Ask rothaer anything

[Blondie]

I mentioned 20-year-old guys. Don't change the goalposts.

I dont see problem with it. A 20 yo guy and a 16 yo girl is pretty normal.

[Creoda]

Yes the Germans were very militaristic before both World Wars, but not against Britain, until Britain CHOSE to enter the war.
And Germany had practical territorial reasons like its continental rivals, and Germany would have won any continental war.
The British decision to intervene suggests gratuitous militarism, they could have left Germany alone but chose not to.
The British want to control the balance of power on the European continent,
which they have NO right to do, unlike the continental powers.

So Britain had no right to try to keep a balance of power on the continent for their own perceived interests, but Germany did have a right to invade most of Europe, for their interests? Strange logic, holding Britain to a different standard. I don't think Britain should have committed to war against Germany either time, but let's be realistic. No side in either war had a monopoly of blame or gratuitous militarism.

Thank you for the mention of Tyler Kent, I did not know that.
Americans were in favour of neutrality or sympathetic to Germany before both wars,
the US entry into both wars was deceitful and unpopular until Pearl Harbour.
Wilson promised peace, was reelected, and then found an excuse to enter World War I.
FDR promised peace, was reelected, and then provoked war with Japan and found a reason to enter World War II.
Likewise Johnson promised peace in Vietnam, was reelected, and then found an excuse to start the Vietnam War 2 weeks later.
This is a pattern in the US, and anti-war patriots were persecuted in all of America's wars.

Americans were generally sympathetic to Germany in both wars,
since most Americans are of German descent and have a domestic focus, even if the founding culture was British.
But the US elite was Anglo-Saxon back then, and heavily financial, with strong ties to Britain like today.

Americans weren't generally sympathetic to Germany, I don't know why you believe that. They were against military intervention in Europe at the start of both wars, and the large German (and Irish) minority would have contributed to that, but that is all. The majority of Americans supported aid to Britain and France both times. The sinking of the Lusitania and American merchant ships was the turning point of American public opinion in WWI to being pro-war, and the dastardly Pearl Harbour attack for WWII (followed by Hitler irrationally declaring war on the US).

[CosmoLady]

So Britain had no right to try to keep a balance of power on the continent for their own perceived interests, but Germany did have a right to invade most of Europe, for their interests? Strange logic, holding Britain to a different standard.

Yes there is a difference, because unlike the other powers,
Britain had no territory at stake in the conflict, in Europe or overseas,
and Britain was interfering in a continental European matter.
This was a battle between the Germans, Russians, French, etc.

Yet Britain has been interfering in continental European wars for hundreds of years.

This suggests a British desire to control what is happening on the continent,
which suggests a sense of exceptionalism and hunger for power that is ultimately insidious.
(The Germans do not try to control what is happening in the British Isles.)

Taken to its ultimate logic,
this leads to British interference in places like Crimea in the 19th century (or Ukraine today),
the provocation of two WORLD Wars that were much bigger and more devastating than they should have been,
and American interference in the political affairs of every country and possible provocation of a third WORLD War.

I don't think Britain should have committed to war against Germany either time, but let's be realistic. No side in either war had a monopoly of blame or gratuitous militarism.

The militarism of the European powers on the continent, against each other, is normal and natural.
But the maximal global militarism of Britain and then the US is something else entirely.

British globalist militarism/hunger for power led to horrific events,
such as the Opium Wars, US Revolutionary War, and Boer War among others.
And these certainly promoted globalist hubris,
while desensitising British decisionmakers to questions of narrow interest and right and wrong,
leading to the provocation of both World Wars in my opinion,
and the rise of the globalist world order, which is a monstrosity like no other.

Despite this, I do respect the British Empire as overall the greatest progressive civilising force known to man.

Americans weren't generally sympathetic to Germany, I don't know why you believe that. They were against military intervention in Europe at the start of both wars, and the large German (and Irish) minority would have contributed to that, but that is all. The majority of Americans supported aid to Britain and France both times. The sinking of the Lusitania and American merchant ships was the turning point of American public opinion in WWI to being pro-war, and the dastardly Pearl Harbour attack for WWII (followed by Hitler irrationally declaring war on the US).

Americans wanted neutrality in both wars. Only the Northeast and US elite/media was pro-British.
Anglophobia and isolationism were common sentiments throughout the US.
World War I was not popular even while US troops were on the ground,
and there was extreme repression of dissent in the US,
while the idea of World War II was popular only after Pearl Harbour.

Wilson promised to keep the US out of war, yet continued arming Britain,
which was an act of war and betrayal of the American people's wishes.
The Lusitania sinking was in 1915;
the deceitful Zimmermann telegram (a British intelligence operation) of 1917 was more decisive.
Also Wilson continued arming Britain despite Germany's public warnings to not send arms or travel across the Atlantic,
strongly suggesting a desire to provoke Germany until enough political support could be built for entering the war.

[rothaer]

does your atheist self feels anything about this?

Yes, absolutely. But not from a religious point of view. Just from the point of view that this is indicative of a rising number of resident foreigners.

[rothaer]

So Britain had no right to try to keep a balance of power on the continent for their own perceived interests, but Germany did have a right to invade most of Europe, for their interests? Strange logic, holding Britain to a different standard. I don't think Britain should have committed to war against Germany either time, but let's be realistic. No side in either war had a monopoly of blame or gratuitous militarism.


Americans weren't generally sympathetic to Germany, I don't know why you believe that. They were against military intervention in Europe at the start of both wars, and the large German (and Irish) minority would have contributed to that, but that is all. The majority of Americans supported aid to Britain and France both times. The sinking of the Lusitania and American merchant ships was the turning point of American public opinion in WWI to being pro-war, and the dastardly Pearl Harbour attack for WWII (followed by Hitler irrationally declaring war on the US).

Agreed, except for that Hitler's declaration of war on the US was irrational.

He very well explained in his connected to this speech that the USA is already acting non-openly like a war party against Germany since longer time and that the declaration of war just puts Germany in the position to become able to fight that war participant.

For the German public this was needed as it would consider it wrong and unacceptable to act hiddenly and secretly just. Besides that this declaration was rational it was likely not a good idea as this would be perceived by the US public as if Germany would have started a war on the US, where the US now in turn has to defend itself. As the hidden war-like acting by the US was much weaker than what then followed it would still by far have been the better alternative for Germany.

[Anglo-Celtic]

I dont see problem with it. A 20 yo guy and a 16 yo girl is pretty normal.

Cool. We agree, then.

[#Oda#]

So Britain had no right to try to keep a balance of power on the continent for their own perceived interests, but Germany did have a right to invade most of Europe, for their interests? Strange logic, holding Britain to a different standard. I don't think Britain should have committed to war against Germany either time, but let's be realistic. No side in either war had a monopoly of blame or gratuitous militarism.


Americans weren't generally sympathetic to Germany, I don't know why you believe that. They were against military intervention in Europe at the start of both wars, and the large German (and Irish) minority would have contributed to that, but that is all. The majority of Americans supported aid to Britain and France both times. The sinking of the Lusitania and American merchant ships was the turning point of American public opinion in WWI to being pro-war, and the dastardly Pearl Harbour attack for WWII (followed by Hitler irrationally declaring war on the US).

They were until WW1. After that it changed much, so far that Germans changed their names and did not speak German anymore.
Respect nevertheless was kept until WW2. After it changed of course as well.

[#Oda#]

I dont see problem with it. A 20 yo guy and a 16 yo girl is pretty normal.

I answered your question, if you haven't got a notification (happens really often to me).

[#Oda#]

You are (correctly) assessing the tip of the iceberg...

Little strange to edit such a sentence, crazy hazy.

[Blondie]

I answered your question, if you haven't got a notification (happens really often to me).

Same here and i dont know why, it must be a server bug. But i have seen it now, thanks