Russia/Ukraine Situation

Rhodon:
Romanoffia:
flemingovia:
Won't matter?

We British got a taste of American generosity and support in WW2. We finished paying off the debt in 2006. Not only the interest but also the terms demanded (especially the convertability of sterling) damn near broke us.

Or perhaps America would like to revive the "destroyers for bases" scheme, where you grab our land in return for the oil and gas?

I think I would rather take my chances with Russia than have to be beholden to America. Somehow that never turns out well for us.
Perhaps you would have preferred that you learned German instead?

And as for taking your chances with Russia? That has to be one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever heard anyone say, ever.

You know, since everyone hates the US and its money and the blood we've shed saving the world from people like Hitler, Mussolini and a parade of blood thirsty thugs in the Soviet Union, I think the US should just withdraw it's military, political and economic support.

Now imagine what would happen if every nation in Europe suddenly had to defend itself - they would go bust in zero seconds flat because they couldn't afford to defend themselves from the likes of, yes, the Russians who, in fact and in history have had no other goal than the oppression and exploitation of others.

I'll tell you what the real problem with us Yanks is: it's that we are a bunch of altruistic dumbasses who are all too willing to send our soldiers and sailors into someone else's meat-grinder to prop up crumbling monarchies and socialsitic leach-states.

We Americans have failed to understand that the more we give, the more which is demanded of us. And in the process of spending our wealth and blood to this end, we subject ourselves to all manner of insults, abuses and disrespect at the hands of the very people whose asses we saved, not only for our 'altruism' but also for our very virtues which we have stupidly based upon 'altruism'.

One day, when the US realizes that all of its self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain and crippling ethics of incomprehensible duty are nothing but a load of crap, then the US (Uncle Sugar) will finally turn off the tap of 'altruistic' foreign aid, economic aid, military aid and all that rat-hole crap. And then the very people who damn the US will suddenly realize how much they needed and depended upon us Yank idiots who are all too willing to bail out those who otherwise would have ended up speaking German or Russian (and that's if they didn't end up in Auschwitz or some Siberian Gulag).

In short terms, I thing you perhaps might be better off taking your chances with Russia than with the US. Why? Because the US have become literally evil due to its acceptance of 'altruism' of self sacrifice as a morality and an ethic. The Russians have no such altruism. The Russians are for Russia and for Putin's bank accounts and the bank accounts of his cronies. The Russians shall show you no such altruism. They will exploit you until you can no longer be exploited and then you will end up like so many other victims of totalitarian regimes when you no long serve the purpose of benefiting the goals of a real imperial state like Russia. :P
Yes yes yes, America is the land of the slaves free and home of the brave, democratic capital of the world and the last bastion of free thought.

However. Historically speaking Flemingovia has a point, although America likes to think that it acts selflessly for the good cause, it never actually does so. America used the two world wars to remove Britain as the foremost power on the globe, and make us dependent on its military might.

You forget that until the dawn of the 'American century' it was Europe that was the most powerful, the most advanced, the most free.

But don't ever delude yourself into thinking that the US acts altruistically. If there isn't some ulterior benefit for the States, it doesn't get involved. The one thing that is most likely to set a European's teeth on edge is an American shouting about how 'good' America is, or how altruistic. We don't mind you being the foremost power, we really don't. We don't mind having to go along with you guys because you're top dog right now. What we do mind is you trying to pretend to be morally better- just like every other country you act solely in your best interests, which is perfectly fine. But for gods sake stop trying to tell me that its not what you do.

Oh, no, I agree in principle about what you say about American 'Altruism'. The American people are surprisingly susceptible to being conned into doing crap because they are told it is for the 'greater good'. I mean, just look at the idiot(s) we elect(ed) President(s). :P

The irony is that Europe put itself into the position it finds itself in now.

In WWI, the European Monarchies (talk about a system of slavery...) made elaborate and interlocking treaties to either promote or prevent Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire from consolidating territorial control to create the infamous Berlin-Baghdad Railway in order to tap into oil reserves there. The Brits on the other hand didn't like Germany blundering into the sphere of influence in the Middle East where the British Empire wanted a monopoly on oil. Same shit, different day, different players.

At any rate, one bullet in the wrong place (in this instance, an Austrian Archduke and his hausfrau) and woopsies! WWI.

The result was a totally spent and screwed up Europe, and US involvement in WWI didn't help matters in terms of what inevitably followed. In fact, the US had no real cause to get involved in WWI at all, except economic gain, clothed in, as you indicate, a malformed sense of bogus 'altruism'. The irony is that US involvement only caused the Germans to go bankrupt fighting a war that should have never been fought by anyone and thus laying the foundation for WWI, Part II.

And, ironically, no one in Europe had the balls to stand up to Hitler which they could have easily done had not that idiot Chamberlain caved in and appeased Hitler. After the escapade of WWII, Europe as a whole was entirely spent, vershimmelt, upgefucked and totally incapable of standing up to the Soviets which, ironically would have never been had WWI not happened the way it did.

Altruism, IMHO, is a load of crap when it becomes a motivating force in the form of an ethic or moral system. Doing something for 'the common good' is a line of crap altogether because it literally enslaves those who can do to those who cannot or worse yet, will not do for themselves. And this ironically leads to the current issue, the Ukraine and ultimately to that battle-ground of Europe, Poland (which that jackass Putin thinks rightfully belongs to Russia too).

Alicia DiLaurentis:
I'd still count more on America than Europe if Russia does something against my country (Poland). I think EU is too divided to unite enough and act as one. But I know Americans usually calculate their own benefits so I'm not certain they'd help in reality at all.

Indeed. NATO involves a 'trigger effect' that automatically occurs should any NATO member be attacked - totally annihilation up to and including nuclear - against anyone who attacks a NATO member nation. Most people have no idea of the intermediate and long range nukes that NATO forces have. A Russian invasion of a NATO nation like Poland would and will automatically trigger a nuclear response, first short range, then moments later, total annihilation of Russia. Do not doubt that for a second.

The EU is useless. It seeks to appease. It has allowed Europe to become totally dependent upon Russia for most of its energy requirements. In that sense, the EU is playing right into Putin's hands, whom the EU will appease just like they appeased Hitler. The only thing stopping Putin from trying to reassemble the territorial boundaries of the the old Soviet Empire is NATO and the nukes pointed at Russia. If Europe thinks that Hitler was bad, the Russians under the Soviets were worse, and hence Putin's Russia would end up being even worse than that.


At any rate, as a side note, I have a personal connection with Poland in terms of being a more than occasional competitor in Cavaly competitions held in Poland. And besides, Ignacy Jan Paderewski is one of my favorite pianists/composers (he was the ultimate interpretor of Chopin) and one of my favorite political figures of all times.

Oh, and as a plug...

2cr9k44.jpg


Be there, or be square!
 
Romanoffia:
In fact, the US had no real cause to get involved in WWI at all, except economic gain, clothed in, as you indicate, a malformed sense of bogus 'altruism'.
Aside from American citizens being blown up by German U-Boats in incidents involving ships such as the Lusitania? That tends to rile up the electorate, and as such, the government in the US at the time. That could be a legitimate cause to fight on, or a cause to hide behind, depending on your view.
 
James:
Romanoffia:
In fact, the US had no real cause to get involved in WWI at all, except economic gain, clothed in, as you indicate, a malformed sense of bogus 'altruism'.
Aside from American citizens being blown up by German U-Boats in incidents involving ships such as the Lusitania?
And also German trying to get our then hated neighbors to the south, Mexico, to enter the war by promising territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. That might have irked us slightly too.
 
Interrestingly, there was a article by the washington post. The more horrible an american was at geography and the futher off they were in pinpointing Ukraine on the map the MORE they were apt to wanting the U.S. to intervene.

So, don't know where it is, can't find it on a map, but hey lets send troops! The American way.

God, I really dislike the level of lack of sense and intelligence and lack of basic brain cells from the constituenty of the electorate.
 
Blue Wolf II:
James:
Romanoffia:
In fact, the US had no real cause to get involved in WWI at all, except economic gain, clothed in, as you indicate, a malformed sense of bogus 'altruism'.
Aside from American citizens being blown up by German U-Boats in incidents involving ships such as the Lusitania?
And also German trying to get our then hated neighbors to the south, Mexico, to enter the war by promising territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. That might have irked us slightly too.
Yeah, the Zimmermann Telegram was certainly bold.

I saw that too. Frankly, I feel sorry for the Americans that are apt at geography, they are suddenly put under the same label as the utterly ignorant. Though, going by a reasonably recent survey around 70% of Americans have not even seen the sea... which I find almost sad.
 
James:
Romanoffia:
In fact, the US had no real cause to get involved in WWI at all, except economic gain, clothed in, as you indicate, a malformed sense of bogus 'altruism'.
Aside from American citizens being blown up by German U-Boats in incidents involving ships such as the Lusitania? That tends to rile up the electorate, and as such, the government in the US at the time. That could be a legitimate cause to fight on, or a cause to hide behind, depending on your view.

Well, yes and know. The Lusitania was a British Ship, it was carrying munitions which was a general violation of all treaties involving naval warfare and rights of non-belligerents at that time. The Germans warned everyone (quite publicly) that they knew there were war munitions on the Lusitania and that the ship would be sunk. Of course, everyone ignored the idea that the Germans wouldn't sink a civilian vessel carrying war munitions which were recognized by all parties, belligerent and non-belligerents alike just because civilian passengers were being use as what is today called a 'human shield'.

The Lusitania was used as a propaganda issue by President Wilson, but the sinking itself was about 18 months before the US declared war on Germany, and therefore wasn't even a proximate nor immediate cause for a declaration of war. The Zimmermann Telegram of which BW speaks had more of an impact on bringing the US into the war than the sinking of the Lusitania.

Blue Wolf II:
James:
Romanoffia:
In fact, the US had no real cause to get involved in WWI at all, except economic gain, clothed in, as you indicate, a malformed sense of bogus 'altruism'.
Aside from American citizens being blown up by German U-Boats in incidents involving ships such as the Lusitania?
And also German trying to get our then hated neighbors to the south, Mexico, to enter the war by promising territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. That might have irked us slightly too.

An interesting point, but there is another consideration involving the British that seems to get overlooked by most historians.

Remember, the US was on the fence about entering the war. It was fairly obvious that the US would become involved, but it was uncertain until about week before the US entered the war as to which side the US would fight on - England/France or Germany/Austro-Hungary.

It must be remembered that the US Army was almost non-existent in 1917. Mexico's army was entirely non-existent as a viable military force and Mexico realized this and consequently ignored the Zimmermann Telegram and repudiated it altogether.

However, what most historians ignore, quite deliberately, was that the UK was exerting some really severe pressure on the US to enter into the war on the side of the 'Allies'. That 'pressure' involved a rather large military build up of Canadian forces and British forces in Canada which the US was informed would invade the US (which at that time, the US would have been toast against said force) should the US either enter the war on the side of Germany or remain neutral and continue to supply Germany with munitions (the US supplied Germany with horrendous amounts of munitions as well as the same for Britain. The US strategy was to keep both sides in a stalemate and make a lot of money in the process).

At any rate, England was quite prepared and made major preparations for an invasion of the US if needed. And make no doubt, such and invasion would have totally neutralized the US in about two weeks.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Tell me Professor, could those events be overlooked or ignored because they aren't factual?
I shouldn't really respond to your question given the fact that you have offered no counter theory that would promote the concept that any theory must also be disprovable.

Read the book The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman and Robert K. Massie if you want a good background of operating knowledge of the events leading up to WWI, and then read all of the source items in the bibliography of that book (which anyone interested in a mastery of the history of WWI should read at a minimum).

You also have to have a good working knowledge of historical causality (Proximate Cause vs. Ultimate Cause) in order to actually get a grasp of what lead up to WWI (or any other historical event for that matter).

The events of which I speak are factual and can be found in almost any serious academic work relating to the causality issues of WWI.

All things considered, you have to take into account the issue of Triadism (a political position that would include the equality of Slavic Peoples with the Austrians and Magyars (Hungarians) in the context of the Dual Monarchy system (both political and social) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This point mainly has to do with Archduke Franz Ferdinand who supported Triadism and was almost hated for that position by the powers that be. One of the historical theories that has some severe merit is that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was set up by the ruling powers to get him out of the way as he was heir to the Habsburg throne. See: Triadism in The Austro-Hungarian Empire for a somewhat superficial overview of the issue.

Then you have to take into account the Geo-Political issues such as Russia trying to create a Pan-Slovic political arrangement (not unlike what Putin is about to drive for in the near future) which would have given Russia a really good warm water port in the Adriatic Sea thus negating British control of the Russian Fleet via control of the Bosphorus at Constantinople. Then add to that the Ottoman Empire (aka "The Sick Old Man of Europe") was falling apart and German dreams of a Berlin-to-Baghdad railway so that German munitions and chemical industries could get at the petroleum which is a hell of a lot easier to use in synthetic chemical processes than bituminous coal for the production of everything from explosives to fertilizers to pharmaceuticals.

The point being that there was no one single nor even simple multiple cause of WWI - it was a perfect storm of many issues coming together at a most inopportune time.

Oh, and if you want to add more shit to the mix, look at the inter-locking and conflicting alliances amongst the nations of Europe and the fact that every monarch was related by blood to every other monarch of Europe in a most incestuous, or rather 'line-breeding' way.

Think about it:

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, King George V of England and Kaiser Wilhelm II were all grandsons of Queen Victoria of England. The wives of Nicholas II and Wilhelm II wives were also grand-daughters of Queen Victoria, King Edward VII was Kaiser Wilhelm's Uncle. And that's just the icing on the cake. Queen Victoria was knowns as the "Grandmother" of European Monarchs.

How does this play in? You have a bunch of inbreds ruling nearly every nation in Europe. How does that promote political stability? :unsure:

Essentially, the breeding activities of the Royal Houses of Europe make West Virginia look like the very paragon of good breeding. :horror:

The entire history of Europe leading up to WWI is like a Disc World novel by Terry Pratchett on acid and steroids at the same time.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Europe was better off when it was ruled by one very large family.
That may not happen for a while yet. Due to the gender of their progeny (Mariya and Ekaterina Putina; Yuliya and Kseniya Shoigu) there may be quite a delay before a dynastic family arises to take control of Europe.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Europe was better off when it was ruled by one very large family.
Tell that to their subjects... Ooops, they're dead :P

Seriously, no more freaking dynasties. It's the age of (supposed) democracy.
 
One of the reasons why monarchies are on their way out in Europe, even Constitutional Monarchies, is that the various royal households have changed the rules of succession including who can marry whom.

For instance, the long standing rules of primogeniture in which the "House" or "Throne" passes to the first born male child, and then to any first born femal child, and thence to the closest male relative of the deceased monarch. It now passes to the first born child regardless of gender. See: Succession to the Crown Bill, 2013. It's very similar to the Norse/Viking method of succession of Kingdoms and Earldoms.

While this new succession scheme concentrates the assets of the British Royal Family down to fewer and fewer people over time, it plays havoc with the lineage recording system (as to the "Houses") and is a divergence from a long standing tradition that has worked for well over 1500 years which, in and of itself is probably asking for trouble in terms of the emergence of 'pretenders' to the throne.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the British Monarchy is still around and will be surprised if it lasts another 50 years.

Also, it is worth noting that no country in the world is a 'Democracy' in technical terms. Most are representative democracies (or loosely put, 'Republics) which in and of itself neither implies 'Democracy' nor 'Freedom'. The Soviet Union was technically a "Democratic Republic" in which you voted for one candidate who was the only candidate running for a particular office and you got sent to the gulag or shot if you didn't vote for the one and only candidate. :P

Ironically, inbreeding is what essentially brought down the monarchies of Europe. Most of the old monarchies of Europe got ravaged by various birth defects, hemophilia and other congenital issues due to the fact that so many monarchs were marrying their first cousins for more than the requisite number of generations thus producing a real mess. Kaisers with shriveled arms and heirs to thrones dying from hemophilia has a damaging effect on the credibility of the affected monarchies.
 
Back
Top