“After starting the war, the German leaders had no right to be taken seriously,”
What a stupid thing to say...
“would we really wish to live in a world where Imperial Germany had gained the victory in the First World War?”
No, it was better to leave Britain, with its empire on which the sun never set and its hereditary monarchy...
““After starting the war, the German leaders had no right to be taken seriously,” [my post 47]
What a stupid thing to say... [kearnyirish2, post 48]
“would we really wish to live in a world where Imperial Germany had gained the victory in the First World War?” [my post 47]
No, it was better to leave Britain, with its empire on which the sun never set and its hereditary monarchy...” [kearnyirish2, post 48]
If kearnyirish2 believes I’m defending everything the Imperial British have done since 1700 (or even before), he is in error.
In an attempt to puzzle out what vexes ki2 so greatly about the British Empire versus German Empire, 1914-1918, I’m going to venture the guess that he is sure that person-to-person, individual morality is exactly the same as the morality of interactions between nation-states.
The two cannot be made to equate. And they cannot be made to: they have to be different, because an individual is one person, while a nation is composed of many people.
Whether the inequality leads to the assertion that “all colonialism is equally evil” is another question: it might comfort citizens who swear by the truism that “the lesser of two evils is still evil”, but it’s of no value in making policy. In any event, pinning down the origins isn’t necessary, as the assertion is not true.