Just one thing to add --
The RMS Lusitania was a BRITISH ship. It was NOT an American ship.
It was NOT sent to German waters -- it was sunk off the coast of Ireland.
While you're absolutely right that its sinking was used politically (after all only 148 of its 1198 dead were American), it was NOT deliberately sent as a pawn to draw an attack from Germany.
It was a civilian passenger ship. But Germany presumed (probably accurately) that it was carrying military material, and that's why it was targeted.
But this was hardly the straw that broke the camel's back. The Lusitania didn't lead to the US entering WWI any more than the 'Boston Massacre' led to the American Revolution. Read about the Zimmerman telegram -- that was what really did it in the end.
But as you know many major movements and events in history begin with people's attitudes being changed by something. The Boston Massacre changed a lot of attitudes towards the British (with the help of propagandists like Sam Adams). The sinking of the Lusitania changed a lot of attitudes towards Germany (with the help of Wilson and others). And 9/11 was a much bigger event than the 148 American dead on the Lusitania or the 5 or 10 dead in the Boston massacre. Even if there had been no propagandizing of 9/11 at all, it would STILL be the major event in America in the last generation.
Something like a telegram would not cause war.
I won't be sorry for a group of people who voluntarily went into a war zone.
With all due respect you tried to make a point using historical facts that you were grossly wrong about, and now that these errors have been pointed out you're still awkwardly trying to find a way to fit your point onto the actual facts. I don't want to dwell on details, but I find your understanding of the historical events to be insufficient to justify the conclusions you draw from them.
At any rate, it's irrelevant whether Germany thought it was justified in sinking the Lusitania -- after all, the American and British blockades of Germany's ports were bar none the deciding factor in the outcome of WWI, so there's nothing particularly surprising about the sinking of the Lusitania -- except that it was a passenger boat. Then again Germany even in WWI showed little regard for civilian lives.
The Lusitania is the exact historical equivalent in WWI that Harpers Ferry was before the Civil War, and that the Boston Massacre was before the American Revolution. If you're not familiar with these events in American History you should read about them. These were all events that were seminal in that attitudes became galvanized towards hostility as a result. These events were used for propaganda, but in the end were merely part of a chain in the mass movement of human attitudes that eventually led to war -- and wars that absolutely would have happened anyway in all three cases. If it hadn't been these events, it would have been something else.
That's a ridiculous and horrible thing to say. There were 1100 dead British noncombatants on that boat -- and they were going home. Your own country has borne the brunt of enough death among civilian noncombatants that I'd expect more sympathy.
Lets face it; I'm the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed you are the one who supports one without. You would not go into a war zone, and European waters in 1917 were war zone, whether these people were innocent or not does not matter. You would not go into Iraq as a citizen because you know it's dangerous.
Lets face it; I'm the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed you are the one who supports one without.
You would not go into a war zone, and European waters in 1917 were war zone,
whether these people were innocent or not does not matter
You should not see me as a coldblooded or mass murderer as Hitler exposed himself since 1941 till his death in April 1945, for i am not.
You should see me as someone who sees violence and murder, as used in the proper form that is needed to achieve the goal
human life can be disposed of if needed in this progress if really needed
but as I think you would react you would pity me for such a world view and hope I will turn around someday.
About the revolution; I'm not saying every revolution needs to happen and is needed. But those that happen should be done properly, destruction of the former regime is, in my opinion, needed.
If this accounts to murder, than it must be this way.
Not always. Remember that reuinification and reconstruction is critical after a revolution. One huge (and acknowledged) mistake the Americans have made in Iraq has been to destroy Saddam's regime and army so completely that the huge Sunni minority in the country has felt completely disenfranchised and marginalized; and the existing military and political infrastructure was destroyed as well, meaning it's had to be built from the ground up.
Some historical revolutions have succeeded without destruction of the former regime, too. The English have managed to create a government out of mini-revolutions that through time have decreased the power of monarchy and increased the power of representative government; that's happened without doing what the French or Russians did with their royal families. In the American Civil War, while the revolutionaries (the Confederate States of America) lost, not even their leaders (like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Robert E. Lee) suffered much more than losing the right to vote. Davis was imprisoned for a short time, but no one was executed, the Confederate soldiers were all repatriated, etc. Reconstruction was hard enough despite this, but if there had been harsh treatment of the south (beyond what already happened in the war) there would probably have been a generation of guerilla warfare, resistance, and perhaps another open civil war.
I think our problem here is the use of the word 'murder' which in general use doesn't simply mean 'homicide' -- it means unjustified or criminal homicide.
In the American Civil War, while the revolutionaries (the Confederate States of America) lost, not even their leaders (like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Robert E. Lee) suffered much more than losing the right to vote. Davis was imprisoned for a short time, but no one was executed, the Confederate soldiers were all repatriated, etc. Reconstruction was hard enough despite this, but if there had been harsh treatment of the south (beyond what already happened in the war) there would probably have been a generation of guerilla warfare, resistance, and perhaps another open civil war.
USATODAY.com - Frequent TV watching shortens kids' attention spans
USATODAY.com - Short attention span linked to TV
Both links contain full articles. From the first link:
Frequent TV watching shortens kids' attention spans
By Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY
Psychologists and media experts are concerned, but not surprised, by a landmark study suggesting that frequent TV watching by infants and toddlers may shorten their attention span by age 7.
The research, in today's Pediatrics, finds that the more television very young kids watch, the more likely they are to have trouble concentrating and to become impulsive and restless.
Site with information and opinion on the issue:
Kill Your Television TurnOffYourTV.com
And finally, the research itself:
Early Television Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems in Children -- Christakis et al. 113 (4): 708 -- Pediatrics
The occupying Union army was notably kind to the conquered southerners. However, that's not to say the southern states were not treated harshly after the war. Carpet baggers, anyone?
Another open civil war was simply not possible. The south lost over 15% of their fighting-age male population. Guerrilla fighting did continue for some time; the KKK was initially one such group.
Guerilla fighting was pretty minor, however, especially since Lee openly discouraged it. Yes, the south was treated roughly, though never so roughly as by Sherman's army in Georgia and the Carolinas and by Sheridan's army in the Shenandoah. But that was war, and scorched earth strategic war has been employed ever since.
But I think you're missing my point, which is that revolutions do NOT and should not be concluded with the complete destruction of the adversary. And the American Civil War is one example that demonstrates this, even though the repercussions of the war are felt to this very day.
You are right, the guerrilla warfare was minor. Usually Sherman is called a butcher for his march through the heartland even though Sherman tried his best to keep his soldiers from mistreating the population.