 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
You obviously are very well versed in British propaganda. But you failed to actually read my post. The reason the Japanese were in China and had received one province and the rights to Manchuria was because of the Treaty of Versailles -- yes that infamous DICTAT that everyone agrees was the cause of WWII in Europe. Well, it just so happens, it had the same exact effect in China.
As to the Arab v. Jew situation, you know as well as I that the Jews and the Arabs got along famously for two millenia. They were allies, after all, in their war against Romania and Christian Europe. King Faisal had granted them "homeland" status in Palestine just before the Treaty of Versailles was finalized. But when the Brits betrayed!!!!!! the Arabs and kept Palestine for itself, the Arabs went to war against both the Brits and the Jews of Palestine.
Thank you Britain for another war that never seems to end. Causa belli galore!!!! |
No, Ned I read your post attentively- you claimed that Great Britain was responsible for Japan going to war with China, Arabs fighting Jews, et cetera.
In this universe, rather than relying on vague assertions, assumptions and deranged speculation, people are usually required to back up such extravagant claims with things like, facts, quotes, references rather than a gut feeling that Great Britain is the source of all evil, boo-hoo.
Evidently, in the Nedaverse, things work very differently.
One can ignore the entire history of Zionist emigration to Palestine, pre League of Nations Mandate, one can ignore deteriorating relations between Japan and China, or the long history of Muslim-Hindu, Muslim-Sikh conflict in India, and just put the blame on Blighty- because it's easier, and doesn't require thought or effort, or facts ro a relationship to how things occurred in the real world.
Bravo, Ned, another bravura performance of alternate history taught the Nedaverse way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
No doubt.
But whether they would have invaded China proper unless they were allowed a toehold there first by the Brits is another question entirely. |
And I guess that if Brits had said no and a war between Japan and Britain had started, then i guess that that also would have been Britains fault ?
Just one comment, By the question I in no way think that Japan needed Brits allowance to start a war with China.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
I wonder where Mel gets his attitude about the Brits? |
He's an Australian in revolt. We have plenty of similar cases on our side of the Tasman. It's a bit childish and shows the immaturity of our countries, but it is getting old now. |
He was born in the Australian province of New York.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
And I guess that if Brits had said no and a war between Japan and Britain had started, then i guess that that also would have been Britains fault ?
Just one comment, By the question I in no way think that Japan needed Brits allowance to start a war with China. |
Well, Britain's policy was to deliberately place competing parties at odds with one another. Betrayal of allies was apparently another policy.
Who knows how history would have been had Japan never been allowed into China in the first place, or Poland been given German states and a corridor to the sea isolating Danzig, or the Arabs control over Palestine as promised, or India a united country?
But, I am willing to predict that there would have been no WWII, no Arab-Israeli dispute that has lead to the current conflict between the radical Islam and the West, and no wars in the subcontinent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
*Germany vs. Poland, China vs. Japan, Arab vs. Jew in Palestine, Pakistan vs. India. There are more of course. But these stand out. |
So let's see how your claims for Great Britain being the root of all evil are standing up:
you haven't shown how Great Britain was responsible for Nazi Germany attacking Poland. In fact, you've simply ignored the various partitions of Poland prior to the 20th Century in which the Kingdom of Prussia played a part, and you've also ignored Hitler's racist anti-Slav and anti-Jewish rantings and his expression for Lebensraum at the expense of the countries to the East. Much easier to blame Blighty, clearly.
Now, Japan attacked China in the late 19th Century in the first Sino-Japanese War- Great Britain did not induce or in any way compel this attack.
Then Japan attacked Imperial Russia, then annexed Korea. Then at the outbreak of the First World War, Japan attacked the German colonies in Tsingtao, the Marianas, the Marshall Islands and the Carolines.
Then the victorious powers at the Treaty of Versailles (note that plural, Ned, 'powers' not 'power') awarded the former German colonies to Japan, accepting their occupation by the Japanese.
Then the expansionist Japanese went to war again, against China- the Second Sino-Japanese War.
And yet you reduce this to: 'Japan attacked China because Britain gave it Chinese land', which is wrong in factual detail (they were German colonies that Japan conquered) and in assumption (Japan had already demonstrated a propensity to attack other states in the region, Korea, China, Russia and Korea again).
Blame it on Blighty, eh, Ned ? Much simpler, doesn't involve joined up thinking.
Farcically you then go on to blame Great Britain for the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
You seem to be wholly unaware of 19th Century Zionism, or indeed that traditional Jewish prayer, 'Next year in Jerusalem'.
You haven't seen fit to mention Theodor Herzl, or the Biluim, or the Hovevei Zion, or how European Jews emigrated to the then Ottoman Empire fleeing discrimination and pogroms in Tsarist Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
You haven't referenced early Arab Nationalists such as Neguib Azouri, or the Zionist Congress in Basle of August 1897, nor the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, or the Faisal-Frankfurter letters. Why bother ? It would require a modicum of research and knowledge, and upset your sacred belief in the evil Empire.
How about Albert Hourani's (Director of the Middle Eastern Centre, Fellow of St Antony's College Oxford) letter to the Observer of 3rd September, 1967:
[...]
" But in the 1880s a new type of Jewish immigration began, mainly from Eastern Europe, inspired by the Zionist idea of a Jewish national home: this soon aroused the hostility of Ottoman officials and part of the population.
[...] This hostility sprang from the attempt to implant a new society in a land already occupied by an old one. When the settlers came they found a complete society already there: farmers, craftsmen & merchants, ancient towns and villages, religious institutions, a culture expressed in Arabic, a leadership which formed part of the Arab Ottoman elite. The aim of the newcomers was not to be absorbed into it, but to create their own society.... "
But no, make a complex situation simple, and blame Blighty. Less effort, eh ?
As for Pakistan and India- again, reduce the centuries old conflict between a Muslim minority and Hindu majority and conflicting ideals of nationalism and religious/ethnic identity to: Bad Brits Done Wrong.
"Religious rivalry
The origin of partition is still a matter of debate.
The name Pakistan - or "Land of the Pure" - did not come into existence until 1933, when it was coined by Rahmatullah Chowdhry, a Cambridge student.
Partition timeline
1930: Alama Iqbal advocates the two-nation theory
1933: The name Pakistan is coined
1940: Jinnah calls for a separate Muslim state
May/June 1946: Both parties accept Cabinet Mission Plan
July: Plan collapses
Aug: Hindu-Muslim violence kills thousands
June 1947: Mountbatten plan for partition approved
July: India Independence Act passed in Britain
Aug: Separate states of Pakistan and India are born
Three years earlier, the poet Alama Iqbal had advocated the establishment of a separate Muslim state at a Muslim League conference. But it was not until 1940 that his two-nation theory was adopted by the League.
The 1930s saw a growing mistrust between the Muslim League and the All India Congress.
The League's leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah - until 1940 reluctant to advocate the creation of two nations - is said to have feared that the country's Muslim minority would be subjugated by the Hindu majority. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1751044.stm
Much much simpler than having to realise that a complex situation might have unclear, ancient complex beginnings.
Now Ned, why don't you take my advice, and do a little bit of basic research, instead of relying on what is evidently some mystical article of faith with you ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:21
|
|
quote:
The first problem faced by Satow was that of relations with China, where the government system was "thoroughly rotten" and the country was in danger of being partitioned among the European powers. Korea had for centuries been a vassal of China, and in 1876 Japan put pressure on China to open the country up to Japanese trade, and the unequal Treaty of Kanghwa was signed. Satow felt that Japan was a much better country than China to lead to Korea's modernization, and in a private letter to Lord Salisbury wrote that Japan's "chief care is for the maintenance of her position in Korea, and nothing but a Russian attempt to swallow up the Peninsula will in my opinion turn her aside from her present policy of lying low until her armaments are completed in 1903." He told Ito that Britain, like Japan, wished to prevent Russian annexation of Korea, and agreed that neutralization of Korea agreed upon by several powers would be better than pressing for Korean independence, which would give Russia a freer hand. In Satow's view Korea was "quite incapable of reform from within" , while Ito believed that Korea could not survive as an independent state, but Japan was still too weak to prevent Russian annexation.
On October 8th Japan engineered a coup d'etat in Seoul in which the Korean Queen Min Bi was assassinated. The Korean royal party appealed to Britain for help, but Satow was unable to assist. In the ensuing Sino-Japanese War the Chinese were swept out of Korea. In 1897 Foreign Minister Okuma Shigenobu suggested to Satow that Britain might establish a legation in Korea, but Satow was wary of antagonizing the Russians by so doing. At the same time he was urged by a Korean exile to get Britain to take a more active role; Satow replied that Britain had no direct interests in Korea, and the Koreans "must be patient for a few years". In conversations with Foreign Minister Aoki Shuzo in 1899, Satow observed that Japan would not be ready for war with Russia till 1903, but Aoki replied that Japan might be obliged to act before that. Satow saw Ito for the last time on May 2nd, 1900, before returning to England, and already he could see clearly that, though Japan would get no advantage from fighting Russia, Russia regarded Japan as the only obstacle to her designs in the Far East. |
http://www.asjapan.org/Lectures/200...re-2002-03a.htm
Interesting...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
Molly, nice post.
1) As to the Versailles powers, clearly there were more than Britain. There were also France, the US, Italy and Japan). But the US was lead by an acknowledged dummkopf who was easily manipulated. Japan and Italy had little real influence.
2) Britain and Japan were formal allies since 1903.
3) Britain agreed to grant Japan Germany's leashold in Shandong.
"The year 1919 saw Japan sitting among the "Big Five" powers at the Versailles Peace Conference. Tokyo was granted a permanent seat on the Council of the League of Nations, and the peace treaty confirmed the transfer to Japan of Germany's rights in Shandong, a provision that led to anti-Japanese riots and a mass political movement throughout China. Similarly, Germany's former Pacific islands were put under a Japanese mandate. Despite its small role in World War I (and the Western powers' rejection of its bid for a racial equality clause in the peace treaty), Japan emerged as a major actor in international politics at the close of the war." http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/IntJapan.html
This act, more than any other, made China the enemy of Japan.
4) Regardless of history of Polish territory, the people of the two German states awarded Poland wanted to stay with Germany. Britain awarded them anyway to Poland. Second, where did Britian get the right to take territory (the corridor, and the two German states) away from Germany and give to Poland? Whatever happened to concept of letting the people who lived there decide? Also, the peoples of other areas subject to plebiscite voted to stay with Germany. The territories were instead awarded to other countries.
5) Regardless of hostility between the Ottomans and the Jews, the Arabs and the Jews were on good relations during WWI. They were both allies against the Turks. Faisal granted the Jews homeland rights, subject to the deal between Britain and Hussein being confirmed. When Britain kept Palestine and betrayed the Arabs, all hell broke loose in Palestine.
6) While no one doubts the history regarding Muslim conquest of India under the Mongols (descendants of Timur) that lead to Muslim dominance in the northern part of that country, there was no need to divide the country the way the Brits did. The resulting division has lead to a permanent state of war between the two resulting powers that almost resulted in nuclear war several years ago.
In all these affairs, we see the hand of Britain acting in a way that ineluctably lead to future wars, including WWII.
Last edited by Ned on 28-05-2005 at 22:48
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-05-2005 23:07
*swoons
|