Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruska
Hello redcoat,
I don't believe that it is starting to become fun - in contra I judge it to become meaningless and absurd.
|
Happily you are not the sole judge on what is, or isn't, meaningless or absurd
Quote:
|
I deliberatly apply the designation ENGLISH since I come across these habits frequently amongst my English friends but never amongst my Scottish friends.
|
I suppose you never thought of the offense it might cause the non-English members of the United Kingdom
Quote:
|
From my point of view - because a lot of you ENGLISH have this tendency to revert discussions into mockeries of using words, turning words and pointing out on minor issues that have absolutely no impact on the core of the presiding discussion. - besides loving to use wordings such as "nonsense" (which you have now replaced with "claim" or foolish etc.
|
You would be surprised how much relevance the so-called minor points often have on the core of the discussion
Quote:
|
I wouldn't know about the English or British common or uncommon or most likely interpretation of those words, but in German they imply that the person to who those terms are forwarded to is STUPID.
|
In English the meaning is quite clear. I consider your claim to be totally wrong. It has no bearing on your level of intelligence.
Quote:
|
Now one example of what? English Humour? or English posting interpretations and argumentation style ?
|
Be careful when you get on a high horse, you might fall off
Quote:
Quote redcoat:
What treaty did Britain sign that forced Prussia to attack a neutral nation?
Quote Kruska:
I never mentioned that - or did I anywhere??
Quote redcoat:
But you mentioned the 'diplomatic entanglements' of which Britain was a main culprit.
I was merely pointing out that it was Prussia's attack on the neutral nation of Belgium, which which brought Britain into the war, not any treaties with either Russia or France.
First you bring up a "treaty" that Britain signed - which I never mentioned
Upon my protest you revert the term "treaty" into "diplomatic entaglements" - Furthermore you bring up the term "neutral nation" implying maybe Belgium or Holland, why?? because you believe me to believe that I wouldn't know that sooner or later you will try to bring up Belgium as the sole cause??
And now the best part, you actually do try to forward that the acctual/ only reason for Great Britain to enter the war was because of Prussia attacking a neutral country such as e.g. Belgium
|
Where did I say it was the only reason that Britain sided with France and Russia ???
But it was the only diplomatic entanglement which committed Britain to come to the aid of another nation at the start of WW1
Quote:
|
Why should GB because solely of Belgium get themseves into something which Sir Edward Grey comments as: „The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.“
|
"Belgium get themselves into" ?????
Belgium is attacked by Prussia without any provocation, and you claim they 'get themselves into' it
LoL that disproves the British stereotype of Prussians not having a sense of humour.
Quote:
|
Are you aware that in GB towards the end of 1916 the British public demanded to be informed why and about what their soldiers were fighting and dying for?
|
Of course there were questions asked, and thanks to German atrocities in Belgium ( it wasn't all propaganda ) they were given an answer.
Quote:
|
This means that you are defing deliberatly (because I do not believe that you might be that unknowledgable in history) the existance of the Entente cordiale / Splendid isolation (classic example for diplomatic entanglements)and its follow up and revised Triple Entente (treaty of Saint Pertersburg) the cause for GB to abandon Japan and as such avoiding themselves being dragged into a war with France and Russia.
|
The Entente Cordiale, and Triple Entente were merely treaties of friendship, they didn't commit Britain to come to their aid if they were attacked by another nation.
If Prussia hadn't attacked Belgium it is entirely possible that the British government might not have got enough support in parliament or amongst the British public to declare war on Germany.
As for Japan, they allied themselves with Britain, France, and Russia against the Central Powers in WW1, so I'm unsure how Britain 'abandoned' Japan ?
Quote:
|
You would certainly advice Churchill in September 1939 to wait until Hitler attacks GB one day right? definatly you would have adviced Churchill not to intervene because of Poland right?
|
Why would I have had advised this ???
I'm trying to figure out what these diplomatic entanglements are. At no point have I made any comment on the rights or wrongs of the responses of the British government in 1914
Quote:
|
Come on, to try and push the cause for WWI only onto one nation is blind, the diplomatic failure between GB and Germany, the inability of both sides to give in and respect each other caused the creation of the Entente cordiale in the first place. After that the direction into a WWI was anavoidable.
|
Again, I have never claimed that WW1 was the fault of just one nation. The point I am trying to clarify is your claim that Britain was a main culprit in the diplomatic entanglements which lead to the war.
Quote:
You sure that a further discussion will turn into fun?
|
I'm having fun