Posted on 11/23/2017 10:42:55 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Wonder why Pat focuses on Yemen, and not North Korea.
The British prevented American companies from selling FOOD in Germany; that was considered “contraband”. In the meantime, when the Lusitania was sunk it contained arms - and the German embassy in NY warned passengers embarking on it that the ship was a target because of those weapons.
I live within a dozen miles of TWO sites used by the US to violate our neutrality in WWI - Black Tom Island in Jersey City and the “Canadian Car and Foundry Company” in Lyndhurst NJ. Both were destroyed by pro-German saboteurs (though the Lyndhurst incident is less clear), and both were providing weapons to kill German troops before our entry into the war. Our neutrality was a hoax, exposed when we had to engineer an excuse to enter the war when Russia fell. There was plenty of justification for the Zimmermann telegram, considering our “un-neutral” actions; it was a convenient excuse for war (along with the Lusitania lie).
So I am coming to learn.
“I think Pat’s article is about a quarter of the whole story, and he misses a number of points. ...” [pepsionice, post 2]
“... Buchanan is correct in his analysis of post World War I. Our actions set in motion World War II. ...” [cdpiii, post 3]
Pat Buchanan is completely erroneous in his “analysis” (if it can be called that), and he has missed many points.
He may have been born in the United States, but he has permitted his anti-British sentiments to blind him to the realities of the strategic situation that predated World War One, and to strategic developments of the period 1919-1939. He is not alone in doing so: many Irish came to America to escape British rule, but they insisted on dragging along their prejudices and their antipathies, and have since delighted in indoctrinating their descendants to nurture old feuds and long-gone grievances.
Irish immigrants were not the first to come to these shores, then behave thus; many other ethnic or national subgroups have trod the same path.
A dimwitted response to the world’s realities: folks who fled oppression and terror of the Old World do themselves no favors by clinging to enmities. They make life more difficult for the rest of us, who have no stake in their unending squabbles, but who must deal with their griping, their ornery attitude, and their periodic temper tantrums.
Pat has been less than honest in describing the UK’s involvement and prosecution of its part in World War One, leaving out numerous important details:
Germans were not victims in the First World War.
They bore the bulk of responsibility, first egging on Austria-Hungary as they deliberately deceived the other Euro powers about what they were doing. Then, when war loomed, they attacked France and Belgium - not because there were ongoing disagreements, but because it was part of their plan. The German General Staff had for years harbored greater fears of the Russians; reckoning they would fare badly in a two-front war, they planned to hit the Western Allies first, knocking them out of the war. Then they would redeploy troops to the east, to finish off the Russian Army - a more massive foe, but one which would come to battle more slowly.
Merely the culmination of a pattern of German brinkmanship and agitation dating back a generation, to the moment when Otto von Bismarck was forced from power: every other nation was hoodwinked, insulted, fibbed to, and outmaneuvered.
The Germans also worked to seduce the Ottoman Turks, selling modern weapons, organizing and training troops, pouring capital into construction projects and other aspects of civil society. A major challenge to the British, who they reckoned to be competitors in the region. Ultimately, they succeeded in dragging the Turks into it on the side of the Central Powers.
But in 1914 and after, the Germans miscalculated.
They reckoned Czarist Russia would back down, but after a string of face-losing incidents, the Russians were in no mood to give in, to yet another German-contrived setback. Even then, the Germans figured it would be a short war - in their arrogance they assumed France would capitulate, that Italy (then an ally of Germany and Austria-Hungary) would protect the Central Powers’ southern flank, and that the Ottomans would materially aid in grinding down the Russian forces.
None of which happened as they expected: France held out, the Royal Navy contained the High Seas Fleet and rushed its own regular forces across the Channel, then transported troops from its own colonies, and those of the Allies, to the fronts.
The Ottomans dithered, the Italians refused to help the Germans, then switched sides. Serbia and the Balkan states proved much tougher to subdue than German staffers guessed. And despite early German successes against the Russians, Austro-Hungarian forces proved unable to make headway against the Czar’s armies.
The possibility that Britain would even become involved was never a factor in German planning nor diplomacy. By their standards, British ground forces were too small to notice, and they gave little thought to war at sea or blockades, reckoning their recently-built-up High Seas Fleet would forestall the Royal Navy.
Any war of a sea power (Britain) against a land power (Germany) is slow and cruel, courting stalemate. The Royal Navy retained naval superiority throughout World War One and brought all German trade via oceangoing traffic to a halt. Many smaller nations attempting to remain neutral (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden etc) were badly affected.
The United States did trade with the Allies, but could not maintain trade with the Central Powers, as America was not strong enough to challenge the British blockade, nor as a neutral could it stir up any sentiment to change the situation.
Germany was not helpless: it held the technological edge in submarine capabilities, but shrank at first from using subs against British merchant marine traffic; general opinion then was that attack without warning by subs against surface vessels was against accepted rules of conflict. Judging their situation otherwise hopeless, German leaders eventually began unrestricted submarine warfare; even before their final declaration in early 1917, German sub efforts of the “restricted” sort had Britain - a nation far more dependent on maritime trade than Germany - on the ropes and the end was foreseen by both nations to be mere months away.
100 years on, American upset at unrestricted submarine warfare can be looked on as naïve and backward-gazing. But it was a bigger deal in 1917 and was the proximate cause that brought the United States into the war.
Forum members ought to unconfuse themselves about “armistice” versus “peace treaty”.
The war was not over on 11 November 1918; Germany merely agreed to stop fighting for the moment. Britain did not flippantly decide to continue the blockade through June 1919 - the Allies did not trust the Germans and were thoroughly frightened over capabilities the German military still possessed.
Whether the Allies were too rough or too lax on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles is a question still unanswered; in his book _The Father of Us All_, Victor Davis Hanson wrote that a lasting peace will not occur unless the loser is defeated in truth, and made to feel beaten. This is an argument for unrelenting attack by the WWI Allies, and heavier oppression afterward. Resolve, and a stalwart resistance, are the only things an enemy understands. The Allies failed to do this after 1918, but made up for it in 1945.
Dating well back before 1914, the Americans have been very impressed with their own sense of morality and righteousness. Mostly, such self-aggrandizement has caused other nations to laugh, or to suspect subterfuge: denials of self-interest and appeals to universalism merely induce others (ally and enemy alike) to look harder for the “true” motives. Such claims work better when backed up by actual military capability - something Americans still condemn as inherently corrupting. Tends to give the lie to moralistic finger-wagging.
IF they get out.
Most of what I've seen of this, comes from foreign press or insider information. The American press is still participating in a massive coverup, and pretending they just can't understand the motive of the "Las Vegas Shooter".
Oh, any stories detrimental to Republicans, will absolutely get put out....HEADLINE, FRONT PAGE!
“The British prevented American companies from selling FOOD in Germany; that was considered “contraband”. ... when the Lusitania was sunk it contained arms ...
I live within a dozen miles of TWO sites used by the US to violate our neutrality in WWI ... both were providing weapons to kill German troops before our entry into the war. Our neutrality was a hoax, .... There was plenty of justification for the Zimmermann telegram, considering our “un-neutral” actions; it was a convenient excuse for war ...”
And here I was thinking Pat Buchanan’s “analysis” was deficient.
kearnyirish2 appears to have a blinkered view of personal morality, and to believe such rules ought to be applied to national policy.
Blockading imports of food into Germany might strike forum members as inhumane; they need to grow up. And to study up a little more, in order to gain a better understanding of what was really at stake during the period 1914-1918. Faulting the Allies at this late date is ex-post-facto moralizing: condemnation without any consequence. Also the worst form of presentism.
After starting the war, the German leaders had no right to be taken seriously, in any complaint about adverse impacts to their civil population. Their army in any event suffered no shortage of food nor ammunition, as they were living like kings, confiscating whatever they felt like from conquered territories, and putting the pinch on their own civil population.
The Allies would have been foolish to let their actions be influenced by any such complaint.
The Imperial German government was wracked by severe disagreement during most of the war, over unrestricted submarine warfare. Some factions thought it Germany’s best hope (including Army senior leaders; upper ranks of the Kaiserliche Marine flip-flopped); others (including the Chancellor) thought it would bring American intervention and German defeat. The first group lied to the second and concealed decisions, hoodwinking their own colleagues and countrymen as they went.
Arthur Zimmermann - a self-appointed “expert” on the United States - became German foreign minister in November 1916. He was the very model of the overbearing Teuton, and went out of his way to embody everything about Germans that Americans detested. While still assistant foreign minister during the Lusitania crisis, he threatened the American ambassador: mentioning the large population of German descent inside US borders, he said the 500,000 German reservists already on American soil would rise against the government (the ambassador responded with his own reminder that there were more than half a million lampposts in the country, on which the reservists would be strung up accordingly).
The mere hint was an act of war.
The German government decided to go ahead with unrestricted submarine warfare in early January 1917, but kept the decision secret from their own ambassador to the US until days before formal commencement; he was ordered to keep quiet until the public announcement hours before the start time of midnight, 31 January.
Foreign minister Zimmermann had already planned to propose a Mexican-German alliance (though he lied about it, and other particulars, to the US ambassador), offering Mexico financial support and US territory from Texas west to the California border; in return, Mexico was to open hostilities, and work to involve Japan. It was contingent on any failure of unrestricted submarine warfare to defeat the Allies
The scheme was sent (encrypted) by US State Dept diplomatic wire to the German ambassador to the US, in violation of that ambassador’s word to the US Secretary of State that it would not be used so; it was to be sent to the German ambassador in Mexico City in the event an American declaration of war against Germany appeared likely.
The British intercepted and decrypted the telegram, held it for almost three weeks, then gave the American ambassador to London a copy. In the interim, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Germany.
Comparing the dates of the telegram and the break in relations, the Americans found the Germans had committed another act of war.
In the context of the German acts of sabotage at Black Tom Island and Lyndhurst, kearnyirish2’s complaints about lack of American neutrality are looking more like a playground complaint of “he hit me first” coupled with spurious protests about legal procedural niceties tossed around by an increasingly desperate defense attorney.
All of which are trivial, compared to the following.
All we must do is ask ourselves this question: would we really wish to live in a world where Imperial Germany had gained the victory in the First World War?
“After starting the war, the German leaders had no right to be taken seriously,”
What a stupid thing to say...
“would we really wish to live in a world where Imperial Germany had gained the victory in the First World War?”
No, it was better to leave Britain, with its empire on which the sun never set and its hereditary monarchy...
To add to your excellent comments, this one point needs to be expanded on.
The Saudi's need oil prices near $100/barrel because of the social spending they ramped up to unsustainable measures when oil prices were artificially inflated.
They've had to dramatically cut back their social spending which is causing social unrest and labor issues in-country, which are not being reported here.
Finally, as we've seen, the fracking industry here in the US which started up/grew up on $80+ barrel oil has become far more efficient and has wrung out much of the cost of fracking. I've read that they can now profit on $45/barrel oil and that's significant because it means the Saudi's (and the rest of OPEC) can no longer flood the oil market to drive the Frackers out of business. Cheap, sustainable, guaranteed energy reserves which the USA now has is what is going to drive our economic and manufacturing revival. We're only on the very cusp of it now. The boom IS coming. We ain't seen nothing yet.
Never, EVER bet against America.
I'm not sure I care. Yemen is/was/remains a sanctuary for Al-Qaeda high level leadership. Yemen shielded OBL for years prior to 9-11.
In October, 2000 the USS Cole was attacked while it was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor and 39 of America's best died at the hands of terrorists that operated with impunity within Yemen's borders.
The Yemeni Government did their best to block our Intelligence folks from investigating that horrific terrorist attack and had our folks escorted out of country.
The laundry list of terrorist groups within Yemen's borders that are active is pretty long, so pardon me if I don't give a DAMN about the people of Yemen who should've cleaned up their own back yard long, long ago.
One sure way to find out: ask him if we should've dropped the Atomic Bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and see what he says.
By all historical accounts, doing so SAVED MILLIONS OF LIVES on both the Japanese and American sides as a conventional land war would've cost anywhere from 6,000,000 - 10,000,000 American and Japanese lives since Japan was prepared to fight to the death.
Pat is back up to his old Jew hating tricks, I see. Like most of his stuff it sounds far better in German.
L
Excellent point. You’ve convinced me. When the civil war happens we should wait to get as many of them together as we can then disappear them with whatever methods are available to us at the time.
Preferably as many of their leadership in one place as possible would be the best target. Cut the heads off the snakes and eventually the snake dies.
There will still be the problem of what to do with the rest of ‘em. It’s not like we could ever trust them to live among us without fear of them ramming a Kabar into our collective backs the second we turned away. Maybe some kind of laser frontal lobotomy to kill the offending crazy hate tissue present in all leftist brains. It may leave them at below, far below, average IQ levels but that’s an issue for most of them now anyway.
What we really need, and I’m going off into sci-fi land now, is one of those “Men in Black” light things that reprogram the leftist brain into thinking normally; not just erase their memory of recent events.
““After starting the war, the German leaders had no right to be taken seriously,” [my post 47]
What a stupid thing to say... [kearnyirish2, post 48]
“would we really wish to live in a world where Imperial Germany had gained the victory in the First World War?” [my post 47]
No, it was better to leave Britain, with its empire on which the sun never set and its hereditary monarchy...” [kearnyirish2, post 48]
If kearnyirish2 believes I’m defending everything the Imperial British have done since 1700 (or even before), he is in error.
In an attempt to puzzle out what vexes ki2 so greatly about the British Empire versus German Empire, 1914-1918, I’m going to venture the guess that he is sure that person-to-person, individual morality is exactly the same as the morality of interactions between nation-states.
The two cannot be made to equate. And they cannot be made to: they have to be different, because an individual is one person, while a nation is composed of many people.
Whether the inequality leads to the assertion that “all colonialism is equally evil” is another question: it might comfort citizens who swear by the truism that “the lesser of two evils is still evil”, but it’s of no value in making policy. In any event, pinning down the origins isn’t necessary, as the assertion is not true.
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.