 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Some educational material for you, GePap.
http://static.highbeam.com/p/politi...worldwa
/
quote:
That Europe's two leading powers were competing head-to-head in the building of battleships was indeed a striking feature of world politics during the period 1906-1914. To the generation of statesmen and naval leaders involved, this contest appeared as nothing less than a struggle for mastery in Europe and hegemony of the world's oceans. With these high stakes at risk, it is not surprising that the Anglo-German naval rivalry is often thought of as a herald of the fierce struggle soon to be waged by the great powers during World War I. |
That was when diplomacy was being chucked, and the pounds were being put on the table. |
Hmm, lets look at the dates- 1906 to 1914...OH yes, thats DECADES of seeking to limit german power as you claim, right? Or are we talking about some problem with lingusitics? Here is a clue: 1914-1906= 8 years. 8<10, hence, less than a decade of tensions. DEVADES would have to be more then 1 decade, hence, say 2, decades- 1914-20=1894... So the UK was part of the anti-German entenet in 1894? Really!? Link for that?
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War
quote:
The conflict marked the culmination of tension between the two powers following Prussia's rise to dominance in Germany, still a loose federation of quasi-independent territories.
The war began over the possible accession of a German candidate to the Spanish throne, which was opposed by France. The French issued an ultimatum to the king of Prussia, who refused...
France's defeat, the unification of Germany and the resulting final unification of Italy swept away the old balance of power that existed in European politics and completely redrew the political map. Republicanism again became mainstream politics in France, while militarism moved to the forefront in Germany. The bitterness felt by many French following their defeat and the unease with which the other Great Powers viewed the new Germany was the start of a chain of events which led directly to World War I and World War II. |
Hmmm, what does it sound like France was doing? Challenging for a beer trophy?
Finally, this one gives a really good chuckle, given your earlier question. |
Yes, knuclkehead, France was trying to get back at Germany after their humiliation in 1871- NOT the UK though, as you claimed that the UK and France had been working together vs Germany for decades. Until bismarck got kicked out it was Germany that had succeeded in isolating France, not the other way around. It was only once the Weltpolitik crowd got to power that the containment of France fell apart and relations with the UK soured.
quote:
http://www.saburchill.com/history/c...pires/0055.html
quote:
The Fashoda Crisis (1898)
The Berlin Conference set the rules for the division of Africa, but it also made the colonial powers even more aggressive in their pursuit of unclaimed territory. A pattern was emerging between the two greatest colonial countries.
France was clearly expanding in a west to east direction, from French West Africa to French Somaliland, while Britain had expanded in a north-south direction, from Egypt to the Cape. The point where the two axes crossed was the Sudan. Here a small French expedition, under Major Marchand, reached Fashoda, on the Upper Nile, in 1898. This was followed, only two months later, by a much bigger British force under Lord Kitchener. The two leaders did not know whether to sit down and have a drink together or fight. Both claimed Fashoda and the Sudan for their own countries.
In London and Paris, for the last time in their histories, there was talk of war between Britain and France. However, the diplomats knew it was absurd for their countries to go to war over a distant African village. Quietly, an agreement was reached. France would recognise the British presence in Egypt and Sudan and Britain would recognise France's presence in Morocco. With colonial differences settled, the two countries could concentrate on a far more pressing subject; coming together in an Entente Cordiale to face a common danger -Germany. |
Do you mean to say that WW1 just happened to come about in the first six months of 1914? How ignorant are you? |
So your defense is poor historical writing? Sad really.
And no, I did not say what you claim in your last statement- all I did was to point out you claim that the UK and France had been working for many decades prior to WW1 to contain German power was wrong. The UK became increasingly alarmed as the Germans became more expansionist, but it took their support of the Boers and the Navals build-up to get them to patch things up with France and Russia.
Its sad to see your simplistic vision of history streches the vasteness of history. I would suggest going to a library and reading a few book slowly, to try to get a better understanding...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
Lets continue to myth busting:
On Versailles: Versailles was not a particularly successful treaty system from the start: the US, after making so many suggestions, stays out of the whole thing, and the treaty helped bring to power a dictatorship in Italy (lets no forget part of Mussolini's arguements was that Italy got shafted at the peace table). The reparations system fell apart thanks to the depression, so by 1935 keeping Versailles alive does not seem that great an aim.
Lets also not forget one of the supposedly most important parts to Versailles, the idea of self-determination that called for all these new Eastern European countries. The funny bit is that for all the talk about self-determination, the Magyar and German people's were specifically denied self-determination. Such bald faced hypocrasy does wear down the system over time. Until March 1939, almost every signle move by Hitler fits the notion of German self-determination. Isn't it a German right to defend themselves (re-armament in '35)? Isn't it the German's right to full sovereignty on all its territory part of self-determination? (Rhur in '36) Isn't the peaceful unity of the German people part of self determination? (Anschluss, '38). And finally, if the Sudeten Germans want to join the Fatherland, why should they not have that right? (the Munich conference, '38).
Whats the arguement then for war? Defend the inequality of Versailles! Yeah, lets go to war over that! Beside, lets say war with germany is picked again- what do the other great powers do? Are the colonial empires free of Japanese interference? What will the Italians do? What will the Bolsheviks do? What happens with the war in Spain?
It is in March of '39, by invading obviosuly non-German lands and ruining the self-determination of the Czech people (the Slovaks got their own rump state) it is clear that Hitler is not only interested in restoring German power, but in expanding German reach.
All in all, the weakness and lack of coordination between the UK and France and other smaller states from March 39 to September 39 has more to do with the problems of the war than Munich. Had the allies been able to block the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact then things might have gone very differently, along with another long listof could have beens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Where is Wnston Churchill when we need him. Ever heard of him GePap? No, I didn't think so. Are you pretty good at writing fiction???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
The funny bit is that for all the talk about self-determination, the Magyar and German people's were specifically denied self-determination. Such bald faced hypocrasy does wear down the system over time. Until March 1939, almost every signle move by Hitler fits the notion of German self-determination. Isn't it a German right to defend themselves (re-armament in '35)? Isn't it the German's right to full sovereignty on all its territory part of self-determination? (Rhur in '36) Isn't the peaceful unity of the German people part of self determination? (Anschluss, '38). And finally, if the Sudeten Germans want to join the Fatherland, why should they not have that right? (the Munich conference, '38).
|
All these matters but Sudety and Austria, weren't they supposed to be temporary? So I thought.
When it comes to Austria, I think it was a mistake as well. When it comes to Sudetes, to some extent as well.
But when it comes to Polish boarder, the Allies weren't all that harsh to Germany.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, lets look at the dates- 1906 to 1914...OH yes, thats DECADES of seeking to limit german power as you claim, right? Or are we talking about some problem with lingusitics? Here is a clue: 1914-1906= 8 years. 8<10, hence, less than a decade of tensions. DEVADES would have to be more then 1 decade, hence, say 2, decades- 1914-20=1894... So the UK was part of the anti-German entenet in 1894? Really!? Link for that? |
Hints for the factually challenged. WW1 lasted until 1918. Do you suppose that GB and France stopped trying to affect German power in 1914? 
How silly are you?
quote:
Yes, knuclkehead, France was trying to get back at Germany after their humiliation in 1871- NOT the UK though, as you claimed that the UK and France had been working together vs Germany for decades. Until bismarck got kicked out it was Germany that had succeeded in isolating France, not the other way around. It was only once the Weltpolitik crowd got to power that the containment of France fell apart and relations with the UK soured. |
Well, sweetheart, I didn't say 'together at the same time and forever and ever'. Duh!
I said France and Britain had been trying to contain German power for decades. What, 1918-1870 = less than 10 or 20 years?
quote:
And no, I did not say what you claim in your last statement- all I did was to point out you claim that the UK and France had been working for many decades prior to WW1 to contain German power was wrong. The UK became increasingly alarmed as the Germans became more expansionist, but it took their support of the Boers and the Navals build-up to get them to patch things up with France and Russia.
Its sad to see your simplistic vision of history streches the vasteness of history. I would suggest going to a library and reading a few book slowly, to try to get a better understanding... |
I didn't say GB and France had been allied for 40 years, jeeneeus, that was your leapt to conclusion. Maybe you should read posts more slowly.
Incidently, in what year did the French ink an alliance with Russia, and against whom or what was it intended? You claim to be in command of all the facts, are you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Lets continue to myth busting:
All in all, the weakness and lack of coordination between the UK and France and other smaller states from March 39 to September 39 has more to do with the problems of the war than Munich. Had the allies been able to block the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact then things might have gone very differently, along with another long listof could have beens. |
The only myth you can't bust is that Versailles was a justifiable, and good, reason for France to resume war with Germany.
That they didn't over the Ruhr and some of the armaments clauses was good on them, as some of the provisions of the treaty were recognised as too harsh by many people. Austria, well now your getting close to going out of bounds, and war with Germany over that would have been perfectly justified. There was a reason that Austria was forbidden union with Germany, that being if Germany were too big she would be too much of a threat to the rest of Europe. God damn, the people who made their careers in European government and politics in the early twentieth century were right! Go figure.
However, how anyone could argue that the betrayal of an ally, and the forcing of that ally to give up its natural frontiers with Germany in 1938 is beyond me. It would take a moron of massive proportions to suggest that Hitler having his way with the Czechs was in any way justified on grounds of race. Oops, you are arguing that, aren't you, GePap?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kamrat X
The sad truth to why Adolf Hitler could rise to power and unhindred could plot world domination is that the super powers at the time ie France, Britain and the US thought that they could control Hitler or at least work with him within the capitalist system as they did with other fascist dictators at the time. Mussolini had ruled in Italy since the late 1920s and had no ambition for world conquest. The war in Abessinia was just another colonial war, and besides France and England had already taken the best of Africa already. Franco was not a problem either, being tied up in a civil war and all. And there was a fascist government in Brazil that was happy to trade whatever goods Europe needed.
So it isnīt strange that they thought they could treat Nazi Germany that same way. It wasnīt until the nazis begin to threaten the interests of the leading nations they decided to make a stand. And then, of course, it was too late. Mayhem and disaster followed for 6 awful years.
Had Nazi Germany been content with Austria and the Sudetenland, and played ball with the other nations as good capitalists, they wouldīve been left alone. No matter the atrocities commited within their borders. After all as long as you can make a buck, who gives a rats ass about human rights?
WWII was a war to defend business interests. Just as every other war on this planet for as long as thereīs been people. Itīs not pretty, but itīs true  |
It is certainly amusing to read history through a pink lens. Their worldview is almost as if Michael Moore were writing their history books: All history is a conspiracy of the wealthy and powerful to control events and to make a buck. Actually, Hitler was also one of these Michael Moore types as well, with the exception that his conspirators were Jews and Socialists.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-01-2005 18:03
|