Clippers of Nfl Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Well I think it's safe to say there are very few wars whose start could be tied to one thing. That's like saying WWII was because of Adolf Hitler or WWI was because of the Assassination of the Austrian Archduke (forgot his name) etc, etc. here we go again..... hitler is not the reason.... it was problems with .... no it was .... wait 50% hitler and japan imperialism.... make it 60%... no make it 30%... no wait, 25% the great depression... no it was 42.5% problems with ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 here we go again..... hitler is not the reason.... it was problems with .... no it was .... wait 50% hitler and japan imperialism.... make it 60%... no make it 30%... no wait, 25% the great depression... no it was 42.5% problems with ... It was 100% World War I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 It was 100% World War I. That is 99.9% correct...maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 It was 100% World War I. lol. actually it was 100% NOT wwIII's fault. That is 99.9% correct...maybe. maybe you are 99% correct. probably. you guys are a bunch of asses. that's why i like coming here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 If we try hard enough I'm sure we can connect how the results of Gettysburgh managed to convince Archduke Ferdinand's driver to take that fateful turn down the Sarajevo street. Silly English and French just had to force Germany to sign a blank check for war damages and therefor open the door to the fuehrer. Ugh. Anyways go Sabres! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 If we try hard enough I'm sure we can connect how the results of Gettysburgh Having grown up in Western Pennsylvania, I've met several people from Pittsburgh and even a few from Gettysburg. People from Pittsburgh get pissed if you leave off the "H" People from Gettysburg get pissed if you add an "H" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Having grown up in Western Pennsylvania, I've met several people from Pittsburgh and even a few from Gettysburg. People from Pittsburgh get pissed if you leave off the "H" People from Gettysburg get pissed if you add an "H" Thanks for that. I'll remember to leave off the H from now om. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 People from Pittsburgh get pissed if you leave off the "H" People from Gettysburg get pissed if you add an "H" If it bothers them that much they can just go to ell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Having grown up in Western Pennsylvania, I've met several people from Pittsburgh and even a few from Gettysburg. People from Pittsburgh get pissed if you leave off the "H" People from Gettysburg get pissed if you add an "H" I deserve to be shot by a musket for adding the "H". I blame the high percentage beer last night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 FoR a terrific analysis of the start of WWI I'd recommend Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August. I agree with DC Tom that WWI was the primary cause of WWII. The way WWI was "resolvd" reverberates to this day in the Middle East and Central Asia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 FoR a terrific analysis of the start of WWI I'd recommend Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August. I agree with DC Tom that WWI was the primary cause of WWII. And by the way, that goes for the Pacific, as well as Europe. The way WWI was "resolvd" reverberates to this day in the Middle East and Central Asia. More WWII, with the arbitrary carving up of the colonial world with absolutely no attention to the realities of the various regions. But your point isn't invalid, certainly - particularly in the Middle East, where Arab Nationalism, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Revolution gave us many of the nutjob problems we have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Good God, how did I miss this thread? One of my favorite topics, I heard it put best as: "the issue of slavery was the direct cause of dis-union, and the dis-union was the direct cause of the conflict". Of course the more precise reason is a combination of many factors (Southern/Northern nationalism, politics, economics, etc), slavery was the issue that brought all others to a head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike In Illinois Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 The older DVD set of Ken Burns' Civil War Documentary is $34.95 on Amazon.com today: I bought the set today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Good God, how did I miss this thread? One of my favorite topics, I heard it put best as: "the issue of slavery was the direct cause of dis-union, and the dis-union was the direct cause of the conflict". Of course the more precise reason is a combination of many factors (Southern/Northern nationalism, politics, economics, etc), slavery was the issue that brought all others to a head... That would be mostly partially accurate, almost... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 That would be mostly partially accurate, almost... I partially agree with you, 49% or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I partially agree with you, 49% or so... but you're only part right half of the time, and thats only when you're right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 13, 2011 Author Share Posted May 13, 2011 but you're only part right half of the time, and thats only when you're right... I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve Dev you are confusing half of us here with your half ass comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) The older DVD set of Ken Burns' Civil War Documentary is $34.95 on Amazon.com today: I bought the set today. I've been hearing good things about Ken Burn's documentaries. I'm looking forward to checking them all out. If it's unbiased then better still. But there is no such thing as unbiased. Nevertheless Ken Burns documentaries here I come. Anyone here know about Jack Hinson? He was an old timer (almost 60) I believe, a semi wealthy farmer, who was neutral to the war, until the North killed two of his sons and put their heads on posts. Then the old timer got upset and got involved and commissioned one of the top sniper rifles of the era (a .50-caliber rifle) and he went on a rampage. In essence Jack Hinson was blood lusted. He waged his own private war against the Union and caused quite a havoc. Ok, havoc is an understatement in Hinson's case. If the Union had left his family alone he would have been but a footnote or less to history. As hard as the Yankees went after him, he was never caught, he knew his territory too well (the Golden Pond area). Just a factoid amongst many of the time. To be fair there must've been an equally adept sniper from the Union. Since this is a War between the States thread, might as well see things from both sides. Not to do so would be... well... not to hold true to a historian's view of accuracy. Edited May 14, 2011 by Pilsner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 I've been hearing good things about Ken Burn's documentaries. I'm looking forward to checking them all out. If it's unbiased then better still. But there is no such thing as unbiased. Nevertheless Ken Burns documentaries here I come. Anyone here know about Jack Hinson? He was an old timer (almost 60) I believe, a semi wealthy farmer, who was neutral to the war, until the North killed two of his sons and put their heads on posts. Then the old timer got upset and got involved and commissioned one of the top sniper rifles of the era (a .50-caliber rifle) and he went on a rampage. In essence Jack Hinson was blood lusted. He waged his own private war against the Union and caused quite a havoc. Ok, havoc is an understatement in Hinson's case. If the Union had left his family alone he would have been but a footnote or less to history. As hard as the Yankees went after him, he was never caught, he knew his territory too well (the Golden Pond area). Just a factoid amongst many of the time. To be fair there must've been an equally adept sniper from the Union. Since this is a War between the States thread, might as well see things from both sides. Not to do so would be... well... not to hold true to a historian's view of accuracy. ".50 caliber rifle" means almost nothing. Most of the period rifles were in the .50-.60 caliber range. Most accurate was the Sharps rifle (.52, I think)...but if he were a Confederate, he'd more likely use a Whitworth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts