An Alternate View of WWII: It was England's fault

[Bill Mattocks]

What? Well, to be fair, also the fault of the USA, France, and the USSR.

In brief, one must look at the world prior to and leading up to Hitler, Mussolini, and even Imperial Japan.

Since the Treaty of Versailles, Germany and Italy had been stripped of their colonial possessions. Japan wanted colonial possessions, but was blocked (and I mean by the US and UK Navy, militarily) from getting any. The UK, France, the USA, and even the USSR (due to its size) were largely self-sufficient in raw materials and food, either grown locally or brought in from colonial possessions. Germany, Italy, and Japan had none, and were lacking in raw materials.

Setting aside the issue of Germany's destruction of the Jews (worthy of going to war with them for that, no argument), Germany, Italy, and Japan wanted a place at the table, they wanted to secure what was needed to provide for their own economies. This was not permitted.

For the last several years, I have been reading the work of George Padmore, a former communist turned Pan-Africanist, who wrote extensively for "The Crisis" and saw the world in those terms. While I am not sure I agree with everything he had to suggest, I do note that he correctly sussed out what was going to happen next, from about 1934 onwards. His predictions were dead-on. One must at least give his theories about motives some respect when he was that good at figuring out what was about to happen and hitting it dead on every time.

One of his pet theories was that WWII was about Africa and her raw materials.

Today, I see parallels. China is buying up Africa - they bought and ENTIRE MOUNTAIN in Africa for copper, they have cornered the market on 'Rare Earth' (extremely strategic) and they are making pals with dictators in South America as fast as they can.

Africa may be the key to mankind's political future; who controls the raw materials, controls the world. And Padmore saw that back in the 1930's, and correctly predicted what Hitler and Mussolini would do to try to fix those problems.

One of his statements was that it would "take another world war to settle the question of colonialism." He said this ten years before WWII. Hmmm.

 

[Tez3]

I'm sure the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Cornish, Manx and the Channel Islanders ( who were actually occupied by the Germans) are thrilled that it was England's fault and not theirs!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm sure the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Cornish, Manx and the Channel Islanders ( who were actually occupied by the Germans) are thrilled that it was England's fault and not theirs!

England, the UK, Great Britain, the British Empire, it's all the same to me. In the US, we never know what you mean when you say "England" and then "Great Britain," and the explanations I've heard seem to be distinctions without a difference.

 

[Sukerkin]

I vote we put Bill in a locked room with a Scotsman, a Welshman and a Northern Irishman (maybe a Cornishman for good measure) and let him try that last one again .

 

[Xue Sheng]

As with another similar post going on here on MT

My only reply to this entire speculative history post, which will likely not end well, is....

If the Titanic did not hit the iceberg it wouldn't have sunk..... but it did

Thank You and good night

 

[Tez3]

I vote we put Bill in a locked room with a Scotsman, a Welshman and a Northern Irishman (maybe a Cornishman for good measure) and let him try that last one again .

Absolutely!

There is a great difference and if people are going to get history correct they should understand what Great Britian is and what the United Kingdom is. We don't say the 'Texan or Californian government' when we talk about the USA, or that Kansas entered the war after Pearl Harbour. Time should be taken to get the facts otherwise there are errors which detract from any theories of the war.

You may think it's petty but seriously it's not. If you just look at one part of the conundrum as you see it..Northern Ireland.. lives are still being lost there because of who and what GB and the UK are. If you are going to learn from history you need to look at what makes GB and the UK what it is, it's complicated of course but if you want a lesson in nationalism,religious warfare, empire building medieval style as well as modern wars you'd do well to have a good read of our history.

 

[frank raud]

England, the UK, Great Britain, the British Empire, it's all the same to me. In the US, we never know what you mean when you say "England" and then "Great Britain," and the explanations I've heard seem to be distinctions without a difference.

Thank you for admitting ignorance of world geography. Let me help a little. Canada(that big country to the north of you) and India, roughly 8000 miles to the west of you, were once part of the British Empire,(now part of the Commonwealth). Britain is roughly 300 miles to the east of you. I used miles to explain the difference so you wouldn't get tripped up on 'what the heck is a kilometer?'

 

[frank raud]

Didn't you already do this thread a year ago? http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...an-unnecessary-waste-and-the-fault-of-England

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Didn't you already do this thread a year ago? http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...an-unnecessary-waste-and-the-fault-of-England

And your point is?

 

[Monroe]

I think the lead up to WW2 was all a spin off from WW1 and bound to happen. That was one big Industrialized Nations EPIC FAIL. I remember one of my history teachers when I was each kid a title as a nation following WW1. We were each given "tickets" representing things like raw materials, food, etc... At the negotiation tables, no matter how you negotiated, Germany and Italy lost out.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Stop the presses… I have irrefutable historical proof baseon theory and conjecture that shows the whole thing was the fault of a shoesalesman in Ancient Mesopotamia who went by the named of Murray

 

[Sukerkin]

No way!! :lol:

Really tho', this is a fascinating topic, Xue, to me at least (naval history being a passion of mine it's kind of hard to ignore the Second World War) and it can be discussed in an academic and open manner (this being the War College rather than the Study). I'll have to re-read that thread that Frank linked to as I do seem to have posted in it and I'd like to see what I said (after all opinions modify over time as does knowledge).

 

[punisher73]

I think that WW2 had alot of fault/blame to go around. I think for many people they wanted to put the atrocities of WW1 behind them and move on. When Hitler started his advances, people just wanted to pacify him by giving in. The "Final Solution" wasn't the only solution, attempts were made to deport the jews out of Germany and place them in Africa. One of the countries did not want the jews either and refused to let them relocate them there. Even in the US, people heard about the atrocities that were happening in concentration camps and alot of people didn't care because they were jews. Much of that mentality has been rewritten after the war to help paint the germans as even more evil and how good the others were. Much as our own civil war was repainted as a war about slavery after the fact to make southerners look even worse.

I can't remember who said it, but it's quite true. "History is written by those who won it". History is written by the filters and perceptions of those who were there. That is why many in the US feel like the US swooped in to save the day in WW2. That is the perception of those who fought it and passed it on to their children.

 

[granfire]

I think the lead up to WW2 was all a spin off from WW1 and bound to happen. That was one big Industrialized Nations EPIC FAIL. I remember one of my history teachers when I was each kid a title as a nation following WW1. We were each given "tickets" representing things like raw materials, food, etc... At the negotiation tables, no matter how you negotiated, Germany and Italy lost out.

Well, even the local resources were stripped from Germany following WWI....(that and all monetary assets, add to that national humiliation...)

I think that WW2 had alot of fault/blame to go around. I think for many people they wanted to put the atrocities of WW1 behind them and move on. When Hitler started his advances, people just wanted to pacify him by giving in. The "Final Solution" wasn't the only solution, attempts were made to deport the jews out of Germany and place them in Africa. One of the countries did not want the jews either and refused to let them relocate them there. Even in the US, people heard about the atrocities that were happening in concentration camps and alot of people didn't care because they were jews. Much of that mentality has been rewritten after the war to help paint the germans as even more evil and how good the others were. Much as our own civil war was repainted as a war about slavery after the fact to make southerners look even worse.

I can't remember who said it, but it's quite true. "History is written by those who won it". History is written by the filters and perceptions of those who were there. That is why many in the US feel like the US swooped in to save the day in WW2. That is the perception of those who fought it and passed it on to their children.

Many good points. There is a book, I think the title is something like 'One stamp was missing' or something in this regard. IIRC it was about the Jewish people who had boarded a ship to sail to different lands, only to be rejected because of the title 'one stamp'


History is written by the victors...and what's more important, it is rewritten by the ones in power. (that's why you have to dig up sources, not history books)