- Posts: 1059
A slightly more jaundiced view is that your ruling elite had its eyes on south east asia, and provoked the japanese empire into attacking you so you could take it from them. The germans declaring war was a bonus and it meant that you could reluctantly establish european protectorates, while all the time pretending that you didn't want to become a global superpower and loot the world.
="The Awesome Berbaslug!!!" post=736541
It's not academic. The entire poppy debate is now predicated on the idea that the soldiers in the first world war died to protect our freedoms, which is kind of funny on a number of levels. History is used in england to justify current and future wars in defence of the British Commercial empire. (and in no small way underpin the conservative party, and euro-scepticism)
I mean sure they're not the nazis, and they're not mao or stalin, but virtually no-one is. But as relatively wealthy, white, western hemisphere males, we're clearly inside the bubble looking out, and the scale of the global piracy indulged in by the UK and the US isn't perhaps as obvious to us as it is to the rest of the world.
The Awesome Berbaslug!!! wrote: The entire poppy debate is now predicated on the idea that the soldiers in the first world war died to protect our freedoms...
The Awesome Berbaslug!!! wrote: It just seems from my point of view that it's amazing how american history seems to be made up of countries who desperately want to lose empires, doing things to provoke the most reluctant superpower in the world into kicking the shit out of them and taking all their stuff. It's happened so often that the US wound up owning the world.
And yes, nanjing was terrible, and the imperial japanese were racist monsters, but in fairness, you did vaporize two entire cities with nuclear weapons, burn every building in japan, and bombed "indochina" into the stone age, and wound up in posssession of the entire pacific rim, to work as wage slaves
For my money that is definitely part of the English fascination with the Third Reich, ethnocentricity. Us Anglo Saxons identify with Germans more than Eastern European or Mediteranean types who we tend to disregard as backward and a little bit madcap. If atrocities of that ilk (if not magnitude) were commited in Romania or Spain or somewhere there would be an element of "look what those eccentrics are upto again" whereas we expect Germans (and Scandinaveans for that matter) to be less volatile, more pragmatic and even keeled. How was it a genocidal lunatic cast his spell on these people? That to me is the eternal mystery which drives the "enduring fascination".
G-Man wrote: There is the inexplicable extent of the inhumanity perpetrated by people of whom one would not expect it. And that's where much of the fascination resides: Germans are not much different from other central or northern European or even British people; "we" can identify.
Nefertiti2 wrote: The Berbaslug view of history
The British crimes in Cork in 1921 were entirely on a par with the Nazi crimes in the East around 20 years later. Fortunately the Irish were led to victory by their heroic leader Alex Ferguson.
The Awesome Berbaslug!!! wrote: anything that we have under american hegemony, we have because it is convenient for them for things to operate this way. If ever the situation arose where it was convenient for them to say kill our prime minister and start a coup, you can be sure they would do it.
All too often that is what is missing from discussion about WWII is that pretty much all the major participant countries were without exception blood soaked machiavellian monsters, who were all experts in going to other countries, taking them over, killing and torturing anyone who opposed them, and ruthlessly exploiting them. all of them had lengthy experience of horrendously oppressing sectors of their own societies, and there are no good guys, only bad guys and worse guys.
I think this is the nuance that is missing in the history of any powerful country, written by people within that powerful country. they generally usually forget to mention just how brutally evil their country has generally been at every available opportunity.
Bruno wrote: Was it convenient to invade and take over Iraq? For a few people who got rich off it certainly, but not for the country as a whole. And so that has to work its way through the lumbering political system, and hopefully the upshot is that Bush permanently tarnished the Republican brand, which wouldn't be very convenient for them. I believe he also tarnished the idea of preemptive war for a bit. Not a perfect system, obviously.
The UK has attacked virtually every country on earth over the last 200 years.
the nazis had plenty of help in Poland
including a mini-WWI against the creepy bastards next door
A small portion of despair and enlightenment delivered to your inbox every Friday