Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on June 30, 2003, 07:41:31 PM
-
Countries that were just plain evil not that long ago.
Russia was a pretty evil player too, until Germany back-stabbed them. Until that point, Russia could care less what happened to the UK and the Allies.
I'm just wondering if modern citizens of Germany, Japan, and Italy are regretful for the actions their countries took during WWII.
Im also wondering if anyone in those countries still remembers how much the USA and our allies did for them after that war was over.
A lot seem to think the USA is hell-bent on world domination, yet our history proves otherwise.
It seems to me that a lot of people on this earth should be thankful that the US , and not some other power, is as strong as we are today. A lot of people just don't understand the USA and never will........until they move here, which many still seem to want to do.
-
The rise to power of the NSDAP, and their reign were the worst time germany ever had to endure.
It`s just plain insane, murdering 6 million jews, mentally ill, "Sub-Humans", and germans FUNCTIONED as KZ guards. Mengele. The Gestapo. "Gleichschaltung". The Hitler youth. The Nazi ideology.
Labor slaves, "Vernichtung durch Arbeit" - Destruction by work.
"Arbeit macht frei" - Work frees - Signs on the KZ gates.
And (near-to) noone cared - listen to the "do you want total war" speech !
Driving a country to a war it is unable to win - "Götterdämmerung"....
Starting to bomb civilian population.
Unspeakable experiments on humans.
The Nazi bull**** still living on, old Nazis and Neo Nazis in key positions of the society.
Get some of the original propaganda material from the time, visit a KZ if you got a chance. It turns my stomach.
I can`t put the whole picture I have in a BBS post.
BUT - yes BUT
The USA have been starting to look a LOT like nazi germany in the recent time.
TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS.
Defining who is a "terrorist state" and by self-righteousness waging war.
Prison camps outside of legislation.
The "you`re either complying or our enemy" attitude.
Ignorance of other opinions.
Because the germans know the signs of a totalitarian state, and the horrors of war, it was they didn`t support the US unilateral attack on Iraq - not because we liked Saddam.
This is why the "Responsibilities of freedom" speeches scare me.
We germans today are (except for the still existing Nazi bastards) thankful for having been liberated. We know the price, on german and other sides.
And generally, we don`t want ANY problem to be solved by war.
----------------------------
Ok it`s 4 am here and im drunk. I still think the post displays my opinion, but there`s lots more to be said. So take it as a spontaneous answer outlining my atm somewhat bubbly mindset.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_71_1057025587.gif)
-
:confused:
-
Because the germans know the signs of a totalitarian state, and the horrors of war, it was they didn`t support the US unilateral attack on Iraq - not because we liked Saddam.
We know the signs of a totalitarian state and the horrors of war as well, and Iraq had many of similarites to Nazi Germany that you have listed, the US does not. Which do you think more resembled Nazi Germany, Iraq or the US?
Why would you not side with the US getting ride of Saddam?
My theory is that the people that are against the US going into Iraq really have no argument other than that they are upset that they didn't have a say in the matter. All logic would seem to point to the fact that Iraq was run by an evil goverment and that Iraq is better off without it's former government.
-
We have the UN for deciding on who gets whacked. They weren`t so convinced about all the weapons of mass destruction stuff - I`m not so convinced now.
As I posted here before the war, I am (was) all in favour of getting rid of Saddam and his regime. Because he repressed the country and murdered helpless civillians, and had used WMD.
Attacking Iraq for - as it seems - nonexistant reasons is not far off Adolfs "Since 4:30 this morning we`re shooting back" when he attacked Poland.
I`m still wondering why they didn`t finish the job the 1st time.
Sure the UN had / has a problem showing resolve, but it was founded (under heavy US involvement) to end the days of ONE country deciding on when it`s time to go to war.
-
And generally, we don`t want ANY problem to be solved by war.
Guess what? Some problems are only solved by war.
-
We have the UN for deciding on who gets whacked. They weren`t so convinced about all the weapons of mass destruction stuff -
The UN was convinced enough to offer about 17 resolutions that never were complied with.
You can't tell me that the US was acting like Nazi Germany and Iraq was victom.
-
Sure the UN had / has a problem showing resolve, but it was founded (under heavy US involvement) to end the days of ONE country deciding on when it`s time to go to war.
What other wars in the world today are in violation of UN approaval? It's a joke, like the UN.
Iraq started the war BTW, in violation of the UN's right to decide when ONE country can go to war.
-
Nuke,
right, some problems can only be solved by war.
But a resolution to go to war should have been decided by the UN.
As it stands ATM, the reason Bush presented for going to war did not exist. The weapon inspectors that were there before the 2nd war did not find anything (as I posted back then, the inspectors should have had UN military with them to FORCE inspection of the sites the Iraqis were hauling stuff away from...)
If the US goes in for any unproven reason, IMHO yes it`s not far off nazi germany methods. Not the same, but not far off either.
Because when one single country decides to start (I`m not talking about direct opposition to an enemy attack) a war, the reason can be anything. WMD, "Volk braucht Raum", anything. Those days should be over.
-
Luk u arrognat amerikans vee haff lozt tu, count dzem tu wold wosss, vee know wo iz not zee bezt anza.. :rolleyes:
-
(http://forum.sinnlos-im-weltraum.de/images/smiles/vollspasti.png)
-
Originally posted by devious
Nuke,
right, some problems can only be solved by war.
But a resolution to go to war should have been decided by the UN.
So, 11 years and ump-teen "resolutions" by the UN, none of which were fullfilled...what the hell, draw up another! Here's to wishing! :rolleyes:
-
Right...We should have given Saddam another U.N. Resolution just to...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_50_1053113348.jpg)
POOP ON !
-
One can only wonder why the defenders of freedom let the military dictatorship go on for so many years in Spain. Wait, they didn't let it go on, they supported it.
Why? Oh of course, silly me, because it was ok with their interests at the time.
The US, as any other superpower in history, will do as they see fit to make the most of their superiority. They have better marketing, that's for sure.
Daniel
-
Because that dictaorship was not threating our interests... Iraq was. Plus dictatorship is not neccasarily illegal - however Iraq violating its cease fire agreements after GW1 clearly called out for a possibility of military action.
-
Böse Amis!!
-
Devious,... the UN wasn't convinced about WMD? That is patently false, incorrect. In addresses to the UN delegation, France, Germany, and other members were convinced Iraq had WMD's and discussed them at length. It was only AFTER the U.S. started discussions about using force to end the threat that these same organizations reversed course and started wanting proof of WMD existence. Why they suddenly needed proof remains a mystery, since for years they spoke of WMD in Iraq as if it were known fact.
In the eyes of most U.S people, those that changed course either had a Neville Chamberlain approach(which history showed cannot succeed) or had ulterior motives(financial) to keep Saddam in power.
The people as a whole, in the U.S. do not want to go to war with anyone. Since the majority of our people, along with the majority of our government, felt Iraq was a direct threat to our safety, we acted. We do't need U.N. approval to protect ourselves. this is above and beyond the fact that is was plainly evident that the UN wasn't going to do anything. Kofi Annan (spelling?) was administering the Iraq oil money. As corrupt as he is, why would he have wanted that role to cease? Any military action would have ended his role in Iraqi oil funds management. My point: The UN had more reasons not to invade Iraq and little to gain if they did. The UN didn't give a rat's arse if Iraq was a threat to the US. France, Russia, Germany, and Annan were all profiting from business dealings w/ Saddam. The UN, in my opinion would have never acted. Disagree w/ our actions all you want, but in my mind they made perfect sense.
-
NUKE: I'm just wondering if modern citizens of Germany, Japan, and Italy are regretful for the actions their countries took during WWII.
Im also wondering if anyone in those countries still remembers how much the USA and our allies did for them after that war was over.
Sure, they must be regretfull.
BTW, are you regretfull that the actions of the US ensured the rise of nazism in Germany, bolshevism in Russia and (along with other western powers) militarism in Japain and all the devastation that ensued?
miko
-
the russians lost 20million people. im sure they regret the fact of supporting hitler at first. and germany lost an entire generation as well as japan. i think they are a tad regretfull.
as an american i am regretful for the millions we killed in vietnam and the millions we slaughted and put in concentration camps in out own country. the native americans.
-
Hey frogman... millions we slaughtered? Who? where?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
NUKE: I'm just wondering if modern citizens of Germany, Japan, and Italy are regretful for the actions their countries took during WWII.
Im also wondering if anyone in those countries still remembers how much the USA and our allies did for them after that war was over.
Sure, they must be regretfull.
BTW, are you regretfull that the actions of the US ensured the rise of nazism in Germany, bolshevism in Russia and (along with other western powers) militarism in Japain and all the devastation that ensued?
miko
What a joke. I guess to think Germany, Japan and Russia were t puppets of the evil US and that the US caused them to become militaristic and evil......after all, they couldnt help themselves, the poor babies. It's not their fault at all, it's just America's
It's true, everything is America's fault. You take the prize, condrats
-
seems this is another chapter of "History explained and made simple to poor souls".....and more, another chapter of " You'll never known how much do you owe us, and if in case you'll never acknowledge that"
The whole thing on the same " history is me, and USA too" channel...... becoming so repetitive ;)
-
NUKE fails to understand that there is a spectrum of ethics and morality greater than his own.
His assaults, generally are the most pathetic pieces of writing to appear on this UBB, composed almost entirely of illogic and ad hominem attacks and are so over-the-top it makes me wonder why he doesn't get a "time-out"....thank the godz for ignore
-
Originally posted by Steve
Hey frogman... millions we slaughtered? Who? where?
Ahhh, you *do* realize you're asking Froggirl for "facts and data"...that's an aweful lot to ask of her. ;)
-
Rgr Rip, astute folk like you realize it's a rhetorical question really, as no factual data will be forthcoming.
millions of Native Americans?... not close... not even in the same Universe.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What a joke. I guess to think Germany, Japan and Russia were t puppets of the evil US and that the US caused them to become militaristic and evil......after all, they couldnt help themselves, the poor babies. It's not their fault at all, it's just America's
It's true, everything is America's fault. You take the prize, condrats
You should read a history book once in awhile. The rise of Hitler and World War II was a direct result of how the allies (US, U.K., France) and the League of Nations treated and humiliated the Germans after World War I. While the U.S. can't be the only one blamed, the US shares the blame equally with the U.K. and France.
Our economic policies in the Pacific and out attitudes about the Japanese also led to the eventual conflict with Japan. If we didn't impose an economic embargo on Japan that threatened their very existance, they probably wouldn't have had to resort to such drastic measures. But the U.S. felt threatened by the Japanese navy and the growing influence in the Pacific Japan was enjoying, especially after their victory over the Russian Grand Fleet in the Russo-Sino War of 1905. Again, we can't take sole blame but as with the case with Nazi Germany, we aren't free from guilt.
Our history is rife with such incidents. In the 1930s and later after WW2, if we had supported Ho Chi Minh's attempt at getting Vietnam's independence from France, instead of turning a blind eye and giving Vietnam back to France after the war, there probably wouldn't have been 57,000 dead US soldiers or millions of dead Vietnamese. It was our rejection of Ho Chi Minh that led him to the Communists looking for someone to support his war of independence from their colonialist masters.
A recent example would be Iran in 1979 as the Shah was falling and the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran from exile in France. The Ayatollah asked for our support of his revolution and for us to denounce the Shah and not allow him to seek refuge in the US. To show his good faith, the Ayatollah ordered the Iranian students that had captured the U.S. Embassy, to leave the compound and let everyone inside go and not to harm them. The then Sec. of State, rejected the Ayatollah's overtures, which then led to the second incident at the U.S. Embassy that resulted in U.S. hostages being held for 444 days and also made the US a prime target for Islamic militants and zealots for the next 20+ years.
While we might be the greatest country in the world, we are definitely not without fault and sometimes we do act like a bull in a china shop. It does no service to the US or anyone else to ignore the mistakes we have made, that only opens the door for us to repeat them again.
To paraphrase that French guy that said a long time ago, those of us that forget the past condemn us to repeat it in the future.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Our economic policies in the Pacific and out attitudes about the Japanese also led to the eventual conflict with Japan. If we didn't impose an economic embargo on Japan that threatened their very existance, they probably wouldn't have had to resort to such drastic measures. But the U.S. felt threatened by the Japanese navy and the growing influence in the Pacific Japan was enjoying, especially after their victory over the Russian Grand Fleet in the Russo-Sino War of 1905. Again, we can't take sole blame but as with the case with Nazi Germany, we aren't free from guilt.
Ack-Ack
You truly do not know what you are talking about AKAK. Japan had been on a rampage for decades in Asia. They annexed Taiwan, annexed Korea in 1910, conqeured Manchuria in 1931 and invaded China in 1937, then withdrew from the league of nations.
The US finnally responded, after Japan's invasion of China and their abandonment of their economic treaty with the US in 1940 by prohibiting the export of some oil and scrap metal to Japan....hardly threatening Japan's existance.
Japan's survival was not threatened by the US refusing to sell oil and scap metal to Japan......they were gobbling up countries left and right for years by then. What would you suggest we have done, send them more oil and give them arms?
Japan was a complete beligerant. The US policy was to be nuetral towards all beligerants. We did not want to get into any war.
Meanwhile we have Germany, completley re-armed ,not helpless .....not humiliated any longer. Why did Germany feel the need to begin annexing land, then just plain invading countries? You think it's justified because they lost WWI and had to pay repairations? Germany had rebuilt itself by 1939, so why did they have to go to war? Germany was a complete evil horror come to life, and the US had NOTHING to do with the path they chose for themselves.
The US had about 0% blame for Japan and Germany being war-mongering fanatics bent on bloody carnage and land grabbing. Don't ever try to peddle that garbage to me, cause Im not buying it.
Go read history yourself AKAK. I have read plenty about WWII. One book, Churchill's memoirs, gives a lot of first hand political insight into the causes of WWII , from Churchill's first hand experiences in WWI and throughout WWII.
-
ww2 happened due to the failures of the free market economy nothing more nothing less. thats right miko suck it.
except japan was on its way to be just a nasty little country no matter what happened after ww1...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
...
The US finnally responded, after Japan's invasion of China and their abandonment of their economic treaty with the US in 1940 by prohibiting the export of some oil and scrap metal to Japan....hardly threatening Japan's existance.
...
I thought it was b/c they bombed the f**k out of the US navy at Pearl :P
Japan was a complete beligerant.
2 l`s. from the latin bellis
Meanwhile we have Germany, completley re-armed ,not helpless .....not humiliated any longer. Why did Germany feel the need to begin annexing land, then just plain invading countries?
Because the Nazis build up the infrastructure and army on credit, and intended to pay with booty, and the wealth of jewish germans.
Go read history yourself AKAK. I have read plenty about WWII. One book, Churchill's memoirs, gives a lot of first hand political insight into the causes of WWII , from Churchill's first hand experiences in WWI and throughout WWII.
One book, esp. the memoirs of a participiant, is never enough for the complete picture.
I suggest you read "Die Welle" - The Wave or watch the movie. You`d be the first "Heil Hitler" screaming supporter... Schoolkids read it in germany, because it exposes the totalitarist train of thought.
NUKE:
Biography Born in America
Location America
Interests America
Occupation American
What a joke !
My mail is duraflex_scratch_this_part@gmx.net. drop me a line there, because in here you`re on my ignore list right now. Heil Bush !
-
Great response devious:
You say Japan Bombed Pearl Harbor ( in 1940) and that's why the US stopped selling oil to them
Then, you correct my spelling
An then you say Germany was going to pay for its war machine with "booty"
Then you tell me to email you because you are ignoring me.
You top it all off with a nice stereo typical view of myself.
LOL!
Not once did you offer a coherent argument against what I have posted.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You truly do not know what you are talking about AKAK. Japan had been on a rampage for decades in Asia. They annexed Taiwan, annexed Korea in 1910, conqeured Manchuria in 1931 and invaded China in 1937, then withdrew from the league of nations.
The US finnally responded, after Japan's invasion of China and their abandonment of their economic treaty with the US in 1940 by prohibiting the export of some oil and scrap metal to Japan....hardly threatening Japan's existance.
Japan's survival was not threatened by the US refusing to sell oil and scap metal to Japan......they were gobbling up countries left and right for years by then. What would you suggest we have done, send them more oil and give them arms?
Japan was a complete beligerant. The US policy was to be nuetral towards all beligerants. We did not want to get into any war.
Japan's very existance was threatened by the embargo we placed on them. Japan has very little natural resources and is entirely dependent on outside sources for oil and almost outside dependent for steel. That's one of the reasons (besides historical) Japan invaded China (to secure natural resources needed) and annexed Korea. After we placed the oil embargo on them, that meant they no longer had a source of fuel and which then prompted the Japanese to invade and conquer the Dutch Indies, to secure more natural resources (oil and natural gas).
Whether or not we wanted to enter the war is not the point. The point is our foreign policy started us on a course where war was the inevitable out come. Whether the policy was right or wrong isn't the point either, just the outcome.
Meanwhile we have Germany, completley re-armed ,not helpless .....not humiliated any longer. Why did Germany feel the need to begin annexing land, then just plain invading countries? You think it's justified because they lost WWI and had to pay repairations? Germany had rebuilt itself by 1939, so why did they have to go to war? Germany was a complete evil horror come to life, and the US had NOTHING to do with the path they chose for themselves.
If you were to read any history books on the causes of the 2nd World War, you'd find out that one of the motivating reasons behind Hitler was to erase the humilation suffered at Versailles. Why else do you think he forced the French to sign their surrender in the same rail road car the Allies forced the Germans to sign the Treaty of Versailles in 20 years earlier? Why do you think most of the Prussian Wermacht general officers followed along? While some did it because they believed the crap shoveled by Hitler, a great deal of them (Rommel and Cannaris were some of these) believed that Hitler would erase the humiliation of Versailles and restore Germany to its rightful place. This is also another reason why Hitler had so much home grown support.
The US had about 0% blame for Japan and Germany being war-mongering fanatics bent on bloody carnage and land grabbing. Don't ever try to peddle that garbage to me, cause Im not buying it.
War would have been inevitable with Hitler's Germany, there's no doubt about it but to say that our actions on how we (the allies) dealt with Germany after the 1st World War didn't influence what was to happen 20 years later, flies pretty much in the face of historical evidence.
Same thing with Japan. Competing national interests would have led to an inevitable clash between the U.S. and Japan, but again to say that our policies towards Japan didn't influence events that led up to the war again flies in the face of historical evidence.
Go read history yourself AKAK. I have read plenty about WWII. One book, Churchill's memoirs, gives a lot of first hand political insight into the causes of WWII , from Churchill's first hand experiences in WWI and throughout WWII.
Then I'm really suprised that you find this as some sort of surprise.
ack-ack
-
AKAK, I'll sum up your assinine argument:
1. Japan couldn't exist, so they "had" to invade China and annex Korea ( pefectly good reason to do so) So a new precident was set.......take what you want by force.
2. The US threatened Japan's very existance ( by not selling oil to it)
3. So the US caused Japan to attack it's neighbors in 1910, 1931 and in 1937 because we stopped selling oil to them in 1940.
I can see now that Japan was justified in it's actions.
As for Germany and Hitler, they chose their own path based on their own f*cked up views, nothing more. Nothing justifies what those bastards did.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
AKAK, I'll sum up your assinine argument:
1. Japan couldn't exist, so they "had" to invade China and annex Korea ( pefectly good reason to do so) So a new precident was set.......take what you want by force.
2. The US threatened Japan's very existance ( by not selling oil to it)
3. So the US caused Japan to attack it's neighbors in 1910, 1931 and in 1937 because we stopped selling oil to them in 1940.
I can see now that Japan was justified in it's actions.
As for Germany and Hitler, they chose their own path based on their own f*cked up views, nothing more. Nothing justifies what those bastards did.
For someone that claims to be so highly educated and well read, it's quite amazing how little you know.
Read Mien Kampf and then come back and say that the way the allies treated Germany after World War I when we forced them to sign the Treaty of Versailles didn't influence Hitler's thought and motivation.
Ack-Ack
-
Lol ya, shame on us for forcing them to sign a treaty. we should have let them continue to make war.
Do you really believe all that you read in Mein Kampf? Seriously?
lol
-
Why not believe Mein Kampf if you're wanting to learn more about Hitler's motivations? Versailles was central to Hitler's perceived grievances. With 20/20 hindsight, you could say the treaty was a recipe for disaster without any foundation in reality. But hindsight doesn't exist when you're trying to satisfy a yearning for veangeance held by your people, who have suffered millions of casualties in the worst war ever seen on the face of the planet.
Hitler and his ludicrous extremist beliefs were on the fringe until 1929. With the Wall Street crash, the German middle classes (who had previously viewed Hitler as a lunatic) lost everything - no other part of German society was hit as hard, since it's the middle classes that hold the savings etc. Hitler offered a way out and they bought into. Within 2 years Hitler's popularity had soared to levels he could only dream of prior to 1929. He was made Chancellor and the rest is history.
-
It wasn't Hitler's motivations we were discussing. Thanks for disagreeing though, I can ALWAYS count on you for that.
-
Hey Nuke! Why do you whine so much all of the sudden???
-
It wasn't Hitler's motivations we were discussing.
Ahem...
Ack-Ack wrote:
"Read Mien Kampf and then come back and say that the way the allies treated Germany after World War I when we forced them to sign the Treaty of Versailles didn't influence Hitler's thought and motivation."
You wrote:
"Do you really believe all that you read in Mein Kampf? Seriously?
I wrote:
"Why not believe Mein Kampf if you're wanting to learn more about Hitler's motivations? Versailles was central to Hitler's perceived grievances."
-
Originally posted by Steve
Lol ya, shame on us for forcing them to sign a treaty. we should have let them continue to make war.
Do you really believe all that you read in Mein Kampf? Seriously?
lol
Considering I never have and never will believe in the political and social philosophical drivel that's in Mein Kampf, it is however a good insight into his mind and what he was thinking and more importantly, what helped shape his twisted little mind. And whether you and Crumb Cake deny it or not, the force signing of Germany to the Treaty of Versailles was considered a supreme national insult to Germany and was the back-bone of Hitler's motivation to create his Third Reich.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Steve
It wasn't Hitler's motivations we were discussing. Thanks for disagreeing though, I can ALWAYS count on you for that.
We were. Crumb says that the US was totally innocent in the reasons why World War II started and I pointed out it wasn't, by virtue of the United State's participation in forcing Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles which was the motivating factor behind not only Hitler's rise to power but his motivation in world conquest.
Ack-Ack
-
more or less ack ack is right on .. you don't know objective history if you think otherwise
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
We were. Crumb says that the US was totally innocent in the reasons why World War II started and I pointed out it wasn't, by virtue of the United State's participation in forcing Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles which was the motivating factor behind not only Hitler's rise to power but his motivation in world conquest.
Ack-Ack
Absolute bull****! President Wilson was totallly opposed to the punitive spirit of the Versailles treaty. Most of what we know as the excessive punishments came from the wishes of the vindictive French who demanded such outrageous conditions - for example taking the majority of German colonies. In fact the US and british severely warned France about whayt they were creating when they treated germany so harshly.
-
Thanks Grun, I was wondering if I was the only one aware of this.
the U.S. was vastly opposed to much of the treaty.
AKAK, I misunderstood your reference to Mein Kampf, my apologies.
Now your quote about Japan fighting for survival. AKAK, I really think you should reconsider that. Japan was an imperialistic nation that had been making war in Asia for several years before the U.S took any punitive actions. Very simply put, the U.S cut off oil to Japan and told them to cease their imperialistic designs or they would get no more. Japan wasn't fighting for survival at all, they were fighting for their ability to expand their empire. Had Japan not began conquering non-aggressive neighbors, the U.S. wouldn't have taken any action whatsoever.
I agree that the treaty of Versaille was far too choking in the big picture. Yes the French were responsible for the harshest of terms. But.. and this is a big but, I can't really blame them. Imagine if WWI, and keep in mind the kind of trench warfare involved there, had been fought on your soil and millions of your population/troops had been killed. My point: The treaty may have been untenable, but considering what the French had just gone through, not completely inexcusable.