In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:
My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
of 1870?

Sure, and much of that was land that France managed to grab during
Napoleon's time, etc etc. Borders are changeable. It's one of the
ongoing problems between nations... for that matter, between states
within nations. For example there are several states borders here in the
US that are defined by rivers, which are constantly removing land from
one side & depositing it on the other, and vice versa. The big question
is, shall we kill people over it?

No, not these days :-) We're having an argument with East Timor ATM
over a sea bed boundary. Not the least worried about them attacking us
of course.

Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.

Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).

Well they didn't lose militarily, it was a stalemate. They got starved
into submission which is evidence that sufficiently rigorous economic
sanctions backed by military force to enforce them can work.

Shows you what happens when countries try and formulate national policy
of wishful thinking and slogans basd on fantasy.



As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?

Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.

Yeah, my feeling as well. However we have the example of Hussein using
the 'food for oil' exemption from economic sanctions to bribe other
nation-state leaders while simultaneously starving his people of food &
medicine and using the resultant deaths et al to convince people like
Donal et al that it was all the fault of the Western powers. That's a
good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.

PDW

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:54:07 -0800, "Jon-boy Ganz"
wrote this crap:

I Forgot to give your boyfriend a blowjob?


You have to gay up everything, don't you, Jon-boy?






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote in message
news
I Forgot to give your boyfriend a blowjob! Again!




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Peter Wiley wrote:
No, not these days :-) We're having an argument with East Timor ATM
over a sea bed boundary. Not the least worried about them attacking us
of course.


No, at least not officially. But then that doesn't seem to be in style
these days anyway. Plenty of whackos with the potential to become
suicide bombers in Nusutengarra though.



Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.

Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).


Well they didn't lose militarily, it was a stalemate. They got starved
into submission which is evidence that sufficiently rigorous economic
sanctions backed by military force to enforce them can work.

I disagree somewhat. The German armies in the field had not been
decisively defeated, that is true. But they had been pushed back from
the Hindenburg line and only managed to prevent an Allied breakthrough
at high cost. Their manpower was waning dramatically (especially with
regard to bringing up trained reserves) and their supplies were running
out. Mostly they were being starved into submission. But an army that is
starving cannot fight.




As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?

Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.


Yeah, my feeling as well. However we have the example of Hussein using
the 'food for oil' exemption from economic sanctions to bribe other
nation-state leaders while simultaneously starving his people of food &
medicine and using the resultant deaths et al to convince people like
Donal et al that it was all the fault of the Western powers. That's a
good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.

yep... utter ruthlessness is hard to beat, and hard to believe for a lot
of people. IMHO Saddam Hussein's gov't is a classic example of a
revolution gone wrong... happens in history more often than ones that go
right, perhaps. The irony is that we (the US mainly, but also the
western powers) supported him against the obvious danger of Iran and now
we have toppled him which mostly helps Iran.

DSK

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:
My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
of 1870?

Sure, and much of that was land that France managed to grab during
Napoleon's time, etc etc. Borders are changeable. It's one of the
ongoing problems between nations... for that matter, between states
within nations. For example there are several states borders here in the
US that are defined by rivers, which are constantly removing land from
one side & depositing it on the other, and vice versa. The big question
is, shall we kill people over it?

No, not these days :-) We're having an argument with East Timor ATM
over a sea bed boundary. Not the least worried about them attacking us
of course.

Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.

Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).

Well they didn't lose militarily, it was a stalemate. They got starved
into submission which is evidence that sufficiently rigorous economic
sanctions backed by military force to enforce them can work.

Shows you what happens when countries try and formulate national policy
of wishful thinking and slogans basd on fantasy.



As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?

Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.

Yeah, my feeling as well. However we have the example of Hussein using
the 'food for oil' exemption from economic sanctions to bribe other
nation-state leaders while simultaneously starving his people of food &
medicine and using the resultant deaths et al to convince people like
Donal et al that it was all the fault of the Western powers.

Your inability to see reality is truly impressive.

*Before* the invasion, I said that there was no evidence to support Bush's
wild claims about WMD.

*Before* the invasion, I said that a war would create MORE terrorists - not
less.

Can you give us an example of a forecast that you made that has turned out
to be correct?
If you cannot, then you should consider the possibility that you have no
idea at all about the subject.

That's a
good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.

Saddam killed 300,000 in 30 years.
100,000 have died as a result of the war in little more than a year. Would
you say that Bush is more ruthless than Saddam?

I am constantly amazed by man's inability to learn from history.


Regards


Donal
--

--
"Jonathan Loser Ganz" wrote
**** you Mikey.
If by closed circle, you mean you're in a group of chicken****
faggots, then
can I be the pivot man?






"Michael" wrote in message
...
Reading Ganz talking about 'veterans' of the military is kinda
like
getting
a thank you note from a mugger. It's a closed circle
Ganz......we're in
it....you're not.

M.

In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote:
If by closed circle, you mean you're in a group of chicken****
faggots, then can I be the pivot man?


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Michael" wrote in message
...
Side question? When is Neville Chamberlain day?

Same as groundhog day. If Neville sees Hitler's shadow, Poland belongs to
Germany for another six weeks.
Scout

I always wondered if any historians figured out the end of WWII coincided
with the day Poland regained it's freedom from Russia. That being the
ostensible reason given for the start of WWII. Not the longest war in
history but certainly the most odd in terms of how fought. Five years of
intense battle and 40 more years of economic warfare with the Poles amongst
others bearing most of the non economic burden. How they MUST value
their freedom after all those years as socialist slaves.

One of the two great unanswered questions of war. The other being did
Texas lose it's Lone Star Republic rights because of the civil war?

M.



"Scout" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
...
Side question? When is Neville Chamberlain day?

Same as groundhog day. If Neville sees Hitler's shadow, Poland belongs to
Germany for another six weeks.
Scout

Michael wrote:
I always wondered if any historians figured out the end of WWII coincided
with the day Poland regained it's freedom from Russia.

???

Where do you get these ideas? If that's the case, then WW2 is still
going on because North Korea is as much a Russian client state as ever,
and Cuba became one well after the "end" of WW2 if you don't count
Poland; but if you do count Poland then it's occupied territory now.
Maybe the Germans should invade North Korea and Cuba, thus ending the
war. We can't do it for them because with regard to WW2, we are Russia's
allies.




... That being the
ostensible reason given for the start of WWII. Not the longest war in
history but certainly the most odd in terms of how fought.

Hardly. I suggest you look up some of the previous European dynastic
wars, for example the War of the Spanish Succession... now there were
some complex webs to untangle.


... Five years of
intense battle and 40 more years of economic warfare with the Poles amongst
others bearing most of the non economic burden. How they MUST value
their freedom after all those years as socialist slaves.

Why don't you go there and find out? I have a number of Polish friends
including a couple who just moved back because they think (with some
good reasons) that their children's future is brighter there than here.


One of the two great unanswered questions of war. The other being did
Texas lose it's Lone Star Republic rights because of the civil war?

No more so than any other state. The War of Northern Aggression settled
the issue of state's rights under the Constitution... there aren't any.
Next I suppose we should look at the question of individual rights... no
wait, let's not...

DSK