Hi!
Firstly, all the best for tomorrow's maths paper 2 to all :D
Secondly, i'd like to ask you all what topic/chapters are you all studying for history this year ? I'm spottingSEQ: Germany/ Russia/ Japan ( with War in Asia-Pacific) :D SBQ: CMC/Korean war/ WWII / War in Europe / Cold War.
Thanks!
Originally posted by Mr.Fat:SBQ: CMC/Korean war/ WWII / War in Europe / Cold War.
Must give correct answer hor. Don't give those western propaganda bullshit answers.
Against this background the aggressive Powers rose after 1931 to challenge Western Civilization and the "satisfied" Powers which had neither the will nor the desire to defend it.
The weakness of Japan and Italy from the point of view of industrial development or natural resources made it quite impossible for them to have issued any challenge unless they were faced by weak wills among their victims. In fact, it is quite clear that neither Japan nor Italy could have made a successful aggression without the parallel aggression of Germany.
What is not so clear, but is equally true, is that Germany could have made no aggression without the acquiescence, and even in some cases the actual encouragement, of the "satisfied" Powers, especially Britain. The German documents captured since 1944 make this quite evident...
Any analysis of the motivations of Britain in 1938-1939 is bound to be difficult because different people had different motives, motives changed in the course of time, the motives of the government were clearly not the same as the motives of the people, and in no country has secrecy and anonymity been carried so far or been so well preserved as in Britain.
In general, motives become vaguer and less secret as we move our attention from the innermost circles of the government outward. As if we were looking at the layers of an onion, we may discern four points of view:
(1) the anti-Bolsheviks at the center, (2) the "three-bloc-world" supporters close to the center, (3) the supporters of "appeasement," and (4) the "peace at any price" group in a peripheral position.
The "anti-Bolsheviks," who were also anti-French, were extremely important from 1919 to 1926, but then decreased to little more than a lunatic fringe, rising again in numbers and influence after 1934 to dominate the real policy of the government in 1939.
In the earlier period the chief figures in this group were Lord Curzon, Lord D'Abernon, and General Smuts. They did what they could to destroy reparations, permit German rearmament, and tear down what they called "French militarism."
The anti-Bolsheviks, including D'Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany.
Their point of view can be found in many places, and most emphatically in a letter of August I l, 1920, from D'Abernon to Sir Maurice (later Lord) Hankey, a prot้g้ of Lord Esher who wielded great influence in the inter-war period as secretary to the Cabinet and secretary to almost every international conference on reparations from Genoa (1922) to Lausanne (1932).
D'Abernon advocated a secret alliance of Britain "with the German military leaders in cooperating against the Soviet." ...
http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html
Question: Some people do not realize yet that the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty is the result of the breakdown of the Anglo-French-Soviet talks, but think that the Soviet-German treaty caused the breakdown. Will you please explain why the Anglo-French-Soviet talks failed?
Mao: The talks failed purely because the British and French governments were insincere. In recent years the reactionary international bourgeoisie, and primarily that of Britain and France, have consistently pursued the reactionary policy of "non-intervention" towards aggression by fascist Germany, Italy and Japan. Their purpose is to connive at wars of aggression and to profit by them.
Thus Britain and France flatly rejected the Soviet Union's repeated proposals for a genuine front against aggression; standing on the side-lines, they took a "non-interventionist" position and connived at German, Italian and Japanese aggression. Their aim was to step forward and intervene when the belligerents had worn each other out. In pursuit of this reactionary policy they sacrificed half of China to Japan, and the whole of Abyssinia, Spain, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Italy and Germany.
Then they wanted to sacrifice the Soviet Union.
This plot was clearly revealed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks. They lasted for more than four months, from April 15 to August 23, during which the Soviet Union exercised the utmost patience.
But, from start to finish, Britain and France rejected the principle of equality and reciprocity; they demanded that the Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security, but refused to do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic states, so as to leave a gap through which Germany could attack, and they also refused to allow the passage of Soviet troops through Poland to fight the aggressor.
That is why the talks broke down. In the meantime, Germany indicated her willingness to stop her activities against the Soviet Union and abandon the so-called Agreement Against the Communist International and recognized the inviolability of the Soviet frontiers; hence the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty.
The policy of "non-intervention" pursued by international and primarily Anglo-French reaction is a policy of "sitting on top of the mountain to watch the tigers fight", a downright imperialist policy of profiting at others' expense.This policy was initiated when Chamberlain took office, reached its climax in the Munich agreement of September last year and finally collapsed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks.
From now on the situation will inevitably develop into one of direct conflict between the two big imperialist blocs, the Anglo-French bloc and the German-Italian bloc. As I said in October 1938 at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of our Party, "The inevitable result of Chamberlain's policy will be like 'lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own toes'."
Chamberlain started with the aim of injuring others only to end up by ruining himself. This is the law of development which governs all reactionary policies.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_17.htm
...And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.
In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West.
Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.
In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:
(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
(2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
(3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.
The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it...
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm
Originally posted by Xxjordenx:SBQ I predict War In Europe and Cuba Missile Crisis
SEQ I predict is Russia, Germany, Japan( either one ) and Cold War
My teacher also told us to study end of cold war for SEQ but it's a content heavy chapter ...
Originally posted by Mr.Fat:My teacher also told us to study end of cold war for SEQ but it's a content heavy chapter ...
Strange last time my o level history study history of Malaya, Thailand leh, now study world war ii and cold war?
End of cold war some more?
All the CIA operations to topple regimes they got teach or not?
What's the use of studying all these history if you don't know the real history of your own country?
Don't even know why you are chinese but studying in english school?
Don't know that Singapore is controlled by peranakans?
What's the use?
Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking history
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.
by William Blum
"Far and away the best book on the topic."
Noam Chomsky
"I enjoyed it immensely."
Gore Vidal
"I bought several more copies to circulate to
friends with the hope of shedding new light
and understanding on their political outlooks."
Oliver Stone
"A very valuable book. The research and organization
are extremely impressive."
A. J. Langguth, author, former New York Times Bureau Chief
"A very useful piece of work, daunting in scope,
important."
Thomas Powers, author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
"Each chapter I read made me more and more angry."
Dr. Helen Caldicott, international leader of
the anti-nuclear and environmental movements
Table of Contents