Manifest Destiny

[mkloby]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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...

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[mkloby]

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]

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

 

[plan_D]

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?