Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Not WW2...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Not WW2... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Not WW2... - 3/4/2013 8:40:28 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

It is an American conceit--shared at times with other nations, such as Great Britain in India--that history only begins when we arrive on the scene.

warspite1

...where on earth did that come from??


A study of Indian history.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 31
RE: Not WW2... - 3/4/2013 8:44:11 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg
I think its pretty clear that we Brits knew colonialism was done and dusted at the end of the war.


catwhoorg,

What do you think the Brits would have thought of colonialism had there not been a second World War? That's the question.



Without WWII (or similar) Colonialism would have been very much to the fore. The realization of decolonialism, was a consequence of changes at home, which were fundamentally driven by the war.

It is no mere happenstance that there was a Labour victory in 1945. Attitudes had changed. Heck you could argue there was a kind of decolonialism on the home front. With new found freedoms, the NHS being instituted and capital gains/inheritance taxes eating away at the large estates, there was shift in society, the likes of which is rarely seen.


I only lived in Scotland a bit as a child in the very early 60s, but my impression then and in visits since is that facing the Nazis and the Japanese made the British take their core beliefs and social norms re colonialism out for a walk and not much like what they saw. To their credit the Empire, more or less, acted on its own to begin to unwind. France not so much.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/4/2013 8:58:27 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 32
RE: Not WW2... - 3/4/2013 8:50:37 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Indochina is a specific case, because French rule was relatively recent (about 50 years when the war began), it had sided with Vichy in 1940, was then occupied by Japan, and therefore belonged to that shady category of "former colonial possessions", like the Dutch Indies, or Formosa. This was further aggravated by the fact that the Vietminh were among the victors, even though it was clear where Ho Chi Minh stood, or would stand in the upcoming cold war.

Francois


While it's true French Indochina (in three parts) was formally begun to be assembled in the 1880s, the nation of France was heavily invested there long before and exercised de facto military control back to the early 19th C. French missions had been present since the 17th C. and strong trading activity had existed since the 18th.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 33
RE: Not WW2... - 3/4/2013 9:09:00 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 3276
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline


_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 34
RE: Not WW2... - 3/4/2013 9:10:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 18710
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg
I think its pretty clear that we Brits knew colonialism was done and dusted at the end of the war.


catwhoorg,

What do you think the Brits would have thought of colonialism had there not been a second World War? That's the question.



Without WWII (or similar) Colonialism would have been very much to the fore. The realization of decolonialism, was a consequence of changes at home, which were fundamentally driven by the war.

It is no mere happenstance that there was a Labour victory in 1945. Attitudes had changed. Heck you could argue there was a kind of decolonialism on the home front. With new found freedoms, the NHS being instituted and capital gains/inheritance taxes eating away at the large estates, there was shift in society, the likes of which is rarely seen.


I only lived in Scotland a bit as a child in the very early 60s, but my impression then and in visits since is that facing the Nazis and the Japanese made the British take their core beliefs and social norms re colonialism out for a walk and not much like what they saw. To their credit the Empire, more or less, acted on its own to begin to unwind. France not so much.
warspite1

Taken as a whole, I think there is much to be said (in the positive) for the British Empire.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 35
RE: Not WW2... - 3/4/2013 9:14:14 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
While it's true French Indochina (in three parts) was formally begun to be assembled in the 1880s, the nation of France was heavily invested there long before and exercised de facto military control back to the early 19th C. French missions had been present since the 17th C. and strong trading activity had existed since the 18th.


The first military expeditions date from 1858, and French rule over Cochinchina begins in 1862. A move north, towards Tourane (Danang), was defeated in 1860. There was some expansion north towards Annam in the late 1860s, but everything stopped during the Franco Prussian war, and after the fall of the Second Empire. Around 1880, French control over Indochina was limited to Cochinchina.

Expansion only began again in the 1880s and resulted in the war against China, the conquest of Tonkin, and the treaty in 1884. I believe the battle of Lang Son, and the treaty of Tientsin in 1885 are when french military domination over all Vietnam becomes real.

Francois

< Message edited by fcharton -- 3/4/2013 9:19:16 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 36
RE: Not WW2... - 3/4/2013 9:41:36 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg
I know the British public were never behind a military intervention. I really don't know what the French popular opinion was.


For what I know, the communists and populist extreme right were very opposed, which corresponded to their traditional anticolonial stance. The parliamentary right was all for it, unsurprisingly.

The left was traditionally opposed to colonialism, but at the time, there were conscripts in Algeria, Egypt was considered a rear base for the FLN, so, domestic issues prevailed, and the left voted for the intervention. Yet, their supporters weren't so happy about it, and some dissident movement (dubbed 'the new left') appeared on this occasion.

All this to say that I believe opposition to colonialism, after the war, ran along similar lines in France and Britain, because colonial experience, political culture, and the lessons drawn from both wars were similar. Interestingly, I have the impression that half a century later, the "lessons learnt" set us apart, but this tells more about us, moderners, than about the post war public.

Francois

(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 37
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 1:03:10 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg
I think its pretty clear that we Brits knew colonialism was done and dusted at the end of the war.


catwhoorg,

What do you think the Brits would have thought of colonialism had there not been a second World War? That's the question.



Without WWII (or similar) Colonialism would have been very much to the fore. The realization of decolonialism, was a consequence of changes at home, which were fundamentally driven by the war.

It is no mere happenstance that there was a Labour victory in 1945. Attitudes had changed. Heck you could argue there was a kind of decolonialism on the home front. With new found freedoms, the NHS being instituted and capital gains/inheritance taxes eating away at the large estates, there was shift in society, the likes of which is rarely seen.


I only lived in Scotland a bit as a child in the very early 60s, but my impression then and in visits since is that facing the Nazis and the Japanese made the British take their core beliefs and social norms re colonialism out for a walk and not much like what they saw. To their credit the Empire, more or less, acted on its own to begin to unwind. France not so much.
warspite1

Taken as a whole, I think there is much to be said (in the positive) for the British Empire.



There is much to be said both ways.

I'm currently reading a deep history of the founding of Australia, "The Fatal Shore." Some of the actions taken by the Empire in regards to that endeavor rank up there with the most infamous national crimes of history.


< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/5/2013 1:06:56 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 38
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 1:05:51 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
While it's true French Indochina (in three parts) was formally begun to be assembled in the 1880s, the nation of France was heavily invested there long before and exercised de facto military control back to the early 19th C. French missions had been present since the 17th C. and strong trading activity had existed since the 18th.


The first military expeditions date from 1858, and French rule over Cochinchina begins in 1862. A move north, towards Tourane (Danang), was defeated in 1860. There was some expansion north towards Annam in the late 1860s, but everything stopped during the Franco Prussian war, and after the fall of the Second Empire. Around 1880, French control over Indochina was limited to Cochinchina.

Expansion only began again in the 1880s and resulted in the war against China, the conquest of Tonkin, and the treaty in 1884. I believe the battle of Lang Son, and the treaty of Tientsin in 1885 are when french military domination over all Vietnam becomes real.

Francois


I was using the 1880s reference to the first of the three being formally brought under the umbrella. But I think we could agree that Indochina was very "French" long before the official government seal was applied. Commercial interests were deep and wide, as was the Church establishment.


< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/5/2013 1:07:28 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 39
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 4:56:56 AM   
Capt Hornblower


Posts: 214
Joined: 10/29/2010
Status: offline
Count me as an Anglophile, cuz I agree with Warspite-- almost everywhere it touched, the British Empire (eventually) left the native peoples in better condition with regard to the rest of the world than they would have been in otherwise.

An observation to Bullwinkle58: My impression of your views from your posts in this thread is that you have well and truly absorbed the revisionist leftist history imparted to you by your college professors. The very mention of the role of the USSR in post-World-War-II politics in Indochina should be enough to gain insight into the reasons why the West thought it necessary to meddle.

And to all of you who seem to agree that the days when communism was a serious threat to freedom are over, I ask, "Are you quite sure?" The current holder of the office of President of the United States seems clearly to be a Marxist, at the very least, who is hell-bent on turning the US into the same kind of unproductive society as exists now in Spain, Italy, Greece, and France (and on the brink of which the UK seems to be teetering).

Another thought: The discussion here reinforces the notion that History is hindsight, and Hindsight is 20/20.

< Message edited by Capt Hornblower -- 3/5/2013 5:20:41 AM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 40
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 6:21:21 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 2907
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower

Count me as an Anglophile, cuz I agree with Warspite-- almost everywhere it touched, the British Empire (eventually) left the native peoples in better condition with regard to the rest of the world than they would have been in otherwise.

An observation to Bullwinkle58: My impression of your views from your posts in this thread is that you have well and truly absorbed the revisionist leftist history imparted to you by your college professors. The very mention of the role of the USSR in post-World-War-II politics in Indochina should be enough to gain insight into the reasons why the West thought it necessary to meddle.

And to all of you who seem to agree that the days when communism was a serious threat to freedom are over, I ask, "Are you quite sure?" The current holder of the office of President of the United States seems clearly to be a Marxist, at the very least, who is hell-bent on turning the US into the same kind of unproductive society as exists now in Spain, Italy, Greece, and France (and on the brink of which the UK seems to be teetering).

Another thought: The discussion here reinforces the notion that History is hindsight, and Hindsight is 20/20.


Without going into too much detail, please do some research first. Regardless of what you think of this guy's or that guy's politics, the numbers speak for themselves. Britain's government spending, which you say is teetering on the brink? It's been declining (the direct result of which has been increased suffering for the British people). US government spending? Also declining now that the Recovery Act is over. I'm sure you would say that China owns all the US public debt and will totally extort the US any day now, but the portion of debt owned by China is...declining. Given the predispositions you've revealed in your post, I don't expect that you'll react with anything except more of the same, but I feel it's my duty to point out what is factually accurate for the other people who will come along and read it.

And that's all to say nothing about the moral rights or wrongs you've alluded to in history. So for the record - when you say "left the native peoples in better condition with regard to the rest of the world than they would have been in otherwise", what are your outcome measures on this? And are you completely discounting all of what we would now call crimes against humanity?

And what about the haphazard, Euro-centric way in which Africa, India, and so on were divided into imperial territories, which has resulted in arbitrary "nations" being designated on top of existing societies? Which has in turn given us atrocities like occur in internecine conflicts once these "nations" were turned loose with their arbitrarily-set boundaries - Sudan, former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and so forth?

I really don't think that lands the British Empire in the "we left absolutely everybody better off than how we found them" category, let alone the rest of imperial Europe.

Were absolute living standards higher than they were before industrial age imperialism? Absolutely (but not everywhere). Were they higher than they would have been? Nobody knows. But most importantly, does that justify what imperialism did to those billions of people? In my view, absolutely not.

(in reply to Capt Hornblower)
Post #: 41
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 8:56:22 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 18710
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Putting words into peoples mouths does not help your cause or progress, in sensible fashion, the debate. So two comments were:

quote:

Taken as a whole, I think there is much to be said (in the positive) for the British Empire.


and

quote:

almost everywhere it touched, the British Empire (eventually) left the native peoples in better condition with regard to the rest of the world than they would have been in otherwise.


[Italics added for emphasis].

Which you take to have read:

quote:

I really don't think that lands the British Empire in the "we left absolutely everybody better off than how we found them" category


By the second half of your sentence you also make the classic error of treating all Empires the same. They most certainly were not.

As for the division of territories and "arbitary" nations I do not think you can blame the problems of today solely on Empires. This is, sadly, something that just about all countries have managed to get "wrong" within our own spheres of influence - not just in colonies. There is absolutely no evidence that the divide - for example between India and Pakistan - would not have been less bloody, less problematic, if India had been left alone to sort herself out - in fact quite the opposite.

While we are talking about India, yes standards of living around the world may have risen generally, but please do not ignore the railways, the hospitals, the schools, the infrastructure, that the British passed on along with the system of government, the civil service etc.

Was the history of Imperial Britain one long shining beacon of greatness? No of course not - bad things happened (just as bad things happened in the mother countries) but - and I repeat - taken as a whole, the peoples ruled by London were better off for it.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 42
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 10:51:36 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5176
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg
I think its pretty clear that we Brits knew colonialism was done and dusted at the end of the war.


catwhoorg,

What do you think the Brits would have thought of colonialism had there not been a second World War? That's the question.



Without WWII (or similar) Colonialism would have been very much to the fore. The realization of decolonialism, was a consequence of changes at home, which were fundamentally driven by the war.

It is no mere happenstance that there was a Labour victory in 1945. Attitudes had changed. Heck you could argue there was a kind of decolonialism on the home front. With new found freedoms, the NHS being instituted and capital gains/inheritance taxes eating away at the large estates, there was shift in society, the likes of which is rarely seen.


I only lived in Scotland a bit as a child in the very early 60s, but my impression then and in visits since is that facing the Nazis and the Japanese made the British take their core beliefs and social norms re colonialism out for a walk and not much like what they saw. To their credit the Empire, more or less, acted on its own to begin to unwind. France not so much.
warspite1

Taken as a whole, I think there is much to be said (in the positive) for the British Empire.



There is much to be said both ways.

I'm currently reading a deep history of the founding of Australia, "The Fatal Shore." Some of the actions taken by the Empire in regards to that endeavor rank up there with the most infamous national crimes of history.


The Fatal Shore is an excellent book, but dont imagine you can learn everything from 1 book.
In addition, dont forget that some actions taken were quite reasonable for their times, just as some nations thought slavery was acceptable.

The USA also took part in actions in Central America/Carribean in an attempt to create "Colonies/Areas of Control" using what we would now call reprehensible methods.

In the end, the British Empire was able to create a Nation which was able to negotiate its Independence rather than resort to armed rebellion for its birth (Same goes for Canada & New Zealand).

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 43
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 11:38:43 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8081
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
This thread was kind of marginal to begin with. It's about a post WW II topic.

Discussions of politics surrounding WW II era are generally acceptable, but bringing up current political stuff isn't. Historically threads that start delving into recent politics get locked. Very few of us were born yet, or old enough to live through WW II era politics or the decade or so after, but when political memories are still fairly fresh so are any raw feelings we may have about them and that can cause an intellectual discussion start circling the drain pretty quickly. Hence the reason we try to avoid recent and current politics in discussions.

This would be a better suited thread to the general discussion forum, but I don't have the ability to move it there.

Keep this to French Indochina and the collapse of colonialism and I'll let it go.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 44
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 12:46:38 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower

Count me as an Anglophile, cuz I agree with Warspite-- almost everywhere it touched, the British Empire (eventually) left the native peoples in better condition with regard to the rest of the world than they would have been in otherwise.

An observation to Bullwinkle58: My impression of your views from your posts in this thread is that you have well and truly absorbed the revisionist leftist history imparted to you by your college professors. The very mention of the role of the USSR in post-World-War-II politics in Indochina should be enough to gain insight into the reasons why the West thought it necessary to meddle.

And to all of you who seem to agree that the days when communism was a serious threat to freedom are over, I ask, "Are you quite sure?" The current holder of the office of President of the United States seems clearly to be a Marxist, at the very least, who is hell-bent on turning the US into the same kind of unproductive society as exists now in Spain, Italy, Greece, and France (and on the brink of which the UK seems to be teetering).

Another thought: The discussion here reinforces the notion that History is hindsight, and Hindsight is 20/20.


You just earned yourself the green button your truly bizarre PMs should have. And thanks for turning a history thread into politics, which will likely get it locked.



< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/5/2013 1:08:24 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Capt Hornblower)
Post #: 45
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 12:59:40 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The Fatal Shore is an excellent book, but dont imagine you can learn everything from 1 book.

Oh, I don't. That history degree is gathering dust, but I did take a way a few habits. I don't know much of anything about the System period of Australia, and the book is laying in some foundation. It's well-reseached, footnoted, and written.

In addition, dont forget that some actions taken were quite reasonable for their times, just as some nations thought slavery was acceptable.

The author goes to great pains to say that when describing the British legal system. However, I would have to push back on your statement. Nations such as the US thought slavery was acceptable in, say, 1790. But we didn't enslave our own citizens. In Australia at the time Britain did. I refer specificaly to the officially sanctioned sales of female convicts to land-owners and soldiers.

The USA also took part in actions in Central America/Carribean in an attempt to create "Colonies/Areas of Control" using what we would now call reprehensible methods.

We did, after the Spanish American War. But I would add that the US, despite military power far beyond anything Britain ever had, has not sought empire since WWII. Where we have bases we pay cash. Perhaps it's because we've never felt geographically restrained in North America, but the imperialistic impulse has always been fairly muted here.

In the end, the British Empire was able to create a Nation which was able to negotiate its Independence rather than resort to armed rebellion for its birth (Same goes for Canada & New Zealand).

True. To many Americans, including me, the desire of Oz to have anything to do with GB is fairly strange, given what they did to you in the 19th C. as well as treatment in WWI. We have had a pretty basic English-model culture, as well as a legal system rooted firmly in English common law, for over 400 years without the other entanglements. To each his own of course, but from here, and spoken by someone with three of four grandparents Canadian, I don't see what the attraction still is to the link.



< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/5/2013 1:01:24 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 46
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 1:11:56 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 18710
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

warspite1

quote:

Nations such as the US thought slavery was acceptable in, say, 1790. But we didn't enslave our own citizens. In Australia at the time Britain did. I refer specificaly to the officially sanctioned sales of female convicts to land-owners and soldiers.


So thats alright then.....

quote:

We did, after the Spanish American War. But I would add that the US, despite military power far beyond anything Britain ever had, has not sought empire since WWII. Where we have bases we pay cash. Perhaps it's because we've never felt geographically restrained in North America, but the imperialistic impulse has always been fairly muted here.


Well exactly - the US didn't need to look overseas - they just nicked land off the Indians..... why you seem to think the British are worse than the Americans is beyond me...

quote:

To many Americans, including me, the desire of Oz to have anything to do with GB is fairly strange, given what they did to you in the 19th C. as well as treatment in WWI.


What we did to them? Treatment in WWI? Please.....

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 47
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 1:24:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

warspite1

quote:

Nations such as the US thought slavery was acceptable in, say, 1790. But we didn't enslave our own citizens. In Australia at the time Britain did. I refer specificaly to the officially sanctioned sales of female convicts to land-owners and soldiers.


So thats alright then.....

I don't understand this coment.

quote:

We did, after the Spanish American War. But I would add that the US, despite military power far beyond anything Britain ever had, has not sought empire since WWII. Where we have bases we pay cash. Perhaps it's because we've never felt geographically restrained in North America, but the imperialistic impulse has always been fairly muted here.


Well exactly - the US didn't need to look overseas - they just nicked land off the Indians..... why you seem to think the British are worse than the Americans is beyond me...

Well, to put things into historical parallel, you "nicked" land from the Romans in the same sense. Every piece of habitable land on Earth has been occupied by more than one ethnic group in history or pre-history.

A very large part of the US was bought from France or Spain. Cash money. How about Scotland?


quote:

To many Americans, including me, the desire of Oz to have anything to do with GB is fairly strange, given what they did to you in the 19th C. as well as treatment in WWI.


What we did to them? Treatment in WWI? Please.....

(cough) Gallipoli (cough)



_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 48
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 1:36:06 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 18710
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

warspite1

quote:

Nations such as the US thought slavery was acceptable in, say, 1790. But we didn't enslave our own citizens. In Australia at the time Britain did. I refer specificaly to the officially sanctioned sales of female convicts to land-owners and soldiers.


So thats alright then.....

I don't understand this coment.

quote:

We did, after the Spanish American War. But I would add that the US, despite military power far beyond anything Britain ever had, has not sought empire since WWII. Where we have bases we pay cash. Perhaps it's because we've never felt geographically restrained in North America, but the imperialistic impulse has always been fairly muted here.


Well exactly - the US didn't need to look overseas - they just nicked land off the Indians..... why you seem to think the British are worse than the Americans is beyond me...

Well, to put things into historical parallel, you "nicked" land from the Romans in the same sense. Every piece of habitable land on Earth has been occupied by more than one ethnic group in history or pre-history.

A very large part of the US was bought from France or Spain. Cash money. How about Scotland?


quote:

To many Americans, including me, the desire of Oz to have anything to do with GB is fairly strange, given what they did to you in the 19th C. as well as treatment in WWI.


What we did to them? Treatment in WWI? Please.....

(cough) Gallipoli (cough)


warspite1

Re the comment you didn't understand - you implied that "Well yes we enslaved people, but at least they weren't our own citizens we put in chains and beat senseless and worked like dogs" . Like that is somehow perfectly acceptable.

Scotland? I thought you were a history buff.... Ever heard of the Act of Union? We'll see what the Scots really think when they go to referendum.

And please, I really - and genuinely - expected better of you than Gallipoli. That comment was just ridiculous. Gallipoli was a complete and utter buggers muddle from start to finish and the British were in charge so the blame stops there. But to suggest we "treated" the ANZACS a certain way on purpose is beyond contempt. Have a look at the casualty figures for the Gallipoli campaign - British, French and ANZAC.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 49
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 1:50:33 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
By the second half of your sentence you also make the classic error of treating all Empires the same. They most certainly were not.


They sure are not. Ours were good, and benign, and globally positive, whereas theirs were bad, nasty, and inconditionally negative.

Seriously, there is no such thing as a British, French or American approach to imperialism. There are lots of specific cases, which reflect different regions, and different stages of an "age of empires" that last 500 years... Trying to present Indochina as a typical French colony, which should be opposed to India, a typical English approach to graceful (that's the correct adjective, isn't it?) decolonisation, is not the way to understand what happened.

Once again, Indochina doesn't fit the story of decolonisation well. To some extent, you could say its post WWII history was a WWI legacy, when western powers tried to redraw the map of Europe, and set those half baked ideas in treaty stone. Postdam suggested two occupation zones, Chinese (of all people!) and British. Then there was some tacit, but reluctant agreement, to get France back on the saddle, and one Vietnam again, and then two again...

I think it was Bullwinkle who quoted Fall. This really is a must read.

Francois

< Message edited by fcharton -- 3/5/2013 1:51:12 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 50
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 1:56:01 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 18710
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
By the second half of your sentence you also make the classic error of treating all Empires the same. They most certainly were not.


They sure are not. The British were good, and benign, and globally positive, whereas The French, Spanish, Belgian, German, Portuguese et al were bad, nasty, and inconditionally negative.

Francois
warspite1

Well done fcharton - you are getting the hang of it!


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 51
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 2:00:37 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Well done fcharton - you are getting the hang of it!


I've had good masters, warspite1. And please PM if you ever get to the city of lights (stranded by weather or something like, you never know), beer's on me.

F.


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 52
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 2:17:42 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 18710
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Well done fcharton - you are getting the hang of it!


I've had good masters, warspite1. And please PM if you ever get to the city of lights (stranded by weather or something like, you never know), beer's on me.

F.


warspite1

City of Lights?


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 53
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 2:25:31 PM   
Bo Rearguard


Posts: 262
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline
quote:

warspite1

City of Lights?



Better known as Paris.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 54
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 2:34:05 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 951
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
City of Lights?


Lights : an ancient French word for canine dejections.
Beer is also an ancient French word, btw...

Francois

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 55
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 4:28:07 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the comment you didn't understand - you implied that "Well yes we enslaved people, but at least they weren't our own citizens we put in chains and beat senseless and worked like dogs" . Like that is somehow perfectly acceptable.

Certainly not acceptable, But in a whole different class than selling your female citizens into sexual slavery to amuse bored garrison troops.

Scotland? I thought you were a history buff.... Ever heard of the Act of Union?

Yeah, and I've heard of Edward I too.

And please, I really - and genuinely - expected better of you than Gallipoli. That comment was just ridiculous. Gallipoli was a complete and utter buggers muddle from start to finish and the British were in charge so the blame stops there. But to suggest we "treated" the ANZACS a certain way on purpose is beyond contempt. Have a look at the casualty figures for the Gallipoli campaign - British, French and ANZAC.

Please to expain what the geopolitical worth of Gallipoli was to an Australian citizen standing in Sydney minding his own business? Every one who died took the place of an Englishman whose government actually helped start that war ANZAC troops got to fight. Your views seem so Britain-centric you can't concieve of Aussies having a life of their own apart from the Empire which sent them there as convicts, largely to die.



< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/5/2013 4:32:02 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 56
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 4:46:05 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 18710
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Re the comment you didn't understand - you implied that "Well yes we enslaved people, but at least they weren't our own citizens we put in chains and beat senseless and worked like dogs" . Like that is somehow perfectly acceptable.

Certainly not acceptable, But in a whole different class than selling your female citizens into sexual slavery to amuse bored garrison troops.

Scotland? I thought you were a history buff.... Ever heard of the Act of Union?

Yeah, and I've heard of Edward I too.

And please, I really - and genuinely - expected better of you than Gallipoli. That comment was just ridiculous. Gallipoli was a complete and utter buggers muddle from start to finish and the British were in charge so the blame stops there. But to suggest we "treated" the ANZACS a certain way on purpose is beyond contempt. Have a look at the casualty figures for the Gallipoli campaign - British, French and ANZAC.

Please to expain what the geopolitical worth of Gallipoli was to an Australian citizen standing in Sydney minding is own business? Every one who died took the place of an Englishman whose government actually helped start that war ANZAC troops got to fight.


warspite1

Oh dear....

Right, just so we are clear here:

Taking an African from his homeland, transporting him (if it can be described as such) and working him to death in a cottonfield is, you admit, "not acceptable" BUT

Selling a female into sexual slavery is far worse - a whole different class???

Right - that's a bit like saying pushing someone off a 1,000 ft cliff is wrong - but if you push someone else off a 2,000 ft cliff that's really bad

You've heard of Edward I - well done...er except what is that you are trying to say? what are you trying to prove by this spectacular show of knowledge? Name a country that, in less enlightened times, has not attacked its neighbours? Its what happened - don't you understand? USA-Canada, England-Scotland, Spain-Portugal, France-Italy, Japan-China blah blah blah.

Hopefully you will re-read and retract your last comment:

England (good one ) helped start WWI (yeah - WWII too, the bloody fascists) and press-ganged ANZACS who were standing on street corners across Sydney and environs into fighting that war for us. Of course the average Australian felt absolutely no ties, no affinity with the mother country, did not feel that fighting on the side of Britain was the right thing both morally and from a sense of their own protection? Everyone that died took the place of an Englishmen? - PATHETIC.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 57
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 4:52:11 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 18710
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Please to expain what the geopolitical worth of Gallipoli was to an Australian citizen standing in Sydney minding his own business? Every one who died took the place of an Englishman whose government actually helped start that war ANZAC troops got to fight. Your views seem so Britain-centric you can't concieve of Aussies having a life of their own apart from the Empire which sent them there as convicts, largely to die.


warspite1

Amendment to your last point.

WHAT!!!!!?????

We sent convicts there to die. Yes - times were brutal in days gone by weren't they?

Can't concieve of Aussies having a life of their own? Australians have a life, a country of their own (see JeffK post 43). Your accusations are becoming absurder by the minute! Where did that come from?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 58
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 9:46:54 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8582
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Oh dear....

Right, just so we are clear here:

Taking an African from his homeland,

Done by other Africans and/or Arabs, but go on . . .

transporting him (if it can be described as such)

The death rates in the Middle Passage were lower than for Botany Bay-bound CITIZENS (see that empahsis there?) in the First Fleet. And for a number of other, later voyages.

and working him to death in a cottonfield is, you admit, "not acceptable"

Slaves were infrequenlty "worked to death" on US plantations. They were valuable capital goods. I think you'll find the work-related slave death rate far higher on English cane plantations in the Carib.

BUT

Selling a female into sexual slavery is far worse - a whole different class???

Yes. Again, CITIZENS. I italicized it before, but apparently you missed it. Not to mention the gross violation of any norms of military discipline. Not to mention lack of due process. I could go on. And on. And on. One of the lowest acts of the British Empire, bar none.

You've heard of Edward I - well done...er except what is that you are trying to say?

You know. You tried to finesse Scotland into the Union all legal like, picking that conveneint date. I merely point out that, again, history doesn't start where it's convenient for your argument.

Next you'll be telling me that Ireland was caressed with kid gloves, brought out of filth and infamy by the tender love of the British People.


what are you trying to prove by this spectacular show of knowledge?

That you pick and choose?

Name a country that, in less enlightened times, has not attacked its neighbours? Its what happened - don't you understand? USA-Canada,

The USA has never attacked Canada. The US has attacked Great Britain IN Canada. I assume you speak of the War of 1812? No Canada.

England-Scotland,

. . . England-Wales. England-Ireland. England-France. England-Holland. England-Castile. England-Aragon. England-Brittany. (Yawn) England-Genoa. England-Venice. England-Holy Roman Empire. England-Ottoman Empire. England-Spain. England-Normandy. England-various many sultanates in the 2nd and 3rd Crusades. England-Byzantine Empire. And, of course, England-USA. Busy, busy.

Hopefully you will re-read and retract your last comment:

England (good one ) helped start WWI

True. But beyond scope here. You probably think it all came down to a bullet and an Archduke.

(yeah - WWII too, the bloody fascists)

Yeah. Treaty of Versailles. Despite desperate US attempts to get you and France to not act like horse's behinds. Plus your unwillingness to address Hitler before the 11th hour after you helped create him.

and press-ganged ANZACS who were standing on street corners across Sydney and environs into fighting that war for us.

Of course the average Australian felt absolutely no ties, no affinity with the mother country, did not feel that fighting on the side of Britain was the right thing both morally and from a sense of their own protection?

I have read various accounts. And protection? Rich. Was Austro-Hungary going to attack them? Die to protect the country that sent them literally to the ends of the earth to die, where they built one of the finest naitons in the world, despite criminally incompetant Crown representatives? I have to confess I have never understood why Australia still speaks to you guys. I can understand Canada; they got left alone more or less. But OZ was a frickin' concentration camp. And then you want them to fight your stupid, unnecessary wars. Shows th epower of propaganda I suppose.

And protection again in 1942? While the bombs dropped on Darwin where was the Empire? What did OZ get for all the dues? An IOU.

I withdraw nothing.




_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 59
RE: Not WW2... - 3/5/2013 11:48:48 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8081
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I'm getting multiple complaints at this point. This thread is getting shut down.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Not WW2... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.123