« Bad news for Israel | Main | Ahmadinejad says the Twelfth Imam is coming »

September 22, 2011

Comments

The U.S. only got involved in that war after Hitler declared war on her.

Thanks HS. I don't really follow Isreal that much so its informative.

The U.S. will have to get involved when Israel promises to use nukes if they don't.

Israel is too strong to be defeated in an invasion. But if I were an Israeli, I would worry about something else - something like Soviet Union's defeat in the Cold War, where Soviets at some point lost the will to fight, due to mostly internal economic and social problems.

I actually think that a number of wealthy Jewish men should purchase some land in Africa and start a new country. Land there can be purchased quite cheaply, the climate is wonderful, scenery is fantastic, and there are lots of natural resources.

This could be turned into Israel #2. Israel at some point may choose to attack with its nuclear-armed submarines (second strike capability) but Israel as we know it would be gone.

[HS: This didn't work out so well for white Rhodesians]

1) Of course, any medium-sized nuclear power could defeat Israel: Pakistan, South Africa, France, etc... Possibly Turkey and Iran too if they have nukes.

2) USA will support Israel no matter what. Short of nuking the US, Israel has done everything in the book to prove they´re bad allies, and yet no US pol will so much as utter a word against Israel. You can count on Uncle Sucker.

3) My understanding is that Israelis use their nukes not only as a deterrent for their enemies, but as blackmail for their supposed "allies" as well. In short, if Nato fails to protect Israel, they´ll nuke Italy, Greece, and France.

Having said that, I don´t think Israel runs any risk today. The "democratic" uprisings in the Arab world have kept their rulers very busy. And as long as the US has the will and the power to protect Israel, it will.


"I have no idea what Israel intends to do with its nuclear weapons. I truly have no idea. It’s a mystery to me. Would they nuke enemy cities as punishment for waging a conventional war against Israel? Or would the guys with the power to launch the nukes think that it would be immoral to do that?"

I can't answer that question, but one thing you might want to keep in mind is that the Israeli public is not used to massive, World War-level casualties. The bloodiest war we've had was the 1948 Independence War, with 6,000 dead. (Israeli "wars" would in fact be considered small battles in the context of a World War).
Furthermore, since conscription is mandatory and IDF soldiers aren't volunteers, the public is not willing to accept a situation where soldiers become cannon fodder (that's your neighbor's kid out there in the field, not some meathead from "flyover country").

Make of that what you will.

"The U.S. only got involved in that war after Hitler’s ally, Japan, bombed Pearl Harbor."

Because we blockaded their oil supplies, because of their butchery in China. The American people wanted no part in another European war.

"3. I have no idea what Israel intends to do with its nuclear weapons. I truly have no idea. It’s a mystery to me. Would they nuke enemy cities as punishment for waging a conventional war against Israel? Or would the guys with the power to launch the nukes think that it would be immoral to do that?"

Many of the people we put in silos thought just that, that their charge should never be employed. Then there is the issue of the Aswan dam.

"I think a more important question to ask is whether Islamic countries are afraid to go to war against Israel because of the nukes."

They are properly terrified, despite any brayings on their part.

"One should also ask how nuclear strikes by a defeated Israel against Islamic cities would impact us here in the United States, and if we think that would be really really bad, maybe we should try to prevent this war from happening."

Europe would no longer be able to get oil from the middle east, and the suez canal would get closed. Likewise the refugee crisis this would create would either break the west, or see the end of mass immigration.

The basic reason for any war is a demographic one, had the Arabs restrained their birthrates in the past we'd not be anywhere near where we are now. And unfortunately the Israelis have responded in kind.

I'm not a military expert, but I would guess that Israel is a lot stronger relative to its neighbors than it was in the 60s and 70s, based on improvements in technology.

Also, even if Turkey were stronger militarily than Israel, it still might not be capable of invading and occupying. Keep in mind that nuclear weapons can be used tactically. So if Turkey were massing its forces in Lebanon, Israel could just nuke them. No matter how good the Turkish pilots are, how can they stop a submarine-launched ballistic missile?

Probably that's why Israel's been so hot to acquire submarines over the last 5 or 10 years. They realize that it's really really hard to invade a country with nuclear-armed submarines.

"I actually think that a number of wealthy Jewish men should purchase some land in Africa and start a new country. "

The Entebbe incident has probably given Israelis a strong distaste for further settlement in sub-Saharan Africa.


"This didn't work out so well for white Rhodesians"

I agree. As soon as you started making the land productive, some petty dictator would play the race/colonialism card.

Actually, it's interesting to read some of the early Zionist literature. Serious thought was given to setting up a Jewish homeland in Africa as well as South America. Ultimately the consensus was Palestine, which I think was the correct decision.

"where Soviets at some point lost the will to fight, due to mostly internal economic and social problems."

I agree, the main threat to Western nations seems to be a lack of confidence.

"The world allowed Hitler to kill millions of Jews. The U.S. only got involved in that war after Hitler’s ally, Japan, bombed Pearl Harbor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Resettlement_and_deportation
Before WW2, although Nazi officials were not shy about killing European Jews, their main effort was towards deportation. They made an effort to send Jews to British Palestine/Israel, and made their most serious effort to deport all Ashkanazis to Madagasgar (an idea that had apparently been floating around for years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp
Systematic mass killings, ie the operation of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the other death camps, didn't begin until 1942 (on a relatively small scale) and 1943 (full scale).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution#Historiographic_debate_about_the_decision
There is some evidence that Hitler and his advisers actually decided on full genocide until exactly one day after (12/12/41) the US declared war on Germany (12/11/41).

1) Turkey is not Arab country. Why would Turkey support Arab coalition against Israel? That is totally counter-productive to the aims of Turkey.

2) Israel is in no danger of falling-- it has 200 missiles or so aimed at the Arabs. It could militarily crush Arabs.

3) Why would Arabs genocide the Jews of Israel? There is no point. Even if they overrun the country, they would have to deal with Western opinions.

4) The only reason Iran threatens Israel, is because Islamic republic is unstable/incompatible with the Persian culture, and the attitudes of most Iranians. It is to divert attention!

All of this is ridiculous. Israel is going nowhere, unless the West itself were to try to put an end to it.

Did you know that I'm both a psychic and a meteorologist? Yep, I predict that if Israel is on the brink of complete destruction, the weather forecast for Mecca will be clear skies, low humidity, and temperature 5,000 degrees.

Are the HS readership that inept with WWII geopolitics?

U.S. joined the war to ensure the repayment of interest and principal they were owed by the Nazi party, the war was extremely lucrative for Rockefeller, Bush and the Morgan family. Not to mention the Nazi party borrowed so heavily to fund the construction of their military industrial complex that to avoid bankruptcy, they were forced into a rigid schedule to accomplish their objectives.

To enter the war with the support of the American public, US froze Japanese assets and stopped the shipment of equipment and oil to ensure that Japan would try to seize Singapore's oil refineries and supplies which as the time was under the control of the Allies. In order to gain any chance of winning the war, Japan knew they had to attack and sink the carriers. These are the real reasons why Japan was "coerced" to attacking Pearl Harbor, no nation can wage a war without oil to run its tanks, carriers and planes.

As part of the US PR campaign to gain public support the president also ignored Intel from Australian intelligence warning the attack. By having the Japanese attack first, US can always claim that they entered the war out of self-defense and noble reasons. When in fact the real reason was to gain a spot in the bargaining table to have Germany pay the outstanding loans with high interest.

These "facts" are widely accessible and proved, so please go do your own research.

I totally digressed, however, U.S. will always back Israel regardless of the financial and social cost, since the US government needs a prototype Democratic nation in the Arab world to provide a contrasting example. It's also useful to have an Allie to gain valuable Intel.

"No countries came to Israel’s aid in the 1973 Yom Kippur war."

Bullshit. The United States did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

"Operation Nickel Grass was an overt strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 14 and November 14, 1973.

This rapid re-supply mission was critical to the Israeli military's ability to thwart the armed Egyptian and Syrian action."

1) I don't think Egypt and especially Turkey have much to win in a potential war. There is too much potential to loose their resources. Turks are most certainly not Arab, and have their own culture. Besides, Turkey's logical ally is Israel: a friendly non-Arab country, that could deter Arab aggression. Egypt is simply too politically unstable to do anything.

2) If the Arabs care anything about the world opinion, they will not allow the Israelis to get massacred. If the Arabs miraculously manage to conquer Israel, it will mean bad times for Israelis, but probably not any such thing as a genocide.

3) Israel's nuclear weapons are a deterrent. As long as it has those, the Arabs will not strike. Iran has domestic problems they will not strike either-- and they hate Arabs more than Israelis.

I am a frequent reader of your blog. I have made a post before, and I usually like what you have to say. The regime in Iran is on the verge of total collapse and Turkey is unstable as well.

Maybe the Muslims will lose the will to fight.

Half, are you aware of the fact that there were serious plans for a Jewish homeland in Alaska back in the 1930s

All in all, Israel would be a much more successful country if it were located in a part of alaska compared to the present crummy location

Isn't the small size of the land mass of Israel a significant strategic weakness?

"The King" wrote, "Are the HS readership that inept with WWII geopolitics?"

Well, perhaps it's more that not everyone makes the AWESOME move of taking Howard Zinn as their Lord and Savior.

Also, hate to go head-to-head with such an AWESOME WW2 expert, but the Japanese were after the Dutch East Indies/Indonesia's oil fields, to gain oil be refined in the NEI and in Japan proper, not "Singapore's oil refineries". Also, Japan's main target in the Pearl Harbor attack was the American battle line (for AWESOME WW2 experts: that means "battleships"), with destroying American carriers as a secondary goal.

But, yeah, other than that, it's like completely proved that the American capitalist class were totally in bed with the Nazis n stuff.

Contemplating a war in which Israel would be defeated would bring about upheavals in Germany with the neo-Nazis and the immigrants supporting the destruction and the good Germans choosing to at least reply with harsh language and self-examination. I'd like to think they'd do a bit more than that though.

[HS: There are practically no Nazis left in Germany. The new European far-right is staunchly pro-Israel and anti-Muslim, see Geert Wilders for example.]

"Are the HS readership that inept with WWII geopolitics?"

No, but YOU are.

"U.S. joined the war to ensure the repayment of interest and principal they were owed by the Nazi party"

Um, we "joined" the war because we were ATTACKED by Japan and Germany declared war on us.

German debt to the USA was mainly incurred by the Weimar government, not the Nazis. The Nazis defaulted on this debt.

"Not to mention the Nazi party borrowed so heavily to fund the construction of their military industrial complex that to avoid bankruptcy, they were forced into a rigid schedule to accomplish their objectives."

It did not borrow from the USA. The Nazis financed rearmament largely through internal borrowing.

"to ensure that Japan would try to seize Singapore's oil refineries and supplies"

There were no oil refineries or oil supplies in Singapore.

"in fact the real reason was to gain a spot in the bargaining table to have Germany pay the outstanding loans with high interest."

In fact, those loans were NEVER FULLY REPAID.

After WW2 the US forgave over 60% of the outstanding German prewar debt and refinanced the rest on very favorable terms (i.e., LOW interest rates). In short, we did exactly the opposite of what your dumbass conspiracy theory claims.

What is driving the move to war is Turkey's feeling that they need to grab the gas and oil in the Med, and split it with Egypt. Before the nation turns completely Kurdish (comparative birthrates are not favorable) and to get stuff to face off with Iran, and re-constitute the Ottoman Empire. The Balkans are weak, divided, particularly Greece, and Russia and the US have withdrawn. So they see their opportunity.

Egypt is falling apart, their people WANT WAR with Israel (because they think it is easy and that Israel is weak which it is) and because they have no food to eat -- if they split up the gas fields with Turkey and simply kill lots of Israelis or exterminate them, they can take all their stuff. This is basically the "plan" such as it is on the Egyptian street, military leadership, and Erdogan's circle.

Israel IS weak, their forces are configured to suppress West Bank and Gazan riots with minimal deaths, not fight mechanized armies any more. The Israeli Air Force can be attrited, and US support is questionable for resupply.

Samantha Power and Susan Rice openly have thought about invading Israel -- to eradicate the nation and install a single state, Hamas. Why?

Because Democrats need Black votes at 95%+ and Blacks are completely anti-Semitic. Thus a Black President who needs Black votes will push for annihilation of Israel if he can get it, because his base NEEDS it on an emotional level. Europeans would applaud a second Holocaust they way they do their own Islamization. Hillary Clinton embraced Suha Arafat after the latter talked about "the Jews killing us with poison gas" and so that's a deep part of Democratic politics -- the need to appease Black anti-Semitism. Probably most US Jews would accept another Holocaust in Israel to keep Black support, the most damning thing said about US Jews is how deeply assimilated they've become, with massive out-marriage and SWPL-ism even more than Italians or Irish.

Egypt launched a war in 1973, and nearly destroyed Israel, with Israel having nuclear weapons. No hint even of their being used was in offing nor was Egypt deterred, I don't think Israelis would use them, even if they faced annihilation. No Western nation is able to think or act that way anymore, because SWPLism is just too ingrained. And that itself is due to feminism/female-driven values in a consumer society (women consume and buy far more than men).

My best guess is that Egypt and Turkey launch a joint attack with the flotillas to Gaza as a cover (hence the announcement that Turkey will send naval vessels as escorts) in a surprise attack, with the hope of attrition degrading Israel's air force to the point of being a non-factor, with Egypt's tanks dug in and well protected during this phase.

The next phase being a planned naval engagement, by mostly but not exclusively Turkish vessels which outnumnber Israel's about five to one, again with the air force a non-factor, and limited landings on the coast supported by naval vessels. THEN an Egyptian armored advance, destruction of Israeli forces with air superiority, and another Holocaust, rapid seizure of nuclear bases.

Israel's political leadership and military leadership is likely a near approximation of the buffoonish clown show in the US and EU, thus they are unlikely to have any plan for this. They would need on their own to first-strike Turkish naval vessels, and nuke naval forces and Egyptian and Turkish major airbases (while they still have nukes) changing the engagement. Turks and Egyptians can never and never will love Israelis, nor feel pity, but they can be made to fear their nukes. This requires a demonstration, and destroying their forces with air and combined nuke attacks. You can't hide an airbase, and a destroyed airbase implies Ankara, or Istanbul, or Cairo would be next. Perhaps nuking the Aswan dam would be in order, THAT would grab Egyptians attention.

Further, Israel would need to demand massive territorial concessions from Egypt (the canal, and all of Sinai, plus a buffer zone) and from Turkey (Turkish Cyprus, and coastal areas in Turkey given to Greece along with Istanbul). Long term Israel can only find more safety (not an absolute process) by destroying Egypt and Turkey as viable, territorial nations.

Lesson: don't ever, ever EVER be weak. Not EVER.

"German debt to the USA was mainly incurred by the Weimar government, not the Nazis. The Nazis defaulted on this debt.It did not borrow from the USA. The Nazis financed rearmament largely through internal borrowing." - Oy


Since you have some knowledge on this issue could you explain how the Nazis were able to restore confidence in German debt after the Weimar debacle and foreign default. Was it patriotic zeal?

@Whiskey

Yes. Israel is run by traitors.

"Egypt launched a war in 1973, and nearly destroyed Israel"

In what alternative history? In real life, Egyptian troops crossed the canal into the Israeli-occupied Sinai in a surprise attack. They didn't get very far, certainly nowhere close to Israel proper, and before long were completely surrounded and would have been annihilated were it not for a very timely (from Egypt's standpoint) cease-fire. Oh, and not only did Israel cut off the Egyptian forces in the Sinai, but Israeli forces also advanced west of the canal into Egypt. Were it not for the aforementioned cease fire the Israelis could have occupied Cairo in a few days.

"could you explain how the Nazis were able to restore confidence in German debt after the Weimar debacle and foreign default."

The Nazis did not finance rearmament through borrowing from foreign countries, but through internal sources, i.e., taxation and public loans. From 1933 to 1938 another subterfuge was used, the "MeFo" bill, a form of "off the books" government borrowing explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills

The comments to this entry are closed.