Ben.Worthless crap!!! 100%
Ben.I think the reason why the British and the Americans hesitated so long before reacting against Hitler lays deep into the culture of the Anglo-Saxon world. Communism was a far bigger threat than fascism/nazism could ever be.
1. For both the US and the UK Russia has always been a bigger enemy than Germany. In fact, it wasn’t untill Germany was building a fleet the UK began to change its policy of splendid isolation. In the 19th century, both the UK (Afghanistan + Dardanelles) and the US saw Russia as a bigger threat to their own security. Even after WWI, the allies were still convinced a (relativelly) strong (economically) Germany was necessairy to keep a balance in Europe. It wasn’t untill after WWII this policy has changed thanks to NATO “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down”.
2. The UK and the US had nothing to fear from nazism or fascism. The ideology would never reach that far, in contrary to communism. In the 1920s the communist party in the US was becoming popular. However, a nazist ideology based upon race and blood would never find any support in the melting pot the US was or even colonial Britain. The UK and the US didn’t have the same roots of romanticism nazism is based upon. But socialism (certainly at that time) could be perfectly possible in the liberal society of the US or even the UK, based upon rationalism (all men are equal …).
Actually WWII was not just fascism vs a non-fascist alliance. It was fascism vs communism vs democracy. 3 parties which were as different from one another. The finest example were the two A-bombs. Actually they were dropped upon the wrong party/country. They should have been dropped upon the USSR, to scare of the Soviets. One has to be very naive believing these two bombs were necessairy to win the war in the Pacific.
Japan was eager to surrender on just one condition: Hirohito should be kept as the head of the state. I’m not picking a side here, as the USSR would probably have done the same.
A different approach for the same answer. I don’t believe in military analysis or political science as the final answer, but more in the broad cultural history (Huizingha) which is a lot more modest. I don’t think one can answer this difficult question with just political “facts” though. There’s more than that. Even though many political scientists and historians of today claim Chamerblain was a weak figure for not pulling Britain into a war at that time, one has to realise the horrors of Passendale, Ypres … were still fresh in the memory of the British public. I think it’s a human thing to hope for the best. Unlike the beginning of WWI, when WWII broke out, everyone knew it would be even worse. WWI was started in the optimistic belief it would be over by X-mass thanks to modern technology. When WWII broke out all knew this modern technology could only mean a war even greater, more destructive than the one which was “just” over. I tend to agree with Eric Hobsbawsm’s definition of the “31-year war of Europe”, which started with a bullet (on Franz Ferdinand) and ended with another one (Hitler who killed himself). The phoney war was just wishfull thinking, hoping it would not lead to another massive war. The same would happen today I guess. To quote Einstein “I don’t know with what kind of weapons WWIII will be fought with, but I know for sure WWIV will be fought with sticks and bricks …”
Ben.I think the reason why the British and the Americans hesitated so long before reacting against Hitler lays deep into the culture of the Anglo-Saxon world. Communism was a far bigger threat than fascism/nazism could ever be.
1. For both the US and the UK Russia has always been a bigger enemy than Germany. In fact, it wasn’t untill Germany was building a fleet the UK began to change its policy of splendid isolation. In the 19th century, both the UK (Afghanistan + Dardanelles) and the US saw Russia as a bigger threat to their own security. Even after WWI, the allies were still convinced a (relativelly) strong (economically) Germany was necessairy to keep a balance in Europe. It wasn’t untill after WWII this policy has changed thanks to NATO “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down”.
2. The UK and the US had nothing to fear from nazism or fascism. The ideology would never reach that far, in contrary to communism. In the 1920s the communist party in the US was becoming popular. However, a nazist ideology based upon race and blood would never find any support in the melting pot the US was or even colonial Britain. The UK and the US didn’t have the same roots of romanticism nazism is based upon. But socialism (certainly at that time) could be perfectly possible in the liberal society of the US or even the UK, based upon rationalism (all men are equal …).
Actually WWII was not just fascism vs a non-fascist alliance. It was fascism vs communism vs democracy. 3 parties which were as different from one another. The finest example were the two A-bombs. Actually they were dropped upon the wrong party/country. They should have been dropped upon the USSR, to scare of the Soviets. One has to be very naive believing these two bombs were necessairy to win the war in the Pacific.
Japan was eager to surrender on just one condition: Hirohito should be kept as the head of the state. I’m not picking a side here, as the USSR would probably have done the same.
A different approach for the same answer. I don’t believe in military analysis or political science as the final answer, but more in the broad cultural history (Huizingha) which is a lot more modest. I don’t think one can answer this difficult question with just political “facts” though. There’s more than that. Even though many political scientists and historians of today claim Chamerblain was a weak figure for not pulling Britain into a war at that time, one has to realise the horrors of Passendale, Ypres … were still fresh in the memory of the British public. I think it’s a human thing to hope for the best. Unlike the beginning of WWI, when WWII broke out, everyone knew it would be even worse. WWI was started in the optimistic belief it would be over by X-mass thanks to modern technology. When WWII broke out all knew this modern technology could only mean a war even greater, more destructive than the one which was “just” over. I tend to agree with Eric Hobsbawsm’s definition of the “31-year war of Europe”, which started with a bullet (on Franz Ferdinand) and ended with another one (Hitler who killed himself). The phoney war was just wishfull thinking, hoping it would not lead to another massive war. The same would happen today I guess. To quote Einstein “I don’t know with what kind of weapons WWIII will be fought with, but I know for sure WWIV will be fought with sticks and bricks …”
Ben.Not 100% true. The British AND the French wanted that, but then woodrow wilson came with his 14-point program. The USSR was punished for the treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918 with Germany), because the allies agreed not to agree to Germany’s efforts to make unilateral peace with any of the parties.
However, I think the UK and France realised that intervening in the Russian civil war (and the Polish-Russian war following it) would be a hell of a problem.
Ben.Not 100% true. The British AND the French wanted that, but then woodrow wilson came with his 14-point program. The USSR was punished for the treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918 with Germany), because the allies agreed not to agree to Germany’s efforts to make unilateral peace with any of the parties.
However, I think the UK and France realised that intervening in the Russian civil war (and the Polish-Russian war following it) would be a hell of a problem.
Ben.Good question
Britain and France made no effort to attack Hitler. The BEF (4 divisions – 158,000 men with 25,000 vehicles – departed Britain on 11 Sept, however it was too small and not well equipped to challenge the Nazi army. France’s strategy was dominated by the Maginot line. It has been said that if the French and British had attacked Germany as soon as possible there was very little the Germans could have done, all their forces were committed in the east.
Hitler invaded France and the low lands in May 1940, one year before Operation Barbarossa. Because of the treaty Molotov-Von Ribbentrob Hitler could use all his forces in the west and move them later to the east. Looks a bit like the Von Schlieffen plan of WWI, which failed, not because the plan itself was impossible (defeat Belgium and France in a couple of weeks and move 7/8 of troops to the east), but because it was not carried out like Von Schlieffen wanted it. The German generals waited to long before moving their troops. Hence Hitler created the idea of a Blitzkrieg in WWII!
It would be fair to say the USSR has paid the biggest price for victory in WWII. The USSR would have won anyway in the end (at a very high price, make no mistake about that). D-Day was an attempt of the allies, not only to defeat the Germans, but to make sure the USSR would not occupy the rest of Europe. My professor of international relations says the Cold War begins on June 22th 1941, the day Hitler invaded the Soviet-Union. The diplomacy during WWII between the west and the USSR is very remarkable. Sometimes it looks to me like the USA/UK and the USSR “used” Germany to show eachother what they are capable of. If Germany wasn’t completelly destroyed in 1945 I think the USSR would not have stopped and moved to the North-Sea via the low lands and France. History would have looked different today if American and Soviet troops would have started fighting rightly after Germany was defeated, an option both Allied and Soviet Generals kept open.
Ben.Good question
Britain and France made no effort to attack Hitler. The BEF (4 divisions – 158,000 men with 25,000 vehicles – departed Britain on 11 Sept, however it was too small and not well equipped to challenge the Nazi army. France’s strategy was dominated by the Maginot line. It has been said that if the French and British had attacked Germany as soon as possible there was very little the Germans could have done, all their forces were committed in the east.
Hitler invaded France and the low lands in May 1940, one year before Operation Barbarossa. Because of the treaty Molotov-Von Ribbentrob Hitler could use all his forces in the west and move them later to the east. Looks a bit like the Von Schlieffen plan of WWI, which failed, not because the plan itself was impossible (defeat Belgium and France in a couple of weeks and move 7/8 of troops to the east), but because it was not carried out like Von Schlieffen wanted it. The German generals waited to long before moving their troops. Hence Hitler created the idea of a Blitzkrieg in WWII!
It would be fair to say the USSR has paid the biggest price for victory in WWII. The USSR would have won anyway in the end (at a very high price, make no mistake about that). D-Day was an attempt of the allies, not only to defeat the Germans, but to make sure the USSR would not occupy the rest of Europe. My professor of international relations says the Cold War begins on June 22th 1941, the day Hitler invaded the Soviet-Union. The diplomacy during WWII between the west and the USSR is very remarkable. Sometimes it looks to me like the USA/UK and the USSR “used” Germany to show eachother what they are capable of. If Germany wasn’t completelly destroyed in 1945 I think the USSR would not have stopped and moved to the North-Sea via the low lands and France. History would have looked different today if American and Soviet troops would have started fighting rightly after Germany was defeated, an option both Allied and Soviet Generals kept open.
Ben.Dave, I think you underestimate the massive impact of the Wehrmacht at that time. When Germany invaded Poland they got support from the local populations as well. Anti-Semitism was actually a lot more common in eastern Europe than in Germany (starting already in the 19th century after the murder on czar Alexander III, the famous pogroms). Actually the nazi’s in the beginning adopted a lot of methods for their holocaust from Romenia.
The only way the allies could invade at that point was through a landing on the beaches of Poland. In 1939 that would be an unwise decission. Even though the Poles wanted the Germans out, at that time, there was an even bigger enemy: The Soviet-Union. A combined allied assault (USSR, UK, France) on Poland would be seen as another invasion probably, which meant there would be little support from the Poles. Don’t forget Poland is not very keen on any foreign power intervening. The country has been divided three times in the 18th century between Prussia, Russia and Habsburg, after which it just disappeared from the map for a century and a half.
The UK and France could never do without the Soviet-Union, that’s for sure.
The RAF may have been superior, both countries did not have sufficient soldiers and ground forces to invade Poland. A forced beach landing could have delayed the Germans for a while, but it would not have solved the problem.
And ofcourse there’s another reason which has nothing to do with military but with politics: The interwar period was dominated by a sence of anti-communism rather than anti-nazism, even in the western-European democracies. Actually it was only AFTER Hitler invaded the low lands and France in May 1940 the UK saw him as the number one enemy. And in 1939 the Molotiv-Von Ribbentrop treaty was signed, a non-aggression pact between the nazi’s and the commie’s. Can you imagine the reactions in Paris, Londen, Brussels … It would be like George Bush and Saddam Hussein making an alliance to invade Canada.
20th century history is not my cup of tea though. So if anyone sees mistakes in my post please correct them.
Ben.Dave, I think you underestimate the massive impact of the Wehrmacht at that time. When Germany invaded Poland they got support from the local populations as well. Anti-Semitism was actually a lot more common in eastern Europe than in Germany (starting already in the 19th century after the murder on czar Alexander III, the famous pogroms). Actually the nazi’s in the beginning adopted a lot of methods for their holocaust from Romenia.
The only way the allies could invade at that point was through a landing on the beaches of Poland. In 1939 that would be an unwise decission. Even though the Poles wanted the Germans out, at that time, there was an even bigger enemy: The Soviet-Union. A combined allied assault (USSR, UK, France) on Poland would be seen as another invasion probably, which meant there would be little support from the Poles. Don’t forget Poland is not very keen on any foreign power intervening. The country has been divided three times in the 18th century between Prussia, Russia and Habsburg, after which it just disappeared from the map for a century and a half.
The UK and France could never do without the Soviet-Union, that’s for sure.
The RAF may have been superior, both countries did not have sufficient soldiers and ground forces to invade Poland. A forced beach landing could have delayed the Germans for a while, but it would not have solved the problem.
And ofcourse there’s another reason which has nothing to do with military but with politics: The interwar period was dominated by a sence of anti-communism rather than anti-nazism, even in the western-European democracies. Actually it was only AFTER Hitler invaded the low lands and France in May 1940 the UK saw him as the number one enemy. And in 1939 the Molotiv-Von Ribbentrop treaty was signed, a non-aggression pact between the nazi’s and the commie’s. Can you imagine the reactions in Paris, Londen, Brussels … It would be like George Bush and Saddam Hussein making an alliance to invade Canada.
20th century history is not my cup of tea though. So if anyone sees mistakes in my post please correct them.
Ben.Well, in UK the PM is the “first among equals”, in the US the president is the leader, the first. If the secretary of state does something wrong in the US, the president will be held responsible for that, while in Europe the minister of foreign affairs and the prime minister each have their own responsabilities. The PM is more of a coach than a real leader, exept for France that is.
Ben.Well, in UK the PM is the “first among equals”, in the US the president is the leader, the first. If the secretary of state does something wrong in the US, the president will be held responsible for that, while in Europe the minister of foreign affairs and the prime minister each have their own responsabilities. The PM is more of a coach than a real leader, exept for France that is.
Ben.http://www.standaard.be/nieuws/cultuur/index.asp?ArticleID=DMF09052005_042&Snel=1
Pixies op Pukkelpop
Rist nieuwe namen Pukkelpop en Marktrock bekend
10:51:04
BRUSSEL – Pukkelpop en Marktrock hebben een groot aantal namen aan hun affiches toegevoegd. Bij het Hasseltse muziekfestival zijn dat meteen 27 officiële bevestigingen, waarvan de Pixies het meest in het oog springt. Bij de eerste elf die al voor Leuven geboekt werden, zal vooral de Nederlandse DJ Tiësto het grote publiek aanspreken.
ANDERE WEBSITES
http://www.standaard.be/festivals
Met de nieuwe namen die de organisatoren van Pukkelpop en Marktrock gisteren bekendmaakten, komt de Belgische festivalzomer weer een stap dichterbij. Vorig jaar verrasten de Pixies hun fans al met een reünietour waarbij ze onder andere Rock Werchter en Pinkpop aandeden. En eind augustus spelen ze dus op de twintigste editie van Pukkelpop.
Naar de festivalweide in Kiewit komen daarnaast ook Marilyn Manson, Franz Ferdinand, LCD Soundsystem, Heather Nova, Fischerspooner, Derrick May, Carl Craig, Tiga, Roisin Murphy, The Hives, Heideroosjes, Nightwish, Sophia, Bonnie Prince Billy, No Use for a Name, Apocalyptica, Maximo Park, Tom Vek, South San Gabriel, !!!, Emiliana Torrini en Mouse on Mars.
Ook de komst van Dropkick Murphys, Basement Jaxx, Bad Religion, the Prodigy werd na geruchten nu ook officieel bevestigd.
De Leuvense Oude Markt krijgt tussen 13 tot en met 15 augustus dan weer DJ Tiësto, Texas, Craig David, Vaya Con Dios, Stash, Admiral Freebee, Wim Soutaer en Freestylers, Krezip, Gabriël Rios en Michael Franti & Spearhead over de vloer.
Pukkelpop: 18, 19 en 20 augustus 2005 – Kiewit, Hasselt
– nog geen voorverkoop
Marktrock Leuven: 13, 14 en 15 augustus 2005 – Stadscentrum Leuven – geen voorverkoop
Ben.http://www.standaard.be/nieuws/cultuur/index.asp?ArticleID=DMF09052005_042&Snel=1
Pixies op Pukkelpop
Rist nieuwe namen Pukkelpop en Marktrock bekend
10:51:04
BRUSSEL – Pukkelpop en Marktrock hebben een groot aantal namen aan hun affiches toegevoegd. Bij het Hasseltse muziekfestival zijn dat meteen 27 officiële bevestigingen, waarvan de Pixies het meest in het oog springt. Bij de eerste elf die al voor Leuven geboekt werden, zal vooral de Nederlandse DJ Tiësto het grote publiek aanspreken.
ANDERE WEBSITES
http://www.standaard.be/festivals
Met de nieuwe namen die de organisatoren van Pukkelpop en Marktrock gisteren bekendmaakten, komt de Belgische festivalzomer weer een stap dichterbij. Vorig jaar verrasten de Pixies hun fans al met een reünietour waarbij ze onder andere Rock Werchter en Pinkpop aandeden. En eind augustus spelen ze dus op de twintigste editie van Pukkelpop.
Naar de festivalweide in Kiewit komen daarnaast ook Marilyn Manson, Franz Ferdinand, LCD Soundsystem, Heather Nova, Fischerspooner, Derrick May, Carl Craig, Tiga, Roisin Murphy, The Hives, Heideroosjes, Nightwish, Sophia, Bonnie Prince Billy, No Use for a Name, Apocalyptica, Maximo Park, Tom Vek, South San Gabriel, !!!, Emiliana Torrini en Mouse on Mars.
Ook de komst van Dropkick Murphys, Basement Jaxx, Bad Religion, the Prodigy werd na geruchten nu ook officieel bevestigd.
De Leuvense Oude Markt krijgt tussen 13 tot en met 15 augustus dan weer DJ Tiësto, Texas, Craig David, Vaya Con Dios, Stash, Admiral Freebee, Wim Soutaer en Freestylers, Krezip, Gabriël Rios en Michael Franti & Spearhead over de vloer.
Pukkelpop: 18, 19 en 20 augustus 2005 – Kiewit, Hasselt
– nog geen voorverkoop
Marktrock Leuven: 13, 14 en 15 augustus 2005 – Stadscentrum Leuven – geen voorverkoop
Ben.Yeahhhhhh!!!!
Pixies will come to Belgium, 2nd time. Pukkelpop this year, in Limburg!!!
Cool, gonna order my ticket asap
Ben.Yeahhhhhh!!!!
Pixies will come to Belgium, 2nd time. Pukkelpop this year, in Limburg!!!
Cool, gonna order my ticket asap
Sign In
