Outcome of WWII still bothers the Germans - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

'Cold war' communist versus capitalist ideological struggle (1946 - 1990) and everything else in the post World War II era (1946 onwards).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14781051
Image

A new wave of revanchist ambitions has seized the minds of German nationalists decades later after Nazi Germany was defeated in the World War II. That has been triggered by a facebook comment of a Polish politician that encourages Poland and Lithuania to divide the lands of East Prussia which Germany lost.

In Germany, where the collective guilt complex is still strong, the officials maintain silence and avoid any discussion of the delicate issue. However the nationalists openly speak about the need for changes and returning to Germany not only East Prussia but also all territories that formerly were part of the country.

The immigration crisis and Merkel's policy raised a lot of problems that Germany faces today and that already resulted in rise of popularity of the nationalist parties in the country. The nationalist and radical organizations gained momentum to enter the government agencies in the nearest future and change the political scene not only in Germany but also in the European Union.

The new repartition of Europe doesn't look like something impossible if you imagine the German nationalists join Greece's Golden Dawn, Denmark's People's Party, Poland's Law and Justice, the Freedom Party of Austria, Belgium's New Flemish Alliance, the U.K. Independence Party, Netherland's Party for Freedom, Italy's Lega Nord and the rest of the right-wing parties in Europe. The conspiracy theory may become the modern harsh reality. Those, who still have doubts, should acquaint themselves with the results of Brexit referendum and Trump's victory. Could anyone expect that course of events?
#14781054
We friggin' lost, of course that's bothersome!

But anyone who thinks that Europe is going to be repartitioned to reinstate the Reich is out of their mind. We have bigger problems right now, across the Med.
#14781229
I hope everyone who said I was paranoid about the nature of the German character will now apologise to me? They have a lust for conquest that cannot be satiated. This is what any future with a united Germany nation looks like. It needs splitting up into tiny statelets again, bring back the Holy Roman Empire under Austrian rule!
#14781260
One of the reasons Merkel and the whole camarilla needs to be destroyed is to reinstate the Reich, so I get the chance to put my boot on your neck, Decky.

Sweet dreams! :)
#14781271
I wouldn't hold your breath Frollein. You have tried it many times before at it never worked then did it? Great Granddad Decky was there at the Somme to put a stop to your dastardly ways! Do you enjoy eating turnips by the way?

Image

Image

Do you know most of the Spitfires were built in Birmingham? There is a big traffic island near where the factory was now.

Image
#14781275
We all know you'd be speaking German today if the Americans hadn't saved your skinny asses, Brit. 8) So now that Trump turns them away from Europe and you have turned your back on the Reich EU, maybe it's time for another round. :excited:
#14781276
That is bellow you. :lol: We both know the American contribution to the first world war was pretty nothingy (the only entente nation that did less than the Yanks was Andorra) and their contribution to the second world war was important only in the Asian theatre.

Also we are speaking German more or less. If the Anglo Saxons hadn't came over we would all be speaking Welsh. :eek: A fate worse than death.
#14781308
Decky wrote:That is bellow you. :lol: We both know the American contribution to the first world war was pretty nothingy (the only entente nation that did less than the Yanks was Andorra) and their contribution to the second world war was important only in the Asian theatre.

The United States was critical in the First World War, if they hadn't been needed we wouldn't have given them a place in the line. No Germany's great mistake was their pathological non aggression and strategic passivity between 1871 and 1914. 1905 in particular was a terrible missed opportunity, Germany should have demanded Polish independence from Russia and have been prepared to go to war to secure it.
#14781377
Stormsmith wrote:War? Again? Dear Lord, Frollibean, can't you guys just emigrate like every other bugger?


You do know this is just Decky's way of flirting with me, right? :excited:
#14781390
Decky wrote:Remind me who has the wunderwaffe made possible by splitting the atom? I will give you a clue. Not Germany.

That's because America had the resources and the reason they had the resources was because of their earlier successful Drang nach Western and Drang nach Suden. Hitler like other moderate German patriots before him recognised that it was Germany's manifest destiny to control the Ukraine if they were to compete with the United States for world leadership. Sadly for Germany, Hitler's small minded, Austrian, anti Slavic, bigotry blinded him to the power of the Russians. Russia was destined to be a super power. The Bolsheviks hindered and delayed Russia' emergence as one of the world's super powers.
#14781424
The Tsarist autocracy hindered and delayed Russia' emergence as one of the world's super powers.

Fixed it for you, Rich. As Churchill once so rightly said, "Stalin found Russia with the wooden plough, and he left it with the atomic bomb."
#14781428
Rich's history is hilarious as usual. Non aggression of Germany? lol, Moroccan crisis or rapid colonization of Africa and East Asia are examples of non aggression, I guess.

And polish independence? Really I doubt even Germany was that crazy to open that Pandora's box given that how both Germany and their ally Austria were sitting on large chunk of polish land. Suggesting Germany to commit political suicide is idiotic.
#14781434
Potemkin wrote:Fixed it for you, Rich. As Churchill once so rightly said, "Stalin found Russia with the wooden plough, and he left it with the atomic bomb."

Hyperbole which actually could also of been said of Truman and the US with almost as much justification.

Tsarist Russia was turning out modern arms including battleships (like the certain battleship in your sig) and rolling railroads east across its untamed wildness not unlike how the US was rolling them west. Marxists play it down for obvious reasons but Russia was industrializing under the Tsar.
#14781443
Hyperbole which actually could also of been said of Truman and the US with almost as much justification.

America was already an economic superpower by the 1920s. Even the Great Depression of the 30s did not return it to a predominantly agrarian economy. Russia started from a much smaller economic base, and suffered the economic and social devastation of WWI and the Russian Civil War. This is what misled Hitler into thinking the Soviet Union would collapse like a house of cards once he kicked in the front door. He didn't reckon on the success of Stalin's industrialisation drive of the 1930s.

Tsarist Russia was turning out modern arms including battleships (like the certain battleship in your sig) and rolling railroads east across its untamed wildness not unlike how the US was rolling them west.

Tsarist Russia sailed its battleships halfway around the world, only for the Japanese to promptly sink them all at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. I'll admit they were at least making an effort, but it was a hopelessly inept effort.

Marxists play it down for obvious reasons but Russia was industrializing under the Tsar.

This is true. However, the Tsarist system was not politically flexible or adaptable enough to absorb the social and political effects of industrialisation. Tsarism sort of made sense in the 17th and 18th centuries - a nation of peasants and landlords requires some sort of autocratic centralised political system to keep everything together and to simply force people to do stuff. Once you industrialise, and a large impoverished proletariat and a wealthy bourgeoisie has emerged, then you are suddenly facing severe social and political problems - the immiserated proletariat become restive or even revolutionary and the wealthy bourgeoisie start agitating to convert their wealth into political power. The British system was able to absorb these shocks due to its pre-adaptation as a result of the revolutions and civil wars in the 17th century, and radically changed their political system during the course of the 19th century to accommodate the new economic and social realities. The Tsarist system failed to adapt, and in fact it could not adapt, to the new economic and social realities. This meant that, ironically, it was the very attempt to industrialise and modernise Tsarist Russia which led to its final collapse. They created the very forces which would destroy them.
#14781446
For your amusement here a some links to the Mad Monarchist's mini-bio of Tsar Nicholas II.

Monarch Profile: Tsar Nicholas II, Part I - The Begining

Monarch Profile: Tsar Nicholas II, Part II - The Trouble Begins

Monarch Profile: Tsar Nicholas II, Part III - Domestic Life

Monarch Profile: Tsar Nicholas II, Part IV -The Revolution

Monarch Profile: Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, Part V - The End

potemkin wrote:This is true. However, the Tsarist system was not politically flexible or adaptable enough to absorb the social and political effects of industrialisation. Tsarism sort of made sense in the 17th and 18th centuries - a nation of peasants and landlords requires some sort of autocratic centralised political system to keep everything together and to simply force people to do stuff. Once you industrialise, and a large impoverished proletariat and a wealthy bourgeoisie has emerged, then you are suddenly facing severe social and political problems - the immiserated proletariat become restive or even revolutionary and the wealthy bourgeoisie start agitating to convert their wealth into political power. The British system was able to absorb these shocks due to its pre-adaptation as a result of the revolutions and civil wars in the 17th century, and radically changed their political system during the course of the 19th century to accommodate the new economic and social realities. The Tsarist system failed to adapt, and in fact it could not adapt, to the new economic and social realities. This meant that, ironically, it was the very attempt to industrialise and modernise Tsarist Russia which led to its final collapse. They created the very forces which would destroy them.


I don't think there is any intrinsic reason for industrialisation or modernisation to provoke subversive elements. Russia was beset by a particularly numerous and organised subversive element the origins of which owed more to a disaffected jewish element funded from a rival and enemy power in form of Germany. The Tsar probably did more harm to his position by compromising with the subversives than he would have if he had held a hardline instead. Most "tyrants" that fall to subversives do so for being too soft than for being too hard: Charles I of England, Louis XVII of France for example. I don't see anything comparable in Imperial Japan's industrialisation.
#14781642
:lol: Charles the first was not too soft, quite the opposite. They gave him lots of opportunities to compromise and run a constitutional monarchy and they only chopped his head off when he refused multiple times and kept running to Scots for troops to keel the war going. Cromwell didn't even start out as a Republican and had a guy imprisoned at the beginning of the war for the crime of making republican statements.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]