|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 25, 2022 9:18:44 GMT -5
The bombs and missiles are falling on Ukraine as Russian president Putin looks to be trying a version of 1939 Hitler invasion - daring anyone to stop him.
Perusing the 1943 Yearbook, I thought you might be interested in Holy Cross President Very Rev. Joseph R. N. Maxwell, S.J's war time message to the 1943 graduating senior Class. Unfortunately, Crossports' picture library is full, so I can't just add a picture of his beautifully handwritten note:
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 25, 2022 9:40:28 GMT -5
sader1970, Thank you for finding that. The similarities with Nazi Germany are startling and quite frightening. I do pray we are not being led by a modern Chamberlain but by a modern FDR. Chamberlain was willing to sacrifice the Czechs for "peace in our time." FDR mobilized our nation both to fight the Depression and foreign aggressors. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Feb 25, 2022 10:21:59 GMT -5
Sader, It was very thoughtful of you to send the inspiring message from HC Pres. Joseph RN Maxwell, SJ. Bob, Your comment is most appreciated. One small off point addition: FDR along with Churchill did sign away much of eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta in '45. Nitpicking to be sure . I totally concur with your opinion that FDR was a great wartime leader. Although we are not involved with our troops fighting directly against Russians in Ukraine, we still need the wisdom & strength of an FDR type leader.. Hope this comment does not go off the rails into some sort of political back & forth. Your point I believe is that we need a wise, strong decisive leader. Nukes in the hands of Putin add an incredibly dangerous unknown. Thanks for your wise comment. mm
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 25, 2022 14:19:10 GMT -5
sader1970, Thank you for finding that. The similarities with Nazi Germany are startling and quite frightening. I do pray we are not being led by a modern Chamberlain but by a modern FDR. Chamberlain was willing to sacrifice the Czechs for "peace in our time." FDR mobilized our nation both to fight the Depression and foreign aggressors. Time will tell. Well, all Hitler said he wanted was the portion of Czechoslovakia containing the ethnic Germans and closest to Germany. Part of the historic German Reich and all that. Small incursion, if you will. Emboldened by the appeasers (most notably Neville Chamberlain) he rolled into the German area (Sudetenland) and kept on rolling till he owned all of Czechoslovakia. Wonder if the Poles then felt like the Estonians now?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 25, 2022 15:23:04 GMT -5
Did the capitulation really insure "peace in our time?"
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Feb 25, 2022 16:33:08 GMT -5
Actually, some have claimed Briton's military was woefully unprepared for war. PM Chamberlain was merely trying to buy time for the Brits to build up their military forces. Of course one could ask what were the allies waiting for after Hitler rearmed the Rhineland and moved into Austrian in his drive for Anschluss. Obviously, the West has learned that peace can only come through strength. Appeasement never works.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 25, 2022 17:05:47 GMT -5
Saw a documentary recently that made the same case that mm67 just made about Chamberlain that he was NOT the trusting nitwit we have been told and didn't trust Hitler as far as he could throw him but he knew Britain's army was just not prepared and was simply looking to buy time.
As it was, the British army had Dunkirk and obviously wasn't ready later.
My big concern is Putin and my heart goes out to the Ukrainians. We may not be going in with our own troops but I sure hope the logistics flow like a river to them and that the Russian people overthrow the Kremlin S.O.B. and his oligarch cronies.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Feb 25, 2022 22:20:00 GMT -5
sader1970, Thank you for finding that. The similarities with Nazi Germany are startling and quite frightening. I do pray we are not being led by a modern Chamberlain but by a modern FDR. Chamberlain was willing to sacrifice the Czechs for "peace in our time." FDR mobilized our nation both to fight the Depression and foreign aggressors. Time will tell. Well, all Hitler said he wanted was the portion of Czechoslovakia containing the ethnic Germans and closest to Germany. Part of the historic German Reich and all that. Small incursion, if you will. Emboldened by the appeasers (most notably Neville Chamberlain) he rolled into the German area (Sudetenland) and kept on rolling till he owned all of Czechoslovakia. Wonder if the Poles then felt like the Estonians now? If Article 5 is invoked (e.g. invasion of Baltics) does Congress need to declare war or can the President just send troops into battle?
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Feb 25, 2022 23:12:31 GMT -5
Well, all Hitler said he wanted was the portion of Czechoslovakia containing the ethnic Germans and closest to Germany. Part of the historic German Reich and all that. Small incursion, if you will. Emboldened by the appeasers (most notably Neville Chamberlain) he rolled into the German area (Sudetenland) and kept on rolling till he owned all of Czechoslovakia. Wonder if the Poles then felt like the Estonians now? If Article 5 is invoked (e.g. invasion of Baltics) does Congress need to declare war or can the President just send troops into battle? The U.S. Constitution trumps NATO's article 5, No?
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 26, 2022 4:58:43 GMT -5
Well, all Hitler said he wanted was the portion of Czechoslovakia containing the ethnic Germans and closest to Germany. Part of the historic German Reich and all that. Small incursion, if you will. Emboldened by the appeasers (most notably Neville Chamberlain) he rolled into the German area (Sudetenland) and kept on rolling till he owned all of Czechoslovakia. Wonder if the Poles then felt like the Estonians now? If Article 5 is invoked (e.g. invasion of Baltics) does Congress need to declare war or can the President just send troops into battle? As I recall, Britain and France did have a defensive treaty with Poland and declared war on Germany once Germany attacked Poland. But, they slow walked their military response, it was logistically tough to insert troops into Poland once the war began, they were too scared to attack Germany to aid Poland, and Poland fell rapidly (20-ish days). Sooo, they (Britain and France) did perhaps follow thru on the letter of their defensive alliance but …
|
|
|
Post by alum on Feb 26, 2022 5:04:12 GMT -5
If Article 5 is invoked (e.g. invasion of Baltics) does Congress need to declare war or can the President just send troops into battle? The U.S. Constitution trumps NATO's article 5, No? Does the NATO treaty, already ratified by Congress, already authorize it? I really don’t know. If an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all, is it just defensive which most people think is within the President’s powers. I ask because I am not sure the Congress or the American people would want to go to war to protect Estonia from Russia. They didn’t want to do it until Hitler declared war on US after Pearl Harbor. Appeasers all around then and, perhaps, now.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 26, 2022 6:25:48 GMT -5
I have been of the assumption that Congress ratified the NATO treaty which includes article 5 and therefore would be surprised if Congress needs to approve anything further if Russia were to attack ANY NATO country no matter how small.
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Feb 26, 2022 8:38:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Feb 26, 2022 9:00:52 GMT -5
Very thought provoking Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 26, 2022 9:24:43 GMT -5
I am not a constitutional lawyer but my short answer would be "no."
The reason being there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution and NATO's article 5 in my reading:
Article II, section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution regarding Executive powers states:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . . ."
This ratification was done by Congress on 7/21/1949 after the treaty was signed by Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, on April 4, 1949.
So, the treaty was completed within the provisions of the Constitution and within that treaty is article 5
As an FYI, here's exactly what article 5 states:
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Feb 26, 2022 10:26:05 GMT -5
I am not a constitutional lawyer but my short answer would be "no." The reason being there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution and NATO's article 5 in my reading: Article II, section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution regarding Executive powers states: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . . ." This ratification was done by Congress on 7/21/1949 after the treaty was signed by Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, on April 4, 1949. So, the treaty was completed within the provisions of the Constitution and within that treaty is article 5 As an FYI, here's exactly what article 5 states: not disputing anything you say & it's 40+ years since I have discussed this issue with a Con Law professor the Constuction grants "Congress" [i.e., both Houses] the exclusive authority to 'declare war'. the authority to make treaties is with the President with the Senate's advise & consent... these provisions work smoothly when treaties end wars it's murkier if there is no direct attack on US e.g. Spain blowing up USS Maine in Havana harbor [now disputed]
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 26, 2022 10:35:27 GMT -5
During my yesteryear travels, I spent some time in the eastern Ukraine, specifically Kharkiv (previously Kharkov) and Donets. We were analyzing regulation of state-industries, and standard-setting in a non-competitive economy. (the industries were primarily armaments and aircraft.) These analyses also extended to a specific industry in Estonia, a huge fisheries collective that was vertically integrated, i.e., it caught the fish, canned the fish, and distributed the fish. Whatever Putin is thinking, he is no 'genius'. The Ukraine is an economic basket case. In 2019, remittances* from Ukrainians living and working in other countries constituted nearly eight percent of the total Ukrainian GDP. (* Remittances are money transfers sent back home.) The fertility rate for Ukraine in 2019 was 1.23. (That's actually up from 1.1 around 2000). Russia's fertility rate in 2019 was 1.5 (the U.S. was 1.64 in 2020). Between 2018 and 2021, deaths exceeded births in Russia by a considerable margin (15% in 2019). Because the Ukraine is in a steep economic and demographic decline. there is no economic benefit gained from taking possession of it. And Ukrainian refugees will be a boon to European countries, nearly all of whom are experiencing low fertility rates. ------------------- This is video is by a video-blogger who is British, the title of his channel is Bald and Bankrupt. (I have a sense he was in British intelligence, or was a commercial attaché. His conversational Russian and familiarity with the Soviet era are just too good.) Anyways, he takes a journey to a largely abandoned town in eastern Estonia and has a conversation with a pensioner who arrived in this town from elsewhere when Estonia was one of the Soviet republics. And the pensioner describes his amazement and delight at how well stocked the stores were. Back then, residents of any of the other Soviet republics (including Russia) who wanted to visit Estonia had to obtain an internal passport, and these were very rarely given. Even KGB minders would put Westerners on the train in St. Petersburg, and stay behind, not allowed to enter. Twelve hours in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia was all I needed to conclude the USSR was doomed and the Iron Curtain would fall. Houses that looked as if they could be in California, a marina full of sailboats for sailing across the Gulf of Finland if someone wanted, and Finnish stations on the 'telly'. The Estonians stayed because they were so economically well-off and privileged.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Feb 26, 2022 11:27:58 GMT -5
A treaty is the law of the land. Can't imagine any court in the land overturning our treaty obligation with NATO. Unless the Congress & President enact legislation withdrawing from the treaty, the treaty remains in effect.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 26, 2022 11:45:25 GMT -5
Well, all Hitler said he wanted was the portion of Czechoslovakia containing the ethnic Germans and closest to Germany. Part of the historic German Reich and all that. Small incursion, if you will. Emboldened by the appeasers (most notably Neville Chamberlain) he rolled into the German area (Sudetenland) and kept on rolling till he owned all of Czechoslovakia. Wonder if the Poles then felt like the Estonians now? If Article 5 is invoked (e.g. invasion of Baltics) does Congress need to declare war or can the President just send troops into battle? I don't think Congress has declared war since 1942, but our troops have been deployed multiple times
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Feb 26, 2022 11:54:55 GMT -5
A treaty is the law of the land. Can't imagine any court in the land overturning our treaty obligation with NATO. Unless the Congress & President enact legislation withdrawing from the treaty, the treaty remains in effect. This is the murkiness I'm thinking about; I don't see exception for treaties. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolutionagain, don't disagree that a court will find enough acquiesce by Congress e.g. funding NATO, to authorize Presidential action under this treaty. I believe a few days ago, a Congress person called for a declaration of war, perhaps more as a political act that a legal act
|
|
|
Post by alum on Feb 26, 2022 12:13:36 GMT -5
No doubt. It might come to a head over funding as opposed to a declaration I am just worried that the time will come when we will have to live up to our obligations and there will be opposition. We have an active isolationist faction in this country and in Congress—on the extremes of both parties.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Feb 26, 2022 12:27:01 GMT -5
The NATO alliance is strengthening and seems more determined to add more sanctions and military assistance to the people of Ukraine. No doubt NATO and the US will be sending war supplies - ammunition & weaponry - in support of a Ukrainian insurgency. Will the Russians dare to attack a US or NATO convoy? It could be a very interesting situation. Was this a miscalculation, a colossal mistake b yPutin? Was this invasion a stroke of genius? At this point we are in the wilderness of the unknown. The situation is volatile & unpredictable. China may be a wild card. They abstained in the UN vote condemning Russia. However, China favors stability and in fact has issued strongly worded statements condemning invasions by one country against another. Will the situation in Europe become increasingly volatile so as to alarm China? Will they pressure Putin to enter real negotiations? Power politics at its most dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 26, 2022 12:29:52 GMT -5
Despite the differences of our current politics, my strong impression is that the American citizenry of all stripes (2 very notable exceptions) are foursquare behind the Ukrainians and if Putin decides for whatever reason to "bleed over" into a NATO country, that even the few public isolationists will join the chorus that Putin must be stopped and war will be declared based on article 5 and Congress will do what needs to be done so that any Constitutional issues would become moot.
If anything, (most of) the political opposition (with those same 2 exceptions) feels we should be taking a more aggressive approach with discussion of imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. That's coming very close to boots on the ground and would invite an aerial confrontation with Russian aircraft. That said, I'll leave it to the veterans in our group as to how much a lack of planes and helicopters would impede the Russian takeover of Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 26, 2022 13:28:01 GMT -5
In 2014 Putin/Russia essentially grabbed the key geographic area of Crimea (including Sevastopol) from Ukraine. No Western (US/European) direct military response. Putin senses weakness now, gauges a lack of US/European direct military response, and is grabbing at the rest of Ukraine. It is actually pretty simple.
As far as Ukraine NATO membership goes, parties on all sides of the equation have slow-walked (and halted and sped up) membership for a variety of geopolitical considerations over the last 30 (not a misprint) years.
I don't think a US-established no-fly zone in Ukraine is a realistic option for a number of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 26, 2022 13:31:46 GMT -5
Pak Phreek--- with your experience in Ukraine, perhaps you can settle something for us. Is the capital city properly pronounced as "Key-Ev" as it was for decades or "Keev" as we now hear from some reporters.?
|
|