North Korea Opts For Multilateral Talks

[j2k4]

Just so-

The Steppes have ruined many a conquest; maybe, though, we would have waited 'til spring?

[MagicNakor]

Who knows? Winter may've stayed late.

[clocker]

I am hardly an expert in military tactics, nor in the history of WW2, but...

At the end of hostilities with Germany, we could have engaged Russian forces in Europe where Father Winter was not the ally they were used to having. We didn't have to march to Stalingrad and endure the waiting game that the Soviets were so good at playing.
The Soviet Union's population had been decimated (almost literally), their production facilities lay in ruin, their ability to feed their populace was very precarious. They were not the same foe that Napoleon met.
Our troops were already deployed and well trained, battle tested and we had not suffered the terrible losses that Russia sustained. Our production of war materiel was increasing and maintaining/ extending supply lines was not an issue.

I once read that Kruschev said that the Russian military leadership was amazed that the Allies did not immediately turn on them and attack, for that is exactly what they would have done had they been able. From this, the Russians concluded that the West was weak and susceptable to the "big lie". Bluffing became one of the USSR's most successful techniques when dealing with the West and they managed to carry it off for 50 years.
We all know what happened then.

[echidna]

I can't see why the N Koreans presumption that they should get to speak with their main detractors is unexpected? or even unreasonable?
To think that the USA, or Pakistan, or Israel, the UK, or France would consider relinquishing their atomics would be so optimistic as to loose one credibility.
The possession of atomics has a perceived 'status' which has been used historically by most in the atomic weapons holding community to provide greater height to their soap boxes.
Although this status may be useless security blanket, the demonstrated lesson from the Iraq excursion is that places without credible mass destructive capabilities are liable to be invaded.
i can't see why China, Russia and the USA couldn't organise a private little chat between themselves and N Korea, as a way of placating N Korea, as nuclear big brothers with the means to close down supplies i doubt that it could be described as appeasement.
I've come to consider that the world is governed by a system of 'mafiocracy' to an ever growing extent since at least the late seventies [this system acts shielded in institutions called monarchy, democracy, socialism, theocracy, etc. which hold historical positions of power and are therefore obviously appealing sites for Mafiosi]
Gangs and governments are the same, governments are just the biggest gangs and thereby rule the streets 'nation-wide'.
So the families should have words with the new upstart, and that needs to happen in private.
After all only a crazy Don would want to stage a brawl on china and Russia's front steps, not that it hasn't already been tried and look what a great outcome that has been.

[bigboab]

The Soviet Union had 12.8 million fighting forces on their own land plus twice that in reserve. The combined allied forces had 22 million fighting forces, most of them in the US, the rest of them deployed all over the world. I am sorry but I know who my money would have been on in an immediate conflict in 1945. Do you honestly think that in this day and age you can believe history that has been written by the people who end up in charge of any of the countries of the world. The eastern world are mostly dictatorial, some 'freely' elected. Bush dictatorial, dubiously elected. Blair fawning. These are the people who sent young men to their deaths, yet not one of them has ever donned a uniform in the name of their own country. Unless it was a boy scout one. Can you tell me why they are not allowed to publish the truth of history until all the antagonists are dead? Some truth after 50 years the majority after 100 years. Just look at the sinking of the Belgrano and the mysterious disappearance of the submarines log book to name but one of the more recent conflicts. I could go on all day but I think I will close now because we would be beating our heads against a brick(no I have not already done it&#33 wall trying to get the truth. I personally think that the first troops into a conflict should be the politicians on both sides. I think this says it all.

[lynx]

Originally posted by clocker@21 August 2003 - 05:29
We didn't have to march to Stalingrad and endure the waiting game that the Soviets were so good at playing.

.....

Bluffing became one of the USSR's most successful techniques when dealing with the West and they managed to carry it off for 50 years.
We all know what happened then.

So who was best at playing the waiting game ?

[Biggles]

Whilst contra-factual history is fun as a palour game, it sheds little light on what any outcome may actually have been. There are simply too many variables.

The World was war-weary in 1945. The political leaders knew only too well that their people wanted their boys home. To embark on another war immediately after the defeat of the Axis powers would have been less than popular to say the least. Russia was not on its knees in 1945 - it had made enormous sacrifices and had basically modernised its military capability whilst on the run from Germany. In 1945 apart from nuclear weapons, there was no technology gap. A war would have been long and bloody if it required the capture of Moscow. The liberation of Poland etc., may, on the other hand, have been a practical proposition -but there simply wasn't the stomach to go to war with people we had just celebrated victory with.

Furthermore, there was an extremely strong socialist movement in Europe in the 40s. The 1945 election in the UK ditched Churchill and returned a huge majority to the Labour party (a pretty left wing Labour party at that) - this was repeated all over Europe. I believe Italy voted in Communists. There simply was no desire amongst ordinary people to go after Russia and the western leaders resigned themselves to a de facto partion of Europe.

The Cold War that followed is now over and we have won. Well in so much as one can win a "cold war". What have we won? We are still here. The former head of the KGB is in charge of Russia. The criminal gangs that operate from the former Soviet block are responsible for a huge incease in drug smuggling, traffic in human beings, etc., etc., right down to something like 1 in 3 car thefts in mainland Europe (and fair number in the UK too). The Russians are, for the most part, no better off - although they are now free to complain about being no better off. Who is to say they may not have reached this stage faster without a cold war? I have never been convinced that Castro would have lasted more than 10 years if the US had encouraged trade and travel. Isolation can often set things in aspic.

In a sudden sweep to get on topic (a token discipline our heavily moderated work board has instilled)- I am not sure isolating NK is going to achieve anything. As Churchill said "Jaw jaw is better than war war" lets get talking. Their leader may be clinically loopy but he won't last forever and the next guy may actually be a Gorbachev (apologies if I got the spelling wrong there).

[j2k4]

Good post, Biggles-


I am curious, though:

Quote: Biggles-
"Who is to say they may not have reached this stage faster without a cold war?"

Absent a Cold War, what else?

The expansionist U.S.S.R., I believe, was responsible for that scenario, though it cannot be denied the U.S. played the game, too.

As to N.K. and Kim Jong Il, I think the key to understanding our concern with him is his stated intent to trade/sell/distribute nukes to other entities much moreso than the likelihood of his using them himself.

Our resistance to a 1:1 sit-down with them is rooted in this, and our desire to spur some more "localized" pressure (South Korea, China, Japan, etc.) on N.K. to behave.

[j2k4]

Edit: dbl post.

[bigboab]

No you spelled NK corectly BIGGLES. B)