⌛ "The Earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens"

you know, i sort of agree with you, but then i don't, i know it's easy to punish the loser of a war and say they did all the evil deeds and completely overlook any mis-doings by the victors, sadly thats the way it was. plus it could also be said that the spliting up of the slavic states, done by England after WW1 was the cause of the troubles in bosnia et al in the 90's, what can never be blamed is the "ethnic cleansing" or the horific methods used. this can also be said for palistine.
Germany was made to pay, and don't forget every where at that time suffered a depression of sorts, there government chose the wrong way, and this opened the door for hitler to came in.
other countries didn't feel it necessary to commit genicid to exit poverty after WW1. and from what i remember, borders after WW1, were returned to some previous state to some previous war, russia also lost vast stretches of land which included Poland!
to the victor goes the spoils of war, in that era they took land, prior to that that took everything, as did the Russians after WW2.

 

I don't see any real disagreement here unless you're waiting for me to condemn what Hitler and Nazis did which I have no problem doing. The atrocities committed will forever be held up as the example of the ultimate evil humans are capable of.
Anyway, the real point I was trying to make is that these power-mongers always have and always will exist. In nearly every case where outsiders have tried to intervene they have made the situation worse rather than helping. This is the same today as it was then.
We need a different way of thinking and a different set of responses.

 

i appologise if you thought i was argueing, your first post on the matter although sort of correct, was the way it was done in them days and the paragraph....

"Brits continued starving the German people." is incorrect and mis-leading to some people that do not know the history of europe.

Few people know that even in the first world war, the axis powers committed genocide and the germans massacred townspeople in Andenne (211 dead), Tamines (384 dead), and Dinant (612 dead). The victims included women and children. In 1914, the Germans set fire to the town of Leuven, killed 209 civilians and forced 42,000 to evacuate. These actions brought worldwide condemnation, which in my opinion had an impact on the decisions made against Germany at the end of the war as this type of treatment of civilians just wasn't cricket at the time.

The treaty of versailles initially involved 70 delegates of 26 nations, the complex and difficult terms of the treat was done by the "Council of Ten" composed of the five major victors (the United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan), and the final conditions were determined by the leaders of the "Big Three" nations: British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, and American President Woodrow Wilson.

France demanded the most from Germany and were actually unimpressed with the final settlement, Britain demanded money to actually pay for looking after widows and disabled soldiers, we fought the war from 1914 - 1919, the americans only entered the war in 6 April 1917 after fears that mexico may join Germany and attack the US, the war ended in 11 November 1918, so the US did not feel the burden as greatly as other nations involved in the conflict.

as for the treaty... within the first year of it, the germans had flouted it's conditions and only a small fraction of the 11.3 billion pounds in Gold was ever paid.

All the above is not just my opinion, but fact

references used World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Treaty of Versailles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The void

George W. Bush is a void where there should be a president, completely lacking in any real leadership abilities; he has been beleaguered by catastrophes. Due largely to his poor judgment. The first was 9/11 in 2001 when he used the circumstances to attack Iraq in 2003, the wrong target, and started a “2-trillion-dollar war. This marks the beginning of America’s decline. The second catastrophe, is the meltdown of America’s financial market this month, due to Bush’s Hands off approach and contempt for regulations and any kind of oversight of the financial market, leading to the collapse of investment banks and insurance companies that threaten to wipe out taxpayers. Ironically Bush, has a Harvard MBA, which possibly he got it off a cereal box. As we witness the crumbling of Wall Street like New York’s twin towers in 2001. Rescuing the troubled financial institutions could cost American taxpayers more than the US$700 billion bailout which Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke are seeking from Congress. But the real cost may be more like $5 trillion According to Ohmae Kenichi, the renowned Japanese management guru. Good leadership is hard to come by in most parts of the world. It is deeply needed in the United States. Which leads me back to my opinion that the US dollar may not be around much longer and the merger of the euro, yen and dollar may soon to be a reality. and all this time we were worried about a . And all this time we were worried about a nuclear war, when America had the ultimate secret weapon that could lay waste to the world “George W. Bush”. Oh ! what ever happen to the old adage: If it isn’t broke don’t fix it. I wonder if that was what Bush was thinking? LOL

 

Timn8ter and Coyotes

This just seems like a debate semantics, let’s agree that there were many factors that have brought us to the world we are living in today. Although I do agree history plays an important role in why the world is Facing this global catastrophe. But the really sad thing is we are hepless to do anything but watch.

 

Both sides in a war are likely to and usually do commit atrocities. The argument is left to who behaved worse.
Wikipedia should always be verified against other sources.

The British blockage of Germany began prior to the start of the war and continued for four months after the Germans surrendered.
The blockade is meant to "starve the whole population-men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound-into submission." First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill
Sources are authors Hunt Tooley and Thomas Woods Jr.

Justifications for war come from both sides but I think it best to avoid war unless directly attacked. Attacking someone because you think they might attack you is not a valid reason for throwing whole nations of innocent people into the horrors of war. Nor is a personal dislike of someone. There are still places in the world where people die because they belong to the wrong tribe.
We need better answers and those answers come when we interact with people from other nations. We seem to forget that the occupants of foreign countries are humans the same as we are. When we interact with them through trade and travel we see them as the really are. Mothers and fathers working to feed themselves and their families, teaching their children, loving, laughing...It's easy to talk about bombing "targets" but much more difficult when they're called sons and daughters.
It is governments that start wars but innocent citizens that pay the price.

The only positive I've seen so far in the current economic crises is that more people are asking why this keeps happening. Questions about the validity of a "paper-based economy" are increasing.

 

getting totally bored now! that quote was first used by Buchanan and is wrong, just one google search Buchanan is Wrong. Churchill had No "Starvation Blockade" so to be honest, your digging and grasping at straws with this one,that web page anialates your statement, im sure if i was bothered i'd find even more evidence.

on your point in the following paragraphs again britain never attacked out of thinking it might be next, the nice Mr Adolf Hitler...Promised he wouldn't, didn't that guy come back waiving a peice of paper telling us so? haha, we attacked cos öur "allies" were being invaded and we drew a line in the sand with Poland, Hitler choose to cross it in ww2 and it was a similar situation in ww1.

Plus i doubt very much if Britain has ever attacked out of fear of anyone, it's us that generally does these things without any help from anyone else, on that last point i defo don't know but it'd be totally out of character for Britain, were the aggressors not frightened mice

 

The Phony war

At the onset of the Polish campaign, everyone expected heavy combat in the west, like the summer of 1914. The British Expeditionary Force landed in France, British children were sent to Canada or the countryside; At various times, neutral Belgium and Holland braced for invasion. The heavy combat did not immediately materialize. Instead, the warring nations settled into a lull in fighting. The British press dubbed it the “sitzkrieg”. Overlooked was the hot war in the Atlantic. British merchantmen were fighting for their lives to keep Britain supplied with resources. The "phony war" gave the Germans time to gather supplies and weapons, to strengthen defense and to develop forces. They created at that time 43 new infantry divisions and increased the number of armored divisions to 10. On the other hand Allies' military preparations were sluggish and effortless. The French formed three times fewer divisions than the Germans did. The Brits also were increasing their army slowly. It was not until February 1940 that the British government resolved to form 55 new divisions, but the deadline for their final readiness was not established. British troops were not in hurry to France: in October 1939 only four British divisions, and by the beginning of 1940 another six ones arrived there. However France and Great Britain possessed superiority in troops till the end of the ill-fated campaign of 1940. The Germans had some superiority in tanks, aircraft and artillery, but this superiority was considered so slim, that it could not solely justify their further victories and the Allies' defeats. France alone was a serious military power. She had 110 divisions; 90 of them were amassed on the German border. Staffs and military schools worked out principles of the operational and tactical combat to the tiniest details, and their military science and doctrine used to be copied by virtually all the general staffs throughout Europe and America. The Phony War did lull many French and British citizens into a false sense of complacency, but on May 10, 1940, the “Phony War” came to a swift and terrible end with the invasion of France and the low countries. So I am asking what do you think if instead of trying to use economical pressure against Hitler the Allied would have attacked, then when would that have happened, why and what would have happened in the end?

 

yawn
point 1, u state The British press dubbed it the “sitzkrieg”
why on earth would the british dub it a german word? they used the term phoony war as you state later, a simple google search found this as i didn't believe we;d use a german term!

point 2 British troops were not in hurry to France:
if you can tell me which army "hurries"to war and i'll show you the looser!
Prior Preperation and Planning Prevents p*ss Poor progress a sentance taught to every level of the British army even now

Point 3 if your gonna cut and paste some drivel the allied attacked Germany first in 1940? - World War II Forums try something better than another forum please and maybe check a couple of the facts in there!!

a simple search of some of "ÿour" factual points found the page you use to impress with your History of the Great wars of the world.

stick to watching all the Hollywood movies that you can, maybe you even thick the Enigma code was the American success the film by the same name perports?

 

True

But I thought it was funny. as for me I know nothing about ww2 I not old enough. :D Just messing around Coyotes. and I really have learned not to trust the history books. they always seem to be on the side of what ever country they are print for.. Sorry