WWI, Why America?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Albert chose war for his people and certain destruction for his country for a matter of pride.

No he didn't- he abided by the treaty which guaranteed Belgium's independence by remaining neutral in a conflict that Germany seemed determined to have at any cost with France.

The more cynical among us might suspect a bribe, but that is another story.

Well given your proclivity for making up history from airy thinness, I'm astonished you don't already have the scoop on this non-occurrence.

His predecessor, known for his cupidity, had resisted bribery, and he had resisted the allure of German offers.

If you have any hard evidence of British or French or who knows, Andorran attempts at bribery, then please let us all see it.

Otherwise, this is just a rather pitiful attempt at muddying the waters.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned



When Wolfe, the misanthropic "leader" of the British army in Canada, raped New France, and kept it up, do you know what the New-France born govenor did? He surrendered, but on condition that the rights of the French Catholics be respected.

I'm frankly overwhelmed at the efforts of one British general, who manages to sexually assault a whole French North American territory with presumably only his male member.

In this lurid retelling of pre-Canadian history, not only do you do an injustice to Wolfe, you also overindulge your tendency to anti-British hyperbole- yet again.

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by Ned


How did England deal with Holland in the war? Did it blockade it knowing that any shipments to Holland could easily be transhipped to Germany?

If you actually read peoples posts instead of speaking rubbish you'd have seen that I had already answered this.

[Ned]

kittenOFchaos, I just re-read your posts. Indeed you did say that it was OK for Britain to violate the sovereignty of a neutral country, in this case, Holland, by blockading it (an act of war) so that goods could not reach Germany. You also said that Germany was the most vile country of the last century and needed to be put down. Finally you said that Germany could not be allowed to be the #1 power in Europe (that role being reserved for the Brits).

I think it fair to say that the more you Brits talk, the more it becomes clear that the real country that needed to be put down in the last century was the more than arrogant Briton. Given that you have this attitude TODAY, it should give all Europeans pause about associating with such an arrogant nation.

[TheStinger]

I don't know why I do this but here we go

the Uk has not for centuries been interested in being no 1 in europe it main policy was to ensure no one became dominant in europe hence the myriad of alliances in the 18th and 19 th centuries.

Oh and Ned are you now saying it would have been better of a Hitler dominated germany to dominate europe

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I think it fair to say that the more you Brits talk, the more it becomes clear that the real country that needed to be put down in the last century was the more than arrogant Briton. Given that you have this attitude TODAY, it should give all Europeans pause about associating with such an arrogant nation.

Do you think abuse, hyperbole and hot air are substitutes for facts and argument ?


Breaking news-they aren't.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I don't know why I do this but here we go

the Uk has not for centuries been interested in being no 1 in europe it main policy was to ensure no one became dominant in europe hence the myriad of alliances in the 18th and 19 th centuries.

Oh and Ned are you now saying it would have been better of a Hitler dominated germany to dominate europe

Rule Britannia. Britannia Rule the waves....

And, I think history has judged that if there were no WWI or Versailles, the shape of the 20th century would have been radically different. There would have been no Hitler, no genocide of the Roma, Armenians or Jews and perhaps no communist state in Russia.

US dominance would not have occurred.

The ME would look a lot different.

Back to Germany.

Rule Britannia. Britannia rule the waves....

The real threat Germany posed was to Britain's dominance of the seas. Had Germany succeeded, Britain would no longer have been the dominant power in Europe, and, with the rise in the American and Japanese navies, no longer the dominant power in the world.

There may eventually have been a world war. But, then again, there may not have been. A lot of what happens in the world even today finds its origins in WWI.

[Arrian]

This thread is a trainwreck.

A lot of what happens in the world even today finds its origins in WWI.

Is this supposed to be insightful? History influences current events? WOW!

-Arrian

[Ned]

Yeah, and anyone who questions the right of the mighty British to push people around (like us Irish) are automatically labelled Nazis. The Brit propaganda machine never gives up. They will fight you on the beachs, on the landing zones, on the streets and in the hills. They will never surrender even one inch to their foes.

[Arrian]

I'm tempted to get my (Irish) friend Tom, who is a history grad like me and is currently working on his PhD to log on and tell you how full of ****e you are. But that would be an utter waste of Tom's time.

-Arrian

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
Yeah, and anyone who questions the right of the mighty British to push people around (like us Irish) are automatically labelled Nazis. The Brit propaganda machine never gives up. They will fight you on the beachs, on the landing zones, on the streets and in the hills. They will never surrender even one inch to their foes.

Your choice of supporting material might contribute to the situation.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Armenians or Jews

Armenian massacres took place even before the outbreak of WWI- as did pogroms of Jews in Tsarist Russia.

Jewish massacres had been an unpleasant feature of Catholic and Arian Europe, from the reign of the Visigoths, through the era of the Crusades, the Reconquista, the Black Death and so on.


Really, you should learn some history before opening your mouth betimes.


And as for this 'cry me a green river Irish crap' of yours -

my parents were Irish immigrants in this country, as were my grandparents and other relatives.

My father was almost killed in the bombing of Coventry, and I have relatives who were in the Fenian Brothers, and others who were in the British Army and who fought in the R.A.F. and died defending Great Britain.

I also happen to have dual nationality.

But what I don't have is some bizarre atavistic urge to blame all the ills of the modern world on the British- including, bizarrely, the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.


Good grief.

[Dr Strangelove]

By the beginning of the 20th century the US was already the foremost economy in the world. European financiers, even the British one made more money from American investments than they did from investments in their own colonies. American economic dominance was an established fact before the first Uhlan crossed into Belgium.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
By the beginning of the 20th century the US was already the foremost economy in the world. European financiers, even the British one made more money from American investments than they did from investments in their own colonies. American economic dominance was an established fact before the first Uhlan crossed into Belgium.

Uhlans - isn't that the troops that had a fancy for church candles to wax their moustaches ?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Uhlans - isn't that the troops that had a fancy for church candles to wax their moustaches ?

A certain type of German light cavalry were named the Uhlans, which I believe means "Hun" in german. According to Barbara Tuchman Kaiser Willi however sometimes referred to his troops in general as Uhlans.