 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Yup
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | ^ of course, but that is so obvious that I scarely see the point of saying it.
One of the great problems of war is that it is almost impossible, in advance, to know which wars were worth fighting, and on what terms. I am increasingly sceptical, for instance, that Britain was wise to fight in either the First or the Second World War, though these assertions are themselves unprovable. More controversially, I think the First World War probably presented a more reasonable casus belli than the Second.
Bin laden was the killing of a murderous combatant. If you call that an assassination, I think you are being too elastic with terms. |
I guess I don't like my grandfathers side being tarnished without pointing out the evil of the opposition, cheers |
The soldiers who did their duty for Britain honorably and bravely deserve every respect and appreciation. That does not necessarily mean that the politicians who sent them there were wise. Personally I would prefer that Britain had fought in neither war, given that it merely hastened the decline of British power and accelerated America's rise against it. The Nazis were unspeakably evil, as were the Japanese militarists. But Hitler's ambition was primarily oriented toward Germany's East, not West toward Britain and France, and we understand too little about Germany's interests in that part of the world. In any event, it was wrong of Britain to give assurances to Poland that it had neither capacity or intent to enforce, and which dragged it into an Eastern War when Britain was not militarily ready for it. That probably prolonged the suffering.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | The nazis did the Holocaust. Nuff said on them.
The japanese were only behind them on volume and selection process and possibly ahead on sheer cruelty (possibly)
They both set a fairly low bar, I'd like to think our actions, while some may have been poor at times, weren't able to crawl under that bar. |
People love to focus on Dresden, but the truth is that the bombings of Hamburg and Berlin had far more casualties overall. And the principle of indiscriminate bombing of cities was established by the Germans many times over, including in WW1. I would prefer it had Britain not retaliatied, but in an existential struggle like the Second World War it is probably asking too much of the decision-makers at the time. It is a matter of debate among modern historians whether the bombing of cities did hasten the end of the war by disrupting production and infrastructure, but it was certainly considered possible at the time. What I think unarguable, is that it did much to eradicate the romance of Prussian militarism within Germany's culture, to
Germany's, and Europe's, lasting benefit.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | The soldiers who did their duty for Britain honorably and bravely deserve every respect and appreciation. That does not necessarily mean that the politicians who sent them there were wise. Personally I would prefer that Britain had fought in neither war, given that it merely hastened the decline of British power and accelerated America's rise against it. The Nazis were unspeakably evil, as were the Japanese militarists. But Hitler's ambition was primarily oriented toward Germany's East, not West toward Britain and France, and we understand too little about Germany's interests in that part of the world. In any event, it was wrong of Britain to give assurances to Poland that it had neither capacity or intent to enforce, and which dragged it into an Eastern War when Britain was not militarily ready for it. That probably prolonged the suffering. |
An interesting argument, and one I've been keen to explore before. I suspect that the chief British fear was that, having taken most of continental Europe, Hitler would have had an easy base for an attack on the British Isles. I haven't studied the history of the war in depth, but it seems to me that Germany's peace treaty with the USSR suggests that Hitler's plans were more complicated than just an eastward push.
I'm also interested in your assertion that WW1 posed a greater threat to the UK than WW2. Surely, even if the risk of German invasion was more significant, subservience to the Kaiser and a foreign power on the verge of instituting a more or less democratic system seems to me a much less unspeakable fate than Nazi rule. The worst that might have eventuated, I guess, would have been a Versailles Treaty in reverse and perhaps, who knows, a rise of a powerful British fascist movement in response. Certainly a worthy topic for writers of speculative fiction, if nothing else!
Edit: having read this, one might reasonably conclude that it's a pity we didn't lose. Though, of course, who can possibly know what unimagined horrors could have emerged in this alternate reality...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/25/if-germans-won-first-world-war
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ it's way too large an issue to be covered fully here, but my point starts from the fact that the version of European history we have imbibed is essentially written Westward from Britain. To a German, however, history is written towards the East, with the principal paranoia being directed toward Austria-Hungary and Russia, Prussia's historic rivals and territorial combatants.
Hitler's aggression would probably have been turned against France and the Low Countries eventually, but if Britain and France had not declared war in September 1939, I suspect (on the basis of much textual evidence) that he would have attacked Russia next, after solidifying Germany's historic interest in the East via Czechoslovakia and Poland. I think the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is a detail. Hitler never showed much interest in the niceties of treaties.
If Britain and France, then both very powerful nations, had focused on building and training their air and land defences through 1940, and become impregnable to a Germany weakened by conflict with Russia, we might have had a more stable and wealthier Europe, and a less impoverished Britain and France to hold the ring against the US power which had been so emboldened after 1919.
While this might have meant hell for the Jews, it is quite possible that France and the Low Countries might have sanctuaried many more than the actual events permitted.
British involvement in WW1 was catalysed by the German attack on Belgium and France, which provided Germany with important naval bases in Zeebrugge and Ostend, posing a direct threat to British interests. Unlike WW2, it was inevitably a Western matter, and Britain's involvement was more arguably necessary. Still, if Burns and Morley had prevailed in cabinet over Grey and Lloyd George, Britain may yet have stood aloof, and avoided the massive indebtedness to the US which resulted from its participation. Much of the history of the 20th century is formed by this. WW1 really is the hinge of history.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It certainly is astounding to think how radically different the 20th century might have been had WW1 had a different result, or been avoided altogether. That's all just a what-if scenario, of course; it still strikes me though that the Allied Powers had a great deal of history in their hands at Versailles, and could have easily decided not to cripple their vanquished opponents quite so much through punitive reparations. Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but one suspects that even then it must have been known that such an approach might lead to political instability and unpredictable consequences, however just or politically necessary it might have seemed.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | The soldiers who did their duty for Britain honorably and bravely deserve every respect and appreciation. That does not necessarily mean that the politicians who sent them there were wise. Personally I would prefer that Britain had fought in neither war, given that it merely hastened the decline of British power and accelerated America's rise against it. The Nazis were unspeakably evil, as were the Japanese militarists. But Hitler's ambition was primarily oriented toward Germany's East, not West toward Britain and France, and we understand too little about Germany's interests in that part of the world. In any event, it was wrong of Britain to give assurances to Poland that it had neither capacity or intent to enforce, and which dragged it into an Eastern War when Britain was not militarily ready for it. That probably prolonged the suffering. |
An interesting argument, and one I've been keen to explore before. I suspect that the chief British fear was that, having taken most of continental Europe, Hitler would have had an easy base for an attack on the British Isles. I haven't studied the history of the war in depth, but it seems to me that Germany's peace treaty with the USSR suggests that Hitler's plans were more complicated than just an eastward push.
I'm also interested in your assertion that WW1 posed a greater threat to the UK than WW2. Surely, even if the risk of German invasion was more significant, subservience to the Kaiser and a foreign power on the verge of instituting a more or less democratic system seems to me a much less unspeakable fate than Nazi rule. The worst that might have eventuated, I guess, would have been a Versailles Treaty in reverse and perhaps, who knows, a rise of a powerful British fascist movement in response. Certainly a worthy topic for writers of speculative fiction, if nothing else!
Edit: having read this, one might reasonably conclude that it's a pity we didn't lose. Though, of course, who can possibly know what unimagined horrors could have emerged in this alternate reality...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/25/if-germans-won-first-world-war |
The threat of a British invasion by Hitler emerges because Britain entered a war for which she and France were not prepared, and thus Britain escaped with any land defences at all by a miracle. If Britain had stood back and let Hitler waste his energies in the East, it's far from obvious that the threat of
Nazi invasion could have materialized. Conflict with Nazi Germany was probably inevitable in the end, and if Hitler had mastered Russia then the U.K. and France would have faced a much stronger foe. But Russia is a graveyard, and allowing Bolshevism and Nazism to weaken one another while the democratic powers reinforced their defences seems a better strategy on many levels.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | It certainly is astounding to think how radically different the 20th century might have been had WW1 had a different result, or been avoided altogether. That's all just a what-if scenario, of course; it still strikes me though that the Allied Powers had a great deal of history in their hands at Versailles, and could have easily decided not to cripple their vanquished opponents quite so much through punitive reparations. Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but one suspects that even then it must have been known that such an approach might lead to political instability and unpredictable consequences, however just or politically necessary it might have seemed. |
hindsight makes things seem so obvious, that just would not be, back then. Lets also not forget that communication was no where near what it is today. Lets also not forget who started it! it wasnt the Allies, and when you finally win a war at great cost over 4 long years, you could be forgiven for making sure the job was done completely!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | It certainly is astounding to think how radically different the 20th century might have been had WW1 had a different result, or been avoided altogether. That's all just a what-if scenario, of course; it still strikes me though that the Allied Powers had a great deal of history in their hands at Versailles, and could have easily decided not to cripple their vanquished opponents quite so much through punitive reparations. Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but one suspects that even then it must have been known that such an approach might lead to political instability and unpredictable consequences, however just or politically necessary it might have seemed. |
It's an interesting thought experiment. How would things have turned out of WW1 was won by germany.
So many variables that it's damn near impossible to compute a reliable trajectory. What if the US never entered?
You could draw the assumption that Hitler would never have happened without the circumstances that helped create him, but that's not to say there wouldn't have been a counter german movement arise in Europe. We can pick off the things that did happen and debate about whether they would have happened, but what we can't do is predict the things that might have happened that never did and what their impact might have been.
The only clear answer is that the world would have been different in that alternative reality. better different or worse different is totally unable to be reliably modelled.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | It certainly is astounding to think how radically different the 20th century might have been had WW1 had a different result, or been avoided altogether. That's all just a what-if scenario, of course; it still strikes me though that the Allied Powers had a great deal of history in their hands at Versailles, and could have easily decided not to cripple their vanquished opponents quite so much through punitive reparations. Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but one suspects that even then it must have been known that such an approach might lead to political instability and unpredictable consequences, however just or politically necessary it might have seemed. |
Like most conventional wisdom, I think this is wrong, or at least lightly understood. Germany imposed ferocious reparations on France after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and it collected them, too. Those funds went far in building the German navy. It was thus inevitable and just, that Germany should pay reparations for the vast destruction of France's industrial heartland across four years. And in any event, the reparations were barely collected.
The real problem with Versailles predates it, and it lies in the armistice which allowed Germany to escape the consequences of defeat. Militarism thus flourished until it met is gotterdammerung in 1945. The German army was in a rout by November 1918, and complete capitulation should have been enforced. Instead, Germany deluded itself that it had been betrayed, rather than defeated in the field in a war it had sought. Hitlerism rises far more from that, than it does from Versailles. There are of course other factors, notably the hyperinflation of 1923 which destroys the German middle classes, but Versailles is but one detail in a far more complex canvas.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What's your favourite part of Germany? |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ the point is not be counter-factual about history, which is a waste of time.
It is simply to look at how received history is often simplistic and driven from an unreliable perspective ; and also to reconsider the strategic options that were available to decision-makers at the time, given the information they had at that time. If you do that, some surprising ideas emerge. British decision-makers are often considered to have made good decisions in 1940 and bad decisions in 1914. This is far from obvious, though it is rarely questioned.
I should add that Churchill really was magnificent in May 1940, and he saved European civilisation through his personal leadership .... but Britain should not have been led to that pass.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^ the point is not be counter-factual about history, which is a waste of time.
It is simply to look at how received history is often simplistic and driven from an unreliable perspective ; and also to reconsider the strategic options that were available to decision-makers at the time, given the information they had at that time. If you do that, some surprising ideas emerge. British decision-makers are often considered to have made good decisions in 1940 and bad decisions in 1914. This is far from obvious, though it is rarely questioned.
I should add that Churchill really was magnificent in May 1940, and he saved European civilisation through his personal leadership .... but Britain should not have been led to that pass. |
are you referring to Britain joining the war? What if they hadn't, and germany had won in Europe? where would the British have been then? sorry if im not getting your gist right
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
More or less, TP. In a few points,
1. Germany did not declare war on Britain or France in 1939. They declared war on Germany.
2. They did that because of Germany's eastward aggression, toward countries which had been (to various extents) part of Germany historically and toward Russia, which Hitler had always made clear was his primary enemy (it was actually Germany and Russia that really ignited the First World War).
3. It is not obvious what vital interests Britain or France had in policing Germany's aggression to its East, and at that time Stalinism and Hitlerism were certainly comparably evil, prima facie.
4. In any event, Britain and France were not well-armed for war, and they gave assurances to Poland that they were not able to meet anyway. This doubtless prolonged Poland's agony and lost many lives, as Britain and France did nothing to materially assist Poland during its invasion by Germany and Russia
5. While Hitler was obviously a dangerous and evil man, and he would probably have had to be fought by Britain and France in the end, there was every reason to wait while they built their armed strength.
6. Instead, they were rushed into a war that they were not ready for, and as a result they collapsed (at least on ththe continent) in May 1940.
7. In doing all of the above, they massively compounded Britain's already high indebtedness to the USA and hastened the transfer of world power from the U.K. to the US and Russia. I personally regard that as a bad thing.
This was not good policy. Yet people always talk of the Second World War as a British triumph. I think it was pretty poor statecraft.
None of that says that Hitler was other than one of the vilest, most homicidal tyrants that the world has ever seen. But we have seen these before, and we will again. As with saddam, the existence of a tyrant is not always a good reason to invoke a war, unless you really have to. I don't think we had to, in 1939.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Cheers Mugwump, very interesting, ive just been reading up on the silly serb that started it all! how absurd is that!! really appreciate the history lesson without the judgement too.
My Grandfather (mothers dad) was a bomb disposal expert, My Grandparents lived in Gillingham Kent, and my mum and her older sister were shipped off to Hong Kong and then South Africa to keep them safe. My dad grew up in Hull, and a bomb blew apart the house across the street. My parents met in Germany, both were in the RAF, dad was an engineer, Mum was an MP. they both loved Germany and Germans! So much so that when we ran out of petrol on our honeymoon in death valley, and hubby insisted his new bride hitchhike while he stayed with the car, i only did because they were German, and i greeted them with the little German i knew!! ive seen a few pics of them in Germany, would have been the late 50's, and it looks amazing. just a tad of course there, sorry!! cheers!!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
