View Full Version : One Hundred Years Ago Today......
America declares war on Germany.
The American century began, in a sense, 100 years ago today. On April 6, 1917, the House of Representatives voted to declare war on Germany two days after the Senate had done so, and the United States joined the Allied side in World War I. Over the next year and a half, American troops helped turn the tide of the war in bloody battles at places like Chateau-Thierry, Saint-Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne.
Article at War on the Rocks gives a brief overview of between then and now from his perspective (which I mostly agree with):
https://warontherocks.com/2017/04/once-more-over-there-european-security-at-the-end-of-american-century/
https://assets.americanrifleman.org/wp-content/uploads/Webcontent/images/2012-2/20122916161-smithwesson1917_f.jpg
Willy McBride, Did you really believe that this War would end War?
And the FIRST woman Congressman, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, voted against going to war with Germany even though Germany had already declared unrestricted war on the US.
Rankin would later be the sole, dissenting vote to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Should have sent her over with a white flag to the front lines. Congress always gets special treatment.
Can we give Pelosi and Feinstien rifles and have them take on some spetsnaz?
And the FIRST woman Congressman, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, voted against going to war with Germany even though Germany had already declared unrestricted war on the US.
Rankin would later be the sole, dissenting vote to declare war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Not sure why that came up, she was a lifelong pacifist, something the people who elected her both times knew. I'm not sure whether it was a religious deal or just a belief.
I attend a Mennonite Church and, as a result am good friends with several guys who were CO's during VN. They served in different ways, several worked in mental institutions. I get along just fine with them, we just don't totally agree on what it means to be a member of a 'peace church.'
Quote: "As a woman I can't go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else."
If you tally up the actual KIA (as opposed to any cause of death) of U.S. personnel during WWI, and compare it to the same figure from WWII and extrapolate for 19 months vs. 44 months, it has got to be nearly the same. Point being we fought a war a generation before the "Big One" (as Archie Bunker used to say) that was essentially as deadly for us as the later event.
ETA: a little actual digging proves me wrong. WWII was more costly, by a fair amount, than WWI. Over 2x so in fact. Nonetheless, it was tooth and nail in miserable conditions. Kudos to the Doughboys!
WWI (19 months) 53,000 US KIA
WWII (44 months) 291,000 US KIA
Not sure why that came up, she was a lifelong pacifist, something the people who elected her both times knew. I'm not sure whether it was a religious deal or just a belief.
I attend a Mennonite Church and, as a result am good friends with several guys who were CO's during VN. They served in different ways, several worked in mental institutions. I get along just fine with them, we just don't totally agree on what it means to be a member of a 'peace church.'
Quote: "As a woman I can't go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else."
The start of WWI and WWII always reminds me of that useless bitch. If we were all pacifists, Germany would have secured all of Europe in 1918. It really would have been the war to end all wars.
It's one thing to not start a war, I'm all for that. But when somebody else declares war on you, or has already attacked you resulting in 3,000 dead and you still refuse to do anything about it, that is about as close to culpable as you can get.
As the man said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Rankin was concerned about the suffrage movement, so she cared about women being able to vote but apparently didn't care that the Japanese killed about 3,000 in a sneak attack or that Germany was waging unrestricted submarine warfare on the US. She had some screwed up priorities.
If she was a TRUE pacifist, she'd have just gone along with having no rights and wouldn't have even ran for elected office. In 1939 she argued against the fortification of Guam, glad she didn't get her way, her pacifism would have killed thousands more.
To me she is the epitome of useless government, that claims to care about this or that but when it is time to do something about it, does nothing. Fools call her brave for voting against war, given the amount of damage the Germans and Japanese did in a handful of years I'd hate to see a world where nobody stood up to them, where nobody tried to stop them.
To call her brave in an insult to anyone who actually fought to stop an aggressive, belligerent enemy that attacked our country.
If you tally up the actual KIA (as opposed to any cause of death) of U.S. personnel during WWI, and compare it to the same figure from WWII and extrapolate for 19 months vs. 44 months, it has got to be nearly the same. Point being we fought a war a generation before the "Big One" (as Archie Bunker used to say) that was essentially as deadly for us as the later event.
ETA: a little actual digging proves me wrong. WWII was more costly, by a fair amount, than WWI. Over 2x so in fact. Nonetheless, it was tooth and nail in miserable conditions. Kudos to the Doughboys!
WWI (19 months) 53,000 US KIA
WWII (44 months) 291,000 US KIA
The UK and France took the biggest hits in WWI, 744,000 and 1,150,000. Really explains why they tried everything to avoid the next one.
Germany lost 1,8 million. But they drafted more men all the same.
The more I read into WWI and WWII particularly, the more I question the official narratives and justifications for sending millions of white men to kill millions of white men.
https://assets.americanrifleman.org/wp-content/uploads/Webcontent/images/2012-2/20122916161-smithwesson1917_f.jpg
Willy McBride, Did you really believe that this War would end War?
Not quite the correct line. But, close enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqba0IUdiBk
I think one of the terrible injustices to both sides of WWI, is that no one really talks about it these days. No one is looking to learn from the history and lessons there, not just the fighting, but what caused it. Look at then, look at today, there is an almost scary amount of similarities depending how hard one looks.
You picked my favorite version of that song.
Why are we not friends?
I will recount watching History Channel in the 1990s. WAAAY before Pawn Shills and even before all the Hitler porn....they covered a broader range of history from the Romans to Tales of the Gun(Do NOT watch the M16 ep....it will piss you off. It's almost like watching early 80s AIDS PSAs it is rife with crap save for Eugene Stoner and Jim Sullivans own words).
Anyway they had this old, old man talking about WWI. It looked like he was filmed in his backyard. Skinny old man. He recounted some of his travels. Nothing too extreme or "operator". Then he gets handed a Trench Knife. A barbaric looking thing that looks like a shortsword and brass knuckles. He is about to explain it and breaks down in a heavy sob. All he can say through his crying is that "It is a hell of a way to settle differences"
That really hit me. On my couch, after school, eating cheezits. Just really made me really feel like shit.
I almost think they try to play dumbass haggle shows, car shows, or gee wow operator shows to keep us stupid.
20 odd years on, and that old man who looked 80 just got to me. Like he really lost it just seeing that knife.
And now we, the world, pull this shit everyday.
I dunno about the Representative from Montana, gender irrelevant, but if she said "I cannot send someone to do something I wouldnt do" and was sincere then, you know, I accept it.
Or like that one old guy they filmed at Ft. Benning who was 86 or something. Gave him an 03A3 and then like an XM2010 or something. Still rung steel but he also said "Some of these boys won't come back, going to Iraq".
Not boys like "one of the boys" but like you would say about Kindergarteners. Because to him they were great grandkid age.
We get caught up in guns and "I killed me fitty Krauts/Japs/Dagos" but in later life a lot of that comes back. We have all this stuff now. Back then, 5'5" men jumped with Garands into total darkness with primitive kit. All because people wanted some bullshit master race or Nipponese supremacy or WTF ever.
And we hail them as well we should but....honestly, we are letting them down. And have been. They fought so their kids wouldn't have to.
I honestly hope nobody sits and says "I want my kid to get shot at or stabbed when he turns 21"
Like in general. As in, anybody
MountainRaven
04-07-17, 01:13
To call her brave in an insult to anyone who actually fought to stop an aggressive, belligerent enemy that attacked our country.
Rankin was braver than most who held elected federal office in her time and braver than all or almost all who hold elected federal office today.
She voted her conscience and the people of Montana voted her out for it. If she didn't know it the first time, she surely knew it the second time.
How's the saying go? The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.
How many Congresscritters today are sending their kids off to fight a war they voted for? Even FDR sent his sons to fight in the war he wanted - and he didn't give them cushy jobs, either. Same with TR's sons, who gladly marched to war twice. Donald Trump sure isn't about to ask Barron, Eric, or Junior to join the Rangers to fight whatever conflict(s) he'll inevitably get us involved it.
We get caught up in guns and "I killed me fitty Krauts/Japs/Dagos" but in later life a lot of that comes back. We have all this stuff now. Back then, 5'5" men jumped with Garands into total darkness with primitive kit. All because people wanted some bullshit master race or Nipponese supremacy or WTF ever.
And we hail them as well we should but....honestly, we are letting them down. And have been. They fought so their kids wouldn't have to.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They sent their kids to die in Vietnam.
Obviously, they didn't want their kids to fight the same sort of war they had to, but against a nuclear armed Soviet Union (and Red Chinese) instead of Japs or Jerries. But they sent them to fight and die in a pretty stupid, pointless conflict that could have been avoided, with both arms tied behind their backs.
Rankin was braver than most who held elected federal office in her time and braver than all or almost all who hold elected federal office today.
She voted her conscience and the people of Montana voted her out for it. If she didn't know it the first time, she surely knew it the second time.
How's the saying go? The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.
How many Congresscritters today are sending their kids off to fight a war they voted for? Even FDR sent his sons to fight in the war he wanted - and he didn't give them cushy jobs, either. Same with TR's sons, who gladly marched to war twice. Donald Trump sure isn't about to ask Barron, Eric, or Junior to join the Rangers to fight whatever conflict(s) he'll inevitably get us involved it.
And the communists bravely did what they did for what they believed, so did Imperial Japan, so did too many others. Just because you bravely follow your beliefs doesn't mean your beliefs are correct or your actions noble.
Would you have really preferred that the US did not enter the war after Pearl Harbor? What if everyone embraced Rankin's view and decided "not our problem" and we did nothing. Do you really think the world would be a better place today?
Again, it's fine to be peace loving and not start wars, but when somebody brings one to you being "pacifist" is only going to get more innocent people killed. Sadly war is about the only thing that works when dealing with predatory or violently insane countries, especially if they set their sights on you.
The "pacifists" I respect are those like York, who realize doing nothing can be worse than killing or dying.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They sent their kids to die in Vietnam.
Obviously, they didn't want their kids to fight the same sort of war they had to, but against a nuclear armed Soviet Union (and Red Chinese) instead of Japs or Jerries. But they sent them to fight and die in a pretty stupid, pointless conflict that could have been avoided, with both arms tied behind their backs.
You have a point. An ineluctable point
The more I read into WWI and WWII particularly, the more I question the official narratives and justifications for sending millions of white men to kill millions of white men.
Did a bunch of white guys kill a bunch of white guys in the Pacific theater? What about the Russians, are they "white guys" in the above scenario or asiatic? Would you have preferred we sent an all black invasion force to fight the Germans?
As for official justification, what do you have true doubts about?
The assassination of the archduke Ferdinand?
The resulting alliances in a progressive arms race?
The invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939?
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?
RetroRevolver77
04-07-17, 02:39
The more I read into WWI and WWII particularly, the more I question the official narratives and justifications for sending millions of white men to kill millions of white men.
Because Germany wouldn't accept globalism.
For a thousand years they believed in a German Europe.
Moose-Knuckle
04-07-17, 04:58
The more I read into WWI and WWII particularly, the more I question the official narratives and justifications for sending millions of white men to kill millions of white men.
I forget which, but one of the networks History or NatGeo is running a special compiling all the evidence surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania.
Globalism has been at play since the 1700's.
Confederate General Pike said in his letter to the Queen that it would take three world wars to bring about a global governance. He is the only Confederate general to have a monument in Washington D.C. lol.
I dunno about the Representative from Montana, gender irrelevant, but if she said "I cannot send someone to do something I wouldnt do" and was sincere then, you know, I accept it.
Then she should have stayed home and lived her pathetic pacifist life protected by the blood and sacrifice of better men. Not take an oath to protect and defend.
Again, it's fine to be peace loving and not start wars, but when somebody brings one to you being "pacifist" is only going to get more innocent people killed. Sadly war is about the only thing that works when dealing with predatory or violently insane countries, especially if they set their sights on you.
The "pacifists" I respect are those like York, who realize doing nothing can be worse than killing or dying.
Steyr - I honestly don't know why you brought up Rankin in the first place. The pacifists I have trouble with are those who ran away, and then wanted to come back when it was over.
But, then, I also have trouble with 'Chickenhawks' those who are all about going to war as long as they, or their children don't have to fight in them.
Then she should have stayed home and lived her pathetic pacifist life protected by the blood and sacrifice of better men. Not take an oath to protect and defend.
Well there are a couple things, she wasn't a man, so there wasn't much doubt she'd stay home. She also said "As a woman I can't go to war," she said, "and I refuse to send anyone else."
Finally, in WWI, we weren't attacked, so it wasn't as if she had violated her oath to protect and defend. In World War II, we were attacked. In that respect her abstention from voting for war, versus voting against declaring war, could be viewed as a breach of her duty.
She had spent most of the time between WWI and WWII out of office working for women's suffrage. According to Wiki she made frequent speeches around the country on behalf of the Women's Peace Union and the National Council for the Prevention of War and in 1928 she founded the Georgia Peace Society.
In view of that, I'm pretty sure when she was elected again, in 1940, the people of Montana knew what they were getting.
From what little I've read, thanks to Steyr, she lived her entire live adhering to and working to advance her principles. I don't necessarily agree with the pacifism, but I can respect her views.
Finally, in WWI, we weren't attacked, so it wasn't as if she had violated her oath to protect and defend. In World War II, we were attacked. In that respect her abstention from voting for war, versus voting against declaring war, could be viewed as a breach of her duty.
Couple things.
We were not only attacked, but Germany had just declared war on us through the announcement that they would engage in unrestricted submarine attacks.
As for her voting record, she did NOT abstain in WWI. She voted against war, she was one of 50.
She did the same thing after Pearl Harbor, this time she was alone in her vote of opposition. The only time she abstained was after Germany and Italy declared war on the US and we voted to declare war on Germany and Italy in WWII, in those two instances she abstained as she realized her career was over and that she didn't represent the views of her state.
Steyr - I honestly don't know why you brought up Rankin in the first place. The pacifists I have trouble with are those who ran away, and then wanted to come back when it was over.
But, then, I also have trouble with 'Chickenhawks' those who are all about going to war as long as they, or their children don't have to fight in them.
I brought her up because she is part of the beginning phase of WWI and related. I too have a problem with those who vote for war and shelter their loved ones from going into harms way.
I will recount watching History Channel in the 1990s. WAAAY before Pawn Shills and even before all the Hitler porn....they covered a broader range of history from the Romans to Tales of the Gun(Do NOT watch the M16 ep....it will piss you off. It's almost like watching early 80s AIDS PSAs it is rife with crap save for Eugene Stoner and Jim Sullivans own words).
Anyway they had this old, old man talking about WWI. It looked like he was filmed in his backyard. Skinny old man. He recounted some of his travels. Nothing too extreme or "operator". Then he gets handed a Trench Knife. A barbaric looking thing that looks like a shortsword and brass knuckles. He is about to explain it and breaks down in a heavy sob. All he can say through his crying is that "It is a hell of a way to settle differences"
I remember that one too. I mourn for the history channel and what it has become. Of course I remember when you could learn things on The Learning Channel too.
Better men was used as humanity not gender.
She chose to run and accept office. But knew she was unwilling to carry out the possibility of her duty to declare war. There is a huge difference between being opposed to war for a specific reason at a specific time, and just being against war for any reason.
I see it like being a cop. Most don't want to ever have to use deadly force, and that is fine. But the cop who says they won't for any reason is a danger to other cops and the public. That person shouldn't be a cop, she shouldn't have been a congresswoman.
Its a good thing we went too, as there was no one left strong enough to conk a similarly weakened germany over the head and finish the damn thing. Another year and there might have been trenches full of 15 and 16 year olds killing each other over something none of them actually started. Unfortunately it ended up being the war that started all wars and lighting a slow match on Germany was only one part of the geo political disaster.
The rough shod and self interested ways the "victorious" allies redrew the maps of eastern europe, the balkans and the middle east resulting in the severe internal strive that is common in most of those places and we struggle against those decisions still. But at least the victors got them some sweet formerly german colonies to add to their portfolios.
Several empires crumbled and the dust still had yet to settle. It is interesting that even as WWII was more severe and generally looked upon as more important event, it was mostly settled.
The Cold War is the obvious fallout of WWII but really just an inevitable extension of the collapse of Russia in 1917 and the rise of the Soviet Union in the tumultuous years afterwards. Spreading communism was central to the USSR foreign policy from day one and many nations chose to keep their distance from them or even recognize them and establish relations, for good reason too.
There was still alot of fighting in eastern europe after the war ended with many mercenaries from all sides fighting the communists red forces with varying degrees of success but the Reds would get to finish this work in 1945.
You picked my favorite version of that song.
Why are we not friends?
I will recount watching History Channel in the 1990s. WAAAY before Pawn Shills and even before all the Hitler porn....they covered a broader range of history from the Romans to Tales of the Gun(Do NOT watch the M16 ep....it will piss you off. It's almost like watching early 80s AIDS PSAs it is rife with crap save for Eugene Stoner and Jim Sullivans own words).
Anyway they had this old, old man talking about WWI. It looked like he was filmed in his backyard. Skinny old man. He recounted some of his travels. Nothing too extreme or "operator". Then he gets handed a Trench Knife. A barbaric looking thing that looks like a shortsword and brass knuckles. He is about to explain it and breaks down in a heavy sob. All he can say through his crying is that "It is a hell of a way to settle differences"
That really hit me. On my couch, after school, eating cheezits. Just really made me really feel like shit.
I almost think they try to play dumbass haggle shows, car shows, or gee wow operator shows to keep us stupid.
20 odd years on, and that old man who looked 80 just got to me. Like he really lost it just seeing that knife.
And now we, the world, pull this shit everyday.
I dunno about the Representative from Montana, gender irrelevant, but if she said "I cannot send someone to do something I wouldnt do" and was sincere then, you know, I accept it.
Or like that one old guy they filmed at Ft. Benning who was 86 or something. Gave him an 03A3 and then like an XM2010 or something. Still rung steel but he also said "Some of these boys won't come back, going to Iraq".
Not boys like "one of the boys" but like you would say about Kindergarteners. Because to him they were great grandkid age.
We get caught up in guns and "I killed me fitty Krauts/Japs/Dagos" but in later life a lot of that comes back. We have all this stuff now. Back then, 5'5" men jumped with Garands into total darkness with primitive kit. All because people wanted some bullshit master race or Nipponese supremacy or WTF ever.
And we hail them as well we should but....honestly, we are letting them down. And have been. They fought so their kids wouldn't have to.
I honestly hope nobody sits and says "I want my kid to get shot at or stabbed when he turns 21"
Like in general. As in, anybody
I thought we were friends Fly. I mean, you are the only other person on this forum that has more of an eclectic musical taste then myself some days. You are also perhaps the only person who would appreciate some of my more, interesting musical choices when it comes to driving music. My GF sure as hell doesn't.
But, yes, I do remember when the History channel, discovery channel, and others actually aired shows that were educational and tried to get to the deep heart of issues opposed to just shear entertainment. If anything, it should tell you what the average viewer is watching these days. I mean, I remember actually watching shows and learning about the history of events, places, and more. Now? I sometimes know more than the "experts" on certain matters, and not just guns.
And while we are on the subject of the fall to the lost common denominator shows, lets not forget the ones that are hunting Hitler as if he is still ****ing alive, or the ones which whenever they don't know what happened they default to aliens, or mermaids or something.
Kain, naw man we buds. I was ripping off one of Outlander's little sayings.
Fully agree.
Hunting Hitler was stupid. Let's say Hitler pulled a Tupac (Who is very much alive and living in Cuba). He had all these health issues and even if he did make it to Argentina or whatever. then he certainly kept a low profile.
Honestly WWII has been overparsed and over-simplified. Honestly, If you blame Hitler (and I do) then you gotta blame everyone who voted him in and didn't kick him in his ass when he started with the BS.
But back to WWI, I heard this apocryphal tale of Annie Oakley doing her gun tricks and shot a cigarette out of Kaiser Wilhelm's mouth. She supposedly recounted that had she made a boo-boo the Big One could have been avoided.
You know what, I dont't buy it. She would have gotten the shit shot out of her, some other dude would have taken over, SSDD.
Europe has long been an example of doing it wrong for quite a while. Otherwise, we'd never have told King George to kiss our black American asses.
Europe is nothing but pogroms, chumping out folks over religion, wanting Socialism, trying to invade other people's nation states, etc.
For centuries
Screw Europe. Everyone is all uppity, food sucks, candy sucks, but the countryside is pretty. But we got countryside here.
JMHO
Hunting Hitler was stupid. Let's say Hitler pulled a Tupac (Who is very much alive and living in Cuba). He had all these health issues and even if he did make it to Argentina or whatever. then he certainly kept a low profile.
That show was painfully stupid. They have taken the same "could have's" and "may have been's" from shows like "In Search Of..." and "Ancient Aliens" and presented it as credible history. I was actually angry by the complete ignorance of "what we know for sure" and the substitution of "it could have possibly happened."
And now there is an entire generation who have been educated on the possibility of something that NEVER actually happened and couldn't have actually happened. It's right up there with "we never went to the moon" and it takes a deliberately obtuse individual to even entertain such a premise and a dangerously unaccountable person to present it as plausible history.
The more I read into WWI and WWII particularly, the more I question the official narratives and justifications for sending millions of white men to kill millions of white men.
Shocker, neo-fascist scum wishes we didn't defeat actual fascist scum.
I'll take the ban if it's coming.
Moose-Knuckle
04-10-17, 03:43
Shocker, neo-fascist scum wishes we didn't defeat actual fascist scum.
I'll take the ban if it's coming.
Who was the "fascist scum" in WWI?
Also, are you asserting all those White men that fought and died fighting "fascist scum" were some how themselves "fascist scum"? The member you quoted was talking about ALL those killed in those wars not just one side of the latter one.
I find it enlightening every time this subject comes up. When anyone ponders where we would be if millions of European and European-Americans (also Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis) didn't die in the first half of the twentieth century as a result of two world wars some people's ethnomasochism really comes out. It's as if it's politically incorrect to wish all those millions of people from all sides in those wars didn't die.
We're seeing the results of native Europeans in decline now and their nations being invaded by "economic migrants". If you had the lineage of all those millions of men that perished in those wars box trucks wouldn't be crashing into crowds, women wouldn't be ganged raped, priests wouldn't be beheaded in their own churches, etc. across Western Europe.
MountainRaven
04-10-17, 13:02
Who was the "fascist scum" in WWI?
Also, are you asserting all those White men that fought and died fighting "fascist scum" were some how themselves "fascist scum"? The member you quoted was talking about ALL those killed in those wars not just one side of the latter one.
I find it enlightening every time this subject comes up. When anyone ponders where we would be if millions of European and European-Americans (also Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis) didn't die in the first half of the twentieth century as a result of two world wars some people's ethnomasochism really comes out. It's as if it's politically incorrect to wish all those millions of people from all sides in those wars didn't die.
We're seeing the results of native Europeans in decline now and their nations being invaded by "economic migrants". If you had the lineage of all those millions of men that perished in those wars box trucks wouldn't be crashing into crowds, women wouldn't be ganged raped, priests wouldn't be beheaded in their own churches, etc. across Western Europe.
If Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini hadn't spun their poisonous ideologies and gotten millions of men to defend them to the death, maybe it wouldn't have been just and necessary to kill millions of those white men.
I can't think of any alternative history where Europe doesn't explode in WWI: The UK wasn't about to let the Germans do as they wanted, the Germans weren't about to allow the UK to contain them, France wasn't fond of Germany, Germany needed allies and wasn't going to let Austro-Hungary go down alone, &c., &c., &c.
Moose-Knuckle, are we leaving out the part of the quote about WW2? Oh, or all of the other shit that Benito says that makes his sympathies for the wrong side of that war obvious? If it needs to be spelled out, the fascist scum in WW2 were the political establishments of Germany and Italy and Benito is neofascist scum because he says things like "Jew York Times", among other things right here on this very forum. He even got a little time out for that one.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-17, 04:15
If Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini hadn't spun their poisonous ideologies and gotten millions of men to defend them to the death, maybe it wouldn't have been just and necessary to kill millions of those white men.
Yes, we know this.
My point was what IF none of that stuff had happened, i.e. no reason to fight two WW's. Hell we'd probably be on Mars by now.
ETA:
I see what you did with the italicization lol.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-17, 04:25
Moose-Knuckle, are we leaving out the part of the quote about WW2?
Nope, that was not my intent. I wanted to know if those wars were all about taking out Nazis then what was the reason for WWI. Again, what if Hitler was never born? That is my point WHAT IF we didn't have to fight those wars where we would be as a result of Western Civilization. The world wars kind of killed off that elevator straight up we were on since the Industrial Revolution. The Space Race briefly got us back on before we gutted it to fight the "War on. . . poverty . . . drugs, etc."
Oh, or all of the other shit that Benito says that makes his sympathies for the wrong side of that war obvious? If it needs to be spelled out, the fascist scum in WW2 were the political establishments of Germany and Italy and Benito is neofascist scum because he says things like "Jew York Times", among other things right here on this very forum. He even got a little time out for that one.
Ah I see, well I didn't realize you were quoting him from a past thread(s).
Eurodriver
04-11-17, 07:09
If you tally up the actual KIA (as opposed to any cause of death) of U.S. personnel during WWI, and compare it to the same figure from WWII and extrapolate for 19 months vs. 44 months, it has got to be nearly the same. Point being we fought a war a generation before the "Big One" (as Archie Bunker used to say) that was essentially as deadly for us as the later event.
ETA: a little actual digging proves me wrong. WWII was more costly, by a fair amount, than WWI. Over 2x so in fact. Nonetheless, it was tooth and nail in miserable conditions. Kudos to the Doughboys!
WWI (19 months) 53,000 US KIA
WWII (44 months) 291,000 US KIA
What about US KIA in the ETO and not combined with the PTO?
Easy to be more deadly when you're fighting on two fronts.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.