Foreign policy.

[John Little]

Purely academic, without casualties or emotion.

Clausewitz defined war as the extension of state policy by other means.
And state policy is ineffective unless it sticks.

During the Cold War certain buzzwords dictated what happened in the game of bluff between the nations. Fear. Deterrence. Mutually Assured Destruction. Verification. Containment.

Yet the most importance of these words was Credibility. If you did not establish your credibility beyond all doubt then you were in trouble.

In April 1961 The Bay of Pigs fiasco left JF Kennedy looking weak and he went to a summit in June of that year in Vienna where Khrushchev thought he could push this rich weak american round; which led to the Berlin wall. So in March 1962 Kennedy told Dean Rusk 'Looks like we have a credibility problem - and Vietnam is the place'. Which is why he committed so many special forces to Vietnam.

Then came the Cuban Crisis, which established JFK's cred beyond all doubt. So he decided to withdraw troops from Vietnam Xmas 1963- in fact the first elements of withdrawal took place.

But he was killed Nov 1963 - and Johnson escalated it because he could not bear to lose. His reason "Vietnam is a chicken- raggedy-assed little country which will not be allowed to defeat the United States- Vietnam is a piss-ant country".

Vietnam was not about Containment - it was about credibility. The clear message is; This is what you get if you mess with us.

I don't think Afghanistan is about oil or money - or even democracy. To some extent it is about strategy and encircling Iran. But mostly I think it's because the top dog has to show that it is the top dog and you don't want us on your case.

And, pragmatically, Credibility is a perfectly legitimate aim of western foreign policy.

[Cattach]

Purely academic, without casualties or emotion.

Clausewitz defined war as the extension of state policy by other means.
And state policy is ineffective unless it sticks.

During the Cold War certain buzzwords dictated what happened in the game of bluff between the nations. Fear. Deterrence. Mutually Assured Destruction. Verification. Containment.

Yet the most importance of these words was Credibility. If you did not establish your credibility beyond all doubt then you were in trouble.

In April 1961 The Bay of Pigs fiasco left JF Kennedy looking weak and he went to a summit in June of that year in Vienna where Khrushchev thought he could push this rich weak american round; which led to the Berlin wall. So in March 1962 Kennedy told Dean Rusk 'Looks like we have a credibility problem - and Vietnam is the place'. Which is why he committed so many special forces to Vietnam.

Then came the Cuban Crisis, which established JFK's cred beyond all doubt. So he decided to withdraw troops from Vietnam Xmas 1963- in fact the first elements of withdrawal took place.

But he was killed Nov 1963 - and Johnson escalated it because he could not bear to lose. His reason "Vietnam is a chicken- raggedy-assed little country which will not be allowed to defeat the United States- Vietnam is a piss-ant country".

Vietnam was not about Containment - it was about credibility. The clear message is; This is what you get if you mess with us.

I don't think Afghanistan is about oil or money - or even democracy. To some extent it is about strategy and encircling Iran. But mostly I think it's because the top dog has to show that it is the top dog and you don't want us on your case.

And, pragmatically, Credibility is a perfectly legitimate aim of western foreign policy.

Oh no, not another one of those learned 'books' written from a perspective of absolute certainty in the facts.

[John Little]

But how would ye know if ye havenae read it?

(And it's been a bit quiet lately)

[John Little]

PS -I'm getting a sneaky feeling I might know you. We're about the same age - were you in my class at the Miller?

...he's logged off.

Is that you Davie? I'm sorry I nicked yer sausage roll...

[Cattach]

PS -I'm getting a sneaky feeling I might know you. We're about the same age - were you in my class at the Miller?

...he's logged off.

Is that you Davie? I'm sorry I nicked yer sausage roll...

Doubt if they let Cattachs into the Miller but you canna be my age. By my age you get a bit of sense!

[John Little]

But there were lots of Cattachs in the Miller - aye and big ones too..
anyhoo - I'm older than you.

Were you in Mrs Gunn's class?

[Cattach]

But there were lots of Cattachs in the Miller - aye and big ones too..
anyhoo - I'm older than you.

Were you in Mrs Gunn's class?



Point 1: Never had a teacher called Gunn, Miss or Mrs or Ms.
Point 2: I stand corrected on the Cattachs in Miller
Point 3: What makes you think you are older than me?

[John Little]

Cos you watched the first Doctor Who- so did I and since I am no spring chicken there's a better than good chance I'm the elder of us two.

"First time I have seen it for they early days in black and white in 1963"


And you called me 'Little' on another thread, which implies a previous acquaintance.

Aye well - you could have been in the Art teacher's class- the one who picked ye up by the lugs.

[Cattach]

Cos you watched the first Doctor Who- so did I and since I am no spring chicken there's a better than good chance I'm the elder of us two.

"First time I have seen it for they early days in black and white in 1963"


And you called me 'Little' on another thread, which implies a previous acquaintance.

Aye well - you could have been in the Art teacher's class- the one who picked ye up by the lugs.

I had the belt many a time but it was never as bad as getting picked up by the lugs by that Art Teacher. When people say I have big ears I just tell them about the Art Teacher.

[John Little]

I had the belt many times too Cattach Mor - Constable picked me up once by my ears.

So you were at the Miller.

Do you know me?

[Phill]

Will you to get a room!






:roll:

[John Little]

Aye - weel I was not intending to do this - it's kind of a drift - I was hoping for entirely another sort of discussion - but hey ye take what ye get.

BTW - to try to get back on track;

"written from a perspective of absolute certainty in the facts."

The 'facts' are correct - it's the opinions that are up for shying things at. http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=686348)

[fred]

Purely academic, without casualties or emotion.

Clausewitz defined war as the extension of state policy by other means.
And state policy is ineffective unless it sticks.

During the Cold War certain buzzwords dictated what happened in the game of bluff between the nations. Fear. Deterrence. Mutually Assured Destruction. Verification. Containment.

Yet the most importance of these words was Credibility. If you did not establish your credibility beyond all doubt then you were in trouble.

In April 1961 The Bay of Pigs fiasco left JF Kennedy looking weak and he went to a summit in June of that year in Vienna where Khrushchev thought he could push this rich weak american round; which led to the Berlin wall. So in March 1962 Kennedy told Dean Rusk 'Looks like we have a credibility problem - and Vietnam is the place'. Which is why he committed so many special forces to Vietnam.

Then came the Cuban Crisis, which established JFK's cred beyond all doubt. So he decided to withdraw troops from Vietnam Xmas 1963- in fact the first elements of withdrawal took place.

But he was killed Nov 1963 - and Johnson escalated it because he could not bear to lose. His reason "Vietnam is a chicken- raggedy-assed little country which will not be allowed to defeat the United States- Vietnam is a piss-ant country".

Vietnam was not about Containment - it was about credibility. The clear message is; This is what you get if you mess with us.

I don't think Afghanistan is about oil or money - or even democracy. To some extent it is about strategy and encircling Iran. But mostly I think it's because the top dog has to show that it is the top dog and you don't want us on your case.

And, pragmatically, Credibility is a perfectly legitimate aim of western foreign policy.

This isn't 1963, the world is an entirely different place, we now have a unipolar world and America aims to keep it that way, take advantage of their world domination now to ensure no other country or group of countries ever becomes powerful enough to challenge them. They are taking control of the world's natural resources and the world's trade routes, they are taking control of communications and they are taking control of space.

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[John Little]

You took your time! I've been waiting for ages!

I know it's not 1963 Fred. You don't need to tell me that.
But foreign policy imperatives involving great powers remain the same.

Here's an interesting exchange between some Canadian guy and Noam Chomsky for you to have a chew on - I've had it on my note pad for bloody hours!!
.................................................. ............................................
Professor,
I am trying to learn the real reasons why my country (Canada) is
taking part in the occupation of Afghanistan and was hoping your
knowledge could point me in the right direction with my research.
Specifically, do you give much weight to the geopolitical interests
the Canadian energy industry has in Afghanistan-- namely, pipelines
carrying natural gas from Central Asia through the country? I have
read about how certain oil companies in Alberta are involved in these
future pipeline plans, and how a future pipeline is going to run
through Kandahar (where Canadian troops are stationed). Is it these
specific business interests (the energy industry and related
industries) that are the real reason why the Canadian government keeps
extending the "mission" in Afghanistan? Or is the real reason more
general than that-like Canada just playing its role in the overall
imperial goals of NATO?
A related question I have is: is there any truth at all to Canada
having noble intentions in Afghanistan, such as helping to rebuild the
country?
-AB

[CHOMSKY'S REPLY]:
Canada almost reflexively supports the US, so the question goes back to why the US-UK are in Afghanistan.
We know the official reasons, which are repeated over and over. We do not have internal documents outlining the real reasons, so we have to speculate. We know that the official reasons are not credible, but there are plausible motives. The first was to establish what the US-UK call "credibility": that is, demonstrating to the world that we have the resources of violence to impose our will and respond to any challenge. That aside, Afghanistan has been prized for its geostrategic significance for centuries. Right now, it extends the encirclement of Iran and counters a serious potential challenger, the Shanghai Cooperation Council. It is the "backyard" of Pakistan, an important ally since its founding. It opens doors to the riches of Central Asia, including the possibility of the long-contemplated TAPI pipeline. I presume that if and when records become available these are the kinds of considerations we will discover.
The TAPI pipeline is a long way off, probably. I doubt that that's the specific reason for assigning Canadian troops to Kanadahar.
Noble intentions? Just about every aggressor in history, including the worst monsters, has professed noble intentions, and its possible, even likely, that those engaged in these crimes believe them.
NC

.................................................. .................................................. .......

Once again it's about Realpolitik Fred. I know it's not the world you would like it to be, but it's how things work.

[fred]

Once again it's about Realpolitik Fred. I know it's not the world you would like it to be, but it's how things work.

So you label it "Realpolitik" and say "that's just the way it is" and then everyone just has to accept it? I don't think so, another British soldier died in Afghanistan today and al least 35 people killed in Iraq for your Realpolitik. Died to make the already immensely powerful far more powerful still, died to make the immensely rich even richer.

I don't care what you call it, I'll just keep telling it how it is.

[John Little]

"You know, states are not moral agents. They act in their own interests. And that means the interests of powerful forces within them. Now, sometimes... The people of countries are moral agents. They may compel their states to act in ways that are humane and decent. And that's happened sometimes. But, over time, it's, you know, just not the way history works. I mean, of course, that's the way apologists for state power describe things -- but, you know, we should be serious about it."

More Chomsky I'm afraid. He really does see things with a clear eye.

I did not intend to bring deaths into this Fred. That's bringing emotion into a place where emotion does not belong; it's all about calculation.

That's why I find it difficult to credit your position. You want to bring morality onto a stage where there is, and never can be any such thing.

It's about power, policy, resources and who wields it.

And people like you are vectored into their discussions; and are discounted as unimportant. In the calculations of the policy planners you weigh nothing at all.

How can I say this?

It's policy Fred, by other means.

If you recognise this and understand it then you might work yourself into a position of power where you can do something about it. I doubt it, because by the time you reach such a position necessity will corrupt you to its imperatives and you will be as they are.

I don't know who the modern planners are; their names tend to come out years later, but Paul Nitze, Charles Bohlen, Clark Clifford and George Kennan left quite an impression on the history of the last half century,

I ask you to consider accepting realityand working with it.
If you don't then you might as well howl at the moon for you will change nothing.

Understand the way History works. Be serious about it.

"we now have a unipolar world"

No we don't.
If we did the US economy would collapse - and ours.
We have to have a bi-polar world.

Just because the Soviet Union collapsed does not negate that necessity.
I'm off to bed now.

Catcha later.

[Cattach]

I had the belt many times too Cattach Mor - Constable picked me up once by my ears.

So you were at the Miller.

Do you know me?

Poor Constable, killed at a young age in a car crash I think.

[fred]

I ask you to consider accepting realityand working with it.
If you don't then you might as well howl at the moon for you will change nothing.


I'll howl at the moon and at the end of the day I can say I was stood up and howling not layed down getting walked all over.

What made you think I was trying to change the world? I'm not in any political party, I don't practice any religion, I'm not in any groups or movements.

[John Little]

"Poor Constable, killed at a young age in a car crash I think."

I'm sorry to hear that; despite the ears he was well liked.
.................................................. ..........................................


"What made you think I was trying to change the world?"

That took me aback, considering some of the positions I have seen you take over things.

Well if you are not trying to change the world then you are the same as the rest of us observers of events.

And howling does not mean you do not get walked over - it simply means that there's a caterwauling when it happens.

[bekisman]

I'll howl at the moon and at the end of the day I can say I was stood up and howling not layed down getting walked all over.
What made you think I was trying to change the world? I'm not in any political party, I don't practice any religion, I'm not in any groups or movements.

That, my friend, achieves nothing..

[fred]

That, my friend, achieves nothing..

What made you think I was out to achieve anything?

[fred]

That took me aback, considering some of the positions I have seen you take over things.

Well if you are not trying to change the world then you are the same as the rest of us observers of events.

And howling does not mean you do not get walked over - it simply means that there's a caterwauling when it happens.

Most people don't bother observing, they're happy to let someone else tell them what's real and happy to believe them this time despite the fact they've always lied before because they say what people want to hear.

[John Little]

"Most people don't bother observing.."

Yes - there's a lot of studies that indicate exactly that.

So if you know this, and you know you can't change it, why do you get so heated and worked up about what you cannot, will not, and don't particularly want to change?

[fred]

"Most people don't bother observing.."

Yes - there's a lot of studies that indicate exactly that.

So if you know this, and you know you can't change it, why do you get so heated and worked up about what you cannot, will not, and don't particularly want to change?

I usually only get heated and worked up when people decide they'd rather talk about me than the subject of the thread.

[John Little]

Fair enough.

Then if I say that utter ruthlessness, regardless of principle, dispassion and complete pragmatism are necessary components of a successful Foreign policy you won't get annoyed at me?

[fred]

Fair enough.

Then if I say that utter ruthlessness, regardless of principle, dispassion and complete pragmatism are necessary components of a successful Foreign policy you won't get annoyed at me?

Why would I?

They aren't necessary, it's just that people who get to make foreign policy tend to be psychopaths.

[John Little]

You don't think that the nature of international politics is such that it is necessary to have ruthless people in charge of Foreign Policy because if we did not then we would get pushed around?

We have had nice people in charge of Foreign Policy before - and it led to disaster.

[fred]

You don't think that the nature of international politics is such that it is necessary to have ruthless people in charge of Foreign Policy because if we did not then we would get pushed around?

We have had nice people in charge of Foreign Policy before - and it led to disaster.

No, I think that ruthless people with no conscience tend to get to the positions where they control foreign policy, those who can't feel love thirst for power. I don't think we ever had any nice people in charge of foreign policy, sociopaths can fake niceness to the extent they seem nicer than nice people.

[John Little]

Well actually Neville Chamberlain was a very nice christian gentleman who believed that the world could be run by like minded gentlemen sitting round and talking things over. Which sent the wrong signal entirely to a bunch of guys who thought that civilised christian gentlemen were pushovers,

And indeed the behaviour of the democratic world confirmed what they thought.

And in the end it all turned rather nasty.
It seems to me to be reasonably apparent that the world is a safer place if we have a hard nut playing hard ball - cos all the other guys are not as decent as you.

[rich]

John you are a hopeless romantic.

[rich]

I like the idea of melding the theme of past art teachers with foreign policy.
Does anyone remember Chorly who knew his way around the Egyptian pyramids?
Fred, we are all psycopaths at heart.
John, I was thinking of Carlyle.

[fred]

Well actually Neville Chamberlain was a very nice christian gentleman who believed that the world could be run by like minded gentlemen sitting round and talking things over. Which sent the wrong signal entirely to a bunch of guys who thought that civilised christian gentlemen were pushovers,

And indeed the behaviour of the democratic world confirmed what they thought.

And in the end it all turned rather nasty.
It seems to me to be reasonably apparent that the world is a safer place if we have a hard nut playing hard ball - cos all the other guys are not as decent as you.

Chamberlain, wasn't he the chap who talked peace while rearming Britain then signed a mutual defence pact with Poland only hours before Germany was due to invade then told the British people it obliged us to declare war?

I read the news from around the world every day, it doesn't look like a very safe place to me.

[ducati]

I read the news from around the world every day, it doesn't look like a very safe place to me.

That's your problem. Stick with the BBC. I've just watched Rory Bremner describing Labour politicians travelling around the country stirring up apathy-that's what you want in your news :lol:

[bekisman]

Chamberlain, wasn't he the chap who talked peace while rearming Britain then signed a mutual defence pact with Poland only hours before Germany was due to invade then told the British people it obliged us to declare war? I read the news from around the world every day, it doesn't look like a very safe place to me.

Do you believe we should not have begun to rearm and signed a mutual defence pact with Poland? I seem to remember the CND slogan "Better Red than Dead" - thank Christ there are visionaries around - like him below.

And the World? you want to try it, it's not too bad a place out there (says he with experience in 30+ countries) ;)

[fred]

Do you believe we should not have begun to rearm and signed a mutual defence pact with Poland? I seem to remember the CND slogan "Better Red than Dead" - thank Christ there are visionaries around - like him below.

And the World? you want to try it, it's not too bad a place out there (says he with experience in 30+ countries) ;)

I am saying that signing a defence pact with Poland when German troops were on the border and due to cross it next day then telling the British public that we were forced to declare war on Germany because we had signed a defence pact with Poland are not the actions of a good Christian gentleman. Just as in Afghanistan and Iraq, they first decided they were going to war then they manufactured an excuse afterwards.

I am saying Camberlain was a psychopath just like the rest of them.

[John Little]

"John you are a hopeless romantic."

Because I believe that Chamberlain was a civilised Christian gentleman?
Well it was his track record; as with the rest of the dynasty. They may have used their much publicised transformation of Birmingham to found a power base, but their piety was not in doubt as far as I'm aware. From what I have read of Neville he seems to have been the romantic.

Fred, you are misleading your public. France had been allied with poland since 1921. For us to act without France in 1939 would have been asinine.

And as you well know the Anglo-Polish guarantee was given in March 1939 which is over 6 months before the outbreak of war.

And I don't think your description of why the british public were told why we were going to war is convincing;

"telling the British public that we were forced to declare war on Germany because we had signed a defence pact with Poland"

Considering that the british public had seen Hitler take the Sudetenland amidst great fears of war in September 1938, seen him pledge that he had no more territorial demands to make in Europe, and then take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it was fairly obvious why we had to declare war in September 1939. Collective security had all but failed and the last shards of it had to gathered together. Incidently he also took the Memel-land in March which was League administered territory.

I take it that you would be in the Halifax camp in 1939 and try to reach an accomodation with the other side?

Oh - and on the basis of Jus ad bello, Jus in Bello, I deny any parallel between the declaration of war in 1939 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a sophistry.

[scotsboy]

How long before this thread turns into a Zionist plot to further the cause for establishment of Irsael?

[bekisman]

How long before this thread turns into a Zionist plot to further the cause for establishment of Irsael?

Not long - but then certain posters seem to be missing?

[Tubthumper]

Here I am! :D

[bekisman]

Here I am! :D

Hi Tubthumper - good to see you ;)

[Tubthumper]

I am saying Chamberlain was a psychopath just like the rest of them.

:eek: Oh no, it's them again....

[John Little]

Is Tubthumper a Zionist then?

[bekisman]

Is Tubthumper a Zionist then?

no, of course not, a very very nice person ;)

[John Little]

So he's not in the Peoples' Popular Front of Judaea then?

Cos if he is would that make him a very very naughty boy?

[John Little]

"John you are a hopeless romantic."

Rich - you made me think hard - but I don't actually agree.

I am an utter utter cynic.

[The Drunken Duck]

So he's not in the Peoples' Popular Front of Judaea then?

Cos if he is would that make him a very very naughty boy?

No, he's in the Judean Peoples Front. Different thing entirely.

I'm not though. I'm not allowed. Probably because I'm Sparticus.

No really, I AM Sparticus.

[John Little]

You can't be Spartacus. He was a hopeless romantic!

Anyway - I'm Spartacus!

Oh and Kirk Douglas is a Zionist....

[The Drunken Duck]

You can't be Spartacus. He was a hopeless romantic!

Anyway - I'm Spartacus!

Oh and Kirk Douglas is a Zionist....

No No and thrice No .. I am Sparticus. You have no idea of the amount of identity theft my name entails. It feels sometimes like EVERYONE is Sparticus.

I like the sound of being a Zionist though, it sounds pretty kinky. Sign me up.

[ducati]

I'd like to be a Zionist too, like Patrick Moore, but I'm not very musical.

plinky plinky plinkerty plink plonk...see?

[fred]

"John you are a hopeless romantic."

Because I believe that Chamberlain was a civilised Christian gentleman?
Well it was his track record; as with the rest of the dynasty. They may have used their much publicised transformation of Birmingham to found a power base, but their piety was not in doubt as far as I'm aware. From what I have read of Neville he seems to have been the romantic.

Fred, you are misleading your public. France had been allied with poland since 1921. For us to act without France in 1939 would have been asinine.

And as you well know the Anglo-Polish guarantee was given in March 1939 which is over 6 months before the outbreak of war.

The Anglo Polish Common Defence Pact was signed on the 25th of August 1939 causing Hitler to postpone his invasion planned for the 26th till the 1st of September.



And I don't think your description of why the british public were told why we were going to war is convincing;

"telling the British public that we were forced to declare war on Germany because we had signed a defence pact with Poland"

Considering that the british public had seen Hitler take the Sudetenland amidst great fears of war in September 1938, seen him pledge that he had no more territorial demands to make in Europe, and then take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it was fairly obvious why we had to declare war in September 1939. Collective security had all but failed and the last shards of it had to gathered together. Incidently he also took the Memel-land in March which was League administered territory.

I take it that you would be in the Halifax camp in 1939 and try to reach an accomodation with the other side?

Oh - and on the basis of Jus ad bello, Jus in Bello, I deny any parallel between the declaration of war in 1939 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a sophistry.

At the point we declared war with Germany had they actually taken anything we had not taken from them in the Treaty of Versailles? If our foreign policy had not been so ruthless at the end of WWI would WWII ever have happened? Did Germany actually invade Poland or did they recover the Polish Corridor, a strip of land inhabited by a large portion of Germanic peoples connecting the Germanic countries of Germany and East Prussia? Wasn't it our allies the Russians who invaded Poland?

[rich]

"John you are a hopeless romantic."

Rich - you made me think hard - but I don't actually agree.

I am an utter utter cynic.

Anyone who is "utter" anything is showing romantic tendencies.
Also anyone in the "utter" camp is liable to be a very poor colleague. And it is collegiality that keeps foreign policy going. Try the excellent Margaret MacMillan "Paris 1919."

[rich]

It goes without saying that Hitler was a very poor colleague!
Fred, you have perfectly reproduced Hitler's propaganda campaign in 1939.
Do you approve of the Nazi intentions for Poland?

[fred]

It goes without saying that Hitler was a very poor colleague!
Fred, you have perfectly reproduced Hitler's propaganda campaign in 1939.
Do you approve of the Nazi intentions for Poland?

It's John Little who is saying that ruthless foreign policy is justified. I don't see how we can claim that the more ruthless we are the better then criticise Germany for reclaiming their territory now can we? Surly if we can be ruthless they can be ruthless too.

[John Little]

Fred - you will insist on having your own version of History. Please read the first paragraph of this article which unfortunately will not copy. There are plenty of other references if you look for Anglo-Polish agreement March 1939.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2638854


Or here is Chamberlain making the point in the Commons; http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/bb/bb-078.html

"His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government.2 31 March 1939.


Please read in context...




What you are talking about is a re-affirmation, designed to make Hitler think again; but the commitment had already been given.

"At the point we declared war with Germany had they actually taken anything we had not taken from them in the Treaty of Versailles?"

Yes.
The sovereign state of Austria
The Sudetenland, which had always been part of the Austro Hungarian empire and never part of Germany.
Bohemia and ultimately Slovakia.

He had also, according to the Hossbach memorandum, instructed his generals to prepare three war plans in 1937 against Czechoslovakia, Poland and Russia in pursuit of territory.

"If our foreign policy had not been so ruthless at the end of WWI would WWII ever have happened? "

Actually it was not us - it was the Froggies. We fell out with them over it for we thought them too harsh. In fact the secret 10 year rule of 1921 committed the Cabinet to a policy of no great war for another 10 years on grounds of economy - renewed annually until 1933. We got back with the French after their change of government in January 1924.

There is only one war plan dreamed up by the british army for the whole of the 1920s - it's a plan for reaction in the event of a French attack on our North African colonies.

"Did Germany actually invade Poland or did they recover the Polish Corridor, a strip of land inhabited by a large portion of Germanic peoples connecting the Germanic countries of Germany and East Prussia"

They attacked Poland. The German population had been compulsorily moved out in 1921. They also attacked Danzig- which was administered by the League of Nations. Most people don't seem to realise that Hitler did not only launch an attack on Poland but on the League too.

"Wasn't it our allies the Russians who invaded Poland? "

They were not our allies at that stage - as you undoubtedly know - and they did so because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact signed in August 1939 where they agreed to split Poland with Germany.

And if you apply your own argument there, that had actually been Russia until the Treaty of Brest Litovsk March 1918 - a far more punitive peace than Versailles.

"Also anyone in the "utter" camp is liable to be a very poor colleague."

Thankyou. I shall bear that in mind.

[fred]

John, Britain did sign the Anglo Polish Common Defence Pact on the 25th August 1939 just hours before Germany's planned invasion of Poland, that is historical fact , not my own version of history, that is what happened.

If it hadn't been for our ruthless harsh treatment of Germany after WWI WWII would probably never have happened and no it wasn't just the French. After WWII America instead of making Germany pay reparations while crippling their economy America helped them rebuild and helped them become the dominant economy in Europe and Germany didn't go to war with Britain again.

So ruthless foreign policy after WWI lead to the deaths of 70 million people in WWII. Is Britain better off now than if WWII hadn't happened? I don't think so.

[John Little]

"John, Britain did sign the Anglo Polish Common Defence Pact on the 25th August 1939 just hours before Germany's planned invasion of Poland, that is historical fact , not my own version of history, that is what happened."

I do not deny it - a re-affirmation- but you seem to be implying that Chamberlain pulled it like a rabbit out of a hat to justify war. Surely you cannot hold that position in light of the evidence I just placed before you?

The signing was also a rather empty gesture and a reaction to the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

The re-affirmation was necessary because our record on keeping agreements in the 30s was not good, vide Stresa Front and Czechoslovakia.

"If it hadn't been for our ruthless harsh treatment of Germany after WWI WWII would probably never have happened and no it wasn't just the French. After WWII America instead of making Germany pay reparations while crippling their economy America helped them rebuild and helped them become the dominant economy in Europe and Germany didn't go to war with Britain again."

I also do not deny the stupidity of US policy here. A fledgling German democracy had no chance, but Poincare had little option but to insist on reparations. France owed too much and needed to rebuild. Britain had none amd the US insisted on repayment. Even Dawes wanted 4.5% interest on his loans initially though McDonald managed to beat him down a bit.
And the Fordney McCumber acts were among the most foolish pieces of legislation ever passed.

But we did not want war Fred. We had 2.6 million unemployed in June 1921, and an anti-war administration. Look what happened to Lloyd George in 1922 when he tried to take on Turkey. He got sacked.

"So ruthless foreign policy after WWI lead to the deaths of 70 million people in WWII."

I actually think the reverse- we were too darn nice. If we had won the peace by throwing some muscle about then perhaps WW2 could have been prevented - but the cracks are there from the word go. Chanak and Corfu both showed our weakness and the world's wolves took note - use force and you can get what you want.

[fred]

I actually think the reverse- we were too darn nice. If we had won the peace by throwing some muscle about then perhaps WW2 could have been prevented - but the cracks are there from the word go. Chanak and Corfu both showed our weakness and the world's wolves took note - use force and you can get what you want.

Germany used force, they didn't get what they wanted.

So you feel the Holocaust was justified then?

[John Little]

Godwin's Law

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

That is another thread.

You lose.

Discussion ended.