 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
"Big publisher blows off steam publicly".
Hardly news is it.
Anyway, what's he moaning about - people usually buy more media in a crisis so he's quids in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
At any rate, if you want to slag the Czechs, fill yer boots. I'll stick to a more conventional reckoning, like the one that the people of the time came to when they realised that Chamberlain had screwed the pooch. |
Conventional thinking is of little use- certainly there were critics of Chamberlain- and never have I said that what was done in Munich was right- my point is that the notion that it is Munich that is to blame for everything that happened. There were many points after that could have changed things. Munich is a simple excuse for all the other mistakes that occured after and a convnient cachall for those that dislike the notion of appeasement, or hold the wrong assumption that all you need to do is "stand up to bullies" to avoid war. |
I believe you miss the point that is of interest to most. Munich is not to blame. Munich represents everything that is to blame when it comes to the policies of appeasement in the late 1930's. When war was so feared that many rational people convinced themselves that Hitler and the Nazis were no threat if only they were accomodated with bits of this country, and all of that, then they postponed the reckoning and increased the scale of the conflageration.
Appeasement had its time and its place. The Rhineland perhaps, or the repeal of the unreasonable restrictions on the German armed forces were reasonable things to grant, perhaps.
Appeasement went too far when Austria was ignored, even though a plebiscite of Austrians to see which they preferred (independence or Anschluss) was supressed, the Chancellor deposed and a Nazi friendly thug put in his place.
Appeasement had certainly run its course by Sept '38 when the Czech people rallied in Prague and demanded guns to defend thmesleves and their state, but Chamberlain and Daladier actually pressured the Czech government into accepting German demands that increased as the intent to capitulate became clear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
Appeasement should not be based on whether someone is going "far enough", it should be based, as all strategies should, on whether they can work. In the end, appeasement works IF one side is actually willing to go as far as the other side is willing to push.
In that respect, from hindsight, appeasing Hitler was never good because he was simply bent on war- to an extent the UK could have easily appeased Hitler the whole way- he had no real design on their empire. France on the other hand had no choice really, since war with France was a basic aim for Hitler, and ditto a war in the east.
That said, the leaders of Western Europe in the mid-30's had a lot of issues to deal with, and HItler did not seem the biggest for a long time, with all the problems of that turbulent decade. To blame them for looking out for their short term interests is to ignore basic human failings and expect more than is really there.
I say what I say as well because the arguement that we should never appease is what bugs me- appeasement is a strategy- in some places in can work, in others it won't work due to the conflicting aims. But simply to rant about "appeasement" as a catch all for the moralist bridgades is moronic, and that is what annoys me about that arguement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
You keep making this claim but you have yet to provide any evidience. |
Czechoslovakia was largely built by French capital. When the Germans seized the country, they began appropriating property for German capital. Thus, France lost a neo-colony when the Germans seized Czechoslovakia. Poland, on the other hand, was a neo-colony of Great Britain, with the latter country being the largest investor in the former.
With most of the world divied up between French and British capitalism directly in the form of colonialism, it was exceedingly difficult for German capitalism to expand, and as we all know, if you can't grow, your economy stagnates. That left Eastern Europe and Latin America as potential markets for German capitalism. Gemany, actually, penetrated quite deeply into Latin American markets, but unlike Africa and Asia, they were competitive markets, and so Germany was at a disadvantage internationally vis a vis France and Great Britain.
Thus, the war began as a way for Germany to convert Eastern Europe into German colonies, to provide resources and markts for German capital, and by Great Britain and France to hold on to their investments in the same. After all, it's not like Western Europe cared about mere Slavs or some abstract concept of freedom. We are talking about countries which hadjust completed the annexation of the Middle East only a decade or two earlier, and were fighting brutal campaigns in Palestine and elsewhere to hold on to those colonies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
You keep making this claim but you have yet to provide any evidience. |
Czechoslovakia was largely built by French capital. When the Germans seized the country, they began appropriating property for German capital. Thus, France lost a neo-colony when the Germans seized Czechoslovakia. Poland, on the other hand, was a neo-colony of Great Britain, with the latter country being the largest investor in the former.
With most of the world divied up between French and British capitalism directly in the form of colonialism, it was exceedingly difficult for German capitalism to expand, and as we all know, if you can't grow, your economy stagnates. That left Eastern Europe and Latin America as potential markets for German capitalism. Gemany, actually, penetrated quite deeply into Latin American markets, but unlike Africa and Asia, they were competitive markets, and so Germany was at a disadvantage internationally vis a vis France and Great Britain.
Thus, the war began as a way for Germany to convert Eastern Europe into German colonies, to provide resources and markts for German capital, and by Great Britain and France to hold on to their investments in the same. After all, it's not like Western Europe cared about mere Slavs or some abstract concept of freedom. We are talking about countries which hadjust completed the annexation of the Middle East only a decade or two earlier, and were fighting brutal campaigns in Palestine and elsewhere to hold on to those colonies. |
It is strange, then, that the French sold Czechoslovakia down the river given that they would lose their "capital." Strange.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
You keep making this claim but you have yet to provide any evidience. |
Czechoslovakia was largely built by French capital. When the Germans seized the country, they began appropriating property for German capital. Thus, France lost a neo-colony when the Germans seized Czechoslovakia. Poland, on the other hand, was a neo-colony of Great Britain, with the latter country being the largest investor in the former.
With most of the world divied up between French and British capitalism directly in the form of colonialism, it was exceedingly difficult for German capitalism to expand, and as we all know, if you can't grow, your economy stagnates. That left Eastern Europe and Latin America as potential markets for German capitalism. Gemany, actually, penetrated quite deeply into Latin American markets, but unlike Africa and Asia, they were competitive markets, and so Germany was at a disadvantage internationally vis a vis France and Great Britain.
Thus, the war began as a way for Germany to convert Eastern Europe into German colonies, to provide resources and markts for German capital, and by Great Britain and France to hold on to their investments in the same. After all, it's not like Western Europe cared about mere Slavs or some abstract concept of freedom. We are talking about countries which hadjust completed the annexation of the Middle East only a decade or two earlier, and were fighting brutal campaigns in Palestine and elsewhere to hold on to those colonies. |
What a load of crap.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
Generally those people of German descent from regions that were settled dominantly by Germans can come and get the citizenship easily. In praxis it is limited to people from some areas in Eastern Europe, where many Germans were driven out after WWII. In Russia they weren't driven out generally, but treated badly, esp. by Stalin.
Reasons why Germans migrated to Russia date back to the 18th century. Catherine the Great encouraged this, because she wanted settlers for those huge areas of Russia which were more or less "empty" during their time - without much towns and villages. So immigrants from other countries were at first welcome, even privileged: they remained free (Russian peasant still were mainly not at this time), had to pay lower taxes, and were freed from military service etc. This caused immigration of Germans in several waves over the 18th/19th century. They did not became Russians culturally (although they learned the language etc.) but formed German communities.
It was defined as a political goal for West-Germany to bring those of German descent back by peaceful means, esp. because these areas were under Soviet influence after 1945, which often meant problems for those Germans living there.
OTOH Austria is a complete different case: it wasn't part of modern Germany before Hitler made it a part, so people from it are technically not Germans, and also the people there weren't under Soviet rule after 45.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because they don't want to be, mainly. Figuring out nationalism and why various nationalisms think the way they do is one of the most difficult questions there is. In the ned, all it really boils down to is, "with whom do you wish to associate?" I have a couple of Swiss friends, from the German speaking part of the country, and they really get insulted when they are refered to as German. |
So, true, Che.
Also, just from me, I hope you return to your roots some day. The Republican Party today is the best hope for freedom and democracy in the world.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-01-2005 19:48
|