TRUMP MULLS ENDING ALL ONGOING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE

EdwinA said:
Try holding your breath until you turn blue. See if that makes me scared n stuff. Your spin was never true, and you can't make it true by parroting it over and over and over and more than Democrats parroting their rubbish can. You have a link to the best and most recent source. You're just going to ignore it and keep parroting the Party spin, is all.
Click to expand...


No proof, no truth.
 
Diogenes said:
No proof, no truth.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know, you've never read any real history on it, just repeat some spin you heard that sounds good. People love to cite stuff about Johnson that comes from Caro's biography, but they only repeat blurbs they read on the innernutz and have never read Caro's books and don't know what he actually said, and that he had no documented sources on a lot of it, just hearsay. Now you have a link to a real book on WW I, and you will not read it. It isn't of any use to your preferred narratives.
 
Diogenes said:
Gk69xn_bQAEojdd
Click to expand...
Trump don’t mull anything, Putin tells him, get your facts straight
 
EdwinA said:
You wouldn't know, you've never read any real history on it, just repeat some spin you heard that sounds good. People love to cite stuff about Johnson that comes from Caro's biography, but they only repeat blurbs they read on the innernutz and have never read Caro's books and don't know what he actually said, and that he had no documented sources on a lot of it, just hearsay. Now you have a link to a real book on WW I, and you will not read it. It isn't of any use to your preferred narratives.
Click to expand...

So you say.

Present your evidence.

Claiming that you've read something in a book authored by someone else isn't evidence.

No proof, no truth.
 
Did David Stevenson's book Cataclysm prove that Woodrow Wilson was caught secretly negotiating unilateral deals with Kaiser Wilhelm II, leading to a premature Armistice?

No, David Stevenson's book Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy does not prove that Woodrow Wilson was caught secretly negotiating unilateral deals with Kaiser Wilhelm II, leading to a premature armistice.

Stevenson's work, a comprehensive history of World War I, focuses on the political, economic, and strategic dimensions of the conflict, emphasizing how leaders on all sides retained control and made deliberate choices throughout the war.

It does not present evidence of secret, unilateral negotiations between Wilson and Wilhelm II that directly caused a premature armistice.

Historically, the armistice process began in October 1918 when Germany, facing military collapse, sought peace.

On October 4, 1918, German Chancellor Max von Baden sent a telegram to Wilson, requesting an armistice based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points. This was not a secret deal but a public diplomatic move, initiated by Germany, not Wilson.

Wilson responded with notes on October 8, 14, and 23, setting conditions: Germany must democratize, end submarine warfare, and accept terms ensuring it could not resume fighting.

These exchanges were transparent, involving coordination with the Allies, and culminated in the armistice of November 11, 1918, after Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated on November 9 amid internal unrest and military defeat.

Stevenson’s analysis in Cataclysm aligns with this narrative.

He argues that politicians, including Wilson, shaped the war’s course and end, countering the idea that it was an uncontrollable juggernaut.

He credits Wilson with pushing for a framework that facilitated the armistice—via the Fourteen Points—but criticizes U.S. involvement as belated and diplomatically naive, not secretive or unilateral.

The book does not suggest Wilson conspired with Wilhelm II behind the Allies’ backs.

Instead, it frames the armistice as a result of Germany’s desperation and Allied pressure, with Wilson’s ideals influencing but not solely dictating the outcome.

The idea of “secret negotiations” or a “premature armistice” implies a hidden agenda or a rushed end that undermined the Allies, but Stevenson’s evidence points to a deliberate, if complex, process.

Germany’s military leaders, like Ludendorff and Hindenburg, urged peace as their forces crumbled, and Wilson’s conditions aligned with Allied goals, though tensions existed over harsher terms later imposed at Versailles.

No primary evidence in Cataclysm—or elsewhere in standard histories—supports a clandestine Wilson-Wilhelm deal.

The armistice’s timing reflected battlefield realities and political upheaval in Germany, not a premature betrayal by Wilson.

If poster @EdwinA on JustPlainPolitics.com is referencing a specific claim or interpretation, it doesn’t appear in Stevenson’s Cataclysm based on its widely reviewed content and focus.

The book’s thrust is on broader decision-making, not a conspiracy theory about Wilson and Wilhelm II.




@Grok
 






Brian Berletic

@BrianJBerletic

The EU obediently begins the US dictate of "division of labor" - Europe continues Ukraine war while US pivots to the exact same sort of conflict, but with China in Asia. And this pivot to China, already manifesting itself in the form of continued backtracking from Washington's "one China" agreement, continued militarization in Asia-Pacific, recent meddling by Secretary Rubio in Thai-Chinese relations, and continued preparations for further decoupling, encroachment, and encirclement of China, is proof in and of itself the US is disingenuous about real peace with Russia. The US cannot fight both conflicts on its own. Democrats, Republicans, think tanks, Neo-Cons and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth himself have all taken turns admitting this. Arms production is expanding on both sides of the Atlantic in the hopes that it will be enough to delay China breaking out of US encirclement in Asia, and ensure success during the next round of aggression vs. Russia.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1895917242422084032

And the Imperial Empire is desperately trying to get military gear from Korea and Japan to save the day, but it wont work.....we have clearly lost the arms race......there is no hope of changing this this late, and as the West is dying.
 
Diogenes said:
Eisenhower didn’t directly "get us into Vietnam" in the sense of starting the Vietnam War, but his administration laid the groundwork for U.S.
involvement. When Eisenhower took office in 1953, Vietnam was still a French colony embroiled in the First Indochina War against the communist Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh.

The U.S., under Eisenhower, began providing financial and military aid to France to counter the spread of communism, consistent with the Cold War "domino theory." By 1954, the U.S. was funding up to 80% of France’s war effort—hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

After the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the Geneva Accords split Vietnam into North (communist) and South (anti-communist). Eisenhower rejected the accords’ call for nationwide elections in 1956, fearing a Ho Chi Minh victory, and instead backed Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime in South Vietnam.

He sent military advisors—starting with a few hundred by the end of his term in 1961—to train South Vietnams' army (ARVN). This was a limited commitment: no combat troops, just support. The escalation into full-scale war came later, under Kennedy and Johnson. So, Eisenhower didn’t "get us in" militarily, but his policies—aid, advisors, and propping up Diem—set the stage.

@Grok




LBJ’s escalation began in earnest in 1965 after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (August 1964), which gave him broad authority to ramp up U.S. involvement. Operation Rolling Thunder, a massive bombing campaign, started in March 1965, and U.S. troop levels jumped from about 23,000 advisors in 1964 to 184,000 combat troops by the end of 1965, peaking at over 536,000 by 1968. The goal was to crush the Viet Cong (VC), the communist insurgents in South Vietnam, and prop up the Saigon government.

Did it work in three years? Not really. From 1965 to 1968, the Viet Cong took heavy losses—tens of thousands killed, especially during the 1968 Tet Offensive, where they lost an estimated 30,000-40,000 fighters. U.S. and ARVN forces claimed to have weakened the VC’s infrastructure, with General Westmoreland asserting in 1967 that enemy strength was declining.

But the Tet Offensive in January 1968 proved the VC wasn’t destroyed. They launched a coordinated attack across South Vietnam, hitting over 100 targets, including Saigon. Though it was a military loss for the VC (they didn’t hold ground), it shattered the narrative of U.S. progress, turning American public opinion sharply against the war.

By 1968, the VC wasn’t the same force—its ranks were depleted, and North Vietnamese regulars (NVA) increasingly took over. VC numbers dropped from maybe 80,000 in 1965 to a fraction by 1969, with estimates as low as 30,000-40,000 fighters. But "destroyed as a major force" overstates it.

They adapted, shifted to guerrilla tactics, and relied on NVA support. The war dragged on until 1975, with the VC still active in the final push that took Saigon. LBJ’s escalation hurt them badly but didn’t knock them out in three years—resilience and North Vietnam’s backing kept them in the fight.

So, Eisenhower planted seeds; LBJ escalated but didn’t finish the VC in that timeframe. Historical consensus backs this: initial commitment versus all-out war, and heavy damage versus total defeat.



@Grok
Click to expand...
Let me add ...

"During his presidency, Harry S. Truman initiated the United States' military aid to Vietnam by providing financial support to the French forces fighting against the Viet Minh in the First Indochina War, essentially marking the beginning of American involvement in the region; this aid included sending a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to Vietnam in 1950 to oversee the distribution of US military equipment to the French army" - google Ai
 
EdwinA said:
You wouldn't like it no matter what, it doesn't fit Republican propaganda narratives. You know where to get the book, as does anybody who really has an interest in the facts and the timelines. 'All the DEms wuz Evul Warmongers N Stuff While The GOP wuz all peace loving victims n stuff' is just silly bullshit, always was and still is.

170+ Republicans voted for war, 32 opposed, 5 abstained. Just a fact.
Click to expand...
Woodrow wanted the war. He requested the declaration. The Lusitania was carrying military supplies, arms and ammunition.

44 Democratic and 38 Republican Senators voted for the Declaration.

Congress - 193 Democrats and 176 Republicans voted for the declaration.
 
Bigdog said:
Woodrow wanted the war. He requested the declaration. The Lusitania was carrying military supplies, arms and ammunition.

44 Democratic and 38 Republican Senators voted for the Declaration.

Congress - 193 Democrats and 176 Republicans voted for the declaration.
Click to expand...

German uboat attacks, the Zimmerman telegram, etc., trying to tell us who we could trade with and where we could ship goods. It was more than just the Lusitania, but yeah, most everybody wanted a response to that. Germany had sunk over 114 ships carrying American freight
Diogenes said:
does not present evidence of secret, unilateral negotiations between Wilson and Wilhelm II that directly caused a premature armistice.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. The Germans knew he was more favorable in terms for them than Britain and France was, especially re Alsace/Loraine, and approached him several times, and he didn't let his allies know.
 
Diogenes said:
So you say.

Present your evidence.

Claiming that you've read something in a book authored by someone else isn't evidence.

No proof, no truth.
Click to expand...

I don;t care whether you like it or not. Like I said, you will just play 'I Touched You Last!!!' fifty times. I like discussing history with people who already know the facts ; you don't.

Prove Stevenson is wrong.
 
Diogenes said:
Did David Stevenson's book Cataclysm prove that Woodrow Wilson was caught secretly negotiating unilateral deals with Kaiser Wilhelm II, leading to a premature Armistice?

No, David Stevenson's book Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy does not prove that Woodrow Wilson was caught secretly negotiating unilateral deals with Kaiser Wilhelm II, leading to a premature armistice.

Stevenson's work, a comprehensive history of World War I, focuses on the political, economic, and strategic dimensions of the conflict, emphasizing how leaders on all sides retained control and made deliberate choices throughout the war.

It does not present evidence of secret, unilateral negotiations between Wilson and Wilhelm II that directly caused a premature armistice.

Historically, the armistice process began in October 1918 when Germany, facing military collapse, sought peace.

On October 4, 1918, German Chancellor Max von Baden sent a telegram to Wilson, requesting an armistice based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points. This was not a secret deal but a public diplomatic move, initiated by Germany, not Wilson.

Wilson responded with notes on October 8, 14, and 23, setting conditions: Germany must democratize, end submarine warfare, and accept terms ensuring it could not resume fighting.

These exchanges were transparent, involving coordination with the Allies, and culminated in the armistice of November 11, 1918, after Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated on November 9 amid internal unrest and military defeat.

Stevenson’s analysis in Cataclysm aligns with this narrative.

He argues that politicians, including Wilson, shaped the war’s course and end, countering the idea that it was an uncontrollable juggernaut.

He credits Wilson with pushing for a framework that facilitated the armistice—via the Fourteen Points—but criticizes U.S. involvement as belated and diplomatically naive, not secretive or unilateral.

The book does not suggest Wilson conspired with Wilhelm II behind the Allies’ backs.

Instead, it frames the armistice as a result of Germany’s desperation and Allied pressure, with Wilson’s ideals influencing but not solely dictating the outcome.

The idea of “secret negotiations” or a “premature armistice” implies a hidden agenda or a rushed end that undermined the Allies, but Stevenson’s evidence points to a deliberate, if complex, process.

Germany’s military leaders, like Ludendorff and Hindenburg, urged peace as their forces crumbled, and Wilson’s conditions aligned with Allied goals, though tensions existed over harsher terms later imposed at Versailles.

No primary evidence in Cataclysm—or elsewhere in standard histories—supports a clandestine Wilson-Wilhelm deal.

The armistice’s timing reflected battlefield realities and political upheaval in Germany, not a premature betrayal by Wilson.

If poster @EdwinA on JustPlainPolitics.com is referencing a specific claim or interpretation, it doesn’t appear in Stevenson’s Cataclysm based on its widely reviewed content and focus.

The book’s thrust is on broader decision-making, not a conspiracy theory about Wilson and Wilhelm II.




@Grok
Click to expand...

You haven't read it, so you have no idea what's in it. lol try again.
 
EdwinA said:
German uboat attacks, the Zimmerman telegram, etc., trying to tell us who we could trade with and where we could ship goods. It was more than just the Lusitania, but yeah, most everybody wanted a response to that. Germany had sunk over 114 ships carrying American freight


Yes, it does. The Germans knew he was more favorable in terms for them than Britain and France was, especially re Alsace/Loraine, and approached him several times, and he didn't let his allies know.
Click to expand...
The Uboat attacks were justified from the German viewpoint since arms, etc. were being smuggled. Woodrow wanted war and his foreign policy created it. Woodrow way overreacted and overreached with the Sedition Act and Espionage act using them to censor free speech, imprison journalists and put newspapers out of business. And target the I.W.W..

And all for what? The right to ship arms to Britain? A war on the other side of the ocean?

The Zimmerman letter was overhyped. Mexico was in chaos and in no position to do any damage to the U.S..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top