Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I call bull**** since AQ had been attacking America for quite sometimwe during his term.

Call Bull**** all you like but we both know it is true. Killing 3000 American civilians calls for a different response then damaging a Naval ship.

[Dinner]

BTW the allies were in a much better position militarially in 1936 compared to Germany and even in 1939 on paper they were better off then the Germans. The German army continually expanded and recieved new equipment during the run up to war but the lose of the forts in the Sudatenland was a really big blow because it almost assured Czechoslovakia would cease to exist where as before it would have been a useful front against the Germans. It's doubtful the Germans could successfully defend against Poland, Czechoslovakia and a UK/French assault in 1938.

Hell, even in 1939 and 1940 the UK & France had more tanks then the Germans and more troops at the front but their old WW1 tactics lead them not to attack into German, which they easily could have done, and instead sat behind prepared lines for the Germans to attack. History would be very different if the allies had launched a serious offensive in 1939.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Call Bull**** all you like but we both know it is true.

Do we? Anyway what sort of response is called for by the attacks on American soil carried out in 1998 that killed 213 and injured an estimated 4000? Bombing tents again?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Do you know why the French went after Prussia in 1870?

Come back when you gain a clue about what you are talking about.

Yes, I do-its called the Austro-Prussian war and the attempt by Prussia for a "klein-Deutschland" union, includi9ng the Catholic states of Southern Germany like Bavaria. But of course, if you knew much, you would know that Bismark engineered that war- Prussia wanted the 1870 war- why they played the games with Spanish succession.

Oh, did you remember that bit NYE?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Some educational material for you, GePap.

http://static.highbeam.com/p/politicalsciencequarterly/june221997/armscontrolandtheanglogermannavalracebeforeworldwa/

That Europe's two leading powers were competing head-to-head in the building of battleships was indeed a striking feature of world politics during the period 1906-1914. To the generation of statesmen and naval leaders involved, this contest appeared as nothing less than a struggle for mastery in Europe and hegemony of the world's oceans. With these high stakes at risk, it is not surprising that the Anglo-German naval rivalry is often thought of as a herald of the fierce struggle soon to be waged by the great powers during World War I.

That was when diplomacy was being chucked, and the pounds were being put on the table.

Hmm, lets look at the dates- 1906 to 1914...OH yes, thats DECADES of seeking to limit german power as you claim, right? Or are we talking about some problem with lingusitics? Here is a clue: 1914-1906= 8 years. 8<10, hence, less than a decade of tensions. DEVADES would have to be more then 1 decade, hence, say 2, decades- 1914-20=1894... So the UK was part of the anti-German entenet in 1894? Really!? Link for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

The conflict marked the culmination of tension between the two powers following Prussia's rise to dominance in Germany, still a loose federation of quasi-independent territories.

The war began over the possible accession of a German candidate to the Spanish throne, which was opposed by France. The French issued an ultimatum to the king of Prussia, who refused...

France's defeat, the unification of Germany and the resulting final unification of Italy swept away the old balance of power that existed in European politics and completely redrew the political map. Republicanism again became mainstream politics in France, while militarism moved to the forefront in Germany. The bitterness felt by many French following their defeat and the unease with which the other Great Powers viewed the new Germany was the start of a chain of events which led directly to World War I and World War II.

Hmmm, what does it sound like France was doing? Challenging for a beer trophy?

Finally, this one gives a really good chuckle, given your earlier question.

Yes, knuclkehead, France was trying to get back at Germany after their humiliation in 1871- NOT the UK though, as you claimed that the UK and France had been working together vs Germany for decades. Until bismarck got kicked out it was Germany that had succeeded in isolating France, not the other way around. It was only once the Weltpolitik crowd got to power that the containment of France fell apart and relations with the UK soured.

http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/empires/0055.html

The Fashoda Crisis (1898)
The Berlin Conference set the rules for the division of Africa, but it also made the colonial powers even more aggressive in their pursuit of unclaimed territory. A pattern was emerging between the two greatest colonial countries.

France was clearly expanding in a west to east direction, from French West Africa to French Somaliland, while Britain had expanded in a north-south direction, from Egypt to the Cape. The point where the two axes crossed was the Sudan. Here a small French expedition, under Major Marchand, reached Fashoda, on the Upper Nile, in 1898. This was followed, only two months later, by a much bigger British force under Lord Kitchener. The two leaders did not know whether to sit down and have a drink together or fight. Both claimed Fashoda and the Sudan for their own countries.

In London and Paris, for the last time in their histories, there was talk of war between Britain and France. However, the diplomats knew it was absurd for their countries to go to war over a distant African village. Quietly, an agreement was reached. France would recognise the British presence in Egypt and Sudan and Britain would recognise France's presence in Morocco. With colonial differences settled, the two countries could concentrate on a far more pressing subject; coming together in an Entente Cordiale to face a common danger -Germany.

Do you mean to say that WW1 just happened to come about in the first six months of 1914? How ignorant are you?

So your defense is poor historical writing? Sad really.

And no, I did not say what you claim in your last statement- all I did was to point out you claim that the UK and France had been working for many decades prior to WW1 to contain German power was wrong. The UK became increasingly alarmed as the Germans became more expansionist, but it took their support of the Boers and the Navals build-up to get them to patch things up with France and Russia.

Its sad to see your simplistic vision of history streches the vasteness of history. I would suggest going to a library and reading a few book slowly, to try to get a better understanding...

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do we? Anyway what sort of response is called for by the attacks on American soil carried out in 1998 that killed 213 and injured an estimated 4000? Bombing tents again?

Well, lets see, the response to that attack, whcih killed 11 Americans lead to bombings in two countries of suspected terrorist sites.

The 1983 attacks that lead to 283 Dead US military personel, OH, plus the one that killed about 60 people in the CIA station, that lead to what? A few Shells at the hills and a pull back?

[GePap]

Lets continue to myth busting:

On Versailles: Versailles was not a particularly successful treaty system from the start: the US, after making so many suggestions, stays out of the whole thing, and the treaty helped bring to power a dictatorship in Italy (lets no forget part of Mussolini's arguements was that Italy got shafted at the peace table). The reparations system fell apart thanks to the depression, so by 1935 keeping Versailles alive does not seem that great an aim.

Lets also not forget one of the supposedly most important parts to Versailles, the idea of self-determination that called for all these new Eastern European countries. The funny bit is that for all the talk about self-determination, the Magyar and German people's were specifically denied self-determination. Such bald faced hypocrasy does wear down the system over time. Until March 1939, almost every signle move by Hitler fits the notion of German self-determination. Isn't it a German right to defend themselves (re-armament in '35)? Isn't it the German's right to full sovereignty on all its territory part of self-determination? (Rhur in '36) Isn't the peaceful unity of the German people part of self determination? (Anschluss, '38). And finally, if the Sudeten Germans want to join the Fatherland, why should they not have that right? (the Munich conference, '38).

Whats the arguement then for war? Defend the inequality of Versailles! Yeah, lets go to war over that! Beside, lets say war with germany is picked again- what do the other great powers do? Are the colonial empires free of Japanese interference? What will the Italians do? What will the Bolsheviks do? What happens with the war in Spain?

It is in March of '39, by invading obviosuly non-German lands and ruining the self-determination of the Czech people (the Slovaks got their own rump state) it is clear that Hitler is not only interested in restoring German power, but in expanding German reach.

All in all, the weakness and lack of coordination between the UK and France and other smaller states from March 39 to September 39 has more to do with the problems of the war than Munich. Had the allies been able to block the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact then things might have gone very differently, along with another long listof could have beens.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, lets see, the response to that attack, ... bombings ... of suspected terrorist sites.

I believe I said bombing empty tents was the response. I will grant you that I forgot to mention the fact we bombed the evil asprin factory in Sudan.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I believe I said bombing empty tents was the response. I will grant you that I forgot to mention the fact we bombed the evil asprin factory in Sudan.

Yes, you stated an opinion. Fine. Clinton's move was well within the accepted response set by the Holy Reagan. You dare say that by Following Reagan's example Clinton did wrong!?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I see we plan to play the game of examples of timid responses of the former. Yay, as we can simply pin this then completely on the chicken**** Carter.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, you stated an opinion. Fine.

I actually took issue with the a statement Oerdin made. No opinion required. You however have yet to prove that Oerdin's position correct.

[Sprayber]

It's all Washington's fault for his timid response to the Whiskey Rebellion. So Clinton is off the hook

Or better yet he was taking a cue from his namesake Jefferson who tottally let the terrorist Barbary Pirates get off easy.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's the only thing you found wrong with that collection of BS he called a post?

No, but it was the only bit that called for a sarcastic oneliner with a sheep reference.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Friggin ***** wimp Washintgton...

[DinoDoc]

The sheep reference would have been better coming from MikeH.