Yeah, we all know how well that worked out the last time.
Posted on 03/31/2014 12:58:28 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Germany has said its air force is ready to increase security on NATO’s border with Russia, despite Moscow’s promise not to escalate the crisis in Ukraine.
A German defense ministry spokeswoman told the Reuters news agency on Sunday (30 March) “the army could take part in flights to patrol airspace with AWACS machines [surveillance planes] over Romania and Poland as well as training flights in the framework of a NATO air policing mission over Baltic states”.
The statement comes after Denmark and the US in the past few weeks agreed to send more than a dozen extra F-16 fighter jets to the region.
It also comes after the Pentagon, on Friday, told NATO’s military chief, US general Philip Breedlove, to return from Washington to the NATO HQ in Brussels.
Its spokesman said the move “does not foreshadow imminent military action in Ukraine”. But he added that “lack of transparency” and “growing uncertainty” over Russia’s mobilization of tens of thousands of troops on Ukrainian borders merits caution. …
(Excerpt) Read more at euobserver.com ...
What turned sentiment against the Germans was a combination of the British Propaganda machine (remember the Germans executing Edith Cavell, a British Nurse?), the German's unrestricted Submarine warfare (at the time, sinking ships by secret was considered a barbaric act), and the Zimmerman Telegram.
The Germans in WW I were a nasty bunch, but the British and French were no angels, and the WW I Germans were much better people than the WW II Nazis.
“Sorry, but Russia doesn’t need a buffer zone— no one in their right mind thinks NATO is a threat to Russia.”
Who says they’re reasonable people or see the same world picture we do? I agree, NATO is a toothless tiger. But it is still a tiger. The Russians are (understandably) paranoid.
I don't buy that. Obama intervenes all over the place...just for weird reasons, or for reasons that reduce American standing and power.
He's a classic do-gooder in Foreign Policy. He would intervene for humanitarian reasons, but not to protect real US interests.
Is this really going to go down? Geez.
Woodrow Wilson knew in 1916 that we were going to war; the Zimmerman Telegram (in hindsight) made perfect sense due to the US so blatantly violating neutrality. Germany knew which side we were on, and acted accordingly.
The Germans in WWI were no worse than the French or British; many colonized people felt the Germans (with their smaller empire) were better than Britain or France.
WWII Nazis came from various countries; SS units in particular recruited heavily in other countries. Any Nazi was worse than any of the players in WWI; from 1914 to 1918 countries still tried to keep some civility in the execution of the war.
Where was Obama’s last intervention? Can anyone depict him to be at least as hawkish as Dubya Bush, i.e. apart from the überlibs?
Remember how the War on Terror became the “overseas contingency operation” and terrorist attacks (briefly) became “man-caused disasters”. Any perceived “intervention” (and I’ve yet to see anything on a large scale, i.e. other than a few drone strikes and SEAL incursions; I’m sure Team 6 is so thankful to the CIC) has been more than counterbalanced by the retreats on the world stage. The biggest one—reducing our standing forces to pre-WWII levels—is in progress unabated.
No worse? Let’s see; it wasn’t the Brits that engaged in “unrestricted submarine warfare” or started using chemical warfare.
Also sounds like you never heard of the Herero and Namaqua Genocide. That was on the Second Reich.
Yeah, we all know how well that worked out the last time.
And the last thing we should do is show any deference to their "paranoia," first of all because it gives a patina of legitimacy to their brutality, and second because it only encourages them further.
It is unfortunate that the Soviet Union was defeated in the Cold War but not beaten the way Germany and Japan were in WWII.
well isn;t that nice BUT
as 1 soviet genearal said to another as they drank wine in a cafe in paris
“so who won the air war?”
“Also sounds like you never heard of the Herero and Namaqua Genocide. That was on the Second Reich.”
They can’t hold a candle to what Britain did around the globe for centuries; no comparison at all.
As I have said, repeatedly, the only geopolitical question of significance in Europe is “where is the border between Germany and Russia?”
All of which you can’t name, seemingly. The British Empire may have wars to its name, but no genocides; anyone still believing the leftist propaganda against them has some serious problems to overcome.
I suppose that India would have liked to have the Thuggees back, for one example of the contrary?
Don't mention the war and for heavens sake don't bring up the Brit concentration camps/genocide.
What!
When/where did that happen!
Don't bring up the Boar war, where the oh so saintly British killed Dutch farmers, imprisoned people (women and children) in concentration camps, took Dutch settled land....to enslave blacks and control gold/diamonds in South Africa.
You should get out more.
Remind me why the Brits were attacked in the first place?
Both wars were incredibly tragic. And Kitchener was quite incompetent. Genocide is questionable even with the scorched earth policy (which affected both sides; the Brits ended up destroying their own supplies) and the concentration camps.
And this has nothing to do with WW1.
Nor does it have aught to do with the actions of Germany and Russia today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.