WW II Historical Thread, Discussion, Pics, Videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
"Revelation of the contents enraged Americans, especially after German State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Arthur Zimmermann publicly admitted on March 3, 1917, that the telegram was genuine. It helped to generate support for the American declaration of war on Germany in April 1917"
---
Well
'The end of the local world' (1914-1949) is a chain of events that begins with a fuse: in 1870 London takes note of the birth of a new power: Germany.
And around 1900 a hard core within the ruling class of the British empire decides to destroy Germany and waits for the right occasion while taking the necessary steps.
Ho Chi Minh (!) ... and Mao (?) ... said that he had been inspired by Abd el Krim
One more piece of the puzzle that fits together
Why Spain's absurd war in Morocco
The answer lies in the French archives that we now understand well within this framework
London negotiates with Paris and at the end of the talks a loose end remains: London does not want to lose its control of the Strait of Gibraltar and so London and Paris come to an agreement: we entrust northern Morocco (the "Rif") to Spain on condition that it does not install gun batteries on the coast. Said and done.
And this absurd and damned war in Morocco will be one of the roots of an even greater tragedy: the Spanish Civil War. Conservative voices of the time shouted: "What the hell are we going to Morocco for?" And also socialist voices. Nothing. The Spaniards were good Ukrainians ready to die on the altar of the Anglo-empire.
---
Well
'The end of the local world' (1914-1949) is a chain of events that begins with a fuse: in 1870 London takes note of the birth of a new power: Germany.
And around 1900 a hard core within the ruling class of the British empire decides to destroy Germany and waits for the right occasion while taking the necessary steps.
Ho Chi Minh (!) ... and Mao (?) ... said that he had been inspired by Abd el Krim
One more piece of the puzzle that fits together
Why Spain's absurd war in Morocco
The answer lies in the French archives that we now understand well within this framework
London negotiates with Paris and at the end of the talks a loose end remains: London does not want to lose its control of the Strait of Gibraltar and so London and Paris come to an agreement: we entrust northern Morocco (the "Rif") to Spain on condition that it does not install gun batteries on the coast. Said and done.
And this absurd and damned war in Morocco will be one of the roots of an even greater tragedy: the Spanish Civil War. Conservative voices of the time shouted: "What the hell are we going to Morocco for?" And also socialist voices. Nothing. The Spaniards were good Ukrainians ready to die on the altar of the Anglo-empire.
Last edited:
And in 1919, solid foundations were laid for the return match
Exactly as Keynes prophesied
---
In short: the concept of "World War II" is misleading.
There is, on the one hand, a common thread: the British Empire and a chain of events (1914-1949) and, on the other hand, another thread: Japan and China (-1949).
The "Second World War" is in the vast majority of cases in the West a narrative fantasy of palace scribes in the service of London and Washington.
Exactly as Keynes prophesied
---
In short: the concept of "World War II" is misleading.
There is, on the one hand, a common thread: the British Empire and a chain of events (1914-1949) and, on the other hand, another thread: Japan and China (-1949).
The "Second World War" is in the vast majority of cases in the West a narrative fantasy of palace scribes in the service of London and Washington.
Kaiser Wilhelm in Tangier
It is part of The Causes of the First World War, says the Wiki with reason; but
Wikipedia tells the story a bit backwards: it says that the Tangier crisis helped to unite London and Paris, when in fact the Tangier crisis is the first daylight manifestation of the large-scale agreement between London (Landowsne who had replaced Lord Salisbury in the Foreign Office) and Paris (Delcassé).
Kaiser Wilhelm in his naivety had believed the propaganda of the British Empire: freedom of trade among nations.
And there went the Kaiser on behalf of German industrialists ready to do business.
Someone could have told Kaiser Wilhelm to ask in Kong Hong what London meant by freedom of trade, more or less the same as international order based on rules, ours, which we ourselves do not comply with.
There are two major issues here
First
How is it possible that the Adolf followed the Kaiser in his blindness, since the bulk of the 'return match' and so called "second world war" in Europe is Germany invading Russia following the same class-racist manias of the Kaiser.
Moreover: how is it possible that Berlin (though evidently on a different scale) is going to be defeated by London-(Washington) for the third time, now in the Ukrainian Gambit, 1997/2008, with some rag puppets in Berlin.
I mean: the historical inertia is simply appalling.
First
How is it possible that the Adolf followed the Kaiser in his blindness, since the bulk of the 'return match' and so called "second world war" in Europe is Germany invading Russia following the same class-racist manias of the Kaiser.
Moreover: how is it possible that Berlin (though evidently on a different scale) is going to be defeated by London-(Washington) for the third time, now in the Ukrainian Gambit, 1997/2008, with some rag puppets in Berlin.
I mean: the historical inertia is simply appalling.
Second big question
Why do heads of small nations enter the game of the big ones without gaining anything for their own country, absolutely nothing, in fact: spending an enormous amount of money and sacrificing their citizens.
Why does it not even occur to them to think about the well-being of their citizens.
In exchange for entering the halls and parties of the powerful, they are capable of breaking and sinking their own country.
Here I throw in the towel
I wish you a good weekend
Why do heads of small nations enter the game of the big ones without gaining anything for their own country, absolutely nothing, in fact: spending an enormous amount of money and sacrificing their citizens.
Why does it not even occur to them to think about the well-being of their citizens.
In exchange for entering the halls and parties of the powerful, they are capable of breaking and sinking their own country.
Here I throw in the towel
I wish you a good weekend
Septemberprogramm
Lebensraum
"It is eastwards, only and always eastwards" (Adolf)
Drang nach Osten
---
The inertia is spectacular
The idea that the Slavs are inferior is not an Adolf's idea. It is a natural idea for many Germans.
It is the four forces of history: inertia, ignorance, classism and domination.
The bulk of the Second World War in Europe is "Drang nach Osten", and it has been repeated again.
Recall that the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Finnish parliament was forced to resign for a simple sentence: "maybe someone, for example Macron, should say that Ukraine should not enter NATO"
Drang nach Osten
The Germans saw (and see) the Russians as the Japanese saw the Chinese.
This is the bulk of World War II.
Eric Hobsbawn says that the London ruling class not only hid foreign policy from parliament, it hid it from many of the cabinet ministers. That's why i often use the expression "a hard core within the ruling class".
Power is usually in the hands of the 1%, this is well known. But the question that interests me is the following question: how is it possible that Kaiser Wilhelm II expected London to remain neutral, and how is it possible that Adolf followed his same inertia.
The answer is classism. The Kaiser and Adolf believed they belonged to the same class as the London ruling class. In fact Adolf's dream was to be a good partner of the British Empire.
Inertia, Ignorance, Classism, Domination
The Four Beasts of History
Nations are not particularly intelligent. They are comprised of people both stupid and smart.
Just like evolution, that we see successful examples does not mean all nations must be calculated and forward-thinking.
It is just that most of the time, the law of the jungle means stupid nations don't survive. If they don't survive, they usually don't make it to become a big nation. Hence big nations are ones that have historically been a bit more intelligent and astute than the rest, but nothing lasts forever.
There are of course exceptions, but most of that comes down to our frame reference being too short and the modern era being a bit slower paced in terms of nation formation/break-up.