Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Neognosis

New Dan Carlin Common Sense

30 posts in this topic

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/cs

IMO, he really hit the nail on the head....

Especially at the end, where he hypothesizes that if the US did not get involved in WWI, there would have been no 9/11.

And his assertion that the founding fathers warned us against involvement in foreign affairs and the hazards of making alliances.

Really good. Even when I disagree with Dan Carlin, he presents his points in such a way that I find myself rethinking my ideas instead of just getting defensive.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great picture of the boat wake! :tu:

I don't get podcasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If humans never invented flags ... we won't be needing to wear underpants ~

:yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd all be speaking German if you hadn't gotten involved in foreign affairs.

A dominate Germany would have found a way to either grind a "uninvolved" America into submission or just simply invaded after defeating the rest of Europe and Russia. Best case scenario would have been a Cold War between the Axis rest of the world and America (assuming America could have defeated the Japanese without Fortress Australia, which being a British Colony would have said "bog off" without American promises of help for the Mother Country).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd all be speaking German if you hadn't gotten involved in foreign affairs.

A dominate Germany would have found a way to either grind a "uninvolved" America into submission or just simply invaded after defeating the rest of Europe and Russia. Best case scenario would have been a Cold War between the Axis rest of the world and America (assuming America could have defeated the Japanese without Fortress Australia, which being a British Colony would have said "bog off" without American promises of help for the Mother Country).

I haven't had a chance to listen to this weeks episode yet, but I think his stance is acknowledging that there were points where we had to get involved. However, getting involved does have repercussions and this is what we were seeing.

I enjoy Dan Carlin, I probably fall more on the liberal side of the left right divide but he's one of the people who is able to offer what I see as fair insights and criticisms without delving into hyperbole.

His history programs are great too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd all be speaking German if you hadn't gotten involved in foreign affairs.

A dominate Germany would have found a way to either grind a "uninvolved" America into submission or just simply invaded after defeating the rest of Europe and Russia. Best case scenario would have been a Cold War between the Axis rest of the world and America (assuming America could have defeated the Japanese without Fortress Australia, which being a British Colony would have said "bog off" without American promises of help for the Mother Country).

Ja, Ja. Ich glaube Ihr Recht, Herr Wearer von Hüten.character0120.gif

( :D)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking bout it, with how insane Hitler ended up going he'd have probably ended up getting run over by Russia. We might have avoided the cold war entirely. I wonder if the SSR would have collapsed so suddenly if they hadn't focused their economy towards trying to out compete the Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany would still have been destroyed by the Red Army.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We'd all be speaking German if you hadn't gotten involved in foreign affairs.

A dominate Germany would have found a way to either grind a "uninvolved" America into submission or just simply invaded after defeating the rest of Europe and Russia. Best case scenario would have been a Cold War between the Axis rest of the world and America (assuming America could have defeated the Japanese without Fortress Australia, which being a British Colony would have said "bog off" without American promises of help for the Mother Country).

I disagree.

To paraphrase Carlin:

You don't have the US enter WWI, then you don't have the treaty of versailles. You end up with a german led european union around 90 years earlier than it's happening. You don't have Versailles, you don't have the Nazi's. You don't have the Nazis, you don't have the holocaust or pearl harbor. You don't have the US and Great Britain dividing up the middle east along lines of convenience. You don't have Russia invading afghanistan, you don't have the US backing the Mujahideen.... which gave us Osama Bin Ladin. Who brought us 9/11.

I also disagree with you about a dominant Germany victorious in Europe in 1918 wanting to pull the US into a european conflict. I also don't think that the Germany of 1914 was even looking to rule all of Europe. The Germany that went to war in 1914 was NOT the Nazi Germany that went to war in 1939.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany would still have been destroyed by the Red Army.

Russia needed the distraction of D-Day to fortify Moscow and bolster the army.

Alternatively, we'd all be Commies because the only reason the Russians stopped I Berlin was because the Allies we on their way to Berlin as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Germany would still have been destroyed by the Red Army.

I think that our world wars are getting a bit mixed up. If we did not get involved in WWI, then there would be no reason for the red army to fight the germans in WWII anyway, there would be no WWII. And no reason for a newly communist Russia to necessarily come into conflict with a German dominated Europe, eh?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians beat the Germans into submission, not the USA. Sure lend-lease helped, but Britain also stopped Germany more so than we did. The Russians and Germans lost more people in Stalingrad alone than the USA did fighting all of ww2, including the Japanese, and that was just one battle. Not saying we didn't contribute, but as far as Germany goes, we just provided some material and a helpful, but at that point, unnecessary distraction. I meant to imply at the point of d-day. But we really helped out when we invaded North Africa.

But if the article is implying that if we weren't involved in ww2, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, I can agree with that. We certainly wouldn't have bases all over the world, post ww2, which the middle eastern countries don't seem to agree with, hence 9/11. But remember, the Japanese attacked us, then a few days later Germany declared war on us. We obviously couldn't stay neutral at that point.

Edited by andy4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no no.

The part of the podcast hypothesized that if we did not get involved in WORLD WAR ONE, there would have been no 9/11

ONE.

As for WWII, I'm not sure how you can say that the US was just a distraction... Germany held almost all of Europe and had pushed the british back onto their island, and was firebombing them to a slow and very painful death. Had the US not entered WWII, there is no way that Great Britain would have prevailed.

Another part of CArlin's podcast that I really liked was his assertion that most americans think that our history with Iran started in the 1970's with the islamic revolution and the taking of the american hostages, and are blissfully ignorant of the events that precipated that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians beat the Germans into submission, not the USA. Sure lend-lease helped, but Britain also stopped Germany more so than we did. The Russians and Germans lost more people in Stalingrad alone than the USA did fighting all of ww2, including the Japanese, and that was just one battle. Not saying we didn't contribute, but as far as Germany goes, we just provided some material and a helpful, but at that point, unnecessary distraction. I meant to imply at the point of d-day. But we really helped out when we invaded North Africa.

But if the article is implying that if we weren't involved in ww2, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, I can agree with that. We certainly wouldn't have bases all over the world, post ww2, which the middle eastern countries don't seem to agree with, hence 9/11. But remember, the Japanese attacked us, then a few days later Germany declared war on us. We obviously couldn't stay neutral at that point.

"Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other poor dumb b****** die for his." Gen George S. Patton. I weep over your small view of history.

If the U.S. didn't get involved in WWI Germany more than likely would have stopped at Europe maybe England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no no.

The part of the podcast hypothesized that if we did not get involved in WORLD WAR ONE, there would have been no 9/11

ONE.

As for WWII, I'm not sure how you can say that the US was just a distraction... Germany held almost all of Europe and had pushed the british back onto their island, and was firebombing them to a slow and very painful death. Had the US not entered WWII, there is no way that Great Britain would have prevailed.

Another part of CArlin's podcast that I really liked was his assertion that most americans think that our history with Iran started in the 1970's with the islamic revolution and the taking of the american hostages, and are blissfully ignorant of the events that precipated that.

I don't know that much about ww1, so I'll have to get back to you on that one.

I think had Germany not invaded Russia then Britain certainly would have been crushed, and operation sea lion would have came instead of Barbarossa. But it wasn't that way, and Barbarossa was before America was involved, June of 1941 I believe. Russia really saved Britain from Germany, not the USA. 60% of Germans were fighting on the eastern front in 1945, against Russia alone, and only 40% were fighting against the coalition that invaded on d-day. Germany lost a great deal of skilled pilots in the Battle of Britain, and Britain did too, but they happened to have radar earlier, which helped alot in their case. The USA or Russia for that matter, didn't come around until almost a year later, yet Britain still prevailed. Sea Lion was cancelled before Barbarossa even started, because the Royal Air Force was becoming impregnable during the daylight hours. That's a huge advantage.

Edited by andy4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other poor dumb b****** die for his." Gen George S. Patton. I weep over your small view of history.

If the U.S. didn't get involved in WWI Germany more than likely would have stopped at Europe maybe England.

Fighting in the worst winter in decades also played into the loss factor you know. Stalingrad sealed the fate of Germany in two ways. One, they lost about a million men they couldn't afford to replace, and two, Hitler dictated the direction of the war from that point on, which helped Russia immensely, and America and even Britain for that matter. Assassinating Hitler was even considered foolish at that point, because of the incredibly poor job he was doing being supreme commander. Stalingrad made this possible. They were done in well before Kursk, and probably right when Stalingrad started. I understand I stated losses, but I don't understand how it's a small view of history. Stalingrad ended it for the Germans, and that was in late 1942/early 43.

I also disagree with your ww1 point. I do believe that Germany at home was becoming restless on how the war was going, and they were starting to scrape the barrel as far as everything goes. They would've been pushed back but it would've been later, even without America. America was in it for a year, and helped alot, but they also missed the first 3.

Edited by andy4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Neognosis

Well Dan Carlin and anybody else that agrees with him about the U.S. being interventionist since WW1 would be wrong, this is were he is not making common sense. So let's take a look as to why he's wrong, shall we.......

There were plenty of isolationist or non-interventionist in the U.S. who were happy to not be involved in any world war, especially during the time of WW1. Up until the U.S. got involved into WW1, a majority of U.S. citizens, including President Woodrow Wilson, wanted to stay out of it. As a matter fact, you could say they had a libertarian frame of mind at the time about it. Stay at home, build the nation, only trade with foreign countries, don't get involved with their personal affairs, etc.

1. Now there were several factors that lead the U.S. to eventually get involved into the great war, of which during moments in history the U.S. tried to stay out of it despite all the crap Germany pulled on the U.S. The first thing to annoy the U.S. was when the Germans sank a British passenger ship in 1915 called the Lusitania, which was on it's way from NY to England. That wouldn't have been a big deal except for the fact that a 128 Americans were on board and got killed. Still, the U.S. cooled it's tempers and stayed out of the war with a 'okay, we'll let that one slide' mentality.

2. The first threat came when Germany started doing unrestricted submarine warfare and got too close to the shores of the U.S. with her submarines a number of times, to sink cargo ships going from the U.S. to England and France. At this point the U.S. citizens and President Wilson were starting to really get agitated. Still, the U.S. decided to keep out of the war for a little while longer, while compilating what to do about this. After all, the Germans were trespassing U.S. ocean boundaries and getting too close to American shores just to sink ships when they came right out of the harbor.

3. The second threat and the last straw that made the final decision for the U.S., was when Germany sent a telegram (the Zimmerman Telegram), that the U.S. intercepted through intelligence, to Mexico offering the Mexicans an alliance to take back the states of California, New Mexico and Texas, which Mexico had lost to the U.S. over the previous years. This of course was based on if Mexico would help Germany fight the war in Europe in exchange. Strike three! Germany pushed their luck with U.S this time. Everybody in the U.S. was tired of old Germany's crap and Wilson asked Congress "for a resolution of war against Germany", which finally happened on April 6, 1917.

Those were the main contributing factors, among another of other small things, to many to mention here, that got the U.S. involved in the first war. They started it with the U.S., we helped finish it.

If Dan Carlin would of stuck to the fact that we became voluntary interventionist since the end of WW2, were he states that we got voluntary involved 70 times in the middle of his podcast, for the number of reasons he brought up in his podcast, up until 9/11, then yes..he would be correct. But not before the Korean War. It was when we thought the threat of Communism in the Korean War was some how going to effect us in some way an we decided to intervene. WW1 and WW2 has got nothing to do with what's going on now. That's a chapter in U.S. history that was closed and separate from all the conflicts afterwards, but obviously completely forgotten by some like Carlin.

All I can say, Neognosis is you need to research your U.S. history before you trust what this guy is telling you, because he's not telling you everything about WW1.

Edited by Purifier
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were plenty of isolationist or non-interventionist in the U.S.

Isolationism and interventionism cause war; non-interventionism prevents it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is so 'great' about 'Wars' anyway ? ANY war ...

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isolationism and interventionism cause war; non-interventionism prevents it.

Did they change the definition on the word isolationism recently or am I'm missing something about what you're talking about here? I could of swore it meant totally not being involved with foreign affairs among other things.

what is so 'great' about 'Wars' anyway ? ANY war ...

~

War, huh, yeah

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Uh-huh

War, huh, yeah

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Say it again, ya'll

- Edwin Starr

:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my kind of 'war' ... of the worse kind of war ...

~

~

Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway ... ? - Axl Rose

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm pretty sure if ww1 didn't happen than it would happen latter, if it was not germans started ww2 it would be someone else. if none of it happened something else would happen. there is no way we would have peace all those years, human history for thousands of years shows we can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it ... isn't every war there ever was is a civil war in a sense ? man against man ... brother against brother ?

~

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first thing to annoy the U.S. was when the Germans sank a British passenger ship in 1915 called the Lusitania, which was on it's way from NY to England. That wouldn't have been a big deal except for the fact that a 128 Americans were on board and got killed.

Good point.

However, Germany and Britain were at war. Don't go cruising in a war zone, especially on one of the combatant's boats.

The first threat came when Germany started doing unrestricted submarine warfare and got too close to the shores of the U.S. with her submarines a number of times, to sink cargo ships going from the U.S. to England and France. At this point the U.S. citizens and President Wilson were starting to really get agitated.

And that's typical US cuteness. Claim to be neutral and determined to stay out, but supply one side against the other.

The second threat and the last straw that made the final decision for the U.S., was when Germany sent a telegram (the Zimmerman Telegram), that the U.S. intercepted through intelligence, to Mexico offering the Mexicans an alliance to take back the states of California, New Mexico and Texas, which Mexico had lost to the U.S. over the previous years. This of course was based on if Mexico would help Germany fight the war in Europe in exchange.

You've misrepresented the Zimmerman telegram. The ZT was NOT asking Mexico to fight a war in Europe. The ZT asked for an alliance with Mexico IF THE US ENTERED THE WAR. It was not a plea for Mexico to attack the US UNLESS the US entered the war.

contents here: http://en.wikipedia....ermann_Telegram

That's a chapter in U.S. history that was closed and separate from all the conflicts afterwards, but obviously completely forgotten by some like Carlin.

did you listen to the podcast? He makes a very convincing case. He also makes a convincing case that WWI and WWII are most definitely NOT closed and separate from all the conflicts afterwards. IN fact, that's an absurd statement. WWI led to the Versailles treaty, which led to Nazism, which led to WWII, which led to the allies partitioning the middle east to their benefit, which led to Iran wanting to control it's own oil instead of american and british companies, which led to the US ousting a democratically elected Iranian government and installing the Shah, which led to the islamic revolution, which brings us to today, a potentially nuclear iran run by some very hostile people, but with a population of Iran that is generally NOT anti-US.

All I can say, Neognosis is you need to research your U.S. history before you trust what this guy is telling you, because he's not telling you everything about WW1.

How are you going to say that to me after you so badly misrepresented the Zimmerman Telegram?

You've also misrepresented German submarine warfare. They did not blockade the US. They blockaded their enemy, Great Britain, and warned american shipping that any ships bound for England would be sunk. Yet, the US still continued to supply the British Isles. And then act outraged when the germans sunk ships bound for England. They did not, as you claim, invade US territorial waters, or sink american ships "just out of the harbor" on the US side.

A few things you decided to leave out:

According to the ship's manifest, Lusitania was carrying military cargo.[10]

http://en.wikipedia....oat#World_War_I

After sinking the Lusitania, Germany backed off and stopped attacking merchant ships... and the US responded by stepping up the supply of Great Britain. So... what you say is not really accurate.

Edited by Neognosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point.

However, Germany and Britain were at war. Don't go cruising in a war zone, especially on one of the combatant's boats.

Don't matter. Wrong is wrong and right is right. The Germans should of boarded the ship and confiscated the military cargo, instead of just sinking it and killing everybody.

And that's typical US cuteness. Claim to be neutral and determined to stay out, but supply one side against the other.

Well I doubt the British were gonna tolerate the U.S. supplying the other side as well, just to make a killing...in total foreign profits.

You've misrepresented the Zimmerman telegram. The ZT was NOT asking Mexico to fight a war in Europe. The ZT asked for an alliance with Mexico IF THE US ENTERED THE WAR. It was not a plea for Mexico to attack the US UNLESS the US entered the war.

contents here: http://en.wikipedia....ermann_Telegram

Okay, I stand corrected. But only on the "This of course was based on if Mexico would help Germany fight the war in Europe in exchange". But my post didn't say anything about "a plea for Mexico to attack the US". I was only wrong on that one statement. Now you're misrepresenting my views on some parts of the subject. Anyway, this is were I got most of my info on that particular subject:

In January of 1917, British cryptographers deciphered a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Minister to Mexico, von Eckhardt, offering United States territory to Mexico in return for joining the German cause. This message helped draw the United States into the war and thus changed the course of history.

http://www.archives....ons/zimmermann/

did you listen to the podcast? He makes a very convincing case. He also makes a convincing case that WWI and WWII are most definitely NOT closed and separate from all the conflicts afterwards. IN fact, that's an absurd statement. WWI led to the Versailles treaty, which led to Nazism, which led to WWII, which led to the allies partitioning the middle east to their benefit, which led to Iran wanting to control it's own oil instead of american and british companies, which led to the US ousting a democratically elected Iranian government and installing the Shah, which led to the islamic revolution, which brings us to today, a potentially nuclear iran run by some very hostile people, but with a population of Iran that is generally NOT anti-US.

Yes I did. I listened to the whole thing and I'm still not convinced. He's still wrong. I could see it after WW2 with the U.S. intervening in the Korean War and then on after, because of the fear of Communism.

How are you going to say that to me after you so badly misrepresented the Zimmerman Telegram?

I could ask the same question with you, when you just did the same with me above. I never said any of that other crap you think I did. Only the one mistake on that specific subject and that's it. Don't know how you pulled out that false "a plea for Mexico to attack the US" bullhockey from that one paragraph in my post.

You've also misrepresented German submarine warfare. They did not blockade the US. They blockaded their enemy, Great Britain, and warned american shipping that any ships bound for England would be sunk. Yet, the US still continued to supply the British Isles. And then act outraged when the germans sunk ships bound for England. They did not, as you claim, invade US territorial waters, or sink american ships "just out of the harbor" on the US side.

I didn't say they were blockading the U.S. ports, again making assumptions and pulling crap out of my posts that isn't there. But on the other thing I stand corrected again, I did some checking and the Germans didn't necessarily go into US territorial waters (that happened in WW2 on a rare occasion, got confused - it happens), but they hung around outside US territorial waters in Atlantic just waiting to pick off any ships bound for England. The U.S. had every right to be outraged, the Germans were still killing any Americans that were on those outbound ships, plus screwing up U.S. foreign economics. You think the U.S. should tolerate that and let it continue? I'd say that's pushing the luck, the U.S. has a right to foreign trade to whomever wants to buy from the U.S. and to interfere with that is pretty much a act of war.

A few things you decided to leave out:

According to the ship's manifest, Lusitania was carrying military cargo.[10]

http://en.wikipedia....oat#World_War_I

After sinking the Lusitania, Germany backed off and stopped attacking merchant ships... and the US responded by stepping up the supply of Great Britain. So... what you say is not really accurate.

I didn't decide to leave all that out, I thought that was obvious to anybody who at least had some common sense and education.

Edited by Purifier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.