|
|
Brexit
Dec 21, 2015 15:49:45 GMT
Post by inee on Dec 21, 2015 15:49:45 GMT
I din't think i was using selective history, as like you mention everything i wrote is available online, i will admit i'm not up to date on released docs as my posts were mainly from memory of a couple of years ago. I will get to your second paragraph at the end as that in itself is a very interesting though. You make a good point about hanover, saxx and coberg gotha wanting to rule ,again(imo) this was mainly due to greed, as it's well known that kings and queens would marry whoever just to secure more money and land, during the wars The king of england distanced himself from meeting and supporting his german side of the family, for no other reason than he thought quite rightly that the uk would turn against the monarchy, I also feel (wrongly or rightly ) that if in the war years someone would have said the kings putting on an act, he doesn't care about us mainly his german relatives, that person would likely have been banged up for treason, more than likely quietly locked away, but as more of this type of evidence has became available to the public there has been a growing anti monarchic stance in the uk. In reality i don't feel that before the arrival of hitler the germans din't feel strong enough to try and unify europe. In regards to third reich plans for domination, you could say that germany did dominate europe at that point, it's known that germans at the time moved vast numbers of people all over europe some forced, but even less well known was the numbers who moved around europe working voluntarily , on the promise of land ie here take your family go to this country we will give you land to farm ,in return here is the quota of goods you will supply the ss with from your crops etc, oh and in times of emergence the ss can remove all crops. This was done not out of kindness but as a first step to denationalising people and weakening a countries grip on it's identity, i did make a point that this is being done today in numbers hitler could only have dreamed of. As we know some of hitlers plans for europe, we also know that big business all over the world were still doing what they were doing, it isn't really a surprise that these plans for the reemergence of the NSDAP once the dust had settled so to speak, and is it a massive leap of faith to believe that these plans are indeed coming to fruition, one interesting thing that relates to all this was when the fighting stopped in europe, the french wanted everyone to pay for rebuilding france not only the axis but also the allies, on the other hand the new german leader, wanted the opposite he said we will rebuild, think about that what better way to start bringing money back into germany or rather build up a bigger slice of finance in the many shell companies with the end result of putting most back into the german economy. In truth i find all this fascinating, we have probably over the years read a lot of the same stuff. I also commend you on one of your earlier posts where you made it plain that people have to study more than one source when looking at the third riech, but it is also important to keep checking because as we both know ,all this changes regularly. I can't pick fault with the logic of your second paragraph, but dependant on what you believe then this could all date back to the catholic church and it's jesuit soldiers  I'm just glad this thread is a calm fascinating discussion |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,540 
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Dec 21, 2015 16:24:17 GMT
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 21, 2015 16:24:17 GMT
Thanks inee, for what it worth my posts weren't aimed at your comments.
I may post more later but am short of time at the moment.
Anyway, it is near Christmas so Season's Greetings to all.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,540
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 31, 2015 22:05:42 GMT
Now I am back to work I now have some free time to write this.
The following is based on what I have learnt and read so the sources are varied. For brevity I won’t state them but they are not controversial, they are history books and main stream media and documentaries, ranging from AJP Taylor, Eric Hobsawn to Huw Strachan, BBC and ITV to the History and Discovery Channels. I have not been too engrossed recently so happy to be correctly with more up to date information.
Background
To put this in some context, Europe during the 19th century was broadly divided into 5 main powers, these being Britain, France, Prussia, Russia and Austria. For several centuries Britain has sought alliances to ensure that no one power dominated and become a continental rival whilst she concentrated on building the Empire. This can be seen in that we have fought both against and with many nations.
Germany has been at war with France three times between 1870 and 1940 (to put that into perspective that is a 70 year period, it is over 75 years since the start of the Second World War so within living memory).
Unification
In 1870 the various German states where still to be unified with Prussia, the main state. Otto von Bismarck instigated a number of small wars which slowly brought the states together. The final war was the Franco Prussian War of 1870-71. It is my view that while he wanted to manipulate events to secure unification, once this was achieved he set about to strengthen the nation and had no desire to expand the borders further. For example, there were no moves to unify with the German speaking Austria or Switzerland. Once Socialism started to become popular he instigated a number of social reforms to prevent revolution and even Churchill himself commented in the early 1900s how good the German social security system and broad democracy was and wanted to emulate parts of this here.
First World War
Foreign policy was different though and a lot of this was undermined by Kaiser Wilhelm II who saw Britain with her Navy and Empire as a rival and wanted to emulate and surpass both. That said, this was not through European expansion but in gaining overseas colonies such as modern day Namibia and Tanzania. He upset a lot of nations leading up to the start of the First World War and his mistrust of the Slavs, and especially Russia, fuelled tension and treaties. He was fearful of Russia’s influence should the Austro-Hungarian Empire fall with the loss of the their Slavic Balkan possessions so agreed to a mutual defence pact. So when Austria went to war in 1914 with Serbia Russia came into play against Austro-Hungary which in turn then brought in Germany.
Russia had an agreement with France. The German General Staff knew that Russia had almost limitless manpower but would be slow to mobilise. Fearful of a war on two fronts, they had devised the Shlefen plan to knock out France then transfer forces back across Germany using their efficient railway system. In my view, Germany only went to war with France as a pre-emptive strike to prevent fighting on two fronts and went to war against Russia to bolster their ally Austro-Hungary.
Second World War
After the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler was able to use the grievances as a way to galvanise public opinion. He was following the anti Slavic feelings and was looking east to Poland and the vast resources of Russia (now the Soviet Union). This was the policy of Leibansraum or living space. Hitler wanted lands to the east. As a re-run of 1914, Germany attacked France to knock her out of the war rather than to conquer.
1945-1990
With victory in Europe in 1945, the borders of Germany were redrawn. The Soviet Union gained some areas of Poland (plus the Baltic states amongst others) and much of what was Prussia became part of modern day Poland, bringing the Polish German border to what became known as the Oder-Nisser line.
Post war, and unlike the end of the 1914-18 war, the German people were left in no doubt who were the victors and with the addition of the Holocaust, the 1945-90 period was one of introspection, with many wanting to rebuild their lives. The partition of Germany between the 4 major powers allowed the western areas to develop along an Anglo-American style and when Margaret Thatcher asked one of her advisers (whose name I forget) in 1990 about whether she should fear a reunited Germany, she was told that West Germany was an almost ideal nation built by the UK and USA in terms of constitution and international outlook.
The people of Germany were fully aware that in the event of a Third World War with the Warsaw Pact, that they would become a wasteland. Warsaw Pact plans which became public after the fall of the Berlin Wall showed that battlefield nuclear weapons would be used from an early stage to decimate areas of NATO troop concentrations.
Summary
The 1870-71 Franco Prussian War was to unify the German peoples, the 1914-18 War was a means to defeat France due to her treaty with Russia, the 1939-45 War was similar, 1945-90 was of occupation, division and fears of the Cold War becoming hot. The post 1990 period has been largely rebuilding the East on reunification.
In conclusion, if you look at the various stages of German history since 1870 then I don’t see any desire to dominate and control the whole of Europe. Even under Hitler, Germany was seeking an eastwards expansion and only attacked France (plus the other nations of West and Northern Europe) as a means to prevent their interference.
So, in my view to associate modern EU development with the plans of the Nazis or to suggest that Germany is merely having yet another go at total European control is being disingenuous with the historical facts.
That isn’t to say the current generation are not looking at this, just in an historical context any similarity is purely coincidental and undermines the argument.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 2, 2016 3:18:00 GMT
Post by supergas on Jan 2, 2016 3:18:00 GMT
Now I am back to work I now have some free time to write this. The following is based on what I have learnt and read so the sources are varied. For brevity I won’t state them but they are not controversial, they are history books and main stream media and documentaries, ranging from AJP Taylor, Eric Hobsawn to Huw Strachan, BBC and ITV to the History and Discovery Channels. I have not been too engrossed recently so happy to be correctly with more up to date information. It's well written and a good factual summary of the long-term (war) history of Europe, but I think it misses one or two key points (especially past the end of the Second World War). But I will begin if I may with your summary of the 'result'.... Kind of glossing over two things there....firstly the Holocaust was something that was inherently linked to German politics at the time....whether we blame Germans as a whole or not (and I know you've just worded it awkwardly) to describe the state-sanctioned slaughter of 6 million people as an 'addition' doesn't really add to the context of what happened. Secondly Germany started and lost two wars that cost the lives of nearly 100 million people. To put that into context, if 'a.n.other Western Government' starts a 'war' today and kills 30 civilians by accident they risk their Government being voted out. My point is we've moved on since 1945 in all kinds of ways, especially in politics... ....but here's where I'll annoy some people. The real political power in the world at the moment is on the UN Security Council. Germany wants a permanent seat but can't have it because of actions taken 75+ years ago. Cameron realises the only way we keep our international political power is by keeping our Nuclear deterrent and therefore keeping our seat on the UN Security Council. I would bet if we said no to renewing Trident within 18 months our permanent seat on the Security Council would go to the EU (and therefore basically be held or at least controlled by Germany). I can't agree with your overall premise that Germany doesn't want more control/power internationally...I think they're just playing the long game and looking to gain it in a different way... |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 2, 2016 12:10:32 GMT
Post by inee on Jan 2, 2016 12:10:32 GMT
good read stuart, however you mention Hitler didn't want total control over europe , technically you are correct, he wanted world domination which would also have included europe ,It's also known that the 3rd reich didn't disappear when the war ended in europe ,far from it a lot of leaders and soldiers disappeared to south america, others stayed in plain sight , more were left to run the companies they were running during the war ,so although germany was controlled politically by the allies ,industry was still controlled by those same germans ,with it's seems one aim and that was the rise of germany again ,which is seemingly being achieved as supergas said slowly. Supergas good response and yes we do forget the un, god help us if corbyn or the greens ever get in power.but that's for another topic in another day. You seem to have fallen into the trap by using the six million died, 6 million people, this number is being lowered on an almost daily basis, but it suits the powers that be to keep on quoting one number ,as for most people it seems a focus point when they sort of switch off and don't seem to notice anything else. A very powerful tool to divert attention from anything else especially atrocities carried out by the allies during that period ,and no i don't deny what went on but i prefer the truth from those times not made up numbers(probably worded wrong but i hope people see where i'm coming from). At least people are starting to question the status quo, and are starting to understand that the history we were all taught, is merely propaganda from the victors . i just wish when i did my cse's we had the tools and knowledge we have today, it's a real shame that kids don't use these tools for study etc, only then will the world become more understanding |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 2, 2016 21:53:49 GMT
Post by aghast on Jan 2, 2016 21:53:49 GMT
This German wish to take over Europe is missing the point. The history of empire building goes way, way back beyond written history, and the current EU project stems from the original Roman Empire, which was an attempt to emulate the Greeks, which in turn was an attempt to emulate the Egyptians. And so on.
The Roman Empire, when it collapsed, was effectively (eventually) taken over by the Roman Catholic church, which recreated the old empire through its use of religion to control the masses. England rejected not the religion but the control of the Pope when Henry VIII created the Anglican church.
The culture of empire building persisted in France (Napoleon), England and Spain, with colonisations and wars funded by the Catholic or effectively-Catholic Anglican church, along with governments ruled by Catholic monarchs.
Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic and was doing what many of his predecessors had done before, albeit in a far more extreme way.
As religion declined in the 20th century, the same intererests in empire persist, but now run by politicians raised in the same culture of Catholic domination and the need to recreate the Roman Empire in modern times, whether through war or treaty. The original three main signatories to the EU were Italy, France and Germany. Germany, for all its Protestant history, still has Catholicism as its major religion, especially in the south, where all the money and major corporations are based e.g Bavaria.
It all comes down to religion, not Germany.
Back to the original point, and Brexit. British culture has changed in the 20th century far more than other European countries. Because of our language and history, we have adopted American attitudes to independence, and the collapse of Christianity has broken the remaining bonds we have to our European neighbours.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 2, 2016 22:04:15 GMT
Post by jaggas on Jan 2, 2016 22:04:15 GMT
The debate about the EU being the brainchild of the Nazis has been a worthwhile one.If we look where we are now can anyone honestly say that the UK are getting a good deal paying £16bn per year to be a bit part of this horrid corrupt socialist concept?
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 2, 2016 22:40:06 GMT
Post by pirateman on Jan 2, 2016 22:40:06 GMT
The debate about the EU being the brainchild of the Nazis has been a worthwhile one.If we look where we are now can anyone honestly say that the UK are getting a good deal paying £16bn per year to be a bit part of this horrid corrupt socialist concept? Not a socialist concept mate. Okay the subsidies to underperforming countries might be., but not allowing government support for firms aint. I'm thinking for example of the Cellophane works in Bridgwater. Profitable but closed because the American loss making branch was able to be subsidised by the local state but EU rules wouldn't allow our government to do the same. Seems to me the EU manages to combine the worst aspects of both capitalism and socialism. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 3, 2016 10:22:05 GMT
Post by inee on Jan 3, 2016 10:22:05 GMT
This German wish to take over Europe is missing the point. The history of empire building goes way, way back beyond written history, and the current EU project stems from the original Roman Empire, which was an attempt to emulate the Greeks, which in turn was an attempt to emulate the Egyptians. And so on. The Roman Empire, when it collapsed, was effectively (eventually) taken over by the Roman Catholic church, which recreated the old empire through its use of religion to control the masses. England rejected not the religion but the control of the Pope when Henry VIII created the Anglican church. The culture of empire building persisted in France (Napoleon), England and Spain, with colonisations and wars funded by the Catholic or effectively-Catholic Anglican church, along with governments ruled by Catholic monarchs. Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic and was doing what many of his predecessors had done before, albeit in a far more extreme way. As religion declined in the 20th century, the same intererests in empire persist, but now run by politicians raised in the same culture of Catholic domination and the need to recreate the Roman Empire in modern times, whether through war or treaty. The original three main signatories to the EU were Italy, France and Germany. Germany, for all its Protestant history, still has Catholicism as its major religion, especially in the south, where all the money and major corporations are based e.g Bavaria. It all comes down to religion, not Germany. Back to the original point, and Brexit. British culture has changed in the 20th century far more than other European countries. Because of our language and history, we have adopted American attitudes to independence, and the collapse of Christianity has broken the remaining bonds we have to our European neighbours. I mentioned the jesuits a few posts back, not many accept the part thwe so called soldiers of jesus played in treachery |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 3, 2016 16:05:36 GMT
Post by jaggas on Jan 3, 2016 16:05:36 GMT
The debate about the EU being the brainchild of the Nazis has been a worthwhile one.If we look where we are now can anyone honestly say that the UK are getting a good deal paying £16bn per year to be a bit part of this horrid corrupt socialist concept? Not a socialist concept mate. Okay the subsidies to underperforming countries might be., but not allowing government support for firms aint. I'm thinking for example of the Cellophane works in Bridgwater. Profitable but closed because the American loss making branch was able to be subsidised by the local state but EU rules wouldn't allow our government to do the same. Seems to me the EU manages to combine the worst aspects of both capitalism and socialism. The fact that we have been net contributors since day one while the rest bar two countries have been takers it`s socialism to me. Without the UK`s net contribution were we to leave there is a good chance the whole EU could collapse. I don`t think people realise how important we are to the EU and its entire future rests in the hands of the British public.So far Cameron has demanded very little that will make a difference to our lives and has asked for nothing that gives us value for our £16bn per year fees. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 3, 2016 16:22:26 GMT
Post by pirateman on Jan 3, 2016 16:22:26 GMT
Like I said - worst aspects of both.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 3, 2016 17:10:29 GMT
Post by inee on Jan 3, 2016 17:10:29 GMT
one thing that has an over riding bearing for me wanting noting to do with the EU, was the £1bn that was demanded from us, with the majority going to france and germany ,What was interesting for me was the eu saying they would give the un(think it was the un) , then shortly after asking for the exact amount from us, the whole idea of these payments from the more affluent countries was to sort out the less affluent eu countries (fookin naive of me ). so on that basis all of our extra billion should have went to places like bulgaria, greece and a few other countries first, but based on what's written in this thread and understanding of it, it doesn't really surprise me most of it ending up in germany's pocket. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 3, 2016 17:47:03 GMT
Post by jaggas on Jan 3, 2016 17:47:03 GMT
We paid something in the region of £2bn to help bail out Greece first time around and we are not even in the Euro and nor will we get any of that money back.
Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister and Chancellor in the history of the UK sold a huge chunk of our gold reserves at rock bottom prices and used the proceeds to help bail out the Euro when it was close to collapsing in its early years.I cannot understand why Britain who made a great decision to stay out of the Euro has spent so much of our money trying to prop it up and save it.
The Euro was the brainchild of Germany yet it seems its Britains responsibility to save it when it is on the verge of collapsing.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 3, 2016 19:10:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 3, 2016 19:10:38 GMT
We paid something in the region of £2bn to help bail out Greece first time around and we are not even in the Euro and nor will we get any of that money back. Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister and Chancellor in the history of the UK sold a huge chunk of our gold reserves at rock bottom prices and used the proceeds to help bail out the Euro when it was close to collapsing in its early years.I cannot understand why Britain who made a great decision to stay out of the Euro has spent so much of our money trying to prop it up and save it. The Euro was the brainchild of Germany yet it seems its Britains responsibility to save it when it is on the verge of collapsing. Blimey, a post of yours I agree with. I need to go and have a shower. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Jan 4, 2016 6:44:52 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 6:44:52 GMT
We paid something in the region of £2bn to help bail out Greece first time around and we are not even in the Euro and nor will we get any of that money back. Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister and Chancellor in the history of the UK sold a huge chunk of our gold reserves at rock bottom prices and used the proceeds to help bail out the Euro when it was close to collapsing in its early years.I cannot understand why Britain who made a great decision to stay out of the Euro has spent so much of our money trying to prop it up and save it. The Euro was the brainchild of Germany yet it seems its Britains responsibility to save it when it is on the verge of collapsing. Blimey, a post of yours I agree with. I need to go and have a shower. Germany was forced to adopt the Euro by France as one of the conditions that allowed the re-unification of Germany (after the Wall came down). The EU is dominated by Germany and France. Why do you think over the last ten years, whenever there was a crisis, the first thing that happens is Merkel has a meeting with the French President. They decide what will happen, and the rest (including the UK) have to follow that decision. Can anyone remember a single time where the UK were involved in talks with Germany and France alone? This talk of having to be in the EU to help formulate the direction the EU takes is nonsense. Majority voting means that the UK are now just an irritant to 'further integration'. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,540
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Jan 4, 2016 9:05:01 GMT
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 4, 2016 9:05:01 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to read my post and for the feedback.
With regards to the Holocaust, I didn't intend to gloss over it, what I was trying to say (badly) was that there was a reason why the Allies wanted total and unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945 and not settle for an armistace like in 1918. That was in part caused by Hitler being able to convince the German people in the 1930s that they did not lose the war but were stabbed in the back by what he called the Fifth Columnists -such as the Jews. The German people in the view of many in the Allies leadership had to be left in no doubt this time.
With regards to numbers, I am not sure where your 100million comes from and I would disagree that they started the First World War (they were the cassus belli for us but not all participants). However that is not the point, Germany has started enough wars regardless. Don't forget the extermination also killed a similar number of non Jews too, such as Soviet prisoners of war, Poles, homosexuals and the disabled. This last category has a particular resonance with me.
With an estimated 2 million ethnic Poles killed, if anyone has difficulty with Germany and EU expansion being a Nazi idea then I would have thought Poland would be higher up the list than us.
We will have to agree to disagree with Hitler's plans for domination. If you want another opinion, have a read of Antony Beevor's The Second World War. It is a weighty tome but Page 7 sketches out the land he wanted.
I think the UN is used and ignored in equal measure, but I do agree we want to remain part of the Security Council. The retention of Trident and the building of the Successor class submarine which will carry it is more to do with France having it (politics) and that nice Mr Putin reminding us why it was needed during the Cold War. Now Iran and Saudi Arabia are squaring up and both being aspirational nuclear powers then its retention is pretty much assured.
Finally, it is my view that the EU as was originally envisaged way back when was to protect Europe from another war (along with NATO) and as a bulwark against another Hitler. Satire can be the as truthful as any documentary. At times like this I am reminded of Yes, Minister when Sir Humphrey explains to Jim Hacker why we are in the EEC as it was. " We are in it to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans. France is in it to protect its inefficient farmers. Germany is in it to ex sponge itself of genocide and apply for readmittance to the human race."
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,540
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Jan 4, 2016 9:12:41 GMT
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 4, 2016 9:12:41 GMT
As an aside, Germany's armed forces are a shadow of what they were even a few years ago and certainly couldn't do anything today. Germany dominates Europe because it is the largest by population and economy. Both of which we are predicted to exceed within 10-20 years.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 4, 2016 19:09:47 GMT
Post by jaggas on Jan 4, 2016 19:09:47 GMT
Blimey, a post of yours I agree with. I need to go and have a shower. Germany was forced to adopt the Euro by France as one of the conditions that allowed the re-unification of Germany (after the Wall came down). The EU is dominated by Germany and France. Why do you think over the last ten years, whenever there was a crisis, the first thing that happens is Merkel has a meeting with the French President. They decide what will happen, and the rest (including the UK) have to follow that decision. Can anyone remember a single time where the UK were involved in talks with Germany and France alone? This talk of having to be in the EU to help formulate the direction the EU takes is nonsense. Majority voting means that the UK are now just an irritant to 'further integration'. France didn`t make the criteria needed to join the Euro in the first wave and had to steal pension money from their citizens to get in neither did any of the PIIGS achieve the required criteria to join. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Jan 4, 2016 21:33:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 21:33:10 GMT
As an aside, Germany's armed forces are a shadow of what they were even a few years ago and certainly couldn't do anything today. Germany dominates Europe because it is the largest by population and economy. Both of which we are predicted to exceed within 10-20 years. Germany's armed forces couldn't do anything today? Things have moved on from having the biggest army. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jan 4, 2016 22:23:21 GMT
If we would save so many billions of ££££ by leaving the EU, and the prospects for trade are just as good (if not better), outside the EU, why do all UK governments and the vast majority of business leaders want us to stay in?
And if it's all a Franco-German conspiracy to which we are blind (except on here), then why does the Netherlands remain such a supporter? No friend of Germany, successful economy, a huge per capita contributor?
|
|
