Posted on 07/28/2023 11:25:39 PM PDT by Angelino97
Because the Brits had a naval blockade of Germany, forbidding American ships from going there. Why should we have put our ships in peril to aid Britain, if we were truly a neutral?
No, you do. You're too blinded by anti-German hate to see clearly.
All the European Great Powers were eager for a brief war to settle some scores.
* Austria-Hungary wanted to put the Balkans in their place.
* As did the Ottoman Turks.
* France wanted to avenge their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (which France started), and regain Alsace and Lorraine.
* Britain was looking for an excuse to destroy the growing German navy and thus secure Britain's "rule" over the seas.
* Germany dreamed of overseas colonies.
* As did Italy.
Yet of all the participants, Germany and Russia were least eager for war. Germany was especially wary of a two-front war. The Kaiser and the Tsar famously exchanged telegrams in the weeks before the war, begging the other to back off so they wouldn't have to go to war.
France and Austria-Hungary were most eager for war.
The Germans still had the High Seas Fleet - and more than held their own at Jutland. All they had to do was use that fleet to sortie out again and conclusively defeat Britain and blockade would have been broken.
But the German mindset never accepted the fallout of world opinion for atrocities and just kept at it.
The canard that “because the Belgians committed atrocities in the Congo, the Germans were justified in committing atrocities in Belgium” is goofy on its face: all European power abused the people in their colonies- including us.
The Germans raised it to a new level of bestiality
They all thought it would all be over by Christmas......Well, they were right.....Christmas of 1918.
All of the world powers had some responsibility for the catastrophe that was the First World War - including us.
The Germans had a choice though: they could have recognized and observed the conventions of war - not invaded anyone and not used poison gas, massed flamethrowers, nor shot prisoners captured behind the lines, nor have bombed or shelled cities, nor torpedoed/shelled ships that were not given the chance to take to their boats, nor tried to get Mexico into the war against us (my grandfather was one of the radio operators who was stationed in El Paso to intercept German communications across the border) - in general, just fight whomever crossed into German territory.
But no, there's something the German mentality that couldn't resist aggression and throwing the rule book out.
That, in the end, was what got them beat -twice.
I had a winning Marine Corps shooting team in 1978 that I was traveling with through Anchorage. We had a couple of hours of layover and my 40 troops wandered through that airport showing off their newly-won Gold, Silver, and Bronze shooting badges. There were about a dozen German ski tourists sitting in a group and they were loudly mocking and pointing at my troops. None of my Marines spoke any German, but they understood the message and were crestfallen.
One of the leader of the Germans - a tall, smug guy said to me "Are you the leader of these soldiers?"
I told him that they are not soldiers, they're US Marines.
He said the same thing, again even louder, so I just said "Yes, they're my soldiers". Hans was thickheaded.
Then he said "You Americans like medals, don't you? so the whole airport could hear him.
I told him that they weren't medals, they were shooting awards.
And he repeated the same thing back - so I said (loudly) "Yes, we Americans love medals - because they mean that we shoot well and since we shoot well we won our wars against you; want to go for three out of five"?. Hans left me alone after that and my troops went back to strutting.
It's not a matter of being pro-German, it's the recognition that there was plenty of blame to go around for what happened.
Same here 😳
This nutball has already been neutered.
Many Japanese men have gone off the deep end. Some gal started a company that will send women to their homes and warm up their bed for a half-hour before the men go to bed.
The gal (clothed) gets in the bed and warms up the sheets. The man can be in the room but not in bed. She can talk, read, or whatever - but no touching.
The company is growing by leaps and bounds!
Huh? Since when is "Not invading anyone" a convention of war? Invading the enemy is what war is.
Did the North not invade that South in the American Civil War? And did Lee not invade the North?
Did Japan not invade China? Did Israel not invade the Sinia? Did Iraq not invade Kuwait? And a decade after the Gulf War, did the U.S. not invade Iraq?
Did the Mongols and Romans and Alexander and Napoleon and the Ottoman Turks not invade ... everyone?
Invasion and taking territory has long been a "convention of war."
As for the advanced weapons used by the Germans, or violence committed against prisoners or civilians, has that not also long been a "convention of war"?
Did not Sherman burn civilian homes? Did not both Indians and U.S. Cavalry commit atrocities against civilians? Did the U.S. not use nuclear bombs on civilians? Did the U.S. not toss Vietcong prisoners out of helicopters?
None of this is unique. All of it is a normal "convention of war."
[Freaks are getting freakier since the lockdowns.]
Very true.
1. The North did not "invade" the South - the South was still the territory of the United States since the elected government of the US did not recognize the South's "right to secede".
2. Japan did indeed invade China - and Korea, Mongolia, the Philippines, Indochina, Indonesia, and so on. Aggressors. Israel did not "invade the Sinai" - the Israelis seized the Sinai to stop Egypt from attacking Israel. Israel returned the Sinal after the peace deal was reached - that's called a "temporary occupation". The US did not "invade" Iraq. The US attacked Iraq to give the Iraqi people freedom from the despot running things. There are no additional states to add to our flag as yet.
3. In wars that run overlong, atrocities/violations of the laws of war will happen. During WWII, there were many incidents where US troops killed enemy soldiers and some were held accountable. In Korea, troops occasionally responded to the brutality of the enemy's handling of US prisoners by brutality themselves. In Vietnam there were likely some incidents of VC being thrown from helicopters and there is the undeniable crime of My Lai. The difference is that in none of our wars was this a policy of the US government and where it was proved, there were cases where the offenders were brought to justice. I served in Vietnam with the Marines and we treated civilians and prisoners with care and respect. My life was saved by one of my prisoners when I was badly wounded.
The difference is, that in WWI and other more recent wars, US policy, doctrine, and training emphasized humanity in our dealings with our enemies but as the wars grew longer, that humanity became less obvious. Our policy has not been seizing other countries to possess them - at least since the war with Spain - but to liberate them from other oppressors. The Germans had a belief in their racial and cultural superiority which gave rise to a vicious and inhuman set of policies that made them - and the Japanese - the enemies of all mankind. Look up Einsatzkommando.
P.S. - the Germans and the Japanese were well along with their own nuclear weapons and the aircraft/missiles to deliver them. We just beat all of them to the punch.
Israel did not "invade the Sinai" - the Israelis seized the Sinai to stop Egypt from attacking Israel. Israel returned the Sinal after the peace deal was reached - that's called a "temporary occupation".
Well, doesn't the same apply to Germany in WW I? The Germans "temporarily" passed through Belgium and "temporarily occupied" France because, well, once war was declared, the trenches had to be dug somewhere.
Either Germany could wait for France to "occupy" Germany, or Germany could "occupy" France. By your new definition, Germany did not "invade" France. It was a "temporary occupation" for the duration of the war.
France had an alliance with Russia....Why? If it weren’t for that stupid alliance, it would have been a localized fight between the Germans, Austrians and the Russians, and maybe the Japanese would have joined to take care of the Russians once and for all.
- Or the Germans could have just stayed in Germany, dug their trenches there and stopped the French cold if they had attempted to invade - and not laid waste to France and Belgium and killed/raped/stole from the civilians and ruined that land they occupied forever.
If they had done that, they would have been the "good guys" - but they weren't.
You had two nations rushing to battle. The fight was gonna be held somewhere. The Germans made it to France first. Just like the Israelis made it to Egypt before Egypt made it to Israel. That's called success in battle.
By your logic, the U.S. could have waiting for Germany to reach America in both world wars. Waited for Vietnam and Iraq to reach our shores...
Actually, that might have been a good thing.
France wanted a war to avenge their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, and regain territories they had lost. WW I was their "golden opportunity" for a quick victory by Christmas.
That is seriously, Olympic award-winning convoluted logic! Not exactly a first for our FreeRepublic, but head and shoulders above the competition.
Germany was the aggressor, just as they have ALWAYS been the aggressor: it's something in the Germanic genes, I guess and while it does make sense to attack first if a fight is inevitable, the Germans always make things more brutal, less civilized, and cruel. They fight to conquer, not to free anybody.
We fight to free people, give them a choice for their own destiny and as a side benefit, to keep the sh*theads from coming here. We failed on 9/11 and hopefully we learned our lesson: stay ahead of the game and crush our foes while they are still in their nests, if they don't listen to reason.
Aren't we lucky that we didn't wait for the Germans or the Japanese or the communists to land here (well, OK - the communists are in power here anyway, aren't they?).
But you get what I mean.
Sarcasm taken to an extreme level.
He’s poking fun at the stupid Americans
In America, he really can be a dog...... a pretty dog at that
Well, no. We don't.
If we gave foreigners a choice for their own destiny, we wouldn't keep overthrowing their governments (democratic or otherwise) in color revolutions.
Are you not familiar with U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Butler's 1935 booklet, War Is a Racket?
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.