Originally posted by Higher Game
We saved FRANCE'S butts twice. They owe us. England would have stopped Germany's offence, but they couldn't finish the job. I meant that France owes us, but England had no reason to lure in us because they were not in danger of Germany beating them and taking their land. Germany lacked a strong navy, all they had were submarines. England would really be in a stalemate, but they would survive. But France has no excuse.
Germany lacked a strong navy? German had a *VERY* strong navy (23 battleships on its Wilhelmhaven base, figue from Jane's War at Sea 1898-1998) (though not as strong as england, but then again, england was an island with a large empire, so they had to spread their fleet a lot thinner, and a lot more need of it for defensive measures)
Man, you get wronger with every comment you make.
And World War I already had been a stalemate for a long time by the time America finally butted in. trench warfare is all about that, in case you didn't know. France was in no serious danger of collapsing - but it wasn't on the verge of winning either. America didn't, as it happen, save french butt there.
We had to use chemical warfare to stop German atrocities.
Read the chronology I provided again. The first side to use chemical warfare was the allies's.
"* 1914- French begin using tear gas in grenades and Germans retaliate with tear gas in artillery shells. This was the first significant use of chemical warfare in WWI. "
It was absolutely necessary,
Of course. I mean, the allies would NEVER do anything unnecessary, like dropping a second nuclear bomb without giving Japan more than a few days to even realize that the first one had been. And they certainly would never demolish a whole city and kill a few hundred thousands in order to (vaguely) affect the productivity of some factories around.
Granted these are World War Two incidents, but we're still talking the same kind of incidents here.
but they were so much more cruel.
In World War ONE? You're confuding the Nazi with the Kaiser.
We never attacked German passenger ships,
Which may - notice, I'm not absolutely certain, but I think it MAY have to do with the fact the germans weren't into hiding ammunitions and the like onboard their ships - which MAY too have to do with the fact they didn't need to carry the ammunitions oversea.
Think before you make such stupid comments next time. It wasn't a matter of higher moral that you didn't attack them ; it was a matter of never having the chance.
and we had no knowledge of the munitions that *might* have been in the Lusitania.
Which is absolutely pointless...No one care what America knew. We're interested in what Germany knew, and, considering that just after they left a trio of german was caugh onboard the Lusitania...
Something tell me they'd have a good idea that liners were being used for ammunition transport.
The munitions being in the Lusitania are just a theory,
That the Lusitania was used at many points in the war as an ammunition carrier is a *FACT*. Once the british started hiding their military stuff on passenger liner, it rendered submarine warfare pointless - unless the german del
but the deliberate killing of innocent lives is a fact.
And it is just as much of a fact that deliberate killing of innocent life is often used in war. By all sides.
Hiroshima.
Nagasaki
Tokyo
Dresden
Incidentaly, Hiroshima has a death toll somewhere along the line of a hundred time as high as the Lusitania. Tokyo, three hundred. Nagasaki, something like twenty to fifty. Dresden, somewhere in the Tokyo range AFAIK.
Do I need to add more?
Perhaps those were necessary for you to win the war. But germany wanted to win too, and it was necessary for them to prevent more supplies from reaching england.
You can't apply two different set of rules in one given war depending on the two sides.
We killed innocents by accident, but we didn't have a "kill em' all" strategy like Germany did.
WTH are you on? Germany, a kill em' all strategy? Germany fought with trench warfare in World War I, and tried to keep new supplies from getting to england, where they may have tipped the war in the allies' favor. That's most definitely not a "kill em' all" strategy.
The only "kill em' all" strategy germany used was called "Holocaust", and that was twenty-five years later or so in World War II. And it never was applied to the allied nations.
Get fact, not your sick delusions, and then you might have something worth debating on.
They paid for it because they were in the wrong.
No, they paid for it because they lost. Frankly, everyone was equally wrong - or right (except Gavrilo Princip, of course - do you happen to know who he is? He was very much in the wrong, though) in World War I.
If it was our fault, we would be apologizing for it now.
World War I was not any specific country's fault.
We DID punish Germany after WWII.
No, you did not. You SPLIT germany to avoid it rising again, and that included letting each of the allied "side" get a share of germany. That wasn't punishment, that was safety measure.
We allowed East Germany to go to Russia,
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, thank you very much. Idiot. There was no such country as Russia in 1945.
And you allowed Poland, Czchekosolvakia and the Balkan to go to the USSR. I suppose they needed punished for some odd reason, too? I mean, Poland certainly hadn't suffered enough under the Nazi...
Get real. That had nothing to do with punishment.
where their communist policies killed millions. Shipped off to working camps in Siberia
*bangs head on desk*
Soviets were shipped off to Siberia. Soviets. Not communists from everywhere. Man, you need to get a clue.
I still can't understand why we allowed Russia to do that
I *THINK* it had something to do with avoiding a third world war and acknowledging their effort and sacrifice against the Germans.
And once again, USSR, not Russia.
We did enter the Cold War, but we didn't do anything.
God, didn't they even explain to you that the whole concept of cold war was based on the main two belligerents never fighting openly?
Not doing a thing is what the cold war was ALL about. No direct confrontation between the two main opponents, otherwise that would have become a "Hot War" - AKA Third World War. Complete with Nukes.
Communism slowly died because it was ineffective,
So did true pure capitalism, so there's no bragging to get there...
but it took millions with it.
*shrugs* Lots of things took down millions of lives, of course.
Germany is now a pathetic little nation compared to what it used to be in Bismarck's day. At least they aren't as bad as they used to be.
Most definitely not as bad. I mean, about first economic power of Europe, one of the three key leaders of Europe (along with France and England)...
Pathetic little nation, yeah, right.
-----------
Just passing along a message from a number of my americans friends to all OTHER posters, in reaction to seeing Higher Game's posts :
"On behalf of all americans, we'd like to apologize for this imbecile's ideas. He's stupid."
Just thought I'd show those who may still have doubted it that Higher Game is hardly representative of the average American ;-).
I also came with an interesting theory as to his second in history class claim. He must be home-schooled
.
We did enter the Cold War, but we didn't do anything. Communism slowly died because it was ineffective, but it took millions with it. Germany is now a pathetic little nation compared to what it used to be in Bismarck's day. At least they aren't as bad as they used to be.
). They ate dogs and puppies and cute animals. They shove grenades up kitties's a---- just for fun. 
And has a racist view towards other "heathen" cultures. If this book is still in circulation and is in fact Higher Games book. Then I shudder to think about how stupid and biased Higher Games idea's are.
