No, it didn't. Germany infomed the world that it was rebuilding the army and the Luftwaffe, within the bounds of the Treaty (no large weapons), as a means of providing jobs towards economic recovery. Which was not only an excuse but happened to be perfectly true as well -- you will note that the United States did the same thing (or at least, had the same benefit from rearmament). The rearming was kept a secret for a long time (which is also why a lot of the construction was done abroad). You will note that the planes Germany bought at first were designed for passenger and freight transport; they were converted for wartime use later.
Hogwash. The entire world knew what was going on. Germany was only allowed to maintain an army of 100,000. In 1935, Hitler annouced that he was ignoring those temrs of the Versailles treaty and was reintroducing conscription to build the armed forces to close to 1 million. The violent usurpation of the government by Hitler and the Nazis foreshadowed the destruction of WW2. The French were acutely aware of what was going on but refused to do anything about it.
Oh give me a break, "moral stand". This was 1938, long before anybody cared about such esoteric things as moral stands. It was very simple arithmetic: most French and British didn't want another war and neither France nor Britain was ready for war militarily. War was not an option for them in September of 1938. End of story.
France and Britain were the world's powers in 1938. It was their moral responsibility to prevent Germany from destroying Europe and plunging the world into another war. They failed. The U.S. had learned and studied Europe's failures of the past century. So some good did come from France's cowardly repudation of its own responsibility.
Bullshit. Now you're just making things up as you go along. There wasn't any rebellion among the German military commanders until 1943, when it became obvious that Germany was going to lose.
When you get tired of reading the revisionist, non-apologist European history books, you might want to read about General Canarsis and Colonel Beck. They beseeched the British and French to resist Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia so they could muster the forces to rebel against Hitler. Unfortunately, we know the forces of appeasement were too strong in France.
No. And it doesn't help you to omit half of my post from your quote and pretend it wasn't there -- it's not as if I'm going to forget what I said. France wasn't ready to go to war, there was nothing it could have done. Not outside the fantasy world of those that want everything to be France's fault, at least.
No one is ever ready for war. But there are certain nations which answer the moral call, irrespective of how their economy is doing at the moment. France looks for excuses. The truth is evident, however.
So what if Germany could not have defeated them together? Britain wasn't going to go to war, no matter what. Chuchill wasn't PM yet. As for France not rearming, you might want to take into account both the Great Depression and the world-wide drive towards disarmament that both France and Britain were major proponents of. Yes, it was regrettable -- but again, that's hindsight (and more to the point, hindsight focussed only on that which you want to see).
France has always been on the wrong side of the equation. They simply have an aversion to fighting. I don't know what it is about their national character, but this flaw has jeopardized the world many times. Thankfully the U.S. is on the scene now and doesn't wait for a nation like France to make a move.
No they didn't. Germany was never very interested in what happened overseas -- Germany wanted Europe. Check their military history; the focus was always on the homefront.
Germany needed resources and bases. France and Britain allowed them access by not challenging their naval superiority.
Thank God for the British. For what? I know you like to forget about this, but Britain did nothing in any way differently than France did.
Oh, now you're blaming the Netherlands (a declaredly neutral country) for World War II? Nice... Anybody else you want to include? Anybody else who should have gone to war with Germany? Liechtenstein perhaps? Monaco? Nepal?
No, France and Britain bear the blame. They were the only countries with the capability of stopping the Germans. They lacked the moral courage to do so, however. Most of the blame goes to the French because as you have stated, the French were quite aware of what the Germans were doing and allowed it to happen. They callously sacrificed the Czech people, in direct opposition to France's stated values.
Oh really? Mexico did threaten the US, you see. They were (as the OSS knew perfectly well) talking to Hitler about an alliance against the US. Must have missed the invasion by American troops into Mexico somewhere along the line.
Yes, The Zimmerman Note did implicate the Germans trying to entice the Mexicans but I don't recall the Mexican rearmament that paralleled the Germans. I also don't recall Mexico abrogating internation treaties and annexing its neighbors. Perhaps you could send me the European history books which cover those incidents.
As for world peace, you would have done what you did with Germany -- sat on your ass until it concerned you directly. The US didn't care about the world back then and that was official policy.
And this hurts your feelings right. The official European line is it wants the U.S. to engage on the world scene when their security and freedoms are threatened, but when it affects any other nation, it wants the U.S. to either remain isolationist or engage the "international institutions", which I believe the line the current French parrot often.
The U.S. understands this hypocrisy and disregards it.
Which explains why they colonized most of the world, brought about what later became the United States and fought not one but two wars against Germany instead of simply surrendering on day one.
Telling that you equate European imperialist colonialism as having resolve. Perhaps that worldview explains why America and the rest of the world rejected Europe and set forth on their own course, a course that exceeded European power and relevance.
And of course why several nations and the vast majority of the European population stood up and said "no" when the United States wanted to invade Iraq, instead of backing down before the largest military power in the world.
Sure, they followed the French pre-WW2 policy. Thankfully the U.S. has learned from that debacle and took decisive action. France's policy had unfortunately not worked out the way it had hoped. Such are the rewards for appeasers.
It certainly wasn't to the extent that the United States insisted it was in the 1950's and 60's. That little bit of overreacting is what got you stuck in that mess in Vietnam (not to mention several other places).
America is used to bailing out the French so Vietnam was not unexpected. Your revisionist rhetoric notwithstanding, I'm sure the people's of Hungary and Czechoslovakia would object to your depiction of the Soviet threat in the 50's and 60's as would the South Vietnamese and South Koreans with respect to the Chinese threat. Again, when French interests are not directly affected, everything is fine in the world...irrespective of the lack of freedoms and liberty around the world.
Nor should it -- the EU isn't asking for anything in return. Old Georgie was.
That's odd. I seem to recall a certain Parisian demanding acquiescence from the pre-EU members. I believe they were admonished to "keep their mouths shut". I guess Poland rejected that. Perhaps the French can come up with another lofty policy rejoinder.
Until they figure out that, as a rule, the interests of the large nations are not the same as the interests of the smaller nations. Then that will stop, insofar as it has eve
There's nothing revisionist about it -- unless of course you want to force a conclusion that casts France in a bad light. Which you do.
I don't want to force a negative conclusion about France anymore than you want to cast a negative conclusion about America.
No, it didn't.
Germany certainly did renounce the disarmament clauses of the treaty.
Germany never formally broke the Versailles Treaty; it paid off its reparations and very quietly re-armed.
Quietly? It told everyone what it was doing and informed the world as far back as 1935.
By the time that the breach became overt it was done and neither France nor Britain were in a position to do anything about it.
Right, because Germany's rearmament came as a complete shock to France and Britain. I mean, it's not like they were in close proximity to them to know what they were doing and it's not like they read the German papers.
Allowed? It was done by Britain and France. However, that still doesn't give you the right to make historical events up (even if maligning France is currently popular in the United States) -- Czechoslovakia was a state that was brought about by the Versailles Treaty, but it was not guaranteed by the allies (like Belgium was). The only defense pact that was made in those days was in relation to Poland and that was indeed the direct cause for war.
In other words, France and Britain refused to take a moral stand against Germany swallowing up the Czeck people, right? My God, I thought France was consumed with Freedom and liberty. How could they let such a thing happen? How could they negotiate away an entire nation's freedom because there was no silly piece of paper precluding Germany from taking them? That moral indifference is shameful, particularly in light of the devestation WW2 brought to the world.
Had France taken the moral stand and repudiated Germany back then, WW2 would never have happened. The German generals were aghast at what Hitler wanted to do. They were ready to put a coup in place to take him but they were surprised that France and Britain did nothing.
It emboldened them. And WW2 happened as a result.
o, they didn't. Chamberlain was the "peace in our time" guy, Lebrun knew better.
He knew better and yet he didn't act? That's dispicable. At lesat Chamberlain was honest in his hopes. France knew what was happening and let it proceed. They are indeed responsible for WW2, then. That much is clearly obvious.
You're thinking along the lines of WWI military numerology again ("they had more men so they would have won"). By that logic, the United States should have lost the recent war in Iraq -- they were outnumbered. France's army was of comparable size and it's airforce somewhat similar, but German forces were vastly superior in training and technology. The German Luftwaffe was the most advanced in the world (every single plane was brand new, designed by Messerschmidt or Dornier) and the German soldier was a modern soldier with modern weaponry and battle uniform to match. By comparison, the French air force was between 10 and 20 years older, the soldier's weapon was harder to load and far less accurate and the cavalry still used armor (armor, for crying out loud). For that matter, France still had a real, horseback cavalry as aserious fighting force.
Nonsense. In 1938, Germany could not have defeated France and Britain (well, not Britain). France's derilection in upgrading its armed forces in light of the open militarization of Germany is very regrettable.
As for calling France's navy superior, that is just a bad joke. It was larger, I'll grant you that. But it was also vastly outdated by German shipbuilding, especially in the submarine department (not to mention that the Germans developed submarine tactics that blasted everybody else out of the water -- the wolf pack, for instance). Even Britain and the United States suff
Aside from the interesting fact that you are figuring British and French responses into the formation of American desires when the American public to a great extent didn't know about any of that, I find it somewhat interesting that you excuse America's lack of interest in war due to the devastation of World War I, but then blame Britain and France for their lack of interest in another war while those two countries were far, far more devastated by World War I than the United States ever was. Especially France (and then we haven't even started talking about Russia).
Germany was right next door to you. If Canada or Mexico had threatened the U.S. or world peace in '38, The U.S. would have acted.
Britain and France lacked the resolve. A perpetual problem in Europe's history.
Americans weren't interested in war period and knew only in the vaguest of terms who Hitler even was. Beyond that, if you can imagine the statement above, you might be able to imagine how unwilling English, French, Belgians, etc. were to have their sons die in another war. Especially since they were so ill-equipped to fight it. After all that, the Americans ended up fighting Hitler, not to defend us -- but to defend themselves through offense rather than defense. After all, the United States learned in January of 1942 what Churchill already knew two years earlier: that Hitler would set his sights on the US eventually as well.
Yeah, what an insane notion. To defend yourself by helping others who have common enemies. It's shame that the U.S. wasn't as "noble" as France and Britain were when the Czechs were looking for help.
Although I suspect that if the US hadn't invaded the Soviet Union in 1919, relations between the two might not have been so strained for so long.....
Right, I'm sure that the communists would have agreed not to try and spread communism if the U.S. had sent them a gift basket, because as we all know, spreading their ideology has never been a concern for the Russian communists.
Of course, the fact that Uncle George spread around the semolians didn't have anything to do with it.
Poland gets or will get a lot of money from the EU. Didn't prevent them from buying Boeing jets. Most Eastern European countries will be following Poland precisely because France thought they could be bought. They can't. They know who they owe their freedom to. Certainly not a nation that opted out of Nato back in the 50's just as things were heating up with the Soviet Union.
Correction: this is Europe's history according to the school of "Why the United States was Divinely Destined to Rule The World and Why All Other Nations Should Shut Up and Let Us". It is a history which you can keep. Not to mention, shove.
If the U.S. wanted to rule the world, it would have done so right after WW2. No other nation had the bomb. Our infrastructure was undamaged. Our war machine was robust. We would have walked over the Russians and Chinese or bombed them back to the stone age.
Instead, we implemented the Marshall Plan. Instead, we rebuilt Germany and Japan into the modern, thriving democracies they are today. And we continued to fight against the Communist aggression around the worl.
Yeah, I'll keep that history. You are more than welcome to continue dwelling in the revisionist, self-loathing European history.
More revisionist European history on your part, I see.
The Munich Pact was the agreement whereby France, Britain and Czechoslovakia turned over Sudetenland to Germany in return for Germany agreeing not to annex any more Czech territory
Exactly, they sold out the Czechs and contravened existing mutual defense pacts because they were afraid to confront Germany.
France (or at least its president and prime minister) already knew at the time that it was just a delay. They also knew they weren't in any shape to go to war with Germany in 1938, so they started preparing for war. The defense pact between Britain and France was with Poland, not Czechoslovakia, and came in March of 1939 when Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia. And they stood by that agreement -- Hitler's invasion of Poland started World War II.
Germany annouced in '35 that it was dropping the Versailles Treaty. In '36 he remilitarized the Rhine region. In early '38, he annexed Austria. In late '38, Britain and France allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland.
The actual declaration of war in '39 may have been the official start of WW2, but everyone knows that the appeasement of Germany started many years before that and was allowed by Britain and France.
France did not wake up in '38 and realize that Germany was a threat. After they sacrificied the Czechs, they thought there would "Peace in Our Time".
They were wrong.
That aside, the idea that France or Britian should have gone to war before 1939 would have been deemed ludicrous back then and is simply insane with hindsight. France was in no shape whatsoever to take on Germany in 1938. In 1939/40, Germany crushed France in a matter of weeks; had war come about 18 months earlier, France would have been pulverized
Nonsense. France's army and airforce were of a comparable size to Germany's in 1939. It's navy was vastly superior. France was doomed not because of its military size, but rather its military strategy. It was stuck in WW1 strategy whereas the Germans exploited the changes in equipment and technology.
Britain and France together with its allies were more than enough to stop Germany.
Again, check the non-European, non-revisionist, non-apologist history books.
The American public did not want to go to war. That is clearly obvious and they can't be blamed, not after the devestation of WW1 and the lack of courage the British and French displayed which allowed WW2 to start. Americans were not looking forward to have their sons die to protect people who wouldn't lift a finger to confront Hitler early on.
If the Americans displayed a similar lack of resolve with respect to the Soviet Union, the EU that is in place today would be nothing but a dream. All those Eastern European countries enjoying freedom today would still be under the yoke of Communism, including half of Germany. France wouldn't even commit to the military branch of NATO. This is why nations like Poland and other smaller Eastern European countries refuse to allow Chirac to use them against the United States.
After WW2 started, American politicians passed the Lend-Lease act which provided arms and equipments and loans worth approx $30 billion ($300 billion in todays dollars) to Britain. Was this in America's interests?
But again, if Europe had acted early on, WW2 would never have happened. This is Europe's history. Come to terms with it.
Actually, I was talking about Europe's sacrifice of Austria and particularly Czechoslovakia to Germany prior to WW2. France and Britain had a pact to protect Czechoslovakis but allowed Germany to snap it up because they believed that appeasing Hitler would prevent further agression.
Of course they were wrong. It only emboldened Hitler, who actually expected France to go to war over the Sudetenland. When he realized France wouldn't, he made plans for Poland.
That history of Europe, particularly France, putting its own self interests ahead of its obligations to its allies has been going on for hundreds of years. It is nothing new.
France's army was much larger than Germany's prior to 1939. France lacked the will and courage to fight. Does this ring a bell ?
The Unites States interests prior to WW2 and ever since has always been to promote democractic, capitalist countries. It was not in the United States interest to allow either fascist or communist governments to swallow up its Allies.
The American people were very indifferent to the events in Europe because of the devestation of WW1 and a feeling that Europe was a place that could never right is ship.
Althought the sentiment of the American people was squarely against the war, The American gov't secretly helped its allies in numerous ways. Of course Europe likes to portray these actions as the United States profiteering off its allies. This is a typical liberal, revisionist European reaction that tries to paint Americans negatively.
France was largely responsible for WW2, from its vindictive treatment of the Germans after WW1 to the callous indifference it showed to its so-called allies. French military blunders only highlighted French buffonery and was not unexpected at that point.
If Europe had respected its obligations to its allies (a perpetual failing of Europe) and confronted a militaristic Germany early on, WW2 would never have happened.
Crack open a non-European history book one of these days.
WW1 and WW2 are covered in many other places in this thread, I suggest you read them. Especially how the US profited from WW2 both during and after it. You think that was all charity?
Yeah, I'm sure it was in the U.S. interests to allow the rest of the world to get swallowed up by the Nazis and the Communists. The only thing the U.S. did wrong in WW2 was put faith in countries like France. WW2 should never have gotten started and were it not for the weakness of Chamberlain and all of France, it wouldn't be in our history books.
Look no further than Europe for WW2's destruction. Blaming it on the U.S. only speaks to more European delusion.
Regarding Bosnia, why should "Europe" have dealt with the Bosnian situation?
Oh, I don't know...because it was on your continent and had the potential to destablize it just like another fractious sequence of events in Yugoslavia did 75 years earlier.
But I'm not surprised to see Europeans hide behind Euracracies...it's what Europe does best.
We had NATO united to defend against the Warsaw Pact and we had the UN who are supposed to be looking after everywhere. Any failing in Bosnia is the failing of these groups, especially the UN.
Exactly, and it was Europe working within these organizations that almost allowed Bosnia to become the next European conflagration. Europe put in so many layers of Euracracy that it took on average, 5 hours to give the ok to take military action, which had to be ok'd unaminously by various countries. Were it not for the U.S. putting pressure on Europe, nothing would have been done.
I can't wait it for that either because it just gets us one step closer to armageddon. It also firmly entrenches the Rumsfelds and Cheneys of the world who have no compunction for killing.
As America showed just recently, it doesn't care or need the European "big guns" to take action. America has learned from Europe's history that Europe only acts when it's too late.
There are always a level of IT employees who didn't go to school and get a CS degree. It may be a clerical worker trying to move up. A painter trying to hop on the bandwagon. For many of them, they don't really know the technology out there.
Employers target these people and train them. I know. I was one of them.
I went to a school called Chubb in New Jersey, which is run by the Chubb Insurance company. It was originally an inhouse training development center for Chubb so they could train new employees on their mainframe systems. It got very popular and they opened it up to outside companies to make a few bucks. It has gotten very popular and is located in several states now.
The companies who need mainframe workers know about schools like Chubb. The only thing that has changed at Chubb over the years as it became less of a Chubb training center is that they have to cater to the people who do know about current technology, so they also offer non-mainframe curriculum. But as far as I know (haven't been there in 10 years), mainframe is still their bread and butter.
You have to understand that the series although seemingly about vampires and werewolves was a thinly veiled analysis of high school life and much of the symbolism explored the aspects of fitting in and getting bullied, two topics that practically all geeks can identify with.
Also, a couple of years ago there was the Columbine incident. John Katz wrote an article that to this date is still the second most visited story.
The name of the story is Voices From the HellMouth, a reference to the mystical portal from whence the creatures that Buffy battles come.
Yeah, the movie is seriously fun camp. I like scene where they're going to the cememtary and Buffy says she doesn't feel well and the guy asks her if she's cramping, Buffy gets all indignant and says "what's your deal, God !!!"
If you look at the stories he posts, they're all rather inconsequential topics. Comics, anime, games, movies, etc. Really nothing political. Hardly anything of a substantive value. And rarely anything truly about the Open Source environment.
It seems that once Taco sold out, he forgot about developing a personality and interests that go beyond his own self. I wonder if his wife is a equally as insignificant. I pray to God that someone in that family cares about something real.
Nothing prevents you from moving. If broadband is your life's driving force, start packing your bags and learning to like korean pickled cabbage. Me, that alone would preclude me from ever moving to S. Korea. That shit stinks to high heaven.
Germany has always been a savage nation. No one is disillusioned about this.
Fact #2
The U.S. used France during the revolutionary war and we continue to pimp slap them. We have no desire to emulate the French ideals that took place in Algeria.
God bless those hundreds of thousands of innocent Algerians who were killed and tortured.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it didn't. Germany infomed the world that it was rebuilding the army and the Luftwaffe, within the bounds of the Treaty (no large weapons), as a means of providing jobs towards economic recovery. Which was not only an excuse but happened to be perfectly true as well -- you will note that the United States did the same thing (or at least, had the same benefit from rearmament). The rearming was kept a secret for a long time (which is also why a lot of the construction was done abroad). You will note that the planes Germany bought at first were designed for passenger and freight transport; they were converted for wartime use later.
Hogwash. The entire world knew what was going on. Germany was only allowed to maintain an army of 100,000. In 1935, Hitler annouced that he was ignoring those temrs of the Versailles treaty and was reintroducing conscription to build the armed forces to close to 1 million. The violent usurpation of the government by Hitler and the Nazis foreshadowed the destruction of WW2. The French were acutely aware of what was going on but refused to do anything about it.
Oh give me a break, "moral stand". This was 1938, long before anybody cared about such esoteric things as moral stands. It was very simple arithmetic: most French and British didn't want another war and neither France nor Britain was ready for war militarily. War was not an option for them in September of 1938. End of story.
France and Britain were the world's powers in 1938. It was their moral responsibility to prevent Germany from destroying Europe and plunging the world into another war. They failed. The U.S. had learned and studied Europe's failures of the past century. So some good did come from France's cowardly repudation of its own responsibility.
Bullshit. Now you're just making things up as you go along. There wasn't any rebellion among the German military commanders until 1943, when it became obvious that Germany was going to lose.
When you get tired of reading the revisionist, non-apologist European history books, you might want to read about General Canarsis and Colonel Beck. They beseeched the British and French to resist Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia so they could muster the forces to rebel against Hitler. Unfortunately, we know the forces of appeasement were too strong in France.
No. And it doesn't help you to omit half of my post from your quote and pretend it wasn't there -- it's not as if I'm going to forget what I said. France wasn't ready to go to war, there was nothing it could have done. Not outside the fantasy world of those that want everything to be France's fault, at least.
No one is ever ready for war. But there are certain nations which answer the moral call, irrespective of how their economy is doing at the moment. France looks for excuses. The truth is evident, however.
So what if Germany could not have defeated them together? Britain wasn't going to go to war, no matter what. Chuchill wasn't PM yet. As for France not rearming, you might want to take into account both the Great Depression and the world-wide drive towards disarmament that both France and Britain were major proponents of. Yes, it was regrettable -- but again, that's hindsight (and more to the point, hindsight focussed only on that which you want to see).
France has always been on the wrong side of the equation. They simply have an aversion to fighting. I don't know what it is about their national character, but this flaw has jeopardized the world many times. Thankfully the U.S. is on the scene now and doesn't wait for a nation like France to make a move.
No they didn't. Germany was never very interested in what happened overseas -- Germany wanted Europe. Check their military history; the focus was always on the homefront.
Germany needed resources and bases. France and Britain allowed them access by not challenging their naval superiority.
Thank God for the British.
For what? I know you like to forget about this, but Britain did nothing in any way differently than France did.
They resisted. Something France refused to do.
Oh, now you're blaming the Netherlands (a declaredly neutral country) for World War II? Nice... Anybody else you want to include? Anybody else who should have gone to war with Germany? Liechtenstein perhaps? Monaco? Nepal?
No, France and Britain bear the blame. They were the only countries with the capability of stopping the Germans. They lacked the moral courage to do so, however. Most of the blame goes to the French because as you have stated, the French were quite aware of what the Germans were doing and allowed it to happen. They callously sacrificed the Czech people, in direct opposition to France's stated values.
Oh really? Mexico did threaten the US, you see. They were (as the OSS knew perfectly well) talking to Hitler about an alliance against the US. Must have missed the invasion by American troops into Mexico somewhere along the line.
Yes, The Zimmerman Note did implicate the Germans trying to entice the Mexicans but I don't recall the Mexican rearmament that paralleled the Germans. I also don't recall Mexico abrogating internation treaties and annexing its neighbors. Perhaps you could send me the European history books which cover those incidents.
As for world peace, you would have done what you did with Germany -- sat on your ass until it concerned you directly. The US didn't care about the world back then and that was official policy.
And this hurts your feelings right. The official European line is it wants the U.S. to engage on the world scene when their security and freedoms are threatened, but when it affects any other nation, it wants the U.S. to either remain isolationist or engage the "international institutions", which I believe the line the current French parrot often.
The U.S. understands this hypocrisy and disregards it.
Which explains why they colonized most of the world, brought about what later became the United States and fought not one but two wars against Germany instead of simply surrendering on day one.
Telling that you equate European imperialist colonialism as having resolve. Perhaps that worldview explains why America and the rest of the world rejected Europe and set forth on their own course, a course that exceeded European power and relevance.
And of course why several nations and the vast majority of the European population stood up and said "no" when the United States wanted to invade Iraq, instead of backing down before the largest military power in the world.
Sure, they followed the French pre-WW2 policy. Thankfully the U.S. has learned from that debacle and took decisive action. France's policy had unfortunately not worked out the way it had hoped. Such are the rewards for appeasers.
It certainly wasn't to the extent that the United States insisted it was in the 1950's and 60's. That little bit of overreacting is what got you stuck in that mess in Vietnam (not to mention several other places).
America is used to bailing out the French so Vietnam was not unexpected. Your revisionist rhetoric notwithstanding, I'm sure the people's of Hungary and Czechoslovakia would object to your depiction of the Soviet threat in the 50's and 60's as would the South Vietnamese and South Koreans with respect to the Chinese threat. Again, when French interests are not directly affected, everything is fine in the world...irrespective of the lack of freedoms and liberty around the world.
Nor should it -- the EU isn't asking for anything in return. Old Georgie was.
That's odd. I seem to recall a certain Parisian demanding acquiescence from the pre-EU members. I believe they were admonished to "keep their mouths shut". I guess Poland rejected that. Perhaps the French can come up with another lofty policy rejoinder.
Until they figure out that, as a rule, the interests of the large nations are not the same as the interests of the smaller nations. Then that will stop, insofar as it has eve
There's nothing revisionist about it -- unless of course you want to force a conclusion that casts France in a bad light. Which you do.
I don't want to force a negative conclusion about France anymore than you want to cast a negative conclusion about America.
No, it didn't.
Germany certainly did renounce the disarmament clauses of the treaty.
Germany never formally broke the Versailles Treaty; it paid off its reparations and very quietly re-armed.
Quietly? It told everyone what it was doing and informed the world as far back as 1935.
By the time that the breach became overt it was done and neither France nor Britain were in a position to do anything about it.
Right, because Germany's rearmament came as a complete shock to France and Britain. I mean, it's not like they were in close proximity to them to know what they were doing and it's not like they read the German papers.
Allowed? It was done by Britain and France. However, that still doesn't give you the right to make historical events up (even if maligning France is currently popular in the United States) -- Czechoslovakia was a state that was brought about by the Versailles Treaty, but it was not guaranteed by the allies (like Belgium was). The only defense pact that was made in those days was in relation to Poland and that was indeed the direct cause for war.
In other words, France and Britain refused to take a moral stand against Germany swallowing up the Czeck people, right? My God, I thought France was consumed with Freedom and liberty. How could they let such a thing happen? How could they negotiate away an entire nation's freedom because there was no silly piece of paper precluding Germany from taking them? That moral indifference is shameful, particularly in light of the devestation WW2 brought to the world.
Had France taken the moral stand and repudiated Germany back then, WW2 would never have happened. The German generals were aghast at what Hitler wanted to do. They were ready to put a coup in place to take him but they were surprised that France and Britain did nothing.
It emboldened them. And WW2 happened as a result.
o, they didn't. Chamberlain was the "peace in our time" guy, Lebrun knew better.
He knew better and yet he didn't act? That's dispicable. At lesat Chamberlain was honest in his hopes. France knew what was happening and let it proceed. They are indeed responsible for WW2, then. That much is clearly obvious.
You're thinking along the lines of WWI military numerology again ("they had more men so they would have won"). By that logic, the United States should have lost the recent war in Iraq -- they were outnumbered. France's army was of comparable size and it's airforce somewhat similar, but German forces were vastly superior in training and technology. The German Luftwaffe was the most advanced in the world (every single plane was brand new, designed by Messerschmidt or Dornier) and the German soldier was a modern soldier with modern weaponry and battle uniform to match. By comparison, the French air force was between 10 and 20 years older, the soldier's weapon was harder to load and far less accurate and the cavalry still used armor (armor, for crying out loud). For that matter, France still had a real, horseback cavalry as aserious fighting force.
Nonsense. In 1938, Germany could not have defeated France and Britain (well, not Britain). France's derilection in upgrading its armed forces in light of the open militarization of Germany is very regrettable.
As for calling France's navy superior, that is just a bad joke. It was larger, I'll grant you that. But it was also vastly outdated by German shipbuilding, especially in the submarine department (not to mention that the Germans developed submarine tactics that blasted everybody else out of the water -- the wolf pack, for instance). Even Britain and the United States suff
Aside from the interesting fact that you are figuring British and French responses into the formation of American desires when the American public to a great extent didn't know about any of that, I find it somewhat interesting that you excuse America's lack of interest in war due to the devastation of World War I, but then blame Britain and France for their lack of interest in another war while those two countries were far, far more devastated by World War I than the United States ever was. Especially France (and then we haven't even started talking about Russia).
Germany was right next door to you. If Canada or Mexico had threatened the U.S. or world peace in '38, The U.S. would have acted.
Britain and France lacked the resolve. A perpetual problem in Europe's history.
Americans weren't interested in war period and knew only in the vaguest of terms who Hitler even was. Beyond that, if you can imagine the statement above, you might be able to imagine how unwilling English, French, Belgians, etc. were to have their sons die in another war. Especially since they were so ill-equipped to fight it. After all that, the Americans ended up fighting Hitler, not to defend us -- but to defend themselves through offense rather than defense. After all, the United States learned in January of 1942 what Churchill already knew two years earlier: that Hitler would set his sights on the US eventually as well.
Yeah, what an insane notion. To defend yourself by helping others who have common enemies. It's shame that the U.S. wasn't as "noble" as France and Britain were when the Czechs were looking for help.
Although I suspect that if the US hadn't invaded the Soviet Union in 1919, relations between the two might not have been so strained for so long.....
Right, I'm sure that the communists would have agreed not to try and spread communism if the U.S. had sent them a gift basket, because as we all know, spreading their ideology has never been a concern for the Russian communists.
Of course, the fact that Uncle George spread around the semolians didn't have anything to do with it.
Poland gets or will get a lot of money from the EU. Didn't prevent them from buying Boeing jets. Most Eastern European countries will be following Poland precisely because France thought they could be bought. They can't. They know who they owe their freedom to. Certainly not a nation that opted out of Nato back in the 50's just as things were heating up with the Soviet Union.
Correction: this is Europe's history according to the school of "Why the United States was Divinely Destined to Rule The World and Why All Other Nations Should Shut Up and Let Us". It is a history which you can keep. Not to mention, shove.
If the U.S. wanted to rule the world, it would have done so right after WW2. No other nation had the bomb. Our infrastructure was undamaged. Our war machine was robust. We would have walked over the Russians and Chinese or bombed them back to the stone age.
Instead, we implemented the Marshall Plan. Instead, we rebuilt Germany and Japan into the modern, thriving democracies they are today. And we continued to fight against the Communist aggression around the worl.
Yeah, I'll keep that history. You are more than welcome to continue dwelling in the revisionist, self-loathing European history.
More revisionist European history on your part, I see.
The Munich Pact was the agreement whereby France, Britain and Czechoslovakia turned over Sudetenland to Germany in return for Germany agreeing not to annex any more Czech territory
Exactly, they sold out the Czechs and contravened existing mutual defense pacts because they were afraid to confront Germany.
France (or at least its president and prime minister) already knew at the time that it was just a delay. They also knew they weren't in any shape to go to war with Germany in 1938, so they started preparing for war. The defense pact between Britain and France was with Poland, not Czechoslovakia, and came in March of 1939 when Hitler annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia. And they stood by that agreement -- Hitler's invasion of Poland started World War II.
Germany annouced in '35 that it was dropping the Versailles Treaty. In '36 he remilitarized the Rhine region. In early '38, he annexed Austria. In late '38, Britain and France allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland.
The actual declaration of war in '39 may have been the official start of WW2, but everyone knows that the appeasement of Germany started many years before that and was allowed by Britain and France.
France did not wake up in '38 and realize that Germany was a threat. After they sacrificied the Czechs, they thought there would "Peace in Our Time".
They were wrong.
That aside, the idea that France or Britian should have gone to war before 1939 would have been deemed ludicrous back then and is simply insane with hindsight. France was in no shape whatsoever to take on Germany in 1938. In 1939/40, Germany crushed France in a matter of weeks; had war come about 18 months earlier, France would have been pulverized
Nonsense. France's army and airforce were of a comparable size to Germany's in 1939. It's navy was vastly superior. France was doomed not because of its military size, but rather its military strategy. It was stuck in WW1 strategy whereas the Germans exploited the changes in equipment and technology.
Britain and France together with its allies were more than enough to stop Germany.
Again, check the non-European, non-revisionist, non-apologist history books.
The American public did not want to go to war. That is clearly obvious and they can't be blamed, not after the devestation of WW1 and the lack of courage the British and French displayed which allowed WW2 to start. Americans were not looking forward to have their sons die to protect people who wouldn't lift a finger to confront Hitler early on.
If the Americans displayed a similar lack of resolve with respect to the Soviet Union, the EU that is in place today would be nothing but a dream. All those Eastern European countries enjoying freedom today would still be under the yoke of Communism, including half of Germany. France wouldn't even commit to the military branch of NATO. This is why nations like Poland and other smaller Eastern European countries refuse to allow Chirac to use them against the United States.
After WW2 started, American politicians passed the Lend-Lease act which provided arms and equipments and loans worth approx $30 billion ($300 billion in todays dollars) to Britain. Was this in America's interests?
But again, if Europe had acted early on, WW2 would never have happened. This is Europe's history. Come to terms with it.
Actually, I was talking about Europe's sacrifice of Austria and particularly Czechoslovakia to Germany prior to WW2. France and Britain had a pact to protect Czechoslovakis but allowed Germany to snap it up because they believed that appeasing Hitler would prevent further agression.
Of course they were wrong. It only emboldened Hitler, who actually expected France to go to war over the Sudetenland. When he realized France wouldn't, he made plans for Poland.
That history of Europe, particularly France, putting its own self interests ahead of its obligations to its allies has been going on for hundreds of years. It is nothing new.
France's army was much larger than Germany's prior to 1939. France lacked the will and courage to fight. Does this ring a bell ?
The Unites States interests prior to WW2 and ever since has always been to promote democractic, capitalist countries. It was not in the United States interest to allow either fascist or communist governments to swallow up its Allies.
The American people were very indifferent to the events in Europe because of the devestation of WW1 and a feeling that Europe was a place that could never right is ship.
Althought the sentiment of the American people was squarely against the war, The American gov't secretly helped its allies in numerous ways. Of course Europe likes to portray these actions as the United States profiteering off its allies. This is a typical liberal, revisionist European reaction that tries to paint Americans negatively.
France was largely responsible for WW2, from its vindictive treatment of the Germans after WW1 to the callous indifference it showed to its so-called allies. French military blunders only highlighted French buffonery and was not unexpected at that point.
If Europe had respected its obligations to its allies (a perpetual failing of Europe) and confronted a militaristic Germany early on, WW2 would never have happened.
Crack open a non-European history book one of these days.
- Film Forum
- Angelika
- Den of Cin
- Pioneer Theatre
- Landmark Sunshine Cinema
- The Screening Room
etc.All you have to do is look around and you'll find the good out there.
WW1 and WW2 are covered in many other places in this thread, I suggest you read them. Especially how the US profited from WW2 both during and after it. You think that was all charity?
Yeah, I'm sure it was in the U.S. interests to allow the rest of the world to get swallowed up by the Nazis and the Communists. The only thing the U.S. did wrong in WW2 was put faith in countries like France. WW2 should never have gotten started and were it not for the weakness of Chamberlain and all of France, it wouldn't be in our history books.
Look no further than Europe for WW2's destruction. Blaming it on the U.S. only speaks to more European delusion.
Regarding Bosnia, why should "Europe" have dealt with the Bosnian situation?
Oh, I don't know...because it was on your continent and had the potential to destablize it just like another fractious sequence of events in Yugoslavia did 75 years earlier.
But I'm not surprised to see Europeans hide behind Euracracies...it's what Europe does best.
We had NATO united to defend against the Warsaw Pact and we had the UN who are supposed to be looking after everywhere. Any failing in Bosnia is the failing of these groups, especially the UN.
Exactly, and it was Europe working within these organizations that almost allowed Bosnia to become the next European conflagration. Europe put in so many layers of Euracracy that it took on average, 5 hours to give the ok to take military action, which had to be ok'd unaminously by various countries. Were it not for the U.S. putting pressure on Europe, nothing would have been done.
Uh....WW1, WW2, Bosnia.
THere are tons of other conflifcts where Europe never entered, even though their own interests were at stake.
It's funny how Europe condemns America for coming late to WW2 when Europe wouldn't do anything to try and prevent it.
I can't wait it for that either because it just gets us one step closer to armageddon. It also firmly entrenches the Rumsfelds and Cheneys of the world who have no compunction for killing.
If America used it, it certainly is our name. Europe certainly can't do anything about it.
As America showed just recently, it doesn't care or need the European "big guns" to take action. America has learned from Europe's history that Europe only acts when it's too late.
There are always a level of IT employees who didn't go to school and get a CS degree. It may be a clerical worker trying to move up. A painter trying to hop on the bandwagon. For many of them, they don't really know the technology out there.
Employers target these people and train them. I know. I was one of them.
I went to a school called Chubb in New Jersey, which is run by the Chubb Insurance company. It was originally an inhouse training development center for Chubb so they could train new employees on their mainframe systems. It got very popular and they opened it up to outside companies to make a few bucks. It has gotten very popular and is located in several states now.
The companies who need mainframe workers know about schools like Chubb. The only thing that has changed at Chubb over the years as it became less of a Chubb training center is that they have to cater to the people who do know about current technology, so they also offer non-mainframe curriculum. But as far as I know (haven't been there in 10 years), mainframe is still their bread and butter.
You have to understand that the series although seemingly about vampires and werewolves was a thinly veiled analysis of high school life and much of the symbolism explored the aspects of fitting in and getting bullied, two topics that practically all geeks can identify with.
Also, a couple of years ago there was the Columbine incident. John Katz wrote an article that to this date is still the second most visited story.
The name of the story is Voices From the HellMouth, a reference to the mystical portal from whence the creatures that Buffy battles come.
Yeah, the movie is seriously fun camp. I like scene where they're going to the cememtary and Buffy says she doesn't feel well and the guy asks her if she's cramping, Buffy gets all indignant and says "what's your deal, God !!!"
I don't know... just a weird camp moment.
I noticed that too (the $1,000 cell phone). I think these guys know how to make themselves look pitiful but in reality they are just criminals.
It's a shame because if they channeled their talents, they could probably do something really productive with their lives.
There is absolute Freedom in France?
I'd like to sell my nazi materials in France and my books that prove there never was a holocaust?
Can I do that in Paris?
I didn't think so.
I wonder if there is absolute freedom for those who protest against French violations of international law?
Probably not.
Before you get sceptic about just visit Paris once and see with your own eyes.
I've seen all I need. I'll have to decline your offer.
Someone please save the parent post. It's the only known post to indicate a preference for Keanu Reeves' acting ability.
I'm sure someone from the Smithsonian will want to archive it.
If you look at the stories he posts, they're all rather inconsequential topics. Comics, anime, games, movies, etc. Really nothing political. Hardly anything of a substantive value. And rarely anything truly about the Open Source environment.
It seems that once Taco sold out, he forgot about developing a personality and interests that go beyond his own self. I wonder if his wife is a equally as insignificant. I pray to God that someone in that family cares about something real.
Nothing prevents you from moving. If broadband is your life's driving force, start packing your bags and learning to like korean pickled cabbage. Me, that alone would preclude me from ever moving to S. Korea. That shit stinks to high heaven.
So in other words, the WHO is controlled by the U.S. and is prone to issuing health advisories based on the state of the U.S. economy. :)
At least you're able to get the best seats at lunch now.
Fact #1
Germany has always been a savage nation. No one is disillusioned about this.
Fact #2
The U.S. used France during the revolutionary war and we continue to pimp slap them. We have no desire to emulate the French ideals that took place in Algeria.
God bless those hundreds of thousands of innocent Algerians who were killed and tortured.