A new thread . . .

You know, I think it's a shame that this forum (which I've really come to enjoy!) sometimes falls into reply-after-reply of "Yeh, well, up YOURS!" - but I still have a couple of things to say:

JIM ACE: Maybe I wasn't clear in my earlier post to you. I'll try to be more so. Nobody here (myself included) is attempting to belittle you or your contributions in your years of service. However, I think people take exception to comments with the flavor of, "12/25/98 - I was off Iwo Jima - WHERE WERE YOU, SLACKER?" Nor does the fact that you WERE "off Iwo Jima on the USS Boxer" give you the upper hand to dole out your, "Here little boy - let me tell you what the REAL history is". You called me a revisionist; sorry, buddy, don't think so. I read history, a lot of history (including the Civil War; probably my favorite period) just for the joy of learning it. Do I draw judgements? Sure I do, it's natural. Do I foist them on others reading these posts for the joy of learning more about WWI aviation? Nope - I'll leave that to you; you've had quite a bit of experience in that arena!

Maybe you're not picking it up: people are NOT denying your views/opinions/thoughts. They just get a little tired of you lecturing them about how "wrong" they are because they make a positive comment about (Heaven forbid!) a German pilot who fought & died bravely for HIS country, just like you're serving yours, instead of reiterating your mantra over & over: "Ball, Mannock - oh, & Hartmann, he was great, too! But, remember: LvR sucked salt - awww, hell: they ALL sucked - they must have! They fought for the WRONG cause!"

I've said it before: I, for one, enjoy reading about information regarding this period. But it gets a little tired when somebody "stumbles" & posts something you don't agree with (& I'm NOT referring to these juvenile turds who get their jollies from posting the standard, "Hey - MvR is great; allies SUCK, man!!! Party on, Garth!!" We ALL consider the source there!) So please: consider the POSSIBILITY that somebody else on this forum MIGHT just have some knowledge of history & MIGHT have something valuable to contribute here, even though they might not have served in the military. And to forestall your standard comeback of "Where did YOU serve?": Did I try to enlist? Yes. Answer: deaf in 1 ear - 4F.

Final thoughts: ONE: I didn't write this in an attempt to engage you (or anybody else) in an argument; just wanted to be clear on MY position. TWO: please don't try to lecture me on history; I've read enough on my own, thanks very much, Dad

[Andrew_Smith]

Mike,
I think if you are really concerned with what Jim has to say, then maybe you should email him directly, all this thread is going to do is become a "me against you" type of thread. Not trying to speak for Jim, but the bloke I know would rather you email him direct, I am sure Jim would agree. I am a mate of Jim, I consider him a brother, so I will not respond to your statements as many would be saying to themselves, oh it's only Andrew sticking up for his mate Jim again.

All I will add is that this year I had the opportunity to meet the bloke, and I know how proud he is to wear the uniform of the United States Navy, and to serve his country, and how sad he is that the "younger generation" have failed to realise the sacrifice those who have gone before him have made.

I challange anyone on this forum to quote when Jim has said he hated MvR. Sure he has been "enthusiastic" in his responses and sometimes he has attacked, but only when the first shot has been fired by someone else. See the recent thread by the lammer who calls himsef vR, it was only when somebody decided to bring in Jim's opinion of MvR (BTW he said Jim hated MvR maybe that bloke, I think his name was Don or Dan, sorry if I got your name wrong, can quote a specific thread that Jim wrote he hated MvR.) It certainly was not Jim instigating that battle.

As for Jim bringing his service record into the equation, he was questioned many months ago, about how would he know about combat, has he been in it.

I find myself feeling like I am in the movie Ground Hog Day, for if I am not mistaken it was about this time last year that a few people tried to have Jim thrown off the forum for his opinion. I find this quite bizarre, as Vin in his latest post has a quote from a book about MvR shooting down lame ducks, and how he would not have got away with this in WW2, and no one has replied, I wonder why. Perhaps Vin does not bite as well as Jim.

Well I have done what I hoped not to do, and start to defend Jim as he is capable of doing that himself.

Anyway to all a Happy New Year, and before you all start jumping on the band wagon, do we need another thread were all we do is take the p.ss out of one another. BTW Mike I know you did not intend this to be an attack on Jim, but to echo my earlier thoughts, if you didn't mean it to be an attack, why post it here instead of emailing Jim direct?

Andrew Smith

[Andrew_Smith]

Just one more thought, if you did not mean this to be an inflamatory thread, please quote correctly, regarding Jims quote about 24/12/98, he said,
"WHERE WERE YOU." the word slacker is nowhere to be seen.

Andrew Smith

Mike,
It's really amazing how you seem to think you know me so well. Why don't you take Andrew's advice and e-mail me direct. I'd much rather discuss this off of the Forum. The address is noted under my name. As far as your allegation about my hating the pilots of the IGAF, you're wrong. Did they all suck? Nope. Did they fight for the wrong cause? Yes. Did they all know exactly what they were going to war for? Nope. You've heard of propaganda haven't you?! Please tell me what you believe it's purpose would be for. Lecture you about history? No, I merely pointed out the sources so that you can go and formulate your own opinion, unless you are not able to do that.
Did I say that Dan was a slacker? No. I pointed out where I was, and I'll bet that he was sitting at home in front of his TV, while I was thousands of miles away from my home starting my 6 month deployment. Do I think that people who haven't even served have a right to question those about military processes and procedures? Yes however, they can't speak about a whole lot with much authority due to lack of practical experience. Does this practical experience give me a little more insight into warfare? Gosh I don't know, I train for war every day. Do I hold it against you that you were 4F? No. But I had to get a waiver for a physical defect to enter military service. Why? Because I wanted to serve my country with all my heart, so I fought to join and did. But I seem to find it is the armchair tacticians who've never seen a day of military service who are always the first to jump in and say "Were you in combat?" "Then how do you know?" I base my answers on practical experience. When I come back with "Did you serve?" Their answer usually tells me that having never served they only have books to quote from, most have never been out in the world to see how other countries handle their affairs, so their opinions of right and wrong might be based on some author's skewed version of events. So the next time you or anyone challenges me remember ... don't ask the question if you can't live with the answer. And if you don't like my opinion ... SUCK IT UP boyo, everyone is entitled to his own.
Regards,
Jim

Andy & Jim:

1) Andy, you're right; I SHOULD have responded to Jim via his e-mail; I was probably simply responding to your (sometimes rather aggressive!) attitude, Jim!

2) In NO WAY did I mean to disparage you, Jim, or your military service; I'm fairly new to this site, so was not aware (thanks for the info, Andy!) that yours had been questioned a while ago. Yup, I was 4F - but my Dad did his time in the USAF. Anybody who considers himself a student of history (& most of us here do) quickly learns what's involved when you serve in the military - particularly in wartime (sorry if it's not firsthand).

3) I do/did NOT intend to get in a pissing contest here or anywhere else - I simply enjoy the back-&-forth of info & opinions. If I HAVE fallen into a pissing contest, you can be sure that I'll make an effort to avoid it next time. And I apologize - I'm not one of those a__holes who enjoys getting in on-line arguments.

4) Jim, try & be a little more flexible with others opinions, though - will ya? Based on a number of earlier posts, I'm certain I'm not the Lone Ranger on this issue.

5) For me, this thread is dead.

Regards

Mike

To repeat: "Can't we all just get along?"
Please.

I'm at odds with only one thing that Jim Ace says. I have to disagree with him when he says the IGAF fought for the "wrong cause". I will agree that they fought for a nation that lost the war. But no one knows what the "wrong cause" is until the fighting is over. The winner is always right and the loser has always fought for the "wrong cause".

There were many legitimate reasons why Germany waged an agressive war and one of the biggest was that every other European country had a big jump on aggressively colonizing the world and Germany wanted to get its dibs in as well.
Of course most of Europe was not at all happy with a unified Germany and feared it as an equal paricipant in the rape, uh ... I mean colonization of underdeveloped nations and they did what ever they could to prevent the the unification of the German People under one nation.

Let's not pretend that all the European Nations and even the US were saints and only the Germans were bad guys fighting for a wrong cause. Everyone was fighting to protect their own personal interests. It wasn't until the Germans lost that their cause became "wrong" and everyone else became saints.

Tobias

[Barrett]

Regarding the, ah, colonization of Africa: I've been reading about early safaris and note that Queen Victoria ceded Mt. Kilimanjaro to the young Kaiser Will as a birthday present. The cartographers had to make a slight zig-zag in the boundary betwixt British East Africa (aka Kenya) and German East Africa (aka Tanzania) but that's easily done when the front office commands it. Rumo(u)r has it that Good Queen Vic noted that Willy's part of the continent didn't have any mountains with snowcaps and therefore undertook to remedy the situation.
Man-o-man, the Great War really WAS the ultimate family feud, and Tobias is absolutely right--there's plenty of blame to go 'round. As Chuck Yeager says, "Our side has unfortunate incidents; the other side has war crimes."

Tobias, This is a touchy subject, but it needs airing out. Your post is the first I have heard that Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, Serbia, Lichtenstein and the Dutchy of Grand Fenwick were all trying to colonize the world and this caused Germany to aggressively enter WW-I. And, I could have sworn that I read somewhere that the U.S. characterized the "Huns" as being the villains early in the war when they murdered American civilians with submarine torpedoes.
Some of the most notable liars and deceivers of all time have gone under the name of "Historians."
The more time that passes, the easier it is to slip in propaganda under the heading of "History."
If you can prove any of what you said in the above posting, I'm forever grateful for your efforts.
"Beware of the Hun in the Sun."
"Join the Army. Help Defeat the Hun."
Do these jingoistic phrases sound like the judgment was not in on Germany early in the war?

Originally Posted by John L

Tobias, This is a touchy subject, but it needs airing out. Your post is the first I have heard that Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania, Serbia, Lichtenstein and the Dutchy of Grand Fenwick were all trying to colonize the world ...

I can't comment on the Dutchy of Grand Fenwick nor Serbia, but Poland, Latvia and Lithuania did NOT exist in Europe as Nations just prior to WWI. The Area of post WWI Poland was carved from the German and Russian Empires. Latvia and Lithuania were carved from the German Empire only to be consumed by the USSR after WWII.

After WW2, Poland was pushed further West consuming more of Germany as the USSR kept most of the Poland they occupied in 1940. This is why present day Gdansk was Danzig Germany and why 1/4 of Present day Poland still has German as its first language.

The major players who were busy colonizing the underdeveloped nations were France, The British Empire, Belgium, and, Portugal. Spain had also been a major player until the Spanish American War, when the US 'liberated' most of the Spanish colonies and put them under American protection.

Three of these major players, Germany, France, and England were also major industrial rivals. Germany had especially been a major challenge to England and its industrial exports.

The origins of WWI can be traced back to 1871 when Germany was unified as an Empire. Both England and France were fearful of unified Germany and rightly so. The fear was partially Germany's military but primarily Germany as a major economic rival. Germany's industrial revolution proved these concerns legitimate as Germany quickly turned into a major industrial rival on the world stage.

During almost any given year from 1898 until 1914 there had been incidents that had almost caused these major players into an all out war, typically over trade tarriffs, colonial possessions, idnustrial growth, or water rights. And Germany wasn't always the first one to rattle the sabre. From what I remember TR had to soothe some English Ruffles in order to prevent a European War during his presidency (around 1906, I beleive).

As for the US and its involvement in WWI, it took a long time for the propoganda machine to convince the majority of the nation to side with any of the European nations in spite of the U-Boat attacks. Most Americans saw it as a Europen problem even as late as 1916.

Tobias