# Should the U.S. have gone to war in 1917?



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

How did the United States become entangled in World War I?

The United States was sucked into the Great War (World War I) 100 years ago in 1917.  The war did not serve American interests, rather the interests of certain British and American elites. Said elites employed propaganda to trick Americans into supporting the war.

Consider the efforts of:

1) Zionists

2) War Profiteers

3) Progressives who used Wilson and then discarded him after they got their war

4) The British


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

Letter Winston Churchill sent to Walter Runciman, the president of Britain’s Board of Trade 1915:

It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany . . . . For our part we want the traffic — the more the better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

Historians Jonathan Shneer and James Gelvin have acknowledged that the British leadership supported Zionism in order to persuade American Zionist leaders to push the U.S. into WW I. Here’s a quote from Gelvin’s The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War: “Two of Wilson's closest advisors, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, were avid Zionists. How better to shore up an uncertain ally than by endorsing Zionist aims?” Zionist leaders like Samuel Landman admitted their role in entangling the U.S. in war: the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)




----------



## Marion Morrison (Jun 16, 2017)

I've seen this type of OP before.

It always gets back around to:

*DA JOOOOOOOOOS!!  *


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 16, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> How did the United States become entangled in World War I?
> 
> The United States was sucked into the Great War (World War I) 100 years ago in 1917.  The war did not serve American interests, rather the interests of certain British and American elites. Said elites employed propaganda to trick Americans into supporting the war.
> 
> ...


Wow, just wow........

How about trade and cultural ties to Britain, the refusal of the Germans to stop sinking neutral American ships but the final straw was the Zimmerman Note, a secret diplomatic note from Germany attempting to have Mexico declare war on the US and offering US territory to the Mexican government for joining Germany in the war. 

Milestones: 1914–1920 - Office of the Historian


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 16, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> I've seen this type of OP before.
> 
> It always gets back around to:
> 
> *DA JOOOOOOOOOS!!  *


By Thunderbird I suspect he means the rotgut..........


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to President Woodrow Wilson 1914 War loans were later investigated by the Nye Committee.

I beg to communicate to you an important matter which has come before the Department. Morgan Company of New York have asked whether there would be any objection to their making a loan to the French Government and also the Rothschilds -- I suppose that is intended for the French Government. I have conferred with Mr. Lansing and he knows of no legal objection to financing this loan, but I have
suggested to him the advisability of presenting to you an aspect of the case which is not legal but I believe to be consistent with our attitude in international matters. It is whether it would be advisable for this Government to take the position that it will not approve of any loan to a belligerent nation. The reasons that I would give in support of this proposition are:

_First:_ Money is the worst of all contrabands because it commands everything else. The question of making loans contraband by international agreement has been discussed, but no action has been taken. I know of nothing that would do more to prevent war than an international agreement that neutral nations would not loan to belligerents. While such an agreement would be of great advantage, could we not by our example hasten the reaching of such an agreement? We are the one great nation which is not involved, and our refusal to loan to any belligerent would naturally tend to hasten a conclusion of the war. We are responsible for the use of our influence through example, and as we cannot tell what we can do until we try, the only way of testing our influence is to set the example and observe its effect. This is the fundamental reason in support of the suggestion submitted.

_Second:_ There is a special and local reason, it seems to me, why this course would be advisable. Mr. Lansing observed in the discussion of the subject that a loan would be taken by those in sympathy with the country in whose behalf the loan was negotiated. If we approved of a loan to France we could not, of course, object to a loan to Great Britain, Germany, Russia, or to any other country, and if loans were made to these countries, our citizens would be divided into groups, each group loaning money to the country which it favors and this money could not be furnished without expressions of sympathy. These expressions of sympathy are disturbing enough when they do not rest upon pecuniary interests -- they would be still more disturbing if each group was pecuniarily interested in the success of the nation to whom its members had loaned money.

_Third:_ The powerful financial interests which would be connected with these loans would be tempted to use their influence through the newspapers to support the interests of the Government to which they had loaned because the value of the security would be directly affected by the result of the war. We would thus find our newspapers violently arrayed on one side or the other, each paper supporting a financial group and pecuniary interest, All of this influence would make it all the more difficult for us to maintain neutrality as our action on various questions that would arise would affect one side or the other and powerful financial interests would be thrown into the balance.... As we cannot prevent American citizens going abroad at their own risk, so we cannot prevent dollars going abroad at the risk of the owners, but the influence of the Government is used to prevent American citizens from doing this. Would the Government not be justified in using its influence against the enlistment of the nation's dollars in a foreign war?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 16, 2017)

Considering that Americans hated Jews at that period in time is awfully telling of the rhetoric being spewed in this thread..


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> How about trade and cultural ties to Britain,


The U.S. traded with Germany as well.  Millions of Americans had German ancestry. 



> the refusal of the Germans to stop sinking neutral American ships


The Lusitania was carrying munitions!

Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship | Daily Mail Online

German warning:


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen this type of OP before.
> ...


Given your IQ, I'm impressed you were able to form any words at all.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Considering that Americans hated Jews at that period in time is awfully telling of the rhetoric being spewed in this thread..


Maybe you should acknowledge the hatred certain Jewish and Anglo elites exhibited when they manipulated the U.S. into war.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 16, 2017)

Germany and the USA had a good relationship until then. So no, the US should neither have supported the Entente nor joined the war against Germany.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 16, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > How about trade and cultural ties to Britain,
> ...


First False Flag. A single torpedo could never have sunk the Lusitania.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 16, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > How did the United States become entangled in World War I?
> ...


Didn´t the Brits try two times to enslave your country?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Germany and the USA had a good relationship until then. So no, the US should neither have supported the Entente nor join the war against Germany.


True. And the U.S. had a long series of conflicts with the British.

President Cleveland twist the tail of the British Lion 1895


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 16, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > How about trade and cultural ties to Britain,
> ...


As of yet unproven.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 16, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


Only once.  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 16, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


Given your state of intoxication on Thunderbird I'm surprised you are.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 16, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


I don´t know. Twice, as far as I know.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

During the war Hollywood happily provided propaganda. Louis B. Mayer said movies provide “invaluable aid to the government and its various propagandas.”

Some of the lying films used to inflame hatred:


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 16, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


the War of 1812 wasn't a war of conquest by the Brits.  Technically neither was the Rev war, it was Britain trying to control their "unruly subjects" in the American colonies.........


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

One of the more insane propaganda posters:


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 16, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Look at the evidence: Lusitania divers warned of danger from war munitions in 1982, papers reveal


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 16, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


Do you honestly believe you're the first person to ever promote that theory?  Really?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 16, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> One of the more insane propaganda posters:


Obviously you don't have a clue about propaganda, how pervasive it was and often still is.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 17, 2017)

Bleipriester said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Besides the war of 1812, what other time was there?


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 17, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Maybe, this is the war I mean.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 17, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > One of the more insane propaganda posters:
> ...


Do you agree we should condemn this sort of propaganda?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 17, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


Everyone condemns it in public even those who continuously practice it.  Maybe you're under the impression that politics and war aren't Machiavellian in nature and believe in some nonexistent kinder, gentler manner of demonizing your enemies.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 17, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Are all news organizations equally awful? Shouldn't we condemn egregious examples of dishonesty? Are you seriously defending elites who lie the people into unnecessary wars?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 18, 2017)

The British War Propaganda Bureau (Wellington House) was especially active in promoting lies.

H. G. Wells was one of their propagandists. In 1914 he came up with the ridiculous slogan about WW I: The war that will end war.

Of course WWI only led to more hate and more war.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


Oh a black and white thinker, I'm obviously defending the proverbial "elites".......  
I'm not defending anything I'm simply pointing out the reality of human life, the fact that we are all pawns (including the elites) in the continuous global game of power and control over resources, something you're missing in what appears to be your belief in some huge conspiratorial movement by the nebulous so called elites.  Oh yes, we'll condemn, we'll rail against the machine, we'll demand metaphorical blood sacrifices when we feel betrayed by our leaders but ultimately nothing will change, history shows us that.


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 18, 2017)

There are 10 reasons we stepped in to help Europe...
*

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews

The Jews
*


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


So the elites can never improve and we should just give up??


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 18, 2017)

Indeependent said:


> There are 10 reasons we stepped in to help Europe...
> *
> 
> The Jews
> ...


You forgot: *The Jews.





*
And do you really think U.S. intervention helped Europe? U.S. involvement led to the Carthaginian peace of the Treaty of Versailles and more instability and war.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > How did the United States become entangled in World War I?
> ...


The Zimmerman note said...
“We intend to begin unrestricted submarine warfare on the first of February. *We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of an alliance on the following basis:* Make war together, make peace together, generous financial support, and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to re-conquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement detail is left to you. “


The US should have stayed neutral. Instead the  evil Democrat Wilson re-instituted slavery and forced US  citizens to go to the meat grinder against their will.

The Democratic party is the party of slavery. The Democratic party is the most morally bankrupt organization that has ever existed in America.[/COLOR]


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


The Zimmerman Note did not represent a realistic threat to the U.S.   Mexico was not a significant power. Could Germany have defeated the British and American navies and brought military supplies to Mexico? Would any other nation have dared provide military supplies to Mexico?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


More black and white thinking.  I never said we should give up and I wasn't just referring to your so called elites only, I was referring to humanity in general.  Don't stop trying to better humanity, maybe one day in the far future if we haven't destroyed ourselves by then the cycle will be broken.  
Here's the catch though to bettering humanity, who's concepts/solutions are better?  Yours?  Mine?  anyone else's?  How do we reconcile the differences for and of all?  How do we address greed, avarice, desire, lust, hate, fear, arrogance, narcissism, sociopaths, psychopaths, etc, etc, etc.........?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > How did the United States become entangled in World War I?
> ...



Mods: Go ahead and just bump this to OP.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > There are 10 reasons we stepped in to help Europe...
> ...


I'm sure each one of the powers had a crystal ball at hand to see what they were doing would lead to an even more destructive war........ 

Oh and your idiotic poster speaks volumes........ about you........


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


No crystal ball needed to predict further conflict.  The Allied powers had signed various treaties which charged up ethnic conflict.



> Oh and your idiotic poster speaks volumes........ about you........


If you're going to be confused, vague, and ill-informed - maybe you shouldn't be humorless as well.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Good comeback! 

Of course you know everything I said is right. That's why you resorted to a fallacious ad hominem attack rather than a rebuttal.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Felicitous and ad hominem?  You hacks give yourself waaaaaay to much credit.  I responded appropriately to extreme stupidity.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

I see you have projection down to an art.
Of course if you're what you appear to be coming across as your "solutions" to the evils of humanity  aren't solutions at all, they're part of the problem, one of the evils.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


You should have thanked me for the history lesson.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Sure thing professor......  How about we compare degrees, I'll show you my four (including History) and you show me your second grade graduation certificate.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


And you still didn't know that Wilson re-instituted slavery. Shows how much good those degrees did you.

Personally, I have a 158 IQ and didn't need any professors to tutor me like you did.


----------



## Desperado (Jun 18, 2017)

WW1 is not the only war we were conned into.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



You left off the (-) in front of it......... 
Your choice of descriptor indicates a high degree of emotive rationalization.  How about it snowflake?


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


The point is that I'm right. And your ad hominems or other fallacious reasoning cannot change that fact.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 18, 2017)

Desperado said:


> WW1 is not the only war we were conned into.



There was also WWII, Korea and Vietnam. And every time the Democrats used slaves to do the fighting.

That is why the Democrats have earned the moniker "party of slavery".


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Yes you are "right", you're just not correct..........  And you can keep claiming fallacious reasoning and ad hominems all day long, doesn't change the fact that you're a partisan hack who has only intimate knowledge of the end of your nose.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Oh and look up the difference between slavery and indentured servitude........  In the case of drafting it would be more akin to indentured servitude by lottery but with certain personal protections guaranteed by law that slaves never had.  It's amazing what one can learn if they're willing and open to learning...........


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Wrong! Military conscription is not indentured servitude. It is involuntary servitude. AKA slavery. A particularly vile form of slavery.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Well sparknuts, since looking up the difference between the two is beyond you capabilities as is rational cognition I'll leave you to your own partisan delusions.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 18, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Your concession is respectfully accepted.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 18, 2017)

American entry into World War I - Wikipedia

*Sinking of American merchant ships[edit]*
In early 1917 Berlin forced the issue. Its declared decision on 31 January 1917 to target neutral shipping in a designated war-zone[91] became the immediate cause of the entry of the United States into the war.[92]Five American merchant ships went down in March. Outraged public opinion now overwhelmingly supported Wilson when he asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917.[93]

Yes


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 18, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Delusional to the end......    

Don't worry snowflake, you'll get over it, if not then I would suggest psychiatric counseling.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 19, 2017)

eagle1462010 said:


> American entry into World War I - Wikipedia
> 
> *Sinking of American merchant ships[edit]*
> In early 1917 Berlin forced the issue. Its declared decision on 31 January 1917 to target neutral shipping in a designated war-zone[91] became the immediate cause of the entry of the United States into the war.[92]Five American merchant ships went down in March. Outraged public opinion now overwhelmingly supported Wilson when he asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917.[93]
> ...


You know anybody can edit Wikipedia.

The British violated the rights of neutrals when they imposed a blockade on the Central Powers, a blockade which starved thousands.  Many Middle Americans strongly opposed sending their sons to die in that pointless mess. Many Irish and German Americans opposed involvement.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 19, 2017)

#5 the French. WW1 was nothing but the continuation of a European squabble that was going on for the better part of a thousand years. There were little or no U.S. interest at stake and Wilson actually told Americans that he would never send their sons to fight in a foreign war. Maybe Wilson didn't send the Doughboys to fight for France. Maybe his wife sent them after his debilitating stroke which democrats (and the media) managed to hide from U.S. citizens. The harsh surrender terms dictated to Germany and the lack of any method for ensuring that the terms would be complied with led to the emergence of the Nazi party. The ironic thing is that we had to do it all over within a couple of decades under another democrat president with a disorganized foreign policy. According to the remarkable book "In the Garden of the Beasts' about the U.S. ambassador to Hitler's Germany, FDR wasn't alarmed by the Nazi regime. He continually pestered the U.S. Ambassador to deal with Germany's war debt owed to U.S.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 19, 2017)

The British blockade killed hundreds of thousands of Germans.

Quote: This was what Lord Devlin frankly calls "the starvation policy" directed against the civilians of the Central Powers (particularly Germany), the plan that aimed, as Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and one of the framers of the scheme, admitted, to "starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission."

Link: The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany

Why should the U.S. have backed corrupt and brutal British elites?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 19, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > American entry into World War I - Wikipedia
> ...


I didn't edit it.  Is it wrong..............Did they sink our ships..............Millions had already died by then..........a blockade starved thousands............compared to this.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 19, 2017)

The media writes the history books and the the democrat/liberal media justified or explained away every military adventure and every example of genocide or negligence and every mistake and  insane foreign policy flubs without question during the bloody 20th century as long as democrats were in power.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 20, 2017)

eagle1462010 said:


> I didn't edit it.


I didn't say you did. 





> Is it wrong..............


If the U.S. had followed a policy of neutrality we could have avoided war. 





> Millions had already died by then..........a blockade starved thousands............compared to this.


What is your point? If the British had stayed out of the war, we would have seen a short War of 1914 instead of a civilization destroying world war.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 24, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't edit it.
> ...



Unfortunately that was never going to happen. British foreign policy for the previous 200+ years was the prevention of any one European power becoming hegemonic over Europe; maintaining a balance of power was critical to this policy. We could not allow Germany to defeat and humiliate France, coupled with the German voilation of Belgium's neutrality and seizing Belgium's Channel ports which was seen as an existential threat to Britain herself at the time.

It's a fascinating period from which we could learn many lessons for today.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 24, 2017)

Challenger said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Yes, but long term Germany was not the undisputed hegemon.  Russia served as a counterweight.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 24, 2017)

Among the plutocrats pushing for war were J.P. Morgan, Daniel Guggenheim, and the DuPonts.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 25, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Yes, but long term Germany was not the undisputed hegemon. Russia served as a counterweight.



Never said Germany was, but under Kaiser Wilhelm II, German policies became expansionist and hegemonistic to the extent that her neighbours became alarmed enough to destroy Bismark's alliance system that had kept the peace in Europe since the 1870's. Kaiser Wilhem's biggest mistake was to start building blue water navy; Britain may have tolerated a Germany dominating mainland Europe, but we would never toleratwe a challenge to our naval supremacy.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 26, 2017)

Challenger said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but long term Germany was not the undisputed hegemon. Russia served as a counterweight.
> ...


Though the Soviet navy did surpass the British navy. And the Soviet air force did surpass the British air force.


----------



## cnelsen (Jun 26, 2017)

Marion Morrison said:


> I've seen this type of OP before.
> 
> It always gets back around to:
> 
> *DA JOOOOOOOOOS!!  *


That's because, it always is...the Jews.


----------



## cnelsen (Jun 26, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > WW1 is not the only war we were conned into.
> ...


Not to mention Iraq.


----------



## cnelsen (Jun 26, 2017)

Challenger said:


> It's a fascinating period from which we could learn many lessons for today.


But won't.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 26, 2017)

The progressives love war because war leads to control from a centralized authority.

What Are We Fighting For? by John Dewey 1918

In short, the war, by throwing into relief the public aspect of every social enterprise, has discovered the amount of sabotage which habitually goes on in manipulating property rights to take a private profit out of social needs. Otherwise, the wrench needed in order to bring privately controlled industries into line with public needs would not have had to be so great.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 27, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...



Not until after 1945 when the British Empire contracted rapidly, not really relevant to 1914


----------



## Challenger (Jun 27, 2017)

cnelsen said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > It's a fascinating period from which we could learn many lessons for today.
> ...


True.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Germany attacked our shipping, which at the end of the day that is all that was necessary. Not to respond to such attacks is to forfeit your sovereignty. Respecting U.S. neutrality never seemed to occur to the morons who insisted on dragging us into their wars. Babbling about who we sold stuff to is even more moronic; we can sell whatever we want to whoever we want, too bad if some gimps don't like that.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Considering that Americans hated Jews at that period in time is awfully telling of the rhetoric being spewed in this thread..



Yes, 'America hated Jews' so much they let millions immigrate between 1880 and 1910. There is a vast difference between 'prejudice' and 'hate', but of course acknowledging that wouldn't serve left or right wing agendas and fake news. Jews were pretty good at prejudice themselves, and many still are, so it works both ways; not many 'hapless innocents' out there in Human Land.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 28, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



Doesn't matter anyway, since the Germans sunk hundreds of neutral vessels before that; it was just a 'straw that broke the camel's back', and involved civilian passengers. Germany doesn't get to decide who we trade with in the first place, a fact most of the conspiratards choose to ignore.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 28, 2017)

cnelsen said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen this type of OP before.
> ...


No folks, you can't make this stupid shit up, it actually believes what it's spouting.....


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 29, 2017)

Challenger said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


When  did the German navy surpass the British navy?

I'm suggesting that the British should have tolerated German pretensions because Germany balanced mighty Russia.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 29, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Germany attacked our shipping, which at the end of the day that is all that was necessary. Not to respond to such attacks is to forfeit your sovereignty. Respecting U.S. neutrality never seemed to occur to the morons who insisted on dragging us into their wars. Babbling about who we sold stuff to is even more moronic; we can sell whatever we want to whoever we want, too bad if some gimps don't like that.


The British violated neutrality too!

The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2017)

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 29, 2017)

Ringel05 said:


> cnelsen said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


Instead of name-calling why not show us how intelligent you are by refuting posts #3 and #4. 

If you can.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 29, 2017)

Correll said:


> Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?
> 
> Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?


No.  A victorious Germany would have served as a counterweight to Russia.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?
> ...





Russia was pretty far away from US interests.


The Ottomans did the Armenian Genocide. Would them winning had been a good thing for US?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 29, 2017)

Correll said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


The Young Turks were awful, but a world dominated by the British and the Soviets was awful too.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 29, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > cnelsen said:
> ...


Three words will do it; Interpretive revisionist history.


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...




How was British dominance bad for the US? (the soviets wereN'T dominating shit till after WWII.)


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 29, 2017)

Correll said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


How would a victorious Germany have threatened the U.S.?


----------



## Correll (Jun 29, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...




Might not like the US presence in the Philippines, near it's new SE asian colonies, or it might have a problem with the Open Door China policy of the US.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 29, 2017)

Correll said:


> Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?
> 
> Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?



Certainly it would have; Wilhelm II was a nutjob, and winning the war would only have made him even more acquisitive. Russians have always been imperialistic as well. Both Germany and Russia were still feudal states, and WW I can be looked at as the last gasp of feudalism in Europe. Europe was stable and doing fine under Bismarck's 'balance of power' diplomacy, no war was necessary and Germany didn't need imperialist expansion just to suit the ego of one little over-privileged brat, it was also doing fine and a major modern industrial and economic power. The Ottomans were a dead culture, nothing for them to contribute to anybody, other than the role they played as a hedge against Russian imperialism. No Muslim states ever contribute anything except genocide and pedophilia havens for homosexual sex tourists like Gore Vidal and others.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 30, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...



That's not the point, Germany was technologically and industrially already rivalling if not surpassing Britain, the actual numbers of ships weren't important, it was both the intent and the capability that alarmed the Admiralty. Regardless of anything else, a German threat to British naval supremacy, threatened the existance of the British Empire and such an existential threat could not be ignored or tolerated.

Russia was allied with France to keep Germany in check, more accurately the Triple Alliance of Germany Austro-Hungary and Italy in check. Britain tolerated the balance of power this created UNTIL, the Kaiser started to build a blue water navy in direct challenge to the RN. This was a monumentally stupid and short sighted thing to do as it effectively wrecked the cordial relations we had with Germany up to that time and was bound to drive Britain into an eventual alliance with France.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 30, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Germany attacked our shipping, which at the end of the day that is all that was necessary. Not to respond to such attacks is to forfeit your sovereignty. Respecting U.S. neutrality never seemed to occur to the morons who insisted on dragging us into their wars. Babbling about who we sold stuff to is even more moronic; we can sell whatever we want to whoever we want, too bad if some gimps don't like that.
> ...


No we didn't. A blockade, formally declared, is a valid tactic in time of war and is not considered a violation of neutrality. Germany declared such a blockade in 1915, but withdrew it due to US protests. Re-declaring it in 1917, was considered a causus belli by the USA. The German blockade would have severely damaged US trade with Britain and France, major trading partners and both sides knew this.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 30, 2017)

Challenger said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


The Blockade and the sinking of U.S. Merchants ships along with the Zimmerman note gone public ENRAGED the U.S. and considered it an ACT OF WAR............And the rest is history.

In regards to English and German Navies.........England knew it could not allow German to challenge them on the Seas.......which was why the German Navy was virtually destroyed at the end of the War by agreement.






Showed the superiority of English Navy.  Their battle tactics showed Germany that their Navy was outmatched and OUTSKILLED in Naval Warfare.  Germany was beaten in their one Major attempt to break the blockade against Germany.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 30, 2017)

Challenger said:


> No we didn't. A blockade, formally declared, is a valid tactic in time of war and is not considered a violation of neutrality. Germany declared such a blockade in 1915, but withdrew it due to US protests. Re-declaring it in 1917, was considered a causus belli by the USA. The German blockade would have severely damaged US trade with Britain and France, major trading partners and both sides knew this.



 Blockading a country's ports is recognized as an act of war everywhere, regardless of whether any shots are fired or not. I can't think of a time when it wasn't. We also protested the British blockades of the Baltic ports ourselves. Germany didn't respect the neutrality of anybody on the high seas, except those ships known to be carrying goods to their own countries or neutrals trading with Germany.

The Allies never violated the Netherlands' neutrality during WW I, even though they were making a killing importing food for themselves from the rest of the world while selling Germany almost their entire agricultural production.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 30, 2017)

David Stephenson's *Cataclysm* is an excellent book on the politics of WW I. Nobody should still be claiming it was an 'accidental war' in this day and age, nor should there be any more doubt about Wilhelm II being responsible for starting it. He was on the road to war the second his father died and his dismissal of Bismarck.

From a larger view It was the last gasp of feudalism in Europe, not only for Germany but the Tsarists state and several others. It was probably inevitable that it would take a particularly nasty war to end it, and unfortunately due to Wilson's incompetence and untrustworthyness as an 'ally', with his several attempts at making a unilateral peace with Germany in secret and getting caught at it repeatedly the war was cut short, and Germany propagandists were allowed to peddle the fiction they didn't lose the war, but were 'betrayed at Versailles', a fiction that left the stage clear for 'WW I, Part II', aka 'WW II'.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2017)

Correll said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Germany is in the middle of Europe and surrounded by hostile nations.  Why would Germany pick a fight with the U.S.?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Both Germany and Russia were still feudal states


Germany was a feudal state?



> pedophilia havens for homosexual sex tourists like Gore Vidal and others.


Are the rumors true about Vidal?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jun 30, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


Germany avoided hitting U.S. ships for a very long time, even as we assisted enemies of Germany, which were allied to us.  They did it near the end when they were desperate and decided it didn't matter anymore.  They wanted to hit the supply lines of England and that happened to be us.  

They knew should we enter the War......it would change the balance in the ground War in Europe, and quite possibly cause them to lose the War.  Which in fact it did.  They were Losing already and knew it..............desperate people tend to try desperate measures.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?
> ...




Blaming the Kaiser's "acquisitiveness" rings false when one considers that the victorious Brits stripped Germany of ALL it's overseas imperial possessions.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...




In the scenario of a Central Powers victory, they would have a strong ally to the South, and be larger and more powerful with the addition of lands seized from, at least the Russians, if not the French.


In the context of Imperialism, they would certainly use that military power to increase economic opportunities for their nation.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2017)

Challenger said:


> That's not the point, Germany was technologically and industrially already rivalling if not surpassing Britain, the actual numbers of ships weren't important, it was both the intent and the capability that alarmed the Admiralty. Regardless of anything else, a German threat to British naval supremacy, threatened the existance of the British Empire and such an existential threat could not be ignored or tolerated.


But think of the Russian threat! Are you familiar with the Great Game?

Britain's naval preponderance was overwhelming.

The Pity of War p. 84


----------



## Thunderbird (Jun 30, 2017)

Challenger said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Quote: The British policy was in contravention of international law on two major points.

Link: The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany

Why do you feel the British had the right to stop the U.S. from selling food to Germany?


----------



## cnelsen (Jun 30, 2017)

Picaro said:


> unfortunately... the war was cut short,


You people are something else.


----------



## Correll (Jun 30, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > That's not the point, Germany was technologically and industrially already rivalling if not surpassing Britain, the actual numbers of ships weren't important, it was both the intent and the capability that alarmed the Admiralty. Regardless of anything else, a German threat to British naval supremacy, threatened the existance of the British Empire and such an existential threat could not be ignored or tolerated.
> ...




WAS overwhelming. And was not likely to remain so.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 30, 2017)

Correll said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Since that is what it was, it can't possibly 'ring false'. nobody owed Germany an overseas empire, just because Wilhelm II wanted to have like his British cousins. He was handed some colonies to amuse himself with, but as usual with appeasements they only worsened the situation and made the little turd even more aggressive.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 30, 2017)

cnelsen said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > unfortunately... the war was cut short,
> ...



Yes. The failure to formally occupy Germany after its defeat created a whole host of problems, including the anarchy that left the crumbled state powerless against the rise of private armies on both the left and the right, especially the gangsters Hitler put together as his private army.


----------



## Picaro (Jun 30, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...



Obviously Germany would have continued to rattle sabres everywhere, just as it was doing in Europe; they would have been a destabilizing annoyance everywhere, as long as Wilhelm II was in control of the German military and foreign policy as Emperor.


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...




My point was that his desire for imperial expansion was the norm for the time, as demonstrated by British and French and even US, imperial war gains after they won.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 1, 2017)

Correll said:


> My point was that his desire for imperial expansion was the norm for the time, as demonstrated by British and French and even US, imperial war gains after they won.



And he deliberately started a war over it. Like I said, nobody else was obligated to kiss his ass over it and pander to his ego.


----------



## Correll (Jul 1, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > My point was that his desire for imperial expansion was the norm for the time, as demonstrated by British and French and even US, imperial war gains after they won.
> ...




The Conventional Wisdom of the time was that the way to advance your people's interest was to be a more successful imperial power.

Was it ego, or was he, from the perspective of the time, doing his job as leader of Germany?

IMO, the cause was the very idea of Imperialism, and looking for a single individual to blame is dangerously misleading.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 1, 2017)

Correll said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



No, it isn't 'misleading'; Wilhelm II had sole control of the military and foreign policy as a feudal power. So was the Russian Tsar. It was their personal decisions that mattered. Wilhelm I and Bismarck had rejected an imperialist policy, and they did so on purpose; blaming fashion for it is what is dangerously misleading, and this case it was key to Hitler's rise and the false gambit that Germany was somehow 'cheated' at Versailles that contributed a major factor to WW II.


----------



## Challenger (Jul 3, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > That's not the point, Germany was technologically and industrially already rivalling if not surpassing Britain, the actual numbers of ships weren't important, it was both the intent and the capability that alarmed the Admiralty. Regardless of anything else, a German threat to British naval supremacy, threatened the existance of the British Empire and such an existential threat could not be ignored or tolerated.
> ...


I admit I've never read The Pity of War, but I've read other books by Furguson, who though interesting has some unorthodox and provocative views. If the write up you link to is based on what is contained in the book then there's already a huge error, "indeed, the total British fatalities in that single battle—some 420,000—exceeds the entire American fatalities for both World Wars". Is incorrect, the official casualty reports of the Somme offensive state there were 419,654 dead, *wounded and missing.
*
As for the Great game, Britian contained any and every Russian attempt towards India and by 1907 the "Great Game" was effectively over. Russia was never a threat to Britain.


----------



## Challenger (Jul 3, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...


Interesting article, regardless of legal niceties, however, a blockade is not a violation of neutrality. Neutral ships can be stopped and searched for contraband or sunk if they fail to stop when ordered. if correct, what you have is a British "war crime" not a violation of neutrality, which was my point.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 7, 2017)




----------



## Challenger (Jul 12, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


>


...and your point is?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 19, 2017)

John Bassett Moore, professor of international law at Columbia wrote: "what most decisively contributed to the involvement of the United States in the war was the assertion of a right to protect belligerent ships on which Americans saw fit to travel and the treatment of armed belligerent merchantmen as peaceful vessels. Both assumptions were contrary to reason and to settled law, and no other professed neutral advanced them."

America Goes to War

These ships often carried munitions.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 19, 2017)

Here's Secretary of State Lansing: On the 4th of this month the German Ambassador called my attention to the fact that on two occasions German submarines were attacked and fired upon by British passenger steamers. While these may be isolated cases the fact that such vessels are attacking submarines makes it difficult to demand that a submarine shall give warning and so expose itself to the heavy guns carried by some of the British passenger vessels.

Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United                     States, The Lansing Papers, 1914–1920, Volume I - Office of the Historian


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 19, 2017)

Churchill authorized British ships to fly neutral flags.

He hoped to get neutral ships sunk.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 19, 2017)

Wilson armed American merchant ships and provided Navy crews to man the guns. The crews were authorized to fire on German submarines.

Information for Ship Owners Concerning the Armed Guard Program, 3/13/1917


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 19, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Historians Jonathan Shneer and James Gelvin have acknowledged that the British leadership supported Zionism in order to persuade American Zionist leaders to push the U.S. into WW I. Here’s a quote from Gelvin’s The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War: “Two of Wilson's closest advisors, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, were avid Zionists. How better to shore up an uncertain ally than by endorsing Zionist aims?” Zionist leaders like Samuel Landman admitted their role in entangling the U.S. in war: the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916


ISRAEL IS OUR SHIELD

Judeophobe traitors run cover for the jihad.  The dormant Islamic threat to civilization was well known by the wise in 1917. The sole reason the Jewish homeland was established was as a decoy to the next reign of terror.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 19, 2017)

Correll said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


In order to have a balance of power with the British Empire, French Empire, and Russian Empire, Germany needed to annex the Germanic-speaking countries of Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.  Germany lost both world wars because it was too small.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 19, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



the Nazis knew their economic plan was going to be complete failure by 1936. they needed to plunder their neighbors to stay in power. As for stripping Germany of its overseas colonies, that's what happens when you start a war you can't win, and besides American foreign policy was to end European colonial rule all over the world, in favor of free trade and independent states, long before Hitler came along, and that policy continued after WW II as well.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 20, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> The sole reason the Jewish homeland was established was as a decoy to the next reign of terror.


Could you explain this?


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 20, 2017)

Picaro said:


> As for stripping Germany of its overseas colonies, that's what happens when you start a war you can't win,


It is inappropriate to blame Germany alone for starting WW I.



> and besides American foreign policy was to end European colonial rule all over the world, in favor of free trade and independent states, long before Hitler came along, and that policy continued after WW II as well.


Not really.


----------



## Picaro (Jul 20, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > As for stripping Germany of its overseas colonies, that's what happens when you start a war you can't win,
> ...



Yes, it is, very much so. Wilhelm II is very much the cause of WW I, and nobody else. 



> Not really.



Yes, really. Both the 'free market' Republicans and the wing of the Democratic Party behind FDR advocated it.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 20, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > The sole reason the Jewish homeland was established was as a decoy to the next reign of terror.
> ...


ALLAHCAUST

For 1200 years, Islam had been bent on world conquest.  The most recent attempt at that had been led by the Turks and ended after their defeat in World War I.  It had gotten all the way to Vienna, where it peaked on SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH, 1683.  Wise European leaders predicted that a new jihad would arise, and that it would be led by the Arabs.  Because Europe was severely weakened by World War I and also lost its will to fight, this jihad could not be crushed unless two infidel outposts, Israel and Lebanon, were established deep in what the Arabs claimed was totally their own territory..  So the establishment of those two decoys was purely a military strategy and had nothing to do with the reasons you are told.  Of course, the West could not tell the Arabs outright how little it believed that peaceful coexistence was ever possible with such a hostile and fanatic religion.


----------



## Doc1 (Jul 20, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> How did the United States become entangled in World War I?
> 
> The United States was sucked into the Great War (World War I) 100 years ago in 1917.  The war did not serve American interests, rather the interests of certain British and American elites. Said elites employed propaganda to trick Americans into supporting the war.
> 
> ...



The only reason Wilson was elected was because of his willingness to be a stooge of the Elites. He agreed to facilitate the implementation of the Federal Reserve and  the income tax, they in turn agreed to get behind his campaign.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 21, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Europe felt threatened by the Arabs back in 1919??  Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## Doc1 (Jul 21, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...



I'm afraid so.

*"No war has had as big an impact on the modern Middle East as the First World War, which lasted from 1914-1918. The war signaled the end of the Ottoman Empire, a major world power since the fifteenth century, and the final victory of Western European imperialism. In the aftermath of the war, almost the entire Muslim world was occupied by foreign forces, something that had never happened before, not during **the Crusades**, **the Mongol invasion**, **or the Spanish Reconquista**. One of the most important (and most debated) aspects of WWI was the revolt of the Arabs against the Ottoman Empire. Was this revolt a manifestation of overwhelming Arab resistance to the Turkish Ottoman Empire, or just a small band of warriors who did not represent Arab sentiment at large?"* 

The Arab Revolt of World War One


----------



## Doc1 (Jul 21, 2017)

I love History, the problem with it though is that you have to be careful where you get it from. The first issue is that the winners always get to write it that means there are some inherent biases included. Then you have Howard Zinn and Oliver Stone revising it to fit their narratives, so you have to careful and diligent in deciding which ones to use.


----------



## Correll (Jul 21, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...




The British Empire was not based on the size of the British Islands. 

Hell, neither was the French.

It was about their industry and navies. Germany was well on it's way to fixing that.

Russia? Russia lost plenty of wars when it was far, far bigger than it's enemies.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 21, 2017)

Picaro said:


> Yes, it is, very much so. Wilhelm II is very much the cause of WW I, and nobody else.


"Both authors put a stake through the heart of a common narrative that has Germany mobilizing first so as to spring the preventive war its generals had long advocated. It didn’t."

‘The Sleepwalkers’ and ‘July 1914’



> Yes, really. Both the 'free market' Republicans and the wing of the Democratic Party behind FDR advocated it.


Britain and France were U.S. allies. Did FDR push Churchill to take apart the British Empire?

Remember many progressives favored imperialism.


----------



## Doc1 (Jul 21, 2017)

Correll said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Yup, it was about power and the projection there of.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 21, 2017)

Doc1 said:


> The Arab Revolt of World War One


So Europe was threatened by Muslims despite the fact that "*almost the entire Muslim world was occupied by foreign forces, something that had never happened before".*


----------



## Doc1 (Jul 21, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> > The Arab Revolt of World War One
> ...



Yup, it's pretty much the same right now and look at how effective they are.


----------



## Doc1 (Jul 21, 2017)

The ebb and flow of History is at it's core determined by the evolution and distribution of the weaponry being used at any given point in time.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 21, 2017)

Doc1 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Doc1 said:
> ...


At present Europeans are threatened by mass immigration. This was not a significant problem in 1919.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 21, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > ALLAHCAUST
> ...


BUYING TIME AS TIME MARCHES BACKWARD

Unlike those with no long-term historical memory, wise men correctly predicted that the jihad would rise again.  For decades, the establishment of the Jewish and Lebanese Christian decoys delayed the present attack on the West.  The ignorant or bribed pundits preach that the Nazislamis are has-beens like the Vikings, and that jihad against Infidelphia is ancient history.  We must not surrender our minds to short-sighted viewpoints.  Those suckered into believing in credentialed cretins are always in for a surprise.  Haven't you had enough of that?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 21, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Doc1 said:
> 
> 
> > The Arab Revolt of World War One
> ...


* The Blind Leading the Blinded *


Foreign forces that had been weakened by World War I and had to handle a new threat from Communism.  The Moslem Brotherhood, established in the 1920s, could foresee that the occupation by exhausted nations wouldn't last.  So the time was ripe to lay the groundwork for a new jihad.  World War II made the West even weaker.  Even though the attack on Israel in 1948 was pathetically premature, it signaled the widespread desire to renew the perpetual jihad.  The first victory was Algerian independence in the 1960s, but our ignorant leaders saw that as nationalism or even Communism.  We are still in denial, proven by the fact that our misleaders refer to a War on Terror rather than a War on Islam.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 21, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> The first victory was Algerian independence in the 1960s, but our ignorant leaders saw that as nationalism or even Communism.  We are still in denial, proven by the fact that our misleaders refer to a War on Terror rather than a War on Islam.


Islam is not the greatest threat to the U.S.  What percent of the American population is Muslim? What is the most powerful Islamic nation?  How can this nation harm the U.S.?  Isn't Communism led by the CCP a far more serious threat?


----------



## Correll (Jul 22, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > The first victory was Algerian independence in the 1960s, but our ignorant leaders saw that as nationalism or even Communism.  We are still in denial, proven by the fact that our misleaders refer to a War on Terror rather than a War on Islam.
> ...




The percentage of the us population can and will rise, the only question is how dramatically.

Our allies are even more at risk of this.


----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 22, 2017)

Correll said:


> The percentage of the us population can and will rise, the only question is how dramatically.
> 
> Our allies are even more at risk of this.


You're right some of the European countries are at risk.  Let them focus on combating Islam if they want.  Do you want the U.S. to defend Europe from Islam and then have the Europeans attack us for helping them? Remember the monster demonstrations in Europe against Bush and his wars?


----------



## Correll (Jul 22, 2017)

Thunderbird said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > The percentage of the us population can and will rise, the only question is how dramatically.
> ...



No, I do not want to defend Europe from their own stupidity.

Neither do I want to repeat it here, nor do I want to pretend that an Europe with a strong muslim population, won't be a problem for US.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jul 23, 2017)

Correll said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Dump the Muzzylovers and align with Russia and Serbia.


----------



## Challenger (Jul 24, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...













Whatever he's on, I want some! Wow, what complete and utter drivel. Oh, BTW the battle for Vienna started on *12th *September, not the 11th.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 24, 2017)




----------



## Thunderbird (Jul 24, 2017)

Mushroom said:


>


----------



## Correll (Jul 25, 2017)

Challenger said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Thunderbird said:
> ...




For a second I thought you were being so harsh on him BECAUSE he was* one day off* on when the battle started...

lol!


----------



## Challenger (Jul 25, 2017)

Correll said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Nah, anyone that can't spell "Holocaust" is to be pitied...


----------

