scotland and Venice,are similarly seeking to leave their countries, and the U.S. and Europe should allow events to proceed uninterrupted there as well as Crimea, saying “self-determination is a centerpiece of international law.”
… Paul said the “minimal” sanctions from the White House is all the global economy can afford, and it is the global economy that promotes peace,not intervention.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“Any vote that gets numbers like 97 percent makes me suspicious, especially when there are troops all around to influence the vote by force if need be.”
On the contrary, the percentage is perfectly rational.
The turnout was of 81%, meaning that those who boycotted the referendum, mostly Ukrainians and a majority of Tartars, represent 19%. In a region with a population of 61% ethnic Russians, 1.5% Belorussians, some 20% Ukrainians and 12% Crimean Tarars and very small other communities Greeks, Jews, Armenians etc; and where 98% speak Russian, 85% declaring Russian as their mother tongue, if the turnout was of 100%, the result would have been 75% in favor of joining the Russian Federation.
As for the presence of troops, at the moment of the referendum , on all the military bases of the peninsula, there were 17,000 Russian troops and 20,000 Ukrainian troops.
The US was not bothered when Albanians in Kosovo and Iraquis voted in the presence of occupying USNATO troops on their soil; they even hailed the elections as a “triumph of the democracy”.
You referenced Patton.
In the later days of the war, he wanted to ally with Germany and attack USSR. That is what I was referencing.
You are making the assumption that without US support the USSR would have continued to fight the Nazis, tying up 90% of the Wehrmacht so we wouldn’t have to fight them.
IMO a more likely scenario is the USSR collapsing in 1942, with the Germans taking control of as much of it as they wanted, probably over to the Urals. This would have given them all the oil and other resources they needed, especially since troops released by the collapse of the Red Army could have been diverted to Middle East, squashing the Brits and taking over all of North Africa and to Iraq.
They would then have had two years to build the defenses of Fortress Europa. I believe that quite literally we could not have forced a landing on Europe or in North Africa against a German Army fighting only on one front.
Now the war would still have ended in 1945, when we nuked Berlin, and arguably that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened. But without nukes we could NOT have defeated a Germany Army unencumbered by the Eastern Front.
I have never heard that he wanted an alliance with the Germans. Please supply a reference. I was referring to Patton's conclusion that the Soviets were as much or more of an enemy than the Germans, which was true.
You are making the assumption that without US support the USSR would have continued to fight the Nazis, tying up 90% of the Wehrmacht so we wouldn’t have to fight them.
No. I am making the observation that with 90% of the Wehrmacht tied up all the way to the Urals and tied down fighting the Russians at their rear should they retreat, we could have got to Berlin before they did. Their supply lines would be WAY extended with minimal infrastructure to bring the troops and equipment back in a big hurry.
This would have given them all the oil and other resources they needed, especially since troops released by the collapse of the Red Army could have been diverted to Middle East, squashing the Brits and taking over all of North Africa and to Iraq.
They would have had to get that oil back Germany and process it into fuel. You are pretending that we would have allowed either.
IMO a more likely scenario is the USSR collapsing in 1942, with the Germans taking control of as much of it as they wanted, probably over to the Urals.
I doubt it would have been that fast. The Russians defended without much of anything in the way of material assistance from the US for the first six months as the US wasn't yet in the war. Nor had our manufacturing systems been converted to wartime production, which took another year. the Germans hadn't even got to Stalingrad before August. I don't buy your scenario. I have the Germans tied down in Russia until mid-1943, at least.
They would then have had two years to build the defenses of Fortress Europa.
They did anyway, but they were busy.
By mid'43 we were cranking up the long-range bombing program, which, admittedly, was not terribly effective at first. But one does not have to be terribly accurate to do serious damage to an oil refinery or rail yard. So I just don't see them putting together the transportation to move the Wehrmacht and all its munitions and equipment back to France in time with the remains of the Russian army at their heels.
Now the war would still have ended in 1945, when we nuked Berlin, and arguably that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened. But without nukes we could NOT have defeated a Germany Army unencumbered by the Eastern Front.
I just don't see them "unencumbered," ever. The Russians are a tenacious bunch, as they proved at Stalingrad.
Not the most reliable source, IMO. But it quotes a book that is a probably good source.
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/research/westernfoundation.html
bkmk
Bingo. Black - white - black - white.
Me too
Great excuse to beat up Obama as weak
But not much else
Beating the West at its own propaganda game :)
I thought you were up to shenanigans but if it’s an honest mixup, then we’re ok.
Cheers.
US on Ron Paul: Why do we care?
No one is reporting the same thing. I don’t think anyone knows just what the Ukraine parliament is anymore.
A highly intelligent post, reminiscent of how Ronald Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union without starting World War III, to win the Cold War.
What do you mean exactly? Ukrainian parliament has the same people as before it all started, you can google or look at the makeup at Wikipedia. Almost the same, with the following changes:
- there’s a number of MPs that fled the country. Those are the Yanukovich loyalists and some from the Communist Party. Can’t recall the exact number, but something like 20 out of the 450 total have fled. Communist leader Symonenko is reportedly in Belarus, others probably in Russia.
- Yanukovich Regions party and Communists used to have a majority faction, now the Regions party is dead in the water. A number of MPs resigned from the party, large number are now voting with the former opposition. (Whether they saw the light or are under duress, that’s a different topic)
- Former opposition (Yatseniuk, Klitchko, Tyahnibok) now have a majority in the parliament
- The majority elected a new Speaker, Turchynov, and formed the new government. Given the line of succession, Turchynov is now fulfilling the duties of the president until elections in May ( if they’re not sabotaged by then)
Well you have a lot on the US media, because they don’t seem to have a clue. Most of what I have read contradicts the next writing.
I’m a native speaker of the Ukrainian and Russian languages so that’s where I’m getting my news. Lived almost my entire live in Ukraine. Following US media to see how it’s being reported but also for any insightful analysis it might offer.
Might I suggest the example of TigerLikesRooster with regard to Korea?
Repeating it doesn’t make your America-smearing revisionist trash true.
It was total war. If a city needed to be completely leveled, it was completely leveled.
If you can’t stomach the truth don’t read history threads.
My old man saw Germany while it was being demilled in the summer and fall of 1945. He saw what the RAF did to Mannheim-Ludwigshaven in 15 minutes one day, six months earlier. He was there, he saw it. And that was after he'd been a bombardier in B-24's and seen it from 28,000 feet.
Don't talk to me about "history threads", not when I had access to an eyewitness. And NO, we did not conduct a genocidal policy against the Germans, which was what your original statement was.
Selfrighteous prig.
Selfrighteous prig.
Nice argument. Good by.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.