Posted on 02/21/2002 8:17:29 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:13 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Guess I do. Perhaps you would give more credence to the opinion of an author whose numerous historical works won him the 1953 Nobel Prize in Literature, though he is actually far better known for his personal involvement in both world wars:
"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."~ Winston Churchill, Interview with William Griffen, Editor of New York Enquirer, August 1936
They know damn little,that's a fact. Mostly a bunch of socialist twits with well-earned inferiority complexes. Probably a result of too much inbreeding.
All they care about is the environment, and they all drive these tiny little cars on tiny little roads.
The reason they drive those tiny little cars has NOTHING to do with the environment,and this statement alone proves you belong over there with them,never mind the rest of your foolish rant. They drive them because of the socialist tax man. Not only do they pay insane taxes on each gallon of gas,but they also pay huge taxes on any car with a engine larger than a lawnmower. This is for two reasons. The first is that they have no oil themselves and have to import it. The biggest reason is so the braindead,jealous socialist rabble there can feel like they are punishing any of their fellow subjects who have enough money to drive cars larger than breadboxes,and more powerful than my riding mower.
They also don't know the first thing about how to run a business. They don't even have lots of big chain stores and fast food restaurants everywhere like we do here in the U.S.
What does the first sentence have to do with the second? Not that I expect any actual logic,I'd just like to see how you relate them.
So next time you're driving your Pickup on the Interstate highway to the WalMart or Denny's just remember how far ahead of those European jerks we are.
True,very true. Let's also not forget how jealous of us they are BECAUSE we have these fine pickups to drive,AND a country large enough we can't walk from one side of it to the other in 30 minutes.
You'd think that with their thousands of years of history they would have learned something by now, but NO. The U.S.A. with only 250 years of history has them all beat!
See? You can get it right when you try.
Sometimes the young teenager is right. Sometimes the grandparent is a dirty pedophile who is interested only in stealing the vitality of the youth. This is the relationship between the US and Europe. It is too bad that you cannot understand we are unlike any culture that has ever existed. Ours is one based on freedom and liberty and because of this we are morally superior to all cultures who have preceeded us. This is a tough concept to grasp for someone who has been taught in today's school system that ethnocentrism is bad, and that we must embrace cultural relativism, but it is the truth. What you should learn is to ignore Europe. They are a marginal force that will never be satisfied with small stature, and will never be pleased by any of our actions.
Yes,and that isn't even taking into account the communist agents in place in Germany and other European countries that were determined to overthrown their goverments. All of which makes the whole theory so much HorseHillary.
To them the West is a mirror, reflecting their failure. They seek to break the mirror rather than face reality.
Pure,unadulterated HorseHillary! They would still hate us if Israel had never even existed. Our support of Israel is just a excuse some of them use. If it wasn't this,it would be because we drive our find pickup trucks down the interstate to eat a cheap breakfast at Denny's. It's common for a slave to hate a free man.
When you say "Russian Revolution," I take it you mean the October/November 1917 revolution that brought the Bolsheviks to power. Had the US not intervened, with the Allies and Wilson insisting that Alexander Kerensky's provisional government (which came to power in the March/April 1917 revolution) stay in the war against the wishes of the Russian people, a peace agreement would most likely have been signed in the spring or at latest the summer of 1917. With the anti-war plank of their platform yanked out from under them, the Bolsheviks would certainly not have had enough support to succeed in a revolution later that year, and the names Lenin and Stalin would mean very little to anyone today.
Without the US, Germany would have had a good chance of outright winning WWI. The English were led by morons, the french even more so. The terms of the amristace were dictated by the afore mentioned Limey and Frog twits.
There is no question that the English and French were led by morons (I assume here that you're talking about the upper echelons, and not the line officers), but whether Germany would have been able to seize victory without US intervention is more in doubt. Even assuming the "worst case scenario" of a German victory, though, one has to ask what the consequences would have been. Most historians I have read see a post-war Europe dominated economically by Germany and posing no military threat to the US. You needn't work those little gray cells too hard to picture this; just look at Europe today.
Actually I consider the quotation by Churchill to reflect one of his few lucid moments, and you are quite correct to point out that he put his short-run blinders back on when World War II erupted. It could be that being out of the government (i.e., no ministerial position) made him more reflective; I've observed a distinct tendency among politicians to change their views once they actually gain or even regain a position of power.
Quite correct; an astute observation. What some realize once in power is that Monday Morning Quarterbacking has severe limitations once the responsibility for your team's performance in the face of a formidable foe falls squarely upon your shoulders; when you're now taking the snaps, to beat my poor analogy to death.
Don't misunderstand; I have the greatest admiration for Churchill and give credence to his point of view. However, the very fact that he (rightfully) did all he could to involve the U.S. in WWII when his own country was facing imminent destruction shows that he was smacked square in the face with a massive dose of "reality" as compared to his earlier condemnation of U.S. involvement in WWI.
Just a few words to the Axis of Weasels, "Kiss our American A$$es!"
We will use our $'s as smart bombs to devast your socialistic Euro. I have vowed not to buy anything from France. Now Germany is now in that no buy zone. No Euro Vacations will become another way to use our $'s
I respectfully disagree. If minor changes in DNA/genes can create significant physical differences in people how can it be impossible that minor changes in DNA/genes have no effect whatsoever on a persons intellect or their responses to various external stimuli?
To be PC we cannot say this in polite company but there is a bell curve on intellect. There are zeros and stellar people in all groups. However, the bell curves for various groups do not have the same center, mean, average points.
All races have gone through their dark evil periods. I just seems some of us have longed for a better world and progressed while other are at least 600 years behind.
You can attribute some of this to external influences but I return to my original premise. That being: Why can minor changes in DNA/Genes only cause physical differences according to liberals.
The_Expatriate said: With the anti-war plank of their platform yanked out from under them, the Bolsheviks would certainly not have had enough support to succeed in a revolution later that year, and the names Lenin and Stalin would mean very little to anyone today.
Alternative History is very intriguing mental exercise, but we cant of course know what other factors would have emerged to replace the removed ones. One thing I know for sure, that Bolsheviks were underestimated by many to their own peril. They were more organized and disciplined than others, they had organizers and public speakers (not necessarily the same people) not matched by others. This is especially important for that period after the unthinkable end of monarchy in Russia, when the whole country was in turmoil and was described as one huge continues meeting, with orators from numerous political parties of all colors replacing each other at the podium trying to win the country over.
The Bolsheviks were quite cynical in using all the means necessary to get to the goal. Whatever we think about Lenin, we should give the dues where its deserved: he was a genius pragmatic politician. After all, how many successful revolutions of that scale we know? He was ruthless and flexible, he could (and did) change the course on 180 degrees when needed (NEP - new economic politic, for example) overpowering the party orthodoxes in the process. He had a quick and sharp mind, and quick, sharp and quite dirty mouth. So, regardless of the circumstances, even with the WW1 ending, in the dirty puddle of politics in Russia of 1917, he and his party were the sharkiest sharks. I think, if stayed alive, he would find his way to the top anyway. :-(
Sure does.
The Austrian Kaiser, Karl, would probably have raised the Slavic peoples of the Empire to equal status with the Germans and Hungarians, thus effecting a "Triple Monarchy" which had been Archduke Franz Ferdinand's intention (had he not been murdered by the Serbs).
Also, one more thing to consider about the outcome of WW I: the various Arab states whose citizens are now wreaking havoc throughout the world would not exist. They would still be part of the Turkish Empire, which had been secularised by Kemal Abdul Ataturk. The Holy Land would have continued under Turkish administration, with free access granted to members of all religions.
People do not like to contemplate this scenario, because it increases the enormity of Woodrow Wilson's crime against Europe and Christendom. It also suggests that America was on the wrong side in at least one war -- and that the most important one in history.
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.