|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I will agree with SteelRails that Poland was just asking for it if he agrees that Korea was just asking Japan for it.
Similarly, I will agree with SR that this is an offensive, stupid and historically inaccurate portrayal of Korea if he says the same about how he described Poland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
I will agree with SteelRails that Poland was just asking for it if he agrees that Korea was just asking Japan for it.
Similarly, I will agree with SR that this is an offensive, stupid and historically inaccurate portrayal of Korea if he says the same about how he described Poland. |
Using his logic he could also make a case for the invasion of Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rockbilly
Joined: 19 Mar 2013
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:08 am Post subject: Dokdo |
|
|
All of you somehow miss the really meaningful question:
What about DOKDO? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blackcat, your comparisons would work if a major port in Korea was 95% ethnically Japanese, was denied freedom of self-determination, had been handed over as part of an unjust peace in a previous war, and was a vital link to another region of your nation, now disconnected.
Same with the Iraq comparison.
The British cabinet shared the view that Danzig should be returned and repeatedly pressed the Poles to return so as to avoid war.
If you want something similar now, look at the case of Georgia trying to get into NATO so to use that backing in its claims against Russia.
After all, was not World War I brought about by minor powers using their alliances to drag in larger states? If they had those guarantees, would they be as unwilling to negotiate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Actually it was the unconditional war guarantee that England gave Poland that caused Poland to take steps that antagonized Hitler far too early and tied England and France into a war they were not ready for.
Similar to small Balkan states dragging in all the major powers 25 years prior. |
Poland did not drag the UK into World War II. The war was started by Hitler. |
And Poland didn't take steps to antagonize Hitler. He was just looking for any excuse to invade. |
Right, and WWI didn't start over foolish mutual assistance treaties to small Balkan States, it started because of the bloodthirsty Kaiser wanting to rape Belgium.
Actually the historical record, if you look into it, strongly indicates how Poland's actions strongly contributed to WWII. Much of this is detailed in Buchanan's book and a few others.
First, in order to analyze this issue, you have to first go back to the debacle that was WWI. Setting aside the missteps that caused that war to begin, when one looks at the end, specifically the terms of German capitulation, one sees how Hitler and WWII came about, or as the Lady Astor put it in response to the question of where was Hitler born, responded "At Versailles".
The end of WWI, created artificial borders for Germany as part of compensation and punitive damages, much like the arbitrary lines that have caused so much grief in the Middle East and Africa. This to a nation that surrendered with much of its army still intact and outside its borders. Ethnic German areas along the Rhine, in the new state of Czechoslovakia, and ones that were formerly part of East Prussia, now Poland, were handed over to foreign lands. In terms of this issue, one should note the port of Danzig, a city that had never before belonged to Poland, 95% ethnically German and the bridge between Germany and East Prussia, being given over to Poland.
Throughout the 30s Hitler, had repeatedly tried to negotiate with over the return of German lands to the German state. However at times, Hitler was willing to cede German areas to other countries in exchange for other concerns. In terms of Danzig, Hitler made repeated offers to Poland, including allowing the Poles to maintain economic control over the port in exchange for allowing German rail lines to be built to connect Germany-Danzig-East Prussia. These proposals were endorsed by the British and the sense of that communicated to the Germans.
We must pause now and go over to the hasty Munich treaty. Surely, Hitler's annexation of the Sudentland should have justified Polish anxiety, except for the fact that Poland herself participated in that pact and gained territory by it. The problem was that Poland believed herself to be a great power, when it was not. The collapse of the Czech government and its partition between Germany and Hungary followed shortly thereafter. The view of the world was that this was done by design, some on the German side merely saw it as Germany stabilizing a collapsed regime by moving into Bohemia and Moravia, historical territory of Germany's predecessor, the Holy Roman Empire. Regardless, the effect on popular opinion in England was that Chamberlain was humiliated and the world regarded Hitler as an aggressor. In that climate, Poland rapidly sought, and gained, French and British guarantees of assistance. Emboldened by these guarantees, Poland now refused to negotiate at all with Hitler, believing that the French and British would come to their aid.
Molotov-Von Ribbentrop, the failure of Britain and France to come to Poland's aid, 6 million Polish dead, and 50 years of occupation by the Nazis and Soviets renders judgment on that belief.
But wasn't Hitler a mortal threat to the world? Hardly. Hitler had agreed by treaty to a navy 1/3rd the size of England's. The British Navy had always been the lifeblood of the British Empire and the guarantee of her independence. If Hitler was about to embark on a war of world conquest, surely he would have built a Kriegsmarine to match. Hitler's goal wasn't to defeat the British Empire, it was to be their allies in the fight against Bolshevism. Hitler's main ally, the one that would be crucial to balance out Germany's numerical inferiority was Italy, a nation 5 years away from being ready to wage war and one led by a leader, Mussolini, who had no great personal love for the Fuhrer, but rather was driven into his arms by diplomatic rebuffs from England and France. Likewise too, with Japan, which had considered England its first friend and peer in the West, suddenly found its good behavior and alliance cast aside through talks where it appeared that England and the USA had colluded as the two Anglo powers to consign an Asiatic one to second rate status. Before those talks, Japan had every incentive to act as a responsible ally and member of the world community, now it had every incentive to abandon such things and pursue its own interests.
Much like the cartoon of the Kaiser sowing destruction in a bloodthirsty rage has been discarded through more nuanced examinations, such as Barbara Tuchman's classic 'The Guns of August', which revealed that war was brought about more through miscalculation,a failure to read intentions and understand the enemy, and overconfidence, so too is history showing that Hitler, while certainly an unsavory character, did not bring about World War II as part of some grand scheme to conquer the war.
It should be noted that there was 1 figure, through both wars, who held ambition as great as any man's, acted with ruthlessness, followed a racialist ideal, and sought to maintain and achieve a global empire at the expense of all others, and had the position, power, and influence to achieve those goals. That man was Winston Churchill.
Our world is be better for it, but the British Empire and the peoples of Eastern Europe were far worse. |
Wow, so much revisionist bullshit history there SR. Kinda sad actually.
At least you've read Barbara Tuchman's book on WW I. I advise you read The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich. It is much more accurate than Pat Buchanan's drivel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Blackcat, your comparisons would work if a major port in Korea was 95% ethnically Japanese, was denied freedom of self-determination, had been handed over as part of an unjust peace in a previous war, and was a vital link to another region of your nation, now disconnected.
Same with the Iraq comparison.
The British cabinet shared the view that Danzig should be returned and repeatedly pressed the Poles to return so as to avoid war.
If you want something similar now, look at the case of Georgia trying to get into NATO so to use that backing in its claims against Russia.
After all, was not World War I brought about by minor powers using their alliances to drag in larger states? If they had those guarantees, would they be as unwilling to negotiate? |
Right. Because if that little antagonist Poland would have played fairly, the poor 'ol Nazis would have left them, and the rest of Europe, alone. 
Nevermind that ethnic cleansing nonsense. By the by, how many 20,000 person mass graves were found in Korea after the Japanese left? How many concentration camps? I ask because for someone who is always so upset about the terrible treatment of Koreans under colonial rule, you seem to be insultingly flippant about the atrocities that occurred in other places.
So maybe the Polish government did goad the poor little innocent Nazis into a war. But did they sell out their population for cushy positions in the new occupied government? Cause...I know a certain country that did... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poland was doomed from the day Hitler took power. Remember they killed prisoners and dressed them in Polish army uniforms put the bodies on the border and declared that Poland had attcked them.
Read Mein Kampf it is pretty clear what his intentions were.
If he so wanted to fight bolshevism with England as his partner then why did he sign a pact with Stalin. Why did Stalin send him supplies to aid his invasion of France.
England stays out of the war somehow and withing six years the continent is controlled by GErmany. England loses ins colonies because Germany now the worlds bully boy. Britain might have survived but at most an economic colony of Germany
Oh yeah the kriegss marine thing. Hitler was much more concerned about aircraft production not interested in building a fleet to match Britains so that agreement meant little. His main opponent was the U.S.S. R, and that would be a land war. Also he was convinced that technical superiority of the German fleet would cancel out Britains numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
Poland was doomed from the day Hitler took power. Remember they killed prisoners and dressed them in Polish army uniforms put the bodies on the border and declared that Poland had attcked them.
Read Mein Kampf it is pretty clear what his intentions were.
If he so wanted to fight bolshevism with England as his partner then why did he sign a pact with Stalin. Why did Stalin send him supplies to aid his invasion of France.
England stays out of the war somehow and withing six years the continent is controlled by GErmany. England loses ins colonies because Germany now the worlds bully boy. Britain might have survived but at most an economic colony of Germany
Oh yeah the kriegss marine thing. Hitler was much more concerned about aircraft production not interested in building a fleet to match Britains so that agreement meant little. His main opponent was the U.S.S. R, and that would be a land war. Also he was convinced that technical superiority of the German fleet would cancel out Britains numbers. |
In that scenario Britain would have become like Vichy France, a poodle of the Germans, but with its empire and navy intact.
Also the Germans despite fighting a huge land war also had to divert significant resources to building and maintaining naval and air units to combat the allies in the West.
The Germans were in some ways more technologically advanced, bu thatt counted for naught against the sheer numbers of the Allied air force and navy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Right. Because if that little antagonist Poland would have played fairly, the poor 'ol Nazis would have left them, and the rest of Europe, alone.
|
That's not what I said or claimed. What I claimed was that Polish policy was largely responsible for starting the war in September 1939.
This isn't about "Fair". No one in Europe was playing "fair". What it is, is about a nation, Poland engaging in a diplomatic game of chicken and miscalculating badly. It believed that the British war guarantee would be sufficient to deter Nazi invasion, enabling it to not have to answer the Danzig question. It miscalculated badly. World leaders often miscalculate.
| Quote: |
| Nevermind that ethnic cleansing nonsense. By the by, how many 20,000 person mass graves were found in Korea after the Japanese left? How many concentration camps? I ask because for someone who is always so upset about the terrible treatment of Koreans under colonial rule, you seem to be insultingly flippant about the atrocities that occurred in other places. |
What does any of this have to do with whether or not the British war guarantee caused the Poles to err in their assumptions or that the result of World War II was the loss of the British empire and its relegation to 2nd rate status.
And no, I am not much of a ranter on Japanese colonialism over Korea. In the context of the world at that time, from their point of view, they were rather justified in what they were doing. Of course the Koreans suffered poorly, but Japan was also responsible for a good deal of industrial and technological development.
What this has to do with Polish policy, I have no idea. I didn't mention Korea or bring it up, and there is no "comparison" issue here.
| Quote: |
| But did they sell out their population for cushy positions in the new occupied government? Cause...I know a certain country that did... |
Norway?
| Quote: |
| If he so wanted to fight bolshevism with England as his partner then why did he sign a pact with Stalin. Why did Stalin send him supplies to aid his invasion of France. |
Because the central issue at the time was Danzig, without control of which, his war against Bolshevism and defense of East Prussia would be precarious. Molotov-Von Ribbentrop allowed him to gain that port. Neither side had any delusions about what was going on. In fact, the complete lack of morals which both operated and did not bother to waste time on, enabled that pact to be concluded in 24 hours, while Britain and France dithered with Russia.
| Quote: |
In that scenario Britain would have become like Vichy France, a poodle of the Germans, but with its empire and navy intact.
Also the Germans despite fighting a huge land war also had to divert significant resources to building and maintaining naval and air units to combat the allies in the West. |
The British with their navy intact and local air superiority is no poodle of anyone. Without a true worldwide navy, Germany is a regional power, not a global one.
Germany was simply unready to fight a war of global conquest and there are no indications that Molotov-Von Ribbentrop was anything but a regional treaty for a regional aim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
Right. Because if that little antagonist Poland would have played fairly, the poor 'ol Nazis would have left them, and the rest of Europe, alone.
|
That's not what I said or claimed. What I claimed was that Polish policy was largely responsible for starting the war in September 1939.
This isn't about "Fair". No one in Europe was playing "fair". What it is, is about a nation, Poland engaging in a diplomatic game of chicken and miscalculating badly. It believed that the British war guarantee would be sufficient to deter Nazi invasion, enabling it to not have to answer the Danzig question. It miscalculated badly. World leaders often miscalculate.
| Quote: |
| Nevermind that ethnic cleansing nonsense. By the by, how many 20,000 person mass graves were found in Korea after the Japanese left? How many concentration camps? I ask because for someone who is always so upset about the terrible treatment of Koreans under colonial rule, you seem to be insultingly flippant about the atrocities that occurred in other places. |
What does any of this have to do with whether or not the British war guarantee caused the Poles to err in their assumptions or that the result of World War II was the loss of the British empire and its relegation to 2nd rate status.
And no, I am not much of a ranter on Japanese colonialism over Korea. In the context of the world at that time, from their point of view, they were rather justified in what they were doing. Of course the Koreans suffered poorly, but Japan was also responsible for a good deal of industrial and technological development.
What this has to do with Polish policy, I have no idea. I didn't mention Korea or bring it up, and there is no "comparison" issue here.
| Quote: |
| But did they sell out their population for cushy positions in the new occupied government? Cause...I know a certain country that did... |
Norway?
| Quote: |
| If he so wanted to fight bolshevism with England as his partner then why did he sign a pact with Stalin. Why did Stalin send him supplies to aid his invasion of France. |
Because the central issue at the time was Danzig, without control of which, his war against Bolshevism and defense of East Prussia would be precarious. Molotov-Von Ribbentrop allowed him to gain that port. Neither side had any delusions about what was going on. In fact, the complete lack of morals which both operated and did not bother to waste time on, enabled that pact to be concluded in 24 hours, while Britain and France dithered with Russia.
| Quote: |
In that scenario Britain would have become like Vichy France, a poodle of the Germans, but with its empire and navy intact.
Also the Germans despite fighting a huge land war also had to divert significant resources to building and maintaining naval and air units to combat the allies in the West. |
The British with their navy intact and local air superiority is no poodle of anyone. Without a true worldwide navy, Germany is a regional power, not a global one.
Germany was simply unready to fight a war of global conquest and there are no indications that Molotov-Von Ribbentrop was anything but a regional treaty for a regional aim. |
No they weren't going for world conquest just large chunks of Eastern Europe, at least in the short term.
I also say poodle because, in that scenario, the threat of German reprisals to the home land would negate any threat a lone Britain could do in a Europe dominated by a victorious Germany.
On the Poland issue, if Germany was only interested in 'German lands' why then take Bohemia and Moravia? Why occupy Polish lands full of Polish people?
The taking of Prague after all the guarantees of Munich shows clearly that Germany cared only about more land. The Poles didn't push the Germans into it, once they got their guarantee from the Soviets they knew they had a free hand to do what they wanted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
As Churchhill said "Looking back it seems we always had victory grasped few know what a close thing it was.
If Brazil and cuba side with Germany and it was close. then the German navy gains an advantage in the Atlantic that would have given them a big strategic advantage over the British fleet.
Poland did not invade Germany. There were other options to the Danzig problem. That was an excuse. To say that Poland started the war, is ridiculous they simply did not realize the character of Hitler or his ruthlessness. They were counting on rational behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
Japan, on the other hand, could have altered the outcome of the war by invading eastern Russia. They chose not to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rockbilly
Joined: 19 Mar 2013
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:51 am Post subject: Status quo ante |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
Japan, on the other hand, could have altered the outcome of the war by invading eastern Russia. They chose not to. |
Japan never stood a chance against the USSR. Soviet troops raced across the whole of Manchuria and right down HERE, into Korea, in the expanse of JUST THREE DAYS, if memory serves, in August of '45. It's been said that Japan gave up not because of the A-bomb but because of that overwhelming Soviet invasion--which Japan could only halt by bringing in America in on its side. I believe it!
It remains to be said that Britain and France declared war on Germany first, in 1939. USA cut off Japan's oil supply in '41--an unmistakable act of war. On any objective standard of analysis, the Allies were the aggressors in that war.
Status quo ante. Anglo-America still owns the whole world. Good news for Wall Street and for English teachers. Bad news for most of the world's people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Status quo ante |
|
|
| rockbilly wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
Japan, on the other hand, could have altered the outcome of the war by invading eastern Russia. They chose not to. |
Japan never stood a chance against the USSR. Soviet troops raced across the whole of Manchuria and right down HERE, into Korea, in the expanse of JUST THREE DAYS, if memory serves, in August of '45. It's been said that Japan gave up not because of the A-bomb but because of that overwhelming Soviet invasion--which Japan could only halt by bringing in America in on its side. I believe it!
It remains to be said that Britain and France declared war on Germany first, in 1939. USA cut off Japan's oil supply in '41--an unmistakable act of war. On any objective standard of analysis, the Allies were the aggressors in that war.
Status quo ante. Anglo-America still owns the whole world. Good news for Wall Street and for English teachers. Bad news for most of the world's people. |
1. It wasn't 3 days, more like 2 weeks, including after Japan formally stopped its military actions.
2. Who cares if the UK and France declared war on Germany first? It was made crystal clear that if Germany were to invade Poland, that's what they would do. It is not as if it were some big surprise to everyone when it happened. Germany was the aggressor. Had it not invaded Poland, France and the UK would not have declared war against it.
3. The USA would not have imposed those sanctions had Japan not launched a war against China and other parts of Asia. In fact the USA was quite slow in doing anything against Japan while it waged war.
4. There is less poverty now than at any other time in our history. Living standards have shot up enormously in a big chunk of the world. Europe (with the exception of the Balkans) has been at peace for over 50 years. I'd say things aren't that bad these days... And "Anglo-America", as you call it, certainly doesn't own China. Places like Brazil and India aren't afraid of asserting themselves these days. Ask many southern Europeans, and I'd wager they'd say Germany has more control over their livlihoods than anything "Anglo-American"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
Soviet Russia would have crushed Hitler regardless of what Britain did and even if the U.S. had stayed out of the war. The scale of the war on the Eastern Front was far greater than in western Europe.
Japan, on the other hand, could have altered the outcome of the war by invading eastern Russia. They chose not to. |
That's because they lost a big battle in Mongolia to the USSR (actually referred to in Murakami's novel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle) in 1939, then signed a non-aggression pact with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
