@mceltix2009 Trying to play saints, seems a little hypocritical considering how cynically America has forced an American agenda on several countries worldwide throughout history. But i am not dumb enough to think USA is the only one who have ever conducted power politics in this fashion, it is just how politics have always been waged, the wisest thing is to recognize, that when it comes to politics there are no COMPLETELY GOOD GUYS
All these deaths just to support Serbia's covert terrorist operation against Austria, fulfill British Imperial Pride and help France to extract revenge. No wonder WW1 is less discussed than WW2. US's involvement in WW1 must be huge stain in its own history showing how their politicians scarifice US citizens lives for their bias and politial ideology. With all these facts, it makes absolutely no sense to why average American must fight on the Allies side in WW1.
And of course we wanted you to join, more resources and more cannonfodder, what general in those days wouldn't have like that. More meat for the grinder.
America is todays greatest exploiter of the world. They strangled democracy and let corrupt dictators rule until the 21st century. Even,today i can imagene the US has Casus Belis drawn up as excuses in order to gain economically. War on iran,then what Saudia arabia after years of propaganda? Weps of mass destruction?
AS Americans we should heed the advice of our founding fathers.. they said STAY OUT OF FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS(WARS). WOODROW WILSON WAS SUCH A DOUCHE. FIRST LETTING THE FEDERAL RESERVE TAKE POWER.. THEN HE SAID GERMANY NEEDED TO BE DEFEATED TO MAKE DEMOCRACY SAFE?!?!?! HOW DOES DEMOCRACY BECOME SAFE BY WAGING WAR ON AN EMPIRE BY... ALLYING YOURSELF WITH AN EMPIRE! there was literally no difference in form of govt between Uk and GERMANY. The world would be abetter place with german victory in ww1
Also if you are so fond of your founding fathers and believe that your should stay out of foreign wars, then what are your troops doing in Iraq (I'll grant you Afghanistan since there was a nutcase htere that attacked you). Why does your nation start a new war every 10 years?
Apart from this, in all likelyhood, germany would have lost WW1 even without us help.
@capusvacans I thin you got e confused with someone else man... I am a huuge founding fathers supporter.. thats why I was against the IRAQI War aND The AFGHAN war AND LIBYA.. and Syria which will begin shortly.. im against ALL WARS that the US simply launches for profit. The USA is a hijacked strongarm for the international banking cartel! I despise everything USA stands for today thats WHY i said the USA had no reason to be involved in ww1! I agree with u 10k%,
@capusvacans and as a published author on ww1 Germany would have won on the western front if there were no US intervention.. the spring offensives would havent been stopped the way they were w/out american troops to "plug the gaps". I have ZERO clue how you think i support Iraq? my comment said that bush IS a War Criminal and has set the standard for future presidents to start wars for profit w/out asking congress as OBAMA has done. Obama has shown us he is George W. Bush's 3rd term
@23mbtx23 I must have misread you then. And about obama, look at it this way: he only continued the bush wars. McCain would very likely have started with Iran or North Korea.
Also don't judge Obama too hard on Lybia. Prior administrations have begged their European allies to help in your wars (Iraq-Afgh). Lybia was an initiative asked for by the Europeans. Diplomaticaly he had no choice. We helped on your war, it was your turn to help us. That's how politics work.
@23mbtx23 ... Failure to heed the call from Europe and the Arabic leage when it comes to Lybia would have had grave consequences for America in the future.
It would mean that Europe would have been even less willing to help with wars like Iraq and Afg, worse relations between the US and the arabic leage.
One cannot start a war and ask allies to help to then refuse to help allies when they intervene in an already ongoing conflict.
America started Iraq-Afg, Lybia started itself, big difference
@capusvacans You are correct; the US had absolutely NO BUSINESS AT ALL IN IRAQ; I agree with you on that 1,000%.
Germany was WINNING WW1 until the Yanks came into the war, genius; our manpower turned the tide and guess what, we were WRONG to have entered this war, too; fuck you Europeans.
@SatchmoSings As i wrote, in all likelyhood the germans would have lost in the end no matter what. There is no absolute judgement about that possible. It was a stalemate with both parties running on their last reserves. But odds were slightly against Germany.
Your participation allowed for the replenishment of the resources on the allied side. Would we have won without the US? Nobody knows.
I live on the old Ypres frontline read pretty much all there is to read about WWI. It's inconclusive.
@capusvacans Germany was winning the war; they had an extra 3 million men freed up from the defeat of Russia, they had broken the stalemate and had resumed the offensive with gains made almost as great as The First Battle Of The Marne in 1914.
I am not one of these knee-jerk Yanks that goes around beating his breast about US involvement in this war however you cannot ignore how much the Western Allies wanted us in the war and welcomed us when we finally arrived.
@capusvacans Actually Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait in 1990. The US was called by the UN to help Kuwait. The US kicked Iraq back to their own borders from Kuwait in 1991 and then ended in the ceasefire. As part of the 1991 ceasefire, the US kept Iraq in check with no-fly zones to protect Kurds/Shiites and ongoing UN inspections. After 9/11, world intels said that Iraq was planning to develop WMDs and use it on the US. However after Iraq War, the intels was later proven to be faulty.
@23mbtx23 You are correct; most wars the US has participated in were basically NONE OF OUR BUSINESS including this one.
A friend of mine said that Lincoln was the most murderous president we ever had; 660,000 dead in the US Civil War.
My friend said the South was wrong about EVERYTHING, Slavery, The Tariff and Succession but to kill 660,000 people to show how "right" you were, as Lincoln did, was insane; it wasn't worth it and I've since come to agree with him.
@SatchmoSings agreed 100% as a southerner who is realistic theres no "good sides"to the ACW.Both sides were wrong in their own ways.. the north, run by republicans who dreamed of empire and great riches at the expense of the south the south for slavery. As history tells us.. the civil war was not only about slavery.. it had multiple issues/causes. but as ww1.. it was completely unnecessary! As texas found out independence is sometimes unsustainable and the south woulda came back
@23mbtx23 I don't agree with your remark about how "Both sides were wrong in their own ways;" it is my opinion that it was the South that was wrong, or, at least, "more" wrong, way more wrong.
As wrong as The South was this still doesn't justify a war that killed 660,000 people all of whom were obviously Americans.
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war." Otto von Bismarck.
@SatchmoSings i agree. the reasons for secession and by definiton the reasons for the war are separate. EXPANSION OF SLAVERY was an issue.. at the time of secession slavery's legality was not threatened by Lincoln. If all the south really wanted was to keep their right to keep slaves they would have rejoined the union b4 war started when Lincoln guaranteed the CORWIN AMEND. would be passed if they rejoined. Crittendon resolution also states its not about slavery
@SatchmoSings expansion of slavery is one issue of many tho.. never has a war been started over one issue.. it was fought for many different reasons.1 was representation & the right 2 have determination in government.The south was so grossly outnumbered in the US house and with more states being added.. soon the senate.. that they couldnt oppose legislation that was anti-southern. nor did they have any ability in determining the president as 1860 showed (lincoln not even on ballot)
@SatchmoSings Lincoln was a complete whore for the big business republicans (like all politicians are today) they are all just puppets carrying out legislation that benefits their corporate masters the most.. as opposed to legislation which benefits the american people. The republicans knew that their dreams of empire were not possible without the south. The north didnt go to war to free slaves they went for selfish financial and power reasons.. that makes them wrong as well
@23mbtx23 To show Lincoln's whoredom to big business, because Lincoln had been an attorney for the Illinois Central Railroad, in WARTIME the Union started to build the Trans-continental railroad AND passed The Homestead Act!
@umutkafadar agreed.. but as OBAMA has shown us... there is ZERO difference between the two parties.. Obama ran on a anti-bush platform.. yet Obama continued every single CRIMINAL act that bush did.. Illegal wars, torture, taking our rights away (patriot act),Wall street special interests inside his administration, signing statements to pass legislation, zero transparency, keeping guantanamo bay open, secret arrests and prisons, OBAMA IS W.BUSH's 3rd TERM! USA has been HIJACKED
The american army must have been very badly prepared for war in 1917-18.
I mean, ca.200,000 soldiers were wounded and ca.120,000 were i killed in the few months that the us actually had soldiers at the front. As a comparison, ca. 420,000 american soldiers were killed in 1941 to 1945...
@Andiish08 WW1 and WW2 was a very different war,in ww1, soldiers fought head on,charging trenches,and companies and battalions were stationed close together,hence when they were charging,they would suffer high casualty,whereas in ww2,the battlefield was taking place from streets,and soldiers were on the move,battalions and companies had different battles to fight,and the advancements in technologies and tactics has changed.
@Andiish08 Your figure for US deaths in this war is slightly less, at 110,000 and 60,000 of those were deaths from the influenza epidemic, not in combat.
@Andiish08 In a subsequent chapter of this piece, they do admit that the figure is 110,000 with 60,000 due to influenza; the film claims half of these deaths were in the US and half in Europe.
This piece also claims that there were 2,000,000 men in Europe by July which is nonsense; we had 950,000 in Europe on July 1st and another 225,000 by the end of July.
"Couple" literally means TWO; we were in this for just under 4.5 months and yes, we did turn the tide.
@SatchmoSings I meant that that they were only there for a few months, and not 2 months. Hope you get that. And i have never said that you did'nt turn the tide.
@Andiish08 Yes, I'm aware that never claimed that American troops didn't "turn the tide."
Another mistake this "Secrets" presentation makes is that it wasn't 2 million Germans that were released to the Western Front after Russia was out of the war; it was 3 million; the Russians did leave one million men behind in Russia but they tended to be the older and less fit men; the younger and stronger men are the ones that were sent West.
@Andiish08 It's not so much lies as idiocy for indeed, anyone that starts off the words "The Secrets Of Whatever" you know it's just going to be some stupid, idiotic tripe-hype.
Still, the presentation did make more than a few things clear; one thing it didn't make clear was that once the US was in The War, no US publication was permitted to show a dead US soldier.
From March 1918(U.S soldier at front lines) to November 1918(German surrender), over 9 months, U.S forces Suffered 198,059 wounded and 120,144 dead, that means 22,000 wounded and 13,400 killed per month. Compare with the 45 months of american involvement in ww2 and the 416,837 dead and 683,846 wounded. We have a 9,263 killed and 15.196 wounded by month!!!
The US military was unprepared? The US Navy had observers on British ships and had been involved in defending convoys against the U-Boats since 1916. The Army, despite being undermanned, had been training it's officers in new training methods based on what they saw as observers. New artillery units had been formed, and new guns were being built for the British and "tested" by the US army. US manufacturers had been building weapons for the Brits since 1914. Only the public was unprepared!
@Bullettube you make a brilliant point of US Naval history. but the entire culture and world was unprepared for world war one in many ways, it was poetry and lemonade on the porch before that. begin of chemicals in war. new book The Sorrow and The Beauty real journals of that era.....also like the look of the era take the kids to see HUGO in 3-D or go whatever age and enjoy. ~peace on earth.
@Bullettube You raised a very good point about the US Navy; do you have anywhere I could go to see if the US Navy was better prepared than ground forces with numbers of total manpower, actions and casualties.
For me this shows that Germany didnt get pushed around easily the war was so fucking pointless but at least we didnt become a british slave colony lol
Topics: DISCUSSION ON DEMOCRACY, The Weapon That Can Break The Cycle Of War And Terrorism, Debated Issues, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
balanceddiet.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
AN IDEAL STRONGEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY INCLUDED (See Subchapter 3.1.2.1, Chapter 3, of Part One.).
This "documentary" and I use the word loosely, claims that World War 1 was
"mechanized warfare." Yeah, right, just look at all those horses. Real mechanized. World War 1 was TRENCH warfare. Trench warfare is not mechanized warfare. That came along with the next world war. What a joke.
The Big Secret here is how little the scriptwriters knew about World War 1.
This is simply not competent history. This was made for ratings. Or something.
@theBike45 I also feel that this documentary is highly inaccurate, but if this isn't mechanized warfare then what is. At the start of ww2 most army officers still rode on horses, most armies still relied heavily on horses till the beginning of the 40s.
I think what they meant here, was more in terms of artillery, guns, armoured vehicals and the first appearance of tanks and planes in warfare.
@laurensb1b Until the beginning of the 1940s? Heck, the Germans were using horses in Russia right up to 1945 because the roads were so bad. The American army used mules in the mountains of Italy, and in Africa the Brits used camels! Only the Australian army refused to use animals, preferring to haul supplies over the Koboda trail in New Guinea to Port Moseby on their backs! While the Mac truck made it's reputation in WW1, there was never enough of them to make a big difference.
People need to differentiate between a small conflict and total war. WW1 + WW2 is total war for America and the rest. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam were just small conflicts. Total war in WW2 included the US dropping nukes on Japan. They wouldve dropped on Berlin too. Total war now means the US dropping thousands of them with the aim of flattening a country. Total war needs to be considered a lot more carefully than a basic conflict.
that's how you start wars, you plan for them! just like the 9/11 attacks were planned by the US to have an excuse to invade the middle east. Look at the region now, every muslim country is overthrowing their dictators, one after the other, coincidence? I think not. the only one left is Iran, and they're next!!!
@SocratesTheGadfly look at what happened in Guatemala, the US gov. having their agents inject civilians and soldiers with venerial deseases, just like they did in Tuskegee with black folks, same deal! The US is capable of anything, including killing 3 thousand people at the world trade center. During the 70's sterelizing without concent indian and mexican women. That aint no conspiracy, that's your apple pie gov. at its worst! Maybe you should start doing some thinking! It's an evil empire baby
@cuzcatlan36 You ignorant fool. That's a fringe part of the government that's manipulated things behind the curtains for a while. You're probably just mad because we whooped your ass 150 years ago. If America's so bad while do we have millions of south americans desperately trying to sneak to our borders? You dumbfuks are always complaining about the hand that feeds you. I guess Clinton's bail out of Meheco doesn't count either. Idiot.
@cavaleer I'm the ignorant and idiot but you are the one that believes your gov. has only been doing wrong things for a while. Your whole history is a crime. Your ancestors were starving during the 1600's and the indians helped you, and you repaid them by taking their lands and killing them. then you enslaved africans to do your work for you. then mexicans let you farm their lands and you repaid them by stealing the land and killing them. that feeding hand has had a knife on the other hand buddy
@cuzcatlan36 My ancestors WERE THEN INDIANS, and the "boat people" too. Yes you are a fuking fool if you live in ANY country in this hemisphere and talk about injustices of government BECAUSE THEY ALL DID THE SAME THINGS TO THE INDIANS. Cortez ring a bell? How about Columbus himself. And for the record, the Spanish brought smallpox to America and decimated the Indians before the English came. You, like your country, are a bunch of LOSERS. So stay delusional. It makes it easier to be a LOSER.
@cavaleer Regardless of which European country arrived 1st, the indians would had still recieved the small pox( as well as other diseases) due to their low imunities of European microbes. Atleast d Spaniards intermarried with the indians and accepted and fused with their cultures. The English on the hand thought of them as complete nuisance and obliterated them.
In all, Any country from the old world did harm to the Indians, therefore we should not be speaking with bias down our throats.
@AspiePilo82 Of course. In fact, the brits and dutch brought smallpox to parts of the northeast and decimated the Indians the way the Spanish brought it to the south and southwest. Colonial America and the "new world" was UGLY, ignoble and disgraceful ALL-AROUND. Europeans didn't bring anything but the same diseased culture and society that was rotting them in Europe. That's the point no one wants to admit. I admit it readily. All this talk about "civilization" is beyond idiotic.
@cavaleer Well the Europeans had to find an easier route to the East; so that's how they mistakenly discovered America. Unfortunately they mistreated the new world migrants, but i guess history cannot be re-written. Shame what our ancestors did.
@AspiePilo82 Haha, bro, you do realize they imported tons of Europeans for chain gang labor??? That nice Caribbean accent you find down there is actually IRISH. The Brits enslaved hundreds of thousands and sent them to work and die in the Caribbean. And the Brits depended on the Indians generosity to SURVIVE. It wasn't until America was on verge of becoming a nation that the colonists were in a position to really dictate terms to the Indians. One word. GUNS and the ability to make them.
@AspiePilo82 Like I said, the main thing they imported was the diseased, dysfunctional culture from Europe. It's only in the last 100 years or so that we can honestly say we have something worth all the vulgarity of the previous 200 years. But the beginnings of great nations and empires are never pretty. Not Roman, nor Chinese, nor Mongol or even Incan. In order for something to be born something must die.
@cavaleer Not so sure about the disease and dysfunctional culture; As any European, regardless of their status, would had still brought the disease. Spain sailed to the west to find a cheaper route to Asia. Once they accidentally ran into the New World and conquered it ( frm mexico to d south) they brought back silver and gold to Spain; thus spreading interest to the other European nations. England on the other hand, gained interest in exploring the North. expecting to find gold cont.
@cavaleer Those dysfunctional cultures you refer to were religous groups that wanted to escape England's supression. Wouldn't you do the same if your nation deprived your believes and rights? Thus the reason why millions flew from Nazi- Germany.
@AspiePilo82 Actually the reason they were kicked out of England and the Netherlands was because of how screwed up they were. You should read about the "pilgrims". It's quite sobering.
@cavaleer I thought d quakers were the screwed up 1s? lol. 2 be honest I only know little more than common knowledge and quite a bit about Nazi-germany. I'm currently taking history 101(to 1877) and fascinated with what im reading. However, The class doesn't go very deep if you know what I mean. It just pretty much explains the basics and principles. Eventually I will get to your level of knowledge (well someday), if i make myself some time I will read thoroughly more about the pilgrims, ta ta..
@AspiePilo82 I see. Yes, the textbooks NEVER go into real depth. You have to go in "the stacks" in the library and the bibliographies of the textbooks. The book that really opened my eyes about the ugly realities of colonial America was "Redneck Manifesto" by Jim Goad. It's short, to the point and an entertaining read. He's rather cynical but he holds no bars. Start there and you'll see the real sacrifices that built this country.
@cuzcatlan36 When Cortez and his raggedy bunch of bandits saw Tenochtitlan they had never seen ANYTHING like it. 50 years later it was a cesspool. You want to talk about government injustice? How about the fact that your government is so CORRUPT, so DYSFUNCTIONAL and clueless, that your biggest EXPORT IS ILLEGAL HUMANS. I'd love to send all you dumb fucks back to rot in your own cesspool since you think America is so bad. Most Americans don't want you here. The hidden govt does. Idiots
@cavaleer part of why latin america is so mest up is cause of the US and the CIA. You bastards have pumped so many weapons into the world, we're actually drowning in them. You even hired nazis to teach latin govts. on how to kill and torture better. You toppled and killed key individuals that wanted reforms for the people. Documents from the 50's clearly state that the US would benefit from creating chaos and instabilty in the region. So we come here and we work, YOU pushed us to it!!
@cuzcatlan36 And I guess Americans told them to fire the weapons? GTFOH. The CIA has NOTHING to deal with the American people or even most parts of our govt. They poison and kill their own people. So WTf is your point?Your rinky-dink countries are STILL operating on dysfunction, backwards, medieval Spanish ideas. That's why they keep making mess after mess after mess, even though ALL the governments are modeled after America's. Take your corn-ball, ignorant, excuse-making ass somewhere else.
@cavaleer My dear alcoholic-gambling indian savage, because the CIA has created so much crap around the world we are coming here to your neck of the woods to get some revenge and get on welfare and abuse the system, plus we are creating so many gangs we are destroying your cities( well the white men's cities) you guys are destroying your own reservations. This is still mexico, and we're claiming it back, one illegal at a time!!
@cuzcatlan36 the latin american stuff started in the world war ONE era.....but so did the re drawing of the map of the middle east. world war one is "in" right now for study....neat time prior had poetry and lemonade and then sad chemicals and flu and the modern machine made world.
@cuzcatlan36 I seriously doubt it was planned by the U.S. too destroy two of it's own major buildings. It doesn't make any logical sense, if it were an inside job they could of just said they found explosives that were planned to be used and then use that as an excuse for War. Whats your proof of this? That you don't think it's a coincidence so that makes what you want to think true?
@XXGDUBSXX Naturally, I don't have 100% proof, but historical patterns of how this country has "promoted" wars is an interesting one.Case in point: the spanish-american war-a US ship explodes in Cuba, US goes to war-gets many islands. WW2 pearl harbor is attacked but US knew about it, Vietnam-a fake attack on american military boat-killed Kennedy cause he was gonna pull out the troops. CIA terror squads all over latin america. But leaving that aside, the actions during and after the 9/11
@cuzcatlan36 Im not going to lie, there are certainly people that take adavantage of a situation, but that doesn't mean it all the result of a traitorous government, it just means that the people who wanted war took advantage of the situation. The only one of those that I am certain was perpatrate buy th government was the gulf of tonkin incident becaus there is a man I read of who said that the U.S, had been ataccking somethin and the Vietnamese retaliated.
@XXGDUBSXX attacks seem to me highly suspicious. First, how the buildings collapsed looked exsactly like a demolition. Witnesses heard several explotions, the buildings had been constructed to withstand the possibilty of planes crashing into it. Pictures of the perpetrators were up and running the very next day. The plane that crashed at the pentagon did not match the shape and sound of a commercial plane, and the wreckage from the other plane indicated it was blown up by fighters.
@XXGDUBSXX Now we go into the aftermath of the attacks: the perpetrators were supposed to have been Saudis, but instead Bush invades IRAK!!!! You do the math there!! Then we go for Afganistan, but we never touch the Saudis!!! Why you may wonder. Cause Bush, his family and the saudis are in business with the big money maker: "OIL" The Romans did the same thing, they allowed their "allies" to be attacked so they could have an excuse to invade and take over their trade and resources! GREED.
@cuzcatlan36 It's not so sinisterly simply as that I believe. Just because something done in the interests of Economics and resource don't necessarilly mean its greed. From a Purely diplomatic standpoint Saudi Arabia was and is one of the few nations that are friendly with the U.S. Which is one reason the terrorists attacked the world trade center, because that didn't like their government selling oil at a reduced price to benefit the U.S. they see it as a breech in their sovereignty.
@theBike45 No, I'm actually an american. And I don't need to be foreign to think on my own and to question any gov. in the world, including my own. I'm an american with questions, and no I don't approve of the taking of any life, including Osama's. Murder is the american way and i don't support it, nor do I support the troops or any troop for that matter.
@cuzcatlan36 agreed 10,0000%! 9/11 was a false flag event as a pretext to invade afghanistan for multiple reasons.. one of which is the heropin trade.. thats what PAT TILLMAN was going to go public and expose then he was executed by our own guys! Al QAEDA is CIA/PENTAGON RUN.. the 9/11 hijackers were trained at US bases and allowed into the country in 2001 by our own government! thats proof there that out government has something to do with it
@theBike45 9/11 was a FALSE FLAG EVENT! just like the MAINE<LUSITANIA<GULF OF TONKIN. The gulf on tonkin is admitted by our government as being a false flag event.. the govt admitted to lying to us about it. so what makes you think the government wouldnt do it again? AL QAEDA is CIA/PENTAGON RUN! The 9/11 hijackers were CIA trained and allowed in the country by our government! I bet you believe there were WMDs in iraq too! Its kool.. go ahead and keep praying for nuclear war with IRAN
For 100years: the American masses are still too stupid to realize they have been robbed and betrayed and duped into war. Wars based on lies. The American rise to power comes from war profiteers controlling the American Govt. Now America is a war nation. The instant it cannot terrorize the rest of the world with its nuclear threats of armed might, it will implode into total destruction
@capusvacans world war one is worth study as that was the first time for alot of sad stuff....from spears to machine guns. new book The Sorrow and the Beauty. also mid east map redrawn at that time.
The reason he cried after the signing the declaration of War: was that he knew he had sold his soul to the devil of greed and evil. He was apolitical hypocrite, and a religious hypocrite, a racist and a servant of the rich. He confessed his crime: that he had allowed America to be taken over the robber barons. America grew rich from war. Ever since WW1: the criminals have had the exact same policy: profiting from war. This continues today with Haliburton and Bush and the Carlyle group.
The war profiteers elected Wilson. W ilson had already secretly given the private banking criminals: The Rothschilds, JP Morgan,Rockefeller the American economy by passing the bill which created the Federal Reserve. These criminals funded his election and pulled the strings. HE was an obedient servant to the rich bankers: He betrayed his own morals and the American people because he was a dirty filthy coward who cried like a baby after the declaration of war he drafted was signed into law.
Canadians also thought that they would provide only material to Britain when they entered the war in August 1914. By 1917, Canada was roiled over a draft. The Franch Canadians were particularly against it.
@BuddyNovinski The war was met with enthusiasm and cheering crowds in Canada. Volunteers started lining up the first day war was declared and on the second day it was announced that a division of 25,000 would be sent, aside from the PPCLI and 2 cavalry regiments. There was no shortage of recruits and they started to arrive at Valcartier north of Quebec before the camp was even built. By October 1914 a second division was authorized. You are right about the spat over conscription.
I am so sick of people America bashing,the US has made it's share of mistakes,but no more than many other countries.If the US is such a bad place why are so many from around the world going through hell and high water to live here?
@panzercat39 It's not that US is a bad place, no worse than others, but some present the US as a country with a squeaky clean image which others take exception to and like to point out the mistakes. Also, when you re the biggest and richest kid on the block you have to expect to take some knocks, it comes with the territory if you know what I mean. North America has a lot to offer compared to other places. Canada has more immigrants per capita than any other country in the world. Unfortunitely.
@1Dougy85 I grant you that,and to be honest if I was to live in another country,Canada is where I would go.Canada is just like the United States,it's the US with common sense! Toronto is where I would want to live,or maybe Vancouver.
@panzercat39 Check out Vancouver. It's never too cold in the winter, nor too hot in the summer. The metropolitan area is nearly two million. It's very similar to Seattle, just south of the border.
There is no such thing as un bias history, unless it was written by a robot or something of that sort everything has a bias. History is a bunch of people tellling the same story through different veiws and it gets tweaked and changed with each new person writing it. Even if you lived through it you could've been lied to and have had your own biases about the event which makes you see something differently. It doesn't matter we won't ever get the truth
Britain on the verge of bankruptcy? Another bullshit myth. Like it or not, Britain lent the most money to the allies of any country in WW1. We were hardly bankrupt. The war took all our revenue, but this was not a situation like WW2 at all
@TheLiberalKnight Britain was broke several times, the Empire was made on Slavery, rape, Mass genocide and stealing raw materials from other countries, when that came to an end they Created WW and became ww2, Allies were always broke and crooked, Krupp alone in Germany had 1000x more money then all the oil barons together, please study un bias history. The Lusitania is another media garbage they were given 6 months not to get on the boat only 9 families were smart. etc...
@MrBritdog2 That's probably what they teach you in your american schools, but it's not true. Please tell me the incidents of 'mass genocide'. They didn't happen. We were the first country to ban slavery. rape? Explain. You're just another idiot who exaggerates the oppressiveness of the empire- an empire that remains the only reason you and your family exist today!
Britain lent the most money during ww1, mostly to Russia. Russia refused to pay it back when they became communist.
@MrBritdog2 Interesting. Was the US made on slavery, rape, mass genocide, and stealing raw materials from other countries? I'm thinking Africans, Indians and Philippines for starters.
@1Dougy85 Every great empire was made on the things you have mentioned from Rome to British Empire just to name a few. I see based on what you write here that you know a lot about history therefore you should also know that when it comes to doing what you have stated above the US is just like any other world power.
@DutchPetriot Good eye you have there. American docs are inaccurate, why? Perhaps because they have an audience that they know are lazy with the fact checking. Anything for the myth i guess.
"The British government orders captured German U-boat crews to be "taken prisoners or shot" - As opposed to letting them get back in their boats and go home?
@Bloomazz I don't know if the Geneva convention was enabled while WWI was raging, but nowadays the "...or shot" part would be illegal, not that anyone would really care about it, but...
@MrMooseheadbeer What are you talking about? the sinking of the Lusitanian had little to nothing to do with the USA entering the war. That's why it likely wasn't spoken of.
I have an MA in History and have taught in a Community College. This series is essentially very accurate. Unfortunately, most of the posts here sound as stupid as many of my student's comments. By the way, were any of you in Mr. Rogers class at Morton College? LOL
@therogerseses Wow, taught in a community college! Say what you will about this series but it is full of mistakes and is far from very accurate. If you don't know the history of the First World War you shouldn't be teaching it. Read some books on the subject.
Damn, the British went crazy. Death penalty for taking a photograph? They also shot more than any other country people who tried to desert. War really brings the worse in all of us.
@Renegen1 That so called order could not have been made. It is 100% BS, this show must have made it up to make the British look bad. The reason I know this to be 100% BS is the British & particularly the Canadians had army companies that their main job was to take pictures of combat & even take live motion picture of the fighting. 1 July 1916 (first day of the Somme Offensive) was the first time in history a live action motion picture was filmed of actual combat. So that order is a fake.
@JimmyG228 Those 'companies' were there to take footage that could be used for propaganda and was closely monitored. Real reporters were not on the front lines. The show didnt make up that order, it was real. Are you really so naive as to think that army photographers report an unbiased version of combat?
@agrianes2 That's not the point. If such an standing order was made, those companies would not have been allowed to take those pictures and make those video recordings. Also if that order was made to hide the harshness of the fighting, the British Army would have also restricted soldiers who wrote journals of the war. No such restriction was made. You can be as graphic with words as you can with black and white pictures and videos. Think about it, the order makes no sense in history.
@xXGreyWolf - america not wanting to get involved in a war??"
Yep, not wanting to get involved in a war makes you an isolationist and selfish, and when you do get involved you are seen as an imperialist and selfish. I guess you can't win no matter what you do.
@ohbobsagetpiss The United States of America has NEVER been a war mongering nation and is NOT a war mongering nation even today. Americans and America want peace and prosperity but ABOVE all else Freedom, Liberty and Independence for ALL people.
@martynrobin121 Hardly so man. Russia may have made peace in 1917 when the US declared war on Germany, however US troops did not see front line service until March 1918 and even then it was in a limited role. They didn't take a large role in the fighting till the summer of 1918, by then the war was all but won by the British and French. If the US sent troops into action right away in 1917 I would agree with your statement however that just never happened.
@JimmyG228 The Americans couldnt send Troops 1917, They wernt even prepared for a war and there Army was very small, They needed time to prepare. And the British had to train there soldiers, since the American troops had bad names for been 2nd class soldiers. But U.S Forces did play a vital role in the end 1918. And WW2 also they wernt prepared for war 1939 and were struggling to supply the British 1940 it took them years to prepare,
@martynrobin121 Yes I know. It took the Cold War to teach the Americans they need to be ready for a war at all times. They are slow learners.
I wouldn't however say US forces played a vital role at all. All they did was hasten Germany's defeat, not insured it. America's involvement in the war was minimal cuz they needed to hold either the British or French hands at all times. Countries like Serbia, Romania and even Canada had a larger role then the US, how do you say their role was vital then?
@JimmyG228 Yes your correct America didnt do much at all to help with the defeat of the Nazis, But they did save Western Europe from the Soviets, Who were unstoppable 1943-5. D-Day was mainly about stopping the spread of Communism. Russia would have liberated Europe and the British would have won in Africa, The U.S played a vital part helping the British invade W.Europe and stopping the Communists, Otherwise it would be Russia who would be the superpower of the world.
@martynrobin121 I was talking about the Great War not World War 2.
My opinion on the US in WW2 is that they were even worse then that of the Great War. There is/was no good excuse for them to be so cowardly in trying to stay out of WW2. The Great War there were a few weak excuses, some better then none eh. Nevertheless once they did get involved in WW2 my opinion of their involvement is nicer then yours, however I do understand fully where you are coming from regarding stopping communism.
@JimmyG228 I agree, But if the U.S didnt come in World war 2, British would have never invaded Western Europe and stopped the spread of the Russian Communists. Most of Europe would be under Communist Rule and Russia would be the new superpower of the world and with Communist Europe they would rule the world Much BIGGER threat than the Axis!(Hitler loved Britain, He was far too soft on them). And the Great war the U.S came at the end and saw the last German,Turk,Austro attack.
Look and listen closely and you see the Liberal Hollywood attitude in this. Inserting snide remarks when not a one of them would ever lift a hand to defend themselves.
before... i love watching warfare movies.. but when i saw this documentary... i feel sorry... war wasnt that great... there is no glory in war.. no heroic... just merciless and nonesense killing... while the leaders of the nations sitting on their couches looking at the result of damages and loss.... war is pure hell on earth.....
@str8out Excuse me where do you get the US was noble. You cowards turned your back on your closet friend & only ally at the time, France. The US owed France everything after your war of independence. If it wasn't for France the US wouldn't have survived to win the war. When France was invaded, the US turned its back on France to save it own ass. That goes against the whole idea of having an ally. History has shown the US only does the right thing when she is forced to or it benefits the US.
@THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS Seems like a normal thing to do. Governments that are lead by a democracy, meaning its the peoples fault if your leaders act inappropriate IE, like cowards. Corruption maybe ramped in the US government at times however it is still the people responsibility to oust who ever isn't acting in the best interests of the people. That's write right on your declaration of independence. So if your country acts out & the people do little or nothing about it, its the peoples fault too.
@JimmyG228 Your not an American so dont act like you know what the mood is here. Plenty of Americans protested Iraq and Afghanistan and and don't support attacking Libya. Many Americans are moving towards a libertarian philosophy which is less government involvement, staying out of foreign affairs, and not spreading democracy through warfare. And all the U.S. presidents since Kennedy have been instituted by international banking elitists too. We did not elect them. Like I said don't generalize.
@THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS Just cuz Im not American doesn't mean I dont know or understand the mood down there. You assume too much. The smart Americans protested the war in Iraq after all it was an illegal invasion, meaning it was a war crime. Afghanistan was a necessary evil, had to be done & there are no ground troops in Libya nor is America in command of the UN No Fly Zone.
Are you saying you dont elect your leaders? The US is a republican democracy last I checked. That means leaders are elected.
@JimmyG228 Im saying our "democracy" is a sham. They bankers and corporations only institute presidents friendly to wallstreet and other corporate interests. Thats why the U.S. is using its military in the interest of the banks and oil companies right now. Real leaders like Ron Paul will never get elected because they work for the interest of the people and not the media/banks/corporations. Just watch how he is slandered in the news even though he wins popular polls all the time.
@THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS I didn't think corruption was that bad down there. With what you just said I rest my case on my belief that the US is little more then a corrupt hypocritical nation with far too many dumb red necks with poor sense of right and wrong.
This has been flagged as spam show
They should talk about the Armenian Genocide! Every documentary about WW2 has pictures of the Holocaust
ArtsakhDevelopment 1 day ago
For all you Brits whining about "American Imperialism"; now you know why it started: British propoganda, trying to get us into WWI.
mceltix2009 1 week ago
@mceltix2009 I thought the philippines hawaii and puerto rico were before ww1? Tardlet :)
Bloomazz 6 days ago
@mceltix2009 Trying to play saints, seems a little hypocritical considering how cynically America has forced an American agenda on several countries worldwide throughout history. But i am not dumb enough to think USA is the only one who have ever conducted power politics in this fashion, it is just how politics have always been waged, the wisest thing is to recognize, that when it comes to politics there are no COMPLETELY GOOD GUYS
stud20084977 5 days ago
Australian's saved the war at the battle of VB
mtpender69 1 week ago
All these deaths just to support Serbia's covert terrorist operation against Austria, fulfill British Imperial Pride and help France to extract revenge. No wonder WW1 is less discussed than WW2. US's involvement in WW1 must be huge stain in its own history showing how their politicians scarifice US citizens lives for their bias and politial ideology. With all these facts, it makes absolutely no sense to why average American must fight on the Allies side in WW1.
TKKTism 2 weeks ago
What do you mean the U boat attack on the Lusitania. We all know it was a false flag.
d3ltadrive 3 weeks ago
They had broken the stalemate? What how where?
And of course we wanted you to join, more resources and more cannonfodder, what general in those days wouldn't have like that. More meat for the grinder.
capusvacans 3 weeks ago
America is todays greatest exploiter of the world. They strangled democracy and let corrupt dictators rule until the 21st century. Even,today i can imagene the US has Casus Belis drawn up as excuses in order to gain economically. War on iran,then what Saudia arabia after years of propaganda? Weps of mass destruction?
menacinghat 1 month ago
AS Americans we should heed the advice of our founding fathers.. they said STAY OUT OF FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS(WARS). WOODROW WILSON WAS SUCH A DOUCHE. FIRST LETTING THE FEDERAL RESERVE TAKE POWER.. THEN HE SAID GERMANY NEEDED TO BE DEFEATED TO MAKE DEMOCRACY SAFE?!?!?! HOW DOES DEMOCRACY BECOME SAFE BY WAGING WAR ON AN EMPIRE BY... ALLYING YOURSELF WITH AN EMPIRE! there was literally no difference in form of govt between Uk and GERMANY. The world would be abetter place with german victory in ww1
23mbtx23 1 month ago
@23mbtx23 Your ignorance is dumbfounding.
Also if you are so fond of your founding fathers and believe that your should stay out of foreign wars, then what are your troops doing in Iraq (I'll grant you Afghanistan since there was a nutcase htere that attacked you). Why does your nation start a new war every 10 years?
Apart from this, in all likelyhood, germany would have lost WW1 even without us help.
Don't be hypocritical.
capusvacans 1 month ago
@capusvacans I thin you got e confused with someone else man... I am a huuge founding fathers supporter.. thats why I was against the IRAQI War aND The AFGHAN war AND LIBYA.. and Syria which will begin shortly.. im against ALL WARS that the US simply launches for profit. The USA is a hijacked strongarm for the international banking cartel! I despise everything USA stands for today thats WHY i said the USA had no reason to be involved in ww1! I agree with u 10k%,
23mbtx23 1 month ago
@capusvacans and as a published author on ww1 Germany would have won on the western front if there were no US intervention.. the spring offensives would havent been stopped the way they were w/out american troops to "plug the gaps". I have ZERO clue how you think i support Iraq? my comment said that bush IS a War Criminal and has set the standard for future presidents to start wars for profit w/out asking congress as OBAMA has done. Obama has shown us he is George W. Bush's 3rd term
23mbtx23 1 month ago
@23mbtx23 I must have misread you then. And about obama, look at it this way: he only continued the bush wars. McCain would very likely have started with Iran or North Korea.
Also don't judge Obama too hard on Lybia. Prior administrations have begged their European allies to help in your wars (Iraq-Afgh). Lybia was an initiative asked for by the Europeans. Diplomaticaly he had no choice. We helped on your war, it was your turn to help us. That's how politics work.
capusvacans 1 month ago
@23mbtx23 ... Failure to heed the call from Europe and the Arabic leage when it comes to Lybia would have had grave consequences for America in the future.
It would mean that Europe would have been even less willing to help with wars like Iraq and Afg, worse relations between the US and the arabic leage.
One cannot start a war and ask allies to help to then refuse to help allies when they intervene in an already ongoing conflict.
America started Iraq-Afg, Lybia started itself, big difference
capusvacans 1 month ago
@capusvacans You are correct; the US had absolutely NO BUSINESS AT ALL IN IRAQ; I agree with you on that 1,000%.
Germany was WINNING WW1 until the Yanks came into the war, genius; our manpower turned the tide and guess what, we were WRONG to have entered this war, too; fuck you Europeans.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings As i wrote, in all likelyhood the germans would have lost in the end no matter what. There is no absolute judgement about that possible. It was a stalemate with both parties running on their last reserves. But odds were slightly against Germany.
Your participation allowed for the replenishment of the resources on the allied side. Would we have won without the US? Nobody knows.
I live on the old Ypres frontline read pretty much all there is to read about WWI. It's inconclusive.
capusvacans 3 weeks ago
@capusvacans Germany was winning the war; they had an extra 3 million men freed up from the defeat of Russia, they had broken the stalemate and had resumed the offensive with gains made almost as great as The First Battle Of The Marne in 1914.
I am not one of these knee-jerk Yanks that goes around beating his breast about US involvement in this war however you cannot ignore how much the Western Allies wanted us in the war and welcomed us when we finally arrived.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@capusvacans Actually Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait in 1990. The US was called by the UN to help Kuwait. The US kicked Iraq back to their own borders from Kuwait in 1991 and then ended in the ceasefire. As part of the 1991 ceasefire, the US kept Iraq in check with no-fly zones to protect Kurds/Shiites and ongoing UN inspections. After 9/11, world intels said that Iraq was planning to develop WMDs and use it on the US. However after Iraq War, the intels was later proven to be faulty.
Hperman09 1 week ago
@23mbtx23 You are correct; most wars the US has participated in were basically NONE OF OUR BUSINESS including this one.
A friend of mine said that Lincoln was the most murderous president we ever had; 660,000 dead in the US Civil War.
My friend said the South was wrong about EVERYTHING, Slavery, The Tariff and Succession but to kill 660,000 people to show how "right" you were, as Lincoln did, was insane; it wasn't worth it and I've since come to agree with him.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings agreed 100% as a southerner who is realistic theres no "good sides"to the ACW.Both sides were wrong in their own ways.. the north, run by republicans who dreamed of empire and great riches at the expense of the south the south for slavery. As history tells us.. the civil war was not only about slavery.. it had multiple issues/causes. but as ww1.. it was completely unnecessary! As texas found out independence is sometimes unsustainable and the south woulda came back
23mbtx23 3 weeks ago
@23mbtx23 I don't agree with your remark about how "Both sides were wrong in their own ways;" it is my opinion that it was the South that was wrong, or, at least, "more" wrong, way more wrong.
As wrong as The South was this still doesn't justify a war that killed 660,000 people all of whom were obviously Americans.
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war." Otto von Bismarck.
Lincoln was a murderer.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings i agree. the reasons for secession and by definiton the reasons for the war are separate. EXPANSION OF SLAVERY was an issue.. at the time of secession slavery's legality was not threatened by Lincoln. If all the south really wanted was to keep their right to keep slaves they would have rejoined the union b4 war started when Lincoln guaranteed the CORWIN AMEND. would be passed if they rejoined. Crittendon resolution also states its not about slavery
23mbtx23 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings expansion of slavery is one issue of many tho.. never has a war been started over one issue.. it was fought for many different reasons.1 was representation & the right 2 have determination in government.The south was so grossly outnumbered in the US house and with more states being added.. soon the senate.. that they couldnt oppose legislation that was anti-southern. nor did they have any ability in determining the president as 1860 showed (lincoln not even on ballot)
23mbtx23 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Lincoln was a complete whore for the big business republicans (like all politicians are today) they are all just puppets carrying out legislation that benefits their corporate masters the most.. as opposed to legislation which benefits the american people. The republicans knew that their dreams of empire were not possible without the south. The north didnt go to war to free slaves they went for selfish financial and power reasons.. that makes them wrong as well
23mbtx23 3 weeks ago
@23mbtx23 To show Lincoln's whoredom to big business, because Lincoln had been an attorney for the Illinois Central Railroad, in WARTIME the Union started to build the Trans-continental railroad AND passed The Homestead Act!
In WARTIME!!!!
What an incredible diversion of resources!!!
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
"The republicans were the party of war". Man how things have... not changed!
bumpnuglies 1 month ago
cool music for a doco :D
MrSystematica 1 month ago
What the Netherlands was never occupied durin ww1 0:57
MrJazztobak 2 months ago
Thats not including influenza deaths
babashroud 2 months ago
"The Republicans were the party of war."
Looks like things didn't change much since 1916. :D
umutkafadar 2 months ago 2
@umutkafadar I just posted the same comment! lol great minds think alike!
bumpnuglies 1 month ago
@umutkafadar agreed.. but as OBAMA has shown us... there is ZERO difference between the two parties.. Obama ran on a anti-bush platform.. yet Obama continued every single CRIMINAL act that bush did.. Illegal wars, torture, taking our rights away (patriot act),Wall street special interests inside his administration, signing statements to pass legislation, zero transparency, keeping guantanamo bay open, secret arrests and prisons, OBAMA IS W.BUSH's 3rd TERM! USA has been HIJACKED
23mbtx23 1 month ago
Germany was wrongfully blamed for the war Serbia(allied power ) started it
armacombat15 3 months ago
ah such a useless war...
MarcAndreLavoie11 3 months ago 15
The american army must have been very badly prepared for war in 1917-18.
I mean, ca.200,000 soldiers were wounded and ca.120,000 were i killed in the few months that the us actually had soldiers at the front. As a comparison, ca. 420,000 american soldiers were killed in 1941 to 1945...
Andiish08 4 months ago 5
@Andiish08 WW1 and WW2 was a very different war,in ww1, soldiers fought head on,charging trenches,and companies and battalions were stationed close together,hence when they were charging,they would suffer high casualty,whereas in ww2,the battlefield was taking place from streets,and soldiers were on the move,battalions and companies had different battles to fight,and the advancements in technologies and tactics has changed.
jaredlee283 2 months ago
@Andiish08 Your figure for US deaths in this war is slightly less, at 110,000 and 60,000 of those were deaths from the influenza epidemic, not in combat.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Ok, but it's still a very high number, considering they were at the front for only a couple of months.
Andiish08 3 weeks ago
@Andiish08 In a subsequent chapter of this piece, they do admit that the figure is 110,000 with 60,000 due to influenza; the film claims half of these deaths were in the US and half in Europe.
This piece also claims that there were 2,000,000 men in Europe by July which is nonsense; we had 950,000 in Europe on July 1st and another 225,000 by the end of July.
"Couple" literally means TWO; we were in this for just under 4.5 months and yes, we did turn the tide.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings I meant that that they were only there for a few months, and not 2 months. Hope you get that. And i have never said that you did'nt turn the tide.
Ps. thanks for the english lesson;)
Andiish08 3 weeks ago
@Andiish08 Yes, I'm aware that never claimed that American troops didn't "turn the tide."
Another mistake this "Secrets" presentation makes is that it wasn't 2 million Germans that were released to the Western Front after Russia was out of the war; it was 3 million; the Russians did leave one million men behind in Russia but they tended to be the older and less fit men; the younger and stronger men are the ones that were sent West.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Then maybe, if you're right, the name of the video should be "Lies about World War 1"?
Andiish08 3 weeks ago
@Andiish08 It's not so much lies as idiocy for indeed, anyone that starts off the words "The Secrets Of Whatever" you know it's just going to be some stupid, idiotic tripe-hype.
Still, the presentation did make more than a few things clear; one thing it didn't make clear was that once the US was in The War, no US publication was permitted to show a dead US soldier.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Andiish08
From March 1918(U.S soldier at front lines) to November 1918(German surrender), over 9 months, U.S forces Suffered 198,059 wounded and 120,144 dead, that means 22,000 wounded and 13,400 killed per month. Compare with the 45 months of american involvement in ww2 and the 416,837 dead and 683,846 wounded. We have a 9,263 killed and 15.196 wounded by month!!!
pepeelvivaso 2 weeks ago
The US military was unprepared? The US Navy had observers on British ships and had been involved in defending convoys against the U-Boats since 1916. The Army, despite being undermanned, had been training it's officers in new training methods based on what they saw as observers. New artillery units had been formed, and new guns were being built for the British and "tested" by the US army. US manufacturers had been building weapons for the Brits since 1914. Only the public was unprepared!
Bullettube 4 months ago
@Bullettube you make a brilliant point of US Naval history. but the entire culture and world was unprepared for world war one in many ways, it was poetry and lemonade on the porch before that. begin of chemicals in war. new book The Sorrow and The Beauty real journals of that era.....also like the look of the era take the kids to see HUGO in 3-D or go whatever age and enjoy. ~peace on earth.
thepixieful 1 month ago
@Bullettube You raised a very good point about the US Navy; do you have anywhere I could go to see if the US Navy was better prepared than ground forces with numbers of total manpower, actions and casualties.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
For me this shows that Germany didnt get pushed around easily the war was so fucking pointless but at least we didnt become a british slave colony lol
TReichenau 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: DISCUSSION ON DEMOCRACY, The Weapon That Can Break The Cycle Of War And Terrorism, Debated Issues, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
balanceddiet.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
AN IDEAL STRONGEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY INCLUDED (See Subchapter 3.1.2.1, Chapter 3, of Part One.).
TheServiceWeb 4 months ago
This "documentary" and I use the word loosely, claims that World War 1 was
"mechanized warfare." Yeah, right, just look at all those horses. Real mechanized. World War 1 was TRENCH warfare. Trench warfare is not mechanized warfare. That came along with the next world war. What a joke.
The Big Secret here is how little the scriptwriters knew about World War 1.
This is simply not competent history. This was made for ratings. Or something.
theBike45 4 months ago
@theBike45 I also feel that this documentary is highly inaccurate, but if this isn't mechanized warfare then what is. At the start of ww2 most army officers still rode on horses, most armies still relied heavily on horses till the beginning of the 40s.
I think what they meant here, was more in terms of artillery, guns, armoured vehicals and the first appearance of tanks and planes in warfare.
laurensb1b 4 months ago
@laurensb1b Until the beginning of the 1940s? Heck, the Germans were using horses in Russia right up to 1945 because the roads were so bad. The American army used mules in the mountains of Italy, and in Africa the Brits used camels! Only the Australian army refused to use animals, preferring to haul supplies over the Koboda trail in New Guinea to Port Moseby on their backs! While the Mac truck made it's reputation in WW1, there was never enough of them to make a big difference.
Bullettube 4 months ago
People need to differentiate between a small conflict and total war. WW1 + WW2 is total war for America and the rest. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam were just small conflicts. Total war in WW2 included the US dropping nukes on Japan. They wouldve dropped on Berlin too. Total war now means the US dropping thousands of them with the aim of flattening a country. Total war needs to be considered a lot more carefully than a basic conflict.
108Dax 5 months ago
that's how you start wars, you plan for them! just like the 9/11 attacks were planned by the US to have an excuse to invade the middle east. Look at the region now, every muslim country is overthrowing their dictators, one after the other, coincidence? I think not. the only one left is Iran, and they're next!!!
cuzcatlan36 5 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 you're a fucking dumbass, please never write anything again
KPRIOT6 5 months ago
@KPRIOT6 hey, if I'm wrong, just prove it and I wont write on the subject again!
cuzcatlan36 5 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 thats ture bc they was three attacks on US if you want to wiki search up 9/11
gtafanboy32 5 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 more conspiratorial nonsense. wake up man and learn to THINK for yourself rather than relying upon others to do your THINKING.
SocratesTheGadfly 4 months ago
@SocratesTheGadfly look at what happened in Guatemala, the US gov. having their agents inject civilians and soldiers with venerial deseases, just like they did in Tuskegee with black folks, same deal! The US is capable of anything, including killing 3 thousand people at the world trade center. During the 70's sterelizing without concent indian and mexican women. That aint no conspiracy, that's your apple pie gov. at its worst! Maybe you should start doing some thinking! It's an evil empire baby
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 You ignorant fool. That's a fringe part of the government that's manipulated things behind the curtains for a while. You're probably just mad because we whooped your ass 150 years ago. If America's so bad while do we have millions of south americans desperately trying to sneak to our borders? You dumbfuks are always complaining about the hand that feeds you. I guess Clinton's bail out of Meheco doesn't count either. Idiot.
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cavaleer I'm the ignorant and idiot but you are the one that believes your gov. has only been doing wrong things for a while. Your whole history is a crime. Your ancestors were starving during the 1600's and the indians helped you, and you repaid them by taking their lands and killing them. then you enslaved africans to do your work for you. then mexicans let you farm their lands and you repaid them by stealing the land and killing them. that feeding hand has had a knife on the other hand buddy
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 My ancestors WERE THEN INDIANS, and the "boat people" too. Yes you are a fuking fool if you live in ANY country in this hemisphere and talk about injustices of government BECAUSE THEY ALL DID THE SAME THINGS TO THE INDIANS. Cortez ring a bell? How about Columbus himself. And for the record, the Spanish brought smallpox to America and decimated the Indians before the English came. You, like your country, are a bunch of LOSERS. So stay delusional. It makes it easier to be a LOSER.
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cavaleer Regardless of which European country arrived 1st, the indians would had still recieved the small pox( as well as other diseases) due to their low imunities of European microbes. Atleast d Spaniards intermarried with the indians and accepted and fused with their cultures. The English on the hand thought of them as complete nuisance and obliterated them.
In all, Any country from the old world did harm to the Indians, therefore we should not be speaking with bias down our throats.
AspiePilo82 4 months ago
@AspiePilo82 Of course. In fact, the brits and dutch brought smallpox to parts of the northeast and decimated the Indians the way the Spanish brought it to the south and southwest. Colonial America and the "new world" was UGLY, ignoble and disgraceful ALL-AROUND. Europeans didn't bring anything but the same diseased culture and society that was rotting them in Europe. That's the point no one wants to admit. I admit it readily. All this talk about "civilization" is beyond idiotic.
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cavaleer Well the Europeans had to find an easier route to the East; so that's how they mistakenly discovered America. Unfortunately they mistreated the new world migrants, but i guess history cannot be re-written. Shame what our ancestors did.
AspiePilo82 4 months ago
@AspiePilo82 Haha, bro, you do realize they imported tons of Europeans for chain gang labor??? That nice Caribbean accent you find down there is actually IRISH. The Brits enslaved hundreds of thousands and sent them to work and die in the Caribbean. And the Brits depended on the Indians generosity to SURVIVE. It wasn't until America was on verge of becoming a nation that the colonists were in a position to really dictate terms to the Indians. One word. GUNS and the ability to make them.
cavaleer 4 months ago
@AspiePilo82 Like I said, the main thing they imported was the diseased, dysfunctional culture from Europe. It's only in the last 100 years or so that we can honestly say we have something worth all the vulgarity of the previous 200 years. But the beginnings of great nations and empires are never pretty. Not Roman, nor Chinese, nor Mongol or even Incan. In order for something to be born something must die.
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cavaleer Not so sure about the disease and dysfunctional culture; As any European, regardless of their status, would had still brought the disease. Spain sailed to the west to find a cheaper route to Asia. Once they accidentally ran into the New World and conquered it ( frm mexico to d south) they brought back silver and gold to Spain; thus spreading interest to the other European nations. England on the other hand, gained interest in exploring the North. expecting to find gold cont.
AspiePilo82 4 months ago
@cavaleer Those dysfunctional cultures you refer to were religous groups that wanted to escape England's supression. Wouldn't you do the same if your nation deprived your believes and rights? Thus the reason why millions flew from Nazi- Germany.
AspiePilo82 4 months ago
@AspiePilo82 Actually the reason they were kicked out of England and the Netherlands was because of how screwed up they were. You should read about the "pilgrims". It's quite sobering.
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cavaleer I thought d quakers were the screwed up 1s? lol. 2 be honest I only know little more than common knowledge and quite a bit about Nazi-germany. I'm currently taking history 101(to 1877) and fascinated with what im reading. However, The class doesn't go very deep if you know what I mean. It just pretty much explains the basics and principles. Eventually I will get to your level of knowledge (well someday), if i make myself some time I will read thoroughly more about the pilgrims, ta ta..
AspiePilo82 4 months ago
@AspiePilo82 I see. Yes, the textbooks NEVER go into real depth. You have to go in "the stacks" in the library and the bibliographies of the textbooks. The book that really opened my eyes about the ugly realities of colonial America was "Redneck Manifesto" by Jim Goad. It's short, to the point and an entertaining read. He's rather cynical but he holds no bars. Start there and you'll see the real sacrifices that built this country.
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 When Cortez and his raggedy bunch of bandits saw Tenochtitlan they had never seen ANYTHING like it. 50 years later it was a cesspool. You want to talk about government injustice? How about the fact that your government is so CORRUPT, so DYSFUNCTIONAL and clueless, that your biggest EXPORT IS ILLEGAL HUMANS. I'd love to send all you dumb fucks back to rot in your own cesspool since you think America is so bad. Most Americans don't want you here. The hidden govt does. Idiots
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cavaleer part of why latin america is so mest up is cause of the US and the CIA. You bastards have pumped so many weapons into the world, we're actually drowning in them. You even hired nazis to teach latin govts. on how to kill and torture better. You toppled and killed key individuals that wanted reforms for the people. Documents from the 50's clearly state that the US would benefit from creating chaos and instabilty in the region. So we come here and we work, YOU pushed us to it!!
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 And I guess Americans told them to fire the weapons? GTFOH. The CIA has NOTHING to deal with the American people or even most parts of our govt. They poison and kill their own people. So WTf is your point?Your rinky-dink countries are STILL operating on dysfunction, backwards, medieval Spanish ideas. That's why they keep making mess after mess after mess, even though ALL the governments are modeled after America's. Take your corn-ball, ignorant, excuse-making ass somewhere else.
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cavaleer My dear alcoholic-gambling indian savage, because the CIA has created so much crap around the world we are coming here to your neck of the woods to get some revenge and get on welfare and abuse the system, plus we are creating so many gangs we are destroying your cities( well the white men's cities) you guys are destroying your own reservations. This is still mexico, and we're claiming it back, one illegal at a time!!
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 And that's why that wall will go up to keep the barbarians and misfit savages out, so you can butcher yourselves to death. lol
cavaleer 4 months ago
@cavaleer no stinkin wall can keep us away, we always find a way, even through indian res
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 the latin american stuff started in the world war ONE era.....but so did the re drawing of the map of the middle east. world war one is "in" right now for study....neat time prior had poetry and lemonade and then sad chemicals and flu and the modern machine made world.
thepixieful 1 month ago
@cuzcatlan36 You hit that nail on the head. Well said sir.
88wulfgar 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 I seriously doubt it was planned by the U.S. too destroy two of it's own major buildings. It doesn't make any logical sense, if it were an inside job they could of just said they found explosives that were planned to be used and then use that as an excuse for War. Whats your proof of this? That you don't think it's a coincidence so that makes what you want to think true?
XXGDUBSXX 4 months ago
@XXGDUBSXX Naturally, I don't have 100% proof, but historical patterns of how this country has "promoted" wars is an interesting one.Case in point: the spanish-american war-a US ship explodes in Cuba, US goes to war-gets many islands. WW2 pearl harbor is attacked but US knew about it, Vietnam-a fake attack on american military boat-killed Kennedy cause he was gonna pull out the troops. CIA terror squads all over latin america. But leaving that aside, the actions during and after the 9/11
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 Im not going to lie, there are certainly people that take adavantage of a situation, but that doesn't mean it all the result of a traitorous government, it just means that the people who wanted war took advantage of the situation. The only one of those that I am certain was perpatrate buy th government was the gulf of tonkin incident becaus there is a man I read of who said that the U.S, had been ataccking somethin and the Vietnamese retaliated.
XXGDUBSXX 4 months ago
@XXGDUBSXX attacks seem to me highly suspicious. First, how the buildings collapsed looked exsactly like a demolition. Witnesses heard several explotions, the buildings had been constructed to withstand the possibilty of planes crashing into it. Pictures of the perpetrators were up and running the very next day. The plane that crashed at the pentagon did not match the shape and sound of a commercial plane, and the wreckage from the other plane indicated it was blown up by fighters.
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@XXGDUBSXX Now we go into the aftermath of the attacks: the perpetrators were supposed to have been Saudis, but instead Bush invades IRAK!!!! You do the math there!! Then we go for Afganistan, but we never touch the Saudis!!! Why you may wonder. Cause Bush, his family and the saudis are in business with the big money maker: "OIL" The Romans did the same thing, they allowed their "allies" to be attacked so they could have an excuse to invade and take over their trade and resources! GREED.
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 It's not so sinisterly simply as that I believe. Just because something done in the interests of Economics and resource don't necessarilly mean its greed. From a Purely diplomatic standpoint Saudi Arabia was and is one of the few nations that are friendly with the U.S. Which is one reason the terrorists attacked the world trade center, because that didn't like their government selling oil at a reduced price to benefit the U.S. they see it as a breech in their sovereignty.
XXGDUBSXX 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 Saudis are America's servant. America goes after those who don't do America's bidding.
goody1boo 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 Sure, Buddy, we always blow up 3,000 citizens in order to have an excuse to go to war.
But the war didn't begin after 9/11, now did it? and had nothing to do with 9/11. I assume you're from
the Middle East (but NOT Jewish - they have brains) . Sorry to hear about your buddy Bin.
theBike45 4 months ago
@theBike45 No, I'm actually an american. And I don't need to be foreign to think on my own and to question any gov. in the world, including my own. I'm an american with questions, and no I don't approve of the taking of any life, including Osama's. Murder is the american way and i don't support it, nor do I support the troops or any troop for that matter.
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 agreed 10,0000%! 9/11 was a false flag event as a pretext to invade afghanistan for multiple reasons.. one of which is the heropin trade.. thats what PAT TILLMAN was going to go public and expose then he was executed by our own guys! Al QAEDA is CIA/PENTAGON RUN.. the 9/11 hijackers were trained at US bases and allowed into the country in 2001 by our own government! thats proof there that out government has something to do with it
23mbtx23 1 month ago
@theBike45 9/11 was a FALSE FLAG EVENT! just like the MAINE<LUSITANIA<GULF OF TONKIN. The gulf on tonkin is admitted by our government as being a false flag event.. the govt admitted to lying to us about it. so what makes you think the government wouldnt do it again? AL QAEDA is CIA/PENTAGON RUN! The 9/11 hijackers were CIA trained and allowed in the country by our government! I bet you believe there were WMDs in iraq too! Its kool.. go ahead and keep praying for nuclear war with IRAN
23mbtx23 1 month ago
this is where we sold out to big business.
commando2224 5 months ago
For 100years: the American masses are still too stupid to realize they have been robbed and betrayed and duped into war. Wars based on lies. The American rise to power comes from war profiteers controlling the American Govt. Now America is a war nation. The instant it cannot terrorize the rest of the world with its nuclear threats of armed might, it will implode into total destruction
turak0 5 months ago
@turak0 "Americans betrayed and duped into war" History keeps repeating itself it seems :p
capusvacans 5 months ago
@capusvacans world war one is worth study as that was the first time for alot of sad stuff....from spears to machine guns. new book The Sorrow and the Beauty. also mid east map redrawn at that time.
thepixieful 1 month ago
The reason he cried after the signing the declaration of War: was that he knew he had sold his soul to the devil of greed and evil. He was apolitical hypocrite, and a religious hypocrite, a racist and a servant of the rich. He confessed his crime: that he had allowed America to be taken over the robber barons. America grew rich from war. Ever since WW1: the criminals have had the exact same policy: profiting from war. This continues today with Haliburton and Bush and the Carlyle group.
turak0 5 months ago
The war profiteers elected Wilson. W ilson had already secretly given the private banking criminals: The Rothschilds, JP Morgan,Rockefeller the American economy by passing the bill which created the Federal Reserve. These criminals funded his election and pulled the strings. HE was an obedient servant to the rich bankers: He betrayed his own morals and the American people because he was a dirty filthy coward who cried like a baby after the declaration of war he drafted was signed into law.
turak0 5 months ago
this is very anti-british. i lol
sabaton1231 5 months ago
Canadians also thought that they would provide only material to Britain when they entered the war in August 1914. By 1917, Canada was roiled over a draft. The Franch Canadians were particularly against it.
BuddyNovinski 6 months ago
@BuddyNovinski The war was met with enthusiasm and cheering crowds in Canada. Volunteers started lining up the first day war was declared and on the second day it was announced that a division of 25,000 would be sent, aside from the PPCLI and 2 cavalry regiments. There was no shortage of recruits and they started to arrive at Valcartier north of Quebec before the camp was even built. By October 1914 a second division was authorized. You are right about the spat over conscription.
1Dougy85 5 months ago
u can sure about one thing about mankind,that is war and the vast military complex.
ww1 n ww2 are colossal events that should never be repeated.
hlimkb 6 months ago
I am so sick of people America bashing,the US has made it's share of mistakes,but no more than many other countries.If the US is such a bad place why are so many from around the world going through hell and high water to live here?
panzercat39 6 months ago
Comment removed
frellthat 6 months ago
@panzercat39 To be fair, I don't think there are large numbers of Europeans trying to emigrate to the US.
frellthat 6 months ago
@frellthat Maybe not large numbers of western Europeans,but where I live(Philadelphia,PA)we have tons of eastern Europeans coming here,more everyday.
panzercat39 6 months ago
@panzercat39
u have a point there.
hlimkb 6 months ago
@panzercat39 It's not that US is a bad place, no worse than others, but some present the US as a country with a squeaky clean image which others take exception to and like to point out the mistakes. Also, when you re the biggest and richest kid on the block you have to expect to take some knocks, it comes with the territory if you know what I mean. North America has a lot to offer compared to other places. Canada has more immigrants per capita than any other country in the world. Unfortunitely.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@1Dougy85 I grant you that,and to be honest if I was to live in another country,Canada is where I would go.Canada is just like the United States,it's the US with common sense! Toronto is where I would want to live,or maybe Vancouver.
panzercat39 6 months ago
@panzercat39 Check out Vancouver. It's never too cold in the winter, nor too hot in the summer. The metropolitan area is nearly two million. It's very similar to Seattle, just south of the border.
BuddyNovinski 6 months ago
@BuddyNovinski Yeah,I have heard very good things about Vancouver,though they kind of lose their shit when losing hockey games.
panzercat39 6 months ago
Isn´t it Charlie Chaplin on 3:04?
JuliusAnudasson 6 months ago
There is no such thing as un bias history, unless it was written by a robot or something of that sort everything has a bias. History is a bunch of people tellling the same story through different veiws and it gets tweaked and changed with each new person writing it. Even if you lived through it you could've been lied to and have had your own biases about the event which makes you see something differently. It doesn't matter we won't ever get the truth
LostStarzOfTheSky 6 months ago
Britain on the verge of bankruptcy? Another bullshit myth. Like it or not, Britain lent the most money to the allies of any country in WW1. We were hardly bankrupt. The war took all our revenue, but this was not a situation like WW2 at all
TheLiberalKnight 7 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Britain was broke several times, the Empire was made on Slavery, rape, Mass genocide and stealing raw materials from other countries, when that came to an end they Created WW and became ww2, Allies were always broke and crooked, Krupp alone in Germany had 1000x more money then all the oil barons together, please study un bias history. The Lusitania is another media garbage they were given 6 months not to get on the boat only 9 families were smart. etc...
MrBritdog2 7 months ago
@MrBritdog2 That's probably what they teach you in your american schools, but it's not true. Please tell me the incidents of 'mass genocide'. They didn't happen. We were the first country to ban slavery. rape? Explain. You're just another idiot who exaggerates the oppressiveness of the empire- an empire that remains the only reason you and your family exist today!
Britain lent the most money during ww1, mostly to Russia. Russia refused to pay it back when they became communist.
TheLiberalKnight 7 months ago
@MrBritdog2 Interesting. Was the US made on slavery, rape, mass genocide, and stealing raw materials from other countries? I'm thinking Africans, Indians and Philippines for starters.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@1Dougy85 the US had no control over India that was UK.
gato123452 6 months ago
@gato123452 American Indian not East.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@1Dougy85 Every great empire was made on the things you have mentioned from Rome to British Empire just to name a few. I see based on what you write here that you know a lot about history therefore you should also know that when it comes to doing what you have stated above the US is just like any other world power.
truvianni 6 months ago
@truvianni Agreed and not as bad as some others.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
Why is the netherlands incorporated into the german empire? 0.57
American documentaries are on average unbelievebly inaccurate about everything.
DutchPetriot 7 months ago 2
@DutchPetriot Good eye you have there. American docs are inaccurate, why? Perhaps because they have an audience that they know are lazy with the fact checking. Anything for the myth i guess.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
"The British government orders captured German U-boat crews to be "taken prisoners or shot" - As opposed to letting them get back in their boats and go home?
Bloomazz 8 months ago
@Bloomazz I don't know if the Geneva convention was enabled while WWI was raging, but nowadays the "...or shot" part would be illegal, not that anyone would really care about it, but...
AgimA74 7 months ago
They didnt even talk about how the Lusitania was put out into the sea to be sunk by U-boats to get america into the war....
MrMooseheadbeer 8 months ago
@MrMooseheadbeer What are you talking about? the sinking of the Lusitanian had little to nothing to do with the USA entering the war. That's why it likely wasn't spoken of.
JimmyG228 8 months ago
I have an MA in History and have taught in a Community College. This series is essentially very accurate. Unfortunately, most of the posts here sound as stupid as many of my student's comments. By the way, were any of you in Mr. Rogers class at Morton College? LOL
therogerseses 8 months ago
@therogerseses Wow, taught in a community college! Say what you will about this series but it is full of mistakes and is far from very accurate. If you don't know the history of the First World War you shouldn't be teaching it. Read some books on the subject.
1Dougy85 8 months ago
DUDE 1:31 He has a beiber dew! EWWW xD
21Brink 8 months ago
Damn, the British went crazy. Death penalty for taking a photograph? They also shot more than any other country people who tried to desert. War really brings the worse in all of us.
Renegen1 8 months ago
@Renegen1 That so called order could not have been made. It is 100% BS, this show must have made it up to make the British look bad. The reason I know this to be 100% BS is the British & particularly the Canadians had army companies that their main job was to take pictures of combat & even take live motion picture of the fighting. 1 July 1916 (first day of the Somme Offensive) was the first time in history a live action motion picture was filmed of actual combat. So that order is a fake.
JimmyG228 8 months ago
@JimmyG228 Those 'companies' were there to take footage that could be used for propaganda and was closely monitored. Real reporters were not on the front lines. The show didnt make up that order, it was real. Are you really so naive as to think that army photographers report an unbiased version of combat?
agrianes2 7 months ago
@agrianes2 That's not the point. If such an standing order was made, those companies would not have been allowed to take those pictures and make those video recordings. Also if that order was made to hide the harshness of the fighting, the British Army would have also restricted soldiers who wrote journals of the war. No such restriction was made. You can be as graphic with words as you can with black and white pictures and videos. Think about it, the order makes no sense in history.
JimmyG228 7 months ago
awesome music
zoxz9 8 months ago
america not wanting to get involved in a war?? o.0
xXGreyWolf 9 months ago 20
@xXGreyWolf lol. some very long time ago it seems. still jaw-dropping tho.
insearyn 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xXGreyWolf - america not wanting to get involved in a war??"
Yep, not wanting to get involved in a war makes you an isolationist and selfish, and when you do get involved you are seen as an imperialist and selfish. I guess you can't win no matter what you do.
CCRider01 6 months ago
@xXGreyWolf
Believe or not, it was true at one point.
scipioninja 5 months ago
@xXGreyWolf
Those were the golden years of America. Before it became a war mongering nation.
ohbobsagetpiss 5 months ago
@ohbobsagetpiss The United States of America has NEVER been a war mongering nation and is NOT a war mongering nation even today. Americans and America want peace and prosperity but ABOVE all else Freedom, Liberty and Independence for ALL people.
SocratesTheGadfly 4 months ago
@ohbobsagetpiss new book The Sorrow and the Beauty. non fiction journals.
thepixieful 1 month ago
Wilson was a complete idiot.
edwardschlosser1 9 months ago
whats with the Metal background music lol...
TheDigitalMafia 9 months ago
1:26 oh shit niggas, that's the originator of Bieber bangs!! Justin stole them bangs from this guy!!
I guess they're actually "Benbow bangs"
Badin10tions 9 months ago
whammy bar!
SpecialBreakfast 9 months ago
Btw,Russia back than had to ration 1-2 bullets a day. per soilder i heard.
commando2224 9 months ago
Oh my shit 7:26
Issaquan5 9 months ago
The U.S replaced Russia,1917 who had made peace with the German/Turks.
martynrobin121 10 months ago
@martynrobin121 Hardly so man. Russia may have made peace in 1917 when the US declared war on Germany, however US troops did not see front line service until March 1918 and even then it was in a limited role. They didn't take a large role in the fighting till the summer of 1918, by then the war was all but won by the British and French. If the US sent troops into action right away in 1917 I would agree with your statement however that just never happened.
JimmyG228 10 months ago
@JimmyG228 The Americans couldnt send Troops 1917, They wernt even prepared for a war and there Army was very small, They needed time to prepare. And the British had to train there soldiers, since the American troops had bad names for been 2nd class soldiers. But U.S Forces did play a vital role in the end 1918. And WW2 also they wernt prepared for war 1939 and were struggling to supply the British 1940 it took them years to prepare,
martynrobin121 10 months ago
@martynrobin121 Yes I know. It took the Cold War to teach the Americans they need to be ready for a war at all times. They are slow learners.
I wouldn't however say US forces played a vital role at all. All they did was hasten Germany's defeat, not insured it. America's involvement in the war was minimal cuz they needed to hold either the British or French hands at all times. Countries like Serbia, Romania and even Canada had a larger role then the US, how do you say their role was vital then?
JimmyG228 10 months ago
@JimmyG228 Yes your correct America didnt do much at all to help with the defeat of the Nazis, But they did save Western Europe from the Soviets, Who were unstoppable 1943-5. D-Day was mainly about stopping the spread of Communism. Russia would have liberated Europe and the British would have won in Africa, The U.S played a vital part helping the British invade W.Europe and stopping the Communists, Otherwise it would be Russia who would be the superpower of the world.
martynrobin121 10 months ago
@martynrobin121 I was talking about the Great War not World War 2.
My opinion on the US in WW2 is that they were even worse then that of the Great War. There is/was no good excuse for them to be so cowardly in trying to stay out of WW2. The Great War there were a few weak excuses, some better then none eh. Nevertheless once they did get involved in WW2 my opinion of their involvement is nicer then yours, however I do understand fully where you are coming from regarding stopping communism.
JimmyG228 10 months ago
@JimmyG228 I agree, But if the U.S didnt come in World war 2, British would have never invaded Western Europe and stopped the spread of the Russian Communists. Most of Europe would be under Communist Rule and Russia would be the new superpower of the world and with Communist Europe they would rule the world Much BIGGER threat than the Axis!(Hitler loved Britain, He was far too soft on them). And the Great war the U.S came at the end and saw the last German,Turk,Austro attack.
martynrobin121 9 months ago
@martynrobin121 I totally see your point and agree with you for the most part.
JimmyG228 9 months ago
Look and listen closely and you see the Liberal Hollywood attitude in this. Inserting snide remarks when not a one of them would ever lift a hand to defend themselves.
They rely on others to do so...
xyzpr11 10 months ago
before... i love watching warfare movies.. but when i saw this documentary... i feel sorry... war wasnt that great... there is no glory in war.. no heroic... just merciless and nonesense killing... while the leaders of the nations sitting on their couches looking at the result of damages and loss.... war is pure hell on earth.....
Vanletterbomb 10 months ago
the music in this is pretty epic
CrazedLax21 10 months ago 33
9:00 That was probably the last time someone in the US said that phrase with the most sincere amazement and disbelieve in their voice. 4/6/17
str8out 10 months ago
Evil Britain, luring the then truly neutral and noble Americans into a war that they didn't want to fight.
str8out 10 months ago
@str8out Excuse me where do you get the US was noble. You cowards turned your back on your closet friend & only ally at the time, France. The US owed France everything after your war of independence. If it wasn't for France the US wouldn't have survived to win the war. When France was invaded, the US turned its back on France to save it own ass. That goes against the whole idea of having an ally. History has shown the US only does the right thing when she is forced to or it benefits the US.
JimmyG228 10 months ago
@JimmyG228 Quit being an immature ignorant fuck and stop generalizing populations based off decisions by their governments.
THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS 10 months ago
@THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS Seems like a normal thing to do. Governments that are lead by a democracy, meaning its the peoples fault if your leaders act inappropriate IE, like cowards. Corruption maybe ramped in the US government at times however it is still the people responsibility to oust who ever isn't acting in the best interests of the people. That's write right on your declaration of independence. So if your country acts out & the people do little or nothing about it, its the peoples fault too.
JimmyG228 10 months ago
@JimmyG228 Your not an American so dont act like you know what the mood is here. Plenty of Americans protested Iraq and Afghanistan and and don't support attacking Libya. Many Americans are moving towards a libertarian philosophy which is less government involvement, staying out of foreign affairs, and not spreading democracy through warfare. And all the U.S. presidents since Kennedy have been instituted by international banking elitists too. We did not elect them. Like I said don't generalize.
THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS 10 months ago
@THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS Just cuz Im not American doesn't mean I dont know or understand the mood down there. You assume too much. The smart Americans protested the war in Iraq after all it was an illegal invasion, meaning it was a war crime. Afghanistan was a necessary evil, had to be done & there are no ground troops in Libya nor is America in command of the UN No Fly Zone.
Are you saying you dont elect your leaders? The US is a republican democracy last I checked. That means leaders are elected.
JimmyG228 10 months ago
@JimmyG228 Im saying our "democracy" is a sham. They bankers and corporations only institute presidents friendly to wallstreet and other corporate interests. Thats why the U.S. is using its military in the interest of the banks and oil companies right now. Real leaders like Ron Paul will never get elected because they work for the interest of the people and not the media/banks/corporations. Just watch how he is slandered in the news even though he wins popular polls all the time.
THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS 10 months ago
@THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS I didn't think corruption was that bad down there. With what you just said I rest my case on my belief that the US is little more then a corrupt hypocritical nation with far too many dumb red necks with poor sense of right and wrong.
JimmyG228 10 months ago
@JimmyG228 Believe me there are plenty