US History and actual History.

[Raesvelg]

Interestingly enough some of the other allied powers actively supplied the Finns and there was even an attempt to send a French and British relief force overseas to support them against the Soviets. Fortunately the Winter War ended before they could make it otherwise we might have had a very different series of events.

A successful Allied intervention in the Winter War would have had... some interesting potential consequences.

On the one hand, it might well have deterred Hitler from his invasion of France, at least temporarily. The Winter War did serve to demonstrate that the international community in general was weak, and that the hypothetical Allied forces had ineffectual leadership. The entire Winter War (at least the first part, if you consider the Continuation War as part of the whole) took place within the "Sitzkrieg", after all.

On the other hand, having the Allies go to war with the Soviet Union might well have put significantly more pressure on them to join the Axis powers, and similarly more pressure on Hitler to accept them.

It's entirely possible that the way the whole thing turned out was for the best, though I'm sure it still sucked for the Finns.

My point about the partition of Poland was not so much that it was acceptable, since it clearly was not, but rather that it did not imply that the Nazis and Soviets had any long term plans to work together.

Possibly, though long-term vs short-term seems unimportant given that they acted cooperatively to invade Poland, a country with military alliances with both Britain and France. Unfortunately for Poland, most of those alliance agreements had either been originally structured, or amended after the fact, to focus almost exclusively on an invasion of Poland by Germany, which let the Soviets skate by on a technicality.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

Ok, I didn't do history at GCSE or onwards, but I still think that yes, every nation skews it's history to some degree, or at least tries to downplay the bad bits. For instance, I know and remember "The sun never set on the British Empire!" but you rarely hear how we turned up and maxim-gunned a load of natives armed with spears. It would probably be different if I studied history, but there you go.

 

[flarty]

snip

Well this is obviously turning into a debate of perception and morality. Its documented that British slave traders kidnapped the Irish and sold them in the new world including American states like Virginia. Now I'm of the opinion that if your kidnapped and sold as a commodity then your a slave regardless if you get paid a wage or not. Where as you seem to think it was OK. Or you are unaware of the white slave trade in the USA and are mistaking it for indentured servitude.

Also i think you actually need to take the time and actually read the book i recommended as it doesn't just cover white slavery in the US. That is just a small part of it iirc.

snip

Maybe you could enlighten me as to what is a conspiracy theory in what i posted, instead of insulting me?

 

[TheLion]

snip

Well this is obviously turning into a debate of perception and morality. Its documented that British slave traders kidnapped the Irish and sold them in the new world including American states like Virginia. Now I'm of the opinion that if your kidnapped and sold as a commodity then your a slave regardless if you get paid a wage or not. Where as you seem to think it was OK. Or you are unaware of the white slave trade in the USA and are mistaking it for indentured servitude.

I have said it isn't relevant to Modern America, in response to your question as to why it isn't taught (still haven't convinced me of its relevance, btw). I have never said it was okay. I have said several times that the practice was inhumane, and brutal, and wrong. Being forced into a contract, even though they expire, is an evil unto itself, but it was not slavery. This is not a matter of opinion nor treatment; a slave is a person that is the legally owned property of another person until manumission or death. There is no contract to expire. Harem Eunuchs lived in lavish palaces and wanted for nothing (well, except their dangly bits). Chinese workers commit suicide every day due to savage work conditions. The former were slaves, the latter are free.

Rather, the book seems to think that being an indentured servant was some sort of ideal situation for the skilled colonial worker. It wasn't, nor does it mean they were to be apprenticed to a craftsman or tradesman. All it means to be an indentured servant is to have entered into a contract to labor for X number of years on behalf of the contract holder. Nothing more, nothing less.

Did contract holders exploit laborers beyond the expiration date? Yes, but this was against the law and there will be people who break the law. Indeed, one of the first true slaves has an African indentured servant who sued his contract holder, another African, because he was being exploited beyond the contract expiration. The indentured servant lost the case, and became a slave held in bondage until death.

 

[beastro]

Maybe you could enlighten me as to what is a conspiracy theory in what i posted, instead of insulting me?

What else should one call talk to the Vietnam war, or any war, being prolonged for profit by the leaders of nations as oppose to rational explanations of arrogance and stupidity?

 

[flarty]

snip

See earlier post, got nothing else to say on the subject.

What else should one call talk to the Vietnam war, or any war, being prolonged for profit by the leaders of nations as oppose to rational explanations of arrogance and stupidity?

Oh you mean my speculation, what i clearly presented as speculation. With the line "i wouldn't be surprised if". I suppose you think the Iraq war was really to search for WMDs and free those Iraqis.

At least your not contesting the facts I've presented, just unable to tell the difference when someone is speculating or not.

 

[TheLion]

Also i think you actually need to take the time and actually read the book i recommended as it doesn't just cover white slavery in the US. That is just a small part of it iirc.

I've read that, but the topic is U.S. History, not British History or Barbary Pirates history.

See earlier post, got nothing else to say on the subject.

Don't point to an argument I've already refuted several times, then shut down as if you've won. For however much Indentured servitude resembled slavery, it isn't accurate to call them slaves. (Skip to 5:41)



Now, if you can prove that these white people were owned for life, and not bound by temporary contracts, I will concede. Colonial colloquialisms ("they were all called servents") do not count.