WW2

[CrazyPaco]

The US was sending Britain and France food, supplies, and munitions before entering the war. The US also supplied a credit line (the largest ever at the time) to help fund the war against the Germans. The Germans tried to work with the US to stop this obvious breach of "neutrality". They wanted to keep the US neutral and even pledged not to sink US vessels. The Lusitania (sp ) was a British flagged ship. The US was not an innocent player in all this.

Really doesn't matter what the ship was flagged. It was a British cruise liner, like that matters at all what the flag was, carrying a bunch of prominent US civilians, and it was not stockpiled with troops and weapons as claimed. The US was always going to support the democracies of UK and France over the Kaiser's empire, despite strong pro-German sentiment in the US in a lot of quarters. Germany miscalculated, just like they did in WWII. They should have apologized to the US instead of doubling down on the legitimacy of their targeting, and they may have kept the doughboys at home.

What is beneath anyone, however, is somehow trying to equivocate the US, UK, or WWI Germany with Hamas.

 

[jivecat]

Really doesn't matter what the ship was flagged. It was a British cruise liner, like that matters at all what the flag was, carrying a bunch of prominent US civilians, and it was not stockpiled with troops and weapons as claimed. The US was always going to support the democracies of UK and France over the Kaiser's empire, despite strong pro-German sentiment in the US in a lot of quarters. Germany miscalculated, just like they did in WWII. They should have apologized to the US instead of doubling down on the legitimacy of their targeting, and they may have kept the doughboys at home.

What is beneath anyone, however, is somehow trying to equivocate the US, UK, or WWI Germany with Hamas.

Iran is supporting Hamas in the same way the US supported France and England in WW1. Money, munitions, and supplies are the backbone of why Hamas is able to continue their fight against Israel. The USA did the exact same thing by creating a proxy war against a Germany. It is the exact same thing.

 

[lilspainishflea]

Iran is supporting Hamas in the same way the US supported France and England in WW1. Money, munitions, and supplies are the backbone of why Hamas is able to continue their fight against Israel. The USA did the exact same thing by creating a proxy war against a Germany. It is the exact same thing.

There's a pretty big difference between a sovereign nation supporting another sovereign nation by selling them food and war material while trying to maintain neutrality and a sovereign nation freely giving weapons and supplies to a non-state terrorist group who uses that aid to almost exclusively attack civilians.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Iran is supporting Hamas in the same way the US supported France and England in WW1. Money, munitions, and supplies are the backbone of why Hamas is able to continue their fight against Israel. The USA did the exact same thing by creating a proxy war against a Germany. It is the exact same thing.

The US didn't "create a proxy war". Germany flat out started the conflict by invading France by steamrolling through neutral Belgium in violation of the Treaty of London. It was a real, hot, first strike invasion and the US had every right to sell supplies to whatever countries it chose to sell to, and it made complete sense to provide such supplies to partners like the UK and France, the latter of which obviously had imperial German troops on its soil.

The US was not using proxies as an instrument of its foreign policy to destroy Germany the way Iran is funding and supplying illegitimate terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah with its plainly stated end goals of annihilating the existence of Israel and any Jewish presence in the middle east.

 

[jivecat]

I had a relative who fought in WW1 and he brought a camera along and created a picture book. Not a big deal now, but forward thinking for his time. Some incredible pictures that put the American war effort into perspective. Cool story...he came back and married a "Pew" of the Pew Charitable trust and Sun Oil fame. I'm hoping we learn from the mistakes of "alliances" pulling multiple countries into a war. I feel as if we are finding sillier excuses to get involved in the world's problems.

 

[pittdan77]

I had a relative who fought in WW1 and he brought a camera along and created a picture book. Not a big deal now, but forward thinking for his time. Some incredible pictures that put the American war effort into perspective. Cool story...he came back and married a "Pew" of the Pew Charitable trust and Sun Oil fame. I'm hoping we learn from the mistakes of "alliances" pulling multiple countries into a war. I feel as if we are finding sillier excuses to get involved in the world's problems.

I remember an old guy in our church when I was a kid. He fought in WW1 and volunteered for an all or nothing mission. Like, do this mission, you'll probably die, but if you don't you go home. He had conveyed a lot of his memories for my mother to type up for him and she recounted that he figured he was going to die over there anyway, and conditions really sucked, so might as well get it over with. I don't know what the mission was or any of the details but he was one of a few survivors out of a hundred or so men. Army kept their word and sent him home.

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

I had a relative who fought in WW1 and he brought a camera along and created a picture book. Not a big deal now, but forward thinking for his time. Some incredible pictures that put the American war effort into perspective. Cool story...he came back and married a "Pew" of the Pew Charitable trust and Sun Oil fame. I'm hoping we learn from the mistakes of "alliances" pulling multiple countries into a war. I feel as if we are finding sillier excuses to get involved in the world's problems.

Aside geopolitical discussion of WWI, I think it is interesting that they were still "trench warfare" and would just send group after group out of the trenches into basically machine gun fire. They would just mow down. A really good description of this if you have ever seen the movie "Gallipoli" with a really young Mel Gibson, they show this pretty well.

 

[thebadby2]

Really doesn't matter what the ship was flagged. It was a British cruise liner, like that matters at all what the flag was, carrying a bunch of prominent US civilians, and it was not stockpiled with troops and weapons as claimed. The US was always going to support the democracies of UK and France over the Kaiser's empire, despite strong pro-German sentiment in the US in a lot of quarters. Germany miscalculated, just like they did in WWII. They should have apologized to the US instead of doubling down on the legitimacy of their targeting, and they may have kept the doughboys at home.

What is beneath anyone, however, is somehow trying to equivocate the US, UK, or WWI Germany with Hamas.

And then came the Nazis.......who made Hamas look like a Boy Scout troop.

Honestly not sure why Germany and Japan seem to get a geopolitical and public sentiment pass from the USA and the other Western countries over the past 50 years or so, given what they did to humankind in WW2. It really wasn't very long ago on the continuum of world history.

 

[CJsE]

Honestly not sure why Germany and Japan seem to get a geopolitical and public sentiment pass from the USA and the other Western countries over the past 50 years or so, given what they did to humankind in WW2. It really wasn't very long ago on the continuum of world history.

Because no major country has a clean record in the 20th century, certainly not the US.
Because Germany was literally split down the middle for 40 years.
Because they have been acting as essential allies against other nations that were/are antagonists to US and Western interests.
Because in the US, we've spent much of that time dealing with a threat (USSR/Russia) that could actually pose as an existential threat to our nation and they are strategically positioned as bulwarks.
Because for three generations they haven't been an enemy.

Pick one or many of the above?

 

[pittdan77]

Because no major country has a clean record in the 20th century, certainly not the US.
Because Germany was literally split down the middle for 40 years.
Because they have been acting as essential allies against other nations that were/are antagonists to US and Western interests.
Because in the US, we've spent much of that time dealing with a threat (USSR/Russia) that could actually pose as an existential threat to our nation and they are strategically positioned as bulwarks.
Because for three generations they haven't been an enemy.

Pick one or many of the above?

Also worth remembering that the "allies" still have troops garrisoned in Germany. The mission has shifted more towards any Russian aggression but it's not like the Germans are left to their own devices.

 

[ncyajleel]

And to think it all began with a late night drunken post.

This is a really interesting thread. Seriously.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

And to think it all began with a late night drunken post.

Which is pretty much how Hitler started.

 

[lilspainishflea]

And then came the Nazis.......who made Hamas look like a Boy Scout troop.

Honestly not sure why Germany and Japan seem to get a geopolitical and public sentiment pass from the USA and the other Western countries over the past 50 years or so, given what they did to humankind in WW2. It really wasn't very long ago on the continuum of world history.

At least in the case of Germany, they appear to be legitimately sorry for their role in the Holocaust. For example, modern Germany's support for Israel is essentially unequivocal. They're Israel's best non-US ally.

The Japanese government is essentially and unfortunately unapologetic for their specific war crimes in WW2. For example, they basically deny that certain war crimes existed and government censorship of school textbooks which would explain those atrocities is pretty well documented. They did at least totally de-militarize and forever renounce aggressive warfare so that's not nothing.

Policy-wise, both countries have more or less done a total 180 from their non-democratic and expansionist governments of 80 years ago. They would be totally unrecognizable to US soldiers in 1944.

 

[thebadby2]

Because no major country has a clean record in the 20th century, certainly not the US.
Because Germany was literally split down the middle for 40 years.
Because they have been acting as essential allies against other nations that were/are antagonists to US and Western interests.
Because in the US, we've spent much of that time dealing with a threat (USSR/Russia) that could actually pose as an existential threat to our nation and they are strategically positioned as bulwarks.
Because for three generations they haven't been an enemy.

Pick one or many of the above?

I’ll pick your very first offering. No need to go any further than that. There’s unclean hands, and then there’s Nazi Germany. Laughable that you would even suggest that the transgressions of “everyone else” , especially the U.S., are in any way comparable to what the Nazis did, why they did it, and what their ultimate intentions were had we not entered the European conflict and put our boot on their neck. The majority of German citizens that supported the Nazis had the same blood on their hands that Hitler and his brass did. Overall I’d say we’ve been exceedingly generous with our treatment of Germany in the decades that have followed WW2. They’re lucky we didn’t annex them outright as the Soviets did to East Germany.

 

[ratking17]

The US and Nazi Germany are not even close to be on the same level....

That said the US isn't blameless in the Holocaust. We had numerous opportunities to help Jewish refugees but on many occasions, we turned a blind eye to the Jews in Europe.

If anyone wants to watch an excellent but lengthy documentary, the Ken Burns most recent doc on the US role during ww2 was extremely well done.

 

[jivecat]

Ever wonder why it is rare that Hitler’s speeches are ever in English? It’s because much of it would make sense. Nobody tricked the German people. Hitler showed them a better path and world from being a conquered nation to a near unstoppable military and economic juggernaut. If 99% of Germans knew what he was leading them to, they would have chosen differently. Politicians lie.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Ever wonder why it is rare that Hitler’s speeches are ever in English?

Wait, is someone seriously wondering why a German politician was giving speeches in German and not English?

 

[CJsE]

I’ll pick your very first offering. No need to go any further than that. There’s unclean hands, and then there’s Nazi Germany. Laughable that you would even suggest that the transgressions of “everyone else” , especially the U.S., are in any way comparable to what the Nazis did, why they did it, and what their ultimate intentions were had we not entered the European conflict and put our boot on their neck. The majority of German citizens that supported the Nazis had the same blood on their hands that Hitler and his brass did. Overall I’d say we’ve been exceedingly generous with our treatment of Germany in the decades that have followed WW2. They’re lucky we didn’t annex them outright as the Soviets did to East Germany.

There was a book we read at Pitt called "Hitler's Willing Executioners" that argues the same thing about the German public's acceptance and promotion of antisemitism before and during the war. The professor tore the book apart as everything a historian shouldn't do when assembling an argument for your thesis. It's sensational, selective, and most historians dispute much of what's included and acknowledge that those messages were primarily politicized only by the right wing political parties who didn't even win a majority of the vote before the political and industrial elites enabled the Nazis to eliminate all other political parties to defeat the leftist political parties (The Socialist and Communist parties combined for more votes than the Nazi's in both 1932 and 1928 elections). Even with the SS employing tens of thousands of armed "poll watchers" to intimidate voters inside polling locations, the Nazi's still got less than 50% of the vote in 1933. They were a populace that was controlled by terror by the minority.

 

[JD1976]

You need to watch "The Man in the High Castle" on Prime Video, very interesting as far as what might have happened if the Nazis won WW2. The interesting things are the societal stuff.

Awesome show. Very interesting but also very scary.

 

[jivecat]

There was a book we read at Pitt called "Hitler's Willing Executioners" that argues the same thing about the German public's acceptance and promotion of antisemitism before and during the war. The professor tore the book apart as everything a historian shouldn't do when assembling an argument for your thesis. It's sensational, selective, and most historians dispute much of what's included and acknowledge that those messages were primarily politicized only by the right wing political parties who didn't even win a majority of the vote before the political and industrial elites enabled the Nazis to eliminate all other political parties to defeat the leftist political parties (The Socialist and Communist parties combined for more votes than the Nazi's in both 1932 and 1928 elections). Even with the SS employing tens of thousands of armed "poll watchers" to intimidate voters inside polling locations, the Nazi's still got less than 50% of the vote in 1933. They were a populace that was controlled by terror by the minority.

Going back to the earlier post….a German victory in WW1 and the Nazis never exist and a million Jews are alive in 1945. 10 million Russians and Poles are alive as well.

 

[Pitt79]

Awesome show. Very interesting but also very scary.

There was a fantasy/sci-fi element to it, but the way they depicted Hitler's vision being fulfilled was very interesting, like the way they got rid of the Jew and the Africans in the places they controlled, and the way they got rid of the disabled and sick and made all the people with terminal diseases kill themselves instead of trying to cure them and the storyline with the American Nazi leader and his son, it was really insane seeing a depiction of what Hitler wanted,

 

[CJsE]

Going back to the earlier post….a German victory in WW1 and the Nazis never exist and a million Jews are alive in 1945. 10 million Russians and Poles are alive as well.

And again, that's an incredibly simplistic argument that assumes that expansionist rival powers wouldn't have continued to do what expansionist powers have done throughout history.
-That assumes that there wouldn't have been a global depression, which there would have been because the war would likely have lasted just as long, if not longer without US intervention.
-That assumes that there wouldn't have been a cultural and political split between the politically powerful industrialists in Germany and the working populace that was increasingly embracing socialism and communism.
-That assumes that Lenin and Stalin wouldn't go to war with Germany to reclaim the lands they forfeited to Germany in their peace treaty. The land was immensely valuable and contained roughly 1/3 of the Russian population. Riots had already started in Poland against Germany before the end of the war.

We get it, you are trying to shift blame for the Holocaust to American interventionism, but your idyllic description of a peaceful German Hegemony is not grounded in reality.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

We get it, you are trying to shift blame for the Holocaust to American interventionism, but your idyllic description of a peaceful German Hegemony is not grounded in reality.

You give him far too much credit. He's just a troll alias who posts ridiculous stuff to get a rise out of people.

 

[lilspainishflea]

And again, that's an incredibly simplistic argument that assumes that expansionist rival powers wouldn't have continued to do what expansionist powers have done throughout history.
-That assumes that there wouldn't have been a global depression, which there would have been because the war would likely have lasted just as long, if not longer without US intervention.
-That assumes that there wouldn't have been a cultural and political split between the politically powerful industrialists in Germany and the working populace that was increasingly embracing socialism and communism.
-That assumes that Lenin and Stalin wouldn't go to war with Germany to reclaim the lands they forfeited to Germany in their peace treaty. The land was immensely valuable and contained roughly 1/3 of the Russian population. Riots had already started in Poland against Germany before the end of the war.

We get it, you are trying to shift blame for the Holocaust to American interventionism, but your idyllic description of a peaceful German Hegemony is not grounded in reality.

Surely Germany, freshly victorious in an aggressive war of their choosing, with major territorial gains in Eastern Europe, and now the dominant European power, would have been happy with all of that and just not done any more wars, right?

And surely Germany, notably lenient toward Belgian civilians, would never have created a more organized and industrial way of purging conquered lands of their perceived political enemies.

Yeah this dude is just throwing out ahistorical nonsense. His WW1 takes are misinformed, at best, and his projections about what a future Earth without the Armistice are based on very little more than his say-so.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Going back to the earlier post….a German victory in WW1 and the Nazis never exist and a million Jews are alive in 1945. 10 million Russians and Poles are alive as well.

Or WW1 stays the same but there's no stock market crash in 1929. Hitler would have just been a nuisance, probably doesnt even make the history books.

 

[ratking17]

Or WW1 stays the same but there's no stock market crash in 1929. Hitler would have just been a nuisance, probably doesnt even make the history books.

I don't think this revisionist history is realistic. To think the stock market would not have crashed with so much buying on the margin and just utter wastefulness or the roaring 20s is way to simplistic. I guess if you don't have the treaty of Versailles being so harsh and you don't have Britain and France wanting revenge and you don't have the Weimar republic accepting terms of surrender that they didn't even want and you didn't have a global depression, and you didn't have a worldwide historical case of anti semitism (think the protocols of the elders of zion) ....then yeah...maybe Hitler would have been more a nuisance than anything else. But unfortunately history had all of those situations occur and the world suffered because of it.

 

[jivecat]

And again, that's an incredibly simplistic argument that assumes that expansionist rival powers wouldn't have continued to do what expansionist powers have done throughout history.
-That assumes that there wouldn't have been a global depression, which there would have been because the war would likely have lasted just as long, if not longer without US intervention.
-That assumes that there wouldn't have been a cultural and political split between the politically powerful industrialists in Germany and the working populace that was increasingly embracing socialism and communism.
-That assumes that Lenin and Stalin wouldn't go to war with Germany to reclaim the lands they forfeited to Germany in their peace treaty. The land was immensely valuable and contained roughly 1/3 of the Russian population. Riots had already started in Poland against Germany before the end of the war.

We get it, you are trying to shift blame for the Holocaust to American interventionism, but your idyllic description of a peaceful German Hegemony is not grounded in reality.

There still would have been a Great Depression in the United States but Europe would have avoided a deep depression. Economists agree on this since the US became the world’s bank after WW1.

There was a political disconnect after WW1 in Germany. It was a quasi civil war and Wermeich republic was formed after they defeated the socialists and communists. I highly doubt a strong victorious Germany would fall to socialism or communism if a defeated, weak Germany did not.

Russia would be the next area attacked by Germans. The Kaiser was cousins with the Czar and he was holding on to the monarchy. Communism was a direct threat to their power in Europe. Very unlikely the Bolshevik’s beat the Czars army and Germany.

Hope I explained myself better. Also, i never said American intervention was the reason for the holocaust. The Nazis were the reason for the holocaust. No Nazis….no holocaust.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I don't think this revisionist history is realistic. To think the stock market would not have crashed with so much buying on the margin and just utter wastefulness or the roaring 20s is way to simplistic. I guess if you don't have the treaty of Versailles being so harsh and you don't have Britain and France wanting revenge and you don't have the Weimar republic accepting terms of surrender that they didn't even want and you didn't have a global depression, and you didn't have a worldwide historical case of anti semitism (think the protocols of the elders of zion) ....then yeah...maybe Hitler would have been more a nuisance than anything else. But unfortunately history had all of those situations occur and the world suffered because of it.

I didn't mean it like you thought I did. I simply meant that if there was no Stock Market crash, Hitler never gets anywhere close to power.