Irony

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well, the fact is we didn't offically win WW I. We might have won if the war went on, but we didn't.

Gee, using your logic, we probably won in Vietnam too, huh?

-=Mike --- Who thinks this could actually make a decent wrestling angle

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Please stop trying to argue this. You're wrong. Winners don't extract reparations from countries if THEY AREN'T VICTORIOUS. You're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper, and worse yet, killing any kind of intelligent discussion in a thread AGAIN.

No, I'm telling the truth. America did not officially win WWI. This is what the history books say. Sure, America got the better end of the deal and TOLD (via TV) that America was victories and was going to "punish the Germans," but that doesn't mean they won. Check the books.

Who gives a rat's ass about "officially winning"?

 

The German officer KNEW that they were about to be annihilated. They knew that their ONLY hope for a decent surrender was to surrender to the U.S.

 

Again, Germany paid MASSIVE reparations, had NO say in the Treaty of Versailles, and nearly had a total economic meltdown due to both the extreme cruelty of the reparations and the seizing of their industrial lands by the French.

 

I've never heard a single historian --- liberal or conservative --- who EVER saw WWI as being anything but a massive defeat for Germany.

 

Heck, Germany was treated BETTER after WW II.

 

Did they not lose that war, too?

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

An armistice was signed at the end of the war. If you don't what armistice means, it means "A temporary cessation of fighting by mutual consent; a truce." That's from dictionary.com. Now that that's settled, I don't think it is fair to compair Germans today with the fallen Nazi party. Heck, we probably have more neo-Nazis here in America.

You can call it whatever you wish. Germany accepted responsibility for STARTING the war and paid HUGE reparations.

 

They, flat out, lost. This hasn't even been a debatable point, outside of the Nazis who blamed the "November criminals" for the ending.

 

And there are considerably more neo-Nazis in Germany than here.

 

I'll givde you a piece of advice --- when you notice that you've dug yourself into a hole --- STOP DIGGING.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

They lost the war, much as you have lost this argument, in the worst and most humilitating way possible. Please discontinue your pursuit of this absolutely retarded idea.

Sorry Kotz. My idea is neither retarded or wrong. And I find it hard to be "humiliated" on a message board. They didn't officially win WWI. Any history book will tell you that.

Your idea could hardly be MORE wrong if you tried. Any history book will say that Germany signed the armistice --- which included provisions for a total surrender by Germany (nobody else had to give up their arms) --- because they had no prayer of anything outside of outright annihilation.

 

Any history book that states otherwise is as wrong as you.

-=Mike

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Since technically the war never ended. Let's forget about Iraq for the time being. We've got some unfinished business with the Kaiser to take care of.

[Guest DrTom]

History books. Provided by a high school (the best in my state, in fact). And it's hardly bullshit.

Do these same history books also say the Founding Fathers were rich, white, philandering slaveowners? It sounds like you've gotten hold of some revisionist history there, lad. America couldn't win WWI because America has been revised to be amoral at best, and imperialistic. Those books have their best uses as toilet paper after eating a box of Ex-Lax.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Well, some of them were rich slaveowners, that can't be denined.

 

Also, just because the history book is impartial, that's no reason to call it toilet paper-worthy. Just about any historical text by anyone outside of America, as well as some within, acknowledge that we've had PLENTY of historical indiscretions. It's only holding us to the same set of standards by which we evaluate other countries.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Actually, on the topic of impartial history books, has anyone lived long enough to find an event they personally lived through written up impartially and "wrong" in a history book? Although I've put the issue to rest, I'm constantly interested in 10-20 years what the history books will say about Bush's election. Will they be liberal impartial, or will they be conservative impartial, or will they just skip over that part?

[Guest Some Guy]

Hitler wasn't even German.

wasnt he born in austria?

Austria and Germany are essentially the same. They are both populated by Germans. Hell, Austria democratically voted their way into NAZI Germany. Same shit, different shovel.

 

The Germans have paid there debt to society as much as one possibly can for what they did in in the '30s and WWII (Austria and Serbia started WWI and the Krauts took the blame, if memory serves). It is not fair to punish them still for that, there is nothing more that they can do about it now, they've apoligized and paid up millions of times.

It is also understandable that a country who lost both World Wars would not want to enter another war at all. Any sign of German aggression still causes the French to shit their pants. But why would a country not see the simmilarities between Saddam and how Europe is handling it and their own history.

The Germans lost WWI and were punished with extreme sactions, that coupled with the world wide depression caused them to vote in Hitler who took them places I doubt anybosy who voted for him fore saw. Hitler proceded to illegally build up his military and teh Europeans figured they could hug him to death through appeasment. Look at how well that worked out for the Brits and the French.

Sadam invaded Kuwait and was defeated, he had reasonable sactions placed on him and he continued to illegally build up WMD. Buit unlike Hitler we know that Saddam wants to kill all the Kurds and destroy Israel. We know this from both his words and his actions. Why would we sit back and allow a guy to build up his military power and hide from inspectors (who may have found some carpet bomb type things that hold chemical or baterialogoical elements) and let history repeat itsself? It makes no sense to me. Wasn't the slogan at the end of teh World Wars, "Never again"? Well let's make sure this never happens again.

 

BTW, the same holds true to France as Germany. France doesn't still owe us from WWII (although French bashig is always fun) they owe us for bailing their sorry asses out in Bosnisa where a two-bit despot was kicking their ands Britain's asses. England knows who their true friend is, France hasn't figured it out yet and by the time they do Bush will be so fed up with them that he'll cut them out of any benifts that come with the liberation of Iraq. And he should, you don't help you get nothing.

[Guest Brian]

History books. Provided by a high school (the best in my state, in fact). And it's hardly bullshit.

Do these same history books also say the Founding Fathers were rich, white, philandering slaveowners? It sounds like you've gotten hold of some revisionist history there, lad.

Yes, because Thomas Jefferson was inviting black people to Monticello on basketball scholarships.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Anyone who feels this Iraq affair is going to result in another catalysmic global military conflict really needs to re-evaluate the situation.

[Guest DrTom]

Well, some of them were rich slaveowners, that can't be denined.

Sure. But there's a difference between pointing that out, and hammering it home to try and diminish their character and accomplishments. This is the problem with multiculturalism poisoning the education system: American students are taught that our culture is inherently no better than any other, and things like slavery are used to "prove" that. The problem is, our culture IS better than any other, because we are a representative democracy, and we're able to both acknowledge our mistakes and fix them for the betterment of everyone. Call me jingoistic if you must, but we're NOT just another country, and our culture is NOT just another culture.

[Guest DrTom]

Anyone who feels this Iraq affair is going to result in another catalysmic global military conflict really needs to re-evaluate the situation.

It's a very remote possibility, but the chance is still there. Depending on what Al'Qaeda does, and depending on whether Iraq decides to attack Israel out of spite, there could be some serious unrest in the Middle East, but I think it will be confined there. You might see some saber-rattling from other countries, but that's it.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I agree with Tom here. While it's true that, say, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. I don't really consider that fact all that significant historically speaking, and doesn't really even warrant more than a sentence, if that, in history books. Jefferson isn't known for owning slaves. He was just one of many people at the time who owned slaves, and it doesn't make sense to single him out and say that his owning of slaves was historically significant. Also, it really doesn't make sense to evaluate him in that light. This is actually somewhat of a relativistic argument, but it really isn't fair to evaluate historical figures by modern standards. Usually, we evaluate them by the prevailing standards of their time.

[Guest JMA]

Jefferson was actually one of the most open-minded men of his time. He was a very logical man. It cannot be denied that America started the trend for represenative democracy. They were, essentially, the first. It was, and still is, a sucessful experiment for the goverment. America is one of, if not the, the strongest super powers in the world. With that being said, I don't know if I would consider it the "greatest". For one thing, greatness is determined by many differant factors.

 

I'm very happy with the multiculturism being presented in schools. Partly because I'm not a big fan of nationalism. I find it leads to more problems. With that being said, America is better (in terms of culture and freedom) than most.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I'm very happy with the multiculturism being presented in schools. Partly because I'm not a big fan of nationalism. I find it leads to more problems. With that being said, America is better (in terms of culture and freedom) than most.

That completely goes against the principles of multiculturalism.