Myth and Reality

Big Norm · 02-05-2002, 01:49 PM

History is fun. And the more you get into it, the more you began to realise that there is never any one thing that causes another thing to happen. Your comment about WW1 causing WW2 carries a certain amount of truth in it. But it is just one of many deciding factors.

WW1 was not just started by the killing of one archduke and his wife. The guns on neutral Belgium were pointed in all directions because they knew that armies of either France, England or Germany would have to go through them. I am sure that they were very much afraid that they would have to fight all three at the same time to defend their neutrality. Their bravery in WW1 is a testiment to how strongly they cherished it. Their stupidity was that their military was limited to two cartridges of weapons practice per month. They also ordered all their cannons from one source and that was Germany who, in return, delayed the delivery until they went through Belgium. Who won WW1? I vote for Belgium because they fought so hard after the war began with limited weapons that they delayed the strict time table set by the Germans to conquer France. King Leopold of Belgium is truely one of histories great unknown leaders.

Few people realise how close America came to fighting England in WW1. America was a neutral country and we were shipping goods to Denmark, another neutral country. But the English were capturing our ships and, in effect pirating our goods. The British said that we were shipping war material to Denmark and that Denmark was then selling it to the enemy. But the British refused to define what was war material and continued to raid Americas ships. While America would not have allied itself with Germany, the furior over shipping almost caused America to go to war with the British.

What caused WW2? What really brought Hilter to power? Was Hitler crazy? Was Hitler as evil as Stalin? Was America trapped by the British into going to war with Germany in both wars? Did Roosevelt know beforehand that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed? Did the British know it a month before it happened? Did the Dutch West Indies know about it three months before it happened? Could Hitler have been stopped before he went so far? Did an allied sniper have Hilter in his sights during the war and then get called off by HQ? That, gentlmen, are continuing debates for another time and place.

But there is one thought that I would like to inject in your minds before I leave. While Hitler was truely an evil man and I believe that that there is a special place for him for him in the here after. But he may not be the most evil man in RECENT history.

Hitler butchered about 10% of his population.

Stalin also butchered about 10% of his population.

President Roosevelt felt that Stalin offered the best chance for democracy in the Soviet Union. He also felt that the British were more interested in maintaining the monarchy and their empire. Winston Churchill knew that the Marxism was more dangerous than Nazism because Marxism can more easily masquarade as a democracy. Who is right?

Pol Pot butchered an estimated 20-40% of his population and America punished him by allowing his son to graduate from West Point last year.

Evil men, right? But Chairman Moa butchered more of his population than all of these men combined. So why is Hitler held up as the most evil man the world has ever created while all these other men are mostly ignored? Another discussion for a different time and place.

02-05-2002, 01:49 PM	#2
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Re: Myth and Reality History is fun. And the more you get into it, the more you began to realise that there is never any one thing that causes another thing to happen. Your comment about WW1 causing WW2 carries a certain amount of truth in it. But it is just one of many deciding factors. WW1 was not just started by the killing of one archduke and his wife. The guns on neutral Belgium were pointed in all directions because they knew that armies of either France, England or Germany would have to go through them. I am sure that they were very much afraid that they would have to fight all three at the same time to defend their neutrality. Their bravery in WW1 is a testiment to how strongly they cherished it. Their stupidity was that their military was limited to two cartridges of weapons practice per month. They also ordered all their cannons from one source and that was Germany who, in return, delayed the delivery until they went through Belgium. Who won WW1? I vote for Belgium because they fought so hard after the war began with limited weapons that they delayed the strict time table set by the Germans to conquer France. King Leopold of Belgium is truely one of histories great unknown leaders. Few people realise how close America came to fighting England in WW1. America was a neutral country and we were shipping goods to Denmark, another neutral country. But the English were capturing our ships and, in effect pirating our goods. The British said that we were shipping war material to Denmark and that Denmark was then selling it to the enemy. But the British refused to define what was war material and continued to raid Americas ships. While America would not have allied itself with Germany, the furior over shipping almost caused America to go to war with the British. What caused WW2? What really brought Hilter to power? Was Hitler crazy? Was Hitler as evil as Stalin? Was America trapped by the British into going to war with Germany in both wars? Did Roosevelt know beforehand that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed? Did the British know it a month before it happened? Did the Dutch West Indies know about it three months before it happened? Could Hitler have been stopped before he went so far? Did an allied sniper have Hilter in his sights during the war and then get called off by HQ? That, gentlmen, are continuing debates for another time and place. But there is one thought that I would like to inject in your minds before I leave. While Hitler was truely an evil man and I believe that that there is a special place for him for him in the here after. But he may not be the most evil man in RECENT history. Hitler butchered about 10% of his population. Stalin also butchered about 10% of his population. President Roosevelt felt that Stalin offered the best chance for democracy in the Soviet Union. He also felt that the British were more interested in maintaining the monarchy and their empire. Winston Churchill knew that the Marxism was more dangerous than Nazism because Marxism can more easily masquarade as a democracy. Who is right? Pol Pot butchered an estimated 20-40% of his population and America punished him by allowing his son to graduate from West Point last year. Evil men, right? But Chairman Moa butchered more of his population than all of these men combined. So why is Hitler held up as the most evil man the world has ever created while all these other men are mostly ignored? Another discussion for a different time and place.