Originally posted by train
The only differences between WWI and II dealt with their being 2 different objectives. In WWI Germany was not on a Genocide mission like in WWII. What they did do was decide that they were big enough to impose themselves territorily, upon other nations. Granted, WWI probably would not have occurred if the Archduke had not been assassinated, but choosing to go from revenge/retribution to World Domination was maniacal. They merely saw opportunity to claim what was "theirs" and acted upon it. They weren't ready for war, they acted on a whim and got the tar beat out of them for it.
In WWI Germany was a great power playing the same great power game that had been played in Europe for the past two centuries. Germany was a newly industrialised power with an opportunity to expand at the expense of weaker neighbour states who had not industrialised.
The comment 'they got the tar beaten out of them for it' is also misplaced. The German army did not lose WWI, rather the economic embargo emposed by the royal navy forced the German government to concede to prevent mass starvation and a communist revolution.
In WWII the drive to expand was explicitally racially motivated - Hitler was not playing great power games he was following his belief that Germany was destined to rule Europe because Germans were a superior race. However it was NOT a genocide mission - until 1941 the German policy was explicitly NON-GENOCIDAL, and it was only during the summer-autumn of 1941, as the war in Russia waxed and waned, that the German state turned to genocide to finally solve the problem of it`s Jewish population.
As for WWII - genocide and love of little boys was all that mattered. Freakin' Hitler !@$%#@^#$^$# @^@#$&#%^*!!!
As I said... you really should read a history book. There`s no evidence that the genocide of the Jew`s originated with Hitler, and there IS evidence to the contrary - its currently a hot historical issue and not one that looks likely to ever be proven either way. However it is absolutely provably untrue that Hitler had any interest in men, let alone little boys. In truth his sexuality was largely repressed from the point he became obessed with politics, but when it did manifest in his youth it did so as a shy obsession with pretty, aristocratic, young ladies who were beyond his reach
The leaders of Germany may have had different objectives, but neither was justified. When Saddam decided to go after Kuwait, because he was bored, he acted like Germany in WWI, going too far.
Largely true, I would modify the statement to say that while he acted like the Germany of 1914, he also acted more like the Germany of 1936-1940, who annexed Europe piece by piece, more than the Germany of 1914, who tried to invade and defeat a major regional rival.
By continuing to support terrorist activities - specifically towards the U.S., he borders on the German ideals of WWII
Supporting ideals that would remove Nationality, of just one nation, for religious reasons or any other reasons, is genocide upon the ideals of that nation. They don't care about the races that exist in our country, just the nationality.
Well, if there was any evidence Iraq supports international terrorism this might be true...
And if there was any history pre-1991 of Iraw being hostile to USA instead of in fact being an ally, this might be true...
And if the US hadnt imposed an unethical embargo in Iraq, making the USA the prime enemy of Iraw for non-ideological reasons, then this might be true.
As it stands however, its not true. There is no evidence Iraq supports terrorism, there is no history of Saddam being anti-US before 1991, and there IS a legitimate reason for Saddam Hussein to want to end American infringement on his country.
Had the Allies from WWI stood up and said No to Germany and enforced the treaty, there wouldn't have been a WWI. Trust me, The U.S. would have stepped in and said, look, let's lighten up a bit, but keep the leash on them. Instead, The European allies let the wolf into the hen house and then kept stocking it with more hens.
OH MY GOOD GOD! DEAR LORD TELL ME YOU DONT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY HERE?!?!?!
WWI - there was no treaty. War between great powers was a legitimate form of inter-state policy.
The USA was deliberately ignoring the European situation because it didnt want to get involved.
Lets fast forwards to WWII... where there WAS a treaty. In this case lets see how America had helped keep the peace. Erm, wait... no, it in fact made things much MUCH worse. Its almost certain that America CAUSED WWII. Lets check the facts:
America refused to join the League Of Nations because it didnt want to be involved in European fights. The League therefore had minimal ability to enforce it`s policies, and it was an ineffective check on militaristic nations like Japan, Italy, and Germany.
When Germany was on it`s economic knees in 1924, it was American loans that helped it rebuild its economy. You get a star.
HOWEVER
American refusal to join world markets was a contributor to the Wall St Crash, and plunged the global economy into deep depression in 1929/30. Following this collapse American banks demanded money back from Germany, plunging it deeper and deeper into cris, and in this crisis Hitler rose to power in Germany promising a new future.
When asked by Britain to become involved in containing Germany in the mid-late 1930s the American response was that it was none of their business.
So Saddam seems to have fulfilled both requirements to be related to both of the 2 different WW Germanys. Are there bigger dogs in the world like in WWI and II, yes. Does he care, no, just like Germany didn't. Is he a threat - not to annihilate the nation, like Germany couldn't the world, but to our peace of mind and possibly millions of innocent people, yes.
I think I just proved otherwise. And in both 1914 and 1939 Germany had good claim to being the greatest military power in the world, especially when considered in concert with it`s allies. Iraq is not Germany, Saddam is not Hitler, and there is no evidence that he is a threat to millions of people.
As for History - sad to say part of my family was from Boston, and strutted their knowledge of History and how important it was... I heard it all, all the time, every time we drove past it, in every class, at all the museums, and the lecture halls of colleges... That's actually something I do well in in school.
Its probably a shame they never told you anything correct then. Ive learnt from many such debates with Americans over the past year that the history taught over there is ... how to put this nicely... a little imbalanced? From the pro-american coloring put on things, to sheer lies told to make America look good (such as that Russia began the war against Germany in 1940 armed with American tanks, and was only able to survive because of food and equipment sent to them from America - a sheer fabrication that one guy had been taught in school).
Did I ever mention that I`m a graduate in History and International Politics, with my specific studies including Germany between the wars, WWII, the Holocaust, and the life of Hitler?
)