[QatzelOk]

the real purpose which was to re-establish German military domination.

Domination of what? Britain controlled half the world (with wars and torture), France controlled most of Africa (with wars and torture), and America killed all its Indians, and then controlled Latin America with wars and torture.

What "domination" was Germany trying to "get back?"

[GandalfTheGrey]

What "domination" was Germany trying to "get back?"

The Nazis and the Prussian officer class were united in their belief that Germans had a God-given right to occupy and colonize virtually all of Eastern Europe. Of course what the British and French did in their colonies around the world was terrible, but this was an issue of stability inside Europe itself. And notwithstanding the injustice and impracticality of the treaty of Versailles, the dominant powers in Europe had at least a moral obligation to step in and thwart a very overt Nazi policy of aggressive war and genocide.

[QatzelOk]

the dominant powers in Europe had at least a moral obligation to step in and thwart a very overt Nazi policy of aggressive war and genocide.

But they had no moral obligation to stop their own ongoing wars and genocides all over the earth?

When Italy declared war on Britain, the first place it attacked was Egypt.

Egypt had been warred and tortured by both England and France by this point. Perhaps it was Italy's turn?

[GandalfTheGrey]

But they had no moral obligation to stop their own ongoing wars and genocides all over the earth?

Of course they did.

[Smilin' Dave]

I should add that the car stealing analogy is not a good one in the case of the nazis.

To key a car is to take your car keys and drag them along the paint work of someone elses (well... I guess you could key your own car...). I picked the example because it is mundane and easy to associate with, rather than its comparitability with inter-war politics.

A better analogy would be a policeman watching someone breaking into my car and waving them on as they drive off.

Well that's the thing, I don't think the western Allies 'waved' while Nazi Germany carved up their neighbours. The other problem is that all the early annexations had some minor legitimacy, like the Sudentenland, its German population and their past attempts for autonomy etc. It really wasn't until the destruction of the rest of Czechoslovakia and then Poland that legitimate grievance could not be found.

Domination of what? Britain controlled half the world (with wars and torture), France controlled most of Africa (with wars and torture), and America killed all its Indians, and then controlled Latin America with wars and torture.

I assume this is a reference to Prussian, then German, attempts to dominate politics in Central Europe, up to and including invading its neighbours. The Germans even had their own genocidal colonial war with the Herero.

[QatzelOk]

I assume this is a reference to Prussian, then German, attempts to dominate politics in Central Europe, up to and including invading its neighbours. The Germans even had their own genocidal colonial war with the Herero.

The Germans were late to the Imperial game, and decided that central Europe was their natural sphere of influence? How shocking.

Imagine if the Germans had nuked London a few centuries earlier, how many cultures wouldn't have been genocided.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Germans were late to the Imperial game, and decided that central Europe was their natural sphere of influence? How shocking.

Imagine if the Germans had nuked London a few centuries earlier, how many cultures wouldn't have been genocided.

Wait Qatz, I'm confused. Is it somehow okay for Germany to tyrannise its neighbours, since other nations did it? Using your approach to morale relativism no empire should ever be challenged.

Your acknowledgement that the Germans were ever in the 'imperial game' is an acknowledgement that your original statement was wrong.

[QatzelOk]

Is it somehow okay for Germany to tyrannise its neighbours,

Oh no, not at all. When that happens, we need to start a war that kills 90 million innocent people.

Especially if Germany might win over some of our colonies that we regularly tyrannize.

[Smilin' Dave]

Oh no, not at all. When that happens, we need to start a war that kills 90 million innocent people.

Especially if Germany might win over some of our colonies that we regularly tyrannize.

This appears to be an evasion Qatz. Let me be perfectly clear: What course of action would you have suggested as leading to a better resolution? I'm unclear on where you stand, based on the above you would have been happy enough to swap German colonialism for British colonialism, yet at the same time you decry the whole colonialist structure/approach. You don't want people to die in wars, a laudable utopian vision. But at the same time you have identified that time is of the essence if you wish to do the most good, consider you hypothetical nuking of London back in the 18th Century.

[Einherjar]

QatzelOk's point is clear enough. Why exactly is German imperialism wrong when confronted with the other imperialists to which people are at the very least neutral to? Why stop short at German imperialism when there were - there are - other imperialists? The answer in simple form is that British foreign policy has been objectivised as world history. Historians from all over the world keep parroting what was in the interests of the British Empire a century ago.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The other problem is that all the early annexations had some minor legitimacy, like the Sudentenland, its German population and their past attempts for autonomy etc.

Yes they were excused as somewhat legitimate by Britain and France and therefore ignored - thats the whole point isn't it? Legitimate or not, they were a direct violation of the 1919 treaty, and without them, the path to war could have been avoided. The Nazi agenda of ethnic cleansing and colonization in eastern Europe was no secret.

Why stop short at German imperialism when there were - there are - other imperialists?

We are talking very specifically how the European powers could have acted to prevent the slaughter of ~40 million people - imperialists or not. I don't think its terribly constructive to say "Britain and France shouldn't have lifted a finger to save millions of European lives - because that would have been hypocritical". The only possible logic I can see in this is if allowing the nazis to wipe out millions of slavs unimpeded would have saved a greater number of people being slaughtered by British and French imperialism. Which makes no sense, since it was only because of WWII that Britain and France became too weak to terrorise their colonies anymore - and abandoned them shortly after.

[QatzelOk]

don't think its terribly constructive to say "Britain and France shouldn't have lifted a finger to save millions of European lives - because that would have been hypocritical".

it was only because of WWII that Britain and France became too weak to terrorise their colonies anymore - and abandoned them shortly after.

The second quote seems to indicate that you don't believe UK/France were even trying to save any lives. They were just trying to hang on desperately to their privileged position in the world, and didn't care how many people had to die to make it happen.

Hitler looks more like a humanitarian with each post in this thread.

[Smilin' Dave]

GtG

Yes they were excused as somewhat legitimate by Britain and France and therefore ignored - thats the whole point isn't it?

Or alternative they realised that motivating their people to go to war over a treaty would a problem, especially when that Treaty had been identified even at the time as not being the most just. The Allies were not in the forefront of making excuses for the Nazis as you imply.

Legitimate or not, they were a direct violation of the 1919 treaty, and without them, the path to war could have been avoided.

Numerous other post-WWI treaties had been violated by then, and no action had been taken, again for various reasons.

@Einherjar

QatzelOk's point is clear enough. Why exactly is German imperialism wrong when confronted with the other imperialists to which people are at the very least neutral to?

I would agree with that if Qatz were not so clearly opposed to imperialism. It seems bizarre to use moral relativism to the benefit of one side, then identify that relativised act as appalling.

Why stop short at German imperialism when there were - there are - other imperialists?

I would argue that German imperialism had a different character to say, British imperialism, and hence was not as acceptable. Ideologically Nazi imperialism had an even more sinister character, and only got worse given the opportunity to put those beliefs into practice. The question has to be asked would you allow someone who is 'almost as bad' get rid of someone who is worse.

@Qatz

The second quote seems to indicate that you don't believe UK/France were even trying to save any lives. They were just trying to hang on desperately to their privileged position in the world, and didn't care how many people had to die to make it happen.

Makes perfect sense until you ask the question why the Allies didn't go to war in 1938. After all they supposedly had the material advantage, and according to you, the motive. Borrowing from another of your ridiculous theories, the Nazis had also by 1938 well and truely nationalised their banks.

[QatzelOk]

Makes perfect sense until you ask the question why the Allies didn't go to war in 1938.

There could be a million reasons for the timing of the Second World War. That none of us can explain the exact dates of aggressive actions (or have much knowledge of behind-the-scenes politics) doesn't mean the Evil-Allies theory doesn't stick.

---

Oh and Smilin Dave, before going on about how the Imperialism of Germany had "a worse character" than the Imperialism of France or the UK (or the USA), you might want to reconsider what "moral equivalency" means. British torture and aerial bombings aren't "worse" than German ones. And there have been many, many more British ones.

The Germans were saints compared to the British when it came to colonizing the rest of the world. And this is because the Germans lived in small city-states for most of Modern history, whereas the UK became a giant sprawling mess of master-race-themed aggression - like the USA.

[Einherjar]

I would argue that German imperialism had a different character to say, British imperialism, and hence was not as acceptable. Ideologically Nazi imperialism had an even more sinister character, and only got worse given the opportunity to put those beliefs into practice. The question has to be asked would you allow someone who is 'almost as bad' get rid of someone who is worse.

Let's put things in perspective first. Are we historians or priests? How does the acceptability or morality of a thing even enter in our argument? What are "good" and "bad" to us historians, if not effects of something (e.g. propaganda)?

Now, as for the subject in question, it is my idea that opposition to German imperialism (and indeed all other aspiring imperialists) is closely, mainly but not exclusively, tied to British Imperialism. Humanitarianism and anti-imperialism, which are so prevalent and "detached" these days, trace their origin to British imperialism. When a power achieves dominance on a global scale, it will naturally tend to conservatism. It will be interested, above all else, in retaining the status-quo. Therefore anti-imperialism or what became as such or - more accurately - the rhetoric that gave rise to such was originally intended as a means to safeguard British global hegemony against potential disturbers like Germany and Italy. Eventually, with the final defeat of the German idea and with the American inheritance of the British mantle, this rhetoric became objectivised as pertaining to global interests.

[QatzelOk]

I would argue that German imperialism had a different character to say, British imperialism

I would argue that you've read books that were written by British and American and Jewish historians who have spun Germany's history as "sinister."

This is pretty easy to do, and has been a regular feature of "history" in the Modern Age. Spin and self interest.

[Smilin' Dave]

@Einherjar

Let's put things in perspective first. Are we historians or priests? How does the acceptability or morality of a thing even enter in our argument?

1. Primarily we are political wonks using history as our chosen battlefield. So both your suggestions are not completely accurate.
2. You can't analyse history without considering the perspectives of people around during the period.

Now, as for the subject in question, it is my idea that opposition to German imperialism (and indeed all other aspiring imperialists) is closely, mainly but not exclusively, tied to British Imperialism.

A problematic approach, since early British policy condoned early German imperialism as a counterbalance to other powers.

Humanitarianism and anti-imperialism, which are so prevalent and "detached" these days, trace their origin to British imperialism.

To stick another wrench in the works, you all have the French and other western European colonisers to thank for that. The public outcry over Leopold’s Congolese empire after all was fairly general.

Therefore anti-imperialism or what became as such or - more accurately - the rhetoric that gave rise to such was originally intended as a means to safeguard British global hegemony against potential disturbers like Germany and Italy.

The British Empire encouraged sentiment that contributed to its own dismantlement? That’s just absurd.

the American inheritance of the British mantle

American hegemony has been different in function and style to British Empire. In fact at a time when the US is often portrayed as ‘inheriting’ the British legacy, the British were engaging in their own post-colonial (or at least final colonial) actions, making such a simple transition narrative flawed.

@Qatz

There could be a million reasons for the timing of the Second World War.

The point, which you as always are trying to evade, is that none of the reasons you provide make sense in light of actual events.

That none of us can explain the exact dates of aggressive actions (or have much knowledge of behind-the-scenes politics)

You ignorance of the historiography of the period shouldn’t be mistake for absence of such things. Economic and military explanations actually do go a good way to explaining the timing of Hitler’s invasion of Poland (and subsequent trigger of the wider war). These explanations are not based on, as you pathetically wail, on propaganda, but on German archival materials ranging from official government documents to Hitler’s lunchtime chatter.

doesn't mean the Evil-Allies theory doesn't stick.

A theory that you can’t substantiate in any way doesn’t stick either.

British torture and aerial bombings aren't "worse" than German ones. And there have been many, many more British ones.

So quantity counts for more than ‘quality’? On what basis do you make that assumption?

The Germans were saints compared to the British when it came to colonizing the rest of the world. And this is because the Germans lived in small city-states for most of Modern history

The Germans elite instead had a savage history of wars amongst themselves (remember where the wars of religion were fought?), followed by wars with all of their neighbours. The British, who built their strength on trade rather than war, were generally a lot more tolerant of existing hierarchies in subject areas than the Germans proved to be.

whereas the UK became a giant sprawling mess of master-race-themed aggression

That would be why the British Empire consistent set its own limits on expansion right? Remember your Zinn Qatz, the British were blocking American colonial expansion into the interior.

I would argue that you've read books that were written by British and American and Jewish historians who have spun Germany's history as "sinister."

So you have just explained, but I guess Einherjar needs your ‘me too’ post a lot.

I tend not to evaluate historians based on their national or cultural background, but based on the work they have actually done. It is only a very lazy, and probably basically unpleasant, character who dismisses work based on who said it rather than what was said.

Spin and self interest.

Tools you happily employ in your posts.

[Einherjar]

I find it extremely hard and nauseating to argue in such a sentence by sentence form. If possible, kindly capture the essence of your argument in paragraph form.

The British Empire encouraged sentiment that contributed to its own dismantlement? That’s just absurd.

Not consciously or directly, obviously enough.

The seeds of anti-imperialism were to be found in the rhetoric used by hegemonic powers like Great Britain to discourage others from pursuing imperial interests. To some extent, this also happened in the two world wars. The rhetoric used by the Allies to forge a new Europe out of the old or, more specifically, to denazify Germany (denouncing the "old military ways" for instance) was to be later directed against themselves. Students, being the most subject to and influenced by this rhetoric, started to assert that the new liberal regimes were merely continuations of the old, fascist regimes. I disagree, of course, but such was the nature of propaganda that, in seeking to destroy any remaining vestiges of the old "unliberal" ways, it made them more liberal than intended. Student activism and militantism in Germany and elsewhere is, by and large, a result of the denazification efforts of the previous decades.

[Smilin' Dave]

I find it extremely hard and nauseating to argue in such a sentence by sentence form.

I find it difficult to deal with someone whose argument is based on a web of false facts, when I can't deal with each fact as it appears.

To some extent, this also happened in the two world wars. The rhetoric used by the Allies to forge a new Europe out of the old or, more specifically, to denazify Germany (denouncing the "old military ways" for instance) was to be later directed against themselves.

But anti-empire sentiment pre-dated those major conflicts (consider Ireland for starters), and I suspect prior conflicts between great powers (which is going back a fair way) didn't draw as heavily on such modernist sentiments. For the more contemporary wars and character was quite different. Anti-imperialism was hardly going to win a war with the Boers now was it? In fact one would have thought pro-empire sentiment would have been the order of the day, and that was precisely what the official stance was.

[QatzelOk]

I completely agree with Einherjer about how arguing sentence-by-sentence can kill the essence of a debate. It's intellectually empty, and is the tactic of someone who wants to "win" a debate without actually saying anything.

Smilin' Dave has used this tactic more than anyone in this thread, and has succeeded in making "points" without actually saying anything that amounts to more than "it's not like that, guys. it's like they say it is."

The point, which you as always are trying to evade, is that none of the reasons you provide make sense in light of actual events

What point? What "actual events?" This sentence is a fragment that doesn't relate to the main body of the argument we were having. It's just soft trolling, really. "I disagree because..." **add reason if necessary.**