Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
stilicho said:
(Regarding the Zimmerman note):

While this might technically be true, or at least debatable, surely the Kaiser's advisors could have arrived at a more discreet way of seeking a mutually beneficial alliance than this. The US was still smarting from French adventurism in Mexico only a few decades prior.

Why are we discussing the US and the Zimmerman note? WWI was well underway by the time this occurred. Has someone suggested the US started WWI?
Click to expand...

More of a case of the US still smarting from the Villa Columbus raid andt chronic instabllity along the Mexican Border during the Mexican Revolution then Napoleon the Third's ill fated attempt to make Mexico a de facto French Colony...ran, in a huge irony, by an Austrian Prince.
It's only permanent result was giving the Mexicans a National Holiday in Cinco De Mayo.
 
stilicho said:
(Regarding the Zimmerman note):

While this might technically be true, or at least debatable, surely the Kaiser's advisors could have arrived at a more discreet way of seeking a mutually beneficial alliance than this. The US was still smarting from French adventurism in Mexico only a few decades prior.
Click to expand...

I assume that by 1917 the Americans could read and understood the meaning of the telegram: "don't start a war against Germany and nothing will happen to you".

Why are we discussing the US and the Zimmerman note? WWI was well underway by the time this occurred. Has someone suggested the US started WWI?
Click to expand...

No, no, you ignore a fine Buchanite distinction here. Technically WW1 started in 1917 with the American war entry, not 1914. Although non-Europeans (sorry Kiwi's) probably entered the European theater earlier as citizens of the Glorious British empire (now defunct, except for Wales, Scotland and the Malvinas, courtesy Churchill).

It depends on what you define as US. There are some uncurable anti-semites around here who claim, based on the independent testimony of 2 self-hating Jews, that it was the AIPAC du jour who pushed Wilson into the war.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
dudalb said:
More of a case of the US still smarting from the Villa Columbus raid andt chronic instabllity along the Mexican Border during the Mexican Revolution then Napoleon the Third's ill fated attempt to make Mexico a de facto French Colony...ran, in a huge irony, by an Austrian Prince.
It's only permanent result was giving the Mexicans a National Holiday in Cinco De Mayo.
Click to expand...

I don't think the US would have associated mere border raids with European intervention in Mexican political administration.

The question stands: Why is the Zimmerman note being discussed? Did somebody say that the US started WWI?
 
9/11-investigator said:
Technically WW1 started in 1917 with the American war entry, not 1914. Although non-Europeans (sorry Kiwi's) probably entered the European theater earlier as citizens of the Glorious British empire (now defunct, except for Wales, Scotland and the Malvinas, courtesy Churchill).
Click to expand...

So conflicts don't count unless the US is involved? You must realise that it used to be called "The Great War" until the sequel was fought. Nobody in Europe was under any illusions that they could fight major conflicts among themselves without Americans being involved.

Can you cite any historian who agrees with you that the Great War only started in 1917?
 
They were blinded by the comapratively small size of the British army and ignored what a British Blockade could do to Germany. Thus the now infamous "Comtemptible Little Army" remark. I understand the actual term in German is "Negliable" rather then Contemptable but still is shows the huge blind spot Germany had.
Click to expand...

Germany was a Land power, although they built a large navy they weren't a sea power. Britian saw itself as a Maritime power.

It was a mistake the Germans repeated in WW2 as well.
 
stilicho said:
So conflicts don't count unless the US is involved?
Click to expand...
In case you are an American it should me you feel proud and important.

You must realise that it used to be called "The Great War" until the sequel was fought. Nobody in Europe was under any illusions that they could fight major conflicts among themselves without Americans being involved.
Click to expand...
That is true but nowdays we speak of World War 1.

I doubt that the Europeans were counting the minutes from the moment they started butchering each other until the moment the Americans joined. You see, Europe in those days was very euro-centric. Other continents were not really in the picture, other than as a colony. That changed on the day that Britain decided to team up with the US and the SU in order to let them take over the place just to see a country destroyed that they deemed too strong. Difficult people, these British.

Can you cite any historian who agrees with you that the Great War only started in 1917?
Click to expand...

Nobody says that. The Great War started in 1914. It turned into a world war in 1917.
 
Last edited:
You should have seen what he did with nonexistent remote airliner piloting technology.
 
9/11-investigator said:
The Anglos merely confined themselves to killing civilians from a safe 10 km altitude and joining the party when it was almost over fighting children in the Ardennes.
Click to expand...

So like the French Saar Offensive, you are now denying
1) The Commonwealth Western Desert campaign (ever heard of Rommel?)
2) The Med/Italian campaign ( Ever heard of Kesselring...smiling Albert?)
3) Burma/Malaya/Singapore ( Ever heard of the death railway?)
4) Normandy and Arnhem ( Ever heard of Montgomery?)

So, you seem to think the UK Commonwealth armies sat on thier hands for the duration? You are a very strange person.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
So like the French Saar Offensive, you are now denying
1) The Commonwealth Western Desert campaign (ever heard of Rommel?)
2) The Med/Italian campaign ( Ever heard of Kesselring...smiling Albert?)
3) Burma/Malaya/Singapore ( Ever heard of the death railway?)
4) Normandy and Arnhem ( Ever heard of Montgomery?)

So, you seem to think the UK Commonwealth armies sat on thier hands for the duration? You are a very strange person.
Click to expand...

As a Yank, I had relatives who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and I would not call some of the SS Armor units they faced "Children".
9/11 investigator will need artifical legs considering the number of times he has shot himself in the foot in this thread.
 
dudalb said:
As a Yank, I had relatives who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and I would not call some of the SS Armor units they faced "Children". .
Click to expand...

Having relatives in the Western desert I am sure they would have wished the Afrika Corp were children
 
Having relatives in the Western desert I am sure they would have wished the Afrika Corp were children
Click to expand...

Really.
The "CHildren in the Ardennes" is a direct implication that the German troops who launched "Wacht Am Rhein" were basically the quality level of what was encountered later in Germany in the Volkssturm...poor quality troops that were underage or over age.
In reality, Hitler used the best he had left in the Ardennes. It was his last major gamble. Overall the quality of German troops was indeed down by late 1944..by a lot...but the overall quality of the units in the Ardennes Offensive was pretty damn high..including almost all of the Elite SS Armored Divisions. Just read any account of the battle.
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
I assume that by 1917 the Americans could read and understood the meaning of the telegram: "don't start a war against Germany and nothing will happen to you".
Click to expand...

Beautiful analogy. So when a gangster visits a bar and says, "Take out an insurance policy with me, and I'll make sure this place doesn't get set on fire," there's not the slightest hint of a threat there.

But you're still trying desperately to pretend not to understand the crucial point that the Americans weren't supposed to read anything into the telegram; they weren't supposed to see it at all. It can't possibly have been intended as discouragement to join the war. And its meaning was clear: German submarines will sink American ships as a matter of policy, and if the Americans try to do anything about it Germany will do all it can to hurt America.

No threat there.

Incidentally, let's look at the double standard in play here. Germany contacts Mexico and invites them to join the war on Germany's side under certain circumstances, which is a perfectly peaceful move and should provoke no action from anyone. Meanwhile, according to 9/11-investigator's highly reliable anecdotal sources, a British Jewish organisation contacts America and invites them to join the war on Britain's side, and this is an act of treachery by German Jews which justifies the extermination of the entire Jewish race. Impeccable logic and consistency, don't you think?

Dave
 
9/11-investigator said:
That is true but nowdays we speak of World War 1.

I doubt that the Europeans were counting the minutes from the moment they started butchering each other until the moment the Americans joined. You see, Europe in those days was very euro-centric. Other continents were not really in the picture, other than as a colony. That changed on the day that Britain decided to team up with the US and the SU in order to let them take over the place just to see a country destroyed that they deemed too strong. Difficult people, these British.
Click to expand...

Britain teamed up with the Soviet Union in World War 1? Gosh, I never knew that. And all this time I thought the Soviet Union was formed as a result of Russia being unable to continue fighting in World War 1 and suffering internal collapse and revolution. But hang on, maybe you meant World War Two, and you're saying that America was never involved in European affairs until 1941. But no, that would mean America didn't declare war on Germany in 1917, and all your posturing about the causes of that nonexistent event was meaningless because it never happened. No, that can't be it...

Could it be that you'll just blurt out the first mindless smear that enters your head without thinking? That seems to be the best explanation.

9/11-investigator said:
Nobody says that. The Great War started in 1914. It turned into a world war in 1917.
Click to expand...

Note, not 1915 when the Lusitania was sunk, but 1917 when Germany decided killing Americans was a sensible policy. Inconvenient, that.

Dave
 
9/11-investigator said:
He did not kick any asses, it was mainly the Soviets who did the kicking. The Anglos merely confined themselves to killing civilians from a safe 10 km altitude and joining the party when it was almost over fighting children in the Ardennes.
Click to expand...

So, 9/11, tell us, when did this irrational disdain for anglo-saxons begin ? Let's start with your childhood...
 
MG1962 said:
Really - so what Australia New Zealand India Japan Canada didn't exist?

and this didn't happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Campaign_(World_War_I)

Or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_..._World_War_I#Allied_offensives_in_the_Pacific

Or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tsingtao
Click to expand...

In post #522 I already apologized myself for the Kiwis. A family member who is long deceased now was held prisoner in a Japanese camp in our former colony Indonesia. Although he had a hard time there he also said that 'somehow he could not take these little gnomes seriously'. He was talking about the Japanese. I am afraid that that attitude still lives on in me. When it comes to both world wars, the only parties I take seriously are Jews, Germans, Russians and Americans. That's it. And you probably understood that I only take Americans seriously as a tool in the hand of the Jews to destroy European civilization. And then you will also understand that in my eyes Putin is a demi-God. And that Ron paul is a quarter-God. Just like H-word denier Ahmadinejad.
 
dudalb said:
If Belgium had not been invaded, Britain probably would have remained neutral. Up to the Belgian invasion, the UK Cabinent was busy trying to find ways to weasel out of it vague agreements with France on mutual defense.
BTW one of the major German miscalculations was how much power Britain could bring to the table in a war. They were blinded by the comapratively small size of the British army and ignored what a British Blockade could do to Germany. Thus the now infamous "Comtemptible Little Army" remark. I understand the actual term in German is "Negliable" rather then Contemptable but still is shows the huge blind spot Germany had.
And, of course, the British soldiers who fought the Germans at Mons and First Ypres called themsleves" The Old Contemptibles" after they heard about that remark....
Click to expand...

And we know what first ypres is famous for...

Ended the mobile campaigning of 1914.
Destroyed most of the BEF
Stopped the germans reaching the french channel ports.
The Kindermord bei Ypern (Massacare of the innocents of Ypres)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Ypres

A horrible battle really, but often overshadowed by Third Ypres (Passchendale)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom