Lonesome Polecat, I was making the point that while Europe is not a prime excample of how to get along peacefully, it is damned hypocritical and stupid for an American to snipe at Europeans for it. Americas bried history has been ripe with unjust wars, wholesale genocide and mass murder, just like Europes.
Your remark of how Europe has been hiding behind Americas military might I would like more details on. Cite or clarification pls.
I stand corrected. I believe that it was Galileo that I was thinking of:
But knowledge and enlightenment in Europe was definitely stifled by the church.
No, not really. Again, the Church funded quite a few universities. Including Pisa. Which is where Galileo did most of his work. The Church supported Galileo’s treatise on the center of gravity in solids, his demonstration of why the peripatetic maxim was incorrect, his establishment of the laws of falling bodies, his work on equilibrium and velocities among a lot more.
And when he first brought his telescope to Rome to demonstrate what he had found in 1611, he was quite popular with church officials and even used the garden of one of the cardinals to set up his demonstrations.
Sorry, but the idea that the Church was some sort of enemy of science and knowledge during this time just doesn’t hold up.
I’d suspect we’d see no such thing, given that you present little more than claims that run contrary to the actual facts. namely:
European attitude towards defense is far from homogeneous.
In fact, it was precisely NOT wanting to rely on the US that led France to suspend their NATO membership and establish a nuclear force of their own.
In any case, the ‘cowboy’ attitude you consider necessary to provide for security, has, in most cases, achieved the precise opposite. ‘Old Europe’ has consistently pursued its own ideas on how security can be achieved. Long before the dream icon of a US Cowboy, Ronald Reagan, could have any influence on European security, the west German government was already pursuing a security policy of its own that had little in common with Reagan’s, but was no small factor in the massive changes that happened in Poland.
Reducing the number of enemies you have is doing quite a bit to ensure your security. Dick-swinging is not usually conductive to reducing the number of enemies.
Which, of COURSE means that their human sacrifices are WONDERFUL and so very superior that they must be re-instituted immediately.
Not from my point of view. The US is willing to use force when we deem it neccessary to eliminate current of imminent threats. I don’t think any administration has denied this. However, you’ll note that we were more than happy to keep the peace when dealing with rational people whom we could negotiate with, at least implicitly, including the Russians. Fact is, by and large we want to be left alone. And honestly, do you tyink Europe would have been better off without our “cowboy ways”.
Oh, and I should mention something. We think cowboys are great.
But would have been utterly and totally useless without Reagan. If he had not forced the SovUnion to overplay its hand and fall apart, Poland would still probably be over the Iron Curtain. All the peaceful revolutionaries in the world won’t help you if you if the men with the guns cannot be convinced to stand aside.
And honestly, what did West Germany do that at all helped Poland? I’ve nevber even seen a German claim for this, and certainly no acknowledgement fro the Poles. W Germany’s policy of “engagement with the east” may have helped people feel better, but it in no way contributed to the fall of either E. Germany or communist Poland. In fact, their deals probably helped E. Germany remain stronger.
If Europe is to be taken as one nation, which most of you seem to do, shouldn´t we talk about asia and the americas as one nation as well?
I mean …sure, we all know about the bloodthirst and mighty wars that, say, France and Italy have waged in recent memory; and how eager we were to get Americans to fix the problems in the east…
And speaking of bloody wars and acts of inhumanity… I seem to remember something called native Americans and a plane called Enola Gay.
There are things in both American and “European” history that can never be forgiven and should never be forgotten. The most amazing thing to me is that while “Europeans” admit their shame at what they have done in the past, the Americans almost seem proud of what they have “achieved” through their wars.
You’ll find very few American proud of the treatment of the Native Americans or of the dropping of the atomic bomb. Although, you’ll only find shame in the former, not that latter.
Of course, Europeans killed far more native Americans than Americans did.
And of course, one can talk of Europe as one nation now somewhat legitimately due to the EU. Which is why many folks (myself included) tend to do it. Although I am fully aware of the fact that it is not truly one state right now.
Idunno about EU. EUII incorporated many improvements, although Svea Rike can be fun for a more beer-and-skittles approach.
**
Sorry, but in this thread, such arguments are meaningless, because Iraq was neither a current nor imminent threat to anyone but its own population.
I know it is nice for you to believe that, but it is an opinion held practically exclusively by US conservatives, and rejected by plenty of noteworthy Cold War scholars. For one thing, you ignore the actual timeline of events in respect to Poland, since Solidarnosc was founded before Reagan even came into power. Second, you ignore that the Soviet Union was overplaying its hand FROM ITS VERY BEGINNING. That its economic system crumbled is nothing that Reagan is responsible for in any way, it’s a feature of the system itself. Reagan can at best be responsible for the TIME POINT at which it happened, and his confrontational attitude might well have entrenched the hardliners causing them to hold on a bit longer.
You certainly don’t gain credibility by ignoring the 1971 Nobel Peace prize, nor by ignoring Brandt’s visit to Warsaw in 1970. The evidence that this was not a representative of a nation the locals had to fear and guard themselves against did a great deal to weaken the hold of propaganda., and as such, the strength of the grip the government had on the people. Once again, you are ignoring the role Solidarnosc played in the development in Poland.
As for eastern Germany, please allow me to laugh. The Eastern German regime refused to give up long after the guys with the guns had disappeared. To claim that Reagan was a bigger factor in the massive rise and exodus of the people than the fact that eastern German citizens had for decades been able to watch western german TV is truly fantasizing.
And I don’t see west germany as the critical factor there. Its apology to Poland was nice and all, but hardly neccessary to European peace: Poland was hardly going to atack west germany. That west germany did so undoubtable helped, but it would not have done so without the steely stare of US guns pointed east.
And accepted by others.
I well realize that. I don’t see as being somehow due to German peace-and-love politics.
Bullshit. There is every indications that Reagan’s tactic of mass arming convinced the USSR to try and do the same, which then led to their collapse. Its hard to imagine that they would have given up sooner without his pushing, and if so, it would be a matter of months, not years. China has dmonstrated time and again that even weak nations with no external political threats often hang around for years, doing damage simply to keep up with the egos of its rulers. And the SovUnion was not weak by those standards. It had great power over the lives of its citizens - and a lot of info on them - up to the day it died. Poland was no different.
I thought we had seen the last of this myth in recent arguments where it has been shown that the Sovet union did not raise its military budget in response and its leaders thought that S.Wars was a pipedream of a senile old man (more or less the truth).
Read the last two threads on the subject and you should come to the same conclusion.
You demonstrate knowing precious little about Willy Brandt. I would suggest reading at least the minimum biography at the Nobel site. US guns were a pretty low factor in his thinking.
Yes, US conservatives, for purely nationalistic reasons. Sorry, but academic opinion trumps think-tank dick-swinging every given day of the year.
But it was due to Reagan, who wasn’t even in power yet? Yeah, right. As for the German factor in it, when you feel threatened by an outside force, you are careful causing internal instability. When you think the guy on top is RIGHT spreading fear and hatred, you don’t challenge him.
You once again distort the timeline of events on Poland, which was VERY different. As for the rest, your calling bullshit is merely demonstration of the fact that you don’t actually have evidence for your claims and have to substitute them with verbal incontinence. I would suggest reading the seminal books on the cold war by Wilfried Loth, which are pretty much standard reading material on the issue across the planet. Loth is member of the editorial board of the Journal ‘Cold War History’.
Other researchers suggest that Khrushchev was even aware as far back as the Cuban missile crisis that the Soviet Union was losing the cold war, and was trying to cut the best deal for them on the way out.
Before you call ‘bullshit’ again, I would suggest you put away your propaganda material and familiarize yourself with the actual state of the discussion. What you are spewing here is drivel debunked ages ago.
I took Mexican History just a couple years back, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the correct term for the people residing in Tenochtitlan who spoke Nahuatl and were conquered by the Spanish was the Mixtecs. How they came to be called “Aztecs”, I haven’t the foggiest. (It can’t just be the millions of copies of Civilization II that popularized the name 
)
Bloody sacrifices or not, I consider the Mixtecs/Aztecs/whatever (along with the Inca in South America and the Maya 300 years earlier on the Yucatan at the height of their power) to be highly advanced civilizations. They lived in cities, had complex political structures, sedentary agriculture, a written tradition, and some knowledge of minerals and astronomy. Especially when compared to the native tribes north of the Rio Grande, Central and Southern America were amazingly advanced cultures.
Aztec is a proper term for all of the Nahua-speaking people in the area. The Mexica were a specific culture within the Nahua, which drew on Mixteca-Pueblo influences. The Toltecs were the specific tribe within the Mexica culture that dominated the area at the time of European arrival.
Sort of like how the Delaware are a tribe within the Algonquin culture.
No one is denying the complexity or advanced status of the Aztec Empire (yeah I know, wrong name, blah blah) but I don’t see how that is relevent in discussing their barbaric religious practices. It sounds like you’re saying, “Sure they killed some people, but hey they were advanced so it was ok.” Though I am fascinated by pre-columbian culture, I think the destruction of the Aztec Empire was no tragedy.
Just to add to Neurotik’s comments:
Mexica ( or ‘Culhua Mexica’ ) - name the inhabitants of Tenochitlan, Tlatelolco, and Tlacopan used collectively to refer themselves.
Tenochca - Term used by the inhabitants of Tenochitlan to distinguish themselves from their allies in the other cities.
Aztec - term originally applied to the early Mexica migrants, referring to their claimed point of origin ( ‘Aztlan’ ). Now used as a descriptor for the Mexica-dominated state and its collective inhabitants.
Nahuatl - common language of central Mexico.
Mixtec - One of the Nahuatl-speaking peoples of central Mexico ( like the Zapotec ), not synonymous with the Mexica, whom they struggled against.
Toltec - Dominant Nahuatl-speaking people in central Mexico 10th-13th century with their capital at Tula/Tollan. Overrun by nomadic ‘Chichimec’ tribes, which included the Mexica. The Tenochca/Mexica occasionally referred to themselves as “Toltecs”, a term which had come to indicate a certain cultural paradigm ( “builders/craftsman” as opposed to wild, barbarian tribes ), rather than a particular people.
Oh, good. Got back here before anybody could catch my mistake ;)…
Tlacopan wasn’t Mexica, but rather part of the Triple Alliance between Tenochitlan-Tlatelolco, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. Somehow I conflated the two in my wee brain.
Tlamerlane, if Tlacopan was only part of the Tliple Alliance between Tlenochitlan-Tlatelolco, Tlexcoco, and Tlacopan (*) and not related to Mexica at all, then what is the proper description Mexica?
Tenochitlan and Tlatelolco were the two Mexica towns, Tlatelolco having been founded as a satellite in 1358 by a faction that left Tenochitlan after being alienated by a land dispute. It was a junior ally to Tenochitlan and in time not very differentiated , but it did have its own dynasty 1358-1473, before being absorbed and placed under a military governorship stemming from Tenochitlan. Hence the Tenochca/Tlatelolchca differentiation.
Tlacopan was a Tepanec town, Texcoco was actually an old Toltec town. Many of the dynasties in the region, including the Mexica of both Tenochitlan and Tlatelolco after 1372, were ruled by what are termed “Neo-Toltec” dynasties - i.e. princes that claimed descent from Toltec nobility. It was sort of the standard claim that allowed one to justify imperial pretensions.