[eDebate] Grand Strategy

Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE akbiotech
Fri Dec 26 15:19:13 CST 2008


In reply to the silly Catherine the Great comment by Matheson, the 
analysis on grand strategy and Catherine the Great, indeed all of what I 
said about the Balkans, is taken almost verbatim from a common reference 
text by Stavrianos covering the history of the Balkans from 1453 to 
present, that's about 1000 pages long.  The desire of russia for a warm 
water port, her conquest of the tatars in order to take sevastopol and 
the crimea, ukraine and the khazar regions, etc., are all 
well-documented there and in other sources.  Obviously this all led to 
the crimean war and the eastern question of the 1800s. 

Obviously, grand strategy is applied to the great conquerors--those with 
ambitions to dominate the European continent.  Those would be Louis XIV, 
Napoleon Bonaparte, and Hitler.  The grand strategies as to the Balkans 
applied to the Austrian and Russian empires when they were expanding. 

Modernly, the Chinese Communists have certainly had a grand strategy of 
expansion and conquest to the west and to the north.  Ask a Tibetan. 

With reference to World War II, I would contend that Matheson is hoisted 
on his own petard, because the so-called "grand strategy" of the allies 
(England and America) to liberate Europe in WWII, while it succeeded in 
liberated France, Italy and a portion of Western Germany, also succeeded 
in partititioning Europe at Yalta and giving the green light to Uncle 
Joe Stalin to enslave all of Eastern Europe from 1945 until 
approximately 1990, the consequences of which are still felt today.  
Moreover, that result REVERSED the results of World War I, where Wilson 
through Versailles had liberated the Eastern European Republics from the 
Russian, Austrian and Turkish Empires and declared their autonomy with 
the fourteen points, etc. 

The fascists might have been bad, but in the twentieth century, the 
negative could argue, the communists were far worse.  It was a devils' 
bargain to ally with stalin to defeat hitler and then pay him off with 
half the lands of europe.

If that's the "grand strategy" that Matheson is relying on to refute my 
argument, then it's a turnaround in my favor, and heavily so.  I'd argue 
that the "grand strategy" Matheson is pointing to led to the enslavement 
of tens of millions, not to mention all the germans and russians and 
eastern europeans who died in the gulag as documented by solzhenitzyn.

As for containment, it's not a grand strategy at all, but a 
particularist strategy.  Truman and Kennan picked their spots.  That 
would be the opposite of grand strategy. 

The bottom line is that "Grand Strategy" is such a loaded term that 
hermeneutics and linguistic analysis makes it invariably a jingoistic, 
imperialistic phrase amenable to negative attack on all sorts of 
grounds.  That's why I would amend it and not include it in an 
affirmative resolution.

--art k

edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com wrote:
> Send eDebate mailing list submissions to
> 	edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Second Life Debates ? (Michael Antonucci)
>    2. Re: grand strategy (Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE)
>    3. Second life-format? (Alfred Snider)
>    4. Re: Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE (Calum Matheson)
>    5. USC Hotel Room Share Needed (Dallas Perkins)
>    6. "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security"
>       (Michael Antonucci)
>    7. Attn: Dartmouth AH (John Cook)
>    8. Re: "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security"
>       (David Glass)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:22:55 -0500
> From: "Michael Antonucci" <antonucci23 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] Second Life Debates ?
> To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<4a71966c0812231022n3dff8fc5r158863195ead0c5e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I think that expanding electronic debate is a great idea, and I commend you
> for what sounds like a fantastic project!
>
> You should probably realize, however, if you're planning a long term series
> of projects with Second Life, that the label carries substantial stigma.
>
> You might want to research that stigma further before mixing those two
> brands.
>
>   




More information about the Mailman mailing list