Fighting against all odds. Loyalty ,an alien concept in America.

Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#21
Don't think the catholics were the winners nor was China or the spaniards. They were all defeated.
The Catholics had an iron grip on Europe until the Enlightenment, almost a millennium, China ruled the far east mostly unopposed for about 9 millennia and everyone in Mexico speaks Spanish. :rolleyes:
 
Feb 8, 2013
1,172
173
just past the moons of Jupiter
#22
Really, so everything the Catholics said during the Middle Ages is still accepted history? China is still seen as the center of the civilized world? The Aztecs are still thought of as uncivilized cannibals that were only tamed when the benevolent and holy Spaniards came?
The Catholics had an iron grip on Europe until the Enlightenment, almost a millennium, China ruled the far east mostly unopposed for about 9 millennia and everyone in Mexico speaks Spanish. :rolleyes:
The enlightenment was when the Catholic church lost, China no longer rules the far east. And Mexico beat Spain in the battle for its independence.
 
Feb 8, 2013
1,172
173
just past the moons of Jupiter
#25
What! A bare naked strawman! You might at least have dressed it up a little bit to give the impression you're not a casual dresser.
Blah blah blah.

it isn't a strawman its absolutely true. You didn't make an argument against mine just that it is a "straw man" who cares, your agreement couldn't holds up against a straw man.
 
Sep 9, 2013
34
3
Michigan
#27
Blah blah blah.

it isn't a strawman its absolutely true. You didn't make an argument against mine just that it is a "straw man" who cares, your agreement couldn't holds up against a straw man.
You obviously have difficulty reading English for meaning. I see no point to engaging you.

And I object to you quoting me as saying something I did NOT say: "casual dresser".
 
Feb 8, 2013
1,172
173
just past the moons of Jupiter
#28
You obviously have difficulty reading English for meaning. I see no point to engaging you.

And I object to you quoting me as saying something I did NOT say: "casual dresser".
I believe you didn't say casual dresser.

I have no difficulty reading English. Its just that your post was meaningless. I Can't find meaning in meaningless posts.

If you do not wish to engage me so be it. But that doesn't mean that the losers in history get to write it. It sucks but that is the way it is.
 
Oct 15, 2013
60
16
Midwest
#29
I think your OP displays a romanticized view of life in the Third Reich but the main point, that for whatever reason the German population remained loyal for the most part while ours may not have, is I think valid. Your next long post though...I'm not really sure what it has to do with loyalty, it seems to me to be more of a general critique of the history of America.

The responses I'm getting indicate how little people regard history ;and especially a painful part of american history that resulted in huge casualties.
I don't see this in anyone's responses to you, I think they just interpret history differently than you do.

Nations go to war for various reasons . To an outsider they may seem senseless or insane. . To other nations, the american civil war seems ridiculous ,depending on who you talk to.
I'm not sure about ridiculous, I think many of the European powers at that time thought a Civil War in the United States was inevitable, they may have thought that the lack of a strong central authority was ridiculous.

The war in europe seems on the surface as just another strong nation , led by a fanatical egotistical dictator , going on a rampage; and the world had to put an end to it.
It wasn't the Nazi invasion of Poland or of the Benelux and France that brought the US into the war or anyone else other than France and Britain. I'm not sure how you justify your above statement.

What this again proves is that the winners in any war get to write the history. and even those who claim to know it all are usually those who know the least.
I completely agree on this.

It's always the fault of the other guy. It's always the beam in the other guy's eye and not our own.
You're assigning this attitude to others because they disagree with you?

It's O'K' for the usa to have decimated thousands of indian tribes for the sake of western expansion but it was wrong for germany to win back stolen territory ?
The sad fact of American expansion is that two cultures with very different ideas regarding society and land ownership were in conflict and one of those was far superior militarily. Right, wrong, whatever...what happened was the only thing that could have happened.

What stolen territory did Germany attempt to win back? Danzig and the area to the south...part of the Saar which had switched back and forth between French and "German" ownership for centuries? That's about it. The Sudetenland had never been part of Germany, Austria had never been part of Germany, Warsaw and the surrounding regions had never been part of Germany. Germany made no attempt whatsoever to recover colonial lands which they were forced to cede after WWI...lands in Africa and the Pacific and former autonomous interests in China. WW2 wasn't about recovering stolen German territory.

The monroe doctrine served its purpose and prevented an invasion of early america from europe but interference in german foreign policy during the 30.s by the usa and england is considered by historians as a rightful duty by freedom loving people.
The Monroe Doctrine didn't do anything, it was just a piece of paper and America at that time wasn't capable of enforcing it. The only reason it's perceived by some to have succeeded was due to the actions of the British Navy, not anything America did. The British decided to enforce the "Monroe Doctrine" because they wanted the newly independent nations, and their markets, to remain open to Britain and Britain thought that Spanish involvement in that area would jeopardize that. Notice that no one stopped the French from invading Mexico in the 1860's..a clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine.

where was the concern over the indian tribes and black slaves and their freedom.?
What does this have to do with a comparison of loyalty between the Third Reich and Americans? Surely you are not suggesting that citizens of the Third Reich exercised their loyalty by defending the rights of minorities?

Would american foreign policy been much different if stolen american states were involved. Would we have surrendered it or would we have fought?
Depends on why the states were no longer American. There is a difference between "stolen" and "ceded by the loser as part of war reparations". Let's not forget that Germany declared war on America, not the other way around.

That's the big issue with war and the toll it takes ; when is it time to surrender . What's your nation worth to you? What's your national honor worth to you?
I think that if there's any single lesson to be learned from WW2 it's that one shouldn't blindly support their nation. Take for example a German born in 1880. That man would have seen three very different versions of Germany by 1945, which one should he support?

But blaming others and labeling the sacrifices of a loyal nation is the height of arrogance and will reflect on this nations past
I guess this would depend on who's doing the blaming and why.
 

Similar Discussions