Monday, 10 November 2014

Poppy Mania Day prevents any rational and impartial analysis of the insanity of UK foreign policy for the past 100 years
Can you find any word in the Treaty of London that obliged Britain to go to war against Germany? I can't.

The Parliament Act 1911 reduced the maximum life of a Parliament from seven years to five, however the election that would have been due by 1915 as a result of the Act was not held due to World War I (1914-1918)

At this point, the Representation of the People Act 1918 gave suffrage to most of the adult population (men over 21, women over 30).

That was when the thin end of the wedge of feminism was inserted.

Gone was the expansive optimism of those Edwardian years, with ludicrously young men bowling up to recruitment offices, broad grins on their faces, as they stood on tiptoe and stuck their chests out to appear older.

In its place came the horror – and the cynicism. Towards the end of the war, officers noticed that men stopped singing the morale-boosting songs they had invented themselves and were reduced instead to the miserable, characteristically English, downbeat cry of “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here.”

'We’ll be home by Christmas’: the departure of the 1st Battalion of the Mid-Kent Volunteers for the front from Royal Tunbridge Wells in 1914


Because the British ended up destroying their greatest achievement after their reckless participation in two world wars, run on a policy of being nasty to the Germans because they were perceived to be rivals, they had to and still now make themselves believe that it was all worthwhile (because they had to save the Jews or that Hitler would have invaded Britain) because otherwise the truth would be too much to bear.  ("The horror, the horror.")

This brings to mind a game of Monopoly I once played. My opponent tried to thwart my acquisitions by buying up properties he knew I wanted, but in the end found himself so denuded of cash that he could not make the most of his opportunities or pay the rent when he landed on my low-grade hotels in Old Kent Road and the Whitechapel Road.

No sensible German military leader would have taken the trouble to invade Britain because it was a maritime nation with a navy enormously superior to Germany's. The cost would be ruinous and any victory Pyrrhic. Besides, the Germans wanted to expand eastwards towards Russia, not take on a maritime nation by mounting a blockade with its inferior navy.

As for saving the Jews, the British themselves were not too fond of them, if truth be told, and neither were the French or the Poles or the Russians or the Italians etc.

I know Irving is denounced as being a Holocaust Denier, but it is probably because he points out so many uncomfortable truths. It has been pointed out that all the Nazis did was just conduct yet another of the pogroms European Christians periodically mounted on Jews, a bit like a man coming home after a bad day at work and kicking the dog and being irascible to his wife and children.

The Nazis were not planning to exterminate them but to expel them and the Madagascar Plan is evidence of this.

If this is so, Germany was really no worse than Britain during the Edict of Expulsion.

It would appear that antisemitism is in fact a problem of Christianity.

I often asked myself why this Christian hatred of Jews is called antisemitism when the Arabs who are Muslims are also a Semitic race.  I believe the answer is this: the hatred was not so much racial as ideological, since both Jews and Muslims because of their religion would necessarily deny the doctrine of the Trinity

Enforcing belief of the Trinity was what the Spanish Inquisition was all about, was it not?

Christians were not just nasty to Jews and Muslims, but also nasty to each other with their inter-denominational rivalries. Unitarian Christians and Quakers were also given a terrible time by the Established Church, Catholics were nasty to Protestants eg St Bartholomew's Day, and vice versa eg British in Ireland.

It was only as recently as 1813 that it became legal to doubt the Trinity without the unpleasant consequence of losing one's job.

In Toland's first book Christianity not Mysterious (1696), he argued that the divine revelation of the Bible contains no true mysteries; rather, all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles. For this argument he was prosecuted by a grand jury in London. As he was a subject of the Kingdom of Ireland, members of the Parliament of Ireland proposed that he should be burnt at the stake, and in his absence three copies of the book were burnt by the public hangman in Dublin as the content was contrary to the core doctrines of the Church of Ireland. Toland bitterly compared the Protestant legislators to "Popish Inquisitors who performed that Execution on the Book, when they could not seize the Author, whom they had destined to the Flames".

Britain, being the most successful military nation in the world at the time of WW1 felt they could take on anything, even the Germans on land. British generals probably longed for another war just to keep their troops on their toes and periodically battle-hardened.

War was just a party for the world's most successful military nation.  Indeed, every war was a party as far as the British considered and Britain was the No 1 Party Girl of the world. It was unthinkable not to gate crash or accept invitations for a "party".  No respectable woman should accept every invitation or accede to every request to "party".  In just the same way that a party girl easily becomes a fallen woman Britain has lost her status, respectability and reputation.

Is British foreign policy now being run on saner principles?

I would suggest not.

The other point I want to make is that the reasons why Britain went to war was because it operated a system of government called democracy, which hasn't done it much good either.

If Asquith had not been worried about what the voters would think, would he have entered WW1?

If the democracy, Christianity and Liberalism are unsound ideologies to base our governments on, had we not better consider an alternative sooner rather than later?

After Hubris, there can only be Nemesis and perhaps ISIS ...

On the Avoidability of World War One


Anonymous said...

I found your analysis very insightful.

Claire Khaw said...

Your kind comment is much appreciated.