 |
| |
|
|
Pax
|
|
For the most part I agree with Ned. Certain points he makes I have no knowledge of so I can't dispute. But the core of his argument goes along with my base beliefs.
1.It is generally accepted that the Treaty of Versailles is the main cause of ww2. Who or what group was the chief archtiect of that treaty? With or without hitler there would have been a ww2.
2. I believe that Britain, the U.S. and other European countries expansion/imperialism in the Pacific forced japan to either modernize/expand or face the fate of China. It makes sense that Britain being the most powerful and successful imperial power in the world would be the model for japan.
3. The British Empire was not the benovelent just kind helping hand that some would think. They were an imperial power that subjugated people around the world. The British Empire saying that German annexation of Austria, Poland or anywhere is wrong is the pot calling the kettle black.
I would have to say that Giancarlo is far more right than Ned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
Molly, you do not seem to understand that there is a difference between exacerbating an ancient conflict and starting it. No doubt there was inherent friction between German and Pole, Japanese and Chinese, Muslim and Hindu and Jew that had nothing to do with Britain. But it did seem to me that Versailles inflicted wrongs on one of these peoples to the benefit of their historical opponents that eventually lead to war. These are facts as well.
The only debate you and I have, then, is whether Britain shares any responsibility for the subsequent wars. The question becomes, had they not acted in the way they did, or had they acted differently, would the wars have been avoided?
As to Wilson's ideas about self determination, yes they seem to have been accepted by many as a generally good principle. But clearly, the Hindus and Arabs clearly did not agree. Then there is the case of the German states being awarded to others and the areas subject to plebicite that voted to stay with Germany still being given away that was entirely inconsistent with "self determination."
The case of Japan and China is a bit more problematic as it does appear that Japan was on the "march," aided and abetted by Britain. But the hostility between China and Japan was clearly stoked to a fever pitch by Versailles. (I just saw a movie, made in China, that covers the period from 1928-31. The movie depicted mass demonstrations against Japan in Manchuria and plots to assissinate Japanese officials, which were successful. I wouldn't be surprised at all that the events depicted were accurate.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
And wonder why you're widely thought of as a uber-rightist?  |
Well, Last Conformist, when I dissect German fascism point-by-by point, almost everyone agrees that Germany was to the left of the United States wrt all such points and much more close to socialism as well. In this, I assume that being for less government intervention into the economy is to the right, being in favor of democracy (individualism) vs. totalitarianism (state is more important) is being to the right, etc. In matter after matter, German fascism interfered in the economy for the benefit of the people far more than would be tolerable in the US. They also provided the first universal health care, the VW and autobahns, and low cost vacations to workers. In all these things, Germany was far to the left of the United States, although most European states now look very much like the National Socialist state that was the Third Reich.
Fascism differs from modern socialism ONLY in its emphasis on nationalism. Other than that, fascism is a form of socialism.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The case of Japan and China is a bit more problematic as it does appear that Japan was on the "march," aided and abetted by Britain. But the hostility between China and Japan was clearly stoked to a fever pitch by Versailles. (I just saw a movie, made in China, that covers the period from 1928-31. The movie depicted mass demonstrations against Japan in Manchuria and plots to assissinate Japanese officials, which were successful. I wouldn't be surprised at all that the events depicted were accurate.)
|
Yet again you substitute unsupported assertions for FACTS.
I'm getting tired of dealing with the misrepresentation by you of the conflict and continuing hostility between Japan and China as a nefarious British plot.
Aided and abetted ? The Japanese went to war against the German colonies in China and the Pacific on their own initiative- John Keegan in his book on WWI calls it a 'liberal interpretation' of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty.
On August 15th when Japan committed itself to the Allied cause, it had also to do with racial slurs from German observers during the Russo-Japanese War, but it was about acquiring resources for the growing Japanese empire.
President Yuan Shi-Kai of China:
" Japan is going to take advantage of this war to gain control of China."
Notice how he doesn't blame the British Empire for the coming Sino-Japanese conflict.
Japan also took the opportunity of WWI to impose the infamous Twenty One Demands on China :
" On 18 January 1915 the Japanese government secretly presented to its Chinese counterpart a list of twenty-one grievances of which it required immediate resolution, such resolution to be specified by the Japanese government upon pain of war.
In practical terms Japan was taking advantage of its wartime status as an Allied power to seek to extend its influence in the Pacific, chiefly at China's expense. It relied upon its status as an ally of Britain to reduce the likelihood of intervention from that quarter. Already by the time the Twenty-One Demands were published (click here to read a transcript) Japan had successfully invaded the German base at Tsingtao.
Among other grievances the Twenty-One Demands required that China immediately cease its practice of leasing out territory to foreign powers. Japan also demanded that it be given ascendancy over Manchuria and Shantung and that China accept so-called 'advisors' to assist with many aspects of government policy.
Having prevaricated, and in the wake of a revised set of demands published on 26 April 1915, China finally capitulated to a Japanese ultimatum of 7 May 1915 which threatened war in the absence of Chinese agreement. Thus on 8 May 1915 China reluctantly acquiesced to Japan, although Britain and the U.S. succeeded in removing the requirement for China to accept government advisors. The Chinese legislature did not however ratify the treaties signed between the two countries. "
http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/21demands.htm
Now let's see how Japan and China were getting on not long after the United States broke Japan's isolation:
in 1871 sailors from the Ryukyu Islands were murdered by indigenous Formosans/Taiwanese. The Japanese demanded reparation, and when this was not forthcoming, occupied Formosa/Taiwan. The Chinese acquiesced in the Japanese assumption of authority over not only Formosa/Taiwan, but also the Ryukyu Islands, which had previously traditionally sent envoys to pay tribute to the Chinese emperor.
China also had to pay an indemnity of 500 000 taels.
In 1878 the Ryukyu Islands were officially surrendered to Japan.
In 1874, Li Hung-chang commander of the Huai Army, advised the Dowager Empress Tz'u-Hsi:
" Although the various powers are strong, they are still seventy thousand li away from us, whereas Japan is near as in the courtyard, as on the threshold, and is prying into our emptiness and solitude. Undoubtedly she will become China's permanent and great anxiety."
Seems to me there's a Chinese army commander and a Chinese President who know things you don't....
Tz-u-Hsi on the first Sino-Japanese War, over Korea:
" Who would have anticipated that the dwarf men [the Japanese, in case you hadn't guessed] would have dared to force us into hostilities, and that since the beginning of summer they have invaded our tributary states (Korea) and destroyed our fleet ? "
Other pleasant Chinese terms for the Japanese had been 'dwarf barbarians' and 'robber pirates'- but of course that had been when there were powerful Chinese dynasties, and China could afford to act superior.
So happy were the Japanese to reverse the traditional relationship with China, that they actively humiliated China by accusing the first Chinese peace envoys of not havingsufficient importance or dignity- the ensuing Treaty of Shimonoseki was designed to humble China and exalt once despised Japan.
" Apr. 17, 1895, ending the First Sino-Japanese War. It was negotiated and signed by Ito Hirobumi for Japan and Li Hung-chang for China. Harsh terms were imposed on a badly defeated China. The treaty provided for the end of Chinese suzerainty over Korea, giving Korea independence, and for the cession to Japan of Taiwan, the Pescadores islands, and Port Arthur and the Liaodong peninsula. Japan also imposed a large indemnity and forced China to open five new treaty ports. A week after the treaty was signed, however, Russia, France, and Germany together—in the so-called Triple Intervention—demanded that Japan renounce claims to Port Arthur and the Liaodong peninsula. Japan reluctantly agreed (Nov., 1895), but China was forced to pay an additional indemnity. "
http://www.bartleby.com/65/sh/ShimonTr.html
No more 'robber pirate dwarf barbarians' .
Last edited by molly bloom on 03-06-2005 at 16:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
No doubt there was inherent friction between German and Pole... |
Gosh there's an understatement. Are you perhaps referring to the part the Prussian kingdom played in the Partitions of Poland, or perhaps to the aristocratic Germans and Prussian Junkers who kept vast estates on previously Polish territory, or on lands with majority Slav populations ?
" The Partitions of Poland: 1772 - 1795.
Taking advantage of a now weakened Poland, Prussia, Russia and Austria agreed to annex parts of the country in 1772. The Commonwealth lost 733,000 sq.km (23%) of her former territory and 4,500,000 of her population; Prussia took the smallest, but economically best, area; Austria took the most heavily populated areas, whilst Russia took the largest, but least important. To give the crime some legality the Sejm was forced to ratify the partition in 1773, despite the resistance of some Deputies, led by Tadeusz Rejtan.
[....]
Russian troops crossed the borders and war broke out. The King's nephew, Joseph Poniatowski and Tadeusz Kosciuszko, a veteran of the American War of Independence, put up heroic resistance but all hope faded away when the Prussians joined in, attacking the Polish armies in the rear. Many patriots were forced to flee.
In 1793 Russia and Prussia signed the Second Partition Treaty, seizing more than half the country and about four million more of the population. The last Sejm of the Commonwealth, which met at Grodno, was forced to legalise the partition and abolish most of the reforms of the "Great Sejm".
Eventually, in October, the combined strength of Russia and Prussia defeated Kosciuszko's forces at Maciejowice . "
http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/Decline.html
In WWI, the German Empire was awash with anti-Slav feeling- so much so, that a defeat of Russia was named after the famous victory over the Teutonic Knights by Polish-Lithuanian forces at Tannenberg.
Kaiser Wilhelm II:
" I hate the Slavs. I know it is a sin to do so. We ought not to hate anyone. But I can't help hating them."
& "...with the Slavs the procedure must be divide et impera."
Fear of Pan-Slav political movements and lurid fantasies of Slav hordes and Cossack murderers filled the yellow press and popular imagination in Germany and Austria-Hungary.
Nothing to do with Great Britain.
I've already dealt with Jewish-Arab relations in Ottoman Palestine- you've offered nothing to gainsay what I've mentioned, other than a vague assertion that the two groups got on well and both fought the Turks.
Again, with the Partition of India, you've simply ignored the realities of centuries of minority Muslim rule in northern India and Bengal or modern Bangla Desh.
Your solution seems to be one of simply ignoring the wishes of the substantial Muslim majority in those areas, and leaving them to whatever their fate might be under a majority Hindu dominated state.
Pakistanis of course view Partition rather differently in some respects:
" By the late 1930s, Jinnah, who had become leader of the Muslim League, was convinced that a partition of India along religious lines was the only way to preserve Muslim political power.
In 1940, the Muslim League adopted the 'Lahore Resolution' calling for separate autonomous states in majority-Muslim areas of northeastern and eastern India.
In 1946, violence between Hindus and Muslims broke out after Jinnah called for demonstrations opposing an interim Indian government in which Muslim power would be compromised.
The riots spread. In the first weeks of the uprising, more than 3,000 people were killed and thousands wounded. "
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/India...nation.builder/
Now, see how far we've travelled from your initial erroneous claim of Great Britain being solely responsible for those ethnic/religious/national conflicts.
Now it's the Treaty of Versailles and the League mandates 'exacerbating' existing conflicts. Oh, and in case you hadn't guessed, the British Empire didn't control the Allied treaty powers at Versailles, nor the League committees.
So, do you have any facts rather than gut feelings, premonitions or assumptions ?
'Cos I'm wearying of your instinctual Madame Arcati approach to history.
Last edited by molly bloom on 03-06-2005 at 16:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2005 20:02
.
|