100 years ago today, the world changed.

[Cow Poke]

yeah we have a new Mickiel, cow poke.

Cool, will he soon have his own superthread, GTG?

[Sparko]

I never wrote that the U.S. entered the war because of Germany's invasion of Belgium. What I wrote was
Note that I clearly wrote "England" there. AFAICT England and the U.S. are not synonymous. Please pay attention in the future.

but they both speak American!

[Sparko]

You even said it backwards for effect! Wow!

yeah we have a new Mickiel, cow poke.

[rogue06]

I did not mean to get sidetracked onto Belgium but here we go.

The thing is that the USA did not enter the 1st WW because of Belgium - no, not at all. Belgium was over run at the beginning of the war in 1914 and the USA did nothing and at last the USA entered that war in 1917, and we said nothing about Belgium in our declaration of war.

I never wrote that the U.S. entered the war because of Germany's invasion of Belgium. What I wrote was

And it was the invasion of Belgium that brought England (who had a treaty with them) into the war.

Note that I clearly wrote "England" there. AFAICT England and the U.S. are not synonymous. Please pay attention in the future.

[Cow Poke]

Wow... just wow...

You even said it backwards for effect! Wow!

[Bill the Cat]

I did not mean to get sidetracked onto Belgium but here we go.

The thing is that the USA did not enter the 1st WW because of Belgium - no, not at all. Belgium was over run at the beginning of the war in 1914 and the USA did nothing and at last the USA entered that war in 1917, and we said nothing about Belgium in our declaration of war.

At that time the American public did not want to go to war, so the USA had to start up a draft as the only way to raise an army.

The official reason for the USA to enter the 1st WW was to promote and defend democracy.

We did not enter that war to liberate Belgium, and not as right against wrong, and nothing to do with truth or justice - no, the USA fought for democracy.

Of course Russia was not a democracy, and even Belgium was and still is a Monarchy, and Britain claimed to be democratic but British rule in India was no democracy and Brits in South Africa was no democracy, and even the USA is no true democracy and in the USA at that time women could not vote and "Negros" could not vote in our USA.

So the true history of the 1st WW is highly distorted by American propaganda.

The Country of Germany was defending the weaker Austria from the war mongers Russia and France, and from Serbia who started the war with its illegal and immoral assassination of the Austrian Arch Duke.


Yes = revising and revision.

Replace the false with the truth.

Wow... just wow...

[James Cusick]

Reply:

So, if your neighbors were having a fight and one of them wanted to use your home to further their efforts if you refuse then they have every right to take it from you. Is that about it?

Both Belgium and Luxembourg were neutral and Germany thought that invading France through neutral countries would catch France off guard. In fact Germany came up with the idea roughly a decade earlier and even claimed that they were trying to help Belgium stave off an attack of that country by the French. And it was the invasion of Belgium that brought England (who had a treaty with them) into the war.

I did not mean to get sidetracked onto Belgium but here we go.

The thing is that the USA did not enter the 1st WW because of Belgium - no, not at all. Belgium was over run at the beginning of the war in 1914 and the USA did nothing and at last the USA entered that war in 1917, and we said nothing about Belgium in our declaration of war.

At that time the American public did not want to go to war, so the USA had to start up a draft as the only way to raise an army.

The official reason for the USA to enter the 1st WW was to promote and defend democracy.

We did not enter that war to liberate Belgium, and not as right against wrong, and nothing to do with truth or justice - no, the USA fought for democracy.

Of course Russia was not a democracy, and even Belgium was and still is a Monarchy, and Britain claimed to be democratic but British rule in India was no democracy and Brits in South Africa was no democracy, and even the USA is no true democracy and in the USA at that time women could not vote and "Negros" could not vote in our USA.

So the true history of the 1st WW is highly distorted by American propaganda.

The Country of Germany was defending the weaker Austria from the war mongers Russia and France, and from Serbia who started the war with its illegal and immoral assassination of the Austrian Arch Duke.

While WWI isn't as cut and dry as WWII nevertheless you are engaging in some major historical revisionism.

Yes = revising and revision.

Replace the false with the truth.

[Sparko]

The Germans did have some cool looking helmets though.

[rogue06]

That is not really what I said, and the history is more complicated then simplistic criteria.

It was France and Russia who had ordered their militaries to mobilize against Germany and in self defense Germany sought to cross over Belgium and the British convinced Belgium to refuse the passage and so Germany had a greater need to its own self defense and Belgium thereby aligned it self with the belligerent nations.

All of this happened long before the USA entered that first WW, so we had plenty of time to see who were the real aggressors against Austria, and in support of the Serbians who started the war.

So, if your neighbors were having a fight and one of them wanted to use your home to further their efforts if you refuse then they have every right to take it from you. Is that about it?

Both Belgium and Luxembourg were neutral and Germany thought that invading France through neutral countries would catch France off guard. In fact Germany came up with the idea roughly a decade earlier and even claimed that they were trying to help Belgium stave off an attack of that country by the French. And it was the invasion of Belgium that brought England (who had a treaty with them) into the war.

While WWI isn't as cut and dry as WWII nevertheless you are engaging in some major historical revisionism.

[James Cusick]

Reply:

If you don't let us "peacefully" march our army through your country then you're the aggressor and we have no other option but to conquer you.

That is not really what I said, and the history is more complicated then simplistic criteria.

It was France and Russia who had ordered their militaries to mobilize against Germany and in self defense Germany sought to cross over Belgium and the British convinced Belgium to refuse the passage and so Germany had a greater need to its own self defense and Belgium thereby aligned it self with the belligerent nations.

All of this happened long before the USA entered that first WW, so we had plenty of time to see who were the real aggressors against Austria, and in support of the Serbians who started the war.

[rogue06]

I say if anyone looks up the history of the 1st WW then it becomes clear that we the USA were on the wrong side.

We now know from historical records that the Serbian military was behind the assassination of the Austrian Arch Duke, and then Czarist Russia jumped to the side of Serbia, and history tells us that France had a treaty with Russia based on their mutual aggression against Germany.

Germany did not do anything to start the war except Germany supported Austria in its rightful claim against Serbia for the murder of the Arch Duke.

Even the invasion of Belgium in WWI is not reported accurate because Germany made a formal request to Belgium to peacefully send the German army into the belligerent France but the British backed Belgium into resisting Germany which thereby made Belgium into another belligerent instead of being a neutral Country.

We the USA joined sides with the war mongers of Britain, France and Russia, against Germany who was just trying to defend the weaker Austria from the belligerence.

If you don't let us "peacefully" march our army through your country then you're the aggressor and we have no other option but to conquer you.

[Bill the Cat]

I say if anyone looks up the history of the 1st WW then it becomes clear that we the USA were on the wrong side.

We now know from historical records that the Serbian military was behind the assassination of the Austrian Arch Duke, and then Czarist Russia jumped to the side of Serbia, and history tells us that France had a treaty with Russia based on their mutual aggression against Germany.

Germany did not do anything to start the war except Germany supported Austria in its rightful claim against Serbia for the murder of the Arch Duke.

Even the invasion of Belgium in WWI is not reported accurate because Germany made a formal request to Belgium to peacefully send the German army into the belligerent France but the British backed Belgium into resisting Germany which thereby made Belgium into another belligerent instead of being a neutral Country.

We the USA joined sides with the war mongers of Britain, France and Russia, against Germany who was just trying to defend the weaker Austria from the belligerence.

My historian daughter who specializes in WWI and WWII Europe says you are full of it.

[James Cusick]

Reply:

Today is the 100th anniversary of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the beginning of World War I.

If any of you are ever in Kansas City, I heavily recommend visiting the World War I museum there; it's well worth a trip.

I say if anyone looks up the history of the 1st WW then it becomes clear that we the USA were on the wrong side.

We now know from historical records that the Serbian military was behind the assassination of the Austrian Arch Duke, and then Czarist Russia jumped to the side of Serbia, and history tells us that France had a treaty with Russia based on their mutual aggression against Germany.

Germany did not do anything to start the war except Germany supported Austria in its rightful claim against Serbia for the murder of the Arch Duke.

Even the invasion of Belgium in WWI is not reported accurate because Germany made a formal request to Belgium to peacefully send the German army into the belligerent France but the British backed Belgium into resisting Germany which thereby made Belgium into another belligerent instead of being a neutral Country.

We the USA joined sides with the war mongers of Britain, France and Russia, against Germany who was just trying to defend the weaker Austria from the belligerence.

[stfoskey15]

Too late. We're in it, it's just not "conventional".

Wait, what?

And yes, I know that's a 2.7 year old thread bump, but I'm curious.

[foudroyant]

The war to end all wars...and exactly 100 years later the situation looks dire.
Russia in Ukraine, Middle East mess and of the events in Asia regarding the Spratly Islands.