Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11-investigator said:
Liar. You are leaving an essential part out. The invasion (solely to be carried out by Mexico) should take place if the US would declare war on Germany. It was a pure defensive measure. It was a ridiculous operette kind of proposal. Not even Mexico took it seriously.
Click to expand...

It was an invitation to Mexico to declare war on America. I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid suggestion, but it was certainly a provocative one. And it was a proposal in support of an invasion of America by a country that was not at war with America. So which bit was a lie?

9/11-investigator said:
What I see here is the total naivite of a diplomacy of a country that was merely 45 years old. The Germans acted as provincials on the international stage because they were provincials.
Click to expand...

So they did something that was extremely stupid, and forced the USA into war as a result. I agree entirely. Sadly, though, they acted as provincial criminals; the policy announced in the Zimmerman Telegram was a clear violation of international law.

9/11-investigator said:
The intent is clear: not to make more enemies then they already have.
Click to expand...

Whatever the intent, a policy of deliberately killing citizens of a neutral power isn't an intelligent or effective way of preventing war with that power. They should have learned that when they violated the neutrality of Belgium. Or had you forgotten that breach of international law too?

Dave
 
Who started both world wars? I did.

And if those uppity Germans try to get to big for their britches, I'll do it again.

Don't think I won't.


;)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Thanks to Sanity Gap for the extended Churchill quote. I haven't read the original, so I couldn't be entirely sure that Buchanan was blatantly and dishonestly quote mining Churchill and then misrepresenting his opinions in his own editorialising, but my quote mine canary was already falling off his perch. The full quote simply confirms that impression. Clearly, Churchill isn't in the least uncertain about why America declared war when it did; he's just raising what he saw as Wilson's potential excuses for not doing what Churchill firmly believed was the right thing sooner, in order to dispose of them more fully. Classic quote mine material; whenever anyone attempts to give a discussion of both sides of a question, rogues and liars see an opening to misrepresent them.
Click to expand...

Sanity Gap just dumped a large text without making any annotation whatsoever. He did not probably read it himself and Dave is speculating I won't either. It was indeed a waste of time. This is what the fat drunken hooligan Churchill gives as a reason why he thinks (surprise, surprise) it was necessary for the US to enter the war:

He would have been greatly helped in his task if he had reached a definite conclusion where in the European struggle Right lay. Events like the German march through Belgium, or the sinking of the Lusitania, had a meaning which was apparent to friend and foe.
Click to expand...

The fattie knows darned well why the Lusitania was sunk, because it contained armes he probably himself had ordered. And we have quoted him earlier to the effect that he would not deplore it at all if these ships were sunk indeed, preferably with a lot of Americans on board. For him it was a win-win situation.

They both proclaimed the intention to use force without any limit of forbearance to an absolute conclusion. Such a prospect directly affected the interests and indeed the safety of the United States. The victory of Germany and the concomitant disappearance of France and the British Empire as great Powers must, after an uncertain interval, have left the peaceful and unarmed population of the United States nakedly exposed to the triumph of the doctrine of Force without limit. The Teutonic Empires in the years following their victory would have been far stronger by land and sea than the United States.
Click to expand...

We now know that this was a self-serving lie. Germany during the war had consistently offered peace on the basis of "group hug and let's go home". The existence of Britain or France was never threatened, let alone that of America. Population numbers alone make such considerations ridiculous.
 
9/11-investigator said:
What I see here is the total naivite of a diplomacy of a country that was merely 45 years old. The Germans acted as provincials on the international stage because they were provincials. They did not have the sophistication like the other Western European nations with their centuries old experience in the international arena. The British arrogantly looked down upon them.
Click to expand...
Never mind that Germany was in many respects a continuation of Prussia, a state which had played on the first level of the European stage for over 200 years by then.
 
9/11-investigator said:
We now know that this was a self-serving lie. Germany during the war had consistently offered peace on the basis of "group hug and let's go home". The existence of Britain or France was never threatened, let alone that of America..
Click to expand...
:dl:

May I suggest reading Fritz Fischer's "Griff nach der Weltmacht" for a more informed opinion?
 
Dave Rogers said:
It was an invitation to Mexico to declare war on America. I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid suggestion, but it was certainly a provocative one. And it was a proposal in support of an invasion of America by a country that was not at war with America. So which bit was a lie?
Click to expand...

Dave pretends that we are stupid.
Dave: It was an invitation to Mexico to declare war on America.
911I: It was an invitation to Mexico to declare war on America in case America attacked Germany.

It was not an unconditional declaration of war, it was an attempt to form a defensive alliance to keep the US out of a war with Germany.

So they did something that was extremely stupid, and forced the USA into war as a result. I agree entirely. Sadly, though, they acted as provincial criminals; the policy announced in the Zimmerman Telegram was a clear violation of international law.
Click to expand...

Since when is seeking alliances a violation of international law? Germany was suggesting that Mexico would take back the lands the US had conquered from Mexico in the past (in agreement with international law I am sure, is it not Dave?). Mexico btw will take back this territory in the coming years due to changing demographics alone, but that is a different story altogether.
 
9/11-investigator said:
This is what the fat drunken hooligan Churchill gives as a reason why he thinks (surprise, surprise) it was necessary for the US to enter the war:
Click to expand...

Whoops! I thought Buchanan said Churchill didn't know why America entered the war. Yet now 9/11-investigator is saying Churchill did know why America entered the war. It seems 9/11-investigator just called his favourite source a liar.

Dave
 
ddt said:
:dl:

May I suggest reading Fritz Fischer's "Griff nach der Weltmacht" for a more informed opinion?
Click to expand...

Why don't you make you case in a post yourself rather than giving your readers homework they cannot carry out.

And spare your readers these juvenile Kindergarten cartoons.
 
9/11-investigator said:
It was not an unconditional declaration of war, it was an attempt to form a defensive alliance to keep the US out of a war with Germany.
Click to expand...

No, that makes no sense whatsoever. The alliance was conditional on the US declaring war on Germany, and it was predicated on Mexico seizing US territory. There's nothing defensive about it, and it can't have been intended to keep the US out of war because the US wasn't supposed to know about it. Would you like to explain how a secret understanding between Germany and Mexico could keep the US from doing anything, if the US wasn't aware of any such understanding?

It was simply Germany acting the way it always acted at the time; if anyone caused it difficulties, it attacked them by whatever means it had available.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, that makes no sense whatsoever. The alliance was conditional on the US declaring war on Germany, and it was predicated on Mexico seizing US territory. There's nothing defensive about it, and it can't have been intended to keep the US out of war because the US wasn't supposed to know about it. Would you like to explain how a secret understanding between Germany and Mexico could keep the US from doing anything, if the US wasn't aware of any such understanding?

It was simply Germany acting the way it always acted at the time; if anyone caused it difficulties, it attacked them by whatever means it had available.
Click to expand...

Fine then, it was a secret defensive alliance, that's also a defensive alliance. It was clear that the Germans hoped that the case for war would not materialize. The telegram explicitly makes clear that it will be tried to keep the US neutral.

„Wir beabsichtigen, am ersten Februar uneingeschränkten U-Boot-Krieg zu beginnen. Es wird versucht werden, Amerika trotzdem neutral zu halten. Für den Fall, dass dies nicht gelingen sollte, schlagen wir Mexiko auf folgender Grundlage Bündnis vor. Gemeinsame Kriegführung. Gemeinsamer Friedensschluss. Reichlich finanzielle Unterstützung und Einverständnis unsererseits, dass Mexiko in Texas, Neu Mexico, Arizona früher verlorenes Gebiet zurückerobert. Regelung im einzelnen Euer Hochwohlgeborenen überlassen. Euer Hochwohlgeborenen wollen Vorstehendes Präsidenten streng geheim eröffnen, sobald Kriegsausbruch mit Vereinigten Staaten feststeht, und Anregung hinzufügen, Japan von sich aus zu sofortigem Beitritt einzuladen und gleichzeitig zwischen uns und Japan zu vermitteln. Bitte Präsidenten darauf hinweisen, dass rücksichtslose Anwendung unserer U-Boote jetzt Aussicht bietet, England in wenigen Monaten zum Frieden zu zwingen. Empfang bestätigen.

Zimmermann“
 
Dave Rogers said:
Whoops! I thought Buchanan said Churchill didn't know why America entered the war. Yet now 9/11-investigator is saying Churchill did know why America entered the war. It seems 9/11-investigator just called his favourite source a liar.

Dave
Click to expand...

I said it. Buchanan quoted Churchill as saying that American historians would not have an easy task explaining why the US entered the war. Churchill in Buchanan's quote said that the sinking of the Lusitania could not be seen as a reason for war entry. Further in the large quote (by Saggy) he comes up with preposterous reasons, like Germany wanting to conquor the world. The only country coming close to conquering the world was Britain. OK, 3rd world countries, easy, just plant a flag in the ground and call it yours.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Why don't you make you case in a post yourself rather than giving your readers homework they cannot carry out.
Click to expand...
Why couldn't you go to the Amsterdam library and loan the book? Anyway, your claim that Germany made peace proposals to the tune of "group hug and all go home" is bollocks. Wilson made such proposals while the US was neutral, not Germany. Read up on the Septemberprogram for a taste of Germany's war aims in WW1.

Did I read it right you're arguing here on the basis of a book by Pat Buchanan, a fringe politician and in no way historian? :jaw-dropp
 
9/11-investigator said:
Fine then, it was a secret defensive alliance, that's also a defensive alliance.
Click to expand...

This is getting bizarrely stupid. It was clearly not intended to influence America's behaviour in any way, and it was also clearly an attempt to escalate any conflict; in effect, an aggressive move against America. The telegram makes a vainly pointless statement of intent, in effect saying that Germany will kill American citizens but hopes that America will for some reason be OK about that. No reasonable person would take it seriously; if you really don't want war with another country - as I keep pointing out to you - don't kill that country's citizens.

Dave
 
9/11-investigator said:
Buchanan quoted Churchill as saying that American historians would not have an easy task explaining why the US entered the war.
Click to expand...

Let me just remind you where you initially placed the goalposts. You quoted Buchanan as saying Churchill was uncertain as to why America entered the war. The full version of the quote that Buchanan mined makes it clear that Churchill meant no such thing. You yourself admitted that Churchill meant no such thing. Clearly, Buchanan was lying.

9/11-investigator said:
Dave is getting sleepy.
WW1 lasted from 1914-1918.
Click to expand...

The Lusitania was sunk in 1915, in violation of international law; this is true whatever her cargo, despite your refusal to acknowledge it. However, as you seem so quickly to have forgotten, we were discussing the Zimmerman Telegram, which announced a policy in 1917 of sinking any ships, including neutrals, also in violation of international law. That's what unrestricted submarine warfare is; the U-boats didn't seek to make any effort to find out what ships were carrying before sinking them.

Dave
 
9/11-investigator said:
... the fat drunken hooligan Churchill...
Click to expand...


Just imagine how much faster and more thoroughly Churchill would have kicked the Nazis' asses if he'd been lean, sober, and well-behaved!


By the way, here are what some of the top ranking Nazis had to say about the Jews' responsibility for starting the World Wars:

"Gakkkkkkkkk" - von Ribbentrop, during his hanging, 16 October 1946.

"Agggghccchcgg allcchhhhhhhh gliiiigh oooaah aagggh." - Goering, shortly after poisoning himself with cyanide, 15 October 1946.

"Hurrrrrrkk chhh chhh chh gh" - Frick, during his hanging, 16 October 1946.

I find these quotes even more meaningful today than they were when they were uttered more than 60 years ago. One thing you have to give Nazis, they can be quite eloquent when in their natural environments.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom