Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes the treaty of Versailles was a harsh treaty imposed on the losers of WWI, the opressive Germans. Too fuckin' bad. The problem is that the Coalition forces left Germany to rebuild its' political force, and the Nazi party prevailed during the time WWI and WWII were generated. Had we Americans posted bases and posts throughout Germany after WWI like we did after WWII, then WWII would have never happened.On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war. The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
There are some who forget that Wilson knew the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake, and tried to convince the Brits and French not to push for such hard reparations, but they would not yield...
Mossadegh was clearly the preferred leader considering the Shah felt it necessary to flee the country to Rome for his safety.
Mossadegh was the preferred leader by those who were threatening the Shah's safety, but we have no way of knowing how many these were. We do know that Mossadegh dissolved the parliament because they would no longer support his unconstitutional demands, so at least the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people no longer preferred Mossadegh.
As Mossadegh's demands and threats to the Shah mounted, to the dismay of many in Iran, the Shah refused to rally his supporters to resist Mossadegh, but when you consider that the US aid to Shah consisted of nothing more than help organizing his supporters to resist Mossadegh's coup, it's arguable that more Iranians supported the Shah than supported Mossadegh in the end.
If that were the case then British and American aid for the Shah would have been wholly unnecessary to restore the Shah to power. Perhaps some of the Iranians didn't want Mossadegh, but I'm willing to bet they didn't want the Shah either. If we hadn't interfered for the benefit of our ally then there's no telling how Iran would have solved it's own problems. Though it's likely that they'd have been much better off.
Yes the treaty of Versailles was a harsh treaty imposed on the losers of WWI, the opressive Germans. Too fuckin' bad. The problem is that the Coalition forces left Germany to rebuild its' political force, and the Nazi party prevailed during the time WWI and WWII were generated. Had we Americans posted bases and posts throughout Germany after WWI like we did after WWII, then WWII would have never happened.On the other hand, suppose we had followed a consistent policy of intervening after the war. The US might have ameliorated the punishing treaty Germany was forced to sign and this might have prevented the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power, and if that failed, we might have quashed his ambitions before he became a threat to the world.
Which is better: endless wars with huge casualties because of our failure to intervene or smaller wars that save tens of millions of lives because of our decisive interventions?
There are some who forget that Wilson knew the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake, and tried to convince the Brits and French not to push for such hard reparations, but they would not yield...
hey you are right, some of the links don't work. i will fix them. and then i will tell you that i fixed them, and then i will get my winnings in cash. seriously, do you have any interaction with real people? you don't have any social skills, dude.
Mossadegh was the preferred leader by those who were threatening the Shah's safety, but we have no way of knowing how many these were. We do know that Mossadegh dissolved the parliament because they would no longer support his unconstitutional demands, so at least the majority of the democratically elected representatives of the people no longer preferred Mossadegh.
As Mossadegh's demands and threats to the Shah mounted, to the dismay of many in Iran, the Shah refused to rally his supporters to resist Mossadegh, but when you consider that the US aid to Shah consisted of nothing more than help organizing his supporters to resist Mossadegh's coup, it's arguable that more Iranians supported the Shah than supported Mossadegh in the end.
If that were the case then British and American aid for the Shah would have been wholly unnecessary to restore the Shah to power. Perhaps some of the Iranians didn't want Mossadegh, but I'm willing to bet they didn't want the Shah either. If we hadn't interfered for the benefit of our ally then there's no telling how Iran would have solved it's own problems. Though it's likely that they'd have been much better off.
There is no way to know how many supported Mossadegh and how many supported the Shah, but it required very little effort on the part of the US and UK to rally the Shah's supporters to victory, so they couldn't have been outnumbered by much if at all.
With no functioning government, no constitution, the economy in ruins, chaos in the streets, the military with divided loyalties and the USSR waiting to move in, what makes you think the outcome would have been better if the US and UK had not acted to restore the constitutional government?
I personally blame Timur for the mess in Iran.
The intellectual giant proffers its wisdom, enlightening us all and adding greatly to the thread...
hey you are right, some of the links don't work. i will fix them. and then i will tell you that i fixed them, and then i will get my winnings in cash. seriously, do you have any interaction with real people? you don't have any social skills, dude.
The only 2 links that matter are the 2 that I posted; you asking for proof, and my link to the J-post article. Anything else is nonsense.
I don't need social skills, I just need to be right - and there is no question whatsoever - that I am correct in this instance.
If that were the case then British and American aid for the Shah would have been wholly unnecessary to restore the Shah to power. Perhaps some of the Iranians didn't want Mossadegh, but I'm willing to bet they didn't want the Shah either. If we hadn't interfered for the benefit of our ally then there's no telling how Iran would have solved it's own problems. Though it's likely that they'd have been much better off.
There is no way to know how many supported Mossadegh and how many supported the Shah, but it required very little effort on the part of the US and UK to rally the Shah's supporters to victory, so they couldn't have been outnumbered by much if at all.
With no functioning government, no constitution, the economy in ruins, chaos in the streets, the military with divided loyalties and the USSR waiting to move in, what makes you think the outcome would have been better if the US and UK had not acted to restore the constitutional government?
Well they probably wouldn't have taken American citizens hostage had they not had that event to point to and stir up resentment against the U.S.
There is no way to know how many supported Mossadegh and how many supported the Shah, but it required very little effort on the part of the US and UK to rally the Shah's supporters to victory, so they couldn't have been outnumbered by much if at all.
With no functioning government, no constitution, the economy in ruins, chaos in the streets, the military with divided loyalties and the USSR waiting to move in, what makes you think the outcome would have been better if the US and UK had not acted to restore the constitutional government?
Well they probably wouldn't have taken American citizens hostage had they not had that event to point to and stir up resentment against the U.S.
There's no telling who "they" would have been by 1979. Mossadegh's support was pretty evenly divided between the Islamists and the communists with the advantage probably going to the communists because of Soviet support. When support for the Shah was overcome, it is likely the communists and Islamists would have turned against each other. The USSR would have at least peeled off the northern provinces as they had tried to do before and Iraq would likely have tried to take the disputed shoreline. So exactly who would not have taken American citizens hostage?
Again, if we had attacked Hitler's Germany before it became powerful, tens of millions of lives would have been saved and if we had intervened in Iran in 1979 to keep the Shah in power, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened and millions more lives would have been saved. How can this be wrong?
NO way to know that. We very well could have been overwhelmed by Hitler's blitzkrieg, a style of warfare never seen before. The Brits were EXTREMELY lucky that Hitler failed to slaughter them at Dunquerque.
The point is that would not have happened if we had stopped Hitler before Germany became powerful again. Is it better to fight a small war now if you think it will prevent a big war later or to just hope for the best? The US and Europeans did the latter as Hitler rose to power and began to rebuild, in violation of the peace treaty, the German military. Had we and they intervened early to prevent this, there would have been no WWII, at least not in Europe.
Had we not gotten involved in World War 1 then Hitler may never have come to power in the first place. Had we not intervened in 1953 then perhaps the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened.
You would prefer we allow the kaiser to sink our ships at will? You speak of free trade, yet the Kaiser was sinking the American ships bound for Britain, which interferes with free trade. but you think we should have let the Kaiser continue sub warfare at will.
And Great Britain was blockading and setting mines in international waters around Germany. Germany's submarine-warfare was a result of the blockade, and anyone willing to travel in a declared war-zone does so at their own risk.
NO way to know that. We very well could have been overwhelmed by Hitler's blitzkrieg, a style of warfare never seen before. The Brits were EXTREMELY lucky that Hitler failed to slaughter them at Dunquerque.
The point is that would not have happened if we had stopped Hitler before Germany became powerful again. Is it better to fight a small war now if you think it will prevent a big war later or to just hope for the best? The US and Europeans did the latter as Hitler rose to power and began to rebuild, in violation of the peace treaty, the German military. Had we and they intervened early to prevent this, there would have been no WWII, at least not in Europe.
I think we pretty much agree there. The first violation was in 1936, I believe, when Hitler sent troops into the Rheinland. Had France sent its armies into the Rheinland, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw.
The point is that would not have happened if we had stopped Hitler before Germany became powerful again. Is it better to fight a small war now if you think it will prevent a big war later or to just hope for the best? The US and Europeans did the latter as Hitler rose to power and began to rebuild, in violation of the peace treaty, the German military. Had we and they intervened early to prevent this, there would have been no WWII, at least not in Europe.
I think we pretty much agree there. The first violation was in 1936, I believe, when Hitler sent troops into the Rheinland. Had France sent its armies into the Rheinland, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw.
fucking hitler dude, all of germany looks like shit because of this guy and his loyal supporters, and enablers....
You would prefer we allow the kaiser to sink our ships at will? You speak of free trade, yet the Kaiser was sinking the American ships bound for Britain, which interferes with free trade. but you think we should have let the Kaiser continue sub warfare at will.
And Great Britain was blockading and setting mines in international waters around Germany. Germany's submarine-warfare was a result of the blockade, and anyone willing to travel in a declared war-zone does so at their own risk.
Regardless, after the Lusitania sinking, in 1915, Wilson warned the Germans to allow American ships to sail freely on the atlantic. In 1917, the Germans declared all-out warfare on all ships on the Atlantic, regardless their flag. Wilson responded by cutting diplomatic ties to Berlin. Germany followed that up by sinking several American ships, including a hospital ship bound for Belgium. So what were we supposed to do?
And Great Britain was blockading and setting mines in international waters around Germany. Germany's submarine-warfare was a result of the blockade, and anyone willing to travel in a declared war-zone does so at their own risk.
Regardless, after the Lusitania sinking, in 1915, Wilson warned the Germans to allow American ships to sail freely on the atlantic. In 1917, the Germans declared all-out warfare on all ships on the Atlantic, regardless their flag. Wilson responded by cutting diplomatic ties to Berlin. Germany followed that up by sinking several American ships, including a hospital ship bound for Belgium. So what were we supposed to do?
Yes, Wilson demanded that Americans be allowed to ride on British ships carrying munitions through a declared war-zone. He also demanded that armed American ships be given the right to sail through the war-zone. Wilson was far more critical of the German's submarine warfare than he was of the British blockade which was a direct attack on innocent civilians. The German policy was too shoot any ship they saw, and they warned all neutral nations that they would not be able to differentiate between neutral and belligerent nations.
"All the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole English Channel, are hereby declared to be a war zone. From February 18 onwards every enemy merchant vessel found within this war zone will be destroyed without it always being possible to avoid dangers to the crews and passengers.
Neutral ships will also be exposed to danger in the war zone, as, in view of the misuse of neutral flags ordered on January 31 by the British Government, and owing to unforeseen incidents to which naval warfare is liable, it is impossible to avoid attacks being made on neutral ships in mistake for those of the enemy." - German response to British blockade
What Wilson could have done is tell American citizens that they travel through that war zone at their own risk, and a Resolution was proposed in Congress to say just that. However, it was defeated.
I think we pretty much agree there. The first violation was in 1936, I believe, when Hitler sent troops into the Rheinland. Had France sent its armies into the Rheinland, Hitler would have been forced to withdraw.
fucking hitler dude, all of germany looks like shit because of this guy and his loyal supporters, and enablers....
He was extremely lucky, but at the same time, every opportunity he was given, he took full advantage of.
fucking hitler dude, all of germany looks like shit because of this guy and his loyal supporters, and enablers....
He was extremely lucky, but at the same time, every opportunity he was given, he took full advantage of.
have you been to germany? looked at the major cities? wondered why they are ugly? there was no luck about the bombing, that was systematical. did kill a lot of civilians, but strenghtened their spirits. more proof that shock and awe does not work.
Regardless, after the Lusitania sinking, in 1915, Wilson warned the Germans to allow American ships to sail freely on the atlantic. In 1917, the Germans declared all-out warfare on all ships on the Atlantic, regardless their flag. Wilson responded by cutting diplomatic ties to Berlin. Germany followed that up by sinking several American ships, including a hospital ship bound for Belgium. So what were we supposed to do?
Yes, Wilson demanded that Americans be allowed to ride on British ships carrying munitions through a declared war-zone. He also demanded that armed American ships be given the right to sail through the war-zone. Wilson was far more critical of the German's submarine warfare than he was of the British blockade which was a direct attack on innocent civilians. The German policy was too shoot any ship they saw, and they warned all neutral nations that they would not be able to differentiate between neutral and belligerent nations.
"All the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole English Channel, are hereby declared to be a war zone. From February 18 onwards every enemy merchant vessel found within this war zone will be destroyed without it always being possible to avoid dangers to the crews and passengers.
Neutral ships will also be exposed to danger in the war zone, as, in view of the misuse of neutral flags ordered on January 31 by the British Government, and owing to unforeseen incidents to which naval warfare is liable, it is impossible to avoid attacks being made on neutral ships in mistake for those of the enemy." - German response to British blockade
What Wilson could have done is tell American citizens that they travel through that war zone at their own risk, and a Resolution was proposed in Congress to say just that. However, it was defeated.
So you believe the German claim that the Lusitania was carrying arms?
He was extremely lucky, but at the same time, every opportunity he was given, he took full advantage of.
have you been to germany? looked at the major cities? wondered why they are ugly? there was no luck about the bombing, that was systematical. did kill a lot of civilians, but strenghtened their spirits. more proof that shock and awe does not work.
Yes, I've been to Germany back in 1993. Saw Leipzig and former East Berlin. There was still rubble from the bombings that the DDR failed to clean up.
My point was that Hitler was lucky in his ascent to power and in foreign affairs.
