Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
That demonstration flight came nowhere near to ruining Boeing. I hate that this faggot exaggerates and leaves shit out that goes against his narrative.
I have no idea how any White nationalist can believe in racial supremacy after how much and how quickly the White race have fallen in the last 60-80 years. Cognitive dissonance in action.
That demonstration flight came nowhere near to ruining Boeing. I hate that this faggot exaggerates and leaves shit out that goes against his narrative.
I thought the story was interesting nonetheless...besides, an argument could be made that flying experimental passenger liner upside down in front of the people you want to buy it could be potentially ruinness.
Britain was on a course of inexorable geopolitical decline by the time of WWII anyway, not fighting in WWII wouldn't change that. If you want to change that, you'd have to not have Britain get involved in WWI, or at the very least grant dominion status to India in the 1920s while the Indian elite were interested in maintaining some times to the British Empire rather than being set on total independence from Britain. Not fighting Hitler past 1940 would sacrifice a lot of good will towards Britain and British pride in exchange for what, the ability to do what France did and spend the saved blood and treasure fighting in colonial wars that inevitably end in defeat and the dissolution of the empire anyway?
People really underestimate just how much damage the First World War did to the British Empire as a whole and how it basically sent them down the path of hegemonic decline, regardless of how the post-war peace or events were handled. That first wave of economic, demographic, and moral destruction from those 4+ years of war couldn't have come at a worse time in terms of the long-term stability of a great power that was already entering a period of general deterioration in terms of its seemingly "unsurpassable" or "uncontestable" global hegemony within the late 1890s. It was entirely possible for the British Empire to have retained its relative imperial standing even among the newly emerging local superpowers of the United States, Germany, and Japan if it hadn't decided to completely dedicate itself to what would have been just a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War plus Russia and succumbed to short-term, misguided anxiety over Imperial Germany's localized empire-building ventures and joined in with the Dual Entente. With them assuming that was just the only real way to curb German aggression and bring down their local continental hegemony.
However, Great Britain seemingly forgot those lessons learned from the Napoleonic Wars on how to deal with such an "uncontestable" continental empire as they didn't employ that same kind of long-term and time-tested geopolitical strategy, which resulted in them rather recklessly fully committing themselves against the Central Powers in a bunch of botched, ill-planned, and foolishly optimistic campaigns in Western Europe and abroad over the course of about half a decade, ones that sapped them of their relatively small army manpower compared to the other nations that fought in WWI and pushed it's crucial financial sectors to the limits in such a way it bascially forced them to sell away most of the empire's global economic hegemony, which was the true source of their imperial power, to the United States through those utterly massive loans they secured from Wall Street to contuine funding their war effort that essentially indebted them to the United States for the foreseeable future. A decision that would have the truly devastating consequence of guaranteeing Wall Street's surplanting of the Royal Exchange as the central 'nexus' of global finance after the First World War over the next two decades, ensuring that the dollar would also quickly replace the pound sterling as the go-to currency for international trade in both post-war periods. This alone would have been an utterly disastrous and rather crippling blow to their geopolitical hegemony, even during peacetime, let alone after a war that did just as, if not more, long-term damage to Western Europe than the Thirty Years' War.
It also didn't help that the British also contuined to ruin their economy during the post-war period as they flip-flopped on whether they should stick to the gold standard or not. Winston Churchill, who had become the "Chancellor of the Exchequer" or what Americans would call the "Treasury Secretary" in 1924, had proposed a return to the Gold Standard in 1925, but then decided to fix it at the pre-war rate instead of the actual current value because his pride refused to accept the reality that the pound sterling had seriously depreciated during the course of the First World War. This was also an utterly disastrous decision that was so bad that the Federal Reserve bank actually had to depress interest rates in the United States and deliberately weaken America’s currency in order to prop up the value of the pound sterling and make it appear that it was stronger than it actually was, and that the dollar hadn't already supplanted it as the new default currency of exchange to keep them afloat. Then, once the Great Depression got underway and the 1931 Crisis was in full effect, they tried to switch off the gold standard again, but it was too little too late and just exacerbated the compounding issues and instability of its crumbling economic stability. If Churchill is to be blamed for anything regarding destroying the British Empire, then it was for the way he completely fucked up Great Britain's finances and economy during the 1920s and early 1930s, along with setting things up for the Great Depression to even happen in the first place.
Even if the Second World War had been avoided, the position that the British Empire had found itself in by the time of 1939 was the same as the Spanish Empire's fate after the War of the Austrian Succession, in terms of how it would have only taken everything going perfectly, and a level of governmental competence to keep it from being overtaken by its hegemonic rivals while fading into a 'gloroius deterioration'. Much like the Spanish, at first glance, they seemingly held on to all of their colonial holdings, reaching the superficial 'peak' of their Empire and possessed enough power to maintain the glittering facade of being a leading global hegemon; however, it was just the gases escaping from a corpse that had already died yet hadn't realized it yet. The Second World War just cemented this harsh reality even more so and had them going from that 'glorious deterioration' that would have ended up with it having a dignified death postponed to perhaps the 80s and 90s, along with the USSR, to an 'inglorious decomposition' that had it giving up major geopolitical concessions to nations they used to enjoy dictating dictats to with impunity not even a decade prior. Four years of brutal trench warfare just to have them be forced to meet in Washington, D.C. in 1922 to have Yankees dictate Royal Navy policy and decide how many battleships they could build. One of the clearest examples of the spiritual and functional death of their Empire after their "pyrrhic victory" in the First World War.
I will concede that I was wrong and you're correct in that imperialism peaked post-WW2, then quickly declined post-WW2. But independence and nationalist movements were already beginning to brew after WW1 and the US had been rather consistent with its support of independence in the western hemisphere, albeit rather passively and diplomatically.
The British could have kept their empire after ww2.
They would have just had to become completely different people. Willing to commit more intentional genocides and wage wars of punishment. To hold onto massively unprofitable colonies for prestige alone. They could have acted like Portugal, but with more more resources and competence.
The British Empire truly fell because the British stopped wanting to be imperialists. They outright elected Labor govts that opposed empire and even their conservatives came to the conclusion that colonies were hardly worth fighting for. Even the Malay Emergency was not about keeping the colony. It was about keeping the communists out so that the new independent state would be pro-business.
This is one of my favorite rabbit holes because it is the best example of history being written by the writers. Actual holocaust survivors were usually poor working class people who just wanted to be left alone. They did not have the time to just write all day.
Zionists abroad despised Holocaust survivors for being weak and this only changed when they realized the opportunity this tragedy presented to them.
Versailles and the Locarno Treaty - Marching into the Rhineland and rearming
Polish non-aggression pact - Invading Poland
The Austrian agreement - Anschluss of Austria
Anglo-German naval agreement - overtly broken in public statement
The Munich Pact - Going beyond the Sudetenland and conquering the entirety of Czechia.
Vatican Concordat - Persecuting the church despite making agreement not to.
This is just some of the pre-war broken agreements. In 1940-1941 they broke quite a few more agreements.
I'm not sure this channel is strictly history per se, but I recently came across That Chernobyl Guy, hosted by a guy who takes a decidedly contrarian position regarding the Chernobyl disaster. To the point that he considers Valery Legasov to be part of a Soviet conspiracy to silence the real truth behind the explosion at Reactor 4. To put it in other words: Not only was the science in Chernobyl dodgy, so were the events surrounding it.
I'm not no nucular physician, so I'm not going even pretend to be able to adjudicate between the orthodox position and alternative theories, but I find his videos to be interesting. The latest video was released today.
