The Next Supreme

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Oh, wow. I see another fine floor fight in the offing. I'll put $9 on Haggis, who's holding?

My own view: Economics is always a consideration in foreign affairs. Economics is NEVER the only consideration in foreign affairs. This is especially true when foreign affairs are accompanied by military action.

There's always a price to pay with action, but there are prices for inaction, too.

Back to the thread topic, I don't honestly expect to see much of Ms. Miers for a while. I wonder who'll be next?

The CNN website has a whole list of possibilities, with short bio paragraphs.

[Haggis@wk]

Selma/Piq,

If they're hoping for a quick confirmation, I'm going with McConnell, if they want a hell of a fight; Luttig's the man. I could live very well with McConnell, but Luttig's the guy that gets my Originalism juices flowing


JM,
You need to do a little research and then let’s talk some.

The dirty little secret is that after Hitler came to power American business leaders with assets in Germany found to their immense satisfaction that his so-called revolution respected the socio-economic status quo. Hitler's brand of fascism was extremely useful for capitalists' purposes. Don’t forget that he was initially brought to power by Germany's leading businessmen and bankers and always served the interests of his "enablers."

He dissolved the labor unions and threw the Communists and Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps, which were specifically set up to accommodate the overabundance of left-wing political prisoners. This emasculated the German working class and transformed it into a powerless group that was put at the disposal of their employers, the Thyssens and Krupps.

Most, if not all firms in Germany, including American branch plants, eagerly took advantage of this situation and cut labor costs drastically. The Ford-Werke, for example, reduced labor costs from fifteen per cent of business volume in 1933 to only eleven per cent in 1938.

The owners and managers of American corporations with investments in Germany were very satisfied with the status quo established by Hitler and if they openly expressed their admiration or Hitler — as did the chairman of General Motors, William Knudsen, and ITT-boss Sosthenes Behn — it was undoubtedly because he had resolved Germany's social problems in a manner that benefited their (and the U.S.’s corporate) interests.


” Remember, we weren't even vaguely aware of the German's long range bombing capabilities or their intent on invasion”

That’s because the German never had any long range bombing capabilities, period.

That's one of the reason they lost the war in Russia. Russia moved all it’s heavy industry too far east for the medium range Henkels and short range tactical Stukas. As far as his intent to invade, he’d done enough of that by 1939-40 to convince even the most die-hard fan that his plans for expansion involved taking over Europe.

The reason we got pulled in was cos they kept bombing our shipping.”

Not even remotely correct, we got into the war with Germany because Germany declared war on the U.S. after we declared war on Japan.

The Germans had been attacking U.S. shipping and warships as early as 1940 and we didn’t do anything about it (well, we did, we sank “unknown” submarines as well as shot down a few German planes) but there was no way that FDR could use that (and he tried)to convince Congress, and more importantly, the American people that was reason enough to go to war.

The United Stated was dead set against getting involved and without FDR's illegal steps to help England we would have been in trouble after Pearl Harbor since England by that time would have been a neutral or worse, a base for the German Navy.

” Several very good speculative books have been written on the outcome had Hitler approached the US as an ally...”

That’s why they are called “speculative”

[Haggis@wk]

I've been skimming the web for some other possible nominees and Janice Rogers Brown would still be a good selection. As I mentioned above, J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell are good choices for their years of experience and their courageous writing on behalf of originalist and conservative jurisprudence.

Something to keep in mind is that Brown and Priscilla Owen have both recently been vetted and interviewed by the Senate, and their recent passage would make it difficult for the Democrats to stage a defense -- and Brown, at least, would make minced meat of the Judiciary Democrats who attempted to debate her on the law.

For those who want a practicing lawyer, Maureen Mahoney still remains an open pick -- the "female John Roberts" who has litigated over a dozen cases at the Supreme Court and has excellent credentials as a candidate.

So many good choices, so many Liberals to steam, its a good day!

[jmfryar]

<small>[ 11-25-2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: jmfryar ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

JM,

I think you might be straying from the original statements that led to this, to me, pleasant exchange.

All of my previous posts deal with the one paragraph you posted

” our reasons for getting into the war were based on economics. Remember, we weren't even vaguely aware of the German's long range bombing capabilities or their intent on invasion. We got into the war to protect our assets in Europe, mainly our shipping industry. The reason we got pulled in was cos they kept bombing our shipping. Several very good speculative books have been written on the outcome had Hitler approached the US as an ally...”

” I have no idea what to say other than you're ignorant and ill educated. I can't carry on a conversation with someone who has little to no understanding of either global events or motivations”

I feel that I’m fairly well educated and inform, but I’m always willing to admit that I don’t know everything, I’m always open to learning new thing.

I’d be happy to discuss any aspect that WWII that I am familiar with. My current project is the North African theater. I’ve just finished Rick Atkinson’s “An Army at Dawn : The War in Africa, 1942-1943, Volume One of the Liberation Trilogy.” The second book, dealing with the invasion of Sicily and Italy, is due out this year. I highly recommend it.


” Haggis, Saying we went to war with Germany because they declared war on us is like saying the sun rises every morning because it does.”

I’m not sure I know what you meant by that, but if you are implying that declaring war on Japan was tantamount to declaring war on Germany, then that’s not true. Congress had already informed FDR that the declaration of war on Japan was not a collateral declaration on Germany. Even after 12/07/41, the American people did not support a two front war on Germany; they wanted to punish Japan for Pearl Harbor.

Obversely, there was no mutual protection pact between Germany and Japan, Hitler didn’t have to declare war on 12/11/41; he just thought it would be a good idea.

So without Hitler’s declaration, FDR would have been in an awkward position, fortunately Hitler overplayed his hand. So, war with Japan did not automatically mean war with Germany.


"Gerhard Weinberg's "A World at Arms" looks at the global political/economics of World War 2, without doing any of the combat thing."

I have it, a very good book, and a brief review confirmed my original thought that the book concentrates on the tactical decisions made by Allied and Axis leaders and the relationship among the various theaters.

Please quote some of the economic passages that counter what I posted regarding American economic interests in Germany and how they led to the war. Page numbers will be sufficient.

”R.J.Overy's "Why the Allies Won" specifically looks at the economics of WWII and the role it played in it”

Again, no argument from me, please quote some passages that counters my argument to your statement that we ”got into the war to protect our assets in Europe, mainly our shipping industry” Again, page numbers will be sufficient.


"I'd start with Gonicks "A Cartoon History of the Universe." It gives a rather general overview of civilization from start to around 1000 AD (he's working on the rest now)."

While I’ve never heard of it I’m slightly perplexed at what pertinence a cartoon history that ends approximately 922 year before Hitler’s rise brings to the argument of America’s reason for going to war with Germany, economic or otherwise? Or what war making capabilities Hitler possessed?


"…so that we can discuss this misconception that "Germany was not developing long range capabilities to use against the United States."

Emphasis mine

Moving the goal posts?

You said originally that:

"Remember, we weren't even vaguely aware of the German's long range bombing capabilities or their intent on invasion”

Now you’re changing that to “developing”?


Re: the He 177 Griffon

[i]”Out of the eight prototypes, six crashed. And of the 35 pre-production A-0s, (built for the most part by Arado Handelsgesellschaft, Warnemunde) a large number had to be written off due to take-off swings or in-flight fires.
.
Arado built 130 A-1s, followed by 170 Heinkel built A-3s, and 826 A-5s, which had repositioned engines and a longer fuselage. About 700 Greifs served on the Eastern Front, many of these having 50mm and 75mm guns for tank-busting duties. A few even (nervously) bombed England in 400mph shallow dives, without any proper aiming for their bombs. The aircraft proved so bothersome that Goering had to forbid Heinkel to pester him any more with plans to use four separate engines!

A bomber that seldom drops bombs is as useful as runway behind it and altitude above it, in other words, it’s useless.

But, you’re right. It carried more bombs than the B-17 and had a longer range.

I’ll amend my earlier statement to accommodate your point; Germany never had long range bombers that were effectively operational.

Finally, the V-2 wasn't a bomber and wasn't long range, it went up 50 miles and traveled a few hundred miles, mainly due to the earth rotation came down, more or less in the vicinity of London.

I’ll defer to some of the physicists types on the board to explain that. It’s beyond my math skills.

<small>[ 10-28-2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Haggis@wk ]</small>

[Shapley]

Jim,

The V-2 Never had a range beyond 200 Miles, and the HE 177, while it had a range of around 3,000 miles, was still well short of reaching the U.S. without the ability to refuel for the return flight. In addition the HE 177, or "flying coffin", was never produced in sufficient numbers to be remotely considered a serious threat.

V/R
Shapley

Sorry, I had not read Haggis' better researched response on this subject prior to posting.

<small>[ 10-28-2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[jmfryar]

<small>[ 11-25-2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: jmfryar ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

My $9 is still on haggis. Gratuitous insults have jm down by several points, so far.

jm, you've got a different definition of "long range" than haggis or my dad would use. By their standards, the Germans never had an operational long-range bomber. At all. Ever. And I think there should be some separate discussion of manned vs unmanned weapon platforms.

I'm not sure that discussing the politics of a war is valid without concurrently considering the "combat thing". How could the interaction be ignored?

[jmfryar]

<small>[ 11-25-2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: jmfryar ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Gonzales, Luttig, and Prado all look like they might be decent nominees for the Supremes. All kind of centrist, moderate; Prado in particular might be a really nice O'Connor replacement. He looks like he might provide the same "swing" status she did.

[Haggis@wk]

JM,
I'm sorry if I caused you any upset, it certainly wasn't due to any illwill on my part.

I tend to be didactic and fact focussed when discussing certain issues, occupational hazard

As I pointed out, I don't know everything. I certainly wasn't aware of the HE 177 nor the numbers of 177s that were built and employed against Russia and, apparently, with less vigor against Britain. It appears that the Germans had a long range strategic asset that was poorly utilized. Good for our side.

That gem was based on your input. Thanks

[piqaboo]

Ideas proposed by jm:
All War is 100% Economic.
No One Will Discuss Ideas.

Results noted by this reader:
Idea discussed by Selma & Haggis, idea disagreed with by Selma and Haggis. Alternative to idea proposed by Haggis. jm countered with bluster and restatement of original proposal, not counter argument.

Selma, I held the pot. I'll give jm 24 hours to engage in discussion of ideas, but I think you can plan on how to spend your winnings.

Note: it is not widely believed among the edumacated that we went to war with germany to free those in concentration camps. It is widely understood that most of the US (more probably all of it) had no idea of the extent of the camps.

I suspect Hitler would have loved to invade the US successfully. They'd have needed a lot of "development" time to pull it off. ISTM that the Atlantic is not a good stage for pulling off invasion of such a large landmass. Germany would probably have needed a base in Canada or Central America. More "development" time needed....

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Haggis@wk:
I don't think she's "cutting and running" I've seen nothing that would indicate that she won't remain White House Counsel. I fully expect her to be appointed to a federal judgeship somewhere.

You are correct. GWB has announced she will remain as his cousel.

[Serenity]

She didn't run. I guess this can be viewed as "the Religious Right having performed a second term abortion", as reported on Saturday Night Live.

[barfle]

And now the new candidate is Samuel Alito, often referred to as "Scalito" because his judicial philosophy mirrors Antonin Scalia's.

Will this guy have any easier time of it? Will he improve Dubya's poll ratings?

[piqaboo]

Selma,
dont spend it all in one place.

[barfle]

I must admit I'm a bit surprized that anyone would think that Dubya would nominate someone who he felt had much of a possibility of deciding a case in a way that went counter to his beliefs. A self-described conservative nominating a moderate? Fat chance.

Most Presidents realize that their biggest chance for a legacy is in the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice - they are appointed for life, they are subject to very little outside influence (they can be impeached, but the John Birch Society found out how tough that can be when they targeted Earl Warren), and many of them are quite predictable (Earl Warren being one of those who serves to teach that a VERY thorough check is necessary). Sandra Day O'Connor is unusual in that she decided on a case by case basis, which doesn't mean I think she was always right.

[piqaboo]

No, but it implies she thought about each case, rather than making up her mind before her appointment, then voting her internal party-line regardless. Now you've got me wondering why they bother to harrass the presenting attorneys.

[Schmeelkie]

In response to the JM/Haggis debate:

I wouldn't say that wars are 100% economic, but economics certainly plays a great role in entering and winning a war. Don't know much about WWII, but here's some thoughts on the Civil War: I'd venture a guess that the north winning the civil war had more to do with economics than the reasons for the north entering the war. State's rights (some of which being economic) definately trumped the desire to keep slaves in getting the south into the war. Slavery itself is an economic tool - farmers in the south were saving themselves operating costs by just owning their workers. Although most factories in the north probably weren't paying their workers (mainly immigrants) much more than substanince wages, so they probably weren't much better off than the slaves at least in quality of life. The north could have coped with out the economic input of the south (mostly raw materials for manufacturing), but the south didn't realize how much they were dependent on the north.

As far as winning the war, the south got lucky that the north couldn't get a competent general for several years. Although, by extending the length of the war, it made the north's chances of winning better. Yes, Grant was a good general, but the north had the resources to equip and maintain an army for much longer than the south.

So here's my compromise position - money's a big factor in winning a war, but so is luck, timing and leadership. And for reasons to get into a war, in a democracy, we need good visceral reasons to go to war (Pearl Harbor, 9/11), or in other cases, nationality and religion play a large role.

Anyway, that's my 'daughter-of-history-buffs' take on this discussion.

[Shapley]

So, basically, the Greeks didn't give a hoot in Hell about Helen, they just wanted Trojan gold?