And the Soviets were planning on doing the same to him.
Hitler's invasion of Russia was a land grab. An imperial move on the grandest of scale. I was merely pointing out your omission of Russia seemed odd
Hitler's invasion of Russia was a land grab. An imperial move on the grandest of scale. I was merely pointing out your omission of Russia seemed odd
High-profile al Qaeda figures like Anwar al-Awlaki, who preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers and manipulated an Army psychiatrist into committing the Fort Hood shootings from Yemen, are legitimate targets. But some militants assassinated in the tribal area in Pakistan may not be closely linked to al Qaeda and hundreds of Afghan civilians were also killed in the area and there are questions about the list of potential targets for US drones.
A land grab on a nation planning a land grab on you isn't imperial. By that logic the US waged an Imperial way by conquering (and annexing parts of) Japan despite being the invaded nation. Russia is in the same boat as France on this.
Good god, you got me defending Hitler!
A land grab on a nation planning a land grab on you isn't imperial. By that logic the US waged an Imperial way by conquering (and annexing parts of) Japan despite being the invaded nation. Russia is in the same boat as France on this.
Good god, you got me defending Hitler!
We will agree to disagree. Nothing defines imperialism more than Germany's grand scale Operation Barbarossa against Communist Russia. Massive land grab, ethic cleansing on a mammoth scale, wholesale murder and slaughter, many of the Germans considered the Russians beneath humanity.
I can offer some great reads.
The Soviets were committing genocide on an near equal scale... As I said, most of the nations were annexed willingly or were known to be hostile to the Germans. Only Czechoslovakia, Poland and maybe Norway were true imperial acts. Germany may have been imperialist but everyone was at the time and they were far less aggressive then most. Just look at what the Germans get blasted for, genocide, political oppression, propaganda. Only in regards to France do the Germans get nasty looks when they travel internationally and that's because they didn't actually do anything unacceptable. It was the Italians, Japanese, British and French that were engaged in global imperial war at the time.
Again, Germany's invasion of Communist Russia was one of the most imperialistic invasions in world history. We'll agree to disagree and I'll once again offer some great reads that will go along way towards needed information regarding this issue. Regards....
That wasn't aimed at you, I was just answering the point for the benefit of anyone else following this thread.
I dont see misinforming anyone else as being helpful thus my response was aimed at your post, it was in serious error. I like to be accurate, your post wasnt, we move on.
The Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Germany and was massing it's forces on the border, so unless you consider a preemptive strike imperial your argument is incorrect. Again I'm not saying Germany wasn't imperial, just that it was moderate in it's imperialism compared to it's fellow empires with the possible exception of America.
I honestly don't know what on earth you are talking about. You are following much the same policy as Hitler, surely?
Perhaps you don't know what I'm talkin about....because you ain't that boned up on Hitler or German policies during WW2. And please don't call me Surely.
Russians in a defensive posture and certainly in no condition for a large scale offensive. The German invasion of Russia was one of the most imperialistic offensives in world history. Once again, I can offer some great reads.
America on the other hand has been over to Europe on several occasions....and never demanded any territory save for enough ground to bury our dead. Your post was in error, Iolo is even further off. We move on.
So you're telling me the Soviets (not Russians BTW) wouldn't have invaded Germany had Germany not beaten them to the punch? :giggle:
Not sure what America has to do with this...
The only reason the US is ever engaged in war is for profit, as you know. What's territory compared with money? Look at Iraq!
We entered WW1 for profit? We profited from the Vietnam War?
Consistent with your erred analogy, it's clear you don't know why we went into Iraq either.
Is there another topic you'd like to discuss perhaps?
Similar threads
