Olaf Scholz: the NATO will not be part of the Ukrainian War

[Kathryn]

Did y'all know that till at least 2014 and maybe even longer, Ukraine was opposed to joining NATO? I think that's interesting but hey, that's just me. Also, when did Ki-ev become (pronounced) Keev? When was "the" dropped from THE Ukraine? I can't keep up with it all!

 

[Rival]

Did y'all know that till at least 2014 and maybe even longer, Ukraine was opposed to joining NATO? I think that's interesting but hey, that's just me. Also, when did Ki-ev become (pronounced) Keev? When was "the" dropped from THE Ukraine? I can't keep up with it all!

Kyiv is the local Ukrainian way of saying it. Kiev is the Russian way, so technically wrong.

'The' was always somewhat a misnomer after Ukraine became a country; it was 'the' before because Ukraine literally means 'borderland' so it was literally the borderland between a lot of places, being as plain-like as it is. After becoming a country it was no longer the borderlands because it was a nation-state which belonged to a particular people.

Hope this helps.

 

[Revoltingest]

The USA did..... For 2+ years.

You're wrong about that.
Anyone familiar with the history of metalurgy
knows of US Liberty Ships, which entered the
war in 1941. (Many ships & lives were lost to
Unterwasserbooten.) Germany attacked
England in 1940.
Again, on behalf of Ameristan, I hereby apologize
for this one of many examples of US wrongful
meddling in affairs of foreign countries during
WW2. This happened because of elite bankers
(so I'm often told here).
Alas, our government doesn't heed my call to
mind its own ******* business.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, there was Lend-Lease.

Yes. Absolutely.
But in the darkest hours we were alone. If we had been overrun then all was over.

 

[oldbadger]

You're wrong about that.
Anyone familiar with the history of metalurgy
knows of US Liberty Ships, which entered the
war in 1941. (Many ships & lives were lost to
Unterwasserbooten.) Germany attacked
England in 1940.
Again, on behalf of Ameristan, I hereby apologize
for this one of many examples of US wrongful
meddling in affairs of foreign countries during
WW2. This happened because of elite bankers
(so I'm often told here).
Alas, our government doesn't heed my call to
mind its own ******* business.

We were alone until you got clobbered in Hawaii. Come to think of it we were without your might in the first years of WW1.
Mind your own business?
Well, yes, you've got one massive heap of home-trouble looming on the horizon, a real mess to sort out, so maybe you'll be less involved outside for a bit?

 

[Stevicus]

Did y'all know that till at least 2014 and maybe even longer, Ukraine was opposed to joining NATO? I think that's interesting but hey, that's just me. Also, when did Ki-ev become (pronounced) Keev? When was "the" dropped from THE Ukraine? I can't keep up with it all!

Russians and Ukrainians spell it differently, but it's still pronounced "Keev" in both languages. "Ki-ev" was always the English pronunciation, just like we pronounce the capital of Russia as "Mos-cow" instead of "Moskva."

It may be a matter of courtesy or respect to make the English pronunciation closer to the native pronunciation of their capital city. Just like the U.S. changed its pronunciation of China's capital city from "Peking" to "Beijing" back in the 70s (that took some getting used to at first). But it's not a consistent practice, as we still call "Roma" Rome and "Warszawa" Warsaw.

I think the dropping of the "the" in "The Ukraine" took place around 2014, when the Russians occupied Crimea. There are no articles ('the," "a," "an") in their language so "the" was never part of their name for the region anyway. I'm not even sure why we called the Ukraine in the first place. Or why we still pronounce it "You Crane" instead of "Oo Krai Eena."

 

[Debater Slayer]

Is the number of lives lost a measure of efficacy?

No, but it demonstrates immense commitment to defeating an enemy, in this case the Nazis.

Now it's fashionable to say that USA's role
in WW2 was either superfluous or wrong.

I never said its role was either; I think it was crucial to the Allies' victory. However, it's also true that the Allies committed atrocities of their own during the war, despite those obviously being incomparable to the Axis' atrocities.

This is important.
Both Russia & Italy supported the war &
genocide....until it became to their advantage
to switch sides. Russia did eventually do some
good, but not with good intentions.

I think it's debatable whether any of the involved parties had "good intentions" rather than merely practical and self-preserving ones. The US only got involved when it was directly attacked, and the UK, France, and the USSR had been violent, imperialist states, something that had been clear before the war and became even more pronounced in their actions toward other countries elsewhere in the world in the decades after the war.

Sometimes good actions result from selfish or neutral intentions, so whatever one may speculate about the intentions of the USSR or any other Allied country doesn't seem to me to change the fact that their defeating the Axis was good and necessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

We were alone until you got clobbered in Hawaii.

Do you believe that the Liberty Ships
were of so little value that England
was entirely "alone"?

Come to think of it we were without your might in the first years of WW1.
Mind your own business?
Well, yes, you've got one massive heap of home-trouble looming on the horizon, a real mess to sort out, so maybe you'll be less involved outside for a bit?

There are many here who believe that we
should let Putin have Ukraine. And some
of you across the Pond would also let him
take Moldova, etc.
Do you agree that USA should stand down?

BTW, the morals & judgement of USA are
indeed dubious, eg, supporting Israel's apartheid
& now genocide of Palestinians....the tip of a big
iceberg. So I can understand why you'd all rather
go it alone. But this preference should be very
carefully considered.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes. Absolutely.
But in the darkest hours we were alone. If we had been overrun then all was over.

Yes, although they did manage to hold back the German blitz.

In any case, logistically, the Germans simply didn't have the wherewithal for a cross-channel invasion. And the British had the finest navy in the world (until we caught up and surpassed you in that area).

I don't think the U.S. would have wanted Britain to go down alone. While there was some isolationist sentiment at the time, it seems a lot of people genuinely thought that France and Britain could have handled the Germans without our help. On paper, they had the Germans outnumbered and outgunned. How was anyone to know that France would fold up and surrender so quickly?

That was in June, 1940, when the U.S. Army was no larger than Belgium's. However, just after that, the U.S. passed the Two-Ocean Navy Act. In addition, FDR called for massive production increases in aircraft, tanks, and other equipment around the same time. So, we knew that we were headed to war, but it took time to marshal all the necessary resources and industries to build up our military-industrial complex.

One thing to remember is that, in the aftermath of WW2, the entire attitude in the U.S. changed. I perceive that there's been a great deal of national regret over what many regard as a short-sighted, xenophobic, and isolationist attitude which pervaded in the U.S. after WW1, which opposed the U.S. entry into the League of Nations. Our military was reduced in size and kept at a minimal level, so by 1939-40, we were woefully unprepared to enter a world war. We weren't even all that prepared in December 1941, but we were getting there.

Ever since then, the U.S. has made it a priority to maintain high levels of military spending and to take a much more proactive (and somewhat aggressive) approach to geopolitics. All of it is rooted in the notion that, "if we had been stronger in 1940, we could have stopped Hitler before he even got started."

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but it demonstrates immense commitment to defeating an enemy, in this case the Nazis.

Their sacrifice & efficacy in the war aren't disputed.
Especially after they switched from supporting
Hitler to fighting him.

I never said its role was either; I think it was crucial to the Allies' victory.

I didn't attribute that common claim to you.

However, it's also true that the Allies committed atrocities of their own during the war, despite those obviously being incomparable to the Axis' atrocities.

This too isn't in dispute.
Is it relevant to the discussion about USA
being unnecessary in winning WW2?
It seems introduced to minimize the
value of USA's contribution.

I think it's debatable whether any of the involved parties had "good intentions" rather than merely practical and self-preserving ones. The US only got involved when it was directly attacked, and the UK, France, and the USSR had been violent, imperialist states, something that had been clear before the war and became even more pronounced in their actions toward other countries elsewhere in the world in the decades after the war.

That isn't quite true. Before actually waging
war, USA did supply England with materiel
& material using the Liberty Ships.
It appears that few foreigners are aware of
or appreciate their value, & the sacrifices
of many who died crossing the Atlantic.

I'm not saying they were crucial. But they
shouldn't be treated as non-existent.

Sometimes good actions result from selfish or neutral intentions, so whatever one may speculate about the intentions of the USSR or any other Allied country doesn't seem to me to change the fact that their defeating the Axis was good and necessary.

All actions are selfish IMO, eg, Germany's
invasions, England's self defense, Russia's
siding with Hitler, Egypt's neutrality.
What's the purpose of that moot point?

 

[Stevicus]

That isn't quite true. Before actually waging
war, USA did supply England with materiel
& material using the Liberty Ships.
It appears that few foreigners are aware of
or appreciate their value, & the sacrifices
of many who died crossing the Atlantic.

I'm not saying they were crucial. But they
shouldn't be treated as non-existent.

They're not treated as non-existent. And they did pay us back eventually. It took a while, but they paid back every penny, with interest.

And the British were very accommodating hosts when our boys were over there, so I'm sure they'll never forget that. They said that the American serviceman was "overpaid, oversexed, and over here." While the British servicemen were "underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower."

On the other hand, if the British were really in that much of a bind, then they might have taken Hitler's peace offer, in which they were offered a chance to keep their empire and cease hostilities. That may have temporarily saved Britain, but Hitler would have had control of most of the continent and be able to use everything he had against the USSR. He could have possibly won against Stalin, thus having access to vast resources (especially oil, which he desperately needed). That would have definitely posed a threat to the U.S.

So, it was very much in our interests that Britain remain in the war and hold on, and it was in our interests to help them as much as we could. No one has said it was non-existent, but it is a fact that we weren't really all that prepared either and we were doing the best we could. I guess our real failure was in not seeing it coming sooner and being better prepared.

 

[Revoltingest]

They're not treated as non-existent. And they did pay us back eventually. It took a while, but they paid back every penny, with interest.

Some detail for that claim would be useful.

And the British were very accommodating hosts when our boys were over there, so I'm sure they'll never forget that. They said that the American serviceman was "overpaid, oversexed, and over here." While the British servicemen were "underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower."

You suggest that the hosts merely tolerated
these damnable privileged US soldiers?
This contrasts with Brits I've known who lived
thru that war (neighbors & co-workers).
It appears that perceptions of history are
changing to support more US isolationism.
I can get behind the result, but not the
revisionism.

On the other hand, if the British were really in that much of a bind, then they might have taken Hitler's peace offer, in which they were offered a chance to keep their empire and cease hostilities. That may have temporarily saved Britain, but Hitler would have had control of most of the continent and be able to use everything he had against the USSR. He could have possibly won against Stalin, thus having access to vast resources (especially oil, which he desperately needed). That would have definitely posed a threat to the U.S.

So, it was very much in our interests that Britain remain in the war and hold on, and it was in our interests to help them as much as we could. No one has said it was non-existent, but it is a fact that we weren't really all that prepared either and we were doing the best we could. I guess our real failure was in not seeing it coming sooner and being better prepared.

There really was no existential threat to USA posed by
Hitler (IMO). Entering WW2 as just a choice to assist
(so they believed at the time) allies.
I don't see Hitler as being an existential threat to USA.
Had he conquered all of Europe & Russia, USA would
have been a target too expensive to be worth conquering.
I'd expect a negotiated peaceful & profitable relationship,
perhaps even based on MAD.

 

[Stevicus]

Some detail for that claim would be useful.

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In practice, most equipment was destroyed, although some hardware (such as ships) was returned after the war. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States, which were finally repaid in 2006.

You suggest that the hosts merely tolerated
these damnable privileged US soldiers?
This contrasts with Brits I've known who lived
thru that war (neighbors & co-workers).
It appears that perceptions of history are
changing to support more US isolationism.
I can get behind the result, but not the
revisionism.

No, that was just the running joke at the time, although the U.S. and Britain already had close ties and saw themselves as natural allies against the Germans. I don't see how any of that entails support of more U.S. isolationism, nor is it in any way revisionist. Your earlier point was that you thought others were discounting or disregarding US aid to Britain, using the term "non-existent." That was not true. All who benefited from U.S. aid expressed their appreciation.

There really was no existential threat to USA posed by
Hitler (IMO). Entering WW2 as just a choice to assist
(so they believed at the time) allies.
I don't see Hitler as being an existential threat to USA.
Had he conquered all of Europe & Russia, USA would
have been a target too expensive to be worth conquering.
I'd expect a negotiated peaceful & profitable relationship,
perhaps even based on MAD.

Possibly, although we don't really know that for certain. By the same logic, Britain could have just as easily quit - or Britain and France could have just not declared war to begin with. If they let Hitler keep Poland, then that could have been the end of it right then and there. Or maybe not. It's all "what if" now.

 

[Kathryn]

Russians and Ukrainians spell it differently, but it's still pronounced "Keev" in both languages. "Ki-ev" was always the English pronunciation, just like we pronounce the capital of Russia as "Mos-cow" instead of "Moskva."

It may be a matter of courtesy or respect to make the English pronunciation closer to the native pronunciation of their capital city. Just like the U.S. changed its pronunciation of China's capital city from "Peking" to "Beijing" back in the 70s (that took some getting used to at first). But it's not a consistent practice, as we still call "Roma" Rome and "Warszawa" Warsaw.

I think the dropping of the "the" in "The Ukraine" took place around 2014, when the Russians occupied Crimea. There are no articles ('the," "a," "an") in their language so "the" was never part of their name for the region anyway. I'm not even sure why we called the Ukraine in the first place. Or why we still pronounce it "You Crane" instead of "Oo Krai Eena."

We also still pronounce Munich as well, Munich rather than Munchen as the Germans do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did y'all know that till at least 2014 and maybe even longer, Ukraine was opposed to joining NATO?

I wonder what could possibly have happened in 2014 that changed their mind?

Euromaidan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War in Donbas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kathryn]

I wonder what could possibly have happened in 2014 that changed their mind?

Euromaidan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War in Donbas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gee, I have no idea.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Gee, I have no idea.

One of life's unsolved mysteries, I guess. Ho hum.

 

[Kathryn]

Brits about American troops in WW2: "Oversexed, overfed, and over here."

 

[Kathryn]

One of life's unsolved mysteries, I guess. Ho hum.

Well, there's no point in fighting the powers that be. I am getting too old to die on anyone else's hill.

I will never forget calling my dad one time after five police officers were killed by a lunatic in Dallas, and I asked him (he was always up for a good insurrection) what he planned to do about it, and he said, "Nothing. I am too old to do anything." Now I know how he felt!

 

[Revoltingest]

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No, that was just the running joke at the time, although the U.S. and Britain already had close ties and saw themselves as natural allies against the Germans. I don't see how any of that entails support of more U.S. isolationism, nor is it in any way revisionist. Your earlier point was that you thought others were discounting or disregarding US aid to Britain, using the term "non-existent." That was not true. All who benefited from U.S. aid expressed their appreciation.

In the RF discussion, here claims were made that
US didn't support England until a couple years
into the war. This in fact ignores the Liberty Ships.

Possibly, although we don't really know that for certain. By the same logic, Britain could have just as easily quit - or Britain and France could have just not declared war to begin with. If they let Hitler keep Poland, then that could have been the end of it right then and there. Or maybe not. It's all "what if" now.

A quick perusal of your link shows that there
was some highly discounted payment for US
services. This falls far short of the claim that
England paid us back. And this did not include
anything for the many lives lost & damaged.
If you're suggesting that the US role in WW2
was strictly mercenary, you've not supported
that.

From your link, a popular view...

Modern Russia tends to downplay the United States' role in World War II, including Lend-Lease — instead portraying the victory over Germany as an exclusively Soviet achievement.[90][91]

I view WW2 as a concerted effort by all allies,
eventually even including Russia, Italy, & Egypt.
However, Russia's claim of singularly defeating
Nazi Germany is rendered shameful by its role
in initially plotting with Hitler to jointly rampage
across Europe.