PDA

View Full Version : French and German Presidents Dispute Legacy of WW1 - "What Happened to Our European Civilisation"



C. Flower
04-08-2014, 03:34 PM
Political descendents of the perpetrators of World War 1 (est.37million deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties) ) took opposing views at yesterday's commemoration in Lieg (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/german-president-condemns-his-country-s-invasion-of-belgium-in-1914-1.1887148)e. Gauck, on behalf of Germany, apologised for the invasion of Belgium in breach of treaty.

Hollande, French President, listed every ongoing conflict - from Gaza to the MH17 crash - and said that we "must" intervene."

Social democrats, who sold out their principles of working class internationalism permanently in 1914, are now the biggest drum beaters for war.

Gauck condemned the intellectuals and others who justified WW1, an asks "what happened to our European civilisation?"

I've started this thread to invite views and discussion on the reasons for World War One, potential for a repeat of it, and what people think that the lessons are for today.

TotalMayhem
04-08-2014, 04:09 PM
Mr Hollande said: how can we remain neutral when one people not far from Europe is fighting for its rights and its territorial integrity?

Answer: we don't, we sell assault ships to the aggressor. ;)

morticia
04-08-2014, 04:15 PM
Answer: we don't, we sell assault ships to the aggressor. ;)

Ze problem is, TM, zat not selling ze assault ship would cause 'orrible damage to ze Economie Francaise, comme les Rosbifs, le industrie de selling WMD to ze dodgy dictatorial regimes is ze one sing zat is keeping it afloat...

We wouldn't want to be bailing out ze banks again would we?

And anyway, since the US is happily doing arms aid to the Ukrainians, it's all very even handed.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

😨😱😩😫😱😱😱😱😱

C. Flower
04-08-2014, 04:31 PM
Answer: we don't, we sell assault ships to the aggressor. ;)

France's President has an itchy trigger finger - France has its own history of imperialism and can't keep its hands off Africa / the Med.


French president François Hollande said Europe must face up to its responsibilities in trouble spots around the world.
Mr Hollande said: “I have talked about the neutrality of Belgium, but today the question is, how can we remain neutral when one people not far from Europe is fighting for its rights and its territorial integrity?
“How can we remain neutral when a plane is shot down in Ukraine? How can we remain neutral before the massacre of civilian populations in Syria and Iraq where the minorities are being persecuted?
“How can we remain neutral when we see a friendly country like Lebanon (http://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?tag_location=Lebanon&article=true) seeing its territorial integrity being threatened?

“How can we remain neutral when, in Gaza, a hard murderous conflict is going on for one month?
“We can’t remain neutral. We have to act. It is up to Europe to shoulder its responsibilities. This is the message that we should keep from this day. We cannot be just the guardian of peace. We cannot just talk about the cult of memory. We must talk about facing our responsibilities.”

morticia
04-08-2014, 04:33 PM
Sounds like he's going a bit Blairy

TotalMayhem
04-08-2014, 04:46 PM
Well, the Russians can't be bothered with such sentimental nonsense these days. They shut down independent media and ramp up propaganda and the war economy, hold huge military exercises near Ukraine border (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/russia-military-exercises-ukraine-border) and chase away NATO spy planes.

morticia
04-08-2014, 05:40 PM
Well, the Russians can't be bothered with such sentimental nonsense these days. They shut down independent media and ramp up propaganda and the war economy, hold huge military exercises near Ukraine border (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/russia-military-exercises-ukraine-border) and chase away NATO spy planes.

While the Ukrainian army try a wee spot of indiscriminate shelling with a view to ethnic cleansing of Moskals and revive the spirit of Hitler....whoops, Stepan Bandera while waving Wolfsangels and Swastika armbands. Not to mention hushing up ATC records after a horrendous air incident and ensuring their own journalists are all airing the same propaganda

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

C. Flower
04-08-2014, 05:41 PM
Well, the Russians can't be bothered with such sentimental nonsense these days. They shut down independent media and ramp up propaganda and the war economy, hold huge military exercises near Ukraine border (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/russia-military-exercises-ukraine-border) and chase away NATO spy planes.

You think they should beat their arms into ploughshares and start a peace camp ?

morticia
04-08-2014, 05:43 PM
You think they should beat their arms into ploughshares and start a peace camp ?

Only if joined by the Ukrainian army and militias.

When were those blizzards in Hell forecast again??

Sam Lord
04-08-2014, 10:25 PM
I've started this thread to invite views and discussion on the reasons for World War One, potential for a repeat of it, and what people think that the lessons are for today.

With regard to the reasons James Connolly saw it entirely as a matter of the British capitalist class trying to do down a competitor.

"It was determined that since Germany could not be beaten in fair competition industrially she must be beaten unfairly by organising a military and naval conspiracy against her .....[....] The British capitalist class has organised this colossal crime in order to ensure it's uninterrupted domination of the commerce of the world.""

Roger Casement was of the same view.



England fights as the foe of Europe and the enemy of European civilization. In order to destroy German shipping, German commerce, German industry, she has deliberately plotted the conspiracy we now see at work. The war of 1914 is England’s war. For years she has been plotting how she could, without danger to herself, destroy the peaceful menace of German prosperity. A few more years of peaceful expansion by Germany and the chances of success would be less if not quite gone.


http://www.academia.edu/1753592/James_Connolly_and_the_Great_War_Why_Connolly_Supp orted_Socialist_Germany_in_World_War_1

Apjp
04-08-2014, 11:19 PM
Political descendents of the perpetrators of World War 1 (est.37million deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties) ) took opposing views at yesterday's commemoration in Lieg (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/german-president-condemns-his-country-s-invasion-of-belgium-in-1914-1.1887148)e. Gauck, on behalf of Germany, apologised for the invasion of Belgium in breach of treaty.

Hollande, French President, listed every ongoing conflict - from Gaza to the MH17 crash - and said that we "must" intervene."

Social democrats, who sold out their principles of working class internationalism permanently in 1914, are now the biggest drum beaters for war.

Gauck condemned the intellectuals and others who justified WW1, an asks "what happened to our European civilisation?"

I've started this thread to invite views and discussion on the reasons for World War One, potential for a repeat of it, and what people think that the lessons are for today.

Hollande proved in Mali that he likes playing the little Napoleon.

Gauck is a social democrat so I am not sure how your stereotype fits all? An anti-communist he would ironically be to the left of Hollande, in this and many respects.

Apjp
04-08-2014, 11:27 PM
France's President has an itchy trigger finger - France has its own history of imperialism and can't keep its hands off Africa / the Med.

I love when he goes on like this.

It makes European military union ever further away and highlights that threatening the neutrality of small states by trying to drag small non Nato countries in could be as destabilising to the EU as a euro break up.

Whatever about Ireland's pretend neutrality, countries like Austria and Sweden are not about to go to war in every back alley of the world with a few nutters and persecuted minorities. It wouldn't wash here either if they did try it, but you can depend on the other countries opposing a lot of these solo runs of his.

Apjp
04-08-2014, 11:44 PM
With regard to the reasons James Connolly saw it entirely as a matter of the British capitalist class trying to do down a competitor.

"It was determined that since Germany could not be beaten in fair competition industrially she must be beaten unfairly by organising a military and naval conspiracy against her .....[....] The British capitalist class has organised this colossal crime in order to ensure it's uninterrupted domination of the commerce of the world.""

Roger Casement was of the same view.



http://www.academia.edu/1753592/James_Connolly_and_the_Great_War_Why_Connolly_Supp orted_Socialist_Germany_in_World_War_1

The correct view. WW2 was the same-they were only bothered when their own commerce and property was threatened, and did not like the idea of two vast competing European superpowers taking most of the resources and markets away from them, and out doing them as a result. If Britain was really bothered about Nazi expansionism they would have intervened in 1938 when they deposed the Austrian regime or later that year when they stole half of Czechoslovakia-instead they handed it to them.

C. Flower
05-08-2014, 08:27 AM
With regard to the reasons James Connolly saw it entirely as a matter of the British capitalist class trying to do down a competitor.

"It was determined that since Germany could not be beaten in fair competition industrially she must be beaten unfairly by organising a military and naval conspiracy against her .....[....] The British capitalist class has organised this colossal crime in order to ensure it's uninterrupted domination of the commerce of the world.""

Roger Casement was of the same view.

http://www.academia.edu/1753592/James_Connolly_and_the_Great_War_Why_Connolly_Supp orted_Socialist_Germany_in_World_War_1

Agreed, WW1 was a classic Imperialist war, with G.B. looking to put a stop to Germany's rise as an industrial and colonial power. (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/03/08/ukraine-about-oil-so-was-world-war-i) It wasn't only about access to oil, but oil came into it.



This is almost exactly how World War I started. The Germans were gunning for Persian Gulf oil via their relationship with the Ottoman Empire. But this would have given Germany a choke hold on England, which had only just converted its navy to oil. So, England reversed its historical rivalry with France, in 1904, and with Russia, in 1907, to try to contain Germany. But a minor, unanticipated dust-up in the Balkans in the summer of 1914 escalated into The Greatest War The World Had Ever Known.
In a ***** event, a Serbian teenager killed the heir-apparent to the Austrian-Hungarian throne. So Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. Russia couldn’t stand idle as its sole Balkan ally, Serbia, was humiliated. So it mobilized on Austria-Hungary, an effective declaration of war.
Germany moved to defend its ally, Austria-Hungary, by attacking Russia’s ally, France. England, France’s ally, responded by declaring war on Germany. Within less than one month of a minor incident in a minor region of the continent, all the major powers of Europe were at war.
World War I would inflict 27 million casualties through the industrialization of human slaughter. It destroyed four great empires, more than had expired in any single event, ever. Eleven new nations were created in its aftermath, including Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. It was the event that shifted the locus of global power from Europe to the U.S., where it has resided ever since. It rearranged the architecture of global power more than any event of the last thousand years.

TotalMayhem
05-08-2014, 05:10 PM
So the Brits started WWI because they couldn't beat Germany otherwise? Jeez...

Great Britain was by far the richest nation on the planet, heck, they owned half of it anyway, it had the largest military, it was the world's centre of business, finance and innovation. Their currency was the world standard of value. Compared to them, Germany was a backwater, a non-entity. For every Dreadnought the Germans put to sea, the Brits built three! A finger snap would have sufficed to make anyone think twice before doing business with Germany, such was the might of the British Empire in the early 20th century.

If someone had said, maybe twas the French because they wanted Lorraine and Alsace back we could have a debate, but this is just crazy. Had the war begun a few years earlier, chances are the Brits would have sided with the Germans.

Slim Buddha
05-08-2014, 05:22 PM
While the Ukrainian army try a wee spot of indiscriminate shelling with a view to ethnic cleansing of Moskals and revive the spirit of Hitler....whoops, Stepan Bandera while waving Wolfsangels and Swastika armbands. Not to mention hushing up ATC records after a horrendous air incident and ensuring their own journalists are all airing the same propaganda

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

YOu keep saying that, Morticia, and I do not believe you are right. But that's just me, I guess.

TotalMayhem
05-08-2014, 05:50 PM
G.B. looking to put a stop to Germany's rise as an industrial and colonial power.

Seriously? When Germany appeared on the scene, there was not much left to be colonised. They literally had to ask permission in London if it was OK with His Majesty's Government before they claimed anything and they certainly did rely on British naval protection for their colonial endeavours. If the Brits really wanted to put an end to that, that could have done it a heartbeat. If there were any colonial disputes, Great Britain usually stepped in as the referee for this was the time when Britannia truly ruled the waves.

C. Flower
05-08-2014, 07:24 PM
Seriously? When Germany appeared on the scene, there was not much left to be colonised. They literally had to ask permission in London if it was OK with His Majesty's Government before they claimed anything and they certainly did rely on British naval protection for their colonial endeavours. If the Brits really wanted to put an end to that, that could have done it a heartbeat. If there were any colonial disputes, Great Britain usually stepped in as the referee for this was the time when Britannia truly ruled the waves.

Soon to change. After WW1, the US ruled the waves.

Colonialism doesn't stop when there's a division of the spoils. We are seeing a big push to splice and dice and redistribute them all over again, globally in the early 21st century.

The US won't be happy until it has the lot, including Europe.

TotalMayhem
05-08-2014, 07:51 PM
Soon to change.

True enough.


After WW1, the US ruled the waves.

Not quite, that took a little longer. The total sell-out of the British Empire to the U.S. was Sir Winston Chruchill's "greatest achivement" in WWII. But yes, the Empire began its decline after WWI.

C. Flower
05-08-2014, 08:03 PM
So the Brits started WWI because they couldn't beat Germany otherwise? Jeez...

Great Britain was by far the richest nation on the planet, heck, they owned half of it anyway, it had the largest military, it was the world's centre of business, finance and innovation. Their currency was the world standard of value. Compared to them, Germany was a backwater, a non-entity. For every Dreadnought the Germans put to sea, the Brits built three! A finger snap would have sufficed to make anyone think twice before doing business with Germany, such was the might of the British Empire in the early 20th century.

If someone had said, maybe twas the French because they wanted Lorraine and Alsace back we could have a debate, but this is just crazy. Had the war begun a few years earlier, chances are the Brits would have sided with the Germans.

Waiting with interest for your views on how and why WW1 started.

TotalMayhem
05-08-2014, 11:29 PM
Waiting with interest for your views on how and why WW1 started.

Maybe it's important to have a look at who wanted what back then?

France? They certainly wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. Influence on the Balkans and by extension the Eastern Mediterranean to secure their colonial interests in the Middle East and Northern Africa (where they were clashing with the Brits).

Russia? Putting an end to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and gain full control over the Bosporus and free access to the Mediterranean. Ah yes, pan-Slavism, great idea but in reality just a means for them to stir up the Balkans and hurt Austria.

Germany? The Germans were well aware of the French revanchism and wanted to get ahead of them. They were also tired of asking London for permission to claim overseas territories so they had this grandiose idea of building a railway to Baghdad to get access to all the goodies there. Never mind the Kaiser's toy navy, it just was not suitable to sustain and protect far away colonies.

Great Britain? The British would have loved nothing better than maintaining the status quo. But since it had to be, they acted on Sun Tzu's old adage, "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer," and sided with France and Russia. Make no mistake, the Franco-Russian Alliance was a far greater threat to British interests than Germany.

Austria-Hungary? Sachertorte... and maybe a little punishment for the Serbs for killing the heir apparent and his missus.

Italy? Fµck if I know, they surely didn't.

Turkey? A few British dreadnoughts (already built and paid for) to keep the Rooskies away from the Bosporus. And when the Brits had a change of heart and kept the boats and joined the Entente, what choice did the Turks have but turning to the Germans?

So guilty parties are most certainly the top three. For Great Britain neutrality was not really an option and never mind the rest.