LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHis generals weren't but he fancied he himself knew all the answers and overruled them. Must have been all those drugs he was pumped up on.Originally Posted by fergalr
If only it started in 1938 then the Germans would have been walked over.
His generals weren't but he fancied he himself knew all the answers and overruled them. Must have been all those drugs he was pumped up on.
If only it started in 1938 then the Germans would have been walked over.
Sorry, the rest of that post wasn't meant to be aimed at you directly at all.
[quote=Catalpa][quote=Paddylekker][quote=Catalpa]IIRC the French Armies crossed the Frontier into Germany in all three Wars too.In 1870 it was a result of the Ems dispatch. It was Bismarck who wanted the war. And I don't think you're really blaming the French for starting WWII.France declared War on Prussia in 1870 (IIRC) and in 1939 on Germany. Germany declared War on her just once - in 1914.Seeing as France had been invaded by Germany on no less than three occasions in 70 years prior to the formation of the ECSC, yes.Ah go away. World War 3 were it not for the EEC!
That was the whole point in setting up the ECSC - to prevent future wars.
In any case, it doesn't matter whether France or Germany started it - Germans were on French soil in all three cases. The point is that they joined together in the ECSC after the war, with the encouragement of some excellent American foreign policy at the time, to prevent future wars between them.
While the desire to avoid War between Germany and France played a big part in the formation of the ECSC and its subsequent development it was also about facilitating the unfettered growth of Capitalism in a more pacific setting.[/quote:301ow6rb]
Well. obviously if your country has been invaded by a oppressive force you're going to chase them back into their own country when you gain the upper hand. To say that the French declared war on the Germans in 1939 is false in all but the most technical of respects anyway. The Germans knew by invading Poland that both Britain and France were obliged to declare war.
And, yes, allowing the growth of capitalism was part of the ECSC. There's no dichotomy there. Shared prosperity is perhaps the greatest bulwark against conflict. This was the lesson that was learned from WWI. It just took them until after WWII to realise this.[/quote:301ow6rb]
To say that the French declared war on the Germans in 1939 is false in all but the most technical of respects anyway. The Germans knew by invading Poland that both Britain and France were obliged to declare war.
It was no technical Declaration of War at all - it was of very serious intent. Within weeks French forces had attempted to invade Germany and been repulsed.
Hitler gambled on his invasion of Poland being met with protests and no more by Britain and France. The last thing he needed was a Two Front War when the main focus of his attention would be in the East. So your analysis of the outbreak of WWII is plain wrong![/quote:301ow6rb]
Eh? Try reading it again. I didn't say that the declaration of war was technical.
I said that to say that the French were responsible for the declaration of war is technical.
I can't believe that we're actually having a discussion about who started World War II here.
Even Basil Fawlty knows who started the war. And he knows how it was started too.
Thats a serious backtrack from: "Nonsense. Plenty was learned from it.Yes, only a pedant and the majority of the population of Western Europe.Absolutely right. Only a pedant could find fault in what you're saying.
You ignored examples of countries, particularly the French, who learned nothing from WWI and WWII and Indochina. You said nothing about the French savaging of Algerians in the early 1960s or The 'Falklands War' as the British love to call it.
Thank God the Europeans aren't involved anywhere now...oops...Iraq, ya fool.
We have learned absolutely nothing from WW2. Mankind will continue to procreate and then kill ourselves forever. Simple as that.
A P.ie moderator stated this on June 25th 2010: P.ie tolerates very broad free speech, and thus allows sectarian bigotry etc
Of course, plenty was learned from it. The countries of the EU don't fight each other on their own soil any more.Thats a serious backtrack from: "Nonsense. Plenty was learned from it.Yes, only a pedant and the majority of the population of Western Europe.Absolutely right. Only a pedant could find fault in what you're saying.
You ignored examples of countries, particularly the French, who learned nothing from WWI and WWII and Indochina. You said nothing about the French savaging of Algerians in the early 1960s or The 'Falklands War' as the British love to call it.
Thank God the Europeans aren't involved anywhere now...oops...Iraq, ya fool.
We have learned absolutely nothing from WW2. Mankind will continue to procreate and then kill ourselves forever. Simple as that.
And the Falklands War was a democratically elected British government defending their territory against a military junta.
Worth bearing in mind though that Wars between the European Powers were much less in the period 1815-1914 than the period 1715-1815.
War as an instrument of State declined within Europe anyway over the course of the 19th Century in occurrence.
Nobody in 1900 (or very few) envisaged the bloodletting that Europe was to experience over the following half century.
Also even after the Napoleonic Wars the Great Powers attempted to establish some kind of political equilibrium to stave off another round of alliance based conflicts within Europe.
So the post WWII development of co-operation between European States was not exactly entirely novel in concept. Rather the experiences of that the World Wars accelerated its development alongside the demands of Capitalism for a wider and barrier free internal market to conduct business and enhance profits.
Europa Conventus Delenda Est
I think multiculturalism is in part a legacy of WW2. Leftwing and other commentators decided that the reasons for the 2 world wars was the nation state, and that they should attempt to undermine it by A: trying to create a federal European state and B: seeking to complement this with measures to undermine separate European national identities, including mass-migration. While a strong supporter of the EU, I oppose any further major steps towards Euro-integration.
Another legacy of WW2 is Political-Correctness concerning criticism of Israel - especially in the US and Germany. Criticism of Israel is politically-incorrect in Germany - a FDP politician who a few yrs ago accused Israel of 'oppressing the Palestinians' was rounded on across the political-spectrum, and Germany - in it's desperation not to be seen as anti-semitic and to prove it really has changed from the Nazi era - has turned itself into one of Israel's strongest allies - even supplying that state with nuclear submarines. In the US, with the world's second-largest Jewish population, criticism of Israel immediately invites charges of anti-semitism and comparisons with the Nazis. Surely no state should be above criticism regardless of crimes - even genocides - committed against its main ethnic-group/national community in the past? Or are we also to place Hugo Chavez's regime above criticism on the grounds that over 90% of South American Indians died under the Spanish/Portugese occupations?
Another unfortunate legacy of WW2, was the large-scale nationalisation of industry by European govts including in the UK (thankfully for its people reversed by Thatcher later on). This was based on the thesis that because of the threat of further European wars, the State needed control of industry in case of an emergency. This argument should have been rendered obsolete by the European Union, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the deterrent effect of NATO membership in Western Europe along with NATO's nuclear-deterrent. All it has resulted in is over-mighty unions dictating economic policies and blocking competition, resulting in higher prices and less efficient services for Europe citizens.
Reply With Quote