Scandinavia and the World
Niels & Gang
Manala Next Door
Follow Scandinavia and the World:
Special Lion Pin
Because Europe is America's biggest bitch.
Seriously, I've asked around, and quite a few europeans feel this way about America.
2nd August 2009
4 days ago
oh and russia were important too! they diverted 2/3 of the germand to the east
4 days ago
america wasnt of any use in ww2, realy, because they didnt join in until the tide of war started to turn. in the end the most important ones were mostly UK and Canada. oh, and it was the poles who saved britain. were sorry about the russians guys =(
5 days ago
He should have said, "Do you speak Ruskie? No? You're welcome!"
18 days ago
I think the treaty of Versailles should never have been written as it was. If the treaty hadn't been so harsh, Hitler would not have been so successful in inflaming the passions of the German people against the English, the French, and the Russians.
"there is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose." I believe this proverb could be fairly applied to nations as well.
1 month ago
Then what was the purpose of your comparison?
You agree that the Treaty of Versailles wasn't just, but also argue that it should have been enforced in your last sentence, which contradicts your seemingly sympathetic view. If I understand your point correctly, these are the positions:
Me: We have to understand the reason behind the other's actions. I think that the US have been wrong on several occasions, most prominently with the invasion of Iraq, which I feel was uncalled for and worthy of critique. I also think that military campaigns are generally initiated by the US and other states are getting dragged along, as the comic above shows in a hilarious manner.
We should learn from our history and strive to maintain peace. The past has shown us the error of an overly militaristic and gung-ho-approach, as it clearly leads to desaster.
You: One must have faith in the government, the people and the strength of all. Everything that the US has done has been for the greater good.
We should learn from our history and strive to maintain peace. The past has shown us the error of an overly cautious, lenient and lethargic approach, as it clearly leads to desaster.
Am I correct?
1 month ago
I'm not arguing about WW2, and how it should of been handled, I'm just comparing it to a different war. But now that we are n the subject, I agree that the Treaty of Versailles wasn't that just, in fact, it is proof that history is written by the victor. Germany was blamed for a war that no nation had started, it was started by a terrorist secession group who happened to have ties to Serbia who was allied to Russia, who was allied to France, who's best invade-able route was through Belgium, who happened to be allied to GB. Basically it was a war based on a geo-political nightmare, and was fought by two sides, neither of whom had fired the first shot. 4 years of stalemate and death and soldiers and generals didn't want to come home and say "16 million of us died, but we won the absolutely unnecessary war!." Who else to blame but the loser? But they couldn't completely ignore the Black Hand, so the age long way of preserving Europe by balancing power was destroyed and replaced with easily conquered, small nations based on ethnicity. Later on Hitler would use their weakness to his advantage, walking in to a country, and immediately get their surrender and their entire army. As for the Treaty of Versailles being enforced by America, I didn't say that at all, it should have been enforced by the League of Nations.
1 month ago
God dammit why is everyone's replays so big' and anyway @
America is so much worse than Europe
1 month ago
Hussein was an autocrat, a greedy tyrant with no respect for life and maybe even a madman (but no doubt a thoroughly nasty person and head of state), but he was no islamic extremist. In fact, he publically detested these allegations. Iraq was in no position to wage a war against the US or anyone else than Kuwait and has a history of unsuccessful campaigns (also, funding from the US). Why again was diplomacy no option?
In regards to WWII - I've been working in historical archives with an emphasis on the Pre-WWII-Era. Also, I've been formally trained as a lawyer's assistant, so I have no academic knowledge per se. I just present facts that I have researched to answer to your statement.
I'm trying to help you broaden your horizon here. Sure, simply crushing Germany while it was weak and hadn't amassed much weaponary would have prevented WWII - for a period of time. But that is just treating the symptom, not the disease (also, it would have been wrong from every standpoint imaginable, be it morally, economically, preventive, political or lawfully).
The scenario you're proposing would be pragmatic, but it lacks foresight. You clearly have researched the subject and given it some thought. My challenge is to ask yourself the question "Why?".
Why did Germany amass weapons in the first place? Why was a madman elected? Why did they start killing their neighbours and why was the media controlled by the government? Why were they burning books and invading other countries?
Let me cut to the chase and give you the answer: The Treaty of Versailles was the problem.
You see, Post-WWI-Germany was a crappy place to live. The government was very unstable (Weimarer Republik had 14 chancellors in 14 years) and was not really able to make decisions. A lot of territory was lost (in violation of a treaty from 1904 or 06 (have to research) which forbade any annexion of territory by any nation through war) and ethnic Germans lived under foreign rule. Parts of Germany like the Ruhr (in that time the economic lifeblood of the country) were under french administration, while horrendous sums of money had to be paid as reparations. That caused hyperinflation, poverty and starvation. Also, the aristrocacy of Germany had been dismantled (not their choice) and their emperor exiled. Granted, the emperor had been royally stupid in his own right in rule, but not my point. Point is: Imperial Germany was dead and the treaty of Versailles made it all the more unbearable, since the terms were harsh and demeaning. Heck, even stout Anti-German-parties and intellectuals weren't quite satisfied with the Treaty of Versailles because it was *too harsh*.
You are still with me? Imagine living in this place and imagine that you, as an ordinary citizen, would be under the impression that your country hadn't suffered any real military defeat.
That is the reason something like the Nazi Party could get a hold of the situation, and it deteriorated afterwards. It is also my understanding that the Allies were initially very pleased with Hitler's rule and that the man himself was considered a candidate for a Noble Prize for Peace, of all things.
This is a long text and a lot to take in, and it serves to prove my point: Bombing the place because the Treaty of Versailles was violated wouldn't have made it better. Quite the contrary, perhaps even a bigger douchebag would have taken over.
Mind you, I'm not trying to justify it - no amount of suffering and boohoo justifies as fascism regime, tyranny and genocide. I'm trying to explain why there are reasons for everything and why the force of weapons isn't always the best course of action.
Also, one has to wonder why people who are suffering are so prone to fascistic and/or tyrannic governments. People are like you and me - they are not born to be evil. Evil is made, not born. Actio-Reactio ... see what I mean?
I also have to wonder why you think that enforcing the Treaty of Versailles should have been America's job, but since we are talking about a purely hypothetical scenario, I think that's a moot point, isn't it?
1 month ago
"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind"
I would say debunking a Islamic extremist who had invaded a sovereign state is a pretty good way of stopping him from gain to much power, power that would have caused a lot of problems in the future. I'll revert back to WW2 for an example, do you think that if we had stopped Nazi's massive build up of weapons, which was against the Treaty of Versailles, they would have been so hard to stop? Would you have preferred we waited till Iraq built up WMD's? Do you think that if we hadn't allowed the Nazi's to gain Austria and Czechoslovakia they would have been nearly as powerful as they would have been otherwise? In the same way, would it have been better to wait until Saddam had gained more territory and more power before we stopped him? I agree that there were a lot of ulterior motives in the Iraq War, but in my opinion, what we did was not as "unnecessary" as you say.
1 month ago
Dear me. That's just wrong on so many levels. Sejdkonen has tried to explain it to you, and I will try to do the same.
First and foremost, I understand your point: You think there is a lot of Anti-Americanism out there because of some tough decisions your government made under the duress of the Cold War or in the aftermath of it. I get it, really.
However, the casual reader might get the impression that you argue from a a standpoint where your country can do no wrong and everything it does must be the ultimate truth, since you have the most sophisticated government system in the world and historically, your people have been a huge asset for the general stability of everyone's peace and way of life.
That is an disputable opinion, but that's what all opinions are. On the historic account however, you are dead wrong. But before I go into detail, let me make one statement that I think we can all agree on: "Invading a sovereign state and enriching oneself in the process on the cost of the invaded people is not cool." All D'Accord? Splendid.
And yet, the US seem to be the leading country when it comes to military intervention, with Europle always going along, whether the intervention makes sense or not. I'm not talking about Afghanistan - when a terror-organization attacks, invading another country (even if it was in a pitiful state thanks to the US politics and hired mercenaries back in the Cold War days). Let's not talk about Lybia either (that went nowhere, somehow). Let's talk about Iraq.
Nevermind that Saddam Hussein had been funded in the past by the American government (as I said: Tough decisions in Cold War), but diplomacy would have been the correct way. Instead, there was a lot of shenanigans with chemical weapons (President Bush even admitted lying about this), and an invasion of a sovereign state.
In which way did the US act differently than Russia? Iraq was a sovereign state, Ukraine is a sovereign state (that story is something different. Let's not go there). It was not about defending Kuwait, because diplomacy could have easily handled that. Oh, but Iraq has oil. Where did these resources go, by the way?
Also, your comparison to WWII makes no sense, by the way.
So, by the admission of your own government officials, Iraq War was unnecessary - or can you tell me how the Iraq government had a chance to get out of there. Also, having been funded by external forces, their weaponary was vastly inferior to US state of the art weaponary - thus, a successful invasion was guaranteed.
And with that prominent example, we also see the author's point of this comic - a few European Countries went along with the Iraq War, even if it made little sense, did only cost money and was against the law, because King Europe is Americas little bitch ;)
Add comment: Please
create an accout
View all 967 comments
Share Scandinavia and the World:
Latest comic in your News Feed:
Copyright © 2009-2014 Scandinavia and the World
Be a guest artist
Coded by Dayvi
Scandinavia and the World
Manala Next Door