Horrible US vs. Wonderful Europe

[Skeptic]

# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.

# of People European nations freed from tyranny in last 50 years: 0.

% growth of US economy last year: 4.3%

% growth of EU economy last year: 0.3%

"Factoids"? Sure. But no worse--and in fact much better--factorids than the ones used to "prove" how horrible Bush is and how much morally superior Europe is.

[Cleon]

So what?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Skeptic
# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.

# of People European nations freed from tyranny in last 50 years: 0.



At this point I would like to ask anyone reading this if they could find out what has happened to approximately 11,000 British soldiers that we apparantely sent to Iraq. I hope you can help as I dont think we can make a milk carton big enough.

If you find any trace of them please send a note telling us where you found them to

Tony Blair
No 10 Downing street
London
UK

We'd also be interested to know what happened to the troops we sent to Kuwait, The Falklands, Afghanistan, Belize etc etc. Oh and let's not forget Northern Ireland

Thanks for your help

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Skeptic
# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.

1) Iraq: Let's hope. This is clearly a transitional phase -- too early to declare that freedom has been achieved and tyranny defeated.

2) Afghanistan: In Kabul yes; rest of country debatable.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Skeptic
# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.

# of People European nations freed from tyranny in last 50 years: 0.



Is anybody taking this seriously?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime


Is anybody taking this seriously?

One person: "Skeptic".

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime


Is anybody taking this seriously?

Now wait a second here...

If I recall there was a genocide going on in Europe in the Balkans that consumed hundreds of thousands of people.

It only stopped when the US finally got involved.

I sometimes think this idea given off in the "Guardian" and "Le Monde" that the EU is more sophisticated and nuanced than those "cowboy" Americans has to do with the fact that many countries in the EU are completely militarily impotent. Having their defense subsidized heavily by the US for the past 50 years, is a hard habit to break.

As Michael Howard of the Conservitive Party in the UK recently said something to the effect after what happened in Spain, "The sad fact is that the terrorists realize if you attack the US you get retaliation, if you attack Europe you can win."
Sooooo...It is much easier to say that the US is a "bully" etc. than to actually have to get your hands dirty and build a credible military.

That is why I am interested in all the polls, in the EU that state they want to be a power to counter-balance the US. Well fine...However, I don't think they realize that with that power they would most likely have to sometimes act. They won't be able to play the game of saying, "Tsk..Tsk..." while doing nothing.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Skeptic
"Factoids"? Sure. But no worse--and in fact much better--factorids than the ones used to "prove" how horrible Bush is and how much morally superior Europe is.

And what you are doing is no better than what they are doing. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mike B.
"The sad fact is that the terrorists realize if you attack the US you get retaliation, if you attack Europe you can win." Do you really need to attack the French to win? :D

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Now wait a second here...

If I recall there was a genocide going on in Europe in the Balkans that consumed hundreds of thousands of people.

It only stopped when the US finally got involved.

I sometimes think this idea given off in the "Guardian" and "Le Monde" that the EU is more sophisticated and nuanced than those "cowboy" Americans has to do with the fact that many countries in the EU are completely militarily impotent. Having their defense subsidized heavily by the US for the past 50 years, is a hard habit to break.

As Michael Howard of the Conservitive Party in the UK recently said something to the effect after what happened in Spain, "The sad fact is that the terrorists realize if you attack the US you get retaliation, if you attack Europe you can win."
Sooooo...It is much easier to say that the US is a "bully" etc. than to actually have to get your hands dirty and build a credible military.

That is why I am interested in all the polls, in the EU that state they want to be a power to counter-balance the US. Well fine...However, I don't think they realize that with that power they would most likely have to sometimes act. They won't be able to play the game of saying, "Tsk..Tsk..." while doing nothing.

So NATO (i.e. Europeans included) had nothing to do with it whatsoever then then?

Methinks your vision is blinkered.

Now then, would you mind addressing the points at hand again...

# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.

# of People European nations freed from tyranny in last 50 years: 0.

...and - considering that European troops also assisted the US in Afghanistan - once more tell me if we should take them seriously instead of jingoistically maintaining that you did everything yourselves.

Thankyou.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
reading this if they could find out what has happened to approximately 11,000 British soldiers that we apparantely sent to Iraq. I hope you can help as I dont think we can make a milk carton big enough.

This is not necessarily an apology for Skeptic, but I'm never sure when the UK is part of Europe and when it isn't part of Europe.

Geographically, it would seem to be part of Europe. However, I've seen a number of UK editorials that blast Europe as if it were something distinct from the UK.

I've also seen references to "the Continent," as if the UK were not part of the continent of Europe.

[charley_bigtime]

We're part of Europe and part of the EU too but have not embraced the Euro and dropped out of the EMS.

We're not part of continental Europe geographically but we are part of the continent of Europe.

Next week, how to nail custard to the ceiling.

[epepke]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime
We're part of Europe and part of the EU too but have not embraced the Euro and dropped out of the EMS.

We're not part of continental Europe geographically but we are part of the continent of Europe.

Depends on whether you count the Chunnel.

Next week, how to nail custard to the ceiling.

Indeed.

[circuit slave]

# of People European nations freed from tyranny in last 50 years: 0.

:D

[Jundar]

Originally posted by Mike B.

That is why I am interested in all the polls, in the EU that state they want to be a power to counter-balance the US. Well fine...However, I don't think they realize that with that power they would most likely have to sometimes act. They won't be able to play the game of saying, "Tsk..Tsk..." while doing nothing.

The problem - among other thins - is that there is no "Europe" as a political entity.

The European Union consists of many different states, is ruled by different government (lefties, rightwing, convervatives, idiots etc.) It is possible to act as an independent state and send troops (as the UK do more often, i.e. to Commonwealth states, and Germany does less often, i.e. Afghanistan and the Balkan).
The problem is the size of the thing. Europa is much more politically divided without a central government - there´s simply not an easy way to get 16 countries to act as one. It has - let´s face it - a more painful tradition with wars than the USA (no, I don´t want to add the numbers). So perhaps Europa has a longer tradition dealing with the side- and long-term effect of modern warfare which for the USA have mainly taken place well outside their own country. (Hence the shock after 9/11 ?)

I could also babble about the issue of a free media and the abuse of public opinion (which is a bit harder when people actually get to read papers in other languages and from other countries, which is no big deal in Europe) and the "informed stupidity" deriving from that (e.g. Skeptic´s factoids which are nonsense anyway - how do you judge tyranny and freedom?)

[Reginald]

The whole thread title is based on a falsity in any case.

Who's it aimed at?

Lobbing this type of thing on the table without any specific target is rather like the child shouting "I did nothing wrong" before being accused of anything. Is it an insecurity thing?

The misguided belief that the US is the "Be all and end all" of world freedom and the world economy is as stupid (yes stupid!) as saying that the US is "Horrible".

You would think that on a board of this caliber that these old black/white, yes/no type threads would be less common.

It's a seagull thread in any case, "swoops in, sh!ts, then clears off".

[Outcast]

How many nations did Europe rebuild in the last 50 years? 0

Number of wars started by Germany? 3

Number of wars started by Germany after we beat them to a pile of ruble? 0

Number of countries over run by the Soviet Union in the last 50 years? 0

Number of Soviet occupied nations liberated by Europe 0

Number of Soviet occupied nations liberated by America? 9

How many McDonalds in Europe? 5,124.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Outcast
How many nations did Europe rebuild in the last 50 years? 0

Number of wars started by Germany? 3

Number of wars started by Germany after we beat them to a pile of ruble? 0

Number of countries over run by the Soviet Union in the last 50 years? 0

Number of Soviet occupied nations liberated by Europe 0

Number of Soviet occupied nations liberated by America? 9

How many McDonalds in Europe? 5,124.

Please tell me this is a "jest" post?

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Jundar


It has - let´s face it - a more painful tradition with wars than the USA (no, I don´t want to add the numbers). So perhaps Europa has a longer tradition dealing with the side- and long-term effect of modern warfare which for the USA have mainly taken place well outside their own country. (Hence the shock after 9/11 ?)

Europe has a long tradition of fighting wars, America has a long tradition of winning wars.

The reason Europe will never be a major power is, they can't afford it. In order to build up their military, they would have to cut social programs.

Cost of a Ohio Class submarine $1.9 billion.
B-2A Spirit bomber — $2.6 billion each
Minuteman III missile — $33.5 million each
The only difference between a man and a boy is the cost of his toys. And guess who has the expensive toys?

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Reginald


Please tell me this is a "jest" post? Yeah its all in jest. I just love a good laugh with it is true.

[Chaos]

Since we are at it:

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe that they sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW1 raged: 3 years (mid-1914 to mid-1917)

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW2 raged: 2 years, 3 months (9/39 to 12/41)

Period of time the US cared so much about the poor, oppressed Iraqi people that they considered their oppressor Saddam Hussein their ally: roughly 10 years (1980 to 1990)

Period of time the US was so adamantly opposed to terrorism that they sponsored the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, including one Osama bin Laden: roughly 8 years (1980 to 1988?)

Number of democratically elected governments overthrown by the US or with US help in the last 50 years: at least 3 (Motassadegh (sp?) in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile)

Number of assassinations (or attempts thereof) of heads of state that US government agencies (CIA etc.) where involved in during the last 50 years: at least 3 (Castro, Diem, Lumumba)

Nice track record, if you ask me.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chaos
Since we are at it:

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe that they sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW1 raged: 3 years (mid-1914 to mid-1917)

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW2 raged: 2 years, 3 months (9/39 to 12/41)

:con2:

When the US sticks their nose into European affairs, they're EVIL! When the US doesn't stick their nose into European affairs, they're EVIL! And since the US both have and haven't stuck their nose into European affairs, they're DOUBLY EVIL!

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Reginald


Please tell me this is a "jest" post?

Please tell me this is a "jest" thread?

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Outcast

Number of wars started by Germany? 3


3? WWI, WWII and...

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Nitpick


3? WWI, WWII and... Franco-Prussian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War) It was the only war Germany ever won.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Please tell me this is a "jest" thread? Its half jest. This would have been a good one to start 3 days ago.:D

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Outcast
Franco-Prussian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War) It was the only war Germany ever won.

Quote (from your link):

The immediate cause of the war was the French opposition to the candidacy of the German prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen for the Spanish throne, which had been vacant since the revolution of September 1868. Asked by the French to guarantee for Leopold's permanent withdrawal also in the future, King William of Prussia declared the matter outside his control. His telegram (the Ems Dispatch) reporting this interview with the French ambassador was edited by chancellor Bismarck of Prussia in such a way as to provoke French indignation. France officially declared war on July 19, 1870.
(highlighted by me)


BTW, Here's the text of the original telegram and that of he edited version. (http://cla.calpoly.edu/~mriedlsp/History111/EmsTelegram.html)

[Jundar]

Originally posted by Outcast
Franco-Prussian War - It was the only war Germany ever won.
Well, well, someone paid attention in history class :) - apart from the fact that "Germany" didn´t exist in its present state before 1949, and Prussia may have been a big part of Germany but for sure not the only one..

Originally posted by Outcast
Europe has a long tradition of fighting wars, America has a long tradition of winning wars.
(what was that Vietnam & Mogadischu thing anyway?)

I´m pretty sure we don´t get anywhere by counting the numbers of wars started by some country or another. It´s rather what happened after a war has taken place. This is not a theoretical debate but "Learning from History".

I´m just not sure the current American administration ever gave a thought about post-war Iraq or Afghanistan. At least from a European perspective they didn´t, and their current way of behaviour doesn´t indicate that they´ve learned anything at all.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Skeptic
# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.


# of people in Afghanistan and Iraq who don't want Bush there: 39,999,999

Making up irrelevant "facts" sure is fun.

[Mr Manifesto]

May as well use this thread for a serious question. How many Israeli troops have helped the US in the WoT in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
May as well use this thread for a serious question. How many Israeli troops have helped the US in the WoT in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, THAT question will go nowhere good really quickly.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleon


Well, THAT question will go nowhere good really quickly.

Especially since Skeptic seems to have shown his usual intestinal fortitude by abandoning this thread.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Jundar

Well, well, someone paid attention in history class :) - apart from the fact that "Germany" didn´t exist in its present state before 1949, and Prussia may have been a big part of Germany but for sure not the only one..


Bismarck provoked this war (as well as the Prussian-Austrian war of 1866) to promote German unity by presenting them with an outside threat.
The German Empire was founded in 1871, by the way, ruled by the (until then) Prussian king Wilhelm I.

[Shane Costello]

Originaly posted by charley_bigtime:
Next week, how to nail custard to the ceiling.

Easy-peasy, just leave the powdered form in it's packet! ;)

(Now if you could just tell me what actually goes into custard..........).

Originally posted by Jundar:
The problem - among other thins - is that there is no "Europe" as a political entity.

Try telling that to some people.


Originally posted by Reginald:
The misguided belief that the US is the "Be all and end all" of world freedom and the world economy is as stupid (yes stupid!) as saying that the US is "Horrible".

A tad misguided, but hardly stupid. In fairness it wasn't the prospect of a concerted European response that stopped the Soviets extending the iron curtain westwards, nor is it inaccurate to say that American consumer demand (among others) has been keeping the world economy in a slightly more healthy state thatn might otherwise be the case. Not to mention the massive improvement FDI from American multinationals has brought to this country.

Originally posted by Chaos:
Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe that they sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW1 raged: 3 years (mid-1914 to mid-1917)

Why should the US have cared either way? The US wasn't under any obligation to "care" about Europe, and wouldn't have had entered the war if Germany hadn't started unrestricted u-boat warfare against neutral shipping or tried to goad Mexico into declaring war on the US.

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW2 raged: 2 years, 3 months (9/39 to 12/41)

Ever heard of the lend-lease program?

[Jundar]

Originally posted by Chaos
The German Empire was founded in 1871, by the way, ruled by the (until then) Prussian king Wilhelm I.

I don´t deny that, I only wanted to point out that - in difference to the United States - there is no continuity in the political systems in Europa. While the States already existed for a longer time, the political climate in Europa was far more extreme - see the goverment changes in Turkey, Greece, Germany, Italy etc.

Excuse my short reply, dinner´s ready :D

[CapelDodger]

from Outcast:
How many nations did Europe rebuild in the last 50 years? 0
Europe's nations rebuilt themselves. They did it partly on US credit but that was handsomely paid for. Let's not have any ******** about the US rebuilding Europe.
Number of wars started by Germany? 3
Number of countries invaded by the US 1919-1939: about 20, as I recall. None of them big enought to fight back much, though. As to the 3 German Wars, the Franco-Prussian War was pre-unification, so hardly counts as a German war. It is also arguable, of course, who was responsible for WW1, given that all powers were expecting it and preparing for it at a time they felt was advantageous. Naturally it went off sooner or later.
Number of wars started by Germany after we beat them to a pile of ruble? 0
The Soviets and the RAF made their contributions to the defeat of Htiler and the demolition of much of Germany. The US stayed out as long as they could - after all, it was a European affair, wasn't it? It's not as if Germany was ever going to declare war on the US ...
Number of Soviet occupied nations liberated by Europe 0

Number of Soviet occupied nations liberated by America? 9
These liberated European countries rather think they liberated themselves. How exactly did the US intervene?

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Jundar Well, well, someone paid attention in history class :) - apart from the fact that "Germany" didn´t exist in its present state before 1949, and Prussia may have been a big part of Germany but for sure not the only one.. 1949? Germany didn't exist in its present state unitl the end of 1989.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~wggerman/map/images/germanempire1871.jpg

North German Confederation (1867-1871)
Franco-Prussian War (July 19, 1870 - May 10, 1871)
German Empire (Jan 1871-Nov 1918}

So it would seem that the German Empire was formed 5 months before the end of the Franco-Prussian War and existed up until the end of WW I
(what was that Vietnam & Mogadischu thing anyway?) Yes we lost in Vietnam. Mogadischu wasn't even a police action, just a botched bag job.I´m pretty sure we don´t get anywhere by counting the numbers of wars started by some country or another. It´s rather what happened after a war has taken place. Yes I just loved the way the TREATY OF VERSAILLES was writen and how it was enfouced and how it didn't lead to WW II This is not a theoretical debate but "Learning from History".

I´m just not sure the current American administration ever gave a thought about post-war Iraq or Afghanistan. At least from a European perspective they didn´t, and their current way of behaviour doesn´t indicate that they´ve learned anything at all.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Why should the US have cared either way? The US wasn't under any obligation to "care" about Europe, and wouldn't have had entered the war if Germany hadn't started unrestricted u-boat warfare against neutral shipping or tried to goad Mexico into declaring war on the US.

Ever heard of the lend-lease program?

My point was that the image of the US as the "knight in shining armor" who can´t wait to rescue the poor oppressed people from evil bloodthursty dictators out of sheer compassion - as it has been floated here and elsewhere, especially by the right - is pure BS.

You said yourself that the US became involved in WW1 due to German actions against them.
They also became actively involved in WW2 only after Japan and Germany declared war on them. (Sending your allies weapons and other materials is not the same as actually fighting at their side)

[Graham]

Originally posted by Chaos


My point was that the image of the US as the "knight in shining armor" who can´t wait to rescue the poor oppressed people from evil bloodthursty dictators out of sheer compassion - as it has been floated here and elsewhere, especially by the right - is pure BS.

You said yourself that the US became involved in WW1 due to German actions against them.
They also became actively involved in WW2 only after Japan and Germany declared war on them. (Sending your allies weapons and other materials is not the same as actually fighting at their side)

In fact, it occurs to me that the lend-lease programme and such should be ample proof that Americans, or at least their leadership, knew which side was the good guys and were unwilling to stand up for what they apparently believed in.

Why?

Graham

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Graham


In fact, it occurs to me that the lend-lease programme and such should be ample proof that Americans, or at least their leadership, knew which side was the good guys and were unwilling to stand up for what they apparently believed in.

Why?

Graham

Either they knew who the good guys where or they knew who was going to win and wanted to be on their good side through some small contribution...

[Graham]

Originally posted by Chaos


Either they knew who the good guys where or they knew who was going to win and wanted to be on their good side through some small contribution...

Interesting. Do you think it was obvious who was going to win from the outset?

[CapelDodger]

from Graham:
In fact, it occurs to me that the lend-lease programme and such should be ample proof that Americans, or at least their leadership, knew which side was the good guys and were unwilling to stand up for what they apparently believed in.

Why?
Public opinion. (And can I just say: kudos to those Americans, many of them urgently-needed pilots, who volunteered for the RAF despite the threats of retribution from their government.) I've often heard it said that Americans are always looking for an enemy, but in fact they're always happier feeling uninvolved and safe behind their ocean boundaries. Roosevelt certainly wanted into the European war - especially once it looked like the Soviets were going to win it - but he felt he had to run on a peace ticket.

And let's not forget, there ain't no "Give" in "Lend-Lease", which is the only reason it got past Congress.

[CapelDodger]

from Graham:
Interesting. Do you think it was obvious who was going to win from the outset?
Joe Kennedy thought it would obviously be the Nazis. So did most Americans, by all accounts (that's certainly what comes across in the newspapers of the time).

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Chaos:
My point was that the image of the US as the "knight in shining armor" who can´t wait to rescue the poor oppressed people from evil bloodthursty dictators out of sheer compassion - as it has been floated here and elsewhere, especially by the right - is pure BS.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the US ever liberated anywhere solely on compassionate grounds. Naturally there's been a healthy dose of self-interest involved. But please point out any country that's ever acted contrary to what it percieves to be it's vital interests?

(Sending your allies weapons and other materials is not the same as actually fighting at their side)

It's also a long way from your original claim that they sat on their derrieres doing nothing.

Originally posted by Graham:
In fact, it occurs to me that the lend-lease programme and such should be ample proof that Americans, or at least their leadership, knew which side was the good guys and were unwilling to stand up for what they apparently believed in.

Well, how many times have you laid your life on the line for a just cause? No civilized nation ever goes to war unless it is absolutely necessary. Ireland didn't go to war in 1939, even though our government's policy of neutrality heavily favoured the allies. It was an entirely practical policy, that would have changed had the nation's security been threatened.

Don't forget that American military strength was negligable at the time. The US armed forces were comparable to those of Argentina or Romania.

Interesting. Do you think it was obvious who was going to win from the outset?

I don't think so, at least I doubt anyone expected the French to fold as quickly as they did.

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Roosevelt certainly wanted into the European war - especially once it looked like the Soviets were going to win it - but he felt he had to run on a peace ticket.

The US was already well involved in the war by the time the Soviets gained the upper hand in the Eastern front around 1943.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos


Either they knew who the good guys where or they knew who was going to win and wanted to be on their good side through some small contribution...

Chaos, who is a pretty smart guy, has let his hatred get the better of his logic here or any sense of historical reality.

Sad

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
But please point out any country that's ever acted contrary to what it percieves to be it's vital interests?
Indeed, what one perceives to be vital is seldom ignored. But this raises the question of what Skeptic's first post is supposed to be about. If the US has liberated x zillion serfs as a side-effect of pursuing its own interests, why do they deserve any credit? What, I wonder, is his point?
(Sending your allies weapons and other materials is not the same as actually fighting at their side)

It's also a long way from your original claim that they sat on their derrieres doing nothing.
No it isn't. Sitting smug while raking in money and offering muted encouragement is very, very close to doing nothing.
The US was already well involved in the war by the time the Soviets gained the upper hand in the Eastern front around 1943.
The Battle of Moscow was the turning point, winter of 1941. The USSR had not collapsed, poltically, industrially or militarily. The Japanese had not struck north This released the eastern army and secured the Trans-Siberian railway. No subsequent German offensive was as large as Barbarossa. The Germans were screwed outside Moscow.

In terms of the war in Europe, the US was hardly engaged at all before June 6th 1944. The US war was the Pacific War, which is far too easily confused with the European war of the same period.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Chaos, who is a pretty smart guy, has let his hatred get the better of his logic here or any sense of historical reality.

Sad

How nice. Compliment and insult in one sentence.

What do your logic and sense of historical reality say - assuming, of course, that your hatred has not gotten the better of them?

[CapelDodger]

from Outcast:
Europe has a long tradition of fighting wars, America has a long tradition of winning wars.
I find this difficult to fathom. Is this meant to imply that Europe doesn't win wars? Because Europe has never fought any wars, Europe has never had an army. Europe is a continent not a country. European countries, in general terms, conquered a lot of countries in establishing their empires, and "conquer" has the "win" concept implicit in it. There have aso been many wars within Europe, but they have usually produced a winner. The US, of course, has a long tradition of war against Central American and Caribbean powers, in most of which they have triumphed. They could arguably be described, by the uncharitable, as having a tradition of joining the winning side in larger-scale affairs. With the obvious exception of the French in Indo-China.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Skeptic
# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.

That is debatable.

Originally posted by Skeptic
# of People European nations freed from tyranny in last 50 years: 0.

That is also debatable.

Originally posted by Skeptic
% growth of US economy last year: 4.3%

And how big a fall did the economy take prior to that?

Originally posted by Skeptic
% growth of EU economy last year: 0.3%

"Factoids"? Sure. But no worse--and in fact much better--factorids than the ones used to "prove" how horrible Bush is and how much morally superior Europe is.

Not even factoids, as every statement you made is open to debate and obviously colored by your personal bias. A fact would be: There are X number of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. A fact would be: The US invaded both countries. What is debatable is what good that has been done in each country. What you stated above are your opinions.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Skeptic
# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.

# of People European nations freed from tyranny in last 50 years: 0.

% growth of US economy last year: 4.3%

% growth of EU economy last year: 0.3%

"Factoids"? Sure. But no worse--and in fact much better--factorids than the ones used to "prove" how horrible Bush is and how much morally superior Europe is.

number of bin ladens caught: 0

number of chemical weapons found: a few odd shells

number of bio weapons found: 0

number of US citizens killed in the invasion of Iraq : 600 and counting

number of billions the american taxpayer gave to Iraq : ca. $100 b

price of US gas: record high

number of Iraqi's who are glad we are there: you tell me

number of legal reasons to invade Iraq : you tell me


virgil

[WildCat]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
In terms of the war in Europe, the US was hardly engaged at all before June 6th 1944. The US war was the Pacific War, which is far too easily confused with the European war of the same period.
Obviously you have forgotten about the North African campaign in late 1942, the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, and the Italian invasion in September of 1943.

[Skeptic]

Not even factoids, as every statement you made is open to debate and obviously colored by your personal bias.

What is debatable is what good that has been done in each country.

Well, it got rid of two of the most corrupt and backwards regimes on the face of the planet.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Not even factoids, as every statement you made is open to debate and obviously colored by your personal bias.

What is debatable is what good that has been done in each country.

Well, it got rid of two of the most corrupt and backwards regimes on the face of the planet.

Also debatable.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by WildCat

Obviously you have forgotten about the North African campaign in late 1942, the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, and the Italian invasion in September of 1943.

...not to mention the lend-lease act, the US fleet proetcting convoys to Britian, etc.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Chaos
Since we are at it:

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe that they sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW1 raged: 3 years (mid-1914 to mid-1917)

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW2 raged: 2 years, 3 months (9/39 to 12/41)

Period of time the US cared so much about the poor, oppressed Iraqi people that they considered their oppressor Saddam Hussein their ally: roughly 10 years (1980 to 1990)

Period of time the US was so adamantly opposed to terrorism that they sponsored the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, including one Osama bin Laden: roughly 8 years (1980 to 1988?)

Number of democratically elected governments overthrown by the US or with US help in the last 50 years: at least 3 (Motassadegh (sp?) in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile)

Number of assassinations (or attempts thereof) of heads of state that US government agencies (CIA etc.) where involved in during the last 50 years: at least 3 (Castro, Diem, Lumumba)

Nice track record, if you ask me.

Period of time America would have sat on it's backside had it listened intently to it's most liberal appeasement minded citizens:.....forever and ever!

People that moved America to overcome it's liberal inertia and come to the aid of it's European allies in WWI, WWII, etc...etc...?
A: "Warmongers"

-z

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Especially since Skeptic seems to have shown his usual intestinal fortitude by abandoning this thread.

You reafirm your lack of any fortitude , intestinal or otherwise, by typing insults instead of debating or staying on topic. As to abandoning a topic, some people have other lives that take time and I print this not so much in defense of Skeptic who, I see further on, has not evaporate, but because I conclude from similar inanities to me, that you are one of the juveniles here who are interested mostly in reading yourself.

If you want to respond, why don't you start a new thread? Entitled "manners" perhaps? Let's see if your other cohorts in insults take the bait.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos


How nice. Compliment and insult in one sentence.

What do your logic and sense of historical reality say - assuming, of course, that your hatred has not gotten the better of them?

I don't know Chaos, you made the claim, not I.

You said that the US waited at the beginning of World War II in order to see who was going to win, and then supported that side in order to get in good with the winning side.

Do you really think that is the historical reality?

If you could show me solid evidence the US was going to declare war on the UK in the summer of 1940 or the USSR in the fall of 1941, you may have a point. However, I don't think you can.

(This has nothing to do with the US being morally superior or not, it is just I believe that Chaos point makes no sense in regards to the history.)

[Outcast]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Outcast:

I find this difficult to fathom. Is this meant to imply that Europe doesn't win wars? Because Europe has never fought any wars, Europe has never had an army. Europe is a continent not a country. European countries, in general terms, conquered a lot of countries in establishing their empires, and "conquer" has the "win" concept implicit in it. There have aso been many wars within Europe, but they have usually produced a winner. The US, of course, has a long tradition of war against Central American and Caribbean powers, in most of which they have triumphed. They could arguably be described, by the uncharitable, as having a tradition of joining the winning side in larger-scale affairs. With the obvious exception of the French in Indo-China. Look who's calling the kettle black. Yes, we had our share of banana and rubber war in our sphere of influence. United States never set out to build a world empire the way Britain did. Remember the old saying "The sun never sets on the British Empire?" We didn't colonize half of Africa, Southern Asia and a big chunk of the rest of the world. It wasn't Americans using Martini-Henry Rifles against cowhide shields and spears. But it was America that prevented Europe from carving up China the way they did Africa. many wars within Europe, Why? The only war we have had to fight twice is the Gulf War and maybe the Korean War. Both times the UN was involved and made a mess of things. WW I was a European ran war with American troops involved. Who won? Nobody, because 20 years later the same countries are at it again. WW II was an American ran war, total war with an unconditional surrender. That was the 60 years ago. Other than that mess in the Balkans Europe has been a safe place to live.

having a tradition of joining the winning side in larger-scale affairs. We don't join the winning side, We are the winning side!
With the obvious exception of the French in Indo-China. I hate it that we lost 58,000 lives and killed 2 million of them, all for nothing. We deserved to loose that war. It was probably the most immoral war we ever fought.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Graham:

Public opinion. (And can I just say: kudos to those Americans, many of them urgently-needed pilots, who volunteered for the RAF despite the threats of retribution from their government.) I've often heard it said that Americans are always looking for an enemy, but in fact they're always happier feeling uninvolved and safe behind their ocean boundaries. Roosevelt certainly wanted into the European war - especially once it looked like the Soviets were going to win it - but he felt he had to run on a peace ticket.

And let's not forget, there ain't no "Give" in "Lend-Lease", which is the only reason it got past Congress. Roosevelt was a closet communist. He wanted into the war not for fear that Soviets would win, but for fear that the Soviets would loose again like they did in WW I. A lot of people believe that he provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and left it vulnerable to attack, just to get us into the war.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Shane Costello:

In terms of the war in Europe, the US was hardly engaged at all before June 6th 1944. The US war was the Pacific War, which is far too easily confused with the European war of the same period. WW II? I wonder what the first W stands for? Could it possible be World? I don't think I have ever heard it called EW II and PW I before. It was the pressure on Japan that kept their troops from advancing into Russia. It was our ships and men that freed up British and Commonwealth solders to fight the Germans. It was our ships that sank several German U-Boats that were transferring technology between Germany and Japan.

[Jundar]

Oh, great, Outkast.

You now seem to resort to short phrases like this ominous

We don't join the winning side, We are the winning side!

Accept that there are many different kinds of wars, the open wars of the first half of the 20th century are just a small, small part of it. Remember the war during the Cold War (the representative wars in Afghanistan, Iran/Iraq, Korea, lots of African countries, Panama etc.pp.) - "fair war"? "American war"? Calm down, man, nobody´s going to take your pride, it´s just a debate about crisis managament.

Many people had strong opinions about Versailles even after WW-I (and I don´t mean the Germany propaganda thing, but American commerce, many statesmen and lots of politically informed persons), and people who use a little bit of the grey matter in their heads do have strong opinions about the outcome of American-led wars like Afghanistan & Iraq (which are are disaster after all.... it´s not just "Hey, we get in there, get rid of the old/evil administration, install a new head bonzo and get the heck out of there again". That´s just stupid short-term thinking of people who have never heard about long-term political planing, non-military crisis managament and frankly also not about basic human rights.)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Outcast
WW II? I wonder what the first W stands for? Could it possible be World?

What is now called World War I was uniformly called The Great War. I don't think that even the most defensive European could, without being perverse, declare that it wasn't essentially European. Besides, how many Europeans play in the World Series

World War II was more complicated, because it was made up of 1) the recrudescence of The Great War, 2) Mussolini, and 3) Japan. So it started off as only 2/3 European and Eurasian.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Jundar
Oh, great, Outkast.

You now seem to resort to short phrases like this ominous

Its called "KISS." Keep it simple stupid.

Accept that there are many different kinds of wars, the open wars of the first half of the 20th century are just a small, small part of it. Remember the war during the Cold War (the representative wars in Afghanistan, Iran/Iraq, Korea, lots of African countries, Panama etc.pp.) - "fair war"? "American war"? Calm down, man, nobodýs going to take your pride, it́s just a debate about crisis managament.

Many people had strong opinions about Versailles even after WW-I (and I dońt mean the Germany propaganda thing, but American commerce, many statesmen and lots of politically informed persons), and people who use a little bit of the grey matter in their heads do have strong opinions about the outcome of American-led wars like Afghanistan & Iraq (which are are disaster after all.... it́s not just "Hey, we get in there, get rid of the old/evil administration, install a new head bonzo and get the heck out of there again". That́s just stupid short-term thinking of people who have never heard about long-term political planing, non-military crisis managament and frankly also not about basic human rights.) Its kind of hard to have a debate with someone you more or less agree with. Look at what happened in Afghanistan to the Russians, they tried for 10 years to prop up a Marxist government and in the end they failed. Look at Eastern Europe, 40 years under communist governments, a whole generation grew up knowing nothing else. Yet, within the week of the Soviet troops leaving, communist governments were gone. I think our nation building in Afghanistan will work, but I am not so sure about Iraq.

The Mongolians had a saying You can conquer from the saddle, but you can't govern from the saddle That is the problem we are facing in Iraq. We can conquer with a small army and a lot of fire power, like the Mongolians did, but like them, we don't have enough troops on the ground to govern. I think we had about 6 troops/1,000 in Iraq. In Germany, there were 20 troops/1,000 at the end of WW II

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Chaos
Either they knew who the good guys where or they knew who was going to win and wanted to be on their good side through some small contribution... There are so many things wrong with this statement it is hard to tell were to start.

Ok, good guys. The Soviets were the good guys? Uncle Joe had murdered millions before the start of WWII. Hitler once said of Stalin, " He is a beast, but he's a beast on a grand scale who must command our unconditional respect. In his own way, he is a hell of a fellow!"

Define "good". The Soviet Union and Germany carved up Poland before Hitler marched into the Sudateland. If Hitler had not hated Communism so much he could possibly have carved up Europe between him and Stalin and without an Eastern front England would have eventually capitulated. It was Hitler's boredom of the Battle of Britain and his desire to concur the East that made him refocus. Britain won the battle due to attrition and Hitler's fickle attention span, but it (Britain) could not have kept it up.

Some small contribution? "More than a million Americans were to fight in lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea and close to four million on the European continent, exclusive of Italy, in the largest commitment to battle ever made by the U.S. Army."

Some small contribution? "The United States lost 135,576 dead in Western Europe, while Britain, Canada, France, and other Allies incurred after D-day approximately 60,000 military deaths."

World War II: The War Against Germany and Italy (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/AMH/AMH-22.html)

Many of our young men were slaughtered many more were maimed and scarred for life in a foreign land for what? "some small contribution"

WWII was by no means a forgone conclusion. Stalin was desperately trying to get another front opened. The pressure from the Germans was severe and there was a very real possibility that the Soviet Union would collapse.

It was not until the defeat of Rommel in Northern Africa that victory for the Allies looked like a real possibility. By then Eisenhower was the supreme commander of Allied forces.

Sorry, but it was no small contribution. And we could have committed all of our forces to the Pacific. America could have had a separate peace with Germany.

I understand the desire to counter the passion of Americans who think they single handedly saved Europe. But revisionist history is unnecessary.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by epepke


What is now called World War I was uniformly called The Great War. I don't think that even the most defensive European could, without being perverse, declare that it wasn't essentially European. Besides, how many Europeans play in the World Series

World War II was more complicated, because it was made up of 1) the recrudescence of The Great War, 2) Mussolini, and 3) Japan. So it started off as only 2/3 European and Eurasian. Not sure how WW I got in here. But tell CapelDodger about WW II. He's the one that is confused about WW II. The US war was the Pacific War, which is far too easily confused with the European war of the same period. CapelDodger

[epepke]

Originally posted by Outcast
Not sure how WW I got in here. But tell CapelDodger about WW II. He's the one that is confused about WW II

They both got the name because of the obvious connections. Although I think I remember some statue in England that referred to "the World War," meaning "WW I."

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Capel Dodger:[/I]
[B]But this raises the question of what Skeptic's first post is supposed to be about. If the US has liberated x zillion serfs as a side-effect of pursuing its own interests, why do they deserve any credit?

Put it this way. The UK did everything in it's power to avoid an armed confrontation with the Nazis in the 1930's, to the point of acquiescing in the rape of Czechoslovakia. It can be reasonably argued that they only went to war when it was in their narrow self interest to do so. Does that mean that the sacrifices Britain made from 1939 onwards should in any way be lessened? IMO no.

No it isn't. Sitting smug while raking in money and offering muted encouragement is very, very close to doing nothing.

Was this what lend lease was all about?

In terms of the war in Europe, the US was hardly engaged at all before June 6th 1944. The US war was the Pacific War, which is far too easily confused with the European war of the same period.

See Wildcat's post. Your point is debatable, to say the least.

[Graham]

Originally posted by RandFan
There are so many things wrong with this statement it is hard to tell were to start.

Ok, good guys. The Soviets were the good guys? Uncle Joe had murdered millions before the start of WWII. Hitler once said of Stalin, " He is a beast, but he's a beast on a grand scale who must command our unconditional respect. In his own way, he is a hell of a fellow!"

Define "good". The Soviet Union and Germany carved up Poland before Hitler marched into the Sudateland. If Hitler had not hated Communism so much he could possibly have carved up Europe between him and Stalin and without an Eastern front England would have eventually capitulated. It was Hitler's boredom of the Battle of Britain and his desire to concur the East that made him refocus. Britain won the battle due to attrition and Hitler's fickle attention span, but it (Britain) could not have kept it up.

Some small contribution? "More than a million Americans were to fight in lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea and close to four million on the European continent, exclusive of Italy, in the largest commitment to battle ever made by the U.S. Army."

Some small contribution? "The United States lost 135,576 dead in Western Europe, while Britain, Canada, France, and other Allies incurred after D-day approximately 60,000 military deaths."

World War II: The War Against Germany and Italy (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/AMH/AMH-22.html)

Many of our young men were slaughtered many more were maimed and scarred for life in a foreign land for what? "some small contribution"

WWII was by no means a forgone conclusion. Stalin was desperately trying to get another front opened. The pressure from the Germans was severe and there was a very real possibility that the Soviet Union would collapse.

It was not until the defeat of Rommel in Northern Africa that victory for the Allies looked like a real possibility. By then Eisenhower was the supreme commander of Allied forces.

Sorry, but it was no small contribution. And we could have committed all of our forces to the Pacific. America could have had a separate peace with Germany.

I understand the desire to counter the passion of Americans who think they single handedly saved Europe. But revisionist history is unnecessary.

I agree with most of what you've said here but have a few small points:

1) I think by "small contribution" Chaos was referring to the lend/lease program and such contributions made before the US entered the war proper.

2) As I understand it, Germany and Japan were allied (or axised possibly) and the US could not have fought one without being at war with the other.

3) Further to (2), once war was commenced with Japan, it was vital to US interests that Germany was defeated since otherwise they would have ended up attacked from two sides.

Graham

[Nitpick]

This thread is a vivid reminder of why (IMO) "history" and "politics" belong together. You just don't deviate that easily into historical issues when talking about "literature and the arts" ;)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by RandFan
Some small contribution? "The United States lost 135,576 dead in Western Europe, while Britain, Canada, France, and other Allies incurred after D-day approximately 60,000 military deaths."


The United States certainly played a large part in World War II, and paid a toll for that. However, the US' role is often exaggerated (particularly in this kind of discussions, where both the US' actions and inactions are exaggerated.) Throughout the entire second World War, in all theatres, the allied forces suffered around 33 million casualties (both killed and wounded). Of those 33 million, 27 million were from the Soviet Union, 3 million were Chinese, 700 000 were british, and 600 000 were from the United States.

When you also consider that that the US had some of the lowest per capita losses of all the allies, practically no civilian casualties and kept all it's infrastructure and industrial base intact, I think it's clear why rhetoric along the lines of "If it hadn't been for the US you'd all be talking German now", or "We bled for you ungrateful bastards during WW-II" doesn't really impress people.


Edited to add:
Erf. That came out more harsh than I intended. What I'm trying to say is that while the US paid a high cost during World War II, so did everybody else.

Let's also not forget that the second World War happened almost two generations ago, and does the acts of our father's fathers really give much honour or dishonour to ourselves? The Europe of 1940 isn't the Europe of today, and neither is the US of 1940 the US of today.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


At this point I would like to ask anyone reading this if they could find out what has happened to approximately 11,000 British soldiers that we apparantely sent to Iraq. I hope you can help as I dont think we can make a milk carton big enough.

If you find any trace of them please send a note telling us where you found them to

Tony Blair
No 10 Downing street
London
UK

We'd also be interested to know what happened to the troops we sent to Kuwait, The Falklands, Afghanistan, Belize etc etc. Oh and let's not forget Northern Ireland

Thanks for your help He said "European nations", thus obviously meaning to exclude the United Kingdom. Duh.

:D

[epepke]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Let's also not forget that the second World War happened almost two generations ago, and does the acts of our father's fathers really give much honour or dishonour to ourselves? The Europe of 1940 isn't the Europe of today, and neither is the US of 1940 the US of today.

I'll let you know if ever a week goes by without a piquant put-down about the US and slavery.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
2) As I understand it, Germany and Japan were allied (or axised possibly) and the US could not have fought one without being at war with the other.

More or less true, since Germany declared war on the US due to it's treaty obligations to Japan. From what I read though if the Germans hadn't done that then it's possible the US wouldn't have got involved in Europe, concentrating instead on their own war in the Pacific.

3) Further to (2), once war was commenced with Japan, it was vital to US interests that Germany was defeated since otherwise they would have ended up attacked from two sides.

I'm not so sure. I doubt the Germans ever had the ability to launch attacks on the American mainland. AFAIK the Germany first policy was agreed on between Roosevelt and Churchill, because it was percieved that Germany was the greater threat.

[Graham]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
He said "European nations", thus obviously meaning to exclude the United Kingdom. Duh.

:D

And Spain?

And "New" Europe?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...snip...

# of People European nations freed from tyranny in last 50 years: 0.
...snip...

Can we extend this to 60 years? If we can then the UK has freed a lot more people from tyranny then the USA...

[Graham]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

I'm not so sure. I doubt the Germans ever had the ability to launch attacks on the American mainland. AFAIK the Germany first policy was agreed on between Roosevelt and Churchill, because it was percieved that Germany was the greater threat.

IIRC, the Kaiser was planning expeditions to the US before WW1 broke out. Maybe they were just pie-in-the-sky though, I don't know.

Regardless, I think if the Soviets and the UK had been defeated, either the US and Germany would have reached some sort of accomodation (appeasement, surely not!) or the Blitzkrieg would have headed west.

Remembering that the Germans probably would've had the bomb by that time, things might have gone badly for the US, IMO.

Graham

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
IIRC, the Kaiser was planning expeditions to the US before WW1 broke out. Maybe they were just pie-in-the-sky though, I don't know.

I've come across that too. Apparantly the Kaiser had a bee in his bonnet about capitalism, and planned to launch Zeppelin attacks on New York. Of course the Kaiser was also nuts, so I don't know how practical that would have been.

Regardless, I think if the Soviets and the UK had been defeated, either the US and Germany would have reached some sort of accomodation (appeasement, surely not!) or the Blitzkrieg would have headed west.

Well, an accomodation probably would have been reached, but I doubt panzer divisions would have moved very fast across a couple thousand miles of ocean.

Remembering that the Germans probably would've had the bomb by that time, things might have gone badly for the US, IMO.

This does make for interesting speculation. Werner von Heisenberg claimed after the war that he and others deliberately stunted Germany's nuclear program, but there's enough evidence to suggest he was just well of the pace due to some elementary enough errors.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Graham
2) As I understand it, Germany and Japan were allied (or axised possibly) and the US could not have fought one without being at war with the other. This is not true. Germany was willing to have a "separate peace" with the United States.

3) Further to (2), once war was commenced with Japan, it was vital to US interests that Germany was defeated since otherwise they would have ended up attacked from two sides. While it was possible. Even after America entered into the war on the side of the Allies Germany had hopped that Japan would keep America busy and or sue for a peace with the United States. Conquering America was not really in the cards for Germany. IIRC.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
When you also consider that that the US had some of the lowest per capita losses of all the allies, practically no civilian casualties and kept all it's infrastructure and industrial base intact, I think it's clear why rhetoric along the lines of "If it hadn't been for the US you'd all be talking German now", or "We bled for you ungrateful bastards during WW-II" doesn't really impress people. You make some valid points. It's really hard to understand though that such contributions can be so quickly forgotten. Are the sacrifices that America made to help free France and others so inconsequential that they can be set aside a mere 60 years later? There are still men alive today who fought in those battles and children who lost fathers.

Let's also not forget that the second World War happened almost two generations ago, and does the acts of our father's fathers really give much honour or dishonour to ourselves? The Europe of 1940 isn't the Europe of today, and neither is the US of 1940 the US of today. If such acts as the successful conclusion of 2 World Wars and the end of tyranny for an entire continent are so trite then there is little value to the word ally or friend.

[richardm]

Originally posted by RandFan
Conquering America was not really in the cards for Germany. IIRC.

I'm sure you're right. I think that if Germany had successfully invaded Britain in 1940, the war would have stopped there and then. America would probably not have stepped in (and in fairness it would have been difficult for them), and I don't think Germany would try to conquer America. How could you go about invading another country like that, so distant, with 1940s technology and no staging points? More trouble than it's worth, so long as everyone is willing to live-and-let-live.

I don't think it's possible to know what would have happened with Russia; I always feel that the USSR was next on the list only because Hitler thought it would be an easier nut to crack than Britain, and would be a good boost for him after the invasion disappointment. Bit of an error of judgement.

Now, a victorious Germany - with all the resources of Europe - and the USSR might have had a collective and successful pop at the USA. Luckily we never got there.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


More or less true, since Germany declared war on the US due to it's treaty obligations to Japan. From what I read though if the Germans hadn't done that then it's possible the US wouldn't have got involved in Europe, concentrating instead on their own war in the Pacific.



I'm not so sure. I doubt the Germans ever had the ability to launch attacks on the American mainland. AFAIK the Germany first policy was agreed on between Roosevelt and Churchill, because it was percieved that Germany was the greater threat. I wonder why Japan and Russia didn't go to war against each other? If we had not gone against Germany, it would only a matter of time before they build better missiles , sub launched missiles and long range bombers. There was also a plot to get Mexico to join the Axis in return for the land the lost in the 1846-1848 war.

[Graham]

Originally posted by RandFan

This is not true. Germany was willing to have a "separate peace" with the United
States.

This seems unlikely to me and I can't find a source that supports it.

Do you have any references?

While it was possible. Even after America entered into the war on the side of the Allies Germany had hopped that Japan would keep America busy and or sue for a peace with the United States. Conquering America was not really in the cards for Germany. IIRC.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Outcast
I wonder why Japan and Russia didn't go to war against each other? If we had not gone against Germany, it would only a matter of time before they build better missiles , sub launched missiles and long range bombers. There was also a plot to get Mexico to join the Axis in return for the land the lost in the 1846-1848 war.

Japan and Russia were at war with one another.

As it turned out, however, both found the situation in other theatres more pressing - the Russians became occupied with the Germans, the Japanese with the US.

Graham

[Giz]

Originally posted by Outcast
I wonder why Japan and Russia didn't go to war against each other?

The Russians and Japanese had been skirmishing in Manchuria in the 1930's. In 1939 a full blown engagement at Khalkin Gol (spelling?) saw the Red Army under Zhukov (soon to be famous for the battles of Moscow, Lenigrad, Stalingrad etc) massacre their Japanese opponents.

When it came to kicking off the Japanese conquests in the early 1940's the Japanese decided that the South Pacific had plenty of oil and rubber, a nice climate and no pesky Russians!

(As a note, the Siberian veterans were pulled back west in late 1941 and headed the winter counter attack on the Germans, pushing them back from Moscow)

[richardm]

Originally posted by Graham


This seems unlikely to me and I can't find a source that supports it.

Do you have any references?



I have no references but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that Germany would be keen to keep America out of the European war.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Graham


This seems unlikely to me and I can't find a source that supports it.

Do you have any references?



The Germans were obliged by way of the triparite pact (Germany, Italy and Japan. Although it did rather expand to countries such as Romania, Hungary etc).

It bound any two to come to the aid of the third if the third was attacked (Yes I know that Japan attacked the US first but that never seemed to stop these guys).

As for the will of Germany to attack the US mainland, that is very much a fact. There are several well documented projects that had this purpose in mind. The Messerschmitt 264 Amerika Bomber being one of them, see Here (http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/bomber/me264/me264.html) (And many other sources from search). Also the transport by U-234 of 1200 kgs of Uranium oxide from Germany to Japan certainly wasn't for European use (the war there being all but over). Ironic really that it has been suggested that the US needed that captured oxide to complete the bombs ultimately dropped on Japan.

[Graham]

Originally posted by richardm


I have no references but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that Germany would be keen to keep America out of the European war.

Not at all, except that (1) the US and Germany were all ready at war in all but name by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and (2)Germany had a mutual protection alliance with Japan, which they would have had to violate to maintain peace with the US.

Graham

[richardm]

Originally posted by Reginald

As for the will of Germany to attack the US mainland, that is very much a fact.

Attacking it, sure. Not least because they hoped that if they could get in a few good hits on America they'd pull out of the war - a refrain that we're still hearing today.

I'm not so sure they ever seriously considered invading.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Graham
This seems unlikely to me and I can't find a source that supports it. I will try. Bear in mind that during the first World War Germany was happy to agree to a "seperate peace" with Russia. Hitler had always been concerned that the United States would come into the war on the side of Britain. Our industrialized capability worried him and the Ocean made the likely hood of an invasion difficult. America presented a real threat and it was for that reason he sought help from the Japanese.

Also, it was never Japan's plan to invade America.

BBC - History (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/pearl_harbour_02.shtml)

By destroying its Pacific Fleet, Japan expected to remove America from the Pacific equation for long enough to allow it to secure the resources it needed so desperately and hoped to crush American morale sufficiently to prompt Roosevelt to sue for peace. Had America not blockaded Japan history might have been quite different. Had America refused to help Europe and contend only with Japan then Hitler would have had little motivation to come to the States.

I will see what I can find.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Graham


Not at all, except that (1) the US and Germany were all ready at war in all but name by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and


I still believe that if the UK had fallen or called a halt in 1940 then the USA would not have entered the war. I have no references or evidence to support this view, yet I know if for a FACT :D


(2)Germany had a mutual protection alliance with Japan, which they would have had to violate to maintain peace with the US.


Yes, but they also had peace treaties with Russia, and look what happened there. I think the Germans must have known that if the USA entered the war it would cause them huge problems. If they could prevent it happening by suing for peace, I'm sure they would have done so, and hard cheese to the Japanese.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by richardm
Yes, but they also had peace treaties with Russia, and look what happened there. I think the Germans must have known that if the USA entered the war it would cause them huge problems. If they could prevent it happening by suing for peace, I'm sure they would have done so, and hard cheese to the Japanese. Don't forget the non-agression pact between Germany and Britian. Hitler it seemed didn't care too much about promises or agreements.

[Graham]

Originally posted by RandFan
Don't forget the non-agression pact between Germany and Britian. Hitler it seemed didn't care too much about promises or agreements.

Didn't the British break this in response to the invasion of Poland, rather than the Germans? Or did the invasion of Poland itself violate the treaty?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by richardm

I still believe that if the UK had fallen or called a halt in 1940 then the USA would not have entered the war. I have no references or evidence to support this view, yet I know if for a FACT :D



It certainly would have been more difficult for the US to attack Germany without the UK as a staging-off point.

If the Germans had allowed the US to battle it out with the Japanese and been able to concentrate their own attnetions more fully on Russia, maybe the Germans and the US might eventually have collided in China or South East Asia.

Isn't speculation fun? ;)

Yes, but they also had peace treaties with Russia, and look what happened there. I think the Germans must have known that if the USA entered the war it would cause them huge problems. If they could prevent it happening by suing for peace, I'm sure they would have done so, and hard cheese to the Japanese.

Suing for peace was not exactly Hitlers style IMO.

My feeling is that the agreement with Japan was not entered into by the Germans without full consideration of its implications WRT the US.

In other words, if peace with the US had been of paramount importance to them, they would not have entered into it.

Graham

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Graham
Didn't the British break this in response to the invasion of Poland, rather than the Germans? Or did the invasion of Poland itself violate the treaty? The pact was Chamberlain's ignominy. Hitler did not keep his promise.

In Munich Hitler promised Chamberlain that Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland would be his last territorial demand. One year latter Hitler called the agreement just a "scrap of paper" and invaded Poland on September 1st 1939.

It was without doubt Hitler who violated the agreement. I'm not sure how you come to a conclusion that Britain could possibly have violated the agreement? It's true that Germany had some credible claims to parts of Poland but this would mean invalidating both the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Agreement.

[Graham]

Originally posted by RandFan
The pact was Chamberlain's ignominy. Hitler did not keep his promise.

In Munich Hitler promised Chamberlain that Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland would be his last territorial demand. One year latter Hitler called the agreement just a "scrap of paper" and invaded Poland on September 1st 1939.

It was without doubt Hitler who violated the agreement. I'm not sure how you come to a conclusion that Britain could possibly have violated the agreement? It's true that Germany had some credible claims to parts of Poland but this would mean invalidating both the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Agreement.

I was unsure of the extent of the treaty, to be honest.

WW2 is on my list of things to study in greater detail when the kids grow up and I retire and I finally get the garden sorted out and my extended family stop phoning me to ask me for favours and hell freezes over and . . .

One of these days I'll get around to it ;)

Meanwhile, I'll probably continue to ask stupid questions, sorry.

Graham

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Graham
I was unsure of the extent of the treaty, to be honest.

WW2 is on my list of things to study in greater detail when the kids grow up and I retire and I finally get the garden sorted out and my extended family stop phoning me to ask me for favours and hell freezes over and . . .

One of these days I'll get around to it ;)

Meanwhile, I'll probably continue to ask stupid questions, sorry.

Graham Oh trust me. I only think I'm an expert. WWII is one of my favorite subjects but that doesn't really qualify. I still haven't found proof of my earlier contention. By all means ask questions. Questions are what keep windbags like me from spreading spurious ideas. Questions are the sandpaper of logic smoothing the rough ideas of specious claims.

RandFan

[Mike B.]

Stirring the Pot more (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/03/30/do3002.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/03/30/ixopinion.html)

From the article:

"America's main "overstretch" lies not in Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa, but in its historically unprecedented generosity to its wealthiest allies. "The US picks up the defence tab for Europe, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, among others," I wrote. "If Bush wins a second term, the boys will be coming home from South Korea and Germany, and maybe Japan, too."

Well, the second term is not quite here. But America has already quit Saudi Arabia, and plans for South Korea and Germany are well advanced. When scholars come to write the final chapter in the history of the European continent, the six-decade US security guarantee will be seen as, on the whole, a mistake. Not for America, but the Continentals.

The so-called "free world" was, for most of its members, a free ride. Absolving wealthy nations of the need to maintain credible armies softens them: they decay, almost inevitably, into a semi-non-aligned status.

Even now, the likes of Mr Bruch see the US military presence in Europe in mainly economic terms - all those German supermarkets and German restaurants that depend on American custom. But, looked at in defence terms, if Don Rumsfeld wants a light, mobile 21st-century military, the last place to base it is the Continent: given that the term "ally" is now generally used in the post-modern meaning of "duplicitous obstructionist", it's not unlikely that any future Saddamesque scenario would see attempts to throw operational restraints around the use of US forces in Europe."


FORGET WORLD WAR II for a bit.

(Though, I think it is amazing that the myth the US is still trying to get its loan money from its allies from that war is floated every now and then is amazing. Not in this thread of course.)

Anyhow!!!

The above is about what I originally posted. I have to think that some of this "enlightened" attitude is nothing more than a cover for militariy impotence. Being so heavilly subsidized by the US for all those years was nice and I have to believe led a generation of European leftists to have a completely unrealistic view of how the world works.

More here:

"What happens when a country becomes just as militant and aggressive about the virtues of "soft power" as it once was about old-fashioned hard power? Germany has a shrinking economy, an ageing and shrivelling population, and potentially catastrophic welfare liabilities. Yet the average German worker now puts in over 20 per cent fewer hours per year than his American counterpart, and no politician who wishes to remain electorally viable would propose closing the gap.

Germany, like much of Europe, has a psychological investment in longer holidays, free healthcare, early retirement, unsustainable welfare programmes, decrepit military: the fact that these policies spell national suicide is less important than that they distinguish Europe from the less enlightened Americans."

[Graham]

(Though, I think it is amazing that the myth the US is still trying to get its loan money from its allies from that war is floated every now and then is amazing. Not in this thread of course.)

This is a myth? The UK only finished paying off its loans last year, AFAIK.

The rest of your post is rubbish too, btw.

Graham

[Nyarlathotep]

*sigh* Discussions liek this one always irritate me. I think when it comes to patriotism/nationalism, the vast majority of people choose to flush critical thinking right down the toilet.

On the one hand it seems a lot of my countrymen feel the US can do no wrong and that we have the moral high ground on every issue.

On the other hand, it seems that most people who don't live here feel that we are a race of evil beings who would be doing the world a favor if we just comitted mass suicide and got it over with.

One side makes us out as angels, the other as demons. What neither side seems to realize is that we are humans like veryone else. Sometimes we are in the right, sometimes we are in the wrong.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled jingoistic patriotism/demonizing of the U.S. That is all.

[CapelDodger]

from Wildcat:
Obviously you have forgotten about the North African campaign in late 1942, the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, and the Italian invasion in September of 1943.
How could I forget? The war in those theatres never involved more than 2.5% of German forces; from the start of Barbarossa the Soviets were involved with at least two-thirds at all times, and at many times three-quarters. And the Mediterranean campaigns were only partly American - there were also Brits, Poles, French and a variety of others. So no, not very much involved before 1944.

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:
... the US fleet proetcting convoys to Britian ...
And some folks say Americans can't use irony. The Royal Navy protected the convoys, the US Navy couldn't protect itself. The RN was not allowed to operate in US waters so the U-boats had a shooting-gallery along the US coast. They eventually sank over 400 ships without any meaningful response. The US government wouldn't turn off the lights on the coast-roads because they feared it would damage civilian morale, which wasn't something they had a high opinion of, apparently. As for lend-lease, that was simply the extension of credit to support a highly-profitable trade.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
*sigh* Discussions liek this one always irritate me. I think when it comes to patriotism/nationalism, the vast majority of people choose to flush critical thinking right down the toilet.

On the one hand it seems a lot of my countrymen feel the US can do no wrong and that we have the moral high ground on every issue.

On the other hand, it seems that most people who don't live here feel that we are a race of evil beings who would be doing the world a favor if we just comitted mass suicide and got it over with.

One side makes us out as angels, the other as demons. What neither side seems to realize is that we are humans like veryone else. Sometimes we are in the right, sometimes we are in the wrong.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled jingoistic patriotism/demonizing of the U.S. That is all.


*Vic stands and applauds*

Oh, and just by the way...this entire thread is based on a faulty premise.

To wit:
# of People Bush freed from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last three years: 40,000,000.

Bush hasn't freed anyone, or indeed taken any action at all. These great accomplishments have come about due to the actions of a "massive coalition of the willing."

Remember?

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:
More or less true, since Germany declared war on the US due to it's treaty obligations to Japan
There were no treaty obligations on Germany to declare war on the US. The treaty you're referring to was a mutual defence pact, but Japan was not attacked. Hitler chose to go to war with the US for his own reasons.

from Outcast:
I wonder why Japan and Russia didn't go to war against each other?
The Germans made mighty efforts to persuade the Japanese to strike north, but the Japanese had no strategic interest in that. Their war was about domination of the Pacific, and the challenger was the US (and, to a much fading degree, the European imperial powers). The German war was about domination of the plains west of the Urals. There wasn't really any overlap, something which Hitler didn't really understand, from my reading of it. The Axis Pact wasn't regarded as nearly as important by the Japanese as it was by the Germans.

from Graham:
Japan and Russia were at war with one another.

Russia declared war on Japan in the summer of 1945, occupying Manchuria and setting up, as it happens, the circumstances for the Korean War.
(1) the US and Germany were all ready at war in all but name ...
And all but actually fighting against them.
Germany had a mutual protection alliance with Japan, which they would have had to violate to maintain peace with the US.
Not so. Hitler chose the course of war with the US. US publci opinion would not have supported war with Germany at the time.

[LFTKBS]

Why hasn't Skeptic responded meaningfully to a single post in this thread? Those are the the tactics WWu uses.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Chaos
Since we are at it:

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe that they sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW1 raged: 3 years (mid-1914 to mid-1917)

Period of time the US cared so much about the people in Europe sat on their backsides doing nothing while WW2 raged: 2 years, 3 months (9/39 to 12/41)



I don't really have a quibble with the rest of the statistics in your post. However, were I you, I would not use America's track record during WWII as a means to illustrate how horible Americans are. Why? Because if you apply the same logic to Germany......

I am not saying that Germans are horrible, I am pointing out that your logic makes you out to be worse than us.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I don't really have a quibble with the rest of the statistics in your post. However, were I you, I would not use America's track record during WWII as a means to illustrate how horible Americans are. Why? Because if you apply the same logic to Germany......

I am not saying that Germans are horrible, I am pointing out that your logic makes you out to be worse than us.

Technically, you´re right.

However, the comparison was US vs. Europe as a whole.

I wanted to illustrate that the US - that is, the government, not the people, although Skeptic seems to have some problem with that distinction - risked nothing for that time while the European nations - Britain, France and Russia mostly suffered millions of dead and untold misery.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Chaos


Technically, you´re right.

However, the comparison was US vs. Europe as a whole.

I wanted to illustrate that the US - that is, the government, not the people, although Skeptic seems to have some problem with that distinction - risked nothing for that time while the European nations - Britain, France and Russia mostly suffered millions of dead and untold misery.

My point, ultimately, is that our actions of 60+ years ago is neither more nor less relevant than your actions of 60+ years ago.

Can I criticize Europe, today, for standing by and doing nothing while Americans were dying by the thousands during our Civil War? Especially since when they even thought about becoming involved, they wanted to join in on the side of the slave-holding south? I think it would be silly for me to make such a criticism, it is something that no one alive today had any power over. Likewise, WWII is far enough back in the past that no one alive today could have had much influence on it.

History is wonderful for learning how we got where we are, and for teaching us what mistakes to try to avoid. But the important thing to keep in mind is that we ARE where we are regardless, and we only have control over where we go in the future, not where we have been.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chaos
I wanted to illustrate that the US - that is, the government, not the people, although Skeptic seems to have some problem with that distinction - risked nothing for that time while the European nations - Britain, France and Russia mostly suffered millions of dead and untold misery.

What the US brought to WWII was not sacrifice and dying, but an antidote to idiotic visions of heroism that were all about how ennobling it was to sacrifice and die in great epic struggles.

Therefore, it was essentially an antidote to European thought of the time.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by epepke


What the US brought to WWII was not sacrifice and dying, but an antidote to idiotic visions of heroism that were all about how ennobling it was to sacrifice and die in great epic struggles.

Therefore, it was essentially an antidote to European thought of the time.

bzzzzt!

The answer is Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Before then there was only talk of the US providing aid to Britain or joining the war and the US was actually very isolationist at the time, not wanting to get involved.

But thanks for playing =).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Chaos
I wanted to illustrate that the US - that is, the government, not the people, although Skeptic seems to have some problem with that distinction - risked nothing for that time while the European nations - Britain, France and Russia mostly suffered millions of dead and untold misery. What's the point? We weren't invaded and there is no evidence that we would ever be invaded. We came to the aid of allies. It is true that we had a horse in the race but it was not imperative that we fight. In fact many pacifists were making the very argument that we shouldn't be involved.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by RandFan
What's the point? We weren't invaded and there is no evidence that we would ever be invaded. We came to the aid of allies. It is true that we had a horse in the race but it was not imperative that we fight. In fact many pacifists were making the very argument that we shouldn't be involved.

The US administrations of these times did not get significantly involved in either world war until the US was dragged into the war by Germany and Japan, respectively. They waited until the last possible moment.
My point is: this is NOT praiseworthy. The US did not heroically come to the rescue of the people of Europe. They fought because they had been attacked - and at least 1917 it was forseeable that the German/Austrian coalition was beaten, so they didn´t even risk defeat.
But still, some people here can´t stop implying that to "heroically come to the rescue of the people of Europe" (my quote, not theirs) was the only reason the US went to war, and demand endless gratitude and a blank check of support for whatever the US does. THAT is what p!sses me off.

[shuize]

As an American I don't require "endless graditude and a blank check" from Europe. Instead, I'd settle for about 40 years of graditude and fraction of the money spent keeping Soviet tanks out of your beer garden.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Chaos
The US administrations of these times did not get significantly involved in either world war until the US was dragged into the war by Germany and Japan, respectively. They waited until the last possible moment. We didn't have to fight in the European theatre. I don't know how you say Germany dragged America into the war.

My point is: this is NOT praiseworthy. The US did not heroically come to the rescue of the people of Europe. They fought because they had been attacked - and at least 1917 it was foreseeable that the German/Austrian coalition was beaten...Forseeable? Can you support this? I would say that it wasn't until North Africa that Victory was viewed as really possible. Stalin and Churchill both desperately wanted us to enter the war.

...so they didn´t even risk defeat. This just isn't true. War is always risky and especially when you understand that the Luftwaffe and T-1 tanks were superior to anything on the allies side.

But still, some people here can´t stop implying that to "heroically come to the rescue of the people of Europe" (my quote, not theirs) was the only reason the US went to war, and demand endless gratitude and a blank check of support for whatever the US does. THAT is what p!sses me off. I DON'T WANT ENDLESS GRATITUDE OR A BLANK CHECK!

I would like a little support and not a turn of the back because we want to depose of a murderous genocidal thug.

THAT IS WHAT PISSES ME OFF!!!!!!!

How many lives were spared because America did join in? How about a LITTLE gratitude other than words and a bit of pomp and circumstance. I'm really beginning to wish that we hadn't fought in the European theatre. Why did we have to let all of our young men die in Normandy? It didn't get us a damn thing. The Germans were going to lose any way.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
We didn't have to fight in the European theatre. I don't know how you say Germany dragged America into the war.



Given that without US backup, Germany would have had a good chance of making the war last till it had the ability to expand it's advanced weapons program, then the US might have found itself up against a formidable foe.



Forseeable? Can you support this? I would say that it wasn't until North Africa that Victory was viewed as really possible. Stalin and Churchill both desperately wanted us to enter the war.

This just isn't true. War is always risky and especially when you understand that the Luftwaffe and T-1 tanks were superior to anything on the allies side.

I DON'T WANT ENDLESS GRATITUDE OR A BLANK CHECK!

I would like a little support and not a turn of the back because we want to depose of a murderous genocidal thug.

THAT IS WHAT PISSES ME OFF!!!!!!!

How many lives were spared because America did join in? How about a LITTLE gratitude other than words and a bit of pomp and circumstance. I'm really beginning to wish that we hadn't fought in the European theatre. Why did we have to let all of our young men die in Normandy? It didn't get us a damn thing. The Germans were going to lose any way.

So why do you guys keep bringing the point up. It never stops that threads like this, how the US has to always save the world, and no one is grateful.

Once again, you have the issue that has been ignored all along. Why this dictator, when there are plenty of them, and why now? When you have an answer that stands up to cursory scrutiny, let me know.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Chaos:
The US administrations of these times did not get significantly involved in either world war until the US was dragged into the war by Germany and Japan, respectively. They waited until the last possible moment.

And which country, other than Germany, didn't refrain from going to war until it was absolutely necessary? Britian did it's utmost to avoid war, ditto Russia.

My point is: this is NOT praiseworthy.

So should the British sacrifice be similarly qualified by the appeasement of the 1930's and sell-out of Czechoslovakia? Should the Russian loss of tens of millions be qualified by the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact?

They fought because they had been attacked - and at least 1917 it was forseeable that the German/Austrian coalition was beaten, so they didn´t even risk defeat.

This isn't true. The Western Front was still in the balance in 1917, and if anything an axis victory was foreseeable, what with the armistice with the Russians.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Given that without US backup, Germany would have had a good chance of making the war last till it had the ability to expand it's advanced weapons program, then the US might have found itself up against a formidable foe. Oh, so America was important??????

Which is it?

b[]So why do you guys keep bringing the point up. It never stops that threads like this, how the US has to always save the world, and no one is grateful.[/b] I would say that wanting oil contracts more than wanting to help an aly and depose a murderous thug is rather ungrateful.

Once again, you have the issue that has been ignored all along. Why this dictator, when there are plenty of them, and why now? When you have an answer that stands up to cursory scrutiny, let me know. I doubt any would stand up to your closed mind.

What difference does it make? France and Germany stood to lose money if we invaded. Why should they let a little thing like support in WWII stand in their way?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh, so America was important??????

Which is it?

I would say that wanting oil contracts more than wanting to help an aly and depose a murderous thug is rather ungrateful.

I doubt any would stand up to your closed mind.

What difference does it make? France and Germany stood to lose money if we invaded. Why should they let a little thing like support in WWII stand in their way?

I have never, nor has anyone else I have read, claimed that the US was not an important factor in those wars. It was not the decisive factor. The US could not have done it alone.

I haven't praised France or Germanies stance in this sordid affair as being principled. However, you do seem to think it is all about oil. What makes you think the US is any more principled? It wasn't about WMD, any serious analyst knew that the result of a straight democratic vote for Iraq would result in a government that was unacceptable to it.

So we are running out of reasons for the invasion.

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by RandFan
(...) France and Germany stood to lose money if we invaded. Why should they let a little thing like support in WWII stand in their way?

In Germany's case, I'm sure you mean the support after WWII... ;)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

It wasn't about WMD, any serious analyst knew that the result of a straight democratic vote for Iraq would result in a government that was unacceptable to it.


You're completely wrong, as usual. Most Iraqis do want a secular democratic government - this has been demonstrated in poll after poll, and should come as no surprise, since they can see what a disaster a theocracy was in neighboring Iran. It's also no coincidence that Sadr started acting up after the Islamists got trounced in local Iraqi elections recently - the Islamists know that they cannot in fact win in any fair elections in Iraq. Oh, but the facts aren't the same as "serious analysis" for you, are they?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You're completely wrong, as usual. Most Iraqis do want a secular democratic government - this has been demonstrated in poll after poll, and should come as no surprise, since they can see what a disaster a theocracy was in neighboring Iran. It's also no coincidence that Sadr started acting up after the Islamists got trounced in local Iraqi elections recently - the Islamists know that they cannot in fact win in any fair elections in Iraq. Oh, but the facts aren't the same as "serious analysis" for you, are they?

Not secular as we know it, Jim. They certainly don't want anything like the Taliban, AFAIK, but they do want a definite Islamic presence, and the factions are very wary of the fact that one part will dominate the rest.

[Shane Costello]

From the April 1 edition of "The Times" (www.timesonline.co.uk)


Europe's voters opt for paralysis and stagnation
Anatole Kaletsky

"The second force for Europe’s paralysis in economic policy is even more fundamental. Most voters in Europe see no urgent reason to reform their economies, reduce their social safety-nets or even question the wisdom of the bureaucratic elites who have been running the EU with such apparent success for the past 50 years.

The quality of life remains pretty good in most of Europe, especially in Germany and France — and especially for the older people who, because of the collapse in birth rates, now dominate politics. In Germany and Italy over-60s account for 30 per cent of the voting-age populations — and a much higher proportion of the people who actually vote. The comparable figures in America and Britain are only 20 and 25 per cent.

Older Europeans are understandably more interested in preserving their comfortable lifestyles and living off the fat accumulated in the golden years of postwar growth, rather than creating the conditions for dynamic economies in the future. They are not too bothered if young people remain unemployed — especially as many of the jobless are not their grandchildren but young people from minority ethnic groups. Voters who are either retired or approaching retirement naturally elect politicians who promise to guarantee over-generous pensions, even if this means saddling future generations of taxpayers with unsupportable debts."

I thought it was the rampant free market, not decades of the nanny state, that turned people into greedy, heartless misanthropes?

[CapelDodger]

from shuize:
As an American I don't require "endless graditude and a blank check" from Europe. Instead, I'd settle for about 40 years of graditude and fraction of the money spent keeping Soviet tanks out of your beer garden.
I take this is not directed to Hungarians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Czechs and/or Slovaks, Poles or Latvians (to mention a few). You seem to be implying that the US didn't have an interest in keeping the Soviets out of Western Europe and was acting out of kindness. Europe has done its bit, you know. The West German army, for instance, was not something you'd have wanted to brawl with. And the US would keep disappearing off to do other jobs, like Indo-China.

from RandFan:
I don't know how you say Germany dragged America into the war.
In 1941, by declaring war on the US. In 1917, covert activity in Mexico was a bit of a come-on.

from Shane Costello:
And which country, other than Germany, didn't refrain from going to war until it was absolutely necessary? Britian did it's utmost to avoid war, ditto Russia.
Britain and France committed themselves to go to war if Poland was attacked. They didn't have to do that. What was the US position at the time? We often hear of European appeasement, but what was the US doing? Taking a short break off-planet? Or burying their heads in the sand, calling it a "European matter" and pointing out that Herr Hitler did make the trains run on time, you know, and what about those autobahns?
So should the British sacrifice be similarly qualified by the appeasement of the 1930's and sell-out of Czechoslovakia?
Oh, there it is.
This isn't true. The Western Front was still in the balance in 1917, and if anything an axis victory was foreseeable, what with the armistice with the Russians.
It clearly didn't happen, and the brunt of the Hindenburg offensive of 1918 was stopped long before there were any significant US forces in the field. Allied military opinion was very positive at the time, as the German Home Front was clearly collapsing. The political hope was that US involvement would bring the Germans to terms, and, if not, that the children of somebody else's voters got slaughtered. The Yanks weren't having that, of course, so they effectively raised a million man army, shipped it to France (doing wonders for an economy that really needed a boost), trained it and took it home. And very sensible too. They only joined in to get a seat at the table after the war, and such was the political atmosphere in the post-war US that when they got it they walked away. It all probably made sense at the time

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Britain and France committed themselves to go to war if Poland was attacked. They didn't have to do that.

I beg to differ. By that stage it was clear that Hitler couldn't be taken at his word, and that war was unavoidable. If Britain and France thought that the Nazis could be sated by the annexation of some Polish territory, I'd wager they'd have taken that.

We often hear of European appeasement, but what was the US doing? Taking a short break off-planet?

Following the line of action it percieved to be in it's own interests, just like everyone else.

Or burying their heads in the sand, calling it a "European matter" and pointing out that Herr Hitler did make the trains run on time, you know, and what about those autobahns?

Burying their heads in the sand like those who thought Hitler was entirely honorable and Churchill was a washout? BTW it was Mussolini who was credited with a punctual rail service, not Hitler.

The Yanks weren't having that, of course, so they effectively raised a million man army, shipped it to France (doing wonders for an economy that really needed a boost)

The US economy was struggling in 1917?

They only joined in to get a seat at the table after the war, and such was the political atmosphere in the post-war US that when they got it they walked away.

And the evidence for this is?

[shuize]

Well, thanks to all the insight from our foreign friends I think I've come to a pretty clear understanding of the rest of the world's view on the U.S. contribution in both world wars and the 40+ years of standing toe to toe with the Soviets: Nothing worthy of any credit.

That's alright though. If it ever came to it, I wouldn't lift a finger to liberate an ungrateful Europe again for all the riches in the world.

[LFTKBS]

Wow, shuize. Any goodwill you have toward the rest of the world is utterly destroyed because of some posts on a relatively small message board?

I wish we were as convincing to the woo-woos.

[epepke]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Wow, shuize. Any goodwill you have toward the rest of the world is utterly destroyed because of some posts on a relatively small message board?

I wish we were as convincing to the woo-woos.

:con2: Is it any different from the bulk of the Op-Eds in most European newspapers, with The Times as the most notable exception?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Wow, shuize. Any goodwill you have toward the rest of the world is utterly destroyed because of some posts on a relatively small message board?

I wish we were as convincing to the woo-woos.

I can't speak for shuize but I pretty much agree with him. However, my goodwill toward the rest of the world was destroyed quite some time ago by a lot of things. Posts on message boards like this only serve to keep me from getting that goodwill back.

[simper]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


I beg to differ. By that stage it was clear that Hitler couldn't be taken at his word, and that war was unavoidable. If Britain and France thought that the Nazis could be sated by the annexation of some Polish territory, I'd wager they'd have taken that.




Yes, but why did Britain have no choice but to stop Hitler? Why not let him have his way in Eastern Europe and Russia? Hitler probably would not have attacked Fance or Northern Europe and certainly had no designs on Britain itself. If Britain really had done "it's utmost to avoid war" then there would not have been a war between Germany and Britain. In many ways Britain was the ideal ally for Hitler. An empire with a very large navy, racially pure, and with no ambitions in mainland Europe.

Obviously there are strong strategic reasons for war and keeping the balance of power but its not that simple. For instance Britain could have made peace in late 41-42 on equal terms and saved its empire. Instead Churchill chose to bankrupt the country in 3 more years of war. Morally right, strategically wrong.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by shuize
Well, thanks to all the insight from our foreign friends I think I've come to a pretty clear understanding of the rest of the world's view on the U.S. contribution in both world wars and the 40+ years of standing toe to toe with the Soviets: Nothing worthy of any credit.

That's alright though. If it ever came to it, I wouldn't lift a finger to liberate an ungrateful Europe again for all the riches in the world.

I have read through this entire thread several times now, and how you can draw that conclusion is frankly beyond me. Chaos has an opinion. I think in a lot of important aspects he is wrong. But it is hardly "the worlds view". Hyperbole and critical thinking dont mix.

You wouldn't lift a finger again to liberate an ungrateful Europe?

Didn't think we had many 80+ year old WWII veterans on the board........

Like other threads of this ilk on this board, 9 times out of 10 it begins with some preposterous insult to Europe, which is refuted, which is then interpreted as being an insult to America. It is destroying any chance of having an interesting discussion from what is an utterly facile and ridiculous initial posting.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by simper



Yes, but why did Britain have no choice but to stop Hitler? Why not let him have his way in Eastern Europe and Russia? Hitler probably would not have attacked Fance or Northern Europe and certainly had no designs on Britain itself. If Britain really had done "it's utmost to avoid war" then there would not have been a war between Germany and Britain. In many ways Britain was the ideal ally for Hitler. An empire with a very large navy, racially pure, and with no ambitions in mainland Europe.

Obviously there are strong strategic reasons for war and keeping the balance of power but its not that simple. For instance Britain could have made peace in late 41-42 on equal terms and saved its empire. Instead Churchill chose to bankrupt the country in 3 more years of war. Morally right, strategically wrong.

A lot of historians will argue that Chamberlain used Munich as a way of buying time for Britian to re-arm, and far from trying to put war off, he was perfectly aware war was inevitable. Debatable, but an idea with a lot of curency for modern historians.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Nitpick
In Germany's case, I'm sure you mean the support after WWII... ;) :D You have a good nic.

Yes, Berlin Airlift comes to mind.

RandFan.

Good one.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Like other threads of this ilk on this board, 9 times out of 10 it begins with some preposterous insult to Europe, which is refuted, which is then interpreted as being an insult to America. It is destroying any chance of having an interesting discussion from what is an utterly facile and ridiculous initial posting. I disagree. The rhetoric directed at the US at this time is at a fever pitch. A significant portion of the populace in France rooted for Saddam to win. They wanted a genocidal murderous thug to prevail. I don't have much good will at this time for Europe. I don't see any reason to have any good will.

It's not like we wanted to invade Norway or Denmark for Christ's sake. We wanted to depose a man who had invaded Kuwait and was known for, genocide, murder, torture, false imprisonment, forcing doctors to cut the ears of deserters, etc.

OH MY GOD!

And YES, we supported this murderous thug at one time. That is no reason to root for the death of our soldiers at the hands of a monomaniacal dictator.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Like other threads of this ilk on this board, 9 times out of 10 it begins with some preposterous insult to Europe, which is refuted, which is then interpreted as being an insult to America.

That statment is like "largest minivan in its class" or "the littleist Giant."

Reading the threads on only the first page and counting only the ones that specifically mention the US or Europe, I count this one, which is a sarcastic put-down, and two others, namely

1) Suspected terrorist set free -thanks to the US
2) US negotiates with terrorists

neither of which even has the redeeming quality of being sarcastic.

[Graham]

Originally posted by RandFan
I disagree. The rhetoric directed at the US at this time is at a fever pitch. A significant portion of the populace in France rooted for Saddam to win. They wanted a genocidal murderous thug to prevail. I don't have much good will at this time for Europe. I don't see any reason to have any good will.

It's not like we wanted to invade Norway or Denmark for Christ's sake. We wanted to depose a man who had invaded Kuwait and was known for, genocide, murder, torture, false imprisonment, forcing doctors to cut the ears of deserters, etc.

OH MY GOD!

And YES, we supported this murderous thug at one time. That is no reason to root for the death of our soldiers at the hands of a monomaniacal dictator.

There is a perception that perhaps George Bush is a murderous thug.

Now you may say that there is scant evidence for this, you may think it is ridiculous and you may think it absolutely, positively is not the case.

However, however you cannot deny that the perception exists, in light of which the choice between Bush and Saddam becomes apples and, well apples with more resources, bigger armies and the largest industrial base in the world behind them.

Scary thought, once you accept the initial premise.

Graham

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by simper:
Yes, but why did Britain have no choice but to stop Hitler?

Because he was a lying madman, and it had become clear that Britain simply couldn't reach a peaceful accomodation with him.

If Britain really had done "it's utmost to avoid war" then there would not have been a war between Germany and Britain. In many ways Britain was the ideal ally for Hitler. An empire with a very large navy, racially pure, and with no ambitions in mainland Europe.

Hitler certainly saw it that way, the British thought otherwise. Playing junior partner to Nazi Germany was never going to be in Britain's interests.

For instance Britain could have made peace in late 41-42 on equal terms and saved its empire. Instead Churchill chose to bankrupt the country in 3 more years of war. Morally right, strategically wrong.

I'm not sure whether Britain could have made peace in 1941-42 (that's not to say I don't believe you, it's just that I'm in the dark about the facts of the matter). One thing I'm sure of is that the Empire was unravelling one way or another. The dominions had been expanding their political independance for decades, and the rest of the empire had become a drain on the exchequer after the first world war.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


I have read through this entire thread several times now, and how you can draw that conclusion is frankly beyond me. Chaos has an opinion. I think in a lot of important aspects he is wrong. But it is hardly "the worlds view". Hyperbole and critical thinking dont mix.

You wouldn't lift a finger again to liberate an ungrateful Europe?

Didn't think we had many 80+ year old WWII veterans on the board........

Like other threads of this ilk on this board, 9 times out of 10 it begins with some preposterous insult to Europe, which is refuted, which is then interpreted as being an insult to America. It is destroying any chance of having an interesting discussion from what is an utterly facile and ridiculous initial posting.

I cannot say if I was right or wrong. Based on the information I have, and from what I learned in the history lessons in school, I am quite sure I have drawn the correct conclusions.

But will will admit that my much-discussed original post was the (somewhat) childish reaction to Skeptic´s (somewhat) childish opening post.

That said, in my opinion America was not significantly better or worse than the various other Allies, except in some (rather minor) aspects here and there.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


That statment is like "largest minivan in its class" or "the littleist Giant."

Reading the threads on only the first page and counting only the ones that specifically mention the US or Europe, I count this one, which is a sarcastic put-down, and two others, namely

1) Suspected terrorist set free -thanks to the US
2) US negotiates with terrorists

neither of which even has the redeeming quality of being sarcastic.

Judging from the volume of posts this thread has generated, I think it disingenuous to call it a "sarcastic put down". A barefaced pile of, is more apt.

The two psts you cite at least have the merit of being up for discussion. I don't see what is so bad about negotiating with terrorists. Britain negotiated with the IRA for years. There comes a point when you have too. Has America reached that now? Is that not a point worth debating?

After reading countless posts from jedi knight and his ilk, calling Europeans cowards, terrorist sympathisers and the like, your interpretation of this board seems a little one sided at best.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Graham
There is a perception that perhaps George Bush is a murderous thug.

Now you may say that there is scant evidence for this, you may think it is ridiculous and you may think it absolutely, positively is not the case.

However, however you cannot deny that the perception exists, in light of which the choice between Bush and Saddam becomes apples and, well apples with more resources, bigger armies and the largest industrial base in the world behind them.

The perception exists that George Bush is a murderous thug. As an American, to some extent I agree with it.

However, I heard the same crap from Europe about how evil the US was two days after 9/11. I heard it when nobody had ever heard of George W. Bush. I heard it during the Clinton years. I heard it during the Bush I and Reagan years. I heard it during the Carter years and the Ford years and the Nixon years. Before that, I was too young to remember.

Europeans get really upset when they aren't listened to. However, they don't seem ever to be able to figure out that keeping up the same rhetoric for three decades might have something to do Americans' tuning them out.

On the other hand, I've visited Europe many times since 1982, my first trip, and have never once had any problem with this. People have even bought me drinks because I was an American.

On the left foot, I am six feet tall of about 250 pounds with reasonably developed musculature and a gaze that has been empirically demonstrated to have enough power to hold a lesbian rugby player at bay over a distance of five meters, even though it seems to obey an inverse square law. People don't seem to mess with me much in person, ever.

Nevertheless, I think it's reasonable to conclude that all of this stupid rhetoric exists in some sort of idealized political context, and that in reality, the majority of Europeans just don't understand Americans at all, and a lot of the politicized crap is just a defensive front.

It's like a movie quote I recently posted. People hate what they fear, and they fear everything they don't understand, which is practically everything.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by simper



Yes, but why did Britain have no choice but to stop Hitler? Why not let him have his way in Eastern Europe and Russia?
.


operation sea lion

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Judging from the volume of posts this thread has generated, I think it disingenuous to call it a "sarcastic put down". A barefaced pile of, is more apt.

This is an interesting response. "Put-down" seems to me an appropriate translation of "preposterous insult." As for whether it is sarcastic, well, isn't it?

The two psts you cite at least have the merit of being up for discussion. I don't see what is so bad about negotiating with terrorists. Britain negotiated with the IRA for years. There comes a point when you have too. Has America reached that now? Is that not a point worth debating?

After reading countless posts from jedi knight and his ilk, calling Europeans cowards, terrorist sympathisers and the like, your interpretation of this board seems a little one sided at best.

I'm the one-sided one? It was you who suggested that 90% of the threads of this ilk started off with a "preposterous insult" to Europeans.

I simply counted thread titles and looked at the words that were in them. I found fewer than 9, which would seem to cast doubt on your 90% figure.

I'm not the one saying 90% here.

You seem to be rather desperate for an enemy. If you want me to be yours, perhaps you could try doing it the honorable way, by responding to things that I have actually said.

Or not. It's up to you.

[Mr Manifesto]

As long as you're reading this thread, Skeptic, I don't recall that you've answered how many Israeli troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you have already answered, just point me to the right page number. I'm just curious because I can't find anything on Google, but abscence of evidence and all that...

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


This is an interesting response. "Put-down" seems to me an appropriate translation of "preposterous insult." As for whether it is sarcastic, well, isn't it?



I'm the one-sided one? It was you who suggested that 90% of the threads of this ilk started off with a "preposterous insult" to Europeans.

I simply counted thread titles and looked at the words that were in them. I found fewer than 9, which would seem to cast doubt on your 90% figure.

I'm not the one saying 90% here.

You seem to be rather desperate for an enemy. If you want me to be yours, perhaps you could try doing it the honorable way, by responding to things that I have actually said.

Or not. It's up to you.

Thanks for completely ignoring every point I raised in response to you. Jedi Knight before your time?

You looked at 9 thread titles? Wow im impressed! the ones you mention look like legitimate topics for debate. if you think a preposterous, childish rant like this thread is comparable then that's fine. I disagree. I see people disagreeing with the US Government. I dont see entire nations of people being belittled in a frankly, imbecelic manner.

Desperate for an enemy?

Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too high an opinion of yourself sonny........

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by RandFan
I disagree. The rhetoric directed at the US at this time is at a fever pitch. A significant portion of the populace in France rooted for Saddam to win.

People disagreeing with a war is not the same thing as wanting Saddam to win. You have no basis whatsoever for making this claim. Is it not reasonable to believe that people didn't want an invasion, but had no love for Saddam Hussein?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Thanks for completely ignoring every point I raised in response to you. Jedi Knight before your time?

You looked at 9 thread titles? Wow im impressed! the ones you mention look like legitimate topics for debate. if you think a preposterous, childish rant like this thread is comparable then that's fine. I disagree. I see people disagreeing with the US Government. I dont see entire nations of people being belittled in a frankly, imbecelic manner.

Desperate for an enemy?

Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too high an opinion of yourself sonny........

Look, do you actually have a point other than demonstrating that you have the capacity to hold the 'y' key down until it repeats?

As far as I can tell, there were only two major points in your statement.

One is that I was being "disingenuous" by using the term "sarcastic put-down" instead of your "presumptuous insult." I don't see it. I don't see how either term is particularly stronger than the the other.

The other seems to be that those other threads I referenced had valid purposes. Well, fine. I did not say that they did not. But the purpose of those threads is for those threads. A simple concept, I think, and unrelated to your 90% statement.

In the main, I was applying a test to your 90% perception by looking at the titles of threads, and I found it wanting. It's also different from my perception. You can argue with this if you like.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


Look, do you actually have a point other than demonstrating that you have the capacity to hold the 'y' key down until it repeats?

As far as I can tell, there were only two major points in your statement.

One is that I was being "disingenuous" by using the term "sarcastic put-down" instead of your "presumptuous insult." I don't see it. I don't see how either term is particularly stronger than the the other.

The other seems to be that those other threads I referenced had valid purposes. Well, fine. I did not say that they did not. But the purpose of those threads is for those threads. A simple concept, I think, and unrelated to your 90% statement.

In the main, I was applying a test to your 90% perception by looking at the titles of threads, and I found it wanting. It's also different from my perception. You can argue with this if you like.

Then we disagree. Incidentally it was "preposterous insult".

As for your thread titles, well, I have a pretty good memory for post content (stretching back a year further than you first came to this board). Im talking content, not thread title. Maybe some people would take issue with the number. Some maybe not. It's my opinion. You do remember Jedi Knight don't you?

Yeh, I can hold down the y key. And you know what. That's one of the few things you can tell about me from a bulletin board. Remember that the next time you try some armchair psychology judgement on me.........

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Graham
There is a perception that perhaps George Bush is a murderous thug.

Now you may say that there is scant evidence for this, you may think it is ridiculous and you may think it absolutely, positively is not the case.

However, however you cannot deny that the perception exists, in light of which the choice between Bush and Saddam becomes apples and, well apples with more resources, bigger armies and the largest industrial base in the world behind them. This just makes those who have this perception irrational and worthy of contempt.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
People disagreeing with a war is not the same thing as wanting Saddam to win. You have no basis whatsoever for making this claim. Is it not reasonable to believe that people didn't want an invasion, but had no love for Saddam Hussein? I'm refrencing a poll taken during the war.

The French newspaper Le Monde, conducted a poll showing that only a third of the French felt the Americans and British should win Operation Iraqi Freedom, and that another third desired outright Iraqi victory over “les anglo-saxons”.

So yes, I do have a basis for making this claim.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Then we disagree. Incidentally it was "preposterous insult".

OK, preposterous. I was wrong, and I freely admit it. I still don't see the difference in strength.

As for your thread titles, well, I have a pretty good memory for post content (stretching back a year further than you first came to this board). Im talking content, not thread title. Maybe some people would take issue with the number. Some maybe not. It's my opinion.

Been busy looking me up, have we?

You can have your opinion. When you present your opinion, you present it in a forum where others express their opinions.

Them's the breaks, dude.

Yeh, I can hold down the y key. And you know what. That's one of the few things you can tell about me from a bulletin board. Remember that the next time you try some armchair psychology judgement on me.........

You might some day look up what the word "seem" means.

In any event, I am gratified by your seemingly hypertensive reaction. (There's that word again!)

Of course, you still haven't described a point which I did not address.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm refrencing a poll taken during the war.

The French newspaper Le Monde, conducted a poll showing that only a third of the French felt the Americans and British should win Operation Iraqi Freedom, and that another third desired outright Iraqi victory over “les anglo-saxons”.

So yes, I do have a basis for making this claim.

So from this poll, conducted in a country with the largest Muslim population in Western Europe(and we have no idea from your post what the question were that were asked, how many were asked etc) you arrive at the conclusion you "don't have much goodwill for Europe"?

From a newspaper poll?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


So from this poll, conducted in a country with the largest Muslim population in Western Europe(and we have no idea from your post what the question were that were asked, how many were asked etc) you arrive at the conclusion you "don't have much goodwill for Europe"?

From a newspaper poll? Fully one third of the population. You are quite adept at minimizing.

And not just that. I could have accepted a number of responses including "we disagree but understand", "we will support you but object", "we agree with why you are doing this but object to your methods."

No, we were wrong and that was that. I'm sorry but I have a problem with allies that don't act like allies. Like I said, if this were a country that was not ruled by a murderous dictator who refused to cooperate then I could understand.

Still a third did support us and I will admit that I should be grateful to the third.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


OK, preposterous. I was wrong, and I freely admit it. I still don't see the difference in strength.



Been busy looking me up, have we?

You can have your opinion. When you present your opinion, you present it in a forum where others express their opinions.

Them's the breaks, dude.



You might some day look up what the word "seem" means.

In any event, I am gratified by your seemingly hypertensive reaction. (There's that word again!)

Of course, you still haven't described a point which I did not address.

What you mean apart from the point that Jedi knight and his ilk have posted countless threads insulting europeans for simply being Europeans?. You know, terrorist lovers etc? the guy who you seem to know nothing about, but can be wiped out because you counted nine thread titles?

As for you other points, is this "y" thing getting throught to you yet?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by RandFan
Fully one third of the population. You are quite adept at minimizing.

And not just that. I could have accepted a number of responses including "we disagree but understand", "we will support you but object", "we agree with why you are doing this but object to your methods."

No, we were wrong and that was that. I'm sorry but I have a problem with allies that don't act like allies. Like I said, if this were a country that was not ruled by a murderous dictator who refused to cooperate then I could understand.

Still a third did support us and I will admit that I should be grateful to the third.

My point still stands. You are taking a newspaper poll that we know nothing about and making one hell of a judgement. Am I good at minimizing, or are you good at enlarging?

And there are more people in Europe who support the war than you may think.

Your talking to one for a start........

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
What you mean apart from the point that Jedi knight and his ilk have posted countless threads insulting europeans for simply being Europeans?. You know, terrorist lovers etc? the guy who you seem to know nothing about, but can be wiped out because you counted nine thread titles? A lot of people who leaned to the right took on Jedi Knight including myself. I don't really think he is fair to refrence. There was also Ghengis who was a hell of allot like Jedi (I'm still not convinced that he was not). I simply put him on my ignore list.

And while there are those who are willing to take on the lunatic fringe from the left (ion comes to mind as an example of a left wing nut job) I think there were more from the right taking on the right.

I will grant you that those on the right have been more demonstrative and perhaps that is why.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
My point still stands. You are taking a newspaper poll that we know nothing about and making one hell of a judgement. ????

Am I good at minimizing, or are you good at enlarging? Who knows, you see the glass half full. I wonder how a third could take such a position.

And there are more people in Europe who support the war than you may think.

Your talking to one for a start........ I said I should be gratefull to the third. Hey, my position isn't set in stone.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by RandFan
????

Who knows, you see the glass half full. I wonder how a third could take such a position.

I said I should be gratefull to the third. Hey, my position isn't set in stone.

Look at this way Randfan. The IRA are a bunch of murdering scumbags. They have shot, killed, blown up and maimed thousands of people. Some of them known to me.

I could pop into a hell of a lot of bars in Boston and hear a lot of American citizens tell me they are freedom fighters, and how they want them to kill Brits. The IRA has received millions in funding from NORAID, and wanted terrorists have evaded capture with the collusion of Irish American politicians.

Would it seem fair to you for me to let that colour my perceptions of Americans?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
What you mean apart from the point that Jedi knight and his ilk have posted countless threads insulting europeans for simply being Europeans?. You know, terrorist lovers etc? the guy who you seem to know nothing about, but can be wiped out because you counted nine thread titles?

More than nine, but I probably have a bigger screen than you do.

But I see now! You want me to talk about Jedi Knight!

I think I came in at the tail end of Jedi Knight's, shall we say, tenure? So I only remember a little of what he/she/and/or/it wrote.

But you, on the other hand, seem to be working very hard to keep the memory of one troll alive. Is there a better word for this than "fetishing?"

How far does it go? Give me a number. How long will Jedi Knight and His Ilk™ be representative of Americans in your book?

Do I get to conclude that "Interesting" Ian is representative of All Britons? He has the advantage of still being here. Do I get to judge all Scotsmen by your example?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by epepke

Do I get to judge all Scotsmen by your example?

No, because there are no true scotsmen:p

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


More than nine, but I probably have a bigger screen than you do.

But I see now! You want me to talk about Jedi Knight!

I think I came in at the tail end of Jedi Knight's, shall we say, tenure? So I only remember a little of what he/she/and/or/it wrote.

But you, on the other hand, seem to be working very hard to keep the memory of one troll alive. Is there a better word for this than "fetishing?"

How far does it go? Give me a number. How long will Jedi Knight and His Ilk™ be representative of Americans in your book?

Do I get to conclude that "Interesting" Ian is representative of All Britons? He has the advantage of still being here. Do I get to judge all Scotsmen by your example?

Wow, now Im characterising all Americans like this!! Kind of ironic considering what I just posted to Randfan......

I take my hat off to you. A better strawman I have yet to see.....

When you actually want to discuss what I talked about I'll drop by. Until then.........

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
When you actually want to discuss what I talked about I'll drop by. Until then.........

Not all, just 90%, according to you.

At least there is one similarity between you and Ian.

Take your ball and go home.

Edited for piquancy.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


Not all, just 90%, according to you.

At least there is one similarity between you and Ian.

Take your ball and go home.

Edited for piquancy.

Oooooo what I was saying about armchair psychology...........

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Look at this way Randfan. The IRA are a bunch of murdering scumbags. They have shot, killed, blown up and maimed thousands of people. Some of them known to me.

I could pop into a hell of a lot of bars in Boston and hear a lot of American citizens tell me they are freedom fighters, and how they want them to kill Brits. The IRA has received millions in funding from NORAID, and wanted terrorists have evaded capture with the collusion of Irish American politicians.

Would it seem fair to you for me to let that colour my perceptions of Americans? No, it wouldn't be fair. I would understand it though. I'm just human, irrational at times and subject to my biases and emotions. Right now I'm not all to fond of Europe. But I will grant that your argument is sound and that my feelings are not completly warranted.

Besides, your from Scotland and not a true European, right? (think about it)

Since all of my family are from the UK. Hienz 57 including Scott, Welsh, Irish and English then I can cut you some slack. ;)

Which raises the question, does this make me a British-American?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


Not all, just 90%, according to you.


Edited for piquancy.

No I didn't I said:

"Like other threads of this ilk on this board, 9 times out of 10 it begins with some preposterous insult to Europe"

Perhaps you may want to go and look at the dictionary you are so fond of. I'm sure you can find the difference in meaning between saying "threads" and saying "people"

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, it wouldn't be fair. I would understand it though. I'm just human, irrational at times and subject to my biases and emotions. Right now I'm not all to fond of Europe. But I will grant that your argument is sound and that my feelings are not completly warranted.

Besides, your from Scotland and not a true European, right? (think about it)

Since all of my family are from the UK. Hienz 57 including Scott, Welsh, Irish and English then I can cut you some slack. ;)

Which raises the question, does this make me a British-American?

Dont get me started on fecking Europe :D :D

The Scottish Fishing Fleet has a lot to say on the benefits of European integration.....

Does it make you British-American? I dunno, but it sure as hell makes you the guy the people in the registrar office dont want to serve when you come in and say "Hi, im an American and I'd like to trace my family tree............" :D

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


No I didn't I said:

OK, fine. Threads of this "ilk." You also stated Jedi Knight and his "ilk." I don't know if Jedi Knight was a person. Maybe it was a Perl script.

So lets not call it Americans or whatever. Let's just call it Ilk™

Why do you need to go back to a no-longer-with-us troll to make your point?

Given that you seem to do so, what does that say about your point in the here-and-now?

Edited to add: How much longer to you get to use Jedi Knight as something representative of Something That Isn't Really People Or Threads But Might Be But Is Definitely Some Sort Of Ilk™?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


OK, fine. Threads of this "ilk." You also stated Jedi Knight and his "ilk." I don't know if Jedi Knight was a person. Maybe it was a Perl script.

So lets not call it Americans or whatever. Let's just call it Ilk™

Why do you need to go back to a no-longer-with-us troll to make your point?

Given that you seem to do so, what does that say about your point in the here-and-now?

Because judging by the fact you went completely off on the wrong tangent about the point I was making about posts, not people , you have totally failed to grasp the point i am trying to make.

This board has been around for a while. Theres been a lot of posts. Theres been a lot of posters. Jedi knight is probably the most prolific poster this board has ever had. Hundreds of them. Maybe thousands. And the majority of them are " Europeans are cowards. Europeans are terrorist sympathisers blah blah" ad nauseum.

Richard g is another one. Were cowards because we dont have guns. Were fascists because we dont have guns. And the threads invariably degenerate into slanging matches between nationalities. Why? Because the premises they are built on are bunk. And I see more posts attacking Europeans as people, than I do seeing posts attacking the US GOVERNEMNT.

Its the VOLUME of posts Im talking about. Maybe 90% is too much. It seems that way to me. But if you are sitting there thinking I am characterising 90% of US posters like this, then you are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off beam. (those are semi-humorous y'ssssssss):D

[charley_bigtime]

Can someone explain to me why this thread is still going?

[simper]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Because he was a lying madman, and it had become clear that Britain simply couldn't reach a peaceful accomodation with him.



Hitler certainly saw it that way, the British thought otherwise. Playing junior partner to Nazi Germany was never going to be in Britain's interests.



I'm not sure whether Britain could have made peace in 1941-42 (that's not to say I don't believe you, it's just that I'm in the dark about the facts of the matter). One thing I'm sure of is that the Empire was unravelling one way or another. The dominions had been expanding their political independance for decades, and the rest of the empire had become a drain on the exchequer after the first world war.


In a previous post you defended Americas late entry into the war, saying "And which country, other than Germany, didn't refrain from going to war until it was absolutely necessary?". The answer to your question is France, Britain and some commonwealth countries. They could have let Hitler try to fulfill his dream of lebensraum, expansion to the east, while rearming and waiting for a better time to fight. I think they made the right decision but they could have buried their heads in the sand or made a pact with the devil, as Russia did.

Britain making peace with Germany is controversial but the reasoning seems sound to me. In the winter of 41 the German Eastern front was disintergrating while there seemed to be no prospect of defeating Britain. They were in a 2 front war, the nightmare of German generals. Britain did not have the money to fight the war without ruining itself so a peace would suit both countries. Germany would be able to concentrate all its resources on Russia and Britain could take stock, knowing its chief enemy was in a fight it probably could not win. Leaving the immorality aside I think this policy would have been a huge gamble but it would have left open the possibility of Britain remaining a world power after the war. So you could argue that by continuing the war at this time Britain was not acting in its own national interest. Of course, the British Empire was finished in the medium to long term.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by simper



In a previous post you defended Americas late entry into the war, saying "And which country, other than Germany, didn't refrain from going to war until it was absolutely necessary?". The answer to your question is France, Britain and some commonwealth countries. They could have let Hitler try to fulfill his dream of lebensraum, expansion to the east, while rearming and waiting for a better time to fight. I think they made the right decision but they could have buried their heads in the sand or made a pact with the devil, as Russia did.

Britain making peace with Germany is controversial but the reasoning seems sound to me. In the winter of 41 the German Eastern front was disintergrating while there seemed to be no prospect of defeating Britain. They were in a 2 front war, the nightmare of German generals. Britain did not have the money to fight the war without ruining itself so a peace would suit both countries. Germany would be able to concentrate all its resources on Russia and Britain could take stock, knowing its chief enemy was in a fight it probably could not win. Leaving the immorality aside I think this policy would have been a huge gamble but it would have left open the possibility of Britain remaining a world power after the war. So you could argue that by continuing the war at this time Britain was not acting in its own national interest. Of course, the British Empire was finished in the medium to long term.

Good post Simper. However, I would take issue with the "Britain did not have the money to fight the war without ruining itself"

I think it's fair to say that Britian had spent all it's money by this point and had actually ruined itself (although you could argue this is more a consequence of WW1 rather than WWII maybe......?) Didn't Britain get a kind of loan in the form of Gold reserves from the Belgian or maybe the Dutch Government in exile at one point?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
This board has been around for a while. Theres been a lot of posts. Theres been a lot of posters. Jedi knight is probably the most prolific poster this board has ever had. Hundreds of them. Maybe thousands. And the majority of them are " Europeans are cowards. Europeans are terrorist sympathisers blah blah" ad nauseum.

I will try to make this simple.

Why does this matter with respect to the here-and-now, if indeed it does?

Richard g is another one.

Now, this is better, and it may represent some sort of a breakthrough. Since Richard G is still here, there is something to argue about.

Its the VOLUME of posts Im talking about. Maybe 90% is too much. It seems that way to me. But if you are sitting there thinking I am characterising 90% of US posters like this, then you are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off beam. (those are semi-humorous y'ssssssss):D

Well, I will take this graciously, in spite of the sarcasm.

I still have to point out that while you were, in my perception, haughtily upbraiding me for not addressing your point and waving your hands about "armchair psychology," you have consitently evaded my points, which I will spell out again:

1) What does a long-expired troll (i.e. Jedi Knight) have to do with current threads?

2) For how long (give me a number, in months, weeks, or years) do you get to keep bringing up a long-expired troll (i.e. Jedi Knight) as representative of anything, whether it be threads, people, or anything else that is Ilk™-related?

[charley_bigtime]

Or did I just suddenly become transparent?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by simper:
In a previous post you defended Americas late entry into the war, saying "And which country, other than Germany, didn't refrain from going to war until it was absolutely necessary?". The answer to your question is France, Britain and some commonwealth countries. They could have let Hitler try to fulfill his dream of lebensraum, expansion to the east, while rearming and waiting for a better time to fight.

They could have fought earlier. In 1936 in the Rhineland for example. Had the French and British took a stand there Hitler would have been forced to abandon his plans for re-militarization. The military advantage lay with the French at the time, as German rearmament had yet to gather pace. Had the French deployed their own army into the Rhineland Hitler would probably have been forced into a humiliating withdrawal. But they didn't, and Germany continued to re-arm in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. The British also signed a Naval Agreement with Germany in 1936, that allowed the Germans to buld their navy to a size one third that of the Royal Navy.

Britain making peace with Germany is controversial but the reasoning seems sound to me. In the winter of 41 the German Eastern front was disintergrating while there seemed to be no prospect of defeating Britain.

Operation Barbarossa wasn't disentegrating by the winter of 1941, although the seeds of it's ultimate failure were being sown. The Germans were still on the offensive well into 1942. Sevastapol was captured in May and the siege of Stalingrad began in late summer of 1942.

Britain did not have the money to fight the war without ruining itself so a peace would suit both countries. Germany would be able to concentrate all its resources on Russia and Britain could take stock, knowing its chief enemy was in a fight it probably could not win.

Perhaps, but was a Soviet victory anymore palatable to Britain than a Nazi one?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


1) What does a long-expired troll (i.e. Jedi Knight) have to do with current threads?

2) For how long (give me a number, in months, weeks, or years) do you get to keep bringing up a long-expired troll (i.e. Jedi Knight) as representative of anything, whether it be threads, people, or anything else that is Ilk™-related?

1/ I have never claimed it represents the board here and now. I have talked about the threads that I have seen over time on this board. Thats why I said "I have seen more post attacking Europeans as people than I have seen attacking the US Government". I didn't qualify it by saying "last week".

2/ This is an absurd question. Are you saying posts have no value after a set date? We had one hell of a fuss about thread trimming.

I have never said JK is representative of anything. I have said that in terms of volume of posts on this board, and threads which degenerate into petty nationalistic bickering, more (and I gave a figure which you can argue about, and I fully accept is nothing more than my impression) come from Americans than from Europeans. JK was a big culprit for that. I can't think of a post which says "Americans are cowards because some of their citizens and politicians support the IRA". I dont base my perception of people on what the politics of their country are. Too many THREADS on this board do.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
1/ I have never claimed it represents the board here and now. I have talked about the threads that I have seen over time on this board. Thats why I said "I have seen more post attacking Europeans as people than I have seen attacking the US Government". I didn't qualify it by saying "last week".

This is some sort of a concession, but what you actually said and I responded to was "Like other threads of this ilk on this board, 9 times out of 10 it begins with some preposterous insult to Europe, which is refuted, which is then interpreted as being an insult to America."

I don't see a verb conjugated in the past tense there.

2/ This is an absurd question. Are you saying posts have no value after a set date? We had one hell of a fuss about thread trimming.

I'm saying that, in particular instances, such as trolls, it's quite reasonable to give up after a while. Hell, I try to forget my emotions toward individual posters and give them a clean slate once a month.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell in this thread, you haven't actually referenced a posting from Jedi Knight that you consider valuable. It's just been Jedi Knight this, Jedi Knight that. A person (presumably), not a thread. The only value this has is that it shows that you really remember Jedi Knight.

i think I get a supercilious "Shaun from Scotland"-style dig about conflating people and threads at this point. Make up your own and assume it done.

I have never said JK is representative of anything.

My mistake again, which again I freely admit. I made the assumption that the reason you kept bringing Jedi Knight up over and over again was to convey some sort of meaning, beyond some sort of particular fascination with Jedi Knight.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


This is some sort of a concession, but what you actually said and I responded to was "Like other threads of this ilk on this board, 9 times out of 10 it begins with some preposterous insult to Europe, which is refuted, which is then interpreted as being an insult to America."

I don't see a verb conjugated in the past tense there.



I have already explained this on numerous occasions. I have come to accept that the fact you dont get it is something I am going to have to live with.


I have also explained why I mentioned Jedi Knight as well. Im resigned to that too..........

[epepke]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


I have already explained this on numerous occasions. I have come to accept that the fact you dont get it is something I am going to have to live with.

I have also explained why I mentioned Jedi Knight as well. Im resigned to that too..........

No, I get it. I understand exactly what you're saying. I understand exactly what you said. I understand exactly what the relationship between them are.

What it amounts to is the evasion of saying "I was wrong" or "I overextended" or "I was mistaken" or however you want to phrase it, however you want to qualify it.

I even deliberately posted several examples of my doing it in the vain hopes that you would get a clue, and I made them obvious.

Now, the reason I am doing this is because, in my perception, this is the main thing that irks me about Europeans.

Hey, Neville Chamberlaine f*cked up. So maybe it seemed the right thing to do at the time. OK, but it was still wrong. But instead, it's some crap about how many historians feel that he was just buying time. No, people. He F*CKED UP! BIG TIME! Pure and simple.

I'll say it about my country. We f*cked up in Vietnam. Yes, it was originally a French bruhaha. But we f*cked up. And there are plenty of other things that the US f*cked up since then. I'm sure you have Magic-Markered histories showing all of them, and I deny none of them. The current situation in Iraq is, quite simply, f*cked.

I'll say it about myself. I've been wrong on many occasions, too numerous to remember. My most recent Really Big Wrong was that I didn't think that the US would actually invade Iraq. Even though I never made such a statement on this board, I'm not afraid to say it. I WAS WRONG!

But, for a European, as far as I can tell, there's always someone down the street from you who talks funny and can always be blamed for something, and if that doesn't pan out, you can always blame the US. Globalization means never having to say you're sorry. As a Scot, you can always blame something on the English. Or on Continental Europe. There are always half a dozen places in Europe within a 4-hour train ride to blame something on. And they talk funny. And remember the Battle of Hoojimongle back in the Umpteenth Century when the wrong-thinking Flibbertigibbets subjugated the right-thinking Whatsits?

Europeans have so many ways to avoid saying "I was wrong" that I often get the impression that they have lost the ability to do so. On a skeptics' board, it's doubly ironic, as being able to say "I was wrong" is absolutely essential to being a skeptic.

Anyway. That's my point. I have little faith that anyone will notice, but then again, such things have never bothered me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by epepke


No, I get it. I understand exactly what you're saying. I understand exactly what you said. I understand exactly what the relationship between them are.

What it amounts to is the evasion of saying "I was wrong" or "I overextended" or "I was mistaken" or however you want to phrase it, however you want to qualify it.

I even deliberately posted several examples of my doing it in the vain hopes that you would get a clue, and I made them obvious.

Now, the reason I am doing this is because, in my perception, this is the main thing that irks me about Europeans.

Hey, Neville Chamberlaine f*cked up. So maybe it seemed the right thing to do at the time. OK, but it was still wrong. But instead, it's some crap about how many historians feel that he was just buying time. No, people. He F*CKED UP! BIG TIME! Pure and simple.


Maybe he just remembered what happened in the WWI. It was so bad they called the war to end all wars.

[charley_bigtime]

Mebbe I can sneak into girl's dorms and see them in their pants and stuff....

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke


No, I get it. I understand exactly what you're saying. I understand exactly what you said. I understand exactly what the relationship between them are.

What it amounts to is the evasion of saying "I was wrong" or "I overextended" or "I was mistaken" or however you want to phrase it, however you want to qualify it.

.


" (and I gave a figure which you can argue about, and I fully accept is nothing more than my impression)"

I make that the third thing you've made up about what I have said so far. Not bad going.

But hey it's all about my ego. You know what son, the only bruised ego here is yours. It's so laughably transparent.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by epepke



Now, the reason I am doing this is because, in my perception, this is the main thing that irks me about Europeans.

Hey, Neville Chamberlaine f*cked up. So maybe it seemed the right thing to do at the time. OK, but it was still wrong. But instead, it's some crap about how many historians feel that he was just buying time. No, people. He F*CKED UP! BIG TIME! Pure and simple.


Which is why i said "Debatable, but an idea with a lot of curency for modern historians."

Your dictionary should tell you what "debatable" means. In case your struggling, I put the word in to show I don't necessarily agree with them.

But hey, don't let what I actually said distract you from your little ego rant.........

Consider the matter closed. However, if your poor spanked ego is still hurting, feel free to make something up again and laugh uproariously at your own wit.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
As long as you're reading this thread, Skeptic, I don't recall that you've answered how many Israeli troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you have already answered, just point me to the right page number. I'm just curious because I can't find anything on Google, but abscence of evidence and all that...

I realise you may have missed this post, Skeptic, still waiting for your input. Thanks.

[CapelDodger]

From Shane Costello:

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Britain and France committed themselves to go to war if Poland was attacked. They didn't have to do that.


I beg to differ. By that stage it was clear that Hitler couldn't be taken at his word, and that war was unavoidable. If Britain and France thought that the Nazis could be sated by the annexation of some Polish territory, I'd wager they'd have taken that.
There were those who argued against fighting for Poland. Poland was more a concept than a country, only existing as a state intermittently and never in the same place twice. The Poland of 1939 was created after WW1 mostly from previously-Russian territory plus some German. The Danzig corridor, which divided Germany in two, was clearly not going to survive long-term. Partition of Poland could have been shrugged off as another tidying-up episode after WW1. That option, of avoiding war, was still available to Britain and France, but they didn't take it.
Following the line of action it percieved to be in it's own interests, just like everyone else.
Which is why gratitude from those that benefit as a side-effect is not appropriate. Some contributors to this thread should get their heads around that.
Burying their heads in the sand like those who thought Hitler was entirely honorable and Churchill was a washout? BTW it was Mussolini who was credited with a punctual rail service, not Hitler.
I know it was Mussolini, but did most Americans at the time? As to the "honourable" Hitler, there were damn few people who thought that, and some of them were Americans. Churchill was a washout; without the war nothing more would have been heard of him. He'd have gone down in history as the architect of the Dardanelles disaster and the Chancellor who brought on the General Strike.

The Yanks weren't having that, of course, so they effectively raised a million man army, shipped it to France (doing wonders for an economy that really needed a boost)

The US economy was struggling in 1917?
The French economy gained the boost. And yes, it was having some problems in 1917. The main benficiaries were restaurateurs, pimps and dick-doctors, naturally enough.
They only joined in to get a seat at the table after the war, and such was the political atmosphere in the post-war US that when they got it they walked away.

And the evidence for this is?
US isolationism 1919-1941 is hardly contentious. The other part is, I'll agree, but the argument was made in Congress and in the press that the Imperialist Nations (Britain and France) would carve out yet more of the world for themselves, at the expense of US interests, if the US stayed out. That argument surely won't have been ignored in the final decision to go to war.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by Giz


The Russians and Japanese had been skirmishing in Manchuria in the 1930's. In 1939 a full blown engagement at Khalkin Gol (spelling?) saw the Red Army under Zhukov (soon to be famous for the battles of Moscow, Lenigrad, Stalingrad etc) massacre their Japanese opponents.

When it came to kicking off the Japanese conquests in the early 1940's the Japanese decided that the South Pacific had plenty of oil and rubber, a nice climate and no pesky Russians!

(As a note, the Siberian veterans were pulled back west in late 1941 and headed the winter counter attack on the Germans, pushing them back from Moscow) It wasn't till 8 Aug 1945, a week before the war, ended that Russia declared war on Japan in order to get in on the spoils of war.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by richardm


I have no references but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that Germany would be keen to keep America out of the European war. At the beginning of the war a seperate peace between the United States and Germany would not have been possible. Pact Between the Axis Powers Barring a Separate Peace with the United States or Great Britian; December 11, 1941 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tripart.htm)

Options for a separate peace (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IW-lhsjrrtAJ:sdweiner.home.texas.net/d/archive/politics_right/00_National_Archives_material_on_Nazis.pdf+%22sepa rate+peace%22+%22end+of++wwii%22++german+%22united +states%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) During the war, Himmler tried to keep open options for a separate peace with Western powers by using first property and then Jewish lives as negotiating tools. There was also an attempt by Germany to surrender to the Western powers to prevent Russian from taking Berlin.

Then there is the Hess peace story, take it for worth. WWII: An Unnecessary War By Alex S. Perry Jr. (http://www.barnesreview.org/May_2002/WW2_/ww2_.html) Hess’s flight to Britain was done in the hope that he could convince the British government to make peace with Germany. Because of Hess’s efforts to bring peace to Europe, he became truly a “prisoner of peace.”

[charley_bigtime]

That's it - I'm going for the $million.