The German campaign of conquering Britain

Del Boy said:
A//I sympathise with the current Polish leader regarding the recent history.

B//I believe you and Ollie are attempting to defend the indefensible, and if push comes to shove, it gets more and more hurtful.

C//As I said to Ollie - let it lie, the die was cast many moons ago.
Click to expand...


A//What do modern Polish - German relations have to do with WWII? In any case, I do not care whom you support, nor do I want your support, and your view of the recent European summit is unwanted here. Every word that you type only demonstrates your irrational hatred of Germany and Germans. I might not be a fan of Churchill or the British Empire (at least in relation to the German Empire), but so what. My opinions are based on more than primitive emotion and racial stereotypes. Nor am I opposed to the British people or the post-colonial British government.

B//The "indefensible" is your point of view. I just wish that you could actually offer just one solid argument against the case I presented in this forum. I could. But I won't.

C//The origins of WWII remains a vital area of intellectual debate. And not just for academics. In a world where politicians misuse the experiences of the 1930s for their own policy ends, like Bush's absurd misrepresentation of Appeasement to support wars of expansion, I am obligated to shout in the wilderness. It is my moral and intellectual duty to put my trust in the scientific method. Not God. Not man. And not Government. State-supported efforts at manufacturing popular consent, all aiming at broadening the power of the monied ruling class, sicken me. The cheap mobilization of the Hitler bogey-man for policy ends is a sad reflection on the primitive state of "modern" society.

I suggest you watch the following programs:

A Century of the Self:

1. http://video.google.de/videoplay?do...185&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
2. http://video.google.de/videoplay?do...38&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
3. http://video.google.de/videoplay?do...38&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7
4. http://video.google.de/videoplay?do...38&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6
 
Murray pegged Hitler's personality as "counteractive narcism," a type that is stimulated by real or imagined insult or injury. According to Dr. Murray, the characteristics of this personality type include: holding grudges, low tolerance for criticism, excessive demands for attention, inability to express gratitude, a tendency to belittle, bully, and blame others, desire for revenge, persistence in the face of defeat, extreme self-will, self-trust, inability to take a joke, and compulsive criminality. Dr. Murray concluded that Hitler had these characteristics (and others) to an extreme degree and lacked the offsetting qualities that round out a balanced personality.
Click to expand...
http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/Hitler/

We need an academic to make this point, because as Ollie would point out, we lowbrows (Churchill et al) are to "thick" to make this judgement for ourselves.

Ahhh,... such a charming and well balanced character. Just the type we need marching through the countries of Europe so he can murder a large part of their populations. I fail to see how Churchill can be castigated for seeing through the plans of this neurotic, power hungry despot.

Hitler should have stuck to building autobahns and replanning the city of Linz.
 
Last edited:
B//The "indefensible" is your point of view. I just wish that you could actually offer just one solid argument against the case I presented in this forum. I could*. But I won't.
Click to expand...
*So could most of the world's population, but why should they bother. The facts are known and have been so for 60+ years.

Like I said earlier, "The politicians might precipitate these wars, but the ultimate judgement as to their guilt is reserved for the man in the street". Even if by some chance you could convince me of your views, it would mean nothing, Hitler has been judged by the world, and it appears to me that they got it right.

Personally I think that Del Boy's quotation sums it up admirably. "You can't polish a turd".
 
Ollie Garchy Adopts the Bumpkin Methodology​

Why and For What?​

A catastrophe has broken over Europe like a sudden hurricane. Even those not directly involved in the struggle are shocked by its elemental rage. We Germans were not as surprised, since we had long understood the enemy's policies and had assumed the day might come when he would carry out his plans and intentions.

2919306990097580718OAebNL_th.jpg
​

Why are we fighting?​

Because we were forced into it by England and its Polish friends. If the enemy had not begun the fight now, they would have within two or three years. England and France began the war in 1939 because they feared that in two or three years Germany would be militarily stronger and harder to defeat. The deepest roots of this war are in England's old claim to rule the world, and Europe in particular. Although its homeland is relatively small, England has understood how to cleverly exploit others to expand its possessions. It controls the seas, the important points along major sea routes, and the richest parts of our planet. The contrast between England itself and its overseas territories is so grotesque that England has always has a certain inferiority complex with respect to the European continent. Whenever a continental power reached a certain strength, England believed itself and its empire to be threatened. Every continental flowering made England nervous, every attempt at growth by nations wanting their place in the sun led England to take on the policeman's role.

The English wanted this war in the crazy hope that it was their last chance to stop Germany's growing strength. They passionately avoided doing anything that might have prevented war. Rather than encouraging Poland to accept the Führer's generous proposals to resolve the situation, they encouraged it to let the deadline pass, thereby providing a reason for war. The Führer felt obliged to strike back only after Polish troops had crossed the German border at several places. The German fight is a defensive fight. We fight because we were forced to fight by the insults and demands against us, because of the brutal suppression of ethnic Germans in Poland, and because of the open announcements that they would do everything in their power to strangle National Socialist Germany through military or economic means.

Hitler was a man living at the time. He knew what was going on. No academic can know what he knew. And he knew the absolute truth. He knew that Churchill could not be trusted because the British race was a nation of violent liars and evil ruthless vermin. (Now I have nothing against modern British people, just the old jingoists). Just read what I have posted. Everyone knows it to be true. It is written in black and white. It is staring you in the face. It is truth. No facts can compete with the simple FACT that Hitler was right. And, Germany won the peace and is now master of Europe. Churchill lost. The Empire is gone. The only thing that remains is a Britain kissing German butt. Germany runs the show. Es Lebe Deutschland! Long Live Germany.

[Most of this statement does not reflect any of the opinions of the man behind Ollie Garchy]

----------

hey, Doppleganger, this forum really is dead. Too bad. This last "debate" has gone to the dogs. And all because I pointed out that there was no German invasion plan against Britain until a year after Britain's declaration of war against Germany. Mind you, the thread would have fizzled out after three posts had I not done so. I was at least able to find more evidence for my personal convictions.

I am still interested in the 1930s Black Book issue. I will move it to another thread (it will still take a while) and see if there are any people left willing and able to pursue a discussion. If not, I am afraid that I will have to stick to other more academic forums. In any case, what remains of this discussion is too primitive for my tastes.
 
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy said:
A//What do modern Polish - German relations have to do with WWII? In any case, I do not care whom you support, nor do I want your support, and your view of the recent European summit is unwanted here. Every word that you type only demonstrates your irrational hatred of Germany and Germans. I might not be a fan of Churchill or the British Empire (at least in relation to the German Empire), but so what. My opinions are based on more than primitive emotion and racial stereotypes. Nor am I opposed to the British people or the post-colonial British government.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


A/ Still on your pedestal Mr intellectual? If you don't know why the Polish view of the Nazis in WW11 has anything to do with the discussion you are thicker than I had imagined.

Don't speak for others regarding what is wanted and what is not wanted here.

'regarding every word I type only demonstrates my irrational hatred of Germany' actually demonstrates the disregard of truth which underlies your every argument . I do not hate Germany - I do not hate. I have never denigrated Germany here in any way - I have been careful not to. On the other hand, your campaign to polish a turd demeans everything Germany stands for. You simply do not bother to read my posts obviously. Like Churchill, I respect Germans, and as always, you of course did not even notice my reference to having relatives on both sides of the battle at Monte Casino.

However, it so happens that I should have every reason to hate the Nazi regime of WW11 and all its murderous, diabolical, stinking performance.
As it happens I do not - but I tell it as it is when pipsqueaks like you arise from the depths to fanfare the glory of The Third Reich and The Poison Dwarf.

---------------------------------------------------------------


B//The "indefensible" is your point of view. I just wish that you could actually offer just one solid argument against the case I presented in this forum. I could. But I won't.

-------------------------------------------------------------


B/ Well of course you could - using your method one can make almost anything fit. The fact is that you attempt to defend the indefensible, and the whole of my argument is ongoing and solid. You try to dismiss Churchill's factual evidence along with mine, just as you dismiss or overlook every fact presented. I have only just started and you wish to find a more receptive, i.e. a more gullible, audience. I repeat that your case is holed below the water line, and I am in the process of dismantling it by the basic tenet of the on- the -spot recording of events through Winston Churchill, present and correct at the time, and borne out by accurate and true modern history. This you cannot face - your worst nightmare confronts you - truth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

C// The origins of WWII remains a vital area of intellectual debate. And not just for academics. In a world where politicians misuse the experiences of the 1930s for their own policy ends, like Bush's absurd misrepresentation of Appeasement to support wars of expansion, I am obligated to shout in the wilderness. It is my moral and intellectual duty to put my trust in the scientific method. Not God. Not man. And not Government. State-supported efforts at manufacturing popular consent, all aiming at broadening the power of the monied ruling class, sicken me. The cheap mobilization of the Hitler bogey-man for policy ends is a sad reflection on the primitive state of "modern" society.

------------------------------------------------------------------


C/ Yes, you shout crap in the widerness - it has been done many times before. We call it pissing against the wind - the problem is that you get your own back. Germany is now a civilised country again, Thank God, and you have the audacity to try to drag them down the dark alleyways again - alleyways they wish forget, having put them behind.

If you wish me to continue taking you back to the real world of WW11 then I am at your service but I have no interest in playing ping-pong with other peoples web-sites. If I were to go down that route I would produce such an avalanche that you would scream whinger. you are not the only one capable of swamping the threads, trawling the net to suit any old cause.


Kindly do not patronise me by recommending reading material, I have a great deal. I suggest the original records of Winston Churchill, the saviour of all Europe, including Germany. You owe him a great deal, and so does the world. Leave the criminals of the awful tyrant Hitler's regime in the gutters of Berlin where they belong. There is no honour or redemption to be found there for Germany - do not get down there with them. You can find better projects.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

It appears that The Boys from Brazil have left the battlefield.



COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.
 
"The world sees off another would be apologist for the NAZI regime".

It was hardly what one could call a victory, your opponents never had a viable case to start with. Never the less, Well Done!
 
Last edited:
Senojekips - well done yourself. I just was about to post a summary of my line of argument - it did come together comprehensibly finally- but I've lost it and I don't want to do it again. However, if the subject reappears I will do so. Cheers.


ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT.
 
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy said:
hey, Doppleganger, this forum really is dead. Too bad. This last "debate" has gone to the dogs. And all because I pointed out that there was no German invasion plan against Britain until a year after Britain's declaration of war against Germany. Mind you, the thread would have fizzled out after three posts had I not done so. I was at least able to find more evidence for my personal convictions.

I am still interested in the 1930s Black Book issue. I will move it to another thread (it will still take a while) and see if there are any people left willing and able to pursue a discussion. If not, I am afraid that I will have to stick to other more academic forums. In any case, what remains of this discussion is too primitive for my tastes.
Click to expand...

The forum is dead, partly because no new ideas are allowed. They must be the same old, regurgitated ideas or they are not valid. You are not allowed to point out the similarities between some aspects of the Nazi regime and the Bush Administration, or the colonial British Empire for that matter. All Germans associated with the Nazi Period are inherently evil, but Stalin's boys are not because they were also involved in the great struggle against Nazi evil. It doesn't matter that the Soviet Union carried out exactly the same actions that the Nazis were vilified for. It doesn't matter that Joseph Stalin is a mass murderer almost without equal. It doesn't matter that the colonial British, French, Dutch and other nations came to new lands (America, Australia, New Zealand) and carried out the same types of racial ethnic cleansing that the Nazis were rightly condemned for doing. It doesn't matter that these same colonial powers made slaves out of 'lesser peoples', just as the Nazis made slaves from the 'untermensch' peoples. These are uncomfortable comparisons that most people are simply not prepared to deal with.

The Spanish philosopher, Santayana, wrote that "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them". There is no new history in reality and we are very bad learners. It is regurgitation of the same history over and over again as we are often compelled to repeat the same mistakes. There was nothing unique about the Nazis, or Hitler for that matter. Perseus implied that if Alexander were alive in the modern era he'd be condemned as a mass murderer. He is right of course. Our modern sensibilities rightly abhor what the Nazis did but in truth man has been doing the same sorts of things since history began.

I look forward to your thread, but I am not hopeful that many on this forum will want to care.
 
Last edited:
Del Boy, I'm not necessarily the buffoon I portrayed, but I had to save myself from getting too involved, as I am far too busy with other matters to spend hours trawling the Internet for material to refute the arguments of our pseudo intellectual friends.

I have a 64 year old cousin* who continually tries to talk over my head, so those type of pretenders get right up my nose, and I find the only way to deal with them is to tell them the truth as shortly and bluntly as possible.

*He has been an academic all his life lecturing in Botany and Biology at one of our more prestigious universities for the last 25 or more years, but hasn't got enough common sense to come in out of the rain.

Your patience certainly exceeds mine.

It seems that Doppelganger has developed a bad stutter.
 
Last edited:
Doppleganger said:
The forum is dead, partly because no new ideas are allowed. They must be the same old, regurgitated ideas or they are not valid. You are not allowed to point out the similarities between some aspects of the Nazi regime and the Bush Administration, or the colonial British Empire for that matter. All Germans associated with the Nazi Period are inherently evil, but Stalin's boys are not because they were also involved in the great struggle against Nazi evil. It doesn't matter that the Soviet Union carried out exactly the same actions that the Nazis were vilified for. It doesn't matter that Joseph Stalin is a mass murderer almost without equal. It doesn't matter that the colonial British, French, Dutch and other nations came to new lands (America, Australia, New Zealand) and carried out the same types of racial ethnic cleansing that the Nazis were rightly condemned for doing. It doesn't matter that these same colonial powers made slaves out of 'lesser peoples', just as the Nazis made slaves from the 'untermensch' peoples. These are uncomfortable comparisons that most people are simply not prepared to deal with.

The Spanish philosopher, Santayana, wrote that "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them". There is no new history in reality and we are very bad learners. It is regurgitation of the same history over and over again as we are often compelled to repeat the same mistakes. There was nothing unique about the Nazis, or Hitler for that matter. Perseus implied that if Alexander were alive in the modern era he'd be condemned as a mass murderer. He is right of course. Our modern sensibilities rightly abhor what the Nazis did but in truth man has been doing the same sorts of things since history began.

I look forward to your thread, but I am not hopeful that many on this forum will want to care.
Click to expand...

Doppleganger - this is a really tragic post.

You know, when you posted your answers to my 6 questions , the only one which did not match my own was the last, 'did Britain realise that Hitler's regime was evil before 3 sep 39,' and i was prepared to provide proof of that. Apart from that, the only difference between us was a 'maybe'.

And now you parcel yourself up with these past their sell-by date theorieswhich fly in the face of all known facts. Why would you wish to tarnish Germany with this nonsense once again - hasn't it brought Germany enough grief already. Try to seperate the band of murderous opportunist thugs in question from the great german nation, and the great German armies. Hitler destroyed both - no-one else was to blame. And in history the crime was unique. The vilest institutionised crimes ever known to man. Unbelievable that in this day and age you should want to sign up to that. I have spoken harsh words on here, not against Germany - but against that regime, and I have always made that clear. I simply wished to get you to wake up and smell the coffee. I have given you plain words, the other nations of europe did all the could to avoid confrontation with Hitler.
The tried righting his grievances, but each demand fulfilled was met by a new demand twice the size, continually. They were unable to prevent him from re-arming, against the treaties.

All their entreaties, appeals and bribes only increased his aggression and engrandisement. After he came to power he was never the victim, he controlled the game and grew more and more powerful at others' expense.

He was in a position to avoid war at any time. Russia only presented a potential challenge to Europe, Hitler's was imminent and unavoidable.

I would recommend your Spanish philosopher and I would direct his reflection straight at yourself, for your reference. Take it to heart.

As for Stalin - history will judge him, but that is not the necessary measure. That has to be a civilised standard.
 
Last edited:
Doppleganger said:
Perseus implied that if Alexander were alive in the modern era he'd be condemned as a mass murderer. He is right of course. Our modern sensibilities rightly abhor what the Nazis did but in truth man has been doing the same sorts of things since history began.
Click to expand...

Actually, the example of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin demonstrate that mass murder is unimportant. Mass murder is what the "others" do. In terms of Alexander, only his ultimate success would determine how historians (the mandarins) look at him.

History is not written by the victors. History is written by those seeking the favours of established power. Since the losers cannot reward scholars as handsomely as the victors, the victors having normally plundered the wealth of the loser, the scholars follow the money. This is actually true of all science.

Here are two examples:

(1) Global Warming: Those who wish to downplay the coming catastrophe prefer to call it "climate change" -- a nice euphemism. It is the corporations who fund research and hand out lucrative grants. They reward those academics who minimize the importance of burning fossil fuels.

(2) Hitler in History: How many democratic governments would actually fund research that questioned modern interpretations of Nazism? Since Jewish vested-interest groups attack other Jewish scholars like Peter Novick or Norman Finkelstein for pointing out that other groups of people also suffered, it is no wonder that the Hitler bogeyman issue is a dangerous road to travel. We need the Hitler bogeyman. It is a useful tool to rationalize anything and everything. Nobody realizes that there no longer exists any logical interpretation of Nazism. By the way, Finkelstein keeps losing his job for his book, "The Holocaust Industry" and his criticism of Zionism. The vested-interest groups call him an antisemitic Jew. Gotta love it.

a) Conservatives like to call their opponents Nazis. Bush called Hussein a Nazi and the American people mobilized for war. Here is the gist of the argument: "Saddam’s regime is the Nazi principle manifested today in all its horror and inherent evil. Like the Nazis before him, he must be utterly crushed if there is to be any peace".

b) Liberals call their enemies Nazis. And the fallacious forms of argumentation know no bounds. They point out that Bush's grandfather was a Nazi, so that Bush himself must be one.

Here is the Bogeyman in action: "Still, the biggest lie that Bush has perpetrated on the U.S. public that has escaped any and all scrutiny is the blatant illegality of the war. Since the Nazi generals were taken away and hung after the Nuremberg trials, there is no such thing as “preventive war” under international law and the UN Charter. No nation has the right to change the “regime” of another nation because they don’t like their leaders; nor can a nation attack another nation because they may pose a threat years in the future. Bizarrely, the U.S. mainstream media allows the President to routinely violate international law unchallenged".

Funny stuff:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4361.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/20/145726.shtml
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/
 
Just what it says. perhaps that is your problem.

Now, regarding your last post. Yes- some of it. And SO???? Is there a conclusion? Is this supposed to support the widely held theory of Hitler's innocence?

Before your withdrawal we had got to the point of establishing that Hitler was, in fact, the aggressor responsible for WW11 , and that Britain, in fact, wished to avoid war. Shall I continue on those points?

Can't the facts regarding Hitler be accepted for the truth they are. Your accusations of unfairness seem to me to align you and Hitler against everybody else.

Look, if it looks like a Nazi, sounds like a Nazi and smells like a Nazi, then it is a fair bet that it is a Nazi. So what - who's counting. No-one but you. No-one is pointing at Germany but you. No-one here is railing against Germany, other than you it strangely seems.

Good God man, give Germany a break - or at least give us a concise conclusion , not a complete novel .
 
Last edited:
Doppleganger said:
The forum is dead, partly because no new ideas are allowed. They must be the same old, regurgitated ideas or they are not valid. You are not allowed to point out the similarities between some aspects of the Nazi regime and the Bush Administration, or the colonial British Empire for that matter. All Germans associated with the Nazi Period are inherently evil, but Stalin's boys are not because they were also involved in the great struggle against Nazi evil. It doesn't matter that the Soviet Union carried out exactly the same actions that the Nazis were vilified for. It doesn't matter that Joseph Stalin is a mass murderer almost without equal. It doesn't matter that the colonial British, French, Dutch and other nations came to new lands (America, Australia, New Zealand) and carried out the same types of racial ethnic cleansing that the Nazis were rightly condemned for doing. It doesn't matter that these same colonial powers made slaves out of 'lesser peoples', just as the Nazis made slaves from the 'untermensch' peoples. These are uncomfortable comparisons that most people are simply not prepared to deal with.

The Spanish philosopher, Santayana, wrote that "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them". There is no new history in reality and we are very bad learners. It is regurgitation of the same history over and over again as we are often compelled to repeat the same mistakes. There was nothing unique about the Nazis, or Hitler for that matter. Perseus implied that if Alexander were alive in the modern era he'd be condemned as a mass murderer. He is right of course. Our modern sensibilities rightly abhor what the Nazis did but in truth man has been doing the same sorts of things since history began.

I look forward to your thread, but I am not hopeful that many on this forum will want to care.
Click to expand...

I figured this thread would have died by now.

One thing I don't understand is this perpetual desire to pass off German actions of the 1930s and 40s as perfectly acceptable because other nations throughout history had done it especially when made in the same post with the tried and true "learn from history or repeat it" quote.

Earlier in the proceedings we had Ollie telling us we should have accepted German expansionism because Britain, France, Japan, Russia and apparently the USA had empires therefore Germany should have had the same right and I have to admit had this been the 1st-18th century I would possibly have agreed.

Sadly for this line of thinking the 20th century was the time we just said no to empires the British, French and Russian empires were either dead or in decline, we had disposed of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires and were actively providing the Chinese with the means to halt the Japanese empire why on gods little green earth do you think we would have tolerated German expansion?

I also see the argument that Stalin was just as evil and we didn't do anything about him which is in part true however it is not accurate, during WW2 the Allies concentrated on defeating Germany and Japan but after WW2 they spent a hell of a lot of time and money ensuring the Soviet Union and its allies did not expand either, hell the cold war lasted 50 years.

So Ollie I will finish my involvement in this thread by saying the British and French reasons for entering ww2 may well have been self indulgent and decidedly anti-German but I don't care because the very fact that I can sit here and express my opinion (no matter how low brow you may consider it) is due to a fat, alcoholic wind bag of a Englishman, a drunken psychotic Georgian and a wheelchair bound yank along with the sacrifice of a lot of others including family and for that I am very grateful because had they lost I am certain I wouldn't have the same ability in a German or Japanese dominated world.

So I guess I can finish with a quote of my own, in this case "the ends justify the means"
 
MontyB said:
I figured this thread would have died by now.

One thing I don't understand is this perpetual desire to pass off German actions of the 1930s and 40s as perfectly acceptable because other nations throughout history had done it especially when made in the same post with the tried and true "learn from history or repeat it" quote.

Earlier in the proceedings we had Ollie telling us we should have accepted German expansionism because Britain, France, Japan, Russia and apparently the USA had empires therefore Germany should have had the same right and I have to admit had this been the 1st-18th century I would possibly have agreed.

Sadly for this line of thinking the 20th century was the time we just said no to empires the British, French and Russian empires were either dead or in decline, we had disposed of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires and were actively providing the Chinese with the means to halt the Japanese empire why on gods little green earth do you think we would have tolerated German expansion?

I also see the argument that Stalin was just as evil and we didn't do anything about him which is in part true however it is not accurate, during WW2 the Allies concentrated on defeating Germany and Japan but after WW2 they spent a hell of a lot of time and money ensuring the Soviet Union and its allies did not expand either, hell the cold war lasted 50 years.

So Ollie I will finish my involvement in this thread by saying the British and French reasons for entering ww2 may well have been self indulgent and decidedly anti-German but I don't care because the very fact that I can sit here and express my opinion (no matter how low brow you may consider it) is due to a fat, alcoholic wind bag of a Englishman, a drunken psychotic Georgian and a wheelchair bound yank along with the sacrifice of a lot of others including family and for that I am very grateful because had they lost I am certain I wouldn't have the same ability in a German or Japanese dominated world.

So I guess I can finish with a quote of my own, in this case "the ends justify the means"
Click to expand...

(1) I never said the Allies "should" have "accepted" German actions. I argued that the Germans had no plans for conquering Britain and that what we call WWII started out as an Allied preventive war. The whole point of this thread was to discuss German plans to conquer Britain.

(2) Your view of decreasing empires is wrong. One of the greatest expansions of the British and French empires happened in 1919 -- the great carving up of the Central Powers' colonial possessions. After WWII, the Allies fought tremendous wars to hold onto their possessions -- French Indochina, Algeria, Rhodesia, etc. The French and British even forced a war against Nasser's Egypt in the 1950s to try and retain control of Suez. In all of these wars, the Allies were up to their necks in blood.

The Soviet empire increased tremendously after 1945. What do you think the Iron Curtain was? Do you think that the use of tanks to crush opposition to Communism in Budapest was an example of anti-colonialism? And the Americans were the same, only differently. They installed puppet governments from Iran to Central America, crushed dissent using armed guerillas in every state that seemed mildly socialist, supported tyrannies like the Suharto and Marcos regimes, assisted the ethnic cleansing of Kurds by Turkey or the East Timorese by Indonesia, and created military bases all over the planet. It might be post-colonial, but it ain't humane. Count up all these murders and more people died than during WWII.

(3) Your point concerning Stalin is valid. I only oppose the argument that the Allies started the war to save Poland -- from Germany maybe, but not from the Soviet Union. I only used this argument to demonstrate the Allied mentality. The Allies were violently opposed to German control over Poland. I guess they thought that the mighty Polish industrial system would make Germany invincible.

(4) Millions of people in the Third World would probably disagree with you. But, then again, Millions would agree with you. All of this depends on your point of view and your nationality. It also depends on the question of Nazi aims...on which, sorry to say, there is no academic agreement. I, however, find it hard understanding how German domination of eastern Europe would have impacted your life. American development of nuclear weapons would have contained Germany, anyway. Another Cold War, that's all. But I like the fact that you brought Japan into the picture.
 
MontyB said:
Sadly for this line of thinking the 20th century was the time we just said no to empires the British, French and Russian empires were either dead or in decline, we had disposed of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires and were actively providing the Chinese with the means to halt the Japanese empire why on gods little green earth do you think we would have tolerated German expansion?

I also see the argument that Stalin was just as evil and we didn't do anything about him which is in part true however it is not accurate, during WW2 the Allies concentrated on defeating Germany and Japan but after WW2 they spent a hell of a lot of time and money ensuring the Soviet Union and its allies did not expand either, hell the cold war lasted 50 years.
Click to expand...

I agree that the 20th century has seen the demise of expansionism by military means. It just doesn't work any more because the vast majority of people, rightly, just won't stand for it. Most of this is down to technological reasons and in that I mean in communication and information technology rather than military technology, although a military advance in nuclear physics certainly curtailed Soviet expansionism in Western Europe after WWII. Information is a hugely powerful commodity and with its decentralization to the masses governments have lost a good deal of power.

I would argue now that expansionism by cultural and religious means is the new currency of empire building, but of course this is a subject for another thread. ;) Incidentally the US did expend a huge amount of resources in keeping Western Europe free from communism but they weren't just doing it for altruistic reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top