[QatzelOk]

If Britain had been utterly destroyed in World War Two, would its colonies in the former Ottoman Empire (which it frequently bombed and terrorized) and in India have become independent more quickly and with less vandalism from British interests?

Would the world have become more egalitarian and less structured on the British class system/racial hierarchy?

Or would a victorious Germany have been just as vain and controlling as Britain was?

[pugsville]

No. BY the end of world war 2 the british were basicaly getting out as fast as they could, the empire was costing a fortune and they could no longer afford it. Their withdrawal was comprised and delayed by local interests mainly local elites ( mainly white second and thiord generation ) who found the empire useful. The British werent the worst colonial masters, they were still colonial masters even if the left hand was trying hard to do the right thing ( and sure the patronizes double speak of governing another people for the own good has iit's own sordid history ) and right hand was out there plundering for all it's worth. The Fact is after ww2 the colonizing model have moved on from direct imperialism to the more subtle , but ruthless and profitable ecnomic imperialism. Foriegn soliders and governments are more expensive than corrupting and controlling local elites and military.

If the British were utterly laid waste in ww2 and the colonial empire taken over, you would expect soviet or nazi domination, which given the choice between living under british , nazi or soviet rule, i think I'll take british.


I dont know about the frequent bombing and terrorism of the ottoman empire, please explain what events do this refer to?

[QatzelOk]

BY the end of world war 2 the british were basicaly getting out as fast as they could, the empire was costing a fortune and they could no longer afford it.

The colonies were costing a fortune to hold onto because other nations were helping them gain their independence from Britain?

Was Germany one of the countries that was helping them fight for their independence?

And, why do we never hear about the racial hierarchy of British society preceding WW2? For people of my generation and younger, it seems to us that Hitler and the Germans invented race theory, when in reality, the Germans came really late to something that BUILT the British Empire - the notion of cultural superiority and of being a master race that should "naturally" govern the other races.

[GandalfTheGrey]

And, why do we never hear about the racial hierarchy of British society preceding WW2? For people of my generation and younger, it seems to us that Hitler and the Germans invented race theory, when in reality, the Germans came really late to something that BUILT the British Empire - the notion of cultural superiority and of being a master race that should "naturally" govern the other races.

I guess the short answer is that history is written by the winners. Britain defeated Germany twice, and so naturally they have recorded Germany as the bad guys ever since. Also Britain had a bit more tact when carrying out their 'master race plan' - it tended to be done with far more subtlety - gradually over long periods of time. As a result, Britain acquired and maintained the largest empire the world has ever seen. The German 'master race plan' on the other hand was about as subtle as a bull running through a china shop - and it suffered as a result.

[QatzelOk]

Britain had a bit more tact when carrying out their 'master race plan'

Or... the media protected British leaders from their own bigotry. Churchill was treated with kid gloves, whereas Hitler was mercilessly crucified by them. Or do you assume the media and historians were neutral when writing about them?

The German 'master race plan' on the other hand was about as subtle as a bull running through a china shop - and it suffered as a result.

It was only "unsubtle" because our media couldn't stop (and still can't stop) talking about it.

In summary, I think the "difference" between British master-race theory - which built the Empire over hundreds of years, and German master-race theory - which was "revealed" by British media... was primarily in how they were reported... which "facts" were allowed to surface.

Perhaps Germany was fighting on the side of freeing colonies from the British master race and their henchmen.

After all the lies we heard about Saddam having a Hitler complex (and yellow-cake plutonium).... the original "Hitler" story seems all the more fake and strategic. Iraq was invaded because rich Americans think they (and their rich allies) own the entire world. And then their media paints a picture of Saddam, world conquering tyrant.

Maybe World War Two was the same Grand Lie.

[Smilin' Dave]

If Britain had been utterly destroyed in World War Two, would its colonies in the former Ottoman Empire (which it frequently bombed and terrorized) and in India have become independent more quickly and with less vandalism from British interests?

Well from the French example in WWII the colonies wouldn't necessarily have completely collapsed in the event of the home country ceasing to function. British possesions in the Middle East and India were reasonably secure against domestic pressure using what was already at hand so it's hard to see them folding up.

Assuming that some or (somehow) all of the colonial possessions did fall out of British hands, it probably would have been fairly quick, and I suppose there would be less British 'vandalism'. But I suspect there would have been plenty of local chaos and resulting violence to replace it. Rapidly pulling the British out would not have left the colonies with a functional political system/culture of their own. Even in places were the British didn't encourage this, it was an inevitable product of their slow decline after WWII.

Would the world have become more egalitarian and less structured on the British class system/racial hierarchy?

The destruction of Britain would have to have come at the hands of some kind of stronger Nazi state, so that would seem very much impossible.

Or would a victorious Germany have been just as vain and controlling as Britain was?

If there was a difference in behaviour between former colonies and Germany, it would have been a question of capcity rather than complete lack of interest.

The colonies were costing a fortune to hold onto because other nations were helping them gain their independence from Britain?

Where did he say that?

There, I also got through responding to one of your posts in a constructive manner... but you just couldn’t help yourself and descending into further folly.

Or... the media protected British leaders from their own bigotry. Churchill was treated with kid gloves, whereas Hitler was mercilessly crucified by them. Or do you assume the media and historians were neutral when writing about them?

I don’t think they were neutral, but I think only in the most unbalanced subjective measures does Hitler come up looking as good, if not better than Churchill. For all this supposed bigotry Churchill proved better at working with a wide range of people that Hitler did.

It was only "unsubtle" because our media couldn't stop (and still can't stop) talking about it.

I think the victims of this rather unsubtle approach by the Nazis were ultimately impossible to hide. Consider kristalnacht, a rather public and violent act of anti-semitism. Something else to consider, the Nazis seemed to glory in their acts and were less inclined to hide them (often opting to misrepresent what was done instead), unlike the British.

Perhaps Germany was fighting on the side of freeing colonies from the British master race and their henchmen.

How did you come to this conclusion. You seemed to read this out of pugsville’s post, but I can’t see where you got this idea from. This isn’t the subtle fabrications you accuse the ‘media’ (that wonderfully monolithic entity), but borders on delusion, seeing and hearing what is not there.

and yellow-cake plutonium

Uranium is called yellow cake, not plutonium. I see your intense scrutiny of the media has payed dividends.

Maybe World War Two was the same Grand Lie.

Or you made all this up and will almost certainly have nothing to back it up with. I await with baited breath your prevarications and accusations to follow.

[QatzelOk]

Assuming that some or (somehow) all of the colonial possessions did fall out of British hands, it probably would have been fairly quick, and I suppose there would be less British 'vandalism'. But I suspect there would have been plenty of local chaos and resulting violence to replace it.

When the French lost out in Indochina, the Chinese allowed the Vietnamese component its own self-government. They elected their own form of communism. The "local chaos" only started when the US got involved to fill a "power vacuum" - which really means "ripe for the pickin'".

So if Britain had been destroyed, it would have lost half the world. It's unlikely the US could have scooped these former colonies into its own net fast enough to avoid being beaten back by a coalition of them.

...

I don’t think they were neutral, but I think only in the most unbalanced subjective measures does Hitler come up looking as good

If the text was a lie, then it doesn't matter how "unbalanced" the reader who rejects it appears, does it. Post-war propaganda is the biggest lie... by necessity. The "winners" have to justify the mass murder they planned and executed. Of course they're going to make a lot of stuff up. Post-war spin provides the largest stakes imaginable for distorting events.

...

I think the victims of this rather unsubtle approach by the Nazis were ultimately impossible to hide.

The media never let the public forget the Nazi atrocities - not even for a minute. All thoughts about this historical event have been strictly censored (by both institutions and volunteer zealots) ever since.
...

For all this supposed bigotry Churchill proved better at working with a wide range of people that Hitler did.

Germany was allied with Arabs and the Japanese, whereas Churchill stuck with other white people and his loyal colonies.

[Smilin' Dave]

When the French lost out in Indochina, the Chinese allowed the Vietnamese component its own self-government. They elected their own form of communism. The "local chaos" only started when the US got involved to fill a "power vacuum" - which really means "ripe for the pickin'".

I suppose those refugees who fled North Vietnam were just eager to get into that power vacuum? When the French lost out in Algeria, conflict followed, ranging from the Sand War through to the more recent civil war.

But all this is beside the point, we are talking about British colonies, and the French and British controlled their colonies differently.

It's unlikely the US could have scooped these former colonies into its own net fast enough to avoid being beaten back by a coalition of them.

The former colonies were never that well unified a force, and indeed former colonies fought amongst themselves. Once again we find you indulging in delusion.

If the text was a lie, then it doesn't matter how "unbalanced" the reader who rejects it appears, does it.

In all the threads and all the discussions you have yet to show that the ‘text’ (again, a fraudulent monolithic entity) isn’t a reasonable approximation of reality. Given that your counter text is pure fantasy, I don’t see why we should accept your assertions that the apparent facts of the situation are somehow the product of a broad conspiracy.

The media never let the public forget the Nazi atrocities - not even for a minute. All thoughts about this historical event have been strictly censored (by both institutions and volunteer zealots) ever since.

What has this got to do with what people really saw, and what the victims really experienced? Is there a bias in reporting? Yes, but it doesn’t undermine the qualitative difference between the experiences of the peoples in question. Perhaps with your vast knowledge of these colonial genocides you could demonstrate their equality of atrocity?

Or are you just as ignorant of those facts as you are of the ‘text’?

Germany was allied with Arabs and the Japanese, whereas Churchill stuck with other white people and his loyal colonies.

Italics mine. So, do non-whites (again that frustrating creation of a monolith) cease to be of another ethnicity when they support someone other than themselves? The gist of your statement appears to be fairly close to commentaries about ‘race traitors’, who accept a ‘false consciousness’ and hence cannot be considered to be part of their own race.

Further, Italy, German’s ally, happily killed Libyans and Ethiopians before and during the war. Did supposedly anti-colonial Germany speak out, or did it continue to support its ally? Did Germany oppose Japanese occupation of the former French colony of Vietnam? The only thing we seem to be missing is the actions of the Germans themselves, but then consider their attempts to forge colonies in the east, and what atrocities that entailed.

Are you going to deny this to support your text?

[pugsville]

Still waiting for the explanation of the british often bombing and terrorizing the Ottomans, I dont know what events you are referring to.

Yes the Nazis have been painting black after the war, but I'd say not black enough their Monterous crimes have veiled plenty of lesser but still Monostrous crimes. as for the japanses allaince it was pretty non event, they did stuff all for each other. The Western allies crimes were mostly fairly indiscriminate bombing (which was visited upon germans and japanise )

I

[Smilin' Dave]

Still waiting for the explanation of the british often bombing and terrorizing the Ottomans

I assume that Qatz is referring to the British putting down revolts in the Middle East post WWI, including the now famous aerial bombing of the Kurds in northern Iraq.

[QatzelOk]

I suppose those refugees who fled North Vietnam were just eager to get into that power vacuum?

The fact that some people leave a political entitly doesn't mean the entity needs to be destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Americans fled to Canada after independence. Should Britain have read this migration as some kind of trigger for an invasion/occupation/terror campaign? (the way American media did regarding Vietnam)
...

In all the threads and all the discussions you have yet to show that the ‘text’ (again, a fraudulent monolithic entity) isn’t a reasonable approximation of reality.

I'll leave this to Jean Baudrillard and Roland Barthes, as well as other critical theorists. You could also consider Plato (cave allegory) as a source, along with the Islamic prohibition of representations of nature. A word is not a thing.
...

What has this got to do with what people really saw, and what the victims really experienced? Is there a bias in reporting? Yes, but it doesn’t undermine the qualitative difference between the experiences of the peoples in question.

You and I don't know "what the people really saw." We only know what the media/historians chose to tell us. This is a critical flaw with historical texts. They are written by interested parties in order to further an agenda.
...

So, do non-whites (again that frustrating creation of a monolith) cease to be of another ethnicity when they support someone other than themselves?

Colonial leaders don't speak for their subjects, they speak for the rich white people who bribe them. Churchill could count on these leaders to deliver non-whites. But Hitler actually had a multicultural alliance that wasn't just frightened German colonies. You are the one who mentioned that Churchill was more open to other ethnicities than Hitler was, but the record (which we all agree on) says otherwise.
...

the now famous aerial bombing of the Kurds in northern Iraq.

The first mass killing of civilians by bombing (with chemical weapons) in history. This is a terrorism milestone. Was Hitler threatening to free these people from the murderous hand of British colonialism? Was the creation of Israel (by Britain) just an act of Imperial settlement, to be followed by ethnic-cleansing and non-stop terror, just like Britain's many other successful colonial projects were?

And could the Germans have stopped this if they had destroyed the UK?

[pugsville]

I think you are making something out of nothing, name anything the Japanese and Germans actually did together throughout the entire war? Hitler never had any concearns about "helping" any of his allies.

I argee the British used gas and bombing civilians in Iraq between the wars. I think the Zepplin raids on London might qualify as the first "terror bombing" but the British would have responded if they had the means. But that does not make a case that British colonialism was worse than french, soviet or indeed ottoman.

A the time the British were aquiring colonies there was no end of people (ususally white europeans) impsoing various regimes of various locals. The absence of one colonial power in general meant the occupation by another. The absense of British colonial power would most lead immediately to freedom.

[Cartertonian]

the notion of cultural superiority and of being a master race that should "naturally" govern the other races.

Whaddya mean? We're still the natural leaders of the World...!

"Rule, Britannia. Britannia rules the waves, Britons never, never, never shall be slaves"..etc, etc, etc





We have enough to contend with, with our own treasonous hand-wringing apologists-for-Empire, without you former colonial types whining and whinging on...

[Kman]

The British Empire was a great gift to the world, it gave a good governning system, protection of individual liberties and the rule of law to barbaric and oppressive cultures all around the world.

If the British had not ruled India for example, then it would probably not be a democracy today but instead a country ruled by oppressive warlords (which was the status of the country before the british arrived there).

The British didnt ''vandalize'' the colonies they ruled, they taught them about civilized behavior.

[Otebo]

I think the "difference" between British master-race theory - which built the Empire over hundreds of years, and German master-race theory - which was "revealed" by British media... was primarily in how they were reported... which "facts" were allowed to surface.

I think the difference was Auschwitz, Belzec, Majdanek, Treblinka, Chelmno.

[Smilin' Dave]

The fact that some people leave a political entitly doesn't mean the entity needs to be destroyed.

Once again you see what is not there. I never recommended the destruction of north or south (or east or west for that matter), I was commenting on the emerging problems in North Vietnam that caused many to flee, contradicting your narrative that everything was smooth sailing until the Americans turned up. That in fact decolonisation was not a clean process by any stretch of the imagination.

I'll leave this to Jean Baudrillard and Roland Barthes, as well as other critical theorists.

Neither of whom are historians, and their works tend to engage with theoretical issues rather than provide concrete examples. Without those examples, theory isn’t proven and we are back at square one, with you making an assertion unsupported by any apparent fact.

You and I don't know "what the people really saw."

If I knew people you saw and participated in this history, and I do, I think I have a fairly good idea of what happened. Or does this ridiculous conspiracy theory of yours extend to what my grandparents told me in the comfort of their own lounge rooms? I mean I didn’t see any media there, but I suppose you know better?

This is a critical flaw with historical texts. They are written by interested parties in order to further an agenda.

Again you repeat a past error, which is to assume history is written without primary sources. What ulterior motive did the Nazis have in leaving their construction office materials for Aushwitz behind (as studied by Pressac)? Was the Domesday book a fabrication, or raw data for use by a government?

Colonial leaders don't speak for their subjects, they speak for the rich white people who bribe them.

Muhammad Jinnah and a significant proportion of the Indian National Congress were hardy in the pocket of the British, and they still supported the war. It seems to me that you have written people off on the basis that they lack nationhood or don’t fit your racial preconceptions. After all Stalin was hardly a Westerner, and he formed an important part of the allied coalition.

But Hitler actually had a multicultural alliance that wasn't just frightened German colonies.

Because Germany had no colonies at that time, and lacked strategic reach. Nobody within Germany’s reach was quite so trusting, and many suffered for this new world order, not just the likes of Poland or the Soviet republics, but also members of the Axis. That you would endorse this new world order on the basis of a fantasy unsupported by evidence is just mind boggling.

Was Hitler threatening to free these people from the murderous hand of British colonialism?

Given the first chemical bombing in Iraq was in 1920 (using white phosphorous), this seems exceedingly unlikely. Perhaps chronology as we know it is a product of a conspiracy of historians?

In fact, maybe I could borrow an idea from you, and deny these events ever took place because they are inconvenient. After all some academic (who isn’t like one of your biased academics, no sir) once claimed all current history is written by leftists and apologists and therefore can’t be trusted. Against all reported facts in all the sources I’m going to make up my own story. The RAF didn’t drop bombs in Iraq, but sweet sweet candy in order to defeat a neo-Ottoman plot (certain parties, who I won’t identify, who continue to control our energy supplies). I know there isn’t any direct evidence of this, and if you ask for any I will change the subject. If you disagree this concept I shall treat you with the all the contempt of someone as liberal as myself can manage.

Was the creation of Israel (by Britain) just an act of Imperial settlement, to be followed by ethnic-cleansing and non-stop terror, just like Britain's many other successful colonial projects were?

Given the British had tried to block the formation of a Jewish state, your idea isn’t just reaching, its flat out wrong. It’s indicative of your monolithic, hierarchical thinking (which is so terribly modernist) that you wouldn’t give radical Zionists credit for their own work. I’m pretty sure the King David hotel didn’t blow itself up.

And could the Germans have stopped this if they had destroyed the UK?

If they could reach, I imagine the options pursued by the Germans in Warsaw in 1944 was certainly on the table.

[QatzelOk]

I think the difference was Auschwitz, Belzec, Majdanek, Treblinka, Chelmno.

Abenaki Apache Arrapaho Blackfeet Caddo Cherokee Chickasaw Chippewa Choctaw Comanche Creek Delaware Digger Fox Iowa Kansas Kickapoo Kiowa Miami Missouri Mississippi Choctaw Munsee Omaha Osage Ossipee Otoe Ottawa Pawnee Pequawket Pottawatomie Quapaw Sac Seminole Shawnee Sioux Winnebago Winnesauke Wyandot

These are the entire nations that the British terrorized/ethnic-cleansed/attempted-genocided in North America alone.

And the British provided Canada with Jeffrey Amherst - who invented biological genocide. This bio genocide against the Indians, along with the British general Monk's ethnic-cleansing of the Acadians, made the Canada the redundant pile of cultural crap that it is today.

English Canada no distinct culture or distinct language thanks to Britain's active genocide campaign against other races - which lasted for many centuries, unlike that short-lived Nazi attempt to imitate Britain. That wannabe holocaust was immediately stopped by Britain who simply wanted no competition for world control. The morality came later - a few years after the war.

[Smilin' Dave]

English Canada no distinct culture or distinct language thanks to Britain's active genocide campaign against other races - which lasted for many centuries, unlike that short-lived Nazi attempt to imitate Britain.

Qatz you're getting confused here:
- I thought you were claiming Germany was trying to liberate people, not doing the same thing as Britain?
- What does the actions of one man in 1763 have to do with the coordinated actions of a whole nation starting in 1941?

In fairness, don't some of those destroyed tribes belong on the American list? I mean you blamed America for the massacres etc. in another thread, but you seem to blame Britain now.

[QatzelOk]

- I thought you were claiming Germany was trying to liberate people, not doing the same thing as Britain?

The post-war Allies text says that Germany wanted to take over the world and eliminate all the "inferior" nations. If this is true, Germany would be imitating the British Empire who Hitler is on record as admiring.

- What does the actions of one man in 1763 have to do with the coordinated actions of a whole nation starting in 1941?

The genocides against non-Anglos in Canada didn't start in 1763 and didn't end in 1941. If you were familiar with French Canadian and Native Canadian history, you would know that repression of these two groups was a common theme of the British.

In fairness, don't some of those destroyed tribes belong on the American list? I mean you blamed America for the massacres etc. in another thread, but you seem to blame Britain now.

America is just what the most murderous Brits morphed into.

[Smilin' Dave]

The post-war Allies text says that Germany wanted to take over the world and eliminate all the "inferior" nations. If this is true, Germany would be imitating the British Empire who Hitler is on record as admiring.

Sure... Now try to answer the question I actually asked you.

The genocides against non-Anglos in Canada didn't start in 1763 and didn't end in 1941. If you were familiar with French Canadian and Native Canadian history, you would know that repression of these two groups was a common theme of the British.

I've never pretended to be particularly familiar with the history of Canada, and would be interested to see what sort of materials you have in regards to a genocide committed in Canada after 1900. Given the text you have quoted the preference would be for materials to do with state sanctioned actions.

America is just what the most murderous Brits morphed into.

This would seem to be a highly inaccurate depiction of the roots of the modern American nation. For example it ignores the role of other colonising powers in the formation of the American colonies, and ignores subsequent immigration. Because of your rather ridiculous logic we are also at a loss to explain why the two behaved so differently.