Third time lucky, for Germany?

[Hauldren Collider]

Well the US wasn't that much of a factor in WWI, but the Germans were still failures. If they could have fought better maybe teh spring offensive would have worked.

It was still relevant in the sense that we didn't decide to help Germany. Had we sided with the Germans, I don't know if the British could have won.

[giblets]

So you think the Germans failed in WWI because they miscalculated and thought American public opinion would be in favor of helping the Germans? How does that theory square with the fact that the Germans wanted to assist Mexico with an attack on the US?

edit: apparently this was after the Germans were planning to piss off the US with unrestricted submarine warfare. But still, it's not clear to me that the Germans thought the US would want to join the war on their side.

[Hauldren Collider]

As I recall, initially the Germans attempted to improve their standing with the United States but recognized that it was a lost cause sometime after the Lusitania sank.

[giblets]

Did they attempt to improve standing because they wanted the US to join them, or did they attempt to improve standing because they hoped it would stop the US from declaring war on Germany?

[MikeH]

Why? If I was European I wouldn't give a **** about how strong "Europe" is measured against other dick-measuring units like the US or China; I'd care about how I was doing (and my family and friends). **** nationalism.

Exactly. **** nationalism.

[Provost Harrison]

You know Yanks, most of the hard work in reversing the war had been done by the time you'd arrived to the party and we were gaining the upper hand. But you keep telling yourself that you saved the world. It required a team effort. Arrogant pr*cks

And yeah, we're so impoverished in the UK...we have problems but we are by no means unique...

[dannubis]

Exactly. **** nationalism.

Word

[Cort Haus]

Exactly. **** nationalism.

Does this mean **** self-determination though? As in, abolish national governments, elections, and that sort of thing, and govern Europe from one place, by one authority, with no opposition, as was intended in the 30's?

I am as opposed to narrow national chauvinism as anyone, but I am also opposed to authoritarianism, and it concerns me that the EU is marching people towards the latter while giving them placards to wave against the former, to make them feel good about themselves and to trick them into thinking they are doing the right thing.

As I said above, there is a difference between a co-operating Europe and a unified, dominated Europe.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Hell, even France is ok with being the cooler younger brother to lead the EU family together with Germany as the responsible-yet-nerdyOlder brother - realizing that this is not the time to play a dick-measuring contest, as Europe importance in the world is fading....

But not the UK. The Brits have to wave the union jack, and thump their ****ing chests at the fact they are led by a pleasant, slightly snobby grandma, and span a vast empire, which inludes both Akritiri and the Falklands, while internally, their society is experiencing decay and even Scotland thinks of independence....

I love you Brits, I honestly do. but you are like a classic example of all that is wrong in western Europe. A deadly mixture of living in the past classism with a cultural void mixing as a multiculturalism. All of the decay of traditional industry with none of the high-tech or machine and instrumentation building to replace it. All of the banking without any of the saving.

Brits, I think it's intervention time.

time to kick UK out of EU, and everybody would be happy, English and Europeans... Perhaps Scotland can split from the Union and join EU, while English and Welsh continue on the independent path

[Az]

Why? If I was European I wouldn't give a **** about how strong "Europe" is measured against other dick-measuring units like the US or China; I'd care about how I was doing (and my family and friends). **** nationalism.

Do you honestly think that those are not related in any manner? let us generalize this - do you believe that lower-level systems (humans, in this case) are not affected by the state of the higher-level systems (societies and states) that they are a part of? Or do you think that short-term welfare of the average european citizen is what we need to optimize for? I think that ensuring sustainable, healthy, competitive societies on the long run is optimal for the welfare of citizens.

Out of the northern euro countries, the UK does the most to promote iternational integration; in particular, it has significantly higher net migration rates than either France or Germany.

intra-european ones, or international ones? I was speaking of european integration.

-
**** off. The German early twencen psycho-state was largely responsible for the horrors of WWI and ESPECIALLY WWII.

Well, you have no argument about the 2nd one, but 1st one? the 1st one was triggered by the decay of Austro-Hungaria, and was caused by the Entente created to contain Germany. How was the pre-WW1 German empire any worse than the French, British, or especially the Russian one?

The only thing standing in the way is that the Jerries can't fight as well as they hoped they could.

Ahh, yes. Look, my grandfather was fighting against the nazis, and my greatgrandmother was killed by them. you can fully trust me that I have more personal emotional baggage against Germany. In any case, WW1 was won first and foremost by the US, and led to an agreement that was gleefully unfair in assigning blame, a fact acknowledged by the UK itself, as the peace made with Germany after a truly horrifying nightmare or a regime was defeated.

[MikeH]

Does this mean **** self-determination though?

The balance is about right at the moment in terms of power, but I'd like the EU side of it to be more representative and accountable.

[Traianvs]

The balance is about right at the moment in terms of power, but I'd like the EU side of it to be more representative and accountable.

At first thought you'd think nobody would disagree with that. In reality, it's usually the anti-integrationist side that tries to keep power away from the European parliament (as well as its reform, for it to become more representative), and instead attempts to keep power at the Council level.

Instead of moving towards a more powerful (but more integrationist) parliament, many important decisions are still brokered behind the scenes in multilateral deals, many of which are not transparant for regular citizens as to why and how they were decided. Their entire strategy and approach is just counterproductive to their argument and their best interest.

It's an exaggeration that self-determination would disappear in a more integrationist Europe. Most of these people fear the loss of their culture and identity above all, but I'm fairly certain they will hold out even in a more politically unified Europe.

[MikeH]

I think if anything the examples within the UK show that integrated smaller nations like Wales/Scotland hold their cultural identities even more keenly.

[Dauphin]

In any case, WW1 was won first and foremost by the US

Only if your analysis is that the US decided who won by which side it entered on. A bit of a poor analysis, as that would be true for any of the major powers if they had been "on the other side".

[C0ckney]

he could have meant that the US was the winner in the sense it emerged as the foremost power after the war. however, it's more likely that it was a poor analysis/ignorance about what actually happened.