Remembrance

Burt Reynolds wrote: The thing about us and the French is odd. We traditionally despise them and waged constant war against them for a thousand years, but we fiercely fight for them when they are subject to aggression from continental Europe. It's as if we need a buffer zone of the 'old enemy' between us and the rest, and will lose millions to keep it there.

Russia, at the other end of Europe, has behaved in a similar way (in terms of continental Europe), too.

Is it the privilège to be members of the club of the older European nations ?

Jiphy wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: The thing about us and the French is odd. We traditionally despise them and waged constant war against them for a thousand years, but we fiercely fight for them when they are subject to aggression from continental Europe. It's as if we need a buffer zone of the 'old enemy' between us and the rest, and will lose millions to keep it there.

Russia, at the other end of Europe, has behaved in a similar way (in terms of continental Europe), too.

Is it the privilège to be members of the club of the older European nations ?

Could be. Keep your enemies close etc. Might be just we know each other too well, and after numerous attempts at trying to take each over and constant interbreeding/attempted invasion, its some sort of understanding. You need us over the Channel as much as we need you, to burn our sheep etc.

But Germans? naaah... Thats just our Royal Family, with a touch of Romanov thrown in.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: True, the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire did lead to some degree, ultimately, of self-determination for these nations. So maybe there was some benefit derived from the war, but was that result the cause young men died for?

I think the cause was just in a way. But no-one knew the price in 1914. If they had had a time machine, I'm sure some sort of diplomacy would have taken place on all sides.

I think it also had to do with new warfare. It was the advent of airplanes, machineguns, and motorized vehicles, which made it possible for one country to overtake many in a short time. Germany was the first to try and overtake the world with this new evolution in warfare. I'm sure if it wasn't Germany, it would have been another country down the line.

Also the idea of trench warfare was new, instead of bravely standing in lines shooting at each other, but thank god we don't do either anymore.

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: If Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is deemed as the liberal interpretation of US History, then what is its conservative equivalent? Any suggestions?

Fox News. Or is that Fantasy?

I would like to compare both versions to think for myself. I'm a mod(erate).

Howard Zinn just paints some quick brush-strokes of select points of U.S. History; I don't think it's as good as it's reputation. I've quite enjoyed Page Smith's histories of the U.S. I suppose he's a liberal as well, but his histories are light years better than Zinn's work.

Some examples:

The Rise of Industrial America: A People's History of the Post-reconstruction Era

The Nation Comes of Age: A People's History of the Ante-Bellum Years

He's got a whole series of them, covering from the Revolution forward. Very good reading.

EdelBrock wrote: I think it also had to do with new warfare. It was the advent of airplanes, machineguns, and motorized vehicles, which made it possible for one country to overtake many in a short time. Germany was the first to try and overtake the world with this new evolution in warfare....

WWI Definitely ushered in a new era of total warfare.

I think it's a mistake, however, to characterize Germany as "the first to try and take over the world." WWI was the resort to military power in an economic contest between the British Empire and the rising German Empire. The Germans weren't doing anything that the British weren't also doing. To characterize them as "trying to take over the world" requires one to ignore the British, French, and American imperial ambitions.

EdelBrock wrote: I think it also had to do with new warfare. It was the advent of airplanes, machineguns, and motorized vehicles, which made it possible for one country to overtake many in a short time. Germany was the first to try and overtake the world with this new evolution in warfare. I'm sure if it wasn't Germany, it would have been another country down the line.

Also the idea of trench warfare was new, instead of bravely standing in lines shooting at each other, but thank god we don't do either anymore.

Well I agree and I disagree.

By the beginning of the war, it looked like any other former wars. Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery. Heavy ships on the seas (sorry, I forgot the word Cuirrassé in English) and the famous German U-Boots... Then came the time of the trenches and the new face of war. Chemical weapons (mainly used by the Germans, at least in our history books). Concerning 'armored cavalry', "tanks" were designed by the British around 1916 if my memory does not betray and by the time of the WWI, the German ones were not as efficient. Machine guns... how can we forget them ? Red Baron is worldwide known, but the Germans did not have air superioty like you seem to mean it. WWI saw the birth of the RAF and the French air force was the largest one. OK, Fokkers and Albatrosses (and others by one side), De Havillands, Bristols and the famous Sopwith Camel on the other, but Spads (aircrafts used by Lafayette (American volunteers) squadron and then Americans, Russians etc...), Nieuport, Morane-Saulnier and others by the French...

It leads me to conclude that your statement was about WWII and not WWI. The German understood why they lost in 1918 and used a new way of leading the war by combining forces in 1939.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: WWI Definitely ushered in a new era of total warfare.

Moreover, Germany did not take account of the Belgian neutrality and civilian cusualties have been very disproportionate comparing to any former wars...

Thanks for the clarification Jiphy and Comrade. That was a initial thought while reading these posts. Agree with you guys.

But, Comrade, the US was not a global country, or even considered one until after WWI, so don't think there was an imperialistic desire for the US at the time.

EdelBrock wrote:

But, Comrade, the US was not a global country, or even considered one until after WWI, so don't think there was an imperialistic desire for the US at the time.

Not to butt in, but what was the Spanish-American War then?