tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post2981411594909218124..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Nigel Farage on Invading Imperial GermanyPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-16543825210302639012014-11-17T12:57:05.097+00:002014-11-17T12:57:05.097+00:00I'm not sure that Farage is wrong but neither ...I'm not sure that Farage is wrong but neither am I sure he is right.<br />We delve into 'what if politics'.<br />We are therefore left with dealing with reality.<br />The reality is that WW2 was based on 'unconditional surrenders' which gave antagonists no security as happened in Germany 1919.<br />Versailles was the problem in emasculating the finances of a post war republic.<br />The aims of WW1 were gained, the war was over, German expansion stopped and the Kaiser gone.<br />Hindenburg and Ludendorph both vacated their Leadership to the politicians who then negotiated the armistice and financial penalties.<br />The 'stab in the back' term is lossely aimed at the politicians (a wide term at war's end) but it was a British invention aimed at Ludendorph who was all too pleased to aim that comment at revolutionary Communists murdered by the Friekorp (returning right wing fully armed un-defeated soldiers called to order (Kaiser's son and Heir).<br /><br />The WW2 example that Farage forgets is Japan.<br />An invasion of a fully intact and armed Japan who undoubtedly would have fought to the last woman and child was brought to a surrender unconditionally via atomic means.<br />A USA army landing and fighting would have cost many lives, 500,000? <br />France wanted none of it in 1918 and even wanted to invade in 1919 when war reparations were not being met. The French wanted blood and money. Farage makes a good 1919 Frenchman.<br />There are many good historians who wanted no war in 1914 and still today they make a case of it.<br />That too would have cost many lives of a retaking of Europe (from where?) in a Europe entrenched by the Kaiser who would have called on the economies of Germany, France, Belgium etc to fight his cause.<br /><br />Farage should be seen as simplistic as right wing politics often is.<br />Everyoe is clever after the fact.Gary Elsbynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-59240180182235511442014-11-16T10:52:39.141+00:002014-11-16T10:52:39.141+00:00At the time of the Armistice the deployment of tan...At the time of the Armistice the deployment of tanks had only just started. The 1918-19 invasion of Germany would have been heavily mechanised, which would have given the returning Tank Corps enormous post-war prestige. And - unlike the troops coming home from Europe after WWII - they weren't left-wingers; the proto-fascist J.F.C. Fuller was a leading advocate of tank power.<br /><br />So: revolution in Germany, reaction in Britain. They would have been interesting times, right enough.Philhttp://ohgoodale.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-48217719540090194772014-11-16T06:48:54.603+00:002014-11-16T06:48:54.603+00:00Mussolini took over an italy that considered itßel...Mussolini took over an italy that considered itßelf "humiliated" by the post ww1 setttlement with an economy in turmoil and directionless political class, as did Putin. <br /><br />It is interesting to note the electoral reforms currently being pushed through by Italian pm Renzi in alliance with Berlusconi are designed to ensure "decisive" leadership, and emulate the two party anglo sacon model, but without even the safety valve of an upper hpuse (which is being abolished). Thus the Italian political class is staging a coup - again in the name of deciseveness - just as support for both the centre-left and right bleeds to a third force - the 5 star movement - or smaller parties, which will be obliterated by the move. <br /><br />But the biggest losers will be the italian people of course who will be subject to a true elective dictatorship. However Renzi remains popular, perhaps because of his plan to effectively abolish democracy. <br />Speedynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-59368131986308146132014-11-15T22:22:30.495+00:002014-11-15T22:22:30.495+00:00Excellent comment, Guano. "Decisiveness"...Excellent comment, Guano. "Decisiveness" always underpins demagogic appeal. It worked wonders for Mussolini.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-57273377491645085462014-11-15T11:49:22.704+00:002014-11-15T11:49:22.704+00:00"One very good reason to not push into German..."One very good reason to not push into Germany was the unfolding revolutionary situation. By war's end the Kaiser had gone, the Social Democrats were in government, the navy were in open revolt and soviet-type councils of workers and soldiers were mushrooming. Further advances by the allies could have exacerbated this situation and acted as a recruiting sergeant for the Spartakusbund."<br /><br />This was not just a "good reason" it was openly discussed by both the Allies and the Germans. Foch, for example, wanted to continue the war but was overruled because of fear of the (revolutionary) political consequences.<br /><br /><br />George Hallamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-59781803908634248762014-11-15T11:35:39.879+00:002014-11-15T11:35:39.879+00:00It's good to see somebody making the effort to...It's good to see somebody making the effort to analyse what Farage said. Much of the mainstream reaction to Farage's talking points (including this) is to say "It's a bit odd" without looking deeper at what it says about him. <br /><br />If the Allies had pressed on to Berlin in 1918 they might have decisively beaten Germany but then they would have to occupy Germany for a number of years and to build a new regime. Even if the new regime was based on a purely agricultural economy, that rebuilding would have been costly and complex. Creating a new regime in the 20th century would have been much more complex than it had been in the 18th century; a lot more complex than slotting in a new king.<br /><br />Did Britain and France have the resources do occupy and rebuild Germany in 1918? I'm far from sure that they did after 4 years of total war. Would the USA have contributed? Again I'm far from sure; the USA hadn't yet thought about being involved at such a scale in Europe. And would Britain and France have accepted that the USA be involved in Europe in such a way? Again, I'm not so sure.<br /><br />It is true that Germany, Italy and Japan (and the states that the Nazis had destroyed) were rebuilt after 1945. But it is important to remember how much effort was required, much coming from the USA that was at the peak of its powers. The Allies did not take on the rebuilding of China, which had been destroyed (economically and socially) by more than 10 years of war with Japan. That led to the "Who lost China?" movement in the USA in the 1950s. The reality is that the USA would have been hard-pressed to tackle the complete breakdown of institutions and the economy that had occurred in China between 1933 and 1945. <br /><br />Farage is tapping into a feeling in some sections of British society that our politician are not decisive enough. This explains some of his comments that could be interpreted as pro-Putin: Putin doesn't hesitate when he fears losing Sebastapol. There is quite a lot of this around, such as the many commentators who say that the UK or Obama should be more decisive about Syria or ISIS (or should have been more decisive in some undefined way and at some undefined time in the past). He is trying to build a coalition of those sections of the population who are alienated from current politics because they think that are leaders are not strong enough (which is different from those who are alienated from modern politics because it isn't accountable). <br /><br />The USA did not occupy Iraq after the first Gulf War. And then certain sections of the political class began getting worked up that Saddam was still there, so 10 years later Iraq was invaded. The rebuilding turned out to be very difficult and eventually disastrous. There is a lesson there somewhere. Being decisive appeals to people like Farage and Dubya Bush but they know nothing about the difficulties that creates. <br /><br />Guano Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-84176202061521475392014-11-14T16:01:56.884+00:002014-11-14T16:01:56.884+00:00Yes.
Plus - they could hardly justify an invasio...Yes. <br /><br />Plus - they could hardly justify an invasion to "avoid Hitler". That kind of fascism was almost unthinkable, although as you point out Bolshevism was not, so why damage the bourgeois state? <br /><br />"The Wasteland" is a good starting point to understand the psychology of the public post-WW1 - the sense that everything had been lost, torn asunder, the very incomprehensibility (perfect for a sociologist). "So many, I never knew death had claimed so many". <br /><br />The mothers of Britain would never have forgiven the politicians. Speedynoreply@blogger.com