Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Subdeacon Joe

WWI Explained

Recommended Posts

Regardless, it's all true.  

I think all wars should be fought strictly by the politicians.  The armies would be just spectators and maybe cheerleaders and referees.  It would be like watching the Keystone Kops chase each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know who to blame for all the problems in the Middle East, blame the Brits and the French after WWI!  After the Ottoman Turkish Empire was defeated, a handful of "diplomats" sat down at a table with a map.  They simply drew lines on the map to divide up the areas that would come under British and French control, without regard to the ethnic groups that were also divided up so that different groups had to live with other groups whom they hated!  Thus, Sunni Muslims wound up with Shiite Muslims in a "nation" that became known as Iraq.  Over on the Indian continent, Hindus and Muslims, along with Sikhs got pushed together.  That didn't work out, and ultimately West Pakistan and East Pakistan were split from India proper.  That didn't work too well, so you got Bangladesh and Pakistan, plus Afghanistan!  Back over in Messypotamia, Kurdistan got split between modern-day Turkey, Syria and Iraq, which is another mess of fish!  And people wonder why we have what we have in that are of the world today! :wacko:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one mentioned the part about Germany sending Lenin back to Russia with $20 million in order to fire up the revolution. Then, Lenin partnered up with Stalin and so much for the Czar. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

If you want to know who to blame for all the problems in the Middle East, blame the Brits and the French after WWI!  After the Ottoman Turkish Empire was defeated, a handful of "diplomats" sat down at a table with a map.  They simply drew lines on the map to divide up the areas that would come under British and French control, without regard to the ethnic groups that were also divided up so that different groups had to live with other groups whom they hated!  Thus, Sunni Muslims wound up with Shiite Muslims in a "nation" that became known as Iraq.  Over on the Indian continent, Hindus and Muslims, along with Sikhs got pushed together.  That didn't work out, and ultimately West Pakistan and East Pakistan were split from India proper.  That didn't work too well, so you got Bangladesh and Pakistan, plus Afghanistan!  Back over in Messypotamia, Kurdistan got split between modern-day Turkey, Syria and Iraq, which is another mess of fish!  And people wonder why we have what we have in that are of the world today! :wacko:

Even the Ottomans were smart enough to split the Kurds, Shia and Sunni in Iraq into 3 different provinces. . Considering how dumb and arrogant the Ottomans were, that's saying something.

 

Those folks have been fighting since rocks were invented.  Before Islam came on to the scene, they were fighting about something else.  What the something else was really doesn't matter.  They hated each other on general principle by that time and that's a hard habit to break.  A couple Brits and Frenchmen bent over a map with a pen in hand aren't going to change a few thousand years of history and habit.

 

Saddam was actually right when he claimed Kuwait as a traditional part of Iraq.  When the Brits invented the Kingdom of Iraq, their pick for king was irritatingly independent (he wanted to be a real monarch instead of a puppet) enough that they lopped off most of his Gulf access (only most since they still wanted his oil, so he got to keep Basra) and a major part of the oil fields and formed Kuwait.

Edited by Smuteye John SASS#24774
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure got that right, John!  I keep coming back to the Kingston Trio's song, "They're rioting in Africa, there's strife in Iran.  What nature doesn't do to us will be done by our fellow man!" :(

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Iran, let's not forget the meddling the Brits and the CIA did many moons ago. No wonder why they don't trust us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said:

You sure got that right, John!  I keep coming back to the Kingston Trio's song, "They're rioting in Africa, there's strife in Iran.  What nature doesn't do to us will be done by our fellow man!" :(

 

I think that's a Tom Lehrer song.  Although the Kingston Trio did a take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all responses.   Smuteye's multiple post is great.

 

So are all the thoughtful replies to it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the end it's not Germany's fault... it's England's! So when are we declaring war and driving those anti-gun, Imperialist, steak & kidney pie-eating limeys back into the sea? :angry:

 

.

Edited by Sixgun Sheridan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 7:32 AM, Dawg Hair, SASS #29557 said:

Regardless, it's all true.  

I think all wars should be fought strictly by the politicians.  The armies would be just spectators and maybe cheerleaders and referees.  It would be like watching the Keystone Kops chase each other.

Probably a good idea, but then we would have to listen to all the BS and bald face lies, and the war would go FOREVER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 said:

Probably a good idea, but then we would have to listen to all the BS and bald face lies, and the war would go FOREVER!

That's what the armies would be good for.  As soon as the politicians stopped fighting then the armies would just mow them all down for having started the damn thing in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if more politicians and global leaders had sons who served as cannon fodder in the infantry, as opposed to them getting a deferment or being assigned to a non-combat zone there would be more of them harboring little taste for war. It's a lot easier to send someone else's son out to possibly get killed than your own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Thanks for all responses.   Smuteye's multiple post is great.

 

So are all the thoughtful replies to it.

 

 

Somewhere along the line, they got converted to jpeg.

 

Yeah, those are actually pictures 

 

I wasn't certain that the forum would allow me to post all 3 at the same time, so I split them up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.