No, I don't think so. Britain wouldn't agree to peace terms under those conditions. It would only have worked if the Nazis were guaranteed European hegemony (similar to Napoleon), whilst Britain retained the Indian sub-continent and most of Africa (with obvious concessions made to Japan in the Far East - Singapore, etc).
Will the world will be a better place without the US involvement in everything?
- Thread starter Sky1981
- Start date
But in the absence of a peace deal with Britain?
No, still don't think they go there. Not until they invade Britain first. So I don't think it would happen in this scenario, as Britain would seek terms.
I read someplace, many decades ago, that part of the agreement between Germany and Japan, put India in Japan's "Sphere of Influence" IF that is true then they probably would not have pushed on into India. That of course assumes Hitler would have kept his deal with Japan had he been victorious over the Soviets and the UK.
Makes sense, the Japanese were in Burma and the Andamans by that time anyway right? Germans would have arrived late if the Raj had collapsed.
Yep, exactly my thoughts. If any invasion of India occurs, it's the Japanese and not the Germans. Though the Germans would be calling the shots in any agreement, and would be more likely to not provoke Britain by taking its most prized colonial possession. Hitler wanted a pact with England from the start, so terms would have been reached had the USSR suffered a swift defeat like France (though was never going to happen, due to landmass, weather conditions, geography, and population size).
There's also the internal Indian situation to comprehend. Gandhi, etc. Protests are non-violent, but would likely have been far different with a foreign invader (British had been there centuries).
As a reminder the U.S. opposed such heavy handed treatment of the Germans post WW1.
Fair point.
Good god no.
yes - stop buying goods from everyone/consuming , stop policing the world , stop super sizing everything and everyone.
Is this serious?
of course not - if the US stopped consuming the world's economy would be crushed. the whole fecking topic is a joke.
Lol good deal then. Sarcasm is occasionally hard to get in print.
I just read through this thread, and must admit I'm a little perplexed by the idea I read on here a fair amount about how terrible it is to be poor in the US.
I work, daily, with people who are in poverty. They have access to food, shelter, free education, significantly reduced cost post secondary education, basic health care, etc.
How great is being poor in other countries? I get that a disproportionate amount of wealth is concentrated in a relatively few, but that's another issue. Maybe it's the state I live in or something.
I work, daily, with people who are in poverty. They have access to food, shelter, free education, significantly reduced cost post secondary education, basic health care, etc.
How great is being poor in other countries? I get that a disproportionate amount of wealth is concentrated in a relatively few, but that's another issue. Maybe it's the state I live in or something.
Woodrow Wilson's idealism was certainly refreshing but the US also suffered the least and had the least to worry about a resurgent Germany after WWI. It is a little understandable why the likes of France had a much more punitive view. And there's also the argument that the treatment of Germany was too soft, not too heavy.
I've always been taught that the World War II was a result of Germany's punitive punishment and France getting the rights for some of Germany's natural resources.
Indeed it was. "This is not peace. It is armistice for 20 years." Ferdinand Foch
There are differing historian perspectives on it. Germany didn't end up paying most of the indemnity in the end, Alsace-Lorraine had belonged to France before the Franco-Prussian war, and the occupation of the Ruhr prevented Germany from building a war army earlier. In fact, had the occupation of the Ruhr been enforced on the Nazis it's very doubtful Hitler would have been able to build up Germany's armed forces to that level by 1939.
The runaway inflation and consequent recession in the German Reich is what gave the Nazis a lot of political momentum and although it was popular in Germany to blame that on the Treaty of Versailles it's doubtful how much of a factor it really was.
I reckon that if we look in hindsight, we could potentially construe arguments whichever way we would like by looking at things selectively. I'm not questioning your grasp of the subject or your reasoning, but I'm just speculating myself based on the online debates I've seen recently. I was talking to a friend recently about Holocaust and he seemed to be convinced that there were plenty of red flags in the way history portrays Holocaust.
I think WWII was inevitable. Too many empires all with the same aspirations of hegemony, too much isolationism, too much distrust, and the most radical period in the history of politics (the far right and the far left clashing in a literal sense).
You should read The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelstein.
What stance does it take?
It's an investigatory approach into the symbolic distortion of The Holocaust for various political and financial goals. It helps that its author's family all died in concentration camps, and that the majority of the material is Israeli sourced, as it removes any possible labels of "anti-Semitic".
It's a genuine scholarly book, written in journal fashion with a plethora of references. Well worth the read (as though it deals with the Post War era, it delivers cold facts about The Holocaust in general).
It's not a Holocaust denial book is it? Will give it a read.
Oh Christ no. I have no time for that nonsense. It just investigates the way in which the Holocaust is used manipulatively in the press. (Like I said, Finklestein's entire extended family were murdered by the Nazis).
Last edited:
The question was if the world would be better without US involvement.
But people are talking about WWII, politics, the Holocaust, the nazis, the communists etc.
Has anyone of you asked why is this happening?
The answer is obvious to me. If you don't want a "world police" as somebody named it, then you don't want this socio-political system and this kind of economy. You don't wamt inequality, wars and poverty.
And the main period when peoples were taking action to a new kind of society, was before and during the WWII.
So, the question could be: if not a "world police", then what? OR if not NATO-US invasions and manipulation of foreign politics and societies, then what? OR if not the wars and the cruelty which give as the right to be called "western civilization", then what?
In the end the question is "if not imperialism, which protects western society, then what"?
The answer here is class war that should lead into a new kind of society. But that's just my personal opinion.
But people are talking about WWII, politics, the Holocaust, the nazis, the communists etc.
Has anyone of you asked why is this happening?
The answer is obvious to me. If you don't want a "world police" as somebody named it, then you don't want this socio-political system and this kind of economy. You don't wamt inequality, wars and poverty.
And the main period when peoples were taking action to a new kind of society, was before and during the WWII.
So, the question could be: if not a "world police", then what? OR if not NATO-US invasions and manipulation of foreign politics and societies, then what? OR if not the wars and the cruelty which give as the right to be called "western civilization", then what?
In the end the question is "if not imperialism, which protects western society, then what"?
The answer here is class war that should lead into a new kind of society. But that's just my personal opinion.
Actually it doesn't. For jews who criticize Israel there always the concept of the self-hating jew, who is therefore an antisemite.
Dont forget their massive involvement in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, something the British government seemed couldnt care less about.
Being Jewish and and Irealite are not the same thing... Jews dont believe in land ownership, go figure, puts the Gaza issue in perspective.
So, jews are a community, an religion group, that should not critisize themselves because if they did they would be anti-semites.
This is irrational.
I know, but the accusation of antisemitism is often used to shut up those who criticise Israel, even when they are jewish themselves sometimes.
Yea, its a classic political technique... "your opinion doesnt count because your racist". Its pretty much why its nearly impossible to voice your opinion on nearly any big issue these days, including immigration.
You're conflating Jewishness with the policies of an Israeli state. There are Jews who aren't Israeli, and plenty of Israelis who aren't Jews. The self-hating Jew tag is one which far-right Zionists bestow upon any Jewish person who has the temerity to question Israel's foreign and domestic policies. It's as ad hominem and churlish as it gets.
Oh wait, I read your comment wrong. I thought you were referring to Finkelstein as a self-hating Jew, rather than pointing out the tendency of certain hardcore Israeli supporters to do so.
It's not my conflation, it's the zionist's conflation. It's also a conflation that has the potential to spur antisemitism in those who don't agree with Israel at all, it's not only an evil conflation towards criticasters of Israel, it's also a harmful one for jews around the world.
Exactly, even jews aren't safe for the accusation of antisemitism by zionists. The accusation of antisemitism is a weapon in the information war.
This is an interesting documentary about antisemitism by the way:
I don't know what the reactions would have been if a non jew had made a documentary like that.
Last edited:
Well you can't really point to one cause of course. There are a myriad of causes, of events that led to WW2 including all the usual reasons that wars happen. WW1 and the way it ended are among them.
The irony of it.
Think of us as a massive, obese consumer. When we go on a diet, the rest of the world is fecked.
LOL - yes
