Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "Why Britain wouldn’t just let Hitler go East" video.

  1. "Is it a conspiracy?. No. It's just Britain being Britain." Everybody agreed with that (especially the British :D )
    596
  2. ​ @alanjenkins1508  Kind of. Wars happen for two primary reasons: 1. One or more sides believe they can win. 2. One or more sides believe they have no choice (existential threat, besmirched national honour, et al). This's the reason why Nuclear Deterrence works so well, as it politically torpedoes both reasons for a shooting war, as autocrats and democrats alike know they'd all lose such a war.
    18
  3. ^ 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
  4.  @shorewall  Well... apart from the frenchies that collaborated with the Germans... but essentially yes.
    9
  5. ^ Nope. It's your comment - and indeed the EU as well - that makes no sense :P . Germany in 1939 was a threat, but do was the USSR. There is such a thing as a Multiplicity of Enemies. Until Germany marched into Poland; the basic plan was to play the Germans and Soviets off against other until one stumbled.
    6
  6. Yup; and, mission completed, bailed out before the proverbial 'plane could crash.
    6
  7. "peace" is a relative term. Tyranny can be called a "peace" of sorts, and the only way to "unite" said region of western-Eurasia - and area with little common cultural commonality - is via tyranny. The British have always been anti-authoritarian; whilst many of their southern neighbors have long histories of such regimes.
    5
  8. Ah those French; they can't even get our island's name right XD. (That one being a few thousand years out of date... and Greek)
    4
  9.  @alanpennie8013  Distrust of all 200+ countries is sensible :P .
    4
  10. 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
  11.  @brucetucker4847  Debatable. Snuffing out France - as a rival - has long been a British passtime.
    4
  12. ^ doubt The PRC failed both to take Taiwan (their initial efforts were a disaster, to say the least, with USN intervention in the region killing further military action altogether), and failed to annex Vietnam in the late-1970's (the latter proving better prepared for a Tibet situation than they'd expected). Japan's economic slump in the 1990's proves how quickly apparent economic dominance can crash and burn, with up till that point the Japanese appearing to be economically taking over the world. The PRC is built on funny money, and - if western governments had a bit of backbone and willingness for a short sharp shock - is not beyond being pushed into a massive, regime destroying recession. "Dictators rule their nation's from atop large tigers [their subjects], which they dare not ever dismount, lest they be eaten alive." - Churchill
    4
  13. ^×3 Clearly Real Politic is a concept beyond you 😒 . The threat of one nation / a group of nations monopolizing "europe" was only too real (not "hypothetical"), anfld the UK had seen it happen before during the Napoleonic Wars, as France briefly had a monopoly over the region, requiring great expense in men, treasure & time to break it up again. The UK also opposed breaking up France after Napoleon's defeat, because while seeing France dismembered would have been amusing, it would only further complicated the regional balance of power. Germany was no different in being a threat to the status quo, as was the Soviet Union after the Germans were neutered. In short: better to prevent a regional rival from getting too strong, than be forced to fight them after they've gained regional hegemony. In this the UK's only mistakes with Germany was expecting France to hold up its side of the pact (it didn't), and having given Germany too much leeway in the years preceding the bucketheads frogmarching into Poland.
    3
  14.  @atoll8423  Nope. Nixon had the delusion that democracy could come about by raising the Chinese out of isolation, underestimating the CCP's grip on power and brutality. The Sino-Soviet Split had already happened (and had been inevitable), so accrediting him with it is grossly inaccurate.
    3
  15. More like politically pragmatic. In a monopolar world, one must not allow rivals to gain too much power, lest you cease to be relevant. The US now faces this same dilemma, having economically crushed the USSR, but allowed the PRC to rise in their midst.
    2
  16.  @leejamesmccarthy  No disagreement there :D .
    2
  17. "EU is not a military alliance" Tell that to Verhofstadt XD (EU mandarins have been aiming for an Army and other such state'like organs since the 1980's, and implied the desire for them in the Treaty of Rome long before that)
    2
  18. The EU aims to do that anyway, by destroying the national identities of those in its grasp. That's why the UK left, as the electorate are too free minded and patriotic for any of that euro-federalist blarney.
    2
  19. Pretty much XD
    1
  20. ^ What he said.
    1
  21. False, on all counts. . 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. . Under your 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 XD. 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)
    1
  22. #OKBot XD
    1
  23. Both; Both is Good (as the NSDAP set the bar really~ low for human behavior)
    1
  24. ^ Bullshit. Only distorians (the opposite of a historian) and ill educated americans believe that.
    1
  25. ""So Britain didn't effectively cause a famine in India?"" No, duh. War with Japan caused that. No Japanese invasion = no famine. ""holocaust denial but for Brits with India."" Equating the NSDAP's deliberate extermination of millions of people (mostly Slavs) with a Famine caused by war... that's top tier distorian absurdity right there XD.
    1
  26.  @diarradunlap9337  No disagreement there... but especially politicians ;-) .
    1
  27. Nope. Tony Bliar did that when he wasted millions on ""Devolution"". Any cursory understanding of the history's - and demises - of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia demonstrates why federalism in small countries doesn't work, and only gives micronationalists potential for power that they wouldn't otherwise have. The UK in reality has no more micronationalist elements within it, than Germany, Spain or the US have. The key difference is that they have disproportionate political representation, as a result of low voter turnout. (most people don't give a fart about regional assembly elections... apart from the micronationalists whom vote every time)
    1
  28. 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
  29. No irony at all. History doesn't repeat, it rhymes. The EU may have pretentions of greatness, but will never achieve them. GB will just sit back and laugh as all that south of the channel falls apart.
    1
  30. I don't know about "strangled" (Germany would've still needed a navy to match the UK to do that), but the prospect of the NSDAP reigning over that much land and resources certainly was a strategic disadvantage the UK couldn't afford.
    1
  31. Hardly. Under your 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 to get bent on all three XD. 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)
    1
  32. ^ Many thought that of Japan & Athiesm in the 1980's.
    1
  33. Not really. The Russian Civil War was a hot mess, that to the leaders of the time was not politically sustainable, nor something the British public was willing to fight for, after 4 years of bloody slaughter. As for Empire: France (and others) lost theirs, the UK turned theirs into something else, after empires became economically unviable in 1945.
    1
  34. Had been in the UK's sphere of interest since the Ottoman's were crushed in WWI anyway.
    1
  35. Or [in present context] Why Britain was in the EU , later to be renamed again to How Britain scuttled the EU .
    1
  36. ^ Remoaners + Reality... it's like oil and water XD. The EU is plummeting; we Brit's simply bailed out after making it happen, but before it can crash :D . History will prove us to have been right; because we'll be the side still around to write the history.
    1
  37. Not to mention Spain, France & the Nordic raider countries prior to that. GB has always had regional enemies, and always will; kind of like Japan has always had an adversarial relationship with China, or Chile with Argentina, or Russia with Poland.
    1
  38. Oh if only it were that easy :P . (far warmer waters we'd rather be anyway)
    1
  39.  @marcuscaines9168  Pretty much. We've far more in common with Japan than France anyway XD.
    1
  40.  @marcuscaines9168  This XD
    1
  41. Why is it Great Britain's problem that Germany is such a whiny little bitch?* #FixedIt XD
    1
  42. Err Nope. We achieved our goal of sowing discord amongst the EU rabble. Mission accomplished; we bailed out before the 'plane could crash. Those that surrvive that crash; will be the next recipients or opponents of future alliances, to keep that part of the world as it should be... devided.
    1
  43. ^ The strategy makes perfect sense; for GB is and always will be a maritime trading power with global interests. As such she will always need means to protect those interests, and to play the political game, that she always has. As for empires; Global Free Trade made them economically irrelevant post-WWII. GB saw that trend and reacted appropriately with managed transition to a looser union of association, whilst none of the other colonial powers across the channel did. It was in our interest to keep that rabble to our south divided before the colonial era; and it always will be.
    1
  44. ^ #OKRemoaner XD Only your ilk and Tony Bliar believe / preech any of that blarney.
    1
  45. ""Typical Brexiteer"" ""I'm not from the UK, nor even from the EU. I'm from Serbia"" Translation: That contradiction demonstrates you're either a BSE paid shill (Serbia's short of jobs as it is), or a liar (as with most remoaners). ""instead of using arguments go right into insults"" Could you Project any harder? XD (all Tony Bliar's BSE Campaign could do during the referendum was call their opponents names and preach made up figures... that most of the UK duly and rightly ignored) Plus I already used reasoned argument, only to get a canned remoaner response, the sort I've seen regurgitated a thousand times (not unlike the pish the SNAT's push). ""We are just making a conversation, man."" Out of date lingo much? XD ""I have no interest in claiming anything, just objectively observing."" Oh the irony ROTFL ""absurd"" Yes; your formulaic remoaner drivel certainly is.
    1
  46. Tis but a metaphor ;-) .
    1
  47. Nah. Admiral Gensoul was entirely at fault for that one :P . Lesson One: Don't be an utter narssicist during a crisis. Lesson Two: Communicate ultimatums from third parties to your government Correctly.
    1
  48. Even if Germany hadn't been under the NSDAP, political expediency lays down that the British should not allow them to grow more powerful. This is true of history prior and since; never let your enemies grow more powerful, if you can stop it. Granted: decades of appeasement by the west have made China a major threat that otherwise would still be a dirt poor, 3rd world communist dump.
    1
  49.  @shorewall  That was by most accounts the actual plan of Chamberlain, to try to play off one against the other, with them ideally destroying one another.
    1
  50.  @timb4373  ...though not to late either.
    1
  51. ^ Nope. Germany failed hard at that aim twice... and France failed prior to that about 33 times over XD. (the British have fought more wars eith the french than any other opponent; and won all the historically worthwhile ones :D )
    1
  52. A documentary; disguised as satirical comedy.
    1