Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chrisg

One Hundred Seconds

Recommended Posts

nice cherry picking, even though i agree with some of your content

 

so, genocide of the rohinya / armenian / papua peoples is anti-terrorist action from the point of view of the colonisers

 

bet all of them are classified as "wars that need to be fought" if you are looking for justifications

 

 

not sure why sri lanka rates as a backwater shithole in your estimation, and why tamil autonomy is any less righteous than the sinhalese wish to keep it all theirs  on an island

 

the boundaries between ethnic groups are quite frequently at odds with both political and geographical lines - but kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out works if you aren't the corpses

 

 

Edited by scruffy1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the fact that Sri Lanka/Ceylon was yet another balls up by the British I'm not sure how it really relates.

 

That was a war if ever there was one that had no winners but if the Tamils had not been marginalised in the first place it would never have happened.

 

I'm also getting very tired of the harping on about 1938 and "Peace in our Time,"

 

None of us were alive then but it is not difficult to imagine how sick the British were of war from only 20 years before and equally how ripe Germany was for a maniac like Hitler after the unmitigated disaster that was the Treaty of Versailles.

 

Brutality and ignorance tend to beget both, only when people stop and look at each other as other than enemies does the killing stop and it has to come from both sides.

 

Israel has become its own worst enemy in many ways, but there are glimmers of hope, faint but glimmers.

 

Endless war is never the answer.

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

so, genocide of the rohinya / armenian / papua peoples is anti-terrorist action from the point of view of the colonisers


I’m trying to work out exactly where I brought these up.

 

And failing to.

2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

not sure why sri lanka rates as a backwater shithole in your estimation, and why tamil autonomy is any less righteous than the sinhalese wish to keep it all theirs  on an island


The Tamil Tigers pioneered suicide bombing and we’re responsible for massacres that were quite spectacular, even by the standards of the time.

 

You have to understand: the moment your primary objective turns from killing soldiers guarding your territory to slaughtering civilians living on your territory - that’s when you can’t really claim to be righteous. And that statement accounts for collateral damage.

 

The Tigers lost their legitimacy when they became a force that was essentially a threat to every single person, no matter what age or allegiance, within their areas of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

the boundaries between ethnic groups are quite frequently at odds with both political and geographical lines - but kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out works if you aren't the corpses


There’s millions of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Kill ‘em all wasn’t the plan. Nor what I was advocating.

 

I advocate an end to every war through resounding defeat (ie total annihilation of groups like LTTE) or political defeat (acceptance of peace terms by the defeated with no conditions - like post-WW2 Germany).

 

We need to finish wars. 75 years of not finishing wars has led to stalemates and conditions where people cannot move on. It is harder to stay “virtually defeated but with hope” for decades than “totally defeated” and moving on.

1 hour ago, chrisg said:

I'm also getting very tired of the harping on about 1938 and "Peace in our Time,"


You don’t like the blueprint example for how cooler heads prevailed and handed a tyrant victory after victory in order to avoid and delay  the inevitable?

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

Who exactly was going to stand up to Hitler in 1938 ?

 

America wanted no part of another European War,  still reeling from the recession. Neither did Britain, pretty much disarmed. France, as demonstrated had no chance, neither did Poland and Stalin at the time was in bed with Hitler who had maneuvered Germany to a position of power that should not have been but had been made possible at least in part by the desperation brought on by the Treaty of Versailles.

 

I don't applaud Chamberlain at all for essentially acquiescing to Hitler but whether by accident or design he bought what was needed - time.

 

Britain made an absolutely stupid error in sending the BEF to Europe, expecting a re-run of WWI - fortunately the heroism of the retreat at Dunkirk, if you can call it heroism on the part of the troops but it certainly was on the part of the small boat owners who went to get them out and saved the day.

 

But meantime Britain had some time to properly mobilise and manufacture during the Phony War such that when it started Germany found it had bitten off more than it could chew - but it was a very close run thing.

 

History always wants to remember the Americans coming in in 1942 but if Britain had fallen in 1939 they would not have had an island to come to to deal with Hitler. It is also often forgotten that Ireland was not exactly on the Allies side for a time - preferred to try and sit it out.

 

Chamberlain was a fool, but he did gain Britain some time.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Who exactly was going to stand up to Hitler in 1938 ?


The same people who stood up to him a year later.

36 minutes ago, chrisg said:

he bought what was needed - time.


Yes - he bought Hitler time. Just like we’ve been buying Iran time now.

Edited by Leonid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Leonid said:


I’m trying to work out exactly where I brought these up.

 

And failing to.

 

 

you're right - i brought these up

 

my point was that who is "righteous" in any conflict is in the eye of the beholder, and the victor writes the sanitised history... or used to; the current connectivity of the interweb makes that much harder to do

 

 

18 hours ago, Leonid said:

The Tamil Tigers pioneered suicide bombing and we’re responsible for massacres that were quite spectacular, even by the standards of the time.

 

You have to understand: the moment your primary objective turns from killing soldiers guarding your territory to slaughtering civilians living on your territory - that’s when you can’t really claim to be righteous. And that statement accounts for collateral damage.

 

The Tigers lost their legitimacy when they became a force that was essentially a threat to every single person, no matter what age or allegiance, within their areas of control.

 

“A riot,” King said, “is the language of the unheard.”

 

"senseless" violence is the shout of the unsuccessful protagonist in any major altercation - the basque separatists, any jihadi suicide bomber, the americans in vietnam...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Leonid said:


The same people who stood up to him a year later.


Yes - he bought Hitler time. Just like we’ve been buying Iran time now.

 

 

No you misunderstand - England was not ready in 1938, they could well have lost the war before it started if they had have attempted to curb Germany at that time.

 

Hitler was not totally ready but was already moving on its neighbours, England had hoped war was done with, hence calling WWI "The War to End Wars" very naive but that was their hope.

 

That extra 18 months or so gave the country time, then they nearly threw it away with the BEF.

 

The Tamil Tigers certainly popularised suicide bombing but I'd always regard it as an act of hopeless desperation. Britain made a huge mistake in trying to marginalise the Tamils before they left Ceylon. It could be said they were just as stupidly arrogant with the Israelis and the Palestinians in then Palestine.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

You might even say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

That always depends whose side you are on.

 

Both Irgun and The Stern Gang were branded as terrorists by Britain - The British departure from Palestine was not a peaceful one, the blowing up of the King David Hotel was but one of a string of "atrocities" carried out by Jewish insurgents.. The modern day Israeli will tell you, and basically I agree, that they were fighting for independence but at the time it was seen as the acts of terrorists.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

 

That always depends whose side you are on.

 

Both Irgun and The Stern Gang were branded as terrorists by Britain - The British departure from Palestine was not a peaceful one, the blowing up of the King David Hotel was but one of a string of "atrocities" carried out by Jewish insurgents.. The modern day Israeli will tell you, and basically I agree, that they were fighting for independence but at the time it was seen as the acts of terrorists.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

I believe that is the long winded explanation of the quote 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisg said:

England was not ready in 1938, they could well have lost the war before it started if they had have attempted to curb Germany at that time.

 

Historians agree that had England stood with Czechoslovakia, the latter's formidable defences would have kept Hitler back.

 

But the defences depended on allies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fliptopia said:

You might even say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

che what ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

unsuccessful protagonist

 

That's like Al-Baghdadi being the "austere religious scholar".

Or Stalin being an "equality activist"

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

That extra 18 months or so gave the country time, then they nearly threw it away with the BEF.

 

Yes. They gave Hitler 18 more months, more victories and a chance to decimate another ally that may have proven useful in a war.

2 hours ago, chrisg said:

but I'd always regard it as an act of hopeless desperation

 

Which leads straight back to my point re finishing wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisg said:

The modern day Israeli will tell you, and basically I agree, that they were fighting for independence but at the time it was seen as the acts of terrorists.

 

Still is. By the Israelis.

An Israeli trial of the Lehi (Stern Gang) leadership (Yellin-Mor & Schmuelevitch) in 1948-1949 was on the basis of terrorism charges.

 

So while you might say this: 

 

3 hours ago, fliptopia said:

You might even say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

You might also be wrong...

Not in all cases. But in some.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

 Historians love to reinvent history but the reality is that Czechoslovakia was very isolated from Britain and whilst it had substantial defenses it was not designed to withstand blitzkrieg.

 

However again, England was simply not ready for war, apart from in naval terms. The air force was very out-moded, their tanks were out of step with latest trends and they were even short on machine guns.

 

You'll get no argument from me on conclusive ways to end wars, but it can be very, very difficult, particularly when it becomes generational as it is with the Palestinians.

 

Yeah, I do recall reading about the terrorism trials of Stern Gang, but the fact is a war-weary Britain was not going to get involved in another war  that appeared unwinnable, it was easier to get out as prudently as possible.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, chrisg said:

 Historians love to reinvent history but the reality is that Czechoslovakia was very isolated from Britain and whilst it had substantial defenses it was not designed to withstand blitzkrieg.

 

It seems you love to reinvent history.

The Czechs were actually quite a formidable force. The 1938 crisis saw Germany field 37 divisions, 5 facing France, the rest against Czechoslovakia's 35 divisions + 5 fortified divisions.

 

The terrain of Western Czechoslovakia was not armour friendly and Hitler was very aware of the fact that he would lose if England/France came to Czechoslovakia's aid. He bet the house on their weakness - they had done everything possible to appease him to now, why would they stop?

 

He calculated correctly. The spineless Chamberlaine decided to give the tyrant more time by selling out Czechoslovakia by threatening it. The result was a calculation by Czechoslovakia that it could not defeat Germany without allies and the entire defensive line of fortifications was transferred to Germany. What's worse is that this not only left Czechoslovakia at the mercy of Germany but it gave German technicians an excellent opportunity to study duplicate fortifications of the French Maginot Line which they would decimate a year later.

 

Chamberlaine handed Hitler time. And he gained nothing.

50 minutes ago, chrisg said:

You'll get no argument from me on conclusive ways to end wars, but it can be very, very difficult, particularly when it becomes generational as it is with the Palestinians.

 

It's not difficult. It's just messy.

 

You have to accept that wars need to end with zero hope for the loser. Then the victors quickly get over their victory and help the loser rebuild.

 

This accomplishes a few things:

1. The loser knows there is no hope of recovering what was lost

2. The loser understands that to complain would be to lose hope of a future where the victor is benevolent.

 

America has done this with Japan. First they nuked them, now they're the best of friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not reinventing history at all.

 

The supply lines for the technology of the day were long and Britain had no especially strong relations with the Czechs plus France whilst better positioned did not show any interest in intervening.

 

It can be argued all day but the fact the BEF was walked all over indicates that even with shorter supply lines Britain was ill-equipped to enter any European conflict even if only in a show of force.

 

Chamberlain was not a great PM. but he did not militarily have much to work with in a land-locked offensive.

 

The culture of the Japanese is very different from for example the Palestinians. They were pretty much totally defeated and then helped back on their feet and now arguably have a better economy than the US.

 

Some Palestinians, as I'm sure you are aware live perfectly happily in Israel and hold no grudges but too many locked up in Gaza and the West Bank are far too inclined to repeatedly bite the hand that feeds.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

The supply lines for the technology of the day were long and Britain had no especially strong relations with the Czechs plus France whilst better positioned did not show any interest in intervening.

 

 

It wasn't a supply line issue.

Supply lines were fine.

Czechoslovakia called up 18 years of reservists - 1.25m men. That simply was not enough. Their defensive fortifications were made with the assumption that France and England would, by treaty, help.

 

Chamberlaine handed Hitler Czechoslovakia, it's fortifications and blueprints for France's defensive fortifications.

 

He gave Hitler time and disarmed a threat to Germany that would have been on the allies' side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Leo,

 

 In the end any army relies upon its logistics, England to Czechoslovakia would have been a long, thin vulnerable line that the Stukas would have been able to have a field day with.

 

I'm well aware of what the implications were of losing Czechoslovakia but Britain simply was not ready to undertake the mission.

 

My best guess would be that if they had tried it would have been worse than the BEF and the troops would not have made it back to Dunkirk, or at least not as many of them. I seriously doubt they would even have made it to Czechoslovakia, Hitler was a nutter but he was not totally stupid he'd have attacked before the Brits even made it there and the French were as seen in the real world pretty much useless.

 

Blitzkrieg works very well against an army on the move, especially one with little in the way of mobile AAA and with fighter cover at the limits of its range.

 

Have a look at a map, it would have had to have been a two front offensive, having a lot of men is one thing, being able to arm them is another.If Germany had attacked the Brits before they could even get to the border they would have been winnowed out for little gain.

 

The Brits were still expecting it to be a rerun of WWI, trench warfare, Hitler had other ideas. It turns out he was right, on mainland Europe, the Channel and a very stubborn people stopped him although I do think he grossly under estimated what it would take to invade the island, let alone conquer it.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

No Leo,

 

No Chris. You re simply, utterly wrong.

3 minutes ago, chrisg said:

 In the end any army relies upon its logistics, England to Czechoslovakia would have been a long, thin vulnerable line that the Stukas would have been able to have a field day with.

 

The Stuka was first flown operationally in 1937.

In mid-1938, Germany had 262 of them.

 

Czechoslovakia had 650 front-line aircraft. 

 

France and England, had they honoured their treaty obligations, would have increased that number by a factor of 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chrisg said:

I'm well aware of what the implications were of losing Czechoslovakia but Britain simply was not ready to undertake the mission.

 

 

And Germany was not ready to face Czechoslovakia with France and England aiding in her defence.

 

Chamberlaine gave up an ally Hitler was actually worried about in a vain effort to prevent the unpreventable. All he achieved was buying Hitler time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, could argue it all night.

 

It does depends what you call "front-line aircraft"  most of the Czech air force was biplanes, the Luftwaffe also had Me-109s to keep them away from the Stukas and Germany also had He-111s and Do-17s. One advantage the Germans had was they had completely re-built their air force along modern lines and had them battle proven in Spain. Britain was not much better, the much vaunted Spitfires and Hurricanes were only just getting properly settled into service and there was a pilot shortage.

 

The time to have curbed Hitler was much earlier, perhaps as early as 1931, but the trouble was most of the world was distracted by the depression then which allowed Germany to covertly re-arm rather well. In England, navy again aside the armed forces were getting to be decidedly threadbare.

 

I'm not arguing that Chamberlain let Czechoslovakia down but even more so, so did France and they had much more to lose. Yet when Germany turned itself lose on France only a year later, mostly going around or over the Maginot line in the first assaults the French just crumbled and the BEF was no way strong enough to stop this new form of war.

 

Chamberlain was damned if he did and equally so if he did not, Britain was not ready to go to war, it wasn't really even in 1939. It took the close run Battle of Britain to stop Germany and that was far too close for comfort.

 

Some in Whitehall, mostly Churchill I'd guess saw what was happening and did their best to re-arm but Britain did not really have the means or indeed the will to get far until it was forced upon them. The only battles Churchill really won at that time were as First Sea Lord keeping the Navy strong but even there he lost fights over aircraft carriers.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chrisg said:

The time to have curbed Hitler was much earlier, perhaps as early as 1931,

 

The time to have curbed Iran was 10 years ago.

But it is better to go to war now than in a year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×