Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

steiner14-18, without hitler and his nazis there have been no worldwarII simply...

And one can only imagine what astonishing things Germany, Europe and the world might have accomplished in the 20th century without the needless deaths of those 45 million people, including a large proportion of the intellectual and creative elites of Europe (Gentiles and Jews alike), and the lifelong injuries, physical and emotional, to so many more. Without the gutting of so many historic cities. Without the subsequent imprisonment of half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain for 45 years. Without an exhausted Britain and France hastily decamping from their global empires, leaving tribalism and chaos behind.

So much waste. Anyway, we're well OT here, so let's go back to the hederows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And one can only imagine what astonishing things Germany, Europe and the world might have accomplished in the 20th century without the needless deaths of those 45 million people, including a large proportion of the intellectual and creative elites of Europe (Gentiles and Jews alike), and the lifelong injuries, physical and emotional, to so many more. Without the gutting of so many historic cities. Without the subsequent imprisonment of half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain for 45 years. Without an exhausted Britain and France hastily decamping from their global empires, leaving tribalism and chaos behind.

So much waste. Anyway, we're well OT here, so let's go back to the hederows.

Yes tribalism is bad, if only the French were still with us to teach us civilisation :P.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Belgium was also colonialist,Congo Zaire.:rolleyes: LongLeftFlank seems to regret that France after the war has lost its colonial empire (it's in the 60s not just after war). Not me

but this is not the right forum to discuss about that....

It just seemed like such an odd statement to make. Like somehow having British and French empires made the world such a better place. Oh, and it's not because I live in Belgium that I am Belgian ;).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I read it was more that the haste (in a political sense) with which the British and French colonies were abandoned, which was forced upon them by the economic exhaustion both suffered due to WWII, was what lead to the unstable state of 'tribalism and chaos' in so many countries behind them.

But yeah - any more useful tidbits regarding hedgerow warfare, anyone? Was the standard German tactical defence at a local level a static one (maybe due to a shortage of manpower)? Or, once they'd identified the particular field(s) through which the Americans had broken, was there an attempt to press forward on either side of it and interdict the advance from the hedgerows on the flanks? I'd have though that, in this way, you could quickly persuade the US forces to pull back again, or at least wait while the 'shoulders' of the breakthrough were widened to relieve the pressure on the point of the advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tux's interpretation of my comment is correct.

By the time of the Depression, solid majorities in Britain and France favoured accelerating decolonization and transition to full self-rule. Heck, ever since 1776, the imperialists themselves had given the concept lip service even while they were building their empires. By the late 19th century, local elites were clamouring for it, and World War I weakened the "Mother Countries" enough to ensure it would happen sooner rather than later. Also, the growing appeal of socialist internationalist ideals broadened its support from a few progressive thinking elites in Britain and France to a majority of the working classes who had previously been indifferent on the topic.

I can't speak to contemporary attitudes in Holland, Belgium or Portugal.

So we're even farther OT now. Sorry....

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't speak to contemporary attitudes in Holland, Belgium or Portugal.

Here the majority of the population thought they were improving the sorry state of the primitive indigenous population by ruling those countries.

Indonesia, Congo and the Portuguese colonies all separated through war.

I have no doubt the majority of the French and British population had similar ideas. The fight for Independence in India did meet violent repression by the Brits in the 1920's and 30's, and Vietnam and Algeria were serious wars for the French.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong but I think that much of the internal strife that the African nations have at the moment is in a large part due to the boundaries of their countries being determined by the conquests of the colonial powers and pay no reference to traditional tribal boundaries determined long before the arrival of Europeans.

BTW how did we get from Normandy to Africa ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I am wrong but I think that much of the internal strife that the African nations have at the moment is in a large part due to the boundaries of their countries being determined by the conquests of the colonial powers and pay no reference to traditional tribal boundaries determined long before the arrival of Europeans.

BTW how did we get from Normandy to Africa ?

Ssshhh, that the title of the next module ;).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I am wrong but I think that much of the internal strife that the African nations have at the moment is in a large part due to the boundaries of their countries being determined by the conquests of the colonial powers and pay no reference to traditional tribal boundaries determined long before the arrival of Europeans.

Tribal boundaries in Africa have been as dynamic as borders elsewhere for most of the time. Only an Empire would more or less stabilise the internal borders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribal boundaries in Africa have been as dynamic as borders elsewhere for most of the time. Only an Empire would more or less stabilise the internal borders.

The stability of the boarders are not the issue, the problem is that the colonial power determined the borders without heed of the mix of peoples contained within. Thus we have the situation where mortal enemies are forcibly bound together and expected to form a country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The stability of the boarders are not the issue, the problem is that the colonial power determined the borders without heed of the mix of peoples contained within. Thus we have the situation where mortal enemies are forcibly bound together and expected to form a country.

And of course there have been large migrations, under the colonial rule, but also in recent times. And also in the past. Migration and conflict, they go often hand in hand.

And how do you think there were so many slaves on offer in the harbour forts, before the colonisation of the inland? There have been lots of conflicts there all through history. Just like everywhere else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LongLeftFlank,

France has not abandoned its colonies in haste just after war. History of decolonization is the 50 to 60 years. A war with the French military defeat in Indochina (Vietnam). 10 years of war with Algeria, lost politically. With its remaining colonies in Africa, decolonization was successful. Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Gabon, Morocco, Tunisia etc ... These countries have not experienced war or tribal chaos.

Tribal warfare is the word that shocks me, as well as Stikkypixie. It gives the impression that colonized peoples were uncivilized and that Western should have stayed longer to finish their education.

I like a lot your text about what Europe would have been able to be without war, but The last sentence is a bit awkward. I understand that you do not promote colonization, but you think that decolonization would have been better spent for the colonized people if there had been no war. and I agree.

To return cmbn I hope that the tactic described in the report, posted by JSj, using diagrams, can be reproduced in cmbn. How to take the hedgerows of Normandy in the game each after each otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sources???

Look in the speeches and party platforms of every single Labour government (UK) or Socialist (France) government after 1920, if not earlier. Contrast with it the defensive tone of reactionaries like Churchill -- the guy was way out of step with public opinion and knew it.

Much like slavery in America 80 years earlier, colonialism was being increasingly regarded as morally wrong as well as far less profitable for the mother country than had once been believed. The "white" Dominions had already largely transitioned to home rule, and it was regarded as inevitable that the "brown" nations would follow.

And while we mock the League of Nations as ineffectual against Fascism, the ideals that gave rise to that body were firmly anticolonial and rooted in the belief that all peoples were equally worthy of freedom and self-determination. Ideals which all Europe signed onto and only America did not.

For France, you are correct, decolonization was somewhat more complex as a practical matter. French North Africa had a huge French expat population which regarded itself as nothing but French but had lived there for generations. And the overseas trading concerns had stayed a lot more closely entwined with the Third Republic than was the case in Britain, which allowed them to subvert policy.

EDIT: And as a good English - Irish - Scotsman, I'll stick with "tribal" thank you very much. There's nothing race-specific about the term. It is used in this context to describe everything from true "tribes" in Africa or the Arab world (don't delude yourself) to the Hindu-Muslim sectarian split in India, or natives vs. Chinese and Indian migrant populations in places like Malaya, Indonesia or Fiji. Without WWII, the British could have retained the power and prestige to broker a stable "Indian Union" as opposed to hastily walking out in 1947 leaving Hindus, Muslims and secular Communists to fight it out. No guarantee they would have succeeded of course. Tribalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Look in the speeches and party platforms of every single Labour government (UK) ... after 1920"

Between 1920 and the end of WWII (when retreat from the colonies was de facto national policy), there were two Labour Governments both led by Ramsay McDonald (January to November 1924, and June 29 to August 31) neither could be said to be in favour of withdrawal from Empire. I am sorry to say your comment has more to do with wishful thinking than history.

However, politics is banned on these boards so maybe this whole colonial/neocolonial thing is best dropped and we get back to the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...