Last edited:
United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I somehow feel that the people involved in this documentary have only a foggy notion of what they're talking about. Even a cursory glance shows that they base their thesis on the work of people such as Richard Grove, or TragedyAndHope.com -- who himself presents a very muddled re-interpretation of a thesis actually put forward by Quigley, in the rather more well-researched (and considerably less sensationalist) book after whose title that website is named: Tragedy and Hope.
I've actually read Quigley's work, so I don't have to rely on third-hand regurgitations, which don't strike me as altogether credible. In fact, rather amusingly, my own position on the matter partially informed by the arguments put forth in Tragedy and Hope. Not that this is saintly; Quigley was the 'court historian' of the Kennedy White House, after all, and the favourite professor of none other than Bill Clinton. But I find it funny that this whole documentary is based on re-tellings of Quigley's account, when Quigley himself was actually pretty positive about the "Anglo-American establishment" and its various accomplishments.
So... just to be clear here, your problem isn't that anything brought up in the video is factually incorrect. Just that A) you don't like the sources and B) the conclusions made aren't that same as Quigley's conclusions? @Skallagrim
Skallagrim
Well-known member
My conclusion is that I read the text below the video, and saw that this was sensationalising a second-hand re-telling that already sensationalised something I had actually read. So I could see that it was a twice-sensationalised third-hand account. This is rather disheartening.
To compare: it's like hearing the distorted result of a game of telephone, when you also know what the original message was-- so you can see just how mangled the end result is.
The world would have been a much better place if Kaiser Whilhelm had been capable of basic diplomacy.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Certainly. He pushed every wrong button. But even in that situation, Britain could easily have realised that Germany would never be able to match the Royal Navy (not even close), and that siding with Germany in exchange for Wilhelm II abandoning his naval/colonial ambitions (which by then had been proven economically unfeasible) could have solved all major problems immediately.
It would produce a short war, in which both France and Russia would be decisively beaten, and this combined with a British seat at the victors' table could ensure a decent peace settlement.
Chamberlain (no, not that one; actually his dad) had proposed as much. The South African debacle and his political role at the time ironically made him the most hated Briton in Germany, when he was in truth the foremost champion of Anglo-German alliance.
All Germans/Bismark needed to do to have a better chance to win or secure better terms in WW1 was not send the fucking Zimmerman Telegram to Mexico.
Threatening to support Mexico in attacks on the Southwest was what doomed Imperial Germany, far more than the Lusitania's sinking.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Classified docs probe pushes Biden think tank into spotlight
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Joe Biden contemplated his next move in 2017 after decades in...
Not really.All he need was do not change Schieffen plan and send nothing to East Prussia when Russians attacked.France would fall in 1914,Russia in 1915,England sue for peace or get invaded later.
German Europe.
And,after that,he could send 10 Zimmer telrgrams to Mexico,and USA could do notching about that.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Or if Austria-Hungary hadn't tried to use Ferdinand's assassination as an excuse to invade the Slavic countries in a bid to seize more territory.
Assasination of your head of state has been a legitiment Casui belli for war for most of human history.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Not when the assassination happens in and is perpetrated by citizens of a country they were already occupying, in response to said occupation. Trying to use that as an excuse to invade yet more countries is such blatant bullhonky, it's a wonder the people in charge in Austria-Hungary thought they could get away with it; though considering their constant self-sabotaging during WW1, it's obvious that the one active brain cell they had between them died with Ferdinand.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Casus belli "for war" is tautological.
You know what I'm glad for you, your studying your thesaurus and expanding your vocabulary. Since your on a self improvement kick try hitting the Gym. Just don't try the big impressive stuff first find something your speed and then work up to it. Personally I swim and its great, lost 30 pounds over the last 2 years.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Swimming is a good one, at the pool for 2-3 hours every Friday with my little girl. Had to cut down on gym time since we had her though.
Thanks for the (slightly odd) advice though!
DarthOne
☦️
To be fair to Wilhelm, while he did make mistakes, a lot of things he said and did have been taken out of context and distorted thanks to Entente propaganda and media spins both before, during and after the war.
Which would still do not matter,if germans do not fucked Schieffen plan.After that they could really eat belgian nuns and rape children,and nobody would care.
Doubtful Watson switches political parties.
As long as Russia had ammo for their guns,it was impossible.
But,in 1915 they were out of it and fight almost only with HMG.Then,after taking Paris and destroing France,germans should attack.