|
| Thread: European Far Right movements |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted November 05, 2010 12:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Or it might have something to do with the fact that the French communicate with eachother by using the French language.
France is significantly more xenophobic than the UK is; Germany too. If the UK Prime Minister said what Merkel said a few weeks ago about how immigrants needs to learn how to assimilate into German culture and that those that don't follow Christian values don't belong, he would get slammed beyond belief. His nuts would become like marmite. There's a strong (albeit dying) complex in the UK that makes the public and politics uncharacteristically subservient towards minority cultures.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 09:02 AM |
|
|
|
However, you can't compare neither France nor the UK with Germany; Germany didn't have any colonies nor something like a "Commonwealth".
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 09:42 AM |
|
|
A fact that cost the planet two world wars. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 10:04 AM |
|
|
|
That seems to be a somewhat superficial analysis...
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 10:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Germany didn't have any colonies...
Namibia?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 11:25 AM |
|
|
Namibia was German only, because no one else wanted it.  Portugese and Brits had been there and rejected it, and Germany took it only in the 80s of the 19th century - only to lose it after the First WW as a punishment.
So for the sake of immigration Namibia is irrelevant, since there are no ties to the "motherland" - and even if it was, even now there's not much population there.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 11:39 AM |
|
|
That's because until Bismark, Germany was a loose group of independant city states, Duchies and small kingdoms. Right? =)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2010 12:33 PM |
|
|
Yes-no.
Prussia - who'd qualify, if you consider that the Dutch and the Portugese were colonial powers as well - was no sea power. (In other words, if Prussia had been a sea power, there would have been Prussian and later on German colonies.)
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted November 06, 2010 08:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In other words, if Prussia had been a sea power, there would have been Prussian and later on German colonies.
Prussia had colonies in the Gold coast.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2010 09:04 AM |
|
|
|
For a couple of years, and when they deteriorated they sold them shortly into the 18. century for a bit of money.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 06, 2010 12:26 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 12:46, 06 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
That seems to be a somewhat superficial analysis...
Not too superficial, though. The Central Powers' lack of colonies was one of the more important reasons WW1 came to be. As for WW2...
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2010 03:59 PM |
|
|
I don't think so. You would have to prove that, and I don't think you can.
Since the link isn't working for me, I can't say anything to that.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted November 06, 2010 05:33 PM |
|
|
Colonies shook the established status quo politics and added to the tension that would lead up to the First World War.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 06, 2010 06:38 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 18:43, 06 Nov 2010.
|
The link is a recording of a historical Hitler's speech (that's probably why you can't open it, Hitler's illegal in Germany, or so I hear), where he says:
"We don't have their colonies, we don't have the opportunities of international world connections possessed by these states and peoples. Our Reich, which is so crammed and which has so few of the necessities for life, needs to be carefully and thoroughly cultivated and managed. We can't do this without... blablabla".
There's some talk about the importance of colonies before WW1 on this site.
Please don't see this discussion as my attack toward the German people or anything. I really have no desire to do that (what's important is that the Germans lost), this is just about discussing the reasons why the war happened.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2010 12:20 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2010 09:34 AM |
|
|
I take no offense whatsoever.
It's just complete speculation to say that something would not have happened (or had happened) if something had (or had not happened.
What you are saying is that if Germany had had colonies, there had been no WW I, and that's a claim you simply cannot prove - you don't even have good arguments for it.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 07, 2010 11:39 AM |
|
|
I didn't say it wouldn't have happened if Germany had colonies.
I said one of the reasons it happened was the German lack of colonies.
There's a difference.
@Fauch
Well, both of them. The French marshal Ferdinand Foch, while the Treaty of Versailles was being signed, said, "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years."
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2010 12:20 PM |
|
|
It seems that you are going back on your statement.
First it was "a fact that cost the planet two world wars".
Then it was "one of the most important reasons".
Now it's "one of the reasons".
Which makes your statement useless, because it's not saying anything anymore.
Another thing is that it would be a lot better to turn the point around and say that the fact that England and France HAD so many colonies, their aggressive imperialism, was one of the reasons why WW I broke out (and not Germany's lack of them). After all "colonizing" the world has been a kind of "war to conquer" as well.
I'm pretty sure that IF Germany had had a couple more colonies (in Africa seems to be the only possibility), NOTHING would have changed, nothing at all, while, if you turn around the thing and ask what would have happend if England and France had given lots of colonies their freedom at the turn of the century, the question gets somewhat more interesting, even though one still would be inclined to say, as improbable that would have been, chances are it wouldn't have changed anything.
The point gets slightly more interesting with Italy, but then the question is whaat influence Italy had at all to make things happen or not.
The bottom line therefor is, no, that Germany had no colonies is pretty unimportant for the event of WW I.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 07, 2010 01:29 PM |
|
|
I'm not going back on my statement, it's common courtesy and rhetorical tactic. I don't really care too much about winning this, so I attempted to use just logic, with as little googling and digging for facts other than what we all know, as possible, to win the discussion. See, the reason I'm progressing backwards is your stubborn denial; I'm saying, alright, let's doubt everything until we reach the undoubtable; let's continue to take a step back and look at it from a different perspective - with an intention to, after reaching a critical point which you can't deny, spin the discussion back to what I stated at first.
But now you had to go and ruin my surprise.
There was another reason, I admit it. It was, of course, also tied to the territorial expansion of the Central Powers, but not in terms of overtaking colonies, but Austrian expansion toward the Balkans (such as the annexation of Bosnia)... which can be regarded as rather similar. As well as German expansion of territory and influence throughout Europe.
No matter how you turn the thing around, the fact remains the Central Powers started the war. It wasn't the war policy of the Reich to liberate, but expand. It had to keep the Great Power status at all costs, and it realized - which Hitler later confirmed in that speech I linked - it was losing the race which was then regarded as the key to huge economic potential - the colonies. And the war proved it - the Germans hoped to rush out and take as much as they could with superior organization and what resources they had; once their progress came to a halt, their crash began. Running out of resources spelled the end to the Great War. Even the colonial Entente's economy was heavily struck; the German one was in shambles.
Imagine you have several kids racing, and there's a tough, but fat kid who knows he can't win in the long run, so he tries to trip, push and prod everyone at the very beginning of the race, while the others don't get too far ahead.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2010 03:07 PM |
|
|
As I said, your analysis is superficial.
And Hitler said a lot of things - he is generally not considered a wealth of wisdom or founded knowledge. If you start quoting Hitler, we can safely assume that Germany lost WW I only because of "backsstabbing", so what?
You look at this from the wrong angle. Every ambition Germany might have had that had a connection with "colonies/England", be it peaceful or aggressive, would depend on a German FLEET. A fleet capable of securing the seas, of standing against the British sea power.
Which was, what Germany was trying to build - even though there were basically no "free colonies" anymore. Which was what England didn't want/felt - rightly or not - threatened by: what would the Germans possibly do with a large fleet that could NOT be directed against England one way or another?
I repeat that NOTHING would have changed with colonies - a fleet, earlier built, would have been a prerequisite for that: SEAPOWER
Then, as you say, there is of course the Russian/Austrian war angle that has nothing to with Germany and its lack of colonies at all.
Then we have the French/German angle. The war of 70/71 which had cost the French dearly. That wasn't forgotten, by no means. When the war came, the French were quite keen on it.
Lastly, let's not forget what this is about. You made a remark, that Germany's lack of colonies cost the world two WWs, and I said that was a superficial analysis, and it IS a superficial analysis indeed.
You have already said so yourself, indirectly.
|
|
|
|
