|
Post by deadpooll on Apr 12, 2009 12:09:21 GMT -5
Mr. Kleiss,
As Mr. Pickle said, you declared war on us. By doing that you awakened the sleeping bull. Mess with the bull and you get the horns. So we will take those horns and stick them so far up your butt it will tickle the back of your throat. Then when we are through destroying your pitiful excuse for an army you will come crawling with your tail between your legs begging us to be merciful as you surrender.
|
|
|
Post by The Corndog on Apr 12, 2009 12:47:59 GMT -5
deadpooll...I didn't realize we were suppose to use our horns for that...I had other things in mind!lol
|
|
|
Post by pickle on Apr 12, 2009 13:07:42 GMT -5
Well Evan did have an extremely valid point, how can we hold Germany accountable when we ourselves hold colonies and when England still has an Empire. Top that off with Russia's actions in Poland and are we holding them to a double standard?
But still I'd say no, we can use the chance of a fresh slate in the post war world to reshape the world, a world without Imperial powers and colonies. But first, we must deal the aggressive powers at hand. While the Japanese did attack us first and are gobbling up territory that is close to our home, we know that without Japan, Germany is still a threat, but without Germany, Japan is no threat.
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Apr 12, 2009 13:28:22 GMT -5
Annnnnnddd.......CHECK and Mate! Oops...I guess Evan screwed the pooch on that one. I mean Kliess was doing a decent job trying to get things to turn in the argument...failing, but trying. Screwed the pooch? I think not. If you're referring to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, I would advocate for your forces to annhialate them completely. They may be our allies, but not our friends! We DID declare war on you, though it was sort of an impulsive move. As your war with Japan kicked off, we saw it prudent to make that call to keep you occupied in the Pacific, and with our war on Russia we are hoping for an opportunity to open up a second Russian front from the Japanese side. Well Evan did have an extremely valid point, how can we hold Germany accountable when we ourselves hold colonies and when England still has an Empire. Top that off with Russia's actions in Poland and are we holding them to a double standard? But still I'd say no, we can use the chance of a fresh slate in the post war world to reshape the world, a world without Imperial powers and colonies. But first, we must deal the aggressive powers at hand. While the Japanese did attack us first and are gobbling up territory that is close to our home, we know that without Japan, Germany is still a threat, but without Germany, Japan is no threat. Thanks Pickle, I do enjoy a good historical discussion. (And its a little difficult to argue in FAVOR of the Germans )
|
|
|
Post by Hansel Kliess on Apr 12, 2009 13:29:23 GMT -5
There it is again. You look toward force to "re-shape" the world. Explain, please, to me again how our objectives are any different in the end? What of those who do not wish to have their world "re-shaped"? Would you force them into submission as we have done? Yes. No matter how you view it....it is the strong forcing their will upon the minority. The act of war cannot be explained away so easily, simply because there is never any logic involved with it. It is a barbaric act, regardless of how sanctified any of us believe our motives may be in order to ease our own minds in our sleep. Again I say that we are no different.
|
|
|
Post by pickle on Apr 12, 2009 14:52:42 GMT -5
The difference between our reshaped world and that of yours is that in our world everyone is free, not oppressed by your Greater Germany. In the reshaped world that we for see, self determination will be the most important key, the right of people to determine how they want to rule themselves and no one else. In your world, you rule with an Iron Fist, interjecting yourselves into other people's business on a whim, in our re-shaped world, people will be free to their own business and no-one elses. Its not perfect, by any means, and I anticipate your argument of what if I freely choose to interject my self into someone else's business or if we freely choose to invite someone else into our dispute, and that is something we will have to work out. The real question is, would our system of self determination, while flawed and in need of work, be better than a system where everyone is ruled by one dictator? To that I believe I must say yes it is.
Also I do have to point out that if you think that our re-shaping of the world is barbaric then you have applied the same tag to your own actions as you try to show the world that what we will be doing is the same as you are doing with Europe. At least in our plan people are ruled by a system that they choose, not one that is forced upon them by military might for the long term. To put it in plain and simple language so as not to dance around the issue any more, the reason why our plan of re-shaping the world is different than your military domination of the world is that we are not repressing people's desire to rule themselves. Its not perfect, but it will evolve over time to be something we can all agree to.
If you believe that your plan of military conquest is a better option than our plan of self determination, then let our plan occur naturally, and see if it fails over time. No one can predict the future, but I can tell you that America will do its part to make this plan succede. Even I am willing to back my words and I will be taking the second command of a detachment of the 28th Infantry Division. Field Marshal Kliess, I look forward to squaring off against you in the future, when Germany and America have a chance once again to fight. I will look for you on the battle field and perhaps then, once all the fighting has been concluded, we can finally find out who is correct and who isn't.
(Evan, your argument was by far the most difficult to explain away, you seriously had my back against the wall. I had to spend a few hours deeply thinking about that issue. It was not an easy answer. And I agree its hard to do this argument, my Grandparents escaped the Holocaust so its hard not for me to enter the argument of the Holocaust and its horrors as we don't really know how bad they are yet.)
|
|
|
Post by Hansel Kliess on Apr 12, 2009 15:10:21 GMT -5
Freedom? Tell that to the Japanese/Americans whom you have imprisoned on United States soil even as we speak. Righteous words, yet freedom is only allowed as long as the rulings of the strong are followed to the letter.
Yes, you will no doubt respond with examples of those Germany has imprisoned...but again it will only strengthen my claim. What, may I ask, will you do with the people of Germany in the unlikely event that you prevail in this conflict? Would you turn them over to the Russians, and then wage war upon THEM for their treatment of Germany? Would you divide Germany's people between the victors, yet rule your portion by placing a strong military presence within her, and turn a blind eye to the treatment of her citizens by your so called "Allies"? A conqueror may be called a savoir if you wish...but to the conquered, there is no difference between the two.
Freedom is simply a word used by those who wish to qualify their aggressive nature to the people who have been the targets. It is a cowards word for submission. At least Germany does not hide her intentions behind lofty words of "Hope and Change".
|
|
|
Post by pickle on Apr 12, 2009 15:47:07 GMT -5
No Germany admits to her brutal aggression and to that I must commend your honesty. But tell me this, what was your cause for your war with Poland? Our intelligence suggest that you started that war by falsifying evidence to invade a weaker country.
Once again I must admit you have me cornered, our treatment of the Japanese Americans is poor and there is no excuse for it. I believe that people in our government may have overreacted to the Japanese attack on our soil. If you wish to trivialize your issue of imprisonment, need I remind you that the circumstances are slightly different. You were not attacked by the Jews or the Gypsies. But this does not excuse the issue on either of our sides.
If "Freedom is simply a word used by those who wish to qualify their aggressive nature to the people who have been the targets" then by your definition you'd be freeing the countries you take. However you have taken great strides to prove that you are "taking what you want, when you want". I think that alone should prove that what we are doing is far different, may be not in the first implication but in the end, our "freedom" ideals are far different that the "barbarism" you try to portray them as.
|
|
|
Post by VooDoo on Apr 12, 2009 15:47:26 GMT -5
Wow, classic. You guys are doing an AWSOME job of avoiding the topics which would turn this thread into a emotional battle, thus forcing it to be closed. Great job by all those responding, as well as the OP. As I read, I honestly feel like I am sitting in on negotiations between the Allied and Axis in some neutral country. Im really enjoying this!
P.S.- The way you guys are managing to stay within the timeline is just spooky!
|
|
|
Post by Hansel Kliess on Apr 12, 2009 16:44:04 GMT -5
I respectfully remind you, Sir, that the Russians were just as involved with the conflict with Polland as Germany was, in fact it was at Russia’s bidding that we backed the effort. Now, in question to your question, exactly when is it acceptable for the Americans to “sleep with the enemy”?
|
|
|
Post by kouza on Apr 12, 2009 20:05:22 GMT -5
I respectfully remind you, Sir, that the Russians were just as involved with the conflict with Polland as Germany was, in fact it was at Russia’s bidding that we backed the effort. Now, in question to your question, exactly when is it acceptable for the Americans to “sleep with the enemy”? Mr. Kleiss, Do not speak your lies, The Hitler-Stalin Pact was a mere act of cowardice and, yes the U.S.S.R was part of the planning as proven by their Coup de grâce on Poland but, to say that it was their bidding is far from the truth. May I remind you, the U.S.S.R did not move into Poland until 16 days after your Nazi Barbarians ordered the Germanic forces into the Polish Empire and, even so raising that fact in this debate is a moot point sir, as your forces own the whole of the proud Polish Empire. Personally, I am disgusted that you SS punks have taken shame to the German name and, made them seem like an evil people. In the Great War, it could have at least been argued that the Germanic people did not act wrongly in the war but, the Nazi`s have made it so that there is no argument of who created the war. The annexation of the old Rhineland could have been argued to be taking back old traditional lands. As can a few other annexations however, the invasion of Poland is a act of pure aggression and, for that the Allies must protect its brothers on your eastern border. I urge you to take what is left of your Seven day ultimatum and, discuss what the Nazi`s have done to a once honorable empire that halted the Roman empire, Drove back Napoleons empire by assisting the Seventh Coalition, and made great strives in engineering. The Germans have a long and, noble history, and now once it is united one political party instead of bolstering the best aspects of a great empire, you fools taint the great name by your selfish acts of aggression, and annexation. I urge you to discuss new methods of achieving pride, and glory with your current leadership.... While you still have the chance to do so. Sincerely, Command Sgt Maj. Kouza 82nd Airborne Division
|
|
|
Post by Hansel Kliess on Apr 12, 2009 21:39:34 GMT -5
...how impressive it was to see the quick aid from the "Allies", rushing to the aid of poor...poor Poland. Essentially, the British, France and others (who SWORE to defend Poland in such an event, mind you), all who managed to wait until every last fighting Pole was driven across the border before so much a raising a voice in their defense (and thats ALL they raised in Poland’s defense). Isn’t that true?
And is not is also true that the Allies led the Polish military to believe that if they dug in and fought the Germans...that within DAYS the Allies would swoop in and save them? Well the Pole's did just that against insurmountable odds, and were slaughtered as they waited for the promised rescue which never came. Tell the truth, Major Kouza. The Allies WANTED the Polish government out of power just a badly as the Russians and Germans did!
Point in fact, Sir, we WERE taking back lands which belonged to us pre WWI. Russian troops were in fact directly involved in the 1939 invasion of Poland as well. In short...In 1939 territorial claims were an accepted justification for war. Both Russia and Germany invaded Poland to reclaim land lost at Versailles as a consequence of WWI. Poland was a small landlocked country before the war. The victors in WWI took it upon themselves to force Russians and Germans to become Poles.
Many words are made here of Germany's rearmament after 1935. The fact is the treaty of Versailles required all the combatants to disarm but Germany first. Germany did do so in accordance with the treaty. No one questions that, within the usual limits of cheating, Germany had disarmed as required by the treaty. Upon doing so Germany called upon the other signatories to disarm. They all refused to do so. As a result of that refusal Germany withdrew from the Versailles treaty and rearmed. The point being the treaty violation was by all the signatories but Germany. Withdrawing from such a treaty is perfectly reasonable. Failure to withdraw would have been noteworthy. Now I ask you, who was being cheated here? Who was defending their rights and interests? Germany.
|
|
|
Post by kouza on Apr 12, 2009 23:50:32 GMT -5
Mr. Kleiss,
The Treaty attempted to restore Poland to its Pre-Partition land, that was ceded to Poland had mostly been owned by Poland before the Partitions, 100 years later, the echos of the Partitions still rung in that area, and part of the German punishment for causing the war (as admitted by Germany in Article 231 of the treaty) was that the land was to be ceded to Poland, as was the land the Russians, and Austrians had taken during that time.
Furthermore , even with the Versailles treaty disobedience from both sides, before the war, the English, and Germans both pulled out their naval military agreements and, signed the Anglo-German naval agreement. The Nazis agreed to a new limit allowing them to raise their naval displacement to 35% of the U.K`s navy. In 1939 Germany could no longer stand this treaty that allowed them to have a larger navy then the previous treaty allowed. That proved that Germany could not even uphold treaties for a short time without their selfish desires overcoming them.
So my question, Why should we discuss this civilly with you? We already appeased the nazi`s many times, if we discuss peace Germany will only attempt to take advantage of previous generosity, and still not be satisfied. Tell me why we should trust Germany to not disobey yet another appeasement?
Sincerely, Command Sgt Maj. Kouza 82nd Airborne Division
|
|
|
Post by Hansel Kliess on Apr 13, 2009 2:51:22 GMT -5
You are mistaken, Major. Please forgive me if I led you to the wrong conclusion with my earlier words. Germany never intended to offer you peace. I believe the notion we were trying to convey was "Join us". Peace is obviously a concept you and those surrounding us can not grasp with any sense of fairness...as has been demonstrated by your past actions. No, we have had our fill of "Peace" through your concept. Your version of peace is to have another nation completely at your mercy. No thank you. Again, we are not asking for your permissions, nor do we require it. Our offer which you speak of was made for YOUR benefit, not ours. We are perfectly content and able to pursue our course of action independently, as you yourself have hopefully already taken note of.
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Apr 13, 2009 7:42:54 GMT -5
Mr. Kleiss, The Treaty attempted to restore Poland to its Pre-Partition land, that was ceded to Poland had mostly been owned by Poland before the Partitions, 100 years later, the echos of the Partitions still rung in that area, and part of the German punishment for causing the war (as admitted by Germany in Article 231 of the treaty) was that the land was to be ceded to Poland, as was the land the Russians, and Austrians had taken during that time. Furthermore , even with the Versailles treaty disobedience from both sides, before the war, the English, and Germans both pulled out their naval military agreements and, signed the Anglo-German naval agreement. The Nazis agreed to a new limit allowing them to raise their naval displacement to 35% of the U.K`s navy. In 1939 Germany could no longer stand this treaty that allowed them to have a larger navy then the previous treaty allowed. That proved that Germany could not even uphold treaties for a short time without their selfish desires overcoming them. So my question, Why should we discuss this civilly with you? We already appeased the nazi`s many times, if we discuss peace Germany will only attempt to take advantage of previous generosity, and still not be satisfied. Tell me why we should trust Germany to not disobey yet another appeasement? Mr Kouza, The Treaty of Versailles itself is cause enough for us to go to war. The League of Nations and all its prominance had the audacity to outlaw war after the Great War. Of the many provisions in the horribly one sided treaty of Versailles, required Germany to accept sole responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231-248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. Not only are we blamed for the entirety of the war, required to repay all enemy nations for THEIR war costs (as well as the debts from our own), our economy and ability to defend ourselves are permamently hampered. How could we possibly repay our debts with so many restrictions on our Great Fatherland??? Not to mention the rich and industrial land of Alsace-Lorraine, which had been claimed during our victory in the 1871 War was baselessly stolen from us by France due to their bitterness and hositility towards the hard working German people. That is a tremendous loss to our industrial and financial needs. This "treaty of peace" is the single most awful piece of literature any German has every laid eyes upon. It had immasculated and crippled us beyond any hope of recovery. The only hope we had was to boldly refuse to make reparations, and assertively take charge of our situation. We will not sit around and be bullied by the paranoia and fear of our enemies. Our strength cannot be denied, and with strength, honor, and an unparalelled nationalism we carry forth to solve our people's problems and offer Germans everywhere life, happiness, and the pride that they deserve in their country. If your fear of a powerful Germany causes you to hide behind this document, then perhaps it had no right to exist in the first place.
|
|