# Manifest Destiny



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

> The phrase "manifest destiny," was coined by New York journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845, when he wrote that "it was the nation's manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." That same year on December 2, U.S. President James Polk announced to Congress that the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should *aggressively* expand into the West.



The "Manifest Destiny" the US belief that it was their right and destiny to rule the lands of the Americas. An expansionist attitude, aggression used if required. 

With this in mind, how possibly could an American attack Britain on it's expansionist and imperialist attitude? 

No blame lies with America, it was a product of its age.


----------



## evangilder (May 6, 2005)

plan_d, I think you have made your point. It's starting to get personal.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

Alright, I'll stop. But leave these up, they are part of history.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 7, 2005)

I think no offense, the Spanish were meant to be the worst when it came to oppression of the population and slavery. The Spanish followed a Bible and the Sword mentality. The Spanish destroyed the Maya and Incan civilizations, perhaps because they were worried about how interesting they looked to study for others.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

I couldn't agree more, HealzDevo. The Spanish had the largest empire on the planet before England took the top spot in the late 16th Century. By owning more land and ruling over more cultures you're naturally going to bring down harsh treatment on those that oppose. The larger the empire, the more that will oppose. 
The Spanish could be said to be the worst, they followed the Catholic ideals to the extreme. Anything, or anyone not Catholic would be brought down under the sword or cannon. Really though, is Spain to blame or the Catholic church? After all, the Pope allowed and even encouraged these actions. 

In my opinion, none are to 'blame' both were a product of their age just as England was with it's empire, as was France and ultimately as was the U.S with it's expansionist attitude. 

These several threads I have started are to educate are few members on this board about the expansionist history of their nation, since they felt it so right to attack England for hers. And of course, because RG reckoned that America wasn't trying to take Canada in 1812.


----------



## evangilder (May 7, 2005)

I think it is safe to say that every country that has been an empire or super-power has done some bad things. I don't think anyone can make a determination as to which country was worse.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 7, 2005)

Keep that in mind when the Nova Scotian Empire rises one day.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Keep that in mind when the Nova Scotian Empire rises one day.



Don't you mean Newfoundland


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 7, 2005)

Nah, they've already begun to take over! 
Our turn is next!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Nah, they've already begun to take over!
> Our turn is next!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2005)

"One day a Newfie goes down to the village carpenter and requests a wooden crate that is 1 inch tall, 1 inch wide and 50 feet long."

When the carpenter asks what he needs it for, the Newfie replies "The wife snapped her clothesline the other day, and I have to send it to Toronto to get it fixed."


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 7, 2005)

Sounds right.


----------



## evangilder (May 7, 2005)




----------



## HealzDevo (May 9, 2005)

Spain actually went out seeking bloodshed and conquest. A lot of the other nations didn't. Britain went out seeking more land for her expanding population. Portugal went out for trade. France was settlers as well. Even at that particular time the Spanish were seen by other races as being blood-thirsty. Spain as said was motivated by greed and conquest. She also may have given generously of that gold to the Catholic Church to get permission to do whatever it wanted. In 'The Mission' a film starring Robert De Niro it is about someone who becomes a priest after killing a man in a duel. He then founds this church amongst these natives which the Spanish decide they want to destroy for slavery. In the end the Spanish end up killing everyone. However, there is a scene in the movie where the Head of the Jerusits tries to get him to give up his project with the natives, for fear of upsetting the Spanish and other nations. Although the way it is phrased in the movie, suggests the primary worry was Spanish offence at the move.


----------



## Anonymous (May 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> > The phrase "manifest destiny," was coined by New York journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845, when he wrote that "it was the nation's manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." That same year on December 2, U.S. President James Polk announced to Congress that the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should *aggressively* expand into the West.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one is disagreeing that the USA was expansionist within the bounds of North America in the 1800's. However, a big part of "Manifest destiny" was also the need to repel Eurpean colonial powers from North, and eventually from South America, and the Carrabean. The idea that the native Americans would be displaced as suited the growing US population was a given. Manifest Destiny more was about the right to oust the Mexican's and Spanish from Florida, Texas, and California.

And there is a huge difference between colonial expansion and national expansion. Colonial expansion implies the domination and subjugation of foriegn cultures to your advantage and their disadvantage - effectively a form of cultural enslavement. National expansion consists of taking the land for the use of your own peoples. All 19th century cultures recognized the right of the strong to take what they needed from the weak, including the American Indians.

So what exactly is your point?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 14, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> Spain actually went out seeking bloodshed and conquest. A lot of the other nations didn't. Britain went out seeking more land for her expanding population. Portugal went out for trade. France was settlers as well. Even at that particular time the Spanish were seen by other races as being blood-thirsty. Spain as said was motivated by greed and conquest. She also may have given generously of that gold to the Catholic Church to get permission to do whatever it wanted. In 'The Mission' a film starring Robert De Niro it is about someone who becomes a priest after killing a man in a duel. He then founds this church amongst these natives which the Spanish decide they want to destroy for slavery. In the end the Spanish end up killing everyone. However, there is a scene in the movie where the Head of the Jerusits tries to get him to give up his project with the natives, for fear of upsetting the Spanish and other nations. Although the way it is phrased in the movie, suggests the primary worry was Spanish offence at the move.



The Mission depicts the natives as having been happy subjects of a just regime. In fact, they were a culture of slave owners who themselves raided and plundered their neighbors for centuries, and who engaged in ritual cannibalism on a massive scale.

I agree, a lot of the Spanish cause was about finding treasure, but I have little simpathy for the Aztec culture. The Aztec's were about a corrupt a regime as the World has ever seen. Conquering and subjugating them was fair play within the rules of life they themselves believed in and lived by.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 14, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I think it is safe to say that every country that has been an empire or super-power has done some bad things. I don't think anyone can make a determination as to which country was worse.



Well, I think you can.

Clearly the Romans were increadibly brutal. In the silver mines of Spain, they forced slaves to dig mines so they could divert water to tear down a mountain to expose the silver. Tens of thousands of slaves lived underground for years without seeing sunlight. When the Romans were ready to divert the water, they didn't even spend the two to three days it would have taken to get the slaves out of the mines.

There is evil and there is EVIL.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## BombTaxi (May 14, 2005)

RG, you forget that we cannot judge the Romans by modern socio-political values. In fact, you're last two posts have been totally contradictory. First you said: 

'The Aztec's were about a corrupt a regime as the World has ever seen. Conquering and subjugating them was fair play within the rules of life they themselves believed in and lived by.'

Good point - and we must accept that the _Conquista_, while bloody and brutal, was a product of it's time. But then you say:

'evangilder wrote:
I think it is safe to say that every country that has been an empire or super-power has done some bad things. I don't think anyone can make a determination as to which country was worse.


Well, I think you can.

Clearly the Romans were increadibly brutal. In the silver mines of Spain, they forced slaves to dig mines so they could divert water to tear down a mountain to expose the silver. Tens of thousands of slaves lived underground for years without seeing sunlight. When the Romans were ready to divert the water, they didn't even spend the two to three days it would have taken to get the slaves out of the mines.

There is evil and there is EVIL. '

By the Roman's estimation, slaves weren't even human beings, so there destruction in the mines was of no moral relevance. Why is it, when you argue about the Aztecs, you are willing to judge them in terms of thier own morality, yet with the Romans you insist on judging by a contemporary morality which the Romans would have found laughable?

You say you believe you can point to one country as being 'worse' than another in colonial history. Maybe you can: _but only if you seriously believe you can impose your post-colonialist, Christian-based morality on 2500 years of colonial development_. You simply cannot judge other cultures in other periods by standards which they had never heard of or explicitly rejected. The only place for contemporary morality in history is in contemporary events. To use it to judge the past is to condemn our predecessors for doing the right thing, as they saw it. And all any of us can do, is to do the right thing, as we see it. You should hope history isnt as damning of us as you have been of the Romans.


----------



## evangilder (May 14, 2005)

Well said bombtaxi. My main point was that all countries have ghosts in their past, including the USA. While National expansion may be taking from the weak for the strong as you put it, it is a cultural imprisonment that was done to the native Americans. So what is worse, cultural enslavement or cultural imprisonment? They are both bad.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 14, 2005)

True enough, evan. Canada has done our share of it too. Even long after autonomy from Britain. The attempt at the complete assimilation of native peoples into "Canadian" society continued right up into the 1960's, with native children being taken from their families and forced to go to "white" schools, while living with white families. Not pretty, but it happened.


----------



## evangilder (May 14, 2005)

I think if the indigenous populations of North America had had an immigration policy, they would have probably been better off. Seriously, they trusted the white man as for the most part, they had not seen deceit the way it was dealt out to them by the white man. Does that make the US any better or any worse than the other countries. I don't think that anyone can make that judgement.


----------



## Anonymous (May 14, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> RG, you forget that we cannot judge the Romans by modern socio-political values. In fact, you're last two posts have been totally contradictory. First you said:
> 
> 'The Aztec's were about a corrupt a regime as the World has ever seen. Conquering and subjugating them was fair play within the rules of life they themselves believed in and lived by.'
> 
> ...



It is the degree to which a subjugated people are in fact treated as animals, or in some cases, worse than animals.

And the cases you've sited are very different. It was one thing for the Conquestedor's to conquer and dominate the culture of the Aztec's. It'd be quite another for them to have then used them as slaves (which they did) and dispose of them en-mass for little or no reason without reserve. I won't say the Spanish did not do this in some cases, but when they did it was on a much smaller scale and it was hidden because they knew it was unacceptable behavior.

Once the Spanish conquered Mexico, some measure of rights (though minimal) were conveyed to the subjects. The Roman's on the other hand, conveyed no rights whatsoever to the conquered, and they would and did kill slaves for no other reason than excess supply and convienience.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 14, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I think if the indigenous populations of North America had had an immigration policy, they would have probably been better off. Seriously, they trusted the white man as for the most part, they had not seen deceit the way it was dealt out to them by the white man. Does that make the US any better or any worse than the other countries. I don't think that anyone can make that judgement.



Well, I am not going to say that the US was right in how it dealt with the native population. However, the fact is the Indian's were not nearly so "friendly" as commonly depicted.

There were a few tribes, particularly in the Massechuttes area, that were indeed suprisingly accepting of the white man early on. But these were the exception rather than the rule. You pretty much see some meaure of "peaceful" behavior amounst some of the tribes on the east coast, particularly those who were in the initial phases of agricultural society. But for the most part the Indians of central and northern America were war-like nomadic tribes who raided and plundered each other when capable, and who applied this same behavior to the white man when he was encountered.

Headed westward, you do not find "peaceful" indian tribes again until you reach the north-west tribes in the Oregon and Washington area and the Navahoe in the south-west. The Soix, Shianne, Blackfoot, Crow, etc.. were all rather warlike tribes, who believed and lived by the credo that might makes right.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (May 14, 2005)

The Navajo were not always peaceful. But think about it, yes there were tribes that were warring each other, but there were many that were peaceful people. What made them war-like was what was done to them. There was cooperation and trade amongst many of the tribes as a means of survival. Their land was stolen, people killed, there sources of food and water taken away, their language and customs also taken away. 

That is what made them war-like.


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

Even,

If you research the actual history of the American indians you will see that many of the tribes, especially those in the East, were in fact war-like before the white man ever appeared on American shores. A few regions were relatively peaceful, espeically the North-West Tribes, but most were not.

As for he Navajo's, there appears to be a period where they'd been conquered and ruled by an ousted segment of the Aztec's. During this period, they lived under a harsh rule and indeed were not "peaceful". But this lasted for only a relatively short part of their history, and before and after this period, they were in fact quite peaceful peoples.

Also you have to remember that small-pox and other diseases ravaged the American Indians far worse than violence by the white man. Had this not happened, American history would be very different.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 15, 2005)

It was my understanding that small-pox was deliberately introduced to many native tribes through infected trade goods from white men, in order to decimate entire populations. Seems pretty violent in it's own right.
Even if it wasn't entirely intentional, I could see how it would turn natives against white settlers.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2005)

Who said that North America was their for U.S rule? Are you getting the idea of that being 'national' expansion beause of the geography of North America? 
Whoever said that California or Texas was a part of the U.S? It was international expansion, they brought it under U.S rule and from modern geography you call it national expansion. 

The settlers in North America were an invading force, it's as simple as that. The Natives were there first and what became the U.S slaughtered them. 

The point of this and all other threads in here is to show that the U.S is no better than Europe, as you seem to think it is RG. It was imperialist and expansionist just like Europe was, only Europe did it on a much larger scale.


----------



## evangilder (May 15, 2005)

They certainly had their quarrels over land and water and hunting grounds, but to depict them as pure warriors is a mis-characterization. Not only have I done considerable reading about Native Americans, but I have stories handed down to me by my ancestral elders. What you depict as "warring tribes" was not quite that before the white man showed up. Then they got an education in dishonesty, greed and the worst that man can offer. Promises were made and broken while land was taken, people killed and a number of other problems. How long could they stay downtrodden before they fought back?

You will received a much more complete history of the Navajo by spending a few weeks with them at Canyon de Chelly. The Spanish conquistadors damn near wiped them out looking for the seven cities of gold. Kit Carson did his best and found that they could not be defeated. I spent several weeks there visiting an old military friend while volunteering to help them build their ceremonial huts, called Hogans (pronounce ho-gone). 

NS is right about the small pox. Blankets were "given" to the native Americans that had been used while treating small-pox patients. This is likely the first documented case of biological warfare. Thousands died from this and it would not have affected the eventual outcome. Native Americans were "savages" that had to be dealt with. That would have been the case whether they were wiped out by disease or through warfare.


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> It was my understanding that small-pox was deliberately introduced to many native tribes through infected trade goods from white men, in order to decimate entire populations. Seems pretty violent in it's own right.
> Even if it wasn't entirely intentional, I could see how it would turn natives against white settlers.



Yes, the British did trade some blankets to a tribe that they knew were infected with Small Pox. That only caused an outbreak where it would benefit the British at that time.

But given the nature of Small Pox, in the end, the disease was going to spread to the Native Americans regardless of what anyone did.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Who said that North America was their for U.S rule? Are you getting the idea of that being 'national' expansion beause of the geography of North America?
> Whoever said that California or Texas was a part of the U.S? It was international expansion, they brought it under U.S rule and from modern geography you call it national expansion.
> 
> The settlers in North America were an invading force, it's as simple as that. The Natives were there first and what became the U.S slaughtered them.
> ...



I'm not disagreeing with you about the US espansion to the west. But surely you can see a difference between colonial expansion and national expansion? Hmmm... maybe not.

As for "whoever said Californai and Texas were part of the US?", that was something to be decided. In the end, the decision was that they were.

It was indeed expansion, but it was not "Imperialism", which implies the domination and manipulation of the internal workins of other cultures.


----------



## evangilder (May 15, 2005)

We most certainly did dominate and manipulate the Native Americans, did we not?


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

evangilder said:


> They certainly had their quarrels over land and water and hunting grounds, but to depict them as pure warriors is a mis-characterization. Not only have I done considerable reading about Native Americans, but I have stories handed down to me by my ancestral elders. What you depict as "warring tribes" was not quite that before the white man showed up.



Many were. Quarrels over land and water, and raiding of other tribes for plunder and especially women, were common amoungst many tribes.




evangilder said:


> Then they got an education in dishonesty, greed and the worst that man can offer. Promises were made and broken while land was taken, people killed and a number of other problems. How long could they stay downtrodden before they fought back?



Most certainly. My point is simply that many of the tribes, especially those in the east, lived by the rule that the strong had the right to dominate the weak before the white man ever made an appearance.



evangilder said:


> You will received a much more complete history of the Navajo by spending a few weeks with them at Canyon de Chelly. The Spanish conquistadors damn near wiped them out looking for the seven cities of gold. Kit Carson did his best and found that they could not be defeated. I spent several weeks there visiting an old military friend while volunteering to help them build their ceremonial huts, called Hogans (pronounce ho-gone).



I'm not disputing this at all, I simply pointed out that the Navajo were a peaceful tribe excepting a short period when they appear to have been under the rule of an ousted segment of the Aztec's. I assume you have seen the recent info on cannabilism amounst the Navajo during this period?



evangilder said:


> NS is right about the small pox. Blankets were "given" to the native Americans that had been used while treating small-pox patients. This is likely the first documented case of biological warfare. Thousands died from this and it would not have affected the eventual outcome. Native Americans were "savages" that had to be dealt with. That would have been the case whether they were wiped out by disease or through warfare.



90% of the Native American population was wiped out or crippled by Small Pox. Had there been 10 times as many Indians to contend with the American government would have had to deal with the Indains much differently.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: I have Apache (1/16th) and Cherokee (tiny %) in my anscestry, so like you I have had some interest in researching Native American history when I was younger.


----------



## Anonymous (May 15, 2005)

evangilder said:


> We most certainly did dominate and manipulate the Native Americans, did we not?



Well, yes but not in the way I'm refering too. We did not force them to adopt a government which allowed us to control their society intact to our benefit. US domination was more of the form of dealing with a nuscense, where European domination was more of the form of enslaving a culture.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2005)

The decision to make California and Texas part of the U.S was made through war. By destroying the inhabinants of those, what became, states you secured their place in the U.S. 

Instead of bringing those cultures under your rule, you destroyed them. The British history would be much more frowned upon if we slaughtered the Africans and Indians into near extinction. 
Your idea of the U.S being somewhat better because it didn't enslave the native culture is laughable because you destroyed it instead!


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The decision to make California and Texas part of the U.S was made through war. By destroying the inhabinants of those, what became, states you secured their place in the U.S.
> 
> Instead of bringing those cultures under your rule, you destroyed them. The British history would be much more frowned upon if we slaughtered the Africans and Indians into near extinction.
> Your idea of the U.S being somewhat better because it didn't enslave the native culture is laughable because you destroyed it instead!



In California and Texas?

And I didn't say "better", I said different. Until the modern paradime, the strong have always had the right to displace the weak. This did not change until the 20th century.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

In California and Texas you removed the Mexican inhabitants. You secured your ownership through war. It could be compared to England taking Scotland and Wales in many ways. They were on our island, was it our right to take them? 



> Until the modern paradime, the strong have always had the right to displace the weak.


 
Where is your argument against the British then? The British were the strongest in the world from the 16th Century until the 19th Century, we had the right to displace anyone, enslave anyone or slaughter anyone we wanted. 

Keep in mind that I care little about the U.S acts against Native Americans or against any other country or culture. It's the way the world worked back then. You need to understand that America is no better than Britain, Britain is just older and the further you go back in history the harsher it gets to the weaker.


----------



## Anonymous (May 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> In California and Texas you removed the Mexican inhabitants. You secured your ownership through war. It could be compared to England taking Scotland and Wales in many ways. They were on our island, was it our right to take them?



Wrong. The Mexican's in California and Texas remained after the war. Only those that fought on the side of Mexico were, in a few cases, forced to leave. Most stayed and in most cases became American citizens.



plan_D said:


> > Until the modern paradime, the strong have always had the right to displace the weak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly where did I make such an argument w.r.t. pre WWI behavior? It's the post WWI behaivor that I was refering to.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

You still made some Mexicans leave and you stole their land. California and Texas just became a colony of America that is hidden by calling them a state. 

This all started when you had a go at Britain for the way she treated cultures she conquered!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > I think if the indigenous populations of North America had had an immigration policy, they would have probably been better off. Seriously, they trusted the white man as for the most part, they had not seen deceit the way it was dealt out to them by the white man. Does that make the US any better or any worse than the other countries. I don't think that anyone can make that judgement.
> ...



Would you be friendly if someone came and was trying to push you off of your land. I wouldn't. I can understand why they were not "peaceful".



RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, yes but not in the way I'm refering too. We did not force them to adopt a government which allowed us to control their society intact to our benefit. US domination was more of the form of dealing with a nuscense, where European domination was more of the form of enslaving a culture.



Nuscence? Are you talking about the native americans?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 9, 2006)

We most certainly did dominate and manipulate the Native Americans, did we not?

I do agree. We often became savages ourselves. We often kicked them when they were down. 

It's pretty interesting how they are such good soldiers in the US Army after what we done. They helped a lot in WWII with the code talking.I think Native Americans still have the warrior spirit in them. Our goverment could never quite crush it and now I don't think we want to!


----------



## elmilitaro (May 9, 2006)

Agree to that.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 9, 2006)

Plan - d seems to think the British empire was all cuddle and nice. Henry the eight , Cromwell they were really good at murder,and stealing lands and property.Bombing the afgan tribes in the twenties with poision gas if they steped out of line,Might is always right for imperialists.American , British or Belgian they all use the" we are superiour to these natives " excuse.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 9, 2006)

Has any one out there seen a film about the Saint Patricios ( forgive the spelling ).The Irish and Germans who deserted the american army to fight for mexico .Is it any good !I think it was called ' One mans hero '.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

stonewall23 said:


> Has any one out there seen a film about the Saint Patricios ( forgive the spelling ).The Irish and Germans who deserted the american army to fight for mexico .Is it any good !I think it was called ' One mans hero '.



Never saw it... Mexico had barely settled any of Texas, and as a result enticed American settlers by offering them land for 12.5 cents an acre. So many Americans took them up on their offer that they then shut down the operation, and didn't allow any more americans as they outnumbered the Mexican population. The majority of the Americans that went to texas were southerners - they don't even like the US Federal gov't, and they sure as hell weren't going to listen to any mexican gov't. Not to mention, many of the mexican provinces were in turmoil as their federal gov't was in transition and chaotic.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 11, 2006)

On the contrary, stonewall, I think Britain was the greatest military power in the world at it's height. And military was gained through violence. You should be happy, however, that Britain was more caring than countries like Spain. Because if we were like them, we would have slaughtered you all.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 11, 2006)

Caring .It is astonishing How ignorant The British are about the empire. History is written by the winners,The behaviour of the british forces throughout the empire would be classed as war criminals ,ethnic cleansing in Ireland ( plantashion of ulster ),murder of peacefull demonstrators in India.The black and tans Are regarded as highly by us as the s.s are by the poles.Do not get me wrong, the world has a lot to thank individual brits for.The British empire brought oppression and tyranny to the countries they conquered exactly like the rest of the worlds empire builders.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 12, 2006)

In comparison to today's society, the British Empire was a tyrannical. But unfortunately for your ego and hatred of Great Britain - the British Empire wasn't built in the 20th Century. In the glory days of the English the world didn't even think of human rights, we still lived off the old Greek and Roman ideals that the winner will always have the right to enforce whatever he wishes upon the vanquished. 

You can't compare the English Empire to today's society. Be realistic and compare to it to Spains. They wiped out entire civilisations. At least Indians still exist, and the Irish still exist. 

It's amazing how all the LOSERs whine about losing.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 12, 2006)

My ego and hatred of britian !!!!!!!!! Where the hell did you get that from ? I have no personal hatred of britian .I'm talking of history .There was no " glory " in what the empire did to countless weaker peoples around the globe.It is true that the rules of war have changed over the years but as I said The black and tans were in the twentieth century. You think we should be gratefull to the empire for killing millions when they could have killed us all....Gee Thanks. Yes it is strange how the victims of violence keep talking about it. You still think the British empire did their victims a favour .Empires are built on greed Spanish . British ,American or Belgian empires are all the same bully attacking the weak.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 12, 2006)

plan_D said:


> On the contrary, stonewall, I think Britain was the greatest military power in the world at it's height. And military was gained through violence. You should be happy, however, that Britain was more caring than countries like Spain. Because if we were like them, we would have slaughtered you all.



Britain had to be... it would have bought itself many many more and stronger rebellions if they were that rash w/ their colonies. Look at how petty the the issues of the American revolution were...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 13, 2006)

You are not talking history, seriously, stonewall. You are comparing the British Empire to modern day ideology that everyone is equal. If you compare the British Empire to those of the earlier empires, you would find it's more leniant on it's conquests. 

If the British Empire was anything like that of the Romans, Greeks or Mongols the world would have been slaughtered or enslaved. At least, the British Empire developed a lot of the areas it conquered. Still much to the distaste of the inhabitants. 

You seem to be forgetting, stonewall, that a unified empire has always been the stepping stone for global development. Without the British Empire the world wouldn't have many technologies it does today. Without the wealth and power of the Empire, the industrial revolution may never have happened. 

Britain didn't have to be caring at all. We could have just slaughtered whole populations into extinction like the Spanish did to the Aztecs. Or enslave the world like the Romans did. Or even do what the Mongolians did and flatten cities and kill all the inhabitants.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 13, 2006)

Funny how most of the countries that emerged from the British empire are now among the best run, most prosperous and are hardly the failed states that emerged from the French and Dutch colonial systems.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 13, 2006)

Forgive me but you ,Plan d, are doing exactly what you accuse me of. You are judging the british empire with the romans ,greeks or mongols. The british did slaughter and enslave. The empire did put entire cities to the sword ,men ,women and children .Cromwell was very fond of doing it here .They stole the land and wealth of countries they conquered and this did finance the industrial revolution which created wealth for the industrialists not for the irish ,indian ,south african or indeed the ordinary british people.The british empire allowed a million irish starve while they imported food from ireland to feed the ever growing populations in the cities which housed the labour force for the industrial revolution. It's true the british organised their empire better and most countries that emerged from the empire are amongst the most prosperous and best run.The civil service traditions that they left did help the emerging nations ,you can not say that if india , ireland or any of the nations remained independant they would have not become well run and prosperous. 
You still insist on saying the british empire was nicer ,cuddlier than any other empire thats like saying " I'm a nicer mugger than anyone else because after I hit you on the head with a big stick and then robbed you at least after I help you in to the ambulance. Because I care. "
I am not anti- British. I have an aunty who is british . Seriously ,Britian has given the world a lot of good things but their empire was built on a hunger for power ,land and wealth.It was achivied by the subjagation of weaker nations just like any other empire.They kepted the empire for so long because of military might, when that might began to weaken they lost their grip on on control of the empire.A prime example is the suez crisis. The British ,French and Isrealis organisied an attack on an independant Egypt because they could not push Nasser around.A land grab ,just like the good old days. The Americans told them to withdraw and they complied.There was a new big boy on the block.America was the one who called the shots now.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 13, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Britain didn't have to be caring at all. We could have just slaughtered whole populations into extinction like the Spanish did to the Aztecs. Or enslave the world like the Romans did. Or even do what the Mongolians did and flatten cities and kill all the inhabitants.



I'll still contend that Britain understood that a "kinder, more gentle" approach to managing her Empire would bring dividends in terms of trade, but also the fact that it would mean less animosity and fewer rebellions. Sure, they could've taken a page out of the old extermination playbook, but it would likely have bought them more revolutions than they could have handled... It was definitely in their interests to be a more benevelont master.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 13, 2006)

I assume we will all have to agree to disagree. But I love a goog arguement , If you want to continue I am more than happy to.But please understand I have no personal anomosity to you plan d,the British or anyone else.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 13, 2006)

hey pd - got some more aerodynamics classes this and next week


----------



## plan_D (Dec 14, 2006)

The only real failed states of the British Empire, syscom, seem to be in Africa. And even those are doing better, or were doing better, than the others e.g South Africa and Zimbabwae (Rhodesia). 

Since the British Empire covered a large time span it's hard to hold to one world of thought. I am not disagreeing that the British Empire existed to help others, of course the British Empire was there to feed the wealth of Great Britain. 
But the British Empire aimed to develop the nations it ran, which isn't unlike the Roman Empire. Sure, the British Empire enslaved a whole race at the start of it's expansion into Africa but it was the first super-power to abolish slavery. 
I disagree with your idea that the industrial revolution did not aid the nations the British controlled. My prime example always is the railway, or even to add we can mention the telegram. The railroads in Ireland, India and Africa were designed and produced by Great Britain. Without British rule the railway wouldn't have been in those nations for decades, or even centuries. 

I do have to say that those nations would not have been as prosperous. Without British encouragement and development to create surplus socities in the nations it controlled, albeit for it's own wealth, the nations generated healthy trade with their surplus after Britain left. In Africa, Britain opened up the mines in gold, silver and diamond again for it's own wealth but without Britain they'd have never been discovered. And people say Europe bled Africa dry, there's still millions upon millions of tons of rare natural resources in that continent. 

I will still say the British Empire was more LENIANT and understanding of its subjects. As mkloby says they were more benevolent to increase trade and reduce uprising. The actual plan of the British Empire was to create a massive trading network with Britain at it's helm. 
If you consider empires muggers of the world, Britain more likely said "...work for us, or we'll kill you" - rather than "...give me all your money." To say that Britain held it's empire together on military might alone is foolish, I'm sorry to say. 

Great Britain throughout its history has been over-stretched. Several points during the Revolution War the whole Empire could have kicked off and it would have crumbled. But instead, the British Empire seemed to gladly march under the Union Jack in times of trouble. Seriously, do you think Britain could have forced the Indians to fight for them in World War I? No way, but the Indians did anyway. Same in World War II, Britian couldn't have forced them to fight in Europe. 

The Suez Crisis was not a land grab, Great Britain built and funded the Suez Canal. The U.S did exactly the same in Panama. One thing right though is that the U.S was the new super-power.

mkloby; I've passed my aerodynamics unit. But I'm continuing to get merits and maybe distinctions. I'll send you my assignment on the basics of transonic flight if you want.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 14, 2006)

plan_D said:


> mkloby; I've passed my aerodynamics unit. But I'm continuing to get merits and maybe distinctions. I'll send you my assignment on the basics of transonic flight if you want.



Congratulations! As always, I'd be interested in it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2006)

Congrats there pd!


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 15, 2006)

I agree that railways and other things would not have reached Ireland and India ect as quickly as they did without the British empire .But to say that without Britian that the natural resources of africa would never have been discovered is ,in my opinion , rediculous.You can argue about time scales but to say never !!! Europe did bleed Africa dry.They took vast amounts of resource which was not theirs. Its nice of the empire to leave something for the natives or at least for the Weastern companies who operated the mines (in the 50's / 60's )and often destablised the new countries eg; Congo. to secure the resources for commercial explotation.You think " work for us or we kill you " ( your words ) is the british empire being leniant and understanding . They did hold the empire together by military force.Every time the natives ,Irish , Indian ,whoever rebelled the first thing the british did was send more troops .Why ? to give them a holiday , no, to by force subdue the rebellion. During the world wars countries did help Britian ' The mother country '.But they also did it to aid small nations who were attacked by Germany ( how ironic ).Ireland never had conscription in either war but hundreds of thousands of nationalist joined the army to fight in w.w 1 in the hope of home rule / indepandance at the end of the war .Again in w.w 2 ,over a hundred thousand Irish men and women fought for Britian.Or at least they fought against the nazi 's . Over 7,000 irish soldiers deserted the Irish army to join the British army in w.w 2 . They did this not out of love of the British empire but because it was a good cause and the right thing to do.I can not speak for other nations,but I think some fought for ' motherland ' and others because of other reasons. Britian and America invaded indepandent countries ,which they could no longer control.Nasser was a patriot and Norrieaga ( forgive the spelling ) was a drug pushing scum.Both were invaded to protect the economic / trade corridors.Impirialism at its best. Oh by the way congradulations on passing your exam.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 16, 2006)

I don't see how the African population would have been able to achieve deep mining that was capable of extracting the natural resources in the continent that provide a lot of it's 'wealth' today. 

It's true that Britain held the Empire together with military force, but we needed to be more leniant than other empires to avoid many rebellions. You seem to be misunderstanding, stonewall, I am not denying Britain's military might. To deny that would be foolish because we held the greatest empire in history, and it wasn't given to us. 

The Indians that joined in the RAF in Battle of Britain were there to aid Britain, and Britain directly. You seem to think I'm saying Britain was nice, when I'm saying we were nicer than other empires like Spain. Plus while empires are there to conquer lands, they've existed throughout time and have led to the development of mankind as a whole.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 17, 2006)

There was a time when no one could mine deep.Ireland does not have the ability to extract natural gas , but we allow a commercial company to explore and develop these gas fields for us. I'm quite sure the african nations would have the same relationship with commercial companies , to their benefit, without the British empire.The african nations would have got a lot more of the profits than they did.
I know what you are saying,and I'm sure you honestly belive,about this lenient empire .But , forgive me,you are viewing this attitude from the view of the oppressor not the oppressed.The British used bribery ,manipulation of local religious and political factions and and they always had an economic stranglehold on the countries the occupied.They were very good at the carrot and stick approch to the trouble some natives.The longer they stayed in a country the better they got at it,and it must be said the native population adapted to survive in their situation.Adapt and survive was how the empire survived longer than other empires but also because of the implisate treath of violence if the natives did not comply .In the last years of the war of independance ( 1918- 1921 ) the ordinary british tommy conducted themselves quite well, but the british goverment used the black and tans and auxilliers to terrorise the country.Their actions became news around the world .They turned ordinary people in to fervent republicans.My grandfather was shot at several time by the Tans while he worked on his allotment minding his own buissness.He was a medic at the somme and survived the war and was a pasifest the rest of his life but his brothers became active I.R .A men.( old I R A ).Discussing degrees of brutality is difficult if you have been on the reciving end of it.In modern parlance it was state sponsored terrorism .Trust me there was no leniant empire there.
I agree that meny peoples fought for ' mother country ' in both wars but meny also fought against the nazi's not for king or country.My uncle left Dublin in 1940 at18 and joined the R.A.F.He joined for excitment and to fight evil,not for the empire.
The british have left its mark on all they countries they occupied. the evolution of these countries has been helped in meny respects by Britian,But the degree of violence inflicted on these countries was just like any other empire clinging to power.They evolved more than most empires because they lasted longer than most.All empires are built on a foundation of violence and fear.American history books written shortly after the war with Mexico blamed Mexico totally for the war.Nothing was said about the brutality and crimes the american military inflicted on the mexicans .History written by the winner. But now History books are telling a different story, revision of history always takes time.Some day British history will admit the full horrors they inflicted on weaker nations just like all the other empires.You seem to hold on to this idea of leniant empire like a blanket to cover a multituide of sins.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 17, 2006)

Once again, I have to state that Britain was more leniant than it's predecessors. Most likely because it grew wise as it out-lasted all others. I'm not denying that Britain killed millions, starved millions and oppressed hundreds of millions. 

I understand that Britain ruled through military power. But the idea that Britain was some over-the-top evil empire is just silly. We can study the Roman Empire and look at its pros and cons, the empire developed much of the known world and civilised a lot of it too. The fact that they enslaved and had games where people killed each other is just footnote on the impact the Romans had on mankind. The same applies to the British Empire. Even the Mongolians, who destroyed everything in their path as they had a hatred for organised city life can be studied for their pros - they were, after all, the greatest military force in their day.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 17, 2006)

You do not deny the empire killed millions,starved millions and oppressed millions...........If thats not evil what is.
.Freedom from control of a foreign power superceeds any good things that comes out of that oppression .Try and view this from the view point of the oppressed.If it was so good why did so meny peoples rebel time and time again ?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 17, 2006)

Killing people is evil I agree and yes the British empire did do it but once order was restored in a conquered country the killing generally stop and the commerce was set up and the situation went back to similar/better than before. Generally more order, better communication, trade, transport etc. Name one country from the empire that has done badly for itself and then name one from another empire (the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, German etc) that is doing as well (and was doing as well during the time of empire --> unrest, trade etc). You will find that the countries under the British empire did better and have done better than those who were under another foreign powers rule. The most successful countries in Africa are all ex-British colonies (Eygpt, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa etc) and the same in the Indian sub-continent all the countries are doing well. A good example is Hong Kong for the hundred years that Hong Kong was a part of the empire it was had the best standard of living, the highest earners etc than anywhere else in China (something which is still in place today although the bigger cities of China are catching up). If you would of rather been under the rule of another empire other than the British, then name it. If you had the choice of being under the rule of the British or one of the other European countries with an empire which would you choose? The British empire was the biggest and most powerful of them all because of the trade set up, the transport links produced (helped by the size of the empire --> lots of places to trade). Without the empire (I agree with pD here) it is unlikely that the mineral wealth of Africa would be used to the extent it is now. It just would have been found in the quantities is was by the British who then had the know-how and the equipment to exploit it for the benefit of Britain and the country the goods were from.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 17, 2006)

You know - it seems like you are agreeing more than you disagree, basically saying the same thing - just in a different way (on most of the issues).


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 17, 2006)

You are correct, but I resent the overtone of " But we ( the british empire ) did what we did for your own good " mentality.All empires founded on violence and greed are evil this includes the British.
A saying used here expresses what I think " Do not piss down my back and tell me its raining ".


----------



## plan_D (Dec 18, 2006)

Sure, you could say empires are evil by modern day standards. BUt in those days an empire was just another thing to be dealt with. As an old say "People get bored of love, play and work long before they do of war,". 

I understand what you are saying but you're taking it from a modern standpoint. The reality behind it all is simple, the British Empire was in place when empires were naturally accepted. Had the nations under its rule not revolted more lives would have been saved. Ideally for the great British Empire the whole world would have been unified under the Union Jack - but national pride causes revolts, that's what has stopped the world joining together. And will always stop us.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

plan_D said:


> but national pride causes revolts, that's what has stopped the world joining together. And will always stop us.



you mean the workers of the world are not going to unite? There's not going to be a world w/o borders where all humanity is united w/ social equality for all!? I don't believe you!


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 19, 2006)

You have to be kidding !!!! We should have accepted the invasion by a forign power,then all join hands and sing" God save the Queen ". Then it would be utopia . By that logic the world would have been a nicer place if the occupied countries of europe had just excepted the nazi's .


----------



## plan_D (Dec 19, 2006)

No, I said ideally for Britain. That's what Britain wanted at the time. I never said everyone should have. 

And I'm sorry, mkloby, we all hate each other too much.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 21, 2006)

Hate each other.....No not me .......I'm just cranky.


----------



## Delusional (Dec 22, 2006)

"They kepted the empire for so long because of military might, when that might began to weaken they lost their grip on on control of the empire."

Britain did not lose her empire because her military was failing. She lost it because she gave everything she had to World War I and World War II, and she could no longer afford her colonies in the face of war debts and internal problems caused by the two world wars. America would not be the superpower it is without Britian, and not just because we were colonized by them. We replaced Britian because of economic reasons, notably because of the implementation of Socialist programs to help Britian's war-torn citizens. A Socialist nation is hard-pressed to afford large defense measures; this was proven by the fall of the Soviet Union. Britain's sacrifices over the past century made America what it is today.

The only difference between American and British imperialism is geography. Perhaps if Britain were not so tiny a nation, they would not have felt so great a need to expand so far beyond their borders. Manifest Destiny was about an American right to land which no one really had a right to. This makes America no better or worse than Britain.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 22, 2006)

Delusional said:


> "They kepted the empire for so long because of military might, when that might began to weaken they lost their grip on on control of the empire."
> 
> Britain did not lose her empire because her military was failing. She lost it because she gave everything she had to World War I and World War II, and she could no longer afford her colonies in the face of war debts and internal problems caused by the two world wars. America would not be the superpower it is without Britian, and not just because we were colonized by them. We replaced Britian because of economic reasons, notably because of the implementation of Socialist programs to help Britian's war-torn citizens. A Socialist nation is hard-pressed to afford large defense measures; this was proven by the fall of the Soviet Union. Britain's sacrifices over the past century made America what it is today.
> 
> The only difference between American and British imperialism is geography. Perhaps if Britain were not so tiny a nation, they would not have felt so great a need to expand so far beyond their borders. Manifest Destiny was about an American right to land which no one really had a right to. This makes America no better or worse than Britain.



Britain began the push towards socialist policies before WW2 - The Labour Party was a powerful force between the world wars. UK introduced national healthcare and unemployment in 1911, and pensions in 1925. A valid point I see in any tie-in to American power being derived from being colonized (majoryly) by Britain is the special relationship that has lasted, politcally and economically, between the US and the British (save obvious things like War of 1812). A major source of US power has been from natural resources, a giant buffer between US and Europe (atlanic ocean, as well as Royal Navy), and the ability to develop such resources and build a tremendous industrial base throughout the 19th and early 20th century.

I disagree on your comment that a socialist nation is hard pressed to "afford large defense measures" proven by the collapse of the USSR. Presuming taxes are raised - which they generally are - there may still be ample funds left to cover large defense budgets. If gov't provides healthcare, the system may completely eliminate healthcare provided by the private sector. The actual real cost of the service may not change very much. It's much more complicated than social programs prevent expenditures on defense. You'd have to look at specifics in terms of GDP. Consider that it is estimated that China spends a higher portion of GDP on defense than even the US. Plus, their economy is growing at a rate 3 times the US real growth... this is an official Chinese gov't figure of 10.2% yearly, so who knows actual accuracy of this figure.


----------



## Delusional (Dec 23, 2006)

I never said that Britain implemented its Socialist programs after World War II. My post concerned both world wars.

The difference between Socialist/Communist nations like China and the former U.S.S.R. and Great Britain is that China and the U.S.S.R. spend/spent billions of dollars on defense at the expense of their citizens. Millions of Soviet citizens starved while the nation was stockpiling ICBMs. I doubt very much that the situation in China is much better, except for the fact that they are much more open to trade with the West than the Soviet Union ever was, which is helping their economy immensely. They have learned many lessons from the former U.S.S.R. Just because a nation spends a lot on defense doesn't mean that they should or that they are actually capable of doing so in the long run.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 23, 2006)

OK - I misinterpreted your previous post...



Delusional said:


> "We replaced Britian because of economic reasons, notably because of the implementation of Socialist programs to help Britian's war-torn citizens.



I took that to mean WWII, due to the term "war-torn" and because the US definitely did not take Britain's place as the most powerful and influential state until after WWII. Some consider the Greek civil war the prime example of the US taking up Britain's role.

I will still argue that socialist programs do not preclude large defense spending. Taxes can be levied to cover new programs that are instituted. If social spending increases, and taxes do not increase, then you are right and it is zero-sum there - the money has got to come from another type of spending... but this is not always the case.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 23, 2006)

I see on the b.b.c that Britian is almost finished paying back the war loan ( WW2 )to America.They could buy proper quantities of body armor for their troops in harms way now .


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2006)

You are right, mkloby, British socialist spending did not reduce defence spending. Great Britain introduced the NHS and National Insurance in 1949 and continued to expand its military well into the 1960s. In the 1950s, the Royal Navy was the largest it had ever been - and the navy is the most expensive arm of the military. 

Britain still has high military spending now, but they spend it in all the wrong places. Most of the problem today in money wastage is in the immigration system, and paying £5,000,000,000 a year to house asylum seekers in better accomadation than our troops receive. But that's another discussion. 

I do agree with delusional that Britain didn't lose it's empire because it lost the military strength it once had. Although, having the mighty Royal Navy we had in the 19th Century would be nice...


----------



## mkloby (Dec 23, 2006)

plan_D said:


> You are right, mkloby, British socialist spending did not reduce defence spending. Great Britain introduced the NHS and National Insurance in 1949 and continued to expand its military well into the 1960s. In the 1950s, the Royal Navy was the largest it had ever been - and the navy is the most expensive arm of the military.
> 
> Britain still has high military spending now, but they spend it in all the wrong places. Most of the problem today in money wastage is in the immigration system, and paying £5,000,000,000 a year to house asylum seekers in better accomadation than our troops receive. But that's another discussion.
> 
> I do agree with delusional that Britain didn't lose it's empire because it lost the military strength it once had. Although, having the mighty Royal Navy we had in the 19th Century would be nice...



And the NHS was predated by the National Insurance Act of 1911, which really got the ball rolling for socialism in the UK - and it seems that it was consistently expanded throughout the ensuing decades.

Don't forget that along w/ curtailed military capability following WWII, the political climate throughout the world was one of intense anti-colonialism, and made it extremely difficult for a western democracy to continue to maintain colonies. This sharply compounded UK's military difficulties. You can analyze French responses to this same sentiment, and their attempts to cling to their empire. It did not serve them well.


----------



## Delusional (Dec 23, 2006)

Britain's population was certainly war-torn after World War I as well as after World War II, don't you think? Although the U.S. had not completed its replacement of Britain until after WWII, we were certainly on the rise while Britain was certainly on the decline beginning at the end of WWI.

Good luck taxing poor citizens to cover expenses for programs that they need because they are poor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2006)

Delusional said:


> Britain's population was certainly war-torn after World War I as well as after World War II, don't you think? Although the U.S. had not completed its replacement of Britain until after WWII, we were certainly on the rise while Britain was certainly on the decline beginning at the end of WWI.
> 
> Good luck taxing poor citizens to cover expenses for programs that they need because they are poor.


Great Britain, while war torn from WW1 was still quite the empire post WW1. As far as taxing poor citizens, what 's your definition of poor and what programs do you think these "poor" citizens need?


----------



## mkloby (Dec 23, 2006)

Delusional said:


> Britain's population was certainly war-torn after World War I as well as after World War II, don't you think? Although the U.S. had not completed its replacement of Britain until after WWII, we were certainly on the rise while Britain was certainly on the decline beginning at the end of WWI.
> 
> Good luck taxing poor citizens to cover expenses for programs that they need because they are poor.



Although I can't say for sure (not having gone through the ordeals), it seems that Britain's civilian population suffered more intensely throughout WWII, with the incessant bombings and the blitz, which brought total war to a new and frightening level. The US was not close to filling Britain's shoes after the Great War. The US reverted back to isolationism, rejected the League of Nations, and still had to deal w/ a depression. Look at the size of Armed Services at the time... not exactly that of a world power. I do agree that Britain had already seen her climax as a world power.

I don't want to delve any deeper into Britain's socialist policies, but I'm sorry, your comments were simply historically inaccurate, as Britain began her social programs, as stated earlier, back in 1911. Her social spending was not the reason for her decline.

I don't understand your last comment comment about taxing the poor - it doesn't make sense. The poor would not be taxed to secure funding for a service that they cannot afford to procure for themselves in the firstplace. That, in and of itself, goes against socialist thought completely. Taxes generally are raised to pay for social programs, and it's not the poor that will necessarily shoulder that burden. Frankly, it depends on the specific type of tax that might be levied.

An excellent book covering the emergence and development of socialism in western europe is One Hundred Years of Socialism by Donald Sassoon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I don't understand your last comment comment about taxing the poor - it doesn't make sense. The poor would not be taxed to secure funding for a service that they cannot afford to procure for themselves in the firstplace. That, in and of itself, goes against socialist thought completely. Taxes generally are raised to pay for social programs, and it's not the poor that will necessarily shoulder that burden. Frankly, it depends on the specific type of tax that might be levied.


Bingo! My point...


----------



## Delusional (Dec 24, 2006)

U.S. society tends to have a bias in thinking that WWII was far worse than WWI, because for the U.S., it probably was. However, for Europe, WWI was just as hard a hit as WWII, if not harder, considering the continent was completely unprepared for modern warfare and for a war which both sides believed would be over in months, if not weeks. The danger and fear may have been greater for Britain's citizens in WWII, but Britain's culture and the attitudes of her society probably took a greater hit with WWI.

I never said that the U.S. was even close to filling Britain's shoes after WWI. I simply said that we were on the rise while Britain was on the decline. Britain was still running the show.

"The US reverted back to isolationism, rejected the League of Nations, and still had to deal w/ a depression."

The only thing that Europe (and Great Britain) did not do from that list is reject the League of Nations. Remember that the Great Depression was so named because it was global, and it affected Europe just as much as the U.S. Furthmore, Great Britain and the other European powers were definitely just as isolationist as the U.S. Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler all rose to power thanks in part to this isolationism. Every nation had their own problems to deal with, especially Great Britain.

Britain might have begun her socialist programs in 1911, but that doesn't mean that she did not transform even further into a socialist society beginning after WWI. One socialist program does not make a nation socialist. If that were the case, the U.S. would be considered socialist.

My last comment was worded poorly, and I think that we are both blurring the distinction between the socialism in Britain and the socialism/communism of the former U.S.S.R. and China. My last comment was more directed towards the U.S.S.R. and China, considering the relative failure of taxation for social problems found in the U.S.S.R. and the failure that may or may not be found in China in the years to come.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 24, 2006)

Delusional said:


> U.S. society tends to have a bias in thinking that WWII was far worse than WWI, because for the U.S., it probably was. However, for Europe, WWI was just as hard a hit as WWII, if not harder, considering the continent was completely unprepared for modern warfare and for a war which both sides believed would be over in months, if not weeks. The danger and fear may have been greater for Britain's citizens in WWII, but Britain's culture and the attitudes of her society probably took a greater hit with WWI.



Honestly I do not think that is a point that can be argued either way. It's like pissing in the dark.




Delusional said:


> I never said that the U.S. was even close to filling Britain's shoes after WWI. I simply said that we were on the rise while Britain was on the decline. Britain was still running the show.



Agreed - although I wouldn't say American power grew very much following WWI - certainly not militarily. Look at the shape of the US forces in the years shortly before the war...



Delusional said:


> Britain might have begun her socialist programs in 1911, but that doesn't mean that she did not transform even further into a socialist society beginning after WWI. One socialist program does not make a nation socialist. If that were the case, the U.S. would be considered socialist.


Roger - but before WWII began Britain had a long established socialist program. I already noted the National Insurance Act of 1911 - Britain established health and unemployment benefits - and in 1925 she tacked on pensions as well. Britain nationalized Anglo-Iranian Oil Co in 1912, the BBC in 1927, and toss in the nationalization of the British Overseas Airways Corp in 1939. Britain was still able to support such programs, as well as defense spending. Bottom line: There was more behind the US supplanting Britain as the leading western power than Britain's social programs.



Delusional said:


> My last comment was worded poorly, and I think that we are both blurring the distinction between the socialism in Britain and the socialism/communism of the former U.S.S.R. and China. My last comment was more directed towards the U.S.S.R. and China, considering the relative failure of taxation for social problems found in the U.S.S.R. and the failure that may or may not be found in China in the years to come.



The USSR was the complete bastardization of socialist thought. Anyone that's read much socialist theory realizes that. But then again, I'll argue that socialist thought itself is based on a flawed view of the world and the people that inhabit it.


----------



## Delusional (Dec 25, 2006)

Superpower status has more involved with it than military strength. WWI led to an industrial rise in our nation, which in itself led to a military rise. 

I never argued that Britain waited until WWII to begin widespread implementation of socialist programs and policies. My argument revolved around the time period from the end of WWI to the end of WWII. I also never claimed that socialist spending was the only reason for the transfer of power from Britian to the U.S. Clearly this was a complicated process involving many issues.

Your last comment I completely agree with. What a change of pace, eh? It is said that Marx and Engels would choose to destroy their manifestos if they had witnessed the inner workings of the Soviet Union during Stalin's time.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 25, 2006)

Delusional said:


> Superpower status has more involved with it than military strength. WWI led to an industrial rise in our nation, which in itself led to a military rise.
> 
> I never argued that Britain waited until WWII to begin widespread implementation of socialist programs and policies. My argument revolved around the time period from the end of WWI to the end of WWII. I also never claimed that socialist spending was the only reason for the transfer of power from Britian to the U.S. Clearly this was a complicated process involving many issues.
> 
> Your last comment I completely agree with. What a change of pace, eh? It is said that Marx and Engels would choose to destroy their manifestos if they had witnessed the inner workings of the Soviet Union during Stalin's time.



Well then, I'm not sure we're disagreeing on anything then


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2006)

Bloody hell. 

The British Empire (fourth empire in fact, but the one we all know) did not collapse because of declining military might. But more importantly, the British military didn't fall by the wayside because of socialist programmes introduced. 

As has been said, socialist ideas were in practice in Great Britain pre-World War II. And the military was actually getting bigger up until the 1960s. 

All agreed? 

The problem with discussions about post-World War I, especially concerning the U.S - a lot of people forget about the influenza pandemic that killed more than the Great War. And affected nearly 50% of the globe - how something so large can be forgotten, I'll never know. 

But this may be random, since the discussion has already been done with, but the U.S could have suffered slow progress after the Great War due to the fact that millions died. I dare say, however, that the medical industry in the U.S gained something - at least experience wise. 

Delusional;

I don't understand why you claim Europe became isolationist in the inter-war period. You claim that Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini rose to power because of the isolationist attitude of the European powers; that is foolish. Britain and France during the inter-war period were very much involved in diplomatic movements; especially in central Europe. France aimed to find friends that surrounded Germany; which is way the western nations found friends with Czechoslovakia and Poland. 

The rise of a Red Russia did not go unnoticed amongst the Western Europeans. In fact, Britain and France supplied arms and diplomatic support to the White Russians during the Russian Civil war. This was an attempt on stopping Lenin rising to power, we know that Britain and France didn't have the military strength after such a long war to intervene directly. 

Great Britain went on maintaining its Empire. During the 1920s many actions were taken in the Middle East to crush any resistance. In the same decade, we know Mussolini rose to power but Britain and France were not to know his motives. So there was no reason to intervene in what seemed harmless. 

During the Spanish Civil War, Great Britain did not get directly involved but did send warships into the Bay of Biscay and Gibralter straits to prevent any Nationalist blockade of the Republican ports. HMS Hood was one of the main vessels involved in protecting foreign shipping to Spain. 

In 1938 while not using military force, Great Britain made its voice heard, albeit it was pathetic, at Munich. While this caused much more harm than good, it was a nation getting involved in the world. Far from retreating behind the Channel. 

The only time something wasn't done, really, was the Italian invasions of Albania and Abbysina. But I, certainly, wouldn't consider either of those nations important enough to start another World war. And I assume the British government at the time felt the same.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 26, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The only time something wasn't done, really, was the Italian invasions of Albania and Abbysina.



The Italian invasion on Abbyssinia sealed the fate of the League of Nations. The bedlam that is international organizations...


----------



## Delusional (Dec 26, 2006)

As you yourself have stated, plan_D, Great Britain and France used mostly diplomacy and their political influence to become involved with the events on the continent between the two world wars. Although it is hardly their fault, this was not enough. The actions of the two nations did little to stop the atrocities committed by several dictators at this time. You cannot claim that Europe's isolationism did not lead to the rise of Hitler and his Nazi Party, at the very least. I see that you had not even argued this point, so I assume that we agree on at least this. Great Britain and France may have tried to fight the Bolsheviks, but Germany did much more to help the communist party than Great Britain and France ever did to hinder it. Just to note, we all realize that America was just as isolationist at this time, and as such, are just as much to blame for the horrible events of this period.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 26, 2006)

I'd just like to point out that the Nazi party came to power through electoral means. How was Britain, or any other nation, supposed to intervene? Contrary to isolationism tending to fuel the flames of the Nazi party, I would tend to argue that the Treaty of Versailles itself did more to recruit support for them than any other single event...


----------



## davparlr (Dec 26, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I'd just like to point out that the Nazi party came to power through electoral means. How was Britain, or any other nation, supposed to intervene?



To say that the Nazi party came to power through electoral means is a simplification of history and implys a distortion. The Nazis were never elected by the popular majority of Germans. Only through acts of terror by the party (highly illegal and bloody), deception, intimidation of legally elected officials, and unconstitutional use of power, did Hitler and the Nazis win a majority election and seize power. A study of Hitlers rise to power does not give you the feeling that this was a legal, electorial rise to power, more like a bully forcing his will on a confused electorate.



> Contrary to isolationism tending to fuel the flames of the Nazi party, I would tend to argue that the Treaty of Versailles itself did more to recruit support for them than any other single event...



This is exactly correct.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 26, 2006)

davparlr said:


> To say that the Nazi party came to power through electoral means is a simplification of history and implys a distortion. The Nazis were never elected by the popular majority of Germans. Only through acts of terror by the party (highly illegal and bloody), deception, intimidation of legally elected officials, and unconstitutional use of power, did Hitler and the Nazis win a majority election and seize power. A study of Hitlers rise to power does not give you the feeling that this was a legal, electorial rise to power, more like a bully forcing his will on a confused electorate.



I totally agree with you dp, which is why I used the word "electoral" and not "democratic." In reality, it was an utter mauling of the democratic process. However, unfortunately, as flawed as this process was, it doesn't change what the results of the elections were.
In 1928 the Nazi Party had less than 1 million votes and below 3% of the share... by July '32 this had grown to 13.745 million at over 37%, becoming the largest party in Germany. From there on, the sh*t really hit the fan and you can argue every which way about why things turned out the way they did... but you're right - certainly not democracy at its finest...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I'd just like to point out that the Nazi party came to power through electoral means.



Yes it did come by "electorial" means but not like the way you and I know today. The people were scared and hurt and he gave them promise, but he scared them with torture, fear, and brute force from his thugs. That is why they voted for him, but believe it or not Hitler had actually allready effectively siezed power before a vote had even been made.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 27, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes it did come by "electorial" means but not like the way you and I know today. The people were scared and hurt and he gave them promise, but he scared them with torture, fear, and brute force from his thugs. That is why they voted for him, but believe it or not Hitler had actually allready effectively siezed power before a vote had even been made.



I completely agree with both you and dp...


----------



## Delusional (Dec 27, 2006)

They came to power through illegal electoral means, just like any other dictator did. Hitler never received any majority vote, and neither did Mussolini or Stalin. Perhaps Britain could not have stopped the implementation of the Nazi Party, but we all know that all of the Allies could have stepped in sooner during Hitler's reign. We let him continue because we feared another war. This isolationism and fear of another world war led to the policy of appeasement. And no one would argue against your point about the Treaty of Versailles, as that fact is well-known.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 28, 2006)

You misuse the term "isolationist", Delusional. To be isolationist would be to back away from world affairs. On the contrary, Great Britain and France were very much involved in everything that happened in the inter-war period. 

_"Great Britain and France may have tried to fight the Bolsheviks, but Germany did much more to help the communist party than Great Britain and France ever did to hinder it."_

What exactly do you expect? Supplying the White Russians with arms was the best they could do. There are several reasons why France and Britain couldn't get involved with their own military. The Great War had crippled the French war machine, and the British one was hardly in any fit state. The position of Russia hampers any kind of deployment against them, since Germany and Poland wouldn't have appreciated the infringement. 

Trying to organise peace would have only led to the Communists gaining power. You seem to forget two vital things here; a lot of the Russians wanted to become 'red' and it was a civil war. The world would only frown upon any possible intervention, it was a civil affair not an international one. On top of that, there was no idea at all that a Iosef Stalin would rise to power and slaughter millions. The politicians of the day couldn't see into the future. 

_"You cannot claim that Europe's isolationism did not lead to the rise of Hitler and his Nazi Party, at the very least. I see that you had not even argued this point, so I assume that we agree on at least this."_

Europe's apparent "isolationist" attitude had nothing to do with the Nazi rise to power. There was no military coup so it was not a military matter. Neither Europe or the U.S can be blamed for allowing a nation sort out its own government. 

I don't quite understand what you expect Britain and France to do anyway; invade? Tell the League of Nations that Hitler is a bad-bad man? 

Are you honestly thinking of ideas of how the world could have stopped the man before it all started? When the world had no clue what was going to happen? Britain saw a threat from Hitler and his Germany, but there was no way we could invade or anything like that. You cannot just stand up and tell the world that you have a gut feeling the man will end up killing millions, and expect them to back you. 

And what if France and Britain did invade in 1933? The U.S would consider us the aggressors. Would the Soviet Union, U.S and Japan come to Germany's aid against the evil Axis of Britain and France? The earliest point that Britain and France could intervene militarily was 1936 with the re-occupation of the Rhineland. 

But alternate history time; what if we did invade and take Hitler out of power and install, practically, puppet government? We'd have a weak Germany in central Europe, with a 100,000 man army again. What would happen then when the Soviet Union wished to expand westward? Do you expect Poland to stop them? Germany? France? 

You cannot sit there and say people were to blame for Hitler's rise without thinking of the alternate history if it had been stopped. The Soviet Union was expansionist, the Communist regime always announced it would expand with force if required. We should be thankful in some ways that Germany became as powerful as it did, it was a shield that stopped Communism riding its way through Paris. 

Just think if we had stopped the rearmament of Germany, the whole world would have hated us. And the Soviet Union would have no blockade to its plans for world domination. And maybe because Britain and France had acted aggressively, the U.S might not have joined our side. 

Don't bother worrying yourself about HOW the world could have, should have and would have stopped Hitler. Because there was no way. Realistically, without any backlash from the world we could have stopped him when he tried it on with the Sudetenland but then all the alternate comes along with a weak Germany. Hell, even Poland could have become over-excited with its new "super-power" status. 

Fact of the matter is, France and Britain didn't sit there and just leave it. They were thinking what could they do, and they discovered they couldn't do anything. They did everything in their power, they had their voices heard in every corner - showed off some military might (HMS Hood in the Bay of Biscay - isolationist act that was  ) but the events were going perfectly for the fascists of the day. I suppose we could have got involved in the Spanish Civil War - but Britain hated the Nationalists and Republicans in equal measure.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2006)

pD hit the nail on the head. Gotta agree with you there man.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 28, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Europe's apparent "isolationist" attitude had nothing to do with the Nazi rise to power. There was no military coup so it was not a military matter. Neither Europe or the U.S can be blamed for allowing a nation sort out its own government.



This was the point of my previous posts. The nazi party partcipated in electoral politics, and rose to become the largest party in Germany. Hindenburg held out from giving Hitler the chancellorship for as long as he thought possible in 1932, and gave in when he apparently thought it was a choice between Hitler and a civil war... Obviously Hindenburg was not able to see what was to happen either. It was a civil matter, which turned out to become anything but civil politics...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2006)

The earliest that the allies could have responded would have been the Ruhr incident or the annexing of Austria or the Czech.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2006)

Realistically, the earliest Britain and France could have invaded would have been the German invasion of Czechoslovakia. The Anschluss provided no means for invasion because it was obvious to the world that Austria welcomed the Germans. If news had got out that Britain and France had tried to stop a friendly joining of nations, then the U.S and god knows who else would have turned on them. 

The invasion of Czechoslovakia, at least, was a full-blown invasion. It wasn't unlike the invasion of Poland, but the pacifists were still busy working their naive ways in government. I don't think we'd receive any backlash from the U.S if we'd have halted Germany in Czechoslovakia - and we'd have caught Germany less prepared. 

Whether the French morale would have allowed them to march on Berlin after suffering, naturally, heavy losses. We don't know. And it would take Great Britain a while to deploy anything larger than the BEF. 

It's a shame; it's not as clear cut as a lot of people believe. It is very easy to say we should have stopped Hitler, but how? And what would have happened if we did?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 30, 2006)

Agreed pD. The first opportunity to stop/pause Hitler was the Rhineland in 1936, if the French had set foot in the Rhineland the German troops would of retreated which may have halted Hitler a little - given more voice to those in the government who opposed the action in the Rhineland. With hindsight we can say if the British and French had rearmed at the same rate as the Germans from 1935/6 then there could of been a different result later on. After 1936 the two points that could of justified an invasion are Czechoslovakia (September 1938 and March 1939) and the invasion of Poland rather than standing back and waiting on the border (Poland) or trying to solve it by diplomacy (Czechoslovakia). The French and British could of advanced a long way into Germany whilst the German armed forces were engaged in Poland or Czechoslovakia. The losses could of been high but it would of halted Hitler from completely conquering Poland and given the Poles time to regroup (although when the Soviets invaded from the East - if they still did then that would be the end of Poland as a free state). In the end it depends on the willingness of the French to fight which as was proved in the Fall of France in 1940 that they didn't really want to fight, in which case any invasion of Germany would of been half-hearted and therefore likely to fail.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2006)

If the French had shown heart at the Rhineland incident it wouldn't have halted Hitler. It would have made him rethink his actions but they would have been delayed; that is all. Germany would have known, at least, that France meant business and Germany would require a stronger military to take on Europe. 

What is frightening is the possibility of a German defeat in the 1930s, and a Soviet invasion instead. In World War II we had two massive dictatorships wearing each other down on the Eastern Front, had Germany been disposed early on there would be no one willing to take on the sheer brute force of a strong industrial dictatorship. 

Personally, and I know people will take offence, I think Germany was the saving grace of Europe where the Soviet Union is concerned. But in equal measure, the Soviet Union was also a saving grace. The two powers were counter-weights to the other, they needed to slaughter each other for the democracies to reign on.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 30, 2006)

I haven't taken offence because it is true, Germany proposed an alliance with the allies to combat the Soviets in their dying days. Without the German 'buffer' the Soviets would of rolled through to the channel which would of caused more problems than the Germans.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2006)

I know you can see what I'm saying. But a lot of people are overly-sensitive, and might take it the wrong way. Thinking I'm supporting Germany during World War II.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 30, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> I haven't taken offence because it is true, Germany proposed an alliance with the allies to combat the Soviets in their dying days. Without the German 'buffer' the Soviets would of rolled through to the channel which would of caused more problems than the Germans.



I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that... rolled to through to the channel when?

Better yet - what if France just attacked in the west instead of selling old Poland down a river... Hitler's whole plan was a gamble based exactly on that... the French hanging out on the Maginot...


----------



## davparlr (Dec 30, 2006)

I suspect Germany had violated the armistice before the takeover of Austria by its arms build up and I suspect Great Britain and France were well aware of it but perfered to bury their head in the sand.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2006)

mkloby,

it's well-known that the Soviet Union aimed to expand. Stalin was not unlike Hitler in many respects when it came to his expansionist attitude. The Soviet Union would have, at some point, aimed to drive it's way through Europe. 
After all, the Soviet Union did invade Poland in reality. If Britain and France reacted the same to the Soviets, as they did to the Germans, then the Soviet Union would have to drive through to France. 
What really did happen was Germany wore the Soviet army down and the Allies still knew there was a risk. One of the main reasons the Allied governments aimed to push as far east as possible was to halt the Soviet advance. 

Don't be mistaken, the Soviet Union was not our friends. We just all had a common enemy. 

davpalr, 

If you'd read all the posts, you'd notice that I (at least) mentioned that the Allies had the option to halt Germany in 1936 when the Rhineland was re-occupied. 

Great Britain and France far from buried their heads in the sand. Great Britain for one knew Germany was a threat as soon as Hitler entered power. But while you can sit there and tell us all what should have been done, you're forgetting that you have hindsight. The governments of the day had no vision of Hitler becoming a genocidal maniac. 

More importantly though, Britain and France couldn't act on their own. While they would have been able to soundly defeat Germany in 1933 (with hindsight, we know that Germany had been breaking the Treaty of Versailles for years by developing tanks and planes in Russia), they would be seen as the aggressors. 

Have you ever thought the Soviet or U.S reaction to a Anglo-French invasion of Germany? The world would not see rearmament of Germany as a viable reason for invasion. The U.S for one saw Germany's build-up as a good thing, and saw it that Germany could fend for herself once again. 

On top of international reaction, as I'm 90% sure that the U.S wouldn't lend support to an invasion anytime before the invasion of Czechoslovakia, there is also public reaction. Britain and France were democracies; and the people have say. France especially would have to be extra careful, the politics of the day were extremely volatile - an unjust war (in their eyes) would end in the vast majority of the army throwing down arms and quitting. Then the public at home would uprise against the government. 

Britain wouldn't have been too eager to go to war without just reason either. This is a little far-out, but have you ever actually thought about how Britain managed to declare war on Germany without international backlash? Britain signed a mutual-defence alliance on August 25th, 1939! Britain knew Germany was going to attack, I reckon they signed that so they had a reason to go to war against Germany. 
Britain only lended vocal support to Czechoslovakia, so there's no written grounds to go to war with Germany. But with the signed pact with Poland, the world had no option but to accept British military action. In every other situation leading up to World War II - the world would have seen Britain as the belligerent nation, and that includes the U.S. Britain knew it needed the U.S in any war against Germany. 

The only real thing wrong that Britain and France did leading up to the full conquest of Europe by Germany. They were not aggressive enough when the war did begin. The French had said they would send the majority of their forces on the offensive 15 days after the declaration of war. And Britain should have been more willing to bomb the German navy in force - but they were too concerned with hitting civilians. 

Saying that Britain and France were at fault for the rise of Germany is clichéd and I've heard it more times than I can remember. Take some thought about the global situation at the time. And reactions to any actions. Put yourself in the shoes of either Britain or France - and then think what you'd do (you have the added bonus of hindsight) , then think what the world would do to react.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> mkloby,
> 
> it's well-known that the Soviet Union aimed to expand. Stalin was not unlike Hitler in many respects when it came to his expansionist attitude. The Soviet Union would have, at some point, aimed to drive it's way through Europe.
> After all, the Soviet Union did invade Poland in reality. If Britain and France reacted the same to the Soviets, as they did to the Germans, then the Soviet Union would have to drive through to France.
> ...



Ok - i just did not know in what time reference the soviet risk was being portrayed. Unfortunately - nobody seems to remember soviet aggression against Poland. You know, potential soviet threat is another what if... it would have totally depended on the German question, French/*BRITISH* rearmament, and perhaps most importantly, American involvement, as US economic power would likely have been the key factor in any long term struggle of the period.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 31, 2006)

The risk of USSR expansionism would of been at its height around the 40/50s.

British rearmament was increased a lot after the remilitarisation of the Rhineland and was ramped up as the crisises happened, although it was still not fully done by the time they declared war on Germany. If the Germans were not perceived as a threat then the rearmament of Britain would likely not of continued but then same could be said for the USSR who wasn't rearming at the same level until after the German invasion. The military might of the USSR would of been less if the Great Patriotic war had not happened as they would not of had to do the development in arms etc that they did during and in the run up to the start of hostilities. If there was no threat from Germany then there would of been disarmament for longer than occurred. The Western Europeans would of taken longer to realise and react to the threat of the Russians if there was a perceived threat. If that was the case then there would of been no Warsaw Pact until later. Without the war that occurred it would of been likely that there war in the Pacific would of been localised between Japan and the Colonial Powers along with the USA with perhaps Russian involvement. The result of this would likely of been a confrontation between the Western Allies, Germany etc and the rest of what is now NATO against the USSR in a large scale war similar to that of the Eastern Front (same battleground likely). It would of been a very costly war with the results being the destruction of either the NATO powers or the USSR.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 31, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> The risk of USSR expansionism would of been at its height around the 40/50s.
> 
> British rearmament was increased a lot after the remilitarisation of the Rhineland and was ramped up as the crisises happened, although it was still not fully done by the time they declared war on Germany. If the Germans were not perceived as a threat then the rearmament of Britain would likely not of continued but then same could be said for the USSR who wasn't rearming at the same level until after the German invasion. The military might of the USSR would of been less if the Great Patriotic war had not happened as they would not of had to do the development in arms etc that they did during and in the run up to the start of hostilities. If there was no threat from Germany then there would of been disarmament for longer than occurred. The Western Europeans would of taken longer to realise and react to the threat of the Russians if there was a perceived threat. If that was the case then there would of been no Warsaw Pact until later. Without the war that occurred it would of been likely that there war in the Pacific would of been localised between Japan and the Colonial Powers along with the USA with perhaps Russian involvement. The result of this would likely of been a confrontation between the Western Allies, Germany etc and the rest of what is now NATO against the USSR in a large scale war similar to that of the Eastern Front (same battleground likely). It would of been a very costly war with the results being the destruction of either the NATO powers or the USSR.



It'd be interesting to how the USSR's member states held together if such a scenario developed, as well as the members of the warsaw pact...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2006)

I cannot say much for France, mkloby, but I know that Britain recognised the threats from Germany and the Soviet Union. It began re-arming before the Rhineland incident. The British invasion of Norway was in part to open a land route to supply the Finnish with men and arms against the Soviet Union. 

We cannot be certain of U.S intervention. It has to be remembered that the U.S had the oppurtunity to go to war against Germany because Germany declared war on them. If the Soviets hadn't declared war on the U.S, then the U.S population would have probably refused to go to war with them. 

The Soviet Union was re-arming ever since Stalin entered power. There were many economic plans solely devoted to increasing the military power of Russia. The only thing that brought the military to its knees were the Officer purges, and banning of "out-there" doctrines like Deep Battle. 
The Red Army had developed the T-34, and was developing countless other machines that would be truth later in the war during the early 1940s. Stalin aimed to have the military in working shape by Spring 1942. That was before the major threat of Germany even appeared. The Soviet Union was aiming to go somewhere - the global conflict would have occured in the 40s. 


Germany actually stopped this global conflict by being there first and wearing the Soviets into the ground. I feel that a war with the Soviet Union would have been much larger than World War II.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 31, 2006)

Possible. I am not sure that the internal situation within the USSR would have enabled such an action. Pretty much every nation under Soviet rule in the USSR hated russians - which Germany failed to fully capitalize on.

Also, although the US was officially neutral prior to her entry, she was certainly not neutral in reality. There were even incidents prior to Dec 41 of US surface ships engaging german subs. I really don't think that the US would have been neutral in the face of Soviet aggression.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2006)

The states under Soviet control couldn't really stand up against Russia. Russia was the largest country in the union, and supplied most of the military power. 
The Soviet Union was willing to invade Lituania, Estonia, Poland and Finland. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't be willing to continue, especially if it was victory after victory. On top of that, they were Communists - and it had always been said they would expand. 

The U.S were getting involved in U.S waters against the German U-boats. But the only action taken against Germany was in the ocean, the Soviet Union would not come into contact against the U.S. It would be a land war - and the U.S wouldn't be able to be there without breaking neutrality.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The states under Soviet control couldn't really stand up against Russia. Russia was the largest country in the union, and supplied most of the military power.
> The Soviet Union was willing to invade Lituania, Estonia, Poland and Finland. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't be willing to continue, especially if it was victory after victory. On top of that, they were Communists - and it had always been said they would expand.
> 
> The U.S were getting involved in U.S waters against the German U-boats. But the only action taken against Germany was in the ocean, the Soviet Union would not come into contact against the U.S. It would be a land war - and the U.S wouldn't be able to be there without breaking neutrality.



True, I see your point regarding the land based conflict - but lend-lease wasn't neutral either, was it? USSR subs may have tried to interfere w/ American shipments to Britain... of course everything is based soley on conjecture.

I'm not totally sure that the subject nations under russian rule would have stayed subserviant. We'll never know.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2006)

It's all an interesting "what if?" - the global situation would have been thrown into turmoil. 

I don't think the USN would need to intervene in the seas, the Red Navy had no chance against the Royal Navy. But I do see your point on the Lend-Lease, whether the U.S had any viable reason to support Britain in a war against the Soviet Union is another thing entirely. 

Maybe the Soviet Union and U.S would come into conflict later on in the Pacific? But would the Japanese expand without knowledge of German support? After all, the only reason Japan had the option to occupy Indo-China was because Germany had crushed its owner; France.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> whether the U.S had any viable reason to support Britain in a war against the Soviet Union is another thing entirely.



How's this - the US is one of the few western democracies in which a viable socialist party has never emerged (presently some in the democratic party are trying to change that!). Americans by and large have a bad image of socialism, it's almost a stigma - but would they in fact have gone to war in that specific timeframe regarding that is another question. Think of Korea and Vietnam, although there are some major differences in the two.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 1, 2007)

You're right that the U.S hasn't ever had a favourable view upon socialism, and in turn communism. But at the time of the Soviet Union's rise to power; the U.S were not in the same frame of mind as they were in the 50s and 60s. 

The U.S were very naive about the Soviets, and believed them to be somewhat honourable. Fighting Communist rebels in Vietnam and Korea _after_ the threat of communism had been full realised, it's worlds apart from fighting the Communist super-power before communism was recognised (by the U.S, at least) as a threat.


----------



## Delusional (Jan 4, 2007)

plan_D said:


> You're right that the U.S hasn't ever had a favourable view upon socialism, and in turn communism. But at the time of the Soviet Union's rise to power; the U.S were not in the same frame of mind as they were in the 50s and 60s.
> 
> The U.S were very naive about the Soviets, and believed them to be somewhat honourable. Fighting Communist rebels in Vietnam and Korea _after_ the threat of communism had been full realised, it's worlds apart from fighting the Communist super-power before communism was recognised (by the U.S, at least) as a threat.



This is largely untrue. The first Red Scare in the United States occurred in the 1920s precisely because of the formation of the Soviet Union. True, it was more a fear of socialism or communism taking over the nation than a fear of expansionism on part of the Soviet Union, but still ... Look at the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2007)

I never said the U.S were naive about the communists in their own nation, I was talking about the Soviet Union. You look at FDRs reaction to the Soviet Union - extremely naive, and believed them to be an honourable nation. Even believed they would allow Poland to become a free nation.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 5, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I never said the U.S were naive about the communists in their own nation, I was talking about the Soviet Union. You look at FDRs reaction to the Soviet Union - extremely naive, and believed them to be an honourable nation. Even believed they would allow Poland to become a free nation.



That's because the ruskis had been so respectful of the Polish nation in the past! My dad's whole side of the family is Polish, and they still harbor much resentment...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2007)

I learned a lot about the L-29 from a Czech guy who has so much hatred toward the Russians he won't work on any L-29 or L-39 that has a red star!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 5, 2007)

I think the first real recognized phobia about socialism in the US occured in the late 30's when Congressman Martin Dies of Texas who found the humdrum congressional life was not the way to fame. So after attempting to find a cause that he could chair and ended up forming the commitee to Investigate Un-American Activities whose purpose was to investigate the German Bund in the US but had little success with it til he changed horses and switched over to the Communists and it took off


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2007)

Well said, anonymous, you know your history!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

Urh, what?


----------



## mkloby (Jan 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Urh, what?



hell if i know


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2007)

There are a fair number of posts by an anonymous member further back in this thread...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2007)

They were by Lunatic! The good 'ole days...


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

plan_D said:


> They were by Lunatic! The good 'ole days...



Haha - I believe he called me a fascist


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2007)

mk, you're American. Didn't you know that automatically makes you a fascist!? Jeez, American education is so poo.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 1, 2007)

plan_D said:


> mk, you're American. Didn't you know that automatically makes you a fascist!? Jeez, American education is so poo.



ohhh... I thought it made me a capitalist pig, but maybe nowadays the two are going hand in hand


----------



## plan_D (Feb 1, 2007)

They are. You're a capitalist pig fascist. Frickin' Americans need to be taught in schools that by birth they're evil war mongering fascists - and all they live for is money. 

While the rest of the world is amazing and great!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

According to Lunatic you are correct accept that the whole world was as you say and he was amazing and great.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 1, 2007)

Geez...


----------

