-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
A Culture of Helplessness
- Thread starter Raoul Duke
- Start date
We were not fat, happy - and stupid. We were in the middle of a depression. And any problems over in Europe were just that - European problems, not ours. People in 1939 did not want to go to war in Europe - again. They had already done that in 1918 and planted almost 117,000 American soldiers in the ground in around a year and a half. Plus 3 million something Americans were DRAFTED (something unheard of since the civil war) to go fight in a European war.
Wilson had said he would keep us out of the war. He lied - he wanted the US in the war because he wanted the US to have a seat at the table with the "Great Powers" of Europe. The US went down the road of big govt. socialism because of Woodrow Wilson. Gun control and all the other liberal crap that we have had to deal with over the last century or so has many of it's roots in that period of time.
The founding fathers warned us to stay out of European wars - look where it has gotten us by ignoring that advice.
Pat Buchanan has recently written an entire book about how the US involvement in WW1 may have actually paved the way for the rise of Hitler and Communism because we tilted the balance of power when we got involved in their war - and the Europeans on the victorious side basically punished the Germans - when it was both sides' fault for the war.
The beginnings of WW2 have their roots in the same European political bullshit that started WW1. Britain for instance had treaties with countries like Poland, whom it was pledged to defend, even though that was realistically impossible for Britain to carry out.
The likelihood that Germany could have invaded the United States was slim to none - they couldn't even get across the English Channel to invade Britain for christ sake.
Stop reducing history down to the level of crap we were taught in 5th grade in public school - it is a good part of the reason why there are so many people in this country who are so ignorant of the way historical events have really happened.
Once again: the word "isolationist" is not what the US was. The US has pretty much NEVER been isolationist. We have always traded with the world. We have always welcomed people here from all over the world. What we were for a long time was non-interventionist (translation: stay the f*** out of other people's business). The rise of "non-isolationism" pretty much parallels the rise of liberalism in this country - and for good reason. Because liberals are always sticking their nose into other peoples business. Whether it is on a personal scale by banning trans fats - or on an international scale by getting involved in other countries' business or going in search of monsters to destroy or countries to save. It's all pretty much part of the same "I know better than you" liberal mindset.
America First tried to keep us out of the war. It is interesting to read what their platform was and then see what has become of us (American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war. ) in the present day :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
And if any of those reasons are not good enough for you there is this. As long as we waited to get involved in WW2 - we still got our ass handed to us pretty good in the first year or so of the war. And this is even when a lot of the new planes, tanks and ships were just coming online. IF we had gotten involved in WW2 any earlier than we did - we may well have had our butts handed to use even worse. By staying out of the we let the Germans and the Russians beat the crap out of each other for a good 6 months before the US was involved.
Wilson wanted us in the war??? Have you read anything other then Buchannon's stuff? Any primary sources? Wilson did everything he could do to keep America out of the war. It was public opinion that forced him into the war. WWII was an inevetible outcome of WWI whether the US became involved or not. Had we not become involved the war would have likely stalemated with Germany in control of northwestern France - thus providing a causus belli in the same way the results of the Franco-Prussian war provided one for WWI. Wilson actually did everything he could to mitigate the reparations.
Wilson didn't lay the groundwork for socialism - arguably TR did and he was a Republican. FDR took the concept of Big Government to the fore and yes, WWII did result in the monolithic centeral government that we all know and love today.
As for 'fat, dumb and happy' - by 1939 the US economy was already in recovery. The isolationists were wrong for one big reason: there is no way it would have ended there. The Nazi economic model was predicated on conquest - once they stopped, the economy would have stagnated, spurring them further on. Your arguements as to why the US didn't want to enter the war applied 10 fold to GB and France - and look where isolationism and appeasment got them.
With no ill will to Pat Buchannon at all, he does have a POV in writing his analysis - as do all authors.
Reality check: While the Depression did not end until war production and the draft began, we were out of the depths of it in 1939.
What you call "European problems" were, in fact, global. HINT: It was called WORLD War II for a reason. It has apparently escaped your clearly limited awareness that Japan was one of the three Axis powers and was busily conquoring most of the Pacific Rim, from China to Malaysia. Look at a globe sometime - turn it around and you'll find the rest of the world.
Really? Guess FDR was just a Wilson wanna-be.
Addressing more of your drivel, gun control began in the South in the 1850's to keep blacks disarmed; it hit the Northeast in the early 1900's to disarm the immigrants. Your assertion that "Wilson socialism" is responsible is bunk. There was nothing socialist about Wilson.
As for his conspiring to get us "a seat at the table," you are looking on the wrong shore of the Atlantic. It was a German sub that sank Lusitania, which almost brought us into the war, and the revelation of the Zimmerman telegram which did finally trigger our declaration. How is Wilson responsible for either event?
It made us the premier superpower of the 20th century, allowed us to check the incursions of the one other superpower and left us as THE such power today.
What's your problem?
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
You don't have to have served in the military to be able to critizize the military (ours or another country's).
critsize no, but calling people cowards like hes done to the french on numerous occasions is a no-go. a lot of those "cowards" were killed by a drasticly stronger military, and the massive generalisations are pure bullshit. the entire french military didnt throw its rifles down and run for the hills the day the germans walked into france.
if you dont have the f***ing balls to serve during anytime, wether its war or peace, then you dont have the right to call other soldiers who did serve cowards because of their nationality. f***ing arm chair qtr backs. if scriv where there he would of been the guy that had not only ran away but shit and pissed in his pants in the process. go man up first buddy, then talk shit about something you were never, and will never be apart of.
I still disagree with you. The french are pussies. I have never served in the armed forces. I have my reasons for not serving, none of them being that I'm afraid. Just because people don't, didn't or won't serve doesn mean they "don't have the balls to serve". That is an ignorant assumption to make. There are tons of different variables in one's life that could cause them to serve or not.
I think a lot of the talking shit about the French is hyperbole to an extent but all stereotypes (like it or not) have some basis in factual reality.
while i wasnt questioning you (it was more aimed at scriv), i do understand the general feeling of how france can be considered cowards when you look at things in general terms. france as a terrible record with its wars. however, what some people fail to grasp is that there were very very brave people in the french military in all conflicts, and calling them a collective bunch of cowards is not only ignorant, its obviously wrong.
i have met the french army in uniform. they are no different then the current US Army. the french government can be branded as a group of cowards all day for all i care, but anyone who wears his or her uniform for their country is not a coward. people who have never worn a uniform in their life are in no position to call soldiers cowards.
" People who have never worn a uniform in their life are in no position to call soldiers cowards " Well, from 1800 miles away it seems like a reasonable statement to me.
the_shootist
Banned
As long as I have the right, I carry a DEFENSIVE weapon with me as much as possible. To hell with what the 'government' tells me. The Constitution guarantees me the right to defend myself and those I love, and I will!
Distance is irrelevant to poor logic. Here are some examples of the defects in yours:
I don't have to belong to a painter's union to know a crappy paint job when I see one; I don't have to be a certified mechanic to know when my car is running rough and I don't have to have a medical degree to know bones sticking through skin mean a compound fracture.
Similarly, I don't need to wear a uniform to grasp the simple fact that sailors who scuttle their own ships rather than fight are cowards; that sailors who refuse to leave port and fight are cowards and that troops who throw down their arms and then prop up a puppet government by their conquerors are cowards.
If you don't know enough history to figure that out, it makes the French 3 for 3.
No, you can criticize, but to put it in context, you had to serve to understand the total idiocy of the whole military.
Not the troops, the system. BS stacked on BS, waiting in line for MORE BS.
Boy, where to start here.
OK, the French is as good a place as any.
The French Government, and the majority of the French Army are a bunch of buffoons.
Cowards, idiots, slackers that have to get foreigners to do their real fighting for them.
I know ONE (just ONE) ex-French soldier I'd trust to have my back in a fire fight. He WON'T cut and run. Of course, he also was smart enough to move to the US.
And, yeah, if ANYBODY here has earned the right to comment on soldiers, I guess I do. I've walked the walk and stood enouigh time in boots to know what I speak of.
And, you know, it doesn't take having spent time in uniform to know the French would currently be speaking German if it had not been for the US. Twice that has happened. Both times, they brought it upon themselves, by poor peace treaties with horrible reparations.
WW1 started in the 1800's, and has multiple origins. The assassination in Sarajevo was just the spark that ignited the fire already built. The US got in, because Wilson asked Congress to declare war after the sinking of several passenger ships by Germany. Zimmerman was the frosting on the cake.
WW2 also has multiple origins, and the treatment of Germany at Versailles is the primary reason. Bad economies let tin horn dictators get in power, preaching "Change". (Where have I heard "change" recently?)
You know, I'll back up what Scrivener is saying (all of it), and add that at least he did his own research on the matter. More than those that disagree did.
OK, the French is as good a place as any.
The French Government, and the majority of the French Army are a bunch of buffoons.
Cowards, idiots, slackers that have to get foreigners to do their real fighting for them.
I know ONE (just ONE) ex-French soldier I'd trust to have my back in a fire fight. He WON'T cut and run. Of course, he also was smart enough to move to the US.
And, yeah, if ANYBODY here has earned the right to comment on soldiers, I guess I do. I've walked the walk and stood enouigh time in boots to know what I speak of.
And, you know, it doesn't take having spent time in uniform to know the French would currently be speaking German if it had not been for the US. Twice that has happened. Both times, they brought it upon themselves, by poor peace treaties with horrible reparations.
WW1 started in the 1800's, and has multiple origins. The assassination in Sarajevo was just the spark that ignited the fire already built. The US got in, because Wilson asked Congress to declare war after the sinking of several passenger ships by Germany. Zimmerman was the frosting on the cake.
WW2 also has multiple origins, and the treatment of Germany at Versailles is the primary reason. Bad economies let tin horn dictators get in power, preaching "Change". (Where have I heard "change" recently?)
You know, I'll back up what Scrivener is saying (all of it), and add that at least he did his own research on the matter. More than those that disagree did.
If we were out of the depths of the Depression by 1939 as you claim it was only because of massive socialist govt. programs instituted by FDR that were forced into place. It is easy to simulate getting an economy out of economic depression by turning all of a countries industry towards war material production, and drafting a good portion of the workforce into govt. service. The true measure of a real recovery is not forced govt. intervention - but when the economy recovers on it's own - and that did not happen until after WW2 was over.
From:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north549.html
" The symbol of liberalism's complete domination over education in the United States is the absence of any academic book that is hostile to Roosevelt's domestic economic policies and his foreign policy.
America's educational system has a supreme myth that serves as the foundation of American statism: "Franklin Roosevelt got America out of the Great Depression. He saved capitalism from itself."
Actually, this was a joint effort. Hitler invaded Poland. Then England went to war to defend Poland, which was militarily impossible, which military strategists in Britain knew at the time. Then the British government started ordering American-made goods. Until wartime orders from Great Britain in 1940 began to stimulate domestic production in America, the American economy remained in depression.
In 1941, the American economy was still weak. Our entry into World War II, which Roosevelt had promised voters in his 1940 campaign would not happen, justified the Federal Reserve System's policy of mass inflation. Wartime wage controls kept wages from rising. This lowered real wages, creating demand for workers. Then the draft boards pulled 12 million men into the military. Most were shipped overseas. Full employment at home was restored!
War was Roosevelt's tool of economic recovery: inflation, controls, and the draft."
Thanks for the condescension. Let me return the favor. Maybe you ought to read more than public school history books. Japan had been at war in China for many years before it ever went to war with the US. Germany took back the Saar in 1933 (by a vote of it's residents), in 1938 they entered Austria and remilitarized the Rhineland (which had been demilitarized by the Versaille Treaty), and annexed the Sudentenland in 1938 also. The annexation was agreed to by the French and British. The portions of Czechoslovakia that went back to Germany - wanted to go back. There were large populations of German speaking people in those regions.
All of this happened well before 1940 when the Tripartite pact was signed by Germany, Japan and Italy. The pieces that led to WW2 were well in motion before any of these countries ever signed a treaty to cooperate - WW2 was in fact already in motion when they signed the treaty. So what you are really alleging is prior cooperation where none existed and the war(s) which were entirely separate enterprises before 1940 were suddenly joined by that treaty. Furthermore - if you knew your history you would know that Japan and Germany fought pretty much on their own with absolutely no military reinforcement of each other - the only exchanges of any military value that I have ever heard of were some technological exchanges in the later years of the war, mostly from Germany to Japan. So what you are really talking about is two separate wars joined by the historians and a treaty. The Americans knew this - and shorted the effort in the war against Japan in favor of the war against Germany (until the German defeat).
Yeah - Duh. Woodrow Wilson appointed FDR as assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1913. Wilson and FDR were politically connected - and Roosevelt shared Wilson's dream for a "New World Order". Wilson wanted the League of Nations - Roosevelt tried to fix the failure with the United Nations. Woodrow Wilson was a liberal - he may not have been as outright of a socialist as FDR - but he set the stage.
From the book "Liberal Fascism" :
http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C7192
How Woodrow Wilson and the other founding fathers of American liberalism were far crueler jingoists and warmongers than modern conservatives have ever been
How Wilson's crackdown on civil liberties in the name of national security far exceeds anything even attempted by Joe McCarthy, much less George W. Bush
How Mussolini and Hitler both thought -- quite rightly -- that they were doing things along the same lines as FDR
How, in the 1930s, FDR's New Deal was praised for its similarity to Italian Fascism -- "the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery," said an influential member of FDR's team
I know well the roots of gun control in the US. I also know it was the Democrats who championed it. Just because it existed before Wilson came into power does not mean that it didn't take on new life and get worse from his actions in expanding the government and setting the precedent that FDR later took advantage of. US v Miller was in 1939 - it took a few years for the groundwork that Wilson laid to bear fruit. Then as it is now - liberals don't like guns, as far as I know there were no overt attempts at gun control by Wilson. But the expansion of govt. and the belief in "progressivism" by Wilson led to FDR - and the expansion of the welfare state and socialism in this country - and big govt and socialism go hand in hand with gun control. It has been that way in every single country that has gone down that path. Woodrow Wilson did much to kickstart us down the path to socialism so he bears the responsibility for the inevitable results.
The Lusitania was a British ship - not an American ship. The sinking of a British passenger ship while not exactly a humanitarian event should never have been a good enough reason to send the US to war. The British were not exactly saints themselves - they were blockading Germany to try to starve them out of the war. The Lusitania was outfitted with ammunition magazines, and had been setup to be outfitted with guns. The German govt ran advertisements in US newspapers warning US citizens not to travel on Lusitania. The Lusitania was carrying war material when it was sunk - therefore it was arguably a legitimate target - this is common knowledge and easily researchable to those who care to bother:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpwwi2.htm
The Zimmerman telegram was not of Wilson's doing obviously - but Wilson had already been tacitly supporting Britain already - and the entry into WW1 gave him something to help realize his utopian progressivist dreams. Woodrow Wilson was a progressivist (we call them liberals now) - dreamer. The League of Nations was his idea - and it was rejected by his own country:
Woodrow Wilson was an idealist whose plan for a League was permanently weakened by America’s refusal to join it. His Fourteen Points were fine on paper but no nation was willing to substantially support them. As a Democrat, he had to deal with a Senate that had a Republican majority in it after the end of the war - and party loyalty meant that his ideas for a world that would be peaceful would be killed off at a political level.
The combination of WW1 and WW2 broke the British Empire and propelled Britain into the socialist wonderland that it is today. It has been argued by a number of historians the entry of the US into WW1 was what helped to lay the groundwork for Communism to take over in Russia in the first place and for Hitler to take power. The entry of the US into the war tipped the scaled in a war in which both sides were nearing exhaustion and might have come to terms amenable to BOTH parties. Instead - with the vengeful terms of the Versaille Treaty imposed on Germany by the French and British - Germany was driven into the ground to the point where the German people would support a person like Hitler in the first place.
Furthermore - Buchanan has pointed out that Hitlers main concern was not France or Britain - but Communist Russia. When the Reichstag was burned - the Nazi's didn't blame it on British secret agents - they blamed it on communists. At the end of the war when Germany was defeated Patton wanted to keep going against the Russians - and multiple German Wehrmacht generals wanted to join with the Americans and British to do just that. Rudolph Hess flew to Britain to try and negotiate for peace - I don't recall any Germans trying that with Russia - because they didn't want it. Hitler himself actually admired Britain.
I am glad you are so proud of the US becoming the premier superpower of the 20th century. If past performance is any predictor of future behavior that would put is right in line to either turn into a semi third world country - like Russia (the other superpower of the 20th century), or maybe a socialist paradise where we can't own guns (like Britain the previous ultimate superpower) , or maybe a country overrun by immigrants (like France - another dead superpower) - or possibly defeated catastrophically at war (like Germany - another superpower now gone) - or maybe we will turn from being the remnants of a republic into a dictatorship - like another famous "premier superpower" from history (Rome).
If you have been paying any attention to the recent economic news - and have any clue as to the size of the US debt you might start to get a clue as to how some of this might be starting to transpire already.
Unfortunately far too few of my fellow citizens pay any attention to the founding fathers of this alleged republic said and actually have the historical comprehension to understand why one of them said the following:
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
I don't want to live in failed socialist - bankrupt - defeated - overrun by immigrants - completely f***ed up country. People who are historically ignorant constantly argue for more war - which leads to more govt. spending - and more govt. power. These are all intimately linked together for those who havent been paying attention or have spent their time reading public school history books.
People need to wake the f*** up. THAT is my problem.
Last edited:
You must do a killer crossword.
Not quite awake yet.
CalsDad made some interesting - and some quite valid - points.
I spend 1.75 hours on 2 attempts responding to them; each time my response was lost because the log-in timed out. Or maybe it was the New World Order crashing my computer......
I don't have time or motivation for another wasted effort.
I spend 1.75 hours on 2 attempts responding to them; each time my response was lost because the log-in timed out. Or maybe it was the New World Order crashing my computer......
I don't have time or motivation for another wasted effort.
1st paragraph - a solution agreeable to both sides? Not likely given the history going back to the 30 Years War. Euro history is replete with France and Germany fighting over who would be dominant on the continent. WW1 was simply round 2 of the Franco Prussian War. WWII was going to happen no matter what - but either of our positions is simply speculation based on our own interpretation of historical precedent.
US intervention had nothing to do with the communist revolution in Russia. That was purely internal. Had the US NOT entered the war, the likely result would be the troops freed up in the east would have been shipped west and delayed the war longer or even given the German offensive (and there was one - adding the US 1st Army into the line is about the only thing that stopped it) enough punch to gain more ground. Both sides were exhausted, true, but the French were more exhausted then the Germans.
Hitler's main concerns, as outlined in Mein Kampf were:
1) Punishment of those who 'betrayed' the fatherland in WWI
2) Revenge against France
3) Securing 'living room' in the 'east'
He didn't 'admire' Britain but wanted to keep them out of the war - hence the peace offer in 1939/40.
Your quote was from George Washington's farewell address. It has been ingnored by every President since Jefferson, including the Conservative ones. It is impractical.
Do I want an empire for the US? Hell no. Do I agree with our current policies? No. Do I want an Obama?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Do I think this is all part of a global Liberal conspericy dating back to Wilson? Get the tinfoil hats. There are plenty of economists who are critical of FDR's policies & who have stated that the US economy was on it's way to recovery by 1939. The war actually plunged us into a fairly deep recession in the latter half of the 40s so the idea that the war 'saved' our economy is overly simplistic (and what they teach the 5th graders to use your own phrase). There is also plenty of criticism of FDR's policies out there. No, they're not taught to grade schoolers simply because they're not grade school material. Take a look at a 5th grade textbook - do they criticise ANY POTUS? Nope. They're foundational. You don't start learning about the mistakes and blemishes until you're a little older and have the foundation to contextualize.
As far as the 'overrun by immigrants' all I can say is f*** YOU. I'm the son of an Immigrant - who fought and bled for this country during WWII and who has worked his ASS off to build a life for his family and his country. This country was BUILT by immigrants.
Scrivener, I did not attack you, I agreed with Dench. Having said that I maintain that those who have never served while having a right to criticize, carry no particular weight in their opinion. Your .02 spends will only buy as much as mine and no more.
As to a factual defense of the French Military in WWII, how ever did I find myself having to defend the Frogs? A few observations.
1. The French fleet at Toulon was scuttled by the French themselves to keep the ships out of the hands of the Germans. This was not a peaceful process. As Martha Stewart would say " this is a good thing ", as those ships would have been used by the Kriegsmarine. Why did'nt the French sail away and hand over the fleet to Britain? A number of political and military reasons but Mers-el Kebir readily comes to mind. A knife in the back from a " friend " will still kill you.
2. Entire French Divisional sized units fought the Germans tooth and nail when those same Germans came through the frontier. Unfortunately one such Division was commanded by DeGaul, a fact which we were never allowed to forget.
3. Just who do we suppose held the German Army at bay while the alllies were evacuated at Dunkirk? The Brits, God love them, pulled off a coup and a lot of them were captured but tens of thousands of Frenchmen went to the prisoner cages with them. Those French troops were not just sitting bored at the Dunkirk perimeter.
4. The Free French. I believe they were indeed French although with historical research being what it is nowadays, who knows?
As to a factual defense of the French Military in WWII, how ever did I find myself having to defend the Frogs? A few observations.
1. The French fleet at Toulon was scuttled by the French themselves to keep the ships out of the hands of the Germans. This was not a peaceful process. As Martha Stewart would say " this is a good thing ", as those ships would have been used by the Kriegsmarine. Why did'nt the French sail away and hand over the fleet to Britain? A number of political and military reasons but Mers-el Kebir readily comes to mind. A knife in the back from a " friend " will still kill you.
2. Entire French Divisional sized units fought the Germans tooth and nail when those same Germans came through the frontier. Unfortunately one such Division was commanded by DeGaul, a fact which we were never allowed to forget.
3. Just who do we suppose held the German Army at bay while the alllies were evacuated at Dunkirk? The Brits, God love them, pulled off a coup and a lot of them were captured but tens of thousands of Frenchmen went to the prisoner cages with them. Those French troops were not just sitting bored at the Dunkirk perimeter.
4. The Free French. I believe they were indeed French although with historical research being what it is nowadays, who knows?
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
This thread was getting too stuffy, someone had to...![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Similar threads
