Col,

I have thought interesting Britain attacked Hitler/Germany, over the latter's invasion of Poland. But immediately WWII Britian didn't attack Stalin/Russia, when the latter quarantined Poland, ensuring millions of innocent deaths.

The American's stopped the Russians from taking Hokkaido, Japan, in the Pacific theatre: It dropped an A-Bomb on Nagasaki, as a demonstration of its power.

The shaky feeling is about Iran, Oliver.

Without a nuclear strike, certainly Iran will be no walkover.

Remember it was Rumsfeld who backed Saddam's attack on Iran in the early 1980's.

It was eight years after that Iran had Saddam on the run, Iraq forced to suggest an Armistice.

There is also the worry that Iran could already have atomic warheads already sneaked out from Russia?

Also surely you are not naive enough to believe that an extended occupation would not be more than a bit about America running out of oil as well, apart from Putin's Russia the rest of the world as well.

Also reckon your suggestions about the benefits of a long US military ME occupation, are far too simplistic, mate?

Cheers - BB, WA.

Oliver “But immediately WWII Britian didn't attack Stalin/Russia, when the latter quarantined Poland, ensuring millions of innocent deaths.”

I noted you made a similar comment on another thread.

Let us consider several points

1 Russia was an ally against Hitler, following Hitler’s invasion of the Ukraine.
2 Britain had been at war for 5 years, it was economically and physically exhausted by the exertion. It could not sustain further battle fronts without the commitment and support of USA.
3 the attitude of the Americans leaned toward a European treaty more than extending a European war.

Do not underestimate that between Truman, his predecessor Roosevelt and Churchill, Churchill was the one who understood more the corrupt character of Stalin at a time the successive US presidents seemed to hope for the best. Churchill was opposed by Stalin from commencing an earlier D day when the US Agreed with Stalin on initiating the Italian campaign first.

4 the US placed great hope in the successor to the League of Nations, the United Nations.
5 A European war would not have suited the French.
6 A European war would have turned a broken Germany into an even greater charnel house of sustained and endless misery.

Making simplistic judgments to what might have been more righteous and more loathsome is the first pursuit of hindsight. It is not the sort of indulgence which time permits when dealing with national economies and what is called “the art of the possible” (politics).

Doubtless, had things been different and the WWII had been resolved in 1941 instead of 1945, something different response to the Russian re-occupation of Poland from Britain might have been forthcoming but the time was not to be like that.

The other point comparing the Europe theatre to the Pacific theatre is Japan was an island nation separate to the mainland of Asia. That has differences to dropping it on a continent partly occupied by “allies” and the consequences are unknown (never having been dropped in anger before). Not withstanding, “the bombs” were not in inexhaustible supply.

Bushbred

The Malayan War started 1945 - the Malay Communist Emergency wasn’t declared over until 1960, two years after Malaya had gained its independence. Incidentally, the new Malay government placed under contract all the colonial officers previously answerable to Whitehall - there wasn’t even a hiccup - business continued exactly as prior to Merdeka.

As you know from another post, I lived for seven years under Malay Emergency - indeed I described an “incident” - not against any colonials, but against their own people. Whilst conflict was euphemistically referred to as an “emergency” it was, in fact, a bloody, full-scale guerilla war and the Brits used everthing in it. Some war-historians deem it a civil war.

Despite the Malay Emergency being declared officially over, having lost its rationale as liberating Malaya from colonial rule, conflict resumed not long after, until a peace treaty between communists and the Malay government was signed in 1989. A total of some THIRTY-FOUR years.

During my time in Malaya I met a communist sympathiser who stated that after Malaya, they would be liberating Australia and all “the white coolies.” I assume he was citing the “domino theory”.

Some time after returning to Australia I had the misfortune to come into contact with academic left-wing loonies. Without any hesitation I can state that they are the most stupidest people that I have ever met - even now, and I am in my seventh decade. Not one would have any practical knowledge of communism.

So appalling was their ignorance that there wasn’t even a point at where any discussion could take place. Furthermore, none of these lefties would have experienced anything more stressful than losing their car keys.

To actually know that our government pays them good money to sprout such stupidity, makes me angry. I believe in freedom of speech - but not government funded - our taxes. What next? The earth really is flat; Creationism.

(cont from above ..)

Certainly, teach comparative political philosophy - all the isms - at university; but not left-wing loonie propoganda. Let students decide for themselves.

To add a little something to this debate. I was recently speaking with a Chinese Malay, who said that the Chinese are quite concerned, as are other non-Malay races, about the next Malay election. A standing candidate is “strongly” Islamic and dislikes other races who are not.

Col,

Thank you for your informed post. I am aware of most of that history. When writing, I was thinking of the ideals involved, not the economics. Busy I will come back with more detail soon.

Cheers,

O.