Tweet
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
James Loewen, not Postman. http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/
Postman wrote, Amusing Ourselves to Death
James Loewen, not Postman. http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/
Postman wrote, Amusing Ourselves to Death
-
Ah, you are correct. Thank you.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh -
You did? I thought you had to sign a humiliating seperate peace with the Germans after collapsing into anarchy.BTW, there was a good side to WWI . . . the Reds. We ended the war.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
...and fought a devastating civil war instead.Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, there was a good side to WWI . . . the Reds. We ended the war.BlahComment
-
After being struck by a horrible act of terrorism, Austria-Hungary started a War on Terror (tm) in Serbia. Germany joined the Coalition of the Willing and was hence, together with Austria, the good side. The Triple Entente was not with us, that means they were against us, which makes them terrorist supporters and hence, the bad side. And the USA are the bad guys by definition.
Seriously, though, WWI didn't have a good side, only bad ones.Comment
-
Are you channeling Ned?Originally posted by BeBro
Wasn't is caused by British aggressors? They were obviously the bad guys, as always.
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!Comment
-
You know the funny thing is that what triggered the war was Austria-Hungary's demand to be allowed to send it's own people into Serbia to ensure the suppression of the terrorists, yet during the same time period when the US did the same thing to Mexico in order to pursue Pancho Villa it didn't trigger a world war.Originally posted by Sir Ralph
After being struck by a horrible act of terrorism, Austria-Hungary started a War on Terror (tm) in Serbia. Germany joined the Coalition of the Willing and was hence, together with Austria, the good side. The Triple Entente was not with us, that means they were against us, which makes them terrorist supporters and hence, the bad side. And the USA are the bad guys by definition.
Seriously, though, WWI didn't have a good side, only bad ones.
Ultimately though the war was about colonial imperialism and the greed of Western Civilization. It was really about the lack of honor among thieves."I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!Comment
-
Somebody has to do itOriginally posted by Dr Strangelove
Are you channeling Ned?
BlahComment
-
That's true, why go to other countries when there are plenty of people to kill at home.Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, there was a good side to WWI . . . the Reds. We ended the war.
Worked out great for almost 80 years.
ACK!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!Comment
-
Re: Was there a good side and bad side in ww1?
Prove it.Originally posted by Barnabas
It seems to me that unlike ww2 (in ww2 the allies were clearly the good guys and the axis the bad guys),
Good and Evil aren't proper concepts, don't use them in societal comparison.
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.â€
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez DávilaComment
-
AH more or less followed Germany's instructionst, they where very much the junior parter.Originally posted by Ecthy
Or told Austria to shut the fvck up and take care of their balkan business on their own rather than handing them carte blanche.Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.â€
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez DávilaComment
-
Originally posted by lord of the mark
somehow Im kind of doubting that our Euro friends delved deep into the causes of WW1 at an earlier age than we Yanks do high school - they can correct me here.
correctedModern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.â€
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez DávilaComment
-
Hmm. I don't recall learning that there was an "evil" side in WWI. I recall it being presented as a tragic consequence of the arms race, secret alliances and poor choices (blank check), with an assassination as the trigger for the "powder keg." We also looked at various other possible triggers in the years leading up to WWI that didn't, somehow, set it off. There was discussion of blame - not as in "this country as bad/evil" but more "this government was mostly responsible for triggering the (possibly inevitable) war." And Germany does do poorly there, for a number of reasons. But there is blame to go 'round.
This was in high school, which IMO is good, b/c trying to do stuff like that in elementary or middle school would've been too much.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
Originally posted by lord of the mark
somehow Im kind of doubting that our Euro friends delved deep into the causes of WW1 at an earlier age than we Yanks do high school - they can correct me here.
here they teach us these things on 8th grade, and 8th graders are 14.
yes, but that was summer of '18. I was talking about October '18.Originally posted by molly bloom
In fact the German Offensives in 1918 had run out of steam- they were losing disproportionately large amounts of elite troops for very little ground or advantage gained.
Originally posted by yaroslav
I do not think that it would have been easy for England to go and help France had Germany not invaded Belgium. The invasion of Belgium was a gambit: if Germany was able to reach Paris early enough, it would be a very good move, otherwise, very bad one. It ended being a very bad one, even if Germans were close to capture Paris.
england and france were allies after all. and england ruled the seas, but could they afford to let germany rule the continent? no, and to prevent that they needed france.
yes it was a gambit, but Paris was not the main price. main price was catch french army between hammer and anvil. and it allmost succeeded.
Last edited by Andemagne; February 4, 2008, 19:26.My Words Are Backed With Bad Attitude And VETERAN KNIGHTS!Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed. When you population is starving to death and your last gasp offensive fails, there is nothing you can do.
well, one could play total defence and "outlast" the enemy. remember attacker needs more resources and takes more casulties. and maybe germany could have achieved "status ante bellum"-peace with this. I wonder how much troops they still had in russia in the fall of '18?
Good and Evil not proper concepts. tell me more about this.Originally posted by Heraclitus
Prove it. Good and Evil aren't proper concepts, don't use them in societal comparison.
Originally posted by Arrian
We also looked at various other possible triggers in the years leading up to WWI that didn't, somehow, set it off.
this too is something that I would like to hear more about.Last edited by Andemagne; February 4, 2008, 19:38.My Words Are Backed With Bad Attitude And VETERAN KNIGHTS!Comment
-
Originally posted by DinoDoc
You did? I thought you had to sign a humiliating seperate peace with the Germans after collapsing into anarchy.BTW, there was a good side to WWI . . . the Reds. We ended the war.Originally posted by BeBro
...and fought a devastating civil war instead.
chegitz meant the reds in germany, the ones that stabbed the army in the back.
what would have happened if the germans hadn't had it together enough to crush the reds? red weimar?Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Let's not forget the 100 days offensive and Reds organizing all over the place. The Allies are lucky that Germany had it together enough to be able to crush the Reds.My Words Are Backed With Bad Attitude And VETERAN KNIGHTS!Comment
Comment