borjastick wrote:Unfortunately most of the British public are ignorant thugs who get their WWII history from atrocious and cheaply made one-sided documentaries. I don't expect the overwhelming evidence assembled by persevering revisionists to make much of an impression in this delusional and truth-fearing country.
Meanwhile in the real world I'll take that as an offensive comment. I am British and despite being a revisionist concerning the holocaust I fully understand that Hitler was the aggressor evidenced by the simple fact that he invaded, Poland, France, Belgium, Holland etc etc blah blah blah. There was only one country that took up arms against Hitler and fought the fight against him and his aggression from start to finish, and that was Great Britain. The war was correct though regrettable and we were right to take a stand.
The holocaust is a completely different matter and subject for discussion here. If you think Britain should have stayed at home knitting cardigans and drinking tea while Hitler marched his armies largely unopposed throughout Europe you are deluded.
"right to take a stand" blah blah. Against what? Shit that didn't concern you. Yeah, sit home and knit your cardigans or stick your nose where it doesn't belong. As an Australian I resent a Brit telling any other country that they had the right to stick their nose in anywhere, my country had to fend of hordes of Chinese and declare ourselves a Federation to avoid the Multiculti grip of the egalitarian British empire. So frankly, the Brits and their noses can go to buggery. Not to say I don't love Britain, but the alternative was pretty simple. Join Hitler. If you want to talk about gobbling up countries, and then moralise about it, Britain isn't the one to be doing such a thing, nor is she the one who should have "taken a stand" against Germany asserting her rights, either through force or peaceful resolution. It matters not.
France, Belgium and Holland were all invaded once war began, a war BRITAIN and FRANCE declared. For one reason or another invading these countries, with little resistance, secured Germany from Allied invasion and attack. No shit they'd do this, you getting upset about it is a post hoc justification for continuing hostilities, it's nothing more than an act of confirmation bias, used justify and to prolong a war that needn't have even extended as far as the necessary occupation of those countries. In truth, did you really expect that those countries wouldn't have been invaded by Germany or the Allies at some point during the hostilities between them? Really? I find that hard to believe. For Germany and Britain to even touch each other they had to violate the neutral airspace of those countries, and they themselves had to allow it. So let's not moralise on inevitabilities.
As Richard Overy said:
It must not be forgotten that war in 1939 was declared by Britain and France on Germany and not the other way round. A large part of any explanation for the war that broke out in September 1939 must rest on this central point. Why did the two Western powers go to war with Germany? Immediately the question is put this way round, the role of Germany assumes a new and very different perspective.
Richard Overy, Origins of the Second World War (Routledge, 3rd Edition 2014), Pp. 59
The fact of the matter is that the British motives were not so noble, in fact, they were entirely selfish. There's little more than can be said about this, other than the moral justification for the Second World War was also invented after the fact, and despite the actual overwhelming failure of the Allies to "liberate" anything for anyone at all.
Instead historians now emphasize that French and British foreign policy in the 1930s was the product of a complex interplay of domestic and international pressures and interests which cannot be adequately subsumed in the popular notion of appeasement. It was in fact, as A.J.P. Taylor pointed out to public dismay in 1961, old-fashioned balance-of-power politics (Taylor, 1961).
Ibid, Pp. 59-60
The truth is as A.J.P. Taylor said, that:
'in international affairs there was nothing wrong with Hitler except that he was a German'.
Mark Mazower, Hitler's Empire Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe, (Penguin Books, 2008), pp. 182