[DerbyX]

Its not isolationist to advocate a policy of not bombing countries at the drop of a hat. Its called being a good neighbour. Most of the good will Canadians enjoy in the world are because of what we don't do rather then what we do, do.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We could but things that happen to one country seem to affect the global community.

Isolationism is an option but it's an option that precipitated the First World War and the Second World War.

Its not isolationism. Its called be a good neighbour. WW1 happened because every country was acting like a child and were racing to build the biggest and most toys. With such a build up war was inevitable. It certainly wasn't isolationism but a policy of intervention on behalf of allies. If everybody was isolationist then no alliances would have been triggered.

The seeds of WW2 were sowed in WW1 with the draconian conditions imposed on Germany making the population more amiable to radicalism. Without those conditions its quite probable a man like Hitler would never have come to power. Poverty is a power motivator for people to do such things.

So far all Iraq and Afghanistan has done is further alienate us from the very people who are joining the ranks of radicalism and to fracture the very bonds of NATO, something I bet Russia and China are laughing about.

A shitload of world problems could be solved if we simply treated others like we want to be treated just as we expect it in our society.

I agree on the WW2 bit, mostly.

On WW1, the Brits doing the 'splendid isolation' thing encouraged the arms race in Europe.
Then within the “Triple Entente” the Brits refused to pressure Russia to keep Serbia in check.
The reluctance of the then sole super-power to grasp the nettle meant Serbia went to war with a weak Austria. The Germans had an alliance with Austria and Serbia had an alliance with Russia. Bingo, WW1.

It is historically accepted that the UK’s lack of action and decades of ‘splendid isolation’ were major factors in the causes of WW1.

I agree that the punishing armistice forced on to Germany sowed the seeds for WW2, but again the British and French dithered as the Nazi’s went into the Sudetenland, annexed Czechoslovakia, squeezed down the Danzig Corridor and generally did what they wanted in Europe without some much as the odd squeak from the Brits.

That’s what happens when you become isolationist. The bad guys get to do what they want.

[Pseudonym]

I would enjoy being part of an alliance that didn't leave a disproportionate burden on some of its members. It is high time that some first world countries started taking care of and paying for their own national defense.

[EyeBrock]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

I would enjoy being part of an alliance that didn't leave a disproportionate burden on some of its members. It is high time that some first world countries started taking care of and paying for their own national defense.

Too right. Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc etc etc.....

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree on the WW2 bit, mostly.

On WW1, the Brits doing the 'splendid isolation' thing encouraged the arms race in Europe.
Then within the “Triple Entente” the Brits refused to pressure Russia to keep Serbia in check.
The reluctance of the then sole super-power to grasp the nettle meant Serbia went to war with a weak Austria. The Germans had an alliance with Austria and Serbia had an alliance with Russia. Bingo, WW1.

It is historically accepted that the UK’s lack of action and decades of ‘splendid isolation’ were major factors in the causes of WW1.

I agree that the punishing armistice forced on to Germany sowed the seeds for WW2, but again the British and French dithered as the Nazi’s went into the Sudetenland, annexed Czechoslovakia, squeezed down the Danzig Corridor and generally did what they wanted in Europe without some much as the odd squeak from the Brits.

That’s what happens when you become isolationist. The bad guys get to do what they want.

Well from what I'm reading it was imperialism more then anything and the UK had that in spades. They certainly weren't sitting idily by and if every nation involved weren't up to their necks in treaties (some very old) then the Arch duke getting popped would have been just news at 11 rather then a massive call to arms.

In any case I don't advocate isolationism. I advocate responsible nations being responsible neighbours. As it has already been shown we don't get involved for altruistic reasons but for our own interests and we always compromise our principles. We are doing that in spades in Afghanistan what will our allies being who they are.

You say the Allies dithered by not declaring war sooner but the truth is the war should have been averted before. We reacted to a situation of our own design and that describes virtually all conflict the west has with the ME. We have created the conditions we now oppose and we could have prevented it by simply leaving them alone.

Even if I thought we should be more involved in other countries affairs I would say we are doing it in the worst way possible. Do you think the west would be OK if China decided it was in her best interest to intervene and that intervention put her at odds with our interests?

[EyeBrock]

Again, I disagree. This is an area I have studied and the UK's lack of action prior to both wars was a major factor in how they started.
If you look into the various historians who are experts in this area, you'll find that many of them believe isolationism and inaction on the part of the Brits led to the sequence of events where Europe went to war.

And I'm interested to see your theory on how the Allies could have averted WW2?

And on China. Countries like China are the very reason that small countries ally themselves with big countries like the US.

Your points are not resonating on this one.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Again, I disagree. This is an area I have studied and the UK's lack of action prior to both wars was a major factor in how they started.
If you look into the various historians who are experts in this area, you'll find that many of them believe isolationism and inaction on the part of the Brits led to the sequence of events where Europe went to war.

And I'm interested to see your theory on how the Allies could have averted WW2?

And on China. Countries like China are the very reason that small countries ally themselves with big countries like the US.

Your points are not resonating on this one.

If the conditions imposed on Germany weren't what they were then it would have been much harder if not impossible for men like Hitler to rise to power on the backs of disenfrancised people.

As for the UK not intervening sooner, it would have done nothing to avert war. The war was already past a PNR at that point.

In both cases it wasn't British isolationism but the treaties they signed that brough them to war and WW1 was rife with treaties so much so that any little spark would and did cause a chain reaction of alliances.

Its also worthy to note that its not just our non-intervention but theirs. It didn't work out so well for them did it?

Nope. If we can justify our intervention then so can they whoever they are. There is also a difference between helping out an ally in a pre-established alliance then deciding for ourselves to intervene like we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the wrong thing to do and that's the type of minding our own business I'm referring to.

[EyeBrock]

Again, if you look at the history of the time, Hitler couldn't believe his luck when the French allowed the Wermacht to occupy the Rhineland in 1936. The German military was not prepared for a fight and it bluffed it's way in.

If France and the UK had dug in and were prepared to fight in 1936, Hitler would have backed down.

Munich 1938 was another bluff that Hitler called. He would have made a great poker player.

If the Brits and French had grown balls in these two confrontations maybe WW2 would not have happened.

[herbie]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Again, if you look at the history of the time, Hitler couldn't believe his luck when the French allowed the Wermacht to occupy the Rhineland in 1936. The German military was not prepared for a fight and it bluffed it's way in.

If France and the UK had dug in and were prepared to fight in 1936, Hitler would have backed down.

Munich 1938 was another bluff that Hitler called. He would have made a great poker player.

If the Brits and French had grown balls in these two confrontations maybe WW2 would not have happened.

Or maybe just started a couple years earlier.
Considering that after having four years to respond to Germany's buildup, they got rolled up almost as quick as Iraq....

French tanks and the Maginot line... oooh scary!!! The Nazis lost more casualties to the Poles on horseback.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Again, if you look at the history of the time, Hitler couldn't believe his luck when the French allowed the Wermacht to occupy the Rhineland in 1936. The German military was not prepared for a fight and it bluffed it's way in.

If France and the UK had dug in and were prepared to fight in 1936, Hitler would have backed down.

Munich 1938 was another bluff that Hitler called. He would have made a great poker player.

If the Brits and French had grown balls in these two confrontations maybe WW2 would not have happened.

Again the real point is that we could have avoided this long before military threats were needed.

He might have backed down. He might have also decided to throw his lot in with the Soviets and not betray them and instead concentrated on the west. A lot of what ifs. I'll also point out that the time of non-intervention I espouse doesn't really come into affect on countries that have decided to go out and invade all their neighbours does it? It involves us not invading under the guise of regime change and moral dictations.

[EyeBrock]

Agreed, but there are times when force is required.

The Rhineland capitulation just set the stage for appeasement. All this weakness, you could say a 1930's version of 'soft power', just encouraged Hitler to go for more.

I'm not into invading any old fucker just 'cos we don't like them but Hitler signalled his intentions way before he acted.
The Brits and French dithered for many reasons, the horrific losses of WW1, the great Depression etc.
But in the end the dithering and appeasing caused another massive loss of life.

These are not just my opinions derby, these views are held by a great many respected historians. Plus my good mate Winston Spencer Churchill.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed, but there are times when force is required.

The Rhineland capitulation just set the stage for appeasement. All this weakness, you could say a 1930's version of 'soft power', just encouraged Hitler to go for more.

I'm not into invading any old fucker just 'cos we don't like them but Hitler signalled his intentions way before he acted.
The Brits and French dithered for many reasons, the horrific losses of WW1, the great Depression etc.
But in the end the dithering and appeasing caused another massive loss of life.

These are not just my opinions derby, these views are held by a great many respected historians. Plus my good mate Winston Spencer Churchill.

Yes, but there are also historians agreeing that the time to prevent WW2 was before force was required. Force may indeed be required and there are places in the world where I can see force is required to keep 2 tribes apart (such as anywhere titsis and hutus are located) but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan fir that bill.

Force is a last resort and a self defence option. We can make up whatever justification we want eyebrock but if we can justify it then so can so many other nations and once that starts happening we know where it ends.

You are ready to pretty much turf NATO to the wayside and invest in a new alliance leaving Europe to sort its own business out. I say the same thing and if other nations want to try and invade their neighbours then we can act as needed with a clear conscience.

[gonavy47]

Hitler had to be stopped at all costs. All anyone had to do was read "Mein Kampf" to see what Hitler was all about. His plans were all there in black and white. His repression of people and freedoms in Germany alone, called for his overthrow and destruction, not to mention what happened to countries that were occupied. Wholesale starvation, genocide, forced labour, liquidation of the mentally handicapped, homosexuals, communists, Jews, trade unionists, Slavs, and anyone who disagreed with him, and his grand vision of a German empire. Appeasement set the stage for Hitler to go to war, but in the end it enabled the world to rid itself of the megalomaniac. For Hitler, death was the final, and only solution, as he had caused the deaths of upwards of 50 million people.

[EyeBrock]

But if force was applied say during the Rhineland occupation, many believe Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks.

This would have meant a firefight in an area that the League of Nations had placed in French control. Instead the Nazi's walked in without a shot and the league was shown to be a toothless tiger.

On NATO, I'll go with Gen Rick Hillier. Plus just look at how ineffective the Euro's have been and are.

They are well able to fund their own defence. Sod them, NATO is becoming as relevant in international security as the UN are.

Let's leave and join something where all the partners shoulder a true proportion of the heavy lifting.

Spain, Italy, France, Germany et al can do their own thing.

[Regina]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Yes, but there are also historians agreeing that the time to prevent WW2 was before force was required.

Really? Which historians have said that?