RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive

RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/13/2014 11:12:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: MiloSnowe In reply to the original post History lessons are pointless, we have to make our own mistakes. We don't listen, we don't learn. In regards to wars and who started what? The greed of men trying to control resources. War is a costly racket and is supported by men of means because it gives the greatest opportunity to increase personal wealth. The Iraq war made me focus. America bought bombs paid for by American taxes America dropped the bombs on Iraqi infrastructure Iraq paid for new infrastructure using oil profits American companies rebuilt the infrastructure America restocked the bombs paid for by American taxes So the American people lost their taxes The Iraqi people lost their lives The American oil, construction and arms manufactures made a huge profit. The whole idea of war being fought for profit is a problematic one, while there is no doubt that what we call the military industrial complex has had tremendous influence on wars being fought, it also as a root cause is too simplistic. Wars are fought for all kinds of reasons, fear, dreams of empire, power, the whole realm of human experience comes into play. It wouldn't surprise me if Dick Cheney pushed the Iraq war cause of all his Haliburton stock, for example, and I am sure there were policy makers and such who weren't exactly displeased by the money flowing into their districts...but in most cases wars are fought over human passion and frailty. I tend to agree with your view that war for the sake of profit for the arms industry seems a bit too simplistic, although war for profit in the sense of hoping to gain more territory, resources, money, etc. seems close to the idea of war for glory and conquest. But even if one stands to gain a great deal from winning a war, there's also the risk of losing, which is why the business community could just as easily be against war as they are for war, depending on what's the lesser risk and which option is cheaper. A country might go to war thinking that they can loot and plunder their enemies, but they also risk the same thing happening to them, not to mention the destruction involved to factories, infrastructure, communications, warehouses, stores, etc. In the United States, we might have different perceptions due to our historical two-ocean buffer and relative insularity from the rest of the world. But even then, we're still taking a risk...and it is expensive. Overall, the country is losing money on these militaristic expeditions. Maybe a few at the top are raking it in, but the rest of the country gets nothing out of it.

Zonie63 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/13/2014 11:32:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 FR First thing you should never listen to german journalists talking about Europe Union, they tend to not be objective. Maybe so, although I'd like to think they're more objective now than they were back in 1914 or 1939. [;)] it's just that somehow germany seems the only one nation not affected by the rules of euro (I mean the currency), if not favoured, so in many political tv shows there is a german journalist that defends them, sometimes with very questionable arguments. That's interesting, although I would expect that a journalist from any country would argue from the point of view of that country. However, I would also expect a diversity of opinion as well, from left to right and everything in between. quote: Not only in balkans also on the border with Italy there were irredentist movements, also the movement for irish indipendency was part of that time even if it was not directly involved in the beginning of the war but had a part in it. I don't know how in Alsace they felt, but ethnical issues are alive even nowdays. To me, it's kind of hard to fathom in some ways. I can understand why people would be somewhat passionate about their national language or ethnic group, especially in areas of Europe which seemed to changed hands quite a bit. In the Balkans and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the border changes were constant.

Zonie63 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/13/2014 11:40:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: but in most cases wars are fought over human passion and frailty. As opposed to national interest, greed, or real politic concerns? I don't see any contradiction here. Concepts of national interests, greed, and realpolitik could be reasonably argued as products of human passion and frailty (especially greed).

Zonie63 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/13/2014 11:59:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HipPoindexter History doesn't teach lessons. Its only function is as propaganda to be manipulated by competing interests in the present. I agree that it can be used as propaganda for the sake of political interests, although that can be said about any field of study. I think history can teach lessons if it's presented accurately and thoroughly, without selectively omitting key facts. But that requires a bit of work on the individual's part, to actually seek out and take an active interest. It's not something that's generally spoon fed to people on Twitter or their nightly newscast. Even The History Channel doesn't have history anymore, so it seems that history doesn't get very good ratings these days. The propagandists don't bother with low ratings; they want things that will get the public's attention, and a history lesson puts people to sleep.

eulero83 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/13/2014 1:03:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 FR First thing you should never listen to german journalists talking about Europe Union, they tend to not be objective. Maybe so, although I'd like to think they're more objective now than they were back in 1914 or 1939. [;)] it's just that somehow germany seems the only one nation not affected by the rules of euro (I mean the currency), if not favoured, so in many political tv shows there is a german journalist that defends them, sometimes with very questionable arguments. That's interesting, although I would expect that a journalist from any country would argue from the point of view of that country. However, I would also expect a diversity of opinion as well, from left to right and everything in between. Probably I also see it through the filter of the political discussion in my country, anyway euro is designed to be a strong currency so countries using it have strict rules in terms of debt and GDP, germany renegotiated it's debt in 1953 with a 50% reduction, so they have an advantage in terms of those numbers. Anyway this is another kind of story quote: quote: Not only in balkans also on the border with Italy there were irredentist movements, also the movement for irish indipendency was part of that time even if it was not directly involved in the beginning of the war but had a part in it. I don't know how in Alsace they felt, but ethnical issues are alive even nowdays. To me, it's kind of hard to fathom in some ways. I can understand why people would be somewhat passionate about their national language or ethnic group, especially in areas of Europe which seemed to changed hands quite a bit. In the Balkans and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the border changes were constant. it is not just the language Austrians are different from Germans, it is centuries of history that formed different cultures, as I wrote before our nations didn't started after a political ideal so we have the same feeling to our language and tradictions that an us citizen has to the costitution.

Zonie63 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/16/2014 4:49:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 it is not just the language Austrians are different from Germans, it is centuries of history that formed different cultures, as I wrote before our nations didn't started after a political ideal so we have the same feeling to our language and tradictions that an us citizen has to the costitution. One thing that strikes me about the history of the time is that both Germany and Austria wanted to have empires just like Britain and France had empires. Russia and Austria had multinational empires and both wanted to expand into the Balkans. The Russians felt that their hegemony over the region was more natural, since they had been fighting the Turks for centuries and also since most of the Balkans were Orthodox (and Slavic), while Austria was Catholic (and non-Slavic). One might say that Austria was the true instigator of the crisis which led to World War I, specifically when they annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908. But Germany is still blamed because it is believed that their blank check to Austria escalated Austria's aggression and belligerence. Escalation could have been avoided if Austria had simply pulled out of Bosnia and renounced their claims in the Balkans. An interesting prediction is made in Nicholas and Alexandra, which I was watching last night (and made me think of this topic again). Although I don't know if Count Witte actually said this or if it was just added for dramatic effect made in hindsight, but it's interesting nonetheless: "None of you will be here when this war ends. Everything we fought for will be lost, everything we've loved will be broken. The victors will be as cursed as the defeated. The world will grow old, and men will wander about, lost in the ruins, and go mad. Tradition, restraint, virtue, they all go. I'm not mourning for myself, but for the people who will come after me, they will live without hope. And all they will have will be guilt, revenge, and terror. And the world will be full of fanatics and trivial fools." Essentially, out of greed and intense lust for power and glory, the governments of Europe gambled away their nations and empires in the hopes of getting something even bigger than they already had - yet ended up losing everything. That may be the mistake that America is making now.

eulero83 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/16/2014 9:34:22 AM)
I think you are seeing this too much through the point of view of a modern person, life was harsh for many and life was worth less than how it is today. They were not prepared to that kind of war, they also thought it would not last more than some months when everything begun. The world was much different than after ww2.

Zonie63 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/16/2014 12:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I think you are seeing this too much through the point of view of a modern person, life was harsh for many and life was worth less than how it is today. They were not prepared to that kind of war, they also thought it would not last more than some months when everything begun. The world was much different than after ww2. Oh, I agree that the world was much different back then, and it was certainly a lot harsher, too. As for life being worth less than now, that would presuppose that life is worth more today...although I'm not sure that's the case. I think they were prepared to some degree, as the arms race leading up to the war would demonstrate. Germany's plan was to hold Russia in the east and take out France in six weeks, so they weren't really planning for a long war. Just as in World War II, their only real hope for victory was to get a quick victory, as they didn't have the resources or manpower for a long, sustained conflict. But the Allies were able to hold them off, with some help from the Russians who forced the Germans to send some more divisions to the Eastern Front. I also think that the three main powers of the Entente all considered Germany to be a shared threat to their national interests. It's kind of ironic in that Britain, France, and Russia never really liked each other that much to begin with, yet managed to come together and form an alliance because they were all worried about Germany. Bismarck was actually working for a better relationship with Russia and Britain as a way to isolate France, but when Kaiser Wilhelm II took over, he forced Bismarck to resign and started antagonizing both Russia and Britain - along with France. Russia and Austria had previous showdowns in the Balkans, and Germany was trying to make a move on French-controlled Morocco, but British naval superiority forced Germany to back down. So, they were definitely prepared for something, although on previous occasions, cooler heads prevailed and the diplomats got together and worked out a deal. Russia backed down in the Balkans crises of 1908 and 1912. For better or worse, the Europeans have made an art out of diplomacy and power politics on their continent, and much of the time, they've been able to solve minor spats before they blow up into major conflicts. This time, they didn't. I don't think anyone really expects wars to escalate or go on as long as they do.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875