NationStates Jolt Archive

The poll has some of my top picks for the worst wars in the world. If you don't agree, click that, and post below.

Sorry, no poll. The system seems to be down. Just list your thoughts. Mine: The Bosnian War

It depends on what you consider "Brutal"...

But WWII was by far..the most brutal conflict in history.

Just for Kicks....

Look up Dresden, Germany.

I'm tempted to say any of the Revolutionary wars, cos they're always bad. But i'd say the wars that are going on right now. Like the war in the Congo, and the wars in Rwanda and Uganda. They seem pretty brutal to me.

You want brutal?

Look here.
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

WWII. All wars are brutal and in some parts WWII maybe wasn't as brutal as Rwanda&Burundi but it was so huge it can not be compared to anything else. Concentration camps, mass murders of civilians, torturing, atomic bombs...

You want brutal?

Look here.
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
Still Dresden was a playground comparing to Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

WW2.

The genocidal conflicts in Africa have also been very brutal due to their barbaric nature.

Still Dresden was a playground comparing to Hiroshima and Nagasaki...


No, actually it is believed that more people died in the Dresden Firebombing that those two cities combined.

No, actually it is believed that more people died in the Dresden Firebombing that those two cities combined.
It depends how you count it. Direct victims or deaths caused of the bombings (by sickness, starvation, pollution etc.)

WW2.

The genocidal conflicts in Africa have also been very brutal due to their barbaric nature.

I hear this a lot and I keep wondering why it's more brutal to kill 30 people with machete than kill 345 with a cluster bomb? Bombing is clean because you don't have to see the victims, but I don't understand how it's less brutal.

The poll has some of my top picks for the worst wars in the world. If you don't agree, click that, and post below.
Sorry, no poll. The system seems to be down. Just list your thoughts. Mine: The Bosnian WarThe invasion of Canaan by the Israelite tribes.

It depends how you count it. Direct victims or deaths caused of the bombings (by sickness, starvation, pollution etc.)


Well by that logic, its still pretty close.

Ive read some estimations of the death toll in Dresden, to be nearly half a million people.

Ive also heard the estimated number of people that died due to radiation, sickness, and famine after the Nuclear bombs at nearly that.

But...about half a million died as a direct result of the fires in Dresden.

about 250,000 died from the bombs in Japan.

I hear this a lot and I keep wondering why it's more brutal to kill 30 people with machete than kill 345 with a cluster bomb? Bombing is clean because you don't have to see the victims, but I don't understand how it's less brutal.

Well, getting vaporized by a bomb is probably a quick and painless death whereas getting hacked to bits by a machete would probably be a slightly more horrifying and agonising way to die.

I hear this a lot and I keep wondering why it's more brutal to kill 30 people with machete than kill 345 with a cluster bomb? Bombing is clean because you don't have to see the victims, but I don't understand how it's less brutal. I'm talking about the conflicts that have killed millions of people in central Africa.

Well, getting vaporized by a bomb is probably a quick and painless death whereas getting hacked to bits by a machete would probably be a slightly more horrifying and agonising way to die.
Do you know how cluster bombs blast? It isn't necessarily a quick way to go...Unless the bomb drops straight on your head.

This site has the number of combined deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at @210,000.

Still.....nearly half of those killed in Dresden.

http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html

I'm talking about the conflicts that have killed millions of people in central Africa.
I didn't mean it literally. How ever they are usually considered brutal because of the weapons used and because they kill civilians. Not because of the bodycount. Still I'm asking what makes it more brutal than other wars?

WW2 the Russsians killed American prisoners when they took the German camps on several occasions. One of them the Russians to 5,000 Americans and slaughter them as one prisoner that was a new prisoner who had just arrived left when the germans left the camp and watched and the Russians murder Americans. That is why Patton wanted war with the Russians.

This site has the number of combined deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at @210,000.

Still.....nearly half of those killed in Dresden.

http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html

Alright I'm willing to say more people were killed in Dresden. I have read so many different estimates that it seems impossible to figure it out. My history books in high school estimated 1,1 million victims...some sites say 70 000 directly and some 200 000 indirectly...

World War One or the Great War depending on who youre talking to. Never before have they seen such a war of attrition (mind my spelling).

If they'd just lace people's water supply with MDMA, war would be a thing of the past. ;)

If they'd just lace people's water supply with MDMA, war would be a thing of the past. ;)


So would PEOPLE, you nutcase!

So would PEOPLE, you nutcase!

Well hey, an added bonus.

But seriously, how do you figure? And besides, the appearance of Mr. Winky Face would indicate I was joking.

All Wars are brutal, but if you want a selection:


WW2:

All campaigns but perhaps the most brutal was The Eastern Front, described as 'Total War' for the unwillingness of either side to surrender. The Battle of Stalingrad was for a city that led to oilfields, if the German Sixth Army had seized it, there was a good chance that the Soviet Union may have been starved of supplies for it's war machine. The city stood in the way. 300,000 German soldiers of the Sixth Army went into the city, and most of them were wiped out. The city was was the scene of the most bloodiest, goriest, bitter fought warfare recorded in modern history. Buildings would be continouslly taken and retaken, street by street, house by house, rooom by room fighting. A Red Amr shock group would consist of a machine gunner, a rifleman, a grenade thrower, and a man or woman armed with a hammer or other instrument to bludgeon Germans to death at close quarters.

Screams, explosions, gunfire would resound daily. It lasted from November 1942 to Feb '43, when the a second Soviet front encircled the city. The Sixth Army never did take the city.

Balkans Civil War mid 90's: People turning on one another, mass gencocides, neighbour versus neighbour. Snipers randomly shooting at people who dared venture out into the street

Iran-Iraq war of 1979-1989

Iraq invaded Iran in 1979. What followed was a see saw of increasingly futile military manoveres that saw territory taken and retaken, and conditions of trench warfare akin to WW1. Iranian forces would charge en force, only to be cut down. Iraqi forces would charge, only to meet fanatical resistance that caused heavy casualies on both sides. Saddam underestimated Iran, thinking they were weak after the Islamic revolution. Iran underestimated Iraq's military tactics.

Jet planes would bomb oil installations of both sides, and Scud missiles were sent by both sides to bomb each other's cities in what was called 'The War of The Cities'

By the end of the war, both sides had arrived where they begun, pushed back to each other's borders.

It is estimated between 1 million to 1 million and a half people died.

Iran and Iraq were still exchanging their war dead right up to February of last year.

Russia-Checnyan conflict:

A little heard about war now, only brought to attention by recent terrorist attacks in Russia commited by Chechens. It has stopped and started since 1995, when Chechnya declared independence. The capital, Grozhny, has been almost completly destoryed in then years of fighting, and Russian forces do not have the capital under their complete control.

Human rights abuses are commited by both sides, and the Russian Army is reported to be taking heavy casualties on a near daily basis.

Other wars to mention:
Vietnam
Cambodia (1 in 3 people still step on a landmine per day)
Somalia
Sudan
Congo
Angola

All wars are brutal, but I think World War II was the most brutal in terms of casualties, and economic, social and political damage and whatnot.

The Americans suffered, comparitively, very little in WW2. My vote goes firstly to the Eastern front, WW2, where the Germans in flicted an estimated 20million casualties on the Soviet Union. This, might I add, is the largest loss that any country has ever lost in a single war (its more people than are in my country full stop!). As much as people can complain, rightly, about Nazi genocide of the Jews, I'm afraid that the Nazi Genocide of the Russians was much, much worse. Of course, seeing as we were officially anti-soviet after the war, we are never told this at school.

Secondly I vote for Bosnia. As an ethnic Bosnian-Croat myself, I admittedly have some interest here, but the fact cannot be denied that it was one of the bloodiest conflicts Europe has seen, and one of the most atrocious human-rights abuses committed.

Thirdly I guess I would vote for Rwanda. Of course, the common link between these last two is the UN. Trust the UN to either come in too late (Rwanda), or just sit there while people were massacred (Srebrenica, for instance).

Well hey, an added bonus.

But seriously, how do you figure? And besides, the appearance of Mr. Winky Face would indicate I was joking.


So was I, sans Mr. Wrinkly Face.

But as for posioning water supplies...thats just not cool.
Especially a supergrade nerve agent.

Lots of people die that way.

WW2 the Russsians killed American prisoners when they took the German camps on several occasions. One of them the Russians to 5,000 Americans and slaughter them as one prisoner that was a new prisoner who had just arrived left when the germans left the camp and watched and the Russians murder Americans. That is why Patton wanted war with the Russians.

Look I hate to be an anal bastard, but can you prove that, or are you just pulling it out of nowhere?

Forgive me, but I have to wonder sometimes.

I have seen from video footage, when the Russians and Western armies met, the exchanges were very friendly and involved exchanging of gifts...

WW2 the Russsians killed American prisoners when they took the German camps on several occasions. One of them the Russians to 5,000 Americans and slaughter them as one prisoner that was a new prisoner who had just arrived left when the germans left the camp and watched and the Russians murder Americans. That is why Patton wanted war with the Russians.

First: I'm not defending Russians here, hey, my country was in war with the Russians...(just make this clear)

Russian suffered the biggest losses (in bodycount) but does any of you know who suffered most in relation to population. Poland?

But as for posioning water supplies...thats just not cool. Especially a supergrade nerve agent..

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_effects.shtml

First: I'm not defending Russians here, hey, my country was in war with the Russians...(just make this clear)

Russian suffered the biggest losses (in bodycount) but does any of you know who suffered most in relation to population. Poland?

Yeah. (Edit- My bad, 17.2%, not 1/3) of Polands population. The Baltic states took it pretty hard too.

So was I, sans Mr. Wrinkly Face.

But as for posioning water supplies...thats just not cool.
Especially a supergrade nerve agent.

Lots of people die that way.

MDMA=The main ingredient in ecstasy. It's not a "supergrade nerve agent"

My guess would be Lichenstien.

Stop laughing.

Seriously.

I mean, if even one Lichtensteinian got killed....thats like per capita.....half of the poluation of Lichtenstein. ;)

MDMA=The main ingredient in ecstasy. It's not a "supergrade nerve agent"


Oh.

I thought it was like "VX" or something.

Waitaminute.

Exstacy makes you thirsty....so you guzzle water....wich has more exstacy in it....so you drink more water.......

You bastard.

Oh.

I thought it was like "VX" or something.

Waitaminute.

Exstacy makes you thirsty....so you guzzle water....wich has more exstacy in it....so you drink more water.......

You bastard.

LOL, I didn't think of that.

Well, they could always drink beer when they get thirsty from it. Oh, wait...:p

Yeah. (Edit- My bad, 17.2%, not 1/3) of Polands population. The Baltic states took it pretty hard too.
I wonder how much of Kambodias population was killed by Pol Pot though, if we take that criteria?
And out of the 6 million Poles there were 3,1 million polish jews. Can´t be said that the Poles did everything to defend them. In many cases the conterary was true.
Anyway: for shure Poland was the hardest hit during World War II.

My guess would be Lichenstien.
Stop laughing.
Seriously.
I mean, if even one Lichtensteinian got killed....thats like per capita.....half of the poluation of Lichtenstein. ;)
It is the Fürstentum Lichtenstein - to begin with the official name. And it has a population of 30.000.
And it has since 1920 a close union with Switzerland -which includes the same currency. Switzerland is also representing Switzerland abroad. So it is sticking to strict neutrality.
I wonder when the last war was Lichtenstein was involved in though.

I wonder when the last war was Lichtenstein was involved in though.
As far as I know the mighty army of Liechtenstein never left home.

As far as I know the mighty army of Liechtenstein never left home.
Do they have an army? Respect. Iceland for example doesn´t have one and it is a much bigger and more populated country though.
Well, but it is member of Nato and the US is defending it.

Ww1.

Do they have an army? Respect. Iceland for example doesn´t have one and it is a much bigger and more populated country though.
Well, but it is member of Nato and the US is defending it.
Switzerland is responsibal for Liechtensteins defence.

Ww1.
Really - well, the Duke was at time allied to Austria. But after the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in 1918 and the end of monarchy in Austria it moved close to Switzerland.
Did they really actively participate though? How many? How many casualties?

Switzerland is responsibal for Liechtensteins defence.
You see. That country has one thing less to worry about.
We - Germany - have the main source of our defense laid in the hand of the US. We are still its largest base in Europe.
In order to keep it that way we should be nice to it.
Otherwise it is not going to be ready to defend us anymore.
And than we would need to spent much more ourself for defense - like France and Britain do.
And therefore you see how stupid Schröders policy was. How is he going to take the money? He isn´t even ready to spent more anyway. Neither the reds nor the greens are.
That´s why his policy is irresponsible and against our national security interests. It would have been better just to shut up.

You see. That country has one thing less to worry about.
We - Germany - have the main source of our defense laid in the hand of the US. We are still its largest base in Europe.
In order to keep it that way we should be nice to it.
Otherwise it is not going to be ready to defend us anymore.
And than we would need to spent much more ourself for defense - like France and Britain do.
And therefore you see how stupid Schröders policy was. How is he going to take the money? He isn´t even ready to spent more anyway. Neither the reds nor the greens are.
That´s why his policy is irresponsible and against our national security interests. It would have been better just to shut up.
Great. You just won't pass up an opportunity to lobby for your US brown nosing policy don't you, Uncle Tom? Woof!!

Great. You just won't pass up an opportunity to lobby for your US brown nosing policy don't you, Uncle Tom? Woof!!
And you are just plainly stupid. Foreign and security policy is not about moral it is about national interests.
Our government seem to have forgotten that. No, wait they have forgotten it towards the US but not towards Russia.
Is Russia defending our security?
That just shows how stupid our government is.

Really - well, the Duke was at time allied to Austria. But after the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in 1918 and the end of monarchy in Austria it moved close to Switzerland.
Did they really actively participate though? How many? How many casualties?

What...?

By brutal I was thinking more along the lines of things like gas attacks, blood, mud, months on end with no gain in either direction, battles like the Somme, the resulting influenza epidemic.

What...?

By brutal I was thinking more along the lines of things like gas attacks, blood, mud, months on end with no gain in either direction, battles like the Somme, the resulting influenza epidemic.
There was someone who said it should be measured in percentage of the population. In that respect Poland in the Second World War suffered the most under war and occupation.
Though if you mean war itself: well I think the Bosnian war was really brutal. 10% of the Bosnian population (400.000) died and more than a million became refugees. Snipers hidding and attacking civilian, cities torn down and its muslim population executed (Srebrenisca).
Of course - on a much larger scale that happened during World War II as well - especially in the East (Poland, Serbia, Russia). The battle of Stalingrad was certainly one of the most bloody onces.

And in World War I the battle around Verdun.

I´m not so familiar with East Asia though. The Koreans and Chinese would certainly have a lot to tell about it as well.
Korea suffered tremendously under the Japanese occupation (1910-1945) - though I don´t know the numbers.
And China under the war (1937-45).

where's the poll gone

I'd vote for WW II: 2 nukes, Jewish camps, USSR

And you are just plainly stupid. Foreign and security policy is not about moral it is about national interests.
Our government seem to have forgotten that. No, wait they have forgotten it towards the US but not towards Russia.
Is Russia defending our security?
That just shows how stupid our government is.
Defend us from whom exactly? Arschkriecher.

Enough flaming.

Anyway, I'd say it'd be between WWI for the mustard gas attacks and the Hundred Years War for the amount of general havoc it caused throughout Europe.

Defend us from whom exactly?
They defended us from the Soviets.
And they would do that again if the Russians turn mad.
And they would of course defend us against islamists terrorism and against the "threat from the south" - rough states who may aquire weapons of mass destructions and long-range missiles which could threaten Europe. Lybia was such an example - though they gave up AFTER the demonstration of American power in Iraq.
Iran is an even bigger threat. Long-range missiles which may go till Central Europe and a nuclear programm.
Man, the world is not a peaceful paradise like Western Europe. We life in a very dangerous world. And we need the US as a strong partner and ally of Europe. We need it to protect ourself. It is in our national interests to remain close to the US. Chirac and Schröder acted stupidly -especially Schröder since Germany is not spending much on defense and doesn´t have nukes to strike back against potential attacks.

How about the war that men perpertate against women?
*6 million killed for crimes of witchcraft
*Rape (maybe the oldest crime)
*Domestic Violence
ect...

They defended us from the Soviets.
And they would do that again if the Russians turn mad.
And they would of course defend us against islamists terrorism and against the "thread from the south" - rough states who may aquire weapons of mass destructions and long-range missiles which could threaten Europe. Lybia was such an example - though they gave up AFTER the demonstration of American power in Iraq.
Iran is an even bigger thread. Long-range missiles which may go till Central Europe and a nuclear programm.
Man, the world is not a peaceful paradise like Western Europe. We life in a very dangerous world. And we need the US as a strong partner and ally of Europe. We need it to protect ourself. It is in our national interests to remain close to the US. Chirac and Schröder acted stupidly -especially Schröder since Germany is not spending much on defense and doesn´t have nukes to strike back against potential attacks.
And who will defend us against the Americans? Who already have gone mad since Bush is in office. That may not be an issue for you since you would be the first to deffect to them if a war would break out.

And who will defend us against the Americans? Who already have gone mad since Bush is in office. That may not be an issue for you since you would be the first to deffect to them if a war would break out.
Obviously you don´t have arguments on your side otherwise you would comments on the threads we are facing - Iran, North Africa, terrorism, who knows how Russia is developing - and instead begin with nonsense and insults.
Only because I like America I´m not a bad European. Europe and North America belong together. They are both part of the Western civilisation. Both are part of the euro-american community, the transatlantic community. We belong together. And the thread is real and it affects both of us.
The United States is persuing its campaign against states who support terrorism, develop WMDs, who are totalitarian dictatorships (or all of it) to make the world a better place.
Is Germany a dictatorship? Is France a dictatorship?
So, no need to be concerned.
The thread is in the Wider Middle East and that is the region the United States is taking action. It has the right to do so - self-defense against terrorism - and it is in principal right to do it.
Or do you want that we are threatened by Iranian nuclear bombs? Do you trust the Mullah regime?

WW2 the Russsians killed American prisoners when they took the German camps on several occasions. One of them the Russians to 5,000 Americans and slaughter them as one prisoner that was a new prisoner who had just arrived left when the germans left the camp and watched and the Russians murder Americans. That is why Patton wanted war with the Russians.

I'd be curious what is your source for this. Being of partly Polish descent, I am well aware of Soviet atrocities against Poland and other countries during and after WWII. This is one I haven't heard though.

woof!!!Woof!!!
I'm just sick and tired of always repeating the same arguments. And always listening to your hymns of praise on America how we all should follow your example and kiss their arse. Pull that starspangled banner out of your arse.
Only because I like America I´m not a bad European.
Your not a European at all. Your an American. All you lack is the nationality.

I'm just sick and tired of always repeating the same arguments. And always listening to your hymns of praise on America how we all should follow your example ....
Your not a European at all. Your an American. All you lack is the nationality.
You are not responding to the arguments. All I hear is an anti-American anthem and a sucking up to the French Gaullist line. No, I don´t agree to that.
By the way: we are fighting once again a historic dispute here: the dispute in the 1960s: Gaullists versus Atlantics.
The Gaullists lost with their attempt to manoveur Germany out of the military integrated structure of Nato. And that was good.
I wouldn´t deny political opponents a lack of nationality.
Are the Dutch "sucking up" to the US, the British, the Poles, the Italians and all the others?
They have good reasons for their position and I agree with them. I´m for an atlantic Europe not a gaullist one.
The gaullist have only achieved one thing now: dividing Europe. We need to follow the atlantic line to unite it again.
Schröder and Chirac need to shut up for that.
And a "regime change" in our country - Germany - would be very good for Germany and Europe.

I would say in terms of the way soldiers were killed first world war. Where the generals ordered the troops to walk up towards the enemy in tight fixed lines and only shoot once they got about 100 meters from the enemy. And all the enemy did was to mow them all down with machine guns and cannons(the first time old military doctorine meet new weapons), anyone who turned and ran was a desterter who was to be shoot.

In terms of crimes against civilians I would say Vietnam, wwII, Rwanda, the war on Balkan, the peoples revolution in Kambodja(about 1/3 of the population was killed during the conflict and the following mass excecutions) and also the russian war in Chechen.

And also for the germans talking about german politics, its spelled threat not thread.

I would say WW I was by far the most cruel war in history, IMO. Soldiers where just cannon fodder, quite literally. Although the conquest of the Aztec and Inca realms by the Spanish was pretty bad, too.

Are the Dutch "sucking up" to the US, the British, the Poles, the Italians and all the others?
They have good reasons for their position and I agree with them. I´m for an atlantic Europe not a gaullist one.

Their only reason is fear, and I don't think that blind fear is good.
You cannot expect that America will defend Europe to the best of Europe's interest. America will defend Europe to the best of America's interest and we can't blame them for that. We only can blame ourselves when America's and Europe's interest no longer coincide. Like plunging blindfolded head-first into a war we don't want. Or incorporating Turkey in the European Union, for that matter.
The sucking up of the Dutch, the British, the Spanish government were not supported by the majority of the population, so they had no right whatsoever to do so.

-Tsrill

Are the Dutch "sucking up" to the US, the British, the Poles, the Italians and all the others?
.

Yes they are! BTW, who are "all the others", those from Honduras? That are allready home? Yse the Dutch suck, but it is their PM that acts against the will of 83% of the people. But just like you are a American withouth the passport, you will find in each EU country some very rare exeptions that like to suck instead of being proud that they don't are US slaves, but free people.

Move over, you better belong there. BTW, De Gaulle just wanted West Germany in Nato but he moved out the day he saw that the organisation was only there for the US. That is why he showed Nato the French door (way out) and why it is now the 3th nuclear power after the uS and Russia (yep, more then China and US dog Brittain).

all wars are pretty nasty and brutal but i suppose living in ireland you see alot of brutality around you so i am going to say ireland because we've experienced it for years. but as for actual wars, WW2 is pretty hard to top

And a "regime change" in our country - Germany - would be very good for Germany and Europe.

Yep, you call democracy a regime and want to install suckers like Merkel and other US payed (you can bet that the Republicans are sponsoring their party) that would install a real regime and cut in civil liberties...blind fanatics like you
should be put on a boat to the US. It will be cheap to since we would only need a very small boat, regarding the opinions in the EU.

I seen a programme about WW1 it showed 2 single attacks from the british against the germans and 60'000 people were kille in these 2 single attacks ..

For the size of britain this is maybe the worst body count ive seen and brutal in the way it was in defense

It depends on what you consider "Brutal"...

But WWII was by far..the most brutal conflict in history.

Just for Kicks....

Look up Dresden, Germany.

My guess is in recent wars: WWI, most of the victims died in war, in WWII the holocaust was, well, something a bit aside of the war, the real war was the expansion of Hitler. I'm not saying the Holocaust wasn't brutal, I'm just trying to see the war. Only afterwards one discovered the real cruelty of the concentration camps, the allied forces went to war to free invaded countries, not to free people from concentration camps.

Anyhow, the etnic war in Rwanda maybe was more brutal then even WWI. It was also a war against civilians, women and children. Children being told to kill their parents with machetes and hacking of hands and feet. That is really really cruel. A bit like Poll Pot did in Cambodia with the Red Kmerr. Letting children torture and hack their parents to death, that is true true cruelty. Poor children grew up to be feared monsters.

Yes they are! BTW, who are "all the others", those from Honduras? That are allready home? Yse the Dutch suck, but it is their PM that acts against the will of 83% of the people. But just like you are a American withouth the passport, you will find in each EU country some very rare exeptions that like to suck instead of being proud that they don't are US slaves, but free people.).
It is amusing. You are just wrong. You know the others very well. There are 18 european countries. That even is the majority of the governments.

Move over, you better belong there. BTW, De Gaulle just wanted West Germany in Nato but he moved out the day he saw that the organisation was only there for the US. That is why he showed Nato the French door (way out) and why it is now the 3th nuclear power after the uS and Russia (yep, more then China and US dog Brittain).
As far as I know they have 200 nukes - not more than Britain and have of the estimated arsenal of Israel.
I tell you what de Gaulle wanted. He wanted to be a new Napoleon and unite Europe under French leadership. Since he was smart enough to see that he can´t do it alone he tried to instrumentalise the Germans as juninor partner (or as horse for his idea). West Germany at that time had little choice. It needed to integrate into the Western alliance system. And it had to keep good times with Washington and Paris and London.

The break with Washington was a carefully planed coup - a test balone to look how far Paris could go with its attempt to create an anti-American Europe.
However West Germany was smart enough not to follow the confrontation strategy of de Gaulle - although there was a heavy debatte about that in Germany at that time.
Another decision would have led Germany completly at the mercy and the dependency of France, while the double-binding (with the US and France) leaves Germany room to manoveour. This strategy was followed by the Federal Republic of Germany up until the point the idiot Schroeder had problems in his reelection campaign in 2002 and he needed an issue for that.
That was the time this idiot smatched long-term German interests for short term aims, damaged the transatlantic relations and took the position of junior partner of France - especially at the Un.
That is not the position the strongest economy in Europe belongs to. He has to correct that and to repair the damage in the relationship with the US caused by him. He has taken some steps in that direction after the war.
But I think up until we have another government the damage can´t be repaired completly. Probably it is not possible to repair it completly, but I think the split can be closed and reduced though. And that would be the position Germany should take.

The Napolianic wars, the simple brutality of this war, was worse than most others. men just ahd to march towards the enermy and all the time ati;lary would be blowing people appart with Roundshot.

Yep, you call democracy a regime and want to install suckers like Merkel and other US payed (you can bet that the Republicans are sponsoring their party) that would install a real regime and cut in civil liberties...blind fanatics like you
should be put on a boat to the US. It will be cheap to since we would only need a very small boat, regarding the opinions in the EU.
You are intolerant since you want to get rid of people who don´t agree with you. That is really outrageous.
And by the way: I used the word regime in "".
Some people are after all speaking provocingly about "regime change in the US". I just used it the other way around in order to demonstrate how stupid such a rhetoric is.
Neither the US administration nor the German administration is a regime. They are both democratically elected governments. Governments of the people, by the people and for the people - of democratic nations (since more than two centuries (the US) and more than five decades (Germany).

I seen a programme about WW1 it showed 2 single attacks from the british against the germans and 60'000 people were kille in these 2 single attacks ..

For the size of britain this is maybe the worst body count ive seen and brutal in the way it was in defense

The first day of the Battle of the Somme; 60,000 casualties for the British Army. I think.

What...?

By brutal I was thinking more along the lines of things like gas attacks, blood, mud, months on end with no gain in either direction, battles like the Somme, the resulting influenza epidemic.


I was thinking along the same lines in which case I nominate The Crusades and The Hundred Years War (http://www.ukans.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/hundred_years_war.html) .

I wouldn´t deny political opponents a lack of nationality.
Mannomann, lack the nationality, wie in dir fehlt nur noch die Ami staatsangehoerigkeit. Lern Englisch.
Are the Dutch "sucking up" to the US, the British, the Poles, the Italians and all the others?
Yes. They are.
They have good reasons for their position
Yes. They are fighting over who gets the first lick of American rear.
and I agree with them.
I know you do. You love licking their heels almost as much as the idea of an American Europe.

Schröder and Chirac need to shut up for that.
The American loveslaves need to shut it.
And a "regime change" in our country - Germany - would be very good for Germany and Europe.
The only thing Merkel would be good for is to keep Turkey out of the EU. But something tells me she will forget about that as soon as she or on of her lakeys are elected. If only Austria had more weight to throw into the ring.