Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran (1941)

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100113/157534320.html

In the context of the British and Soviet's invasion of Iran in 1941 can Ireland (Rep.) count itself lucky that British Imperalism was put on a leash out of fear of an Irish-American backlash. 1941 and the U.K.'s actions tend to show that the British were as much Imperalist aggressors during WW2 as Germany. Does money raised from the sale of poppies go to the Imperial legions which conqured neutral Iran?

[LondonCamanachd]

In the context of the British and Soviet's invasion of Iran in 1941 can Ireland (Rep.) count itself lucky that British Imperalism was put on a leash out of fear of an Irish-American backlash.

Not very likely.  The UK was clinging on b its fingernails in 1941, couldn't really spare the troops, and had other priorities.  Atlantic deepwater harbours would've been useful, but Persian oil (and preventing the Nazis getting Persian oil) were far higher up the list of priorities.

[LondonCamanachd]

the U.K.'s actions tend to show that the British were as much Imperalist aggressors during WW2 as Germany.

Whilst its true that a lot of the British Army's actions were in the British Empire during WW2, can you name any terratories that had a permanent British Army of Occupation post WW2?  Most of the Imperial actions, e.g. Burma, North Africa, the Palestine Mandate took place in areas that were already part of the British Empire, and, whilst London rule has undoubtedly inflicted many horrors on those regions, the indigenous population, really, really didn't want Nazi/Fascist/Imperial Japanese occupation to replace the Brits*.

*small minority of Indians and, bizarrely, proto-Israelis excepted.

[armaghniac]

can you name any terratories that had a permanent British Army of Occupation post WW2?

Tyrone.

[LondonCamanachd]

can you name any terratories that had a permanent British Army of Occupation post WW2?

Tyrone.

Sorry, should've made my question clearer, that weren't occupied before WW2, and had a permanent garrison after?

There are at least two.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Well Germany is an obvious one. Are Austria and Italy other ones?

I had thought Namibia and Papa New Guinea but they where WW1 handovers and Italian Somalialand remained in Italian hands!!!

Invading a neutral country is as unjustified for the British as it was for the Germans.

[LondonCamanachd]

Well Germany is an obvious one. Are Austria and Italy other ones?

I had thought Namibia and Papa New Guinea but they where WW1 handovers and Italian Somalialand remained in Italian hands!!!

Invading a neutral country is as unjustified for the British as it was for the Germans.

Federal Republic of Germany, and Occupied Berlin are the two.  Austria, Italy and Japan were all returned to (carefully chosen members of) the population within a relatively short time.   The British Army of the Rhine are still in the Federal Republic of Germany and Berlin lost its 'occupied' status in 1992 with German constitutional reunification. All the others had been stolen by the Brits long before.

Depends how much of a moral absolutist you are, Britain did some very nasty things in the war, a nation that sides with Stalin cannot claim to be innocent.  I'd also say that Mers el-Kebir was a particularly shameful episode in British history, but i'm still going to refute the claim that Britain fought WW2 for Imperial reasons - it was a war for survival*.  Or rather, it was fought for reasons of survival, the British govt had no way of knowing that Fall Seeloewe was bound to fail.

*c'mon, let us just have this one, please?  For a nation so fond of sending its armies on foreign adventures, the law of averages means we were bound to get one for the right reasons eventually.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Well Germany is an obvious one. Are Austria and Italy other ones?

I had thought Namibia and Papa New Guinea but they where WW1 handovers and Italian Somalialand remained in Italian hands!!!

Invading a neutral country is as unjustified for the British as it was for the Germans.

Federal Republic of Germany, and Occupied Berlin are the two.  Austria, Italy and Japan were all returned to (carefully chosen members of) the population within a relatively short time.   The British Army of the Rhine are still in the Federal Republic of Germany and Berlin lost its 'occupied' status in 1992 with German constitutional reunification. All the others had been stolen by the Brits long before.

Depends how much of a moral absolutist you are, Britain did some very nasty things in the war, a nation that sides with Stalin cannot claim to be innocent.  I'd also say that Mers el-Kebir was a particularly shameful episode in British history, but i'm still going to refute the claim that Britain fought WW2 for Imperial reasons - it was a war for survival*.  Or rather, it was fought for reasons of survival, the British govt had no way of knowing that Fall Seeloewe was bound to fail.

*c'mon, let us just have this one, please?  For a nation so fond of sending its armies on foreign adventures, the law of averages means we were bound to get one for the right reasons eventually.

You see I always viewed France and Britains declaration of war to defend Poland was just a pretext for British and French fears of Germany upsurping their position as the primary powers in Western Europe. They feared German encroachment on their empires, as much as they did in the Great War. The British never expected London to be pounded to pummel and the French that Paris would be hummble beneath the Swastika.

Iran in 1941 was the U.K. deciding the freedoms of other nations were not a priority, French sailors will tell you all about Perfidious Albion.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

On a side note, re the British attack on the French Navy. I watched a documentary recently which claimed that in communications with Roosevelt to gain American military assistance in the war, Churchill threatened to hand over the Royal Navy in tact to Germany where a German invasion be successfull to allow "England" benifit from the best possible surrender terms, perhaps that is what he meant by "we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be".

Franklin D. Roosevelt did not take the threat the way Churchill wished and made contact with the Canadian Primeminister that should Britain fall that Canada should take control of the Royal Navy and sail it to Canada to form part of a North American Defensive Navy.

Churchill was shown up as a potenital weekpoint who would surrender to Germany if enough pressure was applied or German invasion. The British attacked the French Navy to show they would do anything at any cost to defend British interests, hopefully convincing the Yanks of the same.

[deiseach]

You don't have to go all the way to Iran to find a country where Britain was quite happy to reject notions of sovereignty if they clashed with Britain's interests. What brought Neville Chamberlain down was not the Munich accords, the loss of Poland or even of France. It was for sitting by while the dastardly Jerrys invaded Norway first. As a Norwegian friend of mine noted, the reason the British were so quick in arriving to the defence of Trondheim (futile as it was) was because they were already in the boats!

(I would note that I don't see anything wrong with Britain doing what it thought was best in defending what it sees as its national interest. It's the humbug about freedom and democracy while allying itself with the Soviet Union that gets on my nerves.)

[seafoid]

You don't have to go all the way to Iran to find a country where Britain was quite happy to reject notions of sovereignty if they clashed with Britain's interests. What brought Neville Chamberlain down was not the Munich accords, the loss of Poland or even of France. It was for sitting by while the dastardly Jerrys invaded Norway first. As a Norwegian friend of mine noted, the reason the British were so quick in arriving to the defence of Trondheim (futile as it was) was because they were already in the boats!

(I would note that I don't see anything wrong with Britain doing what it thought was best in defending what it sees as its national interest. It's the humbug about freedom and democracy while allying itself with the Soviet Union that gets on my nerves.)

I always think it was weird how ww2 started because Poland was invaded and occupied by a totalitarian regime and ended with Poland invaded and occupied by a totalitarian regime (as well as shifted several hundred miles West)

[muppet]

You don't have to go all the way to Iran to find a country where Britain was quite happy to reject notions of sovereignty if they clashed with Britain's interests. What brought Neville Chamberlain down was not the Munich accords, the loss of Poland or even of France. It was for sitting by while the dastardly Jerrys invaded Norway first. As a Norwegian friend of mine noted, the reason the British were so quick in arriving to the defence of Trondheim (futile as it was) was because they were already in the boats!

(I would note that I don't see anything wrong with Britain doing what it thought was best in defending what it sees as its national interest. It's the humbug about freedom and democracy while allying itself with the Soviet Union that gets on my nerves.)

I always think it was weird how ww2 started because Poland was invaded and occupied by a totalitarian regime and ended with Poland invaded and occupied by a totalitarian regime (as well as shifted several hundred miles West)

Indeed and after 1948 many in Eastern Europe who had fought with the allies were rounded up and jailed by the Russians for 'colluding with capitalists'.

Very good movie on some of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Blue_World

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

The British didn't have much problem with the Soviet Union annexing eastern Poland. The U.K. & France declared war on Germany not the reverse. As said above if Polish Independence was the reason for this war the allies in particular the U.K. & a liberated France should have pushed on to free Poland. If Polish Independence was the true goal of British involvement in WW2, then the U.K. was most certainly defeated by the Soviet Union in that conflict. The reason the U.K. took part in this war was Imperial, the loss of empire and the continued occupation of Poland, means Britain suffered a humiliating defeat, invading neutral countries such as Iran on their way.

[Hardy]

Countries/powers/states don't have principles. They have interests.

[muppet]

Countries/powers/states don't have principles. They have interests.

We just have interest rates.