Taking on Commie College Professors

[Guest Olympic Slam]

The best case for the United States NOT entering WWI is WWII. If we stayed out of WWI, then maybe Germany wouldn't have been crippled as much and wouldn't have led to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20 afterall. Same goes for the 80's war in Afghanistan and taking sides in Saddam vs. Iran. I often wonder how we'll view Operation Iraqi Freedom in 20 years.......

[KingPK 0]

I don't think so. Germany probably would have still gotten raked over the coals by England and France in a treaty, sending Germany spiraling into the depths and giving Hitler the chance to rise to power.

[Justice 0]

The best case for the United States NOT entering WWI is WWII. If we stayed out of WWI, then maybe Germany wouldn't have been crippled as much and wouldn't have led to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20 afterall. Same goes for the 80's war in Afghanistan and taking sides in Saddam vs. Iran. I often wonder how we'll view Operation Iraqi Freedom in 20 years.......

No, I don't think so. England, France, and Germany would have literally killed off their young male populations if we hadn't tipped the sides like we did, and it probably would have lasted that much longer. No matter the outcome (Most likely with Germany still on the losing side), economic ruin would still be on the horizon because of the massive war debts. Simply by virtue of occurring WWI caused WWII.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

But WWI was definitely one we should have NEVER EVER ENTERED. Same with Kosovo.

Say what? How do you figure?

I'd say we should not only have entered but should have dominated the peace talks with Germany. England (who's monarchy was related to Kaiser Wilhelm) and France (who were out for blood because of a war fought 45 years before) were content to be pricks to Germany and blame them for starting the war. If Wilson's plan had been carried out to the letter, America would have been in LoN and there may never have been a WWII.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I don't think so. Germany probably would have still gotten raked over the coals by England and France in a treaty, sending Germany spiraling into the depths and giving Hitler the chance to rise to power.

Britain, yes. Lloyd George was headed into an election and needed a big victory to get reelected.

 

This was actually one of the few times that France ended up being correct. They were more interested in returning things to the status-quo, but they got out voted at Paris by the US & Britain.

 

In truth, it was only the perception of Germany being treated poorly that led to discontent in Germany. In reality reperations were greatly reduced and most of it ended up being paid with American money anyways. It didn't stop Hitler from exploiting it though.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

But WWI was definitely one we should have NEVER EVER ENTERED. Same with Kosovo.

Say what? How do you figure?

I'd say we should not only have entered but should have dominated the peace talks with Germany. England (who's monarchy was related to Kaiser Wilhelm) and France (who were out for blood because of a war fought 45 years before) were content to be pricks to Germany and blame them for starting the war. If Wilson's plan had been carried out to the letter, America would have been in LoN and there may never have been a WWII.

1) It was Germany's fault according to most modern historians. The idea that Europe was to blame came about after the war in the 1920s when they thought that only a joint effort that led to the war. I have talked about it elsewhere, so I won't go in depth again. Evidence supports the fact that Germany is to blame.

 

2) I think you're confused. It was the US that brought down Wilhelm (Britain later went along with them). As late as November 9, 1918, Wilhelm was supposed to remain on the throne, but the US then got involved and demanded that Germany become a Republic before they would accept surrender. Germany was dead at this point, and the government forced Wilhelm to abdicate because they didn't have any other choice. France, in particular, was very much against this.

 

But when one looks at the two wars, they really aren't that connected. Hitler used Germany discontent over WWI as a political tool, but it was other problems (mainly the Depression) that led to him getting control. WWII wasn't about WWI, it was about German supremacy in Europe. The errors made by the Allies that led to WWII had more to do with their failure to get involved after Munich and the annexation of Austria. Britain & France also did a lot to alienate Stalin, which led to the non-agression pack and Hitler's invasion of Poland a couple of weeks later. They finally had enough balls to declare war then. Hitler was expecting that he was able to carry on the charade until 1945 when he felt he would be able to beat the west. Had WWII started in 1936 instead of the Allies continuing to make concessions to Germany, it wouldn't have been nearly as devastating. Appeasement doesn't work when dealing with people like Hitler. Imagine if they had waited until 1945, like Hitler expected. Germany would have had atomic weapons by the time the war would be over then, and Hitler was not above using them.

[KingPK 0]

I don't think so.  Germany probably would have still gotten raked over the coals by England and France in a treaty, sending Germany spiraling into the depths and giving Hitler the chance to rise to power.

Britain, yes. Lloyd George was headed into an election and needed a big victory to get reelected.

 

This was actually one of the few times that France ended up being correct. They were more interested in returning things to the status-quo, but they got out voted at Paris by the US & Britain.

 

I thought the US bowed out of the negotiations over disagreements with France and Britain and negotiated their own treaty with Germany, which was signed a little after Versailles, if I recall correctly?

[Vern Gagne 0]

The treaty also contributed to the rise of Mussolini in Italy, and the military dictatorship in Japan. Both countries sided with the Allies, but didn't receive the land they wanted.

[Guest MikeSC]

The best case for the United States NOT entering WWI is WWII.  If we stayed out of WWI, then maybe Germany wouldn't have been crippled as much and wouldn't have led to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power.

 

While I don't think that WW I was something we needed to involve ourselves in --- the U.S was the CALMING influence. If we WEREN'T involved, Germany would have been nailed MUCH harder by Britain and France. Remember, Wilson sincerely wanted a peace based on his 14 Points, which would have been infinitely easier on Germany than anything Britain or France wanted.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I don't think so. Germany probably would have still gotten raked over the coals by England and France in a treaty, sending Germany spiraling into the depths and giving Hitler the chance to rise to power.

 

That's far from certain.

 

Germany's forces were tired and weary and running out of steam, but by 1917 Russia was out of the War (thus, for the most part, eliminating most of the threat on the Eastern Front) and France was in SHAMBLES. There was a MASSIVE drop in morale of the French army to the point that there soldiers were mutinying or just plain refusing to fight anymore. That left the burden on England, and it could fight only so long as it had the resources to do so - and if Germany had been allowed to implement it's plan for unrestricted submarine warfare (which they had already decided to do), Britain would have been starved into surrender in a matter of months.

 

It was the U.S. that put a stop to the submarine warfare and helped turn the tide in favor of the Entente by providing the one thing that they sorely needed: troops. Men willing to fight. When Pershing arrived, Haig & Petain wanted the troops more than nothing. He was literally told: "Never mind the guns, never mind the transport. We'll provide them. Only bring your young soldiers over to fill our thin ranks. The fate of France and of the war is at stake." Without American troops to fill in the gap, things looked bleak for the Entente, even with Germany in the shape that it was.

 

1) It was Germany's fault according to most modern historians. The idea that Europe was to blame came about after the war in the 1920s when they thought that only a joint effort that led to the war. I have talked about it elsewhere, so I won't go in depth again. Evidence supports the fact that Germany is to blame.

 

It was Germany's fault. The conflict that started all of this (Ferdinand's assassination by men with ties to the Serbian government) could have been localized into a war between Serbia & Austria-Hungary, but Germany used the incident as an excuse to implement plans for war which they had devised a full DECADE before it started.

 

To be harsh upon them, they were warmongering bastards. Their goal all along was to add to the empire through conquest.

 

But when one looks at the two wars, they really aren't that connected. Hitler used Germany discontent over WWI as a political tool, but it was other problems (mainly the Depression) that led to him getting control. WWII wasn't about WWI, it was about German supremacy in Europe.

 

I agree and disagree with this.

 

WWII was, to some extent, about WWI, but I think it has slightly less to do with German hard-feelings over how they were treated after the war but rather they wanting revenge for the humiliation of actually losing the conflict, which plays in to the whole German supremacy you talk about.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

It's days like this I wish we had that History folder.

[RepoMan 0]

You no ripping on commies is a bigger wast of time than being a commie yourself. They're not remotly part of the relevent US political spectrum. It's like wearing a Bengals suck t-shirt. Why bother?

[Justice 0]

You no ripping on commies is a bigger wast of time than being a commie yourself. They're not remotly part of the relevent US political spectrum. It's like wearing a Bengals suck t-shirt. Why bother?

I think it's pretty obvious that the site is more about being against the Left-wing than just communists.

 

It's days like this I wish we had that History folder.

 

Indeed.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I think we all know what communism is.

 

Economically speaking, its central planning and ownership of the whole by the state.

And Economically speaking, central planning and total ownership is completely inefficient and doomed to fail

Communism is, essentially a doctrine incompatible with modern human existence.

Which is why it never has nor ever will exist in its pure form given the modern human existence.

[Skywarp! 0]

I think we all know what communism is.

 

Economically speaking, its central planning and ownership of the whole by the state.

And Economically speaking, central planning and total ownership is completely inefficient and doomed to fail

Communism is, essentially a doctrine incompatible with modern human existence.

Which is why it never has nor ever will exist in its pure form given the modern human existence.

So why is China about the 2nd most powerful nation on earth? Population, alone?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Well the USSR was considered to be the 2nd strongest nation for a long time and only now was has it been learned that they were really just falling apart and really not as great a threat as originally thought.

[ISportsFan 0]

So why is China about the 2nd most powerful nation on earth? Population, alone?

Any type of "communism" the world has ever seen is similar to a bastard child of Karl Marx and Augustus Caesar (as possibly seen on Conan O'Brien's If They Mated).

 

The ruler of the supposed "Communist" country takes Marx and Engel's doctorines and spins them in a way so the people think it's truly a state for the people and there will eventually be no government some day - but it's all just to give the leaders of the nation more power and give the people no choice in anything.

 

So communism is similar to Thomas More's Utopia - good in theory, not practical in life though.

 

Jason

[Skywarp! 0]

Here's another question: how is socialism different?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Socialism has killed far fewer people for starters. Socialism isn't based on violence like Communism is.

 

Most European nations have socialized policies like health care. It basically operates under everyone gets equal everything.

 

Again it typically falls apart when people who work their asses off realize the lazy ass next door gets as much as they do.

[ISportsFan 0]

Here's another question: how is socialism different?

FROM DICTIONARY.COM

 

Socialism:

 

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

 

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

 

Communism:

 

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

 

2.

 

a) A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

 

b) The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

 

OK, now, obviously communism's second definition and socialism's definitions have very much the same meanings. However, the original (and thus historically based) definition of communism under Marx and Engel's definition is definition one for communism, which is the theoretical economic system which in the long run has no government.

 

So, that's about 3 parts dictionary.com and 1 part me on that answer.

 

Jason

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You also never see "real communism" in action because those who try communism tilt the system to favor themselves, which is why it always falls downhill.

[Guest MikeSC]

So why is China about the 2nd most powerful nation on earth? Population, alone?

Just about, yup.

 

Militarily, they are light years behind us. Economically, they're far behind us.

 

They're #2 almost by default.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Is China REALLY the 2nd most powerful nation?

 

I would think that Britain would probably be more powerful politically, economically and quite possibly militarily (not necessarily in number of troops, but in technology and military hardware).

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

China's army has manpower and about nothing else.

 

Don't you wonder why they were jumping at the chance to try and get at that U.S. plane they had a few years back.

[MrRant 0]

I still need to get one of those shirts.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Damn, how long have you been saving up!?...

[Dr. Tom 0]

Comcast's pay must be teh suq.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well considering my the amount of my cable/Internet bill I can say that the customers are holding up their end of the deal...

[Dr. Tom 0]

I feel you on that one, Colonel.

 

Interestingly enough, I interviewed for a Comcast job in 1997, working support for their internet service. I interviewed again last year, for what I thought was a different job but ended up being the same one. The starting pay had not increased in the six years between my interviews. THAT is pretty shitty.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's because the value of the work hasn't gone up, you don't deserve to be paid more than that!

 

-=You Know Who