Trump is no dangerous udiot.

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1754
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Trump is no dangerous udiot.

Post by Sertorio » Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:14 am

Trump is criminally insane and some of you may end up dead because of him. Cheers!...

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1554
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Frequent error... there is no country named "Europe" :-)

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:39 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:29 am
I agree that there is no country called "Europe". I even have doubts as to whether it should even legitimately be considered the name of a continent.
I suppose geographically it's more of a subcontinent? As for whether it's a country, the existence of the EU makes that more debatable than it would have been in the past.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 2497
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Frequent error... there is no country named "Europe" :-)

Post by neverfail » Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:33 pm

Alexis wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:28 am

I refer you to historical studies of the German and Austrian decision to start WWI :)

This is not the topic of this thread, but WWI happened because of Germany and Austria. Neither Russia, France nor Britain had any responsibility in the inception of that war, and nothing they could have done could have stopped the Central Powers from starting it.
I disagree, Alexis. Had Russia just allowed the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire go ahead and invade Serbia in reprisal for the assassination; instead of taking up arms against the Central powers on behalf of its fellow-Slav little pet in the Balkans, what we call World War One would have been nothing but a short, obscure war in the Balkans unworthy of being defined as a "world war".

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2287
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Trump is no dangerous udiot.

Post by cassowary » Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:46 am

France was also itching to regain Alsace Lorraine.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1754
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Frequent error... there is no country named "Europe" :-)

Post by Sertorio » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:22 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:33 pm
Alexis wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:28 am

I refer you to historical studies of the German and Austrian decision to start WWI :)

This is not the topic of this thread, but WWI happened because of Germany and Austria. Neither Russia, France nor Britain had any responsibility in the inception of that war, and nothing they could have done could have stopped the Central Powers from starting it.
I disagree, Alexis. Had Russia just allowed the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire go ahead and invade Serbia in reprisal for the assassination; instead of taking up arms against the Central powers on behalf of its fellow-Slav little pet in the Balkans, what we call World War One would have been nothing but a short, obscure war in the Balkans unworthy of being defined as a "world war".
I'm glad to see people interested in WWI - the most criminal and insane war ever fought, so far - because we are about to witness a rerun. The way Russia is being treated by some western powers, and the insanity of Trump's utterances in respect of the "chemical attack" in Syria, will end up by creating the conditions for another major war to start, in which those who are about to start it will risk obliteration. And it is extraordinary to see the pathetic way two insignificant powers, the UK and France, are trying to preserve relevance in a world which simply ignores them. Alone, they would never dare thinking about fighting Russia, but they expect that American muscle will give them a chance of playing the clown, once more. I'm only surprised that the French and the British peoples don't simply boot Macron and May out of office, before they do something dangerous for them. If the consequences weren't so tragic, we would be laughing our heads off at the performance of those clowns. When will we in Europe decide to clear all this accumulated garbage, and regain a bit of our dignity?...

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

German and Austrian only responsibility for WWI

Post by Alexis » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:46 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:33 pm
I disagree, Alexis. Had Russia just allowed the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire go ahead and invade Serbia in reprisal for the assassination; instead of taking up arms against the Central powers on behalf of its fellow-Slav little pet in the Balkans, what we call World War One would have been nothing but a short, obscure war in the Balkans unworthy of being defined as a "world war".
On the topic of WWI start, "Europe's Last Summer" by David Fromkin is very enlightening and interesting.

It is built both as a history of events from June 28th to August 3rd 1914, and as a police investigation.

The result of the investigation is positive and detailed evidence that Germany started WWI, using the opportunity of Franz Josef assassination to make sure Austria-Hungary would be pulled with her.


However, if one is not so interested in that history and only wants a general outlook, it is enough to:
- Check the terms of Austria's ultimatum to Serbia (designed to be impossible to accept), Serbia's answer (yes to almost everything, save only for the terms that couldn't be accepted without making Serbia a part of Austria-Hungary) and Austria's answer (declaration of war)
- Look up who declared war to whom (Austria to Serbia, Germany to Russia, Germany to France, Germany to Belgium whose invasion would trigger British intervention)

To maintain peace, the Entente powers were asked:
- To accept their ally be invaded and annexed in a war of choice (Russia, ally being Serbia)
- To deliver control of all border strongholds and let an ally be attacked and defeated in a war of choice (France, ally being Russia)
- To let an ally be invaded and annexed creating direct threat to its capital city (Britain, ally being Belgium)

German leaders knew very well that those ultimatums - amounting to let Germany become the European hegemon without even trying to stop her - would be refused. However, they had a plan to defeat France in a few weeks, then concentrate their forces on Russia to defeat her, then Britain wouldn't have had a chance against them.

That plan failed. Four years of carnage, crime and revolution ensued. The German attempt at European hegemony was the matrix both of Communism and of Nazism, which would multiply the scale of destruction even compared to WWI.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

Risk of war, but not nuclear war

Post by Alexis » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:20 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:22 am
I'm glad to see people interested in WWI - the most criminal and insane war ever fought, so far - because we are about to witness a rerun.
Wilhelm II, German emperor in 1914, did not want war. However, he was a weak personality, arrogant and militaristic but in fact unsure of himself. German military leaders found it easy to manipulate him and get the war they wanted.

What is Donald Trump's personality?

The way Russia is being treated by some western powers, and the insanity of Trump's utterances in respect of the "chemical attack" in Syria, will end up by creating the conditions for another major war to start, in which those who are about to start it will risk obliteration.
That's hyperbole. Nobody will cross the nuclear threshold for Syria.

In case of war against Russia, many soldiers will die, ships and planes will be destroyed. However, the escalation will stop when one of the adversaries is pressed back to the wall and threaten tactical nuclear use. It will probably be Russia.

Obviously, the only victors will be the Jihadists.

And it is extraordinary to see the pathetic way two insignificant powers, the UK and France, are trying to preserve relevance in a world which simply ignores them. Alone, they would never dare thinking about fighting Russia, but they expect that American muscle will give them a chance of playing the clown, once more.
If a series of strikes against Syrian military are ordered - I'm opposed - the aim won't be to attack any of Syria's allies, neither Russia nor Iran.

Neither France nor the UK, nor - probably - the US want to wage war on Russia.

The risk however if strikes are performed is that Russian servicemen will be killed by accident - wars don't always go according to plan... - in which case the leader of Russian armed forces General Gerasimov has clearly warned Russia would exert reprisal on planes or ships which launched the attack. Meaning war.

Russia's "red line" is death of her servicemen under Western bombs, no matter whether by design or accident.

neverfail
Posts: 2497
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: German and Austrian only responsibility for WWI

Post by neverfail » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:07 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:33 pm
I disagree, Alexis. Had Russia just allowed the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire go ahead and invade Serbia in reprisal for the assassination; instead of taking up arms against the Central powers on behalf of its fellow-Slav little pet in the Balkans, what we call World War One would have been nothing but a short, obscure war in the Balkans unworthy of being defined as a "world war".
Alexis wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:46 am
On the topic of WWI start, "Europe's Last Summer" by David Fromkin is very enlightening and interesting.

It is built both as a history of events from June 28th to August 3rd 1914, and as a police investigation.

The result of the investigation is positive and detailed evidence that Germany started WWI, using the opportunity of Franz Josef assassination to make sure Austria-Hungary would be pulled with her.
Thanks for a very edifying response Alexis.

Did David Fromkin demonstrate that German diplomacy prevail upon Austria-Hungary to take that hardline position towards Serbia knowing what the likely outcome would be?

Alexis wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:46 am
However, if one is not so interested in that history and only wants a general outlook, it is enough to:
- Check the terms of Austria's ultimatum to Serbia (designed to be impossible to accept), Serbia's answer (yes to almost everything, save only for the terms that couldn't be accepted without making Serbia a part of Austria-Hungary) and Austria's answer (declaration of war)
- Look up who declared war to whom (Austria to Serbia, Germany to Russia, Germany to France, Germany to Belgium whose invasion would trigger British intervention)

To maintain peace, the Entente powers were asked:
- To accept their ally be invaded and annexed in a war of choice (Russia, ally being Serbia)
Sorry Alexis but considering the huge imbalance in size and military might between Russia and Serbia I humbly suggest that Serbia more closely resembled a Russian protectorate than a Russian ally. I sometimes wondered why the Russians bothered. This small Balkans state shares no common border with the Russian empire; looks geostrategically irrelevant to Russia's interest and could not have added as much as one iota to Russia's strength. It must have been some sort of Russian romantic attachment to a small, otherwise friendless, Slavonic state.
Alexis wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:46 am
To deliver control of all border strongholds and let an ally be attacked and defeated in a war of choice (France, ally being Russia)
- To let an ally be invaded and annexed creating direct threat to its capital city (Britain, ally being Belgium)

German leaders knew very well that those ultimatums - amounting to let Germany become the European hegemon without even trying to stop her - would be refused. However, they had a plan to defeat France in a few weeks, then concentrate their forces on Russia to defeat her, then Britain wouldn't have had a chance against them.
Alexis, I have neither the time nor the inclination to check out all of the above details of German culpability . But Britain wouldn't have had a chance against them you say? Britain's Royal Navy still would have been a sufficient match for the German equivalent to deter any German dreams of a seaborne invasion of the British Isles. Britain still would have had its overseas empire to sustain it with imported food and raw materials (my country was one of its suppliers). It's just that allowing Germany to be hegemon over the entire European subcontinent unopposed would have been very inconvenient for the UK.
Alexis wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:46 am
That plan failed. Four years of carnage, crime and revolution ensued. The German attempt at European hegemony was the matrix both of Communism and of Nazism, which would multiply the scale of destruction even compared to WWI.
I am aware of that Alexis. Yet had Imperial Germany won a swift victory according to plan would either Communism or Nazisn have ever seen the light of day?

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1554
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Frequent error... there is no country named "Europe" :-)

Post by SteveFoerster » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:42 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:22 am
And it is extraordinary to see the pathetic way two insignificant powers, the UK and France, are trying to preserve relevance in a world which simply ignores them.
Perhaps, but if so then the only difference between the UK or France and Russia in this regard is that the former at least are economically sound.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1754
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Frequent error... there is no country named "Europe" :-)

Post by Sertorio » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:12 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:42 am
Sertorio wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:22 am
And it is extraordinary to see the pathetic way two insignificant powers, the UK and France, are trying to preserve relevance in a world which simply ignores them.
Perhaps, but if so then the only difference between the UK or France and Russia in this regard is that the former at least are economically sound.
Russia maybe overdependent on natural resources, but it has a positive balance of trade, which means that it can satisfy its people's demand with the value of what it produces. A country rich on resources and with a highly educated people only needs time - and investment - to become a highly developed country. There is no reason to think that US sanctions will be able to stop that. In some cases they may slow it down a bit, in other cases they will speed up Russia's development. Hopefully by then Europe will have understood that Russia is its best and most promising partner.

Post Reply