Geopolitical thread

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Gerard »

All these years,Adolf Hitler was villified for not shaking hands with black Olympic hero Jesse Owens at the Berlin Olympics.The truth is quite different according to these accounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens
On reports that Hitler had deliberately avoided acknowledging his victories, and had refused to shake his hand, Owens recounted:[11]
Jesse Owens on the podium after winning the long jump at the 1936 Summer Olympics
“ When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany. ”
He also stated: [12] "Hitler didn't snub me—it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram." Jesse Owens was never invited to the White House nor bestowed any honors by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) or Harry S. Truman during their terms. In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower acknowledged Owens' accomplishments, naming him an "Ambassador of Sports."
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

So pre-war German rehabilitation is underway. Such are the tides and undercurrents of History. West needs this or else its sunk.

All the "Holy" Roman Empires are based on German munnas.
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Hari Seldon »

So pre-war German rehabilitation is underway
Wonder how the Israeli lobby will take this? Or have they been co-opted already? BEsides, aren't protestants immune to the allure of the 'holy' part of the roman empire? Or is the catholic-protestant division subsumed by now?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by svinayak »


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/scienc ... opulation/
World population projected to reach 7 billion in 2011
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by brihaspati »

Hari Seldon
Wonder how the Israeli lobby will take this? Or have they been co-opted already? BEsides, aren't protestants immune to the allure of the 'holy' part of the roman empire? Or is the catholic-protestant division subsumed by now?
It was after all a German who "protested" and started the modern version. Many Germans are still Protestant. Actually as far as I know, most sociological surveys of wartime Germans show that Catholics and Communists were the most immune to Nazi pressure under imprisonment. At the same time there is also the thorny question of "aiding" Nazis by a section of the Catholic hierarchy.

German nationalism was invented to tide over exactly such tribal and ideological fractures. The key movers of European unification, the French, the Belgic and the Germans, all come from countries long dominated by Germanic tribes after the fall of the western Roman empire - all European aristos come from basically marauding, looting bands of Germanic tribes. In a sense Europes tidal waves of violence are almost all a result of this inner dilemma in resolving the conflict between the need to form a pan-Germanic identity on the one hand, and lack of basis in reality for such a pan-Germanic identity.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by RajeshA »

brihaspati wrote:A result of this inner dilemma in resolving the conflict between the need to form a pan-Germanic identity on the one hand, and lack of basis in reality for such a pan-Germanic identity.
Brihaspati ji,
Either I am too close to the scene, or I haven't looked enough into the history of the German tribes, but the current reality as I perceive it is, that

There is a lot more mobility amongst the younger generation of Germans. University Study leads Germans to other far off cities in the country, and after study the job opportunities also contribute to the mobility and integration.

In Germany, Hochdeutsch is very well standaridized, and anybody who goes to school and gets an education learn with that as the medium. On top of that comes the culture of high-tech consumerism, of mobile phones, of Internet chatting, of Internet dating which has practically ensured that whatever little tribal culture there may have been existent is slowly giving way to a homogenous consumerist culture. The culture of the new generation is actually divided not on tribal faultlines, but rather along lifestyles. The youth identifies itself as Surfers, Nature-lovers, Video-Gamers, Rockers, Gothics, Punks, Pop Music fans, etc. All Germans buy the same products all over Germany of brands known all over Germany sold through retail franchises known all over Germany. The last fortress of tribalism left is in Fußball, and that is considered healthy tribalism, and even there when the national team goes to play a match, the country comes together.

What I have noticed is a playful identity culture, where some of the youth has a small set of knowledge of their regional dialects, which is used far more as souvenirs from the past, than anything to fight over. It is just some fodder for some party talk.

In November this year, Germany will be celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall. In these 20 years the Germans have in fact been able to unite the two Germanys even. My sisters-in-law in their 20s have no recollection of the German Democratic Republic. All that has wandered into the history text books for school and some retro-culture parties.

Tribalism is DEAD here! A common language, a common consumerist culture, a common set of lifestyle options go a long way in burying the TRIBE.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by JE Menon »

I concur absolutely with RajeshA here - I have never seen among Germans any notable, let alone significant, tribal tendencies if that is the idea that is being pursued. What exists is exactly as RajeshA has noted, a "playful identity culture"... Germans at the moment are German, and despite the whining about this and that and the constant criticism of government, they seem by and large a happy people, a contented people - even more friendly than many other European peoples IMHO. They have problems ahead of course, bu who doesn't. As a somewhat frequent traveller to Germany, and dealing with Germans on an almost daily basis, I should say that there is really no likelihood of a return to Nazistic tendencies on a large scale there. The Germans have been as thorough and efficient in drilling into the minds of their kids the horrors of Nazism as they are with everything else...
shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by shaardula »

from reading b's comment i did not get an impression that he was talking about tribes within germany. i think he was talking talking about the german strain which is not just confined to germany.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by JE Menon »

If that is correct, then it is a misunderstanding on my part. I thought what he meant was that there were Germanic tribal strains throughout Europe, and a revival of these could be in the offing. That cannot be the case if there is no real "tribal" sentiment within Germany itself... especially, now with the "European" identity slowly but surely gaining ground as well...
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by svinayak »

brihaspati wrote:
It was after all a German who "protested" and started the modern version. Many Germans are still Protestant. Actually as far as I know, most sociological surveys of wartime Germans show that Catholics and Communists were the most immune to Nazi pressure under imprisonment. At the same time there is also the thorny question of "aiding" Nazis by a section of the Catholic hierarchy.

German nationalism was invented to tide over exactly such tribal and ideological fractures. The key movers of European unification, the French, the Belgic and the Germans, all come from countries long dominated by Germanic tribes after the fall of the western Roman empire - all European aristos come from basically marauding, looting bands of Germanic tribes. In a sense Europes tidal waves of violence are almost all a result of this inner dilemma in resolving the conflict between the need to form a pan-Germanic identity on the one hand, and lack of basis in reality for such a pan-Germanic identity.
Can you give some time frames of when these Euro aristos became prominent. Some of the Germanic blood has inter mingled with Anglo Dutch aristo. Chruchill has some German heritage and so does Lord Mountbatten. Earliest known aristo are around 1200 AD.
There is a lot more mobility amongst the younger generation of Germans. University Study leads Germans to other far off cities in the country, and after study the job opportunities also contribute to the mobility and integration.

In Germany, Hochdeutsch is very well standaridized, and anybody who goes to school and gets an education learn with that as the medium.
Euros have gone through major social engineering in the last 100-150 years such nation state, ethnic, aryanism etc. The current identity of the Germans are built over layers of changes over the last 100 years.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Sanjay M »

Hmm, Comrade Fidel getting the stem cell treatment, or what?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html

Image

Maybe that socialist healthcare system is a lot better than even they brag about :P
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Sanjay M »

Meanwhile, the Atlanticist media keeps focused on their blood-feuds with the Great Evil Russian Bear:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 92,00.html
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

CIA threatened murder and rape...of suspects families.Not that these acts have not been committed by US forces before,especially in Iraq!
CIA report: interrogators threatened families of detainees
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... inees.html
Last edited by Gerard on 29 Aug 2009 04:18, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: copyright
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Chavez to sever ties with Colombia because of proposed US bases there to detabilise Venezuela.
Venezuela 'to break off diplomatic relations with Colombia'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ombia.html
Last edited by Gerard on 29 Aug 2009 04:17, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: copyright
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Sanjay M »

Popstar Madonna Booed in Eastern Europe for Mentioning Gypsy Plight

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/madonna-booed ... s/26947?nc
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Russia-Ukraine spat worsening.

The spat between Ukraine and Russia over the Russian naval base at Sevastopol,when the Crimea was much earlier transferrd by Nikita Kruschev to Ukraine,when it was part of the Soviet Union,is growing in intentsity.The current leaders of Ukraine are trying to join nATO and close the Russian base,whiich is on long lease.The Crimea peninsula though has a long colourful Russian history and the inhabitants are very pro-Russian,who complain of needless Ukranian harrassment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/world ... =2&_r=1&em
Russia and Ukraine in Intensifying Standoff
Last edited by Gerard on 29 Aug 2009 04:17, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: copyright
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Sanjay M »

Merkel's Christian Democrat Union party has suffered a setback in regional polls leading upto the national election in 4 weeks time:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fP3vklwYvQ

A return of left-leaning socialists to power could mean better relations between Russia and Germany.
The Atlanticists would hate that, as Russo-German cooperation would put them on the back foot.

Pity the poor machiavellians. Cry, the beloved empire.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Sanjay M »

Heh, from our lips to MI6's ears.

The ever-babbling 'beeb telegraphs British fears on German polls:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8229150.stm
vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vishwakarmaa »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0TQ1gj8GQo

Present day Aryans in Iran, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and etc.

The word "Arya" is common between Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians and Persians. It also shows Swastika as oldest Aryan symbol in existence.

Now, we know present day axis of evil includes Iraq-Iran-Tajikistan.

It makes sense. Gora is after annihilating non-Christ cultures through - "free economy" bullshit(print dollars and buy the world out) and military.

Acharya, whats your take on the Aryan part?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by svinayak »

vishwakarmaa wrote:<span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0TQ1gj8GQo" class="smarterwiki-linkify">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0TQ1gj8GQo</a></span>

Present day Aryans in Iran, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and etc.

The word "Arya" is common between Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians and Persians. It also shows Swastika as oldest Aryan symbol in existence.

Now, we know present day axis of evil includes Iraq-Iran-Tajikistan.

It makes sense. Gora is after annihilating non-Christ cultures through - "free economy" bullshit(print dollars and buy the world out) and military.

Acharya, whats your take on the Aryan part?
Here is the discussion going on for the last 6 years
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... topic=1367
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Rony »

vishwakarmaa wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0TQ1gj8GQo

Present day Aryans in Iran, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and etc.

The word "Arya" is common between Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians and Persians. It also shows Swastika as oldest Aryan symbol in existence.

'Arya' is purely a Sanskrit name. It does not appear either in Iran or Tajikistan or what ever. The Zoroastrian eqvivalent is 'Ariya' which itself is derived from 'Arya'. I dont understand why people equate Arya's with Iran , Takistan etc etc. Western (and Iranian) "historians" when confronted with the fact that Indians are the original Arya's (Aryans in their words) , came up with this new AIT theory that the 'Arya's migrated from Iran/Tajikistan to India.As a proff they show the similarities between Sanskrit and Avestan, Arya and Ariya etc etc.

But they forget to mention that even though there are similarities between Anceint India and Anceint Persia, that similarity is because the Arya 's and their culture moved from their homeland 'Aryavarta' (India) to Persia/Tajikistan etc .Its NOT the other way round as propogated by some westerners and Iranians. The oldesr Persian proff which mentions 'Ariya' is the behustian inscription dated to 400 BC. The oldest Indian text which mentions 'Arya' is the Rig Veda which is dated even by baised westeners to 1500- 2000 BC which is almost 1600 years EARLIER than the behustian inscription.It is clear that India's 'Arya' is much older than Persian 'Ariya' which itslef is derived from Indian 'Arya'.

When people (Indian or otherwise) includes Iran, Tajiistan etc etc in 'Aryans' list, it is important to recognize the above mentioned fact.Othwise the Iranians with the help of westeners will simply twists the facts and make this look like a AIT with migrations from Iran/Tajikistan to India. This is what the Iranians and their western supporters are doing in wikipedia.Using the similarity between Sanskrit and Avestan and then twisting facts to support AIT.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Singha »

Manama (Bahrain): A traditional wooden ship with Indian crew sailing from the United Arab Emirates toward Bahrain was the target of the first act of sea piracy reported in Persian Gulf waters in years, according to details of the attack that emerged Sunday.

The Bahraini dhow was intercepted Friday night by another ship with an armed crew, security sources said.

The four pirates threatened the six-man Indian crew with guns and assaulted them before taking their cargo of fish and mobile phones, sources said. The crew members said they believed the pirates were Iranian, but their nationality could not be positively confirmed.

The Indian sailors were unharmed. They were released and arrived in a Bahraini port on Sunday.

The case represents the first time an act of piracy has been reported inside the Gulf since the issue of piracy again came to the forefront of international attention off the Somali coast in recent years.

In recent months Somali pirates had expanded their operations beyond the Somali coast line and the Gulf of Aden reaching areas as far as the east coast of Oman and the Arabian Sea.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Who staretd WW2? Just as Jaswant has stirred the pot regarding Partition,so has a raging controversy erupted over the architect of WW2 betwen Russia and the Europeans on the eve of the 70th anniversary of ther start of WW2.20 years ago I was in London when the 50th anniversary of the War was being commemorated.Churchill's secret underground Cabinet War Rooms was revealed to the public for the first time,which I visited.There was a host of WW2 analyses in the media then.It looks like nothing has changed much during the last 20 years,as controversy rages on!
The war? Nothing to do with Stalin, says Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev
Luke Harding in Moscow

Joseph Stalin. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis

It is a debate that has raged in European capitals ahead of the 70th anniversary on Tuesday of the beginning of the second world war on 1 September 1939. Who, apart from Hitler, was actually responsible for starting it?

This summer the Baltic states have blamed Hitler and Stalin equally. Russia, meanwhile, is fingering Poland.

Ultimately, however, the row which threatens to eclipse a gathering on Tuesday of European leaders in Gdansk is not about history or the past. It is all about the present, specifically Russia's claim of having "privileged interests" in its post-Soviet neighbours. Russia's president, Dmitry Medvedev, made his own explosive contribution to the debate, saying it was a "flat-out lie" to suggest that Stalin bore any responsibility for starting the second world war, which he described as "the 20th century's greatest catastrophe". According to Medvedev, it was Stalin who in fact "ultimately saved Europe".

In an interview with Rossiya TV earlier today, Medvedev let rip at the EU Baltic states and Ukraine, accusing them of rewriting history, glorifying fascism, and obscuring the Soviet Union's unique leading role in the liberation of Europe. He also blasted the EU and its Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE), which, in July, passed a resolution equating Stalinism with Nazism.

"The OSCE parliamentary assembly just recently grouped together Germany and the Soviet Union, pronouncing them to be equally responsible for world war two," Medvedev said. "Now that, quite frankly, is a flat-out lie."

Medvedev recognised that there could be "different attitudes" toward the Soviet Union. But he alleged that there could be no debate at all over "who started the war, which country killed people, and which country saved people, millions of people, and which country, ultimately, saved Europe".

He accused governments in the Baltic states and Ukraine of "pronouncing former Nazi accomplices to be their national heroes". Western Europeans were allowing eastern Europeans to get away with this outrageous revisionism, he suggested, because they were fearful of souring relations.

The pronouncements from Russia's president came as the leaders of Russia, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and Lithuania prepared to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the war in the Polish city of Gdansk. Russia is sending Vladimir Putin, Russia's hawkish prime minister, whose presence near the place where Hitler began his Polish invasion, shelling a military depot, is unlikely to dispel the present rancour.

Old tensions are resurfacing amid frantic attempts by Moscow to defend the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, signed by Germany and the Soviet Union's foreign ministers 70 years ago last week.

The deal saw Hitler and Stalin carve up Europe, with Moscow subsequently annexing Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, two-thirds of Poland and much of Romania.

The Kremlin now argues that Stalin had no choice but to forge the pact with Hitler in August 1939. It says Britain and France made war inevitable by signing the Munich agreement. And it puts the boot firmly into Poland; the Kremlin says the country was a willing Nazi ally and accomplice to Hitler's partition of Czechoslovakia the previous year.

Historians are unimpressed. "This is a very stupid argument," Vladimir Ryzhkov, a historian and former Russian opposition MP said. "You are saying that Poland was bad for allowing the division of Czechoslovakia, but that Stalin was good when he agreed to divide eastern Europe with Hitler."

He added: "The Kremlin wants to create a new identity for the Russian nation. It advocates the Stalin regime, and promotes the idea that Stalin's actions were right and necessary at all times, including when Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact."

According to Ryzhkov, Russia's contemporary leadership is seeking to rehabilitate Stalin in order to justify its own "authoritarian" model.

He described Hitler as the "creator" of the second world war, who bore responsibility for it, but said that the Soviet Union, the US, Britain, France, and the Baltic republics also had to shoulder blame for the conflict.

So far, there are few signs that the dispute will fade. Russia has promised to reveal more documents about Poland on Tuesday from the secret archives of the SVR, Russia's foreign intelligence service. They follow the declassification of other top-secret surveillance documents, used by Moscow last week to defend Stalin's occupation of eastern Europe.

In May, Medvedev announced that he was setting up a new body to counter what he called the "falsification of history". The commission, dominated by members of Russia's FSB intelligence service rather than professional historians, would ensure that history teaching stressed Russia's heroic sacrifice during the war, Medvedev said, and it would combat foreign "revisionists", he said.

Russia's contention that it is entitled to a modern sphere of influence on the fringes of Europe has caused consternation in the EU and elsewhere. But, speaking historically, it is a view Stalin would undoubtedly have shared.
PS:In retrospect,it was the infamous Munich agreement signed by the west with Hitler and Neville Chamberlain's most misjudged of statements at the time the signing,"peace in our time",that allowed Hitler to put the wheels of WW2 in motion.The attempts by NATO to charge all the way upto the borders of Russia,"capturing" former Warsaw Pact nations in the process even after the colapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold war,is producing in Russia an equal and opposite reaction.With Putin and Medvedev at the helm of Russia,the attempts of the Europeans and Americans,behaving exactly like latter day Nazis, will be forcefully resisted by Russia.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Another take on the War and the Nazis' reason for the attack on Poland."lebensraum",living space for the Aryan race in the territory of the "untermenschen" (sub-humans) Slavs,was the motive.
Second World War: Why we delayed declaration of war
Tuesday is the 70th anniversary of Germany's invasion of Poland. Leading historian Andrew Roberts explains the two-day delay behind Britain's declaration of war.

by Andrew Roberts
Published: 9:55PM BST 30 Aug 2009

Germany's invasion of Poland, 70 years ago today Photo: GETTY IMAGES
At 04.45am on Friday 1 September, German forces activated Plan White, which had been formulated that June by the German Army High Command, the Oberkommando des Heeres. On either side of a relatively weak and stationary centre, two powerful wings of the Wehrmacht would envelop Poland, crush its armed forces and capture Warsaw. Army Group North, under Colonel-General Fedor von Bock, would smash through the Polish Corridor, take Danzig (modern-day Gdansk), unite with the German 3rd Army in East Prussia, and move swiftly to attack the Polish capital from the north. Meanwhile, an even stronger Army Group South, under Colonel-General Gerd von Rundstedt, would punch between the larger Polish forces facing it, push east all the way to Lvov, but also assault Warsaw from the west and north.

The Polish Corridor, which since the Versailles Treaty had cut off East Prussia from the rest of Germany, had long been presented as a casus belli by the Nazis, as well as the re-absorption into the Reich of the ethnically-German Baltic port of Danzig, but as Hitler had told a conference of generals in May 1939: 'Danzig is not the real issue; the real point is for us to open up our Lebensraum (living space) to the east and ensure our supplies of foodstuffs.' This was to be an existential conflict, fulfilling the prophecies Hitler had made fourteen years before in his political testimony Mein Kampf. The German master race would subjugate the Slavs - Üntermensch (subhumans) according to Nazi precepts of racial hierarchy – and use their territory to nurture a new Aryan civilisation. This was to be the world's first wholly politically ideological war, and as I argue in my new book, The Storm Of War, it was the primary reason why the Nazis eventually lost it.

The strategy of having a weak centre and two powerful flanks was a brilliant one, and was believed to have derived from Field Marshal Count Alfred von Schlieffen's celebrated pre-Great War study of Hannibal's tactics at the battle of Cannae. Whatever the provenance, it worked superbly, slipping German armies neatly between Polish ones and converging on Warsaw from all angles almost simultaneously. Yet what made it irresistible was not German preponderance in men and arms, but above all the new military doctrine of Blitzkrieg. Poland was a fine testing ground for Blitzkrieg tactics: although it had lakes, forests and bad roads, it was nonetheless flat, with hugely wide fronts and firm, late summer ground ideal for tanks. It provided almost laboratory conditions for experimentation.

Because the British and French Governments had given a guarantee to Poland on 31 March 1939, with the British prime minister Neville Chamberlain formally promising her 'all support in the power' of the Allies should she be attacked, Hitler was forced to leave 40% of his 100-division army out in the West, guarding the still-incomplete Siegfried Line, or 'West Wall'. The fear of a war on two fronts led the Führer to detail no fewer than 40 divisions to protect his back. Crucially, however, three-quarters of these were only second-rate units and they were left with only three days' ammunition. His best troops, along with all of his armoured and mobile divisions and almost all his warplanes, were devoted to the attack on Poland.

Hitler was right to leave his forces so unbalanced, because the British and French Governments had no intention of invading Germany, indeed their planning staffs had not even so much as discussed the possibility. Far from declaring war immediately on the morning of 1 September, it was not until 11am on Sunday 3 September, more than 48 hours after Blitzkrieg had been unleashed, that Neville Chamberlain finally announced to the British people, in his famous radio broadcast from No.10 Downing Street, that the Germans had not responded to his ultimatum 'and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.' The two-day delay despite the unambiguous guarantee given only five months earlier has raised many doubts, both at the time and subsequently, as to whether Britain and France were secretly plotting together to renege on their promise to Poland, and pursue one more bout of Appeasement.

Conspiracy theories have abounded that the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax was in secret communication with Hermann Goering via a Swedish businessman called Birger Dahlerus to try to avoid having to declare war, but while it is true that Dahlerus made several secret visits to London up to and even after the outbreak of war, these did not in fact hold up the announcement. Neither was difficulty in recalling the House of Commons on a weekend a problem, indeed when it did meet on Saturday 2 September and the Government was still vacillating over the declaration, the Tory MP Leo Amery called out 'Speak for England!' to the Labour deputy leader Arthur Greenwood as he stood up to answer the prime minister on behalf of the opposition.

So what were the real reasons for the two-day delay in declaring war? It was true that Chamberlain and Halifax still hoped against hope (and rationality) that Hitler could be persuaded to withdraw from Poland once it was made clear to him that the Western Allies would stand by their guarantee. Because they would not be providing any material help to Poland, indeed the British Army only started crossing over to the Continent after 3 September, there seemed to them to be no particular hurry to declare war, since doing nothing to help immediately struck them as little different from doing equally little a few days later. Moreover, the French Government of Edouard Daladier seemed to be dragging its feet, and both Governments believed a simultaneous declaration would have a far better effect.

Yet the central reason for the delay was an offer by Mussolini for an immediate Five Power conference of Britain, France, Poland, Germany and Italy. Although Chamberlain told the Commons that Britain 'would find it impossible to take part in a conference while Poland is being subjected to invasion, her towns are under bombardment and Danzig is being made the subject of a unilateral settlement by force', so naïve were the prime minister and foreign secretary about the true nature of modern Blitzkrieg warfare that they genuinely imagined that there was even an outside possibility of Hitler simply calling off the attack.

'If the German Government should agree to withdraw their forces', Chamberlain stated with supreme wishful thinking, 'then His Majesty's Government would regard the position as being the same as it was before the German forces crossed the Polish frontier.'

To this day we do not know whether Mussolini made his offer of a peace conference in good faith or as a means of muddying the waters for the Western Allies just as his ally in the Pact of Steel, Adolf Hitler, concentrated on crushing the Poles, and anyhow it does not matter. The delay came to an end only when furious Cabinet ministers met behind the Speaker's Chair in the Commons and an outraged House imposed its will on Chamberlain and Halifax on the evening before war was finally declared. Appeasement was at an end, and not a moment too soon.

Had a large, modern British Army and RAF been waiting up against the Siegfried Line in late August 1939, primed for action and superbly armed, trained, equipped and led, having been properly financed in the two decades since the Great War, and ranged alongside the French army to invade Nazi Germany the moment the Wehrmacht crossed the Polish border, history could have turned out very differently.

Instead it had been underfunded and numerically reduced for many years by both political parties, before being asked to undertake a gigantic task. The evidence of history - as true today as in the 1920s and 1930s – is that money invested in defence amounts to a fraction of that wasted on war.

Andrew Roberts's 'The Storm of War' is available from Telegraph Books for £23 + £1.25 p&p. call 0844871 1516 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Paul »

PS:In retrospect,it was the infamous Munich agreement signed by the west with Hitler and Neville Chamberlain's most misjudged of statements at the time the signing,"peace in our time",that allowed Hitler to put the wheels of WW2 in motion.
Phillip, your thinking is blinded by the post WWII propaganda of the anglo-saxon establishment. I suggest reading Buchanan's book to understand the thinking behind Chamberlain's actions. We discussed this just before last 4th of July om this forum.

That warmongering megalomaniac Churchill's actions was the reason for the decline of western power in the 20th century. If you read Peter Massie's work on the dreadnoughts in WWI. You will realize the role played by CHurchill as the First lord of the admiralty in spoiling for a war with the Kaiser. George Keenan has called Lenin the most evil person of the 20th century...it should actually be Churchill.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Paul »

Who staretd WW2?
CHURCHILL
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by svinayak »

Paul wrote:
Who staretd WW2?
CHURCHILL
Can you explain and elaborate
jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by jaladipc »

Paul wrote:
Who staretd WW2?
CHURCHILL
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Its Hitler who came to power in 1933.And wanted to take revenge for WW1 and loss of territory.
Major outbreak started when Hitler asked his men to dressup like polish and attack their own radar station as well as some other manufacturing industires.He used this as a propaganda tool to go for war with polish who are in an illusion that werchmart is nothing but few 100 foot soldiers more than the WW1 numbers.
Even though he annexed Austria in 38 no one does really cared abt it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

Paul Why dont you expalin how you came to that conclusion to dispell more posts?

JaladiPC , To come to this you need to read/summarize a lot of books. Give him time.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Sanjay M »

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by brihaspati »

Paul,
couldn't there be a whole lot of other candidates if Churchills megalomania is the only criterion? Churchill of course had been raring to go from WWI, especially after the grand faux pas with the Admiralty. But what about American bankers who apparently financed Hitler? Even characters like Ford who helped Stalin initially with reforming industrialization? (One of the first 6 frieges gifted to Stalin was passed on to Kirov - whose murder started the excuse for the Purges of '37)
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Paul »

Last year around 4th of July we discussed two books:

1. Gandhi and Churchill
2. Buchanan's book

I am trying to find those posts to bring up the context. That should explain Churchill's role. I also think Chamberlain's role needs to be explored more. He was anything but an appeaser.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Gerard »

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by svinayak »

Paul wrote:Last year around 4th of July we discussed two books:

1. Gandhi and Churchill
2. Buchanan's book

I am trying to find those posts to bring up the context. That should explain Churchill's role. I also think Chamberlain's role needs to be explored more. He was anything but an appeaser.

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Patrick J. Buchanan (Author)

This is the book which clearly lays the blame for the WWII. Everyone should read it.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Gerard »

Did Hitler Want War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Sanjay M »

EU Giving Turkey the Runaround

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8241543.stm

what a surprise :roll:
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

WW2 was in truth the second part of WW1,which started because of the stupidity of the European monarchies and their massive egos.WW1 saw the end of many of the European dynasties and WW2 sealed the fate of the remaining.The Treaty of Versaiiles which humiliated Germany and brought it to the brink of economic collapse ,was one major reason for Hitler's burning desire (as a soldier who fought in WW1 and won the Iron Cross,saw Germany betrayed by his own people,the spread of Communism .and at the mercy of the great powers who defeated Germany) to make Germany great again and unify the German speaking people spread over sections of Europe.

Churchill was a great Bast*rd,one of history's best ever and along with Stalin the toughest of the Allied leaders.But if you have to look for the archvillain,it has to be the Fuhrer of Germany,who could not stop after becoming Chancellor,driven on by his ambitions for the German people which also meant "cleansing " the Germanic regions of Europe from the likes of the "untermenschen",Jews,Gypsies,etc.,and to create a "lebensraum" for the Aryan race.I'm enjoying a superb book on the "Setting of the Pearl",Austria and the Anschluss,the first step which has received little study so far."Hitler and Stalin" by Lord Bullock is the masterpiece of WW2 and traces their rise from youth to the heights of their power.The manner in which no one stood up to his annexation of Austria made him confident of the weakness of will of the rest of the European nations and he unleashed the dogs of war into Czechoslovakia and then Poland.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Johann »

WW1,which started because of the stupidity of the European monarchies and their massive egos.WW1 saw the end of many of the European dynasties
On the contrary WWI was the result of chauvinistic *popular* nationalism combined with the dominance of military general staffs over the diplomats and political decision-makers.

The royal families of Europe were all heavily intermarried, and not at all keen to go to war with cousins and siblings and uncles, but the reality is that they no longer really called the shots within their states thanks to modernity. Unlike the medieval era royal marriages were no longer enough to keep the peace. Writers, generals, bureaucrats, industrialists, the middle class all had far more say.

Slavs demanding an end to German and Hapsburg control within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russians aiming to help ethnic compatriots, Germans keen to help fellow Germans and cement continental power, the French determined to avenge the humiliation and territorial losses of 1870, etc.

War in August 1914 seemed like it would be a short and exciting game to the masses, elites and generals alike. No one really understood how technology had transformed everything, or the kind of endless grinding mass slaughter that these changes would produce.
The manner in which no one stood up to his annexation of Austria made him confident of the weakness of will of the rest of the European nations and he unleashed the dogs of war into Czechoslovakia and then Poland.
Not even the German public expected Hitler to attempt to go beyond the unification of ethnic German areas in Central-Eastern Europe, and the restoration of Germany's status as a great power.

Even though Hitler had sketched out his vision of eastern Lebensraum in his Mein Kampf and in some speeches, no one thought he was quite mad enough to go through with it.

It was only when Hitler ordered the occupation of non-German Bohemia and Moravia in March of 1939 that it became clear that he really intended to go beyond 'self determination of Germans everywhere'.

Most of the other players (even Stalin) assumed Hitler was rational in his risk taking, and were willing to make concessions up to what they imagined were the limits of his ambition, which Hitler irrationally interpreted as weakness.

Most dictators value survival above all else - yet Hitler preferred a glorious annihilation to any sort of climbdown that would let him live to fight another day. In that sense he was a freak of nature that no one anticipated . All of the players learned too late that there was no limit to his ambition, or the kind of risks he would take.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Pranav »

Gerard wrote:Did Hitler Want War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
My take is that Germany did not want war, but Hitler and his controllers did want war.

There are indications that Hitler was an agent of elites who control the US and most of Europe. Indeed, it seems that Hitler was in England in 1912-13, undergoing training in demagoguery. This was revealed in a book by Hitler's sister-in-law, Bridget Hitler:
Hallett's claim that Hitler was a "British" agent is based on the testimony of a shadowy network of retired intelligence agents. While he fails to provide documentary proof, Hallett does offer persuasive circumstantial evidence.

For example, Adolph Hitler was in England in 1912-1913, a fact supported by his sister-in-law's book: "The Memoirs of Bridget Hitler"(1979). Many historians including Hitler biographer John Toland have ignored this startling information. (If Hallett is right, historians like Toland are guilty of sanitizing Hitler and actually making him more credible than he was.)

Hallett says Hitler spent February to November 1912 being brainwashed and trained at the British Military Psych-Ops War School at Tavistock in Devon and in Ireland. "War machines need war and [that means they need] funded, trained and supported double agents to be their patsies, their puppets and their puppet enemies," Hallett writes (38).

His sister-in-law describes Hitler as completely wasted when he arrived at her Liverpool home baggage-less. "I had an idea he was ill, his color was so bad and his eyes looked so peculiar," she wrote. "He was always reading, not books, little pamphlets printed in German. I don't know what was in them nor exactly where they came from." (pp. 29,35) Hallett says these were Tavistock training manuals.

"Hitler was a British Agent" is useful as an alternative paradigm. (Usually we cannot recognize truth because we have the wrong paradigm, i.e. our "education.") When Hallett says "British", he means Illuminati, the Masonic cult of super rich bankers who control an interlocking network of cartels. This cult is based in the City of London but uses England and most nations and ideologies, as sock puppets in a Punch and Judy show called history.

Hallett's claim would clarify many improbable events in the Second World War. For example, why did Hitler let 335,000 Allied soldiers escape at Dunkirk? This quixotic gesture was explained as a peace overture, but surely England would have been more attentive if its army were in Nazi POW camps.

Source: http://www.henrymakow.com/001399.html
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Pranav »

In his book "The Hidden Hitler" Lothar Machtan, a Professor of History at Bremen University says Hitler almost joined the Communists in 1918. He demanded a senior party post that would have exempted him from work but they refused. "Hitler did not set foot in the extreme right wing camp until he had been rejected by left wing groups," Machtan writes. (71)

This book asserts that Hitler was an active homosexual with a thick police file of molestation complaints both in Vienna and Munich.

According to Ian Kershaw, Hitler took part in pro Socialist and Communist demonstrations in 1918-1919 and served as a Socialist Soldiers' Council representative. ("Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris, p 118-120.)

According to Brigitte Hamann, Hitler's best friends in pre-war Vienna were Jewish. He benefited from Jewish charities and hospitality. Jews bought most of his artwork. For this reason, real anti-Semites shunned him. ("Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship, pp.347-352)

source: http://www.henrymakow.com/001936.html
Post Reply