Monday, September 3, 2018

The Saddest Anniversary In History

Today marks the seventy ninth anniversary of the start of WW2, September the 3rd, 1939, in which it is estimated that over sixty million people, mostly civilians were killed.  Two days earlier, on September the 1st, Hitler's Germany sent its tanks and troops into Poland and on September the 3rd, 1939, Britain, France, New Zealand and Australia declared war on Germany.



Five years later, the collapse of Germany and the end of the war in Europe gave rise to an even greater evil - The United Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia which saw the demise of even more tens of millions of people.  Of course the USSR had existed from 1922 but WW2 gave the socialists control over vast territory and millions of people they otherwise never would have gained.

Finally, the USSR collapsed in 1991 with the fall of the Berlin Wall being the most demonstrative event of that collapse.

It's no wonder the denizens of the political left so hate Reagan and Thatcher.




23 comments:

Noel said...

Ok but what has been achieved?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/22/the-unlearned-lessons-from-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union/

Noel said...

The US Got 20 years of dominance but will that continue?
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358

Gerald said...

Page 100 US an Allies.
"Post-primacy will require some humility on the part of the United States in this regard, because, increasingly self-interest trumps collective interes

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Gerald

I'll bet you can't find a statue of general Marshall anywhere in France. Some self interest on the part of the US, eh? Unrecognised by the ungrateful French. Of course it wan in the long term interests of the US to have Europe quickly stabilised but there is no earthly reason why the Yanks could not have left them to stew for a couple of years while they attended to other issues.

I'd be grateful if you can point me to any time in the world's last 200 years when nations' respective self interest was 'trumped' by collective interest.

Psycho Milt said...

Unrecognised by the ungrateful French.

Why would the French be grateful to the USA? You don't feel grateful when other people's selfish pursuit of their own interest happens to do you a favour.

The US govt had no problem with Nazi Germany occupying France, as demonstrated by the fact that they ignored it until Hitler foolishly declared war on them over a year after France's defeat. The fact that beating Germany also happened to liberate France was irrelevant from the US perspective.

As for the Marshall Plan, the money the US handed over was chicken-feed compared to the profiteering they'd been able to do in the early years of the war and the money they got from bankrupting the UK. The plan's sole purpose was to keep Europe from going communist, ie it was a matter of self-interest. And nobody should expect gratitude for their pursuit of self-interest.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Poor Milt. Round in circles he goes.

Question: "Why would the French be grateful to the USA?"


Answer: ".....sole purpose was to keep Europe from going communist."

Milt I suggest you study up a little on Lend Lease before you talk so foolishly about events leading up to Pearl Harbour.

Anonymous said...

Looking back one ponders what people thought at the time - who would have predicted the absolute cataclysm that rapidly developed?

There seems to be something in common between Hitler's 1000 year reich and the COL's tree planting - both goals set result from delusion and won't be achieved although Hitler got closer to his dream than the COL will I suspect.

3:16

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

3:16

I think you do a disservice to your country's losers. They are just stupid and juvenile. Hitler was malevolent and evil

Psycho Milt said...

Answer: ".....sole purpose was to keep Europe from going communist."

...which would have been very inconvenient for the USA, which is in turn the only reason the USA was interested. There's no need to be grateful to others for acting in their own self-interest, even if you happen to benefit from it.

Psycho Milt said...

Milt I suggest you study up a little on Lend Lease before you talk so foolishly about events leading up to Pearl Harbour.

I have - that's why I'm aware it was introduced well after the US had bankrupted Britain.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt

Are you unable to get anything right?

The USA did not bankrupt Britain, as you so quaintly put it.

It was Germany which sent Britain broke, buying weapons with which to defend herself.

There is a difference between being broke and being bankrupt which you seem not to understand.

Further, the introduction of a massive aid programme under 'lend lease' hardly seems to fit your flippant description of 'The US govt had no problem with Nazi Germany occupying France, as demonstrated by the fact that they ignored it until Hitler foolishly declared war on them over a year after France's defeat.'

If somebody ignored me like that I think I might get worried.

The Veteran said...

Re France ... reminds me of the old joke ... why did the French plant poplar trees on the road verges ... answer ... to provide shade for the Germans as they marched along.

For Adolf ... from someone who has a love of history ... where did you find the telegram?

Psycho Milt said...

Britain declared war on Germany, not vice versa. If either party could be said to have been defending itself, the Germans would have the better claim.

The US government mercilessly exploited Britain's situation in 1940, requiring ridiculous prices paid from Britain's gold reserves for the things that were supplied. When the gold was exhausted they required access to Britain's records so that could be verified, and from there they moved to requiring British companies operating in the US to be sold to Americans at bargain-basement prices, British technology transferred to the US and eventually, overseas territories handed over in exchange for some obsolete destroyers. It's called profiteering and they were very good at it. Whether to call the outcome "broke" or "bankrupt" is pedantry, just don't expect anyone British to be grateful for the experience.

Noel said...

Veteran
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/timeline/03/09

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Veteran

Possible the same link as has Noel.

Via duckduckgo search engine 'nz declaration of war'

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/new-zealand-declares-war-on-germany

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt

No doubt you would have kept the territories and foregone the destroyers. You'd have died of starvation.

I've read Churchill's account of the second world war. All twelve volumes. Twice.

Nowhere do I recall him alluding to, let alone complaining about, any of the dire deeds of which you write.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Psycho Milt said...

No doubt you would have kept the territories and foregone the destroyers. You'd have died of starvation.

Well, yeah, they knew when they had a sucker over a barrel and they made the most of it. Profiteers are like that. I'm still not seeing the debt of gratitude Britain's supposed to owe for having been held up by the ankles and shaken until stuff stopped falling out.

Nowhere do I recall him alluding to, let alone complaining about, any of the dire deeds of which you write.

Not something he would have chosen to dwell on, is it? The less self-aggrandising aspects of history were left for less-feted historians to pick up on, for instance Clive Ponting in "1940: Myth and Reality."

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I would trust Churchill's recollection long before those of the history revisionists you prefer.

Anonymous said...





I would not put to much faith in Churchill's book if I were you.



In The US anti-British feeling was rife. One correspondent to a newspaper in Philadelphia professed to see no difference between 'the oppressor of the Jews and Czechs' - Nazi Germany - and 'the oppressor of the Irish and of India' - the United Kingdom.

Many U.S. generals were equally resistant to participating in the war and dubious about the British as prospective allies. Some senior officers unashamedly reserved their admiration for the Germans.

In Britain, meanwhile, few people had anything but contempt for Americans for absenting themselves from the struggle against Hitler. 'I have little faith in them,' a Battle of Britain pilot wrote. 'I suppose in God's own time God's own country will fight.' But he wasn't holding his breath.
Hitler

Little faith: The British despised the Americans for not joining in the struggle against Hitler

Bitterness and suspicion came from all levels of society. Lord Halifax, Britain's ambassador in Washington, admitted in private that 'I have never liked Americans.' Many Tory MPs shared his distaste. One wrote: 'They really are a strange and unpleasing people. It is a nuisance that we are so dependent on them.'

Even Churchill was heard to refer to 'those bloody Yankees'.

While America reaped huge profits from these arm sales, the British government exhausted every expedient to meet U.S. invoices. From Cape Town in South Africa, an American warship collected Britain's last £50million in gold bullion.

During the Battle of Britain, the chancellor of the exchequer suggested calling in all the nation's gold wedding rings and melting them down to pay the bills. Churchill vetoed such a drastic measure, unless it became necessary to make a parade of it to shame the Americans.

The underlying problem was a widespread American belief in British opulence, quite at odds with reality. The U.S. administration even demanded an audited account of Britain's assets because it suspected Churchill was not being honest about resources. British ministers found the demand humiliating.

It was only when the last of Britain's gold and foreign assets had been surrendered that the embattled nation began to receive direct aid from the U.S., through the 'lend-lease' scheme. Until the attack on Pearl Harbour the US continued to supply strategic material to Nazi Germany.

Bill Kalowski

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Veteran said...

Bill ... well put. One only has to study the 'America First Committee' movement to realize to understand the current of anti-British sentiment that permeated that organisation ... and we won't even talk about Henry Ford and Jews and all of that.

Sidenote ... two American Presidents, JFK and Gerald Ford actually donated to the AFC while Joe Kennedy Snr, as Ambassador to GB argued against lend-lease and that the US should abandon Britain to its fate.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

So some Americans didn't like some British! Good grief!

And some Brits didn't like some Yanks.

Nothing has changed in eighty years.

You might ask yourselves what happened to all that money once Roosevelt overcame the political obstacles to entering the war?

Could it just possible have been used to fund the manufacture of vehicles and weapons?

No!!!!!!!!! Surely not.

Then ask yourselves whether Britain would rather have kept all the money and assets and forgone the weapons when they were needed?