If we hadn’t fought World War 2, would we still have a British Empire?
on 08/30/2009 at 03:12 PM
My God, this is delusional. Hitler was going to invade Poland and Eastern Europe no matter what, as he needed space for Germans and felt the Slavs were subhumans living on his land. The Holocaust would have happened (the death trains had priority over troop or munitions trains as the Holocaust was seen as the blessed duty of the Reich) whether or not Britain was involved. The Nazi-Soviet war would have ended up with either a Nazi victory or else the Soviets would have had Eastern Europe as they did in our history. France would have either been between three fascist nations or else would have gone communist (which it nearly did, anyway).
Britain, it must be remembered, had fascist leanings, from the Mosley blackshirts to the pro-Nazi Prince Edward. Its army was tiny and air force barely saved it from the Nazi onslaught. Their rule in Asia was not as benevolent as he makes out. A billion Indians might have something to say about dominion rule over independence. South Africa wasn’t a multiracial paradise under British rule, either. Britain was also broke when the war started, having been almost bankrupted by the first World War and expanding their welfare state during a depression.
The Palestine/Israeli situation? Google Hebron 1929 for an example of Palestinian atrocities on the Jews a generation before Israel existed. There’d be no Israel, but that part of the world would still be backward and rich in petrodollars and despots. The Battle of Algiers between the French and their Algerian Muslim subjects gave the world suicide bombing. The Soviets would have bought influence in that part of the world no matter what, except the British and not Americans would have had to fight the cold war.
Imperial Japan was a death cult that used chemical and biological weapons on civilians and intended on ruling the Pacific Rim. There might not have been Pearl Harbor (though their naval academy asked cadets to plan an attack as part of their exams), but they would have gone after Britain’s Asian territories as they did in real life. India might have fallen to Japan or liberated itself.
America wouldn’t have been a world power without the war. The Soviets or Nazis and Imperial Japanese would be. If the Nazis didn’t lose to the Soviets, there’d be no Jews or gays or Gypsies or political dissidents left alive in Europe. Damn few Slavs, either. The British would have lost their empire anyway. I’m not seeing the upside.
Posted by stormbird
08/30/2009 at 05:42 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this post will be extremely profane and angry. If you do not find it suitable, you may leave.
I almost do not have the energy to rebut this crap yet again and again and again and again, but I suppose the acid I have left will suffice.
Now, as many people know, I am an Imperialist, and make no bones about it. While it was hardly a perfect system, it did pretty damn well, and I still think the West would have been far better had the old colonial empires remained intact following the war. So, at first glance, I would not be unsympathetic to the idea of preserving the British Empire. But this is simply a repugnant and atrocious mess that reeks of dishonor and shame. If the British Empire WERE to be preserved through these methods, would you REALLY WANT it to say in existence?
To be savagely, brutally, blunt, this reminds me of the continuous dreck coming from the likes of Niall and Pat and Co, always, always, always whining about how we would still be living happy times had we just not bothered to oppose the dictator of the day, who really meant no harm to us outside of some shadowy cabal of arms manufacturing freemason Illumanti members and who we could have lived in peace while puppies licked and roses bloomed…
I’m making myself physically ill just thinking about that.
Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses, but even the evil machinations of religion (as they appeared in Marx’s fevered mind, anyway) would have had to pick up their skirts and run for their lives in order to keep up with the “militant pacifism” as espoused by knaves such as this.
However, to answer the question that Peter put force, I can only answer “depends.”
Certainly, I could probably conceive of some great alternate history where the Nazis, Old-Skool German militarists, the USSR, the Japanese Empire, and a few of the more unstable tin pot dictatorships all collapsed without a world war, thus leaving the British Empire fully intact and still rather enlightened as the world all goes to sing Kumbayaya. More realistically, possibly FDR and the succeeding American presidents (Ike you goddamned idiot, I am looking at YOU) could have
But the former would have a pretty damn slim chance, and I doubt either is what Hitchens means. What he means is that the British should not have resisted the Nazis and whoever else came along as they shredded the Treaty of Versailles- signed in the blood of millions of British Commonwealth soldiers- and butchered all those on the continent that they pleased with impunity.
To that, I must say that there are two answers to that situation, and neither are good.
The first is arguably the more likely one. And it remains NO.
Why? Because once the Germans had sated themselves with the riches of mainland Europe, they would have sought to expand again. After all, Hitler openly stated that the “Living Space” carved out of the East and even the West would ultimately prove inadaquate. And does Africa not present an alternative method to vent out the growing population (coupled to the fact that Imperial pride was damaged by the fall of the colonies in WWI)? And guess who stands in the way? The British Empire.
In such a circumstance, the British could have either resisted or they could have allowed the Germans to annex most of their African Empire. If they resisted, they would do so at an even WORSE time than they did historically (even if the US has not been brought to heel by Germany’s operations of Latin America, France, Russia, and pretty much all of Europe is already gone), and would likely have been crushed. If they conceded, they would have gained peace for the meantime, but within a generation conflicts would have ruptured over the Germans over the Pacific (if the Japanese had not already moved in), India, and what pathetically few resources were left in the West Indies. Again, same choice, only with even slimmer chance of success. Then we will probably see something come up over Ireland and possibly Scotland. If the US is not cowed, Canada MIGHT be able to be saved, but the mother land will not be so lucky.
By the time it is over, the “British Empire” has completely evaporated. Instead, we are talking about a pathetic rump of a state that exists purely on the whim of Berlin, and which has compromised its values, its honor, its safety, its independence, and its future for the sake of getting out of Germany’s way. The next time somebody decides it might be nice to have BOTH sides of the English Channel, Britain will be erased from the map at long last, having died a death for over a decade at least in far greater agony and infamy than it did historically.
But let’s play the moral reject’s game and presume that after Poland and France and Belgium and Luxembourg and the Netherlands and Denmark and Norway and anything else on the mainland Hitler felt like taking, he ultimately decides that Britain and its Empire should be left well enough alone. Now, let us assume that miraculously, whoever the hell fallows Hitler and everyone afterwards holds the same opinion (A VERY, VERY, VERY unlikely event). Setting aside the morally-repugnant ultimatums they almost inevitably would have thrown at Britain (like they did towards Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and others), let’s focus on the fact that- even if the Japanese and/or the Chinese leave the Far Eat Alone- Britain would once again exist primarily at Germany’s whim, as a Britain without allies (or even with the US) would be hard pressed to even match the power of a Germany fueled by the entirety of mainland Europe. Let us also focus on the fact that nationalism would have remained in the colonies (particularly India), and would probably have grown in even worse directions than it did in reality due to the high likelihood of German aid. Let us also imagine what sort of British government could possibly adapt to coexist with the Third Reich. Whatever it would have been, it would probably have been EVEN worse than the Mosleyite goons, because even if Britain retained a semblance of Democratic governance, it would have still had to meet German demands. And if it were to develop to actually LIKE such policies, I think we can all agree that such a nation and such an empire does not deserve to exist, particularly given the actions it did.
Now for the particulars.
Stop the film. We’ve seen it so many times before: the toothy, simpering features of Neville Chamberlain and his bit of paper, an unbalanced Hitler waving his arms about and shouting, the German troops pouring across the Polish border, columns of smoke over Warsaw, more columns of smoke over Dunkirk, German troops marching through Paris, the Battle of Britain, flames across London, a dogged Churchill poking through the ruins, El Alamein, the turning point, our ‘Finest Hour’, Spitfires soaring over Kent. And so on, until triumphant victory six years and tens of thousands of lives later.
A. Well, art often does follow reality.
B. “Tens of Thousands of lives later.” TENS of thousands of lives later? I suppose it is TECHNICALLY true (after all, what is 60+ million but 600+ “Tens of thousands"), but most would use the term “Hundreds of thousands” or “Millions”, if not “Tens of Millions”.
So, whose lives is Hitchens counting? Not the British Commonwealth, that’s for sure, as they took over HALF A MILLION DEAD all by themselves, and not even those from Britain proper (287,000+ dead). Sure, I COULD attribute it to a rather innocent and ill-chosen number that could TECHNICALLY be considered accurate. But I am not in the mood to be generous, so I honestly think he is downplaying the true cost of WWII to the world in an attempt to minimize and trivialize it, something that in my opinion deserves nothing less than a beating at best.
The story is all wrong.
A single sentence that tells all you need to know about Mr. Hitchens’ intelligence, honor, morals, and common sense.
Posted by Turtler
08/30/2009 at 08:55 PM
If it were as good and as right as that, and if we won it, how come we look back on the Second World War from conditions we might normally associate with defeat and occupation?
Because in order to defeat Germany, we were forced to consort with some VERY nasty people who we could not entirely neuter (and who eventually took over Eastern Europe and much of the Asian mainland), and who tragically eclipsed the British Empire, which was- left by a combination of Nationalist sentiment, American ignorance, and Communist perfidy- left to die a noble but unnecessary death in the aftermath, a blow that Britain still economically suffers from?
Oh, I forgot, I am talking to idiot neo-Isolationists who have never actually bothered checking their history. Nevermind. It’s all Churchill’s fault. And that of the sinister and utterly amorphous “New World Order” Bankers and munitions manufacturers, who presumably also shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand from on top of the grassy noll in between plotting the Bolshevik Revolution and electing a new Grand Master.We are a second-rate power, rapidly slipping into third-rate status. We have a weak currency and shrunken armed forces, deployed as auxiliaries in wars that are not in our interest, and we are largely governed from abroad. Our Parliament is a bought and paid-for puppet chamber. Our culture and customs have been debauched and our younger generations corrupted, as subject populations are, with drink, drugs and promiscuity.
A. Before I go on, I must note this. “Wars that are not in our interest?” Given the fact that this fool apparently thinks that WWII was not in Britain’s interests (it was mixed, but in light of the growing German threat, it certainly was), am I REALLY supposed to accept him as a solid judge of what is in the national interest? Pray tell me WHAT wars precisely would he consider in the nation’s interest? Napoleonic Wars? Crimea? Seven Year’s War? WWI? B. So, the frikking world screws you over, treats you like tripe and shows you absolutely no respect after you save the day multiple times? Take a BLOODY number and GET IN LINE, Guv’ner. Heroes are not always treated as they deserve. It does not make them any less heroes, or their actions any less necessary. It just means that the world is not fit for them. But is it not worth fighting for nonetheless? C. So, Parliament runs on special interests, culture and customs are degrading, and the young’uns are misbehaving? Well now, hasn’t the world pretty much been like that since, oh, the mid 1700’s if not before? Welcome to life. It often involves living in close proximity to those who you at best disapprove of and at worst despise. I would know, for I live in California. But the fact that you HAVE a Parliament in the first place and that your culture and customs still exist should tell you of its benefits.
We are compelled, like an occupied people, to use foreign measures to buy butter or meat, and our history is largely forgotten or deliberately distorted in the schools to suit anti-British dogma. Those schools are unable to educate most of our children up to the levels of our main rivals, so ensuring that we provide no challenge to them. Our country has been Balkanised into provinces and regions. Our language is invaded by foreign words and expressions. Our food and most of our consumer goods are imported, along with our TV programmes and films.
Where do I start with this? A. So, schools are inadequate and you have a few dozen hair-trigger counties all over fighting each other for public funding and privileges with the ferocity that they would NEVER put to use against a foreign despot? Welcome to Californian state politics. It ain’t nice, but it is FAR from like an occupied nation. B.
What do you mean “foreign measures?” You mean like importing foodstuffs and having to pay for them? Why, by golly, isn’t that what the British nation has been doing for something on the tune of THREE HUNDRED PLUS YEARS? Why then do you suddenly wake up and think this is all so new? The global market has existed way back before AD. It just was a whole lot SLOWER and generally more marginal then. But the idea that this is suddenly something new or remarkable is utterly stupid. Oh yes, and he also shows how little he knows about occupation or conquest. Let me tell you, knave, that that the Poles, Belgians, Italians, French, Czechs, and Danes would have LOVED to live under THAT kind of occupation!We are compelled, like an occupied people, to use foreign measures to buy butter or meat
C.
Well, in addition to occupation, German military plans, military operations, and general reality, it appears that Mr. Hitchens has comparatively little knowledge of the term Balkanization. Firstly, governor, if you have EVER studied Balkan history, you would KNOW that Balkanization is far nastier and more complete than the Californian or British townships/provinces competing for who gets the federal cash. That’s just your normal regional rivalry. Balkanization is where you travel a hundred or so miles in one direction, and you are likely to not only see an independent power/microstate that officially does not exist but was created by disillusioned natives, but you probably have one that is trying to KILL you and possibly ethnically cleanse the region. If anything, the British Isles were far MORE balkanized a century ago than they were now. D.Our country has been Balkanised into provinces and regions.
Ok class, your assignment is to write a 1,000 word essay telling me how this is bitterly ironic and why considering the source. E.and our history is largely forgotten or deliberately distorted in the schools to suit anti-British dogma.
Is this idiot even trying anymore, or is he just tossing out whatever he feels like tossing out? “Our language is invaded by foreign words and expressions?” Um, newsflash: PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE ENGLIGH LANGUAGE IS WHAT USED TO BE FOREIGN WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS. This is BASIC LINGUISTICS. And guess what? The problem was also prevalent in the Empire that he chooses to idealize, forgetting that the “Indian chaps” sprinkled their speech and writing to such a degree with Sanskrit that it was often joked that they were “going Wogish”, or the Middle Eastern or even the ones going into European service, where they would often pick up expressions and keep them. If you don’t want foreign words and expressions to “invade your language”, then you pretty much don’t have much of a choice beyond living in an inaccessible and hermetically sealed bubble at the bottom of the sea. “Our food and most of our consumer goods are imported?” Well, the difference between now and the Pre-WWII empire on that pretty much amounts to a few percentage points and the digital age. Before WWII, Britain was HEAVILY dependent on imports from the colonies and the US. There WAS, after all, a reason why the Germans targeted the transport fleet carrying said imports in both world wars. “along with our TV Programmes and films?” Am I supposed to believe that he would have a quarrel with Charlie Chapman and Bela Lugosi for ‘invading’ the UK with their foreign films (remember, Hollywood in this era FAR outproduced whatever indigenous British film setups that existed)?Our language is invaded by foreign words and expressions. Our food and most of our consumer goods are imported, along with our TV programmes and films.
The remaining veterans of the supposedly glorious struggle, far from being gratefully honoured, often live in pinched poverty, scared of feral youths, or die neglected in squalid hospitals in a country many of them no longer recognise as their own.
As I said before, the world is not fit for its heroes, and if you do not cry for those who are shunned by the societies they served in such a crucial time, left to die without the outside world caring at all, then YOU HAVE NO SOUL WORTH TALKING ABOUT. That being said, I am forced to point out “so what?” I am not denying the tragedy of that fact, but you can find records of such poor soldiers dating back to antiquity, including from the Seven Year’s War (which helped BUILD the British Empire) and the Napoleonic Wars. So, why do I not hear Hitchens bitching about poor Leftenant Tommy, who was crippled for life at the Plains of Abraham and left to die alone in a godforsaken flat forgotten by the outside world? Because it does not fit Hitchens’ pathetic little bias to mention so. War is tragedy, and the world is not fit for its heroes. But somehow, I am supposed to believe that human suffering and the abandonment of soldiers can be flipped on and off for given wars- the wars (if they exist) that Peter Hitchens views as “good"- rather than remaining a tragic constant throughout time and space. Somehow, however, if Private Tommy or Major Tommy or any of the others had ever thought of those whose lives they saved from the murderous ambitions of one of history’s worse killing machines, if they had thought of the Frenchmen and the West Germans and the Austrians and the Italians and the Indians who would grow up to write the history of the next generation, for better or (you better believe it) worse, I think that might well have been some small consolation, as inadequate as it is. But if I am supposed to believe that such tragic factors immediately nullify all that was accomplished, I must laugh. It is called the “Eden Fallacy”, the idea that if something cannot be done perfectly, it should not be done at all. I think the dead of both world wars would disagree, for it is nothing but the cop-out of a bitter, petty little man who cannot come to grips with the reality of the world. And it also ignores the fact that there were dozens of thousands of British WWII veterans who went on to have remarkably successful and fulfilling lives back home. If only Mr. Hitchens would condescend to mention any of them.
Posted by Turtler
08/30/2009 at 08:57 PM
Yet 70 years ago, as the Germans moved to their start-lines on the Polish border, we were the world’s greatest empire.
And I suppose that you cannot see the attack on Poland as being the opening move in a campaign to drastically change that fact, can you?
Half the globe used our currency,
Nope, the vast majority of the world did to varying degrees, like it does now (currancy conversion existed back then, too)
Resources I will admit, but investments less so. You still do. They have declined, yes, but you still do.we controlled vast resources and owned enormous foreign investments.
I am going to bypass the opportunity to make a joke regarding Mr. Hitchens and a home for the mentally disadvantaged to point out that besides the physical act (which I assume you still do with a few exceptions), you didn’t. You imported it from overseas, both “our overseas” like the Indian Empire, and the foreign territories like the US (hence why German U-Boats were so popular in both wars and why they triggered food shortages at home: bread and meat soggy from sea water and spilled oil are not nice to taste).We fed ourselves
Which, as Welsh mining shows, you still largely do.dug our own coal,
To a large extent you did and still do, but you also got it by the ton from the US.made our own steel
Which you still largely do.controlled our own fisheries
built our own ships, trains, cars and aircraft.
Not as much as you think: you did, after all, often have to go “shopping” through the London shipyards to purchase or outright seize the juicier foreign exports. That, and you often still do.
No contest.We possessed an enormous Navy,
a modern Air Force
Eh, millage may vary. The equipment was modern, but it was hardly ready for modern war at the time. It would take about a year for that.
And THIS says all that needs to be said about the disconnect. Firstly, you still do. Indeed, if anything, it is even more advanced than before. It’s just that the money is running dry due to the lack of people paying in to it.and, at the same time, the most advanced welfare state in the world.
Largely true, but there were more than a few incidents to point to the contrary.We were competently administered by a small but efficient civil service.
Parliament was a genuine national chamber and the Monarch a truly revered head of state.
He REALLY, REALLY hasn’t looked at the British tabloids from that era, has he? Yes, this was largely true, but it is also largely true today, contrary to your ranting. It has gone downhill, yes, but its nature has been fundamentally unchanged. If it has changed at all, it was the people holding it.
We were modestly but fiercely proud of our traditions, history and literature.
And many still are today, in spite of the work of some to utterly mutilate said traditions, history, and literature with revisionist drivel that doesn’t stand up to any solid test.
Our only rival for global power was a jealous America, to whose lofty attacks on our Empire we justly responded by pointing at their cruel segregation across the South.
Are you completely idiotic, or did you just fail to notice the growing storm of jackboots on the continent, the machinations of a hostile and enigmatic Kremlin, the ominous movements of the Japanese forces in the Pacific, or the rumblings in China which were yet in their infancy but would grow into a storm during and after the war?
We had then, as we have now, no substantial interests
Oh wonderful, here we are getting to the point in time where somebody tries to convince everyone that geography does not count, that the English Channel might as well be a wall of solid energy, and that the Sun, on his analysis, rises in the North.
in Poland,
Granted, it was not an easy alliance and one the Western Allies would have been hard pressed to honor in the best of circumstances, but it did provide a threat to Germany’s Eastern flanks while blocking Soviet advancement to the West (as it did in 1920).
You mean BESIDES Britain’s leading ally in Central Europe, necessary to police the Austrians and the Hungarians while checking any German move to the South?the Czech lands
the Balkans
COUGHSUEZCANALCOUGHPORTSCOUGHCRETECOUGHCOUGH
France, Belgium or the Netherlands.
Ok, this is even worse than I thought: now he is complaining that Britain had “no substantial interests” in the CHANNEL PORTS and the control thereof? The same ports that English leaders dating back to Elizabeth I recognized as a leading route for invasion, that Britain fought pretty much every mainland war since 1668 to preserve? THOSE Channel Ports? Has this man ever opened a bloody TEXTBOOK?
Much of the Continent, not just Germany and Italy, lay under the rule of various kinds of despot or dictator,
Welcome to European Realpolitik. It’s been there since several hundred years BC, and it hasn’t changed much. Pray tell me would you think the events of the Seven Years War would be any less invalid because Britain aligned with regional dictators who served the purpose of containing France (hell, back then, they couldn’t really even complain about standards of human decency!).
none worse than the unhinged and heavily armed regime of Josef Stalin in Moscow, with his empire of torture chambers and concentration camps.
Given the lows that Hitler would eventually stoop to, this is very,very,very,very much debatable, but he was not pleasant by any means.
In Spain, a savage military had just defeated an equally intolerant and merciless Communist-backed coalition.
No complaints save for a few minor quibbles: For one, the Communists only really came to dominate the Spanish “Republic” towards the end of the war, when it was obvious no other help would be forthcoming, and the “military” was in fact split between the “Republic” and the Nationalists, who both composed of ridiculously broad statas of Spanish society that had been edging towards this for a few decades.
Many of us might have regretted these sad conditions, but we did not really think it was any of our concern how they ran their affairs.
Because, after all, Communist calls for a worldwide revolution, German screeching about revising Versailles and talking about how it was “time to crush the parasitic Tommies”, and Japanese declarations of a “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” are not of any of your concern, because Ostriches are the safest of the safe, right?
The fact that you probably would have been burned WORSE had you not escapes you.What is more, we had been badly burned the last time we had involved ourselves in a Continental quarrel.
We had gained little and lost much
Compared to what you could have lost had you not? The brutal fact of the matter is that had Versailles been a better treaty and the Germans more cowed by perhaps direct occupation, Britain’s entry into WWI would not only be viewed as a necessary entry, but as something of a geopolitical masterpiece.
to defend France, our historic enemy, against Germany.
War makes strange bedfellows, and by that era, far more separated London and Berlin than did London and Paris.
Posted by Turtler
08/30/2009 at 09:09 PM
In a strange paradox, we had gone to war mainly to save our naval supremacy from a German threat - and ended it by conceding that supremacy to the United States, our ally.
Obviously, map-reading and comprehension of postwar strategic agreements is not Mr. Hitchens’ strong suit. A. For one, the British did not “concede” naval supremacy to the US from that war, it merely put them closer to parity, as the 3-3-2 agreement showed. B. Even if it did so, the USN was vastly more benign than the Kaiserliche Marine or the Kreigsmarine or the Red Navy, as the USN had no designs on the Channel ports or the North Sea, while the Germans did. The American navy’s primary interest was in the Pacific and Latin America, which did not pose a threat to British independence like German dominion of the Channel ports would have.
Most of us were far from enthusiastic about the Versailles Treaty,
Premature, yes, but after four years of war, I think you would be too.
which was the main reason for the new threat of war,
Right, because we all know that bitterness after its defeat in WWI is what drove Japan to invade Manchuria and China in the 1930’s, right? BZZZTTTTT. Wrong. While Japanese ill feelings did partially stem from the Treaty of Versailles (not because they had been defeated, but because they felt they had been screwed over regarding their interests in the Pacific), but that was not the root cause of their ambitions, as shown by the fact that they had made the first moves in the decades BEFORE WWI (1894 and 1904 wars), and that they even did a medieval dry run in 1592. Likewise with Germany, the rise of Hitler was not a new threat, but just the latest incarnation of German militarism that had emerged from the bloody events of the German counterrevolution of 1848 and 1849, of which Bismarck and his cronies were the instigators. That Bismarck was the “personal tutor” of the main figurehead of the enemy in WWI and that he certainly inspired most of the “Iron Hat Cabinet” that actually ran the war showcases the full extent of which Versailles was merely the pretext rather than the actual root of the problem.
and felt Germany had been treated with needless and counterproductive harshness.
Which, compared to what it had done in the war, was almost certainly false. If anything, the main counterproductive thing about it was that there was no major attempt to reform Germany after the War ala 1945.
We had stayed out of the two great and decisive conflicts of the late 19th Century: the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War, and come to no harm as a result.
Where do I start? A. The non-intervention in the Civil War obviously does not include the opportunistic French-led expedition to Mexico and Britain’s convenient allowance for the CSA’s “hunter fleet” to base out of British ports. B. That anybody could possibly say that Britain was unharmed by the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war, which saw London’s quixotic frenemy Napoleon III be deposed by Otto Von Bismarck, the man who would help give rise to both the second and the third Reich, is largely wishful thinking: it might not have hurt immediately, but it WOULD. C. Are we not forgetting the Crimean War, which was at most a few ten thousands (to use your measuring unit) shy of the 1870 war? Why did you not include it? Oh yes, because the British did intervene to prevent Russian dominance of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Caucasus. And it actually WORKED, as the Russians not only lost Stevastopol (it would be DECADES before they could fully rebuild) but also remained so in fear of a British intervention that they literally stopped a vastly superior army in the suburbs of Constantinople- the fondest goal of the Russian Tsars- at the mere THREAT of a Western intervention. How convenient.
Rewind the film a little. Imagine we had been hard realists instead of sentimental romantics.
Not again. Now we’re getting in to how surrealism and fantasy are the new realisms.
If we had found a way, as we so very nearly did, to divide Hitler and Mussolini, so avoiding a threat to our Mediterranean sea-routes and bases.
A. By the outbreak of the war, Mussolini was so depedent on German aid (see the figures of Germans found fighting in the “Italian” army) that any such hopes were very much pipe dreams. B.If we had, we probably would have seen the one that wasn’t dealt with come back to bite us, be it Hitler turning West after Eastern Europe or Mussolini deciding to give that “Mare Nostrum” idea a good try.
Imagine that we had chosen splendid isolation instead of active intervention over the quarrels of Eastern and Central Europe.
Obviously somebody hasn’t studied the FIRST “Splendid Isolation.” Here’s the moral of the story: it was found to be unsustainable because when the chips were down, Britain could not count on being left along by the growing power of Bismarckean and then Wilhelmite Germany, and so was forced to seek alliances to counter that threat.
It is not as if we saved the Czechs or the Poles from their various enemies by getting involved.
No, but had war occurred in 1938 before the handover of the Sudetenland and its fortifications or had a major effort been made in the West during 1939, that might have happened.
And if we were really trying to save the borders of the Versailles Treaty, we made a pretty poor job of it.
Here’s a hint guv’ner: THAT WASN’T THE POINT. The POINT of Britain’s involvement in Versailles was to contain both the German threat and the possibility of Soviet encroachment in the East while trying to pay back the costs of WWI. In short, its main objective was to make the world safe for British interests and the continuation of British democracy. Nobody in the West could have possibly CARED about things like the Estonian-Latvian border disputes of the 1920’s because they were peaceful, they were between two democracies, and they had little chance of spilling over. Hitler’s territorial ambitions, on the other hand, were a vastly different matter altogether.
Under the 1985 Schengen Treaty, the borders of continental Europe have ceased to exist, from Calais all the way to Bucharest.
Grammer issues???
Schengen has cancelled Versailles after all, and a giant reunited Germany dominates Europe all the way from Londonderry to the Balkans.
Do you need an eye checkup? Germany might ecconomically dominate CENTRAL Europe, but outside of the various EU bodies, it has no real means of projecting its power, as we saw during the Yugoslav Wars, where if anything it should have been able to take the lead. And even if it had, SO BLOODY WHAT? German dominance is only a threat to British survival and freedom if the Germans desire to use it that way. WWII burned off the rotten layers of the Bismarckian nightmare once and for all, to the extent that even the nastier side of Germany- the grossly misnamed GDR- derived more from Russia than it did from Germany’s long and fruitful history of despotism. The nation that reunited in the late 80’s was not the belligerent Monarchist Empire, nor the nightmarist Fascist state, nor the Orwellian Communist regime of Honecker, but a democratic, freely elected government in the mold of the Western European Democracies (which, granted, poses problems all their own, but is a far cry from the jackbooted hellholes of yore)
Beyond the German sphere of influence, an authoritarian Russia takes over.
And THAT is one of the comparatively few things that is truly, unambiguously bitter about the victory of WWII. In the end, one of the war’s greatest instigators and most horrific villains wound up walking out the door with his power greatly enhanced. Compared to the downfall of the British Empire, it is indeed very tragic, and further proof that happy endings do not always come. But in the aftermath of WWII, even Russia’s power has waned. In 1956, Stalin’s heirs made abundantly clear why nobody in Central Europe could dare seriously oppose them without risking their lives. In 2006, Russia had been reduced to a rump state shorn of many of its conquests and with demographic weaknesses that are gnawing away at it. While it has certainly re-emerged since then, it is still far weaker than it was, and is far more vulnerable.
What was it we went to war for again, exactly?
A summarization would be lost on you, but I am going to try ANYWAY. A. To check German power and prevent it from dominating the continent. B. To avenge the German perfidy at Munich and to try and stabilize the last tottering remnants of the League of Nations and the Versailles settlement. C. To protect the Empire and its assets from the potential threat of German expansion. D. To support our allies in Paris and Warsaw. Is that clear enough?
Posted by Turtler
08/30/2009 at 09:12 PM
If we had stayed out, think what might - and might not - have happened. Would France have risked war with Hitler if we had sat on our hands? In that case would there ever have been a war in Western Europe at all?
Yes, almost certainly. Hitler DID after all demand Alsace-Lorraine, and he had plenty of reason to go even further.
Might Poland have handed over Danzig and its corridor?
Willingly? No.
Would Germany then have been interested in a pact with Stalin?
Yes, because the talks for what would become the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact were already in progress.
Or would Stalin - whose aggression against Finland is now forgotten - have started a war with Germany years earlier, perhaps beginning by invading Finland and then by seizing the Baltic republics?
A. As one of the few people in the West who knows of the brave odessy of Finland through WWII, I resent your rather petty attempts to justify dishonor by invoking it, particularly given by the fact that the Germans had already arraigned for its annexation by Russia before invading Poland, thus undercutting your point.
B. Stalin was a murdering rat, but he was not an idiot. And he would have had to be an idiot to try and backstab Hitler in 1939 or 1940 without the Western Front, given the pathetic state the Soviet military was in. The main reason the Winter War occurred was firstly because the Finns refused the Soviet ultimatum and secondly because Stalin figured that he had such an overwhelming superiority over Helsinki that he could get away with it anyway (he was, of course, dead wrong). He understood that he would not be able to compete with Hitler militarily until the reformation of the Red Army was complete following the Purges, and this is largely why the USSR did so poorly in 1941 and early 1942.
And entirely vulnerable by a massive genocidal powerhouse in Central Europe that was now battle-hardened and could advance West ANYWAY at any time.However such a war ended, we would have been untainted by support for either side,
and strong enough to maintain our independence in whatever sort of Europe resulted.
If and when the Maginot Line withstands a few dozen Soviet Divisions tossing themselves at it, then you can say that. Until then, you cannot.
One of the few accurate facts that has been written down in this tripe.What about the Holocaust? There seems to be a common belief that we went to war to save the Jews of Europe. This is not true. We went to war to save Poland, and then didn’t do so.
BZZZZTTTT, wrong answer. If Britain lost full control over the war, it was in early 1942, when the sudden shock of alliances with both the US and the USSR meant that Britain became a subordinate partner.After Dunkirk, we lost control of the war,
And that remains, again, one of the great tragedies of WWII.and had little say in its eventual aims.
Which can be forgiven because Bomber command judged that said targets were too far away, would be too costly to attack, and would tie down resources that the Western Allies did not have and were needed more in the Pacific and North Africa.When, in 1942, the Germans began their ‘Final Solution’, reliable reports of the outrage were disbelieved or sat on. Later, when the information was beyond doubt, we turned down the opportunity to bomb the railway lines that led to Auschwitz.
In what universe? While Communist atrocities against the Jews must be taken into effect, those in the Western camps and in Western Europe knew differently.It is certainly hard to argue that the fate of Europe’s Jews would or could have been any worse than it was if we had stayed out of the war.
Unfortunately, I usually reserve such dreaming for when I am playing on a strategy game. The cold fact of the matter is that Hitler’s ambitions would have inevitably led him to conflict with the West, and if we wanted a say in the fate of Europe, we had to act.So the ripples spread. No Blitzkrieg, no occupation of France or the Low Countries, no war in North Africa.
As the German military demonstrated in 1918, modernization doesn’t mean much when you don’t know how to use it, and the ability of Green Western Allies soldiers to take on a battle-hardened Wehrmacht or Red Army is VERY questionable.But quite possibly a long war between the two worst tyrants in the world, far away from us, and giving us the chance to strengthen and modernise our armed forces in case it spread.
All of which could likely have been avoided by a more active 1939 showing.No desperate expenditure of our last remaining resources to pay for war, no handover of British gold reserves to the United States, no Lend Lease, and no irresistible US pressure to pay for it by handing over bases to the US Navy
or abandoning our empire.
We would have had to see how the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s would have played out, now wouldn’t we ?
BBBZZZZZTTTT. Highly unlikely at BEST. The main reason the Japanese went after the Western Allies in the Pacific was due less to their percieved weakness (though that was a factor) than it was that the US had cut off the oil, and the Dutch East Indies and various British islands in the South Pacific were the most accessible ones. They probably would have tried anyway, though the Western Allies would have most likely been better prepared.And then no war with Japan either, since the three European powers in Asia - Britain, France and the Netherlands - would all have been in a position to defend themselves - as they were not in 1941, being either conquered or busy elsewhere.
Possible but only that: the campaigns in the borders of Mongolia showed them that the Russians were not to be trifled with, and even if they killed two for every one loss, they would still have lost.Japan might have concentrated on fighting Russia - taking advantage of Stalin’s war with Hitler -
We are, of course, going to gloss over or not mention millions of civilians being murdered, raped, burned, starved, tortured, or some combination of the above in the process, right?and maintained its forces in China, possibly preventing the rise to power of Mao and the communists.
Posted by Turtler
08/30/2009 at 09:16 PM
Again, highly debatable. Even if the Home fleet and the like were freed up, the Japanese would probably have already been there by the time they arrived.Britain’s greatest military defeat in modern history - at Singapore in 1942 - would never have taken place.
Probably there would have been no Pearl Harbour either, and America, like us, would have remained above the battle. In which case it would never have built the huge armies and air forces it created after 1941, the foundation of the modern US economy.
A. Again, you underestimate the Japanese. B. You say “The foundation of the modern US Ecconomy” like it is a BAD thing. C. Which, in any event, is wrong. See the NY Stock Exchange.
Unlikely. Twenty years down the road, it would likely would have happened anyway.The atom bomb might well have not yet been invented.
Burma I will give you, but India was already abuzz by then.In that case, too, the independence movements of India and Burma, both hugely strengthened by our defeat at Singapore, would have been far less ambitious and would have settled for much less.
Oh Puhleaze. Bose was a minor figure that commanded an insignificant unit representing a largely illusionary puppet government. He was a fringe figure of little import. And Gandhi and Nehru may have advocated dominion status in the TWENTIES, maybe. But by the thirties and forties, not so.Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian pro-independence leader who won the support of Japan, would have been eclipsed by Gandhi and Nehru, who sought dominion status rather than full independence.
Again, debatable, given how advanced nationalism had become on the subcontinent, and the regional issues.In that case, no partition of India, no Pakistan.
Obviously, you have never studied 1919, 1929, or 1937.And that would mean no scuttle from Palestine, no state of Israel,
Not as much as you might think: the stronger British pressure may have preserved the Shah in Tehran, but the Wahhabist threat would still be being funded by the Saudis and the hostility of the Turks would have remained paramount.a Middle East quite different from what we see now.
Again, you forget how far Egyptian nationalism had come, and how powerful it was in the military (there was a VERY good reason the Egyptian military was not deployed against either the Turks or the Germans in either world war).The Suez episode would never have happened.
Disputable. Anti-British sentiment was already strong in South Africa, and probably would have only gotten stronger.South Africa might have stayed under the dominance of General Smuts and his United Party, so no Apartheid, which was the creation of the anti-British Nationalists.
Again, I think you underestimate the nationalists. Sure, you could have put them down, but it takes time.The rest of Africa,unswept by ‘winds of change’ would probably have remained under largely European rule. No Robert Mugabe. No Idi Amin. No Bokassa.
At home, our cities would have been unbombed and undamaged, depriving greedy developers of the excuse to destroy them completely.
A. Populist foolishness will get you nowhere, particularly given the fact that more than a few would dispute you over the architectual merits of said development.
B. You haven’t forgotten about the massive totalitarian colossus spanning from Siberia to the Danube, have you?Our welfare state and public health services, already extensive but not centralised, would have continued to grow. Nationalisation, already applied to electricity supply and the national airline, would still almost certainly have extended to the coal industry and the railways, but not much further.
That you consider such economic deadweights as positive one again underlines a flaw in your judgement.
Well, that seems to be the modus operandi of this entire pointless rant.Imagine:
no European Union,
If for no other reason than a genocidal, tyrannical superpower stretching from the Russian Far East to the Rhine is not the best of ingredients for the continental stability needed to power such a turkey.
You had better hope that you are wrong if and when either Hitler or Stalin would decide to take over what was left of Western Europe.probably no Nato,
Compared to the alternative, that might actually be a bad thing (and believe me when I say I am no fan of the UN).no United Nations
While I certainly disdain the uselessness they have fallen into now, they actually did serve a purpose once, and that purpose will be necessary for any war with the Superpower in the East.no courts of Human Rights,
So, you somehow think Ray Kroc and the founding fathers of Starbucks would be dissuaded by Hitler not being checked by the West? What could possibly give you a reason to think so.no Starbucks, no McDonald’s
debatable., no kilograms
So I assume the terrified masses fleeing Central-Eastern Europe and the Far East suddenly do not exist in this candyland fantasy?no mass migration
Definitively false, given human nature and the budding Islamist movements in the Middle East during this era.no terrorism.
Posted by Turtler
08/30/2009 at 09:19 PM
Who knows?
Only God, but careful research (unlike this) can probably give you hints.
Certainly no ‘Special Relationship’.
Au contraire, the endangerment of US interests in Britain and France by the mega-dictatorship across the Rhine coupled with the threat of the Japanese and the high probability of conflict in Latin America would probably PROPEL both parties into such a relationship.
One great change of direction can have so many effects
True, and so, so, SO many unintended ones.a fair number of them completely unpredictable.
Au contraire, so many of them are UTTERLY predictable.
The great undercurrent of conflict throughout the 20th Century was between Britain and the United States, with America determined to break into Britain’s protected markets, push Britain out of the Pacific and supplant British naval power with its own. Perhaps by now the great Anglo-American war, so many times predicted and so many times averted since the uneasy peace signed between the two countries in Ghent on Christmas Eve 1814, might actually have broken out. More likely, the two nations, too closely related to want war, would have reached a settlement, but one far more advantageous to Britain than the current arrangements.
One question: are you MENTAL? So, we have the near-century long conflict with the Communists dating back to WWI, we have the traditional East-West conflicts, we have decolonization, we have the rise of nationalism, we have China reborn, and we have the threat from the Islamists, and yet you conclude that the dominating conflict of the 20th century was between two allied nations who have fought alongside each other vastly more than they ever did against each other? And this would be in spite of the fact that the Us had already breached Britain’s “private markets” during the mid-late 19th century (one of the main reasons the UK did not intervene in the American Civil War was the North’s “King Corn” shipments), and with the replacement in the Pacific being more due to the fact that the Japanese blew the RN all the way to the Eastern Coast of Africa than due to any sinister designs, an accident of wartime rather than a conspiracy.
Perhaps it is because of Iraq and Afghanistan, but many of us are learning to separate our respect for the valour and stoicism of our armed forces from admiration for the politicians who so grievously mislead them.
God help us should more people “learn” such foolishness, particularly given the fact that it is not only insulting to their memory and their sacrifices, but also because it is an insult to history itself.
Got any proof?The great cult of Churchill-worship, with which I and millions of others grew up, has been most gravely damaged by the tawdry attempts of George W. Bush and Anthony Blair to dress their wars in Churchillian clothing.
Of course, they look ridiculous, like children who have raided a dressing-up box.
And so we reach a defining moment of projection: you, a dreamer who imagines a world where the West could remain unvarnished by the depravity of the Second World War could nevertheless shape the face of the world, you, a man whose theory DEPENDS on twenty million in one chances all pulling through simultaneously, you, a fool who cannot take the time to research anything from the course of Gandhi’s protests to the history of the Middle East, accuse others of playing the very same make-believe games you have indulged in with this long rant. If there is one thing I disdain, it is the hypocritical.
But they have also made me - and I suspect millions more - wonder if the ‘Good War’ was really as good as we have long believed.
And know this, knave: you only have the “right” to go off on such nonsense tangents because when the time of decision came, Britain chose to check German tyranny in Europe. When the time came, Britain chose to sacrifice its Empire in one of the most noble and unparalleled acts of history rather than allow all of Europe to fall to either Hitler or Stalin. When the time of decision came, Britain fought and bled to secure its freedom, both in the Pacific and in Europe. And while American foolishness and Soviet savagery made that victory a diminished one, it remains one of the greatest ones ever achieved. Without Churchill and FDR, without those “romantics” you so disdain, you would not have the right to be writing this. Do I expect you to read this and get some massive change of heart? No, I do not ever expect you will see this, and if you do, that you will just wave me off as some brainwashed initiative of the “Cult of Churchill.” A fool and his delusions cannot be parted easily, and usually it is best not to try. However, if even one person reads this through and recognizes the truth of the matter, that there are some things that are worth a fall from grace, than I will have more than done my part. Because the film of history you so condescendingly mock shows the truth, but it is falling victim: year by year, saboteurs and butchers cut it away piece by piece by piece. Those like you. WWI is already almost entirely gone. It now appears that you are working on WWII. By mutilating history, by intentionally passing on your fevered delusions as proof without checking the facts, you are aiding in that murder. And that is inexcusable to me. That the youth of the next generation or the generation after that may be fed this prattle like what has already happened with WWI is something that chills me. But they can still be shown what happened. For you, I hold little hope. But, should you ever reconsider, go watch the film of history again. It is hidden in London, and in Paris, and in Berlin, and in Washington, and in Tokyo, and in Warsaw, and in the hidden lybrinthes of Moscow, and while it shows some exxageration, some inevitable bias, it shows the truth of the situation that lost Britain its Empire. Unlike many others here, I do weep for the British Empire and its accomplishments, and believe that since its decline the world has become a darker, uglier place.
But unlike you, I follow Churchill in insisting that it was better to loose the Empire than to loose the principles that made that Empire. Most Empires decline and fall under the weight of their own corruption, beset by enemies from the outside, trying to eek out a pathetic little existence before they are completely snuffed out. Britain sacrificed its Empire to the fires of the Second World War so that the rest of the free world might have a chance to survive the storm. THAT is what makes it truly special, THAT is what defines it from things like the Spanish Empire or the Portuguese, THAT is how it deserves to be remembered, and THAT is something the US can only aspire to, and would be honored to even come close to.
Churchill once said that an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. That you have the bad taste to advocate that the free world step into the shackles of chief alligator feeder for the Third Reich, the USSR, and any other tin pot dictatorships that want to join in says a whole lot about what happened to the principles that once animated that empire. It is ironic that one of the fondest supporters of it has chosen to betray them.
Posted by Turtler
08/30/2009 at 09:20 PM
Oh dear poor turtler is off his meds again, I am not going to argue as he will try to drag me down to his level and beat me with experience! The article is half right (beats turtlers score) Pearl harbour was a result of the American blocade and for once something is published pointing out Stalin was far worse than Hitler, funny this part answers a question I asked! The USa, under the communist worshiping Dems was allways going to fight for the communists, FDR needed to get public opinion on board first, FDR and the Kennedies were the depraved bottom feeders of American public life, they ware just not as bad as Stalin oe as loony as Hitler.
Posted by Chris Edwards
08/30/2009 at 09:25 PM
stormbirg: A few issues:
My God, this is delusional.
Damn Straight.
Hitler was going to invade Poland and Eastern Europe no matter what, as he needed space for Germans and felt the Slavs were subhumans living on his land. The Holocaust would have happened (the death trains had priority over troop or munitions trains as the Holocaust was seen as the blessed duty of the Reich) whether or not Britain was involved. The Nazi-Soviet war would have ended up with either a Nazi victory or else the Soviets would have had Eastern Europe as they did in our history.
Agreed.
France would have either been between three fascist nations or else would have gone communist (which it nearly did, anyway).
Um, which three nations? Germany, Italy, and who else, Spain?
Britain, it must be remembered, had fascist leanings, from the Mosley blackshirts to the pro-Nazi Prince Edward.
Both of whom were marginal figures who were disdained by the public. The Empire was not perfect, but it wasn’t fascist, not even close.
Its army was tiny and air force barely saved it from the Nazi onslaught.
Agreed.
Their rule in Asia was not as benevolent as he makes out.
Agreed, though it was hardly the nastier caricatures that many like to toss out.
A billion Indians might have something to say about dominion rule over independence.
True, but it must be remembered that there were significant numbers of loyalists who largely ran the Raj, so it wasn’t like everybody hated it.
South Africa wasn’t a multiracial paradise under British rule, either
True, but it wasn’t the, well, Apartheid state (yes, I’ve seen that banied around so much I’ve become almost distrustful of it) it would be.
Britain was also broke when the war started, having been almost bankrupted by the first World War and expanding their welfare state during a depression.
True, though it was nowhere near as badly hit as the US was.
The Palestine/Israeli situation? Google Hebron 1929 for an example of Palestinian atrocities on the Jews a generation before Israel existed. There’d be no Israel, but that part of the world would still be backward and rich in petrodollars and despots.
Agreed.
The Battle of Algiers between the French and their Algerian Muslim subjects gave the world suicide bombing.
Nope, you can thank the Chinese for that, or the Turks from the interbellum for it in the Muslim world.
The Soviets would have bought influence in that part of the world no matter what, except the British and not Americans would have had to fight the cold war.
More likely BOTH would have had to do it.
Imperial Japan was a death cult that used chemical and biological weapons on civilians and intended on ruling the Pacific Rim. There might not have been Pearl Harbor (though their naval academy asked cadets to plan an attack as part of their exams), but they would have gone after Britain’s Asian territories as they did in real life. India might have fallen to Japan or liberated itself.
Fully Agreed.
America wouldn’t have been a world power without the war. The Soviets or Nazis and Imperial Japanese would be. If the Nazis didn’t lose to the Soviets, there’d be no Jews or gays or Gypsies or political dissidents left alive in Europe.
Agreed, though it is likely the same thing might have occurred with the Soviets.
Damn few Slavs, either.
True.
The British would have lost their empire anyway.
Disputable. The main reason for the loss was due to postwar pressure from both the US and the USSR for decolonization. Had they instead allowed a redoubling of effort, the situation could have been stabilized. India might have become independent, but the rest could have probably been kept.
I’m not seeing the upside.
Very much agreed.
Posted by Turtler
08/30/2009 at 09:30 PM
Turtler I admire your passion on the subject but seriously guy could you try and keep it brief? Does this help? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise
Turtler,
Holy cow. Where do you find the time?
I’ll have to print this all out as my eyes aren’t up to reading all that much on a computer screen. That isn’t is dig at you, it really is a matter of vision.
I am not ignoring what I did read but ... in at least one place because you live in the USA, you misunderstood Hitchens reference to “foreign measures.” Or at least I think you did. Are you at all familiar with what has become known here as the “metric martyrs”?
What do you mean “foreign measures?” You mean like importing foodstuffs and having to pay for them?
NO. It is a ref. to the FORCED adoption of measures of weight in spite of the customer preferring the old weights we all understand. The masters in Brussels I think originally came up with the new ruling which in large part has been rescinded due to the outcry.
Grocers actually had their scales taken away from them by inspectors finding scales with pounds and ounces.All other measures now conform to a European standard. And it’s the pits too for old farts like me who just can’t get to grips with milliliters, millimeters, kilograms and a host of other BS because the UK is a member of the EU.
Chris Edwards:
Oh dear poor turtler is off his meds again
I was unaware that “Diet Coke” is officially considered a “med” now.
am not going to argue as he will try to drag me down to his level and beat me with experience!
A. I would have to drag you UP to my level to do so.
B. Good. But why do I see this ominous text continuation here?
The article is half right (beats turtlers score)
No. Nowhere NEAR even a QUARTER right.
Pearl harbour was a result of the American blocade
Which he ignores, believing instead it was the result of European weakness in the Pacific Rim, and which I correctly point out.
and for once something is published pointing out Stalin was far worse than Hitler,
Very, VERY disputable. Even if Stalin was worse in real life, HE LIVED LONGER, and if the Third Reich existed for a longer duration of time, THEN we might know. But any guessing now is just playing rediculous little parlor games about genocide, which I do not feel like doing so.
The USa, under the communist worshiping Dems was allways going to fight for the communists
No we were not. We were far more closely allied to the British and French, and we even THREATENED the USSR with war if they were to throw their weight behind the Third Reich (which it looked like they would do for a time). Your pathetic attempting to cram a square into a circle hole are not even funny any more.
FDR needed to get public opinion on board first
True.
FDR and the Kennedies were the depraved bottom feeders of American public life
Agree on (most of, anyway) the Kennedys.
they ware just not as bad as Stalin oe as loony as Hitler.
About time you realize that.
LyndonB:
Turtler I admire your passion on the subject but seriously guy could you try and keep it brief? Does this help? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concise
No, you don’t understand.
THAT WAS as brief as I could be while analyzing it fully.
Peiper:
Thank you for pointing out my error. So I apologize to Herr Hitchens on that effect and remove that from the list of fifty trillion OTHER things wrong with this “analysis.”
Posted by Turtler
08/31/2009 at 09:04 AM
Yup diet pop would do it, OCD and paranoid delusions are common symptoms of the sweeteners used, no Hitchens is nearer reality than Turtler who should read Churchills war diaries for some contemporary un PC input.
Posted by Chris Edwards
08/31/2009 at 10:08 PM
Chris:
OCD and paranoid delusions are common symptoms of the sweeteners used
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is called projection. And it also gets it wrong: If Mr. Edwards had any brain, he would notice that my DEPRIVATION of Diet Coke would have LESSENED the BS that he accuses me of, NOT increased it.
no Hitchens is nearer reality than Turtler who should read Churchills war diaries for some contemporary un PC input.
Christopher, I have been quite lenient to you and your idiotic babbling, but my patience has just run out. Stupid people who cannot do the research only deserve enough attention that is required to publically correct them and set them straight.
So, you goddamn idiot, I am going to set this straight ONCE and for all:
I already HAVE read Churchill’s diary. And his memiors for bost the First and the Second World Wars.
I have also looked at the Imperial War Records stored in London and the records of the Raj in New Delhi.
I have also examined the Imperial Japanese records dating back over four centuries.
I have ALSO examined the Italian research materials in Rome, including Ciano’s diary and the records of the Libyan and East African colonies.
I have ALSO examined the Colonial records stored in Manila.
I have ALSO examined what little records have been opened up to the public in Moscow.
I have ALSO gone to Berlin and Munich to examine German records dating back to 1848.
I have ALSO interviewed many of the surviving veterans and planners.
I have ALSO examined the history of the Japanese occupation of Taiwan and the accompanying records stored in Taipei.
I have also reviewed much (if not most) of the relevant data in the Library of Congress and a few other libraries around the country.
I have also studied the records pertaining to WWII and the occupation in Paris.
And the history of the First Czechoslovak republic in Prague.
And the records of the Second Polish Republic (those that were not DESTROYED, anyway)
I have also examined the personal records of FDR, Truman, Ike (yes, that idiot), MacArthur, Patton, Nimitz, and King.
So, in case you haven’t figured it out:
I KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I AM TALKING ABOUT, FAR MORE THAN YOU DO OR CHRISTOPHER “I AM A FUCKING MORALLY BANKRUPT IDIOT” HITCHENS!
Get it yet?
I have actually BEEN THERE, done the research, crunched the numbers, checked out the relevant data, and have studied the lay of the land.
I KNOW MORE THAN YOU, HITCHENS, AND PRETTY MUCH ALL THE OTHER “REVISIONISTS” PUT TOGETHER!
Oh, or am I supposed to believe that you or Hitchens have even BETTER sources than those that I spent MONTHS digging up?
If so, do tell, because I am sure that you have studied in the magical unicorn library five blocks down from the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that has the REAL truth of WWII.
So, where am I incorrect? And, more importantly, what and where are your sources?
Go on, make my day, you bastard.I can wait ALL night. And all day.
And all week.
And all month.
Because I have gone through worse to research my data.
Far too much to have it denigrated by idiots such as yourself.
I await a reply.
Posted by Turtler
08/31/2009 at 11:01 PM
Turtler, you are a genuine moonbat, in the unlikely event that your claims were true you would get more right, your “corrections” are full of glaring bullshit, thank you for wonderfull entertainment!
Posted by Chris Edwards
09/01/2009 at 06:01 AM
Turtler, you are a genuine moonbat
So says the ranting idiot about me. This would be In SPITE of the fact that he not only believes that Hitchens’ spot of makebelieve is more credible than all the arcives in the world, but also that old Communist propaganda AGAINST FDR is miraculously credible (oh, you weren’t paying attention? Well, take a look at where some of your claims about FDR shortcharging the British during Lend-Lease came from).
in the unlikely event that your claims were true you would get more right
Not only does that sentence not make any sense grammer-wise, but you still have not explained how my refusal to allow one genocidal Leftist dictator (Adolph Hitler) invade a neutral, Western-Alligned nation with the support of another Leftist Dictator (Joseph Stalin) while allowing all involved to get away with it is somehow LEFTIST of all things (by the way, I love how you point to Churchill’s diaries when the ENTIRE POINT OF HITCHENS’ HAC JOB is that Churchill was WRONG to vote for war against Hitler, dissonance much?) Perhaps in the warped mind of Hitchens and your ilk, that circle somehow gets squared, but in the real world, it doesn’t work that way.
your “corrections” are full of glaring bullshit
Which you, being the idiot you are, unable to show HOW in any way.
If you are going to insult me, bring something to back it up.
Posted by Turtler
09/01/2009 at 09:15 AM
Damn, forgot to add the “genoicdal” before Stalin’s name, so therefor, I suppose this is further proof that I am a Leftist moonbat Stalin supporter in the fevered minds of Chris Edwards and Hitchens’ demented little brother.
The insane cannot be forced to let go of their illusions, and it is almost not worth trying.
Posted by Turtler
09/01/2009 at 12:29 PM
Turtler, you are, somewhat full of yourself, it would take more than one lifetime to competently research all you claim, as you are resorting to unfounded insults you appear to be accepting the error of your ways and shouting and bluffing cover your ego. I have played the research and correct game, mostly about aircraft, you just shouted more. As I have a life outside your ranting I am unwilling to squander my spare time bandying words with a fool, even for fun.
Posted by Chris Edwards
09/01/2009 at 06:48 PM
Chris:
Turtler, you are, somewhat full of yourself
And many researchers tend to be so. It may not be an endearing trait, but it does NOTHING to affect whether or not my claims are valid.
it would take more than one lifetime to competently research all you claim,
Obviously, then, you have never done proper research.
I’m not saying it doesn’t take a hell of a lot of time (it DOES), but nowhere near a “lifetime”, and the key secret you learn VERY early while doing this is to do it in on a sabbatical, to prepare for it beforehand, and to not wait for the first approval before you work on writing in the next one.
That little oddest took about a year off my life, but it was VERY MUCH worth it.
as you are resorting to unfounded insults
Come AGAIN, governor? REMIND me who started that pathetic little game?
Oh dear poor turtler is off his meds again, I am not going to argue as he will try to drag me down to his level and beat me with experience! The article is half right (beats turtlers score)
Yup diet pop would do it, OCD and paranoid delusions are common symptoms of the sweeteners used, no Hitchens is nearer reality than Turtler
You were SAYING?
Oh yes, and it is only UNJUSTIFIED if it is false. And let me repeat:
You claim my rebuttal is full of “BS”, but you have yet to point out a specific case in which it is so. You claim that Hitchens’ is far superior, but you cannot say how. Asides from a reading of Churchill’s War Diaries (which more than anything SUPPORTS my views and UNDERCUTS yours and Hitchens’, as you would DAMN WELL KNOW if you actually read it or the article here), you have not divulged any sources of information. All you have done is to insult and berate me for unspecified failing that you mysteriously cannot enumerate.
So, WHAT ARE THEY? HOW DO YOU KNOW? WHAT RESEARCH HAVE YOU DONE?
And WHY ARE YOU DODGING THESE QUESTIONS?
you appear to be accepting the error of your ways and shouting and bluffing cover your ego
Bullocks! Who has been INSISTING on the sources for research be divulged beforehand? MYSELF! Who has been listing down the reasons and arguments IN GREAT LENGTH so that one can advance a specific case that can be examined in detail and attacked? MYSELF! Who has bothered to address issues as widespread from the speed the Japanese could land in Malaysia and be at Singapore (hence the question of whether they would be able to reach the tip of the peninsula before British reinforcements from the Home Fleet and other naval assets could reach the South China Sea) to the likely actions of a Hitler or Stalin who dominates Eurasia from Vladivostok to the River Elbe? MYSELF!
And who has been whining and making unfounded, vague accusations that do not address the actual history, but instead only serves to drop crude insults at his opponent? That would be YOU.
I have played the research and correct game,
So WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES? And WHAT articles of my rebuttal are expressively incorrect?
You NEVER seem to address those questions, without which you are just a posing fool on the sidelines, hurling slurs.
mostly about aircraft
A. And that can tell you much, but it hardly addresses things like Japanese ambitions for oil, or the likely performance of Hitler or Stalin in an early Barbarossa, or what the victor of said early Barbarossa would likely do to the Western Democracies once his rival was out of the way.
B. The fact that you never realize that the Mustang was built LITERALLY to British specifications in EVERY WAY (have you even seen the prototype PLANS for that? The British didn’t allow much room for movement) not because of FDR (who you instinctively blamed anyway), but because of the British, and that while its earlier incarnation may have been inadequate for high-altitude operations (the Germans themselves testified that it worked JUST FINE in the desert, where most aerial fighting was low-altitude ground support), it was hardly inferior to the Mosquito in the niche it was built to occupy indicates that your research into this alone is quite lacking.
you just shouted more
I hardly “shouted.” Indeed, I kept my calm regarding our earlier disputes before you started in with the insults here. If you do not think it is occasionally necessary to do a n in-depth rebuttal in some cases, you cannot consider yourself a researcher or a debator.
As I have a life outside your ranting I am unwilling to squander my spare time bandying words with a fool, even for fun.
And I am only willing to do so because it lets the world outside know that the mistaken delusions of people like yourself and Hitchens are not the truth, and that even a minor look into the history reveals clear flaws in your entire whimsical structure.
I have taken the time and effort to comprehensively debunk both Hitchens and yourself, and your only response is to flail around ineffectual calling ME names and insisting that I am wrong.
Not ONCE have you attempted to advance a concrete argument, or to point out my errors, you have just enjoyed one long trip from one logical fallacy to another.
Anyone with eyes could see who is in the right here. And you are not.
Posted by Turtler
09/01/2009 at 08:49 PM
Turtler, to give a good example, the mustang only saw service in africa in later war years and then after the packard engine was standardised, when North American Aviation were asked to build another usa plane ,under license they preferred to develop their own using a novel wing design similar to the spits cross section, the english then wrote the specifications round the design, the design incorporated most of the lessons the english had learnt in combat, most of the pilots biographies I have read that include the mustang dont mention north africa but I dont assume they never flew there except in photo recon!
You seem well read, your facts just dont seem to add up, what is your opinion you and you alone own but “facts” for the time being, are easy to check, some of yours dont!
Ilook forward to reading your vitriol tomorrow-good noght.Posted by Chris Edwards
09/01/2009 at 09:17 PM
Next entry: A THREAT TO THE USA? Read and decide for yourself.
Previous entry: JUST SOME WEEKEND EYE CANDY