How interested are the the Non Americans in the US senate race?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Most Europeans (excepting the germans) are gratefull for the events depicted in the first 4 photos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somehow I doubt most Eastern Europeans are grateful for being thrown to the wolves of communism for five decades.

I also doubt that most western Europeans would be grateful for the 85,000,000 deaths (in both WWI and WWII) that resulted from American intervention in WWI (which led to directly to WWII) if they understood how it went down.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most Europeans (excepting the germans) are gratefull for the events depicted in the first 4 photos.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'll bet Israel is grateful for GWB. What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

So youre suggesting the same ambiguity existed in WW2 during the war agianst the NAZIs as there does now in the conflict between Isarail and Palastine?

Even though I accept that it was the geopolictal strategy of the Americans to intervene at just the right moment after the Europeans had spent just enough time killing and blowing up each others citys, and that in totaly manipulated the situation to cement its ascendency over the old world, I am still gratefull they did as a Nazi controlled Europe does not bare thinking about.

[jj_frap]

How did U.S. internvetion in WW1 lead to WW2?

I thought WW2 was caused by the devastation brought to the German and Italian economies by the harsh reparations demanded in the Treaty of Versailles (Most of these draconian measures were opposed by Woodrow Wilson and the U.S.) and the political consequences of this economic collapse within Germany and Italy.

The European powers within the Triple Entente -- particularly the French -- were more concerned with punishing the losing side of the war than with building the foundation for a more stable and peaceful Europe and a more stable and peaceful world.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I also doubt that most western Europeans would be grateful for the 85,000,000 deaths (in both WWI and WWII) that resulted from American intervention in WWI (which led to directly to WWII) if they understood how it went down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, I see, we should have let the Germans win WW1 because then there would have never have been a WW2.

Ironic that you mention Eastern Europe. If that Atomic bomb hadnt been droped on the Japanese it is very likely that all of western europe would have fallen under communism. The russian war machine in theatre could have rolled over Eisnehower and co in a few weeks.

[jj_frap]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also doubt that most western Europeans would be grateful for the 85,000,000 deaths (in both WWI and WWII) that resulted from American intervention in WWI (which led to directly to WWII) if they understood how it went down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, I see, we should have let the Germans win WW1 because then there would have never have been a WW2.

Ironic that you mention Eastern Europe. If that Atomic bomb hadnt been droped on the Japanese it is very likely that all of western europe would have fallen under communism. The russian war machine in theatre could have rolled over Eisnehower and co in a few weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

No: What I'm saying is that the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles were needlessly punitive against Germany, resulting in rampant inflation, economic collapse, and a political climate that (when combined with the electoral incompetence of both the Communists and the Social Democrats in Germany) Hitler and his rich industrialist backers were able to exploit.

[The once and future king]

why are you arguing with me? I was replying to borodog not you.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
How did U.S. internvetion in WW1 lead to WW2?

I thought WW2 was caused by the devastation brought to the German and Italian economies by the harsh reparations demanded in the Treaty of Versailles (Most of these draconian measures were opposed by Woodrow Wilson and the U.S.) and the political consequences of this economic collapse within Germany and Italy.

The European powers within the Triple Entente -- particularly the French -- were more concerned with punishing the losing side of the war than with building the foundation for a more stable and peaceful Europe and a more stable and peaceful world.

[/ QUOTE ]

US intervention in WWI turned what was previously a routine interdynastic territorial dispute into a continent consuming ideological conflageration. Without the intervention of the US, the European monarchies would have almost certainly come to the face-saving armistice that they were already moving towards. While it might be the case that Wilson opposed "draconian" measures during the ensuing peace, it is indisputable that the ideologically-driven brutality of the war, brought about by Wilson's intervention, was what left the allies bitter and thirsty for total capitulation, humiliation, and revenge.

[ QUOTE ]
What would have happened, it is being asked again, if in accordance with his reelection promise, Woodrow Wilson had kept the U.S. out of World War I? By virtue of its counterfactual nature, the answer to a question such as this can never be empirically confirmed or falsified. However, this does not make the question meaningless or the answer arbitrary. To the contrary, based on an understanding of the actual historical events and personalities involved, the question concerning the most likely alternative course of history can be answered in detail and with considerable confidence.[7]
<font color="white"> . </font>
If the United States had followed a strict non-interventionist foreign policy, it is likely that the intra-European conflict would have ended in late 1916 or early 1917 as the result of several peace initiatives, most notably by the Austrian Emperor Charles I. Moreover, the war would have been concluded with a mutually acceptable and face-saving compromise peace rather than the actual dictate. Consequently, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia would have remained traditional monarchies instead of being turned into short-lived democratic republics. With a Russian Czar and a German and Austrian Kaiser in place, it would have been almost impossible for the Bolsheviks to seize power in Russia, and in reaction to a growing communist threat in Western Europe, for the Fascists and National Socialists to do the same in Italy and Germany.[8] Millions of victims of communism, national socialism, and World War II would have been saved. The extent of government interference with and control of the private economy in the United States and in Western Europe would never have reached the heights seen today. And rather than Central and Eastern Europe (and consequently half of the globe) falling into communist hands and for more than forty years being plundered, devastated, and forcibly insulated from Western markets, all of Europe (and the entire globe) would have remained integrated economically (as in the nineteenth century) in a world-wide system of division of labor and cooperation. World living standards would have grown immensely higher than they actually have.
<font color="white"> . </font>
-- Democracy: The God that Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also doubt that most western Europeans would be grateful for the 85,000,000 deaths (in both WWI and WWII) that resulted from American intervention in WWI (which led to directly to WWII) if they understood how it went down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, I see, we should have let the Germans win WW1 because then there would have never have been a WW2.

Ironic that you mention Eastern Europe. If that Atomic bomb hadnt been droped on the Japanese it is very likely that all of western europe would have fallen under communism. The russian war machine in theatre could have rolled over Eisnehower and co in a few weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. No. Eisenhower was ready to roll through eastern europe and the soviets because of the widespread reports that the Soviet "liberators" were worse than the German occupiers. However, he was ordered to stand down by the Truman administration.

Had Hitler not been stupid enough to open up the war on two fronts, and had the Soviet Union not been supported economically during the war by the United States, Germany would have easily conquered the Soviet Union. The USSR simply did not have the economy to win the war unaided against an undivided Reich (the USSR's economy was never larger than 2-3% of the US economy).

Hitler lost the war through impatience and stupidity, not through any might or particular prowess of the Soviet military.

[lozen]

Wow amazing how you go back to WWII to bash democrats. Look at George Bush record and thats it. I agree having the republicans or Democrats conytrolling both is not the best. The ideal situation is one wins election and one wins senate. You seem to run your country better.


Oh yeah still curious about question [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As for using Clinton as an example of why not to vote Democrat? Clinton by far was a very good president. I even thought George Senior was OK

[Borodog]

I bash Republicans and Democrats equally. If you'd like I could go back to the Civil War and bash a Republican for you. Or the Plains Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War, or Gulf War I.

There's plenty of blood for both parties.