"An Unnecessary War?" Topic

Japan would have still had to attack the USA and GB – chances are Germany would then have declared war as well…..

The dismantling of both the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires has caused mischief even up to the present day. WWI is the cockup that created the modern world. Poorly handled war, considerably more poorly handled peace.

'He argues that Britain should have made an agreement with Germany that they could have Eastern Europe as long as they stayed out of Western Europe Britain would have had time to fully rearm and not fighting WW2 meant that they could have kept the empire.'
------------------
his bigoted views would even seem to have come through in his views on that – as if more battleships and aircraft could have kept India or stopped the wind of change in Africa. I wonder if he'd agree that if we'd taken a tougher line with the American colonies rebellion, then maybe there wouldn't have been a WW1 or WW2 in the first place.

That's the fun with What If 's. Who can prove you wrong?

GNREP8:
Your point is well taken although I thought I made it clear that I am not absolving German Nazis for their choices. I greatly respect the courage of those in the German resistance which opposed the Nazis. Bad choices made by Germans do not absolve responsibility of British and French leaderships for their bad choices.
Had France and Britain moved against Nazi German between 1933 and 1938 the Germans would have been overwhelmed. The French army was big and well equipped compared to the Riechwher and the Wehrmacht at that time. With the support of the British military they could have toppled Hitler and the Nazis quickly and changed the direction which Germany was heading in. The leaders of France and Britain lacked the political courage to do what was necessary to correct the mess they were in part responsible for creating. Instead they opted to sit behind fortifications and English Channels and stick their collective heads in the sand.
Rod Robertson.

as if more battleships and aircraft could have kept India

Well, they COULD. They would just surround it. India's the island shaped like a boot, right?

1914 was messy. Britain had undertaken to defend Belgian neutrality in a context that did not reckon for a Germany caught in a deadly situation of 2 fronts with little choice but to plough on through. Ok, so a belligerent kaiser didn't help there either…

in 1939 Britain & France could have had few illusions they would save Poland. The tipping point here was that Hitler was demonstrating he didn't give a rat's ass about honouring international agreements. The aim of course was to get Germany to smash itself on the Maginot Line…

1914 was messy. Britain had undertaken to defend Belgian neutrality in a context that did not reckon for a Germany caught in a deadly situation of 2 fronts with little choice but to plough on through. Ok, so a belligerent kaiser didn't help there either…

in 1939 Britain & France could have had few illusions they would save Poland. The tipping point here was that Hitler was demonstrating he didn't give a rat's ass about honouring international agreements. The aim of course was to get Germany to smash itself on the Maginot Line…

CooperSteveOnTheLaptop:

I thought that the French plan was to get Germany in a two-front war, thus the Franco-Russian Treaty/Entente. Certainly Britain would have been aware of this too.

The German plan was to defeat France and her allies quickly in a decisive sickle-stroke before the Russians could fully mobilize. But those pesky Belgians and the Miracle on the Marne put an end to that German plan.

"The aim of course was to get Germany to smash itself on the Maginot Line."

And we all know how well that worked out! :)
The tipping point of which you speak did not have to be a tipping point had the Western Allies acted before Czechoslovakia was invaded the second time!

Rod Robertson.

@BullDog69,

Once you finish Buchanan's book you should read "Friendly Fire, the secret war between the allies" by Picknett, Prince etc. Be warned that if you are willing to set aside a life time of conditioned thought and plunge into the rabbit hole of revisionist history you may not emerge the same person.

One might ask what white people were doing in Africa in the first place, though.

Same thing they were doing in the Americas. Trying to find a place to live that didn't have them in hock to some unscrupulous land-owner. You know, a place where they could OWN land, and not be the next closest thing to a slave themselves.

Around the Horn, the whites were generally settling where the locals were NOT living. Yes, I know there are "some" exceptions to that.

And Egypt had managed to get into such extreme debt that the French and English more or less owned the place. They controlled what the Egyptians could spend money on, and how it was classed in the accounting.

Buchanan is making too many assumptions all driven by his "anglo-saxon dominion" worldview.

1) The Polish and probably Ukrainian Jews still die under his scenario. That is at least three million people who will die. Add to that the Polish people that were killed and would still be killed and the cultural damage done to Polish culture. Of course for Buchanan these are not anglo-saxons so he does not care.

2) Whether the UK entered the war or not, Hitler would not invade the USSR before he was sure he neutralized France. Whether this is via war, or via some kind of support for a military coup against the Third Republic I do not know. But you would either get a war or a civil war in France. I am not sure if even a rabidly pro-German government would tolerate Nazi ascendancy over France without a war. There is no way Hilter attacks the USSR before he has taken care of France one way or the other. Assuming that the Soviets would sit and watch Germany eat France when it is clear that Britian will do so, ignores the main causes of Soviet accommodation towards the Nazis which was buck-passing on the western allies. So you already have a scenario for a two front war. Whatever the story, the Germans will be preoccupied with France enough that they will not be able to mobilize all forces against the USSR.

Again there is no way the Germans tolerate France in their rear in a war with the USSR. Even a super accommodationist French government will get attacked or otherwise required to make sovereignty sacrifices equal to the ones made historically.

3) British tolerance of German aggression against France and in Poland is going to severely affect the British position in Europe. States like Greece or Portugal that tended to be pliant to UK interests are probably going to be more willing to cut a deal with the Nazis. Italy that saw itself as the rival of Britain in the Mediterranean will be pushing the Germans to push for more British accommodation. At the same time Japan would push Germany to pressure Britain to stop standing in the way of Japanese plans in the Pacific. How much accommodation will the British public accept?

4) Let us for arguments sake assume that France is neutralized (either by conquest or civil war). Hitler attacks the soviet union. I do not believe like many people that Hitler would had a cakewalk. It would be a long war, which would increase the possibility of a UK entanglement.

5) Whatever happens in Europe the Japanese attack in 1941-1942 the US and probably the UK. Even if that does not mean that you havea de-facto World War (since you have two wars going on) You have a de-jure world war. So maybe 1 million less people die.

6) European colonies were out of the picture whatever Germany does. Japan was the prime underminer of Western colonialism in the Pacific. Maybe it would had survived longer in Africa. I do not think so by that longer.

As for WW1. The serbo-Austrian war was unavoidable because the Austrian elites were determined to destroy Serbia. A simple reading of a book like Pointing's or Williamson et al, shows clearly the crucial members of the Austrian government had decided to destroy Serbia whatever the Serbians did. Whether the Russian monarchy could survive such a huge diplomatic blow , especially after the humiliation of 1906 in the Balkans is a big question and the one requiring answers if one wants to say the war was unnecessary. Both Austrian and Russian elites expected revolution come peace or war. These kind of desperate men are always dangerous.

Even when the war was "won" Poland was no better off, having exchanged German Nazi masters for Russian Communist ones.

A small point among many well stated views, but …

This kind of statement seems, to me, to misstate rather badly the whole experience of Poland under Nazi rule.

Yes, I know that Poland suffered under the Soviet boot post-war. But Poland survived as a nation, a culture, and a people. If they had spent a generation under Nazi rule, that same would not have been said.

The Nazi program was to eliminate the Polish people, not rule or subjugate them. There was a specific timetable in Nazi plans by which each of the peoples of Eastern Europe were to be eliminated. In some cases (as with the Jews and the Romani) that meant extermination. In other cases it meant partial extermination, and partial ethnic cleansing by means of forced sterilizations, and distribution of the population as slave labor. In either path, by the end of a generation there would have been no more Poles in the world, no more Slovenians, no more Slovaks … they were all destined for extinction under Nazi plans.

De-population was Nazi policy for the entire landmass of eastern Europe. Those peoples just had to go, to make room for the blossoming of the population of 1,000 year Reich.

The Soviets earn every criticism they receive. But we need to understand this fundamental difference … the Soviets wanted to rule populations, the Nazis wanted to eliminate them.

We do a dis-service to history when we try to bend our understanding of Nazism into the context of generalized European history. Europe has always suffered under the ambitions of competing imperial powers. But the Nazis were not seeking to conquer and rule their neighbors. They were seeking to de-populate the landmass of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, to turn it into an un-inhabited wilderness to be settled by their own growing Aryan master race.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

As the first Dutch settlers arrived in South Africa in 1652 when the place was largely uninhabited, they had as much right to be there as anyone else. Particularly if you believe humankind began in Africa in the first place. link Certainly more right than the Teutonic crackpots who wanted to exterminate their neighbors for "lebensraum"

Hitler would have caved if France had tossed his troops out of the Rhineland. Hence an unnecessary war…..and Britain did not lose its Empire, it relinquished it voluntarily. The circumstances which brought this about were less due to the military actions of Germany and Japan, than the economic ones of the United States which wanted to usurp Britain's dominance.

Relinquished it willingly?I beg to differ. Monophagos have you ever visited the jailed memorials in Cyprus? Those are not the work of an empire that relinquishes voluntarily. Have you not heard of the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya? The Malayan emergency. Granted the British were not as fanatic as the French Dutch and Portuguese, but in many cases decolonization followed violence (and was followed by violence). In Malaysia, Burma and Vietnam the independence movements were affected by the Japanese march in the South Pacific. And ultimately who is to say that a war with Japan (which would had happened) would not had put a strain on the Tresury?

The empire was doomed. All of the colonial empires were doomed. They would either had to give home rule, permit representation in Westminster or fight to keep the old system.

Steve Wilcox

"One might ask what white people were doing in Africa in the first place, though"

I assume you are aware that the Matabele had themselves only arrived in the area a generation or two before, having driven out / wiped out / enslaved the previous inhabitants / neighbouring tribes (primarily the various clans which are referred to as the Mashona)?

But, let me guess – that's somehow different because the Matabele weren't white and were therefore 'the goodies' – right?
So the Matabele can murder, enslave, raid, pillage and butcher the neighbouring tribes and white settlements all they want, but the white settlers are REALLY to blame for all this because they shouldn't have been there.

Yeah – that makes sense.

KTravlos

And what happened immediately AFTER the British defeated the Mau Mau? They granted independence to Kenya. The Mau Mau were shattered and defeated – they did not chase the British out. Likewise in Malaya – the British defeated a Communist insurgency and then granted independence. The various 'small wars' of the end of Empire period were fought in an attempt to prevent colonies becoming communist / extremist states, NOT to hold them under British rule for any longer.
Other than a few strategic islands / bases, it is perfectly true to say that the British Empire was given away 'voluntarily' in the sense that the British unfortunately could no longer afford to run it / fund it / defend it.

You also make it sound as though Home Rule was something that was 'forced' on the British – in fact, that was the natural state of things: colonies were encouraged to move towards responsible rule as soon as possible – witness the Australian states, New Zealand, Canada, Natal, the Cape Colony, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State – all of which were granted self-rule without a fight. Indeed, the British were always desperate to be rid of the responsibility of colonies, as long as those colonies remained friendly, stable and well run. The two exceptions to this were Ireland and Rhodesia – but it was the demographics of these states which made home rule / responsible government tricky, not a British desire to hang onto them for ever.

As someone who has lived and worked all over Africa, I can safely say that 99% of Africans would have been a lot better off if the British Empire here had been allowed to continue for another generation or two at least – if you don't believe me, I encourage you to visit / work in some of the former colonies which became 'independent' (ie. completely and utterly dependant on foreign aid) earliest and compare them to those which were lucky enough to continue under at least a semblance of competent rule for a bit longer.

And today Malaysia is such a beacon of light and democracy in the area – yeah right…

While the end of Empire was seriously mismananged and a slower, more orderly transition might be imagined I don't think it was an option. There were those who wanted the Empire to continue FOR EVER and those who felt it was intolerable – not least the colonised.

When you take away a brutal, anti-democratic institution that has oppressed, humiliated and looted the local population for generations AND either tainted by collaboration or eliminated outright any of the locals capable of leadership positions you will inevitably have a god awful mess to clean up.

The parlous state of most if not all former colonies of all Empires is the fault of the COLONISERS – not the colonised. It's like blaming the woman for the rape otherwise….

Given France's hatred of Germany and its determination to destroy it as a military threat after WWI, I don't think that France could have avoided another war. But France's mistrust and vehemence towards German was a choice and had the French leadership made different choices things might have been better. France wanted Germany dismembered at best, or de-industrialized and on its knees at a minimum. To them the only tolerable Germany was either no Germany at all or a crippled Germany. This crippling led to the collapse of the German economy and political stability and ultimately to the radicalization (both left and right) of its people. Had France and the Allies concentrated on punishing the Kaiser, the Junkers and the industrialists who had caused WWI and had it been more open to developing a Germany body-politic which was more prosperous, peaceful and non-aggressive World War Two might have been avoided.

Trouble with these sort of arguments is that you can go back further and further. In 1914 the French were never going to let the Germans off. They wanted payback for 1871 and the French people would not have stood for it, even if the politicians had pushed for peace. So you could just as easily say that it was the Germans fault. Without 1871 there is no WW1. No WW1, no Versaille, no nazis, no WW2.
Now someone will come along and say how 1871 was inevitable given what the French did to the Germans earlier! :-)

Ah, as an ignorant European I have just realised that Mr Buchanan is some sort of politico with some extremely unpleasant axes to grind.

I thought the name sounded vaguely familiar.

So I'm not sure I'm especially interested in what he has to say about anything really, although the fact that he might once have been the next president of the USA is a bit disturbing.

Skarper

Re. Malaysia, I quote from Wiki:

Malaysia is a federal constitutional elective monarchy. The system of government is closely modelled on that of the Westminster parliamentary system, a legacy of British colonial rule.[50] The head of state is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, commonly referred to as the king. The King is elected to a five-year term by and from among the nine hereditary rulers of the Malay states; the other four states, which have titular Governors, do not participate in the selection. By informal agreement the position is systematically rotated among the nine,[50] and has been held by Abdul Halim of Kedah since December 2011.[51] The King's role has been largely ceremonial since changes to the constitution in 1994, picking ministers and members of the upper house.[52]

Legislative power is divided between federal and state legislatures. The bicameral federal parliament consists of the lower house, the House of Representatives and the upper house, the Senate.[53] The 222-member House of Representatives is elected for a maximum term of five years from single-member constituencies. All 70 senators sit for three-year terms; 26 are elected by the 13 state assemblies, and the remaining 44 are appointed by the King upon the Prime Minister's recommendation.[3] The parliament follows a multi-party system and the government is elected through a first-past-the-post system. Since independence Malaysia has been governed by a multi-party coalition known as the Barisan Nasional.[3]

Each state has a unicameral State Legislative Assembly whose members are elected from single-member constituencies. State governments are led by Chief Ministers,[3] who are state assembly members from the majority party in the assembly. In each of the states with a hereditary ruler, the Chief Minister is required to be a Malay, appointed by the ruler upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister.[54] Parliamentary elections are held at least once every five years, the most recent of which took place in March 2008.[3] Registered voters of age 21 and above may vote for the members of the House of Representatives and, in most of the states, for the state legislative chamber. Voting is not mandatory.[55] Except for elections in Sarawak, all state elections are held concurrently with the federal election.[52]

Executive power is vested in the Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister. The prime minister must be a member of the house of representatives, who in the opinion of the King, commands a majority in parliament. The cabinet is chosen from members of both houses of Parliament.[3] The Prime Minister is both the head of cabinet and the head of government.[52] The incumbent, Najib Razak, appointed in 2009, is the sixth prime minister.[56]

Malaysia's legal system is based on English Common Law.[3] Although the judiciary is theoretically independent, its independence has been called into question and the appointment of judges lacks accountability and transparency.[57] The highest court in the judicial system is the Federal Court, followed by the Court of Appeal and two high courts, one for Peninsular Malaysia and one for East Malaysia. Malaysia also has a special court to hear cases brought by or against Royalty.[58] Separate from the civil courts are the Syariah Courts, which apply Shariah law to cases which involve Malaysian Muslims[59] and run parallel to the secular court system.[60] The Internal Security Act allows detention without trial, and the death penalty is in use for crimes such as drug trafficking.[61]

You will also find that according to the UN, Malaysia's "Human Development Index" (a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income indices) is rated as 'High'. The only place higher in the whole of SE Asia is Singapore.

Are you seriously suggesting they'd have been better off under hard-line Communist rule?

Oh, and you refer to a 'brutal, anti-democratic institution that has oppressed, humiliated and looted the local population' – would that happen to be the same institution which stamped out slavery and mass murder, introduced the rule of law, education, a free press, health care, democracy and the wheel in places which had never even heard of the concepts?
Why, pray tell, did the Bechuana and the Basotho plead to become Protectorates of the British Empire if it was so vile?

Indeed, when you scratch the surface, you find that more often than not, the British Empire actually replaced rule by regimes which really could be described as being 'brutal, anti-democratic institutions' and which 'oppressed, humiliated and looted the local population'… or do you think the Empires of the Matabele and the Zulus, for example, were somehow 'good' Empires, and only white-run Empires were 'bad' Empires?

Or are you so obsessed with being politically correct that you are seriously claiming that British explorers and settlers found flourishing, multi-party democracies all over Victorian-era Africa?

The parlous state of most if not all former colonies of all Empires is the fault of the COLONISERS – not the colonised. It's like blaming the woman for the rape otherwise….

Really? There seem to be quite a few doing ok. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, South Africa, the Bahamas, Barbados, British Guiana, British Honduras, Jamaica, Turks and Caicos Islands, the Cayman Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, the Windward Islands, the Leeward Islands and even Malaysia for all its human rights problems is doing ok economically. As for the troubles of the likes of Zimbabwe I would reject entirely that it is the fault of the colonisers. Seems to me to be down to that man Robert Mugabe.

The parlous state of most if not all former colonies of all Empires is the fault of the COLONISERS – not the colonised. It's like blaming the woman for the rape otherwise….
----------
thats bit of a false analogy – i don't know whether Skarper has worked in Africa – I have – its impossible to imagine what the ex-colonies would have been like without colonisation to posit an alternative.Some countries (like Mozambique did not benefit to be sure at all but then thats down to who colonised them) – places like Kenya – even their post indep model is still very heavily British influenced – like India is.

Ummmm.

I am a . Just wanted to say that before I said the next thing.

Come on this is ! .

Ah, as an ignorant European I have just realised that .

I thought the name sounded vaguely familiar.

So I'm not sure I'm especially interested in

A bit late to this, but a very good point Mark 1.

While the Holocaust was horrific, it was only the bare beginning.

Mr Buchanan seems to be one of those numerous Anglo-Americans who have a perception that the Atlantic is truly a pond and the Channel an ocean; thus Britain is not really a part of Europe. There are many who do seem to have a view that it would have been better to avoid involvement in Europe and to have chosen peace in 1940. Alternatively, the idea that Britain should not have gone to war in Poland might also be linked to the idea that if it was to be forthright then Czechoslovakia should have been defended or even better France supported in 1936 [Donald Cameron Watt – How War Came]. Perhaps Britain can be grateful for the general perception that it heroically stood up to Hitler rather than cravenly failed to do so from 1936 to 1939 when its allies looked for help.

If one does look at alternate history can one say then that the AWI was the most catastrophic event in history because if the 13 colonies had stayed as part of the imperial system would WW1 and thus WW2 have happened. How would the world have reacted to such a global power? Would Europe have combined against it?

The Soviets earn every criticism they receive. But we need to understand this fundamental difference … the Soviets wanted to rule populations, the Nazis wanted to eliminate them.
---------------
I know some people will disagree (one could cite the Crimean Tartars etc and of course what happend in the Ukraine post war) but I do think that essentially thats a very good summary of the difference – Soviet ruled Poland was not a good place for Polish patriots but they never intended as far as is known to wipe out the Polish race – I think its pretty clear that that is what the Nazi long term goal was given enough time.

+1 Fred Cartwright

It is

Really? There seem to be quite a few doing ok. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA,

You do realize the Indigenous have been largely displaced in these countries, right?

I assume you are aware that the Matabele had themselves only arrived in the area a generation or two before, having driven out / wiped out / enslaved the previous inhabitants / neighbouring tribes (primarily the various clans which are referred to as the Mashona)?

But, let me guess – that's somehow different because the Matabele weren't white and were therefore 'the goodies' – right?
So the Matabele can murder, enslave, raid, pillage and butcher the neighbouring tribes and white settlements all they want, but the white settlers are REALLY to blame for all this because they shouldn't have been there.

Yeah – that makes sense.

Yes, I am aware of the history of the area and I'm not saying that the Matabele were the good guys or that I'm okay with what they did, I'm saying that I don't think that Africa was there for the European powers to carve up. I'm actually not trying to be "politically correct" about this, I just figure the Europeans had Europe, why couldn't they leave Africa for the Africans?

You do realize the Indigenous have been largely displaced in these countries, right?

As they largely have been in my country – by various Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Danes, Normans etc. Should I blame the Germans, French and Danes for any problems the UK has? It is now 50+ years since most British colonies became independant, how much longer can they blame someone else for their current problems?

As they largely have been in my country – by various Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Danes, Normans etc. Should I blame the Germans, French and Danes for any problems the UK has?

Considering the current population of England, that would be akin to blaming people closely related to your own ancestors, unless you are of Celtic descent.

It is now 50+ years since most British colonies became independant, how much longer can they blame someone else for their current problems?

I have not said anything regarding the post-colonial period.

Good thread, needs to be split into two but has been an interesting read

While the Holocaust was horrific, it was only the bare beginning.

Soviet ruled Poland was not a good place for Polish patriots but they never intended as far as is known to wipe out the Polish race – I think its pretty clear that that is what the Nazi long term goal was given enough time.

I fear that this essential aspect of the history of the 20th Century is not well enough understood, or is often unstated, overlooked, and/or lost in the noise.

The "difficulties" caused by Nazi Germany were not just another example of hegemony by a European imperialistic regime. If they were, then, well, yeah, you could make the case this guy's hegemony vs. that guy's hegemony.

Nazi Germany was different.

It needs to be seen as different. It needs to be studied and understood as a signal, a singularity in modern history that should give us genuine pause to reflect on what this human experience is, can be, or should be (or should NOT be).

In most cases, war is politics by other means. Killing occurs largely as a side-effect of war. Any reasonable student of political science or military arts will tell you that bloodless (or reasonably low-blood) victories are the best victories.

In the case of the Nazis, war was ideological pursuit by other means. War was a side-effect of the need to kill. This is the fundamental flaw in Buchanan's nonsense. It also puts Ruti's assertion that all war is bad in a rather different light.

The Nazis killed more people within the area of their political control, than on the battlefield or in opposing countries -- by a wide margin! Allow them more time, and less bother, and they could and would have killed even more.

Given the existence of Nazi Germany in 1935, any political path that avoided a world war would have been the most catastrophic development in human history. Give them peace, and the Nazi killing would have been unstopped and un-measurable. Rather than 50 or 60 million dead from a global war, the world would have seen a peace-time death toll probably passing the quarter billion mark.

Usually, killing in war is a necessary means to promote victory. It is unique to the Nazis that victory in war was a necessary means to promote killing. Hand them the victory, don't make them fight for it, and you only allow them to kill more.

As historically minded fellows, whether amateur or professional in your historical pursuits, don't ever accept the proposition that the Nazis were just another European imperialist power.

There are darker evils in the deep places of the earth.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The weird thing is that fascism does explain the Nazi madness. Even though a love of war and a cult of death were part of Fascist ideology (Italian, Spanish, Romanian) the Nazis had a very different relationship to death.

It really does sadden me that the country of Goethe, Schiller, Frederick the Great etc produced this eternal blot on itself. Oh if only Beck had let von Tresckow kill the bastard in 1943, civil war be damned. Or von Seylitz-Kurzbach attempt a coup early on, democracy be damned.

KTravlos: you are in the USA so presumably American-Greek with the innate American antipathy to Empires and reluctance to acknowledge US imperialism.

The Cyprus situation arose after America allowed Nasser to close the Suez Canal thereby increasing the strategic importance of Cyprus.

You will acknowledge however that:-

1)even Cyprus beacme independent in the early 1960's

2)British rule was better than the previous Ottoman rule

3)if Cyprus had remained under British control, the unfortunate events of 1974 leading to the Turkish invasion and partition would not have taken place……

Steve Wilcox

But it is incredibly simplistic to say that the Europeans should have left 'Africa for the Africans' – the move of blacks / Banthus from central Africa into southern Africa occurred very recently (in Anthropological terms) and resulted in the near-extermination of the peoples they found there (the bushmen / Hottentots).
Am I right in believing your argument is that, as these poor s were wiped out by their fellow 'Africans' (as if that term would have meant anything to either groups of people), then that's OK?
Would you have been equally happy had it been the Egyptians (rather than the Dutch / British) who had settled and developed southern Africa in the 18th / 19th Centuries? After all, by your own logic, they are fellow 'Africans'; so that makes it OK, right?

Groups of people have moved and relocated across the globe all through history – do you also say that the Maoris (who you strangely claim are the 'indigenous' people of New Zealand) should have stayed put in Polynesia? Likewise those ancestors of the American 'Red Indians' (who you also declare are 'indigenous', despite the fact that they are believed to have moved there from Eurasia) – do you believe they should have stayed put too?
Why is it OK for non-white people to move around the world and settle in other areas, but the moment British people settle in undeveloped areas (and drag them out of the Iron Age), you have a problem with it?

1) In 1936 Britain was re-arming and preparing for the upcoming war with Germany. We knew it was coming, so obviously thought that we were not ready.

2) Dissolution of Empire was a condition of the US selling us stuff to fight with- lets not pretend that Lend Lease was anything other than selling water to a dying man.- it took 60 years to pay off. But hey, the US were equal opportunity sellers – their business happily sold stuff to Nazi Germany.

It needs to be seen as different. It needs to be studied and understood as a signal, a singularity in modern history that should give us genuine pause to reflect on what this human experience is, can be, or should be (or should NOT be).

I don't think it is that unique though – certainly not in the C20. Rwanda and the Japanese treatment, particularly of the Chinese demonstrate that the Germans weren't the only nation to contemplate genocide. What sets the Germans apart is the sheer scale of what was planned and the efficiency with which it was carried out.

but the moment British people settle in undeveloped areas (and drag them out of the Iron Age), you have a problem with it?
-----------
only thing is that your rationale is surely peculiar only to southern Africa and British involvement there. The Belgian, German and Portuguese colonists (perhaps French also)were not settling in undeveloped areas and arguably did the local populations few favours at all – so do you then have to say settlement by British people good, by Portuguese, German, Belgian or French people bad?

Groups of people have moved and relocated across the globe all through history
-------------
I make that point to all the Anglo-Saxons who are concerned about immigration into the UK!

Yesthatphil, Lion in the Stars, Scott…so England was an independent country in 1939? Interesting…I never knew that.

Last Hussar – suggest you read up on Lend Lease. Congress had no authority under law to give the stuff away. It took 60 years to pay off because some of the payments were deferred when the interest rate was unfavorable to Britain. Try that at your local bank :)

Britain also got more under Marshall Aid than anyone else.

Nazi Germany was different. It needs to be seen as different.

But was it seen as such in 1939? And however much you might dislike what the Nazis might do to Poland, do you have the capability to stop them?

You do if between you, you have the second largest army in the world (France, I'm looking at you), and the biggest navy! The German General Staff didn't want another land war against the French and the German people still remembered the starvation on 1917- 18 brought about by the British blockade. Hitler could have been toppled by the conservative elements among the German Generals – with plenty of public support – if there had been any will on the part of the western allies.

You do if between you, you have the second largest army in the world (France, I'm looking at you), and the biggest navy! The German General Staff didn't want another land war against the French and the German people still remembered the starvation on 1917- 18 brought about by the British blockade.

That's the trouble with democracy. If the public don't want it it is difficult for the politicians to do it. Noone in Britain or France wanted war in the 30's. There were no cheering crowds when war finally came like there were in 1914. Yes the Germans still remembered the starvation. The Brits and French still remembered the decimation of an entire generation of young men. And it is not as if anyone else was jumping up and down to join in – yes USA I'm talking about you! All to easy to point the finger and say what should have been done with the benefit of hindsight, not so easy when it is your decision whether to send millions of young men to war for an outcome that is not certain.

Whether the west made their stand in 36, 38 or as happened in 39 the truly important point is that they made a stand. Should that stand have been made in earlier than 39, yes. Could it have been made earlier? Difficult to say we had the technology and the pure brute force, but not the political will. There was as noted above a real reason for that lack, democracy the people did not yet have a full understanding of what the western democracies were facing. Some politicians did but they couldn't act. The invasion of Poland gave them the ability to act.

As a Briton I am proud that we not only took that stand but that we maintained it when it really mattered, when no one else was left in the fight. Europe would be a truly different place if that stand hadn't happened.

Monophagos I am well aware of American imperialism. That does not somehow make the British policy in Cyprus ok or British imperialism ok. And who gives a damn what the conqueror wants. There is this attitude among you British apologists that if the conqueror is nice and good and if after independence the locals muck it up then the conqueror's rule is legitimate and any independence movement illegitimate. Well no, it does not work that way.

If the British wanted to keep their empire at the very least they should had granted home rule everywhere and the truly proper thing to do would had been to make all colonials British subjects with representation in Westminster.

But hey what can you expect from an empire that was so exclusionary that it would not grant representation to its closest colonies (like the US or Canada). Britain lost the empire, and the US push just accelerated something that the British themselves had started. All it would had needed is some more benches in Westminster. Wolverhampton had representation but not several billion Indians. So do not give me that "the Americans made us lose our empire" canard.

And as for Cyprus. Maybe the events in 1974 would not had happened if Britain had not excarcabated muslim vs. christian animosity in the name of good old divide and conquer.