Donald Trump

[Karl]

Most of which isn't an accurate reflection of the politics of the time, nor does it explain why WW1 came about.

There were various factions within Germany that agitated for a war, as opposed to your notion that they were fearful of a Russian attack.

My notion was not that they were fearful of a Russian attack - my notion was that they were fearful of the Russians coming to the aid of whomever they (the Germans) attacked.

Germany felt like she could never accomplish her dreams under the current state of affairs, and with both France and Russia investing more money in their armed forces; the Germans felt it was now or never. It was calculated that in two years after 1916 the tables would be tipped too firmly against Germany.

Actually, the Germans felt both Russia and France were weak in 1914, and they would be much stronger by 1916, and so they agitated for war not out of fear of being attacked; but rather out of a calculated gamble to strike now.

The Entente Cordiale did not commit England to a war with anyone, involving anyone. Right up until the eve of war the French were told not to expect our assistance and the Germans were told not to expect us to stay out of it - in an attempt at preventing them going to war.

Precisely - Britain's position was highly uncertain. Like you said, the Entente Cordiale was not a military alliance, though Britain still had reasons to support France in the event of war. But they offered no guarantees either way. Much like an America under Trump, it would seem. Anyway, part of the German gamble was that they wouldn't have to fight more than France and Russia - which would be bad enough by itself, as they were trapped between these two countries - but they figured that with Austria-Hungary, they were strong enough. Italy was never really trusted to uphold her part of the Triple Alliance, though.

They had also, in the late 1800s, tried to persuade Britain to join their (then) dual alliance, but Britain opted to stay out. Had they joined, war might have come much sooner, probably with the outbreak of war between Japan and Russia (assuming the British would still have gone on to sign the Anglo-Japanese agreement, which they probably would).

As it happened, though, Britain remained something of a wildcard, and it was hoped that first of all, the Serbian conflict would not result in a world war (the term was actually used even before the war, seeing as that is what many people expected), but this was a gamble the Central Powers did not think they would win. Second, though, they gambled that Britain would stay out of it.

It wasn't any alliance with France that brought us into the war, the most crucial underlying reason was that it was felt that we could not risk Germany defeating France and taking control of Northern French ports and so undermining our trade routes. That was the be all and end all for our leaders.

Pretty important reasons, though. And these fears were certainly not unfounded.

Regardless, France and Russia were locked in through finance. Germany and Austria-Hungary were also locked in. And this is what turned a small event into protracted European war. Gangs at an international level.

Which we have still today. Refusal to be part of a gang does not eliminate the threat of gangs. Quite the contrary, it only makes it easier for the big gangs to roll over you. In Trump's case, he is pointing to certain countries and saying, "I'm not sure if those are even part of our gang." Which does increase the likelihood of Russia taking action. Oh, we're probably not talking direct invasion, but perhaps a coup, or "helping out" the neighbouring nation with troops when there are riots - purely for riot control, you understand - and then simply keeping the troops there. "We're not doing anything wrong, we are helping you." And if there is a significant portion of Russians living there, the Russians could claim their presence is wanted. And, perhaps, that "historically, they belong to Russia". Bit by bit they could take over, and every step of the way they'd be watching NATO - which wouldn't dare do anything against Russia without US support.

It is one thing to use diplomatic channels to caution member states that unless they pay their due, there might be difficulties with their continued membership - though that would be bad enough. A public statement to that effect, however, is almost like an invitation.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Pretty important reasons, though. And these fears were certainly not unfounded.

I think they were unfounded.

Stated German war aims at the outset of WW1 amounted to a continental European common market ran by the Germans - pretty much what they have today - and so in the case of Germany the pen really is mightier than the sword. They have achieved far more through diplomacy than they ever did through war.

The naval race between England and Germany was over by 1912. They built ships; we built more ships and bigger ships. And, so they had to choose between the army and navy - possibly a sign that we weren't really their 'enemies'.

The Germans were never really our competitors. Our competitors were the French and the Russians, and a decision was made in the 1890s to keep our enemies close to our chest through an alliance. Germany wasn't really considered an enemy in the same way France and Russia were.

The navy ws our lifeblood, while we only ever had a small standing army of highly professional soldiers, say 80,000 sent to France at the outbreak of war; the Germans had an army of 3 million conscripts. As a continental nation the army was far more important than it ever was to us.

Also, England was not short of the same sort of arsehole jingoism and idiotic save-the-world Liberalism that eventually took us into a war that was none of our business and was the most stupid decision this country has ever made. Right up-to-the eve of war the cabinet was split, with the majority siding with staying out of it, but the Belgium question swayed the save-the-world liberals and the jingoistic conservatives put pressure on the liberals to make it happen.

All in all, it wasn't our quarrel, we didn't have a history with having a problem with Germany nor they with us, and who cares if they march into Belgium because of some disagreement that seemed to start up in continental Europe every ten minutes? It really wasn't worth it and those people should be held accountable for a nation's centuries of hard work being destroyed in four short years.

And, maybe 'The Don' is sharper than people give him credit for - maybe he has learned the lessons of history.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Refusal to be part of a gang does not eliminate the threat of gangs. Quite the contrary, it only makes it easier for the big gangs to roll over you.

We'd have to disagree.

In my view it's a self-fulfilling prophecy - talking yourself into a war.

People/countries should mind their own business.

[Wickerman]

Shame for Trump that his big day, the outlay of his economic platform, should be blindsided by a letter of denunciation from 50 Republican elites.
He must be seething...

This economic plan of his had me wondering, it was only a few months ago that Trump was elected on an "outsider" platform, anti-establishment, the candidate of change.
It seems he's realised that this was not enough. Now he needs to go cap-in-hand to the GOP establishment and endorse some of their elites, and adopt many of their economic strategies.
What happened to the anti-establishment Donald Trump?
I wonder what he has told his core supporters, are they feeling betrayed?
They should....

[Hercule Poirot]

Harvard Republican Club won’t endorse top GOP nominee for first time since 1888

Something worth reading carefully. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...entrandom_1_na

[Pcdunn]

Excellent points made in the Harvard Republican Club statement. I think creating divisions among us on the basis of race and religion, in the hope of using our fear and anxiety to "propel him into the White House" is especially accurate.

[Svensson]

I think they were unfounded.

Stated German war aims at the outset of WW1 amounted to a continental European common market ran by the Germans - pretty much what they have today - and so in the case of Germany the pen really is mightier than the sword. They have achieved far more through diplomacy than they ever did through war.

phew, sometimes I would really like to know what you have been smoking.... Alas, I think you forgot to mention the German's first attempt of World Domination, using the Hanseatic League as a Trojan Horse and to control all of northern Europe. Beforer that, it was the German's pre-decessors, the Visigoths who smashed their way into Rome and plundered like there was no tomorrow. Not very sophisticated but effective nevertheless.

Not much different from the Viking trade empire actually. Or the Roman empire. Or the Monghul one. Or even the British Imperial Empire (gasp!).

Cheers.

[Fleetwood Mac]

phew, sometimes I would really like to know what you have been smoking.... Alas, I think you forgot to mention the German's first attempt of World Domination, using the Hanseatic League as a Trojan Horse and to control all of northern Europe. Beforer that, it was the German's pre-decessors, the Visigoths who smashed their way into Rome and plundered like there was no tomorrow. Not very sophisticated but effective nevertheless.

Not much different from the Viking trade empire actually. Or the Roman empire. Or the Monghul one. Or even the British Imperial Empire (gasp!).

Cheers.

All well and good, but what does this have to do with documented German war aims that had nothing to do with us?

[Mayerling]

phew, sometimes I would really like to know what you have been smoking.... Alas, I think you forgot to mention the German's first attempt of World Domination, using the Hanseatic League as a Trojan Horse and to control all of northern Europe. Beforer that, it was the German's pre-decessors, the Visigoths who smashed their way into Rome and plundered like there was no tomorrow. Not very sophisticated but effective nevertheless.

Not much different from the Viking trade empire actually. Or the Roman empire. Or the Monghul one. Or even the British Imperial Empire (gasp!).

Cheers.

I was always prepared to consider the Hansatic League just the work of the business elders of those cities in Northern Europe who wanted to ease the problems of transporting goods from one part of the Baltic to the other. As for the acts of the Visigoths (and other tribes in the years 250 - 600 A.D.) they probably did their smashing in part out of greed but also due to being upset by the way they'd been treated by the "civilized world" (i.e. Roman Empire) for so long. Vestiges of this type of anger survived into modern times. Arminius, the victor at the Teutoberg Forest rout of the legions of Varro in 4 A.D., was honored in Wilhelmine Germany as an early symbol of German nationhood.

Personally at it's peak the Vikings had far longer trade routes (from "Vinland", Greenland, and Iceland in the Atlantic, to trade routes into the Mediterranean, to routes deep into the Crimean area -that's far more than the Hanseatic League, I believe). Mongols and Romans would have been huge in comparison too.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Back to Trump. He was talking the Second Amendment (the troublesome "right to bear arms" one) and told people that if Mrs. Clinton gets in she can abolish it (not something she has indicated she wants to do, by the way) "and there's nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

We saw this on the news, and said-- "Is he calling for an assassination?!"

http://www.wired.com/2016/08/trump-second-amendment-clinton

Link above explains the incident and the Trump campaign's explanation that he meant the supporters of the Second Amendment will vote against Hillary Clinton. Okay-- but why do they have to keep explaining what he says?

Alas for the days of true American oratory, gone and buried...

[sdreid]

If Trump can make the election about guns-he wins. The Democrats are falling into a trap here.

[GUT]

If Trump can make the election about guns-he wins. The Democrats are falling into a trap here.

Well if someone does something about guns maybe Trump WILL do some good after all.

[Wickerman]

http://www.wired.com/2016/08/trump-second-amendment-clinton

Link above explains the incident and the Trump campaign's explanation that he meant the supporters of the Second Amendment will vote against Hillary Clinton. Okay...

Except that Trump was talking about Clinton's actions after she wins the election, so the reference to the "2nd Amendment" people does not concern them voting.
He is referring to any action they may choose to take against Clinton once she is in office.

This is what Trump's advisers are denying in interviews.
The funny thing is, CNN interviewed different advisers in successive programs and the first adviser asserted their is only one interpretation - the one you offered above, that this was clearly what he meant.
Yet, in the two subsequent programs with different advisers they both came up with different interpretations of what Trump meant - what a bunch of losers! They can't even get their stories straight - which goes to show how unprofessional this Trump charade truly is.

Trump's campaign is in a constant state of damage control, throwing out lies and inconsistencies night after night after night.
He seems to surround himself with people who are just as eager to lie and use illogical arguments as he is.

-- but why do they have to keep explaining what he says?

Because no-one is in control, and they can't stop him shooting from the hip.
What amazes me is that these advisers don't see that they are trying to put someone in the White House who has no self control.
Do they really think Trump will suddenly "grow up" if he finally gets to the Oval office?

They need to wake up and smell the coffee....

[Mayerling]

Except that Trump was talking about Clinton's actions after she wins the election, so the reference to the "2nd Amendment" people does not concern them voting.
He is referring to any action they may choose to take against Clinton once she is in office.

This is what Trump's advisers are denying in interviews.
The funny thing is, CNN interviewed different advisers in successive programs and the first adviser asserted their is only one interpretation - the one you offered above, that this was clearly what he meant.
Yet, in the two subsequent programs with different advisers they both came up with different interpretations of what Trump meant - what a bunch of losers! They can't even get their stories straight - which goes to show how unprofessional this Trump charade truly is.

Trump's campaign is in a constant state of damage control, throwing out lies and inconsistencies night after night after night.
He seems to surround himself with people who are just as eager to lie and use illogical arguments as he is.




Because no-one is in control, and they can't stop him shooting from the hip.
What amazes me is that these advisers don't see that they are trying to put someone in the White House who has no self control.
Do they really think Trump will suddenly "grow up" if he finally gets to the Oval office?

They need to wake up and smell the coffee....

All in the Trump organization are his chosen "apprentices" so they were chosen because they can successfully lie to win any advantage over anyone else. Independence of thought is really not sought, and I still would like to know how many of the winners on that crappy show of his remained more than one or two years working for the criminal financial swindler.

They don't care if he does not have self-control. They only care for the cushy government jobs that they really can't handle so they can plunder the country at will.

Be prepared not for a return to the isolationists of the 1930s only. Be prepared for the "Trump brand" version of Harding's "Ohio Gang".

Jeff

[Wickerman]

Some weeks ago I said to the wife that Trump will walk away from politics if he doesn't win, he's only in this for himself.
Wasn't it last week he started whining that the election will probably be "rigged", this I see as a reflection of his realization that he may not win after all. And today he said that if he looses he will take a long, long vacation.

Of course he will, he's not interested in fighting for the "little guy", the American worker, he's only in this charade for himself.
If he looses he's taking his ball home.

Pack your bags Donald and see what Trivago has to offer....

http://www.trivago.ca/?aDateRange%5Barr%5D=2016-07-10&aDateRange%5Bdep%5D=2016-07-11&r=&cpt=3422703&iRoomType=7&iPathId=34227&iGeoDistanceItem=0&iViewType=0&bIsSeoPage=false&bIsSitemap=false&cip=1071213190911