Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
596
-
87
-
50
-
41
-
33
-
31
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
^ SNAT bot confirmed XD.
The Scots are going nowhere but with the rest of GB, as anyone versed in economics and law can assert.
The EU is disintergrating, and in no position to "encircle" anyone; whilst the Russians are an overhyped irrelevance, made a bogeyman by western politicians desperate to refight the cold war, a war the Russians withdrew from generations ago, having finally grasped the economic futility of contesting the US, and that communism just doesn't work.
The main threat today is China, and its insidious activities worldwide. Only in that, is the west being complacent, as it has been for decades.
(1989 having proved Nixon's grand plan to be a dismal failure, as PRC despotism proved more resistant to domestic calls for democracy than expected)
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The "GB had a choice of German or US vassalage... and chose the US!" and "GB was bankrupt and a US puppet postwar!" fallacies also fall apart when availed of a knowledge of postwar history, and using ones brain:
. The UK didn't lose her empire, she turned it into something else, after having an empire at all had become economically irrelevant.
. The UK still had the means for developing an independent nuclear deterrent, and vast military spending, that even in the 1950's still represented 11% of GDP. All this whilst spending tons on public sector welfare.
. Under said fallacies logic the UK would have gone into Vietnam when asked, given the Argies the Falklands when asked by Reagan, and approved the invasion of Grenada... she told the US Nope on all three.
(and that's just the best known examples)
Only a country without control over their foreign policy, is a vassal to another.
(example Korea, which has always been servile to one regional power or another, and in the present case; two)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikereger1186 That's rather too relativist for me, and my point was upon how - by the standards of the time and situation - the allies [as the UK was involved] had a simple choice to make re' Japan, and chose the one that was expected - and for once also did - to have the lowest bodycount.
I should also note that the key difference [ideology wise] between [Classical] Liberalism and Authoritarianism, is that the former advocates for vicarious use of force, and in the case of war to use the actions of your enemy to set the precedent. An Authoritarian by contrast will capriciously use force, for show or to enforce their personal / ideological will.
It's no coincidence that the [western] allies spent most of WWII - and WWI before it - responding to their enemies precedent, instead of setting it.
For example: the RAF had access to plentiful supplies of Mustard Gas throughout WWII, and the Germans [who had built up Chlorine Gas & Sarin stocks in the '30's] knew it. Hitler and others in his circle knew [first hand] the horrors of when the allies in WWI had responded in-kind to German use of chlorine gas, and refrained from their use throughout the war.
It's unknown if the Germans knew that the RAF also had access a small stockpile of Weaponized Anthrax by 1944, though the latter detail makes it fortunate that:
1. The UK wasn't an authoritaritarian state.
2. That the Germans didn't give the UK a counter-strike motivation to use their CB weapon stocks.
My bottom line (as far as meaning is concerned) is that if the allies could have struck first, and hit the axis with the very worst weapons in their arsenals... but they didn't . In many ways this restraint from setting precedent can be demonstrated to have lengthened WWII (such as Chamberlain & his french counterpart refusing to authorize bombing of Germany in 1939; even though Poland was desperate for any kind of military aid from the west), but in others it also saved lives in other areas of the conflict.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikereger1186 I'd have to differ re' the Atomic Bombings, as there's an entirely rational and demonstrable causation for their use and effect.
After all: The Japanese [and the Germans before them] had set the precedent for bombing civilians, though the Japanese were the only ones to use air-dropped Chemical/Biological weapons [and IIRC only upon China] during the period.
By that point in 1945 Japan's government were still refusing to surrender, despite being militarily depleted, under a supplies blockade of all materials needed from outside Japan, and most of Japan's cities having been destroyed by firebombing. Instead they [Japan's government] were preparing the population to resist an allied invasion to the death . The allies had taken heavy casualties on Okinawa [and seen the lengths their opponent would go to], and expected the combined death toll [allied personnel & the servicemen & armed civilians they faced] of taking Japan's home islands as being far higher for all concerned.
As such: the decision to send the Japanese government an unsubtle demonstration of the abject futility of not surrendering, ultimately can be demonstrated to have saved lives, by ensuring an invasion that was expected to be a mutual bloodbath, was supplanted with an uncontested landing of troops, in a country that had unconditionally surrendered.
It could also be argued; that without the double precident for their use; M.A.D. wouldn't have been as effective in deterring war between first world nations, as it has been since 1945.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Lusa_Iceheart I recommend brevity & paragrsphs in comment writing, as that was a headache to read 😅 .
I also disagree on various points, but will keep it simple:
• The UK was never skittish about taking on escaped slaves from the US. Heck when they left the 13 Colonies in 1783 a lot of blacks opted to with them, knowing they'd have better odds of a better life, and invariably they did.
Similar story when the UK withdrew from territories captured in the War of 1812.
• The Canadian territories were sparsely populated for most of their early history, so if anything they benefitted from runaway slaves.
• India (or more precisely the myriad of disunited kingdoms that the British ended up ruling) actually had anything but a ""parasitic"" experience, rather it was the UK that put more in overall than they took out.
This is proven by looking at the in depth economic side of things, as well as the fact that the British expended a great amount of money, time and resources there. For example:
1. There was barely any civil plumbing - nor sewage treatment- before the British (and since the 1940s it's slipped backwards in many ways).
2. All but one of India's railway lines were built by the British.
3. There was no domestic Tea industry in India - nor anywhere in the region besides China - before the British not only managed to get the precious plants from out of the Qing's clutches, but also set up successful plantations across India, Ceylon, East-Africa & other locations.
...among various other aspects one could name.
In other words; don't take school history books too seriously; they're mostly fiction and outright lies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When a boxer throws a punch; it's not considered unfair for the opponent to punch back harder, rather a instance of superior ability.
The British and US - unlike Spain, Poland, Greece, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, the USSR et al - had superior ability, and the will to pound Germany into submission.
That the allies hit Germany harder is a case in point not of allied capriciousness, but of German inferiority in this aspect of the war.
(for had they possessed good four engine bombers in quantity and bombs like Grand Slam, they would have used them)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Except that even the brussels sprouts know the only bit of the UK worth having (economically anyway) would still be outside their control, would have more money to spend if they no longer had the scots to pay for... and would still telling the EU where they can shove it XD.
Meanwhile the Scottish Nazi Party would be crapping themselves, after realizing they'd have no more money from down south, no currency, no gold to hold up one, not enough population to tax without living like methodists as far as public services are concerned... a~and the Germans sighing that they've got another liability like Greece to deal with... albeit only after the SNP's tinpot ministate spends years on gruel to meet the EU's joining requirements XD.
(meanwhile suppressing regional sessionists, a brain drain to the UK, and capital flight in general)
Not to mention that the vast majority of scot's trade is with the rest of GB... which an R-UK would have no reason to sustain, nor economic benefit to doing so.
Not that any of this matters though; as the majority of UK voting constituencies (not regions) voted out of the EU, by over 60%. Just like in General Elections, a Referendum effecting the entire UK requires the bits whom don't like the result to #GetOverIt, and move on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ Cute pro-big government distortionist narrative, but nope; "neglected lines" wasn't a feature of the generations of pre-BR railway companies in the UK, unlike the entire BR era, where the national network lost money year after year, while the quality of service continually declined.
Fact is that the Railways were profitable and generally effective (especially in examples such as the GWR & LSWR), before the government became arrogant enough to think they knew how to run a business they had no role in the rise thereof (besides rubber stamping peices of paper, which's what government is usually supposed to be limited to), and proceeded to kill yet another goose that'd laid them golden eggs in the period they'd let it mostly be.
(same with aerospace, cars, housebuilding, shipbuilding, steel, and pretty much everything else 😮💨)
Japan has proved that a privately owned, sectorized railway network is far better, than the god awful worst-of-both-worlds system (devised by some moron in 1970's/'80's Sweden) we've been lumped with since 1994, which is basically state ownership with a few subcontractors 🤦♂️.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@airplane1831 You're welcome, though I do not agree.
The reason why is that the pre-grouping rail companies managed quite well to sustain themselves. The reason why was minimal government interference, which insured they could be competitive on both passenger and - most importantly of all - Freight traffic.
Most railways - excluding those built specifically to deliver coal to ports or power stations- had mixed traffic of both types, with Freight being the main factor in why the Railways had enough cash for R&D and service expansion in passenger terms.
I think TIK's point was chiefly that it was the government's meddling that destroyed that balance, and turned the railways from prosperity to loss making embarrassment.
I also wouldn't be surprised if he lives in part of the railway desert areas of the country, which are due to the mad chopping of Macmillain, Beeching and Wilson. No amount of cuts would've solved BR's underlying woes, just like more government interference is just beating the long dead corpse of a goose, that once laid golden eggs.
It's worth noting that subsidy technically doesn't make anything less expensive, it just hides the true cost by making the passenger pay twice through their taxes; which was the main reason why BR was always a fundamentally unethical idea.
(perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I don't believe in paying twice for a one time service rendered, let alone being double charged by stealth)
The railways could be saved, but it would require the government to accept that politicians and civil servants can't - and shouldn't - run a railway, nor have any role short of:
• Final approval for planning permission.
• Oversight of [now extremely rare] major accidents.
• Ensuring safety regulations are adhered to (in which the Germans wholesale failed in the '90's).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1