Trump Is Braver Than the Troops

Jeffrey Goldberg has an article on The Atlantic where he makes various claims about how Trump disrespected the troops and about what a vapid, disrespectful, materialist person he is in general.

Let’s make the bold assumption that he hasn’t conjured this up out of thin air.

In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.

Honor or denigrate them as you will, but there’s a good chance there will be more such “losers” under a President Biden and the neocons and “humanitarian” interventions he is sure to empower.

While Trump may have disappointed in many respects, his relative pacifism isn’t one of them. This is something that has been inadvertently confirmed by Bolton, of all people:


Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps. America and its allies stopped the German advance toward Paris there in the spring of 1918. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, “Who were the good guys in this war?” He also said that he didn’t understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies.

Blue Checks used the opportunity to conflate the world wars and ask if Trump would have allied up with Hitler.

But we are talking about World War I, and while I strongly doubt Trump’s subject knowledge on that extends much beyond that it happened a century ago, his assessment is very reasonable. If the US hadn’t intervened, the chances of an Entente victory would have been much dimmer – close to non-existent, if the October Revolution had gone ahead as in the IRL timeline. So the Germans would have won in the West in 1918, then exterminated their own Bolshevik spawn come 1919. Not the best outcome for the lower Powers, but at the end of the day Wilhelmine Germany was a more or less “normal” country, and would not have inflicted the vast demographic losses that accrued to Nazi genocides and Bolshevik famines. The only more or less unequivocal loser would have been France. Even from Russia’s perspective, the worst thing after not winning in World War I was not losing to Germany. Such a loss would have merely entailed an accelerated shift to its post-1991 borders (more or less), but ensuring it would have up to twice as many people.

In the long-term, a much stronger Germany and a significantly stronger Russia would have meant the US would have been unable to impose an ideological monoculture on Europe, one that is now succumbing to cancer due to lack of competition. Which hints at the actual reasons why Blue Checks are unhappy with Trump’s remarks.

Comments

  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

  2. As I previously said both on this blog and elsewhere, Russia might have even been able to eventually reacquire Ukraine after a German WWI victory and a German overthrow of the Bolsheviks in Russia in exchange for agreeing to German economic domination of all of Russia–at least according to the information on page 161 of Adam Tooze’s The Deluge:

    https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Deluge/HC7aCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=restoration%20russia

    The crucial question, of course, would be just how exactly Germany actually planned to enforce its economic domination over Russia in the long(er)-run.

    As a side note, Russia would have been hurt by the loss of French investment in Russia after a French WWI loss (when you lose iron ore-rich Briey and Longwy and have to pay reparations to Germany, well, there’s less money for investment in places such as Russia). The question, of course, would be how exactly a non-Communist Russia would have recovered from this.

  3. BTW, Britain would have also been a loser had Germany won World War I. It would have kept its colonies and might have even acquired some additional colonies at Germany’s and/or the Ottoman Empire’s expense (though it’s possible that at least some of them could have been traded and returned to their original owners in the post-WWI peace talks in exchange for, say, a German withdrawal from Belgium and most of northern France). However, this would have been piss-poor compensation for Britain and the British Empire for losing something like a million of their young men in the trenches of World War I. In a scenario where Germany would have won World War I, it would have been far better for Britain to have remained neutral throughout this entire war than for Britain to enter this war on the side of the Entente/Allies and to still eventually lose this war (because, again, a few additional colonies aren’t worth losing a million of your young men over).

  4. German_reader says

    While Trump may have disappointed in many respects, his relative pacifism isn’t one of them.

    I don’t know how anybody can still claim that Trump is the “peace candidate”, the Soleimani assassination back in January was probably one of the most insanely reckless actions ever taken by an American president and Trump was extremely lucky it didn’t lead to a full-scale war. More generally Trump’s foreign policy is just terrible (ripping up all arms control treaties, uncritical support for Israel and Saudi-Arabia, maximum pressure campaign against Iran, and now extreme sanctions against Syria deliberately designed to block any reconstruction efforts plus keeping troops there to control the oil fields; nothing “pro-Russian” either btw) and not “restrained” at all, it’s basically just a rehash of the Bush II administrations. Sure, a Biden-Harris administration would be horrible in other ways, but this “At least Trump hasn’t started a new war” meme really needs to die, because even if it’s true, it certainly hasn’t been for lack of trying on Trump’s part.

    So the Germans would have won in the West in 1918

    Germany’s spring offensive in 1918 failed before American troops were a decisive presence in France, after that Germany probably was too exhausted to win anyway (if that had ever been possible); so I suppose stalemate and a negotiated peace with Britain and France would have been more likely. imo that obviously would have been a better outcome than what actually happened, the American intervention (tipping the scales in the war so Germany was decisively defeated, but then refusing the necessary commitments to create a stable post-war order in Europe) was a total disaster.

  5. In the long-term, a much stronger Germany and a significantly stronger Russia would have meant the US would have been unable to impose an ideological monoculture on Europe, one that is now succumbing to cancer due to lack of competition. Which hints at the actual reasons why Blue Checks are unhappy with Trump’s remarks.

    It might also point to the inevitable rush towards hedonism and consumerism that seems to have trumped Europe’s abilities to offer up anything substantially different or enticing?

  6. While I wouldn’t have assassinated Suleimani either, you cant argue with the results. You don’t know what is actually happening behind the scenes.

    If I had to speculate. Trump needed hawks silenced. He chose by pushing the conflict to the brink of war so that ant hawk factions start working in the background and maybe even see what Iran can do to retaliate and scare whoever he wanted scared. Maybe he needed for Iran to start asserting it self so he can put more pressure on withdrawal. Either way as you can see the result we have is much more satisfying being that US is less tangled up in that region.

  7. You don’t think there would’ve been another big war after WW1 in this alternative history? Racial ideology was still very much in at the time. Sooner or later some country was going to pursue some Lebensraum-ish expansionism with massive casualties as a consequence.

  8. But we are talking about World War I, and while I strongly doubt Trump’s subject knowledge on that extends much beyond that it happened a century ago, his assessment is very reasonable.

    So, he just got lucky? In a spontaneous comment on WWI, he not only says something sensible but puts his finger on they key contention about that war that Americans generally and neocons particularly are wrong about: that the US intervened on the side of the good guys?

    He gets lucky like this a lot. More than seems reasonably explainable by, like, luck.

  9. He says far too many patently stupid things for that to be credible.

    What it does suggest is that the elites are evil, and saying the opposite of what they say just to “own” them will make you seem like a God-Emperor genius to the drones who worship you.

  10. Germany would have certainly had more blacks – of course, in our timeline, at some point, there will be a convergence point – and perhaps a point where the alt scenario’s trendline is surpassed. Maybe, it has already been exceeded?

    But how long would it have taken Germany to gain peace? Even considering Wilson’s obvious bias, with submarine warfare, I think the public mood was shifting in the U.S.. In fact, the Lusitania probably delayed US entry, since it caused a temporary shift in U-boat policy.

    For peace, the U.S. might have needed to run the blockade. Would have required a different president – and not a common type.

  11. As an aside, an interesting point about the neoliberal information war against Trump is that many of the methods have been used – successfully – against Putin, the Kremlin and Russia.

    This is not to say Putin or Trump or any target of this information warfare are unreproachable beings. But the scale and concentrated vitriol of the disinfo on both, by the same forces, is quite revealing.

    Basically (alleged) anonymous sources allege information that is either out of context, misheard or intentionally false. These sources are then used by various media friendlies to amplify. The pattern usually is that Neoliberal Outlet A gets the “scoop.” This is then “independently” verified by Neoliberal Outlet B (ie the same sources are involved) who also amplify A. Pretty much then Outlets C to Z all repeat the stories and pretty soon it becomes an Accepted Truth in the Neoliberal Cannon. No one questions the veracity, likelihood, agendas of the sources (it’s only done when Neoliberal interest are attacked).

    Years ago, I wrote this about what I observed during the Ukrainian crisis
    https://ludwitt.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/how-the-west-manufactures-a-narrative-out-of-nothing/

    Allegations, no matter how ridiculous and specious, become News, and are amplified by various echo chambers to then become the dominant narrative, to be accepted as Truth, all without any serious factual proof or data. This transmutation from allegation to accepted truth is so smooth, that any counter argument to what is now considered Fact, is – if not dismissed outright as a “Conspiracy Theory” and thus unworthy of serious rebuttal – pitilessly analyzed for the tiniest error, the motives of those advancing the counter-narrative and their very trustworthiness questioned, all in a manner that the original allegation now accepted as Fact never was.

    What’s interesting is that when the enemy was foreign – like Russia – both neoconservative and neoliberal factions united to flag the narrative which only of course added to the “truthiness” of the allegations since according to the US Cannon there are but two sides in the Universe: the US mainstream “Left” and the mainstream “Right” and if both agree then it must be indisputably be so.

    Now the US Neoliberals (allied with US Neocons) who hate Russia have brought the Information War tools perfected against foreign enemies back home against Trump.

    At some level I have little sympathy for Trump allies who gleefully support such Info-wars vs external enemies (whether they be Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela etc), now that the same tools – daily barrages of disinformation, coverups, censorship across the traditional and social media landscape, threats of violence – have been turned on them. But the lengths to which those out to remove Trump from power will go to (eg the current domestic violence supported, and even stoked, by the neoliberals and the now explicit threats via media op-Ed’s of more such violence unless Trump goes) – gives a glimpse as to both the desperation and single-minded focus of their quest for power.

  12. Hyperborean says

    It might also point to the inevitable rush towards hedonism and consumerism that seems to have trumped Europe’s abilities to offer up anything substantially different or enticing?

    We watched the procession, the masses carrying red flags, the girls in white dresses. Grigorev was with us, the Soviet adviser to the Allied Control Commission… When the whole square was full of people, he turned to me and asked: “Say, these 200,000 proletarians gathered here—six months ago they were just as enthusiastic for the Arrow Cross fascists, weren’t they?”

  13. BTW, I call BS on the claim Trump called dead U.S. soldiers losers, even if they died over 100 years ago. Sounds scripted, and he’s too canny for that. Basically, nobody born and raised in the U.S. would do it, unless they had an axe to grind.

    If you took a copy of The Atlantic with you in a time capsule and showed it to the people working there fifty years ago, I believe there is not a single man with a sense of humor, who would not laugh at the elaborate yoke you pulled, by writing such an absurdist composition.

  14. AK,

    The Atlantic … Let’s make the bold assumption that he hasn’t conjured this up out of thin air.

    I have to believe this was intended as humor. The Atlantic runs columns that were turned down by The National Enquirer.

    PEACE

  15. prime noticer says

    it’s obvious jewish bullshit. standard operating procedure for civilization destroying jews. they’ve operated this way for 200 years.

    but yes. at least Trump has mostly delivered on that part of his platform. avoiding new conflicts vigorously – which sounds weird, why would you have to vigorously avoid something obviously so negative. but half the republicans and lots of the democrats are demanding war almost continuously now. not to mention all the jewish donors.

    Trump’s instincts to get troops out of existing engagements is also solid, but he’s been stifled at every turn by said opponents. his relentless attacks on NATO as obsolete pussy eurofag welfare are likewise correct, but again, he’s having trouble turning words into action.

    under President Biden, it’s very likely America will end up in some kind of conflict with Russia, which is the number 1 thing to avoid in terms of foreign policy.

  16. prime noticer says

    Trump was a military cadet for a few years, and during the Real America too so the instruction was likely solid, so it’s entirely reasonable Trump actually does have a fair grasp on the last 200 years of relevant world history, especially basic war stuff. enough to have an educated opinion on various big conflicts. please research, AK.

    yeah he says nutty stuff off the cuff too, but his basic military background knowledge level is probably a lot higher than any President who wasn’t in the military themselves.

  17. Bragadocious says

    Trump didn’t understand why we sided with the Allies

    Neither do I and it’s 100 plus years later.

    Of course Trump (if he said this) is right again.

    How about a national conversation about this subject rather than the usual peremptory shouting down from Canadian Zionists?

  18. Philip Owen says

    The Germans were losing before the Americans arrived especially against the British who had introduced tanks and new tactics and were no longer short of acetone. German munitions were failing. Large scale surrenders were taking place.

  19. prime noticer says

    “If you took a copy of The Atlantic with you in a time capsule and showed it to the people working there fifty years ago, I believe there is not a single man with a sense of humor, who would not laugh at the elaborate yoke you pulled”

    that’s because 50 years ago, Atlantic was a WASP run, WASP owned magazine for high literature. a tradition going back 150 years.

    within the last 10 years, it has been under new, talmudic management, with the extremely predictable change of course and direction. Atlantic is now a standard issue jewish propaganda platform, which is what jews do to every WASP created institution that they take over. take the established brand, bend it to jewish interests and needs while wringing out the last vestiges of a century of built up credibility and prestige.

    Harvard, for instance, is now widely understood by most people, to be pure garbage and the source of a lot of cultural poison. it took them decades to finally wreck the name, but it’s wrecked. when somebody is from Harvard or you hear about something coming out of Harvard, you can now automatically assume the next thing you hear is totally backwards from reality.

  20. Philip Owen says

    But Lebensraum in Tanganyika not Eastern Europe.

  21. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, “Who were the good guys in this war?” He also said that he didn’t understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies.

    This shows Trump is better educated than most American reporters.

  22. German_reader says

    There’s some truth to that, but without the massive American reinforcements would there really have been a credible threat of a 1919 campaign pushing into Germany herself? I doubt Britain and France could have done so on their own. The American factor was also important in another way, because Wilson’s democracy propaganda caused unjustified hopes for a mild peace on the German left, if only the old imperial leadership were removed, and eroded the will to continue the fight (in that sense the “stab in the back” myth had a kernel of truth to it), with the result that Germany had to accept something that was effectively an unconditional surrender. Britain and France on their own would have had to undertake a bloody invasion of German territory to get a similar result or accept a negotiated peace.

  23. Lars Porsena says

    It hardly matters if they still lose, if they are able to avoid the Treaty of Versailles it probably still changes history and avoids WWII.

    Without the US jumping in, the Germans would have been willing to fight longer and the English may have been willing to strike a more equitable peace than continue grinding it out all the way to Berlin.

  24. Germany’s spring offensive in 1918 failed before American troops were a decisive presence in France, after that Germany probably was too exhausted to win anyway (if that had ever been possible); so I suppose stalemate and a negotiated peace with Britain and France would have been more likely. imo that obviously would have been a better outcome than what actually happened, the American intervention (tipping the scales in the war so Germany was decisively defeated, but then refusing the necessary commitments to create a stable post-war order in Europe) was a total disaster.

    The US’s role was vital in ensuring that Britain and France would continue to get unsecured loans from the US beyond spring 1917 or so. Without the US’s entry into WWI, AFAIK, this would not have been possible.

  25. Atlantic magazine would not be around to propagate jewish lies if Steve Jobs had not left his billions to his wife.

  26. Bragadocious says

    The Germans were losing before the Americans arrived especially against the British

    What is your evidence for this?

    The Somme — an equal bloodbath for both sides, likely a psychological defeat for Britain since Asquith would soon be booted from office.

    Arras — a British defeat

    Passchendaele — a British defeat

    Where’s the beef?

  27. Ridiculous!

    USA troops are still in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

    Trump lied.

  28. German_reader says

    The British army took the leading role in the 1918 offensives, they had tanks and a sophisticated system for artillery sound ranging which enabled relatively precise shelling of German batteries; taken together with other advances in tactics (creeping barrage) and infantry equipment the British had thus developed the means for breaking up the German trench system.
    Obviously none of that was true for the American expeditionary force, it just provided the manpower which rendered Germany’s prospects for 1919 hopeless.

  29. I highly doubt the Soleimani assassination came from Trump’s initiative, he seems to have only the loosest sort of control or even understanding regarding the actions of his own nominal cabinet. Although.. perhaps I’m giving to much credit here, but I think the American (non)reaction to the retaliatory Iranian rocket attacks would have been quite different under another President.

  30. Oh, and what results did that wanton assassination exactly achieve? It only strengthened the hardliners in Iran (witness the mass-mourners) and further tilted the Iraqis into the Iranian camp.

  31. German_reader says

    I highly doubt the Soleimani assassination came from Trump’s initiative

    He gave the order (and at least according to reports at the time actually picked this from a range of options, most of whom were considerably less extreme), I don’t understand why so many people still feel the need to make excuses for him (“Behind the scenes he’s battling the dark forces of the Deep state, he just had to do this as a tactical concession, but really wants to disengage from the Mideast”), imo it’s just wishful thinking because people can’t admit that essentially he’s just another standard Republican, only with more vulgar manners and “entertaining” Twitter antics.

    but I think the American (non)reaction to the retaliatory Iranian rocket attacks would have been different under another President.

    If those missiles had killed American soldiers, Trump would have had to bomb Iran, to preserve his tough guy image, and who knows how things would have escalated after that. It was pure luck this didn’t happen. To needlessly stumble into such a situation may indicate many things, but certainly not any principled foreign policy restraint on Trump’s part.

  32. yakushimaru says

    Our host seems to think that France and Germany can have easy peace in this alternative history.

    Another take might be that there’s something seriously wrong with the pre WWI Europe.

    Or, we should be able to argue that Mussolini’s Italy was more or less a “normal” country. In that light, maybe a lighter Hitler could’ve lead a “normal” Third Reich. It did not have to be that dark as it happened. Our host seems to think that WWI took place because of historical accidents. One may as well argue that WWII took place by accidents.

  33. yakushimaru says

    Yeah. I was surprised to learn that there were German farmers on some small islands in the Pacific during that period.

    But Europeans loved to fight in Europe. Europe was always a battle ground until the end of WWII. That is, an almost complete resolution which made Europe irrelevant (in terms of Great Power politics). Peace in Europe came only after that.

  34. Daniel Chieh says

    You have quite excellent narration.

  35. Bragadocious says

    Uh, his point was that the British were racking up big victories before the Americans arrived. You’re talking about the 1918 offensives which occurred long after the Americans arrived.

    Again, there’s no evidence for his claim.

  36. Lars Porsena says

    I don’t understand why so many people still feel the need to make excuses for him (“Behind the scenes he’s battling the dark forces of the Deep state,

    Well, because he obviously is unless he is really a part of it and all the animosity is an orchestrated put on. They hate him and tried to get him impeached on bogus charges. A President does not get issued a magic wand and just because he is in nominal control doesn’t mean he can actually control the administrative state.

    This has always limited my expectations of his administration. He is only 1 man. The US has a permanent civil bureaucracy and not a spoils system.

    Lots of peasants don’t seem to realize Power isn’t all powerful, they think if you’re nominally in charge you can just dictate and wave a magic wand around and get whatever you want. It is always a disaster when those people get their hands on power because they wield it like they are in a cargo cult. They don’t understand the limits or constraints on leaders or the costs of maintaining power. You can’t just do whatever you want.

    All this stuff is mainly invisible though. It’s not like the smoky back room deals get broadcast on C-SPAN.

    Of course, if you take that too far in the other direction you get the Good Czar myth, “If the czar only knew”. The truth is somewhere in between. You can’t ignore the limitations on power but shouldn’t absolve it of all agency either.

    people can’t admit that essentially he’s just another standard Republican, only with more vulgar manners and “entertaining” Twitter antics.

    Kind of sort of. He’s less radical than I’d like him be. He’s hardly a standard establishment republican either though. Although he can’t just make everyone enemies and expect to get anything at all done (except getting impeached or assassinated maybe). He has to be co-opted by Republicans somewhat to have a leg to stand on and some allies. But he has also co-opted them back and moved the republican party as a whole slightly.

    He has been a hell of a lot better on foreign policy (and peace) than what we would have got from a Bush, McCain, Rubio, Romney or the like. And immigration. One can complain Trump failed to deport 30 million illegals and make Mexico pay for a giant barbed wire border, but with any of those other shmucks they’d be complaining they passed amnesty, or they’d be out there when the caravans show up washing people’s feet. No contest, it’s a big difference.

  37. The only more or less unequivocal loser would have been France.

    That would be the ideal outcome.

  38. German_reader says

    And immigration.

    I don’t know, my interest in American domestic politics is limited, but didn’t Trump say he wants more legal immigrants than ever, and didn’t the recent Republican convention prominently feature a naturalization ceremony (including a headscarf-wearing Muslim woman)? Then there’s all the emphasis on “criminal justice reform” (letting black criminals out of jail), and this bizarre line of attacking Biden as a racist because of his law and order stance in the 1990s. Trump just seems to be terrible all around, so it’s not even like his demented foreign policy could be seen as a necessary sacrifice which enables him to stop the rot at home.

  39. John Gruskos says

    The bad guys in WWI were the Ottomans and the Bolsheviks.

    The Germans supported both

  40. Lars Porsena says

    Well, if you are comparing him to perfect, he sucks.

    But you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the less evil.

    Sure, there is plenty to complain about with him. I have never worshiped the ground he walked on or joined a personality cult. But there will, in real life, always be plenty to complain about with anyone.

    If we compare him to actual US political alternatives he comes out way ahead. People can complain about Trump in a vacuum but how do you think anyone else in the GOP would be any better? They’d all be way worse.

    And it remains a real and totally legitimate issue that he still has to compromise with all of those very same GOP pols to get anything done, including not being impeached. He can’t just stiff them all, he has to deal with them and give them some of what they want and try to be their buddy.

    My challenge to you: don’t gripe in a vacuum. Which other GOP asshole do you think would be better and how?

    Personally I am worried what happens after he is gone, because we have no one else 1/4 as good. However low you think that bar is. Maybe he is terrible, but the rest are worse.

  41. John Gruskos says

    Which other GOP asshole do you think would be better and how?

    Tucker Carlson.

    He wouldn’t pardon the likes of Rubaskin.

  42. Lars Porsena says

    Tucker talks a good game on the TV but he is not even a politician, he is a TV host.

    That being said, I would vote for him probably for the chance to find out what he’d be like as a politician. If he ever even ran.

  43. Europe Europa says

    The British have no imperialistic ambitions any more, quite the opposite the UK itself is at risk of disintegrating in the near future.

    Annexation of Ukraine and Belarus, and possibly even the Baltics, seems to be a relatively popular ambition in Russia (if not unrealistic in reality). Many Russians seem to look at those countries with almost anger and disdain, as in “how dare you be independent and dishonour Russia!”.

    In Britain in contrast absolutely no one would support annexation of Southern Ireland, and NI and Scotland will probably eventually leave the UK with minimal fuss too. Any British person who espoused the view that the UK must be maintained at all costs would be regarded as a jingoistic nutter by most British people – at best, and probably as an anti-Celtic bigot too.

    But why am I surprised? Russians are still patriotic and have faith in their country and its moral right to rule over its smaller neighbouring countries. Britain in contrast is largely unpatriotic and no longer has any faith in itself or its history.

  44. Diversity Heretic says

    My wife, who is French, believes France would have been better off under efficient German administration in the aftermath of a losing effort in World War I. Even the news here in France can’t help pointing out how much more efficient the Germans are.

    Germans (and my ethnic heritage is more German than anything else) can be awfully overbearing at times and I don’t know how aggressive a victorious Wilhelmine Germany might have become.

  45. Diversity Heretic says

    Would Germany have undertaken the 1918 spring offensive if they hadn’t known that a million or so American troops would be arriving in France by mid- to late-1918? In The Myth of the Great War, the author makes the argument that Germany felt that it had to deal a knockout blow in early 1918 or they would be in a hopeless position by late 1918 and 1919. Take away the American intervention and Germany can remain on the strategic defensive and exploit agricultural lands gained in the east to alleviate its food problems.

    Recent U.S. military exercises in the Black Sea and the Baltics indicate that the neocons are still hoping to push NATO to the very borders of Russia, setting a scenario for World War III. I don’t think Trump has done much to stop this development, although I hold out little hope that a Biden-Harris administration would do so either.

  46. Reparations are actually not as horrible for the domestic economy as is often assumed. It basically creates huge export demand for domestically produced goods, while making imports unaffordable. The quick French recovery and the relatively depressed German economy after the 1870 war is a good example of this.

  47. France would obviously be very unhappy with Germany for a long time, but what could it realistically do about it?

  48. Blinky Bill says

    In Britain in contrast absolutely no one would support annexation of Southern Ireland, and NI and Scotland will probably eventually leave the UK with minimal fuss too. Any British person who espoused the view that the UK must be maintained at all costs would be regarded as a jingoistic nutter

    Everyone has their line in the sand. How would the English feel about an independent Mercia, Kernow and Northumbria?

  49. German_reader says

    Take away the American intervention and Germany can remain on the strategic defensive and exploit agricultural lands gained in the east to alleviate its food problems.

    That’s a good point, but wouldn’t it also have meant that the war would probably have ended with some sort of negotiated peace, not a total German victory (which was always unlikely)?
    There’s a recent book by German historian Holger Afflerbach (Auf Messers Schneide: Wie das Deutsche Reich den Ersten Weltkrieg verlor) which argues that Germany should have stayed on the defensive in 1918 and even then might have forced a negotiated peace; but the losses in the futile spring offensive were so extreme that there eventually was no prospect of successfully preventing an invasion of Germany herself. In any case, it was certainly the American intervention which decided the outcome of the war.

    although I hold out little hope that a Biden-Harris administration would do so either.

    Of course, I don’t have any illusions about that either, the Democrats might actually be more dangerous in this regard due to their narrative that Trump is Putin’s puppet and Russian subversion a major threat to American democracy. My point merely was that Trump’s foreign policy isn’t all that different from what most standard Republicans probably would have done, it’s in line with the basic outlook of the Bush II administrations.

  50. Unless of course, the gubberment ‘wants’ to lose a million of it’s young men.

  51. Diversity Heretic says

    Thank you for your comment; I always enjoy your thoughtful and informative posts. I may try to get the German book, since I can read German, abeit slowly and with a dictionary.

    Germany could not have inflicted a 1940-style defeat on France-Great Britain by 1918. It could, however, have forced an advantageous negotiated peace on them, in the absence of American intervention. The 1918 offensive gained a lot of ground, but at the cost of very high casualties among the Strosstruppen. I’ve read that the Germans were influenced in their choice of tactics by those used against them in the Brusilov offensive on the Russian front and that the Russians had similar results: territorial gains at the price of big losses.

    I cannot today regard the first half of the Twentieth Century as anything but a tragedy on the order of the 30 Years War; Europeans and European-derived peope killing each other in stupendous numbers for dubious ends. I think a lot of what we’re seeing today is a delayed reaction to that colossal bloodletting.

  52. The Alarmist says

    There is little to nothing in Trump’s behaviour and statements, aside remarks specifically aimed at Hanoi Johnny, to support Trump disparaging troops in the manner suggested by the article. It is nothing more than a Deep-State psyop to pry his strongest supporters away from him; this is evidenced by “confirmation” by a known Deep-State mouthpiece on Fox News quoting “sources” on background.

  53. German_reader says

    Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate your comments too. I agree with your assessment of the situation in 1918, and of WW1 more generally (should never have happened or been ended by negotiations in 1916 at the latest, unfortunately there were too many with extreme war aims on both sides).

  54. Aaron Mate Tweeted that Bolton contradicted Goldberg on that claim made against Trump.

    Jeffrey is part of a PC agendacratic media. Recall his article on Saddam gassing the Kurds just before the second US war against the Iraqi government and the manner of his interview with Obama.

    JG showed signs of being this way going back to grade school.

  55. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/04/a-false-flag-is-bidens-only-chance-to-win/

    Excerpts:

    As the polls shift towards Donald Trump and the Democrats run around concocting fairy tales after allowing Joe Biden out of his gimp cellar long enough for people to see how far he has fallen mentally, I’m nearly convinced this is likely.

    Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York said in a press conference Trump better bring an army if he plans to set foot in his state. This is tantamount to sedition, for which a case can be made by nearly every major Democrat for statements made in the past six months.

    “He better have an army if he thinks he’s gonna walk down the street in New York. New Yorkers don’t want to have anything to do with him,” the Democrat said, all but threatening the commander-in-chief.

    Meanwhile Cuomo is now the target of a Dept. of Justice investigation into his handling of the COVID-19 crisis while Trump withholds Federal funds from the state, which prompted Cuomo’s bravado.

  56. Bardon Kaldian says

    France & Anglosphere would be losers. Also, Zionists. Not only that Balfour declaration would remain an obscure unimportant letter; more importantly, Jews would not want to go to that dump.

  57. Boomthorkell says

    As a Kaissereich fan (Democratic Japan \Savinkov Russia \Union of Britain\RETURN OF THE MING DYNASTY), I second this outcome.

  58. Bragadocious says

    My point merely was that Trump’s foreign policy isn’t all that different from what most standard Republicans probably would have done, it’s in line with the basic outlook of the Bush II administrations.

    I can see that. Jeb Bush would have killed Timber Sycamore I’m sure. He would have drawn down the troops in Afghanistan and moved troops out of Germany because they’re not paying their NATO dues. He also would have angered China by tying tariffs to foreign policy. Solid point.

  59. Passchendaele has been described as catastrophic for the German side, so I don’t know how you qualify that as a British defeat.

  60. True, but it’s worth noting that the loss of iron ore-rich Briey and Longwy (unlike the reparations) is going to be permanent.

  61. German_reader says

    and moved troops out of Germany because they’re not paying their NATO dues.

    “NATO dues”, lol.
    If you think this nonsense is some kind of achievement, you’re easily pleased. And whining about Europeans, while being very deferential to certain other “allies”, was already a marked feature of Bush II’s administrations, nothing new here.

  62. Probably some Irish-American version of history rooted in wishful thinking.

  63. Bragadocious says

    “has been described”

    By whom? Let me guess. A British “historian.”

  64. Bragadocious says

    “while being very deferential to certain other “allies”

    You’re right to put allies in quotes, since Germany is far from one. But yeah I get it, Trump is the Kosher President. I won’t disagree, but at this point I don’t care. He has so far kept us out of Israel’s wars, something Jeb Bush or Hillary would not have done.

  65. yakushimaru says

    Find someone from Corsica?

    Is France inherently pathetic?

    Will there be a new Richelieu in your alternative history? You know, a Bismarck made all the difference. France is a big country after all. Even in the remote corners of the world a Genghis Khan can suddenly appear.

  66. yakushimaru says

    The British obviously has a strong feeling about cyberspace issues, 5G and all that.

    The matter is not that today the British can talk about independence of Scotland with a light heart. Independence or not, the English and the Scots are not going to fight each other like they used to do in the centuries past. Put bluntly, it doesn’t matter that much. This is the real reason instead of somehow today’s British is more enlightened than their ancestors.

    Look at former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. In many other parts of the world, independence still meant a lot of blood and arrows and swords aiming at you even after a settlement.

  67. Didn’t the American entry cause the German offensive in the spring? They felt they needed to force a decision before the American troops arrived.

  68. You’re right to put allies in quotes, since Germany is far from one.

    Germany is a vassal state of America with very little autonomy. The German intelligence services helped the Americans wiretap German citizens, including the German government and German companies (the latter was used to help their American business rivals), and they also supported the Americans during the Iraq war when nominally the German political leadership opposed the adventure. Germany has also always provided its airspace and air bases for all these wars, again irrespective of the opinion of the German government.

  69. France was significantly smaller than Germany in the early 20th century. Especially with the victory in WW1.

  70. Lars Porsena says

    CIAstan.

  71. Jon Halpenny says

    One of the least known aspects of WW I is that the British diverted a substantial amount of troops to Palestine, thus depriving the western front of reinforcements. And when the Germans attacked in 1918, the British came close to disaster. Reinforcements had to be rushed back to France, including many soldiers from Palestine.

    It makes one wonder why the British felt such a compulsion to capture Palestine when they were in such danger on the Western Front.

  72. German_reader says

    Germany also sent troops to Afghanistan where about 50 died…it’s true that German troops operated under restrictions and other NATO countries (Britain, Denmark, the Dutch) sacrificed more (not that this is much appreciated by Americans)…but still, this denigration of Germany (and to a somewhat lesser extent other Europeans too) is pretty telling when compared with constant Republican fawning over that very special country in the Levant and various Arab autocracies.

  73. It is really the wrong equivalency here between England/UK, speaking a Germanic based language, that has invaded and occupied areas like Scotland and Ireland that were of a total different cultural space with Russia, that is Slavic, and that has obtained Belarus and Ukraine in fights against other powers that controlled these territories. Plus, Russia/USSR has provided the boundaries of the actual Belarus and Ukraine polities, sometimes with areas that truly were Russian.

    Maybe there isn’t that much desire to go in an Union with Russia on the majority of people in these two polities (see Czech and Slovak), but we’ll never know, will we?